TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Despite testing for the same exact position, women have easier physical fitness standards than men

PoppaDR3W

July 24, 2015
120 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://imgur.com/17S3YCf
Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Despite testing for the same exact position, women have easier physical fitness standards than men
Author

PoppaDR3W

Upvotes 120
Comments 52
Date July 24, 2015 12:26 PM UTC
(11 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3efscc/despite_testing_for_the_same_exact_position_women/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/despite-testing-for-the-same-exact-position-women.974748
https://theredarchive.com/post/974748
Red Pill terms in post
standards
Top posts by PoppaDR3W

Woman to become FDNY firefighter... despite failing crucial physical test

464 upvotes
May 3, 2015
/r/MensRights

Women have an easier fitness test for the FBI

238 upvotes
January 2, 2017
/r/MensRights

Men have a harder physical fitness test for local law enforcement careers

102 upvotes
April 24, 2015
/r/MensRights

How is this not discrimination? (NY)

68 upvotes
April 18, 2017
/r/MensRights

If women aren't ashamed of being fat...

62 upvotes
March 22, 2016
/r/TheRedPill

I see a lot of "no men in women in the women's bathroom" posts a lot on social media lately

61 upvotes
April 24, 2016
/r/MensRights

Only men interrupt women (Found on my Facebook feed)

45 upvotes
May 5, 2016
/r/MensRights

A buddies relationship even hurts me

31 upvotes
March 1, 2016
/r/TheRedPill

Comments

[–]AngryCyberCriminal 18 points19 points20 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Whil I agree with you, they also discriminate on age. What is the point of that? If it really is for the same job, the fitness requirements should be the same whatever age or sex you are.

[–]tothecatmobile 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

A lot of the time these tests are to determine a persons level of fitness rather than a specific job requirement, its more important to have a simple way to determine if an employee is fit, rather than having an arbitrary number of sit ups a person needs to be capable of, when I'd be very surprised if doing x number of sit ups was an important part of their job.

[–]AngryCyberCriminal 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In that case different amount of situps for women make sense.

[–]Argosy37 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

100% agreed. There should be one test - that of the requirement necessary to do the job. All people, regardless of age or gender, should need to pass the same set of standards.

[–]WaitingToBeBanned 26 points27 points28 points 11 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

Devils Advocate: Men and women have different fitness standards and physical capabilities, the former is relevant while the latter is not. If this test is to keep people in shape then different standards make sense, if it is to see if people can do a job then different standards are nothing short of insanity.

[–]PoppaDR3W 26 points27 points28 points 11 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

The position sought after is that of a Corrections Officer. This is their physical fitness requirements to pass the test to acquire their job.

An inmate will not care whether you're a 200 lb man or a 130 lb woman - they can and potentially will attack. Plus, even if it was to "stay in shape," why do women get easier standards on the sit-ups and run? Men generally have better UPPER body strength. What does lowering the women's standards on core strength and cardiovascular conditioning do then? It doesn't make sense.

[–]Vandechoz 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Do they put the men and women in charge of men and women (respectively)? If so, then the standards make some sense since the women will on average be dealing with physically weaker inmates.

Or do they pay the women who pass the lower standards less money? If they paid the women 2/3 but they had 3 women to every 2 men, that would probably work out OK in the end as far as security. More eyes and more bodies, even if weaker ones.

[–]PoppaDR3W 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I believe that they mix it up. So females can watch males, although they may say only a male can search a male and vice versa.

They're paid the same.

[–]Vandechoz 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

welp, I tried! :P

[–]WaitingToBeBanned -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

Because men are also stronger in lower and core muscles, and every other muscle which we share.

[–]PoppaDR3W 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

At such a high repetition amount it's more about endurance anyway. Regardless, the test should be the SAME. The same job position should have the same necessary qualifications regardless of gender (and even age). An inmate won't go easier on a guard because she's a woman.

