Equal opportunities?

[Agayek]

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

Not in all cases, because not all job requirements...are requirements of performing the job. A lot of times, a job requirement is the best way we know how to test if someone will be capable of doing the job.

Like push ups--no one ever needed to do a certain number of push ups to complete a task. Instead, a minimum number of push ups is designed to make sure the job applicants are 'in shape'. Just because a woman can do less push ups, that doesn't mean she's not in as good shape as a man who can do more.

Don't confuse 'a task that is an essential part of the job' with 'a metric used in the screening process during hiring because it best measures the ability of the applicant to perform another task that is an essential part of the job only it's too hard to measure in testing'.

Alright, so we'll go with your push ups example. In the vast majority of cases, such tests are to ensure a certain level of physical ability in the applicants. If by this metric, they are not up to the standards of physical ability, they should not have the job, regardless of whether they have a penis or tits.

When the job requires heavy physical ability (let's say firefighting) and heavy loads must be lifted, then people able to lift those loads (aka, those capable of performing the metric) should have the job. The standard should be no different for men than women. Men may be genetically predisposed to being physically stronger, but that doesn't mean a woman can't reach the exact same level of physical ability, it just takes more work.

As for confusing the two, there's no other way to test if someone is capable of the required tasks or not. You said it yourself, they use metrics because it's nigh impossible to test the real requirement.

The standards and requirements for a job should never be changed to suit someone's gender, or anything else for that matter. The only thing that matters is the ability to do one's job.

Just because a woman can do less push ups, that doesn't mean she's not in as good shape as a man who can do more.

Bullshit. If they are in equal physical shape, they will be able to do roughly equal amounts of work.

In your example, they may be in equivalent relative physical shape, but that's no solace to the guy who lost a toe because she couldn't lift something for long enough.

 

[internutt]

Equal opportunities only works to a certain extent. That is why we have a Paralympics and an Olympic Games. Women do not play Football with men, they are in a separate cup. Why can't men be page 3 models? Why can't we let a blind person drive an F1 car for a living?

If a woman can't lift a box it is POLITE for a man to pick it up for her. This is not sexist at all, however, if it IS the woman's job to lift the box, she damn well better lift it.

 

[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?

Women don't get paid for playing tennis: they get paid for attracting sponsors and ticket buyers and television audiences. Why should they get paid less for doing less work if they can create a product that sells on the market for the same price as the product someone doing more work does?

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

Because they make just as much money playing three sets as playing five. It's stupid to do more work for the same amount of money.

I just don't understand why people do not want more tennis in Majors from the women, surely the fans and sponsors would both benefit greatly?

I know that the players are quite happy playing less tennis and getting the same amount of money - I certainly would be ok with that if it was personal. But the principal of the thing is that in all other sports women and men compete over the same time difference.

Women play 90 min in soccer, why not 5 sets in tennis?

Paying them the same is just sexual discrimination - against women. The sponsors saying they cannot perform to the same capabilities is a bit daft

 

[Agayek]

Circular argument: you're basically saying 'the metric is what it is because it ensures "a certain level of physical ability"; how do we know that's the correct level of ability? "such tests are to ensure a certain level of physical ability"'

Because that's what employers believe, and they use the results of such tests to determine suitability for the job. I have no idea if the tests they choose are the best for the task, because I don't know everything each position is expected to be able to do.

Name a job where doing a certain number of push ups is required.

I haven't the foggiest notion. You brought up the push-ups, I'm just running with it.

And you miss the point: don't get so caught up in the test that you forget that the test is a means, not an end.

No, I get your point exactly. It's a test to determine if someone is physically capable of performing a function. The metrics may not be the best fit, because the best fit is impractical, but employers will utilize tests that require similar skills/abilities to what their employees will be expected to do.

What if we need to change standards to accurately measure ability? What if the common ability we want men and women to have manifests itself through different indicators? That's the question you're not considering.

Then use a different test. It doesn't matter what the metric is. The point is that treating different groups of people differently for no other reason than because they're different is inherently inequal.

The human body is not so different between men and women that the muscles used by a man in performing action X does not require a completely different muscle group in a woman. If physical ability is required for a profession, men and women should be subjected to the same test for the same duration for the same number of times.

