Should We Lower the Bar for Women?

[Kuan]

I am a firm believer in equal rights, and equal opportunity. Yet, there is a time when our pursuit in this path bothers me. There are jobs were the requirements are high physically. Such as the military, and firefighters. Since these jobs are strenuous and dangerous, there are physical tests that people need to pass in able to join. These tests should be equal right, but we lower our standards for women.

Is it fair for women to be given easier tests when applying for these jobs?

Secondary question: Isn't this not fair? Wouldn't it be fair if the tests were the same for both guys and girls?

[sarabellum]

I voted yes....

I live in a small town....
Most of our fire force are also Emts, they do double duty....

Yes some physical aspects of the job may be too strenuous for a woman to do...
Like raise a ladder, or carry a 300 pound man at of a burning building...

To me that doesn't mean much....
Usually on an emergency call you go out as a team?

A team works together....
A good team will know it strong suits....

You send Bill in to pull out a man from a burning house....
You send Marry in to help deliver a baby...

There is a lot of aspects to the job....

Directing traffic, setting up a perimeter, tending the pumps on the truck...
Consoling victims and children, navigating, on and on....

Sure a woman isn't as strong as a male generally but there is some aspects of the job that a woman can do better than a man because she is a woman...

A male cop is stronger than a female cop.....
A female cop can search a female, a male cop can not in most cases...

[Kuan]

I think you missed what I mean. I have no objection to women being in any chosen field. The problem is that jobs like firefighters, and soldiers require physical labor for almost every aspect of the job. If during the test, a women cannot perform the basic functions of the job, let alone the advanced ones, should she get it? As a firefighter, the only position that I would feel safe letting a woman have would be a driver unless she could pass the test to do the rest of the jobs.

[sarabellum]

You could be right....

As I said I am from a small town in colorado and fire-fighters here are also the paramedics....

I think most small towns in the US are like that, money and all...
I could be wrong...

A lot of volunteers for sure...

[Kuan]

I think you missed what I mean. I have no objection to women being in any chosen field. The problem is that jobs like firefighters, and soldiers require physical labor for almost every aspect of the job. If during the test, a women cannot perform the basic functions of the job, let alone the advanced ones, should she get it? As a firefighter, the only position that I would feel safe letting a woman have would be a driver unless she could pass the test to do the rest of the jobs.

I also want to point out that I hold this standard for men also. I dont care if your a women or a man. If you cant do the job, you dont get the job.

[Baz]

I voted yes....

I live in a small town....
Most of our fire force are also Emts, they do double duty....

Yes some physical aspects of the job may be too strenuous for a woman to do...
Like raise a ladder, or carry a 300 pound man at of a burning building...

To me that doesn't mean much....
Usually on an emergency call you go out as a team?

A team works together....
A good team will know it strong suits....

You send Bill in to pull out a man from a burning house....
You send Marry in to help deliver a baby...

There is a lot of aspects to the job....

Directing traffic, setting up a perimeter, tending the pumps on the truck...
Consoling victims and children, navigating, on and on....

Sure a woman isn't as strong as a male generally but there is some aspects of the job that a woman can do better than a man because she is a woman...

A male cop is stronger than a female cop.....
A female cop can search a female, a male cop can not in most cases...

You have a very good point and I mostly agree with you... But.....


I think to key part of the OP is “high physically�.
If two people are working as a pair, for their own safety in a situation where one may need to be able to carry the other, literally, I wouldn’t want to be the one put with Hiram Holiday would you?
(Sorry very old, you may need to look him up on YouTube)
It's to do with equal rights; both parties should have the right to be as safe as the other.

You have a very good point about team work, in the majority of occupations having personnel with a variety of skills and ability’s is of greater importance than physical ability, but I don’t think it’s about that; it’s about lower standards for woman. That’s not equal opportunity, equal opportunity is allowing everybody to try for the job and whoever can do it properly should be eligible.

[sarabellum]

Been keeping an open mind on this one...

Ran across "A national report card on women in fire fighting" PDF fille...

I'm a green horn when it comes to debating....
Does the above article seem credible, worth sourcing...

I never no what to trust on the inter-webs...
(Hope this is not against the rules, trying to become a better debater....almost went with "master'..... )

[Kuan]

We have no way on knowing how reliable of a source you found unless we can see it also. Usually look to see if it has contact information, sources to scientific facts, and the such.

EDIT: I have found what I believe is the file you were talking about and it does seem to be valid, at least in my view. Here is a link for those who would like to reference it.

[sarabellum]

http://www.i-women.org/images/pdf-files/35827WSP.pdf

According to this survey/study there isn't a standardized physical fitness test for fire fighters...
To give an example, of the fire departments surveyed that did have a physical fitness test 21.5% use the CPAT, 24.3% rely on tests developed by testing professionals or their state's civil service commission, while the remaining 54% rely on "home grown" tests.
It doesn't seem like there is a whole lot of rhyme or reason to what actually might be tested in each test.
Some test require a minimum level of sprinting ability while other test forbid sprinting as it is fatiguing and worsens smoke inhalation....

On top of that, the pass rate for woman (without lowering standards) is a lot higher than I thought...
The study points to the possibility that the women that want to be fire fighters are athletic to begin with....
The female pass rate varies depending on which test they were required to take...
The CPAT test which "requires a high levels of physical performance" had an average female pass rate of 68% of the departments surveyed....

Additionally, female fire fighters who were provided training before there physical requirement test had an increased pass rate over those who did not as did the males...

I don't think we should lower the bar for women...
Maybe just figure out where the bar actually is....

[Baz]

The study points to the possibility that the women that want to be fire fighters are athletic to begin with.....

I think it’s obvious that the average man is physically stronger than the average woman but I would be surprised if an average man or woman ever applied to be a fire fighter.
I would expect the physical abilities of applicants to this sort of profession would be far from average.
Given the amount of people with well above average physical ability, I see no reason for any fire fighter to be less able than there colleges.

[Lux]

This is complicated. I'm not voting until someone convinces me

On one hand, obviously no one who doesn't meet the necessary requirements should get these jobs, and women on average have less physical strength than men.

Oh the other hand, there are several jobs within the military and the firefighters that require a smaller amount of strength than carrying out a 300 pounds man. And it's not like people are forming lines to become firefighters or soldiers, so someone who can take orders, is a team-player, has all the necessary aptitudes but can only carry 120 pounds is probably better than no one.