International Women's Day

[rustled]

You ever listened to what climate Barbie aka Catherina McKenna has to say? She doesn't know the difference between a puffin and a penguin, or the difference between the Manitoba provincial flag and the dominion of Canada flag. There's other examples there too.

Not very qualified in my eyes.

McKenna has been a total dud, as has Chagger. And it's not their fault, they were put in impossible positions by a vapid SJW moron. But there's no point even trying to bring them up here, as the spin machine will kick in about how they are actually awesome and doing a great job, and then the insults follow soon after that about how you must be a misogynist for even thinking that they are doing awful. Every single time.

It was disrespectful enough of JT to toss rookie MPs in over their heads, whether to fill the gender quota or for any other quota. I'm not prepared to compound that disrespect by pointing out who floundered because he did what he did. Good on those MPs for doing their best, just as anyone else who's tossed into the deep end unprepared.

Perhaps they should have turned the positions down rather than be part of it, but who's to say how the various rookie MPs were courted into these positions.

Ultimately, I don't see the point in publicly shaming them for having gotten in over their heads. The shame belongs to those who figure it's okay to treat people this way for the sake of an ideology.

[The Green Barbarian]

You posted an opinion piece .

I posted a long article in which Candice Bergen severely criticized the brainless Trudeau government for putting unqualified women in positions they shouldn't have been put in, purely to virtue signal. She was actually very complementary of the women in question, but was very harsh on Trudeau for setting them up to fail. And rightly so. It was a really stupid thing for Trudeau to do.

[JLives]

You want people to agree "qualified" should count the same as MOST qualified?

Well, I simply don't agree.

JT could have appointed more women than any previous cabinet, and no one would be asking if women were we wouldn't be having this conversation. You reap what you sow.

There is no such thing as MOST qualified. Many people are qualified for those positions. You can compare individuals, sure, but to say only one person can be the most qualified for any position is silly.

[rustled]

You want people to agree "qualified" should count the same as MOST qualified?

Well, I simply don't agree.

JT could have appointed more women than any previous cabinet, and no one would be asking if women were we wouldn't be having this conversation. You reap what you sow.

There is no such thing as MOST qualified. Many people are qualified for those positions. You can compare individuals, sure, but to say only one person can be the most qualified for any position is silly.

Of course you can compare. And very often, one candidate will be the most qualified from among the prospective candidates.

Generally speaking, even half a term of experience helps make people better qualified for cabinet than when they were first elected, so in many cases the MPs with even a single term of experience would be better qualified than a newly elected rookie who is still becoming familiar with their role and how the Hill works.

[Glacier]

Because it's 2018 we need to make sure that 50% of people killed on the job are women. Equality of outcome is all that matters.

[justincase]

removed.

[The Green Barbarian]

Because it's 2018 we need to make sure that 50% of people killed on the job are women. Equality of outcome is all that matters.

You bring up a really good point Glacier...

Having waited a polite length of time for the hubbub surrounding International Women’s Day and its relentless fixation on gender gaps—wage gaps, STEM gaps, labour force participation gaps, corporate board gaps—to subside, can we please move on to a discussion about the only gender gap that’s actually a matter of life and death?

Men die earlier than women. And always have.

Today a Canadian baby boy can expect to live 79.4 years; a Canadian baby girl 83.6 years: a gap of over four years. This gap narrows slightly in old age—males who reach 65 are likely to keep living until they’re 83.7, females until 86.7—but it never goes away. “At every stage of their life cycle, males are more likely than females to die,” deadpans Statistics Canada.

A century ago the gender death gap was just two years. Men were more likely to die in accidents or war; women faced grim odds in childbirth. Dramatic improvements in women’s health care since then have led to rapid increases in female life expectancy. Without similar attention paid to male health issues, however, the gender death gap grew steadily into the 1970s, when it was a stunning seven years wide. Since then it’s shrunk to four years, mainly due to lower smoking rates for both sexes. But no one expects it will ever disappear. By 2031, StatsCan predicts the gender death gap will be about the same as it is today.

So why do men die so much earlier than women? And given the obsessive attention paid to gender gaps with far-less-fatal consequences, why is there no public day of rage given to this clearly significant and inequitable circumstance?

International Women’s Day is now an occasion for loud denunciations of gender gaps of all sorts. This year’s release from the Ontario Equal Pay Coalition is typical. “The gender wage gap impoverishes women every day,” screams its March 8 missive. “The gender pay gap is a human rights crisis which must be addressed immediately.” If so, then surely the prospect of dying several years earlier than your opposite sex peer ought to be considered an equivalent human rights crisis also in need of immediate attention.