So it's okay to make the requirements less for women as long as it stays "roughly equal" to that of the men?

Nope. Men and women should be held to the exact same standard, regardless of anything. The roughly equal is there, because 2 men in equal physical shape will be able to do roughly equal amounts of work too. It may be the exact same, it may be off by a slight amount, but the point is that it will be very similar, enough so that the differences will be negligible and not impact the job.

It's never any solace to someone if the person couldn't lift something for long enough. However, do we only let people who can handle every possible situation do the job? Do we require every firefighter to be able to carry out every single person they find? If an NFL team's training facility goes on fire, will those fireman be able to carry out the nose tackles and centers?

Yes. We require each and every person on a job to be able to handle any reasonable scenario. Your NFL example is extremely rare, and as such I would say unreasonable. But, each and every firefighter should be able to carry someone of average build and weight for long enough to get out of a building.

In other words: the problem with some of these tests is that they are geared towards the 'average' male, not the 'average' task one will meet in the job. If anything, having to consider women makes for better tests: lots of these tests bear no relationship to the actual job, and having to tweak them for women usually makes the test more fair for the men too!

If the job requires physical ability, then what standards there are are up to the employer. That said, having different tests for men and women is ludicrous. And lowering the standards of a job just to ensure some ideal of "fairness" is equally ludicrous; it cuts into productivity and severely hampers employers. Some people are simply better suited to certain jobs. If that means there's more men than women firefighters, or cops, or construction workers, or anything else, so be it.

People need to be treated exactly the same. Period. It is the only way to have equality in a society.

 

[Agayek]

No, you brought up tests where women are treated differently. Push up requirements are one such test. If you're going to bring up the subject, shouldn't you have something more than the foggiest notion about what you're complaining about?

1) You brought up pushups. See post #19 in this thread. I never claimed any specific knowledge on the subject of push ups and the like.

2) Women are just as capable as men, why treat them differently?

So you'd rather there be one, inferior test than two superior tests? Now who is putting equality before practicality ;-D

I would rather there be one, universal standard that all employees are subject to. I don't give a flying fuck what the test is. As long as said test is enough to prove to the employer's satisfaction that a person can do the job, then it really does not matter what the specifics are.

That's the thing: these tests--like the push up one--aren't about performing action X. They are about performing unknown actions because the challenges the job faces are unpredictable, so general fitness is measured. And when it comes to general fitness, men and women are different in terms of how you measure that.

Could be, I'm no expert on biology. I will gladly admit that general fitness tests will possibly, if not probably, need to be different for the two sexes. That said, I don't really see how. From what I do know of human anatomy, the muscle structure and whatnot is not all that different. Like I said though, I'm no expert and won't continue to belabor the point.

What if the requirements for women are less, but they "will be able to do roughly equal amounts of work too...it will be very similar, enough so that the differences will be negligible and not impact the job."?

That's up to the employer. If they wish to lower their standards, then all the more power to them. That does not mean anyone should be allowed to require them to.

So we should only be looking to save 'average' people? It's not reasonable to expect to encounter people of above average weight and build?

Not at all. Everyone who possibly can should be saved. My point is that in unusual circumstances, it would not be unreasonable to have to double up to carry people. In the normal line of duty however, that should not be the case.

Does it? Shouldn't we figure this out by doing empirical studies, and not by extrapolating from first principles by means of logic? Where is your source for these assertions?

I'll give you that, I don't have a first hand account of such things. It simply follows logically that if someone is incapable of performing a duty as efficiently as someone else, then productivity suffers. If you can find a source to dispute that, by all means let me know.

So we need tampon dispensers in the men's room, or woman can't have them in the women's room?

Actually, under that logic, we can't have separate bathrooms. And our unisex bathroom can't have urinals.

Supplying tampons to men or having unisex bathrooms has nothing to do with equal treatment. While I honestly don't care either way on the matter, people tend to value their privacy from the opposite sex. As far as I can tell, that's the only real reason there are different bathrooms per sex. The toilet in the men's room is the exact same as the lady's room if rumor is to be believed.

 

[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?

Women don't get paid for playing tennis: they get paid for attracting sponsors and ticket buyers and television audiences. Why should they get paid less for doing less work if they can create a product that sells on the market for the same price as the product someone doing more work does?

