The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
New Cincinnati Fire Chief Says He Will 'Hire More Women'
Referring to the story here on FireEMSBlogs.com do you think it is okay for a newly appointed fire chief to say he will 'hire more women'? Doesn't this put the newly hired women in the spotlight and at an unfair disadvantage in the fire stations? I believe Cincy has several dozen women working in 26 stations.
Just thought it was an odd statement.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Stormey Tucker on
-
It amazes me that no women have even responded to this! Yes I am a female fire fighter and I do consider myself to be a good one. I am physically and mentally fit and do have the heart and drive to accomplish whatever I want. I work my butt off going to every training I can and for those who say that women don't have the drive or they aren't capable of doing a mans job and aren't really adrenalin junkies has never spent a day with me. I grew up on a cattle ranch, love to hunt and fish and welded for several years so I'm definitely not afraid to get my hands dirty. . So no I'm not a dike or butch or anything like that. Its just growing up my dad always told that there is nothing that I can't do and I believed him so I worked butt off to become a captain on my department and the only reason I'm not on a paid one right now is because there aren't any openings in my area.
So for those who like to stereo type women in the fire service I think they need to take a step back and realize what century they are in and that those women that do go out to try and be firefighters and make it I think you should congratulate them instead of turning your backs and degrading them because they are women.
So yes I agree that there is nothing wrong with trying to recruit women. My question is WHY NOT! Are you that afraid that women are gonna ruin the fire house or take your job? I mean girls grow up playing with barbies instead of fire trucks but that doesn't mean we cant give them an option to try out.
-
Permalink Reply by Tyler Lyons on
-
I don't have any problem with women in the department, we have several that work here currently and in the past. Some can do the job and some are here for the paycheck. I do have a problem with "targeting" recruitment. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY should be EQUAL. Not lets get this demographic because we don't have enough of these color/race/gender. Put the hiring posting in the local paper, fire careers, ect. DON"T go pushing the recruitment to womens groups, or the hispanic community so you can fill a number to look politically correct. It is unfair to everyone who has strived to become a firefighter. Example, the City of Spokane, WA took the top 50 scores of the written to the physical. When a friend of mine showed up to take that physical on the second day, there were 50 people there. When he asked about it, a firefighter told him they took 50 minorities from the tests and then the top 50 and ran 100 people through the test. 3 of us who were already certified as professional firefighters were in the top 100 but above the 50. But that is equal opportunity.... IT'S BS. If female firefighters are out seeking fire jobs then they will have the same opportunity that male firefighters get. Sure there are some small departments that still play the "good ol boys" club, but not any civil service department, at least I wouldn't think so.
-
Permalink Reply by WestPhilly on
-
I know what recruiting and hiring mean. If there is a disconnect between who you ask to "come apply" and who you ask to "fill out a W-4", that's bullshit. The supposed equal hiring process is subverted by any recruiting process that is "targeted".
-
-
True, but you can be sure that wouldn't fly with the social engineers.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
I read through these posts and recruiting and hiring are two different things. Historically and even currently speaking, there is no difficulty in getting white males to apply for such jobs, which is why you do see more of a focused recruitment for women and minorities. However, I do believe there should still be a balance with recruitment vs focusing all or majority of efforts just for one group. If having an open house or practice PAT, etc, everyone interested in the job should have an opportunity to participate, not just a "women only" day, etc.
If you are an EEO, then that is what equal opportunity means, everyone should have an equal chance. I seen one job announcement for a city in New Jersey where you had to be a resident to apply, or open to all women regardless of residency. Sorry, that isn't really equal opportunity. Don't change things so much just because you wish to get diversity, and don't have double standards or weakened standards just to get people.
Hiring is a different issue and the best, most qualified should get the job.
-
-
the only reason I'm not on a paid one right now is because there aren't any openings in my area.
Cincinnati is looking for women to apply for the job. Why constrict your opportunities to one area? If one really wants to be a career FF, majority of those looking do not confine themselves to one dept or one area. The chances of getting hired are slimmer. Besides, how do you know you could make it on a paid dept, how many testings, interviews, and job processes have you gone through? The more you apply and the more you spread out, the more experience you get.
-
Permalink Reply by Brian Richards on
-
It really bothers me when higher ups say they will hire more women, african americans, or whatever, hire who is qualified, i want to be running in with someone qualified by my side not someone who was hired because of what they happen to be. If they're qualified theyll get in dont change any standards to get more of anything or anyone in.
-
-
If our allies are more sophisticated than we are in integrating women into the military services, that must mean they don't have different physical standards for men and women, like all branches of the U.S. Military do - including the service academies. (In case anyone is wondering, "different" means easier, and the easier standard is for the women). That must mean they don't rely on gender-norming as a way to "level the playing field" for women, since they know the battlefield is anything but level and that their enemies are interested only in leveling the opposing army or navy.
-
-
Stormey,
What's with the rant? No one - at least no one in this discussion - is saying women can't or shouldn't be firefighters. Not even me.
-
-
WestPhilly-
I'm not ranting I was simply stating my opinion. Also I do agree with everyone on here that the hireing and jobs should go to those that are the most qualified whether they are male, female or whatever race they are. Like Brian said I want someone by my side that is qualified and that I can trust and isn't there just to earn a paycheck and look good for PR work.
-
-
Stormey,
OK, it wasn't a rant, it was an "opinion". But the way you expressed your opinion in the second paragraph of your post struck me as being, well, rant(ish).
-
Permalink Reply by Gregory Borg on
-
Greenman, Your statement about the LODD shows how little you understand about what is killing FF's. Do some research.
We have 16 women out of 300 on our job. They were all hired before 2000 when Washington banned supplemental lists. All but one were hired off of the supplemental list. Since then less than 20 women have passed the written test (every two years, about 1000 applicants per test, less than 10% women) high enough to take our physical agility test. None have passed the physical agility test. Some were marathoners, but as you know running is not a FF skill, but lifting heavy stuff is. So we have hired no women in 11 years. Unless we lower the standards for strength even more than they have been we will not hire many in the future.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
