I would like to apologize if my facetious remark upset you.
I actually do not think it would be appropriate for the guy to
say, "Sorry, sweetheart...." He should probably say,
"Sorry, honey...." or even "Sorry, mam."

I just do not understand why some women feel that they
have to choose such jobs that are much better suited for
their male counterparts. Yes, of course there are a small
percentage of women who are quite capable, and I say,
more power to them. But for those women who are not
up to the task, I say, give it up.

She can still be a strong, intelligent, valuable woman as a
stay-at-home mom, or a beautician, or a doctor, or whatever
other career she might choose, that best suits her abilities.

In the upcoming L.A. marathon the first person to cross
the finish line (whether it be a man or woman) will receive
an extra (I think) $50,000. They are giving the women
a 15 minute head-start. Why? Because the average time
difference between the fastest man and the fastest woman
is around 15 minutes. It's not a put-down on the women,
it's just a varifiable difference in physical abilities between
the sexes.

This news story, SF Mayor Newsom Names Woman as Fire Chief is about a week old. If a city the size of San Francisco appointed a woman as fire chief, I'm certain it is because someone felt she was the best candidate for the job. I would say that alone is enough evidence that a woman can handle working in a fire dept.

What I don't understand is why women in your opinion shouldn't have asperations outside their relm of atainability. Can't we strive to improve ourselves? Or are we to accept our limitations? If everyone accepted their limitations we'de probably have not made it to the moon in 1969.

Yes, there is only a small percentage of women that are physically suited to be fire fighters. I just don't get why you feel that women are overstepping their bounds in your make-believe, all male dominated world when women want to participate in the job market?



Ah, here is my point, being made for me; valuable woman as a
stay-at-home mom, or a beautician, or a doctor...
Why is it that you chose the traditional professions associated with women to use as your example of job options for us?

I had a friend tell me once that she believed in evolution, but just that men haven't done it yet. I think in this case, that just might be true.




I think that's wrong. They shouldn't give women a head start, that just feeds to the stereotype and adds to the resentment that women get breaks. I think giving them a head start does more harm than good.

Billy Jean, I'm not sure why you are battling doomed_planet on this subject - at least from my reading chair, you are both saying the same thing - that women who are physically capable of passing the tests should be absolutely able to join the fire department.

As for the professions she listed, it could also be that those were just jobs which popped into her head as she was typing - and being a doctor, by the way, is NOT a traditionally female profession!

Thats putting a lot of faith in the government of San Francisco.

Of all the department head level jobs in local government, the job of Fire Chief is the most likely to be politically motivated.

1) almost every fire department, especially old traditional ones like the SFFD have enormous inertia. No matter what the Fire Chief does, the men will still put out the fires.

2) all across America, local Fire Departments are almost always universally loved. They are consistently ranked hightest in public opinion polls regarding local government departments. No matter what the fire chief does, the people will still love the fire department.

3) Job performance of fire departments is almost completely anectdotal. If the trash doesn't get picked up, citizens know immediately. If little Johnny's school closes, people know immediately. When was the last time you called a fire truck? Doesn't happen that often to most people. It's one of those things that most people take for granted, until they need one. Then, of course, nothing else will do.

4) The job of fire chief is simply not nearly as demanding as most other city department heads. In most cases, the fire chief could do absolutely nothing, and the rest of the department would get along just fine.

In an Amazon (all female) society, fires would still get put out and fire victims would still get rescued.

I think everyone here doubts we the human race (not just the men) have an instinct to survive. Men weren't always around to protect women from the big bad world, and even in old times, women were doing then what they had to do to survive. The proof is in the demographics.


But I suppose we can keep letting you guys think that we need your protection, that we would have NEVER made it this far without our big protectors.

quarkhead,

It's the way it's being said that I don't like. It's cutting women short.



You're right, but the health care industry traditionally has been.

