Page 1 of 3 [ 47 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

autisticstar
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 125

05 Dec 2007, 2:42 pm

Yesterday at a public speaking club meeting an interesting question came up. Someone asked if there should still be a height requirement for people in professions such as police officers and fire fighters. An example was cited of a case in which a female police officer and a male police officer, both in cases where they were working alone, were unable to subdue a male suspect with a large frame. One woman replied that she thought that yes, we should still have such a law. This made me think of something absurd Gloria Steinem once said. Some women had applied to be fire fighters but were unable to pass the strength tests. Gloria Steinem then replied that she thought it would be better to be dragged out of a burning building. In this case, I don't think one can claim gender discrimination. There are some jobs such as being police officers or fire fighters that do require a certain amount of strength to get the job done. I personally believe that the most rational solution would be to have certain minimum requirements for jobs involving physical strength and endurance and that whoever meets those requirements, male or female, can be hired. Some feminists have suggested modifying the job requirements.

I am all for the right to vote, the right to an education, access to credit, and the opportunity to pursue the career of one's choice. However, I believe that in certain cases such as the military that it could be dangerous for a woman in combat situations in a way that would not be as dangerous for a man. What are the odds of a 5"2 woman in a hand to hand combat situation with a male enemy soldier surviving? I don't think a completely gender neutral society is realistic. What I find interesting about modern day feminism is that it has glorified male values at the expense of some things that are unique about women. It seems to me that women are urged to become imitation men with the only thing distinguishing them from men their outward appearance and physical bodies. Qualities traditionally associated with women such as nurturing, kindness, gentleness, etc. are now viewed as weaknesses and not as qualities that make a valuable contribution to society. Early feminists believed that giving women the vote would make the world a better place because women would put the well being of their children first when considering who to vote for. Our society has gone from reverence for the role of the mother to outright contempt for women's fertility and traditional qualities. I am not advocating completely rigid gender roles such as saying that women can only be teachers, nurses, and secretaries. I just think it is downright absurd that women are expected to function as males in situations where this is impossible. Obviously women have the capacity to carry life into the world. So why then did feminists not insist that women be accommodated as women in terms of paid maternity leave, day care on college and university campuses, facilities for mothers such as women's lounges, and maternity health coverage for every woman? Why should women have to pay thousands of dollars for something as natural as bringing a child into the world? I am referring to the outrageous medical bills for delivering a baby. I'm curious to know what others think in terms of modern day feminism.



Kalister1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,443

05 Dec 2007, 3:04 pm

Some sort of strength test would probably be better. Heights good and all, but then you'll still get tall twigs (like my brother.. who is a cadet), and you'll not let in some of those 5'5 200+ lb bull dog types who are pretty vicious.

Though, in the future, I hope genetic engineering will allow us all to be 8 feet 400 lb super people. That'll be sweet. F*** your car, I'll pick it up! RAHHH!!



Kalister1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,443

05 Dec 2007, 3:08 pm

I dont think Ive ever heard a feminist talk about physical equality to men. I think its mostly intellectual, and such. Don't worry, in the future, robots will fight our battles. Remember the Simpsons? You will repair and fix these robots, who will fight in space, or maybe some high mountain somewhere!



Aspie_Chav
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,931
Location: Croydon

05 Dec 2007, 3:39 pm

I mostly agree with what you are saying.
In roles like firefighters and policemen, the average woman most probably not make the grade, while an average man might. There should always be a place for the exceptional woman who does make the grade. Many of such woman might have an exceptionally unhealthy love for their job and it would be a complete waste not to give them the opportunity.



pandd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,430

06 Dec 2007, 7:58 am

It looks to me like the problem is misidentified.

Consider a typical police task; enforcing laws relating to sexual assault.

First it must be known the offense occurred, then we need as much information as the victim can provide. Brawn is not going to be any value here.

Then the establishment of evidence sufficient to identify the perpetrator and establish their guilt in a forum (a court of law) where there is a presumption of innocence until guilt is proven according to particular standards. Again, brawn is neither necessary nor useful here.

Now to arrest the suspect. The suspect comes quietly or not. Only in the latter instance does brawn serve any purpose.

So in this typical task, 2 of 3 necessary elements do not require brawn, and the element that contingently may (require brawn) only proceeds to any purpose,if the earlier elements have been achieved. Considering the skills and propensities and likely circumstances at issue, selection of police based on strong athletic type attributes is unlikely to provide the best people for the crucial first two elements.

