Political Correctness and Hiring Standards

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

Im not here bashing a certain group. But why has pc run amok today? For instance, many fire and police departments when recruiting constantly hold women to lower standards, yet they want the same job with the same pay and benefits.

An example is this, a man having to complete 32 pushups but a woman having to complete 7. But if you have a man who only does 31 pushups, and a woman who can do just 7, doesnt the man deserved to be hired more?

If men and women are equal in every way as political correctness would have everyone to believe, why are physical fitness standards lowered to accomodate a certain group.

You lower the standards for women to get into these jobs, yet if you pay them less than a man they want to bitch and moan. When they should be thanking God that some politically correct moron lowered the standard so they could get in in the first place. A long time ago, pullups used to be part of the fitness test, but owing to the fact that most women cant do pullups, it was dropped from the test.

If everyone is so equal, why lower the standards? Why cant the group who wants to be seen as equal raise to the standards already set.

2

Take a look at this Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement standards agility test:

Male

Age
Group
Vertical

Jump
Sit-Ups
Push-Ups
½-Mile
Shuttle Run

18-29
17.5
32
30
4:29.6

30-39
16.0
30
30
4:38.2

40 +
15.0
30
28
4:54.7

Female

Age
Group
Vertical

Jump
Sit-Ups
Push-Ups
½-Mile
Shuttle Run

18-29
11.0
28
7
5:35.4

30-39
9.0
19
7
5.59.1

40 +
8.0
18
7
6:13.3

3

I agree, it seems to me that attempts to “equalize” things have just ended up in pushing the bias towards the other direction.

4

Police work involves a lot more than physical strength, and aside from having different skills in resolving conflicts, sometimes a force can just plain benefit from lots of female officers.

For instance, a female rape victim might not want to give a statement if a female officer isn’t available for the call, and choose not to cooperate rather than report the crime.

Men can be less suspicious of female undercover officers, etc…

5

Being PC is just a way to validate and justify that which is wrong or just plain mediocre.

6

Im not saying im against female cops, but standards for hiring should be the same across the board not “gender normed”. If a man has to do 30 pushups then a female WANTING THE SAME JOB WITH THE SAME PAY AND BENEFITS should have to meet the same requirements.

7

I like these equalizing standards for cops. Soon all police stations will be run by out of shape shit bags. I cannot wait.

8

I kind of agree, if you can have lower stats for a woman, why not accept those stats for a man.

9

Couldn’t the males get one of them ACLU types to make for the lowering of male standards, thus equalizing standards/pay between the sexes?

10

I think Ill capitalize off political correctness too!!! I am a black male and I hear black male doctors are in low supply. So ill just go into any leading hospital and demand that they hire me as chief of cardiac surgery. Never mind I have never spent a day of my life in medical school, political correctness says everyone has the same abilities and is equal in everything. Then when they tell me I dont qualify to be chief of cardiac surgery, Ill hit them with a lawsuit (that i’ll win no doubt) accusing them of making the standards so high that theyre discriminating against me in employment. Although I could just go to medical school if im serious about doing it.

After I win the lawsuit or they settle out of court, they of course are going to cave in, because honestly, who wants to be sued? And ill be their first black male chief of cardiac surgery. Of course theyre going to notice that every patient i do surgery on dies. And they wont say anything to me, because theyre afraid of a lawsuit. But who cares? Someone has to be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.

11

I read that someone of high rank in the L.A. Fire Dept actually instituted a “no fail policy” for female candidates. They were hell bent on recruiting women firefighters, but very few women were making it thru the academy due to rigorous physical training. Of course it was denied, but I wouldnt doubt it.
http://www.laweekly.com/2008-01-24/news/the-gender-boondoggle/

And on the L.A. Swat team, which has been very successful, only having one officer killed in the 40 years of its existence and hadnt lost a hostage either was forced to lower their recruitment standards. Why? Despite their high rate of success, the SWAT team never had a female officer in its 40 years of existence. Certainly women are allowed to join, if they can pass the training. But the training was so tough that every woman who took it failed it.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/is-a-swat-team-the-place-to-get-pc/

12

[quote]clip11 wrote:
Im not here bashing a certain group. But why has pc run amok today? For instance, many fire and police departments when recruiting constantly hold women to lower standards, yet they want the same job with the same pay and benefits.

An example is this, a man having to complete 32 pushups but a woman having to complete 7. But if you have a man who only does 31 pushups, and a woman who can do just 7, doesnt the man deserved to be hired more?

If men and women are equal in every way as political correctness would have everyone to believe, why are physical fitness standards lowered to accomodate a certain group.

