• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we lower standards for potential female firefighters?

Should we lower standards for female firefighters?

  • Total voters
    37
earthworm said:
no vote .. I suspect that originally the ''standards'' were set to exclude the woman ..due to ignorance and fear .. The target must be to achieve success , to "get the job done" ..Simply to not only extinguish blazed, but to prevent them in the first place ... here, the surface has yet to be scratched .
Hell, maybe the standards should be raised instead . by intelligent beings ..
Click to expand...

yes well, that won't be understood in this thread but i fully agree
 
_Sal said:
well aren't you special
Click to expand...

Afternoon Sal
I see where you are coming from but I disagree. Toronto, 99% of calls for Fire Dept assistance were not fire related.This study was done due to the various duties that FF Depts had been assigned and were during budget talks for increasing FF in Toronto. That said 1% were. So when it comes to grunt work that fighting a fire needs, I do not agree with lowering standards.
 
JANFU said:
Afternoon Sal
I see where you are coming from but I disagree. Toronto, 99% of call were not fire related.This study was done due to the various duties that FF Depts had been assigned and were during budget talks for increasing FF in Toronto. That said 1% were. So when it comes to grunt work that fighting a fire needs, I do not agree with lowering standards.
Click to expand...
Evening Janfu,

With all due respect, I don't think you do see where I am coming from at all.

lowering standards how...the OP did not say lowering standards that would compromise safety in anyway...thus the OP was set up for an emotional response and bingo

it succeeded

so tell me if lowering standards compromises nothing why would one not lower standards?
 
_Sal said:
Evening Janfu,

With all due respect, I don't think you do see where I am coming from at all.

lowering standards how...the OP did not say lowering standards that would compromise safety in anyway...thus the OP was set up for an emotional response and bingo

it succeeded

so tell me if lowering standards compromises nothing why would one not lower standards?
Click to expand...
Good point. If lower physical standards do not compromise safety, then I would ask why are they set so high?
 
TurtleDude said:
no-unless female FFs are restricted to fighting only "female level fires" :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Bodhisattva said:
Shouldn't women have to fight fires started by women though?
Click to expand...
The problem here is: Will female and male firefighters be restricted to using their respective gender's fire hydrants, and who will decide? It can get a little dicey below the Mason-Dixon! :2razz:
 
Captain Adverse said:
No.

Fires aren't going to take into account someone's sex when it comes to fire-fighting.

Either you can do the job as required by the needs of the position, or go find yourself another career.
Click to expand...

Doesn't work that way ! :shock: The PC group wants accommodations made along with ACLU . :roll:
 
Chomsky said:
The problem here is: Will female and male firefighters be restricted to using their respective gender's fire hydrants, and who will decide? It can get a little dicey below the Mason-Dixon! :2razz:
Click to expand...

I guess that depends how long a fire fighter's hose is?
 
nothanks700 said:
Should hopeful firefighters who happen to be female have lower physical standards than male applicants?
Click to expand...

No. Women shouldn't be barred outright. But the physical requirements are there for a reason. If they can do them, great, if not, find a new career path.
 
earthworm said:
no vote .. I suspect that originally the ''standards'' were set to exclude the woman ..due to ignorance and fear .. The target must be to achieve success , to "get the job done" ..Simply to not only extinguish blazed, but to prevent them in the first place ... here, the surface has yet to be scratched .
Hell, maybe the standards should be raised instead . by intelligent beings ..
Click to expand...

Perhaps they should be raised. The average American is getting fatter and fatter. It will take a lot of strength and stamina to pull a fat ass out of a burning building.
 
Ikari said:
I guess if they can't pull their weight, if they are delegated to PR duty only, it would be OK.
Click to expand...

not just PR....

there are numerous other jobs where they can play a role IF they cant meet the rigorous physical requirements for standard firefighting

but the key is this....

i dont want anyone's safety compromised because of someone wanting a quota

the firefighters, the citizens, no ones....
 
As pointed out, strength/size is only one metric for the job. I assume like in most other disciplines, women have things offer in various fields that we simply do not, and to some extent, cannot yet understand. A boys club that admits girls is still functioning as a boys club, it would take generations to find a new status quo.

