Two questions:
If feminism is about equality, should women carry their own heavy packages? Imho, it seems to me that women are having their cake and eating it too in this regard. When it benefits them, they either want equality or to be “treated like girls.”
Does believing in #1 make me a misogynist?
Most of us do carry our own heavy packages. Some don’t. Most people prefer to be treated in whatever way suits them at that particular moment. “Women” share no unifying trait other than XX.
I don’t know, but it makes you a little whiny and tiresome.
News flash: strong people should help weaker people out when it is appropriate. Next!
Doesn’t that mean that strong people should also get paid more than weaker people, since they are doing more work?
I find the idea that competent people should help less competent people in an employment, with no compensation, somewhat disturbing.
And it completely destroys the entire argument of feminism.
Only if you assume that women are inherently less competent than men, which would indeed make you a misogynist.
Are we talking about in a workplace, or walking down the street carrying shopping?
Either way, DianaG’s got it pretty much on the nose.
I thought it was about ‘man helping woman with heavy suitcase’ or something like that.
But if you are doing piecework and are paid per each heavy box moved from point A to point B, than you should and will be paid more if you moved more boxes than another employee. The same if you are paid for number of pages written, number of cupcakes baked, stamps licked, shoes shined, etc.
I don’t really see how this concerns feminism, unless the fact that men are generally stronger means that all women are therefore inferior and should not even try for equality. Which seems to imply that equality is sameness, when it isn’t. You won’t find me claiming that all men are the same as all women, as that’s silly.
Plus, how would being stronger influence pay in an office environment? Is moving heavy binders some sort of requirement? Those documents can get heavy, but I’d wager most women would have no problem carrying them.
When it concerns carrying or lifting heavy packages, then I’ll just relate some personal anecdotes and opinions. If a man helps me put my luggage in the overhead compartment on a train I thank him. If there are no men, or noone at all or no one wants to or will help me I try to place it there myself (which I usually do). Sometimes, and this may shock you, I ask another woman to help me. Or I help other women. If none of these options is available and/or possible, I just try to put my suitcase to the side. That’s usually when someone working on the train helps me, again, a man or a woman.
So, to recapitulate, stronger persons can help weaker persons with lifting heavy things, which is polite and appreciated, but if you believe that this undermines feminism, or is beneath you, or is in any way unfair, then please don’t, no one will be poorer for the experience.
If A is stronger than B, then it is often kind for A to offer to carry heavy packages for B. The genders of A and B are irrelevant.
Maybe the women you’re familiar with. Not the ones I’m familiar with.
So I’m a misogynist for stating an objective fact? Interesting.
Women are less strong than men. That’s an objective fact. In workplaces where competence is determined in any part by strength women will be less competent than men.
If stating objective facts makes me a misogynist then so be it. Better a misogynist than an ignorant fool.
What if you aren’t doing piece work? What if, like the vats majority of the populace, you are paid an hourly rate to each heavy box moved from point A to point B. Should men still be paid more than women?
I gather that was rather the point of the OP. Women in workplaces do generally request men to carry heavy loads.
In every office, lab and factory I’ve ever worked in that is essentially the case. Not binders but archive boxes, reams of paper, computer towers and monitors etc.
A full archive box, to use a typical example, weighs >25kg. And in my experience most women do have difficulty carrying them. Many (not sure about most) women also struggle to carry a monitor any distance.
The only time I ever saw a man try what you just suggested it created a very hostile work environment. In many places there is an expectation that men will carry heavy loads because they can. Refusal is seen as shirking, insubordination or not being team player.
I hope the employer would employ people who can do the work, and not a petite woman or a stereotypical computer nerd with spaghetti-like arms. What about men who lift more than other men? How would you go about that inequality? If a woman is doing her fair share of work in a warehouse she should be paid as contracted, if she can’t she shouldn’t be working in that capacity.
I didn’t get the workplace angle from the OP, more of a politenes/shivalry requirement in more social circumstances.
But in a workplace we have two different situations: the work is ABOUT carrying things (like the mentioned warehouse worker), or, apart from other duties, carrying something can be sometimes necessary.
Ok, was that what you were being paid for, or what was important in raise considerations? If the women were sitting on their asses and not doing anything, then they were in the wrong. If they were getting out of carrying things on the basis of “but it’s the men’s work to carry stuff” they were also in the wrong. They should carry what they can, or do something different, of more-or-less equal value.
In what capacity were you working and how much time did carrying computer towers and reams of paper take?
And for women taking up jobs traditionally reserved for men was seen as improper, un-ladylike and unnecessary.
If you want to challenge the experienced status quo of “man carry stuff” you have to deal with some unpleasantness, or problems. That’s what challenging existing rules involved for anyone in history.
Of course if something must be moved and none of the women actually CAN physically lift it, I suppose the job will fall to the employees who can. If the women can carry something they should.
