|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"...diverting funding earmarked for recovery to encourage more women to enter the rescue fields."
Fer pete's sake, just how much 'encouragement' do women need?
Standards and qualifications for entry to these services (police, firefighting, military) have already been reduced to the point where some of the rescue forces are starting to lose their effectiveness (and moral is in a shambles), and discriminatory hiring practices already ensure that women will be considered ahead of better-qualified men.
It's no one's fault, except women's, if they are choosing not to go into these dangerous professions. There's certainly nothing preventing them...
This move by NOW has nothing to do with improving women's choices -- it does just the opposite by denying that women are capable of making choices -- it's all about maintaining their powerbase and making sure that the funding goes into their already bulging coffers regardless of the cost to other, more worthy, recipients.
NOW is so completely evil...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 01, @05:34PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Just as women played a crucial role as firefighters and rescue workers at ground zero, they will be technicians and contractors, working to rebuild the city," Clinton said.
Hmm. Wonder if there's not an element of revenge by Ms. Clinton for the "warm receptions" she's received from so many of the rescue personal. Just wondering.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 01, @06:20PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
The issue of women's 9/11 contribution had been discussed on another list. It was stated there that the number of women firefighters killed at the WTC was zero, but this wasn't significant because there are so few women firefighters in NYC.
However, of 7500 female police in NYC only two died in the WTC, whereas 68/32000 male police died. This difference is statistically significant.
I believe virtually all those who initally entered to evacuate the buildings were killed, so it would appear that female police officers were systematically much less likely to be assigned this dangerous (fatal, as it turned out) duty.
sd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 01, @05:41PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I have a friend in the UK Police force. I was chatting to him yesteday about the changes in the force and that I'd notice a lot more female police officers . He mentioned that the UK Police bosses are determined to make a 50:50 ratio of male and female police officers, but also pointed out that 95% of arrests they make are of males (a topic for another thread altogether!)
He also mentioned that he's noticed a huge increase in the number of "assistance" calls he's attended in the last few years as this policy has been implemented. His actual words were "I'm sick of rolling about the floor trying to cuff someone after being called to an incident where the female officers couldn't cope".
I then mentioned that I'd noticed one of the smallest women I'd ever seen in a police uniform at a recent football game. He replied that they've abolished minimum height and weight targets and that his most recent female beat partner was 4feet 10 inches tall. 4ft 10" !!!!
His primary concern was that this blind gender equity drive essentially made him more vulnerable to danger as he could not rely on an adequately strong partner to assist him.
I know this concern has been mentioned before, but it's quite sobering to hear real life stories from someone subjected to it. (I think Australian male police oficers have extensive experience of this problem)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wanted to mention a story that is somewhat related to the topic of female police officers and firefighters at ground zero. Nightmist may be more familiar with this item. I live in middle TN and there was recently a tragedy in Nashville involving a uniformed female police officer who was killed in a traffic mishap while on duty. She was accidentally struck and killed by a run-away car driven by a motorist who I believe had some medical problem. The city mourned the death of this mother in her 30s who was killed in the line of duty. Our hearts went out to her family, especially her children.
The metro police chief made the decision to award her the Medal of Valor, which traditionally has gone to those (men) who have died in the context of displaying heroic action. There were some letters to the editor protesting his decision.
I couldn't help but wonder if the medal would have gone to a male police officer in the same situation. My guess is that it probably would not have been awarded to a male officer -- even a well-liked man who was a father. This brings up the question about lowering award standards for women. Isn't it condescending to women and unfair to men who are held to higher standards? I'd be interested in hearing what others think about this case.
Collins
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I couldn't help but wonder if the medal would have gone to a male police officer in the same situation. My guess is that it probably would not have been awarded to a male officer -- even a well-liked man who was a father. This brings up the question about lowering award standards for women. Isn't it condescending to women and unfair to men who are held to higher standards? I'd be interested in hearing what others think about this case.
Hi, Collins. I didn't know you were from my area. Yes, I recall the story to which you are referring, and it is wrong, in my opinion, to hold women to different standards than men, whether those standards are lower or higher. The death of that officer was, indeed, tragic, but she should not have received the Medal of Valor.
