|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 15, @04:40PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
If you go to the National Institutes of Occupatinal Safety and Health's (NIOSH) web site you will find a bottomless pit of statistics on these issues maintained by the Federal Gov't.
Many times what you find there that isn't reported is as interesting as what you find reported.
Just type NIOSH in Google and when the results come up you'll be in the ballpark.
You may be surprised at what you find there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're right. It's a goldmine of information. In particular, I found what I was looking for on the first try.
I've heard the "leading cause of death on the job for women is homocide" fact trotted out by feminists as evidence of just how violently misogynistic America is. Now, finally, I have the numbers to toss about. Let's have some fun with mathematics, shall we?
The quote says, "Of the 441 women who died on the job, the chief cause of death was homicide." Sounds awful, doesn't it? Well, it does until you go to the NIOSH site and discover that the average number of homicides on the job every year is "over 800".
Now, since of 441 women, the leading cause of death is homicide, we know that not all 441 were murdered on the job. And, since the average number of homicides on the job per anum is more than 800, it's reasonable to assume that the number of workplace homicides between men and women is approximately equal.
Now, we know that there is a higher proportion of men in "danger jobs" like policing and taxi driving. The NIOSH site even pointed this out. So there is probably a higher proportion of women who are hunted down and murdered at work by angry ex's, etc, than for men. Nonetheless, the fact remains: although murder may be the leading cause of on-the-job death for women, there are still more men murdered on the job than women murdered on the job.
However, this leads to another startling observation: murder, as a cause of on-the-job death for men, pales in comparison to falls and other industrial accidents. This leads to a change in perspective.
The feminists claim that "Society is so misogynist that the leading cause of death for women on the job is murder." Technically accurate, but the implication is that women are in great danger at work.
The correct perspective, if you follow the math, is that "Women are so safe at work (in comparison with men) that all of men's leading causes of on-the-job death have been stripped away until women are left only with one of the least likely ones: murder."
So, the fact that women's greatest worry at work is being murdered is not an indication of how misogynist our society is. It is, instead, an indication of how tremendously safe women's jobs and workplaces are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 15, @09:01PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
"So, the fact that women's greatest worry at work is being murdered is not an indication of how misogynist our society is. It is, instead, an indication of how tremendously safe women's jobs and workplaces are."
Yes, that quote about homicides being the leading cause of death for women on the job is one of the most slanted pieces of information I have ever seen. It really defies the reality of which sex is dying in greater proportion on the job, and who is really in danger in their jobs.
Sincerely, Ray
P. S. It isn't what you know that harms you. It's what you know that just isn't so that really puts a hurting on you.
P.S.S. You will find the above allegation about women's homicides on the job, quoted in that same misleading way, in women's studies courses taught through out the U.S. and paid for by taxpayer dollars. Misquoting that stat is just one more reason why women's studies can only be labeled as abhorrent pseudo-science, trash scholarship, and completely worthless as far as academic value.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, good ananlysis.
That's why I think it would have been more informative to list the per capita on-the-job death rate for each job category (probably a much harder task to measure). For example, in the aviation death rate it would be misleading to include pilot and crew deaths along with passengers as an indication of the relative safety of piloting as a job.
The article also didn't break down the on the job death rate by race or other factors, such as economic position, which would also have been interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 15, @04:55PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think any emotion was being put into that last sentence. It seemed more of a statement of fact. It essentially says "For men, the chief cause of death was accidents while the chief cause of death for women was homicide," but it doesn't seem to put blame anywhere.
I think it was tacked on at the end because women made up only about 400 of the 5000 deaths, so there wasn't as much attention paid to them. Also, it was in a section specifically about murders, so the information may be relevant. This article doesn't seem to be similar to that "Indian groom kidnapping" article that seemed to keep changing its focus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday October 16, @08:03AM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Deep subject...
I think it was tacked on the end to pull the article into a feminist view as a last word. Whether on purpose or not, people are so uncomfortable with men being more vicimized than women that even when the facts are black and white, people have to put it in the social context that women are victims.
There is no other reason to add that particular sentance as a last word. That sentance was not a logical conclusion to the information in that article. The article should have a intro, a body, and a conclusion. The conclusion should have wrapped up the main ideas of the article and possibly made a comment on the author's opinion of the ideas. Instead, an almost irrelevant fact which had nothing to do with the main idea of the article was the conclusion.
Seems pretty obvious to me. Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday October 18, @07:33PM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
"I don't think any emotion was being put into that last sentence. It seemed more of a statement of fact."
Hogwash! It was one more twisted half truth that curiously appeared around 1994 to help get VAWA passed. All things considered it is just one more piece in the militant feminist's scamming of America.
The more I research the feminist scamming of America, the more deceptions appear out of that “witches cauldron” called women's studies and the militant feminist agenda.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, I would like to know why that last bit had to be stuck on there. It's like they are saying "Even though way more men die, it is men's fault for the women dying, and that is more important.