And the ability to carry things should not be the sole quality by which one’s employment merit is judged. Otherwise Wheelchair-bound people would really be screwed.
I’ve never worked anywhere it was illegal to refuse to hire a man because he was too weak to do smalll but crucial parts of the job. Everywhere I have worked it was illegal to refuse to hire a woman (or some categories of the disabled) on the same grounds.
If it were an issue you would pay them more, which, as I already noted, isn’t illegal. In reality all the jobs I’ve worked all the men could adequately do all the work expected. That’s presumably because employers can refuse to hire men if they aren’t capable of doing the job.
Try firing a woman on that basis in most places, see what happens.
I don’t see the distinction. If it’s essential for a worker to be able to wrestle a crocodile just 15 minutes a week in order to get the job done, then a person who can’t wrestle crocodiles can;t get the job done.
Like almost everybody in the world I was paid to do a job, not a specific task. I was employed in various roles including QA officer, research scientist and cleaner and all those jobs demanded some degree of lifting of things like archive boxes, computer monitors etc. So the answer to the question is “Yes, lifting is what I was being paid for”.
But in the reality of the workplace that’s rarely possible. For example this morning one of my female co-workers ran out water, which has to be carried to the worksite in 20 litre jerry cans. So one of my male co-workers had to stop his work to get water for her. She continued doing her own work because that was all that she could do. When he returned he then had to catch up on his own work. What she was doing may have been of equal value to humanity in general or the organisation in particular, but not to him or his deadlines or his career. (I should note that I do my share of water carrying for the female staff and students.)
So what do you suggest here, that she put in half an hour of unpaid overtime on one of his projects to make up the deficit? In most places if an employer even allowed that arrangement they’d end up in court.
Yet this is the norm in most workplaces. You can’t just take over someone else’s workload while they are moving stuff. The best you can do is maintain your own productivity.
See above. And between 15 minutes and 2 hours a week. But I think the salient point is that without someone around to do the carrying the whole show would have shut down. So that ability was a truly critical skill for the job.
SO you’re basically arguing that this aspect of feminsim is just as sexist and unjust as the “patriarchal” system that it replaced. I don’t think that myself or Superhal will argue that too much.
How is that about equality? Surely equality doesn’t demand that some segment of the population has to deal with unpleasantness for no reason?
Why should an employer be obliged to hire someone who is physically incapable of doing the job? And why should someone who can do the job have to accept the same pay as someone who can not?
Yes, and? I dont follow this. Are you arguing that ability to do the job should not be the criterion for deciding who gets the job? That blind people should be allowed to become airline pilots?
If someone is physically incapable of doing a job why shouldn’t that be the sole quality by which their employment merit is judged?
I’m a man, and I’ve never worked anywhere where lifting heavy objects was part of my job (I’m a computer programmer). We have several women programmers in my department, and they are just as qualified as I am. None of us ever have to lift things as part of our job, so the physical differences between men and women is not important.
So it’s illegal to advertise: warehouse worker needed. Must be able to carry 20/30/50 kg (I’m guessing at the weight, the employer would hopefully know) with ease. You were replying to the part where carrying was, basically, the whole job, so would be closely tied to the pay.
Well if she’s a competent accountant then firing her for not being able to lift 25 kg would be stupid. If she can’t lift 25 kg and was employed to transport 50 kg bags of sugar, well she should not have been employed in the first place, but if she were, she should be fired.
Fine. But what would you propose? That women not become research scientists? Or that any carrying be measured and every employee be paid a per kilo bonus? And the people who refill the paper in the copy machine be given a bonus, and the people who make a new pot of coffee and basically anything that we find we have to do at the job, but that is not specifically mentioned in the job description.
That’s unfortunate. You make it sound like it was her private water, though it probably wasn’t. If only men can refill the water, and the employer expects the employees to do it on their own, then it will fall on them to perform the task. It’s not particularly fair. But you make it sound like a zero-sum game. I refuse to believe that the 15 minutes it took him to fetch the water had a larger impact on his career than any other employee having to wait for the restroom to free up, or the boss stopping them for an unproductive talk in the hallway, or having to refill the coffee maker, or any other activity not strictly work related which happens to fall on the worker’s shoulders.
No, what I suggest is that she do any of the other activities which crop up around a workplace and which are not work per se.
So it would be impossible for a research facility to employ only women? Hypothetically only, of course, but the whole thing would collapse? I don’t think so. Maybe, using your examples, the reams of paper would have to be smaller, or trolleys would have to be used.
But if a lawyer’s firm were to collapse because no one could move their archive boxes, and there was nothing anyone could think of, well …
No, here I said that if you want something to change you cannot expect it to be all kittens and rainbows and just hope everyone will see your point without speaking up.
I will agree that it is sexist for men to be the designated carriers, never mind what is being carried, how far, and how strong the individual men and women present are. Though this is not something only perpetuated by women, as seen recently in that thread about examples of sexism (which I can’t find at the moment).
But I thought the reason would be to break the stereotype of men having to carry things only because they are men? You don’t want that to be the case then actually challenge it. If more people do, after some time there will be no more unpleasantness, and equality, as you see it, might be achieved. Nothing will happen if the most that was done on the matter was someone venting on a message board.
Of course a potential employee must meet the expectations of a job, and sb with a degree in Business should not be employed as a doctor.
But you are making the point that heavy lifting is a requirement in EVERY job, or that’s what I understand. If so, then most of the earth’s population is incapable of working. Women cannot be researchers, file clerks, lawyers because, generally, they cannot lift as much as men. This is absurd.
And I’m glad to hear from suranyi, because I was getting worried that if I ever become an interpreter I will be required to take up weight lifting.
It means that women have the same opportunity to apply for the same jobs as men. If the job requires being able to life 50 lbs and they can’t do it, then they should not get the job nor should they be held to a lower standard.
No, it wasn’t. If the job requires that one be able to lift a certain amount, and if a person can’t lift that amount, that person may legally be not hired on that basis. The gender of the person is irrelevant to this. (Talking about the USA here.)
I’m not sure what to give as a cite–it’s hard to give a cite for a claim “X is legal” since the cite is, basically, the entire legal code together with a claim “‘X is illegal’ ain’t in there”. But if you think I’m wrong, maybe you have in mind a particular law that makes it illegal to refuse to hire someone who can’t lift enough if that person is a woman?
If someone is struggling with a heavy package, do you expect me to ascertain their gender before deciding to help them? And should they refuse help because they’re a man? Or because they’re a woman?
This is silly.
It’s easy to cite, actually, Frylock. Blake is obviously talking about gender discrimination, which is governed by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The relevant regulation is this:
emphasis added
Not hiring an employee because they can’t lift the weight required as a bona fide qualification for the occupation is not an adverse employment action because of sex. Unless, of course, you aren’t hiring a woman because you have assumed that women can’t lift heavy weights, or if the lifting of the weight really isn’t that essential a function, and in reality a woman could do the actual required work without heavy lifting.
You just have to give the employee the opportunity to demonstrate that he or she can perform the essential duties. If a woman applies for a job, an essential function of which is the ability to lift a certain amount of weight, and she cannot do so, the employer has a defense against a discrimination claim, because lifting the weight is a bona fide occupational qualification.
It’s not all that muddy, really. If you are only hiring candidates who can wrestle alligators, you can refuse to hire a woman who can’t wrestle an alligator in favor of a man who can wrestle an alligator, as long as you’ve subjected her to the same screening process as the man.
As to the larger issue in the thread, question 1, “If feminism is about equality, should women carry their own heavy packages?” is a non sequitur. Feminism is not about lifting heavy packages. Yes, people should help other people with heavy packages if they are struggling, but no, nobody should be societally obligated to do so based on gender. Anyway, let’s be serious; the whole archetype of the strongman helping the little lady is as much or more a male fantasy than it is a feminist one. In the abstract, it caters to the male ego much more than to the female sense of entitlement. I’d suggest as an alternate construction that “If feminism is really about equality, if one person is carrying a package and the other is standing nearby, the outcome shouldn’t have anything to do with gender.”
The answer to question 2, “Does believing in #1 make me a misogynist?” is no, but it does point you out as a little confused.
I’ve told a number of women where I work that as soon as a testosterone differential shows up in my paycheck then they can dump all the heavy/combative* patients on me, until then, as long as our job discription is the same, we share.
Now in practice, since we’re a team, and I am stronger, it’s usually attitude driven. If someone approaches me and asks for help, ok, if they say ‘well you’re the man so you have to…,’ see above.
I agree with DianaG that it’s a human trait to see things one way when it’s to our advantage and a different way when that’s to our advantage, gender doesn’t enter into it. However it’s the only part of her post I agree with, you want whiny and tiresome, try the toilet seat ‘issue.’
*Unless they or the patient is in immediate danger.
Hmm. The discussion is getting a little off track. My original question is not about the relative strength of men vs women.
Let me try a different example:
A woman sues a boxing commission to be allowed to box with a man, since the purses are higher. She also demands that she get a full share of the purse. They allow her to do it. During the match, she tells her opponent, “You can’t hit me, I’m a girl” and proceeds to beat him silly. After a few rounds, the man decides he would rather hit a girl than lose to a girl, so he fights back, and wins. After the match, she sues him for assault and uses the “women are weaker than men” argument: since he is stronger, he should have held back and let her win since he knew he could seriously hurt her.
So, in this case:
So, to restate my original questions: