here's a thread gaureteed to cause controversy...

ok, i'll admit its inspired elseware(namely http://www.michaelmoore.com/cgi-bin/...&f=17&t=000157 but dont bother trying to read it all...i'm about to sum up the points important to this post). basically what that thread says is that if anybody doesnt like the ideas of "feminism" you are either a "Whiny little white boys, or crybaby caucasians"...am i the only one who this pisses off?

i mean personally, as a "whiny little white boy", i have ALOT agaist feminism, as i do against all "special intrest" equality groups. its groups like these that are the reason they had to change the PSAT's to include a section that girls would do better on because there was a difference in the scores(i know its petty, but thats just the first example that came to mind). its groups like these that force different standards for different groups to get the SAME jobs.

now, while the idiot white supremisist in that thread has alot of poits wrong, he does have some right...such as when he talks about "artificial equality". i mean why is it that the physical standards for a woman to get a job as a police officer in connecticut is a joke while the standards for men are quite high? for instance(all numbers gathered from www.policecertification.com - a website for the company that does the physical testing in CT, where i happen to work from time to time):
a 21 year old male has to do 40 situps in 60 seconds, sit and reach 17.5", benchpress 106% of his weight, and run a mile and a half in 11 mins 49 seconds
while a 21 year old female has to do only 35 situps in 60 seconds, sit and reach 20", benchpress 65% of her weight, and run a mile and a half in 14:08

now, look at these standards. they are drastically different, but they HAVE to be to avoid "sex discrimination" law suits. there is nothing fair or just about this. if we are going to do physical assesment, it should be UNIVERSAL(btw, this includes getting rid of the different requirements for different ages). what i want to see is the only fastest strongest cops, only the best coders, only the most proficiant at WHATEVER the job is. down with artificial "equilisation" because it is anything but.

btw, try to refrain from flaming too much, as i'm sure there are alot of people who feel strongly about this topic.

Well, the military has lowered their qualification levels so that women can complete the course also. Such as during physical tactical exercises. Sure thats all nice and dandy, but think about this. Do you really the military, to be big bad ass killing machines, so that during a time of war, they are strong, and are capable of handling anything physically demanding. Or would you want the military to be 'dumbed down' per se, in the physical aspect. I'd rather have some killing machines, than a bunch of military personnel who do not have the stamina, or strength to complete the mission.

When people treat women different or try to make women men something is very wrong. This however is not feminism.

I have read quite alot on feminism and I dare to say that my oppinion is that anyone that isn't a femist is a moron. There are mainly two reasons for this:

1) Feminism has nothing to do with treating women different. Feminism is not affirmative action.
2) Feminism is the strong belief that men and women have equal value. Thus they should get payed the same money for the same job. They should get equal attention and help in school and kindergarten and they should be treated with equal respect in their lifes.

That is the *only* thing feminism is about. If it's anything else, someone is using the word wrong.

It is sad because feminism when you think about it is something very natural that pretty much anyone can agree to. The problem is that alot of people, both women and men use the word in a broad and inaccurate way resulting in outbrakes of anger like this thread.

If anyone is interested in feminism as a branch of modern western philosophy there are tons of books dealing with the subject. Read some.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by 8*B@LL
ok, i'll admit its inspired elseware(namely http://www.michaelmoore.com/cgi-bin/...&f=17&t=000157 but dont bother trying to read it all...i'm about to sum up the points important to this post). basically what that thread says is that if anybody doesnt like the ideas of "feminism" you are either a "Whiny little white boys, or crybaby caucasians"...am i the only one who this pisses off?

---

No... suffice it to say that Michael Moore is an ass. I'd almost compare him to Rush Limbaugh or to Dr. Laura. All in all you will find a lot of people that will identify with them for whatever point, but you're going to find just-as-many that will strongly disagree with him/them.

All in all, it's all a matter of perspective, I guess... and there's a lot of disinformation out there; no one's immune from circulating it at some point, either, I'd imagine.

<edit>
For all those woh like Michael Moore... like I said/insinuated... he has a few good points, I'll concede. I'll just say that he seems to have a habit of taking things to an extremist's point - and, myself, I tend to try to be somewhat moderate/liberal (probably not quite the right words there - it's getting late).

