Should We Lower the Bar for Women?

[Kuan]

I am a firm believer in equal rights, and equal opportunity. Yet, there is a time when our pursuit in this path bothers me. There are jobs were the requirements are high physically. Such as the military, and firefighters. Since these jobs are strenuous and dangerous, there are physical tests that people need to pass in able to join. These tests should be equal right, but we lower our standards for women.

Is it fair for women to be given easier tests when applying for these jobs?

Secondary question: Isn't this not fair? Wouldn't it be fair if the tests were the same for both guys and girls?

[Kuan]

This is complicated. I'm not voting until someone convinces me

On one hand, obviously no one who doesn't meet the necessary requirements should get these jobs, and women on average have less physical strength than men.

Oh the other hand, there are several jobs within the military and the firefighters that require a smaller amount of strength than carrying out a 300 pounds man. And it's not like people are forming lines to become firefighters or soldiers, so someone who can take orders, is a team-player, has all the necessary aptitudes but can only carry 120 pounds is probably better than no one.

Yes there are areas of the job that do not require strength. Yet, shouldnt the bar be the same? Everyone is expected to be able to perform the job the same as the others. The question is, do we really want to higher someone to do one thing such as drive. Or should we higher someone to be able to drive and carry a 300 pound person?

[Furrowed Brow]

Just how many 300 pound loads is the average soldier expected to carry? The average guy could barely lift that much, certainly no carry it for than a few yards.

The "bar" is often set because of looking at a role one way with one set of prejudices and because "things have always been done this way".

I believe female physiology makes women better suited to be fighter pilots. A smaller frame means they can pull more G force without passing out. Women being smaller are also better suited to flushing out the enemy from their tunnel systems. There is no reason a woman could not be as good a sniper as a man. Hand to hand combat women are at a weight and strength disadvantage. But I know some big women who could handle themselves.

Whilst some jobs need a bar, the criteria should accurately reflect the role. I work on the railway and there is batch of tests every prospective train driver needs to pass. Women prove not very good at these tests, and not so many pass as do men. However there are examples of long serving drivers with acceptable safety records failing the same tests. So you have to ask are the tests truly reflective of the job.

A couple of decades or so ago a decision was made in the UK to change to content and structure of school exams as boys were doing better than girls. There was a shift away from cramming facts and a move towards coursework. Now girls do better than boys. We can’t say the exam system is easier because boys don’t do so well as they used to. For them the exams got harder.

[Lux]

Yes there are areas of the job that do not require strength. Yet, shouldnt the bar be the same? Everyone is expected to be able to perform the job the same as the others. The question is, do we really want to higher someone to do one thing such as drive. Or should we higher someone to be able to drive and carry a 300 pound person?

Sure, providing you have enough people lining up for the job who can do both. Which honestly, you probably don't.

[Kuan]

Yes there are areas of the job that do not require strength. Yet, shouldnt the bar be the same? Everyone is expected to be able to perform the job the same as the others. The question is, do we really want to higher someone to do one thing such as drive. Or should we higher someone to be able to drive and carry a 300 pound person?

Sure, providing you have enough people lining up for the job who can do both. Which honestly, you probably don't.

I am not sure about the statistics for how many apply for these jobs. It would be easier to discuss this if we knew those statistics. Yet, could we assume that there is a lack (which is probably the case) of people applying for these jobs. If there is a lack, do we hire individuals who specialize in certain aspects of the job?

[Meow Mix]

As a woman and a feminist, I completely disagree with "lowering the bar" for women. Feminism is about equality, not about special favors -- if a woman can't swing an axe or put up a ladder then she shouldn't be considered for the job as a fireman. It shouldn't be called "discrimination" either, which is what some "feminists" would do -- but that's ridiculous. She simply didn't have the physical requirements for the job and was simply rejected, just like any man who couldn't swing the axe or put up the ladder would have failed too.

Now, when it comes to something like being in the military where you're required to stay physically fit -- I can see why women may need to do less pushups than the men, solely because of some biological differences in upper body strength. What would be a healthy excercise for men could be unhealthily pushing a woman to her limits and beyond. That I understand. But I definitely do not agree with "lowering the bar" in terms of the physical requirements for any job. There's a difference between different physical requirements to stay fit and physical requirements to get a particular job done safely!

[Lemonboo]

Now, when it comes to something like being in the military where you're required to stay physically fit -- I can see why women may need to do less pushups than the men, solely because of some biological differences in upper body strength. What would be a healthy excercise for men could be unhealthily pushing a woman to her limits and beyond. That I understand. But I definitely do not agree with "lowering the bar" in terms of the physical requirements for any job. There's a difference between different physical requirements to stay fit and physical requirements to get a particular job done safely!

