How do you see them in the line of fire? What are your opinions and veiws?

Views: 3086

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

we really don't disagree on anything Jack, my department, which is considered an all risk department, has to be able to handle pretty much anything that hits you. we also provide paramedic engine companies to reduce response time for getting a trained medic on scene, and if we can't handle it with engines and rescues, we have a couple of helicopters. I'm not sure how the conversation digressed this much but really, what I was writing was pretty much observations I have made locally. The PAT test weeds out those unable to perform the job. There is so much competition now to get a job that can pay >100K that we have no problem having most of the candidates, men and women being in top notch shape, both mentally and physically. The right coast thing, which is made up of a lot of volunteer companies do things like appoint there leaders verses requiring time on the job, experience and training and then, testing against others. Appointing someone smacks of favoritism and not getting the right person for the job, man or woman. But in my world, the women with just a few exceptions have been nothing less than exemplary, which again makes me question some of the comments. Regardless, I think we are on the same page. Everyone has to be able to do the physical component of the job...
We need to stop thinking that women cant do a job to how well they can do a job

That isn't the real issue here. If you have noticed from the course of this thread the topic as questioned about "What are your views on women firefighters?" has shifted to inquire as to the "glorifying" of women and the inquiry of self assurance.

As Jack points out on page 2, there have been numerous like minded threads on this topic "beat to death", yet some still feel inclined to start a new thread, again. So as with the other like minded threads this one took off with the "I would work with the woman FF over some guys any day" type of response. So a couple respectable members decided to question some of these such responses because the issue wasn't so much of "women unable to do the job", but as to "what makes them superior?" If one goes back to the start, they will see numerous threads of members stating how they have no problem working with a woman, how the women are better than most of the guys, and how they would put the women up against any guy and so forth.....which leads to the question of standards.

Yes, bottom line is that it should not matter who is doing the job, race, color, creed, religion, gender, sexual orientation and so forth....it should make no difference. So then why the need for affirmation from such posts? Yes, it shouldn't matter, but why then a difference in standards out there? Not so much for gender (such as making the CPAT easier for women and crap like that) but even in a disparity of duties? Why should one dictate (as an employee) what job they will or won't do? Such as "I ONLY do exterior", or "I won't go in with so and so", or "We have to take what we can get" type of stuff.

So in the end, no, it doesn't matter who does the job as long as they can do it. However, spare the self affirmation stuff. We all know great, good, and even mediocre to poor firefighters, everyone has strengths and weakness so it comes down to utilization of those resources, there is no need for special affirmations, special testings and so forth to do the job. Either you can or you can't.
John,

I'm not sure I understand your parenthetical comment about the CPAT. Can you clear that up?
WP, it goes back to page 2 and one of the links Jack provided from his search. One of them addressed the CPAT and questioned if the standards should be changed for women.
Got ya. I didn't check the link, but I think I remember that conversation. (As crazy as that idea is, the military actually does just that.)
As in different standards with the military? Yes, you are correct.
I think it is fine as long as they are strong enough to carry their own. This means everyone (men and women) able to pass whatever PT test your organization uses.

Besides if she is hot, thats a bonus...
(yep, he really did "go there")
C/B,

What are you smoking out there? The justification you just gave (fear of litigation) is exactly the reason that what you're suggesting is unworkable. People will sue for anything, no matter what you do or don't do. And when you start down that path of having a policy of female firefighters for female patients to deal with that "woman stuff", you're really opening the door for all kinds of nonsense.

I'm following this (females for females) line of thinking to it's logical conclusion. I don't think so.
FETC,

I glossed right over the first part of your post. (I was distracted by the "if she is hot" part). I sure hope I'm misreading you. You think the seperate standard for men and women is "fine" as long as the seperate PT tests are passed?
Sorry BZ,
I also have to agree with WP here and such an excuse is rather poor. Under such moronic justification, then we should also have a woman on every crew, as well as, a representative for every other minority out there for all these "sensitive in nature" calls.

Under such reasoning, it almost appears that a male can't show compassion, nor even understand such "woman issues" yet despite that how many male medics have delivered a baby in the field? That would seem to be a "sensitive issue. Then again, you can have a female EMT who was never pregnant, nor understands some of the "sensitive" issues, yet they are to be an expert because they are female? Bull crap! How many sexual assualt victims were treated by male paramedics? I'm sorry I can't agree with such an illogical excuse to have a woman on the fire dept for the sole purpose of "sensitive" issues and a fear of litigation. Matter of fact when talking with one of our female FF's she stated she felt uncomfortable being thrown in such sitations because she is a woman, just because she is a woman, doesn't mean she has experience in the issue at hand.

Not too long ago we had a female pt who was sexually assaulted. Under your reasoning here, I should have called in for one of our female FF's to thus come to the scene for pt care because of the "sensitivity". No, instead I went back on training and obtained vitals, treated any obvious life threats and transported with another paramedic (who also happened to be male) in the back with me. We treated the pt with compassion and respect and there was no need for a female to be there because of the "sensitive" nature. Yes, we told the ER they would need a SANE nurse, but they are also trained for this....and guess what there was a male doctor at the ER. His role is much like ours, treat the life threats and injuries, let the other professionals like counselors and so forth do their job.
Going further WP, the military further breaks down standards to coincide with age as well as gender and each branch's semi annual PT test is different. Although a difference is that the military is quite broad in job duties as compared to the fire service. One can be a mechanic, supply person, electronics expert, up to the combat grunt. Meaning the military maintains a generalized standard to meet in order to stay in the military, but there are specialties which can delve further into their own requirements. There is no double standards when it comes to such things as the special forces, etc.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

FireRescue Magazine

Find Members Fast


Or Name, Dept, Keyword
Invite Your Friends
Not a Member? Join Now

© 2021   Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.   Powered by

Badges  |  Contact Firefighter Nation  |  Terms of Service