here here!

Uh oh. Battlestations! Person the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!

You've identified a few job positions for which men are generally better qualified, owing to certain superior physical traits. Just to fend off any potential charges of male chauvinism, can you name a few jobs (paying jobs -- legal paying jobs) for which women are generally better qualified?

Wetnurse?

I think the issue isn't so much whether particular jobs are better suited to people of certain genders. The issue is that when people are hired, they should be qualified, and the qualifications should only reflect what actually is required to do the job in question. It isn't chauvanism to refuse a woman a firefighter's job if she can't do the lifting involved. At the same time, the lifting requirement should not be set unreasonably high in a specific effort to exclude women.

As for the prom-king situation being unfair, no, it isn't. If a girl could run for king (and win), any boy who wanted to try to be prom queen could have thrown his crown into that ring.

Wetnurse? Not necessarily. I didn't breastfeed my kids, and the spouse was equally qualified to prepare and feed them their bottles of formula.

Wetnurse is defined as a stand-in for breastfeeding when the mother doesn't or can't. It can not be manned (so to speak) by a MAN, unless of course he has had some serious gender altering surgery.

But I understand your point Natalie!

Ah, well this woman was *not* qualified to be a wetnurse, which means SU and I were equally unqualified for the job. :)

Why should anyone be given an advantage based on anything other than their ability to perform a job?

exactly. i just wonder how many people have uttered this statement knowing full well that they made it into college because mommy or daddy had gone there.

This was big news in sports this year with Annika Sorenstam playing on the men's tour for a single tournament. I heard about some guy who was trying to make a point by trying to join the women's tour.

A woman trying to compete in the PGA is compelling, but a man trying to compete in LPGA isn't compelling. There are differences in our genders and everyone knows it.

I haven't heard too many people saying that women should be allowed to do a job they are not physically qualified for. The main thing is that equal jobs by people of different genders need to be paid the same. This is should apply to all jobs and in many cases it still doesn't.

The only thing that would be chauvinistic about the fire-person scenario would be if a woman was qualified for the job and got paid less than her male counterparts because she is a woman.

Who's kidding who? There is a difference. Women's shite don't stink.

In America in 2003 (as opposed to the strange, bigotry and ignorance ridden world of Robbie Port) nothing could be more inaccurate than to say localities set the rules of hiring public employees such as firefighters. There are federal laws against discrimination, for Chrissakes. Any employer who tried the evasions of the law he suggests would be smacked with fines and lawsuits so quickly the ink would hardly be dry on the papers.

Furthermore, the 'hose is too heavy for women' pretext has long been disposed of. Handling heavy objects is either automated or done by more than one person. The genders of the persons involved don't matter. One tell-tale sign claims such as these are pretexts is that relatively small men would be no more able to carry out the tasks than the average-sized woman.

There aren't any breastfeeding cases I'm aware of, but men can breastfeed. Would-be women sometimes increase their estrogen level to the point of growing breast and lactating.

Title VII has been around so long I tend to take it for granted 'everyone knows' that the kind of discrimination Port and Craig Lyndall support is illegal. Perhaps I need to write a blog entry about it. That is a major problem with the blogosphere: The Ports spout so much inaccurate information that the minority of smart, responsible bloggers are virtually forced to clean up after them.

Ah, now this is the Diva I know and love. An adamant (unsubstantiated) insistence on what the LAW is (coupled with the de rigeur charges of "bigotry") trumps any silly issues of empirical reality. If she can find some judge to sign an order suspending the law of gravity, then she'd expect things to just start floating freely in space because THAT'S THE LAW!!!!!!

Most obviously she insists that physical strength is simply not a real, legitimate practical issue in performing the job of being a fireman.

Not to put too fine a point on it, this simply doesn't jibe with Objective Reality. A fireman is liable to need to throw some old person over their shoulder and carry them down stairs or even down a ladder. A 100 pound woman simply can't goddam do the job.

As to this one: One tell-tale sign claims such as these are pretexts is that relatively small men would be no more able to carry out the tasks than the average-sized woman. Right, and that man would flunk the physical tests, and not get hired either.

I got a lot of love for our Diva- she's got a lot of heart. However, she's just plain damn silly saying that Mr. Port is a "bigot" for noting that most women are simply not fit for the most physically rigorous jobs. That's not a subjective opinion, either enlightened or bigoted- merely a recognition of reality.

The "bigot" that Diva should be taking up these issues with is God. It was he/she/it that made men and women different and in some ways clearly unequal.

