ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
UKIP, idiots(38 Posts)
So the latest mess is that Bloom referred to women as 'sluts' , as a joke of course! Is it just me or does anyone else find it deeply depressing that it is seen as okay to refer to women as promiscuous etc and if you get offended by this you're seen as being too sensitive or a 'radical lesbian feminist'!
I am very scared about the ugly trend of women bashing that seems to be rearing its ugly head in recent times.
The guy is a moron, he's lost his party's whip and hopefully all anyone will remember about UKIP is that Godfrey Bloom is a racist, misogynistic git.
Basil - ^"Could this possibly be have been because the tasks were designed for the average male body to be able to do, but not for the average female body?
In other words, designing courses for men, rather than for people? That's what usually happened, with the police, fire brigade and other organisations that require physical fitness tests. Until people realised that designing tests that could more easily be passed by one half of people and not another, isn't actually as fair as they assumed."^
Actually, it was a case that the people that were being sent on the courses were not of the requisite fitness levels. There was such a rush "back in the day" to get women in these roles that all & sundry were sent on the training.
Most were simply not up to the standards, so the standards had to be lowered. Ironically there was/is no allowance for build, size, weight etc - so a 5'2" man would be expected to carry the same weight of equipment, and reach the same standards as a 6'2" man, whereas by your logic it there should almost be a chart to determine what level they should have to reach.
Real life, especially in the military, isn't like that.
When deployed in the field, everyone has to carry the same amount of kit, walk/run the same distance & live in the same conditions. They're carrying equipment to survive, rations and ammunition. If you can't carry it, then you're a liability - there is no room for someone that can't carry their own equipment.
As far as I'm aware, women in the military nowadays have to reach the same standards as the men - I think they fought hard for that right and, while they're still not officially in "combat" roles, they're doing a fucking fantastic job and are more than equal...
Unfortunately the fact remains (slowly getting back to the point) that Bloom was actually stating a fact in regards to this point...
He's still a wanker though...
Aren't women in the forces in the UK allowed to fight on the front line / do all the stuff?
comingalong maybe the standards being different for women when they were first allowed in, was due to them needing to get women in to get numbers and forward momentum, and given that they were restricted in what they were allowed to do, it was deemed as being worthwhile? A sort of pragmatic move.
Interesting to learn that that the military never had any contraints in terms of height - I'm sure everyone remembers the rules for entry to the police (met?) being changed as the height requirement was deemed to discriminate against people from some ethnic groups.
That aside, this
arsehole man, talking about the army, was talking about now, wasn't he.
Hmmm. Not sure comealongnicely's synopsis is actually what happened with regards the fire brigade. The tests have changed, that's true, but that's not entirely down to women being introduced. The height restriction was removed which has proved equally (if not more so) beneficial for men. A 5' 2" man was never required to lug around the same weight as a 6' 2" bloke. They were required to carry their own weight, so it was proportional.
I find the argument that women just aren't strong enough a bit weak tbh (no pun intended!). Women are not conditioned in the same way as men, for a start, to take pride in and use their strength. Although it is gradually changing, sport has never been marketed at women so that underlying fitness may not be there as it is with men. However, fitness and strength can be attained as shown in the military. But also this need for strength especially in jobs like the fire service is all a bit . What do men do when a job requires more strength than they have? They use equipment. They get help. Strange that. I don't understand why women can't do that. Again that is something that would be beneficial to men too. Less injuries for a start.
In addition there are plenty of jobs when at a fire that do not require strength. Stamina is probably required more than strength. And there is no real difference between the sexes there.
What an epitaph eh. "Here lies Godfrey Bloom. Too offensive even for UKIP."
To be fair to him (though I'm not sure why one should bother), he's not the first person who felt an urgent wish to slap a journalist about the head with whatever came nearest to hand. But he shouldn't actually have done it.
I was only talking about the Army, that's all I've got experience of - and I was definitely talking about the time when women were first amalgamated with the normal regiments (early 90's) - before that they were in a totally separate, non-combatant organisation (the Womens Royal Army Corps).
Yes, there was a rush to get the numbers of women up in certain roles, but although pragmatic, it actually made things harder for women later on as they were all tarred with the same brush as the early adopters who weren't up to the standards - many of whom had joined the WRAC, not the mainstream Army, and had no desire to play soldiers!
With regards to the weight - totally different to the Fire Brigade I would imagine - by the time everyone is carrying their own food, water, ammunition, weapon, clothing, assorted equipment, the weight is pretty high. Quite simply, if you couldn't carry your own kit, no-one else was going to, and there was no "fire engine" to put it on, you were often in the field for weeks at a time. A 5'2" man could carry less, but then wouldn't be fit for role, he'd either starve, freeze or run out of ammo!
All the military tests have been based on that, you can't really lower standards in that case.
Look at the kit the guys in the Falklands were carrying, how far they had to carry it & for how long. That was and is the basis of the Military - self sufficient for long periods of time.
Anyway, I'll stop blasting off at tangents - starting to sound like Peter bloody Snow now!!
NiceTabard - I'm not sure if they're officially classed as "combatant" - although the distinction is pretty fine TBH, they're still going out on patrols & coming home in body bags, can't get more combatant than that!
Will ask around & try to find out....
'Anyway, I note that Mr Bloom sits on the European Parliament's women's rights and gender equality committee '
Completely agree that the 'sluts' comment was the least offensive thing he's said over the last couple of months. He's just not very...... bright, is he? People who cling like limpets to gender stereotypes generally aren't very bright in my experience. Plenty of them about though
Glad it happened because of all the rotten publicity for UKIP. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch
Just because he sits on the committee it does not mean he attends any of them.
[[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0M4hExU-tfg Farrage certainly doesn't] attend any of the committees he is on and draws an allowance for.
Did you see where Farage said something about being "thrown out of the Brownies" in relation to all of this?
Hopefully I will live long enough to see what the current 20something men are like when they are in their 50s/early 60s. Because that age group seem to have a particular brand of anti-women thinking, yet it's being going on for years, so I wonder whether it's entirely cultural ("from a different era", which I don't accept) or more resulting from their time of life and the realisations and disappointments that it brings.
Re the tests etc, I've just remembered a bizarre argument with a police officer friend of mine. He was mouthing off about a female motorcycle officer who had to have a lighter bike bought for her because the standard bike was too heavy. He thought this was outragous, but couldn't really explain why, given that her performance on the lighter bike was equivalent to those on the heavier one. Her biggest problem was that she couldn't meet the standards that were arbitrarily set by stronger colleagues i.e. handle a heavier bike. Anyone would see that response time is the most important, yes? No. Because it was all about the cock power of handing a larger bike.
Same with the Army tests - what is the goal? And why is the goal set as it is? Covering x metres in x minutes...why not x+500 metres in x-5 minutes? Who sets the goal and why? Women do better in long distance, endurance events. Are these included? Sounds like a perfect "behind enemy lines" scenario. There have been enough films made about having to get back to a rendezvous that is some distance away, with no heavy kit encumbrances. Maybe there's no film potential when women get going, with minimal need for breaks and little engagement with the other side (because they are men and don't have the stamina .For fire officer tests, why fitness, rather than having fitting through small gaps as a test? Why not 10 tests relating to various physical necessities, rather than pass/fail on male physique orientated tests?
So many questions, sigh.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.