Verified answer

I love it.

Am I the first to notice that the question is exactly what feminists are doing re: college admission policies, military boot camp and promotions, and such traditionally-male state and municipalities employment as state troopers, police, fire departments, and emergency medicine?

If you can't get your chicks into the Citadel or VMI based on the existing physical fitness qualifications, insist that they change the rules. Then insist that the military do the same - have different rules for women both as regards recruitment and boot camp. Then insist that women be given the option of fighting on the front lines (an option not extended to male soldiers, sailors, and airmen) but then insist that promotion standards be relaxed for women in case women (wisely) choose to take advantage of military benefits and training without actually fighting. Then get out of the military and join a fire department which requires men to be able to descend a ladder with 250 pounds on their back, but requires that women do the same with only 100 pounds - of course, at the behest of feminists.

Seems that "increasing the presence of women in traditionally-male jobs" is merely femmespeak for "lower standards so that even WE can play."

I am certain that I am not the only person in the world who knows that not ONE female soldier, sailor, cop, or firefighter employed anywhere in the United States has qualified for her position under the SAME requirements as a man?

I don't understand why people can't accept that they are not cut out to do everything. Every individual is physically and mentally built for a different task. Some are thinkers, some are physical. Some are emotionally balanced, some are protectors.

If your genetic makeup (physical or mental) does not allow you to do a job (or reach a goal) then you either need to work to get up to parr or you need to pick a new goal.

We all cannot be suited to all things. Why can't we accept that we may not be capable of something? Why can't we accept that we all have limitations?

Well, what really matters through taking an action, is the intentions prompting them, in this case, your prompted intentions is to fail, despite that, you suceed! Despite the fact that this is a rare case, thus contributing even further to the cemplexity of this question, I would say that Its a 1 way road, the best I can say is- you failed what you tried to do, as a result, you have became sucessfull.... The question you have to ask now is, in what sense did you become sucessfull? In the eyes of those around you, you may have achieved success, but when it comes back to you, you had failed, for you had failed to do what you intended to do...... Being, you striving to fail! What you call sucess (Your failure, you strove for it), may not be sucess in the eyes of others. And your failure (sucess), may also not be failure to others. Your soul intentions do not contribute to how others feel about this for they are your intentions, something you understand.. Again its a matter of perception not only through your eyes, but the eyes of others... Hope it helped :)

No it's not fair to expect standards of a discipline to be relaxed so underachievers be able to qualify.

The reasons for a standard are to weed out the unqualified applicants, not so the unqualified can weed out the difficult standards.

Should the airlines reduce the safety standards so poorly maintained aircraft can carry passengers?

Should medical licensing standards be relaxed so under-qualified doctors treat you?

Minimal required standards are established for a reason, safety, job performance etc.

I'm not qualified ,but I'd like the standards for the California BAR relaxed so I can practice law.

Not unless you are a lilly-wagger-cry-baby. Criteria and rules are in place for a reason. However I do think that resources should be available to everyone to make sure that they get a fair shot.

It would depend on how realistic or fair the criterion was. If, for example, you were denied a job because you fell short of the typing speed requirement by one word, they might have some 'splainin' to do.

No, but it is reasonable to ask for a second chance with a better understanding of the existing rules.

Of course not...

And the same needs to be taught to children - in this world, there are winners and losers. You can't always win a prize, and you will not always succeed. And the losing experience will teach you far more valuable lessons than winning ever will...

Is there actually a difference between a socio path and a psychopath?

I really don't think there is.

Yes! Milk and cookies for everyone!

What do we stand to lose? Except you know, excellence.

Oh hell no. If you cant do the job then you cant do the job. The criteria are there for a reason.