So I watched some of the Australian Open tennis finals on the weekend and now I'm wondering:

How is it that in this day and age of equality that men and women still play in different championships. How is it legal to discriminate like this?

PS: I know the answer that seems very obvious- ie. men are naturally better than women at tennis (and most physical sports) and women would rarely win anything if they had to compete together hence it is OK to discriminate. But why can't an employer use this reasoning and apply it to other occupations where it is currently illegal to discriminate even though there is a natural advantage to one sex over the other?

thinkabit, it comes under the heading of 'equal rights, but only when it suits' i think.

Good luck with your thread, you're iether going to be ignored or smashed.

Thinky
Give us an example of these jobs that men can do better than women.

' But why can't an employer use this reasoning and apply it to other occupations where it is currently illegal to discriminate even though there is a natural advantage to one sex over the other?'

thinkabit

the whole school/uni system indoctrinates and does not allow a person to think beyond dogmas. That is why we have 5 foot police girls trying to stop (usually lefites) from violence and destruction at 'peaceful' protests. Everyone knows that generally men are better at science and maths and generally better leaders. That is why the thought police would love to make it against the law to think.

thinkabitmore
If you were a feather-weight boxer or weight-lifter you may walk up to a heavyweight and tap him on the knees and say he wins. If your employer wants you to lift 100kg then sure he won't ask a girl unless
she's eats several steaks and 2 packets of cereal for breakfast. Then he may ask you to hold her handbag and watch. Most females have some brain in their bubble and say they don't look busy because they get things right the first time. OK Julia was as bad as Kevin but she has red hair.

Some years ago my son was responsible for the overhaul of one of the large engines of a large navy ship. He detailed 4 stokers, [navy mechanics] in pairs to take 2 cylinder heads from the engine room, very low in the ship, to the dock to be picked up by a truck for transport to a machine shop.

This involved moving them up 6 decks, along narrow passageways, through restricted water tight doors, & up steep companionways, to the upper deck, to be craned off the ship.

Two were back in 2 hours & given other jobs. On the third day he detailed that pair to take over the other cylinder head from the 2 girls, who were still not over 3/4s of the way to the upper deck.

He was once accused of bias, & discrimination in not wanting female stokers assigned to his ship. No one could ever accuse him of not having a sense of humour. He thought the whole episode quite funny.

Sport is about competition. It is the contest that attracts people to watch. Without a contest there is no sport.

Watching women being thrashed by men every day would lose its appeal very quickly. There are some sports where women can compete on equal terms but tennis is not really one of them.

Its not discrimination it is just common sense.

Weight lifting. Clean & Jerk 187 kg Zhou Lulu China 2012 London 5 August 2012.

She picked up 2 cylinder heads and ran backwards up 8 ladders and kicked a field goal.

mikk,

Working metal turning lathes, milling machines and similar that have coolant trays.

Men will always out perform women on these machines on average.
Where there are men and women of equal skill the men will produce more work in a shift than the women.

It's a fact of life.

You see it all the time with female police and large offenders. The women are basically helpless without using a taser or club.
Yet a male policeman can often just use physical force to subdue an offender.

"Men will always out perform women on these machines on average."
So men do more except when they do less.

nnn,

""Men will always out perform women on these machines on average."
So men do more except when they do less"

Very profound.

" We advertised for a front-desk receptionist opening and got 44 applications. Three were from men, all qualified. We’ve always had a female in that job and would like to keep it that way. We plan to interview five finalists. Must we include one of the men to avoid sex discrimination charges? — D.G., Pennsylvania

"My best advice is to try to keep an open mind. Just as women now succeed in positions once dominated by men, you may find that one of the male candidates in fact is the best fit for your organization."
-
Yep , a smarmy greaser could just make the grade but the obvious way to go is not.

the sooner people acept that women are from Venus and men are from Mars, the sooner they can move on to more pressing issues.

Equal rights does not make men and women equal because there are tasks that women do better than men and visa versa.

//the sooner people acept that women are from Venus and men are from Mars//

They're not. They're both from Earth.

