otirk t1_j9buunk wrote
So his reason for why the existing gritting routes are sexist, is that more men than women drive to work? Fire that guy immediately
verilyvirile t1_j9czm19 wrote
This response focuses on who the gritting routes benefit without specifically acknowledging who the routes neglect and how.
I’m sure you comprehended more than that after reading the entire article. They even elaborated and included injury statistics to support their claims.
BTW sexism, etc. is not necessarily an intention or a feeling. Nobody (in this context) is trying to say anyone went out of their way to intentionally create a disadvantage for women. The argument is that this important decision regarding gritting routes was made during a time when working men’s needs were prioritized over anyone else’s and it needs updating (which some may see as implying someone made intentional decisions to disadvantage women but that would be them erroneously conflating creating benefits for men with creating disadvantages for women — it’s possible to benefit both).
(To reiterate) the article also provided common examples and peer-reviewed data for the requested considerations.
Trap_Cubicle5000 t1_j9dggty wrote
Why? Honestly, what's the problem with that analysis?
west0ne t1_j9e0zju wrote
Most deliveries are made by road, emergency vehicles travel on the road, busses travel on the road. As much as people may not like it, for the time being roads are essential infrastructure.
Whilst it may be a fact that more men drive than women the main reason for treating roads is to keep essential services operational. In many areas only major roads and key transport routes are treated with the estate roads being left untreated.
Trap_Cubicle5000 t1_j9fie46 wrote
The argument isn't about whether or not to treat roads, it's about the fact that roads more heavily used by stay-at-home caretakers aren't being salted. Those aren't just private estate roads, they are the public roads between residential areas, the roads that don't necessarily all go through business centers. This issue stretches beyond just the "gritting routes" it's also a public transportation issue that travel between residential neighborhoods is a lot more difficult, expensive, and poorly executed to manage than travel to business centers.
otirk t1_j9eg2ka wrote
He basically says that more men (drive to) work than women, but calls others sexist.
Trap_Cubicle5000 t1_j9ezugf wrote
But it's a fact. More men do drive to work than women. Simply acknowledging reality isn't sexist, nor is it saying that women don't work at all. The routes from residential areas to business areas are well salted . But then the routes caretakers use to drive the children around to school and activities, visit family in other residential areas, and to do general tasks that aren't in business areas aren't as salted because their needs aren't being considered.
The salting route policy is favoring workers needs and not caretakers needs. And because those roles are statistically fulfilled by men and women respectively, the policy is sexist. It effects women negatively more often than men. Acknowledging a majority doesn't ignore that some women work and some men are stay-at-home caretakers.
GonzoTheWhatever t1_j9crgwc wrote
It’s insanity. Now, due to their intentionally absurd language and framing, anyone who opposes their plan is a sexist and misogynist. 🙄🙄🙄
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments