NY Woman to Become Fire Fighter Without Passing Physical Exam

[hentropy]

Keep in mind that a lot of these physical exams, whether it's for a fire department or a box-carrying job, typically have little to do with the actual demands of the job. Keep in mind I'm not making any such assertion with this case, I know next to nothing about the fire department physical exam for FDNY. It could be perfectly representative of the job demands, in which case this would not be okay. It's not okay either way, really.

However, these types of exams usually conform to some sort of average of people they want to accept any given year. If they see that less people are passing the physical exams, then they will naturally lower the standards, even if it's for the year. They still need workers after all, and there's both a ceiling and a floor for the number of people they let in. And naturally, they want the best-conditioned people they can get without excluding people.

So one still needs to take a look at the test and decide whether or not it is truly representative of the work that will need to be done, or just a way of ranking prospects' physical capabilities with no real regard to occupational relevancy.

All of that being said, it's not exactly ideal. Countless women are trying to prove that they can do these things without special treatment, and it is a bit of a slap in the face to them. The fact is that girls aren't exactly taught that being a firefighter or soldier or anything in that ballpark is really available to them as a career choice, so as a result there is no surprise when there's barely any women trying out, let alone actually making it. That is the problem that needs to be addressed, not just trying to reconfigure exam standards.

 

[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.

That's kinda the whole point of having a set standard. It won't matter if you can do the same task with less effort, you need to meet the standards that require the most effort in order to show you're physically capable as everyone else.

Keep in mind that a lot of these physical exams, whether it's for a fire department or a box-carrying job, typically have little to do with the actual demands of the job. Keep in mind I'm not making any such assertion with this case, I know next to nothing about the fire department physical exam for FDNY. It could be perfectly representative of the job demands, in which case this would not be okay. It's not okay either way, really.

However, these types of exams usually conform to some sort of average of people they want to accept any given year. If they see that less people are passing the physical exams, then they will naturally lower the standards, even if it's for the year. They still need workers after all, and there's both a ceiling and a floor for the number of people they let in. And naturally, they want the best-conditioned people they can get without excluding people.

So one still needs to take a look at the test and decide whether or not it is truly representative of the work that will need to be done, or just a way of ranking prospects' physical capabilities with no real regard to occupational relevancy.

All of that being said, it's not exactly ideal. Countless women are trying to prove that they can do these things without special treatment, and it is a bit of a slap in the face to them. The fact is that girls aren't exactly taught that being a firefighter or soldier or anything in that ballpark is really available to them as a career choice, so as a result there is no surprise when there's barely any women trying out, let alone actually making it. That is the problem that needs to be addressed, not just trying to reconfigure exam standards.

I don't buy the whole "girls aren't taught they can be a soldier, firefighter, whatever". While I've never been to a Fire Station House. I've been to Army Barracks, Police Stations and Naval Bases. There are plenty of women in all of those roles. I've dealt with more female cops than I have males cop too. In this day and age if women aren't aware of the jobs available (which isn't exactly hard to do either. Hop on the respective branches websites and look at recruiting details) then that's just ignorance on their behalf. In a society where the easiest way to find something out is to Google it, they have no excuse.

Of course we should have a set standard, and sometime that standard becomes outdated and new techniques should be implemented as well I think we can learn quite a bit in the US by watching how other nations do things and adapt some of their techniques. If someone is capable of being a firefighter in another nation that also has set standards, wouldn't it be silly to deny them to be one here especially when these guys are bad asses..

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

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.

I was 92lbs (41.73 kg) at the time, so yea I don't think junk food was going to help me. I do not think they should have changed their requirements to allow me in, I understood completely, I have always been very petite, and they needed someone bigger. LOL

I am not saying it is necessarily prejudice, I am saying that we should compare our standards to those of other nations and the effectiveness of the different techniques and make changes accordingly to keep our standard up to date. ( The US often gets sets in their ways about MANY things we do) If someone can meet the physical requirements in multiple other nations, but not ours, maybe it is our systems requirements that needs to be be reevaluated.

 

[hentropy]

I don't buy the whole "girls aren't taught they can be a soldier, firefighter, whatever". While I've never been to a Fire Station House. I've been to Army Barracks, Police Stations and Naval Bases. There are plenty of women in all of those roles. I've dealt with more female cops than I have males cop too. In this day and age if women aren't aware of the jobs available (which isn't exactly hard to do either. Hop on the respective branches websites and look at recruiting details) then that's just ignorance on their behalf. In a society where the easiest way to find something out is to Google it, they have no excuse.