You may recall, as well, Collins, that the Medal of Valor was awarded to a police dog in 1998 who died in the line of duty (trying to drag a homicidal man from his hiding place in some brush), as well as protect his fellow human officers.
The dog was given full honors as an officer, and a funeral. So, while I disagree with the decision to award the officer who died directing traffic the medal, I can understand why the police chief wanted to do so. If he hadn't, some people would have said: "Well, you honored a DOG, why can't you honor a WOMAN?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yay...fred on everything is great. He is bluntly truefull (Which is a Good-Thing (tm)). I'v been reading his webpage for quite sometime. He talks about other that would be of interest to people here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Could you imagine if NOW actually got the money? What would they do with it? There is a good chance that it wouldn't go to helping create more female firefighters/police officers (at least not all of it). Rather, I bet you a lot of that money would be used to fund "other" misandrist and political projects. Could you imagine the outcry if the public found out about that? That would be a good way for NOW to implode; too bad real victims have to suffer in the process. Oh, and NOW has done that sort of thing before: According to Tammy Bruce, when the Clinton administration gave them &750,000 to target teenaged girls who smoke, there was little evidence that the money was actually used for that purpose (in fact, the number of girls who smoke has risen since). Bruce thinks the money went elsewhere....I wonder where.
You need your beets -- you recycle, recycle!
Don't eat your beets -- recycle, recycle!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok sorry, that should have been a $ in front of 750,000. ;)
You need your beets -- you recycle, recycle!
Don't eat your beets -- recycle, recycle!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOW is expert at getting money designated for a specific purpose and promoting that purpose through “awareness programs” (guess what that means). It means taxpayer money being spent to publicly promote misandry, followed by a carefully timed declaration that a crisis exists, thus extending NOW’s political ability to get yet more public money to promote yet more misandry, etc. etc.
The racket has been refined to a science.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I once worked in downtown Manhattan in the World Trade Center. My brother was one of the police officers reassigned to duty in the wake of the terrorist attack.
Anyway, I'm curious to know who specifically the funds were intended for in the first place. If they were intended for the victims, then calling it morally wrong to attempt to rob the victims of their relief funds is an gross understatement--it's treasonous. If a single dime is held up in litigation by these gender terrorists, then I believe that an even-tempered and moderate response would be to indict them on charges of treason.
I suspect that when the people behind this political campaign for diverting money raised for another purpose begin explaining themselves, their political ideology, their steadfast belief in the disposibility of men, and their unabashed willingness to exploit the events of September 11th for an anti-male feminist agenda, we'll see more resignations like that of Judy Mann's, who is still reeling from her ludicrous attempts to give the heroism of the firemen at the scene of the World Trade Center a misandrist spin. Stay tuned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...a piece I saw on CNN, if I remember correctly, around the end of September, looking at how few women there are in bomb squads. Initially they explained how bomb squads across the country were going flat out all the time with all the calls they were getting from folks, then moved into how there are almost no women in this role. They focused on one woman with a lot of experience in a squad out in California, and how she balanced being in a bomb squad with being a mother, and how she wished there were more women applying for positions. There wasn't any sense that women were being held back, but was this feigned attempt at a sense of wonder about why women don't apply for bomb squad assignments more often. I couldn't help but laugh. Geez, now why aren't women beating down the door to get into a job where they might get blown up?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find it curious that one of the angles taken is that this is a way for women to move up the economic ladder. By being a fire/policewoman? That doesn't make sense to me.
My experience is limited to New Hampshire, but my uncle was a fireman and through him my family got to know several other firemen. Our last two homes were built by firemen. They moonlighted as carpenters, and I'm not just talking a couple of them. We had a dozen different ones from two different stations working on our house. My dad knew other ones who would unload meat trucks at the warehouses for extra money. Every firefighter I've ever met has a second job unless he's an older fellow who's higher up on the pay scale.
Do any of you have experiences or knowledge about this in other places?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Every firefighter I've ever met has a second job unless he's an older fellow who's higher up on the pay scale.
I had similar thoughts, Rams. My only explanation for NOW's persistence with this is that they don't want men getting the positive attention they received after 9/11. Fill half the rescue force with women, they seem to reason, and the media *must* give women more positive attention than men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Representatives from the NOW Legal Defense Fund have blanketed Capitol Hill with letters ..." We need to do the same in order to keep this travesty from happening. I urge everyone to write to the Washington Post, to their Congressman and both of their Senators, and to the President. And if anyone can identify a charity that is being lobbied specifically for this purpose, please let us know, as it would be useful to lobby them as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deleted and re-posted because of a problem with earlier post.
