Woman "Attacked"/denied Job because of Christianity (?)

[tropaka]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... 23?cmp=rss

Summary, a woman applied to a Norwegian company for a position as a river-raft guide in Canada). In a rejection email the company told her she was unqualified, but then proceeded to disagree with the religious views of her university (Christian, makes the students sign what amounts to a purity pledge with the usual no homosexuality stipulations). It got quite nasty:

Paquette, an experienced river rafting guide, applied to be a wilderness guide for Amaruk’s Canadian operations in the North.

She says she was shocked when she read the rejection email from Olaf Amundsen, the company's hiring manager.

He wrote that she wasn't qualified and "unlike Trinity Western University, we embrace diversity, and the right of people to sleep with or marry whoever they want."

Trinity Western is the Christian university in Langley, B.C., where Paquette earned her biology degree.

All students must agree to a covenant prohibiting sexual intimacy outside heterosexual marriage, under pain of possible expulsion, which has led to controversy over the university's new law school.

Paquette was furious and told CBC, "My beliefs have developed who I am as an individual, but they don't come into play when I am doing my job."

In the rejection email, Amundsen also wrote: "The Norse background of most of the guys at the management level means that we are not a Christian organization, and most of us actually see Christianity as having destroyed our culture, tradition and way of life."

Bethany Paquette used to be a river guide and hoped to become a wilderness guide for Norwegian company Amaruk's expeditions to Yukon.

Paquette wrote Amundsen back defending her faith, saying "your disagreement with Trinity Western University, simply because they do not support sex outside of marriage, can in fact be noted as discrimination of approximately 76 per cent of the world population!!! Wow, that's a lot of diverse people that you don't embrace."

She also wrote that the Norse people chose Christianity.

"I signed it God Bless, probably partially because I knew it would irritate them," Paquette said.

It clearly irritated Amundsen, who wrote back, describing himself as "a Viking with a PhD in Norse culture. So propaganda is lost on me."

He explained why graduates from Trinity Western are not welcome in the Norwegian company.

"In asking students to refrain from same-sex relationships, Trinity Western University, and any person associated with it, has engaged in discrimination."

He ended the email writing, "'God bless' is very offensive to me and yet another sign of your attempts to impose your religious views on me.

"I do not want to be blessed by some guy... who has been the very reason for the most horrendous abuses and human rights violations in the history of the human race."

Amundsen then used an expletive to state that if he met God, he would have sex with him.

It was that comment that promoted Paquette to retain a lawyer to take her case to B.C.'s Human Rights Tribunal.

"That's kind of the most offensive paragraph in all the emails because that's going pretty far," said Paquette, who cringed when she re-read the email and another one that followed from Amaruk's co-CEO.

Christopher Fragassi-Bjørnsen joined the email chain writing that while "Trinity Western University believes that two men loving each other is wrong… we believe a man ending up with another man is probably the best thing that could happen to him.

"But we do not force these views onto other people, and we are completely fine if a guy decided to go the emasculation route by marrying a B.C. woman," Fragassi-Bjørnsen wrote.

Paquette said she resents the assumption that she would impose her beliefs on others in the workplace.

"They'd never even met me and never talked to me in person, and they just assumed all these things… and found it OK to attack me."

Paquette's lawyer Geoffrey Trotter said, "You are not allowed in British Columbia to refuse to hire someone because you associate them with other people, from centuries ago, who you think they did something they shouldn't have done."

Trotter called Amaruk's emails "nasty" and "over the top."

Officials at Trinity Western University agreed, saying they've never before heard of any of their grads filing a similar complaint against a company.

Trinity Western spokesperson Guy Saffold told CBC, "Canadians shouldn't be treated this way by a foreign company." No faith should face discrimination, he said.

"Mocking of their religion — there is a personal shaming element to it that was most unfortunate."

In an email, Amundsen responded saying Paquette's job application was rejected "solely based on the fact that she did not meet the minimum requirements of the position."

Bethany Paquette is an avid outdoor adventurer, and Biology graduate from Trinity Western University.

"Any further discussion after that, including the fact that we strongly disagree with the position that gay people should not be allowed to marry or even engage in sexual relationships, would have been a mere expression of opinion," the email says.

Micheal Vonn of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association said employers are not supposed to express opinions about an applicant's religious background.

"You are allowed to think anything you like. But you have obligations as an employer to act in a non-discriminatory manner," Vonn said.