You haven't been to a fire house? Usually they're not totally closed to the public. I live in a town less than 20k people and the fire department is completely male. When it comes to soldiers, until very recently women could only serve in the military in non-combat roles, so while they are soldiers in the broadest sense of the term, they are relegated to support roles. They've only been allowed into the military at all since the 1980s. Police have made the most progress, partially because women are more useful in those roles when dealing with female offenders. There was a similar surge in correctional officers at prisons. I'm sure you had detractors back when they did that, as well.

The point is, women being more common in these places is a very new phenomenon, and it's the result of activists trying to make the system more amenable to women. The fact is, however, that girls are still mostly taught consciously or unconsciously by many parents and their society that the jobs that are "for them" are things like nurses and teachers or even lawyers, while boys get fire trucks and police cars and army guys to play with. It's ingrained from a very early age that a woman who is physically strong and fit is more or less undesirable. Society still values and appreciates physically weak women above those that are more "mannish". It works the other way with men, where they can't cry or be sensitive even if they are physically strong and fit and brave for fear of being called gay or a fairy. These are societal standards that aren't going to be resolved quickly or with a single hire.

No one is saying that they are completely oblivious to the women who hold these jobs, but when you've been taught a certain thing your entire life and crafted your life around what society wants you to be (weak), then it doesn't matter how many women you see being police officers, that path was closed to you long ago and pursuing it would be more of a life change than most are willing to undergo. It's like if a man in the infantry suddenly wanted to become a professional ballet dancer, that path closed to him likely long ago.

 

[AlouetteSK]

"Rise from your grave!"
Seriously, what's up with FDNY?
http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/36owjs/firefighters_fear_colleague_who_routinely_flees/
Apparently looking diverse is more important than competency, round 2.

 

[hentropy]

I've never had cause to be in a Fire House really, and it never occured to me to waltz on in and ask for a tour. I'd imagine they're spending a lot of time training or making sure all their gear is prepped for a call.

The part about women still not being allowed in combat roles (in some countries). Talk to combat Veterans about this, they don't want them in. Not because of a sexist viewpoint, or a threat to their manhood. They have perfectly valid reasons for not wanting GI Jane in hopping on their afternoon patrol through enemy territory. During my training a bunch of Recruit Instructors and Recruits of bother genders sat down and talked about the whole thing for an hour one night. The NCO's made their arguments and the females either agreed with it or couldn't hold a compelling counter argument. When it comes to life and death, fuck diversity. If those in the job don't want it and will do their job better without it, don't force it on them.

I have no doubt that not everyone who opposes women in combat is a horrible rabid sexist. Not everyone who opposed racial integration of the military was a horrible racist, not everyone who opposed women in the military was a horrible sexist, not everyone who opposed open gays in the military is a horrible homophobe. Can I trust a black person to save my life in the trenches? Are they going to start gunning people down in the barracks for slavery? These were real concerns at one time, and not totally unreasonable or rooted in bigotry. It'd be much more surprising if people were outwardly sexist and giving silly reasons why they should be excluded.

There's also no doubt that including women in combat roles is an adjustment, for both the women and those that serve with them, just as integration of other races and women into the military was also quite a bit of an adjustment. People are naturally resistant to doing things differently and making adjustments, whether they are going to war or working in an office. People tend to overestimate these problems, however, and find that they can adjust to them without the sky falling.

It also doesn't surprise me that a room full of men telling a smaller group of women what they should and should not do ended with the women agreeing with them. It's called peer pressure, or intimidation at worst. Opinions are much more honest and helpful when taken in one-on-one conversation, and that goes all ways. Men are more likely to air their honest personal feelings even if they may not be "PC" and women are more likely to air their own valid concerns. I may not be a part of the military but it doesn't take a military expert to tell you that they value cohesion and "oneness" over everyone speaking their mind.

The fact is, however, women can serve honorably and competently in combat roles. You can look no further than Israel, a country that knows war rather well and has much more riding on its military than even the US, one could argue. Women have ALWAYS fought in war since the dawn of time, even if they were not in a uniform.

 

[Dango]

Look, equality is nice, but if it takes priority over the fact that it may actually get someone killed, then there may be a problem.

 

[one squirrel]

I don't remember where I heard it, but I liked the idea: Women are structurally different than men. Give them the specific training to meet the job requirements rather than throw everyone into the same program and expect things to work. Women can be just as strong as men, no problem. I think I heard that from a quote by a female soldier, but I could be wrong about that. But if it's just a matter of adapting a training program, then the fire department should look into that. I can't imagine it'd have to be so radically different as to be a huge expense.

If that is true, why are there seperate leagues for men and women in virtually every existing sport?