You lower the standards for women to get into these jobs, yet if you pay them less than a man they want to bitch and moan. When they should be thanking God that some politically correct moron lowered the standard so they could get in in the first place. A long time ago, pullups used to be part of the fitness test, but owing to the fact that most women cant do pullups, it was dropped from the test.

If everyone is so equal, why lower the standards? Why cant the group who wants to be seen as equal raise to the standards already set.[/quote]

When women say they want to be treated equally, it is usually in reference to an equal opportunity in obtaining jobs that traditionally men have only been able to acquire.

I don’t think political correctness is trying to say that men and women are, in fact, equal in every way. There are obvious differences in a woman’s ability to perform physical tasks compared to a man for obvious reasons. But there really isn’t any reason to prevent women from joining, say, police forces. However this is exactly what happens when you don’t have two separate standards - women inevitably fail every time.

Unless the employer can show that the particular physical fitness requirements are closely enough related to actual job performance, then the standards have to be “equalized” in order for women to have an equal chance at being hired.
Conversely, if the requirements can be shown to be so closely related to actual job performance, then the employer probably doesn’t have to create two separate standards.

13

Either certain physical standards mean something for particular professions or they just serve as a means to discriminate in the hiring process. If they are important and not just a means for discrimination then why even bother letting anyone be cops if they cannot meet those “minimum” required standards at all?

I mean, I do not want my child’s safety to be threatened because some wannabe cop cannot do 32 push-ups. Think of the children!!

14

[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
clip11 wrote:
Im not here bashing a certain group. But why has pc run amok today? For instance, many fire and police departments when recruiting constantly hold women to lower standards, yet they want the same job with the same pay and benefits.

An example is this, a man having to complete 32 pushups but a woman having to complete 7. But if you have a man who only does 31 pushups, and a woman who can do just 7, doesnt the man deserved to be hired more?

If men and women are equal in every way as political correctness would have everyone to believe, why are physical fitness standards lowered to accomodate a certain group.

You lower the standards for women to get into these jobs, yet if you pay them less than a man they want to bitch and moan. When they should be thanking God that some politically correct moron lowered the standard so they could get in in the first place. A long time ago, pullups used to be part of the fitness test, but owing to the fact that most women cant do pullups, it was dropped from the test.

If everyone is so equal, why lower the standards? Why cant the group who wants to be seen as equal raise to the standards already set.

When women say they want to be treated equally, it is usually in reference to an equal opportunity in obtaining jobs that traditionally men have only been able to acquire.

I don’t think political correctness is trying to say that men and women are, in fact, equal in every way. There are obvious differences in a woman’s ability to perform physical tasks compared to a man for obvious reasons. But there really isn’t any reason to prevent women from joining, say, police forces. However this is exactly what happens when you don’t have two separate standards - women inevitably fail every time.

Unless the employer can show that the particular physical fitness requirements are closely enough related to actual job performance, then the standards have to be “equalized” in order for women to have an equal chance at being hired.
Conversely, if the requirements can be shown to be so closely related to actual job performance, then the employer probably doesn’t have to create two separate standards.[/quote]

The point being made is that there are jobs where you do require a certain level of fitness and strength to be able to deal with the eventualities that are likely to occur, fire fighting, army, certain police positions etc. By lowering these standards to enable average women to get these jobs you are reducing the effectiveness of the service, endangering civilians and endangering the colleagues who have to work alongside the weakling.

The entry standard should be the same for all. That may mean that women who want these positions have to try harder and train longer to achieve the pass standard - tough shit.

Firebug is a female firefighter I wonder if she has achieved the male physical entry requirements?

15

I know what the point was. The burden is on the employer to show that, hypothetically speaking, 32 pushups is absolutely necessary for each candidate because it is directly related to job performance (as opposed to a lesser number)

If the numbers are arbitrary then it raises the implications of discrimination, which is unlawful.

I agree with you that these jobs (police officer, firefighter, etc) require a certain level of fitness and strength, and believe me I also agree that I want these people to be able to perform adequately enough when it comes to their jobs. But women cannot simply train harder and longer to pass some of these standards; it is literally impossible. But here’s the point - this doesn’t mean that they aren’t physically fit. All that shows is that they cannot do as many pullups or pushups as a man. It is in this regard where society does in fact recognize that there are definite differences between men and women regarding physical fitness performance tests.

But again, just because a woman cannot meet the standards developed for fully grown men, does not mean that the woman is not physically fit or incapable of performing physical tasks which the job requires.

16

Natural selection. Police work is not all that physical. Therefore more women seek it for a career. Now being a firefighter is very physical work which reguires constant physival training. Therefore very few women seek it out as a career.

