I'm a female and I'm entirely in favour of equal rights,
but EQUAL does not necessarily mean SAME.
You love your children EQUALLY, but each may not benefit from the SAME treatment.
If a male chauvinist beat a woman up,
and when questioned why, replied that she mouthed-off to him,
and that's what he would do to a guy who mouthed-off,
and she wants gender equality,
you'd say that he is confusing EQUALITY with being the SAME.
Which officer is more valuable to the team?
A male officer who is not that good at physical combat or endurance,
but who is very talented at strategy and logistics,
or another male officer who has no head for strategy or logistics,
but who is big and strong and fast?
the point is, in the military, BOTH are valuable.
They are of EQUAL value, nominally...but not the SAME, at all.
Everyone must meet the minimum requirements,
and the minimum requirements should not be lowered
just to accommodate political correctness.
Man or woman, if you CAN heft a 180 lb dead weight over your shoulder and carry it out of a burning building,
then you get the job.
Man or woman, if you CANNOT, then you don't.
There are also men who are not as strong as some women.
This actually ties into another thread, IMO;
the thread,
" Clerk Defies Supreme Court, Refuses Gay Marriage Licenses "
If a Christian cannot sign off on marriage licenses, then she shouldn't be the county clerk.
Again, it is not discrimination against the religion, per se.
I think it is an important distinction:
There is refusing to hire someone because they belong to a religion,
even when that religion poses NO problems in the workplace,
and you as the employer are able to accommodate their dress and their required holy observational days off;
vs
refusing to hire someone because there is an impediment that prevents that person from doing the job you specificially need to hire someone to do....regardless of what the CAUSE of the impediment might be.
A quadriplegic man cannot work as an active firefighter.
A muslim woman cannot work as a stripper.
In neither case, is the employer discriminating against a person with disabilities, or against a person's religion;
in both cases, the employer found the applicants had an impediment to doing the job they needed someone to do.
It is the fact that there exists an impediment to doing the job position that needs to be filled,
regardless what the CAUSE of that impediment is.
but EQUAL does not necessarily mean SAME.
You love your children EQUALLY, but each may not benefit from the SAME treatment.
If a male chauvinist beat a woman up,
and when questioned why, replied that she mouthed-off to him,
and that's what he would do to a guy who mouthed-off,
and she wants gender equality,
you'd say that he is confusing EQUALITY with being the SAME.
Which officer is more valuable to the team?
A male officer who is not that good at physical combat or endurance,
but who is very talented at strategy and logistics,
or another male officer who has no head for strategy or logistics,
but who is big and strong and fast?
the point is, in the military, BOTH are valuable.
They are of EQUAL value, nominally...but not the SAME, at all.
Everyone must meet the minimum requirements,
and the minimum requirements should not be lowered
just to accommodate political correctness.
Man or woman, if you CAN heft a 180 lb dead weight over your shoulder and carry it out of a burning building,
then you get the job.
Man or woman, if you CANNOT, then you don't.
There are also men who are not as strong as some women.
This actually ties into another thread, IMO;
the thread,
" Clerk Defies Supreme Court, Refuses Gay Marriage Licenses "
If a Christian cannot sign off on marriage licenses, then she shouldn't be the county clerk.
Again, it is not discrimination against the religion, per se.
I think it is an important distinction:
There is refusing to hire someone because they belong to a religion,
even when that religion poses NO problems in the workplace,
and you as the employer are able to accommodate their dress and their required holy observational days off;
vs
refusing to hire someone because there is an impediment that prevents that person from doing the job you specificially need to hire someone to do....regardless of what the CAUSE of the impediment might be.
A quadriplegic man cannot work as an active firefighter.
A muslim woman cannot work as a stripper.
In neither case, is the employer discriminating against a person with disabilities, or against a person's religion;
in both cases, the employer found the applicants had an impediment to doing the job they needed someone to do.
It is the fact that there exists an impediment to doing the job position that needs to be filled,
regardless what the CAUSE of that impediment is.
