NY Woman to Become Fire Fighter Without Passing Physical Exam

[2HF]

They both lied about physical differences in/about their bodies.

You still don't grasp this concept? It wasn't his body that they consented to. They consented to sex with an entirely different human being. He didn't lie about his body, he never told them that his body was in the equation at all! He had sex with women who never agreed to have sex with him. That is the literal definition of rape.

 

[Qizx]

They both lied about physical differences in/about their bodies.

You still don't grasp this concept? It wasn't his body that they consented to. They consented to sex with an entirely different human being. He didn't lie about his body, he never told them that his body was in the equation at all! He had sex with women who never agreed to have sex with him. That is the literal definition of rape.

No he did lie about his body.
He lied about his age (Tons of people do that and have sex)
He lied about his job (Tons of people do that and have sex)
He lied about his appearance (Ok this one is way harder to get away with cause usually people SEE each other during/before sex).

They consented to have sex with someone who's a liar. They consented to have sex with what they THOUGHT he was.

EDIT: You're arguing as if he had his super hunk young friend lure women in, then blind folded them and did the old switcheroo. There was only one person. ONE PERSON. There is no Person A and Person B.

EDIT 2: Since this is way off topic of the OP I'm going to hold off on responding anymore. And just to make it clear I do believe the guy is an asshole, maybe even what he did should be illegal, but it's not rape.

 

[2HF]

snip

By your logic I can now sleep with whoever I like, anywhere and anytime. As long as the women don't see me and I make sure to claim I'm someone they've consented to sex with in the past I'm in the clear. I'm a liar and an asshole but honestly I'm already both of those things.

 

[flying_whimsy]

This is the same new york that banned large pop sizes, right?

Yeah, totally not surprised.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

I really hate saying this, but I'm ex-Military, and whenever people ask why I was against the idea of letting women try out for Infantry, Special Forces, Armor, SEALs, etc., I point to this and other similar examples.

It's great that we say "women should be allowed to try out, but the standards need to remain the same", and I agree with that statement, but it's ultimately just lip-service. Inevitably, a couple of years down the road, a lot of the same people who promised that the standards wouldn't change notice that only a tiny % of women (if any) managed to meet the standards, and then suddenly the test is "discriminatory" and needs to be "gender-normed". Or they notice there are too few women in the organization and demand that they fix this "problem". It's the same dog and pony show: they don't want equality of opportunity, they want equality of outcome.

It happened to the NY fire department in the 80's, it happened to the Virginia Military Institute in the 2000's, and it's still ongoing with the Marine Corps, who has continuously delayed having women trying out for Infantry be held to the same standards, since so few of them can pass the pull-up test. I'd be happy with it if people actually kept their word that the standards would remain and be taken seriously, but history has continuously shown otherwise.

 

[Starik20X6]

Let's see...New York Post, Washington Times, Daily Mail, Hot Air...

Think I'll wait to see if this gets any worthwhile attention before speculating.

Exactly this. I feel like we'll probably see it on one of Cracked's weekly 'debunking bullshit headlines' articles before any reputable news source reports on it.

 

[maninahat]

Eh, my instinct is to say this sounds dangerous, but I imagine the exam invigilators know the circumstances better and probably made a far more informed decision. I don't think I am in any position to say "this is a disgrace", because for all I know she might actually be a really good firefighter, with the exception of that one physical failing.

But of course, the first thing people will do is blame that gosh darn affirmative action business, whilst ignoring the fact that they could have easily chosen not to hire her, and still got their diversity dollar from the other two female recruits who did pass all the tests. I somewhat doubt the invigilators thought to themselves, "She'll probably let someone burn to death in a building, but eh, we need more women, however incompetent".

 

[maninahat]

I thought this seemed too ridiculous to be true. It mostly is true, but apparently the test requirements have been lowered not just for her but also for all future applicants. Of course, I don't know how I feel about lowering the standards for the test. Apparently they had previously required you to pass the physical test, but now it comes down to what your average is between the physical and the academic tests. Because she excelled academically, she passed in the new system. It still sounds a bit questionable, given how physically demanding firefighting is.

