Author
|
Topic: Woman firefighter in Burnaby BC launches harassment complaint
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trisha
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 387
|
posted 05 September 2004 02:59 PM
quote: "Some of the girls are pretty good," says Nedelak, who notes firefighting is "a male-dominated job. It would be like a lady going into mining. She's going to find it difficult."
This comment is typical when women enter traditionally male-dominated jobs. I don't doubt for a minute that sexual and insulting materials were shown to her or put up around the station. Places like this have always had the nudie calenders and magazines around and women entering into this world should expect some of that. These things should not be shoved in anyone's face but that kind of thing is covered as "teasing" and the excuse used that they do this to other guys too. Bull! The personal attacks are what bothers me most. If a woman can do the job, she should be treated with the same respect as any other employee. There have been many cases where the training exercises and rules have been made especially harsh on the women entering the field. Some complaints in the past have included having to sleep in the same room, use the same washrooms and changing areas as men. She should not have to put up with being put back into an atmosphere that is doubly dangerous because of these charges being laid.
From: Thunder Bay, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
1st Person
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3984
|
posted 05 September 2004 06:13 PM
"There have been many cases where the training exercises and rules have been made especially harsh on the women entering the field."Interesting - I've never heard that before. To the contrary, I've heard that standards are lowered so that women can get on. I've certainly seen this in policing. If standards were in fact lowered for women, it's not difficult to see that they would have difficulty being accepted by those who had to achieve a higher standard. (Some employers try to get around this by making the standards the same for men and women - but low, to ensure women get on.)
From: Kingston | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 07 September 2004 11:19 AM
quote: There have been many cases where the training exercises and rules have been made especially harsh on the women entering the field
I assume this refers to an informal "hazing" rather than policy. As Person says, many jurisdictions will have reduced standards for women for some criteria, such as the ladder carry (carrying hose or a similar weight up and down a ladder), etc. I wish the story had mentioned something about the actual allegations.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
beibhnn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3178
|
posted 07 September 2004 12:33 PM
quote: Originally posted by 1st Person: I've heard that standards are lowered so that women can get on.
Hmm... let me try to distill the last five years of human rights jurisprudence since the Supreme Court's Meiorin decision into very simplistic terms so you can understand the difference between "lowered" standards and "non discriminatory" standards. Any employment standard that is arbitrary (i.e. you must be 6 ft tall to be a police officer or that you must be able to run 100 meters in 14.2 seconds to be a fire fighter) that are not REAL requirements connected to the position are considered discriminatory. Men and women often have different physical strengths and abilities and so if a rule obviously discriminates against one gender, then it's out. If the standard is an actual requirement of the job, then it stays in. This does not mean standards are lowered. This means that standards are altered to reflect the bona fides requirements of the job and not some made up standards that are not really necessary to do the job. So entry level fire fighters (and probably police officers) now have to go through different tests that reflect the real physical requirements of the job instead of ones that were discriminatory because they favoured the physical strengths of men. Understand? Non discriminatory, not lower standards. I cannot emphasize that enough. And while the City of Burnaby and the Burnaby Professional Fire Fighters Union seem to think there's some debate about it, sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace are not acceptable at all. Full stop. That's a standard that is not likely to be lowered to accommodate idiots who think it's appropriate to regularly refer to their co-workers as bitches, put up pornography at work, tamper with their equipment and engage in puerile sexual practical jokes.
From: in exile | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 07 September 2004 12:42 PM
quote: So entry level fire fighters (and probably police officers) now have to go through different tests that reflect the real physical requirements of the job instead of ones that were discriminatory because they favoured the physical strengths of men.
Identical tests for male and female recruits? I don't have a ready link to support this, but it's my understanding that in some jurisdictions the criteria are different, eg: men must be able to carry 80lbs of hose up a ladder, women 60lbs, or similar. If both have to carry 60 then I'd agree there's nothing for anyone to complain about.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
1st Person
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3984
|
posted 07 September 2004 01:08 PM
beibhnn, I'm quite aware of that argument. I know that it's a matter of the employer justifying the standards. Fine, no problem.However, if you as a male had to do 50 push-ups while your female co-recruits only had to do 30 - on their knees as opposed to real push-ups...you can hardly expect the men to really buy into the 'equal capability' argument. Furthermore, I know of units that have intentionally lowered standards for all so that women could get on. Toronto's ETF is one such unit. Same standards for male & female applicants...but lowered so women will be able to pass. Most other department's tactical units include something like the following test: the ability to carry the heaviest member of the team a certain distance. This is one of the requirements in Durham, York, etc. They know that there are pracically no women who can pass this; but they can also justify it as a standard. Toronto deliberately avoids that type of standard. The ability to carry a wounded teammate will of course lie with the male team members - though now they're taking men who would never have gotten on in the past. Then there are the incidents - and I do know of some - in which individuals are completely unable to pass their training. They are nevertheless kept around and eventually "passed".
From: Kingston | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
1st Person
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3984
|
posted 07 September 2004 02:07 PM
I think that you're missing the point.I'm saying that even if the double standards in testing are justified, the fact that the requirements for women are lower than those for men makes it almost impossible to view women as equals. Clearly they are not physically equal. So if pushups are irrelevant alltogether, why are they part of the standard? Obviously upper body strength is required for certain duties. As for the other standards that were ignored for some individuals - I don't know...you tell me: is passing firearms training a legitimate standard for a police officer? It's obvious, by the way, why a tactical team would have as part of it's standard the ability to carry it's heaviest member. Durham & other units have been able to justify this standard despite attempts by the employment equity proponents to get rid of said standards. I don't know what the standards are for fire departments, but I sure as shit hope that whoever is sent to rescue me can carry me out of the burning house. That's a bit more important to me than meeting hiring quotas for women. [ 07 September 2004: Message edited by: 1st Person ]
From: Kingston | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 07 September 2004 02:33 PM
beibhnn, I don't disagree that it's rather arbitrary to say that a firefighter needs to be able to do some specific number of jumping-jacks, or lift X number of pounds above their head. But would you agree that whatever criteria are actual requirements should be applied equally to male or female applicants? In other words, if being able to lift a hose up a ladder is, in fact, a realistic requirement for any firefighter, shouldn't both men and women be required to be able to do so?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 07 September 2004 03:09 PM
quote: If it is a legitimate requirement of a job - regardless of their gender - I accept that it is a requirement that should be fulfilled by all applicants.
Fair enough then. Maybe a good time for me to note that this is just a sidebar, and probably has nothing to do with the woman in question. If her complaint is over vulgar language, inappropriate "jokes", etc., then more power to her.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
1st Person
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3984
|
posted 07 September 2004 03:14 PM
"As for whether or not I'm missing the point about employment equity proponents oppressing all those able white males out there that are cast off in favour of underqualified females who are so helpless they can barely tie their shoes without supervision... No really, I get your point. That's the same kind of attitude that the fire fighter captain in Burnaby had to deal with day in and day out. I don't envy her chosen career, but I admire her guts for doing something about it. She's certainly not the first woman or last woman who is likely going to have to deal with this shite."Way to ignore the facts. People like you like to pretend things are how you think they should be. The rest of us have to live in the real world. It's typical of someone who is unable to address presented facts to ignore said facts and simply call someone names. Sure, since I dare to present examples which are critical of the extent that employment equity is taken to at times, it must follow that I am sexist and racist. Hopefuly that will shut me up and we can all carry on pretending. [ 07 September 2004: Message edited by: 1st Person ]
From: Kingston | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
1st Person
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3984
|
posted 07 September 2004 06:27 PM
I think you're speaking about yourself there, Rebecca. Care to address the issues I raised about standards being ignored? Or maybe I just made all those examples up - part of the big patriarchic conspiracy.