We're not saying the same thing, she's saying that there are jobs meant for men and women are intruding and overstepping their boundaries. I'm saying those boundaries need to be broken and women should push them selves and not limit them selves to "safe" professions. My whole life my mother has told me to "be safe and not get hurt" when ever I mentioned I was going to go do something dangerous or slightly on the provocative side for a woman. I am tired of hearing, especially from other women, that we're not meant to do this or do that.

WHO SAYS SO?

Quarkhead, thank you for understanding my post
the way it was intended.

BJ, just to make myself clear, I hope that every woman
will follow her dreams, whatever they may be.

In regards to the occupation of firefighters:

The safety of the public is in the hands of these fine people.
If my house was on fire, and my kids' lives were dependent upon
the skill and strength of a firefighter, I want the one who got the
job because he/she was the most qualified.

If there were 10 new positions available for firefighters. And there
were 20 applicants. And 15 of the applicants were men/5 were women.
And the 10 strongest, most skillful were men. The men should get
the positions.

If the best woman happened to be very strong and able,
but was not quite as strong or as skilled as the top 10 men
she should not be given a position (IMO).

Furthermore, I do not buy into the ideology that to be of real
worth in this society women must go out and pursue jobs that have
been traditionally held by men. If a woman is genuinely drawn to such
career choices, and she has what it takes to fulfill the requirements,
then more power to her.

There are fundamental differences between men and women.
That's what makes life interesting. I don't need to try to be a man,
or compete with men to prove I'm valuable to society.

Come on Doomed_Planet, I don't think anyone is suggesting that a woman has to prove she's valuable to society or that there's any competition here. What ideology are you referring to? Feminism? If so, I think you have misinterpreted what feminism is, because being a devoted mother is the epitome of womanhood. Women, like all other aspects of the human species, just wants to be able to live their dreams, be it as a stay at home mom, doctor, lawyer, Marine or Fire Fighter. Feminism, Doomed_Planet, is about EQUALITY.

BillyJean, I agree.

Equality does not necessarily mean that women
should hold the same occupations as men. With
the occupation of firefighter,strength, endurance
and skill are too important. If it is a woman's
dream to be a firefighter that is awesome. But, she better
be a darned good one.

Really? She can't be a really horrible one?

That's exactly what I'm talking about. You keep saying that women can do these jobs like you're giving them permission and reminding them that they have to be up to this standard, when I'm sure they already know that. Don't you think they're already reminded of that? Don't you think that's sexist when women are belittled in such a manor?

My honest opinion is this:

We are living in an era where political correctness and
quotas supersedes common sense and competence.

I worked in a distict of downtown L.A., called Little
Tokyo, for 7 years (before I had my boys). My business
happened to be located within walking distance of
a police department. So, over the years I got to know
some officers, and we became friends with one another.


They confided many a thing to me, and I saw first-hand
what they were talking about, in terms of the quotas
that needed to be met, and certain allowances that were
given to female officers. I saw many women officers
who were physically out of shape (at least 20-30 pounds
overweight).

Maybe I'm coming off like a male chauvinist, though I'm
really not. I just do not like to see the quality, of such
vital positions within our infrastructure, being undermined.
Especially, for the sake of quotas or political correctness.

How about this- ALL jobs in the past except motherhood, teaching and secretarial work were traditionally held by men. In the recent past (1970?) it was unusual for a woman to be a doctor or drive a truck, or do construction, all jobs that pay VERY WELL.

The reason these jobs were traditionally male was because women were barred from doing them for a long time for all kinds of stupid reasons. In fact you mention the NY Marathon; the first woman to run it ran against marathon rules in the 1960's and they tried to physically throw her out, but she finished. ( it was thought that women would wreck their uterus and ovaries if they ran a marathon. Hey, cant risk damage to the baby maker.)

That certain jobs are for men only is only an idea, it has no basis in reality. Im sure many women would love to be firefighters and dont look at it as 'a mans job' they just know they are not strong enough and cannot pass the test. Thats the difference between the two thought processees. Some people, you apparently DP, are still thinking in terms of mens jobs and womens jobs. With this you also doom women to overall earning less as well. Have you looked at road workers lately? Check out all the women driving heavy machinery, making $30+ per hour, I dont think they would like to be doing 'traditional womens work'. In fact more women want these jobs than can get them.

