Another stupid example of "equality"

I have no problems with women serving as police, fire, military, etc. as long as they are in fact equal to the men applying for the same positions.

Problem is that in general, they are not. Sure, there are some women who are easily the equals or superiors of males, but these are the exception to the rule, not the rule.

Now it seems that the LSoS's DOJ is going to sue PA for entrance exam physicals that have more difficulty passing than men do because they are... wait for it....

Women!

http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/30/justice-department-suing-pa-state-police-over-physical-fitness-tests/

Either the candidates are equal or they're not. If someone male or female cannot past the tests, they should not be allowed to to continue their application, period. No exceptions, no BS. If someone male or female passes, congratulations, now get to class!

It's not as of police will ever need physical strength in the course of their jobs to subdue a suspect, for example.

But again, it seems as those who are too damned stupid to realize the inherent differences between males and females want to provide artificial equality by decree.

Just be sure that the criminals get the memo that they can't resist as strongly against a female officer as they would a male.

The Dept. of Justice wrote:

Saying that the physical fitness tests that the Pennsylvania state police uses to identify entry-level candidates are not job-related, the Department of Justice is suing the agency for sex discrimination since more men pass the tests than women.

“Through the use of these physical fitness tests, Defendants have engaged in a pattern or practice of employment discrimination against women in [Pennsylvania State Police's] selection process for entry-level trooper positions in violation of Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964],” reads the DOJ’s lawsuit.

At issue are the state agency’s 2003 and 2009 physical fitness tests that are one of eight criteria used to choose entry-level state troopers.

The 2003 test had five events — a 300-meter run, sit-ups, push-ups, a vertical jump, and a one-and-a-half mile run. To become an entry-level cadet, applicants had to pass each event.

Between 2003 and 2008, 94 percent of male test-takers and 71 percent of female test-takers passed all five events.

After a new test was implemented in 2009, pass rates rose for both groups. Ninety-eight percent of male test-takers and 72 percent of female test-takers passed the exam.

The DOJ claims that these results indicate discrimination.

In cases of discrimination, or disparate impact cases, “the 80 percent rule” is used as a benchmark to determine whether discrimination exists. The Pennsylvania state police’s results fail to pass this threshold, the DOJ argues.

In its lawsuit, the federal agency claims that if female applicants had passed the physical tests at the same rate as male applicants, “119 additional women would have been available for further consideration for the position of entry-level trooper.”

That would have translated into an additional 45 women hired as entry-level troopers, according to the DOJ.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/30/justice-department-suing-pa-state-police-over-physical-fitness-tests/#ixzz39Edr7F5P

Women can't handle the job, not even an assistant chief of police.

Same as what's happening to our military. As you said; artificial equality. Of course I have the same problem with obese men serving in the sheriff's department. We have some rather large gentlemen on the force here that I know can't run. What do you do if you have to chase a suspect?

Male, Female or cattle, if you can past the physical test, fine, have at it. If you can't, go home.
And that goes for out of shape males just as much as it does females.

The war on women continues from the republican party. No wonder women hates you GOPhers.

PappyLee wrote:

The war on women continues from the republican party. No wonder women hates you GOPhers.

No,there is no "war on women"

It's really, really simple. If you are equal, you are equal. If you're not, you're not.

Like it or not, men & women are built differently. If you can't pull your head out of the sand and recognize that basic fact, that is not the fault of the Republican party, Conservatives, or any one else. It is on you, and you alone.

Annoyed wrote:

No,there is no "war on women"

It's really, really simple. If you are equal, you are equal. If you're not, you're not.

Like it or not, men & women are built differently. If you can't pull your head out of the sand and recognize that basic fact, that is not the fault of the Republican party, Conservatives, or any one else. It is on you, and you alone.

Well said.

This may sound like bragging pappy, but women love me even though I see them as the weaker sex. The fact that women are weaker has a lot to do with my buying my wife a 9mm and having her apply for her concealed carry permit.

ford plasko wrote:

This may sound like bragging pappy, but women love me even though I see them as the weaker sex. The fact that women are weaker has a lot to do with my buying my wife a 9mm and having her apply for her concealed carry permit.

Sure your not the weaker sex?  :lol: 

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

ford plasko wrote:

This may sound like bragging pappy, but women love me even though I see them as the weaker sex. The fact that women are weaker has a lot to do with my buying my wife a 9mm and having her apply for her concealed carry permit.

Sure your not the weaker sex?  :lol: 

No. I have a 357

ford plasko wrote:

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

ford plasko wrote:

This may sound like bragging pappy, but women love me even though I see them as the weaker sex. The fact that women are weaker has a lot to do with my buying my wife a 9mm and having her apply for her concealed carry permit.

Sure your not the weaker sex?  :lol: 

No. I have a 357

Oh just what we need more guns on the street. Don't you think we have enough guns in America already killing people?

