Posted on 10/06/2005 10:18:56 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky
If the woman can do the job and qualify same as a man for the physical aspects, no problem. Adjusting height and weight minimums only increases the opportunities for women to compete.
EVENS OUT THE FIELD?
Affirmative action is total, unadultered, leftist garbage.
Whoever is qualified should be the rule. Didn't you even read the posts above about firefighters? You want a tiny little lady trying to do a man's job that requires a man's physical strength and size?
Affirmative action is the very essence of evil discrimination. It discriminates against those who are qualified in favor of those who aren't.
Who cares?
I'm sure there are fembot forums out there for you. We fight over more substansive stuff here dammit...like Coulter's batteries for example
Get over it. I did.
Black Tooth, seem like it's about time to discuss women in combat?
By the same reasoning you'd reject the 220 lb man for the 250 lb, and reject the 35 year old man for the 24 year old. When the 24 year old hits 30, dump him. Right.
Read the various article from the ACLJ on Meiers:
http://www.aclj.org/Issues/Resources/Document.aspx?ID=1912
Was it just height and weight requirements or did they also modify the test for women. Like did they decrease the weight of the dummy from say 175 pounds to 100 pounds so more women could pass the test.
I am usually very suspicious of these affirmative action standards. West Point, Air Force Academy and the Naval Academy all modified their physical fitness requirements for women. Men and women do not take the same physical tests.
I am just asking about what was entailed in the fire fighters affirmative action plan for Dallas. I don't know what was involved.
Is that a macro, becaue I've seen you post it about a million times since Monday?
And I'll wait right here while you go find a post where I supported her.
I have said from the very beginning that we need to WAIT to hear what she has to say; evidently you're of the "let's all slit our wrists before we know anything" contingent at FR."
I bet if I could see you, your hair would be on fire.
No, I was just curious. How somebody hanging out at a conservative site could be in favor of an affirmative action policy that could cost lives - defending it by calling it 'sexist' to have height and weight requirments.
But someone has already affirmed my theory for me.
Thanks for not answering anyway!
Not only that, she's participated in such essential tasks a MAKING RESOLUTIONS on national and international political situations. She has to do that - since she's ELECTED, she has to give her all-important voice to all matters, great and small, no matter what the jurisdiction!
That's just the kind of gal I want on the Supreme Court, alright!
...and are followed by lowering the performance requirments, because the initial lowering of physical requirements didn't produce the required results.
You know, you're getting real good at that, putting words in other people's mouths to suit YOUR agenda.
In fact, you're bordering very close to be an out and out liar.
Flashie, honey...you jus' cain't be uppity to Miz H!!!
Lawsie...I been uppity before to Miz H...I was whipped for it!!!
Lawsie, lawsie...if Miz H ain't happy...NOBODY be happy!!!
I always said that Bush would promote Liberals to the Scotus. Seems I'm right. Now what? abortion is a sacrement now. We're SO pathetic that we'll lose the entire country before we even consider any restrictions. I give up. Here and now.
And I've seen you give jsut as good as you claim to have gotten.
YUP..I'll claim it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.