4 ms·
Why should they not look at the gender component?
by taurusnoises 5y ago
Why should they not look at the gender component?
- lmm 5y agoBecause it's a needlessly divisive way to frame things? If you make something women-vs-men, you're nudging people to think of it in a zero-sum, us-against-them way. If you talk about fairness for everyone, you encourage those who are currently better off to support it, because you're reassuring them that if and when they're worse off, they will also be supported.
- taurusnoises 5y agoNeedlessly divisive?? It's literally one of the central issues guiding the project. Also, your last point makes no sense. Reassuring people that they'll be supported down the line as well, is a good thing.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y agoWhy does it matter if it is women and not men slipping on the sideways, and not just people? What if they now would find more men than women get injured because the roads are not cleared fast enough? Would they then reverse their decision? Or would women somehow still count more? Or what if the initial "analysis" would have found more people slipping on the sidewalks, but most of them being men? Also the interpretation that it is "discrimination of women" seems dubious. After all, they are probably walking because they don't have to get to work, like the men (including the snowplough drivers). Then you are down to subjective values (not having to work vs slipping on ice and so on). Somehow people have forgotten that working is not an end in itself, but usually a means to support a family.
- taurusnoises 5y agoOh boy... smh
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y agoI know, it is difficult for many people to think beyond ingrained feminist prejudices.
- taurusnoises 5y agoHahaha... Oh boy.