If an argument like this can be used to benefit women, can it also be interpreted to work in their disfavor ?

Question

"just because one woman can pass the men's physical fitness requirement does not mean that all women should be eligible for selective service"

Granted, some people might consider this a valid and applicable argument. However, couldn't (and if we're truly looking for equality, then SHOULDN'T) that same rhetoric be used in a different context which would work to exclude women or work against them equally as the first benefited them?

Example: 'Just because one woman can pass the men's intellectual or 'hardiness' requirement to e a (..policemen, congressperson, firefighter etc..) doesn't mean that all women should be eligible. - or whatever situation you'd find to be analogous to the selective service argument (or another similar argument)

Isn't this the only fair way to make this work, or to balance this out?

Answer 1

I'm a feminist. I stand for women having the same opportunities as men to work in whatever field they wish. I am against policies that preclude ALL women as a class from doing certain things, purely because they have female genitalia.

However, I also believe that in professions that require physical ability (for example), that the standard should not be lowered. It would be irresponsible for an employer to allow *anyone* to work in certain fields, if they are not physically capable. This includes individual men who wish to be fire fighters but are physically unable to climb a ladder, with a 20 kg hose. Of course, this also applies to individual women who are not physically capable to carry said hose, under said circumstances.

I think many feminists would agree with this position.

Answer 2

Yes

Answer 3

Men have gotten sent home if they haven't met those requirements. Or at least they've been placed in non-combat roles. The same standards should apply to women. If they are physically equipped for combat, fine; if not, they can do something else.

Answer 4

Yes.

Answer 5

Well, in the first place I call this argument stupid because in order for women to even have a go at these fields the standards have been lowered.  So, if they can't pass that's just the way it goes, and they need to move on.

Answer 6

Only misogynists and morons think that women should pass men's physical fitness tests.  Female and male anatomy are different and what determines if a male body is "fit" is not the same thing as what determines if a female is "fit".  The U.S. military wants "fit" males and females.  There is nothing special about a male's fit body that makes it "superior" to a female's fit body.  A fit female can and does excel at any job in the the U.S. military except those positions which they are locked out of purposefully to bar them from rising in the all-male military hierarchy.  The majority of males in the military are in support roles, not in combat roles.  Although some males may be slightly stronger than some females, the U.S. miltary has strict rules related to any personnel lifting weight over 50 pounds unless specially trained and using proper equipment.  Weight lifting prowess is no longer valuable in the modern world.  It WAS back when men were beasts of burden and needed to handle mules on the farm.  The modern military is slightly more advanced than that.  The highly technological U.S. miltary wants fit people with brains, not muscled jarheads.  In the matter of intelligence, women, actually, are scoring higher than are men in all U.S. military testing and research.  Also, there hasn't been a draft in 35 years.  Men need to fight to end the Selective Service system which serves only as a way of registering and keeping tabs on the demographic group most likely to cause violence or use firearms in a national emergency, to be rounded up and placed in detention camps for the duration, males ages 18-24. Duh.

Answer 7

If they pass the tests, how are they still considered ineligible? I think this is the only fair way to make it work. You weed out those who cannot pass the tests. To simply say that just because one women can pass the tests doesn't mean they should be eligible invalidates the reasons for having the tests.

Answer 8

All persons (male or female) should not be eligible if they can not pass the required tests - but all persons should be eligible to take the tests.  

Men have also failed tests- Are you saying simply because they are males they should be eligible?   No tests required.

Is your way fair - h**l no.

Answer 9

I'm missing the context here. Isn't this fitness test self-selecting? If you want to apply, and you pass it, you've passed? If not, who would draft you? Is the idea that because a woman did take it, other women should too? Or to reassure society that no other woman would care to?

I've never heard anyone suggest that men's hearts fail earlier, and therefore they shouldn't be allowed to work or take public office.

Has anyone suggested that a man should give birth before being admitted to adult citizenship? Or proposed that just because one man can do it, all men should do it? I think we're covered - personal freedom allows each person a choice.

Answer 10

Yes but that isn't how feminism works. They only word things in a manner that manipulates others to do or say what they want.

Rio if a male does not pass the entrance exam he is not allowed to join. And before you argue this I was actually in the military so I know.

Feminists only tell one side of a story the side they want you to hear the rest of the story you have to go elsewhere.

Answer 11

Yes.  Most arguments can be twisted to benefit one group or the other.