[–]WaitingToBeBanned 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Muscle strain is a factor in endurance. I agree with you in this context, but now I am wondering why the hell sit-ups are even a part of this test unless there are two parts, one for fitness and one for capability.

[–]PoppaDR3W 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

I'm unsure if there are two parts - they seem bundled on the job site. Anyway, anyone, regardless of gender, can strain a muscle. It should be even. If they want to argue that men have more upper body strength, then can't men argue that men are generally heavier so they shouldn't have to be able to run as far?

The test itself is outdated. Sit-ups are bad for the lower back. They should be using Planks for core strength, 1-Rep of Bodyweight on Bench Press for upper body, and, in this case, sprints over running (Corrections).

[–]WaitingToBeBanned 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

My point was that muscle mess and muscle strain are related. Actions which would strain a woman's muscles probably would not strain a man's muscles. Sit-ups are a good example where both men and women can do them but men can and always will be able to do more, so in the context of a fitness test it makes sense to have different standards. A fit woman might be able to do ~40 while a fit man would do 60-80.

Not really, men are just plainly superior to women when it comes to physical capabilities. Literally every record for strength and speed is held by a man, to the point where the fastest woman in the world is on-par with highschool boys and the strongest man in the world could lift the record of the strongest woman, including the woman, twice, and with a bit extra added on.

[–]PoppaDR3W 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Not all men are superior to men. GENERALLY, yes. But I've also seen some men that can't push up 50 lb on a barbell bench press, whereas there was a teen girl that pushed something ridiculous like 400 lb (it was online). Every human has the capabilities to train to get within the necessary time frame for running and strength and endurance for the push-ups and sit-ups. They should be the same. We aren't talking doing a 100 push-ups.

[–]WaitingToBeBanned 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

Irrelevant, the average man is superior to the average woman and the disparity only gets bigger the more-superior they get. Holding women to the same fitness standards as men is only marginally less stupid than holding women to higher standards, because you pretty much are already and at least doubling-down on the stupidity would make it more obvious.

[–]tkreidolon 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Then they shouldn't be allowed to take that job.

You really -don't- get it.

[–]WaitingToBeBanned1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Feel free to explain your thought process on why.

[–]garglemesh422 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Let's say one of the requirements of your job is to be able to lift 50 pound boxes and carry them around throughout the day.

Do the boxes care about your genitalia? Do the boxes care whether or not you identify as a woman?

The boxes are going to weigh the same no matter who is lifting them.

That's why physical standards for jobs shouldn't be lowered for women. The standards are there to ensure that an employee is physically capable of doing their job, and doing it safely.

If a woman can't meet the physical requirements that men have to meet for the same job, then she shouldn't get the job.

Of course, this raises another question: Are the tests actually determining whether or not a candidate is capable of doing the physical work involved with the job? If the tests don't separate the people that have the strength, endurance and flexibility to do the work from those that can't, then the test is flawed.

But if the test is flawed, then it needs to be fixed to test for the right things, and generally speaking the characteristics people need to have to do physically demanding jobs don't change depending on the gender of the person doing the work.

[–]WaitingToBeBanned-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Your job requirement is to lift 50lbs and maintain a certain (arbitrary) level of fitness, anyone over the age of 12 can lift a 50lb box so that is a non-issue but fitness standards are different between men and women. Are you to recognize that fitness is measured differently between men and women or are you going to blindly preach about 'sameness' and essentially ban women from that job?

[–]garglemesh421 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If any candidate for a job where you have to lift a 200 pound man and carry him out of a burning building in a reasonable amount of time can't actually lift that man and carry him, they don't deserve the job. It isn't about gender. Would you want to die trapped in a burning building because they lowered hiring standards?

Explain to me how anyone, man or woman, who couldn't do that, should get the job anyway, when people's lives depend on them being able to do it.

Nobody is trying to stop women from getting those types of jobs. But if they can't physically do the job, they should not get the job. I couldn't get a job as a firefighter, either, but I don't expect them to lower the standards so that I can when my lack of capability means people could die.

