[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
Bob760 wrote:
buckeye girl wrote:
oh god. here we go.
I’m pretty sure we are not “allowed” to hit anyone, regardless of sex.
Men and women still are not equal in society. White male privilege continues to exists, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that men have it easy.
And, I’m pretty sure I’ve said this before, but…I can open my own fucking door.
Alright then answer this, why then do women have lower requitements and lower standards than males do for certain jobs such as fire/rescue and law enforcement and their requirements are roughly 1/2 to 3/4 of the male standards so shouldn’t then get 1/2 to 3/4 the normal pay? I think its silly to think that one could have lower requirements and still argue that they weren’t getting paid enough when the males have higher standards but are receiving the same pay as someone who had lower standards.
anyone who disagrees that females should have to make the same HIGH requirements as males for positions like this are worthless human beings. I already hate how soccer mom organziations are trying to sugarcoat military traning. Having weak people in the polive and fire dept is going to make our cities worse places to live.
It’s because the requirements for men, when applied to women, resulted in women who had been effective in their positions for years being disqualified. As a result, the courts ruled that applying these same requirements to women was discriminatory, and a new set of requirements had to be developed.
[/quote]
I’m sorry, but with all due respect you are out of your ever-loving mind. The very foundational purposes of the police, the fire dept, and the military are to secure the people against criminals, secure people against catastrophe, and to kill things and break stuff, respectively. These are OBJECTIVE based purposes. If the objective cannot be met by a person sworn in with the duty of meeting it, that person, whether male or female, must be considered unfit for duty. That person should then be either
a) put on probation until such time as he/she meets requirements,
b) put in a desk/analytical/non-intensive job where their experience is valuable,
c) fired, or
d) not hired in the first place.
to ensure the effectiveness of the organization as a whole. There is no place for someone who cannot meet the minimum requirements. However the courts ruled, it was incorrect. You should never hamstring an entire organization, ESPECIALLY one charged with public or national security. If the women had valuable experience, it may have been better to simply relocate them into jobs less physically demanding but more influence-driven.
There should be 1 set of standards. If someone can reach these standards, let him/her serve. If not, goodbye.
