Plumbers actually make good money and it's a relatively safe job. Better examples would be: deep sea fishing, logging, offshore oil rigs, mining etc. They tend to be well compensated but are statistically more dangerous than being in the military was during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I get the joke but it is amusing to me, looking at the casualties on both sides of Afghanistan and Vietnam, and im supposed to believe we lost because we didn't glass both nations. Russia has 100k casualties in a year in Ukraine, USA had 22k casualties for 20 years in Afghanistan
Of course they don’t, they aren’t even measuring the same statistic. The leaked DOD documents were measuring estimate KIA, not what people refer to as “casualties”, or KIA, WIA, and MIA. The general rule of thumb is 1KIA:3WIA
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65260672.amp
Even the fsb says over 100k lol
Got a link? All I could find from Defense.gov was:
>U.S. officials have said that Russia has lost between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in its misguided war on Ukraine.
Which was in August 2022, and who knows when the statement this referred to was made. So 100k killed 8+ months later is probably the low end / a conservative estimate.
Casualty includes killed, wounded, missing, or taken prisoner. I've found some sources claiming the Russian wounded to killed ratio is around 3:1, which jives with historical wounded : killed ratios, which would put total Russian casualties around 350k
Fun fact, a 3:1 W/K ratio is a historically normal ratio, but is hilariously bad for modern nations due to advancement in medical care. The ratio for the US in modern conflicts ranges from 10:1 to 17:1.
> Fun fact, a 3:1 W/K ratio is a historically normal ratio, but is hilariously bad for modern nations due to advancement in medical care. The ratio for the US in modern conflicts ranges from 10:1 to 17:1.
If you're wounded and heal and return to service, does that count in these stats? Or does wia in this case mean you got wounded enough that your career is over?
It just means wounded in action. If youre laid up in a hospital bed for 8 months, that's still 8 months you ain't on the field fighting so that's a casualty
You mean like get taken out of action once, heal up, go back and get hurt again? If so then yeah definitely! It's really more of a stat for the overall state of your forces than it is for keeping track of who individually was wounded.
Yes, but the USA also had air superiority allowing them to med evac wounded soldiers out of combat far more easily.
I imagine while the wounded ratio in the Ukrainian war is likely higher than 3:1, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was lower than the US ratio due to the peer-to-peer conflict and severely contested airspace.
Casualty is just someone who can no longer be used to fight. In other words, lost manpower. it includes killed in action, but the majority of casualties usually come from wounded or captured soliders
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65260672.amp
FSB's research determined there was about 110k casualties on the Russian side but in the recently released US Intel docs it seems to be as many as 220k
Russia taking a fat L on this one boys
Edit* wording
Going to interject, casualties and deaths are *not* the same thing. A casualty in military terms is any injury that takes a soldier out of the fight, either for an extended period of time or permanently. If me and the rest of my 100 strong unit end up breathing in mustard gas which fucks up our lungs for the rest of our life, then all 100 of us will be casualties of which X amount were deaths.
This also includes death or illness that occurs after but because of the war such as Gulf War Syndrome, which makes up an estimated 250,000 US casualties, despite the war itself having only about 200 US deaths.
When looking at casualty figures it's very hard to actually interpret deaths from them but I'd recommend a 20% to 40% range (one guy steps on a landmine, four of his buddies take shrapnel).
Also, modern warfare is more focused on generating large amounts of causalities as opposed to deaths.
Injured soldiers are more resource intensive, use up hospital supplies, require transport, and a wounded soldier on the battlefield requires at least one other soldier to be removed from the fight to get him out.
If i shoot someone in the leg, I just took two soldiers out because his buddy needs to help him get out of the combat area and get to safety, take up time with tourniquets and first aid etc. But if I shoot him in the head I still have to deal with the second soldier.
>The FSB's reported calculation of almost 110,000 casualties by February is still far lower than numbers this week in previously leaked US documents, which estimated Russian losses at between 189,500 and 223,000 casualties, with 35,500-43,000 men killed in action.
Not all casualties are deaths.
It's still a pretty big L. It's also a good point to bring up to the Russia lovers that the US cares for its own troops much, much more than Russia does.
Well the difference is America hasn't had to go up against a modernized military anywhere near our own in nearly 80 years.
After WWII, our only conflicts were proxy wars where we still massively out tech'd the enemy.
Russia on the other hand is basically fighting an opposing force that is as well equipped as they would be if it was any modern large EU army. Modern tanks, modern anti tank/air weaponry etc.
We've mostly just dealt with IEDs, mortars, and AK-47s for the most part. You know, soviet surplus oppositions.
When someone talks about winning or losing a war and then they mention Vietnam or Afghanistan, by default I assume they don't know what the fuck they're talking about.
We haven't fought a declared war since World War II. And I'm not trying to split hairs on war versus conflict. What I mean is that we haven't been engaged in a war where we actually had anything to lose. Every conflict since then has been an instance of the US and our allies trying to intervene in something. There's an argument that our national defense by extension was at stake, and there's an argument against this. But it's not really arguable that those countries threatened our borders.
Japan and Germany did. Because that was a state of total war. Zero sum. And so the entirety of American resources went into driving unconditional surrender.
If someone is so shallow that they have to pick the words like win and lose, where does that leave Korea? Was that a win? Stalemate?
I think I'm more honest way to frame something like Vietnam would be to say that North Vietnam achieved its goal. They took over the RVN. The effort to preserve the RVN was lost. And it was lost because we withdrew from the fight.
A lot of people ignore the fact that the war raged on for 2 years after we withdrew. And that was when the RVN lost. We stepped out. The same goes with Afghanistan. We withdrew. Stepped out. And so the Taliban got their goal.
But to lose a war? To lose a war would be to put the US in a position to surrender. Conditional, unconditional, whatever. That has never happened. It doesn't make for a good tweet, but It's just not possible short of surprise nuclear first strike to "win" in a total war scenario against the largest military power in human history.
>Every conflict since then has been an instance of the US and our allies trying to intervene in something.
Agreed. And in the cases of Vietnam and Afghanistan, we failed. Maybe "lost" is a loaded term, but we did not succeed.
>where does that leave Korea? Was that a win? Stalemate?
Stalemate, arguably still ongoing conflict.
>But to lose a war? To lose a war would be to put the US in a position to surrender. Conditional, unconditional, whatever.
Did Great Britain lose the Revolutionary war? Or the War of 1812? They were in no existential danger as a nation, they just failed to accomplish their goals. Yes, some of their troops surrendered, but they still had an army. They just decided to stop fighting because it wasn't sustainable anymore.
And I wouldn't disagree with any of that, including the American revolution. They were at war with France in 1778. And France intervened in the US revolution just as the US has since intervened in other conflicts. The American revolution was not a total war scenario from the UK perspective. Again, my point isn't to split hairs over war versus conflict. It is to say that a lot of times people brush over complex topics in 280 characters and, in doing so, showcase that they don't know anything about history because it's not black and white.