Suffice it to say that I, personally, always try to imagine things from other people's point of view, given their opinion... I may not always succeed, but I try... and, as I said, everyone's entitled to their own opinion - I don't necessarily have to agree with them.
</edit>

Also, when talking about female police officers. Don't you think it's right to have lower physical standars for women so that more women apply? I'm sure that more women it the police force is a good thing. From a psychosocial standpoint or somethign. But I might be wrong.

Cheers,

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Mankan
Also, when talking about female police officers. Don't you think it's right to have lower physical standars for women so that more women apply? I'm sure that more women it the police force is a good thing. From a psychosocial standpoint or somethign. But I might be wrong.

Cheers,

---

Well, as far as a basis for "it's good to have more women in the police force" - absolutely not... just because a perception is that a particular job/area/whatever needs to be more balanced so we'll change our requirements - that's almost always a bad thing, IMO.

And, well... perhaps some requirements should be adjusted... but, IMO, if you are hiring for a physical job, the physical requirements should be "fair" and the same to both (personally, I think that women and men can all run just-as-fast, and lift weights in-proportion to their body weight just-as-equally). Likewise, the pay scales should be equal. If that's not fair, then... *shrug*

(No, it's NOT fair to say to have to be able to lift a particular amount of weight, or jump so high, I think... that's a disadvantage to those with less body mass, height, etc... men and women alike)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by draziw


No... suffice it to say that Michael Moore is an ass. I'd almost compare him to Rush Limbaugh or to Dr. Laura. All in all you will find a lot of people that will identify with them for whatever point, but you're going to find just-as-many that will strongly disagree with him/them.

All in all, it's all a matter of perspective, I guess... and there's a lot of disinformation out there; no one's immune from circulating it at some point, either, I'd imagine.

<edit>
For all those woh like Michael Moore... like I said/insinuated... he has a few good points, I'll concede. I'll just say that he seems to have a habit of taking things to an extremist's point - and, myself, I tend to try to be somewhat moderate/liberal (probably not quite the right words there - it's getting late).

Suffice it to say that I, personally, always try to imagine things from other people's point of view, given their opinion... I may not always succeed, but I try... and, as I said, everyone's entitled to their own opinion - I don't necessarily have to agree with them.
</edit>

---

actually, although it happens to be on the forums of his website, he has nothing to do with the thread in any way...it was just in one of his forums full of full-of-themselves idiots.

anyway, i would like to toss in annother point to the mix here(even though i know its not even close to the correct term to be using): the "rabid feminist".

if you DO take the time to read through that thread you will find it painfully obvious that some people have a bit of a problem. namely(other than the rasist bastards, but talking about them would require atleast a whole thread of their own), quite a few of those self-proclaimed "feminists". as soon as anybody makes a post disagreeing with them in the slightest, if its a man they flame away as if it was the anti-christ himself telling them to follow him. and THEN they seem to not understand that just because sombody tells you to try to act civil they dont have to be saying "dont dissagree with men".

i for one HATE trying to talk to sombody as plain abusive as alot of those people acted, especially when i come in with a genuinly non-agressive post, and they feel the need to attack with all that their hate-filled mind can muster. it doesnt matter if its a man or woman on the other side of that computer screen, all that matters is that they are acting like *******s and cant keep it civil.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Mankan
It is sad because feminism when you think about it is something very natural that pretty much anyone can agree to. The problem is that alot of people, both women and men use the word in a broad and inaccurate way resulting in outbrakes of anger like this thread.

If anyone is interested in feminism as a branch of modern western philosophy there are tons of books dealing with the subject. Read some.

---

i'll admit i havent read up on it myself, i'm just judging from my own personal interactions and observations about people who call themselves feminists.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Mankan
Also, when talking about female police officers. Don't you think it's right to have lower physical standars for women so that more women apply? I'm sure that more women it the police force is a good thing. From a psychosocial standpoint or somethign. But I might be wrong.

---

in what way could it possibly be better to have a police force that, on average, cant run 1.5 miles as fast as it could if the requirements were the same for both sexes? is a slower poliece force somehow helpfull? is a weaker(weight lifting wise) poliece force somehow benificial?

other than that, i dont see any psychosocial problems with having it predomininatly male. i mean i went to an all male HS and had VERY limitied interactions with girls at all durring those 4 years...did that somehow screw me up? not that i know of. did that screw up my father(who went to the same school 30 years before i did)? not that i know of. does working in a nearly completely male workplace(he's a programmer) screw up my father? not that i know of.

i guess my point is that having more or less interaction with the oposite sex doesnt really matter all that much in the end; all that really matters is getting the job done.

oh yes, and let me throw this back at you: who would you rather have write/desigh your antivirus and firewall? the person who got the job because they were the best, or the woman who whas hired in order to fix the "psychosocial" situation in the workplace....i think the answer is clear.

Alright. I get you both, Draziw and 8*B@LL.

Police work in Sweden and in the US is quite different I guess but I still think female police officers have a place to fill in a modern law enforcement agency.

The way I see it, police work is so much more that physical labour. It's a about psychology. It's about helping people. It's about understanding very complex psychological situations.

Female cops can talk to gang bangers or whatever in a way that a male cop can't because the gang banger doesn't feel threatened/patronized/whatever by a female.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

What I find wrong with the system isnt just about women, but about the favoring of minoritys in general. I am a police officer candidate, and scored 97 of 100 on my entry exam. Yet I am not placed because I am a "white" male, so I am of the majority applying.
I have nothing against ANY other race or gender. What my grudge is watching someone who scored lower than me get placed first because a quota must be filled, where so many of this race or so many of that gender must be placed. I say we should be putting those who did the best on the force, not by a government quota, but by the ability to perform and do the job. Would you want someone defending your life and property, etc, simply because of race/gender and not because they were the best person for the job??
My 0.02

Avenger

All about quotas unfortunately. When the masses allow themselves to be led by fools with certain agendas, political correctness is only one of the downsides.

Seems like this thread is running a bit wild. There's an excellent discussion going onhere on reverse discrimination, affirmative action and what not.

I'm still of the opinion that affirmative action can be a good thing at certain times. It does not, however, have anything to do with feminism.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by 8*B@LL
i mean why is it that the physical standards for a woman to get a job as a police officer in connecticut is a joke while the standards for men are quite high? for instance(all numbers gathered from www.policecertification.com - a website for the company that does the physical testing in CT, where i happen to work from time to time):
a 21 year old male has to do 40 situps in 60 seconds, sit and reach 17.5", benchpress 106% of his weight, and run a mile and a half in 11 mins 49 seconds
while a 21 year old female has to do only 35 situps in 60 seconds, sit and reach 20", benchpress 65% of her weight, and run a mile and a half in 14:08

now, look at these standards. they are drastically different, but they HAVE to be to avoid "sex discrimination" law suits. there is nothing fair or just about this. if we are going to do physical assesment, it should be UNIVERSAL(btw, this includes getting rid of the different requirements for different ages). what i want to see is the only fastest strongest cops, only the best coders, only the most proficiant at WHATEVER the job is.

---

Ok, the lessening on the sit-up requirements is ok, because it is offset by the sit-and-reach, where the women have to reach 2.5" longer. But a woman should be able to lift 106% of their body weight, and their 1.5 mile time should be reduced (not necessarily equal, but close). If you look at marathons, the women's pack always finishes behind the men's pack -- not by much, but enough to demonstrate that men are naturally faster than women. But it also shows that women can make those marks (hell, I can make the men's running reqs, and I'm in crappy shape!!). But the lifting reqs should be the same, as the equality is taken into consideration by using percent of body weight.

Let's face it -- it you can't lift your own body, how do you expect to restrain a 200 pound speed addict? It's not safe for the public, and it certainly puts the women at risk. Standards are put in place for everybody's safety, and should never be lowered to avoid offense and 'quotas'.

And stuff like this would piss me off if I were a woman or a minority. I would want the job because I earned it, because I the best person for the job, not because of my sex or race. Hell, that's discrimination in and of itself, IMHO. All because soem people whined about equality and took it too far.

I'm all for equality, and equal rights. However, I fail to see how Affirmitive Action and the like make things equal by tipping odds in other's favors, just because of their minority status. Somehow, I think we have to change people's attitudes toward one another, rather than institute policies to make up for it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by DarkGuardian
Ok, the lessening on the sit-up requirements is ok, because it is offset by the sit-and-reach, where the women have to reach 2.5" longer.

