Such as : Lumber jack, Construction workers, heavy machine operators, machinist, pilot, foundry worker, sheet metal workers, folk lift, excavator, back hoe operators, semi-trailer driver etc...Or health damaging jobs such as welders and work in continental shifts. Most long distance truck drivers in night-shift are Men.Or most toxic environment in chemical industry, oil refinery, nuclear industry, radioactive waste disposal, explosive handler.Every accident in those industries will handicap men, or worst kill men.The rate of industrial accidents in men is more than 10 times that of women.If feminists complain about wage gap, why don't they push hard for women to do such jobs , whether they like it or not?The rate of payment depend on how dangerous the job / how damage it is to your health, as well.
i don't know and it really BOTHERS me. There have been jobs that i've wanted to above- and was basically given the run around. women do need to push for this issue (i'm not a feminist) but i think we should be given the same opportunities for jobs.
You ask why men always have to do the dangerous jobs. Women are not barred from any of those jobs. The only dangerous jobs I know of that women are not allowed to do are some combat jobs in the military. I know of no laws barring women from being mercenary soldiers. Men do not always have to do the dangerous jobs, and as automation continues, the most dangerous of these jobs will no longer exist. You ask why feminists who complain about a wage gap do not push for women to enter the jobs you named. The answer is that those jobs do not pay high enough wages or exist in great enough numbers to account for the wage gap. Eliminating those jobs, or filling them with female workers, would not have any effect on the wage gap. The rate of payment for any kind of work is a price. A wage is the price of labor. Price is determined by supply and demand. The rate of payment does NOT depend on how dangerous the job/ how damage it is you your health.
Good for you that you recognized a pattern and worked on it, kudos. A stable, non-abusive mate is just fine. Maybe you and him can take up some hobbies that have a little edge without being downright dangerous. As far as the chemistry, well there had to be some initially, or you would not be with him. What was it? Sometimes sexiness is subtle, under a plain brown wrapper there is a simmering spark; bring it out. Suggest a different routine for your intimate times, read books, consider props, you get the idea. Good luck..
I think men are more likely than women to want to do those kind of jobs. Also, women are often unsuited to work that involved physical strength, since men have a distinct advantage in this respect. Sometimes it is simply thought that women should not be doing heavy and dangerous work. In the mid-1800s for example, women in the UK were banned from working underground in mines. At the time, this was seen as a humanitarian measure, though today no doubt it would be considered sexist. I imagine that even in this egalitarian age, many employers would be reluctant to employ women in some of these kinds of jobs.
Two reasons: 1) Most women are simply unwilling to do dangerous work. 2) Men's lives are greatly devalued in current society. You can see this in occupational health, in health research, and in health spending. This value-of-life perspective used to be largely motivated by men's willingness to sacrifice for others. These days, a large share of it stems from the successful devaluation of men's lives by feminists. Note that while feminists, for example, make a big deal about the gap in average occupational wages (roughly 3:2, women less than men), they absolutely refuse to even admit, let alone discuss, the gap in occupational deaths (17:1. men MUCH more than women). Not surprisingly, MRAs object to this contempt for the lives of men. Mama: Your grasp of supply and demand is weak. Dangerous jobs ALWAYS pay more for equivalent skill-level because workers would refuse to do them otherwise. Workers, people, always consider such tradeoffs in their occupational decisions. To say that there is no relation between danger and wage is to be completely naiive about both current wage structures and about what supply and demand means. I am quite struck by the nobody has to do these jobs comments. Is that like, nobody has to raise the kids? or nobody has to give birth? or nobody has to cook and clean? If so, maybe men doing dangerous jobs should just go on a collective strike. Perhaps then we'll get a better understanding of what these people are doing for the rest of us.