Just because some idiot thought it would make a good book title it doesn't make it true. Leonard Nimoy (peace be upon him) wrote an autobiography entitled 'I Am Not Spock' and another autobiography entitled 'I Am Spock'.

Exercise for the reader: is Leonard Nimoy Spock?

Once upon a time women were excluded from certain jobs because it was considered they couldn't lift heavy weights (I think more than 15k). I remembered reading this when I was a young mum. Hoisting my sleeping hefty son up a flight of stairs, I thought, what a good idea - time that rule was applied to motherhood.
Further, there's a wide range of strength among men and women, and a zone of overlap. A woman I know is a sheep farmer, and I was in awe one day when I watched her lift a sick ram off the ground and swing him with ease onto the back of a Ute. I reckon she could out-lift a lot of men (and she is a small woman).
As for the examples of heavy equipment lifting mentioned here, why on earth are men still playing macho when there are all kinds of mechanical aids - jacks, pulleys, small cranes etc were invented eons ago. Is it really worth doing your back in and retiring to a (short) life of pain? Some, many, items will be beyond the ability of even the strongest man, in which case using mechanical aids is the norm. So employing slighter men or women just needs a broader use of these.

Cossomby the reason the ladies had not completed a 2 hour job in 2 days is just that. They were using all kinds of labour saving devices, not suitable for use in the confined space of a war ship.

Those ladies were a third of the workforce available to do that job. It involved a number of other activities requiring some strength to do efficiently, or at all. Do you consider it reasonable that the other 4 stokers should have to pick up the slack generated by having a couple of incompetent ladies in the crew.

It's a figure of speach Toni and prety much sums it up.

All the labour saving devices in the world won't make a jot of difference to the fact that men will always produce more work in a shift working production lathes etc, it's just one of those things that are natural.

My work has taken me to buildings, sites, engineering depots, mines etc., where over the last 25 years or so more women have been employed. So I am calling on practical experience.

In one situation (water storage management) the boss was very safety conscious. Anyone who tried to lift 100kg or more (Nicknamenick!) without gear would be considered a fool. Taking the engine out of a vehicle? Use the overhead hoist. Lifting a huge truck tyre or moving heavy stuff? Use the trolley. Reason 1: It's faster and more efficient. Reason 2: One person can do it, doesn't need two or three. Reason 3: the last thing I need is you idiots off on dick-leave (originally a typo, but decided to leave it).

I once worked on a project with a major earth-moving and excavating contractor. Several of the drivers (notably the driver of the largest bulldozer) were women, and the boss said he far preferred women, couldn't get enough of them. I got to drive a huge Volvo tip-truck (the tyres were taller than me, you climbed a ladder to the luxurious cabin), on a lake-bed because I didn't have a licence of course. Driving these trucks requires finesse, not strength; repairing those tyres requires the right gear, not a strong man.

As for the Navy stoker story: if you had 2 male and 2 female stokers, and accepting the women are on average smaller and not as strong; why pair them 2 men v. 2 women? If it had been four male stokers, of different physiques, the sensible thing would be pair each of the smaller men with a larger man. The description of the difficulty of moving the gear makes another point: because men tend to put so much stake on strength, they are maybe slower to come up with more efficient ways of doing things.

Re men's and women's tennis. There are a number of sports with weight classes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight_class. The purpose is to reduce the exclusion of smaller athletes in sports where physical size gives a significant advantage. Men's v. women's classes are in effect a weight class division. There's room for more separation on genetic grounds: how about separate races for black and white runners? http://www.livescience.com/10716-scientists-theorize-black-athletes-run-fastest.html.
Paralympic sports has the same effect: it reduces the exclusion of athletes where presence of all limbs, sight etc. gives a significant advantage.
Perhaps it would be possible to mix men and women in tennis, but introduce weight classes? In any case, I can see no reason why women should play fewer games. That's a test of endurance, and women are pretty good at that, biologically. (I have never been an athlete, but I once walked a competitive sprinter into the ground. He was brilliant over 100m, but not so good over 10km.)

Sorry cos but i would hardley class the Williams sisters as 'light weights'!