Its like saying you dont understand why women want to wear pants like men do when skirts are just as comfortable and have been worn by women for years.

I guess I must just be one of those macho women that doesnt know her rightful place, Ill get right on back to the beauty parlor now.

I dont think the tests should be altered or bar lowered, but if a woman can do the job I think she should be given the opportunity.

Women have come a long way in the past quarter century,
and I'm quite happy for all of us.

Firefighting is an occupation that requires exceptional
physical strength and endurance. There is very little chance
that even the very strongest and quickest of the women will be
stronger or quicker than most of her male adversaries...

So, my reasoning process tells me that it would behoove society
to go with the strongest and quickest applicants. Almost
every time it'll be the men. WHY? Because men are built stronger
than women. Do you not accept that as true???

Men are physically stronger. It doesn't mean that they're
superior to women. Why must you take offense? Can men
have nothing on us, or we will run screaming "discrimination".

I happen to be a strong woman, physically and mentally. I'm secure
enough with who I am that I do not have to feel that I need to fight
for my rights as a woman. I'm a human being first. My gender is
female. I'm a marathon runner - I put in 60 miles a week. Would I
make a good firefighter? No.

Should we let a woman who is not as qualified as other male
applicants have the job, simply because it is her dream to do so?
If she is not among the most qualified applicants, then the answer
would be no.

If she is among the most qualified of all applicants (male/female) then
she has earned herself a position in the fire department. And her dream
will be realized.

(when I say this, it is not directed at you, personally)
If men are making more money and it *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** you off, find a job that you
are good at that will pay you what you want, and stop complaining. Life
is not fair. There will always be injustice in the world. Nobody promised
us women an easy time of it. And quite frankly, I don't think men have
it any easier. They have different issues to deal with.

And by the way, there is nothing wrong with women pampering them-
selves at the beauty parlor. We can be smart, strong, sexy, have a
career, not have a career, whatever...that's the luxury of womanhood

This is just soooo over the top. First you talk about women doing traditionally mens jobs, then tell women to stop being *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** off because life isnt fair. And go on to say, find a job you are good at and stop complaining....? Where are you getting off here? Women are doing what they want, and a lot of that IS high paying traditional mens work, which is no longer traditionally male because of that influence. Women have fought long and hard for their rights and must continue to do so, not shut up and take what you get, life isnt fair.

Your defence on the male behalf is very touching, but you seem a little out of touch with the women you appear to be preaching to.

I guess now would be the appropriate time to tell you that I
am a man trapped in a woman's body. Yes, it's true. I just
want women to stop griping and complaining about the un-
fairness of life. Life is very cruel and unfair to everyone.

We are talking about the occupation of firefighter on this
thread. If you scroll back you will see where I stand on
the subject. Do you happen to disagree with my position,
which is this:

Women should be allowed positions within the fire department
if and when they meet or exceed the standards that are
set for the men. Period.

Care to debate other occupations? Open a new thread.

No, I sure you're not. It's not that I'm *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** off for wanting equality, I'm *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** off because of woman with their "lay down and take it attitude", who think woman who live outside what a "traditional" womans realm of reality think we're unhappy because will don't succumb to the guilt of our mother for not having 2 kids and a husband by the time we're out of college. I never said life was fair, but AMERICA is the land of opportunity and when those opportunities are being withheld because of an antiquated ideology, that's wrong.


For your information, I actually ENJOY the woman who go to the beauty parlor. I think they're the sexiest.

You're absolutely right about the luxury of womanhood. But it's not that we don't have ability of being smart, strong, sexy women with or without careers. It's that there are still people out there who look at us as sex objects, objectify us, consider us inferior and discriminate against us!!

I happen to agree here with Doomed Planet here all the way. When someone repeatedly claims that they undergo injustice in their life, it's almost as if (to me) that they are underhandedly saying that they're the only ones that do.


