
The Deadly Truth about a World Built for Men – From Stab Vests to Car Crashes - jessaustin
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/feb/23/truth-world-built-for-men-car-crashes
======
weberc2
> In the early 1900s, about 4,400 people in the UK died at work every year. By
> 2016, that figure had fallen to 135. But while serious injuries at work have
> been decreasing for men, there is evidence that they have been increasing
> among women.

Typical guardian. Workplace fatalities are something like 12X greater for men
than women, but the mere possibility that gap may be closing is portrayed as
inequality. Male longevity is much poorer than female longevity in general,
but to object to an issue as starkly favorable for women as the workplace
fatality gap is just too woke.

~~~
ian0
More than that it seems:

>In 2017/18, 138 (96%) of all worker fatalities were to male workers, a
similar proportion to earlier years. [1]

Assume thats related to the disproportionate % of males in the trades /
farming? Perhaps compounded by age, seems 60+ bracket has a disproportionate
number of fatalities. There isnt that many women over 60 in farming or
construction (though unfortunately I knew personally one person in that
bracket in 2018).

They have detailed stats [2], seems the injuries requiring more than 7 days
off are a little different, with around a 30/60 female : male split.

[1]
[http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/pdf/fatalinjuries.pdf](http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/pdf/fatalinjuries.pdf)

[2]
[http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/tables/ridagegen.xlsx](http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/tables/ridagegen.xlsx)

------
close04
I can't help but notice that sometimes the language is seen as a reason to
shout "discrimination".

> “This,” said the professor, “is alleged to be man’s first attempt at a
> calendar.”

> “what man needs to know when 28 days have passed? I suspect that this is
> woman’s first attempt at a calendar.”

I'm pretty sure nobody ever implied (or could support in any way) that a
certain archaic invention definitely came from males. As a non-native English
speaker I always took " _man_ " to be a synonym for "hu _man_ ". As in " _man_
kind". Would the objection made by the professor above imply the terms should
be changed to something like "personkind"?

~~~
SwiftyBug
This happens in my native language as well. I really think it's time we should
drop the use of the word "man" referring to "mankind". I simply say "humans"
or "humanity".

~~~
close04
I'm for (or rather "not against" seeing how I have no stake in English
language matters). But think about it, how would you in good faith interpret a
sentence like "Ever since _man_ discovered fire..."? Humanity or male?

Does it still seem good faith when someone goes to the implausible but
shockingly discriminatory interpretation? And do you think such a reaction
helps the image of those fighting against discrimination?

