Why so much hatred for feminism?

[crimresearch]

The NFPA standards for firefighters, which to my knowledge most departments in the US follow, does not have any different standards for men and women when it comes to physical strength or performance. I suspect it is the same with police.

However, physical strength is not the only asset an individual might bring to either profession and women can do a number of things better than men in many situations. They can often diffuse a hostile person or comfort a child or search a female suspect in ways men cannot always do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualifications

 

[crimresearch]

ftfy

With 6,000+ posts surely someone by now has told you how to use the quote reply and properly quote other posters.


I'm not sure what you mean. Perhaps if you'd also point to the post in question on page one your comment would make more sense.

Oh yes we's sho'ly too stupid to use de quote function lak you wantz.

You never change, do you?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualifications

What is this supposed to mean?

 

[crimresearch]

What is this supposed to mean?

That you have no facts on the topic at hand, and to paraphrase Mark Twain, 'furthermore you don't want any'.

You are just pooh flinging on what could be a productive discussion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What is there in your link that refutes the fact the NFPA standards have the same physical qualification standards regardless of gender? I don't see it.

 

[psionl0]

The NFPA standards for firefighters, which to my knowledge most departments in the US follow, does not have any different standards for men and women when it comes to physical strength or performance. I suspect it is the same with police.

You would never see anything as blatant as a dual sex-based standard. They would have to lower the standard for both men and women if that is what it took to make more women eligible. (That is not to say that the old standards didn't need changing anyway).

However, physical strength is not the only asset an individual might bring to either profession and women can do a number of things better than men in many situations. They can often diffuse a hostile person or comfort a child or search a female suspect in ways men cannot always do.

Tut tut. It is not politically correct to draw attention to gender based differences in abilities.

 

[crimresearch]

What is there in your link that refutes the fact the NFPA standards have the same physical qualification standards regardless of gender? I don't see it.

And I'm not surprised that you are too blinded by your 'othering' of the whole world to see that my link *supports* the notion, not refutes it.

 

[sgtbaker]

And I'm not surprised that you are too blinded by your 'othering' of the whole world to see that my link *supports* the notion, not refutes it.

I am seriously not involved in this aspect of the debate. I've always gone on the assumption that the standards are lower for a woman. I am sure I've even said it, here. I followed your link expecting to see that confirmed. I admit that I have difficulty with legal wording so I can't say with certainty that it's not there. All I can say is I didn't see it either.

 

[fuelair]

I recently became a feminist...it took some effort.

As a guy, I found a huge barrier was my understanding of the term "patriarchy". It conjures up images of laughing misogynists chomping on cigars and telling the "little woman" to “get back in the kitchen”. Obviously, that wasn’t ME so I felt unfairly attacked. I also I felt like feminists were intentionally ignoring harmful and pervasive male stereotypes while harping on their own misery. It took a bit of reading on feminist websites to get how wrong I was. People need to understand the modern state of feminism is less about explicit misogyny and more about implicit sexism against women AND men.

Why call it FEMinism? Isn’t that in and of itself, sexist? No. Women have suffered to a greater extent in this environment while men have reaped more of the tangible benefits. On average, men have more money and power than women because we are lucky enough to have been born into a world where we have a disproportionate amount of control. Success begets success. Money begets money. It is the same reason white Americans hold more power than African Americans. That doesn't mean men or white people are vile. It just means they need to be socially aware and use their power to change the status quo.

Ultimately, the separation of powers leads to horrible sterotypes by assigning men and women into different roles: Men who cry are “fags”. Women with short hair are “dykes”. Men are loudmouthed slobs. Women are shrill and embarrassed to fart. Men unfairly lose child custody battles. Women get raped and people ask how she was dressed. EVERYONE pays the price and everyone needs to work together to stop it.

During my web travels, I came across a lot of anti-feminist hatred. I don't use the word "hatred" lightly. Search "feminism" on youtube and watch a few videos at random and you'll see that most vids are anti-feminist screeds. The few videos that are pro-feminist receive tons of negative votes and are flooded with trolls. Most of the anger seems to be directed at radical misandry rather than more moderate feminism which, as far as I can tell, is the majority viewpoint. Most people hear "feminist" and think of wackjobs like Valerie Solanas. Why?