She said the Human Rights Tribunal will have to consider the reason Paquette was rejected.

"What you have is written documentation that more or less is tantamount to a sign on the door that says no one of religious affiliation need apply for employment here. We don't usually see discrimination cases that are quite this stark."

Trotter said if the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal concludes his client was discriminated against, he will seek compensation for lost wages and "for injury to feelings and self respect."

"The main thing that she's been asking for is to order this company to stop discriminating."

Trotter is asking the tribunal to send "a really strong message" that "it is not acceptable to discriminate based on what somebody believes or where they went to school. That it is not 'open season' on Christians in Canada.

[tropaka]

Full statement from Amaruk Wilderness Corp.

"As per rejection letter attached, Ms. Paquette was not considered for a position with our company solely based on the fact that she did not meet the minimum requirements of the position.

Any further discussion after that, including the fact that we strongly disagree with the position that gay people should not be allowed to marry or even engage in sexual relationships, would have been a mere expression of opinion.

Olaf Amundsen

Wilderness Guide/Instructor"

The email flame war (which she fanned the flames of, as well, but it's quite clear if you want a job with this company, you'd better not mention religion, at all)

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... gical.html

[Firiel]

I personally think the company is way out of line.

Who knows if she met the minimum requirements or not. The fact that they found it appropriate to deride her over e-mail based on her college's stance on gay marriage is completely inappropriate. First of all, she may or may not share that view. Second, even if she does share that view (that homosexuality is immoral), unless she is discriminating against gay customers or co-workers, it doesn't disqualify her from the job, IMO. Plenty of sexist people still get jobs, and they should be able to. Plenty of people who believe that pre-marital sex is a sin are perfectly able to work in harmony with co-workers and customers who are unmarried but sexually active. Plenty of people who don't eat certain foods based on religious reasons are able to work with those who do eat those foods, even if the religious people *gasp* have the audacity to actually think their religion is pretty awesome and a really damn good choice.

EDIT: Of course, she did fan the flame war, but I currently work for an organization (and attend a church) that doesn't share the exact same views I do, and if I felt I were rejected for a job for that reason, I would be PISSED.

[Firiel]

Wow... okay, now I'm starting to think that mayhaps this company is sexist.

amaruk.com/en/info/careers/assistant_guide.html

Job requirements

3. Be able to perform a minimum of 8 pull ups (no time limit)

And from the e-mails:

In contrast, we believe that a man ending up with another man is probably the best thing that could happen to him. But we do not force these views onto other people, and we are completely fine if a guy decides to go the emasculation route by marrying a BC woman. Live and let live.

I get that the above is supposed to be a joke, but it kind of struck me as off-color/sexist upon first reading it. And then they require that people be able to perform 8 pull ups. That's pretty damn extreme. I understand people (men and women) need to have upper-body strength to do outdoorsy stuff like rafting and kayaking, but that requirement easily eliminates over half the women otherwise qualified for the position. Even the military doesn't require 8 pull-ups from women (unless something has changed recently).

[Walking Cat Bed]

Obviously, this situation is well into both sides claiming their own correctness and the other's wrongness, so I have a shaker of salt on hand while I read.

The thing is...Sometimes people attend a college that they don't agree with; often, it's a gradual process. See all the fundie kids who are "allowed" to go to an extremely conservative religious college OR to stay home. Or their beliefs change after they finish college. I got my BA from a Southern Baptist school (not Liberty), and have had the "you will be interacting with a diverse customer/coworker base" subject come up in interviews. I don't believe much of anything that my alma mater focused on anymore, so my response is less "OMG how do I not freak out when I talk to a gay person" and more "I'm sure we'll find something in common".

Of course, I wouldn't respond to "because you went to a religious college, you're obviously still religious and thus must conform to the assumptions I have about your beliefs" with "well but JESUS" so much as "Thank you for your consideration I'm dodging a serious bullet here I think, I hope you find the best candidate soon". Especially if assumption person is someone I'd work with regularly.

[BrownieMomma]

Is there protection against discrimination in Canada?

[browncoatslytherin]

what is this world coming to when i can't immediately dismiss the christian's claim of discrimination when the story is posted on fj? *tsk tsk*

okay, super-snarky moment over.

granted, we don't know what the minimum requirements were that she allegedly didn't meet, and she did help inflame the situation by continuing the e-mails and saying things she knew would get a rise, but at the same time, they're both adults, one is working in a professional environment, the other looking to get into a professional environment. frankly, it looks bad for both of them. i'm curious as to what employer will now want to touch her after this whole debacle (that isn't christian, that is). gods bless them, indeed.

