NEWS: This Shit Fucking Pisses Me Off

I work for a bank. The male to female ratio is about equal; however most of the men are in the higher paying executive positions. But I'm going to let you in on a little secret that will shed light on why we don't see more men on the teller lines...

They don't apply.

For every application/resume from a male that I've taken, I've had at least 15-20 from women. And I'm being very conservative with that number. In actuality, I've taken hundreds of resumes from women, about about 4 from men.

So I'd be inclined to say that the reason more women are in service positions, is that we are willing to be.

Two questions:

Have you actually been in the military?

Does running a 7.5 minute mile have a damn thing to do with their MOS?

If the answer to the first in no, then you have no immediate experience, and if the answer to the second is no, then who gives a shit? Women at present may be in combat arenas they do not, however, have combat roles. I don't really care whether a mechanic or a lawyer or the person who fills the soda machines can do 29 more pushups or do a forced march under full pack because unless something goes completely off the rails, they're never going to have to do that. The purpose of those standards is for everyone to meet basic standards of fitness, which is why older people in the military have different standards too.

Jessica Lynch was a Logistical Supply Clerk. Private Piestewa, who died that day, was a cook. (I'm just using these names because it is easy to find their individual MOS) If they were forced to run to seek cover during an ambush, it would make a lot of difference in how fast they were physically capable of running. If they were forced to pick up a wounded fellow soldier, it would make a lot of difference how much weight they could lift.

And when it comes to the day-to-day affairs in the military, yes it does make a difference if a woman in a unit cannot physically carry her ruck on forced road marches. The military does make them do them from time to time, it is part of being in the military. Even in non combat MOS'

There are also training exercises that require you to run as a squad, and do physically exerting tasks together. And what the military is saying right now is that women, from the very start, are weaker than men. Yet you don't really hear women demanding that they raise the standards EQUAL to a man's. A woman's score of 100 for pushups is a failing score for a man. Which means that a man, performing at a woman's 'peak' level, can actually be counseled and eventually KICKED OUT of the military for not being fit enough to do his job. KICKED OUT. KICKED THE FUCK OUT.

From the link in the original post:

Here is an abstract for the initial study, co-authored by Lei Lai, as described in the article I linked; here is a link to a list of some of Babcock's selected publications, which includes

, an article that seems to be further work on the same subject and which, on googling for Babcock's CV (easy enough: I googled "Linda Babcock"), I took at face value as "forthcoming" but now, after attending more closely to the publication date, I've googled the title (easy enough) and come up with this link to the abstract.

Anyone who wants to examine Babcock's argument and methodology in detail is now welcome to do so, without even having to go to the trouble of doing their own googling!

(Though I can't help saying that I'm inclined to think that anyone too lazy to do their own research is either too lazy or too unqualified to really assess the work as well as they'd like to think.)

Re. different physical standards for men and women in some jobs.

Look. No one is going to argue that, on average, men have greater upper-body strength than women. What *is* arguable is whether being able to bench (I'm making this up off the top of my head) 250 lbs is necessary for being able to do X job. I *presume* that current professional standards require women as well as men to be able to carry their own equipment, and that where the standards don't, it's because those in the profession have realized that in actual practice equipment-carrying and other tasks are easily divided without significant harm to the job's getting done.

I do happen to know that the *vast* majority of current "combat jobs" don't depend overmuch on upper body strength, and that there are other arenas (endurance, caloric requirements) in which women, *on average* do better than men, which might very well compensate for the brute strength issue. Along with, possibly, things like women's lack of propensity to commit rape, or their reputedly superior negotiating skills, blah blah blah.

My issue is with this kind of statement:

The implication there is *clearly* that women--all women--are "unqualified." Which is the baseline presumption of everyone who bitches about the problem of "unqualified" workers in specifically gendered terms.

I'm not defending the idea of keeping people on the job who truly cannot do the job. What I'm saying is that assuming that a particular class of people can't do the job comes from prejudice, not from worries about the job.