 

[Username Redacted]

I don't remember where I heard it, but I liked the idea: Women are structurally different than men. Give them the specific training to meet the job requirements rather than throw everyone into the same program and expect things to work. Women can be just as strong as men, no problem. I think I heard that from a quote by a female soldier, but I could be wrong about that. But if it's just a matter of adapting a training program, then the fire department should look into that. I can't imagine it'd have to be so radically different as to be a huge expense.

If that is true, why are there separate leagues for men and women in virtually every existing sport?

A better example would be the even more specialized field of Olympic lifting. In that environment the world records by weight for men and women aren't even remotely close. Per Wikipedia the combined snatch and clean & jerk lifts world records for the second heaviest women's weight class (75kg) is lower than the combined weight for the lightest men's weight class 56kg). So in this example we have a man who's stronger than a woman who is ~150% of his body weight. Assuming they have any measure of stamina I know which of those people I want dragging my ass out of a burning building.

 

[Hazy992]

Well that's stupid. I'm all for equality and getting a more representative workforce, but those physical exams are there for a reason. If she can't pass the test then she shouldn't be there.

 

[Username Redacted]

If that is true, why are there seperate leagues for men and women in virtually every existing sport?

I'm not saying it's true for sure (remember, I read it somewhere), but with athletics you're talking about a much more elite level than firefighter requirements. At that athlete end of the bell curve, yeah there's going to be a more pronounced difference but that's not what we're talking about here.

Actually it kind of is what we're talking about here as the job in question is one of the more physically demanding occupations where the downside to fucking up could be someones life. If the job wasn't physically demanding they wouldn't bother having physical requirements for it. I also wouldn't call it "a more pronounced difference" at the elite athlete end of the bell curve. I would call it a night and day difference. In the weightlifting example I gave above the male lifers are, by weight, ~24% stronger than the female lifters. When accounting for the weight classes not quit lining up the heavier (and in theory stronger) female class was compared to the closest lighter male weight class. That is a substantial difference.

 

[Schadrach]

The fact is, however, women can serve honorably and competently in combat roles. You can look no further than Israel, a country that knows war rather well and has much more riding on its military than even the US, one could argue.

The IDF also holds those women to the same standards as the men. Which is the complaint in this thread. Who complains that a woman who can meet the same standards as the men shouldn't be allowed to participate?

It's entirely about setting one bar for men, and then arguing you need to set a different (and always lower) bar for women entirely because someone has decided that the ratio of women to men that succeed needs to approach some point regardless of how it might effect effectiveness or competence.

 

[hentropy]

The fact is, however, women can serve honorably and competently in combat roles. You can look no further than Israel, a country that knows war rather well and has much more riding on its military than even the US, one could argue.

The IDF also holds those women to the same standards as the men. Which is the complaint in this thread. Who complains that a woman who can meet the same standards as the men shouldn't be allowed to participate?

It's entirely about setting one bar for men, and then arguing you need to set a different (and always lower) bar for women entirely because someone has decided that the ratio of women to men that succeed needs to approach some point regardless of how it might effect effectiveness or competence.

I don't argue that, my original post in this thread echoed the sentiment that women should not be held to different standards, even if I also think those standards should be evaluated occasionally. I was responding to someone specifically talking about women in the military and who said "fuck diversity lives are on the line" which sounds nice but with that attitude blacks would still be excluded.

 

[Username Redacted]

Actually it kind of is what we're talking about here as the job in question is one of the more physically demanding occupations where the downside to fucking up could be someones life. If the job wasn't physically demanding they wouldn't bother having physical requirements for it. I also wouldn't call it "a more pronounced difference" at the elite athlete end of the bell curve. I would call it a night and day difference. In the weightlifting example I gave above the male lifers are, by weight, ~24% stronger than the female lifters. When accounting for the weight classes not quit lining up the heavier (and in theory stronger) female class was compared to the closest lighter male weight class. That is a substantial difference.

Oh, so you've compared the requirements for firefighting with weightlifting stats? I'd love to see your analysis showing the equivalance, please!

I was using the weightlifting as an example of men being significantly stronger pound for pound than women. As far as how this is relevant to firefighting well being physically capable of carrying another human being is kind of nice and most of gear that's involved in the job is insanely heavy (fire resistant jackets, hoses, etc.). Personally I'd love to see the study you referenced here:

I don't remember where I heard it, but I liked the idea: Women are structurally different than men. Give them the specific training to meet the job requirements rather than throw everyone into the same program and expect things to work. Women can be just as strong as men, no problem. I think I heard that from a quote by a female soldier, but I could be wrong about that. But if it's just a matter of adapting a training program, then the fire department should look into that. I can't imagine it'd have to be so radically different as to be a huge expense.

 

[Treeberry]

I was hoping this was going to be clickbait with a twist. Like it turns out that she's super muscular and agile or a former Olympian or something. Alas.