Haven't read the rest of the thread, but I have been a feminist most of my life (no room for all of the details, but it came as naturally to me as believing abortion was fine, if the woman's choice when I was 11 or so (thank you "Blue Denim" where this first came up)) so when the misogynist/anti-stuff branch started up I just popped them into the silly but mostly harmless area and continued with my general people are people belief system......

(or, as I sometimes call/think of it:my "90+% of people want to live a reasonably good life, have enough to live on, leave others alone and be left alone, allowed their beliefs but no worry if others agree or not." theory of LIFE).

The other 10 or less % is perfectly free to osculate anal orifices, devour fecal matter and terminate.

 

[psionl0]

What is this supposed to mean?

It just says that an employer can discriminate on the basis of sex if the job makes it necessary. However, this section was meant to apply to more mundane things like "Further, in advertising, a manufacturer of men's clothing may lawfully advertise for male models". It is not meant as a means of redress for any imbalance in male/female employment. (And it has nothing to do with your fire fighter example ).

 

[bookitty]

You would never see anything as blatant as a dual sex-based standard. They would have to lower the standard for both men and women if that is what it took to make more women eligible. (That is not to say that the old standards didn't need changing anyway).

Tut tut. It is not politically correct to draw attention to gender based differences in abilities.

You know, if the standards are lower for everyone, that also means that more men will get in.

 

[curi0us]

The NFPA standards for firefighters, which to my knowledge most departments in the US follow, does not have any different standards for men and women when it comes to physical strength or performance.

What are the NFPA standards? I know for sure in the early nineties many fire departments had strength requirements which were just waived for women. NFPA 1583 seems to consciously avoid the issue by only talking about fitness programs without required standards.

In my city besides physical requirements being waived the fire fighter jobs were given to people based upon their score on a civil service exam which was massively weighted against white males. It's been my experience that most people that defend affirmative action just don't know how it (sometimes) worked. The argument that in the past the playing field was not fair was used to rationalize a blatantly unequal playing field when I came of age.

I suspect it is the same with police.

Anything that had actually has the same physical standards for men and women will put women at a statistical disadvantage. I would guess you are wrong in your suspicions or the standards you are talking about are things like the NFPA 1583 which don't actually have meaningful specifics. The US Army, which has very specific testing procedures and gives promotion points based upon performance, just has explicitly different standards for men and women. So a female solider who performs equal to a man will get more points for promotion.

However, physical strength is not the only asset an individual might bring to either profession and women can do a number of things better than men in many situations.

No, they can't. This is a basic issue of sexism, there is nothing inherently different about what a male or female firefighter can do. Why would there be? A larger/stronger person will able to better perform in task that require strength and on average men will be stronger/larger but that is the only difference between men and women here.

They can often diffuse a hostile person or comfort a child or search a female suspect in ways men cannot always do.

For a firefighter there are a large number of situations where attributes besides physical strength are important but for all of them men are just as capable as women.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You would never see anything as blatant as a dual sex-based standard. They would have to lower the standard for both men and women if that is what it took to make more women eligible. (That is not to say that the old standards didn't need changing anyway).

I was trying to avoid personal anecdotes but I work with ~20 different police and fire departments and know they require the same standards for both genders. I think it is a misconception some people hold that the physical requirements are so severe a woman could not pass the standards.

Tut tut. It is not politically correct to draw attention to gender based differences in abilities.

Tut tut, you appear to hold a misconception here if you are talking about the position of mainstream feminists. Do you honestly think we hadn't noticed we have different anatomy?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I am seriously not involved in this aspect of the debate. I've always gone on the assumption that the standards are lower for a woman. I am sure I've even said it, here. I followed your link expecting to see that confirmed. I admit that I have difficulty with legal wording so I can't say with certainty that it's not there. All I can say is I didn't see it either.

A lot of people believe this, and I can't say there aren't departments which have different standards or that lowered their standards at some point. But in the departments I work with, it just is not the case and it definitely is not the case with the NFPA standards. The only gender differences in the standard are things like mammograms are recommended for women on the list of medical services that departments should offer. Firefighters have higher rates of cancer than other professions, probably due to the toxins they are exposed to in some fires.

 

[psionl0]

You know, if the standards are lower for everyone, that also means that more men will get in.

Yes, it might be a good thing.

 

[psionl0]

Do you honestly think we hadn't noticed we have different anatomy?