I've owned guns for 44 years and not one of them has killed anyone. I have used guns to kill deer and a variety of small game though. I would in any case rather receive a call from the police that my wife has used her weapon to stop a would-be perp than to be a victim

PappyLee wrote:

Oh just what we need more guns on the street. Don't you think we have enough guns in America already killing people?

What would you want someone to use in order to defend himself against some low-life thug, or worse, a tyrannical government? (as ours is becoming)

The founding fathers of this country quite wisely feared their government, even as they were creating it. They carefully crafted the Constitution to ensure that the citizens would not be defenseless at the hands of a government which has gone bad / corrupt. Many have fought and died to protect that right, and the others that are enshrined in the Constitution.

The willful disregarding of that document shown by government today is the height of disrespect towards those who have given their lives to defend it.
If they could see what is being done in this country today, how many would think "I died for this?"

Annoyed wrote:

PappyLee wrote:

The war on women continues from the republican party. No wonder women hates you GOPhers.

No,there is no "war on women"

It's really, really simple. If you are equal, you are equal. If you're not, you're not.

Like it or not, men & women are built differently. If you can't pull your head out of the sand and recognize that basic fact, that is not the fault of the Republican party, Conservatives, or any one else. It is on you, and you alone.

Not true. Of course there is a "war on women". You are a sexist. In this thread, all you are doing is bashing women that enter what you perceive to be "man territory". You do the same with firefighters, the military, etc.

Bandit wrote:

Not true. Of course there is a "war on women". You are a sexist. In this thread, all you are doing is bashing women that enter what you perceive to be "man territory". You do the same with firefighters, the military, etc.

How many times in this thread have I stated that I don't care if it's a man or a woman, if the person in question can perform the same tasks as required by the job, or on any test for a job, I have no problem with them taking that job.

But real life is so inconvenient for you, isn't it? In reality, men and women are built differently. So while it's certainly true that some women will be able to meet more strenuous physical challenges, overall, on average, they are not capable of matching a male in good condition. (I've also stated that males should be able to meet the tests too.)

This does not make me a sexist. I makes me a realist. I'm sorry, but wishing things were so does not make them so, and I'm wise enough to realize that.

Annoyed wrote:

Bandit wrote:

Not true. Of course there is a "war on women". You are a sexist. In this thread, all you are doing is bashing women that enter what you perceive to be "man territory". You do the same with firefighters, the military, etc.

How many times in this thread have I stated that I don't care if it's a man or a woman, if the person in question can perform the same tasks as required by the job, or on any test for a job, I have no problem with them taking  that job.

But real life is so inconvenient for you, isn't it? In reality, men and women are built differently. So while it's certainly true that some women will be able to meet more strenuous physical challenges, overall, on average, they are not capable of matching a male in good condition. (I've also stated that males should be able to meet the tests too.)

This does not make me a sexist. I makes me a realist. I'm sorry, but wishing things were so does not make them so, and I'm wise enough to realize that.

As is often the case he made an unfair and untrue statement about a person, you in this case, based on his own biased view point of the topic. I'm like you in that I don't care if a woman is a cop or a firefighter as long as they can do the job to the same standards as the men, most of them, included the ones employed as such, can not. And lowering the standards for men as well, like in New York, doesn't fix the problem, all that does ensure that unqualified men are hired along with the unqualified women. To call you a sexist because you expect women hired to actually be able to do the job, would be like calling you a racist because some tribe of three foot tall Amazon pigmies also can't make the requirements. These types of jobs have physical requirements for a reason, and to lower the standards for all, or to have double+ standards for multiple groups, leaves not only the unqualified people at risk, but the public as well.

ford plasko wrote:

I've owned guns for 44 years and not one of them has killed anyone. I have used guns to kill deer and a variety of small game though. I would in any case rather receive a call from the police that my wife has used her weapon to stop a would-be perp than to be a victim    

You mean you have not killed anyone yet. Gun owners are law abiding citizens until they break the law.

PappyLee wrote:

ford plasko wrote:

I've owned guns for 44 years and not one of them has killed anyone. I have used guns to kill deer and a variety of small game though. I would in any case rather receive a call from the police that my wife has used her weapon to stop a would-be perp than to be a victim    

You mean you have not killed anyone yet. Gun owners are law abiding citizens until they break the law.

Everybody is a law abiding citizen until they break the law. Guns don't create criminals anymore than they kill people. Most people who commit their first criminal act don't even use a gun. And killing somebody isn't a criminal act, as you make it sound, if it's in self defense.

PappyLee wrote:

You mean you have not killed anyone yet. Gun owners are law abiding citizens until they break the law.

So, you want to punish him by restricting his lawful right to own and bear firearms because of what he hasn't done yet. Gotcha.

Bandit wrote:

Annoyed wrote:

PappyLee wrote:

The war on women continues from the republican party. No wonder women hates you GOPhers.

