When women are excluded from jobs, are the grounds for excluding them reasonable?

Question

Women are excluded from a number of military roles, and more civilian ones. In more cases still, women are simply discouraged from doing "a mans job".

Often, reasons like "a woman can't be strong enough" or "won't be fast enough" are cited.

And yet women haul water in remote villages, give birth and endure great hardships.

I also come to doubt how relevant the grounds for excluding a woman are. Certainly she may not be able to yomp 30 miles through rough jungle and do 100 push ups after it, but does that matter when all she has to do is operate a radio and analyse a map?

Many jobs have changed, especially in the military over the last 20 years. A huge requirement is placed on physical fitness, and yet, in the field. how many actually require it. And aren't attributes like psychological awareness and empathy becoming more important than the ability to swim through a bog?

When women are excluded from jobs, are the grounds for excluding them reasonable?

Answer 1

Excluding women in general are one of the most reasonable things in this world.

Answer 2

gud question! i dont think its reasonable. i know women can bare any hardships man can. all she needs is trust and opportunity so that she may show her strenght!

its good that some women are given to do men's work like mining, military work and many more..............

Answer 3

Lol, this is so true in some cases.  PT is so heavily stressed in the military and yet for some jobs is not as much needed.  However, usually for those jobs (lets say military intelligence, communications, supply, etc) women aren't excluded.  We still have to pass the PT test, but to be honest, its really not that hard.  I mean, as long as you're in shape (which you will be from working out 5 times a week) you're going to pass it.

In these jobs that I listed, in the field you don't use a huge amount of physical fitness.  You have to be able to carry your pack long distances, endure horrific heat or cold, thrive through sleep depravation, and function effectively with all your gear on, but other than that, its not like you're going to fun 2 miles in the middle of Iraq.  Not as support, at least.

However, if women are to be allowed into combat jobs, I think they need to match the male standard and be just as fast and strong as this standard.  HOWEVER, what angers me is that there are women who CAN pass the standard (with room to spare) and yet they're still excluded.  Why?  I mean, if its all about strength/speed (like you were pointing out) and they show they can match this, then why not let them in?

Answer 4

I totally agree with your observations: brute force is less important than at any time in history.  For better or for worse, the "need" for it has been replaced by new technologies - like smartbombs and the Taser.  Gone are the days of looking your opponent straight in the eye as you bayonette him in the stomach.

Nowadays police don't need to be educated about mental illness, or any such perplexing issues.  

Zap now and ask questions later.

Answer 5

Wow there are a lot of really sensitive men on here.  

Um women shouldn't be excluded from any job as long as she wants it and can physically do it.

Answer 6

i don't think so, a lot of times you here of a woman being told she can't work becuase that is here gender and not becuase she cant do it. that is discrimination, but sometimes a man in the military might succeed a task better than that of a women and i think that is justified as long as the policy is clearly stated and it is equal oppurtunity.

Answer 7

Nowadays, jobs are not advertised as male or female, but by requirement, that is Australian law.

For example, if I want someone to spend all day lifting 25 kilo bags of stock, I say in the advert "Must be able to lift 25 kilo bags".

If a woman turns up and she can, indeed, lift 25 kilo bags all day, and fulfils all the other requirements, but I select a male applicant who is not as suitable *because* he is male, I have broken the law.

Obviously, sometimes these things are manipulated to attempt to exclude certain types of people (race, s*x, etc), but generally, people are beginning to re-think these things (slowly but surely), and realise getting good staff is better than forming a boys' (or girls') club of some kind.

You make a really good point regarding hauling water etc, as one comment a colleague from Africa made recently is that in her country women do all the work Australian men have traditionally done, AND raise the kids, too.

A lot of it is about culture, cultural perspectives and cultural change.

Cheers ;-)

Answer 8

The grounds for excluding women from certain jobs are reasonable.  NOT because there is any biological or cultural difference due to the gender, but because of the legal rights and implications that are different for women.

If a woman was to throw away all her "special" legal rights based on her gender and give in writing that she is ready to be treated like others, I am ready to give her any job I would give a man.  I am sure about women's abilities and skills and readiness to work as good as any man.  But I know there are laws and general social outlook, biased towards women, which might cause it difficult to employ a women in certain jobs.  For example, if I am sending somebody on a mission and cant have my recruits trained for the job take leaves more than 10 days at a time, I will not employ somebody who can ask for maternity leave.  If laws are changed and all married people (incl men) can apply for childbirth leaves, I will reserve the job for "legally unmarried" people.

Answer 9

Women are made to marry and have children,and not do men jobs,It is not right however that a working women be excluded from her job with out a real explanation