---

well not really...the sit and reach is just a simple flexibility test that NOBODY fails(well, almost nobody). all you have to do is sit down with your feet against a wall and reach as far farwards as you can. i cant see how this could in any way make up for not having to be able to do the same ammount of sit-ups

Quote:

---

But a woman should be able to lift 106% of their body weight

---

agreed.

Quote:

---

their 1.5 mile time should be reduced (not necessarily equal, but close). If you look at marathons, the women's pack always finishes behind the men's pack -- not by much, but enough to demonstrate that men are naturally faster than women.

---

erm...well a marathon is 26 miles, so if you were to keep the same ratio, but scale it down to only a mile and a half it would be AT MOST a difference of about 15 or 20 seconds...not something in the order of minuits like that is. also, who cares if men are naturally faster? isn't getting the best people for the job all that matters?

Quote:

---

And stuff like this would piss me off if I were a woman or a minority. I would want the job because I earned it, because I the best person for the job, not because of my sex or race. Hell, that's discrimination in and of itself, IMHO. All because soem people whined about equality and took it too far.

---

exactly, all it takes is a few pissed off idiots and next thing you know there are such stupid things as "race quota's" and "sex quota's"(and not in the good way :D

Quote:

---

I'm all for equality, and equal rights. However, I fail to see how Affirmitive Action and the like make things equal by tipping odds in other's favors, just because of their minority status. Somehow, I think we have to change people's attitudes toward one another, rather than institute policies to make up for it.

---

most definatly agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Mankan
Alright. I get you both, Draziw and 8*B@LL.
[...]
Female cops can talk to gang bangers or whatever in a way that a male cop can't because the gang banger doesn't feel threatened/patronized/whatever by a female.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

---

I see what you're getting at, but gang bangers are, in-general, going to be less respective of a female they might be able to intimidate than a big burly dude with no neck, wearing a handgun and a bullet proof vest who can't put his arms all the way down to his size because his lats are so freakin' big (and yes, seems to be a lot of male cops that look that way in and around violent neighborhoods (in California, that's Oakland, East Palo Alto, and all sorts of places in the LA area)).

In those areas, I'd presonally say that the women cops can go in to "psych," but that's primarily people who talk to jumpers or hostage negotiators, as far as I know.

Quote:

---

In those areas, I'd presonally say that the women cops can go in to "psych," but that's primarily people who talk to jumpers or hostage negotiators, as far as I know.

---

Yeah it might be so. I dunno. Still, there seems to be a need for female cops too.
Anyway, seems like we've reached some sort of consensus. Thanks for a most interesting discussion. :)

yes, i'd say we have a relitive consensus, but i still dont quite understand where the NEED for female cops comes from...just like i dont see where the NEED for male cops is. all i want is the best, male/femal, black/white/other...doesnt matter to me, as long as they can get the job done. for instance, i would rather have Chyna(i think thats how she spells her name...the WWF chick who was in playboy) as a cop than some of the wimpy-looking guys that i have personally tested(like i sad above(i think), i work for that poliece certification company from time to time) because of her mere intimidation factor...i mean she's HUGE.

my problem really is with this idea that there is a "need" for X type of person, when infact, the only need i see is for the person who gets the job done the best.

Yes there is a need for female police officers. When you have a woman or girl who is brutalized, beaten or raped by a man...she is not going to talk to a man, she is not going to feel comfortable with a man, she is not going to report the crime to a man. Whether you like the physical requirements or not, it is a fact of life. A very large number of violent crimes commited (in the US anyway) are commited by men to women. That is where the need for female officers come in.

I have been following this thread for several days, and I think you've not come to a concensus. I think you've come to an agreement of men patting themselves on the back for agreeing that "letting" women have a physical job is pretty decent of you men.

Deb

Okay, I admit it, I´ve also been quietly following the thread.
ANd i also admit it: I´m a feminist.
And Mankan, I´m with you from the very start of it :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by debwalin
Yes there is a need for female police officers. When you have a woman or girl who is brutalized, beaten or raped by a man...she is not going to talk to a man, she is not going to feel comfortable with a man, she is not going to report the crime to a man. Whether you like the physical requirements or not, it is a fact of life. A very large number of violent crimes commited (in the US anyway) are commited by men to women. That is where the need for female officers come in.

