[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

[klipt]

Your link just proves my point: 0 mention anywhere that the majority of work fatalities are men.

If the majority of work fatalities were women, we'd be screaming from the rooftops that "workplaces are unsafe for women"

[tmcb]

Oh, my bad. I thought that the names and pictures of the deceased 66-year-old man and 16-year-old boy would be enough.

I guess we can brush this one under the carpet, right? Nothing to see here. Workplace fatalities are a serious issue, but not so serious to you that it is worth bridging that gap. Maybe I’m wrong. Feel free to correct me if that is the case.

On the other hand, I acknowledge that men are disproportionately affected by this issue and that it deserves serious attention from both left and right. I would wholeheartedly support their demand of better working conditions from their employers and representatives, and advise them to contact the media so that the general public can be informed of that and, who knows, maybe support unionization if their demands are not met. Do you think this is a reasonable stance, or do you see any problems with that?

[tmcb]

Also, are you available to organize so that we could bring some consciousness to the public about how men are disproportionately affected by workplace fatalities in developed countries? The condition being that we first agree on the causes leading to it.

We could start with the resources we have already found on the Internet. I can pay for the domain if you are interested.