Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A man who runs a 16:00 2 mile is failed and could be kicked out
A woman who runs a 16:00 2 mile gets a 95 and put on the fast track for promotion.
They're doing the same job....hence, there should be the same standards. If the male standards are what is truly required for the job, the women need to meet them. If the female standards are what is truly required, then there is no reason to hold men to a not job related higher standard.
Same job, same pay....feminists seem to obsess over this.....same standards.....ehhh not so much, so long as males are the ones being held to higher standards....
probably the hardest to take was in civil service where in the early 80's in SF i saw an avalanche of level 1 supervisor and middle management positions taken by women direct from the typing pool while guys like me rotted in the typing pool, later i got hard skills and figured out how to beat the gender game, but until then i felt there was something wrong with me. later i found these gals were not that qualified and did not keep the positions. the hard part was listening to all the mandatory lectures on discrimination against women while watching them all pass me up with less qualifications.
There's no doubt that affirmative action was implemented poorly for the most part, although I do believe the intentions were good. There was a time ,obviously, when women would not have been given a job they were suitably qualified for because they were a woman. But giving any minority a job they are not suitably qualified for is patronizing, and does nothing to further the ideals of equality, in my opinion. I think we have moved way passed affirmative action now, and hope people are assessed on their suitability, not chromosomes.
A man who runs a 16:00 2 mile is failed and could be kicked out
A woman who runs a 16:00 2 mile gets a 95 and put on the fast track for promotion.
They're doing the same job....hence, there should be the same standards. If the male standards are what is truly required for the job, the women need to meet them. If the female standards are what is truly required, then there is no reason to hold men to a not job related higher standard.
Same job, same pay....feminists seem to obsess over this.....same standards.....ehhh not so much, so long as males are the ones being held to higher standards....
That isn't equality. That's supremacy.
Acknowledging there are physiological differences between men and women results in different parameters to define physical fitness, correct? Men and women have different heart size and lung capacity, making the most difference with cardio. Are you suggesting that all standards be changed to allow men and women to be evaluated using the same parameters, or are you saying women should not enter professions where physical fitness is part of the requirement? No baiting, just curious.
I've seen no other so called "equality" movement so eager to demonize the opposite, and I've seen no other movement with members who resort to hatred of the opposite.
If you are talking about man-bashing, yes it happens, but can you honestly say it happens more than a group of men getting together and woman-bashing? Now there admittedly were some of the more radical feminists in the 60's and 70's who were guilty of that, but I can't honestly say it's something I have see or heard in the last 20 years, and they had a lot more difficult issues to face than feminists today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by th3vault
No other "oppressed" group enjoys more rights and less responsibilities.
I don't understand the "less responsibilities" part, please explain. I believe with less stereotypical gender roles, particularily in families, men and women assume more roles and responsibilies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by th3vault
I've seen no other movement so eager to see the opposite fail, burn and crash and become inferior to them.
I don't agree with you here, sorry. Who do you think the people are that feminists are wanting to see fail?
Quote:
Originally Posted by th3vault
Other movements are about equal opportunity, feminism is about dominance.
Acknowledging there are physiological differences between men and women results in different parameters to define physical fitness, correct? Men and women have different heart size and lung capacity, making the most difference with cardio. Are you suggesting that all standards be changed to allow men and women to be evaluated using the same parameters, or are you saying women should not enter professions where physical fitness is part of the requirement? No baiting, just curious.
I'm saying that since both men and women are doing the same job....then both should be held to the same standards that the job requires.
If men are being held to a higher standard and the job doesn't require it....that isn't equality at all. That's discrimination. How would it be if a job said men only need a high school diploma to apply, women need a B.A.? It's the same thing..... higher standards for the same job.
If women are getting by with a lower standard than the job requires...then how are they qualified for the job?
And physical differences isn't the issue. The physical capacity the job requires is the issue. Either you can do the job or not....has nothing to do with smaller lungs so lower standards. Those lungs can either function for the job....in which case male lungs can too at the same level....or they can't.
If you are talking about man-bashing, yes it happens, but can you honestly say it happens more than a group of men getting together and woman-bashing? Now there admittedly were some of the more radical feminists in the 60's and 70's who were guilty of that, but I can't honestly say it's something I have see or heard in the last 20 years, and in all honestly they had a lot more difficult issues to face than feminists today.
I don't understand the "less responsibilities" part, please explain. I believe with less stereotypical gender roles, particularily in families, men and women assume more roles and responsibilies.
I don't agree with you here, sorry. Who do you think the people are that feminists are wanting to see fail?
Dominance over whom?
1. No I don't deny women bashing doesn't happen. But "women bashing" today is happening while a couple of guys are watching a game or drinking a beer or talking in private, has no effect on anything except maybe a woman's feelings if they heard it. Male bashing is going on in politics, laws, among leaders and broadcast all over the media. That has a profound effect on the lives of men. While I don't deny that women bashing did occur in those same situations years ago, it doesn't today and feminism is supposedly about "equality"....not "turning the tables" and supremacy.
2. Check the link in my earlier post. That has many reasons.
3. Ok, didn't think y'all would agree. That's fine. We all have opinions.
I'm saying that since both men and women are doing the same job....then both should be held to the same standards that the job requires.
If men are being held to a higher standard and the job doesn't require it....that isn't equality at all. That's discrimination. How would it be if a job said men only need a high school diploma to apply, women need a B.A.? It's the same thing..... higher standards for the same job.
If women are getting by with a lower standard than the job requires...then how are they qualified for the job?
And physical differences isn't the issue. The physical capacity the job requires is the issue. Either you can do the job or not....has nothing to do with smaller lungs so lower standards. Those lungs can either function for the job....in which case male lungs can too....or they can't.
But you can't discount science in this matter. Peak physical fitness in a woman will result in different physiological parameters than peak physical fitness in a man, it just is that way. Standardizing parameters is going to result in women being ineligible, or men being unfit. I wouldn't have said it affects their capabilities to have different parameters. Whether women are physically able to perform as required by the job is a different matter, and has to be determined case by case, don't you think?
I both approve and disapprove. They want all the same rights but at none of the same costs. I say, if you want equal rights then you get equal rights in every sence of the word(s). Equal time for equal crime. Everything is equal across the board. Both for men and women. The rights women are entitled to men would have to be entitled to as well.
And here is where we have the problem. Most women dont want to pay the costs that come with the equal rights. They want to be treated like men when they want to. But when it does not suit them they crawl back to the whole...but Im a woman thing.
So I am for it but only if it is completely equal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.