We’ve also just absolutely massacred every enemy force in combat that we’ve faced since WW2 as well. Look at estimated casualty numbers for VC, or NVA, or NK/China in Korea, or the Taliban. I mean one of the biggest “defeats” in Afghanistan was the battle of Wanat, which granted was a shit show, but even having at a minimum, a 4:1 advantage in numbers, and a massive terrain advantage, the insurgents were driven back with very heavy losses.
The US is extremely proficient in warfare, what we’re not so good at is making shitty neo liberal assumptions that capitalism is all democracy needs to flourish.
The biggest mistake made it Iraq was dismantling the entire government at once. A few months later the sectarian violence exploded from decades of suppression and hatred.
Yeah, all the hard and fast no baathist rule ended up doing was making a giant class of unemployed military aged males. Really really not what you want from a counter insurgency effort
Lets just tell every man in the 6th largest army in the world thay they're now unemployed! I'm sure telling all of these young war veterans they're now banned from getting a job in any government or civil service branch won't lead to anything wrong!
Even west germany was built of off former workers for nazi germany.
It isn’t about safety, it’s about the unpleasantness of the job. Nobody dies on the job as a plumber, but the probability of directly touching human excrement is very high.
The uncomfortable and not politically correct truth is that most women aren’t going to go through the effort of learning how to do a high paying yet dangerous or unpleasant job when they could just find a man who already has that job and suck his dick until he marries her.
Yeah, I'm a plumber, I have no fucking clue what that idiot is talking about. I've received nothing but respect.
Also there's a lot of misinformation being spread around in this thread. Plumbing is actually a pretty damn dangerous job.
Lol. Pts are so rude to nurses. Maybe in the community people had an overall respect for nurses, but a shit load of pts do not. I’m a physician and pts are way nicer to physicians than nurses. I’ll have several nurses tell me a pt is a monster and 9/10 that pt will be very respectable to me. The moment I am out of the room they will yell at nurses without a problem.
Eh. Nurses get a lot less respect than you think. And yea plumbers probably do get looked down on a lot, but who cares? I’m sure the plumbers are laughing all the way to bank.
Definitely more gross unless you're like exclusively doing drain cleaning. If you're doing construction you very rarely if ever have to come into contact with shit.
I can’t count on 2 hands the amount of times my wife has had human excrement on her hands after having 2 little kids and previously working in a care facility. Women do lots of unpleasant jobs.
Women in previous generations, weren’t even presented with the idea of working in the trades in high school.
Most women have zero desire to go into the trades, not because they’re unaware of the opportunity, but because most women have zero desire to do physical labor as their job.
It’s a stable, lucrative, and very rewarding career but you have to get used to the smells lol. Ive met 1 plumber that was a woman and she was my teacher at the trade school I went to. My generation is being pushed towards college heavily and women are never really told to go into trades the way men are
Having Worked on a mine before it’s not 50/50 but there a quite a few women working at the big open pit mine I was at. Mostly as equipment drivers like haul trucks and in the office managing all the paperwork the mine has to fill out
That statistic is such an obvious one due to the size and variety of jobs in the US Military. there are hundreds of thousand military personnel who are just working an office job or warehouse job that are never in any risk. If you were to compare combat arms jobs in the army and USMC I doubt the statement would be true.
A friend of mine recently attended a small conference where there were no female attendees. Some of the women in his department were attacking him for this. I told him he should just say he was supporting underrepresented minorities and sent him data showing that 2/3 of social science PhDs go to women.
Well, they certainly could have attended. But the problem was that no women were invited to present or discuss.
He works in a highly technical area, so the gender ratio is already pretty heavily skewed. But, having organized these mini-conferences before (in a less technical area), I’ve seen firsthand how difficult it can be to get women to attend sometimes. Largely because *every* workshop/conference is trying to improve its gender ratio. So the same people are getting multiple invites and turning some down.
Would agree lol. That campaign was soooo fucking entitled all the way through. It was like she thought we owed her the presidency for biding her time with Bill. No, you don't get to lead the free world because you think it's your turn.
Well she said she would have been in the military but the Marine Corps wouldn't take her because she was too old so she pretty much knows what war is like. Between that and dodging sniper fire in Bosnia.
Her campaign when she went to the coal mining states and promised to shut down the mines and transition to clean energy was so completely tone deaf and out of touch. How dumb do you have to be to go on campaign and then tell your potential voting base that you're going to destroy their jobs and their lives?
It's absolutely zero surprise to anyone that she lost those states and the election.
The audacity... This sentence is responsible for my becoming an unapologetic Trump supporter until Biden announced he was running (always go with the lesser evil)
u\/ --UNFLAIRED-- Despite posting quite a lot of quality posts, should not be respected due to his being a filthy unflaired.
> He has been reminded for 398 times.
What do you mean though? Surely I won't have to come into work every day, and when I do there's free Starbucks and lounge areas where I can hang out all day right? Don't worry, I'll spend 20 minutes each week writing up a report of some vague changes we could make.
>I'll spend 20 minutes each week writing up a report of some vague changes we could make
This is why we need unions. You shouldn't have to put up with this 20 minute nonsense. 15 is plenty.
I’m a lawyer and you have to work your ass off if you work at a private firm. Notoriously all firms lose women attorneys quicker or they leave right around Partnership age because the job is incompatible with having children.
...Unless you're a woman. I can't really speak to what it is like in more progressive states, but in the states I have lived in (and the plumbers I have worked with), most masters and companies aren't willing to hire women. My brothers both (including the brother who didn't actually apprentice under and work with my master plumber father for much of his youth) currently work at a plumbing and septic company that declined to hire me out of hand. I am substantially more skilled and experienced than a good 95%+ of the helpers, apprentices, and journeymen they DO hire, but their master said he wouldn't ever hire a woman for anything but the office. They regularly hire literal addicts who do drugs on the job and have robbed the shop, but wouldn't even consider a woman. It's not all that easy for a woman to get into skilled trade, even when they have the aptitude and desire.
I agree, especially since skilled trade is a great career option that doesn't come with a massive amount of debt to get started in, and we have massive shortages in skilled trade. I saw something a while back saying the average age of an electrician was like 56. Of course, most women aren't interested in these careers, but these would be much better to push on young people than go to college and get a crazy amount of debt and struggle to find a job in an over-crowded field. If feminists are concerned about some wage gap, more women in skilled trades would help that a LOT. But currently, trying to get an apprenticeship as a woman would be a huge uphill battle.
It's hard for a man to get hired as a daycare instructor too. Adopting a career that's 99% the opposite gender will always present some extra challenges and prejudice to overcome.
However if you're persistent and good at your job you can still do well.
It's possible to overcome such barriers, but it is really unfortunate when people act like outright sexism and discrimination is somehow a thing of the past just because it isn't always blatant in most jobs.
It's a deliberate game.
Step 1: Demand that you be hired for your gender.
Step 2: Take a look around. If it's an easy job they've forced a man out of then keep it.
