NY Woman to Become Fire Fighter Without Passing Physical Exam
- Thread starter RJ 17
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You do realize she was able to complete the test, except it took 22 minutes which isn't all that much worse than the 17 they allowed.LordLundar said:
If I thought she was going to be useless as a firefighter I'd agree with all of you. As it stands, she is going to be capable of meeting those physical demands.
Sure, its not an ideal situation. But its nowhere near as bad as everyone hear likes to say it is.
I personally know a cop that don't meet the physical requirements (Though he may have when he got in). He's a respected member of his team. You make it sound like shes going to be sitting in the truck getting paid for doing nothing while taking up the slot of a more qualified member. If she doesn't pull her weight she will probably be kicked out.
I get the feeling this sort of reaction is just stemming from all the feminist bullshit on here and people are taking the chance to overreact in retaliation the moment a woman gets slight preferential treatment.
She should be able to pass it, other women have and there are plenty of women outside the fire department that would be physically able to.
This is just a PR disaster the mayor will get flak for doing it and more flak if or when she fucks up. More flak will get shot than during WW2
This is just a PR disaster the mayor will get flak for doing it and more flak if or when she fucks up. More flak will get shot than during WW2
There is a reason for those time limits and that's because a fire can spread quickly. Often times a firefighter's success is measured in seconds and a five minute delay is disastrous. And no, I don't expect her to be paid for doing nothing, I do expect that she will be in one of those situations where seconds matter and someone will die as a result of her not being able to do the job.Trippy Turtle said:
As for your officer friend, there is a significant difference. If a suspect gets away because of him not meeting the requirements, the suspect can be picked up later before something else happens. If a firefighter fails in their role due to not meeting the requirement people WILL die and much more damage WILL happen.
And if you want to get into the feminist nonsense, let me point out that you are defending preferential treatment for someone BECAUSE of their gender because diversity is more important than people's lives. But hey, I'm sure when families of people who could have been saved and owners of buildings that were turned to rubble because she couldn't move fast enough will be thrilled to know that their lives and property were small sacrifices in the name of diversity. Especially when it's realized that which they had lost was all over a PR stunt.
This is totally off topic BUT: I have a friend who's GF said she was on the pill. They had been dating quite a while and had no reason not to believe her, she was lying. She got pregnant and POP there goes his life he wanted. Did she rape him? He consented to sex with a woman who was not lying and was on birth control. No she didn't rape him, what she did was scummy as hell, and should be some sort of illegal but not rape. Icing on the cake, some guy got charged for rape because he poked holes in the condom, same thing different genders.2HF said:
OT: This is just despicable as can be. Jobs are given based on aptitude, NOT on gender. If a job requires certain skills to do, and only people with those skills can do it, they're the ones who should get the job. ESPECIALLY when it involves lives being at risk. I really wanted to be a surgeon but my hands aren't very steady, should I argue and fight until they let me do surgery despite my shaky hands? HELL. NO.
EDIT:
Dude I'm about 100000% certain that guy is joking.BloatedGuppy said:
well this is just completely ridiculous. i love women, but some jobs are very physical and if you cant pass the requirements, you shouldnt be given the job. what if this woman has to pull an adult male (maybe even a fellow firefighter) out of a burning building? the fact alone that she is a woman would make this exponentially more difficult.
They both lied about physical differences in/about their bodies. You're completely wrong. Person A IS Person B. Should we charge Barney from HIMYM with multiple counts of rape? He pretended to be VonMatterhorn (or whatever the name was). Just because you lie about who you are does NOT make it rape. It's scummy, makes you a liar and a jerk, but it's not rape.2HF said:
You still don't grasp this concept? It wasn't his body that they consented to. They consented to sex with an entirely different human being. He didn't lie about his body, he never told them that his body was in the equation at all! He had sex with women who never agreed to have sex with him. That is the literal definition of rape.Qizx said:
No he did lie about his body.2HF said:
He lied about his age (Tons of people do that and have sex)
He lied about his job (Tons of people do that and have sex)
He lied about his appearance (Ok this one is way harder to get away with cause usually people SEE each other during/before sex).
They consented to have sex with someone who's a liar. They consented to have sex with what they THOUGHT he was.
EDIT: You're arguing as if he had his super hunk young friend lure women in, then blind folded them and did the old switcheroo. There was only one person. ONE PERSON. There is no Person A and Person B.
EDIT 2: Since this is way off topic of the OP I'm going to hold off on responding anymore. And just to make it clear I do believe the guy is an asshole, maybe even what he did should be illegal, but it's not rape.
By your logic I can now sleep with whoever I like, anywhere and anytime. As long as the women don't see me and I make sure to claim I'm someone they've consented to sex with in the past I'm in the clear. I'm a liar and an asshole but honestly I'm already both of those things.Qizx said:
I really hate saying this, but I'm ex-Military, and whenever people ask why I was against the idea of letting women try out for Infantry, Special Forces, Armor, SEALs, etc., I point to this and other similar examples.
