Aa Club we are truly ahead of our time

[Nobby_66]

Nibbles, your first paragraph hits my nail on the head and, weirdly, explains what I meant better than I did
As you rightly point out, to say men and women aren't equal could be taken the wrong way which is what I meant when I said only a few had the balls to say it (at the risk of being accused of sexism). My overriding point though was that this doesn't mean one is better than the other. Men and women are different, we're agreed on that clearly but sometimes those who want equality get the two mixed up.
As for the female PC, I will agree to a point Plenty of women do pass the course, in fact in The Met there is a very high number of female dog handlers. The test was devised to pick out those who can carry out the very physical tasks involved with doing the job. My argument would be, if the female PC can't pass the physical past of the selection process, will she be able to do the physical part of the job? It's an age old riddle that first reared its head in the army some years ago and One which will, no doubt, rumble on for years.

Just like this thread :6:

 

[Baghdad_Rob]

nibbles - 6/2/2018 21:50

I?d steer clear of saying they?re not equal though. This subject is so tricky that a slip of the tongue can be catastrophic!

I would have to agree with the female officer that the test did favour men (I?d be interested to know the respective pass rates for men and women). I?m sure women are generally more naturally blessed with certain other qualities (other than flirting with men, BaghdadBob) - did the testing process include anything that would favour women?

Another question, he said opening a can of worms, is whether the needs of the Police Force are better served by generally masculine qualities. I think most would agree that would be the case and therefore a test that does favour men wouldn?t necessarily be unfair. Personally I think female officers, sergeants, etc add a great deal to the police force but I?d never expect them to represent anything like 50% of it (the same for the Armed forces and fire service).

I think the point Nobby was making is that men and women aren't always equal in their abilities and sometimes some genders seem to excel more naturally at certain tasks.

That test might inherently be easier for men but the test isn't a wall (with or without a dog) designed to prevent women from taking the role. There is no reason why a woman couldn't pass the test, but for any given woman it might take a few extra months working down the gym and on the treadmill to reach the standards. I would assume having to run several miles with the dog and then carrying over a wall is a common enough occurance on the job that it makes sense for the applicant to be tested.

The question is, should the standards be dropped so that a woman can pass a test and get their dream job when she would struggle upon actually doing it for real?

You should look up the case of Rebecca Wax in the US, who repeatedly failed the firefighter physical exam where they had to replicate an actual rescue in terms of setting up gear in and carry 50kg through a burning obstacle to replicate carrying an unconscious body. They passed her when she threatened legal action for sex discrimination. Somewhere in New York there is a firefighter who is unable to set the equipment up quick enough or drag an unconscious body more than 15m over unobstructed ground to rescue someone.

Ideally in such cases assistance should be provided to help the women get up to standard rather than reduce the standards so quotas are met.

 

[Nobby_66]

Take the piss all you like 58 but having a copper for a dad just kept me in line. It's nothing special