Any feminists here?

Fact:

There is a minimum limit on how much you can lift to enter my career field in the Air Force. 75 pounds for men, but only 50 pounds for women.

Fact:

I have to be able to do 34 pushups or more, in 2 minutes, or less (Laughable, I know, but I am in the Air Force). Women are only required to complete 19.
Strangely enough we have to be able to complete the same number of sit-ups (crunches)...36... in the same amount of time.

As for the bags of cement...

First: Hauling those 50 pound bags of cement one at a time is so that you don't have any waste, and you don't take up any more room than neccesary in the area you actually have to work in.
Second: A forklift that can lift that much weight would itself weigh over 5 tons. Most stucco work is done in houses. How many floors do you know of that will support 10,000 pounds? I claim 'foul' on that one, Q...especially when we both know that you know better due to your work in the construction business... ;)

On to the prison guards...
AFAIK, the training you get to become a prison guard is the same training you get to become a police officer. Nothing extra there...

Now, onto the rest of the story...

I know that there are women out there that can do jobs that require heavy lifting and/or require, as Q puts it, 'Special' training. If they can hack it, more power to them. I even know women that do my job a hell of a lot better than I do. More power to them as well. What makes things insufferable is when you have people that can't, or won't, hold up their end of the workload, and then complain when you bring this to their attention. Very un-PC to shine light on reality in some cases...
 
LastLegionary said:
If women are equal to men (which I think they are in *most* cases), why is there still hiring quotas? Why not hire the best man/women for the job? Why does the army not conscript women either?

There are cases which women simply won't cut it though. An example would be a firefighter. You cannot relax the fitness test to allow women to pass. If they can, GREAT! But if they can't, that is their problem. The regulations are there for a reason! If a firefighter has to carry someone out he MUST have the strength to carry the body, his gear, and do whatever else is necessary to save lives. It is just the way nature built women and men. Men is naturally stronger. (no offense to any women here)
Click to expand...

Interesting... my brother is a firefighter, and I'm stronger than him!

(banish those visions of butch muscley stuff - not me! am actually quite unfit!)

And there are female firefighters, both here in Ireland and in Britain. I was sure there were in the States too...
 
Q, attacking ones validity based on their online gramatical capabilities is a discrimination in itself! If one is young and still studying, or English is not their primary language, does that mean they're less entitled to an oppinion? :eek:

Look, I truly respect what ever constructive debate you bring to the topic, but personal attacks in a debate don't look good for those giving them out. It comes off as though one is grasping for straws. Keep it cool :cool:
 
That has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever read. Men, white men in particular, have dominated the job market for years and years and years. Hiring quotas would have never even been conceived had the playing field been level all along. Unfortunately, it still isn't.

However, since you have no experience in having to earn a living your argument doesn't hold much weight with me. Also, I find it seriously distressing that you made it all the way to college and can't manage to put together a grammatically correct sentence.
Click to expand...

We discussed this subject for three hours in business ethics. Go read a paper by Michael Levin on hiring quotas. He makes the exact same argument that I am making. I borrowed it from him. I don't quite get your argument against me.

I'm sorry, I made a subject/verb agreement error. My sincerest apologies to you sir. Here let me correct that:

Hiring quotas have a potential to discriminate against men.

Q said:
LL is all worried that he might be discriminated against, for a job he hasn't even applied for yet, because some woman might get hired instead of him. It's a thinly veiled attempt at bashing women. I'm getting really sick of it. I've been in the construction industry since LL was in kindergarten. I can tell you discrimination does still exist. My work has to be exceptional or I get called on it.....because I'm a girl. This is not bullshit or paranoia, it's simply a fact. LL should spend more time studying english and less time worrying about the potential discrimination he might encounter.
Click to expand...

Hm, I don't know where to start. I'm terribly sorry if my English offended you. Lets disect your English. While I can't find many errors, I do see inappropiate use of the ellipsis. It should be three periods.

I also note you failed to capitalize English. English is a proper noun and should be capitalized in all contexts.

Now, aside from your weak attempt at bashing me, no! I'm not trying to bash women! But to put hiring quotas in effect IS discrimination! It might prevent discriminating against women, but it WILL discriminate against men eventually. Are you telling me that unless there are hiring quotas in place women won't be able to find a job? YOU may believe that, but I do not. Men and women are equal, and neither deserve special treatment or special regulations.

