You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Most Disturbing Workplace Safety Video Evar?. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

@Babymech

are we playing the numbers/statistic game?
oh goodie../claps hands
i love these games.
can i play?

since i actually agree that mens issues are different than womens in certain cases,and that you recognize that the "patriarchy" affects men as well as women.i see no reason to address something we both agree on.

so we can agree the base premise is "power vs powerlessness",and that women have a right to address this power structure,just like men do,because BOTH suffer under its influence.

but then you posted some tasty links for our enjoyment,and then made the specious claim that this somehow made your argument MORE valid.

ok..lets play by YOUR standards shall we?

1.the gender pay gap,which before 1962 may have been a valid argument,but since it is ILLEGAL to discriminate in that way in regards to pay,and if true would translate to waaay more women in the workplace (because corporations love them some dirt cheap labor).so why is this trope still trotted out?why is it given so much validity as being born as fact?when no serious economist ever sites this disparity,yet so many keep regurgitating this gap is being a real thing?

well,i will just let a feminist economist break it down for you:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

see? just got me one of them fancy links you like so much.

2.political power in regards to gender.well,i cant argue the statistics.there ARE more men in politics,but what your link fails to do is ask a very basic question:why?why are there more men than women?

pew research addresses that question,and is fairly in line with your link:http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/01/14/women-and-leadership/

3.as for who suffers from the most sexual violence.well,according to your link which uses cdc numbers,women suffer far more,BUT (and is the statistic that the women in my video pointed out) when you include prison (which the cdc did not) that number flips on its head:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449454/More-men-raped-US-women-including-prison-sexual-abuse.html

so the situation is not some cut and dried situation,and there are extreme elements of any social movement,but those elements should not invalidate the message.

just like this woman in my video is not dismissing feminism,she is disagreeing with feminisms more extreme authoritarian bullies,who because they scream louder and are more controversial..get more attention,but that does not make their position MORE important just because they are louder and more obnoxious.

in fact i would posit that this obnoxious behavior works against the very thing they are trying to convey.

we can all agree that we all want equality,fairness and justice and the current,and historical power structures,have always sought to retain and even further their own power.which has been traditionally held by men,but this does not automatically equate to men getting a free ride,quite the opposite.

so women absolutely have a right to challenge this power structure,just as men do.what they do NOT have a right to is imposing their ideologies upon me,or this woman in my video.

this woman has received death threats and threats of physical violence from other feminists! just because she had the audacity to disagree with their position.

at the end of the day this is actually a human issue,and a valid one and we all have a right to our own opinion,but not a right to impose it upon another.

feel free to disagree.

I don't know about feminism in the US, but where I live, the feminist movement was started by women who couldn't vote, couldn't go to school, couldn't work, had no rights when they married, and there were zero family rights. These women were able to resolve most of these issues by fighting for many years. YES, it was about equality... They should be admired for their dedication, not slurred.

So a very large part of the work has been done. The last remaining battles being at the workplace and in the media. I get that some people think feminism is not needed anymore . But to me this lady in the video is annoyingly only looking at the snapshot of today's media depiction of feminism.

Of course, she can say now "I don't need feminism", after all the work has been done by her grandmothers .

P.S What the hell is it about comparing rape statitics between men and women ? Does't make any sense to me.

You should really qualify your entire piece with "My particular brand of feminism..."

If you combined all forms of feminism to establish some kind of mean set of values, the line would be drawn somewhere in the realm of "at the expense of men", or nearby quotas in the workplace rather than merit. Your particular view is fairly moderate and, in my completely not backed up by any sort of empirical evidence opinion, fairly unrepresentative.

For myself, I prefer humanist. All people deserve the same common rights, opportunities etc, and they should not come at the expense of others.

Fixed that for you

Yeah, never understood this taboo. Most people got the idea from somewhere that it's bad manners. 'Course, I think we should all be talking politics and religion at the workplace as well...

It's a valid point, but obviously completely objective and does not validly apply to everyone.

Whilst some people enjoy navigating VideoSift with fiery debate or insulting discourse, for others VideoSift is an escape and a place to mellow out by watching videos and chatting with online friends/acquaintances.

There have been many such people in the past who were great participating members just couldn't stand feeling miserable every time they came here, so they stopped coming.

Instead of weeding out members who want to avoid being provoked while chilling out here and focusing on preserving only members who enjoy or can tolerate aggressive, abrasive, and/or insulting comment-based attacks, the ability to completely ignore someone is a very acceptable compromise.

In real life if someone in your workplace or school or wherever was constantly getting in your face spouting off arguments or attacks and you kept turning around to get away, it would be absurd for your teacher or boss to demand that you listen to what they attacker had to say.

Likewise, it'd be absurd for us here to force members to teach themselves to be unaffected by everyone else, especially considering some people by design are simply incapable of that. It's not selfish and entitled for someone to want to avoid being stressed out and anxious after a hard, stressful day at work when they just want to kick back and mellow on some sift.