From: Kingston | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873
|
posted 08 September 2004 03:26 PM
None of your "examples" shows that standards that are objectively job-related are "lowered". All you've established is that the standards vary from one municipality to another, that these test standards are abitrary. In fact,there is no uniformity of job-related test standard anywhere. That means there is no universally accepted test standard. Additionally, there is no data that suggests that job-related test standards that encourage women applicants "lower" standards overall or endanger lives. There is, however, a Supreme Court ruling which has found that test standards that favour male applicants over female are discriminatory, because these so-called "higher" standards cannot be proved to increase performance, safety or the overall quality of the firefighting unit. That's a fact. quote: Or maybe I just made all those examples up - part of the big patriarchic conspiracy.
You see, it's hysterical, immature comments like that which undermine what little credibility you could call your own.
From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
virgey
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6827
|
posted 08 September 2004 05:09 PM
"Rebecca West rabble-rouser Babbler # 1873 posted 08 September 2004 03:26 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- None of your "examples" shows that standards that are objectively job-related are "lowered". All you've established is that the standards vary from one municipality to another, that these test standards are abitrary. In fact,there is no uniformity of job-related test standard anywhere. That means there is no universally accepted test standard. Additionally, there is no data that suggests that job-related test standards that encourage women applicants "lower" standards overall or endanger lives.There is, however, a Supreme Court ruling which has found that test standards that favour male applicants over female are discriminatory, because these so-called "higher" standards cannot be proved to increase performance, safety or the overall quality of the firefighting unit. Yes Rebecca the tests may not be standardized in all municipalities but the fact remains the tests were implemented to determine if the applicant could perform the job. Also these tests were established well before any women would have thought to apply for the job, so you can't state that the tests are oriented in favor of the male at the expense of the female applicant. Firefighting is a life and death profession and ALL members of a team have to pull their own weight. Can a woman rescue a victim from a burning building on her own? Can a woman hold a fire hose at working pressure, moving it around to apply water to the fire? Can a woman come the aid of her partner if he succumbs? Can a woman drag hose sometimes long distances? The answer is a resounding NO. Also in answer to your question the reason there is NO data to prove that lowered standards lower job performance is because the male firefighter must and does cover the female firefighter. He does so because he is trying to protect himself. I know of no male firefighter who wants to be paired up with a female firefighter as a partner since they can't rely on their ability to perform. To the supreme court I say rubbish. They were the willing pawns of the government who wanted these job quotas at all costs. One last word who would fund this study to see if the performance level is impacted, when the trend is to implement job quotas at all costs? Even if the government were to fund such a study do you really think they would try to get the true answers since this would skew their whole agenda.
From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 08 September 2004 08:09 PM
quote: Originally posted by 1st Person: Virgey, you make some obvious points, but as you can see some people here just don't want to hear it. You and I, both doing our jobs, know the reality of the situation. Everyone else has the luxury of choosing ideology over reality.
So, 1st Person, do you represent the attitude in the Kingston Police force when you say that Virgey is right saying that women can't be good cops or firefighters? Hate to say it, dude, but considering that there have been women doing those jobs for years now, I rather think you're both full of shit on this particular topic. The fact that you're a couple of people from the profession spouting macho bullshit about your female co-workers anonymously on a bulletin board really doesn't convince me of much. quote: Oh that's right why run after them when you can just shoot them.
Or draw your gun on them for Walking or Driving While Black. Oh, whoops, sorry 1st Person, didn't mean to hit too close to home, there. [ 08 September 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
virgey
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6827
|
posted 08 September 2004 08:30 PM
You are correct 1st Person I couldn't have said it better. They certainly have no idea what the job entails and the reality would certainly scare them.Michelle is that a mature responce to my post? "The fact is, we shouldn't have to put up with shit like this in the feminism forum ". I thought this forum was to discuss and present our opinions and knowledge on a given subject.You seem to have nothing of importance to add except to complain. Is the feminism forum closed to all males? It seems you have NO problem discriminating against males, but cry foul when the discrimination is against a female. You seem ready to pounce with bared claws to try and silence any opposition. I guess only your opinion or any of your ilk is acceptable and any dissenters even if they have the facts is irrelevant and not wanted. Well suck it up lady, because I have the same rights as you and I will go on stating my opinions. Learn to live with it. Try to show some restraint and maturity.
From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
virgey
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6827
|
posted 08 September 2004 09:06 PM
Michelle -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by 1st Person: Virgey, you make some obvious points, but as you can see some people here just don't want to hear it. You and I, both doing our jobs, know the reality of the situation. Everyone else has the luxury of choosing ideology over reality. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------So, 1st Person, do you represent the attitude in the Kingston Police force when you say that Virgey is right saying that women can't be good cops or firefighters? Hate to say it, dude, but considering that there have been women doing those jobs for years now, I rather think you're both full of shit on this particular topic. The fact that you're a couple of people from the profession spouting macho bullshit about your female co-workers anonymously on a bulletin board really doesn't convince me of much. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh that's right why run after them when you can just shoot them. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or draw your gun on them for Walking or Driving While Black. Oh, whoops, sorry 1st Person, didn't mean to hit too close to home, there. Michelle I had never stated that women could not do police work. I was talking about firefighting of which I have personal knowledge. So please do not put words in my mouth. Michelle can you please try and retain some respectability for yourself and not use unflattering language. It has nothing to do with being macho,it is just a fact that females do not have the physical strtength for the job of firefighting. It is not a put down, just a physical fact. Just like there are jobs that women can perform better then males simply because of their physical makeup. Why do you think it is an attack on females because I state a fact of life. It is a fact that these females have not been performing to the same standards as their male counterparts in a job that requires it. Also could you refrain from attacking me with your insults. It only demonstrates your ignorance and immaturity. Thank you for listening.
From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
virgey
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6827
|
posted 08 September 2004 09:22 PM
Debra wrote - " posted 08 September 2004 08:38 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm guessing you'll be sucking it up buddy because if you read the rules it states quite clearly that this form is for speaking on subjects from a feminist point of view. You have the whole rest of the world to foist your castration fears on. "It has nothing to do with castration fears. It is a fact that females are built differently then males and as a result they are not as strong as males in upper body strength. It is not a put down, just a fact. Just like there are some jobs females a more adept at then males. Why do you become so defensive when you can't defend your point of view? Is it because you feel your point of view is the only one that has merit? Are males specifically banned on this forum. That certainly seems very unfair and DISCRMININATORY. Where have I heard that word before? Ah I guess it only applies when a female is being discriminating against. That sounds like a double standard. Well if you can only post nothing of merit but only slander people maybe you should consider leaving the forum until you can gain control of your emotions and discuss in a calm and respectful manner. Thank you for listening.
From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 08 September 2004 09:26 PM
quote: Originally posted by virgey: I thought this forum was to discuss and present our opinions and knowledge on a given subject.You seem to have nothing of importance to add except to complain. Is the feminism forum closed to all males?
No. It's closed to sexist creeps who say things like "women CANNOT do the job". quote: Michelle can you please try and retain some respectability for yourself and not use unflattering language.
You know what? I don't give a damn whether you think the language I use is "flattering" or not. I'm not here to impress you by being ladylike. You want a prissy little lady, then go to a fucking Repugnican Ladies' convention or a Promise Keeper's rally, where you belong. [ 08 September 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
1st Person
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3984
|
posted 08 September 2004 09:44 PM
If some of you would actually bother to read what's written instead of just freaking out, you might see that I never said there aren't some women who can't do some policework. (Though I tend to extremely doubtful when it comes to women firefighters. Even paramedics, for god's sake - I had a call where two female paramedics couldn't carry a guy up the stairs of his house on a stretcher. My partner and I had to do it for them! I wonder what they would have done if we weren't there. I guess call for another ambulance to come and help them.)The debate was about double standards when it comes to fitness tests for certain jobs and units. I pointed out a couple of things: 1) Irregardless of the validity or justification of said double standard, it remains difficult for one group with higher standards to view another group with lower standards as "equal". If you don't understand that, look up "equal" in the dictionary. 2) I also pointed out that some units have lowered standards with the purpose of getting women on. I pointed out why some of these standards WERE valid (such as the ability to carry a member of the team) but that was conveniantly ignored. I don't have a problem with irrelevant standards being done away with. If, for example, push-ups are irrelevant to policework, then let's just get rid of push-ups alltogether from the testing. But what I'm pointing out is that there are times when standards that ARE relevant are being done away with because of government hiring regulations that have nothing to do with the ability to do the job. Now if you can't understand why a member of a police tactical team should be able to carry an injured team member, or why a firefighter needs to be able to carry and operate a hose, then you have your heads up your asses. Not only that, but I also pointed out that in some cases standards that DO exist are ignored so that certain individuals can be hired. This too was ignored by some of you master debaters. It's not that women shouldn't be on the job. It's that women who are hired should be able to do what the job requires. Some can, some can't. In fact there's a lot of good work women do in policing, especially in undercover work. Some guys don't like the idea of women going into such work without "paying their dues" first in uniform, but I don't have a problem with it. People should be placed as per their strongest capabilities. Some of you need to stop watching your bullshit TV shows with women heros doing judo flips on 200 ib bad guys, because here's a newsflash: it just doesn't happen. I've been in far too many fights and struggles to put up with fantasy bullshit and political correctness on this issue. Fact is that when it comes to that particular part of the job, our firefighter is correct: the women rely on the men to cover for them. That's reality - and if it doesn't fit with your ideal view of things, too fucking bad.
From: Kingston | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
virgey
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6827
|
posted 08 September 2004 09:53 PM
Mandos wrote - virgey and 1P: For a very long time, this story has been told for various professions that the admission of women would in some way degrade the quality of the work in that profession. Usually, this proves to be a baseless assertion. Consequently, I think you would be better to make your case if you had any statistics showing that the admission of women to police and firefighting jobs causes a reduction in the actual life-saving performance of these institutions. You must understand that there is a long history of these kinds of claims turning out to be baseless, and hence most people here are deeply suspicious of your claims. Even if you are able to provide such statistics, you also have to make the case that no alternative means of improving those statistics is available. "I can't speak for the police or any other profession for that matter. I am sure most professions can be performed as good and sometimes even better then what some males in the same profession. Just like in your post you state that USUALLY it is false that females are inferior to males in job performance. The operative word here is USUALLY. Well the fire service just happens to be one of those exception. I was a firefighter for over thirty three years. I woked with numerous females as my peer and as my subordinate. The fact of the matter is that females cannot perform in the performance of their duties as a firefighter. It is not a put down to females just a physical limitation that prevents women from performing their expected tasks. I am sure most other professions can be performed as good and in some cases better then their male counterparts. There are even some jobs that males could never hope to excel in to the same degree as a female by virtue of the fact of the females different anatomy. So my opposition to female firefighters is based on biological differences between males and females. To answer your question on how to improve the fireservice is to NOT hire females. I have a question for you Mandos. Do you think females should be in the front lines figthing the enemy standing next to her male counterpart?
From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 08 September 2004 09:55 PM
No, ACTUALLY, the debate, or the original point of this thread, was about a female firefighter who is suing her employer because she was sexually harassed for years at her job.And then you turned the whole thread into a debate about why women are even working as firefighters to begin with, thus implying that she shouldn't have even had the job in the first place - because she's a woman. This thread was put in the FEMINISM forum because it was about sexual harassment on the job. And you'll find that feminists don't take very kindly to men coming along and telling women that the reason they're being harassed is because they don't belong in that workplace to begin with. I mean, what fucking decade do you live in, anyhow? I sure hope that, when you investigate rapes, you don't blame the victim for having been in the wrong place wearing the wrong thing. Because basically that's what this thread has become - justification for sexual harassment based on the caveman notion that women shouldn't be firefighters anyhow. If you're not a feminist or pro-feminist then get the fuck out of the feminism forum. There are lots of other places where you can talk about why the big bad feminists are ruining your life on the job and wherever else.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014
|
posted 08 September 2004 10:00 PM
Really, guys. What Michelle said. You two angry lunkheads are stinking up this forum with your testosterone and BO. And you derailed the thread.And you, 1st Person. You've consistently been angry and aggressive and start barking at people to do as you say at the drop of the hat. I'd hate like hell to have to deal with you if I needed a police officer. ...and you'd hate like hell to have to deal with me, I'll tell you that.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
virgey
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6827
|
posted 08 September 2004 10:07 PM
Michelle wrote -quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by virgey: I thought this forum was to discuss and present our opinions and knowledge on a given subject.You seem to have nothing of importance to add except to complain. Is the feminism forum closed to all males? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------No. It's closed to sexist creeps who say things like "women CANNOT do the job". quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle can you please try and retain some respectability for yourself and not use unflattering language. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know what? I don't give a damn whether you think the language I use is "flattering" or not. I'm not here to impress you by being ladylike. You want a prissy little lady, then go to a fucking Repugnican Ladies' convention or a Promise Keeper's rally, where you belong." Michelle you are very judgemental calling me a sexist creep. If you took the time to read my posts instead of flying into a rage and showing everyone here how very closed minded you are maybe you could understand what I am trying to say. I fear though that my plea to you to calm down and read my posts are falling on deaf ears.
Michelle I guess by your own admission your are a closed minded, vulgar, debasing individual who relishes only to try and demean other posters with her vile language. I will never in the future mistake you for a lady, but rather a frustrated individual. So sad.
From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rand McNally
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5297
|
posted 08 September 2004 10:08 PM
quote: you should consider leaving the forum until you can gain control of your emotions and discuss in a calm and respectful manner.
I think this is another reason why women should not be firefighters, or other stressful trades; they just can not keep control of their emotions. quote: I have a question for you Mandos. Do you think females should be in the front lines figthing the enemy standing next to her male counterpart?
I am not Mandos, however I will comment on this. Yes. If they can do the job, I have no problems with it. Combat Arms is a tough go, lots of women and men are not suited to it. However, some members of both sexes can do the job. If a woman is able to perform the tasks required, I don’t see why they should not be allowed to serve.
From: Manitoba | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 08 September 2004 10:10 PM
Good thing you're not mistaking me for a lady. It is not my goal to be your vision of a "lady". I am a woman, equal to you, and a proud feminist. I'm only "unladylike" with sexist jerks who think they can lecture women about what jobs they can and can't do. REAL men, on the other hand, find me quite charming. quote: I think this is another reason why women should not be firefighters, or other stressful trades; they just can not keep control of their emotions.
