For instance- if we surveyed say... a group of miners or steel workers or crab fishers or fire fighters- all dangerous and traditionally mostly male professions- and we said “we will give you a free 6 month training program to do IT networking... or a free coder boot camp, accounting classes, sales training, etc-“ how many would take it? Do they WANT to do another job and what is stopping them from doing it that isn’t stopping women?

Is it because they do not have the opportunity or didn’t have the same access to education, employment, training, etc? Or is it because higher risk jobs tend to pay more for equivalent levels of education or skill base for untrained, unskilled, uneducated workers; and that men might tend to have a higher risk tolerance than a woman who might decide that the extra money for risking their life isn’t worth the danger? I’m not saying that’s the case- I’m saying that before you make an argument for “female privilege” in these fields- we must first establish there is some privilege at work.

Important information like this is missing from those generic, and somewhat random and unrelated numbers. We cant just pick a bunch of bad stuff that a group of people deal with and say “see? This proves/disproves there’s a bias!” The statistic can be used to prove privilege but doesn’t itself prove privilege. WHY the statistic looks that way is important. WHY do more men work in jobs that are potentially deadly? Why aren’t they becoming secretaries or house cleaners or other non hazardous jobs?

Now the other statistics- work place fatalities is a bit open to discuss. Keeping in mind that women were and still to an extent often are obstructed or barred from many dangerous jobs- we would also need to eliminate “at fault” accidents as being unsafe or making a mistake doesn’t correlate to privilege by itself. We would then need to adjust the percentage by field. For instance- if 90% of deep sea welders were men and 10% women- so that let’s say 9 males died and one female- while by total percent female deaths are lower, by demographic the deaths are proportional to the number of workers and the overall fatality rate is the same male or female.

Tl:dr- the argument and logic are flawed and I wouldn’t want to debate this guy either as he can’t apply logic and most of the time would be spent trying to teach him comprehension. You can’t claim men are victims and women are not victims in situations where men are also the victimizes, and especially so when women also victimized by these actions. War is a terrible example as women often aren’t allowed to fight BY MEN, and war tends to make victims of civilians as well who do not have weapons, fire support, training, or any of the tools to survive combat soldiers do but are often present in the combat zone.

What’s more- classified leaks through wiki leaks break down 66,081 civilian deaths explicitly classified as such with over 100,000 “mixed” collateral fatalities in the Iraq war. About 4500 US soldiers died and about 30,000 wounded. Best estimates put Iraqi soldiers killed to be around 15-20 thousand. If you combine all the combatant deaths with non combatant deaths and use the 49.39% survey for female population of Iraq and apply it to casualties (generous considering a percentage of male population would be serving in the military and thus the number skews in favor of men) as I can find no direct source for female death totals- that would STILL make it safer to be serving in ANY military combat role in the country than to have the “privilege” of being a non combatant woman.

Then mostly male politicians start conflicts with a mostly male military who mostly male politicians and military brass fought to keep women from joining- and just recently gave women the privilege to fight and die along side those men? Let that sink in. The argument is that women have the privilege of not dying in combat, but women have been fighting for the privilege to serve and fight and die alongside men for decades or even centuries. So when more men die because men forbid women to fight- is that a privilege or an example of male oppression?

Yeah... she doesn’t want to debate him for a reason. It wouldn’t be a debate- you’d need to pick through the factual inaccuracies of his statements, then the logical faults, and in the end you aren’t debating the subject but how nonsensical his argument is. In fact- I’m bored. So I’m going to go do that last part in another post.

While they might prefer an other opportunity, that isn’t the case. So in life we each play to our gifts. If you have a good eye and understand lighting you might make a great photographer. If you have a good voice you might become a singer, if you are funny you might be a comedian and make friends with you humor. If you have a body you may or may not use that to gain friends and money.

