I wouldn't actually quote that infographic in the OP. I've been looking around for like 30 minutes now and cannot find where the maker of it pulled the statistic for industrial deaths. Not to mention that it's very nonspecific, it doesn't even say what period of time those deaths even accumulated in. Could be in the past ten years, or the past fifty. If they're counting all industrial deaths since the 19th century then that would definitely explain the huge ratio of male deaths but I can't find anything on any of the links to support that.
Not that I expected such a handicapped image to have decent sources anyway, but whatever.
Fair enough. Here is a better graphic from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0011.pdfwhy would you start a family if you didn't have a job that could support it? already talked about being fired so that's not what this is about
You really think we live in a fairytale paradise where unplanned pregnancy doesn't exist?
And yeah, why would someone get an education when they can't support it? Oh wait, they need an education to support it. Hmm.
what? someone doesn't get raped because they pissed someone else off. but outside of hate crimes, and robberies (which have nothing to do with gender and are irrelevant), that is why people get killed by other people. that's not even victim-blaming. I'm not saying the victim shouldn't have done so-and-so. I'm saying the killer had a reason, regardless of how wrong the reason was
And how is this the fault of the victim, at all? This is completely victim blaming. You said it all boiled down to the actions of the victim, for forgets sakes. Believe it or not, people don't actually ask to get murdered. The same logic you're applying here is the same logic being applied to rape. Victim blaming is never okay and is never a valid reason to attempt to explain the motive behind a crime.
this is just because of who takes the jobs. it isn't magically more dangerous for men vs women
This is circular logic. You aren't taking anything in. We've already talked about why people might end up in these jobs. You said it has nothing to do with gender. It has everything to do with gender, statistically, 90-10 disproportion isn't just a loving coincidence.
lol, how exactly did you manage to get that out of what I said?
Because it's exactly what you said. Don't fall back on ambiguity now!