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.
That would assume that the women were equally qualified and capable of performing the work. However, such does not always prove to be the case. The few women we have working freight get men to help them with heavy lifting...whereas the men do it all on their own, without help. In other words, the women stand there and say, "I need THIS put up," and the men do it--in addition to doing their own jobs, which they don't require help to do. I've put 150# shelving units on the shelf--they weigh more than I do.
But we can't fire them for that, because that's discriminatory.
I doubt that. Here's a summary of sexual discrimination laws.
There's nothing wrong with listing a job requirement as "must be able to lift 50 pounds unassisted." I see similar requirements a lot. If someone is unable to meet the job requirements, he or she can be fired or not hired at all.
I don't see an issue with reasonable accommodations, such as hand trucks or ramps, or perhaps not requiring shorter employees (male or female) to lift heavy weights over their heads (that's dangerous). But there's no reason to pay female employees to not work while the male employees do both jobs.
I didn't see anything on that EEOC site that would say otherwise, either.
Thanks. That is excellent advice for a man to seek his true potential. You really do see it from a man's perspective.
I feel I owe you something. I always told my wife that if I ever started beating her to just pick a mushroom field guide and put some shrooms in my salad. She tried to tell me that it was a dangerous hobby. No reason to go to a shelter.
I may have a quasi-male view, I prefer to say it is the logical one. What man in his right mind wants more wives? More girlfriends, more mistresses, sure, but more wives
That was actually my point: The men on this forum DO generalize...and subsequently the men here, and in the real world are harangued for their generalizations of women...usually it comes in the form of anti woman, woman hating, sexist labels...however, women generalize themselves when it is to their benefit.
I regret that I didnt make myself clear about my premise..My whole premise for my comment was that men DO generalize women, with the difference being that feminist also generalize women for their own purposes, yet when its time to hold other women to a certain standard, women splinter off into individuals the moment social responsibility enters the fray.. "oh thats her right...I have nothing to do with her decision..I cant tell her what to do..I cant live for anyone else etc."......again, but just a moment ago you (not literally you, but the figurative you) were just arguing on behalf of her plight, and her rights as a woman...and you (the figurative you) were using her generalized inclusion into the female gender as a platform to validate your own ideology.
Now now, you know I LOVE to make my "well not you" stipulations....If I dont intend to generalize, I dont. However, it is impossible to answer a question about society with an anecdotal answer which we know you are prodding me to give..lol
How you can implement social responsibility into your day to day will be a matter of you choosing to. For example, do you condone welfare for single parents who have had children out of wedlock (widows not withstanding)?...your answer will give me a read of how or whether you would plan to implement social responsibility.
But thank you for inquiring about this...I am always glad when someone takes the time to ask this question...the responsibility is to holding people to a social standard that will allow society to have a barometer to measure what is acceptable or
unacceptable.
For example, men know that for another man to abuse women and children is unacceptable...no matter how individual his choices may be...he can be as individual as he likes..but if men have conveyed to him that he will be harshly punished if ever caught abusing a woman or children, his individuality is virtually meaningless -- he either plays by the rules or receives bodily harm, and/or becomes ostracized.......male inmates institute this oversight better than anyone...sure, we can say that we ALL disagree with men abusing women and children..or that we ALL disagree with ANYBODY abusing another person ...and no doubt every woman will summon the power of the sisterhood to claim that "if a man did that to me, he'd be missing a ________.. or I'd do this and I'd do that..." But if that were truly the case, and if that was a comprehensive reality that society could live by, we wouldnt need battered women's shelters...obviously, there are more than too many women who cant or wont 'do this and do that'....
so the aspect of enforcement of that civil responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of men. Men police men. Could gangs of women rove the streets and find men who abuse women?...sure..but as a measure of efficiency, that method would not be practical nor sustainable in the long term.
somebody has to take initiative for ensuring that the "choices" of some, dont infringe in a harmful manner upon society at large (ie...the fate of society takes priority over the individual's welfare and rights)...and when one gender has sole custody of their particular power (for men it is physical power, for women it is sexual power...intellect is shared), it is up to other members of that gender to police that power from within..."Too many sexual partners?...that isnt a right that we condone, your social responsibility is _____"....."Abusive towards weaker individuals? that isnt a right that we as a gender will allow you to exercise...your social responsibility is ______".....
peer/societal pressure is a powerful thing, and feminism isnt peer pressure...in contrast it is the removal of any societal constraints to allow for each and every type of woman to be accepted by the movement, which is then twisted into a collective bargaining chip on behalf of "all women".
I do think this is one reason that men make better leaders than women (that generalization there wont win me any friends, eh?...)...and subsequently men will always be viewed as the oppressor....men seem better equipped to take responsibility for the outcomes of bad decisions of their own. Men will label other men a deadbeat dad or a woman beater or whatever else, in a heartbeat...I actually can say that I have NEVER heard a woman condemn another deadbeat mother (welfare mom) who made bad decisions, unless she has murdered her offspring.
The women that Ive encountered and seen dont and in many instances simply cant take initiative or assume responsibility for anything outside of their own welfare...'live and let live' they say -- 'doesnt pertain to me, so I have no position on it...That is, Until I can benefit from pulling her into the oppressed women's bracket and use her as another posterchild for women's victimhood...then of course, we become one in the same.'
Men, as the more physically powerful half, conversely, have always tended to be the ones who preempt things, and condemn other men for not living up to their social responsibility (this is dissipating as all incentive has been removed for men to live with integrity).... even if he isnt directly impacted by the actions of another man. The only time Ive read of a woman acting in the interest of someone completely without regard to her own personal gain is when that female officer acted bravely during the Ft. Hood massacre. Other than that, women dont confront one another for inappropriate behavior...they dont police their own...they turn the other cheek and say "welp, thats not my problem..thats her right"...this is what I meant when I said that feminism has allowed women to wriggle out of their social responsibility to hold one another accountable.
You really should consider writing a book. Very well put.
That would assume that the women were equally qualified and capable of performing the work. However, such does not always prove to be the case. The few women we have working freight get men to help them with heavy lifting...whereas the men do it all on their own, without help. In other words, the women stand there and say, "I need THIS put up," and the men do it--in addition to doing their own jobs, which they don't require help to do. I've put 150# shelving units on the shelf--they weigh more than I do.
But we can't fire them for that, because that's discriminatory.
lmao, I remember I used to hate that as a youngster working in the warehouse, and at my grocery store job...and worst of all it was mandated by female management/supervisors....I remember, I tried to protest once, and got told that "you see how tiny she is...pleeeaaassee just help her"....I remember there was only one chick who really worked the way that men had to...she was just an all around good worker...BUT I did notice that she got promoted for her sweat and toil, in less than half the time it took me to get promoted...thats actually when I turned in my resignation...my female boss asked why I was resigning and actually wouldnt accept it...she told me to come upstairs, where we finally decided that I could get a raise and a promotion too..I remember not only going above and beyond the call for my job responsibility, but I ROUTINELY helped smaller, less able workers at the direction of management.
at my warehouse job I remember there was actually this fat chick who couldnt work worth a damn...now normally I dont care if people are lazy and dont work...but she was constantly asking me to move palletts and boxes off of the conveyor belt...if you're raised as a gentleman, you're already indoctrinated to believe that any woman in distress is deserving of your aid..well, that can get taken REALLY out of hand REALLY quick, as I found out...you get taken advantage of.
My other warehouse job had blatant discrepancies too...I was always assigned to lift furniture and move pallettes while women received the stickering job, or the inventory documentation role..one chick got pregnant and didnt have to move a muscle for damn near four months before she took maternity leave..I kept thinking, if you are this incapable of working, why are you here? I wouldnt expect an injured person to just show up to work, just so that she can say she's working...so why sit around pregnant with no work required of you...just go home and relax
There's nothing wrong with listing a job requirement as "must be able to lift 50 pounds unassisted." I see similar requirements a lot. If someone is unable to meet the job requirements, he or she can be fired or not hired at all.
I don't see an issue with reasonable accommodations, such as hand trucks or ramps, or perhaps not requiring shorter employees (male or female) to lift heavy weights over their heads (that's dangerous). But there's no reason to pay female employees to not work while the male employees do both jobs.
I didn't see anything on that EEOC site that would say otherwise, either.
Except that a lot of the things that we lift are OVER 50 pounds...table saws, arc welders, generators...while one woman was on vacation, I covered her area and we had three boxes of rope come in that didn't fit on the shelf, and I had to put them in the overhead. Each weighed 125#. That's about what I weigh--I may be at most five pounds over that.
Except that a lot of the things that we lift are OVER 50 pounds...
So if he/she can't do 50 lbs then it is obvious he/she can't do over 50 lbs? My 1st job out of university required being able to carry 30 lbs or more up a ladder. They were pretty fair in demoting those that could not do it.
Yes--but let's say you fire two people for not being able to do the work. One man, one woman. The man has no recourse, but the woman screams discrimination. I've seen it happen--and they ended up retaining her.
Yes--but let's say you fire two people for not being able . to do the work. One man, one woman. The man has no recourse, but the woman screams discrimination. I've seen it happen--and they ended up retaining her.
So you work for the G as well When I was in private industry that s* *t flew nowhere fast.
The man has no recourse, but the woman screams discrimination.
But if the job description explicitly states "must be able to lift 100 pounds," and the woman in question can't do it, then she can't claim discrimination, can she? It's not a he said/she said thing. You can either lift it or you can't.
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.
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.
When I was in private industry that s* *t flew nowhere fast.
