Enough is Enough

[Shay]

No need to be sorry. The point is that men and women are not interchangable. They complement, yea complete each other. And because someone is sure to jump on that as a universal statement: it isn't.

I didn't think that was a point, I thought you were stating an opinion. It's nice you think we complete each other, but that's no basis for keeping up a system of discrimination.

(Oh lord, I'm starting to feel like Dennis. "Watery bints hanging around in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!")

[Dreadbelly]

It's probably for the best that men don't have babies. It would mean having breasts.

And being the stupid knobs that we are, we would most likely never leave the house again, play with our own jiggly bits willy nilly, till our nipples fell off, simply because we lack self control and know no better. God clearly put those dangerous things on the half with better control when it comes to these sorts of things. God already gave us a penis, and we can clearly see what sort of trouble that has got us all in. We can barely keep up with that as it is... We have no business having breasts. Especially us kilt wearers... Many of us sought a way to keep our wee lad and boyos more comfortable... Why, we would just flop our breasts out in public and most likely scratch them. And with our male hormones, they would be all hairy and frightful. Most certainly not something to nurse a suckling child with. With all the outcry over public breast feeding now, just imagine how it would be if men started doing it. Why, in no time at all male machismo would take over and there would be milk squirting competitions... And think of the horseplay... Why, we would be shooting one another in the eye and all manner of inappropriate activity. The very idea is a horror.

That, and we would make childbirth in to a stadium event, a sport. Baby punting. Er, launching. Because we are all a bunch of stupid gits.

Let us change the subject.

[bubba]

until you said "a given woman", this was crap. That point validated your initial statements. Otherwise your logic would follow that: based on one man's inability to pass, no men could ever pass. Therefore the standards would have to be rewritten to make it passable which is, I think, where we started.

This is why I stated I was speaking in generalities here. There is no doubt in my mind some women can do the job and there's no reason to exclude them. and Shay, when it comes to surgery I'd be inclined to opt for a woman surgeon any day of the week given the choice and I did when it came to getting eye surgery. :-) I done went and put my vision where my mouth was.

[Shay]

Shay, when it comes to surgery I'd be inclined to opt for a woman surgeon any day of the week given the choice and I did when it came to getting eye surgery. :-) I done went and put my vision where my mouth was.

Alright, but here's what's jumping out at me from a previous post that you're not answering...

Men have much more upper body strength ( don't slam me about chairborne warriors please, I'm speaking generalities). This is a biological fact. Women, on the other hand, have far better fine motor coordination.
....

On the specific level, standards need to be standards. Anyone competing for a given job should meet or exceed those standards and when lives depend on those standards they need to be strictly enforced.
....

We all need to understand our own limitations.

Okay, so should men be barred from surgery and other delicate work, then? That's what I mean by having your cake and eating it too. Either certain jobs should go to one gender more statistically suited to them or none should.

Edit- Gah- bubba, I'm sorry... I totally had a brain fart there and thought you weren't speaking in generalities. I apologize for not reading more closely.

However, my little poke at the double standard still stands for those who think only men can do certain jobs!

[bubba]

Shay, yeah, I'm speaking primarily in generalities. I have to since I don't know every man and woman alive. ;-) What I'm getting at is standards for professions such as firefighters and police, just as an example, should never be relaxed for anyone. Only those that can meet or exceed them should be considered for hiring and any woman that is up to the job should get equitable consideration. No hoo hoo. From the military aspect, women tend to be noticably better at marksmanship. That's a matter of fine motor coordination. On the down side they're generally not going to keep up to the guys humping a 70 pound pack across country. Our society really needs to utilize peoples strengths and minimize the weaknesses without falling into fits of testosterone poisoning or floods of bra smoke. Common sense seems to get lost in the fight and so does cooperation. No one needs to be subservient if we can learn to pull together instead of compete.

[Colin]

Okay, so should men be barred from surgery and other delicate work, then? That's what I mean by having your cake and eating it too. Either certain jobs should go to one gender more statistically

I think Bubba is speaking in physical capacity. When it comes to job's, like brain surgeon, it is those that excel at academics, not their physical make up, that succed in their bid to obtain that position. Since it is true that women are more intelligent than men, should we lower the expectations on any testing men get, so it better suits the disadvantage we are given naturally? I didn't think so.

[KMacT]

I am not advocating and race or gender preferenace, but I would prefer to see it as may the best person win. Equal standards for all.

It is argued that if the best person for the job typically got the job, there would be no need for affirmative action. But as Shay said, there has been a lot of preference given for a long time, and that preference has often trumped "the best person for the job" criteria.

Kevin

[Colin]

It is argued that if the best person for the job typically got the job, there would be no need for affirmative action. But as Shay said, there has been a lot of preference given for a long time, and that preference has often trumped "the best person for the job" criteria.

Kevin

too true, but two wrongs still don't make a right.

[Freedomlover]

Shay, yeah, I'm speaking primarily in generalities. I have to since I don't know every man and woman alive. ;-) What I'm getting at is standards for professions such as firefighters and police, just as an example, should never be relaxed for anyone. Only those that can meet or exceed them should be considered for hiring and any woman that is up to the job should get equitable consideration. No hoo hoo. From the military aspect, women tend to be noticably better at marksmanship. That's a matter of fine motor coordination. On the down side they're generally not going to keep up to the guys humping a 70 pound pack across country. Our society really needs to utilize peoples strengths and minimize the weaknesses without falling into fits of testosterone poisoning or floods of bra smoke. Common sense seems to get lost in the fight and so does cooperation. No one needs to be subservient if we can learn to pull together instead of compete.

Yea, verily. Thanks, Bubba, for cutting through the fog.

[KMacT]

That's the way I see things. Equal standards for the same job. If it's a set of physical standards, they should be the same for men or women. On the other hand, the standards should not be set artificially high, but realistic for the job.

In Canada we call these bona fide occupational requirements. You can't set them arbitrarily, but if they are bona fide, then they can be applied to all applicant (or workers).

Kevin