NY Woman to Become Fire Fighter Without Passing Physical Exam

[Dragonbums]

Ergh, I'm gonna step out of this thread because I know it's gonna get ugly.

Yeah, but no, she should of had to take a physical exam like everyone else. Fire men and WOMEN have to do the physical, so why did she get an exemption? Unless this women was a known body builder or some shit and they know from the outside that she can do those things (either way it doesn't excuse them from not giving her a physical.) that's a load of trash.

I wonder if this fire department is doing this just to get attention honestly.

 

[eberhart]

Don't worry. The whole idea of "excelling academically while not meeting other standards" is unlikely to lead to a situation where some "affirmative firefighter" fails to drag you out of the building. There is one place where this kind of people can land instead (and, given the apparent political backing at play, they eventually will).

I mean, why is there so few ranking female firefighters? That needs to be fixed just as well, shattering glass ceilings and all that, preferably by quotas. And... would you look at that, there's a number of "academically excelling" firefighters on hand - perfect for giving instructions and leading those "physically able" peons. What? Respect and experience? Apparently nobody cares about the former anyway and the latter can be gained "academically".



Seriously though, there's already a job she should be given instead, along with any other "academically outstanding" cases like her:

a fire inspector .

 

[Ariseishirou]

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.

Maybe in the US, but when Canada opened front-line infantry combat positions to women back in the late 80s, with the requirement that they pass the same physical tests as the men, they literally never went back on that. Very few women pass, and it's been about 30 years now. It has never changed, even so. Canadian infantrywomen fought in Afghanistan.

I think the question might be: why can we accomplish that here and not in America?

 

[IceStar100]

All aside part of this is even putting her life in danger. Resentment builds up and can lead to her team "forgetting about her." Fire fighter, police and military are a team we require each other. plus with disrespect come questioning her order if she does get higher up. Which again put people in danger because some time order need to be followed with out question. She will not be seen as a true fire fighter but like someone who slept their way to the top. No she didn't earn it that way but is in the same boat. She didn't do it the right way someone from the top pulled her up instead of her doing it herself.

TLDR She putting everyone including herself in harms way for this. No good will come of it.

 

[maninahat]

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.

You're forgetting the purpose of "increasing diversity" in the first place; it's to end a cyclical problem in which certain minority groups can't ever get a foothold. Lowering the barrier for entry for certain people and raising it for others is prejudicial, however not changing the barriers for entry can also be far more prejudicial, in that it reinforces an already present societal stratification. But I think there is a distinction between affirmative action in schools, and re-addressing job requirements. Are we arguing that prior to trying to recruit women into the fire service, the fire department never altered their entry requirements? That the concept of adjusting tests only ever happened after the fire department felt they needed more women? I gave one example in another post wherein they scrapped most of the written exams for firefighters, when it occurred to them that high literacy rates weren't actually all that conducive to finding firemen, and that the requirement was preventing perfectly good applications from people with poorer reading/writing skills (which especially affected people from poor and black/hispanic back grounds).

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.

My intuition says that her being a woman was certainly a factor in her being allowed to pass (for affirmative action reasons), but that doesn't mean they have decided to let a dangerously under-qualified woman on to the force just to fill a quota. Presumably they actually did weigh up the implications of letting someone in who didn't beat the physical, against whether she would actually perform well on the job. The purpose of the tests are to establish who is a good firefighter, and if she managed to demonstrate she was a good firefighter overall, in spite of the physical, that was most likely the deciding factor in whether she could pass (and not just that she was a woman).

 

[Shiftygiant]

If she's just gonna be doing an office position, fine, but actual field work? Bold move NYFD.

 

[deeman010]

Very dumb..... there are women that passed the physicals already so there's no need for this. When people's lives are on the line you can't compromise on standards like this. I mean we can have representation but its not worth it imo, not at the cost of, potentially, people's lives.

 

[sageoftruth]

I thought this seemed too ridiculous to be true. It mostly is true, but apparently the test requirements have been lowered not just for her but also for all future applicants. Of course, I don't know how I feel about lowering the standards for the test. Apparently they had previously required you to pass the physical test, but now it comes down to what your average is between the physical and the academic tests. Because she excelled academically, she passed in the new system. It still sounds a bit questionable, given how physically demanding firefighting is.

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.

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.

Good point. Making a test too hard can have disastrous effects. I recall reading somewhere that a certain country had a drivers test that was so hard, that most people just said, "Screw it" and decided to drive without taking the test. Lots of horrible driving ensued. Still, I should also note that there was more to it than just the test being hard. It was also a huge bureaucratic mess.

 

[Kameburger]

I just have to ask since no one has seemed to disagree with this, but what is the argument in favor of this? Like the genuine argument. I understand the desire for diversity, but it does seem like no one thinks this was a good idea. And the only kind of regret/reflection I've seen on that matter is one person on this board who lamented the fact that feminists are going to essentially get a lot of shit for this.

 

[alj]

That is a bit crazy. I mean irrespective of your sex you should have to meet the minimum physical requirements of the job in question.

This issue here is that they where probably terrified of being called sexist so they let her pass, even if the lady in question would more than likely not claimed that.

We have had a similar problem in the UK with children as young as 14 being sexually abused by gangs of men in a town called Rochdale, and the police and social services downplayed the issue as the men in question happened to be of asian origin as they did not want to be called racist.

This kind of political bullshit is going too far, its causing problems all over.


EDIT. On a separate note, do you have to pay the fire service in the US before they will rescue you or is if free ? Socialised fire service! Oh no the commies are coming !

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I am a petite female, as a child I wanted to grow up to be a firefighter. However, when I was 19 and went to apply, I was told I simply did not weigh enough to be considered. They told me I was too small. I understood, and chose to go into lifeguard training at the time instead since there were no weight requirements at the time. As an Ocean rescue lifeguard, I had much more required of me than a regular lifeguard, and while it was extremely difficult to do, I was able to meet the requirements, including being able to rescue a person much larger than myself. I would not want them to reduce the requirements, as it could mean life and death for someone in the event you need to rescue them and are unable to do so.

One thing I would like to note on that however, is different techniques should be allowed if it accomplishes the goal. A female may not be able to lift a person the same way their male counterpart can but be able to accomplish the same goal with a different method. They should be allowed to use whatever technique they require to be able to meet the same goal. IF the goal is to get a person from point A to point B unharmed,they should be able to use their own methods to do so as long as it accomplishes the same objective, rather than be required to have everyone use the same method.

@ Alj- Yes, you have to pay for Fire services via local taxes, and if you are not in their coverage area you have to opt in to pay more for it as well.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/07/9272989-firefighters-let-home-burn-over-75-fee-again

 

[Ihateregistering1]

EDIT. On a separate note, do you have to pay the fire service in the US before they will rescue you or is if free ? Socialised fire service! Oh no the commies are coming !

Nothing is free, you pay for them with taxes, they are what's called (in economics) a "public good", which is essentially something that everyone gets an equal amount of regardless of how much you pay in taxes (ideally). It's the same thing with the Military, or the Police: it doesn't matter if you pay $1 in taxes a year or $1,000,000, the police will still show up if you call them, or the Military will still defend you if someone invades.

 

[DrOswald]

I've heard Copout to be a shitty movie, but it at least provided us with this wonderfully useful clip:


Fuck. This. Shit. If this is the way the world is heading, it's time to burn Tumblr to the ground and never let its echo chamber of mouth-frothing lunatics rise again. Seriously, this is fucking appalling. No amount of whining about sexism, white privilege or whatever is the buzzword of the day is, is going to fix the fact that we now can graduate people who are by definition unfit to do their job.

As if this wasn't enough, just moments ago I saw this article [http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/man-68-faces-rape-charges-after-posing-as-model-for-fifty-shades-of-grey-dates-31198049.html] about a 68-year old man who'd coaxed women into Fifty Shades of Grey -inspired sex while posing as a dashing model, with total consent from his partners. He is now faced with multiple charges of rape because oh no, the impossibly gorgeous model who promised to be the knight of your dreams didn't actually turn out to be that. The guy's a scumbag, definitely, but a rapist? Fuck off, if the women had kept the blindfold on all the time, I bet they would have been perfectly happy.

You know why he is being charged with rape? Because he raped them! Strange that.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Maybe she'll pass out running into a burning building and realize that being a firefighter isn't fun and games.

 

[DrOswald]

So, having actually read the article, it sounds like this woman is woefully unqualified in terms of the physical demands of the job. Not only did she complete the test more than 4 minutes over time (more than 20% over time), it was in fact her best attempt by far. Every other time she took it ("many" times, according to the articles) she failed to even complete the test.

In a generalist organization (which is how firefighting works, as I understand it) excellence in one area cannot makeup for failures in another.

 

[Gretha Unterberg]

Then what is the exam for?

Excelent point.

But sometimes, not often; but sometimes there is an lazy approach with exames.
Even if you have jobs where subject has no effect on peoples performance at this job,
like itness tests for deskjobs or as drivers.
You just test everyone becaue there are enough people applying anyway
and you are slightly more flexible if your employee are qualified for more then one position.

 

[TallanKhan]

No one should ever be given a free pass for the sake of diversity. Don't get me wrong, I am all for diversity, but if they want women in the NYFD so badly then they need to set about recruiting women who can do the job rather than letting in ones who can't for the sake of a quota.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I am a petite female, as a child I wanted to grow up to be a firefighter. However, when I was 19 and went to apply, I was told I simply did not weigh enough to be considered. They told me I was too small. I understood, and chose to go into lifeguard training at the time instead since there were no weight requirements at the time. As an Ocean rescue lifeguard, I had much more required of me than a regular lifeguard, and while it was extremely difficult to do, I was able to meet the requirements, including being able to rescue a person much larger than myself. I would not want them to reduce the requirements, as it could mean life and death for someone in the event you need to rescue them and are unable to do so.

One thing I would like to note on that however, is different techniques should be allowed if it accomplishes the goal. A female may not be able to lift a person the same way their male counterpart can but be able to accomplish the same goal with a different method. They should be allowed to use whatever technique they require to be able to meet the same goal. IF the goal is to get a person from point A to point B unharmed,they should be able to use their own methods to do so as long as it accomplishes the same objective, rather than be required to have everyone use the same method.

@ Alj- Yes, you have to pay for Fire services via local taxes, and if you are not in their coverage area you have to opt in to pay more for it as well.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/07/9272989-firefighters-let-home-burn-over-75-fee-again

Except how many different ways do you think you could transport someone during a fire? You're either dragging someone or picking them up. Both require you to be fit as fuck (especially picking someone up whilst being loaded with heavy gear). The Army gets you to drag, carry, assist, etc. Not to mention a lot of the methods that are required are for safety reasons as well, not so much for the victim but for the person carrying them.

There are multiple ways to 1) drag someone and 2 ) to pick them up. There are multiple ways to put them on your back and carry them in front. The problem with some of the tests is they only allow people to use specific methods that may not work for others. A while back I had watched videos comparing how the Firefighters in Asian Nations did things vs the US firefighters and the techniques were equally effective but different. I think some of the requirements in the US in regards to how the test is done not only may unnecessarily exclude women due to not allowing multiple techniques, but also exclude men of smaller stature as well. These same people would more than pass the required tests in other nations.

EDIT: I should make it clear however, there is no way to know if this woman would be capable of using the other techniques unless tested and should still be forced to pass the requirements before being a firefighter.

 

[mad825]

I think some of the requirements in the US in regards to how the test is done not only may unnecessarily exclude women due to not allowing multiple techniques, but also exclude men of smaller stature as well. These same people would more than pass the required tests in other nations.

....It's a selection process based on physical prowess. The whole point is to be vigorous. Each nation have their own standards which also goes for the same with paramedics, police and military. There are just some people who can't pass the physical and that's just a state of fact not prejudice.

Depending on how much you were underweight it might have been a non-issue. most guys that I've talked to some people who have failed under that problem in the army and they were just recommended to go to McDonalds and drink protein shakes.

 

[Mong0]

Political correctness is actually potentially destroying society, it seems.