I want to write an expos̩ article about these whiny women firefighters (reg. req. Рuse BugMeNot to bypass) suing Fairfax County because of sexual harassment and discrimination. But I need your help.
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:
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 BarberDear 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 BarberLa 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 WomenThank 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 BarberSent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 8:18 AM
To: WEBTeam
Subject: Inquiry About Training for Men and WomenHello – I’d like to know if the physical requirements for firefighters are identical for men and women?
–La Shawn
{ 1 trackback }
{ 65 comments }
Or poor!
“If the answer is “No,†these gals have no basis on which to cry about “discrimination.†”
Why? are they not entitled to similar facilities? or heat for 5 years? or sexual harassment?
actus, I’ve updated the post just for you. I’d forgotten about your inability to employ a higher level of reasoning at such an early hour. You know that unheated facilities are not the focus of the post. You nitpick to death such obvious and trivial facts that you’re unbearable. You’ve been absent for several days. Why…have you returned?
You wrote: “It’s only harassment if he’s ugly.”
Sorry–I have to disagree with you there. Lots of “good-looking men” are absolute and utter pigs and believe they can get away with it simply because they are pleasing to the eye.
Uh-uh. No way.
I have to research this one (since I am in Fairfax County).
Opinions will vary, Lorn, but I’m just going by what I’ve been hearing and seeing women say and do for years.
HaHaHa. Good for you La Shawn. Great piece. I especialy love the “It’s not harassment unless he’s ugly” quote.
Keep up the great work !
J.R.
” You know that unheated facilities are not the focus of the post.”
No. discrimination is. And unequal facilities are part of it. And whats a smokescreen about no heat in their bunks for five years?
Thanks for your endorsement of a union’s ability to correct unfair treament in the workplace. I’m sure you understand that there might be somebody in the union with beliefs similar to yours, or similar to the other male firefighters. Unions are no panacea, and might not be a good avenue when the complaints are directed at other union members.
“It’s harassment only if he’s ugly. ”
I really can’t believe this. And isn’t beauty in the eye of the beholder? that means there’s still plenty of room to sue under your ‘theory’ of harassment.
I really think you’re working hard to find some frivolity in this claim. Perhaps it is all tied to your view that affirmative action may have been involved in the hiring.
It makes you look like a very uncaring person to blow off what look like legit claims the way you do because you believe they shouldn’t even be there to be harassed in hte first place. If you have a problem with how they’re hired, say that. But don’t make it an excuse for mistreatment.
Why is a woman in a firehouse anyway? Most times they are there just to make trouble where none would normally exist. Like in police forces and in the military, the weaknesses of the female “posing as” a legit member of one of these groups is masked by the stronger links of the chain around her.
The true test of whether or not a woman is effective in her own right is to deploy ALL female police and military and fire units and THEN we would see the disaster and joke that putting them in positions not suited to their body structures really is.
Sorry, but I wouldn’t have much faith in a squad of President Hillary’s “Pink Berets” coming into the mountains of A-Stan to rescue me.
Whole paragraphs from you, actus? I’m speechless, uncaring and speechless…
Funny…
my fire station is listed however I have NEVER seen one woman show up at any fire in the area
She must have been on break…LOL
“Whole paragraphs from you, actus? I’m speechless, uncaring and speechless… ”
Sometimes things are so wrong they have to be spelled out for people. Unfortunate really.
And where would I be without you to set me straight?
Lost, hopelessly lost…
Not giving us great nuggets like how discrimination claims about unheated facilities are not the focus of a post about whiny women firefighters and the one thing you need to know to evaluate the merit or basis of their “discrimination.”
Where would be without these policy guideposts? lost in a thicket of actually evaluating claims.
Actus,
Why should you concern yourself with someone else’s research? If LaShawn wants to look into something, don’t you think it noble that she researches it first? Why are you attacking it before she concludes her investigation? (begins it actually).
You rarely answer other’s questions, why should anyone respond to yours? Don’t you think you should wait until she has completed her research and comments on it before you start your drivel? You seem so . . . self important.
Am I the only one who grinned like the Cheshire Cat when France was stiffed on hosting the 2012 Olympics!?