And, of course, you completely ignored my earlier comment that I'd not want an unqualified male doing the job either. But hey, if it helps you feel better, keep pounding your lame "war against women!" drum.

I was dealing with the comment I quoted, as comment. Don't get your little feelings hurt--I wasn't intending to impugn your personal character in any way. I'm sure you're a lovely person, and I realize that the most important thing in any feminist argument is always to make sure you don't inadvertently hurt a man's feelings.

Feelings hurt? You wish. I was just pointing out dishonest debate, which seems to be your calling card.

It's all she has. Take the lies, misrepresentations, and herculean leaps of logic away from her and she'd have nothing left.

Yes, my failure to memorize every comment made by every commenter is a sign of my deep moral turpitude. Which definitively proves that my "war against women" drum is just victim-squealing, and that sexism doesn't exist.

Any I don't recall any accounts of them having to do pushups. Nor do I recall any accounts of their physical fitness ever being questioned. I also seem to recall that all the men in her unit got killed.

Of course it would, the question is what does that have to do with the minimum standards, and the answer is nothing. If running fast is the key to survival, fast runners will survive. This isn't about that, this is about thresholds and adjusting minimum standards to account both the average woman's physical limitations and for the value of having women in the military. That woman may well be slower but smarter and under different conditions may save her own and everyone else's lives.

And that soldier might weigh 150 pounds or 275. The question is, what is the reasonable baseline? If that person is excruciatingly unlikely to ever have to pick up a wounded soldier and she has other contributions to make that perhaps a 275 pound grunt can't, then adjusting those standards accordingly is perfectly logical.

And there's an awful lot of call for that sort of thing in non combat MOSs?

Because on average, they are in the ways that they and you, emphasize. Women have distinct physical advantages too, it's just that the military, run by men, doesn't value or test for them.

Oh, no, not discharged from the military! Guess what? I have a law degree and I'm at the upper end of the age range. I would make any recruiter in the world salivate if I walked through the door, and I wouldn't have to do jack shit for physical conditioning. The standards for an LDO my age wouldn't make me break a sweat. And yet, do you want to know where I'd end up? In Iraq, in forward positions convoying through ambushes and past IEDs. Why? Because I have something more to offer than the ability to do pushups. You are comparing apples to oranges.

You're totally trying to make me forget whatever it was we argued about once upon a time, aren't you? It's worked too. Merci buckets for taking on the infuriating "women can't hack it" b.s.

I think the issue you are ignoring is what "qualified" means and qualified to do what? Firefighting is a very different issue than the military. Most firefighters are generalists. They have to be able to do it all. Traditionally you're Engine or Truck and that's it. This is not true of the military. nobody thinks twice about the fact that you have to be stronger and more fit to be a Ranger or a Seal or smarter to be a nuclear tech or medic. Despite this people constantly piss and moan about women being "unqualified" because they can't do certain physical things as well as men that they are never going to have to do. It's just like the bullshit attacks on affirmative action. Nobody questions lower standards for athletes, or legacies, and none of that crap makes any difference to what you contribute to the University or get out of it but admissions preferences are still somehow preferential treatment if you're a minority. The world is not a fair place, and taking fairness to that level is childish. What is truly fair is to provide equal opportunity to gain from and contribute to society and that has fuck all to do with pushups.

Then why have a push-up standard at all?

Because it makes sense to have a baseline standard for physical fitness. Duh.

Why, if it represents a skill you're supposedly not going to use (as reprobate implies)? I sit at a desk all day, and no job I've ever had required a push-up test.

My boss is an African American woman two years my junior who beats may salary by about $50K annually.

She is brilliant and worth ever nickel. She is strong and tough and I respect ehr and will tackle anything she asks me too.

I am a white guy.

Change takes place at the pace of generations. It does, however, take place.

Because your desk isn't in a combat zone, and those standards are really only particularly rigid in boot camp before many people actually know what specialty they're going into.

Good, now are you ready to commit to that reason so we may proceed to the second part of the discussion. I don't want you backing out of that reasoning at the last minute.

"She's too angry to write for SG Newswire, let's pay her less!"