another pissy item

[mayoraasei]

One SMH blog

Men in this country are still streaks ahead when it comes to deaths from most diseases, especially cancer. Our rates of alcoholism, incarceration and drug addiction are way ahead of females and we still die five years earlier than the average woman. Blokes kill themselves at three times the rate of women, we're more likely to die in a motor vehicle accident and we're still, on average, the major breadwinner over the course of our lives.

Women bear their own horrific death rates from diseases such as breast cancer, suffer much higher incidence of rape and domestic violence and, of course, residual discrimination in the workplace. Still, does it not strike you as somewhat perverse so many people insist men have the better deal in this country?


Okay. Compare the two.

Men: cancer, alcoholism, incarceration, drug addiction, suicide, motor vehicle accident, shorter life span.
Women: cancer, rape, domestic violence, discrimination.

DOES IT NOT BLOODY STRIKE YOU ODD THAT MEN BRING A LOT OF THOSE SO CALLED "PROBLEMS" UPON THEMSELVES?!?!?!

Apart from cancer and lifespan, EVERY FRIGGIN' thing on that list is by choice. WTF are you complaining about alcoholism and suicide and DRIVING TOO BLOODY FAST and GETTING INTO JAIL as "OMG that means our life sucks"?!! If you can't bloody control your actions YOU PAY FOR THEM.

For the women on the other hand, rape and domestic violence and discrimination is not even by choice AND ARE USUALLY PERPETRATED BY MEN.

I'm not here to argue which gender has the better of things, but if you're going to compare the quality of life, find better arguments than "oh, men likes to do things that kill themselves faster...boohoo, their lives suck".

And the thing with cancer and life span is that male behaviour has a lot to answer for again: alcoholism, smoking, stress from violence, drugs, preference for sitting in front of the TV with a beer and watching sport rather than actually doing sport....

And how would you like to have period pain every 4 weeks for 40 years whether or not you want to have a kid? Ugh. Talk about quality of life.

Comments

[bludger1985.livejournal.com]

LMAO

I am pretty sure he just forgot to put "/sarcasm off" at the end of the text.
Because no one in the right mind would pull out examples like that, its just stupid =,= (unless a chick wrote that =P)

Anyway, thats not to say the points are as pointless as they seem!
Alcoholism is not unique to man. Every now and then we hear of aggregating alcohol problems in women, admittedly to a much lesser extent but nonetheless illuminates the ever-expanding culture of binge drinking in Australia. Piss-ups can become places where people build up relations in all sort of arenas, even in business! This is much more striking if you consider China where ALL businesses are based on relations and nearly all business relations involves drinking a shit load of alcohol. So ultimately people are often trading their health for a business edge. Thats not to say the whole notion isnt stupid, but it highlights the fact that there is that inertia for men to keep doing the stupid things they are doing, just so that they can maintain that dominant position in society.

Really now I am starting to think that the blog writer is a police officer or something...alcoholism, incarceration, drug addiction, suicide, motor vehicle accident lol are all related and basically involves silly men doing silly things. (except the motor vehicle thing, driving can be better than sex sometimes so I understand how people just ignore the risks involved...I wonder how the chances of getting STD compare with dying from vehicle accidents that are due to wrongful doing?)

About the women side, AGAIN the examples are just so biased. But I would like to comment on the whole discrimination thing. Personally I think its a piece of crap.

If women do not want discrimination they should stop demanding anti-discrimination laws. It automatically labels woman as people that NEED protection and frankly, they can excel without the need of external influence. The moment one believes that they are in a disadvantage group, they have to tendency to cry and ask for "fairness". One can become dependend on the notion that, since they are disadvantaged, they can get away with underachievement. So how can the inequalities be tackled? Well I believe a lot of the problems are inherent and hard to erase.

Consider, if a woman skips work for an extended period due to pregnancy you simply can not expect the same level of pay with people that have worked for similar periods. This is because one simply fall out of place with how the corporation works, and work capabilities will be hindered.