(Whoops. Wrote the following before I figured out from a post of yours in another thread that you were being facetious. My bad. ) Is this a joke, Rand McNally? Because if it's not, then that's a pretty sexist comment. You wouldn't get away with making that kind of generalization about any other group. And I also think it's ridiculous to use my comments here as "proof" that women can't keep control of their emotions. Sure, I'm angry right now. I'm angry at the way this forum, specifically created for FEMINISTS to discuss issues from a FEMINIST point of view, is being abused by troglodytes. However, I am not acting in any professional capacity at the moment. I am not required, during informal conversation, to be an automaton and emotionless. You have no idea what I am like at work, or when I am engaged in any kind of professional activities where calmness is required. [ 08 September 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ] [ 08 September 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
virgey
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6827
|
posted 08 September 2004 10:29 PM
Hinterland wrote - "Really, guys. What Michelle said. You two angry lunkheads are stinking up this forum with your testosterone and BO. And you derailed the thread. And you, 1st Person. You've consistently been angry and aggressive and start barking at people to do as you say at the drop of the hat. I'd hate like hell to have to deal with you if I needed a police officer....and you'd hate like hell to have to deal with me, I'll tell you that. Hinterland I am not angry or a lunkhead. It also has nothing to do with testosterone. When I entered the thread people were posting about testing in the fire service and how it was unfair to females. I simply wanted to state the facts about testing of new recruits. The tests are only unfair becuase they are reduced for the female applicant so that she will be able to pass the testing and give the appearance that she followed all the rules and followed all the same tests as her male couterpart. As a result what you end up with is discrimination in the testing process where females are given preferential treatment. As far as the sexual harrasment they are only charges. Nothing has benn proven. Why is it when a female cries sexual discrimination it is accepted as fact. The so called perpetrator of the sexual harrassment has his name published his life usually ruined and the accuser can never be revealed all the while the case hasn't yet been proven. Now if the male is found innocent his life is still ruined but the accuser is off scott free. Now tell me if that is fair.
From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014
|
posted 08 September 2004 10:31 PM
Michelle...another reason why women shouldn't be firefighters.*snerk*
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 08 September 2004 10:56 PM
quote: The tests are only unfair becuase they are reduced for the female applicant so that she will be able to pass the testing and give the appearance that she followed all the rules and followed all the same tests as her male couterpart. As a result what you end up with is discrimination in the testing process where females are given preferential treatment. As far as the sexual harrasment they are only charges. Nothing has benn proven. Why is it when a female cries sexual discrimination it is accepted as fact. The so called perpetrator of the sexual harrassment has his name published his life usually ruined and the accuser can never be revealed all the while the case hasn't yet been proven.
virgey, if you'd read the CBC article, you'd have noticed that Boni Propkowitz was promoted to captain. Why, if she was unfit for the job? Also, you'd have noticed that no names of accused harassers were published.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 09 September 2004 01:09 AM
Whoa to First Person. G'datta heeya while your virtual cajones are still intact.Me old English gramma and me ol mum worked in munitions factories during WWII. They worked on big 10 ton drop stamps and bolted Spitfires and Lancasters together. Nobody fretted about them being female at the time. My niece would tune us all up for anti-feminist comments. She's a big blonde six foot oner with a track scholarship in the States. I gotta mind myself somewhat when she's around. Carry on?.(slips out back door)
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169
|
posted 09 September 2004 01:46 AM
There's more to fire fighting than simply how much you can lift and how strong you are . . . Sure, if I were disabled in a fire and needed smeone to carry my ass out of a burining building, I might prefer a 6'6" guy to come to my rescue, but if in order to get to me in the first place all I had were a bunch of weight lifters scratching their heads saying "Duh, fire hot, fire burn me, Firefighter Jim no go into burning fire building", then I might just appreciate that some 5'2" woman firefighter might be sittig in the truck examining the building plans figuring out the safest and fastest roue to get to me and get me out.Same for police . . . I might want those assigned to breakng up bar fights in the entertainment distrct be big dumb brusiers, but if on the other hand I was interested in having a homicide detective track down the killer of a loved one, I would want someone who had the brains, not brawn, necessary to unravel the available clues . . . that person could be male of female. Those who look at certain jobs as being monolothic positions that require only one type of person to accomplish the duties, are really not the type of people that should be on the job in the first place . . .I suspect that the two major proponents of firefighters and police being a male only occupation were never very good at their jobs in the first place. Oh, and yes, I have been a firefighter and was told at the time that I was too small ( I was a 130lb rake when I was young,) but I could beat any and all of them when it came to climbing a repelling, and kicked ass on all training and testing sessios.
From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092
|
posted 09 September 2004 03:40 AM
quote: What I can't understand is your constant name calling and deriding remarks.
She doesn't like you. Is it that hard to figure out? If you talk this way out in public I'd think you'd be used to it by now. I actually know a female firefighter (not well. Sister of a friend). She is tall, broad, muscular, and just generally built like a tractor. Honestly, her legs are as big around as my head. There is no way this woman would have any trouble carrying a 200-pound man. The little fantasy that you live in where women are incapable of measuring up to men physically is some kind of wish fulfillment on your part. I think you cling to a notion of yourself as a big, strong man and are threatened by the thought that there are, in fact, some women out there who can meet you on that level. They are a smaller subset than you would find among men, I imagine, but they do exist.
From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
1st Person
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3984
|
posted 09 September 2004 04:38 PM
Nam: Canada's Employment Equity Act.Section 10: "(d) where underrepresentation has been identified by the analysis, establishes short term numerical goals for the hiring and promotion of persons in designated groups in order to increase their representation in each occupational group in the workforce in which underrepresentation has been identified and sets out measures to be taken in each year to meet those goals; (e) sets out the employer's longer term goals for increasing the representation of persons in designated groups in the employer's workforce and the employer's strategy for achieving those goals; and (f) provides for any other matter that may be prescribed." " PART III ASSESSMENT OF MONETARY PENALTIES Violations Violation 35. (1) Every private sector employer commits a violation of this Act who (a) without reasonable excuse, fails to file an employment equity report as required by section 18; (b) without reasonable excuse, fails to include in the employment equity report any information that is required, by section 18 and the regulations, to be included; or (c) provides any information in the employment equity report that the employer knows to be false or misleading. Continuing violations (2) A violation that is committed or continued on more than one day constitutes a separate violation for each day on which it is committed or continued. Violations not offences (3) A violation is not an offence and accordingly the Criminal Code does not apply in respect of a violation. Assessment of monetary penalty 36. (1) The Minister may, within two years after the day on which the Minister becomes aware of a violation, issue a notice of assessment of a monetary penalty in respect of the violation and send it by registered mail to the private sector employer. Limit (2) The amount of a monetary penalty shall not exceed (a) $10,000 for a single violation; and (b) $50,000 for repeated or continued violations." And for an academic assessment of this type of Orwellian legislation: http://www.news.utoronto.ca/bin/gopher/Apr5-95/letters.htm Won't go over well though for those of you into the double-plus good way of thinking. [ 09 September 2004: Message edited by: 1st Person ]
From: Kingston | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169
|
posted 09 September 2004 05:01 PM
Yes, that's the same old racist clap trap you hear all the time . . . "the government has a law that forces us to hire unqualified minorities" . . . The only thing the government has ever done was to promote hiring minorities as a good idea, both morally and economically . . . but right wing anti-minoroty loonies have it it their mind that if there are more than one qualified applicants you have to pick the white Christian anglo male or you are discriminating against the white Christian anglo males . . . but never for a second do they stop to think that picking the white anglo Christian male would also be discriminating, nor do they ever consider that hiring a minority employee might allow them to service the minority population of the community they try to sell into.Your ethnicity is a "skill set" just as valuable as any other "soft skill" . . . and if when I am hiring and I determine I need a person with a soft-skill that would allow them to work more comfortably in a black/ Asian/ female/ little green men/ white christian male world, then I would make no apologies for hiring from the ethnic group I require ,given that the qualifications in other areas meet the minimal standards required (and that would be real practicle standards that apply to the real job, not standards such as understanding newfie jokes, or cattle branding recognition, skills designed to unfairly eliminate all but "traditional" Canadian males, for a position as an application programmer.)
From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
beibhnn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3178
|
posted 09 September 2004 05:07 PM
First of all, Burnaby Fire Fighters are not covered by federal legislation. In fact, most fire fighters and police officers are subject to provincial, not federal, statutes.Secondly, the only onerous task that private sector employers with employees working under federal jurisdiction are asked to do is (gasp!) consider whether certain groups are under represented in their workplace and decide whether they will do something to attract under represented groups and then fill in some forms about their decision. The only penalty they may face is if they fail to complete and file said equity report or lie or neglect to provide the appropriate information. Again, boo hoo hoo. Call the Politically Correct Police (not actual police officers of course). It appears that white men are being done in by the black, differently abled, lesbian feminazi establishment again.
From: in exile | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
andrean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 361
|
posted 09 September 2004 05:24 PM
quote: Originally posted by 1st Person: Canada's Employment Equity Act.Section 10: "(d) where underrepresentation has been identified by the analysis, establishes short term numerical goals for the hiring and promotion of persons in designated groups in order to increase their representation in each occupational group in the workforce in which underrepresentation has been identified and sets out measures to be taken in each year to meet those goals; (e) sets out the employer's longer term goals for increasing the representation of persons in designated groups in the employer's workforce and the employer's strategy for achieving those goals; and (f) provides for any other matter that may be prescribed." [ 09 September 2004: Message edited by: 1st Person ]
emphasis added All this requires of employers is that they set goals to encourage/increase the number of workers from underrepresented groups and describe how they intend to meet those goals. There's no mention of hiring unqualified workers at the expense of qualified ones, not even a suggestion that race/creed/colour etc, outweigh qualification. quote: Violations Violation 35. (1) Every private sector employer commits a violation of this Act who(a) without reasonable excuse, fails to file an employment equity report as required by section 18; (b) without reasonable excuse, fails to include in the employment equity report any information that is required, by section 18 and the regulations, to be included; or (c) provides any information in the employment equity report that the employer knows to be false or misleading.
emphasis addedSo, the fine is for not filing the appropriate paperwork or for telling lies on the paperwork that you do file. Employers also get in trouble for not filing their income tax forms and for telling lies on them. Doesn't exactly sound like 1984 to me.
From: etobicoke-lakeshore | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Nam
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3472
|
posted 09 September 2004 07:21 PM
quote: Originally posted by 1st Person: Nam: Canada's Employment Equity Act.Section 10: And for an academic assessment of this type of Orwellian legislation: http://www.news.utoronto.ca/bin/gopher/Apr5-95/letters.htm Won't go over well though for those of you into the double-plus good way of thinking. [ 09 September 2004: Message edited by: 1st Person ]
So I have asked you to provide information on legislation that says companies/organizations have to employ a certain percentage of visible minorities. Your example above clearly does not support you. Want to try again??? If you are unable to, will you do the decent thing and retract your allegations.???
From: Calgary-Land of corporate towers | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
1st Person
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3984
|
posted 10 September 2004 08:28 AM
Nam, read the legislation. It's there in black and white.Lance, even your employer, if there are over a certain number of employees, still has to show what they've done to at least try to hire more people from target groups. Obviously the more specialized training and education requirements there are, the more restricted the applicant pool becomes, and the easier it is to explain why they haven't met their "numerical goals". Check with your human resources department and see what they say. For jobs like policing and entry level civil service positions it's a lot easier to play around with standards and testing. Some employers like police departments may have their own "employment equity" programs, as well as municipalities. Bob Rae's provincial employment equity act was the most draconian and notorious, but when it was abolished, that didn't stop said employers from continuing with the practice. It's a racist and sexist policy that was opposed by 75% of the population back in the early 90's, and was one of the biggest causes of defeat for Bob Rae's NDP government. That's why you don't hear it mentioned as an election issue these days - even the NDP don't talk about it much. They want to keep it quiet because they know it angers a lot of people. Go figure. Oh well - hopefully one day when the correct people are in charge, they'll set up re-education camps for reactionaries like me. After 10 years or so, I will hopefully be purged of my racist, misogynist, patriarchal bourgeois delusions. [ 10 September 2004: Message edited by: 1st Person ]
From: Kingston | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
1st Person
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3984
|
posted 10 September 2004 08:57 AM
Andrean: " There's no mention of hiring unqualified workers at the expense of qualified ones, not even a suggestion that race/creed/colour etc, outweigh qualification."Give me a break! Obviously the legislation isn't going to say go ahead and hire unqualified people! That's why the standards are changed - sometimes legitimately, sometimes just to pretend that the people they want "can do the job".
From: Kingston | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014
|
posted 10 September 2004 11:06 AM
quote: They only want to whine and complain about how they are all so hard done by those evil white males.
What are you going on about anyway? I'm not going to "get" 1st person's fantasy's about what he imagines the employment equity legislation is designed to do, just as I'm not going to "get" the fact that Iraq deep, down, really had WMD's and I just didn't want to believe otherwise. This is the problem quite often with people who take on the perceived inequality of affirmative action. They end up saying such stupid things that, after a while, you automatically don't believe them. You should think about that.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169
|
posted 10 September 2004 11:17 AM
I lived through the Rae employment equity days, and it was received more as a tool for the company to help recognize and reward (and thus help improve employment retention) their employees than some kind of way to give unqualified people access to the white guys jobs!!It was a process that did a discovery on the job functions of all positions within a company, rationalized the value of each of these functions to the functioning of the company, and compared the results with the salary structure in place . . . companies then adjusted salaries as was deemed appropiate . . . no one lost salary, and anyone who was being underpaid for their services was either payed at an appropiate level (and therefor were more likely to be an appreciative, productive, and long term asset to the company,) or if the company decided not to pay the position what it was worth to the company, became a position that was filled with underpayed unproductive grumps, hurting the companies bottom line. I never heard one person in management of the firm I worked at complain about how the process was hurting the company . . . they all seemd to agree that while the process was very detailed, and a tough process to complete fully, it was something they felt was well worth the effort . . . since then I have worked at tow other firms that while were no longer under the legal requirement to go through this process, have continued to do a very similar process on a regular basis (evry two or three years) in order to ensure they reward their employees properly and keep a happy and productive staff. I think the distractors of this process are the ones who get exposed by the process as the lazy freeloaders they are.
From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873
|
posted 10 September 2004 11:59 AM
Whenever you attempt to address unfairness and inequity, those who have traditionally benefited from the unfairness are going to holler and stomp around alot and make a big fuss. That's just the way these things are. Nobody gave up power and privilege without throwing a hissy fit or killing thousands in the name of "freedom" or "the Motherland" or whatever the fuck.Gosh, it's been years since employers could legally discriminate against qualified women and other underrepresented groups and, incredibly as it may seem, society as we know it has not crumbled. Amazingly, the world is not less safe because women are police officers, firefighters, etc. The world is less safe because the men who are still largely running the show still think you need to kill thousands of people to safeguard "freedom", "the Motherland", etc. That doesn't mean that if women were largely running the show that we wouldn't do the same. We're just looking for the same opportunity to succeed or fail as the men. 1st Person, Virgey, I'm sorry the two of you have trouble adapting to a changing social structure, but you're just going to have to suck it up. You should understand that your reactionary and sexist positions are just a product of your fear and ignorance. You have an opportunity in this feminist forum to listen to what women are saying, to understand some key legislation that is progressing all of us toward a more equitable and productive society. This can be a learning opportunity if you wish. Or not. You can keep talking shit here, keep getting dumped on by the angry people here who have heard your line of ignorant bullshit ad nauseum, all their lives. Choice is all yours.
