I’ve got the inside scoop. When some people say they want “equal treatment,” they’re not being truthful. Take it from a “double minority.” I know what I’m talking about. What they want is accommodation and special treatment. Like this woman.

She’s taking a medical licensing exam, which allows a total of 45 minutes for breaks. This chick, nursing her four-month-old, is suing the National Board of Medical Examiners for extra time to feed the kid and pump milk. This woman has already received special treatment. She’s allowed to take the test over two days, while everybody else gets only one day. Now she wants to expand break time.

*Sigh* Silly girls wearing stethoscopes.

If she were an on-call surgeon required to drop everything and get to the hospital ASAP to perform emergency surgery, is she going to whine about pumping then? Who will she sue — the patient?

If we women want to be equal to men, we’ve got to roll with it, know what I mean? No extra time to get the job done. No dumbed-down standards. Equal means equal, gals.

If you’re a long-time reader, you probably know how I feel about working women with babies and small children. No doubt being a “working mother” is financially necessary for some women, but it’s still less than ideal for the kids. That’s why women should choose mates wisely and wait until marriage to have children. Do everything in your power to stay home and raise your children yourself and run your household yourself. Running an efficient household is a lost art.

Believe me, the “working world” isn’t going anywhere.

Update (9/15): Residual Instapundit traffic. Not bad. While you’re here, check out my latest column.

Related:

• Nanny-Hunting While Black
• Traditionally Yours
• Book Review – Day Care Deception: What The Child Care Establishment Isn’t Telling Us

The above paragraph is not a quote, but rather a correction for Ellen Goodman’s opening salvo in her Sullivanesque screed “A Vatican Retreat on Homosexuality.”

In a brilliant display of cluelessness regarding Christianity (only outdone by Ruth Gledhill), Ms. Goodman attempts through an emotional appeal, to shift the argument away from holy Scripture and established Church polity. Instead, intentional or not, she argues that the Catholic Church is in need of an overhaul by not basing their decisions regarding homosexual seminarians solely on the nature versus nurture argument.

An argument, if followed to its radical extreme would make allowances for advocates of drunkeness, gluttony and sloth. After all, “Americans seem reluctant to condemn people simply for who they are.” So how could we possibly discriminate against whom actively and willingly advocate and/or submit to their genetic and or chemical predispositions to alcoholism, obesity and or laziness?

In a further attempt to shift the terms of the debate to the temporal Goodman throws down the scapegoat card ignoring the impact of a thirty year practice of U.S. Catholic seminaries admitting actively gay Jesuits – without at least mentioning the alarming parallel of sexual abuse cases along that same timeframe – and at least without identifying some other reason or cause for the abuse problem.

All this energy and hyperbole when in fact all that really recently happened was the Vatican extended its prohibition on sexually active priests and seminarians to include homosexuals.

All this beefing along the lines of “what about my needs” when Christian leadership is defined by the compassionate yet convicted, suffering, sacrificial servant – in spite of whatever sin nature afflicts us most; genetic or otherwise.

“… for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?” – 1 Timothy 3:4-5

update: If you’re interested in what other Christian bloggers have to say about all this, I’ve compiled a short compendium entitled “Sex in the Seminary.”

Before I start ranting and finger-pointing, I want to have the facts straight. I need to know one thing: Are the physical requirements for becoming a firefighter in Fairfax County identical for men and women? I e-mailed the training division and general information address with the same question. The department is probably overloaded with media inquiries right now.

If the answer is “No,” these gals have no basis on which to cry about “discrimination.” If the answer is, “No,” they were hired under “affirmative action.” Despite what the Supreme Court says, sex-based preferences are unconstitutional.

And if the women had second-class living quarters, I don’t think suing the county is necessary. They should get the union to demand better quarters. But suing the county because they have no heat? It’s a smokescreen. And pregnant firefighters who demand “flexible” hours want special, not equal, treatment.

And about the “harassment,” I’ll tell you what’s going on. Here is my biased, female opinion based on a couple of decades of deliberate interaction with members of the masculine sex, deep insight into human nature, and a cursory knowledge of biology: It’s harassment only if he’s ugly.

(”Or poor!” – Commenter)

Related posts:

• Firehouse Diversity
• Racist Firefighters Exam

Update (12:30 p.m.):

Subject: RE: Inquiry About Training for Men and Women
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 12:22:27 -0400
From: Dawkins, Annie M
To: La Shawn Barber

Dear La Shawn,
Thank you for sending us the email. The physical requirements are the same for both men and women. Both men and women have to perform the same tasks.

Annie M. Dawkins
Recruitment Section, 6th Floor
Email: fire.recruitment@fairfaxcounty.gov
web: www.fairfaxcounty.gov/fire

So…men and women have to meet the same physical requirements. In the same amount of time? Hmm. Perhaps I should have asked that in the first place. Perhaps the inquiry is over.

Then why is my instinct telling me something completely different?

Update II (3:17 p.m.): Well, no exposé on sex-based preferences is forthcoming (should I give up so easily?), and the issue of race-based preferences is irrelevant to this story.

I still think the suit is ridiculous, especially the demands for “flexible” hours because of pregnancy. Dear ladies, you were apparently hired based on the same standards as the men, but now you’re demanding sex-based perks, not equal treatment. For shame.

Read the e-mails below beginning with the message at the bottom:

Subject: RE: Inquiry About Training for Men and Women
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 15:11:11 -0400
From: Pfeifer, Gerald
To: La Shawn Barber

La Shawn,

Yes, the established time parameter is completion in less than 10:20.

Captain II Gerald A. Pfeifer
Fairfax County Fire and Rescue
Safety and Personnel Services, Recruitment Section

—–Original Message—–
From: La Shawn Barber
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 3:07 PM
To: Pfeifer, Gerald
Subject: RE: Inquiry About Training for Men and Women

Thank you, Captain Pfeifer. One follow-up: Do they have the same amount of time in which to complete the tasks?

— “Pfeifer, Gerald” wrote:

La Shawn,

We use the CPAT Test established and certified by the IAFF. So the answer to your question is yes. Men and Women must complete an identical
test.

Captain II Gerald A. Pfeifer
Fairfax County Fire and Rescue
Safety and Personnel Services, Recruitment Section

(message forwarded to Pfeifer)

—–Original Message—–
From: La Shawn Barber

Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 8:18 AM
To: WEBTeam
Subject: Inquiry About Training for Men and Women

Hello – I’d like to know if the physical requirements for firefighters are identical for men and women?

–La Shawn