Men and women are different PHYSICALLY. So what? If a woman has the talent/ability/desire to drive a truck/fight a fire what's to stop her?

Right. Women belong barefoot in bedroom or kitchen. Period. Many people still believe that bullsh** crap INCLUDING women. Go figger! Thank you for your reply D. Long ago there was a Phyllis somebody who lectured women about obeying their husbands and supporting them and being good little wives. Shafley? I dunno. She was definitely a mousy dingo dingbat. Don't know whatever happened to her. Don't care.

There are jobs more suited to males as there are other more suited to females Rosie....So long as someone is suitable than I see no problem..
Could you see women soldiers fighting  side by side with men in the First World War Rosie....how many do you think would get raped or assaulted back I  them days and I think I've read it still a big issue in armies now....

That is always so puzzling to me D. How often men when left to their own devices unattended are latent rapists. In the military on college campuses in business. Anywhere men congregate they will rape. For years or decades or aeons women have simply accepted it and I guess felt they could do nothing about it. A genetic defect possibly? I'm gonna ask. Thank you for your reply! :)

Don't bother going to Jaoan Rosie, most all women over there are still classed as second class people and rape is rarely prosecuted ,I think the guys get their hands slapped a bit and that's it...:(

Some women are incrediby strong L...much stronger than many men. I agree. If they pass the tests without having to lower the bar they should just go for it. Too bad they lowered the bar to the ground for US prez ain't it? Where the mudloving dirt adoring creepy crawly things live. Sigh. Thank you for your reply.

Yes, they are and in many ways, some women are stronger emotionally than men.  They didn't lower the bar for this president, they dropped it to the floor! 

The potential (and often actual) problem with your seemingly-reasonable position is that "passing the tests" is not always a good indicator of whether women are suitable to the job or not, because the tests often have biases (whether overt or implicit) that disadvantage women.

For example, in the traditionally male trades (construction, machinery repair, etc.) the "new guy" is often stuck with the job of doing heavy lifting/carrying that the veterans CAN do, but don't want to do. So an apprentice carpenter spends his/her day at the job site schlepping heavy loads of lumber around. That particular "skill" is almost irrelevant to the actual job of being a carpenter (putting those pieces of wood together in useful ways).  This sort of "pledge, wash my car..." hazing can discourage women who might otherwise make excellent tradesmen tradespeople.

Another example is from, of all places, orchestral music. Orchestras learned they had to audition potential players behind opaque screens because evaluators often had (frequently subconscious) biases about which instruments were "male" or "female." Hence, they would discount excellent performances by players who were playing the "wrong-gender" instrument and elevate their evaluation when the player's sex matched their bias about the instrument's "gender."

Sometimes, being the "wrong" sex is a profession has advantages. I heard a radio interview with a female jet aircraft mechanic who said her colleagues often called upon her to help, because her small body and slender arms could get into nooks and crannies that her big beefy coworkers had trouble reaching. Or consider the nursing profession, which is dominated by women, but where being a big strong guy is probably very helpful when you need to physically lift/move a patient.

So, yes, standards are good. But we need to be careful those standards actually relate logically to the job and that they don't include biases which needlessly disadvantage one sex or the other.

This post was edited by SaltyPebble at December 26, 2019 11:40 AM MST

Interesting points in your initial paragraph.  However, when you think of fire fighters or police or infantry persons, the newbie might get to do the "grunt" work initially, but they need to be qualified to do the real work should they be called upon.  If a firefighter is required to be able to carry 150 lbs over their shoulder, I don't want someone who can't do that lift.  Same for a police woman when it comes to taking down a criminal.  

Agreed, so long as those standards are reasonable. There's no reason a drone pilot who sits in an air-conditioned trailer all day essentially playing a real-life video game needs to lift 150 lbs. like a Navy SEAL.

So long as there is rational justification for standards (not just "That's the way we've always done it"), I'm generally OK with them, even if they tend to disadvantage certain people.

In the military, simply because you're assigned to one job, it doesn't mean you may not be called upon to do some other job,  The soldier who peels potatoes in the kitchen, still needs to be physically fit to do something more, if needed.