No,there is no "war on women"

It's really, really simple. If you are equal, you are equal. If you're not, you're not.

Like it or not, men & women are built differently. If you can't pull your head out of the sand and recognize that basic fact, that is not the fault of the Republican party, Conservatives, or any one else. It is on you, and you alone.

Not true. Of course there is a "war on women". You are a sexist. In this thread, all you are doing is bashing women that enter what you perceive to be "man territory". You do the same with firefighters, the military, etc.

I can't tell if you are being serious or sarcastic. But I will ask the question anyway. Give an example of war on women?

PappyLee wrote:

ford plasko wrote:

I've owned guns for 44 years and not one of them has killed anyone. I have used guns to kill deer and a variety of small game though. I would in any case rather receive a call from the police that my wife has used her weapon to stop a would-be perp than to be a victim    

You mean you have not killed anyone yet. Gun owners are law abiding citizens until they break the law.

So let's use your logic. Someone walking into a store is not a criminal until they shop lift. So are you going to arrest people for shop lifting before they do it?

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

I can't tell if you are being serious or sarcastic. But I will ask the question anyway. Give an example of war on women?

The war started as soon as women demanded rights. It escalated when they demanded equality. Some jokingly call it the "battle of the sexes", but for a nation that prides itself on freedom and equality, it isn't funny.

I am not debating Annoyed and Eber over the notion that men in general are stronger/faster than women. It's a fact, period. However, that has nothing to do with this.

The DOJ stated the physical fitness test had NOTHING to do with being able to perform the duties required of the job. PERIOD. Not for a MALE or female. So why do they have one?

To weed out less desirable candidates. In this case, females. It's just that simple. They lowered the standards to get more males, but NOT females.

But look again at what Annoyed stated:

Annoyed wrote:

I have no problems with women serving as police, fire, military, etc. as long as they are in fact equal to the men applying for the same positions.

Problem is that in general, they are not. Sure, there are some women who are easily the equals or superiors of males, but these are the exception to the rule, not the rule.

To even imply a woman that is equal or better than a male only as an exception, is sexist. He made no mention of physical strength until he got called on it. Then "suddenly" he's going to be "equal", and cite the ONLY thing men have the advantage in.

Bandit wrote:

I am not debating Annoyed and Eber over the notion that men in general are stronger/faster than women. It's a fact, period. However, that has nothing to do with this.


But look again at what Annoyed stated:

Annoyed wrote:

I have no problems with women serving as police, fire, military, etc. as long as they are in fact equal to the men applying for the same positions.

Problem is that in general, they are not. Sure, there are some women who are easily the equals or superiors of males, but these are the exception to the rule, not the rule.

To even imply a woman that is equal or better than a male only as an exception, is sexist. He made no mention of physical strength until he got called on it. Then "suddenly" he's going to be "equal", and cite the ONLY thing men have the advantage in.

I give up. I cannot have a discussion with someone who concedes my point with one sentence and then denies it in the next.

Men ARE on the average, stronger than women. And it is in areas where physical strength comes into play where women cannot meet the standards. Those standards should never be relaxed to favor any group of people. Period.

That's all I'll say on it. I'm done.

Bandit wrote:

The DOJ stated the physical fitness test had NOTHING to do with being able to perform the duties required of the job. PERIOD.

Bull flop. Physical fitness has nothing to do with being able to perform the duties? Bull. Not true and that was never said by anyone other than you.

Bandit wrote:

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

I can't tell if you are being serious or sarcastic. But I will ask the question anyway. Give an example of war on women?

The war started as soon as women demanded rights. It escalated when they demanded equality. Some jokingly call it the "battle of the sexes", but for a nation that prides itself on freedom and equality, it isn't funny.

I am not debating Annoyed and Eber over the notion that men in general are stronger/faster than women. It's a fact, period. However, that has nothing to do with this.

The DOJ stated the physical fitness test had NOTHING to do with being able to perform the duties required of the job. PERIOD. Not for a MALE or female. So why do they have one?

To weed out less desirable candidates. In this case, females. It's just that simple. They lowered the standards to get more males, but NOT females.

But look again at what Annoyed stated:

Annoyed wrote:

I have no problems with women serving as police, fire, military, etc. as long as they are in fact equal to the men applying for the same positions.

Problem is that in general, they are not. Sure, there are some women who are easily the equals or superiors of males, but these are the exception to the rule, not the rule.

To even imply a woman that is equal or better than a male only as an exception, is sexist. He made no mention of physical strength until he got called on it. Then "suddenly" he's going to be "equal", and cite the ONLY thing men have the advantage in.

I agree with Bandit. Republicans are racist, sexist bigots. The war on women has been raged for years by the republican party. That is why they do not vote for them. People like Eber do not want to give them a fair shake.