If your argument is that the tests don't align properly with the real physical requirements of the job, then fix the tests so they are testing the right thing for both men and women. But you can't say "only men have to be able to rescue 200 pound people from burning buildings, women only have to rescue people that are 120 pounds" and then call that "fair".

[–]WaitingToBeBanned-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I see the problem here, you do not understand what fitness is. It is a measure of physical health, dipshit.

If a fit man can run X-distance distance in 8 minutes while a fit woman can run that same arbitrary distance in 12 minutes, then those are the standards for male and female fitness. Do you understand how this works?

[–]garglemesh422 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And your problem is that you don't understand that some jobs have requirements that go beyond just being "fit". The amount of gear you have to haul when fighting a fire doesn't change based on the gender of the firefighter. The weight of the people you have to rescue doesn't change if you happen to be a female firefighter. The number of people in the building that need to be rescued isn't magically reduced if you are a woman. The amount of time you have to put out the fire doesn't change either. If you don't have the endurance to keep working the whole time, that's something you need to fix before applying for the job. Gender doesn't enter into it.

Sometimes the physical requirements for a job are more stringent than "you can't be a lazy slob that never exercises", and in such cases women have to be able to actually do that job.

Also, calling people names when you don't understand the point they're trying to make is super classy. I bet you win lots of internet arguments that way, don't you? Calling me a "dipshit" just because you think I'm not considering the points you're trying to make is not a good way to convince people you're right.

Besides, I do understand what you're saying. You just refuse to consider that you are only seeing one part of the issue.

[–]WaitingToBeBanned0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Quit your tangent and get back on topic, we were talking about fitness standards, dipshit.

[–]garglemesh421 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why would you ever have physical fitness standards when applying for a job, if not to make sure that the prospective employee can actually perform the physical labor that the job involves?

The obvious answer is that they wouldn't. OK, now that we've established that the test is there to determine whether or not you can do the job, can you tell me why women doing the same job as men magically have to carry less weight over smaller distances, and why they don't have to do it for as long? Because that doesn't sound like doing the same job to me.

Also, this is the second time you've called me a "dipshit". Do you win all your internet arguments by calling people names and waiting until they get tired of responding to your "insightful" posts full of all sorts of wonderful data defending you position, like "Quit your tangent and get back on topic" ?

Also, discussing the physical tests firefighters have to pass in a post about physical fitness tests for jobs is a tangent how again? It seems pretty on topic to me.

[–]tkreidolon2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Clearly, it's a baiting troll. Ignore.

[–]tkreidolon1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Nice name, troll.

[–]WaitingToBeBanned0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I accept your concession of defeat.

[–]corky_douglas 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The position sought after is that of a Corrections Officer

And that was the context I was looking for.

That being said, those requirements are far, far lower than I expected them to be... for both sexes.

[–]PoppaDR3W 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They are rather archaic. It should be doing 1 rep of body weight or 150 lb, whatever is greater, plank for 60 seconds and sprints.

[+]AndaliteBandit 11 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

An inmate will not care whether you're a 200 lb man or a 130 lb woman - they can and potentially will attack.

Pepper spray does not care if you're a 200 lb inmate. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

[–]PoppaDR3W 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Pepper Spray in an enclosed place? It may come down to personal strength - something everyone should be equal on, or at least have a substitute like specializations such as martial arts.

[–]AndaliteBandit-2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes, it's used frequently, so much that it's even controversial.