*snip*

“Ninety-seven percent of workplace deaths are men,” says Bilsker. “We just take this for granted—‘Oh, men are naturally risk-takers.’ ” But why should the notion that men will take on dangerous jobs and suffer the consequences be socially acceptable? If chambermaids suffered the same on-the-job death rate as truck drivers or loggers, there’d be a terrific outcry and immediate action, he observes: “We simply wouldn’t let it happen.”

Men also account for 80 per cent of all suicide deaths, mainly because they’re more aggressive than women in attempts on their own lives. Given such an outsized and gender-specific result, Bilsker says, “You might expect to see a substantial portion of mental health budgets dedicated to solving this. But it’s not.” Recent emphasis on prostate cancer, for example, represents “a pretty token amount” of overall health research and funding.

*snip*

http://www.macleans.ca/society/health/a ... and-death/

[justincase]

*snip*

[Queen K]

Who said chambermaids are all women any ways?

And my job can be dangerous in many ways, right down to how many hours I actually spend urban driving.

[The Green Barbarian]

sheesh..... You don't need to copy and paste the who F-N article, a couple of paragraphs and a link would suffice. You are the admiral of the board with a zillion comments and posts, I am just a fledgling, I shouldn't need to scold you on proper etiquette.

How about actually commenting on the article like QK did with a relevant and good point? Instead you respond with this garbage. What do you think? Why do men live shorter lives? And more importantly why is no one making a big deal about it? If it was the other way around Madonna would be screaming about burning down the White House and Nasty Woman Ashley Judd would be barfing up more insane poems. Why is it no big deal?

This is symptomatic of something much bigger. No one seems to care about gender imbalance in teaching, nursing, accounting and other professions. No one cares about the fact women live longer than men, by a large margin. Why is that? Why does no one care about these things?

[The Green Barbarian]

Who said chambermaids are all women any ways?

And my job can be dangerous in many ways, right down to how many hours I actually spend urban driving.

Good points. So are you saying that as more women ease into traditional roles that men always dominated, that the "death gap" will be closed?

[Queen K]

Oh I believe the "death gap" is closing but if you read the obits, more often than not the woman is widowed. I've noticed a HUGE increase in women dying in my age bracket though, 40-60. Usually cancer of some sort.


The "women live longer than men" discussion usually centers around how women do certain things that men do not do well with:

see their Dr. more often, get new symptoms checked out.
Risk-aversion on the job, maybe going by work-safe better.
Eat better and with a more balanced approach.
Get more rest
Do not have high risk jobs in as great in numbers as men have. Everyone knows a woman who is in a high risk job, but she's the minority in other words.

Men usually have more pressure on them via career and business success too. Again, that gap is closing.

And how about the new one: Week-end Warrior syndrome, where there is high pressure to spend the weekend "doing something amazing" before going back to a boring job, no matter how good the job is.

[The Green Barbarian]

The "women live longer than men" discussion usually centers around how women do certain things that men do not do well with:

see their Dr. more often, get new symptoms checked out.
Risk-aversion on the job, maybe going by work-safe better.
Eat better and with a more balanced approach.
Get more rest
Do not have high risk jobs in as great in numbers as men have. Everyone knows a woman who is in a high risk job, but she's the minority in other words.

Men usually have more pressure on them via career and business success too. Again, that gap is closing.

And how about the new one: Week-end Warrior syndrome, where there is high pressure to spend the weekend "doing something amazing" before going back to a boring job, no matter how good the job is.

I lost three close friends (who were older than me) to pancreatic cancer in 2016. I was surprised how little money has been spent on researching and trying to cure pancreatic cancer. And the saddest thing is that these guys didn't even know they had it until it was too late, as the symptoms appear when you are already in stage 4 and basically terminal. I'd like to see what money is spent researching cancers that kill mostly men (prostate, pancreatic, liver) vs women (ovarian, breast). QK - do you know where someone could find these stats?

[normaM]

Not sure why this thread morphed into why women live longer.
As Queen mentioned there are several factors besides just the type of job you have :)
I don't think for example too many women have said " here, hold my beer"
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/03/ ... r-than-men
And now the line is blurring re jobs that were traditionally women - Nursing but one example.
The most current article I could find was this GreenB
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/0 ... w-figures/
Clearly Prostate Cancer research is woefully underfunded. Altho the treatments now have really changed which is good :)

[The Green Barbarian]

Not sure why this thread morphed into why women live longer.

Glacier brought it up. It is interesting. Also interesting as to why no one seems to care.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/02/prostate-cancer-kills-people-breast-cancer-first-time-new-figures/
Clearly Prostate Cancer research is woefully underfunded. Altho the treatments now have really changed which is good :)

Thanks for that Norma.