---

Agreed. Women are needed in the Police Force. Women, not only have advantages as you mention, and in those situations, but have a different way of dealing with perps, which can be quite beneficial. Sometimes a different way of handling people can produce the best results. But to reserve women for just these special instances seems like a bad idea. Women officers should be as qualified for EVERY situation, because if they are male or female, they are still COPS and dealing with criminals. Therefore, they should have to deal with the same entrance requirements as anybody else. To lower the bar for women just so that they can meet a quota is obsurd, and dangerous, for both the women and the public. If they don't have the strength and stamina to handle an 200 pound wife-beater, they aren't going to get a chance to deal with the victim. If you want to have a person to just handle female victims, get a social worker. A cop should be able to handle themselves in ANY situation, regardless of sex, race, or age, or actual position in the force.

Quote:

---

I have been following this thread for several days, and I think you've not come to a concensus. I think you've come to an agreement of men patting themselves on the back for agreeing that "letting" women have a physical job is pretty decent of you men.

Deb

---

Gee, I thought the consensus was that there should be no differences between entrance requirements for both men and women. I wouldn't "let" a woman have a job, just as I wouldn't let a "man" have a job. I would let the best person have the job. As long as they can meet the specifications laid down by the PD.

I've know women police officers. I've known women soldiers. Hell, I've even met women fighter pilots. I know that they could ALL hold their own against their male equivalents. I have no problems what so ever with women in any job. I'm all for equality in the sexes. But as I've said before, it comes with making things equal, not by lowering the bar so that women have an easier time and statisticallly it looks equal. Instead, people's attitudes should be changed -- in particular, the HR director who has it in his head that a man would be better suited for the position. I know that is why these AA policies were put into place -- to offset that mindset. But personally, if I were in that position, I would be insulted to be hired to meet a quota. I would want to be hired because they thought I was the best for the position, not to bump up a statistic.

As someone in the field, let me offer some of my own insights....

Police Work (as in most so called "Physical Professions" like Solidering and the like) is actually mostly paperwork and inter-personal skills. Few Cops pull there guns, and even fewer use them. Being able to beat someone to a bloody pulp is no longer the most important skill. Being able to effectively communicate with the community, however, is. As deb said, female victims want to speak to female police officers. Same with minorities. One of the biggest issues we have in the field (that is a Gov't Agency requesting a police officer to take a report) is getting a police officer who is a woman or speaks a forgien language.

Now to get more police that have these skills, we have to change (some here might call it lowering) the physical standards so that people who spend more time on their mind than their body building can make it into the academy. Sure some women can make the same standards as men, but that lowers the number of acceptable applicants, and prevents us from getting the numbers we need. Likewise police agencies make exceptions for cadidates with special skills, such as a second language and the like...

An exception to this rule: SWAT teams/Civil Disturbance Units (CDUs)/Emergency Response Teams all have the same standards for men and women. These specialized units have more men than women, but as they mostly are responsible for "physical" work (i.e. breaking heads) they do not have the need of the diversity of knowledge and experience that a beat cop needs.

Just my 2¢.

BTW As a man who thinks that women are or should be given equal chances as men, I consider myself a feminist....

Here is my short and Simple answer:
I DOn't care, not that the topic isn't good, but as it stand's only Short-sighted people even notice the diference, men and women are basicaly the same on eatch and every level, so why whine about it, I can't see why a woman couldn't do a man's job just as well any one else, and there for, there should be no sutch thing as "A Man's Job"
At least that's how I feel.....

Don't flame, it's just my 2 cent's, I can't change the world, but I can have my twisted opinion's :)
- Noia
:D

Quote:

---

I have been following this thread for several days, and I think you've not come to a concensus. I think you've come to an agreement of men patting themselves on the back for agreeing that "letting" women have a physical job is pretty decent of you men.

---

Ouch. :(

That sort of offended me. I can't really see where, in what's been written so far, you've been able to experience this patronisation or whatever you want to call it.