It's great that we say "women should be allowed to try out, but the standards need to remain the same", and I agree with that statement, but it's ultimately just lip-service. Inevitably, a couple of years down the road, a lot of the same people who promised that the standards wouldn't change notice that only a tiny % of women (if any) managed to meet the standards, and then suddenly the test is "discriminatory" and needs to be "gender-normed". Or they notice there are too few women in the organization and demand that they fix this "problem". It's the same dog and pony show: they don't want equality of opportunity, they want equality of outcome.
It happened to the NY fire department in the 80's, it happened to the Virginia Military Institute in the 2000's, and it's still ongoing with the Marine Corps, who has continuously delayed having women trying out for Infantry be held to the same standards, since so few of them can pass the pull-up test. I'd be happy with it if people actually kept their word that the standards would remain and be taken seriously, but history has continuously shown otherwise.
It's great that we say "women should be allowed to try out, but the standards need to remain the same", and I agree with that statement, but it's ultimately just lip-service. Inevitably, a couple of years down the road, a lot of the same people who promised that the standards wouldn't change notice that only a tiny % of women (if any) managed to meet the standards, and then suddenly the test is "discriminatory" and needs to be "gender-normed". Or they notice there are too few women in the organization and demand that they fix this "problem". It's the same dog and pony show: they don't want equality of opportunity, they want equality of outcome.
It happened to the NY fire department in the 80's, it happened to the Virginia Military Institute in the 2000's, and it's still ongoing with the Marine Corps, who has continuously delayed having women trying out for Infantry be held to the same standards, since so few of them can pass the pull-up test. I'd be happy with it if people actually kept their word that the standards would remain and be taken seriously, but history has continuously shown otherwise.
Exactly this. I feel like we'll probably see it on one of Cracked's weekly 'debunking bullshit headlines' articles before any reputable news source reports on it.NeutralDrow said:
Eh, my instinct is to say this sounds dangerous, but I imagine the exam invigilators know the circumstances better and probably made a far more informed decision. I don't think I am in any position to say "this is a disgrace", because for all I know she might actually be a really good firefighter, with the exception of that one physical failing.
But of course, the first thing people will do is blame that gosh darn affirmative action business, whilst ignoring the fact that they could have easily chosen not to hire her, and still got their diversity dollar from the other two female recruits who did pass all the tests. I somewhat doubt the invigilators thought to themselves, "She'll probably let someone burn to death in a building, but eh, we need more women, however incompetent".
But of course, the first thing people will do is blame that gosh darn affirmative action business, whilst ignoring the fact that they could have easily chosen not to hire her, and still got their diversity dollar from the other two female recruits who did pass all the tests. I somewhat doubt the invigilators thought to themselves, "She'll probably let someone burn to death in a building, but eh, we need more women, however incompetent".
Maybe the physical test just was a bit arbitrary to begin with? Why does the psychical requirement have a time limit of 18 minutes, and not 17 or 16? If we are so concerned about the physical element here, why aren't we demanding the test be even more stringent, and people have to pass it in 10 minutes? The examiners are probably the best equipped people to make that decision.sageoftruth said:
If the examiners have lowered the requirements for entry, that would be an acknowledgement on their part that the test didn't need to be that hard to produce capable fire fighters. In which case, her not passing the physical isn't as big a deal as people suggested. I remember a few years back when people were complaining about a firefighter paper exam being simplified to enable people with poor reading/writing skills from getting fire fighter jobs. It never occurred to the people complaining that perhaps the examiners who changed the exam requirements actually thought things through before making changes; that they might have realized the examination was pointlessly baring entry to what were perfectly good firefighters. Exams by their very nature are kind of an abstract measure of a person's ability, and they are not 100% accurate an indicator, otherwise no exam would ever need be changed.
To start, sageoftruth was slightly off. The physical test standards haven't changed, but now the Head Honcho of the Fire Department has said he's going to let it slide that she didn't pass because her academic scores are good. But even if they had changed, that argument makes no sense. Being in good shape is a requirement because it is necessary for the job, and being in better shape is even better, but in order to actually have enough people make it through the program so that ranks could be filled, they have to be within reason. Sure, the Army could make it so that everyone has to be in Olympic athlete shape to enlist, but when the call comes to go to war and the Army is composed of about 30 people who were able to pass the test, you're going to be pretty screwed.maninahat said:
Baloney. Organizations are forced all the time by special interest groups to shift around their standards to 'increase diversity', it hardly means they are acknowledging they agree with the decision; they have higher ups they have to answer to as well. Schools in California started to increase the standards by which they judge Asian students for admission purposes. Does that mean the administration was acknowledging that the current standards were too low to succeed at the school, and needed to be increased? Hardly, it was because there were too many Asian students and not enough black and hispanic students enrolling. To the surprise of no one, they were also told to decrease standards for black and hispanics applicants as well.maninahat said:
You're attempting to sugarcoat what is quite clearly a political move from the head of the FDNY. If you're not convinced, ask yourself this: if this had been a male applicant, do you honestly believe they would have just said 'no big deal that he didn't actually pass the physical fitness test, just let him in"? I'd be seriously surprised on this one.