Equal opportunities?

[sms_117b]

I had to sit in on a lecture today for work about equal opportunities, now I've nothing against equal opportunities, however I was rather wound up by the lecturer during arguments, but I was arguing for EQUAL opportunities when they didn't seem to be.

They created a scenario about a man and woman being able/not being able to lift a piece of equipment. The female character couldn't lift it as it was too heavy, so they said she should be given a allowance and have it taken out of her job description. In this scenario I argued she should either be sacked or paid less, she cannot do her job (can't lift the equipment) or if her job description has less to do she should be paid less. That sounded very equal to me. So far as I changed the scenario to person A and person B removing all sex's, disabilities and ethnicities. They still said person B should have it taken out of their job description and not asked to do it again with no impact on the wage. That doesn't sound very equal, or is that just me?

Another example they used was the firefighters, they said they were bad at employing women and need to change their policies to accommodate the female body, now, knowing a few firemen I know why this is, because women are weaker they're a liability, sorry but you are, I almost lost friends in the service to accidents because the female crew member dropped the ball because she wasn't strong enough to do the job.

So the discussion point coming out of the rant, should equal opportunities take into account gender, ethnicity and disabilities or should they just look at what a person can do regardless? Should they be equal opportunities or equal opportunities with considerations?

I'll be back to argue/discuss my points later, I've got to go training for work....*sigh*

 

[Chickenlittle]

Equal opportunities is currently a "dirty truth". Everyone wants to support it, but nobody wants to support true equality. Your examples are prime...examples?

 

[Agayek]

Equal opportunities means that everyone should be treated exactly the same, regardless of any extenuating circumstances.

You are/were 100% correct in your assessment. It is not fair for a woman to be making equal pay as a man, for the exact same job, yet still not be expected to do certain tasks said job entails.

Matter of fact, that kind of thinking just promotes inequalities. Saying things like that implies that women are always of inferior strength to men, and thus should only do jobs X. Essentially, that kind of thinking is just as racist/sexist/whateverist as the perceived inequality they are trying to fix.

Edit:

Equal opportunities is currently a "dirty truth". Everyone wants to support it, but nobody wants to support true equality. Your examples are prime...examples?

Unfortunately, this guy is completely correct. No one in any position of power or influence will treat everyone equally. My best guess as to why is, at least for politicians, that they wish to engender themselves to their constituents by saying "Everyone should be treated equally, except my people, they need special consideration".

 

[chimmers]

You make good points in theory. The same reasons I think that women in tennis should not get equal prize money in Majors when their maximum effort is the men's minimum (in terms of sets played)
But people don't see things this way generally, and so women get allowances to make up for it.

 

[Fulax]

Gender/race/religion/etc shouldn't be an issue. Just your ability to do the job.

 

[fix-the-spade]

So the discussion point coming out of the rant, should equal opportunities take into account gender, ethnicity and disabilities or should they just look at what a person can do regardless?

At the risk of sounding like a right wing nutter, I think equal opportunities is a load of balls.

The two most important things in hiring are i)Suitability ii)ability to do the job required of them. Everything else is secondary, if those things are not given priority you end up with bad things happening because the person wasn't suitable or wasn't able to their job properly.

I agree with you (sort of), it should be equal opportunities, provided all applicants meet the requirements in the job description.

 

[Cpt_Oblivious]

I think some supporters of Equal Oppetunities are trying to make it unequal as a way of getting revenge for however many years of unequal oppertunities against them.

If I was an employer and there was 2 completely equal people applying for a job. It's have to be a coin toss. That's the difinition of equal. They both have the exact same chance of being picked.

 

[Agayek]

At the risk of sounding like a right wing nutter, I think equal opportunities is a load of balls.

The two most important things in hiring are i)Suitability ii)ability to do the job required of them. Everything else is secondary, if those things are not given priority you end up with bad things happening because the person wasn't suitable or wasn't able to their job properly.

I agree with you (sort of), it should be equal opportunities, provided all applicants meet these requirements in the job description.

So basically you agree with the OP completely.

Equal opportunities, as he(?) espouses, is not affirmative action. It's equal requirements and benefits for the same job, which is what you want.

