So the AFP are pushing for more women in the recruitment of their officers - you can apply for a position as a male, but women are preferred.
Should a government agency be pushing gender quotas for, let's be honest here, a job that requires the best candidate. Having anyone hired based on their gender rather than their merit can result in societies safety being in jeopardy!
Not really a fair comparison, anyone can learn Vietnamese once you get the job, not many people are going to change their gender to land it.
believing Australians can learn a second language….
Hah, nice subtle racist dig but please. When learning a new language if it's not spoken at home, the barrier to learning another language is always higher. Practice and teaching is just not readily available. If it's not what you're heading towards career wise it's a large time commitment that is better used elsewhere. I learnt Chinese and French in my schooling experience, but I just have no need for it and soon dropped it. This isn't about capability, it's about need.
If multiple languages are spoken in the home children will always pick up both considerably easier. People who are native to a country are more likely to know less languages due to the lack of need.
Do you know languages other than what was spoken at home?
It is not a racist dig.
Knowing language, of your peers, neighbors assists in a co-habitation and understanding of both parties. An obvious choice would be mandarin in schools, given the Chinese influence in Australia. However people are too busy wobbling and dropping out of school, complaining about life to try…
I have picked up 2 other languages than my home spoken language, amongst pieces of other language throughout travels.
Learning a second language would reduce our arrogance we have about the world outside out island bubble. One interesting fact; Australians think all white people speak English. It is hilarious to see Aussies try converse in English in France to many people, who actually know no english.
People who are native to a country are more likely to know less languages due to the lack of need.
Tell this to most of Europe and now increasingly Asia, where knowing at least a second language is becoming quite common. Even many Americans hold some basic understanding of Spanish.
@eggmaster: "One interesting fact; Australians think all white people speak English. It is hilarious to see Aussies try converse in English in France to many people, who actually know no english."
We will build a wall, and that will make Australia great again!
Seriously though what kinda crap is that mate, just because you say it's a fact doesn't make it one…
Did you know it takes less pressure to bite through your little finger then it does to bite through a large carrot, please try and get back to me.
@jayteee: it's not racist. Australia is a colonial country that has worked hard on its image of white English speakers. Our politicians have set up our culture and our education system in such a way that this is the desired outcome; Australian's don't see value in learning a second a language - that is why it's hard for us, and that is why we don't do it. If we did learn a second language, we would likely have more compassion toward others, and the politicians would lose one of their best tools - racist rhetoric
Australia is a colonial country that has worked hard on its image of white English speakers
Because we are an English speaking country? What else would you expect them to do? We want people to be literate in our own language first before pushing others.
If we did learn a second language, we would likely have more compassion toward others, and the politicians would lose one of their best tools - racist rhetoric
Sure, not arguing this. I just took a bit of offence at the claim that Australians couldn't learn a new language.
An obvious choice would be mandarin in schools, given the Chinese influence in Australia.
It is in the majority of schools now. Students can still choose their language, all my peers were all offered this in their education.
One interesting fact; Australians think all white people speak English. It is hilarious to see Aussies try converse in English in France to many people, who actually know no english.
I think Australia not having neighbouring borders contributes to what we you're saying. We can't simply pop over a neighbouring border like in Europe and be faced with a completely different culture and language.
Tell this to most of Europe and now increasingly Asia, where knowing at least a second language is becoming quite common. Even many Americans hold some basic understanding of Spanish.
Who all share a border with those countries, and as a result have a lot of cross-imigration. Similarly languages are still offered in our schools, but I would say there still isn't a need to learn them.
believing Australians can learn a second language….
I took offence at this, to me this sounds like Australians are incapable of learning a language. To me that's elitist and essentially racist.
Potentially if you grew up overseas, with a family where that carries that influence and have travelled overseas yourself you would see the value in learning another language. For people born at home in Australia, where only English is spoken and you have to travel overseas to encounter another culture (expensive, and probably only going to happen for a more limited amount of time) you see the result we have today.
Bringing in intellectual capability I find offensive when there are so many other factors at play.
Because we are an English speaking country? What else would you expect them to do? We want people to be literate in our own language first before pushing others.
I was pointing out the reasons Australians don't learn other langauges. I wanted to show you that expecting Australians not to be able to learn other languages is not racist. It's a very deliberate tactic by the government to cultivate particular views.
Because Australia is a colonial country, this is exactly what I would
"expect them to do". Suppress other languages (indigenous langauges) to remove those folks from their culture. When your history is aural, not being able to understand it means you lose your identity.
What I would like Australia to do is decolonize itself, by for eg:
* allowing indigenous kids to learn at school in their own language
* police to stop killing indigenous Australians while in custody
Etc.
so guys when we say Australians are we only referring to the white people only in Australia that has an Australian citizenship or the many other ethnic backgrounds we have as well?
I just took a bit of offence at the claim that Australians couldn't learn a new language.
I honestly believe that this may be true for a large portion of Australians. It is ok to take offence to this.
It is ok. I mean our government has been propagating to Australians that other people will "integrate and be exactly like we are" or they will "be dealt with".
Because we are an English speaking country?
It is literally the white aussie bogan crowd and nightly news rhetoric complaining of the "evil Chinese takin mi houses, mi jubz and mi country". The contradiction is enormous.
And despite best efforts to stamp out aboriginal history from modern Australia; they still do exist, speaking their own native language.
Suppress other languages (indigenous langauges) to remove those folks from their culture.
I'm sorry but this is nonsense. There is nothing to stop kids from learning in schools their own language, they just have to find a school that offers it. The choice of language falls with the school and the resources available (ie. teachers) for each language. The Government does not set the curriculum on that. Schools have set a priority on what they think is most beneficial for students.
Languages are also taught to aid in productivity and increase communication. English is the most common language in the world, soon after is Chinese/French/Indonesian… Not only would you have troubles sourcing aboriginal teachers all over Australia, but it is a language that would not be immediately beneficial to learn. I would hazard that a lot of aboriginals understand English as well, negating the benefit gained from mandating the learning of a language that is not in widespread use.
To say it is a manipulated form of oppression I think is a BIG stretch.
I honestly believe that this may be true for a large portion of Australians. It is ok to take offence to this.
Sure, but this is a negative generalisation about a race. In any other setting this would be deemed racism, whether it be true or not.
It is literally the white aussie bogan crowd and nightly news rhetoric complaining of the "evil Chinese takin mi houses, mi jubz and mi country". The contradiction is enormous. And despite best efforts to stamp out aboriginal history from modern Australia; they still do exist, speaking their own native language.
I don't think anyone can deny that overseas investment into the property market is contributing to housing pressures all over Australia. For someone who is native Australian this is a source of great frustration especially amongst younger people. The thought is that ones country isn't taking care of their own citizens in protecting against the AMOUNT of investment. In my area single story houses are routinely sold for $2.5m because it's a known place for investment.
If you have been alive for the before and after I can understand the shock.
I'm sorry but this is nonsense.There is nothing to stop kids from learning in schools their own language, they just have to find a school that offers it.
I'm sorry but this is nonsense. Come back and leave a comment after researching this claim
That's a ridiculous assumption though. Becoming fluent in another language takes years of practice and there's no guarantee the cop you hire is going to pick it up.
Requiring Vietnamese is extremely specific, and a niche. Can you please explain how hiring more women would play into a beneficial outcome?
This Poll is a genuine question - I am more leaning towards gender quotas not being beneficial, but I am far from saying outright that they are terrible.
Able to connect better with the 50 (or 51%) of the population which is female.
Better representation and relations of issues etc. Policing isnt just putting people in cuffs.
Isn't this sexist? Or perhaps, sexist on the part of the civilian?
That would give male drivers a better chance to get away with a warning instead of a ticket, by flashing abs, triceps and biceps.
@ozbjunkie: Of course it is, but no one ever said all sexism is bad. Is it sexist to assume a female doesn't want to use a urinal? Yes, but that isn't the type of sexism anyone was referring to.
@ozbjunkie: for those people who neg'ed ozbjunkie, i have him a plus.
What he said is spot on. It is sexist, and some people is not able to accept that fact.
@cameldownunder: AFP officers don't deal with local law breakers, speeding fines are issued by state police
Loving the contraversy here by the way.
Men and women should be treated equally… But not by civilians if they are police officers…
I would imagine female victims of abuse, sexual assault, rape etc would prefer to speak to a female police than a male. Same reason why we need a good balance of female and male doctors.
That's a fair point
While I don't disagree - does that follow through to other characteristics?
Would a Muslim person rather deal with a Muslim officer?
Would a fat person rather deal with a fat officer?
Would a wheelchair bound person rather deal with a wheelchair-bound officer?
Do we need targeted recruitment for every characteristic found in society?
@blaircam:
What you are describing is a diverse workforce.
It is quite common for workplaces to promote diversity.
My examples were pretty specific eg. rape, sexual assault, not just a female who wants a female cop to check her house for robbery.
The impact of sexual assault, rape etc has on a victim is in my opinion far greater than the impact from racism, being call fat and whatever problem the wheelchair bound person experienced. The victim is not just having their house broken into or handbag stolen, but body has been broken into, their life has been stolen. I would imagine it being an incredibly painful experience to recount what happened, let alone to talk to a man who may resemble the offender.
Women tend to relate more to women, no high achieving man can replace that.
Also, when functioning on a protection detail, sometimes you need female officers to go into female only zones - especially ladies bathrooms.
female victims of abuse, sexual assault, rape etc
this is the federal police, i believe the crimes you mention would fall under the jurisdiction of the state police
I prefer to deal with smart, reasonable people. Where is the push for 50/50 on that?
@cameldownunder: LOL
To be fair, some police are very smart and capable people overall who might not be in the job for the money.
This is the only good reason that I can think of for only opening the candidate positions only to a certain class.
Are all these positions going to be potentially dealing members of the community who would rather deal with police officers who they can identify as being of the same class as them?
That is bona fide. Those positions should have proportional representation of the community they serve.
This should be the target for the class mix in such positions for ACT Police:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/lookup/Media%20Relea…
"Would a Muslim person rather deal with a Muslim officer?
Would a fat person rather deal with a fat officer?
Would a wheelchair bound person rather deal with a wheelchair-bound officer?"
I think the question isn't "would" but "do". i.e. do fat people actually prefer to deal with a fat officer?
If I were to guess, I'd say no, fat people and wheelchairb bound people don't have a preference for dealing with other fat people or wheelchair bound people. Where as it seems reasonable to me that someone may want to deal with people of the same religion, and there is certainly evidence that there are circumstances where women do prefer to deal with other women.
Personally I think this does follow through to other characteristics. For example, you'd probably want some police officers who are muslim. I imagine if you are dealing a lot with muslim communities, it may be more effective to have officers who are muslims. The same goes for other significant religious or cultural groups. Of course, the percentages don't have to match up - i.e. just because there are x% muslims in the population, it doesn't mean you need x% muslims in the police force. Similarly, just because there are 50% women in the population, it doesn't mean you need 50% women in the police force.
I guess at some point, it's a bit of a judgement call as to how little is too little. In this case, I guess they've decided that the current % for women is too little.
With racial or cultural differences, there is definitely a benefit to having equal representation.
Think Aboriginal liaison officers.
@blaircam: I'm not sure about your other examples but having ethnic minorities as officers absolutely allow you to connect and build trust with those communities.
@blaircam: Would a fat person rather deal with a fat officer?
I'd rather a cute lady who sympathetically rubs my back while we talk lol
Fee yet nah mee…
Hiring majority males creates this toxic hyper-masculinity workplace. If you find yourself facing aggression from the people you lock up AND facing a bro culture of aggression in the workplace - it'll be a terrible place to work in and all people who interact with the organisation. It can create mental health issues and destroy an organisation. Women do not participate in the hyper-masculinity bro culture.
If these women climb the ranks and becoming effective leaders, it'll be them telling these "bros" to pull their head in.
The rules of who best to hire and why, were written by men and for men. Of course in this situation the most likely outcome is that it becomes the best "man" for the job rather than the best individual.
If the system is a bunch of hammers it would logically only know to look out for nails.
Having mandatory gender equality in the workplace especially in the top sections would force rule changes that would favour logic that includes the strengths of all. It is unfair in the transition but think how many centuries it has been unfair for women p r in other situations, other minorities. A couple of decades of men carrying the burden is not much.
This and all things about human equality is about human rights. The right to be treated equal, and sometimes that means that those who have for the last few centuries or even millennia have had more than their fair share of more than equal rights, need to understand that for it to become truly equal, then your extra privilege must be removed.
Have you considered that the police need both males and females to be most effective
Why? I thought there was no difference between men and women.
Here's an idea. Hire the person best for the job. Revolutionary, I know. Where's my Nobel prize.
Totally agree that a diverse workforce can in some regards improve effectiveness of an organisation, however there are a plethora of factors which you must consider and at the end of the day we should be recruiting the right person for the right job, not discriminating based on gender.
Would you support a mandated 50% recruitment for male teachers, nurses and child care workers?
A police force should be balanced and impartial. 50/50 is a good idea - best candidate is not just about physical traits.
50/50 is a good idea - best candidate is not just about physical traits.
But this quota is about physical traits… One group has penises and the other vaginas. They want more of the latter.
Not more, the same amount.
You will never have any sort of 'best' when you force an artificial quota.
Becoming a police officer is less attractive for women than men. If less women apply, the proportion that are good candidates will also be less
A fake quota means
The standard for female applicants must be lowered
Good female police officers are all assumed to also be of the lower standard
They should find ways to recruit more women, but not by setting quotas and lowering standards
And there you nail it.
Why is it less attractive to women?
There is no reason at all that it should be more or less attractive to either gender. If it is, then that needs to be addressed, and one of the easier ways is to have quotas.
Usually, the people complain loudest are the privileged majority.
Why it is less attractive I thought would be obvious
It's an unglamorous job that involves violence.
Quotas would fix the symptoms of the problem, not the actual problem, which is many women do not aspire to do the job.
The "privileged majority" belong to a past generation, these quotas do nothing against them
@Superannuation: lmao, assuming women only do glamorous jobs without violence? Even men would rather do a glamorous job without violence.
High gender imbalance, like in the army, can lead to discrimination against women in the work environment - THIS is a real reason
@dengziyi: No I don't make assumptions about all women, only averages.
I believe there are plenty of women who make good police officers
I don't see how lowering standards for women helps them gain respect in a workplace.
Why is it less attractive to women?
It's potentially dangerous. Puts your life on the line. You could get hurt. Women generally don't like that. Same with the military. That isn't going to change.
There is no reason at all that it should be more or less attractive to either gender.
There is. Women like to do light work more than heavy work. That's why some occupations are predominantly females, and the heavier, dirtier work is primarily done by men. Except no one fights for 50/50 with those occupations for whatever reason. Nor is anyone pushing to give men more of a chance in occupations involving looking after children. 50/50? Why not?
dirtier work is primarily done by men. Except no one fights for 50/50 with those occupations
Exactly. Where's the push for half the garbage collectors to be women?
@lostn: Do you think it's strange that most of the teaching work force is women yet most principals are men? Men are not extremely underrpresented in primary and secondary education, in Australia there's a roughly 60 (female) 40 (male) split
And although childcare is completely dominated by females, apparently female childcare workers are, on average, paid less than males?
Heavier, dirtier work is done by men more often, agreed. As a female myself, I know the physical limitations of my genetic make up compared to men. Women and men are different, both physically, mentally and emotionally so gender would have an impact on physical labour jobs.
Policing on the other hand is not simply physical.
@Superannuation: Still, fairly sure, on average, most men would not like to have a dangerous job.
I can understand your other points. If they can't operate on the same level as their higher-standard peers then I don't think they're deserving of respect.
@Superannuation: I agree we need to have more fat bald and unattractive models on the cover of womens magazines.
When will we finally get a shirtless TJ Millar on the cover of Dolly?
Do you think it's strange that most of the teaching work force is women yet most principals are men?
You're wrong. Labour force statistics by the ABS show that the majority (66%) of school principals are women.
Men are not extremely underrpresented in primary and secondary education, in Australia there's a roughly 60 (female) 40 (male) split
You're wrong. Labour force statistics by the ABS show that men account for only 27% of primary and secondary school teachers. It's even worse in primary schools where men account for only 15% of teachers.
although childcare is completely dominated by females, apparently female childcare workers are, on average, paid less than males?
Do you have statistics to support this or is this another one of your wrong opinions?
A fake quota means
The standard for female applicants must be lowered
No it doesn't. You'll just lower your rate of hiring.
Wrong. The standards are currently favouring men as it looks for male strengths as the sort of characteristics that make a good employee, these standards were also set by men. Of course the best man will get the job. If it were all women in the police force do you think the rules would also be written in favour of having men as the best for the job? Probably not. I mean how hard is this? Mandatory quotas in the beginning are a diffucult but required tranistion that needs to occur so that systematic changes can be made that alter the mindset of the system so that the inequity of the situation will move towards a mew equilibrium.
IMO, best comment so far.
Quotas are a means to an end. Balancing the gender mix is a way to effect cultural change. Ideally cultural change should come first, and a balanced gender mix would happen naturally, but in entrenched unbalanced workforces, it just doesn't happen.
And the reference to standards, it's basically the definition of indirect discrimination.
The more qualified person should get the job. The person willing to do the work should get the job. The person willing to keep doing the job regardless of increasing level of difficulty or skills required should get the job. Not the person some rubbish Social Justice agency wants the employer to hire due to virtue signalling reasons.
The flaw in your argument is assuming that the best person for the job is currently the one getting it.
Whoever achieves the goal of the job in the best possible way gets the job. Man or woman, don't care, so long as they keep the streets safe.
There are some things that female police officers are better at. Studies (done mostly in the United States) show that female officers are less likely to use lethal or non-lethal brute force than males. Quote from LAPD Report
"With some exceptions, female officers interviewed believed they were more communicative, more skillful at de-escalating potentially violent situations and less confrontational,” the report reads. “A suspect’s defiance and disrespect of an officer often gives rise to use of force by an officer. Many officers, both male and female, believe female officers are less personally challenged by defiant suspects and feel less need to deal with defiance with immediate force or confrontational language.”
I think this is generally a good thing: not all situations require a physically strong police man to defuse — it might work for violent cases where the suspect fights back or resists arrest, but not all scenarios end up like that. There are civil matters like speeding tickets or other civil offenses that police are involved in as well.
Whilst no doubt those studies are true imagine the huge uproar if an engineering firm decided to focus on hiring men because they believed they were better performers, or if an airline focused on hiring males pilots. Its ridiculous.
I think if the organisation was 78% female and they were trying to increase diversity, people would be OK with it.
For example, there are concerns about the declining number of male primary teachers:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-18/male-primary-school-te…
That's because of prejudice. Men are all pedophiles, no one trusts them around children.
I don't have a problem with 50/50 in the AFP provided they meet the same standards as men. Meaning any physical tests they must pass are the same test and not an easier test.
Do you really want that though?
If you set a physical test that is hard for males you are going to get the top %20 of men and few to no females through it.
If you set a test that is hard for females you will get a just just about any guy that applies passing the test and the top 20% of females.
I know a lady that became a vic pol officer. The test she took was easier then it was for the guys. She worked hard to build up things like grip strength for months before doing the test. I could pass the woman's level with no training whatsoever. Would you really want lazy guys being able to pass the test with little to no effort?
In a role like regular police or AFP i have no problem with them setting a test that is hard for both genders so you get the people that have worked hard but you also get both genders represented. They need to have both genders for several obvious reasons.
You can argue it is sexist to give one group a harder test. You can also argue it is sexist set test targets that are out of range biologically for one group.
What you clearly do not understand as many people posting about gender specific goals is the fact they BOTH have to PERFORM the SAME ROLE to the SAME STANDARD.
For example if there is a drunk individual causing public nuisance the women can't suddenly go "hey mate, I'm female so go easy". They either CAN or CAN'T handle the situation to an equal standard as a male. If they can that is totally fine, I have no issue if they can perform the role to the same standard. But if they can't gender specific quota's won't suddenly save the day.
What exactly is your solution to this issue, shoot the guy?
What kind of cases do AFP officers take on? Somehow I don't imagine tickets to be one of their duties.
I think women in uniform (and a position of authority) look hot. so I'm all for it.
my man knows wassup
That statement/thought you wrote gets used too much, either as humour (or not) is the reason equality for men makes less progress. And then we guys continue to whine why women keep getting more and more perks
here here
there there
Because there is already a huge army of meter dudes…them being female won't be a big difference. Meter Police is like more than half of what they do these days anyways.
I personally believe there's differences between males and females and their capabilities and those differences complement each other. This includes everything such as work abilities and parenthood.
However, there are elements in the world fighting for "equality" who try to force the idea that everything a man can do, a woman can do too (and vice versa) - hence we're all the same.
Now, if we apply that logic, why should there be special treatment for women in the recruitment process? This is also seen in the military recruitment where the required standards for women are lower than those for men. I'm pretty certain there are different standards between the sexes in the AFP recruitment policies as well.
If there's a mass recruitment drive for women is done based on those lower standards, that would mean that all the recruits coming in as part of this drive will have come through using the lower standard. This means that they're putting aside men who would meet the higher standard to allow women who only meet the lower standard to join.
I wonder what would happen if I rocked up to the recruitment office and tell them that I identify as a woman - which set of requirements would apply to me?
They should be recruiting the best person for the job, regardless of sex. This is what gender equality should be. Not artificially inflating the numbers by discriminating against men.
Now, if we apply that logic, why should there be special treatment for women in the recruitment process?
One argument is that there has been a strong bias against women for the past n thousand years.