Maybe the physical test just was a bit arbitrary to begin with? Why does the psychical requirement have a time limit of 18 minutes, and not 17 or 16? If we are so concerned about the physical element here, why aren't we demanding the test be even more stringent, and people have to pass it in 10 minutes? The examiners are probably the best equipped people to make that decision.

If the examiners have lowered the requirements for entry, that would be an acknowledgement on their part that the test didn't need to be that hard to produce capable fire fighters. In which case, her not passing the physical isn't as big a deal as people suggested. I remember a few years back when people were complaining about a firefighter paper exam being simplified to enable people with poor reading/writing skills from getting fire fighter jobs. It never occurred to the people complaining that perhaps the examiners who changed the exam requirements actually thought things through before making changes; that they might have realized the examination was pointlessly baring entry to what were perfectly good firefighters. Exams by their very nature are kind of an abstract measure of a person's ability, and they are not 100% accurate an indicator, otherwise no exam would ever need be changed.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Maybe the physical test just was a bit arbitrary to begin with? Why does the psychical requirement have a time limit of 18 minutes, and not 17 or 16? If we are so concerned about the physical element here, why aren't we demanding the test be even more stringent, and people have to pass it in 10 minutes? The examiners are probably the best equipped people to make that decision.

To start, sageoftruth was slightly off. The physical test standards haven't changed, but now the Head Honcho of the Fire Department has said he's going to let it slide that she didn't pass because her academic scores are good. But even if they had changed, that argument makes no sense. Being in good shape is a requirement because it is necessary for the job, and being in better shape is even better, but in order to actually have enough people make it through the program so that ranks could be filled, they have to be within reason. Sure, the Army could make it so that everyone has to be in Olympic athlete shape to enlist, but when the call comes to go to war and the Army is composed of about 30 people who were able to pass the test, you're going to be pretty screwed.

If the examiners have lowered the requirements for entry, that would be an acknowledgement on their part that the test didn't need to be that hard to produce capable fire fighters.

Baloney. Organizations are forced all the time by special interest groups to shift around their standards to 'increase diversity', it hardly means they are acknowledging they agree with the decision; they have higher ups they have to answer to as well. Schools in California started to increase the standards by which they judge Asian students for admission purposes. Does that mean the administration was acknowledging that the current standards were too low to succeed at the school, and needed to be increased? Hardly, it was because there were too many Asian students and not enough black and hispanic students enrolling. To the surprise of no one, they were also told to decrease standards for black and hispanics applicants as well.

You're attempting to sugarcoat what is quite clearly a political move from the head of the FDNY. If you're not convinced, ask yourself this: if this had been a male applicant, do you honestly believe they would have just said 'no big deal that he didn't actually pass the physical fitness test, just let him in"? I'd be seriously surprised on this one.

 

[Dragonbums]

Ergh, I'm gonna step out of this thread because I know it's gonna get ugly.

Yeah, but no, she should of had to take a physical exam like everyone else. Fire men and WOMEN have to do the physical, so why did she get an exemption? Unless this women was a known body builder or some shit and they know from the outside that she can do those things (either way it doesn't excuse them from not giving her a physical.) that's a load of trash.

I wonder if this fire department is doing this just to get attention honestly.

 

[eberhart]

Don't worry. The whole idea of "excelling academically while not meeting other standards" is unlikely to lead to a situation where some "affirmative firefighter" fails to drag you out of the building. There is one place where this kind of people can land instead (and, given the apparent political backing at play, they eventually will).

I mean, why is there so few ranking female firefighters? That needs to be fixed just as well, shattering glass ceilings and all that, preferably by quotas. And... would you look at that, there's a number of "academically excelling" firefighters on hand - perfect for giving instructions and leading those "physically able" peons. What? Respect and experience? Apparently nobody cares about the former anyway and the latter can be gained "academically".



Seriously though, there's already a job she should be given instead, along with any other "academically outstanding" cases like her:

a fire inspector .

 

[Ariseishirou]

I really hate saying this, but I'm ex-Military, and whenever people ask why I was against the idea of letting women try out for Infantry, Special Forces, Armor, SEALs, etc., I point to this and other similar examples.