From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YPK
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6780
|
posted 10 September 2004 01:36 PM
quote: Originally posted by Debra: YPK I don't think you have the ability to post on this board.Of course some bleeding heart will probably enact legislation requiring us to accept you if can prove you meet similar standards to the rest of us. But we will all know that those standards have been lowered just for you.
Low standards seem to be a prerequisite for posting on this board. But what the hell, I gave you a chance to sharpen your claws.
From: GTA | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
1st Person
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3984
|
posted 10 September 2004 03:29 PM
No, Scout, you're just deflecting one problem by jumping to another.It's absolutely incredible how most of you accept unthinkingly that discriminating based on race and gender is an appropriate way to deal with perceived discrimination. Even if I did accept the mythology of "systemic discrimination" (something even Rosalie Abella in her '85 report admitted could NOT be proven), it is a nothing less than a lie to say that two wrongs make a right. You have bought into an extremely illiberal ideology. Luckily most Canadians have no appetite for the nausiating hatred and bile displayed so openly by the radical left on this board - which is why the NDP will never form a federal government. As for your childish and idiotic comment about rape victims, Michelle, it speaks more about you than I ever could. Well done. In the meantime, it'll be sexist bastards like me who continue to arrest the 200 ib wife beaters and rapists. It's horrible, I know - they really should be arrested by far more sensitive and politically indoctrinated comrades. Here's an interesting article by well known sexist & racist Alan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association: http://www.ccla.org/pos/columns/federal.shtml And another from Borovoy: "Despite the insistence of the Act's defenders that white males had nothing to fear, the arguments often rang hollow. The Act explicitly requires employers to make "reasonable progress" to ensure that the racial and gender mix in their workplaces matches the mix in the qualified workforce outside... If some form of employment equity is to survive, as it should, its proponents will have to undergo a healthy injection of clear thinking." http://www.ccla.org/pos/columns/HarrisEmployment.shtml [ 10 September 2004: Message edited by: 1st Person ]
From: Kingston | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
1st Person
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3984
|
posted 10 September 2004 03:34 PM
Audra Towers: "Uh, they said that women are less capable of doing some things than men. That's pretty anti-women if you ask me."Really? Why do women compete seperately from men in the Olympics? Why are there no females in the NFL, the NHL, or the NBA?
From: Kingston | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117
|
posted 10 September 2004 04:14 PM
quote: Originally posted by 1st Person: Audra Towers: "Uh, they said that women are less capable of doing some things than men. That's pretty anti-women if you ask me."Really? Why do women compete seperately from men in the Olympics? Why are there no females in the NFL, the NHL, or the NBA?
Hmm lets see now....oh ya .. cause they aren't fucking allowed to be on the mens teams. And as regards the female paramedics. When my mom was dying of ovarian cancer and was all swollen up as is part of the disease, the two "gentlemen" who came to take her to hospital said there was no way they could carry someone this big and could she at least walk down to the ambulance!!!! Final stages of cancer, on her way to the hospital to die. So you can fuck right off with your asshole sentiments about how only men can do the job. About the only thing men can do better is piss standing up. And they are usually so often involved in pissing contests of one sort or another that it is hardly surprising they are good at it.
From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
1st Person
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3984
|
posted 10 September 2004 04:31 PM
Sorry, Audra. Care to answer the question though? Oh, wait, I see Debra, if those nasty Olympic and pro-sports rules were subject to Employment Equity (why aren't they?) and women were allowed on the football teams, etc., they'd perform just as well. "So you can fuck right off with your asshole sentiments about how only men can do the job." Now there's some articulate and rational debating. Bravo. [ 10 September 2004: Message edited by: 1st Person ]
From: Kingston | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
1st Person
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3984
|
posted 10 September 2004 04:49 PM
Very reasonable of you, Black_dog. Of course I already stated that 2 days ago when I posted "It's not that women shouldn't be on the job. It's that women who are hired should be able to do what the job requires. Some can, some can't. In fact there's a lot of good work women do in policing, especially in undercover work. Some guys don't like the idea of women going into such work without "paying their dues" first in uniform, but I don't have a problem with it. People should be placed as per their strongest capabilities."
From: Kingston | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117
|
posted 10 September 2004 04:51 PM
quote: Originally posted by 1st Person: Sorry, Audra. Care to answer the question though? Oh, wait, I see Debra, if those nasty Olympic and pro-sports rules were subject to Employment Equity (why aren't they?) and women were allowed on the football teams, etc., they'd perform just as well. "So you can fuck right off with your asshole sentiments about how only men can do the job." Now there's some articulate and rational debating. Bravo. [ 10 September 2004: Message edited by: 1st Person ]
Interesting how you chose not to address the question of the insensitivity and lack of ability shown by the male attendants.
And you can bet that that is articulate and rational. Oh oh wait ... I get it... I'm just a little woman I'm not supposed to use bad words when making a point. Ya know what if I thought all men were like you I would dispar, fortunately I know many bright, wonderful thoughtful men and I assume that they represent the majority. And now don't let the door hit your ass on your way out of this thread.
From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117
|
posted 10 September 2004 05:11 PM
Still not addressing the issue I see.Guess you can't accept the fact that not one but two men fucked up royally. Guess you can't accept that my dying mother being treated like shit pisses me off. And again this is the FEMINIST thread. If you are not a feminist, which you are obviously not, then search out another area of the board.
From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
madman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4436
|
posted 10 September 2004 09:37 PM
Is the average female weightlifter a EMT, fireperson or paramedic? I think 1st person is talking about the average person in this particular occupation.My own opinion is that I would rather have the person that could most likely help protect me or my family, not someone who is in their position because of quotas.
From: Republic of western Canada | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117
|
posted 10 September 2004 09:53 PM
quote: Originally posted by madman: Is the average female weightlifter a EMT, fireperson or paramedic? I think 1st person is talking about the average person in this particular occupation.My own opinion is that I would rather have the person that could most likely help protect me or my family, not someone who is in their position because of quotas.
I guess the guys that came for my mom were there because of quotas.
Too bad they weren't women, they would have found a way.
From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rand McNally
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5297
|
posted 10 September 2004 09:53 PM
quote: The fact of the matter is that females cannot perform in the performance of their duties as a firefighter.To answer your question on how to improve the fireservice is to NOT hire females.
These were the types of comments I was addressing when I posted the photo. There are many women that can meet the requirements of the profession. The % may be smaller than of men that can meet the requirements, based on size and strength. With proper training I think a great many women could meet the requirements.
From: Manitoba | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722
|
posted 10 September 2004 09:58 PM
Um Debra, I came across the exact same problem with my mom when I called for ambulance, but they were women. Then there was the triage nurse (and incomptetant woman) then the ER nurse (excellent women) with 2 doctors (excellent man and woman) then several weeks in the cardiac care ward (great females nurses, great male orderly, bad male doctor, bad female doctor, 2 really good doctors male and female)Equality also means equal assholes. Reverse sexism is just as ugly. [ 10 September 2004: Message edited by: Bacchus ]
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
madman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4436
|
posted 10 September 2004 10:16 PM
Debra:What is that supposed to mean?
