Sexism/Equal Rights in the Workplace

[Gerrard]

OK, this is out of curiosity more than anything else as there's lots of rumours and opinions within the Forces about this subject, but I was wondering what your opinions/views are on the following situation, and possibly whether it might actually be illegal? I expect an epic Saracen post at some point!

In the Armed Forces, we are required to take a fitness test every 6 months/year (seems to vary place to place ) which I'm sure none of you will be surprised about. The fitness test consists of a “bleep test”, press-ups and sit-ups. Bleep test for those who didn't have the privilege of doing it at school is running shuttles (20m for us) in time with some bleeps. It starts at a brisk walking pace and slowly goes up each minutes (which is a “level”), until level 21. Level 10 is running pace, not quite sprinting (well, for the average person anyway).

Anyway, the RAF sets for the levels at which you pass based on your age and gender. Under 30s; for men it's level 9.10, 20 press-ups and 35 sit-ups, but for women it's level 7.2, 10 press-ups and 32 sit-ups (not sure on the sit-ups). These limits go down the older you get, but even 50+ men have to reach the same standard of a 17 year old woman. Of course, this represents a fair measure of your fitness as I suppose it's meant to do, but as you can imagine it does cause a bit of friction between the genders; well blokes moaning about it like me! Last time I checked, we don't do light weight operation equipment for women, nor does the enemy not chase them as hard. I understand that whilst our fitness levels might be comparable, the job doesn't discriminate between the genders.

Of course, loads of rumours have gone around about whether it's right or not, with the police being quoted a lot of the time after they apparently lowered the standard to be the same across the board (level 5.6 I believe). But it's only recently that people are taking the issue slightly more seriously as there's now a big crack down on unfit personnel (rightly so in most cases), and can lead to being dismissed due to it. So it boils down to this; men are expected to achieve more than women, but (as far as I'm aware), we're all technically on the same contract and the same pay. It might not sound like a lot more, but it's still the principle of it.

I'm sure the MoD has their backs covered somehow (although if the police had to change it for a similar reason, and they probably got the cheapest lawyer to do it anyway ), and I believe that you can only be dismissed due to your attitude to your fitness rather than actually failing it. We did trial an “Operations Fitness Trial” a couple of years ago which involved lifting a weight to the height of a truck, shovelling gravel for 5 minutes (simulates filling sandbags), and doing shuttles carrying a sandbag. The times/limits was the same for everyone and it simulated a much better representation of operational exercises. It got canned because there were to many injuries with people's backs from shovelling though! Mind you, there's a fair few people off with dodgy knees/ankles from turning on the shuttles...

So, just wondering what other people think?
[/moan]

[TooNice]

The armed forces is not a sports (where you try to level the playing field somewhat by classifying gender and weight), so in my opinion, it makes more sense physical tests vary according to what you would be expected to do on the field (assuming it is meant to test your physical capability, more than the mental fortitude that go along with it). As you said, the enemy will not make a distinction between gender, but the risk of running into the enemy may, correct if I am wrong, vary if on your actual job within the forces.

A clear division in gender wouldn't be fair if a guy happen to be fitter than most gals, yet fail to achieve the targets expected of his gender.

However, on this basis, age differentiation shouldn't exist either. The enemy won't care if you are young or old. Though it could also be argued that older people who joined the force young and seen some actions can compensate their reduced fitness through experience.

[Will404]

I would demand the extra 45.2% pay .

But seriously, it does not seem fair. However although you are feeling aggravated about it, I expect it causes the women a lot of grief too, as it is almost telling the men that they are a superior gender, and I bet some of them take advantage.

I think that this is worse than what the police are/were doing; if you were in a situation where you were having to run from an enemy, the women who had scraped through just meting their minimum standard could be putting themselves in danger, or worse, if they were to hold up the whole squadron, putting a group of soldiers in danger!! For this reason alone I feel the running/beep test is unjustifiable.

As for the press ups, I personally dont see that putting them in danger, but it could put you in a situation where the women struggling to do 10 press ups, was not lifting their fair share, and thus causes everyone else to suffer, as the job is not done on time/everyone else has to work harder.

[sleepyhead]

We had this discussion in Japan if I remember rightly or at least you mentioning it to us.

So...if the men and women HAVE to perform the same jobs with the same equipment...then it makes no sense to have two different fitness level. You are either fit enough to do the job or you are not.

Gender has no bearing in conflicts (with regards to soldiers).

[chuckskull]

If you're doing the same job, the requirements should be the same. Especially in such a dangerous job as being in the forces.