“Its not harrassment unless he’s ugly”… La Shawn
“Or poor”… pajamazon
Or breaks off the relationship before you are ready.
Actus, see my thoughts under La Shawn’s “Thoughts”
post.
Having some extensive experience as a union president defending female police officers subjected to serious harrassment and hostile work environment situations I know that serious problems exist in police and fire departments where males often resent females encroaching on what has been an exclusively male environment.
While a lot of this is due to men simply being the jerks that we often can be, some of it is due to administrations reducing requirements for females just to get them in the system. This is seriously wrong because it leads to a lack of confidence even among those men who would have supported the women in taking on the job. It is also dangerous for both the men and women on the job if she physically can’t do what is needed of her in a given situation. This is particularly damning when men who might be more physically capable are eliminated during the selection process because they couldn’t meet the minimum male standard but could have easily exceeded the female standard.
The women lack self-confidence in their ability to do the job as well as a man, and the men lack confidence in having a woman to back them up, knowing that she couldn’t meet the same “minimal” requirements.
Some departments get around all this by lowering standards for everybody, male and female, but I am conflicted as to whether this is the right way to go or not.
Montie: This is the same problem men have with females in the military. While the media portrays and on VERY rare occasions, and rightly so, some female as performing exceptionally well, the fact of the matter remains that women exist in these organizations ONLY due to a severe lowering of basic entry standards.
No person wants to go to war with a social experiment. They want to go with a competent Soldier, Sailor, Marine or Airman.
I’ll never forget the slap in the face to all of the Soldiers (certainly mine) in one of my military training classes where a female who did HALF the number of push-ups, ran darn near TWICE as long in the 2-mile run, 3/4 of the sit ups, was TOTALLY ineffective as a fighter was awarded Honor Grad simply because she scored one point higher on written exams than the REAL soldiers.
Applause was tepid at best, but resentment was .38 HOT!
I have always enjoyed reading your posts, even when I don’t agree with you.
This time, however, despite the significance of your main point, I think that the joke got out of hand.
As a survivor of sexual assault I will tell you that it doesn’t matter what a guy looks like, or how rich he is, or whether he is single. If he is saying sexual things to me and we are not in a relationship he is not only sexually harassing me, he is also scaring me. And I don’t mean scaring me like “Boo!” I mean scaring me into nightmares and making me wonder, again, if I am as safe as I can make myself.
I am not saying that these women should get preferential treatment. (Although I wonder at the heat problem. Is this the same “separate but equal” we’ve spent years trying to get over from a racial point?)
I am saying that women, under any circumstances, should not be subjected to sexual harassment.
La Shawn,
I wa struck by one thing in the article. It said tha the bunk area for women LACKED (past tense) heat for 5 years. Does that mean the problem has been corrected? City and County governments are not known for being particularly speedy or efficient at fixing things like that and the fact that it has been corrected IN ONLY FIVE YEARS would be pretty good for the average county around here.
The spokesman for the department was right when he said that facilities for the first few female firefighters had to be carved out of the existing all male facilities. That was the case here in Tulsa too, and is simply a fact as to the way things were. Simply wanting something to be a certain way doesn’t get it to be so. It takes time and budgeted funds to do anything in government, and the women had to know that they were walking into an all male environment, that would require adjustments on the part of everybody. I don’t think they were put in a closet space to demean them, it was more likely that the department was scrambling to find them a private space in firehouses built when firefighting was an all male occupation. As the article stated, the newer firehouses have separate but equal (now there’s a phrase with serious negative connotations)facilities.
Now as to the harrassment part, well… I have seen it in all its ugliness, so there may be some truth to it even though I’d like to think otherwise.
Suzi, I could not agree with you more. No woman should be subjected to it. But sexual harassment used to be this: The boss threatens to fire you if you don’t let him have his way with you.
But now, a mere look or uncouth behavior can be considered “sexual harassment.” It’s gone way too far, and it makes women look like whiny, irrational, hormonal ninnies.
I can confirm that without a shadow of a doubt that the physical standards are not the same.
When I was in the Navy also, boot camp requirements for women and men were way different. While men were having to perform in a two minute period about 70 (I can’t remember exactly) situps/pushups, women only had to do like 15.
Those were the requirements. It’s not fun to talk about but they are way different.
“Like in police forces and in the military, the weaknesses of the female “posing as†a legit member of one of these groups is masked by the stronger links of the chain around her.”
There’s a bit of truth in that, but it’s mostly nonsense. It is useful for a police force to have women officers, if only for the “traditional” female roles – interviewing women and children witnesses, conducting body searches on female suspects and so on. Rather few of the everyday tasks of the police officer involve going mano a mano with a criminal. If a woman is able to do a particular job, there’s no reason she shouldn’t do it.
The same, frankly, goes for women in the military. I don’t expect we’ll be seeing many female SEALs any day soon, but many military jobs don’t require anything like that level of physical ability. If a woman can do the job, fine.
You will note two things – first, “if the woman can do the job” – no special standards, no “well, you’re a woman, so you don’t need to carry your full share”. The second is that “we require entrants to be so tall, weigh so much, and be able to run 100 yards in 11 seconds” is not necessarily an appropriate way of screening applicants. What is relevant is whether the candidate can to the job or jobs required, not whether they can urinate whilst standing.
Oh, and “but we’ve always done things in way X” is usually a bad argument.
” Don’t you think you should wait until she has completed her research and comments on it before you start your drivel?”
She said there was only 1 thing that mattered. My point is when the answer to that comes or not, there are other things that matter.
APPEAL TO EMOTION violation! The sexual assault anecdote was IRRELEVANT to the discussion at hand. Maybe not even an appeal to emotion but a RED HERRING.
Sexual harrassment and sexual assault are NOT equal nor are race and gender issues.
Sexual harrassment is anything a judge, jury or lawyer says it is on any particular day. Sexual assault is just that. Gender DOES NOT EQUAL race DOES NOT EQUAL sexual orientation.
Raymond,
Having gone 11B I didn’t train with any females in basic training (no women in the infantry), but did get to see the effects of dual standards in OCS (I’m still trying to figure out why we had females in an INFANTRY officer basic course when no females were allowed in the infantry and none trained with us as enlisted personnel). Of course as officers in training we were all more enlightened as to why women got by with lesser physical requirements (not). I did come to appreciate the lower requirements for “age apreciated” (as in older)personnel by my 10th year in though
The best way to solve the military problem is to return to the Women Auxilliary Corps model. That way women serve and are placed in PROPER MOSs AND they stay out of the way of our fighting men, yet still effectively support them and the mission and our brave fighting men stay out of the way of silly vindictive females seeking more to make a social statement than to make our Armed Forces better and IT IS A MYTH to say that men can’t interview women and children as effectively as da gals and patting down a woman doesn’t require but a few girls on standby. As a matter of fact, the SITUATION may have a time limit that requires a MAN officer to put his hands in no man’s land to save life and limb.
Montie: I was 11B2P. We didn’t normally train with females either, but I did have to attend one NCO required integrated course and the differences were glaring and the potential problems were obvious. Beside the guys and gals trying to sneak and “hook up” at night, the gals simply could not get it done physically.
There was another incident where a female Captain was placed in charge of some NBC training and she had might as well have been the Taliban seeing the level of respect she garnered from veteran Infantrymen.
It REALLY ticked me off when Soldiers had to post guard on the female latrines in the Saudi desert during Desert Shield. What a waste.
actus,
Where did LaShawn say that only 1 thing mattered? I reviewed and didn’t see it. (my eyes are failing, no doubt, but i didn’t see it). Still, don’t you think it would be wiser to wait until someone makes a statement before you counter? You haven’t even allowed her to begin her investigation.
WNM: “Where did LaShawn say that only 1 thing mattered?”
About around here:
“Before I start ranting and finger-pointing, I want to have the facts straight. I need to know one thing”
and then it got to here:
“If the answer is “No,†these gals have no basis on which to cry about “discrimination.—
And then it got pointed out that there is still plenty of basis on which to ‘cry’ about discrimination aftere we determine whether or not there was any affirmative action.
” And pregnant firefighters who demand “flexible†hours want special, not equal, treatment.”
Depends…do the male firefighters get maternity leave when their wives are pregnant?
actus,
You intentionally left out chunks, do you have a habit of misquoting or manipulating comments to suit yourself?
Again, it doesn’t seem logical to base an argument on a statement that hasn’t ben made yet. I believe LaShawn is still investigating.
In order to insure that the intentions of an enlisting female is honorable and true to the mission for which she is about to sign, I don’t think it would be extreme to require that she agree to chemical systemic birth control for the duration of her service.
If she gets pregnant while in service, she should be fined and dishonorably discharged.
A woman must choose. She CANNOT be a Soldier AND a mother and it is way too cruel to EVER allow single mothers into a combat zone.
“You intentionally left out chunks, do you have a habit of misquoting or manipulating comments to suit yourself? ”
I don’t think its misquoting to quote that she needs to know one thing, and that on that one thing she will determine the merit (’basis on which to cry’) of the claims.
Several years ago, a video was released showing Frisco fire department training, where woman candidates failed to carry hose, raise ladders and rescue. The subsequent investigation was not to determine why these trainees were kept on, but who took the videos.
I deeply resent any officer training that reduces the number of platoon leaders available. The platoon leader is the only rank of officer who says “follow me.” Every rank above butter bar points and says go there. To deny our troops the best available leadership just because training slots were given to non-fighters is far worse then sending troops into battle with inferior armor.
Raymond,
I have to agree about the myth regarding using females to interview women and children effectively. I worked as a detective in domestic violence and sex crimes for 5 years and had no difficulties. It’s all in your attitude and approach to the victim. I personally feel that women DO have a place in law enforcement. I don’t have as much of a feel for firefighting, but I’m going to talk with my son-in-law (a local firefighter) about it and try to get some feedback.
Women have different perspectives on the various situations that are encountered in law enforcement, and are often able to come up with a better way of doing something. In general,I don’t have as much use for them in a fight (with the exception of a couple of female officers I’ve worked with), but then, there have been many male officers I’ve worked with over the years that I had no use for in fights either.
Montie, I hear ya and you speaketh the truth!
La Shawn, see Montie’s post way up for another possibility, one which I was going to comment on – the response you got was that men and women have the same requirements, but have they had to water down the requirements at some time in the past, so that more women can pass the test?
Good question, Wayne. Perhaps they did. I just updated the post with more e-mail responses.
I always love when women in the military complain of sexual harrassment. They are supposed to help FIGHT but they can’t deal with harrassment. Don’t get me wrong sexual harrassment is wrong but there are always some jerks. It can never be stopped.
Why, could that be one of the reasons for NOT having mixed units?
Lower standards, officers being forced to lie because if they tell the truth it would end their careers, holes in the unit because the women are pregnant, ill, or just didn’t show up. Don’t believe me. Try and find any numbers on women in the first Gulf War. You will find that they don’t keep figures that way or that those figures are not available. Same as today.
Do any of you believe that if the figures were ANYWHERE like the figures for men that NOW, the MSM and the others wouldn’t be using them to justify women in the military or combat?
Can women function in the military? YES.
Is the military BETTER with women in it? (For nit pickers I mean Close to COMBAT) NO!
As for Firemen. If you don’t lower the standards the women would be fine. BUT it would be very very few women who could meet the standards. I want a fireman to carry me out not be dragged by some woman.
As for the Police. Women mean more shooting. While I have no problem with that. Most of the people supporting women in police do.
“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.”
Identical test but are the requirements identical? Anyone can take the same test but will the female test be graded/scored differently?
Then if the testing and grading are equal have the actual standards overall been lowered to accomodate everyone incuding women? In other words ,is there a catch all standard that allows both men and women to pass the tests?
Dan Hamilton: In addition, for every woman who can meet the minimum standards, she is MAXED out as opposed to the thousands of regular, every day, average guys off the streets who can do what this “super chick” does after falling off the truck from the street.
In other words, you can train a sorry or even average guy to become a super soldier (e.g. Ranger, SEAL, Force Recon, “PJ”, etc.), but a woman is most likely already maxed out just to GET TO Basic Training and survive. A male is moldeable and trainable. For women you have to accomodate andput up with them.
No sane person builds a chain and deliberately inserts weak links. We should always be improving and adding value to our military, not watering it down twards ineffectiveness.
Dan Hamilton: “I always love when women in the military complain of sexual harrassment. They are supposed to help FIGHT but they can’t deal with harrassment.”
I suppose if they were allowed to shoot their harassers you might have a point.
ACTUS: No, they could however just shut up, resign and go home.
“ACTUS: No, they could however just shut up, resign and go home.”
That would get in the way of their mission of fighting the enemy. Which I guess is another problem with harassment.
Sorry, but throughout my years of military service, I NEVER saw a woman effectively fight the enemy.
“Sorry, but throughout my years of military service, I NEVER saw a woman effectively fight the enemy.”
Aren’t they not allowed to?
“I suppose if they were allowed to shoot their harassers you might have a point.” Actus
What happens when some man in the military harrasses some other guy to much. The man being harrassed hits the ^$$*&*& Idiot upside the head and the *&$$* Idiot learns that he can’t do that.
No she can’t shoot him. But if she kicked him in the balls and/or hit him upside the head I bet no one would say a word. As long as she didn’t do any bad damage she should be able to do just about anything she wants to. Of course this would mean that she must BE ABLE to do something. Which is the problem isn’t it.
If she can’t physically protect even herself of what use is she to the army?
Raymond, Dan Hamilton, et al –It seems to me that you guys talking military are off on a tangent. But even taking military service into consideration, if a woman can do the same dangerous job as a man, and is willing to take the same on-the-job risks as that man, why is her sex even an issue? If she uses her sexual identity as leverage for privilege, sure, boot her out, but otherwise, the skills should speak for themselves.
Trust goes both ways. Yes, the guys have to be able to trust the women to cover their backs, but when the guys are treating an individual like garbage (with sexual or any other harassment), what makes them think that the individual is going to be able to trust them in crisis? Does that make for an effective team? Is this the sort of conduct that you would expect from the professionals who are ostensibly protecting your homes and lives?
Rebekah,
I may be mistaken, but I think Raymond and Dan are commenting on their experiences. From what was said above, if a woman can do the same amount of push ups/situps/sprints in the same amount of time as a man (meet the same standards and do the same job) then there is no problem. I think what they are peeved about is actus, our site troll/clown/etc.
With the “advanced technology” of cut and paste he twists peoples comments to suit himself and try to get a rise out of people. He is in a world of his own (really, he is the center of his own make-believe universe where he annoys all but answers to none).
BTW, great site Rebekah. Only forget the violets (too tempermental) and go with petunias or begonias – more bang for your buck.
“If she can’t physically protect even herself of what use is she to the army? ”
Loads. There are lots of non-combat jobs in the armed forces. Probably a majority of the jobs in the armed forces don’t involve being in combat.
WNM, I’m certainly unfamiliar with the group dynamic, but I think some folks seem to be rising to some bait from a very old hook. I haven’t seen a truly indefensible post, here, from actus. Occasionally incorrect, perhaps, such as his “There are lots of non-combat jobs in the armed forces. Probably a majority of the jobs in the armed forces don’t involve being in combat. ” But not indefensible.
BTW — thanx for the potted plant advice. Are begonias cat-safe?
Huh-huh, huh-hu. Fire’s cooool! Nice pix there La Shawn
A little pyro fantasy going on, Andy?
Rebekah,
I don’t know about being cat safe, do you mean toxic or do you mean cat proof? My wife had me plant a begonia and it has taken off. Lots of cats in our neighborhood but the plant is undisturbed (a couple of toms are eating the leaves of my purple fountain grass and using my mulch for litter)
Petunias are easy, forgiving and with a variety of colors; fool proof. I don’t know of any cats (or anything else) being hurt by them.
True, there are many postitions that aren’t combat related. My take was that they were discussing infantry (I think, I’m former Air Force so unfamiliar with the divisions and/or MOS)
And you are spot on about actus, it is a little game he plays. I usually bite when he attacks LaShawn. Otherwise, if this is your first time here, welcome to one of the coolest sites in the blogosphere.
Yup, burn, baby, burn.