Hey, don't shoot Robbie- he's just the messenger.

one related point--many one person jobs have been turned into two person jobs to accomodate physically weaker people. the military has done this as well. but why be surprised that a person who lives in a perverse fantasy world has troubling recognizing the laws of reality.

go ahead now, accuse me of buying my wife...

There truly are genuine bigots and racists out there, but I am weary of people who throw out the 'b' and 'r' words every time somebody disagrees with the latest modus operandi of political correctness. Now that blogs are becoming more prevalent I hope to see more libel law suits that will make those who think it is their God-given right to promote self-serving smear campaigns think twice before publishing.

BB, in the good old U.S. of A., it's practically impossible to prove libel other than in the most outrageous and egregious cases.

The difficulty of proving one's case is not the issue (at least from my perspective). I am a retired Litigator (now reformed Mediator) but I hope that I have made my point with respect to those who think it is their right to conduct self-righteous smear campaigns.

I suspect MD is well acquainted with questions of law and how far she can go in expressing what is obviously her opinion.

It would be well advised to learn to express one's opinion without resorting to childish name calling or malice.

Thanks, Nat.

It reassures me when bloggers actually know what they are talking about. I would hate to think the main legacy of weblogs will be spreading stupidity all over the Web, but it might. (Not that there wasn't plenty of stupidity on the Web before blogs arrived.)

Bumble Brain (BB) I believe you are a lawyer to the same extent I believe you can sprout wings and fly. Now go ahead. Sue me for saying that. LOL!

That said, I do have to agree with BB about namecalling. But free speech is exactly that, and people have the right to express their opinions.

It has been my experience those who are quick to point the finger are convicted by their own hypocrisy. Maligning someone and then qualifying your statement with an "LOL" doesn't quite cut it. But it does speak volumes as to your maturity. No, I will allow myself to be baited and lower myself to your level madam MD, but if it is your intent to question my voracity then feel free to try me on for size.

Not only do I consider BB worthy of the nickname Bumble Brain, after viewing his photo, in my opinion, he looks like an utter fool. (Calling a lawyer, yet, BB?)


(Before this is over I believe a certain person may grasp that opinion, no matter how much he dislikes it is not libelous, Natalie.)

One of the wonderful things about technology is there is always a record. Obviously I'm dealing with a child here and you didn't get the message. I can deduce only one thing out of all this nonsense. You don't discriminate - you just hate everybody equally :)

And by the way. I would love to see your picture MD. I checked your website but unfortunately it's down. So how about?

I should also mention that my picture is meant to be a cartoon-like image so if you found it humorous then it met its objective. :)

Boy, I've really pushed your buttons, haven't I?

I am busy writing my Blogging for a Cure entry, so will have to put this tete-a-tete on hold. But, if my blog entries were as short as BB's, it wouldn't be a problem.

If that is your version of asking for a truce then I accept. But in the future kindly confine your comments to logic and reason and avoid the defamatory annotations.

MD, I keep warning you, and you keep ignoring me. You really need to control yourself.

We can all get away with a lot more than we choose to do — that pretty much defines maturity. Be careful that you do not encourage others to treat you the way you treat them. You would not like the result, legally defensible as it may be.

Much as I would rather put this distasteful diatribe behind me I feel compelled to respond to the issue of whether or not defamation is legally defensible. I only got involved in this nonsense to come to the defense of Mr. Robbie Port who was being maliciously maligned by Madam MD. No matter how you look at it, even from a non-legal standpoint her words are completely reprehensible and cannot be justified.

The fact is I am a retired Litigator and know a little about the law. "Freedom of Speech" is NOT without its restrictions. Without going into a long treatise, Black's Law Dictionary States: "Defamation - Holding up of a person to ridicule, scorn, or contempt. May be criminal as well as civil and includes both Libel and Slander. Defamation is that which tends to injure reputation, to diminish the esteem, respect, goodwill or confidence in which the plaintiff is held, or to excite, adverse, derogatory or unpleasant feelings or opinions against him (or her). Statement which exposes person to contempt, hatred, ridicule or obloquy. A communication is defamatory if it tends to harm the reputation of another as to lower him (or her) in the estimation of the community".

Irrespective of case law, (which I am not prepared to go into at this time) I am confident that on the face of it any jury would find Madam MD's comments defamatory and I am putting her on notice that henceforth I will have zero tolerance for any such behavior. I also require an apology and her assurance she will refrain from any such outbursts again.

The day discussing Title VII becomes illegal, I believe I will know that, Phillip Winn. Until then, I wil continue to ignore people who throw hissy fits if anyone tells the truth about discrimination, including you. A Right Wing ninny like Robbie Port can post nonsense until the cows come home, and you don't have a critical word to say about it. But, let me or anyone else say something truthful on the topic and you soil your underpants. So be it. Now, isn't there a John Birch Society meeting you should be attending, or something?