I voted yes specifically because OP mentions the "military" in his OP, but I agree with your distinction here. There is a difference between having a standard to do the job, and physical fitness standards. Men and women in the military demonstrate physical fitness, I don't think its necessary for women to demonstrate they as strong/fast as a man.

[Kuan]

I agree with the analysis Meow Mix has provided. As it is concerned with the military or firefighters, the physical training should correspond to what the average physiological build of a woman needs. We should not give the job to them if they cannot perform the tasks required. That being said, its a lot different in some ways. The military is different than firefighting. Most women can shoot a gun, few can carry 200lb men through burning houses.

[JoeyKnothead]

Most women can shoot a gun, few can carry 200lb men through burning houses.

So we leave 'em in the firehouse to do the cooking and the cleaning and whatnot.

I sense we are about to learn just how well a woman can shoot a gun.

I say if a woman can compete with a man in physically taxing environments, they have a right to that job. Compete doesn't hafta mean outdo either, it simply means if they can perform to a certain x level, let 'em have at it. 'Specially when cost / benefit analysis may show women are the better choice.

I might be reticent to go into combat with some to many women, owing to their lesser physical stature, and certain femininely needs. But I'm here to tell ya, there's plenty I'd go into combat with for their intellectual ability.

[Cathar1950]

Most women can shoot a gun, few can carry 200lb men through burning houses.

So we leave 'em in the firehouse to do the cooking and the cleaning and whatnot.

I sense we are about to learn just how well a woman can shoot a gun.

I say if a woman can compete with a man in physically taxing environments, they have a right to that job. Compete doesn't hafta mean outdo either, it simply means if they can perform to a certain x level, let 'em have at it. 'Specially when cost / benefit analysis may show women are the better choice.

I might be reticent to go into combat with some to many women, owing to their lesser physical stature, and certain femininely needs. But I'm here to tell ya, there's plenty I'd go into combat with for their intellectual ability.

Given it doesn't take that much to shoot why not? If if were hand to hand it would still depend upon ability as a big strong man can be bested by even a small child...

I recall thinking many decades ago that equality often meant making women act more like men rather then incorporate feminine values into the equation.

What we end up with is women raising top the top because they are as bad as men.
Maybe they need to raise the bar for men.

[dianaiad]

Most women can shoot a gun, few can carry 200lb men through burning houses.

So we leave 'em in the firehouse to do the cooking and the cleaning and whatnot.

I sense we are about to learn just how well a woman can shoot a gun.

I say if a woman can compete with a man in physically taxing environments, they have a right to that job. Compete doesn't hafta mean outdo either, it simply means if they can perform to a certain x level, let 'em have at it. 'Specially when cost / benefit analysis may show women are the better choice.

I might be reticent to go into combat with some to many women, owing to their lesser physical stature, and certain femininely needs. But I'm here to tell ya, there's plenty I'd go into combat with for their intellectual ability.

Given it doesn't take that much to shoot why not? If if were hand to hand it would still depend upon ability as a big strong man can be bested by even a small child...

I recall thinking many decades ago that equality often meant making women act more like men rather then incorporate feminine values into the equation.

What we end up with is women raising top the top because they are as bad as men.
Maybe they need to raise the bar for men.

You think you are joking..but you are quite right!

On the one hand, when jobs require specific needs...such as ladder placing and ax wielding, then the job should go to those who can perform it, period.

However, the fact is that ladders and axes have been designed with men in mind, so it's a bit of a circular problem. Perhaps the solution isn't to lower the bar for women, but to examine what the top percentage of physically fit women should be able to physically handle, and then design equipment for them so that they can do the job. LIghter, stronger ladders. Axes made to fit.

When I was younger, I went deer hunting quite frequently with my Dad, my brother and my cousins. We all used bows...and there was no silliness about making me 'measure up to' the bow my brother could pull. I was 5'4", he was 6'...of course he could pull a longer bow with a higher weight. I still got more deer than he did, because even though he could pull the heavier bow, I could hit the target.

Firefighting is one of those professions where sheer physical prowess is important; the stronger you are, the quicker you are, the better you are. In cases like that, men are going to do better; that's biological fact, because men are, generally, taller and stronger than women.

However, a six foot amazon who can handle the weight is going to do better than a five foot seven inch man...so the bar isn't set against women; it's set for physical abilities.

Oh, as to soldiering (just chiming in here) 'marching in step' is something that is necessary, fun...and women do just fine at it. This is a situation where equipment should be designed with women in mind; that could only be an advantage to everybody, I'd think. Shoot, have you ever taken a good look at the "shining armor' all those medieval knights actually wore?