[tmcb]

I can’t reply to your other comment for some reason.

You got me, I did not express myself well. I should have said “working people”. I framed it as a women’s issue since you said that the solution to that would be forcing men to trade places with them.

Re: the fact that bringing up men’s issues is kind of taboo to the left, it seems more of a language problem. If you frame it as a “war on men”, that will turn people off. If you say: “look, there are many bright young guys who could be on college that are otherwise deciding to look for work because the economy is not so great”… Maybe people will listen.

Edit: maybe they will reply “EKSUSE MEE??? WHY NOT WOMEN???”. That is obnoxious, I get it. But do they have a point? If you think so, concede. If you do n’t think so, I would like to know more about it. That is what politics is about.

[klipt]

Let's look at a concrete example: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3175099/#S12title

About 40% of male domestic violence victims who seek help are accused of being the abuser.

Completely coincidentally I'm sure, the federal law on domestic violence is called the "Violence Against Women Act", which furthers the bias that men can't be victims.

How would you improve the situation for male victims without making people on the left hate you?

The same people who say that "firemen" is sexist, will hypocritically say that the naming of the law isn't sexist.

[tmcb]

Well, certainly not by threatening to cut funding of humanities research grants. Otherwise they won't be able to conduct research such as this one... But I digress.

The "Violence Against Women Act" is from 1994. Most statistics of that time pointed to a disproportionate amount of women being victims of domestic violence in comparison to men. I tried to find more recent statistics, but this is a very serious topic, so it deserves to be treated with more caution. Also, this is one of the reasons why I think it should not be used as a "war on men" talking point. Do we want to solve the darn problem or use it as a weapon against political opponents?

[klipt]

Well most serious work injuries happen to men, but if we had a "Work Safety For Men" act I bet you'd call that sexist. A law that fails to protect male victims of violence is equally sexist.

The double standard is very visible. Maybe you should just admit that the left is blatantly the "party of women's interests" and give up on gaining men's votes.

[tmcb]

The OSH Act was passed in 1970. I wonder why it doesn't have "for men" in its name...

Pardon my laziness, but this is the best graph I could find on the reduction of workplace-related injuries: https://fitsmallbusiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Info...

This policy was very effective, in the first place. I could eyeball a 70% reduction in the period between 1972 and 2019.

Can it be reduced it even further? Probably.

Would I find it off-puting if any piece of legislation is eventually passed that addresses a hypothetical issue that is disproportionally faced by men and helps reduce it even further? Certainly not.

(I, for one, would approve of the "No More Balls Stuck in the Cogs Act".)

[klipt]

Men are still the vast majority of workplace fatalities: https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/work/industry-incidence-rates/wo...

But the left will never prioritize men.

The left believes that any metric where women are worse off needs urgent attention, and any intervention must prioritize women.

But any metric where men are worse off can either be ignored, or fixed with an intervention that is either gender neutral, or preferably, prioritizes women again.

The left is the Party of Women.

[tmcb]

Yes, that sounds like the perfect conversation starter.

If that doesn't work, which I believe is highly unlikely, maybe try incorporating elements of speech as those found in this right-wing publication, the World Socialist Web Site: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2024/02/27/hefl-f27.html