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

Because they make just as much money playing three sets as playing five. It's stupid to do more work for the same amount of money.

I just don't understand why people do not want more tennis in Majors from the women, surely the fans and sponsors would both benefit greatly?

Maybe. But that's a different question than the one you originally asked.

Maybe, but there are various points I take into account when making my decisions.
But anyway I'm bored with this discussion, so I'll propose to agree to disagree and go lie down

 

[sms_117b]

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.

OK, I was a bit broad with that one, for that example and in general for a physically demanding life or death job (flying a plane doesn't count), for the firefighting aspect for example, women are. I sound like a sexist pig but, because she wasn't strong enough she almost got 2 other people killed. If it wasn't for a 3rd male fire fighter that happened to see what was going on and acting appropriately, all 3 (originals) would have died, during a training exercise on a oil tanker. If she's done a police assault course in record time fair play, that's good going, but there she has made a effort to be physically fitter and stronger than her female colleagues.

I cant belive Im saying this but...

Your white arnt you?

Yup, white male.

A couple of points have been made about tennis and push ups, quoting to get attention...

If I missed anyone I appologise

Wimbledon, arguably the largest tennis tournament in the world, gives both men and women the same prize money, now, I think this is wrong simply because men at most will play 5 sets of up to 13 games, whereas women will play 3 sets of up to 13 games, relatively they may be putting in the same effort, but, as far as equal opportunities are concerned "relatively" should be ignored, they aren't putting in the same work, the same time and shouldn't receive the same prize money.

Same argument goes for press ups, if a man can do 20 and a woman 15, they may be the same build and relative strengths compared to say a person in their prime of each gender, but that's relative again, and relativity should be ignored if you want everyone treated the same.

 

[Agayek]

Isn't it kind of silly to complain about a subject, and then claim no specific knowledge of a major aspect of that subject?

If you don't know enough about the subject to know about 'tests requiring a certain amount of push up' to discuss it, how do you know you have a real issue with how "firefighters...need to change their policies to accommodate the female body" when those policies involve tests requiring push ups?

Push Up - This test measures muscular endurance of the upper body (anterior deltoid, pectorals major and triceps). The requirement is for a number of body repetitions that a candidate must complete without breaks. The requirement is for achievement of a score presenting the fortieth (40) percentile of fitness, depending upon age and sex, reflecting a ratio of weight pressed divided by weight. [http://www.middletown-ny.com/cs-67-221.htm]

Maybe your problem isn't with the actual inequality of testing, but is simply a product of the fact that you don't understand how "equal opportunity" actually works.

I've never once made a claim to intrinsic knowledge of the subject. And yes, we may well have nothing more than a semantic difference here.

And I don't have an issue with how firefighters test their applicants, at least as far as I'm aware. My entire argument has been against treating people any differently dependent on factors beyond their control. Firefighters just made a convenient theoretical example as someone had brought up the subject already.

As for your link, if they want to differentiate test results by sex, good for them. It's not the way I would do it, but I'm not the examiner. If individual employers wish to differentiate, they are welcome to. My problem comes in when people try to enforce the differentiation.

And just to clear up any confusion on the way I see it:

Equal Opportunity means giving each and every person exactly the same opportunity at a job. If they cannot meet employer standards, they should not continue to be employed. They had the opportunity, it's no one's fault but their own if they can't make the cut.

 

[chimmers]

Maybe, but there are various points I take into account when making my decisions.
But anyway I'm bored with this discussion, so I'll propose to agree to disagree and go lie down

I propose we don't: you asked a question, I answered it, you don't like the answer.

People agree to disagree when they can't find an answer to a question they need to know to figure out who is right or wrong. That fact that you don't like the answer doesn't mean we haven't found it.

It does not mean we have found it either, but the reason I am adoing this is that I think you have either misunderstood my original "question" or that i have mis-typed it. Either way, no good will come of debating it further as it is too late in the week for my brain to comprehend changing ideas.
I am stepping out of the debate, count it as a win if you wish. We have different views, and that is just dandy

 

[Agayek]

Well that's much different than saying you are championing equality in the workplace. What you're actually arguing for is the right of employers to not have differentiation that is meant to create equality forced on them.