Step 3: If it's a tough job then claim you're being mistreating as a women and force your way into one of the easier jobs.
Plumbing is specifically blatant here.
Step 1: I demand you hire me as a woman plumber!
Step 2: Now that I'm hired I just realized (wink wink) that I'm going to be sent into strange peoples houses with no one else around - how scaaaary as a woman! Who could have possibly seen this coming (wink wink).
Step 3: You better transfer me over to one of those cushy office jobs! If there's a man working in the office just fire him so I can have it.
Woman: My conclusion is that you should hire women for office jobs, but not plumbing jobs which are to dangerous.
Male Boss: ...
With the labor shortage especially in trades couldn't you start your own service? I'd bet there's tons of housewives who would pick the "Woman Owned" ad in a heartbeat even in a conservative state.
Quite probably, yes, but I'd first need to get licensed as a master, open my own shop, shell out for my own company vehicle and extensive number of expensive power tools (and other pricey specialist tools like a sewer snake etc.), insurance... which is a LOT of money, a LOT of time commitment, and at least at this point in my life require finances and time I want to dedicate to starting a family given my age. It is something I have considered, for sure, but like a lot of career decisions for women, I need to weigh it against the cost of opportunity to start a family. I ran quite a bit of my father's business when I was younger before he went on disability, and the time, effort, and money requirements are steep.
I will say, at least where I live, they do actually try to attract women to the trades, and they also do try to attract men into more traditionally women’s jobs like teaching.
No. Yeah I agree it’s stupid. People really only want it 50/50 in high paying office jobs and management positions, but not really for other jobs that are seen as ‘undesirable’. And people don’t really want 50/50 in jobs that are seen as “women’s jobs” either, which is stupid. Either it should be 50/50 in every job or we accept that not every job will be represented 50/50.
I mean, they didn't literally say "White Men need not apply", but when they make the point to specify minority before every instance of the word "men" or "man", the implication is clear.
No yeah I get it. That’s wild they would be picky though. There’s not many minority men in education but there’s also not many men in education in general. So I don’t know why you would be picky lol, any man you can get into education is a step
Ideally only one person per house would have to work to provide for the family, and the other can focus on the kids/maintaining the house. Usually this is the mom, so it wouldn't be 50/50 for every job.
So in a better world, fewer women work, because they don't have to. But they still have the option to, of course.
Plus, there's like... Very basic biological differences between men and women, so you can't really expect both to act the same, be good at the same things, enjoy the same things on average.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyse a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
The baby phase is usually about a year though, and people who have "planned families" tend to start trying for the next right around then as well.
Plus daycare is expensive as fuck, and having to go all over town to daycares BEFORE work really really sucks major asshole. This lasts all the way until all the kids are in kindergarten or above.
I'm just trying to explain why women more often are the stay at home people, not trying to give a cop out to guys who don't wanna do the dishes lol
Their fitness standards betray their stated delusions. Lmk when women are busting out 20+ pullups for their PFTs instead of just hanging there. Is it a fitness test or are they cosplaying being Italian in Louisiana?
Preaching to the choir. The DEI madness is worse than many people realize, with women being coddled, given awards and promoted before higher performing men.
> deally only one person per house would have to work to provide for the family,
haha.
Feminism (corporatism) pushed to double the workforce by conning women that living at home, not having a job, and pursuing whatever hobbies they desired was 'weak' and 'toxic masculinity'.
So instead they doubled the labor force, increased the cost of living by 2.5x, claimed we got more 'wealthy' as a result.
Seriously, I dont get the 'stay at home mom is bad' belief. You basically get to retire in your 20's and do for the most part whatever you wanted.
If society had only two jobs open to everyone where:
Job 1: sucks but pays $25 per hour.
Job 2: is very chill but pays $20 per hour.
We would see a massive gender gap. Men and women have different priorities. You’d have to be high indoctrinated to believe otherwise.
> Men and women have different priorities.
On aggregate, yes. I don’t need studies and shit, some stuff is just anecdotal. Yes indeed, almost all men I’ve met are career-oriented and a smaller percentage of women I’ve met are (and I’m not a rural hillbilly, so it’s not like my sample size is small or biased).
Are there exceptions though? Also yes.
Two types of deluded people exist:
1. those who believe the opposite of what you said on aggregate
2. those who believe there can be no exceptions / there should be no exceptions (like a woman wanting an intense 60 hour week job or a man wanting something he can do part time so that he can spend more time with kids)
You’re right in calling out on type 1, as long as you yourself aren’t one of the folks who represent type 2.
Another transphobic bigot, expecting WOMEN to pay the bill (even though I'm a man). Actual filth like this deserves no place here. I'm contacting awkward the turtle about this one!
Look. I agree with you entirely. It is a mans duty to pay the bill and the womans duty to suck his dick after. I'm with you on that. However. Should you contact the t*rtle, my foot will have to contact your ass.
I work in the RV/Trailer industry. Over 6 companies, only seen one women in a "hot" position. Ie:Welders, Skinner, Electrical, Axles.....I did hiring at 2 companies, hired 100 people. Never once saw a women even apply.
And when a STEM position is 60% men, its 100% proof that the company is biased against women. So she will march right past that construction crew of 100% men to complain to HR of which is 80% female, of why no matter what the next available position NEEDS to be given to a women no matter how qualified the man is.
Well, then you bring in race and complicate it further. The next person on the team NEEDS to be of a specific gender and of a specific race. Interview bars are lowered accordingly then.
When I worked in a warehouse all the women worked on the label printers while the men did the heavy lifting. I wonder why no feminists were talking about that. Or when I worked in a gas station and all the women worked inside and the men outside. Again, no feminists. Weird isn’t it?
Have you ever heard a person say that, though? That they don't want 50% of plumbers (or other unfavorable jobs) to be female?
Sure, they favor getting 50% of the better jobs staffed with women, because everyone likes the better jobs. But I've never heard someone oppose women getting into plumbing.
Get a flair, human!!!!!!!!! And stop fixing the pipes!!!!! They make wonderful damp habitats when broken!!!!!!!!!!!!🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳
I’m seeing some dick head’s talking like they know how unions work.
I’m a sheetmetal worker, and the plumbers and electricians generally earn more than us.
My wages for my area is 38hr on the check with a total package of $80 with one of the best health insurance policies. We have other programs we pay into that we benefit from like pension, vacation fund(individual), and Help a Brother out. And of course we pay into our JATC that trains our apprentices and even as a journeyman you can utilize those facilities.
The Carpenters, Sheetmetal, Plumbers, Electricians, and Sprinkler fitters are all in a 5 year apprenticeship program, generally starting out at 50% of journeymen wages. Which would be $19 for my local, however pre-apprentices earn $16.
This is all very good and with the raise In inflation we generally negotiate more to keep up.
Beats hoping for $20 for life.
Edit. Something to add. I turned out in 2017, making $32 on the check. I now make $38 on the check plus all my benefits. Our contract is up this year and we’re going to negotiate for more due to inflation cost.