I'm sure there are a lot of women who could not pass these tests, but I'm equally sure a lot of men couldn't either(doubt I could). I have no objections morally, philosophically or otherwise to women serving in the armed forces, but for the safety of themselves and others they need to meet the grade. Equality means everyone should be treated equally, no? This 'positive' discrimination only harms and lowers the respect received by the women who are capable of keeping up with the men, which I'm sure many are.

It's not about your genitals, it's about your ability.

[floppybootstomp]

Women want equal rights then get down and give me 20

Soldiers are soldiers. Female want to be a soldier then she should be able to perform.

Which probably means passing all them Dartmoor fitness tests and what have you.

Tricky one this, as the majority of females are weaker than the majority of males.

Generally speaking of course.

I would love to believe the Hollywood myth and as a member of the armed forces have a lady guard my back, save my life. But in real life that's a rare scenario, isn't it?

Maybe put things as they were, a tiered job system where females rarely see the front line unless passing same fitness tests as males. But there still a place for ladies in armed forces.

We're different, mostly, male and female, real life should reflect this without affecting equality.

Which may mean lugging a backpack and a full machine gun outfit for ten miles at 4am across a snow covered Pennines. Minimum.

[Lucio]

Whomever said there's equality between the sexes is stupid, men and women are physically and mentally different and on occasion, that does affect their ability to perform a role at work.

Specifically, in the Armed Forces why on earth isn't it the same physical standard for all soldiers? I'm guessing it's because they engineered the results for political correctness and set the bar for women a lot lower, knowing they wouldn't get assisnt to the same roles.

[Gerrard]

Everyone seems to have the same opinions and reasons as most of us do. The only job in the RAF that women can't do is join the Regiment (the "soldiers" of the RAF). This has been put down as a psychological reason rather than a fitness one (you are more likely to risk going back for a woman than a man I think was one example). If that is the case, I have to wonder what the Army does in this situation.

Out of area, I believe women are expected to do the same as men. If they're not, then why are we paid the same and on the same contract? I know that certainly on our day-to-day jobs, other than the odd one or two, most will pull their weight; but then it rarely involves much physical exertion (drivers, techies, chefs etc.). I can completely understand that the limits set are representative of the same relative fitness and would seem fair on that front, but when the job if the same for both and there's no distintion, then the test should be testing whether you're fit to work, not that you fit according to same statistical average.

[jim]

I can understand why it's the case, but I don't think it should be.

As everyone has rightly said you're either fit enough to reach minimum expectations or you aren't. If the minimum expectation is for a squad to be able to go 20 miles with full kit in 10 hours, then it's no use at all saying "but it's fine for a woman to take 13 hours". Then you're effectively setting the men a pointless target - unless they're in a male-only squad, they don't need to do it in 10 because they'd just leave the women miles off in the distance.

So then, it only makes sense to me if they were to have male-only and female-only units. Then whoever is in charge of the field can say "Unit 1 should reach point x by this time, and unit 2 should reach point x by this time". In line with the different minimum requirements for each gender. But that's not going to happen in a million years because it would be rightly labelled as sexist... and smacks of the black only US troops in WW2.

Having said that, if the army said everyone must reach the same minimum requirement, either they drop the standards, and decrease the overall fitness of the army, or they keep them the same, and then much fewer women can get in. Then however, they'll also be accused of being sexist because the proportion of women in the armed forces will become extremely low.

Leaving them the options of: maintain imbalance, improve effectiveness with same-sex units but accused of sexism, decrease fitness of army overall, or end imbalance but get accused of sexism. I doubt any of them are particularly appealing.

Personally I think it should be the latter - either you're good enough, or you aren't. If you aren't, then you don't get in. Gender is irrelevant. It works for the marines - as far as I'm aware, it's not safe for a woman to be a marine in terms of their physical expectations, so women aren't allowed in.

[TooNice]

In my first reply, I made the assumption the fitness test is used because your day to day activity is physically intensive. If that is not the case though, then what is it designed to test?

I can't possibly know, but I mentioned mental fortitude earlier, and if that is what is being tested, it does change my opinion a bit. They may think that there's a link between how much you are willing to push mentally with your willingness to really pull your weight in your day to day activities.

Suppose they expect everyone to work at 85-90% (realistically, you can't do 100% all the time), and they want to use an exhausting physical exercise to bring this much mental effort. If they use the same test, we may end up with guys only needing 75%, but girls 95% to pass. Now perhaps some guys may push beyond what's necessary go near their limit, but others may just decide they've passed, so they'll one or two more rep and call it a day. While some girls may fail because they couldn't push themselves so near their breaking point.

Under those circumstance (please excuse the random numbers used only for illustration only), I would say that it is not fair on the girls since the real goal wasn't about how many sit-ups/push-ups but how far their mind can go. And just because it is not enough to pass a highly physical test, it does not mean that it's not sufficient for what they are actually paid to do, IF there is some kind of link.

Please note that I am not saying there is a link (though I see some logic in that), let alone that it is their aim. But the purpose of the test, may influence my stance on this.

I also note that you've criticised the inequality in treatment of gender, but what about age? If the test is a direct representation of one's ability to do the job (unrealistic now that you've mentioned chefs, drivers and techies), then surely the same test should be used across gender AND age?

[Gerrard]

True that it should be the same for age as well. However, a much better system would done by rank. Generally, the older you are, the higher rank you are (it used to be time promotion once upon a time). The higher your rank, the more likely your job will be management than actually physical labour. That would be more appropriate.

The test is the same for all ground trades; officers and normal ranks. I believe aircrew/pilots might be a bit different. I only found out recently that the test isn't the same across all three services either! Mind you, that's to be expected really I guess.

[Perfectionist]

as far as I'm aware, it's not safe for a woman to be a marine in terms of their physical expectations, so women aren't allowed in.

Correct it to "most". It's all about attitude and motivation, they have to try harder due to less (not a lack btw, everyone has a bit) testosterone hormone but perfectly possible for a woman to equal or better a man...

There are now two.

• Independant: 'Fighting fit: Royal Marines' commando training'
  
  'Only two women have ever passed the Royal Marines' fearsome commando training. So how did Susie Rushton fare?'
  
• Guardian: 'First woman wins Marines' green beret - but can only join the band'
  
  'The Captain who made army history cannot serve on frontline'
  
• BBC News: 'The first woman to win a prized Royal Marines' green beret', May 2002
• royalnavy.mod.uk/royalmarines/careers/your-questions-answered/ask-us/search-results/can-women-join-the-royal-marines/*/changeNav/7137

They aren't allowed on the front line, but it's more due to psychological reasons than "physical expectations" since the few who have proved themselves obviously are capable having passed the same tests.

[jim]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/scotland/2017213.stm

Correct it to "most". It's all about attitude and motivation, they have to try harder due to less (not a lack btw, everyone has a bit) testosterone hormone but perfectly possible for a woman to equal or better a man...

There are now two.

Fair enough, I heard a recruitment talk from a marine a while ago where he stated that women were not allowed in, primarily because the weight of the packs they're expected to carry is sufficient to permanently damage their spines.

Clearly he was wrong on that front then :/

[Andeh13]

I thought front line work (ie soliders as we know them) was male only, so therefore women don't need to be as fit if they are working behind the line? Though I'm sure i have seen female soldiers working on the front line before so don't quote me on that!

Though I can't help but feel I'd be a bit miffed if I was throwing sandbags round during a humanitarian crisis and there were women who could only do half the heavy lifting, yet were being paid the same. Credit for trying, but sometimes trying just isn't enough.


It brings back memories of a World Challenge Team Expedition I went on during my A levels, half men half women. For 2 weeks of it we were refurbishing a school, working with a lot of cement, bricks etc. Within a few days the 'team' ended up with the men working on the cement, brick laying etc with the girls playing with the kids, teaching them rounders, cricket etc. Caused a massive divide by the end of it, yet every time the guys tried to bring it up (why should you be able to play with the kids, when we have to work refurbishing the school) we got shot down as being lazy & unhelpful. Always bugged me that.

[Perfectionist]

Fair enough, I heard a recruitment talk from a marine a while ago where he stated that women were not allowed in, primarily because the weight of the packs they're expected to carry is sufficient to permanently damage their spines.

Clearly he was wrong on that front then :/

Testosterone does not affect the strength of the spine. However if you did not have enough muscular strength to protect the spine yes it would be damaged - but obviously someone who can pass the training would have so.

[Gerrard]

Well, I found out today that the police are testing to see if you are fit for your job, whereas the Forces are testing to see that you are healthy. This accounts for the differences. However, this leads me to another question: Can an employer test your health without it being testing that you are fit for your job? The way I see it, if you failed, you would be deemed unhealthy (fair enough). But if they then say that because you are unhealthy, you are not fit for your job, are they still not testing that you are fit for your job in an indirect way?