Woman who failed physical exam to become firefighter

So I'm all for equal rights. I think that women should be allowed to work in any capacity they are fit to work in. What I am against, is allowing a woman who is incapable of meeting physical standards to put herself, her coworkers and the general public at risk out of some perverse need to appear progressive.

If she was able to complete the physical requirements, I say good for her! Since she was not, I say don't let her join. The same thing I would say about anyone, male, female, black, white, transgendered, or dragonkin.

Despite many attempts over the academy’s 18-week training course, Ms. Wax completed the test just once in more than 22 minutes, the Post reported.

Mayor Bill de Blasio has made the hiring of female firefighters a key issue in his administration — only 44 of the city’s 10,500 firefighters are women, the Post reported.

The test needs to be completed in 18 minutes.

Since Ms. Wax had a high GPA on her academics, officials determined that made up for her FST deficiency, the report said.

If I needed to be rescued I wouldn't give a crap how well she did academically. I would want her to be able to drag my ass. I would prefer to have someone that got poor marks but could actually perform the job.

I think it's ridiculous that women are allowed to do modified pushups for jobs that actually require strength at times. I remember seeing an incredibly petite asian woman patrolling the streets in Seattle and thinking it was just asking for trouble. If someone decided they wanted to fight this woman, one punch would have killed her.

Again, I'm all for women being cops, firefighters, professional athletes, whatever... If they can perform the job they are hired to do! Men don't get a pass, and they shouldn't. A scrawny little guy that can't lift 50 pounds isn't ever going to make it as a firefighter, why should this woman?

It's a little surprising there are only 44 female firefighters, but that in no way means the standards should be lowered just to make it appear equal. It's NOT equal. Men are almost always stronger for there size (and just in general). It's just the way it is. There's nothing sexist about it. When this woman suffers fatigue trying to pull someone out of a building and two people that are capable then have to go in to retrieve her and the person she is dragging and the roof collapses I hope it was worth it. It won't be.

Link

You have to be pretty tough to be a firefighter.
I'm sure there are women out there that can cut the mustard, but on average men are stronger than women.
You have to be able to carry all of the heavy gear on top of being able to knock down doors and carry people.
If she is not up to standard, she can't get the job.
I see nothing unfair about that.

a reply to: Domo1
I can understand what you're saying, and I agree that anyone hired for the job, should be able to perform it. But the question that comes to mind is two-fold. Are the physical requirements for the job, equal to on duty situations? And are the tests geared toward men specifically, making them inequitable overrall?

I have read more than once of a single firefighter collapsing due to fatigue, and needing help from a fellow fireman. Should the former be re-evaluated for his "failure", or do we recognize extenuating circumstances?

a reply to: Klassified

I would think if anything the physical requirements are actually less than what would be required on the job. Not everyone is the ideal weight, so being able to drag an average sized man is bare minimum.

I think the only way the tests are geared more towards men is that they require physical strength, and men are almost always going to be stronger.

We should recognize extenuating circumstances, but remember that those people who you are talking about that got fatigued could actually pass the bare minimum. This woman would be fatigued before them in an actual event.

originally posted by: Domo1
I think it's ridiculous that women are allowed to do modified pushups for jobs that actually require strength at times. I remember seeing an incredibly petite asian woman patrolling the streets in Seattle and thinking it was just asking for trouble. If someone decided they wanted to fight this woman, one punch would have killed her.

With respect to the issue at hand I'd probably separate police from this discussion.

Specialist police positions in many countries don't alter their fitness requirements for women, and there is actually a benefit to a community in having female police officers. No one cares who smashes through a wall and drags them out of a fire so long as they're good at it. Plenty of people care about who frisks them.

a reply to: Domo1

Unless there's already a precedent in allowing for GPA to override a physical test with men, I don't think this should be allowed. Tests are tests and are there to ensure the firefighter can perform the job correctly.

If there was a job that required the person to fit into smaller spaces and the field was dominated by women (because the average woman takes up less space than the average man), I doubt they would make an exception for a large tall man who couldn't pass the test just because he happened to be smart. Intelligence wouldn't help that man fit into the small space.

In my 25+ years as a firefighter, in a mid-sized city, it has been my experience that just about half pull their weight, both physically and metaphorically. Those that do are well respected. Often they also make up for lesser physical strength by working smarter, and not getting themselves and their co-workers into situations they should not be in to begin with.

Those who do not though, are roundly ill-respected, and the source of much trouble on the job. Those tend to be affirmative-action type candidates, and not only do people have to tip-toe around them, to avoid being charged with sexual harassment, by dint of saying something they take as sexist...but, also increase the workload for everyone around them, who has to make up for their deficits. The same amount of work has to be done at most scenes, whether that load is carried by fewer or more people. And at least on largish departments, it is not uncommon the have several working fires a day.

This takes a serious toll on everyone. It's a young person's job. Each person who undertakes it, is trading their health and body for a paycheck. I know very few people who leave the job, not permanently affected to some degree by the wear and tear. This affects the pension fund, as well as several other parameters, that determine how hard everyone has to work, to fill in for injured folks, or slackers or whatever. At any rate, it's a mixed bag.