I like how at some point, they decided to weld on a safety screen and give the driver gloves... After many tests with no windscreen at all...

Guessing Russian, they seem to have a healthy disregard for workplace health and safety...

*promote ... lightening the mood in the workplace!

The devil is in the details, isn't it?

For instance, what kind of guaranteed minimum income are we talking about?

The context they used (automatisation, labour supply) suggests to me something along the lines of an unconditional basic income. If that's the case, it cannot be compared to a minimum wage at all, since it has effects that go far beyond the labour market and the income situation. It's a massive reshaping of how we organise society. And it becomes a pain in the ass to even conceptualise properly once you talk about how to finance it...

A minimum wage, no matter how decent it is, doesn't even put a dent into the disparity between income from labour and income from capital. It makes life less horrible for those it applies to and it somewhat curtails the welfare queens among corporations who like their wage slaves being paid for by society. Yes, I'm looking at you, Walmart! Still, on its own, it does very little about income inequality, and nothing at all about wealth inequality.

How would I address income inequality?

In German, the words for taxes and steering are the same: "Steuern". If you want to steer the income towards a more equal distribution, taxation might be the easiest way to go about it. Treat all forms of income equally in terms of taxation. Or go one step further and treat wages preferentially to support employment.

However, redistribution will only get you so far. So why not address it at an earlier stage: distribution. Mondragon serves as a successful example of how a cooperative structure puts democratic checks and balances on the wage structure within a corporation. One person, one vote puts the lid on any attempts by higher-ups to rake in 300 times as much as the peasants on the factory floor.

Yet it doesn't do anything about the inequality between wages and capital income. Even a combination of progressive taxation and fixed income-ratios doesn't do much about it. Especially since non-wage income can evade taxation in a million different ways and most politicians in every country in the world seem more than eager to protect what loopholes they created over the decades.

So what's my suggestion? Well, progressive taxation of both income and wealth, living wage plus job guarantee, support of democratic structures at the workplace, international pressure on tax havens (which includes my own fecking country). Realistic? No. But neither was our welfare system until it was implemented.

Well firstly you're making an appeal to extremes which is besides the point, and secondly cancer or unemployment aren't (or at least shouldn't be in the case of unemployment) a choice which isn't the case with having a family. Also beside the point but roads should quite probably be paid by those that use them, which is why road taxing on cars exists.

Anyhow all that nonsense aside, to give you an idea how it works here; you get 6 months off _paid_, most employers push that out to a year. This leads to things like people coming back to work for 2-3 months after the year already pregnant again, then having their second child and taking anouther year off. At the end of the second year off they quit the job. Now, i've seen this happen several times just in my workplace, and i'd say roughly 50% of the people who take the time off when having kids don't come back at all, at the end of it though, they happily take the cash while on leave.

imho, if you want to have kids you should accept that it's going to take a lot of saving money up for it, and hell - it's not like we're struggling with population right now anyhow. People are having kids just dandy, so no, i don't think really any paid time off is a particularly good idea.

How about same exact stores so close to each other! At my former workplace, there were two/2 99 Cents stores next to each across the street. LOL.

Like a little bully who stands behind his parent who is defending them, while the bully, at the same time is mocking the other kid from behind their parent's back while they are saying, "My Tommy would never do that."

The courts are trusting you to use the laws morally and with just cause. Using it to trick innocent people or like has been said above to ruin people's lives for your own gain is incomprehensible.

@lantern53. I'm not sure how you can argue with people, and tell them they are wrong. This is your public. the people you swore to protect and serve. What went wrong with you that you have let go of the duty you started with and have come to think of the public as the enemy?
You would go a lot further in life to listen to people's concerns and take this attitude into the workplace and use it to help people. Help people in need and also help people see a better side of police.

We're here to add ideas, and to offer positive criticism (some of us) - the ones that are against you are the ones you've already pushed to far. You are worsening the problem by making even more people dislike police officers and the authority they abuse.

Take a look at the Wikipedia page on the topic. There are literally HUNDREDS of studies on this from countries all over the world. And they all show the same thing--women get shafted on salary pretty much whether they live in the developed or developing world.

It's interesting you bring up the video game industry example, because I'm sure you're aware of the huge controversy in the games industry right now about the general lack of female designers, programmers, etc. as well as the misogyny that often rears its ugly head in the industry (and among gamers). I worked in games 5 years and I saw this first-hand.

On one team I worked with we had a female programmer (the only female programmer I met while working in the industry) and she was pretty good. But you know what? These rumors started going around that she used to be a man and got a sex change. Because, you know, a woman couldn't possibly be that good of a programmer.

It has been argued before that women "choose" lower paying jobs (like being game artists, or teachers, etc.) but this begs two important questions. First, why are jobs that are traditionally associated with women paid less than those traditionally associated with men and second, can we really say women "chose" those jobs if they were actively discouraged from pursuing anything else due to societal pressure, discriminatory hiring practices, or hostility (both thinly veiled and open) in the male-dominated workplaces?