Billy Jean, I don't think that's sexist at all. If I was in the position, I would definitely say that to a woman applying. Does that make me sexist? Of course, I would also definitely say that to a man applying. You seemed awful quick to claim that he was sexist to me...If I go up to a black man and ask if he can help me reach something on a shelf, am I racist? Of course, I could even go as far as to say that you made a sexist comment about men. "I had a friend tell me once that she believed in evolution, but just that men haven't done it yet. I think in this case, that just might be true." I could go on about "how dare you refer to men as cave-dwellers" and the like, but I have better things to do with my time than to go ballistic over something that may be discriminatory.



In your post, you mentioned traditionally men's jobs as well. I suppose that would make you sexist or old fashioned, or whatever you were insinuating DP was. And, I believe, unless I horribly misinterpreted what DP said in his quote, that you and he agree on this topic. That women should be on any career they choose, if they can pass the same test anyone else would have to.

This seems to have taken a pretty aggressive turn..I don't know, maybe the fact that I don't care about speaking so incredibly PC to the point where it's not even honest anymore, but I was just surprised that the remarks these two made were called sexist.

But, in case I've gotten off on a tangent, I believe Doomed Planet represents my thought on the topic perfectly.

Edited to add:


You should be angry about that- it makes me angry too. However, I don't think you could find a single human being over the age of 10 that hasn't experienced discrimination. It's the way life is, when there's more idiots in the world than anything else.

You bet they do! Just as they belong in the police department, military, and any other profession where they choose to be!

Having said that...the standards for women should not be different from those for men. There are many positions for women to fulfill in all professions in addition to those in the front lines. If they can pass all written and physical tests...then move over men!

Nothing worthwhile comes easily! Inequity is unavoidable-everyone has a "my story"-some more glorious than others, some more devastating than others, and some just plain boring. It's relative...what is a tragedy to one may be just a pain in the neck to another. The problems in life represent the 10% and how those problems are dealt with represents the 90%! In order to enjoy the rainbows we have to endure the rain!

Now, if that pep talk isn't enough to make you sick...I'll see what else I can dig up.

That is because the really hard work was done already by those who came before you.

This was not a post on discrimination in general and noone was whining or talking about injustices, until DP accused women of complaining, which was not the point of my post at all and I took offence to in general. The point was that these are good jobs and plenty of women want them, not because they are trying to 'prove themselves' in predominantly male fields as DP insinuated, but possibly because they are rewarding, challenging jobs with high pay and good benefits.

Although we all agree on a good part of what is expressed in the thread topic, some finer points needed clarification. DP some your commentary also came across to me as somewhat hard on women, claiming that they are looking for jobs to prove themselves worthy to society in male fields. I believe this totally incorrect and out of step with the idea you later stated about looking for good jobs with good pay. The two positions dont jive.
I dont know how old you are but Im 42 and when I went to high school there were no sports scholarships for girls yet and no women in construction jobs and the like. I have heard a million arguements about why women cant do this or that in my lifetime, and year after year we prove them wrong. Is this complaining, or was fighting this wrong? Was fighting for equal pay for equal work wrong or complaining? I dont think so. Its so easy NOW to say, I dont have to fight, only because great women made the sacrifices and fought hard for us already, and it hasnt been so long ago.

( I am also a pretty tough cookie and have been accused way in the past of being too macho, or wanting to wear the pants. Those days are over because noone really believes it anymore, thanks to many of us sticking up for what we believed in. This is the Opposite of acting the victim, its self affirmation and not complaining, but acting on what is right and just and making change.)

I remember the arguements that women should not be in the military,or sent into combat, yet women have once again proved they can do this job also.
I believe one day there will be many female firefighters and noone will even question it. To add, there are many types of firefighting, and one day we may need more women to fill these positions, especially in forest fires or water plane pilots and search and rescue teams. I personally would love to do search-and rescue with my incredibly smart dog, also a female.