I don't feel that way at all because I know that I myself would've reacted to any "shoulder patting" going on.

I have only argued for an actual demand, a need for female police officers. Others have debated against it, the argument beeing that if physical standards need to be lowered in order for women to stand a chance, the profession in question is not for women.

The argument was originally that the word feminism was used in a wrongful way. When the thread drifted away to physical standards I noticed a concensus in that there is an actuall need for both sexes in the law enforcement business.

i have to agree with noia on this one

i think considering the main job focused on by this thread being an officer of the law that as some one from the field jcmcb mad his view known very well he definatly has the most objective view to the situation

ok i didnt read this much but i say that ill fight beside any woman in combat if she earns it. i dont mean that if she reaches her 'female' standards. i mean if she reached my 'male' standards. its not like the guy shooting at you will say, oh shes a woman, shes physicaly slower than a male so ill only shoot at her once every 10 or so shots....... hell no, shell get picked out and picked off in no time. but then again, if shes faster than me, stronger than me, and can shoot better than me, then damnit shes a better soldier than me and ill be the first to admit it! but im not talking on this graded slope for women thing. if she can sctualy take me to the ground, out run me, and out shot me, THEN ill stand beside her in combat. army doctrine is to meave no man behind. thats in the event of a retreat, now if your riunning for your life do you really wanna have to go as slow as your slowest member which hapens to be a famale and shes running with her 18 min 2mile time, while i make a 13 min 2 mile? nope, not me. not to say that if the **** hit the fan i wouldnt not suport a female that just hapened to end up beside me some how, no. but i wouldnt take someone that is not up to the level of the unit out with me. but if she can run my 13 min 2 mile and shoot as good as the rest of the troops then hell yeah, ill have her any day! but in combat if you cant hold your the same weight as everyone else then you unbalance everything and other people have to compensate for it. if i have on my team a woman and shes not as hardened as the rest of my troopers then this 30 mile trek were setting out for at 3am is gonna turn out to be only 20 miles cause SHE cant make it, meaning that if were to make the other 10 miles, the other people have to compensate for her, that means posibly carry her, or even just push her harder and risk injury to her, if not the unit.
for those of you that are saying that im being sexist by talking only about women, well news flash, if a man didnt hold to the standard that i set, then hes not gonna be beside me either. unfourtionatly in combat theres no going back and re planning your team cause some of them died, one shot one kill, if shes an easy target then shes dead, if shes the one thats the slowest then shes dead, if she cant fix her weapon if it jams then shes dead. theres no second chances, life is a one shot deal and if you can prove to me that a woman is as well suited to kill as this man over here then by god ill take her, till then frontline of the military is going to be off limets to women. sorry, its the truth, women are not as physicaly equiped to perforn the riggors of war.

ok thats my 2 bits, welcome any thoughts or flames

Personally, I have never been in favour of reverse discrimination, discrimination, rabid feminism, et. al..

It basically boils down to one thing: some people feel the need to segregate other people into groups. Be they women, black-skinned, olive-skinned, white, come from a different country, or speak a different language. It all boils down to segregation, be it in whole or in part. And I have a feeling that most people have something against segregation. The people who are racist, mysoginists, etc., are not the norm, they're the exception to the rule, if you will.

What you have to look at is the motivation behind creating different requirements for women than men. The motivation, as I understand it, is not because of discrimination, but rather because the police force wants more women -- along with men -- to join the police force. As it has been stated, police work isn't all about beating people constantly or running all the time, most often it's about driving around, filling out paperwork, and only occassionally running and etc.. There are legitimate reasons to have more women in the police force. Let's face it, it's real hard for a woman to rape a man. It's not anywhere near as difficult for a man to rape a woman, so it makes sense to increase the percentage of female officers with counselling training on a police force, does it not?

I'm in IT, yet the office I work in is a slim majority female. This is because while the IT department is comprised of 5 men, 1 woman, the rest of the company is comprised of 8 men, and 14 women. In total, that's 13 men, 16 women. Only one working 'position of power' is held by a man, two if you include our CEO who is only there to make company-wide decisions.
The department head positions are held by a slim majority by women, but it's a close 3-2 split as well. The pay rates are equal as well. The men who are workers in one department make the same amount of money as female workers in the same department (though it does vary based on skills).