From: Republic of western Canada | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117
|
posted 10 September 2004 10:53 PM
*sigh* Madman you said quote: My own opinion is that I would rather have the person that could most likely help protect me or my family, not someone who is in their position because of quotas.
Now if you bothered reading the rest of the thread you will see that two MEN were unwilling or unable to carry my dying mother to the ambulance. Were they there because of quotas? Or is it only women who are there because of quotas? Is it only women who would be unable to help YOUR family? And I saw women would find a way because if you take ten seconds you will see that the care of the disabled, elderly and otherwise unabled falls to women.. These loved ones or patients are often much bigger than themselves but they find a way. Can't understand that .... too fucking bad.
From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
madman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4436
|
posted 11 September 2004 05:36 AM
Somehow , I think that my arguement was perhaps distorted. However I'am sorry for Debra's pain [ 11 September 2004: Message edited by: madman ]
From: Republic of western Canada | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 11 September 2004 09:49 AM
quote: Equality also means equal assholes.
I fear that I have also run into a certain amount of this. There is truth in what Debra says, though, in my experience. I have seen people, mainly women but some men too, in emergencies persist in solving problems well and bravely, at some risk to themselves, when professionals, usually men, were telling them that they couldn't get there from here. That isn't entirely a breakdown by sex, more an indictment of the "cover your ass" ethos of many professionals. But it has led, in my experience, many women to perform above their weight, and I mean that physically as well as metaphorically. I don't want to have to do a fireman's lift of an adult male down a flight of stairs ever again, but I know how, and I did it once to good effect. And I'm a li'l ole lady.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
virgey
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6827
|
posted 11 September 2004 11:34 AM
Let me clear up any confusion. First of all in my experience on the fire department, I have not met one woman who could do the job of firefighting. Now I know that there are some women that CAN, but they are in the minority. It was NEVER my position to not hire women if they could do the job or pass the SAME test as the men. Try reading my past posts and you will see what I wrote. By beef from the beginning and still is that the standards were lowered to allow women to be hired in order to fill the government quota.I NEVER mentioned anything about equal pay for women and men. Matter a fact to your probable surprise I do support equal pay for equal work for everyone whether they be male of female. So for the women who can do the job great and would have NO problem working with them. I was an officer on the department for ten years and I always treated ALL employees equally and fairly, some of which were female. One other thing since one of the posters brought it up is the fact about paramedics. We were tiered out with ambulance as a cost saving measure by the New Democratic party and as a result we would go on many of the medical calls. I personally attended many calls in which we were needed simply because the paramedics could not lift the patient. That was because they were women and they found it too heavy. In the beginning women were paired up with a man in which case we still attended many times for the same reason, but it only became worse when they started pairing up two females together. Now I know it can sometimes happen where they do need help, but the fact is it was a very common occurence. We would even have to sometimes follow them to the hospital to help unload the patient. Now also when we were attending these incidence's we were out of service to respond to a fire call which is our primary function. So other people could be in needless danger because another vehicle from another district had to cover our territory which could delay the responce time. I am sorry about the poster's mother but that sometimes happens. Like I stated in a past post there are jobs that women are better suited to then men are, just as there are jobs that men are better suited to do. It is not a slam against women just a proven fact that women and men are different biologically. Nobody can chage that. It simply saddened me that some people might have needlessly died because of a delay in transporting the patient to the hospital. Now if you all wish to come down on me for this post then be my guest, since it will prove to me that you have tunnel vision and cannot except a fact of nature. Unfortunately you all took that song called I am woman I can do anything, too seriously. I hope you can see my point if not to bad.
From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169
|
posted 11 September 2004 12:12 PM
quote: I have not met one woman who could do the job of firefighting
Could you please explain this "job of fire fighting" you speak of? Is it like some kind of factory assembly line job where you just lift 400 lb objects all day? As I understand fire fighting, there are many and sundry functions associated with the position . . . surely no one (let alone all)firefighter can do them all perfectly . . . maybe some firefighters on a team should have one subset of these skills and some other team members should have other skills? Maybe even women are capable of having some of the skills required? Fire fighting is a team effort, and requires a team . . . teams are not made up of clones with all the same skills . . . or if they are, they always lose to the more diverse teams that can embody more total skills and employ those skills to the team goal. You don't need to be exclusively a man to drive or operate the vehicles . . . the pumps, the communications, the computers, coordinate with other servces, give orders, admninister first aid, etc, securing the area, reading a map . . . tell me, what skill do you use most: Putting on your fire fighting pants or carrying 300lb body down a flight of stairs? How many 250lb bodies have you persoally had to carry out of a brning building?
From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 11 September 2004 12:16 PM
virgey, you seem to think that you are the only person here who has ever seen, eg, women paramedics at work, and you are just plain wrong.I have watched women paramedics lifting both men and women at least a dozen times, and I've never seen them need to call for help. When I've seen male paramedics lifting, they have always lifted in pairs too -- which is, of course, done for the safety and comfort of the patient, not because of any worker's strength. And more: every day I watch pairs of female careworkers and/or nurses lift men, sometimes very heavy men, with no problem at all. I must have watched that hundreds of times now. I've never seen any of them call a man for help. It just doesn't happen. I think you are a fantasist and a crybaby.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
1st Person
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3984
|
posted 11 September 2004 04:45 PM
quote: Originally posted by skdadl:And more: every day I watch pairs of female careworkers and/or nurses lift men, sometimes very heavy men, with no problem at all. I must have watched that hundreds of times now. I've never seen any of them call a man for help. It just doesn't happen. I think you are a fantasist and a crybaby.[/QB]
So, your reasoning is: you've never seen women ask for help; therefore, no women ever ask for help. And furthermore, any such examples mentioned by others must be lies and/or hallucinations. Well that's certainly logical. [ 11 September 2004: Message edited by: 1st Person ]
From: Kingston | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
virgey
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6827
|
posted 11 September 2004 06:10 PM
skdadl wrote - " virgey, you seem to think that you are the only person here who has ever seen, eg, women paramedics at work, and you are just plain wrong. I have watched women paramedics lifting both men and women at least a dozen times, and I've never seen them need to call for help. When I've seen male paramedics lifting, they have always lifted in pairs too -- which is, of course, done for the safety and comfort of the patient, not because of any worker's strength.And more: every day I watch pairs of female careworkers and/or nurses lift men, sometimes very heavy men, with no problem at all. I must have watched that hundreds of times now. I've never seen any of them call a man for help. It just doesn't happen. I think you are a fantasist and a crybaby. " If you would read my post I never said all women cannot lift. What I said was that I attentded quite a few incidents only to assist in lifting and moving a patient. Obviously I do not attend all ambulance calls, but based on the number that I attended and speaking with other crews on other shifts there is an inordinate number of calls for assissts by females paramedics. Besides my experience is more related to the fire service in which I have already posted my views. Just because you have not personally seen a female ask for assistance does not mean they have never asked. You might think I am a crybaby and I think you are a lunkhead. So there. Anyway this appears to be a case of I said you said in which case nothing is achieved. P.S. I never seen them at work because when we attended we had to do the work they couldn't do.
From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117
|
posted 11 September 2004 07:22 PM
virgey must be one busy guy.First he has to attend almost every ambulance call because they need his big strong self to lift for them Then he has to follow the patient into the hospital and lift them in and out of bed, on and off the operating table, and then be there at all times to lift patients for their personal care needs. Obviously those weak little female nurses are incapable of such work.
