Thoughts on this Time article? I've seen this shared on Twitter quite a few times.

iainmf · 2020-01-21T00:03:17+00:00

This article is paywalled. Here are several other articles on the same topic from DuckDuckGo

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Review%3A+Invisible+Women%3A+Exposing+Data+Bias+in+a+World+Designed+for+Men+by+Caroline+Criado+Perez+%E2%80%94+it%E2%80%99s+a+man%E2%80%99s+world+and+women+don%E2%80%99t+fit&t=h_&ia=web

otterlyclueless · 2020-01-20T16:07:44+00:00

The article states that heart attacks are misdiagnosed in women. A quick internet search and every site I saw gave the different symptoms for both and the statistics for each.

Men are more likely to have heart attacks earlier in life which is why it is probably focused on more for men.

iainmf · 2020-01-21T00:28:20+00:00

I think this is another example of manipulating language to score political points.

The word 'for' can mean 'to accommodate' or 'to benefit'. For example, 'most prisons are designed for men' means 'most prisons are designed to accommodate men' not 'most prisons are designed to benefit men'.

So the sentence "The modern world was designed by men for men" has an exploitable ambiguity. A dishonest person can start by by stating that the world is designed to accommodate men and then seamlessly switch to arguing that the world is designed to benefit men without changing any of the words used.

The same thing happens with the word 'represent'. It can mean 'to be symbolic of' or 'to act on behalf of'. People arguing for more representation of minorities focus make the point that there need to be people in power that act on behalf of minorities. But then they switch meanings to argue that the people in power need to be symbolic of the population to support calls for affirmative action.

RT-AC66U · 2020-01-20T19:05:50+00:00

And left handers die on average 5 years earlier.

shit-zen-giggles · 2020-01-20T19:50:53+00:00

The example of different sympthoms in heart attack that the article puts first is a very well known and understood fact in medicine and has been for at the very least two decades.

This gives me a strong assumption that the rest of the article is equally propaganda ridden.

accidental_me · 2020-01-20T17:00:18+00:00

I couldn't read the article because it's for the subscribers only. But the modern world was made for the consumers and homebuyers- overwhelmingly women - and voters - who in huge numbers prefer women's issues over men's issues. Furthermore, there is a pro-women bias everywhere in society.

As so often, turn the feminist argument up-side-down and it starts to make sense.

Title	Thoughts on this Time article? I've seen this shared on Twitter quite a few times.
Author	Strikester101
Upvotes	8
Comments	11
Date	January 20, 2020 4:03 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/erf3m8/thoughts_on_this_time_article_ive_seen_this/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/thoughts-on-this-time-article-ive-seen-this-shared.860656 https://theredarchive.com/post/860656

Comments