Thats what I dont get. IF a certain level of fitness is needed then it should be across the board. Maybe the level they are looking for isnt realistic.
Look at height as an example. Why would you need to be a certain height to be an Irish soldier? If there is a real reason then fair enough, it should be across the board. But maybe some of these occupations could rethink if the requirements are realistic.
If it is a safety thing then it cant be different depending on gender. If it is an elitist thing, then maybe they need to wind their necks in a bit.
No occupation should be out of reach for women. NO OCCUPATION!
or men
For what it is worth: I remember at one time there either was talk of different fitness levels being required for male and female firefighters in a country (can’t remember if it was here or elsewhere) or there were actual different fitness levels required. There was a concern then that some of the women might then not be able to do the job sufficiently effectively e.g. in terms of lifting the heavy equipment, lifting a body out of the building, etc. There are often very practical reasons why certain levels of “fitness” can be required for a job.
Well exactly.
you’d be perfectly happy having single player sports not broken out Into different sexes ie tennis, running etc?
This is where it all get so stupid.. world gone mad!
"What if a male who passes a fitness test falls below the level required?"
I can give an opinion. We may disagree, but that's ok, the people setting the rules aren't listening to either of us :)
Firstly I think an entry test should be at the level that's required to do the job. No higher. So any person who isn't meeting the standard by definition isn't capable of doing the job.
Following that, if we're talking about a job like a Garda/soldier/firefighter/etc, anybody (male or female) who is already in the job but falls below the level required, they are then not fit to do the job. They shouldn't be given "active" assignments. I.e. they'd be assigned back-office tasks. Not all these reasons are the fault of the person doing the job. If somebody injures themself, it's not a bad reflection on them, but if they're not capable of doing the job to the level required, they shouldn't be assigned to do so until they are capable.
A bit of searching tells me that in the Irish armed forces, there has been a system whereby if somebody fails the regular fitness test, it's taken seriously and they have 12 weeks to improve and retake it. I think the repercussions can be serious (sorry, I can't find a non-paywalled link, here's an Irish Times link in case anybody can see that), or at least used to be, but I think in principle it's fair if it applies to everybody.
How can i be twisting your words when that's what you said?
Except that's not what I said. That's a fair distance from what I said.
Interesting, so somebody being below the required criteria for a period of time isn't necessarily a barrier to being a competent soldier. Good to clear that up.
Thhe point is there are already different standards for men and women. They don't do the same fitness tests for different occupations, so changing either or levels of standards is nothing abnormal and is already in existence.
There absolutely IS a double standard, and you're absolutely right to say this is to get more women in. To me, that's a very sensible approach to achieve a very sensible objective - more women soldiers in the defence forces.
In general, the positive action laws are much broader, and apply to people with disabilities, people of colour, older people and more.
You make a fair point in your last paragraph, and tbh, it wasn't really a serious point that people should just change job. I was really just trying to explore these scenarios a bit more, as they generally seem to be either imagined or grossly exaggerated to me.
Yes, it doesn't constitute discrimination in law. It is specifically permitted, for very good reasons.
I'm suggesting that the approach of not automatically cutting out women who can be reasonably expected to reach the required standard over time makes perfect sense, in the context where we want to get more women into the defence forces.
What did you say then?
But way do you only want it to apply to females? Or are you going to change your story again?
It’s called the Bigotry of Low Expectations , with a bit of white knighting and a soupçon of internalised misandry.
Enough of the bickering please. This thread is about sexism against men, not trans people. Off topic posts removed.
Uncivil post removed.
I don't want it to 'apply only to females'. As mentioned above, I've seen it applied to people with disabilities, people of colour, older people and more.
In the case of the defence forces, they want more women, so they're applying a positive action measure to women.
But you knew that, didn't you?
Do you want me to cut and paste my earlier posts?
Yes
But how is it positive? You keep making these points but then refuse to actually answer anything about them.
Because it brings more women into the Defence Forces.
Again how by your logic is it a good thing? I mean your logic of even if they've been certified as unfit?
Posters seem to be missing the point.
There are different fitness tests for men and women, as set by the defence forces. They can also change these fitness requirements when they wish. If it wasn't sexist before, how could it possibly be sexist now?
Honestly, it would seem to be fairly obvious to me that, in any walk of life, things work out better with a balance of genders. But I know SFA about running defence forces, so I can't say anything sensible about that. Here's some people who do know a bit about running defence forces;
The Defence Forces chief of staff has said it is vital that organisations promote gender equality and cultural, ethnic, religious and generational difference to deal with increasing global complexity.
Organisations that nurture difference and allow for mistakes as a form of learning will improve resilience as an "antidote" to complexity, Vice-Admiral Mark Mellett has said. achieving greater gender balance is a societal issue and that “improvement” in this balance at all levels “facilitates better decision-making and creative processes”.
All-women teams that worked alongside special operations forces in Iraq and Afghanistan were able to build relationships in local communities that men never could, often yielding mission-critical intelligence
Video posted on social media of four female Chicago police officers attempting to arrest a suspected shoplifter has sparked backlash over the department's health and fitness standards.
Footage shows the attempted arrest on 95th Street and Ashland Avenue where the four female officers outnumbered one male suspect.
[..]
Despite being outnumbered, the suspect managed to break free from the officers and ran off.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12792495/amp/Chicago-police-suspect-overweight-cops-female-scuffle.html
Video wasn't loading for me but I found it here: https://x.com/ProudElephantUS/status/1728139938057892080
" it would seem to be fairly obvious to me that, in any walk of life, things work out better with a balance of genders"
Too funny, certainly worked out better for the guy who escaped FOUR police officers.
Again based on what?
I'm not sure what exactly you're asking, but maybe you'd like to direct your questions to the Chief of Staff?
For a start he's the ex Chief of Staff. Secondly was it not you who sad the following? "it would seem to be fairly obvious to me that, in any walk of life, things work out better with a balance of genders"
This is the third warning. Any more bickering and I'm handing out bans.
Some posts have been removed.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/7a8d352d858926f26bc4fa4e6a1942ae.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bc72f221de9dfb5cc318c7fbf7264382.svg)