If Men Were Oppressed by Women

[Mister D]

Wait, Women are oppressed? They dominate certain fields.

Women are not oppressed in any meaningful sense of the term. Ridiculous premise and I suspect an equally ridiculous video. No sense in wasting my time watching it.

[stjames1_53]

I'd like to see 3 million+ women in the trades. Roofing, concrete work, framing,drywalling(hanging and finishing), site prep, production painting, trim carpentry, digging wells, plumbing, electrical. Then there's remodeling.
What I'd pay a dollar to watch is two women stocking a house with drywall (two floors).
Then I'd like to see them stocking shingles on a roof.Not just one house, but several a day.

[IMPress Polly]

St. James wrote:
I'd like to see 3 million+ women in the trades. Roofing, concrete work, framing,drywalling(hanging and finishing), site prep, production painting, trim carpentry, digging wells, plumbing, electrical. Then there's remodeling.

For once, we are on the same page, St. James! I would like to see that as well.

Of course, the pay rates for those jobs would probably go down as more women entered (just by sheer coincidence), but still!

[resister]

For once, we are on the same page, St. James! I would like to see that as well.

Of course, the pay rates for those jobs would probably go down as more women entered (just by sheer coincidence), but still!

Bet the rate of production would go down, too.

[stjames1_53]

Conversely, percentage-wise, one doesn't see a lot of prominent female owners of major businesses or doctors or lawyers or politicians or judges or police officers or soldiers or actors (two out of every three Hollywood actors are male) or athletes or scientists or $100,000/year computer programmers or much of anything else prestigious. Men dominate all those fields and there are no analogously prestigious fields that women dominate.



No, I'm saying that you're naive if you think that the choices that a group in aggregate makes are made in a vacuum and not substantially as the result of social programming. Men, broadly speaking, are socialized to fulfill certain roles in the world and women, broadly speaking, are socialized to fulfill other roles; roles that, by virtue of being considered female, are regarded as inferior, less respectable, and generally deserving of lesser pay.

you're ignoring that there's more to a business than bossing people around. You want equal say, take yourself to the male-dominated world of the trades. Grab a shovel and hammer, then talk about a male dominated work force

[stjames1_53]

For once, we are on the same page, St. James! I would like to see that as well.

Of course, the pay rates for those jobs would probably go down as more women entered (just by sheer coincidence), but still!

then, why aren't you working in the trades yourself?

[IMPress Polly]

resister wrote:
Bet the rate of production would go down, too.

More workers = less production? How?

St. James wrote:
then, why aren't you working in the trades yourself?

When I was little, I wanted to be an engineer and work on trains. I was fascinated by trains as a kid. You know what happened? Kids made fun of me because that's not a "girly" thing to be into. So I learned to pursue "girly" work instead.

I don't mean to complain about my job. I like teaching! I'm just saying that it wasn't my first choice and that that's how it is for many of us.

Your inquiry was sort of like asking somebody why they aren't in the NFL if they want to watch football. It's really, really over-simplistic.

[Doublejack]

No, I'm saying that you're naive if you think that the choices that a group in aggregate makes are made in a vacuum and not substantially as the result of social programming. Men, broadly speaking, are socialized to fulfill certain roles in the world and women, broadly speaking, are socialized to fulfill other roles; roles that, by virtue of being considered female, are regarded as inferior, less respectable, and generally deserving of lesser pay.

If you want respect you go out and take it. You don't do it by pointing fingers at stats and percentages.

Remember when all us white men used to use the phrase "Lazy Mexican"? Yea you don't hear that anymore because Mexicans took over most of the construction industry.

Capitalism gives zero $#@!s about your race, gender or social status. It only cares about end results $$.

Of course women make poor decisions. Why show your tits for tips at a bikini barista when you can just go start up an apprenticeship with a trade that will pay 10x as much?

Right now at my company we have a 22 year old girl (cute as a button) that can pick up a 90lb air jack that is probably close to her own weight and blow a hole in the street all while giggling when her press on fingernails fly off.

She gives zero $#@!s about your victim mentality bull$#@!. She earns her keep out there bleeding and sweating with the men.

[Mister D]

More workers = less production? How?



When I was little, I wanted to be an engineer and work on trains. I was fascinated by trains as a kid. You know what happened? Kids made fun of me because that's not a "girly" thing to be into. So I learned to pursue "girly" work instead.

I don't mean to complain about my job. I like teaching! I'm just saying that it wasn't my first choice and that that's how it is for many of us.

So you decided against a childhood dream because some kids allegedly made fun of you? lol Polly, I don't believe most of your anecdotes but let's assume this is true for the sake of argument. It's kind of pathetic.

[Mister D]

then, why aren't you working in the trades yourself?

Because, like most women, dirty and sweaty work has little to no appeal to her. stjames, this is obvious to a normal person but to a progressive loon everything is the result of evil forces at work in society.