More Women on the Bridge.

Perhaps deck is where strength is needed more. Not eng and captain? A Seabob weights 64lbs dry. They are being pulled in and out of the water all day long. Not being to handle this weight solo would mean you would have to double your staff when supervising water toys?

Is that so? I've been a yacht captain for 25 years and haven't had one pulled in or out, even one time.
Let me make this as clear as can be...
There is never a need to lift with brute force. This isn't just for the well-being of the crew, but for the ability to continuously cruise without injuries. I'm more often farther away from a hospital and medical care than any remote home in the lower 48 states. I CANNOT risk crew injuries. We have hydraulics and mechanics for lifting heavy equipment.

I like that attitude of avoiding injuries for sure! What lifting mechanism would be available for something like a seabob on a swim platform? Or from center console?

Most boats with garages will have a gantry crane above the garage. When launching from a center console, you'd simply use two people. If I see any crew (male or female) lifting more than they should be, we're going to have a conversation about it.

We and most boats floating around so Florida aren't working with garages and gantry cranes.. The two people suggestion is a good one!

Two people. Rollers. Hydraulic swim platform. Even using the tender crane. A winch.

That's an oxymoron, if I've ever seen one.

I'm with RER on this: you are talking of your own experience, and that's all well and good.
But what actually happens on planet Earth is different, and I could make dozens of examples.

I'm talking about properly run businesses and properly run boats. I'm not talking about what others choose to do. I'm talkin about standards that are legal in the US, Canada and most of Europe.

I'm not saying everyone can do all jobs, but the vast majority of people can handle the physical aspect of any properly structured job on a yacht and in a business. There are those who can't lift 25 lbs, both sexes, they are limited in jobs. We all have limitations, but they're not sexual if jobs are defined right. I have many jobs I couldn't do because of allergies.

I've been CEO and employed thousands and had no jobs that were limited to males. I currently employee well over 6000 and have no jobs limited to males. I do have jobs that require a lot of activity or a lot of time on one's feet. I also have jobs that require dexterity with one's hands. I have jobs that require a lot of sitting at keyboards and we have to make accommodations for some to do that. That's the other element of making reasonable accommodations for handicaps.

Just because others discriminate based on sex or others require work to be done that is dangerous to an employee's health, doesn't mean that's right in any way.

It ain't a matter of discrimination OB, and you are clever enough to have perfectly understood that neither RER nor myself were suggesting something that can even remotely be seen as discrimination - if anything, the opposite, if you think about it.

See, it's your own previous statement about the statistical gender differences that defies the theory which you pretend to apply to each and every situation.
And mind, claiming that this is possible has nothing to see with discrimination (or lack of it).
It's just being irrealistic.

That needs to be avoided at all cost.

Yes, especially since irrealistic isn't a word.

No, I'm saying you should have no jobs, no tasks, that only one gender can do. There are no jobs that should require a muscleman. Can every male or every female do them? No. But the vast majority of both sexes should be able. And to label any job as male or female only is absolutely discrimination. Only entertainment positions can get by with that.

But, no, I'm not accusing you of actual discrimination, just of not properly structuring a job if it requires lifting more than 51 pounds in an ideal situation and more than lower numbers in most situations. Lifting heavy objects isn't good. Leads to injuries and a lot of expense. Trying to be macho is why so many have back problems. Allowing people to lift too much is also very expensive for a business. I greatly prefer no lost days to injuries.

This is about how you run a business and that's what running a boat is.

Talk about clutching at straws!
Happy to switch to Italian, or also one of several other languages, if you feel like debating semantics rather than actual content.
Not to mention that you could make Nelson Goodman spin in his grave.

Listen, I told you that I could make dozen of examples, and I meant it.
But it would be pointless, since you are looking at this matter with a very formal eye of regulation compliance, lifting X pounds, and so forth.
There's much more than sheer weight lifted to consider, and you could break your back by lifting 40 pounds unproperly, as well as lift twice that weight properly with zero problems.
The key is being aware of that, and keeping it in mind while doing whatever must be done.
Which typically, in a boat, can't be always planned/organized/structured as all of us would like, in our dreams.
Besides, quite often strength is necessary even if there's no weight to be lifted at all.
But I have a funny feeling that you perfectly know all this, and you just want to come through as politically correct.
Which is very fashionable, nowadays.

Bottom line, I'll tell you what: let's agree to disagree.
This debate is clearly going nowhere anyway.
In fact, I'm already regretting having tried to throw a sanity check in it.

Since my license is only valid on Planet Earth (all of the Earth) and my experience is only on Planet Earth (most of the Earth), I guess you and I will also have to disagree. There was once a time when I was inexperienced and naive (or young and dumb, to be honest) and would have wholeheartedly agreed. But I'm now with OB on this one. As I said, 2/3 of my deck team are female. And I've regularly employed girls in deck roles for the past 15 years.
But what do I know?...

Mine has nothing to do with being politically correct, but plenty to do with doing things the right way and I do them the right way and the legal way. I have no doubt you're far better in terms of languages than I am, was just responding to oscarvan with humor. I also recognize laws and regulations are likely different where you are and I do follow OSHA regulations diligently. In operating a US business, there's a major issue if you don't. I also consider all weights and proper lifting. As to lifting twice 40 pounds, for an employee of mine to lift 80 pounds, they would be subject to reprimand. Safety rules in the workplace are the most critical of all our rules. Correct handling procedures are. There is no politically correct, just what I consider correct. As you don't work for me, then I have no control over how you choose to do things, but not going to agree that it's acceptable.

I employee 3 female captains and 1 female engineer in addition to 4 females who do deck work in addition to stew. They do the exact same jobs as the males I employ. They are healthy females with average to above average strength.

Fair enough, I can accept that "male vs. female" was a bit of a sweeping generalization.

Let me put it this way, then: let's assume that an old fart like myself, with a multi-decade boating experience, would apply for a job as a deck hand on your megayacht, together with a youngster whose most remarkable experience is as running back.
Who would you rather employ, the old fart who would sweat like hell to carry around your array of 51lbs fenders, or the youngster who could handle them all day long in half the time and with no unpleasant marks in the underarm of his elegant uniform?
If the latter, that would be as much of a discrimination as for male vs. female, I'm afraid.

See, I don't know if the statistical percentages that you quoted (75 female/90 male) are correct, I'm just taking your word for it.
But the reason why I said that this makes your view an oxymoron is that if we start from this assumption, for consistency you just can't have a crew with more females than males.
I mean, you can of course, but you are actually making a sort of reverse gender discrimination, if you see what I mean.
In order to be consistent with your own statement, and not make any discrimination, you should employ 45.5% females and 54.5% males.
And this is not a sweeping generalization anymore - it's basic math.

Well, in your boots, I would have done the same, to be honest.
Better than being surrounded by old farts like myself (see my previous post), that's for sure!

Actually as long as other owners are discriminating then my hiring will always be the opposite because I'll find that the best candidates available are often those others discriminate against. I hire the best candidates, but regularly I'm finding females with superior experience and skills who have been held back by their sex. I find it in other things too. One of my best hires ever in business was a paraplegic who had many interviews but no offers and the only explanation was his handicap. He wouldn't have been interviewing with me if others didn't discriminate. We get incredible female candidates.

As to your old man, out of shape, and young muscle man, you've introduced another factor, being out of shape. I have a married couple of captains, 62 and 59 years old and their physical condition is amazing. Now, I don't have anyone carrying 51 pound fenders. I'd look at all the attributes of the candidates including why applying for the job and ability and willingness to do other things. We have no deck hands only. The positions are all stews and deck hands and our captains also do some deck work. We also judge candidates based on compatibility with us and with the rest of the crew. We live much of the year with our crew and they're extended family to us. We also look for long term employees. We've been at this since late 2012. We've lost no crew during this time. We wouldn't hire anyone who we had doubts about their ability to do the job.

The statistics I quoted were those used when the 51 pounds was first used. Recognize much lifting reduces the 51 pounds based on where and to and what you're lifting. However, I'd bet today a higher percentage could do it.

Now, I can't speak as to the candidates one has or can hire from in Sardinia or other places. I am only familiar with the US market.

And what does that have to see with the debate, exactly?
You are not the US President cleverly disguised as olderboater, or are you?
The thought crossed my mind while reading your post, since just yesterday I came across this declaration.
Which would be nowhere near as funny as it is, if it weren't realistic enough to come across as true.

Anyway, I would suggest to leave it at that.
As I already envisaged, this debate is going nowhere, and never will.

My last post was just an attempt (a rather hopeless one, in hindsight) to explain you, strictly from a logic viewpoint and irrespective of whether we are talking of boat crew or any other working roles, why there are some basic flaws in your reasoning.

But I see that surprisingly, in spite of your self-proclaimed business achievements (and before you mention, I have no reason to dispute them, but that doesn't make them less self-proclaimed anyhow), argument analysis and appraisal is a field you are neither familiar nor comfortable with.

Not that you aren't in good company, mind - see Mr.Trump statement above...