WNM, I’ve tried petunias, & they think I have a brown thumb. I’ve done better with geraniums, and they seem to be something of a cat repellant, as well, so I don’t have to stock up on that scent remover stuff. I do worry more about toxicity, though, than durability. I read somewhere that tuberous begonias (like lilies and diffenbachia) can be lethal.
I think that, even when you’re not supposed to be seeing combat, once you’re in today’s military, you can’t expect to avoid it, regardless of your job — look at Army Spec. Shoshana Johnson… a cook, no less, seeing action up close and personal! The battle front came to her. The only way for lesser mortals like us women (she said batting her eyes coquettishly) to avoid seeing combat is to make every actual non-field (desk jockey) position a civilian contractor’s job, and go back to strict physical requirements for the actual military grunt positions (of course, a majority of those fresh-faced schoolboys will fail the physical, also).
But when you’re talking about firefighters, the theory is, nobody is shooting at you, so the team shouldn’t be quite so fussy about what the teammates’ undies are shaped like. It’s the trust in each others’ capabilities that should count. And those butch guys should get over themselves and accept that some women can be genuinely good at the job. Otherwise, when they reject and ridicule willing, skilled help, it becomes the community’s loss.
Thanks for the welcome.
Rebekah, Actus is notorius for the Straw Man and Amphiboly fallacies.
Your points in #51 are mostly correct in spirit, BUT…
I must correct you a little bit however. It is not just whether or not women can meet the minimum physical standards. The problem is the group cohesiveness dynamic in addition to them being maxed out if they are able to meet the minimum standard. Women still carry too much of a victim mentality to be effective warriors.
In other words, they are still not qualified and there is STILL the social incompatability with true warriors and warrior spirit.
I dunno about the warrior spirit bit Ray.
I’ll agree about the physicality issues, however. It is a minority of women who can meet the minimum requirements for firefighting or infantry that men must meet. And is nearly an anomoly to find women that can meet the physical prowess of the average male soldier after boot.
For firefighting…
I am thinking of my own self as an example. I had to give up EMT work when my knee gave up the ghost. I can bench press 240 lbs (okay, 215 if I have to do it more than a few times), and shoulder 180 when seated, but I cannot safely carry more than 100 without extra support from a rigid brace (which means no steps, no ladders, no squats). Should I have stayed in service, even though I could not carry a body down a ladder or steps in a pinch?
Ironicly, there was no room for me in a driver/tech only posistion, because they were all filled by the ladies
Should the fire depts. open things up guys that “nearly make” the cut as well?
Personally, I say no. But like alot these days, it’s equality of outcome vs. equality of opportunity arguement again.
La Shawn, the next question to ask is when were the requirements changed, and what were the old requirements?
I am certain that you will find that the physical requirements are the same for men and women, but that they are about 50% of what the requirements were only a few short years ago.
k
The requirements are the same, BUT as mentioned, they were LOWERED to accommodate the gals.
Raymond, I see your point — and agree with it — re: lowering standards just to allow for women to be hired. And SCSIwuzzy is correct that very few women could pass the old standards… just as very few men could, and rightly so. For all practical purposes, the physical requirements should be elevated — if a recruit can’t do the job, he or she shouldn’t expect special privileges. But if SHE can, the guys need to respect her, or they’re cutting themselves off at the kneecaps.
BTW In my neck of the woods, they had to lower the standards because none of the boys who were applying were capable, either. Out in the boonies, we get desperate for rescue skills long ahead of the cities, and we’ll take what our puny budgets will give us, even when they’re built like Little Orphan Annie or Jabba the Hut. We even have a couple of partially-disabled volunteer firemen who come when called.
It all boils down to how the community is best served, doesn’t it? If the women in Fairfax are given special treatment, and otherwise can’t stand up on the job, give them the boot — or at least send them to desk duty, and tell them “kwitcherb*tchin”. If they do the exact same job as the men, and the men still treat them poorly, the men need to grow up. Of course, there’s probably a little of both, here, don’t you think?
Rebekah: Sounds reasonable to me.
Rebekah, I agree. If the town has to choose between gimps like me or nothing all, by all means, bring in the gimps!
But lets not lower standards to make people feel good or to be PC
SCSIwuzzy, sounds like you & I have a few things in common! I’ll limp right alongside you, then!
Comments on this entry are closed.