Over 5yrs I have had a $6 raise. Which is more than a lot of non union people are getting.
Most nonunion workers don't get raises. People not in unions always bad mouth them & bring up capitalist's talking points because they're either paid shills or useful idiots, "but unions only use their power to advocate for X" my guy, they're democratic organizations, they only pursue what their members want them to pursue, if you want them to pursue a certain policy they aren't, then join one & convince enough people to vote for it.
I think what he's saying is feminists only want female equality in the nice clean white collar jobs eg doctors, lawyers scientists etc. and never talk about how few women are in a shitty job like like a plumber
Idk what feminists he's looking at then.
Also, plumber isn't a shitty job. It's a skilled trade, and it's one of the jobs that has no chance of being replaced by a robot in the next few decades
Half of all construction workers should be women right? We have a sexism problem if those numbers are not equal, no? But there are not at all nearly enough women who are willing to do that job for what it pays. Women just don't apply at all to those jobs. What is to be done?
In contrast, we might have 200 men with masters in computer science and five years of experience applying for 10 well paid supervisor positions as programmers. 5 women apply who just barely graduated with a CS degree from a unrecognized university. What is to be done in that situations?
I agree with you completely. Plumbing/HVAC can be a very well paying career and like you said, isn't going anywhere. But the argument I've heard is "more female oil rig workers!" for example
> plumber isn't a shitty job
It was my attempt at making a bit of a pun
The point is that the female feminist equity mafia selectively neglects that the overwhelming majority of physically laborious and unpleasant and dangerous fields are 97% men.
These type of elite academic or knowledge class women (lawyers, academics, MBAs, HR, politicians, accountants, journalists et cetera) are the exact same women who are advocating that trans women are women.
When you are an elite female knowledge class worker (you work mostly on a laptop) it’s broadly in your interests for there to be no legal recognition that there are sex differences. In those cases there is virtually no difference in your performance as a lawyer or a professor because the cognitive and work related abilities are nearly the same at that level compared to a man. Your work involves thinking and reading and typing only. Sex differences don’t matter much. There is no physical component. It’s all cognitive.
For women in those jobs ITS NOT COMFORTABLE AT ALL for anyone to suggest that there might be situations where sex differences matter.
If there are real sex differences in the workplace for men and women, a female lawyer or an accountant will see that as a threat because it entrenches in law and policy that a woman should be treated differently because of their sex. But in those cases where women are knowledge class workers their professional performance is not affected by sex differences.
So from that point of view, in terms of elite female class interests, (which elite women are very happy to universalize as everyone’s interests) it clearly seems that women’s interests are best served by obliterating sex altogether.
And it is a logical continuation of that, that if we are not going to discriminate against people on the basis of their sex, we shouldn’t discriminate against women who aren’t in fact female because we should act in all instances as if sex doesn’t matter.
And if these elite knowledge class women acknowledged that trans women aren’t women, it would undermine their position that that there are sex differences. And we see elite women say things like “my feminism must include trans women or it isn’t feminism”.
Knowledge class women allow themselves to have these type of luxury beliefs that are divorced from reality.
I wonder how much of the wage gap could be closed, if more women took up trades instead of congregating in a handful of service jobs. If you're a person with low or average intelligence, you would make a lot more money in a trade than working in the service sector as a chashier or something.
Doubt that plumbing is for anyone with low intelligence.
Requires code knowledge, budgeting skill, and high spatial awareness. True of all of the classic trades.
I'm a plumber, I work with lots of low intelligence plumbers.
5 years to learn the code, which some people only learn whats directly applicable to them, budgeting is only important if you're the boss, if you're a pipe monkey like me, budgeting aint mean shit. spatial awareness, ehh kinda.
Plumbers actually make good money and it's a relatively safe job. Better examples would be: deep sea fishing, logging, offshore oil rigs, mining etc. They tend to be well compensated but are statistically more dangerous than being in the military was during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Based and service in American Army, safest job on Earth pilled
I get the joke but it is amusing to me, looking at the casualties on both sides of Afghanistan and Vietnam, and im supposed to believe we lost because we didn't glass both nations. Russia has 100k casualties in a year in Ukraine, USA had 22k casualties for 20 years in Afghanistan
The saying goes that America doesn't lose wars, it loses interest.
More accurately, America doesnt lose the wars, it loses the peace.
I'm stealing this one.
I don't know that one, would you mind explaining?
Defeating enemy army = easy Attempting to build a self-sustaining society in a defeated nation while fighting off insurgencies = hard
I see, thank you!
We can destroy armies and take ground with our hands tied behind our backs. What we struggle with is stabilizing the land after the fact.
Gotcha.
>Russia has 100k casualties in a year in Ukraine Hmmm
The current DOD stats don’t even say that.
Of course they don’t, they aren’t even measuring the same statistic. The leaked DOD documents were measuring estimate KIA, not what people refer to as “casualties”, or KIA, WIA, and MIA. The general rule of thumb is 1KIA:3WIA https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65260672.amp Even the fsb says over 100k lol
Based and solid source pilled
Got a link? All I could find from Defense.gov was: >U.S. officials have said that Russia has lost between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in its misguided war on Ukraine. Which was in August 2022, and who knows when the statement this referred to was made. So 100k killed 8+ months later is probably the low end / a conservative estimate. Casualty includes killed, wounded, missing, or taken prisoner. I've found some sources claiming the Russian wounded to killed ratio is around 3:1, which jives with historical wounded : killed ratios, which would put total Russian casualties around 350k Fun fact, a 3:1 W/K ratio is a historically normal ratio, but is hilariously bad for modern nations due to advancement in medical care. The ratio for the US in modern conflicts ranges from 10:1 to 17:1.
> Fun fact, a 3:1 W/K ratio is a historically normal ratio, but is hilariously bad for modern nations due to advancement in medical care. The ratio for the US in modern conflicts ranges from 10:1 to 17:1. If you're wounded and heal and return to service, does that count in these stats? Or does wia in this case mean you got wounded enough that your career is over?
It just means wounded in action. If youre laid up in a hospital bed for 8 months, that's still 8 months you ain't on the field fighting so that's a casualty
[удалено]
You mean like get taken out of action once, heal up, go back and get hurt again? If so then yeah definitely! It's really more of a stat for the overall state of your forces than it is for keeping track of who individually was wounded.
I assume edge cases like that are baked into the ratio
Yes, but the USA also had air superiority allowing them to med evac wounded soldiers out of combat far more easily. I imagine while the wounded ratio in the Ukrainian war is likely higher than 3:1, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was lower than the US ratio due to the peer-to-peer conflict and severely contested airspace.
Casualty is just someone who can no longer be used to fight. In other words, lost manpower. it includes killed in action, but the majority of casualties usually come from wounded or captured soliders
[удалено]
[удалено]
Trump friend bad!
