Skip to main content

View Diary: Some statistics on pie (163 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Kneejerk bullshit (4.00)
    Not your comment, of course.

    It's bullshit that people trollrated that comment.  It was not a troll comment, and that's fucking ratings abuse.

    It's proof that this pie thing has gone way, way way too far.  People are seeing misogyny and sexism everywhere.

    Now, I'm going to get troll-rated for pointing this out.

    •  No shit (none)
      Where is the love?

      But it's not just the pie thing. This groupthink kneejerk response, without even taking time to consider (assuming the capacity for consideration exists) whether there might be something besides sexism or misogyny to the comment has been going on for a long long time.

    •  Sorry (none)
      ...but that's bullshit.  The guy is actually saying that, because war, civil strife, natural disasters, and other refugee-causing events disproportionately affect countries that have larger populations of women and children than more developed countries, then it's misleading for Jerome to point out that such events disproportionately impact women and children.  That has to be the most irrational statement I've read in a long time on this site (pie comments excepted).

      "When the intellectual history of this era is finally written, it will scarcely be believable." -- Noam Chomsky

      by scorponic on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 03:05:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You may think it's "irrational". (none)
        But that's a disagreement. That does not mean a trollrating.
      •  I thought Jerome was pointing to that statistic (none)
        as evidence of sexism, which would make it relevant to the pie debate, not just as evidence that women are disproportionately affected by problems that affect everyone.  I mean, in an area where 75% of the people are women and children, 75% of earthquake victims would probably be women and children, but that wouldn't be at all relevant to the sexism issues that were at stake in the dKos "pie fight."

        Join the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy -- www.acslaw.org

        by yella dawg dem on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 03:31:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes -- at least (none)
          as I read re the tsunami -- and that it was typical of disaster areas -- that women and children were less likely to get away . . . in part because women stayed with children while men are at work, hunting, etc., or trying to find means to get away if there's time.

          "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

          by Cream City on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 03:46:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Might have been different. (none)
            I was in coastal southern India last year and mostly the men are fishing (either on boats or dragging in gigantic nets-takes hours...) and the women carry the fish to market or repair the roads (seriously...everyone works alot.). Kids stayed at home with extended families (grandparents/in-laws) and played in town for the most part.

            I think the tragedy was worse that we can even imagine.  Countries like Myanmar (used to be Burma) didn't really report their fatalities.

            "You can't awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."-Navajo saying.

            by quartzite on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 04:29:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  The point is... (4.00)
          ...they aren't phenomena, like a natural disaster, that affect "everyone".  They're social and economic phenomena that, for some strange reason, impact areas where women and children are especially prevalent and, it so happens, especially vulnerable.  If one pretends to care about women and, especially, "the children", then it would seem one would be especially mindful of dealing with social issues that negatively affect women and children in disproportionate numbers.  Pointing out that these phenomena occur in areas with higher numbers of women and children than developed countries is thus irrelevant.  Adding insult to injury by using the label "junk stat" suggests something further about the poster's attitude.

          "When the intellectual history of this era is finally written, it will scarcely be believable." -- Noam Chomsky

          by scorponic on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 03:49:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree with most of what you wrote (none)
            but I don't think the "strange reason" you allude to has much if anything to do with sexism.  If it does, the statistic doesn't prove that.  It certainly is relevant, however, to broader problems women and children have, especially in what politicians call the developing world.  Maybe those broader problems are now within the "pie debate"; I'd rather give you the benefit of that doubt than go back and read all that brouhaha again.

            For the record, I wasn't endorsing the term "junk stat," or the attitude behind it, whatever it may have been.  Nor do I endorse your suggestion that anyone who disagrees with you merely "pretends to care about women."  I just thought there was some truth in the criticism of the statistic, and wanted to point that out.

            Join the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy -- www.acslaw.org

            by yella dawg dem on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 04:01:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Ummm (none)
            Maybe areas with high rates of adult men getting killed tend to have other problems? This hardly proves that women have it harder than men.
          •  Contrary to popular belief... (none)
            Most men are pretty vulnerable too.  What would you do if someone just showed up at your door with an AK-47?  I think singling out the fact that women are vulnerable in these areas is absurd.  Everyone besides a few armed bands of thugs are vulnerable.  

            In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.

            by Asak on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 04:17:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  75% affected men and children (none)
          If the parent numbers on gender/age are correct.  The about 75% of the people affected would be men and children. (50% of population children, the other 50% evenly divided between men and women).

          Also, why is everyone grouping women and children togther?  Why not men and children?  Why not just women?  Are you saying that women are more like children?

      •  Disproportionate? Your word (none)
        Not his, not anywhere in his post.

        It was useful to point out that it is the proportion of women and children in most societies, whether at war or not.

        But, thus, his statement was not in error.

        "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

        by Cream City on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 03:43:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Ummm... (none)
        If there's any difference, maybe it's because the men are already dead?  War impacts everyone.  Women have added difficulties such as being raped, but don't make it out like it's great for the men there either.  

        Women are not inherently inferior and don't deserver lower wages, but nor are they inherently superior and worthy of more sympathy just because they happen to be women.  It's like the whole "women and children" first off the sinking ship.  

        Children, OK, there may be some justification, but women?  Hell no.  A person is a person and each has an equal right to life.  

        In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.

        by Asak on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 04:16:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Then it deserves to be discussed (none)
        explained, calmly and rationally... not just rated.

        If the post aggravates, then say something intelligent about the reason.  Don't just do a drive-by.

        "Too many policemen, no liberty; Too many soldiers, no peace; Too many lawyers, no justice." Lin Yutang (1895-1976)

        by ogre on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 06:27:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  heh (none)
      [i]People are seeing misogyny and sexism everywhere.[/i]

      Welcome to liberalism. Find your favorite pet cause, and denounce the people wha agree with you 90% of the time because they don't see eye to eye with you on your favorite pet cause.

      Brett Favre for Wisconsin - Senate 2008 (Feingold for President)

      by Groper on Wed Jun 08, 2005 at 03:53:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site