fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3196 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3196 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Hannibal]

__________________________________________________

03. [repeat, Black Mirror]

__________________________________________________

04.

[World of Warcraft, Mists of Pandaria]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Sailor Moon]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Silicon Valley]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Time Masters: Vanishing Point and Aladdin]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Floraverse]

__________________________________________________

09.

[HTGAWM]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 045 secrets from Secret Submission Post #457.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I think that women should not be allowed in armed services/police/fire departments unless they can meet the SAME requirements as men. There have been reports recently that more departments (esp fire) are allowing women to slide by on reduced testing requirements (they are required to lift less, do not have to pass a test to kick open doors, have to run shorter distances, etc).

This is dangerous for their co-workers, fellow soldiers, and people they are protecting.

ITA. Women should not be excluded *on the basis of being female*, but every *individual person* should have the same physical standards for entering those services regardless of gender.

Even if those standards are exclusionary to women? Women do not build upper body muscle mass as quickly as males, so shouldn't it be about relative capability? Can she Perform the Job? Yes. Is she as strong physically as the men? No. So she's fired. Thats the way it works now, and that's not an acceptable system too me

If the standards are designed specifically to be exclusionary to women then they need to change.

However, if the standards are reasonably in line with the actual expectations of the job, then yes, they should apply to everyone equally, even though it probably means it will be harder for the average women to reach them. Safety is paramount, and equality does not mean special treatment. In most realms, true equality would amount to representation proportionate to the gender ratios of those interested in the job. In jobs that require a great deal of physical strength to perform properly, that might not be the case. To be clear: no candidate should ever be turned away BECAUSE of gender, and if a woman makes the cut, she should not be treated any differently from her male comrades (nor does she need to hear shit about how she's "too manly" or "not feminine" or anything like that).

Edited 2015-10-08 14:26 (UTC)

My sister was considering being a fire fighter or a police officer and chose fire fighter because the female police officers had less stringent physical requirements then the men, while everyone in fire fighter testing/training had the same requirements. (I think the gun as an equalizer was the reason for the police discrepancy?) But I agree. If a fire fighter cannot lift the equipment and do the job, then they aren't an effective fire fighter.

You don't need to have the same physicality in every role at those jobs though? An entry requirement is usually to establish physical fitness, but they don't just give you a gun and a slap on the ass and tell you to go shoot some people. Whatever role you find yourself in, there's going to be a lot of training and further physical examination before you actually get to go out there and do it. You're likely going to have a long period of supervised work before you're allowed to work independently or expected to be a vital part of a team.

Not everyone who joins goes on to do the most physical roles anyway. They relax the requirements because they need more people, and then they worry about finding them suitable roles to fill once they're in. Not everyone in the army is out on the front lines jumping on grenades or carrying their wounded companions to safety. Even during wartime there are still supply management officers and radar technicians. We don't live in the middle ages.

I wonder if you feel the same way about men of smaller stature?
What about women who can pass the physical requirements?

I am so sorry, but I got completely lost when you said "and a slap on the ass" because I started imagining how it'd be if that was the standard social thing to do when somebody was starting something new or had finished training.

Here's your diploma! ASS-SMACK!

Welcome to the company! ASS-SMACK!

Here's your driver's license! ASS-SMACK!

And - and - and that lead to me thinking "Actually, smacking someone's clothed butt is probably more hygenic than shaking somebody's sweaty possibly unwashed hand" and I thought, wouldn't it be wonderful if instead of shaking hands, or kissing cheeks, or hugging, everyone just went about smacking asses as a hello and as a goodbye.

And I thought, damn. That's a world I want to live in.

And I completely lost track of what you were actually trying to talk about or what this thread is even about.

... ass-smack!

I can't remember who said it all the time to me growing up, but I feel like it was an actual thing.

I hate how germy shaking hands is. We should adopt the nod or a raised hand. Smack on the ass might be a little personal. I feel like you need to earn that ass-smack.

I... I think this thread was about women in important "man only" jobs. In which case, the ass-smack is probably horribly inappropriate and sexist. Oops.

aaaah, right. sexism.

in ass-slapping utopia, ass-slapping is gender neutral. everyone has an ass, and everyone can give an ass-slap. :D

but yeah, head-nods or some sort of non-touching dance would totally fix the germ problem without potentially uncomfortable body contact.

... still ... ass-slaps!

If it was a casual non-sexual thing that everybody did, I'd probably be okay with it.

We could touch butts.

Bum kiss.

An affectionate twerk.

As long as the standards are set appropriately as what is realistically routinely encountered, yes. Now raising standards to exceptional or unrealistic measures, just to exclude women (or asian men, it happens) that is reprehensible and prejudice motivated exclusion.

[ SECRET POST #3196 ]

Re: Problematic Opinion Thread

Re: Problematic Opinion Thread

Re: Problematic Opinion Thread

Re: Problematic Opinion Thread

Re: Problematic Opinion Thread

Re: Problematic Opinion Thread

Re: Problematic Opinion Thread

Re: Problematic Opinion Thread

Re: Problematic Opinion Thread

Re: Problematic Opinion Thread

Re: Problematic Opinion Thread