Wrong territory.

 

[bookitty]

For a firefighter there are a large number of situations where attributes besides physical strength are important but for all of them men are just as capable as women.

This is true. The firefighters (or any public servant) are equal in capacity but outside expectation of capacity will vary. If there is a fire on the second floor and a parent is holding a child, that parent may be more likely to hand the child over to a male or female firefighter depending on the parent's life experience. Having both male and female allows for greater range of interaction.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What are the NFPA standards? I know for sure in the early nineties many fire departments had strength requirements which were just waived for women. NFPA 1583 seems to consciously avoid the issue by only talking about fitness programs without required standards.

There is nothing on this page about female vs male requirements in multiple countries: Fire Fighter Fitness Testing

The International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) unveiled several years ago the new Joint Fire Service Candidate Physical Ability Test (CPAT). This unprecedented, innovative and equitable physical ability test for fire fighter candidates is designed to help fire departments measure the physical ability of candidates to perform routine fire fighting tasks. It consists of eight events:

a stair climb
hose drag
equipment carry
ladder raise and extension
forcible entry
search maze
rescue simulation
ceiling breach and pull.

It is a pass-fail test that is content-valid based on fire fighter job tasks, but avoids the pitfalls of testing candidates on specific fire fighting skills that require academy training. The test was designed to be both reliable and valid, meaning the test will produce consistent results and will measure an applicant's ability to display job-relevant characteristics and skills. It has been through an extensive validation process, including scientific, legal, and fire service review.

CPAT for Seattle Fire Department.
I just went through a half dozen of these and cannot find a city or department that has a different standard for men and women.

In my city besides physical requirements being waived the fire fighter jobs were given to people based upon their score on a civil service exam which was massively weighted against white males. It's been my experience that most people that defend affirmative action just don't know how it (sometimes) worked. The argument that in the past the playing field was not fair was used to rationalize a blatantly unequal playing field when I came of age.

This may occur but I don't believe it is common. It is not the case in any of the departments I work with.

Anything that had actually has the same physical standards for men and women will put women at a statistical disadvantage. I would guess you are wrong in your suspicions or the standards you are talking about are things like the NFPA 1583 which don't actually have meaningful specifics. The US Army, which has very specific testing procedures and gives promotion points based upon performance, just has explicitly different standards for men and women. So a female solider who performs equal to a man will get more points for promotion.

I can't speak for the military, I'm not familiar with their rules. Statistically women are at a disadvantage in police and fire departments. Do you see 50:50 gender ratios among police and fire personnel? I'm not aware feminists are complaining about this. They may be complaining that women are not promoted and some departments have no women at all, but unequal numbers, I don't think so.

No, they can't. This is a basic issue of sexism, there is nothing inherently different about what a male or female firefighter can do. Why would there be? A larger/stronger person will able to better perform in task that require strength and on average men will be stronger/larger but that is the only difference between men and women here.

Adequately, better, better in some cases,... none of what I said was intended to suggest men could not adequately do the same job, or that all men or all women were always better at some things. A department with both men, women, and minorities as well, benefits from the diversity because there are times when one's gender and/or race can contribute to a better outcome. It's naive to deny that.

For a firefighter there are a large number of situations where attributes besides physical strength are important but for all of them men are just as capable as women.

And vice versa, woman are just as capable as men.

 

[vwgub]

I would wager it's back to my statement that men are expected to work right out of the gate. Especially here in the US. Boys that live at home into their 20s are usually stereotyped as losers playing Xbox in mommy's basement.

Men are supposed to "get to working" and "Get to paying." So if they are married and they have kids, the wife then will stay home and do that more domesticated work and also have time to explore personal interests and passions. Men tend to get shoved into the machine and spun through it.

Men are supposed to or they can?

 

[vwgub]

To expand on my previous reply.
The "reason" men a supposed to work more is beause they can. This is directly related to why there aren't more women in my line of work (boat building). I have often wondered why there aren't more women in my line of work since there is no physical limitations in doing so.
The ONLY reason I have been able to come up with is they won't get hired because there are plenty of men who are looking for the same jobs. So women don't even try for these jobs because men get them.


Empirical evidence. At my company out of 350 plus employees the are only 4 women. Jobs that in general that take some but not excessive physical strength.