-------
I sent the following e-mail to my senators, Sen. Clinton, and the president:
-------
Sens. Thompson and Frist:
I was appalled to read the following story in the Washington Post on Dec. 27:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A324 73-2001Dec27.html
It appears from this article that Sen. Clinton of New York and lobbyists for the National Organization for Women are attempting to divert funding intended to aid in the recovery of the people and cities devastated by the horrible terrorist attacks on our nation Sept. 11 to their own political agendas for undermining the emergency services of New York City.
I implore you to do all you can to keep those funds earmarked for their original purpose: to assist the victims of the 9/11 attacks, and not to enforce some sort of socialist affirmative action agenda of NOW.
Thank you for your time and attention to this
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DAMMIT! Apparently, my copy/paste skills need work tonight. Well, you folks know what I meant. :) And the letter sent to my senators was intact. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 01, @08:29PM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, we can try.
But I doubt in sheer numbers, if we have a chance in hell. Yes, the mens movement is growing, but its very fragmented. NOW may be a Shadow of its fomer self (in the late sixties/early seventies I heard they had nearly one percent of the population registered with them) but it has tremendous institutional power, as well as dedicated volunteers, and activists many of whom are supported with taxpayer money -- directly or indirectly. Like the Communist party of old, they have tons of dedicated volunteers, and they recruit off campuses.
I'll still work with you guys. Who knows we might do some good. Personally, I think our best bet is the President. He is indisposed to most feminist ranting, and he does have a large bully pulpit. As for our theme: I think we should point out the inherent selfishness of this money-grab in any medium we can.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 01, @08:46PM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Tony Blair wants to make the Euro the default currency in Great Britain. For whatever reason, he wants to do this by 2003. And he's planning his appeal primarily to women. This was in Fox News earlier today.
Isn't it great when you can appeal to group interests?
Wondering if we wiill have a country in fifty years...
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well women do about 70% of the spending, so Tony isn't totally bananas.
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is insane.
Thousands of people, both male and female, young and old, died or were wounded (physically or emotionally through the loss of a loved one) at Ground Zero. I only wonder what kind of concieted psychopathic monsters gender feminists [NOW] are to put their own ficticious suffering under "patriarchy" over the very factual suffering of the victims of 9/11/01 under the hands of Bin Laden and associates. This is a grave time of crisis in our country, and to give it any kind of spin whatsoever besides the straight facts is insensitive. I hope PEOPLE get out of this okay, and that justice will be done in the end.
"Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually a female men's activist is what we would like to see more of, if you can get through some of the anger in some of our statements. Sometimes this place and a few other places are the only space to process the emotional turbulence this briengs, when another peice of our souls are chipped away. That anger winds up being directed when focused at the feminazi hegemony that we are trying to incapacitate, and many of the mens groups have active female members, so you really are welcome here to give support, especially if you wind up sending out a few well placed letters in our favor to senators, or whatever powerbroker is being lulled into narcolepsy by these femnaz peices o'CRAP!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh yeah! And thanks again, Rivka.
Adam
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First off
And congressional Republicans have no immediate plans to steer funds to women in particular. "Everybody was affected equally up there," said a GOP aide, who asked not to be identified. "I don't know that women were more affected than children, or husbands, or grandparents."
Who ever said that should be patted on the back. Would be nice to know which GOP aide said this smart and insightfull statement.
"Just as women played a crucial role as firefighters and rescue workers at ground zero, they will be technicians and contractors, working to rebuild the city," Clinton said.
No real offense meant here ladies.
According to www.dictionary.com, crucial means.
1. Extremely significant or important: a crucial problem.
2. Vital to the resolution of a crisis; decisive: a crucial election.
Now, according sd's earlier posting, none of the female firefighters were killed. According to a CNN report that I watched 380+ firefighters were killed. So, if sd's posting is right that would mean ALL of the 380+ dead firefighters were men. Also according to sd's earlier posting:
However, of 7500 female police in NYC only two died in the WTC, whereas 68/32000 male police died. This difference is statistically significant.
