3 ms·

> Are we supposed to equalize all of these? No, but we are supposed to remove the barriers that prevent men becoming nurses and teachers, women becoming truck

> Are we supposed to equalize all of these? No, but we are supposed to remove the barriers that prevent men becoming nurses and teachers, women becoming truck drivers, etc., etc.

kbelder 5y ago
So, all legal barriers have been removed for decades. There may be cultural barriers, or cultural incentives. How can you know when other barriers are gone, and you have a job that is just naturally more appealing to men or women? Is there a point when you can say it's done?
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
  > you have a job that is just naturally more appealing to men or women? Unfortunately, I think this no longer appropriate to suggest. I think certain circles would cancel you for suggesting this.
- native_samples 5y ago
  Sometimes the change over time in professions like law has been used to disprove this case for formerly male dominated professions. This is also the case in teaching. There were far more male primary school teachers in the past. The actual cause of the decline is usually identified as the risk of false claims of sexual abuse, which are taken far too seriously by the system and unfortunately too many parents/teachers take the stance of guilty-until-proven-innocent.
OrvalWintermute 5y ago
>No, but we are supposed to remove the barriers that prevent men becoming nurses and teachers, women becoming truck drivers, etc., etc. I think this is a dangerous example in certain professions. For example, someone I know was a volunteer fire fighter in a specific area that regularly required high risk fire suits + masks + oxygen tanks + supplemental gear. This is a huge amount of weight to be carrying around in sweltering temperatures, before even helping victims, or swinging an axe. Likewise combat loads in the armed forces are regularly exceeding 40 lbs not to include crew served weapon systems. Add a stinger, a machine gun with a tripod+ full load, a Javelin, or a disassembled mortar and you have some serious weight. Armed forces have to remain mobile even when loaded. Physics and engineering problems prevent the simplistic modification of these jobs to those that cannot meet the grueling physical requirements. I think it is far better to define certain occupational requirements by certain requirements for entry. Now I know 95% of jobs don't require these, but for those that do it is a life & death matter.
- mcv 4y ago
  Yes, but those aren't gender issues, those are a matter of strength requirements. And of course physical strength correlates with gender, but it's not true that all men are stronger than all women. Women who meet those requirements should be able to do those jobs and not get discriminated for it. And men who don't meet those requirements shouldn't be expected to do those jobs.

> Are we supposed to equalize all of these? No, but we are supposed to remove the barriers that prevent men becoming nurses and teachers, women becoming truck drivers, etc., etc.

kbelder 5y ago

So, all legal barriers have been removed for decades. There may be cultural barriers, or cultural incentives. How can you know when other barriers are gone, and you have a job that is just naturally more appealing to men or women? Is there a point when you can say it's done?

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
> you have a job that is just naturally more appealing to men or women? Unfortunately, I think this no longer appropriate to suggest. I think certain circles would cancel you for suggesting this.
native_samples 5y ago
Sometimes the change over time in professions like law has been used to disprove this case for formerly male dominated professions. This is also the case in teaching. There were far more male primary school teachers in the past. The actual cause of the decline is usually identified as the risk of false claims of sexual abuse, which are taken far too seriously by the system and unfortunately too many parents/teachers take the stance of guilty-until-proven-innocent.

OrvalWintermute 5y ago

>No, but we are supposed to remove the barriers that prevent men becoming nurses and teachers, women becoming truck drivers, etc., etc. I think this is a dangerous example in certain professions. For example, someone I know was a volunteer fire fighter in a specific area that regularly required high risk fire suits + masks + oxygen tanks + supplemental gear. This is a huge amount of weight to be carrying around in sweltering temperatures, before even helping victims, or swinging an axe. Likewise combat loads in the armed forces are regularly exceeding 40 lbs not to include crew served weapon systems. Add a stinger, a machine gun with a tripod+ full load, a Javelin, or a disassembled mortar and you have some serious weight. Armed forces have to remain mobile even when loaded. Physics and engineering problems prevent the simplistic modification of these jobs to those that cannot meet the grueling physical requirements. I think it is far better to define certain occupational requirements by certain requirements for entry. Now I know 95% of jobs don't require these, but for those that do it is a life & death matter.

mcv 4y ago
Yes, but those aren't gender issues, those are a matter of strength requirements. And of course physical strength correlates with gender, but it's not true that all men are stronger than all women. Women who meet those requirements should be able to do those jobs and not get discriminated for it. And men who don't meet those requirements shouldn't be expected to do those jobs.