"More than 6,200 women now hold career firefighting and fire officer's positions in the United States, with hundreds of counterparts in Canada, France, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Trinidad, Australia and New Zealand. Women on Japanese fire departments have worked in non-line positions for many years, and are now working as EMT's and preparing to move into active suppression roles. Hundreds of career fire service women have been promoted to lieutenant, captain, and all levels of chief officer positions, while more than a dozen now serve as the fire chief, FMO, or other top-ranking officers of their organization."

Here is the link on women firefighters in history, incuding the above quote:
http://www.wfsi.org/history.html
One account of the eagerness of women to volunteer for FFFS duty told of a woman ­ the mother of a soldier ­ who visited a western forest ranger and told him she wanted to fight fires. "And right up on the fire line, mind you... I can swing an ax with most men, and if those Russian women can shoulder rifles and march with their men, I guess I can eat smoke here in this forest where I've lived all my life."

Heres a photo of the Woodbine, Texas, Ladies Volunteer Fire Department:
http://www.wfsi.org/Woodbine.html

Theres only one more thing. Im in alaska. The history and actuality here is full of women beating all the odds at everything men can do and more, sometimes handling things much better when it came to surviving the worst. Im going to be hard to convince that women cannot be very capable firefighters as well.

Boy, I must really be coming across as a woman-basher.
Labacia thinks I'm a man, lol.


I've read your post, and I agree with much of it. I am very
appreciative of the brave women (and men) who have paved
the way for all of us. I just do not go in for the "battle of
the sexes" ideology (And, I'm not trying to say that you do).

My personal feelings are that it is okay to be a woman and not
be able to do all of the things that men can do. And vice-versa.

Life is filled with barriers and obstacles. And each gender, race,
etc. has their own crosses to bare. I agree that women should
follow the path that will bring them happiness and fulfillment.
But, IMO, some women feel that they must compete with
men to be valuable.

Why do we have to burn our bras (so to speak)? Why can't
we wear our high heeled shoes, have our nails manicured, and do
whatever else makes us happy. And yes, jeans and a t-shirt, too
(that's me).

A woman should pursue whatever she so desires, provided it is
truly within her realm of abilities and capabilities. (The same goes
for a man) There are jobs all over that are high-paying. You don't
have to become a fire-fighter or construction worker to earn a good
living.

Furthermore, in the past, when the majority of men were the bread-
winners, who were they bringing the money home to? Their
families. Women's roles have changed a lot over the decades. In
many ways, for the better, but in some ways, not for the better.
Nowadays, in many families both the mom and dad are working full-
time. So who is raising the children? Nannies and daycare facilities.
For what? So, women can feel like are not being tied to the home
and "held down".

The grass always seems greener on the other side, until
you get to the other side, then you realize it's no better.

BTW: I'm 32 years old, so I'm not too far behind you.

In humorous mode,
NO, so that men do not feel tied to the home and held down! How about that?
Sometimes women do not want to spend their whole day with children when they could be a lawyer or a CEO or working to fulfill their lifes destiny. Neither do most men. This is as normal in women as in men nowdays. Women who choose to raise their children themselves by being at home also deserve the utmost respect. ( the hardest job in the world, its said.)



No, but you might desire this work. I also think women now have so much open to them, which is as it should be, without predjudice. Since youre a runner you should look up this story of the first NY Marathon runner. You will find it interesting. The administrators were furious and knocked her down during the race, but she had a body guard to keep people off her and she just got up and kept running.



I agree, but I also think both sexes bring different attrubutes to any given task.
Id love to expound on watching men move furniture and trying to keep ones mouth shut, but thats another topic.



Oh yeah, its better. Not trying to BE the same as other side, which was always the arguement against feminism, an incorrect perception, but having all the life choices available is infinately better.

I think weve come to even ground here? Ive enjoyed this by the way, I always like discussing these things with women, something I dont get to do too often.
And yes, I think labacia thought he was coming to your rescue as a man unfairly accused of sexism, lol.

Honestly doomed_planet, I hadn't paid much attention until the other day and noticed that you were a woman. Sorry, but what you were saying, IMO, seemed to be from a very chovanistic man's point of view. Now no one on this board get me wrong, my very best friends are men, I get along with men more than I do women on a hangout, buddy buddy - have a beer and shoot pool way. So I'm not a man hating lesbian, ok? BUT... there are still men out there that think woman have overstepped their boundaries and think of women like me as FEMENAZIS.

heh, my mistake. I knew you were a woman, doomed planet....just did not make the connection that you were also 'DP'...However, I'm just as happy to say that I agree with a woman accused of being sexist, as long as it's an innacurate accusation. Wasn't trying to come to the rescue of anyone...

However, I think that if I replicated what you just said about men(something like.."I'd love to talk about how women are ineffective in construction, but I'll wait for another topic."), I would be called sexist, chauvinist, etc. It's a two way street, there.

I really don't understand where the conflict is coming from. We all on this board agree that a woman should be (and is) a firefighter if A-they want to, and B-they can pass the same test the men do. I didn't find DP's remarks as chauvinistic in the slightest, but instead the epitome of equality. Women for the most part, can't do some things nearly as well as men. Men for the most part, can't do some things nearly as well as women. That's because we are built differently.

Ah, ha. I'd like a clarification from you all.

It seems that most people agree that women should be allowed on the fire department if they can pass the same test as men.

Should a woman (who passes) be given preference for a spot on a fire department over a man who scores better?

As an aside, from personal experience, firefighting is physically demanding, but more important than brute strength is guts. A level head and a willingness to go into harm's way trumps being able to bench 400#.

Thats quite true! I've seen newbies (both sexes) in rescue situations who were quite unwilling to do what every fiber of your being is saying you should not do (ie go into harms way). The oddest moment was when I was on an ambulance crew of three women - all shorter than 5'3"... we arrived at a fairly gruesome scene after the fire fighters got there. Our first patient was a well over 6' and very large fire fighter who had started hyperventilating in panic upon arrival... Obviously, panic attacks can happen to anyone, even seasoned rescue personnel, but since he was new to the crew, his problem was compounded by the embarrassment. All the while we treated him, he kept saying "I could bench press all three of you."

(there is a happy ending, he's now a very good fire fighter with four years experience behind him)

But the point is, There are some qualities beyond the physical that make some candidates more desireable.

I don't think women should have easier physical standards because they are "the weaker sex". I personally get sick of whiny women. But I don't know any whiny women fighting fires... All the female firefighters I know are impressive physical specimens and would be embarrassed if they had to pass lower standards. What I think is ridiculous is that places even have quotas for certain number of women... because if they want a tough force, they should be attracting the best people available... and the best women for the job (in fire fighting) will probably not want to join a force that tries to coddle them with low expectations. I always feel, if you want the best from people, you have to expect it from them. If there are girls out there that want to be a fire fighter - go for it! But, you better be willing to do what it takes - working out, treating your body with respect, etc... and if you really want to be a good female fire fighter, don't work for any locale that wants a weakling girl - don't help perpetuate the image that women need coddling.

Personally, I enjoy when guys start talking about women being physically weaker... b/c unless said guys are in a highly physically demanding job (like fire fighters, marines, etc), I would pit myself against them in an arm wrestling match any day of the week! What I really enjoy is when the little 90 pound weakling men I mostly see now adays argue women are stronger... because I can then stare at them with a menacing sneer and let them know that I could snap them in half



And in response to SWM - no... s/he who scores best (in the overall performance - written, physical, etc) should be chosen... regardless of sex. So, if a man passes, but a women excels, the man should not be chosen because he is a man and vice versa.

Since we all agree that all candidates need to pass the minimum standards physically, after that I don't believe that physical limitations of women should prevent them from being on the squad. After everyone passes the minimum standards, from that point out, ALL IMPORTANT aspects of each individual should be taken into consideration to recruit the best total package firefighters - male or female.

For example:
10 slots are open on a squad
If 30 people pass the minimum standards - 20 males and 10 females
The 10 absolute strongest candidates are males
Women should still be considered for the 10 open slots, because absolute strength is not a complete fireman.

Now if all 30 candidates are equal in regards to intelligence, leadership, cool and calm under pressure, maturity, etc - any number of other important traits that are hard to measure - then yes, ALL ELSE being equal, the stronger candidates should be taken, even if they are men. But I find it hard to believe that ALL ELSE could non-discriminatorily be evaluated as equal. Stregnth is not the only important trait of a firefighter, and honestly, if I was in a fire and I had to choose between the fire squad of benchpressing, football player, jug headed, macho, testosterone, i-have-a-problem-with-authority, can't follow directions, "hello my name is john and i'll be your hero today" males
or a team of cohesive, but not quite as strong females,
I'd rather have the females saving me.

Women should not be passed over simply because they aren't as strong, tall, or fast as the males. Standards should not be lowered just so females can pass. But if standards are set in a arbitrary fashion (vs scientific means), than the standards should be chosen that an adequate number of females can make the squad. Else use scientific data to back up your requirements.


edited: to correct math

So then the question becomes, do you believe that the systems currently in place are arbitrary? I seriously doubt that a profession so important for saving people's lives would randomly pick a way to recruit it's possible men and women.

So, let me get this straight. You say "Only if everything is viewed as equal other than strength is it ok not to have the women on the team. But, if everything was viewed as equal, they're probobly sexist."
Come on.

What if you were in a fire and you had to choose between the fire squad of benchpressing, footbal player, cohesive males and a team of cohesive, not as strong females?

I doubt many "i-have-a-problem-with-authority", "can't follow directions" people are allowed to become firefighters, whether male or female. That is what training/academy/etc is for. Not everyone that passes the test gets their own red hat. Unless you believe that those above qualities are just part of the male package..

I said IF the current standards are arbitrary. I don't know who decides how much a fireman or woman should carry. If you say a firefighter should be able to carry 60lbs of her own equipment and one 200lb person - why is it that? Why is it not 2 100lb people or two people carrying one 200lb person or whatever test. I'm saying if there are statistics (science) behind the requirements - great. If not, then you have to make them so that both sexes has an equal shot to make the squad.

What I mean by statistics - perhaps statistics show that most victims of fires are 200lb men. Maybe the statistics show that most victims of fires are 150lb or less women and children and elderly persons. If you're trying to prepare for worst case scenario - why not make the test a 500lb person? America is more obese than ever. If you won't take an average statistic, you want to take the worst case scenario - than you'd have to require firefighters to rescue 400 or 500lb persons from a fire. I'm saying that the minimum standards should be based on statistics and reason, not arbitrary numbers.





I'm saying that if you can't derive a test that can accurately test these traits, then the judgement of them is arbitrary and arbitrary is where discrimination comes in. If all else is equal, and you choose a man who is stronger - that's not sexist - that's smart. If everything else is not viewed as equal, you might be right too. But it's arbitrary. Not scientific. It's a character judgement. Character judgements are made by the interviewer's own impressions and perception. They might not be sexist in the fact that they don't think the woman should have the job - they are probably going with the evaluation that the man "more likely" could save me in a tight spot, vs the woman. There's no way to know who could have go the job done better. More than likely, either could have saved your life.





Not all firefighters have to go through an academy. And I definately wasn't saying that all men are like that. But men like that make it onto a squad above a female who passed minimum requirements, but who wasn't quite as strong. I'd rather take my chances with the female.

The original quote was "That is what training/academy/etc is for." No claim was made that all go through an academy, and I know your not arguing they don't go through training and efforts made to weed out those of poor attitude and character!



According to the National Center for Health Statistics, the average weight for an adult male in the United States is 180 pounds. link.

So, a requirement of 200 lbs would not be out of line, in my opinion. You don't want someone to just barely be able to lift 180 pounds, they may have to lift and carry that weight for a fairly long distance, and most tests require the taker to do more than the bare minimum!

The IAFF CPAT is VALIDATED. The test has been shown to represent actual job tasks. All in all, it is a good test. The problem is when localities make their own watered down test, because they lack the will to make the distinction between adequate and inadequate in favor of being PC.

One of the individual stations in the CPAT is dragging a 180# dummy a certain distance. The idea of carrying a 180# person on your shoulder out of a burning building is ludicrous for even very strong people.

FYI, the written test I took for my current employer was about 500 questions long. In addition to the standard questions on mechanics, map reading, reading comprehension, etc., it had about 200 'psychometric' questions. These questions were in the format of a statement that you were supposed to strongly agree with, agree with, etc, down to strongly disagree with. The statements were things like "I think most people are good at heart." For the life of me, I can't figure out how you can grade a test like this. However, I have since researched it, and it is not uncommon. The test includes these questions to avoid an "adverse impact" lawsuit.

I believe that masculinity-femininity are continuum lines that we are all placed at during birth. I know women who could clear out a bar and equal any man to a punch. I knew a college softball pitcher who was pure muscle. She could bench 220 easily and run a 4.5-40. Scarier than that-no guy wanted to be her partner during hip toss practices during a self-defense half-credit p.e. course! I think women like her could more than handle being a firefighter. Not every man is cut out for that as well.

Women do not belong in any Fire Department, bottom line. I am a Fire Fighter and we've had recent problems with women joining. Most of us want to keep it men only, but because of this "Equal" rights crap, we have to let them in.

Not to long ago, two girls joined to become FF's....the both are about 5'0 in height and 105 in weight. Are you serious? Just tonight we did rig checks, which involves moving the equipment and checking everything. Well, what do you know, the both of them decide not to show up. They are only here on Thursday when they can freely walk around, do whatever they want, eat all of our food and who knows what else.

Is it easy to put all your turnout gear and carry your air pack? NO. It'll show women are not needed when a live burn happens, if they DECIDE to show up. Which involves having everything on, going into a burning building, taking dummys out, helping bring a dummy off the ladder and so on.

Many of us do not like the idea at my department. All of us are very big guys, I'm 6'4, 240lbs, compared to 5'0, 105lbs.

Women do not fight on the front lines in the military, and they should never be able to fight on the front lines, and they shouldn't be allowed to join the FD.

I am tired of all of it, women do not belong in the FD and the answer is NO.

Well thank you for the chauvinistic response. You may have some dead wood in your fire department, but that doesn't mean that women in general fit the definition that you have presented here. Have you never known two men in your life that are just as lazy or unfit for firefighter duty? I doubt it.

The average response here seems to be that if a woman can meet the same physical and psychological demands as a man, then let them join. You may have lazy and incompetent women at your department, but barring them all based on that is wrong. Get rid of the ones at your department by all means, but don't pre-judge all women based on your experience with these two!

I know plenty of lazy and incompetent men that I would not trust my life with, that doesn't mean that all men are that way! Your generalization based upon these two women is irresponsible and naive.

As a former firefighter of one of the top rated volunteer fire departments in Kentucky I will say that all of the talk of brute strength being needed on a fire crew is over rated. Almost any of the tasks performed at a fire be it search and rescue to actually manning the hoses are done in two member teams. Being a 6ft 3in 240 lb male my only concern when women first began entering the fire services in my area was that if I were to become injured during a search and rescue in a burning building would a female be able to get me out by herself. This was answered for me numerous times during smoke house training where you enter a building deliberately smoked and with instructors setting traps for you and scenarios to get out of as you crawl thru the building looking for victims. Invariably even small slender out of place looking females could and did. pull my limp body out of the building in a timely fashion, free me from traps set by my instructors even ones that involved heavy lifting though a few did resort to using their legs instead of actually lifting with their arms, and buddy breathing from the same scba mask in simulated failure of one or the other team members device.
The women ive trained with and worked with were brave, capable, and of the "if you go I go" type of firefighter. I have never have one leave me alone in a particularly dangerous situation which is more than I can say for at least one male I teamed with. This is not to say that I havent seen women wash out very quickly but that goes for males as well. Personally and from expierience I would feel just as confident to enter a fire with a proven female firefighter as with a proven male.