[ SECRET POST #3234 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3234 ⌋

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

01.
[Golden Girls]


__________________________________________________



02.
[Boku no Hero Academia]


__________________________________________________



03.
[C.S. Lewis vs. J.R.R. Tolkien]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Pokémon, Leah Remini]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Tales of Zestiria]


__________________________________________________



06.
[The Man In The High Castle]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Marjorie Liu, Sana Takeda, Monstress]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Sleepy Hollow]








Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 020 secrets from Secret Submission Post #462.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 2 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Controversial Opinions

[insanenoodlyguy]

We absolutely should not lower standards or have different ones. This does mean the jobs will disproportionately continue to favor men, certainly. But changing the standards (for everybody or ladies, either way) for the purpose of having women in those jobs means that when actual shit goes down, there's a group that's going to be holding others back. And that will breed resentment at best. It certainly won't convince anybody those people belong there.

Re: Controversial Opinions

[(Anonymous)]

I mean, I agree with you 98 percent, but I'm not down with the blanket "we shouldn't lower standards." They shouldn't be lowered arbitrarily or without study, but I don't think it's out of the question to examine whether they need to be as high as they are in all regards.

For instance, in the Marine fitness tests, you get a perfect score if you can perform X tasks in, say, 3 minutes. If experience ends up showing that, these days, people who perform X tasks but take 5 seconds longer perform just as well in real-world situations as people who did it in 3 minutes, then it might be time to reconsider if 3:05 is the limit by which a perfect score is garnered.

Obviously this isn't a change that could happen overnight. It would take a lot of study and recommendations, but I don't think there's anything wrong with exploring that option.

Re: Controversial Opinions

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, this. Don't "lower standards" just to be inclusive, but it might be worth evaluating whether the current standards are necessary.

Re: Controversial Opinions

[(Anonymous)]

Which is pretty much what "lowering standards" involves: evaluating performance in real-world situations with current real-world equipment to determine if the current standards are actually reasonable indicators of efficiency and aptitude. The answer's frequently "no", and occasionally "actually people in between X and Y perform much better than people who score below or above them".

People flipping out about changing standards for dangerous positions are generally either ignorant and parroting what they've heard without actually doing the research, or they have an agenda.