Gay events, lack of logic IMO. Mr.fun explain this to me.

[notyoueither]

And when something goes wrong and the one turning on the hose needs to go in to haul out the 220 lb man wearing 50 lb of gear to save buddies, but she can't because the standards were lowered to get her there?

PC has effected the firefighters of many cities by lowering standards for women to get in. That is what Gibsie seemed to be unaware of. So I corrected him.

[Dis]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And when something goes wrong and the one turning on the hose needs to go in to haul out the 220 lb man wearing 50 lb of gear to save buddies, but she can't because the standards were lowered to get her there?

PC has effected the firefighters of many cities by lowering standards for women to get in. That is what Gibsie seemed to be unaware of. So I corrected him.

**** happens

[notyoueither]

That's a sound basis for public policy.

**** happens.

Good reasoning there.

[Dis]

like I said, I prefer not to think about it. Let women have their day.

[notyoueither]

Yes. As you said, you prefer not to think about it.

[Dis]

it's just not PC to say anything about it. People here already think I'm a misogynist, I will not say anything against equal rights in the workplace. Even if they aren't entirely equal.

[notyoueither]

That is the issue, isn't it? It's not PC to speak against lowered standards to let women into jobs they are not qualified for.

[Dis]

And I admit, I didn't know about the lower standards for bench press. But it doesn't surprise me the least bit. As women in the navy are only expected to do less pushups (I think 17 is the number- depending on age group).

[Velociryx]

NYE

-=Vel=-
(but good Lord man, I hope you brought your flame-retardant longjohns!)

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The point is that the standard of the job was lowered to get women in, as opposed to what was stated in what I responded to.

To get women in the NYCFD, the standard for bench press weight was lowered from 200 to 150 pounds, for women only. No weaker men. Not just allow physically strong women. But lower the standards for women so she would not have to be capable of the same strength as any man would need to be capable of.

It is and was bull****, and it does cost lives.

Well done, you've shown that this isn't just a myth (Although you've listed one fire department- is this how most work, is it an exception or what? Any evidence?). However, everyone in this thread is against lowering standards as far as I can see. It's still dumb to say, "firefighting isn't for women" fullstop, however.

[Velociryx]

Actually, it's almost epidemic.

If one group feels mis-treated by academic standards, then we lower the standards so they'll "feel better."

In the military, one group gets a completely different set of standards than another. Same job....different standards.

As NYE pointed out, one of the largest (if not THE largest) fire departments in the country has two sets of standards. Again, same work, differing set of standards. And they're not alone.

So the whole THING is a sham.

And yes, Spec's *original statement* was provocative. I agree, and I've said as much three times now.

And when I re-phrased it to get at the core of what he meant by his original statement, he agreed.

The only folks tossing out strawmen at this point are the PC Brigade, who seem to want to twist my words and Spec's meaning into something it's not, because at the end of the day, it's MUCH easier to invent a problem to attack than it is to acknowledge a fundamental truth that everyone SAYS is obvious, but is apparently not.

*shrug*

Like I said....amusing.



-=Vel=-

[Gibsie]

You know what though? I'll bet that such changes aren't so much because of women campaigning to be let in, but because some bureaucrat somewhere decided that it'd be far too much time and money to train women to equal standards as men, and so they just made it easier for them to pass: same "result", less work. I also bet that few women who make it into the job appreciate being substandard. I hope as far as the military goes, women don't get the most physically-demanding posts if they aren't meeting the same qualifications as men.

[Velociryx]

That's a good point, and prolly a fair assessment, Gisbie.

The reason I say that hearkens back to a point I brought up earlier.

It don't really matter that any given woman could, theoretically bulk herself up to get the firefighter's job.

What matters is that here in the day to day real world, it ain't happening, or at least, it ain't happening in large numbers.

The REASON that it ain't happening (and I don't pretend to know what that reason might be)....whether it's that women aren't lobbying hard to become firefighters in droves, or a beureaucrat somewhere making decisions that effect the career decisions of the ladies in question, or whatever...could be a gazillion different things.

The main point is that for whatever reason, women AREN'T lining up in mass numbers to become firefighters. They're just not.

And it's not sexist to point that out.

And it's quite likely not because of some nefarious sexist plot.

Personally, I buy your beureaucratic theory. It makes sense. Some fringe group makes a little noise once-upon-a-time, and scares the bejesus out of some little paper pusher someplace, who figures that it's easier to simply lower the standards and make special exceptions, because it's too tiresome to tangle with the PC Brigade when they get their dander up, so they just do some fudging at the margins and the problem goes away.

Except when it costs a life here and there, of course, but again, it's impolite to discuss such things.

-=Vel=-

[Elok]

I, too, have had enough of this gender-based discrimination....Playboy magazine needs to start giving equal coverage to man-breasts. Penthouse and Hustler too!

"So they're not attractive. They're still breasts."

[Velociryx]

Elok, I believe you just underscored the whole argument! Good show!

-=Vel=-