Sexism you have personally experienced or have heard of? *READ POST 1*

Because discrimination is permissible in Irish law under certain circumstances and conditions. Positive action is permissible, positive discrimination is a minefield best avoided:

https://archive.ph/lyPgH

And unlawful discrimination is obviously, unlawful.

Why won't you answer?

It's giving the employer the option to give all women who fail a pass, if they want. How are they going to determine which losers to opt for I wonder.

If they're confident they can meet the requirements in time, then why don't they just give them another chance next year to pass the test? They're obviously not confident and therefore need to let them in now.

As long as they don't go screaming sexism when their comrades have absolutely no respect for them at all.

There are some very capable and professional female soldiers. If I was one I'd be fuming over this. I'd hate for people to assume I'm less capable than my colleagues and that I was accepted because of what genitals I have.

I'd also feel short-changed if I was on a dangerous deployment, supported by somebody who wasn't required to meet the same standards.

At a guess, they'll make their determination based on those who they believe will be capable of meeting the required standard to do the job.
But I guess that sensible suggestions won't go down well with the triggered masses here

By my logic, I can they absolutely could have flexibility for male primary school teachers, on a similar basis - that they're reasonably confident that the person will be able to meet the requirements of the job in time.

What if a male who passes a fitness test falls below the level required?

Yes, there are very capable female solders, and the ones I know certainly don't need the white knights on Boards the rescue them. I'd guess that most of them are confident that the majority of their colleagues aren't focused on their genitals, one way or other.

Am I Google now?

Yes, imagine if your daughter had to go through the trauma of seeing headlines like these?

https://her.ie/life/bigger-assets-our-average-breast-size-is-growing-22752

Honestly lads, if yiz have to scrape the bottom of the barrel so hard to find things to be offended about, yiz have little to be worrying about.

''What if a male who passes a fitness test falls below the level required?''

At least they passed it in the first place. Besides they'll be fine as i'm sure the DF would be confident they'd get to the required standard. Or d you only think that when it's females?

Also the only one person here scraping the bottom of the barrel on any of these subjects Mr White Knight.

I don't know but you're the one suggesting people who have been certified as unfit for a job should still get it based on their gender. Are you not?

Just on your friend who's a prison officer - I do think that if her level of strength and/or fitness is adequate for the job, then a man shouldn't be required to have a higher level of strength/fitness to do the same job. I'm talking in general terms here, obviously I have no idea how fit your friend is or the set requirements for a prison officer.

You can try to talk to someone but if they remain so blatantly hypocritical and disingenuous in their views you just have to say enough is enough and ignore.

"As previously explained, positive action isn't discrimination. That's a matter of law, not opinion"

Andrew, just to clarify - my understanding is that "positive action" is often discrimination, It's just not illegal discrimination. I assume that's your meaning here too?

Every time I'm sick the woman fake coughs at me and say's man flu. As a man it's very hurtful to be constantly hit with this trope. We need to fight for a fair and equal society sexism needs to stop.

Well exactly.

"What if a male who passes a fitness test falls below the level required?"

I can give an opinion. We may disagree, but that's ok, the people setting the rules aren't listening to either of us :)

Firstly I think an entry test should be at the level that's required to do the job. No higher. So any person who isn't meeting the standard by definition isn't capable of doing the job.

Following that, if we're talking about a job like a Garda/soldier/firefighter/etc, anybody (male or female) who is already in the job but falls below the level required, they are then not fit to do the job. They shouldn't be given "active" assignments. I.e. they'd be assigned back-office tasks. Not all these reasons are the fault of the person doing the job. If somebody injures themself, it's not a bad reflection on them, but if they're not capable of doing the job to the level required, they shouldn't be assigned to do so until they are capable.

A bit of searching tells me that in the Irish armed forces, there has been a system whereby if somebody fails the regular fitness test, it's taken seriously and they have 12 weeks to improve and retake it. I think the repercussions can be serious (sorry, I can't find a non-paywalled link, here's an Irish Times link in case anybody can see that), or at least used to be, but I think in principle it's fair if it applies to everybody.

Except that's not what I said. That's a fair distance from what I said.

Thhe point is there are already different standards for men and women. They don't do the same fitness tests for different occupations, so changing either or levels of standards is nothing abnormal and is already in existence.

What did you say then?

Do you want me to cut and paste my earlier posts?

But how is it positive? You keep making these points but then refuse to actually answer anything about them.