4 ms·

You come across in this comment like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. In the first paragraph you say that everyone's issues are "valid," but in t

You come across in this comment like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. In the first paragraph you say that everyone's issues are "valid," but in the second you say women's issues are more "significant." What does it even mean to say that men's issues are valid but not significant? It sounds like you're still writing off men's issues as unimportant. The whole premise that women's issues are more significant or important deserves some skepticism. We can cherry pick certain groups of privileged people, such as computer engineers or CEOs, where I'd agree that women have it harder. (In education, I'm less convinced.) But in the general US population (which is majority female): - The unemployment rate is majority male - The homeless population is majority male - The incarceration rate is massively majority male - Women do better in school - Women live longer

annabellish 9y ago
> In the first paragraph you say that everyone's issues are "valid," but in the second you say women's issues are more "significant." What does it even mean to say that men's issues are valid but not significant? It sounds like you're still writing off men's issues as unimportant. Please do not put words into my mouth. Somebody with a broken leg has a significant and important injury. Somebody who has had their leg torn off has a _more_ significant injury. This does not mean anybody is suggesting a broken leg is not awful, nor that we as a society should not do something about broken legs.
- apatters 9y ago
  In triage a medic would address the dismemberment first, and only address the broken leg when time and resources permitted. So it still seems to me like you're saying men's issues are less important -- in your analogy they're comparable to a minor injury, and women's issues are comparable to one that's life-threatening. I think that as a society we should prioritize dealing with issues that cause the greatest harm to the most vulnerable people. I don't think the gender of the victims should be the first order concern. My message to corporate America is that I'm unimpressed by diversity hiring quotas. I'd be much more impressed if they ran programs that put ex-cons of any race or gender to work in good jobs. I would favor using a company's product if they did that.

annabellish 9y ago

> In the first paragraph you say that everyone's issues are "valid," but in the second you say women's issues are more "significant." What does it even mean to say that men's issues are valid but not significant? It sounds like you're still writing off men's issues as unimportant. Please do not put words into my mouth. Somebody with a broken leg has a significant and important injury. Somebody who has had their leg torn off has a _more_ significant injury. This does not mean anybody is suggesting a broken leg is not awful, nor that we as a society should not do something about broken legs.

apatters 9y ago
In triage a medic would address the dismemberment first, and only address the broken leg when time and resources permitted. So it still seems to me like you're saying men's issues are less important -- in your analogy they're comparable to a minor injury, and women's issues are comparable to one that's life-threatening. I think that as a society we should prioritize dealing with issues that cause the greatest harm to the most vulnerable people. I don't think the gender of the victims should be the first order concern. My message to corporate America is that I'm unimpressed by diversity hiring quotas. I'd be much more impressed if they ran programs that put ex-cons of any race or gender to work in good jobs. I would favor using a company's product if they did that.