The women firefighters I respect, are the ones that work to exhaustion without complaint.....just like the guys who do, that I respect. There are plenty of get-over artists among the male ranks too though, who garner little peer respect. We live together for 24 hours at a time. In many ways it is like a family. People fuss and fight. People fill different niches. Toughness is a mental quality. Physical strength does not make a person tough, unless they use it appropriately. I can think of several women I would rather have on the pump panel than almost any man, who has less than twenty years on the job. They study hard and learn their streets and manage the pump with skill....which the guys inside absolutely depend on to do their part of team tasks that take everyone's cooperation and skill.

Firefighting/EMS is its own culture. The traditions that have evolved are there for a reason. Trust is the most important factor when you are expected to risk your life on someone else's decisions and skill. But, there are skills that women bring to the job, especially on the EMS side, that were sorely lacking when it was an all-man thing. Like anything, it is a mixed bag, and continues to evolve.

On the whole, I would say character counts the most. Everything else is secondary. Adapting and overcoming with the actual resources that you have, requires thinking and risk assessment. In both men and women, some have it...and some don't. The people you usually hear complaining about it, are rarely those with character. I'm glad to have had the opportunity to make my living serving people that way. If I had been forced to work in a factory or office, I probably would've blown my brains out at some point. But, I have nothing but respect for the people who do do those kinds of things, that are outside my own skill-sets and tolerances. It takes all kinds of people to make a functional society. And I appreciate anyone who contributes and brings their A-game.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Domo1
I can understand what you're saying, and I agree that anyone hired for the job, should be able to perform it. But the question that comes to mind is two-fold. Are the physical requirements for the job, equal to on duty situations? And are the tests geared toward men specifically, making them inequitable overrall?

I have read more than once of a single firefighter collapsing due to fatigue, and needing help from a fellow fireman. Should the former be re-evaluated for his "failure", or do we recognize extenuating circumstances?

Like how?

"Ok cadets, next stage of the course: knock this door down with your penis."

a reply to: Domo1

You are right, I am there with you, our country is becoming so accommodating that people doesn't understand that is certain jobs that been accommodating to somebody's shortcomings can harm the person and others around them.

I just smell a bunch of lawsuits but what do I know.

a reply to: Domo1

I agree.

Other women have become firefighters because they did meet the physical requirements.

a reply to: Enderdog

And thank you for your service.

I think you have the toughest job on the planet.

originally posted by: Urantia1111

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Domo1
I can understand what you're saying, and I agree that anyone hired for the job, should be able to perform it. But the question that comes to mind is two-fold. Are the physical requirements for the job, equal to on duty situations? And are the tests geared toward men specifically, making them inequitable overrall?

I have read more than once of a single firefighter collapsing due to fatigue, and needing help from a fellow fireman. Should the former be re-evaluated for his "failure", or do we recognize extenuating circumstances?

Like how?

"Ok cadets, next stage of the course: knock this door down with your penis."

Or your boobs.

2nd line.

I wonder how many women want the job? I bet it is real tough breaking in to the old boys club.

a reply to: Domo1

Four minutes in a fire or other life threatening situation can mean death to herself, victims, and fellow firefighters. If anyone cannot pass the physical test then they shouldn't be in the physical aspect of the job, there's other jobs within the fire department.

Four minutes is a long time when every second counts.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Domo1

I can understand what you're saying, and I agree that anyone hired for the job, should be able to perform it. But the question that comes to mind is two-fold. Are the physical requirements for the job, equal to on duty situations? And are the tests geared toward men specifically, making them inequitable overrall?



I have read more than once of a single firefighter collapsing due to fatigue, and needing help from a fellow fireman. Should the former be re-evaluated for his "failure", or do we recognize extenuating circumstances?

Do you want the person hauling your incapacited butt out of a burning building to be just minimally capable of that or would you rather they be capable of more than that?

I think there should be a good margin of error built in to those physical standards because you never know exactly what situation the firefighter is going to find herself in. Right now, you have people squawking because the standards are "sexist" because most women just aren't biologically going to be capable of meeting them. What happens when you start gender norming and then people start dying because the standards were inadequate for their unique physical situation (i.e. they were fat-shamed by standards that were slimmed down too far)?

Either way, you have victim class groups getting ready to squeak good and loud and sue the tax payers.

a reply to: vonclod
Old boys club? As a firefighter/paramedic, I work with many men and WOMEN. The women I work with passed the same written tests, interviews, and agility tests that the men had to.

I don't care if anyone is a man, woman, shemale, or 4 legged creature. If they can pass the tests we all go through, they are our family.

I'm pretty sure I'd fail the exam, too. I am physically fit but I'm not the fastest runner and I have awful arm strength. I have great leg strength but yeah--physical activity isn't my strong suit. I'm a thinker not a runner--which is why I'm not applying for a fireman job (or any job where you need to be able to do physically fit things--like the military lol). This chick is selfish. I hope they give her some desk job because how in the world are they gonna be able to count on her when the time comes for her to physically prove herself? Not gonna be pretty O.o

a reply to: LoverBoy

Good, I'm glad to hear it, not exactly on topic but reason I ask is up here the RCMP are in all kinds of sexual harassment lawsuits..lot of em, and it boils down.. "to old boys network"
No disrespect intended

My dad is a retired firefighter - he has always said that you don't have to do it alone (your team should always be there) but for the one time they might not be, or someone is counting on you, you damn sure better be able to hold your own. I would agree.