• 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
nothanks700 said:
Should hopeful firefighters who happen to be female have lower physical standards than male applicants?
Click to expand...

No.

This is across the board.

If any job can be safely and reasonably performed with a lower standard, then it's reasonable to lower that standard across the board.

But if the standard is in place because it's believed that is needed to properly perform the job, then that's the standard. That should be the case regardless of gender.
 
_Sal said:
no things change due to technology...nothing is static
Click to expand...

But you're talking about two different things.

If technology allows the standards to be lowered, then that should be able to be showed and those standards should be lowered across the board.

If it can't be shown that the technology makes it safe to lower the standards across the board, or it does show that but they only lower it for females, then the notion that it's being lowered because of "technology" changing is just wrong.
 
_Sal said:
But they certainly can be lowered to make a quota IF they meet standards
Click to expand...

What?

If they're having to lower the standards then they were not MEETING the standards in the first place.

No, the name of diversity and quota's is not a legitimate reason to take someone unqualified for a job, especially one dealing with public safety. IF the issue is that the standards are unnecessarily high, then drop them across the board. But you absolutely do not drop them simply in the name of a "quota".
 
Zyphlin said:
What?

If they're having to lower the standards then they were not MEETING the standards in the first place.

No, the name of diversity and quota's is not a legitimate reason to take someone unqualified for a job, especially one dealing with public safety. IF the issue is that the standards are unnecessarily high, then drop them across the board. But you absolutely do not drop them simply in the name of a "quota".
Click to expand...
Exactly. I hate quotas. And honestly I don't want to be given a job simply because I'm female or because I am gay. I want to get a job because I am the most qualified. Otherwise, I don't really feel like I accomplished much, and that'd be extremely unfair to the more qualified individuals who were denied to job for the sake of meeting a quota.
 
Women in Combat: Physical Differences May Mean Uphill Battle - Women in Combat: Physical Differences May Mean Uphill Battle

Army stats show that women are injured twice as often as men in combat training - Army stats show that women are injured twice as often as men in combat training - Washington Times

Marine study finds all-male infantry units outperformed teams with women - Marine study finds all-male infantry units outperformed teams with women

And now as a lot of us said would happen but others said oh no they will not lower standards....

Pressure grows on Marines to consider lowering combat standards for women - Marine Corps weighs lower standards for women after none pass Infantry Officer Course - Washington Times

So no, it's just not necessary for anything other than some political nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom