Per Bing;
So how many SF troops are there? Hint much less than that (less than 1% of that).

That's true, and that's my point. Even in my profession which has over 100 times as many people in it than yours does, there is still a standard that must be met and upheld for me to be able to make it my profession. And everyone that wants to be in my profession has to meet or exceed that standard.

I'm saying that the standard itself, if it is properly crafted and kept, will ensure that only qualified people make it into the profession...regardless of gender or anything else.

I think we should just change the way we think about CPA standards so that as long as someone meets standards, they get to be a CPA...
even if they are serving a sentence for any criminal offense; including incarceration, probation (supervised or unsupervised), parole, or conditionally suspended sentence, felony convictions relating to tax fraud, and other forms of financial misdeeds should ALL be overlooked as long as the applicant meets the standard...

Because when standards are properly crafted and kept, it ensures that only qualified people make it into the profession...regardless of gender or anything else.

Because it's all about the standard right?

Exactly. They can't be a CPA because that doesn't meet the standard (whether set by the Board of Accountancy or the Internal Revenue Service in the case of tax fraud). For example, if you are a felon, you can't be a CPA. So yes, as long as the standard is properly crafted, it doesn't matter who it is. If they don't meet the standard, they can't be in the profession.

Standards are minimums. Certain environments don't accept minimums.

Then whatever that environment would accept should become their standard.

I'm not trying to be disagreeable. If I came off that way, I apologize. This is your house, and I'm not about to track my muddy boots into it. I just want to respectfully add to the conversation from a civilian point of view.

What tires me out about our society is that we have dimmed the standards to fit people rather than only take people that fit the standard. It's as if society has a need to prove that so-and-so is the first (insert name of new identity here) to do something. In my view, if you truly accomplish something based on meeting the requirements to do so (and those requirements haven't been watered down to meet you), then you are simply the next person to attain that achievement.

As an example, President Obama was seen to be the first black President of the United States. I could argue he was the 44th white President because his mother is white. But in the end, he was simply the next person to inhabit that office. When seen from this viewpoint, his race doesn't matter. All that matters is that he won the election...just like everybody else.

I really believe that a lot of our division in our country comes about because people want to hold on to the feeling of oppression because of social distinction. My stepson told me yesterday that you can't have equality while still yearning for entitlement. I tucked that one away in the old brain-housing, as it spoke volumes of why race, gender, class distinctions matter so much to some people. Take away the distinction, and you take away the entitlement.

bandycpa...It's not my house. I am a guest and observer.

Highway Patrol, Fire Fighters and many other professions had height and physical requirements that were lowered because they were found to discriminate against women.

My wife tried out for an airport position in the 70s. One of the requirements was to drag a sandman a required distance and move him to the other side of a barrier. She's a pretty tough chick but couldn't do it so she wasn't hired. The reasoning was that if an emergency happened the employee would need to be able to move someone out of danger.

That is no longer required - so either they found a machine that will do that or they lowered the standards for women. Well , maybe they don't care anymore about moving people out of the way of danger.

What about how easy Airborne school is? I remeber watching documentaries from the 90's that included a 5 mile run. I was prepared for that when I got there, but we were never tested on a 5 mile run.

In regards to women in SF, outsiders don't understand that SF has to make rapport and interact with different cultures. So many of SF missions interact with the local populace of nations governed by little brown guys. Those countries don't hold women in high esteem and respect. Throw a female into a meeting with a sheik of some said country and your team will not ever earn the respect or willing help from said sheik. It is just that simple. Women don't have a place on an A team just for that reason alone.

My thoughts? We is fucked, the beginning of the end is here.

Felony conviction isnt a standard it is a disqualifier.
Just like "female" was a disqualifier
until the standards were changed
because "female" BEFORE training is no different than FELONY before training
So....
felons should be allowed to be CPAs according to your suggestion that we just need to change "the perspective of the standard to mean what a person needs to pass a course, obtain a position, etc. The standard is what is needed for a job to get done, not to allow someone to claim a certification."

Those are your words - not mine.
The standard is what is needed for a job to get done, not to allow someone to claim a certification

So - when a CPS shows up and tries to explain to a bunch of SF guys what "standards" are you should quickly recognize that I have zero knowledge about CPA standards
...but when I replace "female" with "felon" and apply it to YOUR business - it suddenly sounds stupid to you doesn't it...

so - why can't we simply change the perspective of CPA standards to allow former felons into your office?
...does it fuck up the dynamic?
...does it create some sort of rift?
...how can a felon that otherwise meets ALL performance standards be disqualified JUST because of "what they are"

And don't say they CHOSE to be a felon - it is 2018 - you can CHOOSE to be a man now if you want
...because some group of people in DC "changed the perspective"


I'll tell you what -
I apologize for trying to dabble in the "standards" that your career field uses to put professionals into the workspace.

I'll stay in my lane since I know NOTHING about CPA standards.

...but please, continue to explain to us how CPA standards are the same but different from being on a Special Forces Operational Detachment - Alpha


Again, I apologize for insulting the way your industry crafts their profiessional standards

I just want to see the 5'3" female 105 lb CPA with personal protection gear, 125 lb ruck, primary and secondary weapons carry a 180 lb screaming wounded man.

Well I'm 5'7, about 130 lbs (Not a CPA, ha), and I definitely would have a hard time carrying a 180 lb wounded man w/all of that on me. Truthfully, I could not do it, and that makes me somewhat ineffective. Not saying I wouldn't give it my all, but it would be difficult. Lowering standards to allow women (or anyone else) into the "Pipeline" is just plain wrong. If you cannot go through the training as is, then you have no right to be there, simple as that. If you want equality in life, then you have to abide by the rules to play the game. That means not cutting corners; that's a dangerous scenario...:munchin

That is all that matters - you tried
As long as you are given the same opportunities as everyone else and perceptions of self worth are validated then everything will be ok.

Its the patriarchy at fault here - if men didn't weigh 180 pounds before adding equipment, they wouldn't be so hard to carry.

Don't be negative and think that you cant do it or that you are ineffective - be positive and dont give up and we will craft the standards so you can meet them.
If you can't carry the guy - you should be asking why all the lazy men on your team are making YOU carry him all by yourself.


Silly cultural nuances - when will 'the right' stop acting like neanderthals