If my English offended you again, I apologize.
 
Hm, I didn't realize my English is this pathetic. I haven't had an opportunity to study English here at university yet, but I planned on taking two or three English courses in second or third year. I'm sorry if I'm offending anyone.
 
LL, don't worry if your English is not perfect. There are a couple million people that live in English speaking countries whose English is not perfect. Q is just trying to take a stab at whatever she can, because her argument needs to be augmented by something to increase her validity. I personally find an attack on someones English skills to be irresponsible and deplorable.
 
Bink said:
Looking at history, equality has come a long way in a short time (relatively speaking). It doesn't just apply to women either. Equality also applies to cultural and religious areas as well, which often suffer from similar hardships in the workplace.

It's a work in progress so to say, and hopefully in another decade at most, sexual discrimination in the workplace will be a thing of the past.
Click to expand...

I'm inclined to agree with Bink here, it's not a level playing field, but there is a little hope that things will even out somewhat more.
 
LastLegionary said:
Hm, I didn't realize my English is this pathetic. I haven't had an opportunity to study English here at university yet, but I planned on taking two or three English courses in second or third year. I'm sorry if I'm offending anyone.
Click to expand...

it looks perfect to me:D :D
 
Professur said:
Nixy said:
I agree with you LL. I am all for equal rights and everything but equal means that women should not receive special treatment either. If their is a physical test to get a job it should not be easier for a woman a fire is not going to be less hot for a woman firefighter and a criminal is not going to be less strong or run slower for a woman police officer.
Click to expand...

I just heard a report on the radio that women prison guards are complaining that they don't get any special training or equipment to help deal with male prisoners. BIG FUCKING DEAL!!! They wanted the job, they got it. Deal with it. Don't like that? Fine, quit, and let someone capable do the job.

And just to show I'm not a total chauvinist, I can type 50 words a minute. But can I get a job as an administrative assistant? No fucking way.
Click to expand...
Wuss, I can type 100 :headbang:

I agree with Bink, LastLegionary, Nixy, and Shadowfax.

The femi-nazis already got their job done, they got male dumbass pigs to "bite the bullet" and hire women, the only problem is, they got male dumbass pigs so scared of them that they often hire women just to hire women, not because they're the best person for the job. Oh well, it's not an ideal world and it likely never will be, but we can all dream.
 
It's not the government's job to force employers to give everyone an equal chance at a job, or even to force the company to hire the most qualified person for the job. Employers have the right to discriminate on whatever basis they choose, regardless of how irrational it is, because the jobs belong to them, not to the prospective employees, not to society and for damn sure not to the government. The jobs belong to the person or people who created them, and they have the right to hire whoever they want.

Companies who hire the most qualified people regardless of irrelevant traits, will be in a better position to compete in the market. It is up to them to choose whether to behave in a rational fashion, or act like idiots. As long as they are not initiating the use of force against anyone, they are violating no one's rights. It is, in fact, the government and those pushing for anti-discrimination laws who are initiating force and violating people's rights.
 
Ardsgaine said:
It's not the government's job to force employers to give everyone an equal chance at a job, or even to force the company to hire the most qualified person for the job. Employers have the right to discriminate on whatever basis they choose, regardless of how irrational it is, because the jobs belong to them, not to the prospective employees, not to society and for damn sure not to the government. The jobs belong to the person or people who created them, and they have the right to hire whoever they want.

Companies who hire the most qualified people regardless of irrelevant traits, will be in a better position to compete in the market. It is up to them to choose whether to behave in a rational fashion, or act like idiots. As long as they are not initiating the use of force against anyone, they are violating no one's rights. It is, in fact, the government and those pushing for anti-discrimination laws who are initiating force and violating people's rights.
Click to expand...

This is so well written it should be printed here another time. I completely agree with you. Completely.
 
that also means......you agree with me. :eek2:

this is the 2nd time it happens.........
 
Luis G said:
that also means......you agree with me. :eek2:

this is the 2nd time it happens.........
Click to expand...

Ah... the reflexive property of agreement... yes. It's no fair, though. Somebody has to argue with me. :grumpy:

:p ;)
 
well, you know i'm still waiting to read the reasons behind the "evilness of socialism" ;)

http://otcentral.xibase.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=1524
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top