[–]SoWoWMate 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I had a similar case in my German high school. Our high school was very small. In Germany we have to choose a couple subjects where our focus will be. They will be extra tough. I had to take sports. This was by far the most competitive class I ever took. Before in my normal sports class, I had a A- , and then I got D-. It was so hardcore. But what was interesting is that all the requirements has been lower for women. Actually, I dont have anything against it, since women are physically not as tough as men. What my problem with it was is that every women got a A or B while all the men (even the one who has been super fit) got just C- or D's (except for one exception). What is actually worse is that in Germany, the average grade is the only criteria for college/university. So for example, it is the requirement to have an A in a specific subject in order to enter the university. So, when I thought about it a bit, I thought it is a discrimination, since the grades are so important for your college application

[–]chaku89 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Now imagine a Women as Firefighter and she cant even carry person out of the burning building or carry all the necessary equipment. So people might die for the "political correctness" ? That's just plain stupidity.

[–]Mackenziefallz 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

2 days ago I carried my ~150 pound friend through the house and up the stairs and I'm a very average woman. I do crap like that a lot, and I don't work out at all - I'm just tall and have good genes. No, not all women could carry someone out of a building, but many can. That's why they should have requirements for the job.

[–]99639 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Do you really think 150lbs is the average weight of an adult these days? According to the CDC it is actually 196 lbs for an adult male. Plus you have to carry your pack and air tank all of which weighs many more pounds. If men have requirements for strength necessary to complete a physical job then women need to meet those identical requirements. I don't want to burn to death in the name of diversity. Do you?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/body-measurements.htm

[–]Mackenziefallz 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I didn't have a lot of trouble. And again, I don't work out. If I did, could likely handle all of that. (I only gave one example). Also, I never argued that we didn't need requirements that applied to everyone. In fact, I explicitly AGREED. Some of you are obviously looking for a fight.

[–]99639 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Not looking for a fight but you responded to a comment about requirements being waved for gender with an anecdote about your personal triumph... obviously intended to disagree with the point.

[–]Gnometard 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, she said that she can do it thus all women should be held to the standard.

[–]ConvertsToMetric 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Mouseover to view the metric conversion for this comment

[–]chaku89 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah did you carry heavy equipment and Air tanks with you ? Cause let's be honest i doubt many women are capable of doing that.

[–]tkreidolon 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Military already did research on this concerning the large packs they have to carry + a fallen soldier... Doesn't take research to understand the physics either.

[–]Mikeavelli 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And this has been found to be illegal. You can't lower the test without lowering for both genders.

[–]tkreidolon 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Makes sense to make a test that is more appropriate for why it's being administered rather than rely on an arbitrary number (how did they come up with the goal for each sex?).

If a less fit person can still use a technique to restrain a fleeing suspect just as well as a faster/stronger person, then they should be qualified. Perhaps with tools or acute situational awareness to use the environment to his advantage (brains over brawn).

[–]Zosimasie 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nearly double the amount of push-ups required. They reflect this difference in the pay for men and women, too, right? Because paying men more would be the only fair response to men having higher requirements.

[–]Gnometard 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Looks like the navy requirements... I remember finishing my 1.5 mile run, going back and motivating the chicks in my class to finish theirs in time.

[–]McFeely_Smackup 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

When I was in the US Army, points on the physical fitness tests was directly tied to promotion points. One unit I was in gave out official award medals for people who maxed the PT test, which also had a promotion point bonus. The thing was, the female standards were not just lower than the male, they were so low that female soldiers routinely maxed the test where it was rare for a male to do so.

So what you ended up with was lower standards for females, AND a baked in promotion bonus for them as well.

[–]Grailums 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is why I believe that "sit-up, push-up, and run" tests should be completely wiped out when it comes to correctional officer positions. It has no real world applications in the least. I can understand the mile and a half run, but that still puts no bearing on real world application when you're hoping fences and ducking under shit.

I envy the states where the correctional officers have to maneuver through an obstacle course. I feel that an obstacle course is a much better gauge of how in shape a person can be. Dragging weight, jumping over walls, and other such "obstacles" test real life applications.

As a man right now I could easily complete the female standardized testing, but if I do one less sit up or push up as prescribed above for being a male I am discriminated against. That isn't right.

[–]redditorriot 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Absolutely meaningless without context.

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Gnometard 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Get more xp bro

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter