Should We Lower the Bar for Women?

Kuan · Post by **Kuan** » Wed Feb 16, 2011 11:49 pm

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?

LiamOS · Post by **LiamOS** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:58 am

I don't think women should be given an easier test.
In cases such as firefighting and the military, it is appropriate to accommodate such fundamental differences as the ability to have children and such, but if a woman couldn't do the job as well as a man, I wouldn't hire her.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 10:34 am

There are times when the entry requirements for a position have little or no value as a predictor of the applicant's ability to do the job. Is anyone a better soldier for being able to march in formation? Is anyone a better doctor for having survived a grueling internship?

Kuan · Post by **Kuan** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:40 pm

McCulloch wrote:There are times when the entry requirements for a position have little or no value as a predictor of the applicant's ability to do the job. Is anyone a better soldier for being able to march in formation? Is anyone a better doctor for having survived a grueling internship?

Thats not what I am referring too. They specifically lower the physical requirements so that women can get a job that they would not have been able to get. There was a video showing women taking the test where in one part, you have to put up a ladder. They couldnt put the ladder up. Then another part was using an axe, they couldnt use that either.

LiamOS · Post by **LiamOS** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 3:07 pm

[color=red]mormon boy51[/color] wrote:Thats not what I am referring too. They specifically lower the physical requirements so that women can get a job that they would not have been able to get. There was a video showing women taking the test where in one part, you have to put up a ladder. They couldnt put the ladder up. Then another part was using an axe, they couldnt use that either.

What a sad state of affairs...

Kuan · Post by **Kuan** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 3:13 pm

AkiThePirate wrote:
[color=red]mormon boy51[/color] wrote:Thats not what I am referring too. They specifically lower the physical requirements so that women can get a job that they would not have been able to get. There was a video showing women taking the test where in one part, you have to put up a ladder. They couldnt put the ladder up. Then another part was using an axe, they couldnt use that either.
What a sad state of affairs...

The sad part is they got the job as a firefighter. How is that safe? They cant perform the tasks that the job requires.

Baz · Post by **Baz** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:10 pm

McCulloch wrote:Is anyone a better soldier for being able to march in formation? Is anyone a better doctor for having survived a grueling internship?

In my opinion yes to both.

So far as creating second class employees by having lower standards for certain groups. I think it is bad policy.
I worked as a commercial diver for twenty years, a job mostly held by men probably because of the discomfort and physical nature of the work; however I came across several women who did the job, all undertook the same level of training as the men and because of this had the full respect and confidence of the other divers. I would not have liked the thought of putting my life in the hands of somebody who has had the bar lowered for whatever reason.

Having said all that there is no reason that suitable positions could not be found in most industries for less physical personnel, particularly as we rely more and more on machines to do many things.
If a job requires running only people who can run should apply, (Thatâ€™s definitely me out for a start

)

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:53 pm

The rest of the stuff is a topic for another debate, but I do agree that there should not be lower standards for a certain class of worker. My point is that some standards may not relate to the job at hand. For example, police in many jurisdictions had a height requirement. Since, on average, men are about 5 inches taller than women, this requirement discriminated against women. However, upon examination, it was determined that within the normal height ranges, height did not materially affect performance and has been justifiably removed as a requirement. For a firefighter, physical strength and stamina are requirements. This does discriminate against women, since women are on average less strong than men. However, this discrimination is justified, since these requirements really do affect how well someone will perform the task.

Maybe I don't understand the military well enough, but I don't quite get how being able to march in formation would make someone a better fighter.

Baz · Post by **Baz** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:41 pm

McCulloch wrote:The rest of the stuff is a topic for another debate, but I do agree that there should not be lower standards for a certain class of worker. My point is that some standards may not relate to the job at hand. For example, police in many jurisdictions had a height requirement. Since, on average, men are about 5 inches taller than women, this requirement discriminated against women. However, upon examination, it was determined that within the normal height ranges, height did not materially affect performance and has been justifiably removed as a requirement. For a firefighter, physical strength and stamina are requirements. This does discriminate against women, since women are on average less strong than men. However, this discrimination is justified, since these requirements really do affect how well someone will perform the task.

Maybe I don't understand the military well enough, but I don't quite get how being able to march in formation would make someone a better fighter.

I couldnâ€™t agree with you more; there is some very dubious criteria in personnel selection relating to some jobs in my country, there is also a lot of PC bull about inclusivity where it is just stupid.

I think the marching thing is more to do with pride, uniformity and the ability to act in unison than killing, for that you donâ€™t even need smart uniforms but I personally like them as well.

Wyvern · Post by **Wyvern** » Fri Feb 18, 2011 3:15 pm

Maybe I don't understand the military well enough, but I don't quite get how being able to march in formation would make someone a better fighter.

Marching is about being able to follow orders and unit cohesion. The reason why most women are unsuited to infantry service is that they generally can't carry as much as a man. Even though great efforts have been made to reduce an infantrymans combat loadout it is still a pretty hefty load. When I was in the navy years ago I was a corpsman and when doing my rotation with the marines my pack weighed over eighty pounds and we didn't even have body armor at the time which adds nearly thirty pounds more.