As to strength/size requirements, they are to some degree arbitrary. You pick some average target carry weight. And yet, any one individual you may try to save my exceed that limit...look at the morbidly obese..300, 400, 500 lbs? Sometimes it will take two, and sometimes it will take a team.
And there are other measures other than strength. Someone may not take care of themselves in other ways, or may lack other qualities (drugs, alcohol, lack of endurance, mental fitness, intelligence, leadership, ability to react under stress, etc.,etc) all of which can contribute to inability to perform that duty. In the total "effectiveness", I doubt minor changes to accommodate women are something to fight over. Another way to judge is if the male physical test puts them in the top 20% percentile, the women should be similar in comparison to women.

I think knowledge, experience, and attitude, are far more valuable in 99% of well, everything. I wonder what most preventable errors, life loss, etc., are due to (really). I doubt its inability to carry a little more weight.

I know some former female firefighters, they happen to be big, tough girls. I would be worried if they were little twiggy girls...but that's not the case is it?
 
JANFU said:
Good point. If lower physical standards do not compromise safety, then I would ask why are they set so high?
Click to expand...
well it's merely the way the OP was phrased and I do not believe they would lower standards to a place that would compromise safety.

back in the dark ages cops used to have to be a certain height...

the world moves forward...things change so do requirements
 
Ikari said:
I guess if they can't pull their weight, if they are delegated to PR duty only, it would be OK.
Click to expand...

Under stress some rise to the occasion, others fail...tiny women have lifted cars off of victims...if a big brute of a guy fails mentally or emotionally, strength means nothing...it's all relative and I trust that the testing they do takes all aspects into consideration.
 
_Sal said:
Under stress some rise to the occasion, others fail...tiny women have lifted cars off of victims...if a big brute of a guy fails mentally or emotionally, strength means nothing...it's all relative and I trust that the testing they do takes all aspects into consideration.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I'd rather they demonstrate ability before trying to pull someone out of a burning building.

The testing they do liky does try to address that, which is why the standards were set as they were. As I said, and e who makes the standards should be considered for the role. But standards shouldn't be lowered in order to make quota.
 
Ikari said:
Yes, but I'd rather they demonstrate ability before trying to pull someone out of a burning building.

The testing they do liky does try to address that, which is why the standards were set as they were. As I said, and e who makes the standards should be considered for the role. But standards shouldn't be lowered in order to make quota.
Click to expand...
But they certainly can be lowered to make a quota IF they meet standards
 
_Sal said:
But they certainly can be lowered to make a quota IF they meet standards
Click to expand...

You can lower the standards to make quota if they meet the standards? That's nonsensical.

It's departments have physical standards in order to perform the job. If one meets these standards, they can be considered for the job. If not, it's time to find a new career path. Lowering standards to meet a quota is stupid. You end up with people unable to perform the job, and in life and death situations that is detrimental.
 
Chomsky said:
The problem here is: Will female and male firefighters be restricted to using their respective gender's fire hydrants, and who will decide? It can get a little dicey below the Mason-Dixon! :2razz:
Click to expand...

Well, we need cops to stand there and check their privates then... if it means some people die or a building burns down? It is worth it to maintain a gender safe environment...
 
Ikari said:
You can lower the standards to make quota if they meet the standards? That's nonsensical.

It's departments have physical standards in order to perform the job. If one meets these standards, they can be considered for the job. If not, it's time to find a new career path. Lowering standards to meet a quota is stupid. You end up with people unable to perform the job, and in life and death situations that is detrimental.
Click to expand...

no things change due to technology...nothing is static
 
Bodhisattva said:
Well, we need cops to stand there and check their privates then... if it means some people die or a building burns down? It is worth it to maintain a gender safe environment...
Click to expand...
Of course I was joking there ... ;)
 
_Sal said:
no things change due to technology...nothing is static
Click to expand...

Yes, and when firefighters are outfitted in mecha, perhaps physical requirements can be lowered. But they are not pulling machines into fires to help remove people. A lot of that is still fine by hand, there are still physical requirements ofnthe job and the standards are established to reflect that. Do or do not, there is no try. Either one can meet the standards and then should be considered for a position (regardless of sex), or they cannot and need to consider a new career.
 
_Sal said:
Under stress some rise to the occasion, others fail...tiny women have lifted cars off of victims...if a big brute of a guy fails mentally or emotionally, strength means nothing...it's all relative and I trust that the testing they do takes all aspects into consideration.
Click to expand...

Right... testing that takes into consideration that under stress some tiny woman might be able to lift a car off a victim. This **** is classic! :lol:
 
Chomsky said:
:lamo

Don't ever leave this place, bro!
Click to expand...

What would I do without being able to post like I did in post #74?

I ain't never leaving...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom