#MeToo - is it just different for men and women?

Ayahuasca said:
Lol abs and height don’t make the women you’re talking about commit, only one there they truly care about is salary.

The other two just help with ONS/FWB relations.
Click to expand...
I think you're underestimating the sense of entitlement the single mother fogbeasts have. They deserve it, dontcha know.
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/12/police-review-tests-dog-handlers-avoid-discrimination/

Police forces must change the way they recruit dog handlers after a female officer won a landmark sex-discrimination case showing that the system was too “tough” for some women.

WPC Kim-Louise Carter was awarded £15,000 after failing a fitness test which involved a 10-mile run, then carrying a dog over a course before running with it a further 100 yards.

The employment tribunal was told how three forces - Gloucester, Avon & Somerset and Wiltshire - all used the same exam which resulted in many more men being recruited as dog handlers compared to women.

Although Judge Street, who presided over the hearing, demanded that the three forces must review their shared exam course, the ruling could affect other constabularies where women officers have struggled to complete an arduous fitness test.
Click to expand...

Surely that is going to be an inherent factor in just about any physical test used to select people for a role?

I wonder what the women who passed the test think about the woman who failed it getting a 5 figure pay out?
 
Narj said:
I think you're underestimating the sense of entitlement the single mother fogbeasts have. They deserve it, dontcha know.
Click to expand...

Well you’ve narrowed it down a bit there, I thought we were talking about 30+ women in general.

Still being 6ft+ and having abs doesn’t do much for their entitlement issue, it’s not getting them a nice house, a merc on the drive and the D&G handbag. All of which are a must so they can slap it on all forms of social media and show the world how well they’re doing.
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/12/police-review-tests-dog-handlers-avoid-discrimination/



Surely that is going to be an inherent factor in just about any physical test used to select people for a role?

I wonder what the women who passed the test think about the woman who failed it getting a 5 figure pay out?
Click to expand...

“Where a standard test had negative impacts on members of a protected group, here women, then it either needs to be changed or objectively justified, “ said the judge.
Click to expand...
I guess they failed the latter.
 
Nitefly said:
I guess they failed the latter.
Click to expand...

Well obviously in the eyes of the judge they perhaps have failed to, or perhaps they didn't even justify it in the first place. But it doesn't ostensibly seem unreasonable to have a physical test to become a dog handler and carrying a dog doesn't sound like an unreasonable requirement. I mean if she were to have been asked to carry two full jerry cans up a hill while jogging or something then perhaps that would be rather more unreasonable but a dog seems pretty relevant.
 
dowie said:
Well obviously in the eyes of the judge they perhaps have failed to, or perhaps they didn't even justify it in the first place. But it doesn't ostensibly seem unreasonable to have a physical test to become a dog handler and carrying a dog doesn't sound like an unreasonable requirement. I mean if she were to have been asked to carry two full jerry cans up a hill while jogging or something then perhaps that would be rather more unreasonable but a dog seems pretty relevant.
Click to expand...
I agree, mostly, but I suppose at the tribunal it must have been viewed that carrying the dog was, in reality and in consideration of the actual role, a bit arbitrary.
 
Ayahuasca said:
Well you’ve narrowed it down a bit there, I thought we were talking about 30+ women in general.

Still being 6ft+ and having abs doesn’t do much for their entitlement issue, it’s not getting them a nice house, a merc on the drive and the D&G handbag. All of which are a must so they can slap it on all forms of social media and show the world how well they’re doing.
Click to expand...

Good point. Blokes do the same thing to an extent though… like pics in a nice car that they don't own.

FWB generally just want their brains smashed out and don't care about any of those 3.
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
Well obviously in the eyes of the judge they perhaps have failed to, or perhaps they didn't even justify it in the first place. But it doesn't ostensibly seem unreasonable to have a physical test to become a dog handler and carrying a dog doesn't sound like an unreasonable requirement. I mean if she were to have been asked to carry two full jerry cans up a hill while jogging or something then perhaps that would be rather more unreasonable but a dog seems pretty relevant.
Click to expand...
Why do we split up mens sport and womens sport, again? Because men have a physical advantage, and it is known that there is no way top female athletes can compete with top male athletes.

I guess in this case, they're going to have to say that female dog handlers can only apprehend female criminals, because they will be objectively need less strength, stamina and fitness to pass the test than men. Or they're going to have to let weaker female dog handlers get a whoopin' on the streets/ be unable to fulfill their role in all situations, due to not having the necessary physical attributes for the job.

What happens if we apply this to something like the Royal Marines? Women having much less tough entry requirements? Consider this quote:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...at-roles-british-army-infantry-armoured-units

A final decision on the move is subject to research into the long-term impact on women of infantry training, but Fallon said he hoped the ban would be lifted “over the next year or so”.


“Women can fight just as effectively as men,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme. “There’s a small piece of work to be done, but I think army selection should be done on the basis of ability, from now on, and not on the basis of gender.”
Click to expand...

Sounds good, right? But now this ruling says that "on the basis of ability" is not the same test for men and women.

What he actually is going to have to adopt is "on the basis of ability relative to your protected group". So women's ability will be judged differently to men's ability.

Meaning now that the Royal Marines are going to have to accept the top 1% of men and the top 1% of women, even if the men vastly out-perform the women, physically (sorry but physical attributes cannot be ignored and you can't "make up for it" in all situations). What effect is this going to have? Mission commanders won't be able to select male-only teams for certain missions as women will then claim unfair treatment. Will this have the effect of lowering standards in the Royal Marines?

Ultimately, this is like saying that men and women should compete together in sport. Take tennis. Men and women should compete against each other, but men should need to win 4 points to win a game, whereas women should only need to win 2 points. And if a women wins 2 sets she wins the match, whereas the men need to win 3 sets. And that would be ridiculous.

Yet it seems we're all in favour of it when it comes to employment law. Country is going to the ****ter.
 
dowie said:
It does seem to switch around age 30... prior to that, unless you look like you should be in a boy band, you usually need to put in some effort/actively pursue girls etc.. then you get to 30 and you go to a friends dinner party and suddenly being in a good job, owning your own property etc... causes the 30+ yr old women to become the ones pursuing you. There are plenty of female doctors, solicitors etc.. out there who don't really want to settle for Darren the used car salesman from Essex they met on an online dating site but with more women than men going to university that trend is probably going to continue.
Click to expand...

Then you are hit with a problem. Are you going to start paying attention to the 30+ yr old women who probably has baggage from their previous failed relationship, maybe biological clock ticking or you going to start paying attention to women in their mid 20's who have non of that and still for a few years of fun?

I know which one I would choose! I'm 34 and I am starting to see the reason why my brother got married and had kids with someone who is 20 years younger than him when they met in his early 40's.
 
so seems the FT is now searching for sensationalist journalism - I suppose they need to improve their circulation
and implicate as many men as possible, objective journalism.

Men Only: Inside the charity fundraiser where hostesses are put on show
...
A seating plan for last week’s event seen by the FT listed those due to attend as including well-known British business figures such as Philip Green of Arcadia Group, Dragons’ Den star Peter Jones, and Ocado boss Tim Steiner.

Financiers on the seating plan included Henry Gabay, founder of hedge fund Duet Group, and Makram Azar, the head of Barclays’ investment bank’s Middle East business. From the world of politics were Nadhim Zahawi, newly appointed undersecretary of state for children and families, and Jonathan Mendelsohn, a Labour peer and party fundraiser. It is not clear whether those listed all turned up on the night.
Click to expand...

despite the fact they had had journalists ready to strike over the gender pay gap

seeing that the USA press had picked up on this too, did wonder why USA(UK too?) cheerleading has not been also included in the current concerns.

The Stella Creasy speech from weekend womens march was very vitreolic.... Calling the houses of Westminster “Hogwarts gone wrong” ....
 
@jpaul - There is a faint whiff of BS about this FT story. Granted some things are unacceptable, like telling the women to wear matching underwear, but if putting your arm around someone or touching their hand sexual harassment? Haven't the women concerned got mouths to express their displeasure? Apparently this organisation has now disbanded. What they should have done is not apologised and said they would make sure there is no repeat in future years.
 
In a room full of people that powerful I doubt they'd feel comfortable enough to speak up.

Just my opinion but the sudden disbanding reeks of guilt to me.
 
Speak up, tell supervisor, walk out. There are all sorts of options. Go to the Police afterwards if it was serious. Just to be clear I'm not saying that anyone should have to be 'touched up' while they're at work but the evidence here seems flimsy.
 
none of the other victims has yet come forward to corroborate the journalists version, let alone feedback from the women running the agency who found the girls;
but as Newgamer11 said - they could/should have gone to police.

subsequently saw a utube report about the womens march
Crashing the Women's March 2018 in London *IT INCLUDES SWEARING*
with interviews with protestors who wanted human rights established to be able to reject unwanted touching etc, so some women are not aware of the law.
 
The event required NDAs to be signed, had security guards on the loos so the hostesses couldn’t spend too long in there, encouraged them to drink and wear matching underwear.

“This is perfectly fine”

Bloody hell.

Additionally, there are degrees between behaviour which is socially unacceptable and potentially criminal. In a best case scenario, the behaviour at this event was the former, in a worst case scenario it was the latter. Who is to say the police would even take them seriously or believe them in that case? Bearing in mind this is a day on which - only after years of allegations and 150 victim testimonies - a man abusing his position of power to take advantage of the vulnerable was finally imprisoned. Victims feel unable to come forward and when they do they are often not believed, particularly where they accuse the powerful.
 
Last edited:
One More Solo said:
The event required NDAs to be signed, had security guards on the loos so the hostesses couldn’t spend too long in there, encouraged them to drink and wear matching underwear.

“This is perfectly fine”

Bloody hell.
Click to expand...

They don't have to do it. The same way women don't have to work in strip clubs. Or dance in little more than their underwear for bands. Or heck...some of the band's wear little more than underwear.
Some don't even wear that.

You have women like that Kardashian thing who are only famous for being *****!
 
Dis86 said:
They don't have to do it. The same way women don't have to work in strip clubs. Or dance in little more than their underwear for bands. Or heck...some of the band's wear little more than underwear.
Some don't even wear that.

You have women like that Kardashian thing who are only famous for being *****!
Click to expand...

There will be some women working the event who wanted to, there will be some working the event because they needed the money and took it against their better judgment. It’s not hard to foresee how someone could end up at an event like this and be put in a situation they were not comfortable with or equipped to handle. Once you realise what you’re in, it’s too late.

It’s like consent, it’s not a binary thing. You are entitled to say no at any point. This event seemed geared up to prevent anyone leaving that felt uncomfortable. Why is that necessary if everyone there wanted to be so?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom