Firefighters whose wives call them to help, receive burns themselves

Amazing, isn't it? If so much as one female had endangered herself in an effort to rescue these people, it would be front and center. Instead, men risking life and limb for others is business as usual. The wives of these two men are not called cowardly or even thought of in that way though they did nothing despite knowing that time was of the essence; had the sexes been reversed, any man calling his wife for help in that situation would be openly denigrated. But instead, they called their husbands for help. Had they actually gone to risk themselves, they would be on page A1 of the NY Times right now, hailed as perfect examples of how brave women are, etc., etc. And puleeze don't tell me they were not themselves firefighters. Men untrained a fire-fighters also risked themselves in this rescue, and received injuries.

I also saw this story on the news yesterday and thought "Gee, wonder how many women are risking themselves to catch these snakes running loose attacking children and animals?" I doubt that many, if any at all. But if there are any, they will be on the news. Front page. National exposure. International exposure. I'll bet reporters all over Florida are searching desperately to find just one woman out and about as part of this snake-hunt.

manonthestreet

Men rescuing women is just men making fools of themselves. Let them rescue themselves.

I don't think you are fairly characterizing the wife that called for help. First she stopped out of concern, when she realized the situation she called for help - her nearby husband and brother-in-law, who are trained in rescue.

I didn't read anything in the article that indicates that she just sat back and watched as you imply.

Should she have not called? It may be what saved the 4 year old boy's life. When the brothers arrived, other people were already helping. It does not say what gender these folks were. The wife was at the burning car as she took the 2 year old out.

Women do not have the same physical strength that men have. If a window needed to be broken, I doubt a woman could break a car window herself.

Men are better at these types of rescues because of their physical abilities. They deserve a lot of credit, but I don't believe the wife deserves the put-down that you are giving her in this situation.

I cannot condemn in this case. If you read the article the lady inside the car handed one of the children out to one of the firefighters wives. There were already people on the scene helping. I am the first to call out hypocritical feminists even on the slimmest things. But in this case I think they all worked together. No condemnation required.

Badger

Not a put-down of the woman who called as such, Kris, but I am pointing out the disparity in how these things are viewed. This is why I compare it to the snakes-in-Florida story. Male 'heroism' is taken for granted and men who do not behave in a way that endangers themselves 'when called for' are viewed negatively while women in that same position are not. It is the 2x-standard on this kind of thing that I am talking about here.

As for 'men are stronger', that is in fact not true, at least not true enough generally. The average woman has 85% of the physical strength of the average man. That 15% difference I daresay is not enough to matter much when neither men nor women, even those trained with weights and other exercise, are strong enough to bend steel through gloved hands near an 800+ degree fire. I have met plenty of couples where it was pretty obvious who was physically stronger, and it was the woman. However when they went a-strolling, HE still walked out on the side of the traffic -- every time.

But that said, I will point you and others to this story. In it, a woman dives into a burning car and saves two of her four children. The first two were saved by a passer-by (and he was, you guessed it, a man). Not to diminish what the mother of the kids did, nonetheless, they were HER kids, so it was understandable she would do that. This man passing by, these kids were not his. Yet he still did what he did.

I wrote about this over 5 years ago. The Carnegie Hero Fund was established to acknowledge and award people who perform acts of heroism in civilian life. Typically, 20-25 people are awarded four times a year. Of the most recent 22 recipients, 18 are men. In fact, of the 7-8 times I've visited the site over the past several years, this is the first time I've seen more than 1 woman receive an award.

Face it. Of those who risk their own lives saving others, almost all of them are men.

After NOW, EMILY's List, Women's Policy, Inc., etc., etc., get word, they'll send a delegation of feminists to the Carnegie Hero Fund and instruct them at how they are overlooking the many female heroes among them because they are female and how they ought to be ashamed. They will point out school teachers, nurses, athletes, feminist icons, a few female scholars, single mothers here and there, and of course, the handful of women who have been injured or killed in combat over the past few years, and insist that these get the fair due of recognition they have been denied now for countless millenia, etc. etc. They will insist that not all heroism is of the physical kind, just look at Susan B Anthony, blah blah blah. The Carnegie people will laugh and tell them to go away.

Undeterred, they will then start calling lawmakers and lobbying others to condemn the Carnegie people and if they don't cooperate, they will threaten to condemn them publicly and get others to do the same. Like they have many times in the past, institutions will then cave in to the hollow threats and start to pester the Carnegie people, who will pee their collective pants and cave in. They will issue a formal public apology for their insensitivity and maleness (even if they are female) and immediately form a committee to look into ways to "recognize the many unique and powerful forms of heroism embodied by the special contributions of women in this time," and soon you will see more women's names on subsequent lists. In fact, not unlike our universities today, within three years, 70% of the list of new awardees will be women.

So saith my crystal ball. Check back in three years. :)

I don't believe for a second that men are only 15% stronger than women. The link you provided does not give any supporting facts or even mention how they came to that conclusion.

I have been to many gyms and I can see first hand that the average man can out-lift any women by way more than 15%. And I am not just thinking of gym-rat types. I don't know of any couples where the woman is obviously physically stronger as you mentioned.

Perhaps the article was referring to 'pound for pound' which would suggest that a 120 lb man would only be 15% stronger than a 120 lb women. But the problem with that is that the average man is 5 inches taller and 70 lbs heavier than the average women. (FYI: I didn't really look up my averages, I am just guessing).

Other than that, I agree men are better at these danger-type rescues and risk their lives more often then women. They deserve praise and recognition.

But I am sticking to my belief that they are better because they are much stronger and therefore have a better chance of succeeding in the rescue compared to women. In the article that is posted, I do not see how the woman acted cowardly or inappropriately. She did what she was capable of doing including taking a child out of a burning car. However, the men were the ones able to free the stuck child.

Which is why if my family and I were trapped in a burning building and I called 9-1-1, I would be praying for a team of men to show up. I can't imagine a woman carrying my husband out of a building if he was unconscious.

Sort of related to this topic:

Before I got married, my son asked me why we never go hiking or camping like his cousins do. His cousins are all 2 parent families. My family was myself (a female) and 2 young boys.

I explained to my son that it wasn't safe because if anyone got hurt or into a dangerous situation, I would not be strong enough to carry them or rescue them by myself. (I'm physically fit, but my boys were 4 and 5 at the time and about 50 lbs each).

I don't consider myself cowardly or flawed for not taking my boys hiking or camping by myself, I think it is common sense. However a single father probably would not have the same concerns taking his kids into the wilderness.

I also notice men voluntarily participate in high risk activities far more than women do (sky diving, race car driving, etc) which indicates that they need or enjoy the thrill much more than women do.

On MC99 comment about the snake hunt in Florida:

I assume no one is forcing the men to go out and hunt for snakes. I am sure public safety has a little to do with it, but I believe they also like the thrill and recognition they get from it. I am glad they are doing so, and I appreciate the situations where men do such things. I just don't feel that the women are so cowardly or deserving of criticism that you are putting on them.