That's fine if you want to make that argument, but don't wrap an argument about the employers rights to discriminate on the basis of sex up in the cloth of a stand for equal gender rights. I can see how you could make that mistake, and that's the good thing about discussions like this: they help us find out what we really mean.

It turns out your issue isn't with sex discrimination, your issue is with employer rights being curtailed.

Fair enough. I'm too tired to argue further, and you're at least partially right, so I'm just going to close out with saying what I have all along: I am firmly of the opinion that everyone should be treated exactly the same in all situations, at least as far as things beyond their control factor into it. Whether that's in the work place or anywhere else.

I also firmly believe that no one has any right to tell another how to act. Employers can establish tests and standards all on their own, and no one else should have any input into it.

 

[sms_117b]

Wimbledon, arguably the largest tennis tournament in the world, gives both men and women the same prize money, now, I think this is wrong simply because men at most will play 5 sets of up to 13 games, whereas women will play 3 sets of up to 13 games,

Actually, the fifth set between Nadal and Federer last year was 16 games: no tiebreak in the final set at Wimbeldon. ;-D

Margaret Court defeated Billie Jean King 14-12 11-9 in the final to win the Ladies' Singles title at the 1970 Wimbledon Championships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970_Wimbledon_Championships_-_Women%27s_Singles

John Newcombe defeated Ken Rosewall 5-7 6-3 6-3 3-6 6-1 in the final to win the Gentlemen's Singles title at the 1970 Wimbledon Championships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970_Wimbledon_Championships_-_Men%27s_Singles

Men's final: 46 games.

Women's final: 46 games.

relatively they may be putting in the same effort, but, as far as equal opportunities are concerned "relatively" should be ignored, they aren't putting in the same work, the same time and shouldn't receive the same prize money.

Yet the are producing the same satisfaction in their fans. According to your logic, if there are two actors in a play and the one has an easier time giving a satisfying performance to the audience, that actor should get paid less. Are you sure you want to push that kind of logic?

Same argument goes for press ups, if a man can do 20 and a woman 15, they may be the same build and relative strengths compared to say a person in their prime of each gender, but that's relative again, and relativity should be ignored if you want everyone treated the same.

It's not relativity--it's that general fitness has to be measured differently in men than it is in women.

If a man who can only do 19 push ups can't get the job done, but a woman who can do 19 (or 18 or 17 or 16 or 15) push up can get the job done, that's not "relativity" in lowering the test standard for women.

You keep forgetting to ask the question: does the job require a certain level of general fitness, or does it require you to do 20 push ups? Don't confuse a means to an end with an end in itself.

Ask anyone that competes at the level that Wimbledon is in any sport, if they say it's for the fans they are lying, that's a simple truth, they want to win first, prize money and fans are a bonus. If they genuinely are in it for the fans they won't win because they cannot focus on winning as much as people that are there to win. For example (A bit estranged) UFC 97 Co-main event Middleweight Championship bout: Anderson Silva vs. Thales Leites, bullshit chants broke out, boo's echoed around the arena. Silva didn't want to do anything rash that would make him lose, so didn't regardless of what the fans wanted.

On another note, one could argue that the women in tennis attract more people, with their short skirts/skorts and bending over all the time, tennis fan bases tend to be largely male, from what I've observed anyway.

My logic is based upon personal achievement not fan enjoyment, the way it's derived my logic cannot be transferred between the two, if it could stuntmen, pro-wrestlers and people along that line of acting work would get paid the most.

Touché on the Wimbledon find, if that happened regularly, I would have no qualms about them getting equal payouts. I get the feeling that was a one off. How about this for logic, 40 games in the final is worth £50000 prize money, you play less you get less, play more you get more.

It's not relativity--it's that general fitness has to be measured differently in men than it is in women.

That line is the basis, practically, of my argument. Equal opportunities says everyone should be treated the same and given the same chance to do something. If women are tested differently, normally physical test would be "easier" then it's not equal. That's it, it's not. You can argue your heart away but you won't win this one against me because it's simply not true. That last line I get what you're saying, but, I'm using press-ups as a general analysis for strength, so to have a certain level of fitness.