[tropaka]

Is there protection against discrimination in Canada?

yes, which is why she's taking it to a Human Rights Commission. The owners of this company look like complete asswipes - but the real question will be did they not hire her because she did not meet requirements or because of her religion. From his first sentence (paraphrased "I don't know why you even applied because you don't meet our requirements") he set a really lousy tone. No law against being a jerk, but we do have laws that do no allow you to discriminate based on religion, sex, sexual orientation.

[Firiel]

what is this world coming to when i can't immediately dismiss the christian's claim of discrimination when the story is posted on fj? *tsk tsk*

okay, super-snarky moment over.

granted, we don't know what the minimum requirements were that she allegedly didn't meet, and she did help inflame the situation by continuing the e-mails and saying things she knew would get a rise, but at the same time, they're both adults, one is working in a professional environment, the other looking to get into a professional environment. frankly, it looks bad for both of them. i'm curious as to what employer will now want to touch her after this whole debacle (that isn't christian, that is). gods bless them, indeed.

She very well may not have met the minimum requirements. Here is a link to the various job postings-- it appears this is a pretty competitive organization: amaruk.com/en/info/careers/

Regardless, plenty of people apply for (and get!) jobs when they don't meet the minimum qualifications, so their jab that she shouldn't have applied is completely uncalled for. And while she did continue the correspondence, while I like to pretend I would have been more mature, my response may have been a giant "Fuck you, assholes!" which is essentially what hers was.

[singsingsing]

Her response may not have been the epitome of maturity, but those guys were complete and utter assholes, not to mention fools. Totally unprofessional, and 100x more immature than the young woman they attacked. They're running a business but they're behaving like 18-year-old trolls on Reddit. Frankly, they deserve this.

[Firiel]

Her response may not have been the epitome of maturity, but those guys were complete and utter assholes, not to mention fools. Totally unprofessional, and 100x more immature than the young woman they attacked. They're running a business but they're behaving like 18-year-old trolls on Reddit. Frankly, they deserve this.

Amen. The proper response for them would have been an e-mail stating simply, "Thank you for your application, but we have decided to pursue other, more qualified candidates."

[browncoatslytherin]

She very well may not have met the minimum requirements. Here is a link to the various job postings-- it appears this is a pretty competitive organization: amaruk.com/en/info/careers/

Regardless, plenty of people apply for (and get!) jobs when they don't meet the minimum qualifications, so their jab that she shouldn't have applied is completely uncalled for. And while she did continue the correspondence, while I like to pretend I would have been more mature, my response may have been a giant "Fuck you, assholes!" which is essentially what hers was.

oh i rarely look at minimum requirements when i apply for a job, unless it says something about a degree higher than an associate's. in this economy, a lot of "requirements" are easy to bend. ;)

and funny, if presented with the same situation...oh yeah, with my temper, i would have exploded. but, when i get angry with something like this, i tend to write extremely professionally (my way of letting the other person know i'm sooper srs and also to not let anything i say come back to bite me). To me, that tends to sting more, because the person writing back is extremely well-spoken, has well-thought out arguments, and hopefully the person on the receiving end feels like an ass for assuming shit.

for instance, one of the apartments complexes that i've been corresponding with finally mentioned that one of their pet requirements for cats is that they are spayed/neutered AND declawed. and while i have no problem with spaying my cat, i have no intention of needlessly mutilating her and i was extremely pissed that if i really wanted to move in there, i would be forced to pay for a unnecessary procedure that i morally object to. but instead of setting up a flame war, i sent a very professional (and yet, also very strongly worded) e-mail to them to let them know that i would never apply for their apartments and that i would discourage anyone i knew looking for apartments because of that policy. i've been in touch with several different apartment places around the area - each of them allowing pets - and this was the ONLY place that required declawing. not to mention my countless friends and fellow cat owners who i posited this situation to on fb to posted and said generally something along the lines of, "i've been renting for x number of years with cats and i've never been required to declaw them!"

even though this wasn't technically part of my religious beliefs, i deeply believe in respecting certain aspects of animals, and to alter them cosmetically in such a way with no actual medical reason, to me, is reprehensible. spaying/neutering to me isn't quite on the same level, as if one isn't planning on breeding the animal, it benefits them more to have that done. but taking away claws for no other reason than "just because" (or "because i need to in order to move into this place"), especially from an adult cat, is very different and something i found very offensive when this was presented as a requirement. so, while this isn't quite an exact situation, i think it's very similar, but i still handled it like an adult, expressed myself and my opinion in a very professional manner, and carried on. even though i really, really wanted to send them an e-mail laced with profanity and derogatory and inflammatory speech, i successfully resisted the urge, like a mature adult should be able to do.

[nelliebelle1197]

Let's not assume women cannot perform 8 pull ups and demonstrating how strong you are may well be a requirement for the job. Probably not in the best form to call a company sexist while saying most women can't do something.... :nenner:

I wonder if she hurt her case by saying that she didn't want the job anyway.

[Firiel]

Let's not assume women cannot perform 8 pull ups and demonstrating how strong you are may well be a requirement for the job. Probably not in the best form to call a company sexist while saying most women can't do something.... :nenner:

I wonder if she hurt her case by saying that she didn't want the job anyway.

Is this directed at me?

First, are you saying that my comment that demonstrating strength may be a requirement for a job is sexist? I'm not sure how that's the case. I've worked many jobs that require lifting 25 or 50 pounds and also have worked as a lifeguard which requires certain athletic tasks to be accomplished.

Second, I'm not sure when facts became sexist. The fact of the matter is that typically speaking, most women can't perform eight pull-ups (jerkit probably can because she's awesome). Most men probably can't either, but there is definitely a smaller percentage of women who can. The requirement of eight seems over-the-top when even the US Marines only require three. Now, there are many reasons for this, and I really like this article that posits it's not inherent biology as much as social/athletic conditioning: huffingtonpost.com/caitlin-constantine/womens-difficulty-with-pu_b_4569911.html

But I hardly think the response to the fact that women are socially conditioned to not focus on upper body strength is to say, "Suck it, women! If you want equality, get over social conditioning yourself and pump your lats!" Rather, I think a better response would be to keep the physical requirements more in line with things that men and women tend to perform more equally on but still demonstrate the needed strength. Push-ups, swimming, and running all seem great to me. The pull-up requirement is way more extreme than any of the others.

Note: When I'm in shape, I can swim a 500 in 9 minutes 10 minutes, now that I noticed it was meters not yards. I can do at least close to 42 push-ups in two minutes. I can hit the running time, though I would be pooped. And in my best shape, I can do 2-3 pull-ups. Also note that, in my triathlon experience, non-competitive men tend to be slower swimmers than women (or at least the gap between men and women is much smaller in amateur swimming), probably because of social conditioning, like with the pull-up thing. It's funny that their swimming requirement is the loosest when one would think that swimming would be much more important for a raft guide than running.

Edited for mistake

[Boogalou]

Her response may not have been the epitome of maturity, but those guys were complete and utter assholes, not to mention fools. Totally unprofessional, and 100x more immature than the young woman they attacked. They're running a business but they're behaving like 18-year-old trolls on Reddit. Frankly, they deserve this.

Exactly. The whole email exchange is bizarre. Usually, when people aren't selected for an interview or the job their application is either ignored or they get some form letter, not a snarky email.

I guess now we wait and see if this guy is just an ass or if he is a discriminatory ass.

[browncoatslytherin]

Let's not assume women cannot perform 8 pull ups and demonstrating how strong you are may well be a requirement for the job. Probably not in the best form to call a company sexist while saying most women can't do something.... :nenner:

I wonder if she hurt her case by saying that she didn't want the job anyway.

i can't do one pull-up, but that's because my natural upper body strength sucks and i haven't tried to strengthen it in any way so far. but even an individual (not necessarily just a woman) who doesn't have that much of natural upper body strength is able to exercise and train so that they can.

at one point, my brother was exercising to this dvd...i can't remember exactly what it was, if it was p90x itself or something similar, but it was pretty intense circuit training type of stuff. there was a mix of men and women demonstrating, and yes even some of the women did the pull-ups and some of the men did the alternative exercises to work the upper body. as a side note, i thought it was pretty cool to see diversity like that.

i also am wondering how much of a case this will present since she said she "didn't want the job". i mean, discrimination is discrimination, but if she truly didn't meet their requirements (and they wanted to be sticklers about it) and she said she didn't want the job, what is she really hoping to do, then? just drag their name through the mud? if i was a potential employer and i saw an applicant did something like that, warranted or not (again, mature adults should be capable of being mature adults) i would be hesitant about hiring them (although i wouldn't say this when declining their application). so, while the company she is making look bad does indeed look bad, she's also hurting herself and her potential future employment.

[Firiel]

Exactly. The whole email exchange is bizarre. Usually, when people aren't selected for an interview or the job their application is either ignored or they get some form letter, not a snarky email.

I guess now we wait and see if this guy is just an ass or if he is a discriminatory ass.

I think whichever way the case goes, he is still a discriminatory ass. He pretty much stated that even if she were qualified, she would not have been hired due to the college she attended.

[Firiel]

i can't do one pull-up, but that's because my natural upper body strength sucks and i haven't tried to strengthen it in any way so far. but even an individual (not necessarily just a woman) who doesn't have that much of natural upper body strength is able to exercise and train so that they can.

at one point, my brother was exercising to this dvd...i can't remember exactly what it was, if it was p90x itself or something similar, but it was pretty intense circuit training type of stuff. there was a mix of men and women demonstrating, and yes even some of the women did the pull-ups and some of the men did the alternative exercises to work the upper body. as a side note, i thought it was pretty cool to see diversity like that.

i also am wondering how much of a case this will present since she said she "didn't want the job". i mean, discrimination is discrimination, but if she truly didn't meet their requirements (and they wanted to be sticklers about it) and she said she didn't want the job, what is she really hoping to do, then? just drag their name through the mud? if i was a potential employer and i saw an applicant did something like that, warranted or not (again, mature adults should be capable of being mature adults) i would be hesitant about hiring them (although i wouldn't say this when declining their application). so, while the company she is making look bad does indeed look bad, she's also hurting herself and her potential future employment.

I think the bolded is kind of calling for the silencing of people who are discriminated against. This company is full of arrogant, discriminatory assholes. That should be brought to light, and while the best thing would be to have replied civilly and then brought the issue to light, I can't disagree with her holding them accountable for being discriminatory.

Also, I know women can do pull-ups. Once upon a time, I was one of those women. Eight is still over-the-top. I'm pretty sure men (specifying not because I'm sexist but because Marine standards are different for men and women, and the men's is more stringent) don't have to do that many in the Marines. Why would a raft guide have to?

[shedemei]

Wow... okay, now I'm starting to think that mayhaps this company is sexist.

amaruk.com/en/info/careers/assistant_guide.html

...

I get that the above is supposed to be a joke, but it kind of struck me as off-color/sexist upon first reading it

I could see that being them trolling her, but that sounds pretty sexist to me. Maybe they have their gold stars. [emoji294] [emoji294] [emoji294]

(Edited for coherency)

[shedemei]

Duplicate.

[browncoatslytherin]

I think the bolded is kind of calling for the silencing of people who are discriminated against. This company is full of arrogant, discriminatory assholes. That should be brought to light, and while the best thing would be to have replied civilly and then brought the issue to light, I can't disagree with her holding them accountable for being discriminatory.

Also, I know women can do pull-ups. Once upon a time, I was one of those women. Eight is still over-the-top. I'm pretty sure men (specifying not because I'm sexist but because Marine standards are different for men and women, and the men's is more stringent) don't have to do that many in the Marines. Why would a raft guide have to?

i'm sorry i didn't make my bolded statements more clear. it's not that she's bringing this to light (after all, i did state "discrimination is discrimination" though i didn't expand after that, my fault) it's the fact that she reacted to childish immaturity with childish immaturity, got more childish immaturity in return and...now what? knowing the response she got from a simple application (and possibly a professional cover letter) i'm not sure what she really expected from a snarky reply but another snarky reply. i do think that the company should definitely rethink how they reply to their applicants and how they handle any disgruntlements, but to initiate a flame war and THEN bring this whole thing to light just doesn't look good on her, either, imo. after all, the truly atrocious statements weren't said until AFTER she said she didn't want the job and further inflammed the situation with her own statements. which, neither should have happened in the first place, but when you can so clearly see how easily you can bait someone and you take advantage of it and then go crying because the exact thing happened that you should have been able to tell would have happened...i dunno, i guess i just don't get it. *shrug*

and also, to clarify (because i just realized that i should do so) my statement on not wanting to hire someone like that was reflective of the lack of maturity on this lady's part, not because she exposed someone for discrimination. i don't want someone working for me who can't respond in a professional, adult, mature manner to situations (despite how upset they may be).

[Firiel]

i'm sorry i didn't make my bolded statements more clear. it's not that she's bringing this to light (after all, i did state "discrimination is discrimination" though i didn't expand after that, my fault) it's the fact that she reacted to childish immaturity with childish immaturity, got more childish immaturity in return and...now what? knowing the response she got from a simple application (and possibly a professional cover letter) i'm not sure what she really expected from a snarky reply but another snarky reply. i do think that the company should definitely rethink how they reply to their applicants and how they handle any disgruntlements, but to initiate a flame war and THEN bring this whole thing to light just doesn't look good on her, either, imo. after all, the truly atrocious statements weren't said until AFTER she said she didn't want the job and further inflammed the situation with her own statements. which, neither should have happened in the first place, but when you can so clearly see how easily you can bait someone and you take advantage of it and then go crying because the exact thing happened that you should have been able to tell would have happened...i dunno, i guess i just don't get it. *shrug*

and also, to clarify (because i just realized that i should do so) my statement on not wanting to hire someone like that was reflective of the lack of maturity on this lady's part, not because she exposed someone for discrimination. i don't want someone working for me who can't respond in a professional, adult, mature manner to situations (despite how upset they may be).

That's fair. Her atrocious grammar would be more of a reason not to hire her for me. I have to say, I was almost more appalled by the terrible grammar (on both sides) present in this "professional" context than the flame war it devolved into.

Grammar is even more important when you are mad! It makes you (and by extension, your arguments) look smart! ;)

[Miggy]

I've missed something here: what do Americans and Canadians think a "pull up" is? I'm not the fittest person ever but I have no trouble with 20. I use to have to do 50 each training session (2x a day) when I was doing gymnastics as a teen. In a staff fitness comp last year a colleague was stopped at 100 because it was getting boring. I'm thinking, with all the comments about "8" either people are being sarcastic and I'm not reading it right or you have a different exercise in mind when you say pull up.

[louisa05]

I've missed something here: what do Americans and Canadians think a "pull up" is? I'm not the fittest person ever but I have no trouble with 20. I use to have to do 50 each training session (2x a day) when I was doing gymnastics as a teen. In a staff fitness comp last year a colleague was stopped at 100 because it was getting boring. I'm thinking, with all the comments about "8" either people are being sarcastic and I'm not reading it right or you have a different exercise in mind when you say pull up.

Okay, I just found this definition of an Australian pull-up:

Australian Pull-up:

Sometimes called a "Reverse Push-up", this is performed with the bar 2 to 3 feet off the floor. The user lies on the ground under the bar, face-up, and grasps the bar with extended arms. The exercise is performed by pulling the chest up to the bar. The body is held in a rigid plank position while the heels remain on the floor.

An American pull-up is absolutely different:

Using a wall mounted bar, from a standing position you pull up your entire body weight using just your arms until your chin is above the bar and your feet have left the floor. Photo:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/4 ... AA160_.jpg

[Firiel]

I've missed something here: what do Americans and Canadians think a "pull up" is? I'm not the fittest person ever but I have no trouble with 20. I use to have to do 50 each training session (2x a day) when I was doing gymnastics as a teen. In a staff fitness comp last year a colleague was stopped at 100 because it was getting boring. I'm thinking, with all the comments about "8" either people are being sarcastic and I'm not reading it right or you have a different exercise in mind when you say pull up.

What do you have in mind? Gymnasts are notoriously crazy-strong (the only Chinese push-up [youtube.com/watch?v=mp4eybVKFBs] I've ever seen was performed by a female gymnast), and they tend to train themselves for upper-body strength from a very young age, so it's also possible that you are just around people who are awesome at pull-ups. For pull-ups, we hang from a bar (dead weight) with our palms facing away from us. Then we pull our bodies up all the way till our chin is over the bar. Then all the way back down. The minimum standard for men in the military here in the US is 3, and that standard is/will soon be applied to women as well, which is cool.

And, really, I may be biased against pull-ups because I'm pretty sure that pull-ups are harder for tall folks like me... doesn't work equal force times distance? And tall people have a longer distance to go.