|
I would mostly agree with the people saying the standards should be equal, but it definitely depends on the exact role. As mentioned, in the case of a firefighter where physical capabilities are of the utmost importance, the standard should be the same regardless of gender. Sure you can try to suit the women with long hair differently, that doesn't really have anything to do with the standard of physical capabilities though. (unless, you know, the hair actually restricts necessary movement or something). + Show Spoiler +I'm all for the idea of having women who may not meet these requirements carry other gear and have other purposes in the squad if they aren't as demanding, as long as the members that actually do require the higher standards still hold the strict standard that is necessary to ensure a safe operation. So if either a man or a woman is in that lower position it is something they stay at until they are able to meet the higher standards to get their "promotion". I wouldn't want this lower ranked "weaker" firefighter just getting promoted because they're a nice guy/girl and end up not being able to carry their weight (literally and metaphorically) and costing someone their life. Completely fine to have different roles with different standards though, assuming it is still that same standard for men/women/old/young.
For things like military, I can see them being different because if they are desperate for recruits the standards may need to be lowered. However I still feel like that standard should still be the same whether it is a male or female, old or young. Same thing applies with the spoiler notes above.
Less important stuff can have different standards in cases unlike the above where human lives are in jeopardy. Sports & Recreational stuff, etc.
A bit situational, but most importantly I would hope that one standard is set for the life and death kind of stuff like firefighters as that is severely important to the operation.
|
Some men are weaker (or have longer hair, whatever) than some women. Or even simpler, not all men are equally strong. Should jobs and standards be further adjusted to facilitate these people? In other words; in a perfect world, do we differentiate on basis of the reason of your flaws (rather than the flaw itself) and is gender the only thing according to which standards ought to be adjusted?
|
On September 15 2013 16:49 Passion wrote: Some men are weaker (or have longer hair, whatever) than some women. Or even simpler, not all men are equally strong. Should jobs and standards be further adjusted to facilitate these people? In other words; in a perfect world, do we differentiate on basis of the reason of your flaws (rather than the flaw itself) and is gender the only thing according to which standards ought to be adjusted? A man who can't keep up with a certain standard shouldn't get the job just like a woman who can't keep up with a certain standard shouldn't get it. That's equality.
|
On September 15 2013 16:57 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2013 16:49 Passion wrote: Some men are weaker (or have longer hair, whatever) than some women. Or even simpler, not all men are equally strong. Should jobs and standards be further adjusted to facilitate these people? In other words; in a perfect world, do we differentiate on basis of the reason of your flaws (rather than the flaw itself) and is gender the only thing according to which standards ought to be adjusted? A man who can't keep up with a certain standard shouldn't get the job just like a woman who can't keep up with a certain standard shouldn't get it. That's equality. But should it be the same standard, that's the question, right?
|
I have some military experience and I could chime in on this.
For the physical requirements, each year, we are required to take physical testing. As your chart shows, your results are matched according to your age and your gender. The reason is because they want military personnel to be within a very high percentile of physical fitness. If a male does not meet the minimum standards for his age group, but still meets the minimum requirements for older females, sure he can do better physical work than the older female, but there's no question that I would rather recruit someone who dedicates a lot of time and effort keeping themselves in tip top shape, even if they are an older female and not as strong as young male counterparts. Imagine if you are in a platoon. Every member of that platoon trains many hours a day keeping their physical fitness in top shape. However one younger male naturally meets the physical requirements and doesn't bother putting in a lot of effort. Would you ever feel comfortable going into combat with him by your side? It's a huge morale hit if individuals are vastly underperforming for their gender and age group, because that's what people naturally judge others by.
For hair standards, women with longer usually wear their hair in a bun like this: + Show Spoiler +
Hair and grooming standards are set for professionalism reasons. Female hair regulations fit all safety and performance requirements, but they are able to keep it longer because they are able to look sharp with long hair. Guys with long hair really doesn't look good in a military uniform. This is just for morale purposes again. It may not seem like a big deal logically, but there's something magical about seeing rows of properly stanced soldiers, uniforms sharp, and groomed perfectly.
|
On September 15 2013 17:19 Chairman Ray wrote: I have some military experience and I could chime in on this.
For the physical requirements, each year, we are required to take physical testing. As your chart shows, your results are matched according to your age and your gender. The reason is because they want military personnel to be within a very high percentile of physical fitness. If a male does not meet the minimum standards for his age group, but still meets the minimum requirements for older females, sure he can do better physical work than the older female, but there's no question that I would rather recruit someone who dedicates a lot of time and effort keeping themselves in tip top shape, even if they are an older female and not as strong as young male counterparts. Imagine if you are in a platoon. Every member of that platoon trains many hours a day keeping their physical fitness in top shape. However one younger male naturally meets the physical requirements and doesn't bother putting in a lot of effort. Would you ever feel comfortable going into combat with him by your side? It's a huge morale hit if individuals are vastly underperforming for their gender and age group, because that's what people naturally judge others by. Only issue being that age and gender aren't the only two factors that matter here. At what point do we let in people in wheelchairs, just because they try hard?
On September 15 2013 17:19 Chairman Ray wrote:For hair standards, women with longer usually wear their hair in a bun like this: + Show Spoiler +Hair and grooming standards are set for professionalism reasons. Female hair regulations fit all safety and performance requirements, but they are able to keep it longer because they are able to look sharp with long hair. Guys with long hair really doesn't look good in a military uniform. This is just for morale purposes again. It may not seem like a big deal logically, but there's something magical about seeing rows of properly stanced soldiers, uniforms sharp, and groomed perfectly. ...this is too ridiculous for words. It's probably the way they think... but hell, how's this possible.
|
Female hair regulations fit all safety and performance requirements, but they are able to keep it longer because they are able to look sharp with long hair. Guys with long hair really doesn't look good in a military uniform. This is just for morale purposes again. It may not seem like a big deal logically, but there's something magical about seeing rows of properly stanced soldiers, uniforms sharp, and groomed perfectly. That's the same crap right there.
So long hair on women is fine because it "fits all safety and performance requirements" but long hair on men isn't because "it doesn't make them look sharp and is not good for morale"?
That's the exact same line of thought that would say "We should keep our platoons to just one color of skin because that's better for morale" - either long hair can be worn appropriately for the job and should be allowed for men and women or it should be deemed horrible for the job and shouldn't be allowed for either men or women. There is zero need to differentiate between genders for this type of thing.
|
As somebody who was in the military I can tell you right now guys you're thinking about it wrongly as far as the military goes. The minimum requirements although they are different are for just entering basic training... what do you think we do for 3-4 months during basic... the minimum isn't something you aim for as you LEAVE the training so it's a non-issue that so many people in this thread keep bringing up. Nobody is losing their lives because women have to run a 4.5 while the guys have to do 6.0 on the third day of BMQ. My platoon had 7 people sent home on the third day (after the fitness test) and another 10~ moved to a fitness platoon because they were close to passing but still failed some aspect of the test.
Could we stop saying the difference in standards should make people in our military feel afraid of the people on the ground with them? It's complete bullshit from a bunch of people who have no clue what they are talking about. I became really good friends with quite a few girls / women who were going into the Infantry and Armored divisions and trust me when I say I never doubted they could keep up with myself or anybody else. It's insulting that you think the people in the army are THAT out of shape when they are deployed.
I don't really have an opinion outside of the military side of this discussion but I figured I'd chime in and mention that nobody ever complained about having to run for an extra minute or do 7 extra push ups during basic for the test. During every other PT class everybody did the exact same thing, no "discrimination". There is also a screening process for the MOC/Trade so yeah if you're like 5 feet tall and are skin and bones you'll do one of the other jobs the military has to offer.
|
On September 15 2013 17:51 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +Female hair regulations fit all safety and performance requirements, but they are able to keep it longer because they are able to look sharp with long hair. Guys with long hair really doesn't look good in a military uniform. This is just for morale purposes again. It may not seem like a big deal logically, but there's something magical about seeing rows of properly stanced soldiers, uniforms sharp, and groomed perfectly. That's the same crap right there. So long hair on women is fine because it "fits all safety and performance requirements" but long hair on men isn't because "it doesn't make them look sharp and is not good for morale"? That's the exact same line of thought that would say "We should keep our platoons to just one color of skin because that's better for morale" - either long hair can be worn appropriately for the job and should be allowed for men and women or it should be deemed horrible for the job and shouldn't be allowed for either men or women. There is zero need to differentiate between genders for this type of thing.
It's unfortunate that human performance is severely affected by morale and mindset. That's why the military has all these very strict codes that do no practical purpose but promote morale and unity. Although skin color hasn't been an issue recently, another good example would be homosexuality, until the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy was revoked in 2011. Another one of the kinda extreme rules is that if you decide to cut your own hair instead of getting it cut by the licensed barber, you are technically able to get discharged under self mutilation. I haven't seen it ever happen though. These are two examples that I personally disagree with, and I'm happy that they revoked DADT, but I brought these up because they show how far the military actually goes to ensure morale is in tip top shape. Going into combat isn't a 9-5 job that people trudge through. Morale and mindset make every bit of difference. The cold truth is that without a lot of these 'morale' targeted codes, we wouldn't have a functional military at all, and so far there has been no alternative. It's unfortunate, but sometimes irrational rules have to be placed to cater to human irrationality.
|
The cold truth is morale is a bullshit catch-all excuse for whatever stupid regulations they can't or won't justify.
|
United States24343 Posts
I am going to respond to some of the posts in this thread.
On September 15 2013 01:59 FFGenerations wrote: women are naturally better looking and more affable than men so get a huge advantage in many job roles. you see women dominating all highstreet stores, all supermarkets, all office jobs, hotel jobs, reception, office, admin and secretary jobs and many catering roles (restaurants/cafes). you dont see women cleaning caravans as much because they dont need to do that
where i work, there are ~10 men who do the "labour" jobs such as cleaning caravans, litter picking, and ~10 women who do the "sitting down" jobs such as reception, office, admin. do men have any sort of advantage over the women here, get paid as much, have breaks (we dont get breaks), have an easier job or time doing their job, or have any option of switching to a different role if they want to?
just another perspective I definitely have seen examples where gender has been used to determine roles in the workplace, favoring males in some cases and females in others. We are far from done with this type of thinking in society. An example I have is how I worked for a couple of summers at a local town park. The males worked at maintenance (cleaning, mowing, etc) and the females worked at the gate (selling parking passes, etc). One guy said he wanted to work at the gate when he was starting and they didn't let him because he was a guy.
On September 15 2013 02:01 DusTerr wrote: Honestly, I don't understand any of the reasoning for the army having different physical requirements based on age and/or gender. If you need to have a certain level of fitness, that should be the same minimum for everyone. Period. I can understand if say the physical requirements are then higher to join the rangers etc. If you have a minimum, it should be the minimum for a good reason and apply to everyone. This was addressed both in the OP and in subsequent posts, but older people are generally not as fit as younger people. People who have been in their positions longer usually have lower needs for extreme fitness due to the more supervisory nature of their job. On the other hand, people entering as an entry-level participant at a later age might best be held to the same standards as the younger applicant.
On September 15 2013 02:12 Flakes wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2013 00:30 micronesia wrote: Perhaps we should make some modifications to the equipment women wear to make it safer for them to have longer hair. In fact, not every firefighter needs to carry the same exact equipment... maybe we could have the male and/or stronger firefighters carry the heavier gear, and the weaker firefighters carry the lighter gear. If this is the case we can afford to lower the physical entrance standards for women slightly. This makes the job more inclusive instead of having 20 male firefighters for every 1 female firefighter, without necessarily endangering anyone so long as there are still enough people meeting the original, more rigorous physical requirements. Note that the last two paragraphs are just an example, and that I do not know the details about being a firefighter.
Is it really worth it for an employer to change a job to make it more inclusive to both genders? In principle the hiring decision is based on the expected performance versus the cost of hiring someone. The gender bias comes into play when an applicant's expected performance is misjudged due to cultural preconceptions. Therefore, I think that the area for change is in the evaluation of job applicants, rather than the job itself. Well the issue can't be looked at just from the perspective of what makes sense for a prospective employer... there are bigger issues.
Also firefighter is a weird example because in some areas it's more like a volunteer position while in others it's a dangerous necessity. The job requirements can differ greatly for residential vs rural firefighters (for example forest fires require specially-designed equipment; if someone can't use it they should really reconsider their career path). I indicated that my use of firefighter was not meant to be an accurate reflection of how firefighters are actually utilized in all places, but simply an example to show why there would be physical standards and why they might need to be held the same for all applications regardless of gender or age.
