[pugets]

> No, that's just something you read on a blog written by a guy who would go on to write that women shouldn't get wage equality because they would have to work more dangerous jobs and thus die more, because apparently saving the lives of man by making those jobs safer is impossible.

What am I missing here? Is it possible to make the workplace injury rate among linemen comparable to the rate among social workers?

[SiempreViernes]

That the full argument amounted had this weird structure where women should be excluded from some jobs without complaint because of the danger, but simultaneously there was no interest in making the jobs safer!

So that men work more in dangerous jobs wasn't a problem, instead that was a proper, "of course men should die more" sort of thing because it motivated the pay gap.

So the argument becomes that men should die so the pay gap is sustained, which doesn't seem like a great thing to declare triumphantly?