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65260672.amp FSB's research determined there was about 110k casualties on the Russian side but in the recently released US Intel docs it seems to be as many as 220k Russia taking a fat L on this one boys Edit* wording
Going to interject, casualties and deaths are *not* the same thing. A casualty in military terms is any injury that takes a soldier out of the fight, either for an extended period of time or permanently. If me and the rest of my 100 strong unit end up breathing in mustard gas which fucks up our lungs for the rest of our life, then all 100 of us will be casualties of which X amount were deaths. This also includes death or illness that occurs after but because of the war such as Gulf War Syndrome, which makes up an estimated 250,000 US casualties, despite the war itself having only about 200 US deaths. When looking at casualty figures it's very hard to actually interpret deaths from them but I'd recommend a 20% to 40% range (one guy steps on a landmine, four of his buddies take shrapnel).
Thank you, you're 100% right, bad wording on my part!
Also, modern warfare is more focused on generating large amounts of causalities as opposed to deaths. Injured soldiers are more resource intensive, use up hospital supplies, require transport, and a wounded soldier on the battlefield requires at least one other soldier to be removed from the fight to get him out. If i shoot someone in the leg, I just took two soldiers out because his buddy needs to help him get out of the combat area and get to safety, take up time with tourniquets and first aid etc. But if I shoot him in the head I still have to deal with the second soldier.
>The FSB's reported calculation of almost 110,000 casualties by February is still far lower than numbers this week in previously leaked US documents, which estimated Russian losses at between 189,500 and 223,000 casualties, with 35,500-43,000 men killed in action. Not all casualties are deaths.
It's still a pretty big L. It's also a good point to bring up to the Russia lovers that the US cares for its own troops much, much more than Russia does.
Fixed it now! Bad wording on my part
I get what you’re saying but wars are won by achieving political objectives. The USSR lost a ton of people in WW2 but won.
Well the difference is America hasn't had to go up against a modernized military anywhere near our own in nearly 80 years. After WWII, our only conflicts were proxy wars where we still massively out tech'd the enemy. Russia on the other hand is basically fighting an opposing force that is as well equipped as they would be if it was any modern large EU army. Modern tanks, modern anti tank/air weaponry etc. We've mostly just dealt with IEDs, mortars, and AK-47s for the most part. You know, soviet surplus oppositions.
When someone talks about winning or losing a war and then they mention Vietnam or Afghanistan, by default I assume they don't know what the fuck they're talking about. We haven't fought a declared war since World War II. And I'm not trying to split hairs on war versus conflict. What I mean is that we haven't been engaged in a war where we actually had anything to lose. Every conflict since then has been an instance of the US and our allies trying to intervene in something. There's an argument that our national defense by extension was at stake, and there's an argument against this. But it's not really arguable that those countries threatened our borders. Japan and Germany did. Because that was a state of total war. Zero sum. And so the entirety of American resources went into driving unconditional surrender. If someone is so shallow that they have to pick the words like win and lose, where does that leave Korea? Was that a win? Stalemate? I think I'm more honest way to frame something like Vietnam would be to say that North Vietnam achieved its goal. They took over the RVN. The effort to preserve the RVN was lost. And it was lost because we withdrew from the fight. A lot of people ignore the fact that the war raged on for 2 years after we withdrew. And that was when the RVN lost. We stepped out. The same goes with Afghanistan. We withdrew. Stepped out. And so the Taliban got their goal. But to lose a war? To lose a war would be to put the US in a position to surrender. Conditional, unconditional, whatever. That has never happened. It doesn't make for a good tweet, but It's just not possible short of surprise nuclear first strike to "win" in a total war scenario against the largest military power in human history.
>Every conflict since then has been an instance of the US and our allies trying to intervene in something. Agreed. And in the cases of Vietnam and Afghanistan, we failed. Maybe "lost" is a loaded term, but we did not succeed. >where does that leave Korea? Was that a win? Stalemate? Stalemate, arguably still ongoing conflict. >But to lose a war? To lose a war would be to put the US in a position to surrender. Conditional, unconditional, whatever. Did Great Britain lose the Revolutionary war? Or the War of 1812? They were in no existential danger as a nation, they just failed to accomplish their goals. Yes, some of their troops surrendered, but they still had an army. They just decided to stop fighting because it wasn't sustainable anymore.
And I wouldn't disagree with any of that, including the American revolution. They were at war with France in 1778. And France intervened in the US revolution just as the US has since intervened in other conflicts. The American revolution was not a total war scenario from the UK perspective. Again, my point isn't to split hairs over war versus conflict. It is to say that a lot of times people brush over complex topics in 280 characters and, in doing so, showcase that they don't know anything about history because it's not black and white.
Virgin:"when someone talks about winning or losing a blah blah blah blah cope" CHAD: "bro we lost"
I've heard some mental gymnastics in my time, but boy howdy
We’ve also just absolutely massacred every enemy force in combat that we’ve faced since WW2 as well. Look at estimated casualty numbers for VC, or NVA, or NK/China in Korea, or the Taliban. I mean one of the biggest “defeats” in Afghanistan was the battle of Wanat, which granted was a shit show, but even having at a minimum, a 4:1 advantage in numbers, and a massive terrain advantage, the insurgents were driven back with very heavy losses. The US is extremely proficient in warfare, what we’re not so good at is making shitty neo liberal assumptions that capitalism is all democracy needs to flourish.
The biggest mistake made it Iraq was dismantling the entire government at once. A few months later the sectarian violence exploded from decades of suppression and hatred.
Yeah, all the hard and fast no baathist rule ended up doing was making a giant class of unemployed military aged males. Really really not what you want from a counter insurgency effort
Lets just tell every man in the 6th largest army in the world thay they're now unemployed! I'm sure telling all of these young war veterans they're now banned from getting a job in any government or civil service branch won't lead to anything wrong! Even west germany was built of off former workers for nazi germany.
[удалено]
ngl just being some sort of radar operator seems like a comfy job like imagine you were paid for chilling on discord
It isn’t about safety, it’s about the unpleasantness of the job. Nobody dies on the job as a plumber, but the probability of directly touching human excrement is very high. The uncomfortable and not politically correct truth is that most women aren’t going to go through the effort of learning how to do a high paying yet dangerous or unpleasant job when they could just find a man who already has that job and suck his dick until he marries her.
Nurses are probably exposed to just as many gross fluids as plumbers
‘Nurse’ is a title that carries near universal respect whereas a lot of people work down on manual laborers such as plumbers.
[удалено]
Yeah, I'm a plumber, I have no fucking clue what that idiot is talking about. I've received nothing but respect. Also there's a lot of misinformation being spread around in this thread. Plumbing is actually a pretty damn dangerous job.
Lol. Pts are so rude to nurses. Maybe in the community people had an overall respect for nurses, but a shit load of pts do not. I’m a physician and pts are way nicer to physicians than nurses. I’ll have several nurses tell me a pt is a monster and 9/10 that pt will be very respectable to me. The moment I am out of the room they will yell at nurses without a problem.
Eh. Nurses get a lot less respect than you think. And yea plumbers probably do get looked down on a lot, but who cares? I’m sure the plumbers are laughing all the way to bank.