In a worst case scenario, selecting out candidates by reference to strength, height, criteria could result in a failure to select sufficient adequate candidates for the earlier two elements. This arguably is as problematic as not being able to perform the third task in the minority of cases where the arrest is actually resisted.

None of this takes into account various management tasks necessary to the adequate functioning of a modern police force.



Kitsy
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,015

06 Dec 2007, 2:07 pm

I don't believe in attacking all feminists.

Not all feminists are what media has shown. Whatever mainstream media chooses to warp is just an indicator of how they, the media, feels about that particular subject.

I could always go find one bad person out of a whole group that is just there to spread their own agenda and make it seem like the whole group is that way.

Should women be on the police force? I don't know. Should dumb people be on the police force?

Should women be firemen? If the person has the passion and can do the job sure. You would be surprised how much strength a small person has when there is pressure or emergency situation. Also if the window is too small for a man, use the woman since you are stuck on brawn.


_________________
I am the DAN Monster. I have your child. You owe me twenty five thousand dollars.

xx Dan Monster


siuan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Aug 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,270

06 Dec 2007, 8:22 pm

autisticstar wrote:
Yesterday at a public speaking club meeting an interesting question came up. Someone asked if there should still be a height requirement for people in professions such as police officers and fire fighters. An example was cited of a case in which a female police officer and a male police officer, both in cases where they were working alone, were unable to subdue a male suspect with a large frame. One woman replied that she thought that yes, we should still have such a law. This made me think of something absurd Gloria Steinem once said. Some women had applied to be fire fighters but were unable to pass the strength tests. Gloria Steinem then replied that she thought it would be better to be dragged out of a burning building. In this case, I don't think one can claim gender discrimination. There are some jobs such as being police officers or fire fighters that do require a certain amount of strength to get the job done. I personally believe that the most rational solution would be to have certain minimum requirements for jobs involving physical strength and endurance and that whoever meets those requirements, male or female, can be hired. Some feminists have suggested modifying the job requirements.

I am all for the right to vote, the right to an education, access to credit, and the opportunity to pursue the career of one's choice. However, I believe that in certain cases such as the military that it could be dangerous for a woman in combat situations in a way that would not be as dangerous for a man. What are the odds of a 5"2 woman in a hand to hand combat situation with a male enemy soldier surviving? I don't think a completely gender neutral society is realistic. What I find interesting about modern day feminism is that it has glorified male values at the expense of some things that are unique about women. It seems to me that women are urged to become imitation men with the only thing distinguishing them from men their outward appearance and physical bodies. Qualities traditionally associated with women such as nurturing, kindness, gentleness, etc. are now viewed as weaknesses and not as qualities that make a valuable contribution to society. Early feminists believed that giving women the vote would make the world a better place because women would put the well being of their children first when considering who to vote for. Our society has gone from reverence for the role of the mother to outright contempt for women's fertility and traditional qualities. I am not advocating completely rigid gender roles such as saying that women can only be teachers, nurses, and secretaries. I just think it is downright absurd that women are expected to function as males in situations where this is impossible. Obviously women have the capacity to carry life into the world. So why then did feminists not insist that women be accommodated as women in terms of paid maternity leave, day care on college and university campuses, facilities for mothers such as women's lounges, and maternity health coverage for every woman? Why should women have to pay thousands of dollars for something as natural as bringing a child into the world? I am referring to the outrageous medical bills for delivering a baby. I'm curious to know what others think in terms of modern day feminism.


As a woman, I'll be the first to tell you that a "gender equal" society is asnine. It isn't practical and I think we're sacrificing common sense and safety to try and make it practical. I was a firefighter before I became pregnant, and it is a back-breaking job. In our drills where we had to drag each other out of training courses in the dark, I was slow. I have a slight build and no lead in my ass. If push came to shove, and there was a person in a burning building, adrenaline would kick in and I would do what I needed to do (never had to, mostly brush or chimney fires 'round here). Common sense though would tell me to be the firefighter on the nozzle while the guys did search and rescue. I'm not willing to sacrifice someone's LIFE because I need some idealistic gender equality b*llsh*t.

As for the outrageous cost of delivering a baby, our litigious society has a good deal to do with that. The cost of insurance for obstetricians is forcing many of them out of their practices. My insurance (which sucks) covered almost every bit of my prenatal care and labor & delivery. There was very little cost to me.