I don't know how you get that. It doesn't say the homicides were caused by men. It also didn't say the women's deaths were "more important". It probably reflects the fact that women are concentrated in jobs like convenience store clerk which is more prone to death by violence than by death by traffic accident (since they're not on the road).
Anyway, the article states that the single largest cause of on-the-job death is traffic accidents, however, when you look at the numbers, assault/violence is much larger, which is confusing.
635 traffic accidents
835 assault/violence
Overall (for both men and women) it seems that violence is a leading cause of on-the-job death based on their numbers. However, since men comprise the largest percentage of on-the-job deaths, MEN'S otj deaths are probably greater in other areas, such as traffic accidents.
It would have been interesting had they broken the numbers out further showing the per capita death rate in each job category. For exampe the death rate by aviation on-the-job accidents probably includes passengers on business trips who are in a plane crash, and would not necessarily mean piloting is a dangerous profession.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday October 17, @08:32AM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Lorrainne, you give me a better explaination. The last thing the article says is the first thing people will remember. This was an article on men and it ended with a statement on women being victims.
It didn't have to say that the homocides were caused by men. It is "common knowledge" that men commit homocides, not women. I took a social philosophy class in college, and learned that common knowledge is treated as fact by the majority of people. Just look at the 'cell phones causing gas stations to blow up' myth-there are actually stickers on the pumps now, and that started as an internet rumor! People are sheep, and they believe only men murder. Every time a woman murders it is treated as an anomoly.
So, Lorainne, you tell me why that last statement was tacked on there, that almost irrelevent, certainly misplaced sentance.
Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"This was an article on men...."
No it wasn't. The title of the article you posted was The 10 most dangerous jobs in America
The article did not claim anywhere to be only about men. It was about jobs and danger on the job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday October 17, @04:21PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
OK, the article was on jobs. Rereading the article, I can see that work related death was the main body, with the conclusion stating that men were the main victims.
HOWEVER
"But highway accidents were the biggest overall killer in 2002, accounting for a quarter of all worker deaths. Falls killed 13%. Men were still, by far, the most likely to be killed on the job. Ninety-two percent of all workplace fatalities were male.
Among the 441 women who died on the job, though, the chief cause of death was homicide."
Note the use of the word 'though' in the last sentance. This word added infers the meaning 'Even though the previous sentance said that, this is more important.'
I do not understand how you can not see this. While you called me in a technicality, you still have not answered my question, which is why place that sentance last?
Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know why they placed it last.
The "though" though, IMO indicates something that they did not delve into the specifics of what homicides on the job mean.
For example, if you are killed by un unknown assailant or a co-worker, or client or patron of your business, that would seem to be work related. However, if you happen to be killed by someone you know, but not connected to work, then I don't see that as necessarily a job related death.
To me the "though" sounded like the article was too short to go into all the distinctions of homicide on the job. It didn't indicate to me that murder of females on the job was more important in any way. The fact that 92% of on-the-job deaths are of males seems to put the emphasis, not on male deaths, but on those particular jobs which are dangerous, which happen to be mostly populated in majority by males. Again the emphasis of the article was on dangerous JOBS, not dangerous genders.
I would say that being a 7Eleven night clerk would be dangerous whether you are are a male or female. Ditto mining, ditto truck driving. It is incidental to the danger level of the job (the emphasis of the article) what sex (or race or religion) the job holder is.
All of which is why I said in another post that I thought it would have been a more interesting article if they had just make the comparison a per capita death/injury rate per job. For example, if they compared
10% of miners die or are seriously injured on the job (made up number)
.01% of secretaries die or are are seriously injured on the job. (made up number)
If we want to focus in on specific population groups, why stop at sex? What percentage of o-t-j deaths are to blacks? hispanics? whites? recent immigrants? etc. Then we can ascertain the exact demographic taking dangerous jobs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday October 17, @09:47PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
"If we want to focus in on specific population groups, why stop at sex? What percentage of o-t-j deaths are to blacks? hispanics? whites? recent immigrants? etc. Then we can ascertain the exact demographic taking dangerous jobs."
They'd still be men
P George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday October 18, @01:56PM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, I think you are trying to add in factors to get away from the reality that men are the main victims. Maybe you are looking to see that minority men are greater victims, so white men are not the victims. Who knows.
"Again the emphasis of the article was on dangerous JOBS, not dangerous genders."
That this was the slant should tell you something. If women were at greater risk you know that would have been the focus, not what particular jobs.
All your post was irrelevant except the first sentance. You "don't know". While perhaps not entirely truthful, it sheds some light on your intent, which is to agree that the fact of men dying in greater numbers was and should be marginalized. Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday October 21, @05:25AM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
"They'd still be men"
The key point!! Well said.
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