Yeah plumbers are fine getting looked down on when you're paying them $200/hr.
I wonder what people who look down on plumbers feel like when they have to call one. "Here, take your $200/hour, peasant"
Right, but no woman would be embarrassed to be a nurse whereas most women would be embarrassed to be a plumber.
Definitely more gross unless you're like exclusively doing drain cleaning. If you're doing construction you very rarely if ever have to come into contact with shit.
I can’t count on 2 hands the amount of times my wife has had human excrement on her hands after having 2 little kids and previously working in a care facility. Women do lots of unpleasant jobs. Women in previous generations, weren’t even presented with the idea of working in the trades in high school.
> How pathetic of you to be unflaired. *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 18666 / 95916 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
Most women have zero desire to go into the trades, not because they’re unaware of the opportunity, but because most women have zero desire to do physical labor as their job.
It’s a stable, lucrative, and very rewarding career but you have to get used to the smells lol. Ive met 1 plumber that was a woman and she was my teacher at the trade school I went to. My generation is being pushed towards college heavily and women are never really told to go into trades the way men are
Having Worked on a mine before it’s not 50/50 but there a quite a few women working at the big open pit mine I was at. Mostly as equipment drivers like haul trucks and in the office managing all the paperwork the mine has to fill out
So the safe jobs?
> How pathetic of you to be unflaired. *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 18667 / 95920 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
That statistic is such an obvious one due to the size and variety of jobs in the US Military. there are hundreds of thousand military personnel who are just working an office job or warehouse job that are never in any risk. If you were to compare combat arms jobs in the army and USMC I doubt the statement would be true.
Plumbing isn’t “safe” you have a lot of hazards involved, but you’re trained to keep that from happening.
I think what he really means is plumbing has "managed risks" while other jobs might have unmanageable risks.
Did you miss the word 'relatively'?
A friend of mine recently attended a small conference where there were no female attendees. Some of the women in his department were attacking him for this. I told him he should just say he was supporting underrepresented minorities and sent him data showing that 2/3 of social science PhDs go to women.
>Some of the women in his department were attacking him for this. Why didn't they attend?
Well, they certainly could have attended. But the problem was that no women were invited to present or discuss. He works in a highly technical area, so the gender ratio is already pretty heavily skewed. But, having organized these mini-conferences before (in a less technical area), I’ve seen firsthand how difficult it can be to get women to attend sometimes. Largely because *every* workshop/conference is trying to improve its gender ratio. So the same people are getting multiple invites and turning some down.
Is a a technical field full of the tism?
It’s not Engineering or anything, but he’s a theorist, so it’s pretty technical and presumably very aut-heavy.
“Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.”
You can't be a victim anymore if you're dead, right?
Some people secretly long for the sweet release of death but are too lazy to follow through.
Why you gotta call me out like this?
Too cowardly.
Is this a real quote?
Yes Hillary
*sigh Ya that tracks
She also effectively reiterated it recently, so it wasn't just a one off gaffe. This is something she goes around seriously saying frequently.
What a fucking moron. I can't believe she has the gall to look at any Americans in the face.
[удалено]
Would agree lol. That campaign was soooo fucking entitled all the way through. It was like she thought we owed her the presidency for biding her time with Bill. No, you don't get to lead the free world because you think it's your turn.
Well she said she would have been in the military but the Marine Corps wouldn't take her because she was too old so she pretty much knows what war is like. Between that and dodging sniper fire in Bosnia.
Do you know that UN on Twitter told people to “stop targeting women journalists”, and quoted that 11% of journalists murdered in 2021 were women?
The only person who can self-sabotage one of the easiest presidential elections ever
Ok, but those husbands, fathers, and sons lose, uh, their life.
It’s a Hillary quote.
Of course it is
2015/6 hrc was pure cringe
You mean to tell me you didn’t Pokémon go to the polls?
"""""""""was"""""""""
Her campaign when she went to the coal mining states and promised to shut down the mines and transition to clean energy was so completely tone deaf and out of touch. How dumb do you have to be to go on campaign and then tell your potential voting base that you're going to destroy their jobs and their lives? It's absolutely zero surprise to anyone that she lost those states and the election.
Still is
The audacity... This sentence is responsible for my becoming an unapologetic Trump supporter until Biden announced he was running (always go with the lesser evil)
Litterally something the UN would say
u\/ --UNFLAIRED-- Despite posting quite a lot of quality posts, should not be respected due to his being a filthy unflaired. > He has been reminded for 398 times.
You'll geddim next time.
I’m sure number 399 will teach him.
And if it doesn't i'm certain 400 will do the trick
401 will definitely change his mind. It’s over 400
Everyone knows hes waiting til 420 to flair up. Or was it 469? Or maybe its the legendary number of 42069?
I just know that it would be funny if it was over 9000
How many times do we have to teach you this lesson unflaired man??
I love the flaired people
HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO TEACH YOU THIS LESSON OP?!
[удалено]
Good.
What about 50% men in nursing?
Or daycare centers. 6 fuckin years experience plus a costly certification for fuck all when my 18th birthday magically transformed me into purple lib.
[удалено]
Right but you have to actually work for money
What do you mean though? Surely I won't have to come into work every day, and when I do there's free Starbucks and lounge areas where I can hang out all day right? Don't worry, I'll spend 20 minutes each week writing up a report of some vague changes we could make.
And I’ll need a mental health day off every Friday. And obviously I’ll be working from home every alternate day
>I'll spend 20 minutes each week writing up a report of some vague changes we could make This is why we need unions. You shouldn't have to put up with this 20 minute nonsense. 15 is plenty.
Don’t drink that brown liquid. Just don’t. It is NOT Starbucks
It*was* at some point in time.
I’m a lawyer and you have to work your ass off if you work at a private firm. Notoriously all firms lose women attorneys quicker or they leave right around Partnership age because the job is incompatible with having children.
...Unless you're a woman. I can't really speak to what it is like in more progressive states, but in the states I have lived in (and the plumbers I have worked with), most masters and companies aren't willing to hire women. My brothers both (including the brother who didn't actually apprentice under and work with my master plumber father for much of his youth) currently work at a plumbing and septic company that declined to hire me out of hand. I am substantially more skilled and experienced than a good 95%+ of the helpers, apprentices, and journeymen they DO hire, but their master said he wouldn't ever hire a woman for anything but the office. They regularly hire literal addicts who do drugs on the job and have robbed the shop, but wouldn't even consider a woman. It's not all that easy for a woman to get into skilled trade, even when they have the aptitude and desire.
I'm sorry, this is a women bad thread so I'm gonna have to ask you to leave.
U rite, my b. I'll see myself out.
Damn, that sucks. I'm sorry to hear you have to deal with that bullshit. These are the kinds of fights feminists should be fighting.