Now, the bit about women being "expected" to function the same as men and so on, women have PUSHED for total equality. If they want the pay of a man, they better be doing the same amount and type of work. Women are "expected" to do this because they have been screaming equality for decades. Now they have it, and they're bitching about that. :roll:


_________________
They tell me I think too much. I tell them they don't think enough.


sojournertruth
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 1 Dec 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 253

07 Dec 2007, 2:38 am

I consider myself a feminist, and I don't believe that there should be a double standard: if a woman meets the physical requirements for a physical job, she should be allowed to do that job. If she meets the mental requirements for a job, she should be allowed to do that job. Sometimes, the testing has to be blind for women to be given a chance: for example, when auditioning for symphony positions was made blind, with the candidate behind a screen that the judges could hear through but not see through, more women started getting positions in wind sections because before it was always 'understood' that women didn't have the lung capacity to play wind instruments as well as men.

wrt childcare, childbirth, etc: there are absolutely feminists fighing and advocating for those things. A somewhat radical, but otherwise good, blog is feministing.



autisticstar
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 125

07 Dec 2007, 9:28 am

Just to clarify things, when I said that women are expected to function as men, I was referring to the fact that women can get pregnant and men cannont. One major mistake a lot of feminists made was in not asking to be accomodated in situations such as employment. No reasonable person can really expect a woman who is 8 months pregnant to go out and perform hazardous jobs such as construction or serving as a police officer. In many European countries women are given paid maternity leave. There is an interesting website www.feministsforlife.org. Regardless of whether one is pro-life or pro-choice, I think both sides would agree that in many circumstances institutions such as colleges, universites, high schools, and work place settings do not take into account the reality that, yes, women do get pregnant and yes, women do have babies. I believe that the fact that women are the ones who bring life into the world does not make them inferior or superior to men; rather, it is something that makes women unique. Pregnancy and childbirth should not be viewed as a sickness or a disability. Instead, it should just be accepted as a fact of life and then accommodated.

In terms of jobs that require a certain amount of strength and endurance, there should be one standard and anyone who doesn't make the grade doesn't get the job. This will mean that some jobs will very likely have far more men in them, but lowering the standards of a job could put the lives of others in danger.



pandd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,430

07 Dec 2007, 10:11 am

Quote:
Now, the bit about women being "expected" to function the same as men and so on, women have PUSHED for total equality. If they want the pay of a man, they better be doing the same amount and type of work. Women are "expected" to do this because they have been screaming equality for decades. Now they have it, and they're bitching about that.

Ignoring the fact that there are many women who have never involved themselves in any push for equality, this does not make sense. Equality would assume that if females must function the same as men to partake in equality, then equally males must function as females if they are to be their equals.

I for one have no intention of considering males less than equal (to females) just because they do not function as females. Equally I do not expect females to function as males before they can be considered equal.

Choosing males as the 'default representation' of real humans, that females must mimic if they are to be real humans too, is not equality at all. Female humans are no less 'an example of what humans are', and the rights sought by feminists are actually human rights (not exclusive 'male only' rights), so how can it be equality if females must be 'as men' to enjoy equality, while no one requires men be 'as females' if they are to be equal?

That does not look equal to me.



sojournertruth
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 1 Dec 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 253

07 Dec 2007, 4:01 pm

I forgot to include in my previous remarks the flip-side of the coin, which is that, if a woman is *not* physically or mentally capable of doing the job, she shouldn't get it. same/same with a man: no double standard.

There *are* some laws that protect women on maternity leave; for instance, IIrc it's illegal to fire someone while she's away on maternity leave. Some benefits packages also include some amount of partial pay while on leave, as well.

Some employers specifically avoid hiring (young) women because they're afraid that she'll get pregnant in the middle of some important project and they don't want the lost productivity. Women are not infrequently asked how many kids they have, do they want more, etc. during employment interviews.



Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

07 Dec 2007, 4:06 pm

A political position of thirty years ago became enshrined in Law.

It is far too late to rethink it.

A lot of small men and even some sixteen year olds fought in WWII.

It is now set in stone, "All Human Scum are Equal."

Inequality in pay was addressed by cutting men's pay.

Women's "Right to Credit," marks the beginning of credit cards, with high interest, fees, lots of fine print.

Women voted to get tough on crime, an issue mostly involving males,

Women voted for the anti-terror gutting of the Constitution, because terrorist are male.