On September 15 2013 02:56 Mothra wrote: If the physical standards are necessary and there for a good reason (threatens peoples lives if not met), then I don't see any justification for altering them to adjust gender ratio. If the standards are arbitrary and don't apply to the job then get rid of them instead of playing this game of adjustment. It defeats the purpose of having a standard if you're going to bend it to meet different classes of people. According to another poster in this thread, the physical standards (in the case of the military at least) serve other purposes besides measuring whether or not you are capable of doing the job. Different military jobs of course will require different physical fitness levels, but they don't put every type of person through basic training with a different level of rigor (there is some differentiation, but not a lot).
Despite that I understand the philosophy that you should figure out how fit applicants need to be, and then test them to see if they are at least that fit. Whether they are young or old, male or female, should not have much impact on whether they can do the job as long as they can meet the standards that were designed to test if they can do the job.
On September 15 2013 03:03 Chef wrote: I agree with you. It's not as clear cut as people want it to be. Yeah, definitely the case. This thread has gone surprisingly well considering.
On September 15 2013 03:05 Nyxisto wrote: I think these double standards are kind of weird and i think they're even kind of insulting. Yes it's true, women are naturally physically weaker than men, but why would that be a reason to lower their requirements? Because it's not just like every man is as gifted as every other man. Someone who is 1.70m tall is probably going to have a harder time meeting the running requirements than someone who is 1.85 meters tall. Actually I'm not so sure being taller would be an advantage there. The people I talk to who are shorter than me seem to find running easier haha.
Is that a reason to set different standards for small and large men? Of course not, we just accept that the one has to work a little harder than the other and everything's fine. If you're not accidentally Albert Einstein or Usain Bolt, chances are high that there are many people in your field of work that are more gifted than you are, but i don't know anybody who would want other people to expect less of him/her because of it. Yeah I agree with the idea that some people will naturally need to work harder, and we can't accommodate every minor difference.
On September 15 2013 03:59 AiurZ wrote: if you think about it as something like, "we want people in the top X% of fitness" or "we want people that are X% more fit than the average person" rather than thinking of it as an arbitrary speed requirement, it makes sense. To play devil's advocate and use an extreme example, if an 80 year old man who is quite fit for his age (top 10%) and I (average, but still much fitter than the 80 year old) apply for a physical job, is it right to give him the job due to being so ahead of the curve (assuming he can safely do the job) for his age/gender, even though I would do the job much better? This kind of leads into an affirmative action discussion though, which I definitely don't want to transfer over to (even though there is relevance).
On September 15 2013 04:32 SupplyBlockedTV wrote: Men produce more testosteron, they grow more muscle, and they grow it faster. Men are the better athletes. End of discussion. Do you not realize this is an oversimplification? Growing more muscle faster doesn't necessarily mean that men are better athletes in all regards. I mean generally, yes it's true, but there really isn't need for an 'end of discussion' comment. It just makes you look closed-minded, even if you have a valid point.
Anyway, i think women in the western world really dont have anything to complain about What qualifies you to make such a statement lol
pisses me off when women play the gender card, while at the same time crying for equality. There are definitely some women who are hypocritical when it comes to this general topic. But... I think you have a lot of work to do if you want to reasonably make the case that 'women don't really have anything to complain about.' Women and men both have things to complain about, as do people who don't identify with either gender.
On September 15 2013 04:36 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2013 03:18 r.Evo wrote: Requirements should have exactly one standard: Whether the person meets the general requirement or not.
Can't run fast enough to be a police officer (because you're too old/too fat/physically disabled/your genes suck)? Tough luck.
Lol. I have yet to see a physical fitness test standard that is remotely challenging. Actually, in that respect, does anyone know of any jobs that have decently challenging aerobic minimums and what those are? Oh c'mon L_master you know there aren't any non-sports jobs that require the level of running that you personally consider rigorous! There are probably a few specialized military or government jobs with fairly high running standards, but nothing that a serious runner couldn't complete. I guess the hard part is being strong/smart AND a fast runner at the same time. Running doesn't promote physical strength as far as I can tell. The best runners (longer-distance) are just really lean.