It's great that we say "women should be allowed to try out, but the standards need to remain the same", and I agree with that statement, but it's ultimately just lip-service. Inevitably, a couple of years down the road, a lot of the same people who promised that the standards wouldn't change notice that only a tiny % of women (if any) managed to meet the standards, and then suddenly the test is "discriminatory" and needs to be "gender-normed". Or they notice there are too few women in the organization and demand that they fix this "problem". It's the same dog and pony show: they don't want equality of opportunity, they want equality of outcome.

It happened to the NY fire department in the 80's, it happened to the Virginia Military Institute in the 2000's, and it's still ongoing with the Marine Corps, who has continuously delayed having women trying out for Infantry be held to the same standards, since so few of them can pass the pull-up test. I'd be happy with it if people actually kept their word that the standards would remain and be taken seriously, but history has continuously shown otherwise.

Maybe in the US, but when Canada opened front-line infantry combat positions to women back in the late 80s, with the requirement that they pass the same physical tests as the men, they literally never went back on that. Very few women pass, and it's been about 30 years now. It has never changed, even so. Canadian infantrywomen fought in Afghanistan.

I think the question might be: why can we accomplish that here and not in America?

 

[IceStar100]

All aside part of this is even putting her life in danger. Resentment builds up and can lead to her team "forgetting about her." Fire fighter, police and military are a team we require each other. plus with disrespect come questioning her order if she does get higher up. Which again put people in danger because some time order need to be followed with out question. She will not be seen as a true fire fighter but like someone who slept their way to the top. No she didn't earn it that way but is in the same boat. She didn't do it the right way someone from the top pulled her up instead of her doing it herself.

TLDR She putting everyone including herself in harms way for this. No good will come of it.

 

[maninahat]

Baloney. Organizations are forced all the time by special interest groups to shift around their standards to 'increase diversity', it hardly means they are acknowledging they agree with the decision; they have higher ups they have to answer to as well. Schools in California started to increase the standards by which they judge Asian students for admission purposes. Does that mean the administration was acknowledging that the current standards were too low to succeed at the school, and needed to be increased? Hardly, it was because there were too many Asian students and not enough black and hispanic students enrolling. To the surprise of no one, they were also told to decrease standards for black and hispanics applicants as well.

You're forgetting the purpose of "increasing diversity" in the first place; it's to end a cyclical problem in which certain minority groups can't ever get a foothold. Lowering the barrier for entry for certain people and raising it for others is prejudicial, however not changing the barriers for entry can also be far more prejudicial, in that it reinforces an already present societal stratification. But I think there is a distinction between affirmative action in schools, and re-addressing job requirements. Are we arguing that prior to trying to recruit women into the fire service, the fire department never altered their entry requirements? That the concept of adjusting tests only ever happened after the fire department felt they needed more women? I gave one example in another post wherein they scrapped most of the written exams for firefighters, when it occurred to them that high literacy rates weren't actually all that conducive to finding firemen, and that the requirement was preventing perfectly good applications from people with poorer reading/writing skills (which especially affected people from poor and black/hispanic back grounds).

You're attempting to sugarcoat what is quite clearly a political move from the head of the FDNY. If you're not convinced, ask yourself this: if this had been a male applicant, do you honestly believe they would have just said 'no big deal that he didn't actually pass the physical fitness test, just let him in"? I'd be seriously surprised on this one.

My intuition says that her being a woman was certainly a factor in her being allowed to pass (for affirmative action reasons), but that doesn't mean they have decided to let a dangerously under-qualified woman on to the force just to fill a quota. Presumably they actually did weigh up the implications of letting someone in who didn't beat the physical, against whether she would actually perform well on the job. The purpose of the tests are to establish who is a good firefighter, and if she managed to demonstrate she was a good firefighter overall, in spite of the physical, that was most likely the deciding factor in whether she could pass (and not just that she was a woman).

 

[Shiftygiant]

If she's just gonna be doing an office position, fine, but actual field work? Bold move NYFD.

 

[deeman010]

Very dumb..... there are women that passed the physicals already so there's no need for this. When people's lives are on the line you can't compromise on standards like this. I mean we can have representation but its not worth it imo, not at the cost of, potentially, people's lives.