In addition, men and women think differently, they operate things under different methods. Since society has been run by men for so many god damn centuries, it is extremely difficult for women to suddenly have an even share, because they simply LEAD differently. If anything I think the uniqueness of women leadership will be diminishing over the next decades as women strive to attain the status quo of men. What that means is that women will converge to the ideals of men, and relish in the idea of being a "strong women" that can outperform men. Women push back their pragnancy, they work just as hard as men. But guess what that actually means? Women become Men, or there essentially will be no non-biological differences between the two. No identity, no inequality. Gosh that reminds me of all the "comformity" stuff I did in year 11/12 lol. The Great Gatsby and Brave New World simply rocked!!!

And oops, god damn I rambled on...

[luna-rainbow.livejournal.com]

See, I would have thought it was sarcastic too if it weren't for the fact that the rest of his post continued in the same vein.

As for alcohol, it's the same as the campaigns for smoking and sex - "learn to say no". Besides, controlled amounts of regular alcohol intake is considered to be beneficial rather than detrimental.

Haha...the rant on discrimination. I kind of dissociate myself from the entire movement. Discrimination has to happen because both genders have different problems, and this could be something as fundamental as health, physique or childbearing. For example, if I was in an industry looking for someone to do hard labour involving a lot of physical strength, I would probably not recruit most women simply because of reduced efficiency.

I think though the ideal would be when we reach a stage where we pick people for their characteristics, regardless of their gender...but if their gender predisposes them to a characteristic, is it discrimination, or simply a case of employer maximising the benefits?

I'm not sure if high-achieving women are all subscribing to that "must outperform men" mentality. Personally I don't think the rivalry between the two sexes is as prevalent as it supposedly is. Ambitious women simply want to achieve well regardless of comparison with male counterparts, and to do so they might need to sacrifice the traditional childbearing years.

PS: Demanding anti-discrimination laws is a bit different from demanding protection. Anti-discrimination is simply asking for not being judged on basis of one inherent characteristic. Some activists go further and ask for benefits, and that's when the line's crossed. In racism, it's the difference between saying "we won't discriminate against your race" and "we'll give this supposedly disadvantaged race special consideration", which becomes "reverse discrimination".

And I'm not clear about the pay for time off during pregnancy, but pregnancy doesn't affect the entirety of your career.

Finally...I think it's quite arguable that men and women think different because of discriminatory attitudes of society against both genders, and these attitudes exist precisely because of centuries of patriarchy. It's a hole that neither sex can get out of =P


...Anyway, this is a really long argument. There's really a lot at stake here, because in western society women have a pretty good share of things. It's mostly in the developing countries that their rights really suffer.

[bludger1985.livejournal.com]

I've went to the linked blog, and the top comment on it was very good imo. (At least the latter half, where he went on and talked about how both men and women are sometimes chucked into roles they do not want to be in, which is basically what you said in the "finally" part ;)

Nice clarification on the anti-discrimination bit btw, I was a tad aggressive in my approach of the argument, comes from exams where one must "sound" confident! (See what society is combing us to be? LOL)

[bludger1985.livejournal.com]

Btw, about the womens pay thing.

I've studied in Economics that:

1. In a perfect labour market men are women are supposed to be paid on their ability to fulfill the requirements of their job, without discrimination.

2. However, actual fact contradicts this as women on average earn much less than men. Even if the paternity leave is taken out of the equation. For example:

Let M be a male employee, and F be a female employee.

F starts working from Day 1, T1
M starts working 1 year later, T2
Both continues working until T4, at which point F takes a paternity leave of 1 year.

When F returns to work on T5, note both F and M would have worked a total of 3 years in the company, BUT M's income would be higher than F's

Thats the example I was kind of referring to in my argument of how women wont able to attain a similar income because of having to leave work for 1 year.

[jezjezjezza.livejournal.com]

hehe, oh dear fenglet, where do you get these articles from? *pause* oh, I see ^_^

[siu.livejournal.com]

o.o; long debates and in the SMH page too @_@;;

[nunuunuuu.livejournal.com]

LOLOLOL!!! That's hilarious. I think you're quite right about those problems being a matter of choice... but now that women have more access to choices that men traditionally have, unfortunately it seems that women are also catching onto the choice of self-destructive behaviour, what with the intimidating Sydney chicks binge drinking and smoking, and and and... killing their bodies by wearing high heels?