On September 15 2013 04:47 wingpawn wrote: The double standards are wrong. At least in military.
The purpose of a soldier is to perform on the battlefield. I think this is an oversimplification. Military personal do many things... only some groups actually enter battle.
Regardless of circumstances, the enemy won't have any regard to the fairness of standards in your country; if a soldier is too slow or too weak, he will expose himself and be a burden to his squad. Yeah I think the military has to be careful not to try to change themselves due to political pressure in a way that makes them less effective. On the other hand, I think a slow approach to change (which is what they are doing here) allows them to choose which types of progressive adaptations are and are not acceptable, based on careful research.
On September 15 2013 10:18 docvoc wrote: The reason for the difference is that since the army isn't able to draft and really relies on recruits + lifetime soldiers, they pretty much have to let people in. Honestly, that is the biggest thing, the military complex enjoys its size, so it keeps it by the means necessary to do so. A fair point... a lot of this may simply be out of necessity and doing the best they can in a situation with limited resources.
On September 15 2013 18:17 OmniEulogy wrote: As somebody who was in the military I can tell you right now guys you're thinking about it wrongly as far as the military goes. The minimum requirements although they are different are for just entering basic training... what do you think we do for 3-4 months during basic... the minimum isn't something you aim for as you LEAVE the training so it's a non-issue that so many people in this thread keep bringing up. Aren't there exit requirements for training as well? You can repeat the discussion but using the requirements you need to meet to graduate from training, instead of the entrance standards. There is still variations according to age and gender.
Nobody is losing their lives because women have to run a 4.5 while the guys have to do 6.0 on the third day of BMQ. My platoon had 7 people sent home on the third day (after the fitness test) and another 10~ moved to a fitness platoon because they were close to passing but still failed some aspect of the test.
Could we stop saying the difference in standards should make people in our military feel afraid of the people on the ground with them? It's complete bullshit from a bunch of people who have no clue what they are talking about. I became really good friends with quite a few girls / women who were going into the Infantry and Armored divisions and trust me when I say I never doubted they could keep up with myself or anybody else. It's insulting that you think the people in the army are THAT out of shape when they are deployed. As I take it, this piggy backs on what was said earlier about how the fitness standards are not just used to ensure that soldiers are fit enough to do their job... there are other reasons for them and thus lower standards for certain groups of people does not mean they cannot do their job fully.
|
If a woman applies for a job that men are statistically more likely to be good at, evaluate her credentials with no bias anyways. Do not assume the woman is worse but if she is worse, give the job to the other person.
I think science, and biology should be used. I'm not knowledgable in the least about physiology, but i do know that big strong leg muscles that are more likely to develop in men as a result of testosterone can help with running. He may perform on the running and lifting tests better, but maybe muscles are compensating for a weak lung capacity, heart functionality, and stuff known to help with physical performance like flexibility and red blood cell production. My point is, you might find a woman (or a man) who is smaller, but is actually a better physical worker due to flexibility and good cardio. Ideally this is all researched if someone is really looking for the best person for the job.
top shape, even if they are an older female and not as strong as young male counterparts. Imagine if you are in a platoon. Every member of that platoon trains many hours a day keeping their physical fitness in top shape. However one younger male naturally meets the physical requirements and doesn't bother putting in a lot of effort. Would you ever feel comfortable going into combat with him by your side?
Yes, give me gorilla man in my platoon please
|
I don't think it's much of an issue in the US right now. Women have recovered from the recession much better than men. Manufacturing jobs are on the way out and health care is on the rise. There should always be some fields that are a bit unequal between genders.
|
To play devil's advocate and use an extreme example, if an 80 year old man who is quite fit for his age (top 10%) and I (average, but still much fitter than the 80 year old) apply for a physical job, is it right to give him the job due to being so ahead of the curve (assuming he can safely do the job) for his age/gender, even though I would do the job much better? This kind of leads into an affirmative action discussion though, which I definitely don't want to transfer over to (even though there is relevance). the problem, i feel, with trying to use extreme examples in this scenario is that these are obviously not the only physical characteristcs that they would be looking for (same as the example about "someone in a wheelchair who tries really hard"). there's probably going to be some other things that they are looking for (even if they aren't explicitly stated) and there's obviously a lower bound filtering out extremely fit 80 year old men/women.