As for BB, if he knew anything about communications law, he would know there is absolutely no way to sue someone for expressing an opinion in a public forum. I recommend he read the elements of of defamation and New York Times v. Sullivan.

(Say, Phil. Did you really think I would be impressed with a pompous know-nothing like him?)

Well, you seem pretty pleased with yourself and so it would be logical to think that...

Sorry, that question was for Phil.

careful BB, she's probably getting ready to accuse you of buying your wife and to slur your wife's ethnicity.

a mere claim that a statement is opinion does not preclude a finding that the statement is defamatory, as BB undoubtedly knows.

she brags about her lack of brevity--that's funny.

Dear madam MD. If you wish to discuss case law this would not be the proper forum. In that respect I will be more than happy to entertain you perhaps via e-mail or through your lawyer if you wish? Even from a non-legal perspective your outbursts are rude and ignorant and you just don't seem to get the message.

I would argue that Blogcritics is an Internet "Community" and most certainly is within the definition of Defamation. Case law changes like the weather and as the internet is a relatively new medium it would be interesting to test this in the courts. If you are so cock sure of your self-professed expertise in the law then continue as you have let the chips fall where they may. You have been warned. Ignorance of the law is no excuse and this "pompous know-nothing" is retaining a record of your outbursts.

BB, are you utterly clueless? I ask because you obviously don't have a leg to stand on. I am absolutely right in what I have written about discrimination law. Port, as always, hasn't a clue what he is talking about. Furthermore, considering he has referred to me as a 'bitch' and an "asshole," your claims he is being unjusitifiably insulted make no sense. Do you know what MYOB stands for? I suggest you take that advice.

(A repeated post, but BB apparently grasps things very slowly, if at all.)

MD, please look in the mirror before you accuse others of being "clueless". You still don't get it. You have to learn to disagree without resorting to tantrums, name calling and defamatory comments. Didn't your momma teach you anything? Now do you understand?

Mac,

When did I ever refer to you as a "bitch" or an "asshole?" Never once have I ever done so in any medium, in comments, on my webpage, on Blogcritics or via email.

Please provide proof of the accusation that I said any such thing.

You're starting to make things up now, and its pathetic.

In the entry you dedicated to castigating me on your blog, Robbie Port. Did you think I didn't know about it?

Here is a link to the entry I posted about you. I knew full well that you would find it as I linked to your page from it.

Nowhere in it did I use any of the terms you refer to.

Not Making Any Friends

Upon reviewing my post linked to in my last comment I would like to point out that I did refer to Mac Diva as a "nutcase."

From the performance she's put on in the above comments I'm not sure that such an assertation is wholly inaccurate.

Don't sweat it, guys, it's kind of MD's thing to make shit up out of thin air when she gets flustered. She talks a lot but when it comes down to providing proof, she's about as genuine as her name and the stats on her sitemeter account.

Ok. "Bitch" is a pretty harsh word, "Asshole," not so much. Ass is just a funny word, and still funny when combined with other words.

In my little neck of the woods, Bitch is just about the worst thing you can call a woman. On the level with the C-word.

So, I see MD claiming to have been called a Bitch, and whatever else I may think, I was ready to smite the evildoer. Funny thing though, click over to Rob's place and he has never used that word.

SSDD. Does no one here learn? Am I the only taking crazy pills?

Uh, Rob. You said there was no such post.

You said there was no such post.

Mac,

When you first posted your comment accusing me of saying that I emailed back right away saying there was no such post. I meant, of course, that there was no such post using that type of language.

Please point to any post, anywhere, where I have used that type of language to describe you.

The comments are suddenly missing from that entry, Rob. Since I can't control your blog, obviously I did not erase them. Perhaps the entry itself will be edited or erased next. Whatever, I'm done with the topic.

Mac,

Please refer to this archived copy of the page in question from Google. There is no way I could have modified the "snapshot" taken by Google as it crawled the page.

You are lying and you know it.

As of this date and time, Google says that MD is incorrect.

MD, chill out, seriously.

And everybody else, what say you we adopt a policy of ignoring MD's comments? Her posts are often very good, it is usually just in the comment section that she acts oddly. If we ignore the odd comments, at least, then perhaps she'll cut them out.

For those bloggers who are of the mistaken notion that they can hide behind "freedom of speech" as a defense for slander and libel I highly recommend reading this Slashdot Article .