Death Tolls Expected: Female Firefighters in Sweden Not Required To Meet The Standards

Hey, I have something to write about this that also includes some thought provoking questions, but don't have time right now.

Since this article has something to do with firefighters, it looks like the best place to include my thanks to rescue workers, as this is the anniversary of the Sept 11th attacks on the US.

THANKS TO ALL THAT SERVE AS RESCUE WORKERS AND IN THE MILITARY KEEPING US SAFE! AND I AM REMEBERING THOSE THAT DIED on SEPT 11th 2001

Just one more addition to the enlarging body of evidence that Misandry is a form of insanity.

"A test in which 35 times to lift a barbell weighing 30 kg is designed for a man and not a woman, says Stefan Lundqvist, Training Manager at MSB."

I would say that test is not designed for a man, but rather, for someone expected to be capable of lifting or dragging heavy equipment, and people, for extended periods of time. It is part of the job description. But it seems anything can and will be deemed discriminatory if it suits the feminist agenda.

I would suggest this Stefan Lundqvist be placed in a burning building for the purposes of training his new lower standard female fire-persons. see how confident he is with his decisions then.

Hopefully I have made it clear at this site that I am against quotas. No one benefits from keeping qualified people out of professions so that unqualified people can gain a spot. It is not fair to the people in these professions or to the people they serve.

One concept I have trouble grasping is the MR position on men in dangerous jobs. As men here seem to gripe about the higher proportion of men compared to women in such professions as if you want more women to share in the risk (the only way they could share the risk would be to put women in these professions). If we all agree that men are more qualified for such professions, then why complain about the lack of women in such fields? (I'm not seeing any complaints now, but in the past I have)

The way I see it there are several issues at play. Treating genders fairly vs treating genders equally and having the most qualified people doing a job.

I'm fine with females in dangerous jobs if they pass the same requirements as the males and their presence does not affect the comradery (and therefore safety or efficiency) of the group. I also think it should be okay for employers to discriminate if the cost of having the small percent of qualified female employees is just not worth it (they need special equipment or separate sleeping or bathroom quarters, etc.) Of course, the law probably says something different.

One final thought on the article. It mentions the death toll will increase as those that may be successfully rescued by a male firefighter will not be successfully rescued by a female firefighter. This impacts the general public, but no one ever thinks it might happen to them. What should be of great concern is the risk to the male firefighters. Everytime a female firefighter does less, the males have to do more. It put all of the male firefighters at greater risk for death. If I were a male firefighter I would refuse to work with a female if she could not pass the same physical requirements needed for the job.

I'm going to start with your last point first...

The problem isn't just the lowering of standards so women can get in, lowering the standards will allow unqualified men to get in as well, unless they have separate gender based requirements, and that's a whole can of worms on it's own. Lowering the standards won't result in a greater ratio of men to women, because the small number of women that can get in under the new, lower standard, will be offset by the (likely) larger number of unqualified men who can now get in as well. Overall, the quality of firefighters will drop, and saying "I won't work with women", aside from being sexist (with all the legal troubles that entails), won't help with identifying the unqualified men.

As to your point about dangerous jobs and women... I'm not sure what to say. I think the issue is more with those dangerous jobs that don't have such crucial physical requirements, IE police (more about endurance and ability to defend oneself then physical strength), oil rig, miner, construction, and the dirty jobs, like sanitation, sewage treatment, street cleaners, etc. It's more about most (not all) women not even being willing to do these jobs, jobs that are generally essential for societies infrastructure, but demanding they get an equal share of the top jobs.

Furthermore, while the physical requirements may be easier for men to achieve then women, it is not out of the realm of possibility for most women to attain those requirements. But the ratio of men to women still doesn't reflect the potential that it could be. there could very easily be more female firefighters who could meet the physical requirements if women (as a whole) were more willing to do the dangerous jobs, but generally, the pool of women willing to do the job is much smaller than the pool of men, and then the difficulty of meeting the requirements are added on top of that reduced pool to result in a much lower ratio. That initial pool of willingness is what most MRA's are likely complaining about. At least, this is my understanding of the situation, I generally don't look at individual job titles, but rather, groupings (IE, while women may not make up as many firefighters, they make up more of the nursing, so it sorta balances out, but overall, I see more men at the bottom, in the dangerous or dirty jobs, more women in the middle, and more men at the top, and feminists only complaining about not getting as much of the top while ignoring the fact they dominate the middle)

Great points kratch.

You pretty much nailed most of the issue and the hypocrisy.

Overall I think the men at the bottom risking their lives are further from "balance" than the men at the top. Loosing your life is kind of an immeasurable cost and the inequalities in work related deaths can't really be compared to the inequalities in top jobs.

And just as an aside I think that the men at the top don't have it all that great considering the time lost and stress they had making it to the top and staying at the top. Sure making it to the too is a good sign but its not always the best privilege. And as far as women are concerned it should also be noted that most the top men have a wife who reaped much of the rewards he does...

Basically the too jobs aren't all that good but the life risking jobs are that bad.

Your right Kratch, they are not creating a seperate standard for females they are lowing the existing standard for both genders, but with full acklowledgemt that it is to allow for more females.

The article goes on to say that it is "obvious" that the [firefighting] workplace should be a mix of both genders to match what society looks like... (it's not so obvious to me, and if they must match society then old, fat and lazy must be requirements too) and it says there is a "need for female firefighters" (uh...not if you're a large man in need of being rescued).

"I see more men at the bottom, in the dangerous or dirty jobs, more women in the middle, and more men at the top, and feminists only complaining about not getting as much of the top while ignoring the fact they dominate the middle" -kratch

That's the way I see it too.