Does anybody know the number of female firefighters verse number of male firefighters?
Maybe hilary needs to go back to school and learn the english language.
As for the rebuilding bit, I think we all know who has built every last city on this planet through
out history.
My comments are my own, if you don't like em, get your own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FWIW, I submitted this to the Washington Post under Letters to the Editor, and I'm sending copies to Dubya, Sen. Corzine, Sen. Torricelli, and Rep. Chris Smith.
"To the Editor,
In an article published in the Washington Post on Friday, December 28, 2001 [J. Eilperin, "Sept. 11 Video Launches Effort For Recovery Funds for Women"], the National Organization for Women announced their campaign to steer federal recovery funds toward women in less traditional fields. This initiative has the vocal support of Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA). According to the article, NOW is upset that an insufficient number of women were visible in the rescue and recovery efforts following the attacks of September 11, 2001. They want to allocate a portion of the funds to recruit women into uniformed emergency services positions. This is one of the most offensive initiatives that the NOW Legal Defense Fund has ever undertaken. Apparently, NOW is upset that those receiving credit for rescue efforts are overwhelmingly male. Apparently, NOW cannot stomach the notion that men actually do have a unique contribution to make in society. I can only surmise that they are also upset that an insufficient number of women died as a result of the attacks.
In response to litigation occurring over the last few decades, uniformed emergency services fitness requirements have been drastically reduced to accommodate women. Yet women are simply making individual choices that do not include emergency services careers. The notion that women might benefit economically by selecting those careers is ludicrous. Many firefighters carry secondary employment as a means of making ends meet, and senior firefighters are hardly compensated to the levels of equivalent experience in the private sector. Redirecting federal funds that were allocated by legislation from recovery efforts to affirmative action endeavors is unacceptable. In my opinion, it constitutes theft. It will reduce the funds actually applied to recovery and will reduce the public confidence in future legislation. Ultimately, the next disaster will not receive the kind of public support that the 9/11 recovery funding has benefited from.
I urge Congress to reject NOW’s initiative.
Frank H
Mercerville, New Jersey"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well-written, Frank. Let's hope it gets into print. And I'm glad you copied those government folks. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All you have to do is point out that this is an ideologically motivated initiative to benefit special interests at the expense of the victims of terrorism, and the public won't hear of it. They also won't be fooled by the predictable partisan rejoinder that to deny them the money would be anti-woman, because too many men (and women) died, and anyone can see what happened to the Manhattan skyline. If NOW persists, we should let them hang themselves with their own rope; it seems that they can't stop themselves, even if it's political suicide.
Even Hillary knows that she can't suggest that anything would be taken from the victims without committing political suicide. It still smacks of an attempt to exploit the tragedy to benefit special interests if the relief funds haven't been allocated. I think that the best contractors should be employed in the rebuilding process; perhaps for political reasons substandard contractors will be employed, and perhaps that's inevitable, given the way that government works.
However, it's not only unethical to attempt to divert money earmarked for the victims to achieve some kind of ideologically motivated proportional representation by training and recruiting a group of people who aren't yet qualified (and who are generally unwilling to become rescue workers) to participate in the relief effort, it's bad economic judgement to make such an investment when there are already qualified people and businesses ready and available to participate.
To threaten litigation that would somehow impede the relief effort strikes me as extremely unwise, but I think in NOW's case the urge to self-destruct is irresistable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does anybody know the number of female firefighters verse number of male firefighters?
Different sources gave variously figures between 25 and 36 as the number of female firefighters in NYC. The number of males was 11298.
There are so few female firefighters in NYC that the fact none were among those killed in the collapse proves nothing: choose 344 NYC firefighters at random and quite likely none would be female.
There *are* enough female police officers for their under-representation amongst the police who went into the WTC to be remarkable.
cheers,
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"statistically signifigant" my ass. take your pseudo-stats somewhere else, oh article of ignorance. one cannot draw significant conclusions from such a small sample space. poo poo on these techniques.
brad, math major at uWaterloo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 03, @09:39PM EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
Brad:
He was talking about the POPULATION of NYC rescue workers. I'm still not gonna claim one can draw any conclusions as to WHY, but sd was correct about the statistical significance.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