From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 11 September 2004 08:32 PM
quote: Originally posted by Mr. Magoo: That's only 556lbs. What if some guy on the 10th floor weighs 600? What then? You call in a man, that's what!
Oh c'mon, Magoo. My nephew is a firefighter. 6'5" and over 220. I doubt he could squat 252 kg without snapping his spine or smashing into the floor with it. That Russian girl is stronger than the average man, no doubt about it. I suggest you go to a local gymn yourself and checkout how strong some of these young women are these days. The methods of weight training used at gymns around the world today are more scientific than they used to be.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169
|
posted 11 September 2004 10:01 PM
Magoo was being sarcastic I believe.Anyway, you're average valley girl model type is probably not the ones applying for jobs with the Fire department (Neither would you expect that your average 98 lb weakling beach prey are the type of men applying either.) A Parimedics first responsibility is to provide medical aid, not lift large objects . . . if that is necessary then they wait for help or do the best they can. If I'm having a hart attack, I would rather have someone show up that knows how to handle the heart attack . . . I don't give a shit if that person has a gold in weightlifting . . . while they are stablizing my condition they can call a piano moving company to carry me out to the ambulance for all I care.
From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
virgey
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6827
|
posted 12 September 2004 01:31 AM
No Yards wrote - "Magoo was being sarcastic I believe. Anyway, you're average valley girl model type is probably not the ones applying for jobs with the Fire department (Neither would you expect that your average 98 lb weakling beach prey are the type of men applying either.)A Parimedics first responsibility is to provide medical aid, not lift large objects . . . if that is necessary then they wait for help or do the best they can. If I'm having a hart attack, I would rather have someone show up that knows how to handle the heart attack . . . I don't give a shit if that person has a gold in weightlifting . . . while they are stablizing my condition they can call a piano moving company to carry me out to the ambulance for all I care." No Yards really was he really being sarcastic. Ah I never would have guessed. Thanks soooo much for clearing that up. Well for your information No Yards all of the females on my department are tiny girls. They are probably around anywhere from 110 lbs to maybe 125 lbs. I cannot speak for other departments, but in my department this is the case. You are correct their first responsibility is to try and stabilize the patient, but at some point in the process they have to transport. So when do you think they are going to call someone for help if they are unbable to lift the patient? If you knew what you were talking about you would know that they must assess the patient and situation first on their arrival on the scene and if they feel they need help they call at that time because if a patient has suffered a heart attack they will be too busy to call when they start administering drugs along with defribillation and using the leardal bag to try and inflate their lungs and get needed oxygen into their bloodstream. One other thing when it comes to someones life would it not be more prudent to get the needed help enroute as soon as possible, so when they have stabalized the patient they can transport. Who knows how long they might have to wait if they delay calling. Every second counts. The brain starts to die after a mere four minutes. Also I should mention we are regularily dispatched at the same time as the ambulance a lot of the time so we can also aid in the advanced life support I mentioned above since it usually requires at least four people to do the job properly. I know you have probably watched the television shows showing two paramedics handling all of the above on their own as well as directing half a dozen other tasks but as you should realize that is television and is ALL bullshit. Obviously you have no idea on what the job entails so your comments are silly but I hope I have enlightened you a little.
From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722
|
posted 12 September 2004 03:28 PM
Hmm I can actually see both sides of this.1-Some requirements sound necessary but really aren't and in fact are designed to keep a certain element out. For example it is a reasonable requirement to be able to carrya 200lb person out of a building, but anyone can pretty much do that with a firemans carry but if you cant, you shouldnt be one. However, being able to do X+10 pushups is not really a necessary requirement. You wont be doing them in a fire and there are any number of ways (including your beginners training which weeds out people) to test someones physical fitness for a job. 2-Having said that some places, in their eagerness to have a suitable percentage of minorities, women etc HAVE relaxed their requirements too much. I heard a CBC report on the military and how they have pretty much eliminated physical testing or fitness. Which personally is something I considered vital. I will also point out the report stated they didnt do it to recruit more women or minorities but simply people since recruitment is way down. The difference is seeing beyond the rhetoric of both sides and examining what the requirements are and which are really needed. If they are needed dont lower them and if you end up with more men then women (or more women then men) so be it. If they aint really necessary, dump them. Its s tupid barrier which deprives you of much needed and skilled people
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169
|
posted 12 September 2004 06:42 PM
virgey, I was responding to someone elses post in regards to Magoo's comments, it was not an "out of the blue comment".Also, I never said a paramedic didn't have to access the situation upon arrival and call for any services they think they might need after stabalizing the victim. That does not change the facts though . . . a paramedic first (as in most important . . . and NOT only) responsibility is not to be able to lift large object . . . it is to address the medical issues. I've never heard of a paramedic arrive at te scene and then refuse to start treatment because they realized that the victim was too heavy to move!! As for not knowing what I'm talking about, I was on the fire and resuce unit for a large pulp mill for three years, and was trained in all aspects of emergency first aid and rescue techniques (training sessions were monthly full day session,) so while I may have forgotten much of the training I do understand the process of how to access the situation. So don't go try and tell me that having someone on the team that can't lift 200lbs over their head is a detriment to the team . . . it is NOT. In most situations in most cities, when there is a call, the paramedics, fire trucks, emergency response, and police are called out to the scene, so even if they all happen to be 120lbs girls that show up, they would still be able to lift any possible victim they might run across.
From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
virgey
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6827
|
posted 12 September 2004 08:40 PM
No Yards wrote - " I've never heard of a paramedic arrive at te scene and then refuse to start treatment because they realized that the victim was too heavy to move!!In most situations in most cities, when there is a call, the paramedics, fire trucks, emergency response, and police are called out to the scene, so even if they all happen to be 120lbs girls that show up, they would still be able to lift any possible victim they might run across Who said they refuse treatment to the patient just because they might not be able to lift them. I certainly did NOT say that.
Not true medical calls do NOT have all emergency services responding to a call. No city would allow that many resources being expended on every medical call when a team of paramedics should be able to handle the situation. The fire service does get involved either when they need help with a lift or we are also dispathed in place of the ambulance if they are too busy. Our job as first responders is to try and sustain life until the paramedics arrive. Police only get involved if the patient expires on scene. As far as your fire and rescue service you had for three years, how many fires did you extinguish or how many patients did you attend to? So I still maintain you know not of what you talk about.
From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
vic ticious
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2889
|
posted 14 September 2004 03:19 PM
in our dept, fire responds to all code4 tiered calls, unconcious, bleeds, mvc's,vsa's etc. however we are sent out to assist ambulance for lifts, often when there are female ambulance crews. it's often made me chuckle when we have four firefighters and a million dollar aerial tied up to help lift. coverage suffers, but the p.c. politico's don't care... i've been full time for 27 years, and have watched the change from boy's club to the present. several of our females are excellent, and several ain't so much so, but we have males that make me shake my head as well. as a service, we are still evolving, and as the fire calls decrease, for many reasons, we will doubtless hire more and more females. i am glad i started my career when we went to lots of fires, and the "boy's club" ruled, now we are becoming just another service for anything that comes along. women have a place in the new fire service, they did not when there were fires in the fire service. re the burnaby scenario, i'd bet she's not a team player but a drama queen, as her female compatriots have not backed her assertions. there are male jerks in the halls as well, only it's not hot copy when it's guys scrapping. i think you folks screaming at virgey should give consideration to somone who's been there...
From: outhere on the perimeter | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|