While this seems exploitive and in some ways can be- ask this- is it really, or is it another possible opportunity? If we say: “well, rent needed paid and this was the only way...” ok. Maybe there is no other way that person could make the amount of money they needed. But- what if they didn’t have the opportunity and the physical assets to be considered or be profitable doing that? Then they simply would have no way of making the money at all. So while it’s ideal to have more options- many people do not have the option of relying upon their looks for attention or money.

Of course there is a line between acknowledging and accepting that heterosexual men will like scantily clad women and creating a social expectation or a “free pass” for behaviors crossing the line from an appreciation of the female form and the objectification of women- but again, that’s a fine line to walk. So in the end, one has a choice regardless wether they wish to make $100 spending 3 days flipping burgers, make $100 for a few hours wearing a scant outfit and signing pictures, or make $100 in 2 minutes take off their clothes.

When it comes to the commoditization of the female (or male- but female is more common,) form that’s a slippery subject. If a woman decides she wants to show off her body- it isn’t empowering to women to tell her to cover up, since you’re taking away her choice. Now- there is a case for exploitation such as when a woman is or feels forced to do so- but... that’s tricky too. Many, especially younger heterosexual men, will flock to a woman in a skimpy outfit over even the most skillfully reproduced costume that isn’t as sexual. But that’s what they like. They like women’s bodies. If women are showing their bodies- they want to see and they appreciate it.

It’s certainly common, or more common, to see these sorts of behaviors exhibited by those who do not have or feel they have opportunities, and often a combination of personality and or mental illness can factor in too- but at the core of things, remotely intelligent and sane people do not generally blow themselves up if they feel that they have another better option.

How many rock stars and the like have died from overdose, intentional or accidental, and other forms of self destructive behavior? The ubiquitous car chase is another fine example of a human being defying logic in a self destructive way that can also harm others. So I don’t really know what it having to do with Bihar or not has to do with anything. Tankdozer was built by a man pissed off by local politics and his loss of livelihood.

People may do one, the other, or some combination of both. But “going out in a blaze of glory” isn’t exclusive to jihad or any particular culture, nor is the idea of leaving a legacy. From outlaws to mass shooters and other criminals on up to wealthy socialites the core idea is wide spread. “Live fast, die young” or some version is also often a popular staple of counter culture.

We all die someday. Some people only care about the world as long as they are in it. This becomes especially obvious when someone finds out they are going to die, or decides they are. If a person knows their family will be taken care of well, and finds out they have 1 week to live- does that person dedicate that week to charity, give away their earthly things to others who will outlive them; or do they “cash out” all they have because they won’t need it and go on spending sprees and try to achieve life long dreams or have the sort of fun for that week of a person who doesn’t have to plan for a future or deal with consequences?

Likewise- by the same logic if it was all about an “easy” road to an eternity of bliss- anyone who believed in the rhetoric and the cause would just blow themselves up and there’d be no one with those beliefs left. If all one cared about was an afterlife, and if suicide was a sure way to paradise in one, and comparing a relatively short life with a fair share of struggle and suffering to an eternity of bliss- why wouldn’t everyone who believed such a thing get the whole family together and blow themselves up at the first chance? Probably because most theologies with an afterlife still believe that life is worth something- so I mean, yeah the concept of suicide bombing is flawed, but in a simplistic straw man argument that reads like an angry 10 year old wrote it isn’t really the best counter to it.

Yeah. While I don’t support suicide bombing- the argument isn’t valid. That’s like saying “if a coach can really get you to win games he’d be on the field himself...” or a more direct parallel would be the many armed forces who hold death in the line of duty as a sacred honor. You don’t see a lot of 5 star generals- or the President, a 6 Star general and commander and chief, setting up their office on the front lines in the hope they can become a martyr. The logical counter is simple- the afterlife is for people who have finished their business or if one believes, fulfilled their “purpose” or “destiny.”
The average suicide bomber or foot soldier tends to make a far less capable commander to oversee that the larger conflict is finished after a single action is taken.