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.
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.
Look at it this way, she may not be able to find a boy friend with a job.
As far as physical abilities are concerned I completely agree that if a position requires a worker to be able to lift a certain amount of weight it has to be exactly the same test for both men and women. I know that firefighters have some very rigorous tests that they must be able to pass and only a few women can pass them and of course there's also many men who wouldn't be able to pass them as well.
However if you look at the overall job market most positions don't require much physical strength because most industries are so mechanized that machinery is doing the lifting as opposed to human muscles.
The real issue in society has been the acceptance of women into positions of authority such as CEO's and high upper management. Progress has been made in most blue collar jobs and various technical jobs that were once exclusively all male but the most powerful positions are still dominated by men and of course that would include politics. Fortunately progress is being made in these areas and more and more women who are qualified are finally being recognized for their abilities instead of their gender.
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.
You know something? I've never even SEEN my job description. You can either do the job required of you, or you can't. Technically, some items are supposed to be a 2-person lift, but it doesn't work that way in practice. For all I know, the job description makes no specific requirement on what amount of weight one should be able to lift.
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.
Ok, I see your point. I'm also gathering that the men here believe they are generalizing themselves to their benefit and your saying it's actually to their detriment. Hmm, that's interesting. I'm still at work so I will have to consider this when I get home.
Quote:
I regret that I didnt make myself clear about my premise.
It may be my bad. I've been posting before work lately so I may be reading too fast and responding before I understand. I give myself 30 minutes to play in the morning and that might not be enough time.
Quote:
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.
I'm not sure what we're supposed to do when either gender deviates from our ideals. I'm a feminist and I certainly don't hold men en masse to the generalizations put forth by other men/women. Like wise with women en masse. Perhaps I'm not getting it right now. What would you have me say (general me) to a woman in a specific situation? Can you give an example? That might help.
Quote:
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
Well, what am I supposed to do? If there's an issue in my day-to-day, something in my face, I attempt to tackle it. If something is happening outside my reach I feel pretty helpless or I'm simply unaware. Context matters.
Quote:
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.
I have some pretty conservative views regarding welfare. Views that often get me lambasted off and online. I'll throw it out there...my solution to the problem...sure, societal help within reason. We can't let children go hungry, etc. But, if a woman or man, married or not, is surving on the public dole for more than one year, be it welfare, unemployment, housing, whatever, I feel that mandatory birth control should be a stipulation. I'm thinking of BC that can be implanted and last for months/years. Now, I know that makes me sound like some kind of a nut. I cannot think of another solution, but I'm open to it. And, my opinions are derived from my experience/anecdotes.
Quote:
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.
Well, I have no idea how to hold anyone responsible in accord with my ideals.
Quote:
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'....
This is true. I believe poverty and education plays a big role here. The way we're going, disparity is exponentially growing and will continue. I have no idea how to contend with that.
Quote:
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 ______".....
Here's the thing, as I see it, if I'm correct in that poverty and education are players in women getting themselves mucked in violent situations, then poverty and education needs to be addressed. On this front, I see change happening. My grandmother was abused by her husband, but she couldn't leave. Both her daughters were abused by him as well. There has been change from one generation to the next. My mother was better than my grandmother. And I'm better, relationship wise, than my mother. The cycle of violence in my family has ended with me and I largely contribute this to my education. So, point being, more and more women are becoming educated and setting themselves up for a different way of life than what their mothers had. This may not seem apparent, but keep in mind we did not have the degree of media back in the day like we do now. This has been accomplished over the years by those that support equal opportunity for women.
Quote:
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 don't believe every life style is accepted by the movement. Not from what I see/experience at least. I did not accept the marriage my gf was in. They were both violent and I urged her for years to leave him. I advised her along the way to do what I feel women should do in those situations, get an education and leave. That's exactly what she did. That's the solution, not locking her ex up every time he punched her in the face.
Quote:
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.
I think you're missing the forest for the tree. Well, you heard it from me. One of the many reasons I support BC as a stipulation for welfare is due to a woman I know with 4 kids. She got on dole after the first. It's been 14 years. None of them can read well. They have all been left back several times in school. They spent most of their lives in the Bronx ghetto. She had no business having children at all. These kids will no doubt turn out to be criminals.
Quote:
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.
Untrue. I've never come across a woman that condones another woman abusing her child. Live and let live boloney.
As far as physical abilities are concerned I completely agree that if a position requires a worker to be able to lift a certain amount of weight it has to be exactly the same test for both men and women. I know that firefighters have some very rigorous tests that they must be able to pass and only a few women can pass them and of course there's also many men who wouldn't be able to pass them as well.
However if you look at the overall job market most positions don't require much physical strength because most industries are so mechanized that machinery is doing the lifting as opposed to human muscles.
The real issue in society has been the acceptance of women into positions of authority such as CEO's and high upper management. Progress has been made in most blue collar jobs and various technical jobs that were once exclusively all male but the most powerful positions are still dominated by men and of course that would include politics. Fortunately progress is being made in these areas and more and more women who are qualified are finally being recognized for their abilities instead of their gender.
Military physical fitness specifications are different for women and men.
Military physical fitness specifications are different for women and men.
This isn't something that I've looking into so maybe you could elaborate on that. Are you talking about just getting into the armed forces in the first place or are you saying that there are specific requirements for men are women who perform exactly the same task but women have a separate set of requirements than the men? If that's what you're saying do you also happen to have a link to any source of information that could confirm what you're saying? Thanks.
You know something? I've never even SEEN my job description. You can either do the job required of you, or you can't. Technically, some items are supposed to be a 2-person lift, but it doesn't work that way in practice. For all I know, the job description makes no specific requirement on what amount of weight one should be able to lift.
Maybe you should ask, then. It's not fair for you to do someone else's work, and I don't understand why you choose to do so. If someone has a problem with that, then YOU can go to to the Labor Board. Don't just do someone else's job without questioning it--that's what it sounds like you're doing.
But, if a woman or man, married or not, is surving on the public dole for more than one year, be it welfare, unemployment, housing, whatever, I feel that mandatory birth control should be a stipulation. I'm thinking of BC that can be implanted and last for months/years. Now, I know that makes me sound like some kind of a nut.
Well, if that makes you a nut, I'm a pecan, because I'm inclined to think that China has the right idea.
*whistles*
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.