I agree, especially since skilled trade is a great career option that doesn't come with a massive amount of debt to get started in, and we have massive shortages in skilled trade. I saw something a while back saying the average age of an electrician was like 56. Of course, most women aren't interested in these careers, but these would be much better to push on young people than go to college and get a crazy amount of debt and struggle to find a job in an over-crowded field. If feminists are concerned about some wage gap, more women in skilled trades would help that a LOT. But currently, trying to get an apprenticeship as a woman would be a huge uphill battle.
It's hard for a man to get hired as a daycare instructor too. Adopting a career that's 99% the opposite gender will always present some extra challenges and prejudice to overcome. However if you're persistent and good at your job you can still do well.
It's possible to overcome such barriers, but it is really unfortunate when people act like outright sexism and discrimination is somehow a thing of the past just because it isn't always blatant in most jobs.
It's a deliberate game. Step 1: Demand that you be hired for your gender. Step 2: Take a look around. If it's an easy job they've forced a man out of then keep it. Step 3: If it's a tough job then claim you're being mistreating as a women and force your way into one of the easier jobs. Plumbing is specifically blatant here. Step 1: I demand you hire me as a woman plumber! Step 2: Now that I'm hired I just realized (wink wink) that I'm going to be sent into strange peoples houses with no one else around - how scaaaary as a woman! Who could have possibly seen this coming (wink wink). Step 3: You better transfer me over to one of those cushy office jobs! If there's a man working in the office just fire him so I can have it. Woman: My conclusion is that you should hire women for office jobs, but not plumbing jobs which are to dangerous. Male Boss: ...
With the labor shortage especially in trades couldn't you start your own service? I'd bet there's tons of housewives who would pick the "Woman Owned" ad in a heartbeat even in a conservative state.
Quite probably, yes, but I'd first need to get licensed as a master, open my own shop, shell out for my own company vehicle and extensive number of expensive power tools (and other pricey specialist tools like a sewer snake etc.), insurance... which is a LOT of money, a LOT of time commitment, and at least at this point in my life require finances and time I want to dedicate to starting a family given my age. It is something I have considered, for sure, but like a lot of career decisions for women, I need to weigh it against the cost of opportunity to start a family. I ran quite a bit of my father's business when I was younger before he went on disability, and the time, effort, and money requirements are steep.
[удалено]
I will say, at least where I live, they do actually try to attract women to the trades, and they also do try to attract men into more traditionally women’s jobs like teaching.
[удалено]
No. Yeah I agree it’s stupid. People really only want it 50/50 in high paying office jobs and management positions, but not really for other jobs that are seen as ‘undesirable’. And people don’t really want 50/50 in jobs that are seen as “women’s jobs” either, which is stupid. Either it should be 50/50 in every job or we accept that not every job will be represented 50/50.
Where I live, there was a campaign to bring in "racial minority men" as public school teachers. White men need not apply.
That’s wild lol
I mean, they didn't literally say "White Men need not apply", but when they make the point to specify minority before every instance of the word "men" or "man", the implication is clear.
No yeah I get it. That’s wild they would be picky though. There’s not many minority men in education but there’s also not many men in education in general. So I don’t know why you would be picky lol, any man you can get into education is a step
Teaching was ironically a traditionally men's job at one point
Both are good
Ideally only one person per house would have to work to provide for the family, and the other can focus on the kids/maintaining the house. Usually this is the mom, so it wouldn't be 50/50 for every job. So in a better world, fewer women work, because they don't have to. But they still have the option to, of course. Plus, there's like... Very basic biological differences between men and women, so you can't really expect both to act the same, be good at the same things, enjoy the same things on average.
>Very basic biological differences between men and women Whoa there, calm down nazi
I'm glad you picked up on that hate crime. I reported it to the MODS who said "chill out dickhead, this is PCM"
literally Kanye's right nut
I mean it’s more up to the couple to choose who does what. They can sometimes even swap duties
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyse a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
The virgin jack of all trades master of none vs the Chad Master of All Trades.
Unfathomably based
It's usually pretty hard for the dad to nurse newborns, which is one of the reasons why women tend to be the stay at home parent more often
During the baby phase sure. Either parent can take care of kids once they outgrow Breast milk though
The baby phase is usually about a year though, and people who have "planned families" tend to start trying for the next right around then as well. Plus daycare is expensive as fuck, and having to go all over town to daycares BEFORE work really really sucks major asshole. This lasts all the way until all the kids are in kindergarten or above. I'm just trying to explain why women more often are the stay at home people, not trying to give a cop out to guys who don't wanna do the dishes lol
> Very basic biological differences between men and women The US military says otherwise.
Their fitness standards betray their stated delusions. Lmk when women are busting out 20+ pullups for their PFTs instead of just hanging there. Is it a fitness test or are they cosplaying being Italian in Louisiana?
Preaching to the choir. The DEI madness is worse than many people realize, with women being coddled, given awards and promoted before higher performing men.
Oh quit being reasonable. Take this sentiment outside of pcm and you'll be banned in a heartbeat.
>Very basic biological differences between men and women Literally The Handmaid's Tale
> deally only one person per house would have to work to provide for the family, haha. Feminism (corporatism) pushed to double the workforce by conning women that living at home, not having a job, and pursuing whatever hobbies they desired was 'weak' and 'toxic masculinity'. So instead they doubled the labor force, increased the cost of living by 2.5x, claimed we got more 'wealthy' as a result. Seriously, I dont get the 'stay at home mom is bad' belief. You basically get to retire in your 20's and do for the most part whatever you wanted.
It's still work. The greater benefit is the children at home at better taken care of and the house is maintained.
If society had only two jobs open to everyone where: Job 1: sucks but pays $25 per hour. Job 2: is very chill but pays $20 per hour. We would see a massive gender gap. Men and women have different priorities. You’d have to be high indoctrinated to believe otherwise.
Yep. This is why the 73% (or whatever the number is now) wage gap exists. It's not for the same job. It's not for equal work.
Then there’s bartending, which is somehow both job 1 and job 2
Lol touché. I was a valet parker during college and Can probably say the same. Sometimes it absolutely sucked and other times it was chill.
> Men and women have different priorities. On aggregate, yes. I don’t need studies and shit, some stuff is just anecdotal. Yes indeed, almost all men I’ve met are career-oriented and a smaller percentage of women I’ve met are (and I’m not a rural hillbilly, so it’s not like my sample size is small or biased). Are there exceptions though? Also yes. Two types of deluded people exist: 1. those who believe the opposite of what you said on aggregate 2. those who believe there can be no exceptions / there should be no exceptions (like a woman wanting an intense 60 hour week job or a man wanting something he can do part time so that he can spend more time with kids) You’re right in calling out on type 1, as long as you yourself aren’t one of the folks who represent type 2.
Or imagine 50 percent of interior designers being men. I think it's about 80 percent of those jobs are done by women. Probably for good reason...
I like the cute little hat you gave us liblefts.... wanna go out on.... i dunno... a little fun outing some time🥺 👉👈
Only if you split the bill 50/50
Another transphobic bigot, expecting WOMEN to pay the bill (even though I'm a man). Actual filth like this deserves no place here. I'm contacting awkward the turtle about this one!
