Originally Posted by
kingdom hoop
Lim till i die, I'm just after noticing your reply to what apparently were my 'sexist' and 'twaddle' comments. I'm happy to classify your comments as more delightful bravura-revelling. :) Funny, pertinent and worthy in places, but ultimately ruined, on this occasion, by gaudy accessories. I'd asked for your opinion - which turned out to be a good one. Then I outlined a few preliminary thoughts of mine, which you, instead of building on your own point, sought to disparage when your own argument was hardly complete itself. Hence the label, not all that pejorative, but just annoying when 'debating'. Had you just looked at your own viewpoint you might have realised it was an over-simplistic way to characterise what we were talking about, and would have saved me spelling out what should be pretty non-contentious.
The point is that obviously the mere fact of having a certain job doesn't inherently make one person more manly than another, or allow you to automatically state without knowing the people, 'oh a builder, now he's a proper man compared to a doctor'. Rather, I think it should've been obvious to you that certain occupations tend to be male or female dominated. Be it for congenital or life development/experience reasons a lot of jobs attract, or sometimes demand, males/females.
That's hardly sexist, just realistic, because what are traditonally male attributes are simply better suited to some jobs. That doesn't mean a woman couldn't do the job, just that they generally don't, because men on average would tend to do the job a bit better and there are other jobs that female characteristics would be more suited to. Division of labour and all that. I'd be pretty sure that was Anto's point, he was looking for examples of people in the more male-dominated jobs rather than the unisex ones that had been cropping up more regularly. I very much doubt he was trying to offend our manliness by questioning why few worked in traditionally male-orientated jobs.