Women have been told that they can’t do alot of things. So don’t be surprised when they have to find out for themselves.

Plus I know some male cops that couldn’t run 100 yards in less than 20 seconds. That’s if they made it at all.

17

[quote]clip11 wrote:
Take a look at this Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement standards agility test:

Male

Age
Group
Vertical

Jump
Sit-Ups
Push-Ups
½-Mile
Shuttle Run

18-29
17.5
32
30
4:29.6

30-39
16.0
30
30
4:38.2

40 +
15.0
30
28
4:54.7

Female

Age
Group
Vertical

Jump
Sit-Ups
Push-Ups
½-Mile
Shuttle Run

18-29
11.0
28
7
5:35.4

30-39
9.0
19
7
5.59.1

40 +
8.0
18
7
6:13.3

[/quote]

Could be a fittness standard as oposed to physical requirements

18

[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
I know what the point was. The burden is on the employer to show that, hypothetically speaking, 32 pushups is absolutely necessary for each candidate because it is directly related to job performance (as opposed to a lesser number)

If the numbers are arbitrary then it raises the implications of discrimination, which is unlawful.

I agree with you that these jobs (police officer, firefighter, etc) require a certain level of fitness and strength, and believe me I also agree that I want these people to be able to perform adequately enough when it comes to their jobs. But women cannot simply train harder and longer to pass some of these standards; it is literally impossible. But here’s the point - this doesn’t mean that they aren’t physically fit. All that shows is that they cannot do as many pullups or pushups as a man. It is in this regard where society does in fact recognize that there are definite differences between men and women regarding physical fitness performance tests.

But again, just because a woman cannot meet the standards developed for fully grown men, does not mean that the woman is not physically fit or incapable of performing physical tasks which the job requires.

[/quote]

I understand what you’re saying, but if thats the case then the fitness test is not necessary for anyone. Because if someone who can do 7 pushups can supposedly do the job as good as someone that can do 30, then what is the point of them at all? And if a female gets a whole minute more to complete a shuttle run, what does that prove? If a criminal is trying to escape, is he going to run slower because its a female cop? Will he even run at all? When you hear of officers that get their guns taken or nightsticks taken, its almost always a female officer against a make criminal.

Dont get me wrong, there are some tough women out here and some female cops or firefighters or military personnell do their job as good as any man. But they are the exception rather than the rule.

I took a test to be a corrections officer in the Michigan prison system. A female friend of mine also took the same test. Now when she took the test, in my mind, I already knew that being a c/o wasnt her line of work, she currently does hair at a salon. She is a girly girl, the kind that wears makeup, keeps her hair and nails and feet done all the time, wears perfume, etc.

If you saw her, you would automatically think that putting her in close contact with a bunch of sex starved men, some of whom hadnt had sex in years, wouldnt be a good idea for obvious reasons. And a lot of the girls who took the test fit the same description.

Now she probably thinks she cold handle herself, but if one of those men wanted to do something to her, it wouldnt be anything she could do but call for help and hope someone gets there in time. Realistically could she do the job, of course not. But politically correctly speaking, hell yeah she could!!!

19

[quote]clip11 wrote:
Im not here bashing a certain group. But why has pc run amok today? For instance, many fire and police departments when recruiting constantly hold women to lower standards, yet they want the same job with the same pay and benefits.

An example is this, a man having to complete 32 pushups but a woman having to complete 7. But if you have a man who only does 31 pushups, and a woman who can do just 7, doesnt the man deserved to be hired more?

If men and women are equal in every way as political correctness would have everyone to believe, why are physical fitness standards lowered to accomodate a certain group.

You lower the standards for women to get into these jobs, yet if you pay them less than a man they want to bitch and moan. When they should be thanking God that some politically correct moron lowered the standard so they could get in in the first place. A long time ago, pullups used to be part of the fitness test, but owing to the fact that most women cant do pullups, it was dropped from the test.

If everyone is so equal, why lower the standards? Why cant the group who wants to be seen as equal raise to the standards already set.[/quote]

Its all an Illuminati plot.

20

[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
But women cannot simply train harder and longer to pass some of these standards; it is literally impossible.
[/quote]

No, in most cases it is not. For example surely you will not tell us that the standards for men that clip11 posted are “literally impossible” for a woman to achieve.

Rather they would require hard work for most women and some women could not achieve them.

Where I live it is even worse than physical standards being absurdly lax for female police officers. An officer belonging to my gym said to me that in his department, the result of their allowing women as wide in the ass as they are tall (we’re talking very short women) to join the force has resulted in men likewise being able to argue that the traditional standards were arbitrary for them as well and not acceptable grounds for rejection.