Equal opportunities where we must alter job requirements to better fit certain groups of people is a colossal load of shit.

 

[Sevre]

Unfortunately there's equality and EQUALITY. People can't seem to understand that human restrictions make women better at some jobs and men better at others. Equality tells either one that if they can't do it they shouldn't complain whereas EQUALITY gives the person a pat on the back, a "I participated" medal and makes a big deal out of it.

 

[razer17]

well when i had a talk about equality a while back, I was told equality wasn't about giving everyone the same oppurtunity, but giving everyone the opportunity to do what they can.
i think thats a far better definition, so people who cant do something won't get employed to do a job where they would have to

 

[Gr8gam3r]

How you say "women are a liability" is a sweeping statement and the exactly what is wrong, you didn't say "somebody who couldn't hold equipment" or "somebody who couldn't drag a hose". The important thing is that a job should be given regardless of factors and we shouldn't make assumptions.
However, I do disagree with pro-discrimination (that is, hiring somebody to satisfy a law that says "oohhh every body here is male, they must hire a woman", because in the end, that's just discrimination too.
Also, they should only be paid less after the issue arises that they cannot meet a part of the job, or firing, depending on how important the aspect is. I have to say though, my sister was in the RAF, a casino and the police and she'd smack you round the face if she heard you say "women are a liability" and she'd point out the fact she's never crashed a plane, unlike her colleagues and finished the police assault course in record time. Oh and she can add up 20 numbers in less than 3 seconds.

 

[Xvito]

We are not built equal... How can there be true equality if everyone isn't the same?

 

[LockHeart]

I had the same problem with one of my lecturers. She was telling us about Anti-Discrimination legislation and brought up the subject of travellers. She claimed that they deserved extra allowances because they underperformed in schools etc. One of my classmates put up her hand and raised the poinbt that it would surely be better just to create an environment where they were able to perform to the same extent.

Not only did the lecturer disagree, but over half of my fellow students did as well. My faith in humaity died a little that day.

 

[Lazzi]

I cant belive Im saying this but...

Your white arnt you?

 

[ExodusinFlames]

Equality is unfortunately a fiction. Not talking about gender roles or anything, but there are certain things that should be left alone. I'm all for equality, but both genders need to realize that there are certain things that one will be better at than another.

 

[Agayek]

Equality is unfortunately a fiction. Not talking about gender roles or anything, but there are certain things that should be left alone. I'm all for equality, but both genders need to realize that there are certain things that one will be better at than another.

It has nothing to do with gender. Some tasks some people simply cannot do, yet people of their same gender can just fine.

For the OP's example, there are plenty of capable and strong female firemen. It's more unusual, yes, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Each individual is capable of a completely different set of things than any other individual. Employment and the like should be based around that, instead of what everyone else can do.

 

[antipunt]

"Equality is unfortunately a fiction. Not talking about gender roles or anything, but there are certain things that should be left alone"

This

 

[megapenguinx]

You make good points in theory. The same reasons I think that women in tennis should not get equal prize money in Majors when their maximum effort is the men's minimum (in terms of sets played)
But people don't see things this way generally, and so women get allowances to make up for it.

See now this I could see as different. Since women would just compete against each other. But even if they were competing with men, if they won they should also receive the same amount of money as the male would. But in the way the OP put it, all of his examples make sense in a workplace environment, but not in an athletic one really. (With the exception of the WNBA since so few of the women there can actually dunk and their games are not as big as the mens).

 

[chimmers]

You make good points in theory. The same reasons I think that women in tennis should not get equal prize money in Majors when their maximum effort is the men's minimum (in terms of sets played)
But people don't see things this way generally, and so women get allowances to make up for it.

Tennis is a business, not a disinterested inquiry from galactic overlords to find the best tennis players.

The reason the women get paid the same is because people like Billie Jean King went out and fought on the behalf of female tennis players and went so far as to create their own tour--the WTA vs. the ATP--and built women's tennis into an entertainment product sucessful enough that it generates enough revenue that they can demand equal pay.

I didn't say women were worse, they just do less. If they want equal pay, why should they do (mostly) less work?

Is there any reason why women cannot play best of 5 sets in a major? I fail to see any