If the current gender bias is socially transmitted (e.g. lack of female role models, "that's not a girl job", etc), it will be very slow to change by itself.
The bias stems from the women themselves, it's not like the recruitment office discriminates against women.
In a truly equitable society, there will be less women in some professions, less men in others, because a equitable society would allow men and women to do the job the prefer
Equity is not equality
Correct. See gender egalitarian Norway where representation of serves in traditional roles is most noticeable.
The bias stems from the women themselves
Why? How much of that bias is genetic vs cultural?
Bias stems from both women and men.
And while it may be true that men will be better than women at some jobs, there are other jobs, like the police force, which could benefit from gender diversity due to the different skillset of women. Particularly in industries of innovation and representation, like engineering and politics, higher gender diversity is encouraged as it increases the space in which ideas can be made.
All these sectors are male-dominated and have been for almost all of time, inclusion of women may see even more progress within these sectors.
@abb: Mostly genetic.
AN interesting study was done by Austism researcher Prof Baron Cohen (yes, related to Sacha Baron Cohen), where he did a study in which he found very young male babies are drawn to mechanical toys and very young female babies were attracted to dolls (focusing on faces).
Obviously this was unacceptable to social scientists and their great theories on gender, but all of this could of been ignored by the general population but was unfortunately exposed in the documentary Hjernevask (especially when they started to criticise the real scientist research, without even looking at it).
So when people are trying to raise their child in a gender neutral way - yes they are being silly.
@luciferaust: I'll check out that show, it sounds interesting.
But I had a brief look into the study you mentioned, it seems to have been refuted pretty thoroughly here: https://software.rc.fas.harvard.edu/lds/wp-content/uploads/2…
It's worth reading the section "Sex Differences in Infants’ Processing of Objects?", which points out other studies with neutral (and opposite) results, possible bias (the babies heads were held up by another person), etc.
I'm trying to find the journal where the original study was published, but so far I have only found a book, which is probably exceeding my attention span…
Baron Cohen himself seems to say that both social and biological factors are important.
Thanks for that personal belief, but the science doesn't line up with that.
Why the constant assumption that there must be lower standards when it comes to these things?
There is proven bias in hiring - men tend to hire men, women tend to hire women. Women self select out of these professions not due to perceived ability but due to reluctance to work in a boys club which can be incredibly confronting. Men don't like doing 'women's jobs' for the same reason, the overwhelming majority of the same gender is intimidating.
Whether or not fixing ratios in hiring works remains to be seen - the evidence is conflicting (i.e. there are studies showing it works and studies showing no benefit), which means we need more time to see if will work.
Please lets not make the logical fallacy that gender ratios = lower standards though.
Sadly it is not an 'assumption', here are some links to physical fitness tests (just to join by the way).
Defence Jobs - https://www.defencejobs.gov.au/joining/can-i-join/health-and…
Army - Pushups
Male 15 Female 8
Navy - Pushups
Male 15 Female 6
Air Force - Pushups
Male 10 Female 4
QLD Police http://www.policerecruit.qld.gov.au/Documents/Information%20…
Beep Test (also scales similar for other age categories)
Under 30 Male 7.8 Female 6.1
Obstacle Course
Under 30 Male 5min 30 Female 7min
The issue is they literary lower the standard (hence not an assumption or a logical fallacy) to 'encourage' people to join and to allow more people entry. I mean lets be honest, asking someone to perform 10-15 push ups is hardly some herculean task why do they have to lower it? Hence the correct perception that standards ARE in fact lowered dependant on sex. I mean I didn't even have to put much effort into googling here.
The mantra is both sexes are the same and can perform the job equally effectively (which I agree with if it is done on merit) and yet they openly lower the standard based on sex?
Okay great example given we now have women in the army doing combat roles. The question is, is do those test standards have a meaningful impact on real-world outcomes? Has there been any examples of these differences playing out on the battlefield?
Women may have less muscle mass than men meaning less pushups but is it meaningful in practice? Because if that difference is not meaningful on the job, then the standard of work isn't less, just the standard for entry. Entry standards don't always translate to on-the-job standards.
And we can come up with hypothetical scenarios re on the job situations all we want - but we have no evidence that these entry standards have resulted in a meaningful reduction in quality in our army.
Have you considered that the police need both males and females to be most effective, so if current balance is 78% male, how can you best redress that?
If the force decided it needed people who spoke Vietnamese, for example, would it be wrong to limit recruitment for those positions to Viet speaking applicants only, even if there were candidates with higher qualifications in other areas?