my post more along the lines of thinking about the issue in a different direction: rather than thinking about things as having these arbitrary constraints ie having a specific mile time, being able to do a certain amount of push-ups that these are more of tests to filter out for a specific subset of the population, in this case looking to filter out for a subset of people that are X% more fit than normal.
|
On September 15 2013 15:06 ninazerg wrote:Whoa, this seems way too level-headed and thoughtful. It's almost weird to see a good discussion about gender without some crazy biased posting. Show nested quote +On September 15 2013 04:32 SupplyBlockedTV wrote: Men produce more testosteron, they grow more muscle, and they grow it faster. Men are the better athletes. End of discussion.
Anyway, i think women in the western world really dont have anything to complain about, pisses me off when women play the gender card, while at the same time crying for equality. Then I saw this. There are a lot of women in "The western world". Not all of them are the same. You see, not all women are feminists and not all woman "play the gender card". An example of this would be like someone saying "Hey, 5 years ago, men liked Football, now they like My Little Pony." and you can see the problem with that statement; different groups of men in different contexts. It's very easy to oversimplify the situation you see in an incredibly obtuse manner, and then top it off with that gem 'women don't have anything to complain about', which is complete nonsense, especially since you're complaining about it. Do men have things to complain about whereas women don't?
Im not speaking about all women. But there are women who complain about equality, while being hypocritical, and that pisses me off. Maybe my opinion is biased, maybe i had bad experiences with women, so yea... Compared to other regions of the world women really do have very little to complain in the western world, atleast here in belgium, i do not know the situation in other countries that well. Here they have all the freedom and rights as men do. Yet there are still women who just bitch about everything, and how bad everything is, how women have no chances in society, and usually its just because they still think they are 16 years old and want to rebel against the system, because thats just how this decadent society is, people dont realise how good their lifes actually are, they always need something to complain about, instead of looking at what they have.
I have seen alot of the world, traveled around in the balkan and europe alot, and even south-east asia, people in general just complain about little things that really dont matter, its almost a insult to people living in 3rd world countries. So yea, say what you want about my opinion, but discussing why women are allowed worse times on their miles because they are women, and whether or not this is gender discrimination, seems a little silly if you know the situation going on in other countries, but thats a first world country for you.
|
@supplyblockedtv - theres some men who do that too. I might be one of them. I think that is ingratitude caused by not having suffered through true loss to know that one has what one needs to be happy, which is shelter, and loving companions of any sort and the freedom to make choices and all that.
I just wanted to change my mind about this thing. I disagree with the whole "let's go by who deserves this job "objectively"" notion completely.
I think the question really is, "can desire to perform be of greater value than having credentials to make one perform?" and I think the answer is YES. If someone wants something more then they deserve it sometimes. For instance i would like a service job but i know that many people are more likable, and presentable and personable than i am but if i am willing to try my best in all circumstances I think that's enough. That's the world i'd rather live in, where people don't get advantages arbitrarily. I guess that's idealistic....................There may always be disease, and accidents and bad luck. !!!!
|
Women shouldn't be in the military at all. The only reason they are is because of pressure from civilian politicians who care more about political correctness and pushing the "women can do anything men do!" myth instead of actual military objectives.
|
As soon as humans developed tools, physical prowess between genders as far as military prowess is diminishing.
Prioritize women piloting the entire drone fleet. Lord knows we have a hard enough time getting recruits for that!
|
Just to add to something I always thought stupid and obviously unreasonable is the fact that in US military there are training requirements, a man has to be able to throw a grenade X amount of feet and a woman had to be able to throw it a lesser amount. I think there were a number of other lesser requirements for women as well which honestly doesn't make sense to me. If the goal is to have the best and most capable soldiers why are they allowing weaker people to fight up front? It's a disservice to our military and to themselves as well (they could be injured/killed more easily etc)
PS- I actually have a friendgirl that is completely against women in the military.
|
United States24343 Posts
On September 16 2013 10:17 iamho wrote: Women shouldn't be in the military at all. The only reason they are is because of pressure from civilian politicians who care more about political correctness and pushing the "women can do anything men do!" myth instead of actual military objectives. Why not? You really need to back up such a statement as women shouldn't be in the military at all.
|
|
|
|