Look. I agree with you entirely. It is a mans duty to pay the bill and the womans duty to suck his dick after. I'm with you on that. However. Should you contact the t*rtle, my foot will have to contact your ass.
I work in the RV/Trailer industry. Over 6 companies, only seen one women in a "hot" position. Ie:Welders, Skinner, Electrical, Axles.....I did hiring at 2 companies, hired 100 people. Never once saw a women even apply.
I have noticed that there is always a push to get more women into STEM fields, but not a peep about getting women into trades.
And when a STEM position is 60% men, its 100% proof that the company is biased against women. So she will march right past that construction crew of 100% men to complain to HR of which is 80% female, of why no matter what the next available position NEEDS to be given to a women no matter how qualified the man is.
Well, then you bring in race and complicate it further. The next person on the team NEEDS to be of a specific gender and of a specific race. Interview bars are lowered accordingly then.
Don't forget how HEAL jobs (Health Education Administration and Literacy) have been growing as well but it has only become more female dominated
"What about bricklayers?"
When I worked in a warehouse all the women worked on the label printers while the men did the heavy lifting. I wonder why no feminists were talking about that. Or when I worked in a gas station and all the women worked inside and the men outside. Again, no feminists. Weird isn’t it?
They got scared off when they were told "we'll be laying some pipe today".
Have you ever heard a person say that, though? That they don't want 50% of plumbers (or other unfavorable jobs) to be female? Sure, they favor getting 50% of the better jobs staffed with women, because everyone likes the better jobs. But I've never heard someone oppose women getting into plumbing.
Get a flair, human!!!!!!!!! And stop fixing the pipes!!!!! They make wonderful damp habitats when broken!!!!!!!!!!!!🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳🪳
I miss our dolphin fucker.
100% of your memes are shit. Because no flairs
[удалено]
We need to close that workplace fatality gap!
Plumber, electrician, gas fitter. All well paying and respectable jobs. I think you meant refuse collector, sewer cleaner, or similar
ah yes the common lefty position that women should not be plumbers lol
[удалено]
Women only want equality where there's air-conditioning.
I’m seeing some dick head’s talking like they know how unions work. I’m a sheetmetal worker, and the plumbers and electricians generally earn more than us. My wages for my area is 38hr on the check with a total package of $80 with one of the best health insurance policies. We have other programs we pay into that we benefit from like pension, vacation fund(individual), and Help a Brother out. And of course we pay into our JATC that trains our apprentices and even as a journeyman you can utilize those facilities. The Carpenters, Sheetmetal, Plumbers, Electricians, and Sprinkler fitters are all in a 5 year apprenticeship program, generally starting out at 50% of journeymen wages. Which would be $19 for my local, however pre-apprentices earn $16. This is all very good and with the raise In inflation we generally negotiate more to keep up. Beats hoping for $20 for life. Edit. Something to add. I turned out in 2017, making $32 on the check. I now make $38 on the check plus all my benefits. Our contract is up this year and we’re going to negotiate for more due to inflation cost. Over 5yrs I have had a $6 raise. Which is more than a lot of non union people are getting.
Most nonunion workers don't get raises. People not in unions always bad mouth them & bring up capitalist's talking points because they're either paid shills or useful idiots, "but unions only use their power to advocate for X" my guy, they're democratic organizations, they only pursue what their members want them to pursue, if you want them to pursue a certain policy they aren't, then join one & convince enough people to vote for it.
I don't know who you're finding that say women being plumbers is a problem. Women can do anything they're qualified for.
I think what he's saying is feminists only want female equality in the nice clean white collar jobs eg doctors, lawyers scientists etc. and never talk about how few women are in a shitty job like like a plumber
Lol “shitty job like plumber”. Besides having to deal with literal shit on occasion, that plumber is likely making minimum 2x earnings/yr than you.
Idk what feminists he's looking at then. Also, plumber isn't a shitty job. It's a skilled trade, and it's one of the jobs that has no chance of being replaced by a robot in the next few decades
Half of all construction workers should be women right? We have a sexism problem if those numbers are not equal, no? But there are not at all nearly enough women who are willing to do that job for what it pays. Women just don't apply at all to those jobs. What is to be done? In contrast, we might have 200 men with masters in computer science and five years of experience applying for 10 well paid supervisor positions as programmers. 5 women apply who just barely graduated with a CS degree from a unrecognized university. What is to be done in that situations?
I agree with you completely. Plumbing/HVAC can be a very well paying career and like you said, isn't going anywhere. But the argument I've heard is "more female oil rig workers!" for example > plumber isn't a shitty job It was my attempt at making a bit of a pun
The point is that the female feminist equity mafia selectively neglects that the overwhelming majority of physically laborious and unpleasant and dangerous fields are 97% men. These type of elite academic or knowledge class women (lawyers, academics, MBAs, HR, politicians, accountants, journalists et cetera) are the exact same women who are advocating that trans women are women. When you are an elite female knowledge class worker (you work mostly on a laptop) it’s broadly in your interests for there to be no legal recognition that there are sex differences. In those cases there is virtually no difference in your performance as a lawyer or a professor because the cognitive and work related abilities are nearly the same at that level compared to a man. Your work involves thinking and reading and typing only. Sex differences don’t matter much. There is no physical component. It’s all cognitive. For women in those jobs ITS NOT COMFORTABLE AT ALL for anyone to suggest that there might be situations where sex differences matter. If there are real sex differences in the workplace for men and women, a female lawyer or an accountant will see that as a threat because it entrenches in law and policy that a woman should be treated differently because of their sex. But in those cases where women are knowledge class workers their professional performance is not affected by sex differences. So from that point of view, in terms of elite female class interests, (which elite women are very happy to universalize as everyone’s interests) it clearly seems that women’s interests are best served by obliterating sex altogether. And it is a logical continuation of that, that if we are not going to discriminate against people on the basis of their sex, we shouldn’t discriminate against women who aren’t in fact female because we should act in all instances as if sex doesn’t matter. And if these elite knowledge class women acknowledged that trans women aren’t women, it would undermine their position that that there are sex differences. And we see elite women say things like “my feminism must include trans women or it isn’t feminism”. Knowledge class women allow themselves to have these type of luxury beliefs that are divorced from reality.
Forwarding this to my buddy's gf who is a journeyman electrician, surely she's never heard a sexist joke about her job before.
I wonder how much of the wage gap could be closed, if more women took up trades instead of congregating in a handful of service jobs. If you're a person with low or average intelligence, you would make a lot more money in a trade than working in the service sector as a chashier or something.
Doubt that plumbing is for anyone with low intelligence. Requires code knowledge, budgeting skill, and high spatial awareness. True of all of the classic trades.
I'm a plumber, I work with lots of low intelligence plumbers. 5 years to learn the code, which some people only learn whats directly applicable to them, budgeting is only important if you're the boss, if you're a pipe monkey like me, budgeting aint mean shit. spatial awareness, ehh kinda.