Equal opportunity employment, if a woman takes on what is traditionally a mans job, should she be cut any slack because she's a woman?

There is a subtle but significant difference between getting the job done, and doing the job by oneself. If the person can get the job done (whether a woman or a smaller, perhaps weaker, man) with or without willing help, that is what matters. A woman who can’t land a fighter jet on the deck of a carrier at night should not be cut any slack because she is a woman. Neither should a man who can’t do the same thing because he’s an Admiral’s son. If the job requires specific physical characteristics associated with the sex of the person, I don’t really believe the other-sexed persons should be doing the job. How many wet-nurses are men?

Anyone who is asked to “heave an 80# pipe up a ladder” already has grounds to refuse the task on the grounds that it is in clear violation of normal, everyday safety rules.

However, the larger point is not missed.

No, if a person of any sex is hired as a “journeyman” type worker (in the case you’ve described, “journeyman craft worker” is an ordinary term, familiar to anyone who works with craft labor), then the worker should be qualified and capable as any other journeyman would be.

Since you clearly stated equal opportunity job, no one should be cut slack. But if the person was clearly handicapped, disabled in anyway or clearly a dainty lady and hired for the job, then I would expect the company should allow for expected slower performance or inability to do the heavy lifting a strapping linebacker might otherwise do.

If a person is incapable of fulfilling the job requirements – all of them – they shouldn’t have the job. If a person can fulfill all of the requirements and is hired for the position, gender should be a non-issue.

There are some situations where there are certain aspects of the position that the worker is not expected to be able to complete alone. Perhaps it is expected that it takes more than one person to heft the 80 pound pipe. If that is the case, as long as every can pull their own weight (no pun intended), again gender is irrelevant.

No one should be cut any slack, if they can’t do the job, they shouldn’t have it.

The pipe lifter was simply an example, the lady trucker was very real, and if your going to drive a transport in the northern part of north america you have to expect certain times of the year you are going to have to chain up.
And a lot of us said at the time she shouldn’t be out here if she can’t do the full job.
My wife said the same thing.

And let’s hope the woman is paid the same wage for doing the same job.

@chyna Now that I would totally agree on, but with the same breath she must do the full job she was hired to do and not be expected any slack because she is a woman, RIGHT?

Right.

I agree – if you are not physically capable of doing the job then you shouldn’t be given it. Reasonable adaptations should be made though – that is what UK Disability laws state. So for example if there is an inexpensive bit of kit that will help chain up a truck then the firm should consider buying it for those who can’t do it without aid.

who else is imagining @SQUEEKY2 on Ice Road Truckers?

The whole concept is equal pay for equal work. If it is required to carry a 40-pound toolbox up several ladders to complete the job, so be it.