One of the most recurring debates regarding gender equality for women is that of equal pay. As well as sympathising with women on this matter, I also see benefits in it for men. By this I mean equal pay results in a more level playing field when applying for jobs. Men become more able to compete against women for certain roles and, I believe, it would create a more realistic environment for equal opportunity where men might be at a disadvantage. Any thoughts, ideas, issues…?
I have had a few arguments while I was serving and after I left on the subjects of equal pay and married soldiers with children (both parents serving).
Equal pay I am happy with - as long as it means they do the same job and same physical requirements.
We had people demanding women should get the same wages as men and do the exact same job - but when it was instigated in some Corps they found out women were failing the fitness tests - so they made them easier (with a dual standard - as a single example as part of one test I had to do 44 pressups in two minutes while a female the same age and job as me had to do 10 and could use her knees if she wanted).
Next parts of the jobs were cut as they were deemed to hard for the average women to do (never mind the flutter their eyelashes bde) - but they still kept the same wages as the men - because they can do the same job - yet in practice they could not (to be fair some females could and some blokes could not - but the blokes who could not faced remedial PT or training while the ladies just got easier tests and exempt some jobs).
In the 100m sprint, men look to go sub-10 seconds whereas women seek to sub-11 seconds. That roughly works out as having 91% the strength of men. Now we might argue that that should be reflected in pay status, but I wouldn’t. You could have a greater fitness/strength difference between an athletic infantry soldier and, say, a smaller, weaker driver, cook, clerk, storesman etc.
One might also argue that the easing of physical tests for women in the army is also a result of male chauvinism - who designs the tests and why the easing? Simply looking at the athletic performance of 100m sprinters, there’s no reason to believe that women cannot be trained to their full potential - which I would argue for. Admittidly, they are athletes at their peak, but it is indicative of the physical differences between the sexes. We can also consider the mental power in the form of mental preparedness and determination. Much of that is what training is all about.
How about this:
Doctor branded Britain's toughest woman after putting male competitors to shame in ''ultimate hell'' Special Forces training. http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/doctor-special-forces-ultimate-hell-6351137
Okay, I’ll show what a chauvinistic, misogynistic, fascist bastard I am by daring to illustrate a fundamental flaw in the sex (not gender, as that is a grammatical term despite it being corrupted by sex and GLBTIQ etc warriors) equality debates relating to military roles.
If women are equal to men in all the basic requirements for, say, infantry, which include the ability to deal out limitless violence with and without weapons against men on the enemy side, why do women demand and get vast amounts of government money and other resources such as special police action to protect them from domestic violence in civilian life which according to them is perpetrated exclusively by men they are capable of defeating on the battlefield with or without weapons?
I knew you wouldn’t let me down - someone has to play devil’s advocate!
Interestingly, to me that is, in her book ‘A Vindication of the Rights of Woman’, 1792, Mary Wollstonecraft (mother to Mary Shelley) argued that if women were allowed to fulfil both their physical and academic potential they would be far better companions to men. Instead, she argued, women were kept weak with a focus on their feminine beauty, as perceived, and ignorant to the ways of science, politics etc.
So, turning back to mine and RS’s comments, if women were allowed to achieve their full academic and physical potential without society conditioning them to be a weaker version of what they should be
(a) would they incapable of fulfilling the infantry role?
(b) would they continue to demand police protection and the “misuse” of tax-payers money (many of them being tax-payers in their own right)?
For (a) I would argue a definite - yes! Training would see to it.
For (b) I would argue that the incidences for the requirement for police protection etc. would be much reduced.
For a start, if women were developed in the way that, arguably, they ought to be, then male perception of the weaker sex would be somewhat different than it is. I think we all know certain women who are more than capable of taking caring themselves in a physical or verbal argument, and holding their own when up against the most talented academics, politicians, business men etc.
Women who do decide to have a family should not worry about equal pay but strive to be a great mother. Men are the bread winners. This modern day “women are equal to men” is bollocks. The sexes were born to do different jobs.
One recognizes his genius by his brevity - clear, concise and to the point!