Women reduced human life to freedom of choice.

Women voted for a Crusade against Islam, because they are male, so tell your daughter to get out of the cheerleader outfit, and in uniform, she is going to the front to live or die, just like everyone else. There is no front in this war.

The draft is coming back, there can be no exceptions under law.

Of the 50,000,000 who died in WWII, where all abled bodied men were in uniform, only 20% of the deaths were to soldiers. 80% of the dead were women, children, and the elderly.

"What about the children?" Hitler Youth stopped the Red Army cold in the Battle of Berlin. They took losses of 10% per day, but for a week, they stopped the most powerful army of the time.

Women voted to try 14 year old males as adults, so why not an army of 14 year olds?

This Crusade is about their future, at 14 the girls are bigger and more mature. Draft them all for ten years. They do not have children, house payments, jobs, spouses, or a concept of death.

Eighth Grade, then Green! Equality Now!



Kitsy
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,015

07 Dec 2007, 10:07 pm

I am so sick of male ballerinas. Who do they think they are?


_________________
I am the DAN Monster. I have your child. You owe me twenty five thousand dollars.

xx Dan Monster


Kitsy
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,015

07 Dec 2007, 10:38 pm

I think people blamed alot of female movement regarding pay cut with males. Nobody had to cut males pay, people who hated the idea of women getting jobs decided to take it out on everyone.

Also, men can have any job they want. Even receptionist work. Even though it is female dominated but women get paid less than male jobs. If receptionist work suddenly became manly, pay rates would go up. Leaving women out of even more options.

If roles were reversed and others treated you inferior because of being born with feminine bits, they expected you to have a male to take care of you while you didn't do anything with your own life and possibly even taken for granted and treated as if you were not a good enough maid, how would you feel?

Don't you think you are being a little ungrateful by whining about how you have taken a pay cut meanwhile places purposely set up lower pay to female dominated jobs and limit their options?

I would think aspie males would be a little more understanding about how it feels to be an outcast or having to prove your worth more than NT's.

I am happy for feminism. I can vote, I can get a job however it is difficult being both aspie and female because you are expected to have a bubbly personality. Some men really do hate it when a female mechanic or not so feminine job when a female comes into work. Quit being so selfish and be very happy you aren't dismissed for what gender you are.

Not all feminists are what you see on the media either.


_________________
I am the DAN Monster. I have your child. You owe me twenty five thousand dollars.

xx Dan Monster


Aurore
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,187
Location: Virginia Tech

10 Dec 2007, 12:57 am

Kitsy wrote:
I think people blamed alot of female movement regarding pay cut with males. Nobody had to cut males pay, people who hated the idea of women getting jobs decided to take it out on everyone.

Also, men can have any job they want. Even receptionist work. Even though it is female dominated but women get paid less than male jobs. If receptionist work suddenly became manly, pay rates would go up. Leaving women out of even more options.

If roles were reversed and others treated you inferior because of being born with feminine bits, they expected you to have a male to take care of you while you didn't do anything with your own life and possibly even taken for granted and treated as if you were not a good enough maid, how would you feel?

Don't you think you are being a little ungrateful by whining about how you have taken a pay cut meanwhile places purposely set up lower pay to female dominated jobs and limit their options?

I would think aspie males would be a little more understanding about how it feels to be an outcast or having to prove your worth more than NT's.

I am happy for feminism. I can vote, I can get a job however it is difficult being both aspie and female because you are expected to have a bubbly personality. Some men really do hate it when a female mechanic or not so feminine job when a female comes into work. Quit being so selfish and be very happy you aren't dismissed for what gender you are.

Not all feminists are what you see on the media either.


Amen.

Fortunately I see very little misogyny in my area. :D


_________________
?Evil? No. Cursed?! No. COATED IN CHOCOLATE?! Perhaps. At one time. But NO LONGER.?


Aurore
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,187
Location: Virginia Tech

10 Dec 2007, 12:59 am

Inventor wrote:
Women voted to try 14 year old males as adults, so why not an army of 14 year olds?

This Crusade is about their future, at 14 the girls are bigger and more mature. Draft them all for ten years. They do not have children, house payments, jobs, spouses, or a concept of death.

Eighth Grade, then Green! Equality Now!


When I was fourteen I bit someone's ear off. :oops:


_________________
?Evil? No. Cursed?! No. COATED IN CHOCOLATE?! Perhaps. At one time. But NO LONGER.?