I'm only going on about this because contrary to popular belief, there ARE places out there where women are treated equally. I'm lucky to work in one, and I don't think it's such a massive thing to have different required qualifications for women than men.

Quote:

---

I'm only going on about this because contrary to popular belief, there ARE places out there where women are treated equally. I'm lucky to work in one, and I don't think it's such a massive thing to have different required qualifications for women than men.

---

I think there ate plenty of places where women and men are treated equally but I also think we have a long way to go. I see danger in declareing the society equal just because women earn the same money as men.

When the EU, the UN and the US Congress consists of 50% women we are equal. Until then I think something is wrong. I refuse to belive that women aren't interested in those kinds of jobs or that it's in their interest to break off their careers to stay home with kids or whatever.

Chsh - an intelligent post.

The next time there is a war, I want all males to be excused.
The women should be drafted and fight all of the wars for
the next thousand years. We have done our share of bleeding,
and deserve to stay home next time.
:cool:

Just to let you guys know, I have to go through this all the time...

To pass the tests to get my application certificate I have to run the mile 1/2 within 11mins while the female counterpart has 13mins...

However, after seeing most of these women do the tests, I realize that most cannot achieve the 11 minute mark....

The reason the testing is "unfair" in some peoples views is that goverment agencies have to balance out their staff...

As we speak, the police forces have a 90% male (white), 5% female (white), and 5% (minority)
(Side Note: That's here in Canada, dunno about the rest of ya...)

Because of the numbers, goverment agencies must make the tests "easier" for the females to achieve so they can get hired and balance out the numbers....

Similar to JP and the antipoint system... the goverment don't want to seem sexist or racist, thus the reason for easy passing...

Also, if I a white male and a white female apply at the same time, have the same scores and so, I'm screwed out of the job because the female is going to get it...

Best chance to get hired, to be a minotiry female.....

That's just the way it is....

(Oh yeah, forgot to mention that women are better in domestic situations, rape issues, sex related offenses with female victims, bathered women, where children are victims, and so...)

I agree with Logoff, he has basically covered it.

But here is another scenario...

In my country, we have a quota with the Education system. The population composition is Race A is 60%, with Race B is 25% and Race C 15%, plus or minus quite a bit. So now, to go to a public University we have we have the same quota reflective of the population composition. And (this must be taken with a pinch of salt) Race B scores like 90 in the exams and Race A scores like 60-70.

Therefore, a guy from Race B has to score 95% in the exams to even STAND a chance to get in the U, while the guy from Race A needs to only score like 60% in the exams. But get this, the coup de grace, Race A's quota is hardly ever filled. Yep, they are not even interested to get in. So much for meritocracy.

And now there are plans to enforce quota for private colleges and Universities. So much for free trade and market determination.

And we also have laws that throw my arse in jail for 3 years without trial or a court hearing for bringing this up. So much for the democratic process.

This is my only post on the subject. Thanks for listening.

sincerely,
cow.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by rcgreen
The next time there is a war, I want all males to be excused.
The women should be drafted and fight all of the wars for
the next thousand years. We have done our share of bleeding,
and deserve to stay home next time.
:cool:

---

while this is obviously ment jokingly, it reminds me of a point that i have forgotten to make:
"equal treatment" means the same treatement ACROSS THE BOARD.

now, i have a question: what is an 18 year old girl's biggest thing to worry about?(horibly phrased, i know, but i'm tired) maybe that she shows up to the prom wearing the same dress as sombody else?(ok, maybe its something less trivial than that, but bear with me here)

whats an 18 year old guy's biggest worry? i can tell you...its that he just filled out a draft card that signs his life away at the governments whim. how "equal" is that?

OK I think there is no disagreeing to the fact that women and men have different physical strenghts, but women are stronger in many areas than men.

No doubt about it if a women is raped or beaten she will respond better to a woman police officer.
Women are more compassionate in most instances.

In battle such as war, if a woman is compentant regardless of male and female standards and has the guts to fight, she is entitled to fight for her country.

I am a woman in a man's industry and I fight the discrimination and often suprise of men when they learn that I know as much, often more than they do.

Women are equal to men, just not the same as men and thank God for that!