Post-equality

[Guest Raids]

So, I did a little research into the effort to get women on fire-fighting crews, and man this stuff is controversial.

I would say the charge that few women want to do it is totally wrong. Recruiting efforts have yielded huge pools of candidates.

However, the strength issue is a real issue. For one, apparently you really need to be at least 150 lbs, minimally, to even think about being able to carry and drag the weight. And even then it's awfully tough. I can't imagine there are really that many 170 lb physically fit women wandering around.

But there are some, and they do become firefighters. And then they are sexually harassed at appalling rates. I mean, really appalling. Like 70% were actively being harassed at the time of the study.

So, we will never, ever see rates of 15-20% female fire-fighting forces without lowering standards below where they should be, but for the 5-10% that do make it, they are really likely to face discouraging and illegal harassment. And that should not happen.

[Lummel]

Where are we going with this discussion of firefighting in Sweden?

Is the point that feminism has gone too far and is causing deaths through poor employment practises?

Or that the dominance of feminism in Swedish political life means that male deaths at work are not discussed?

Or that feminists talking about the unequal treatment & status of women in society crowds out other issues from being discussed publically?

Is there some general issue that is applicable to the relative position of men and women generally or is this purely an example of something particular to Swedish local government?

I don't regard myself as any kind of a feminist but my general impression from the UK media is that discussion of deaths at work tends to swamped by the kind of people who complain about red tape or rules and regulations hampering businesses rather than by feminists saying that it might be nice if women got paid the same as a man or pointing out that its not nice to be harassed at work. And yes I'm all for more public discussion and more media space to be given over to workplace deaths and for there to be more political and social pressure to reduce them - but I don't see that this should reduce or restrict discussion of other inequities in society. Its not as though the media and political pies are so small that discussion of one social ill precludes discussion of another.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

But there are some, and they do become firefighters. And then they are sexually harassed at appalling rates. I mean, really appalling. Like 70% were actively being harassed at the time of the study.

So, we will never, ever see rates of 15-20% female fire-fighting forces without lowering standards below where they should be, but for the 5-10% that do make it, they are really likely to face discouraging and illegal harassment. And that should not happen.

I thought that in the context of integrating the military combat arms, the argument was that integration naturally leads to acceptance, and that any problems or disruptions caused by gender-integration will dissipate pretty quickly once that happens.

Doesn't your point here suggest that some folks may be underestimating the impact of gender integration in traditionally "macho" occupational fields, especially where the numbers being integrated are fairly small?

[Guest Raids]

I thought that in the context of integrating the military combat arms, the argument was that integration naturally leads to acceptance, and that any problems or disruptions caused by gender-integration will dissipate pretty quickly once that happens.

Doesn't your point here suggest that some folks may be underestimating the impact of gender integration in traditionally "macho" occupational fields, especially where the numbers being integrated are fairly small?

The empirical data could not really provide evidence one way or the other, since we are still in the really early stages of seeing any gender integration. As in, full possible levels are not anywhere close to being achieved.

There is huge geographical disparity, also. For instance, Los Angeles has really low rates, around 2%. It seems like they're about the stage the military was when all-female barracks were an oddity.

Lastly, sexual harassment as a distinct phenomena happens at appalling rates pretty much everywhere where it is tolerated, IMO.

[Brienne the Beauty]

Getting sidetracked on women firefighters is a dead end. It's one of the few jobs that genuinely require raw strength. Yes, fine, discriminate against women there. It's justified.

But *why* discriminate against female truckers? How much strength does it take to turn a wheel? Why discriminate against women pilots? Why discriminate against women welders? That's where the issue lies. Tough jobs that women could do, but generally don't, because of a hostile social attitude.

[kungtotte]

Who is really discriminating against female truckers? There's several women piloting dump trucks in my area and nobody seems to pay it any mind. No comments about it or anything. I realise my anecdotal evidence doesn't count for much, but honestly I don't think women avoid the truck-driving profession out of some perceived discrimination.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The empirical data could not really provide evidence one way or the other, since we are still in the really early stages of seeing any gender integration. As in, full possible levels are not anywhere close to being achieved.

I'm just going off the statements you made regarding prevalence. And in terms of being in the "really early stages", strict gender prohibitions against women in firefighting have been illegal for decades. Yet, those problems are still at "appalling" levels decades after the law was changed.

[Guest Raids]

I'm just going off the statements you made regarding prevalence. And in terms of being in the "really early stages", strict gender prohibitions against women in firefighting have been illegal for decades. Yet, those problems are still at "appalling" levels decades after the law was changed.

I don't see the issue? Women in firefighting are not "prevalent" and the sexual harassment problems are still appalling, yes.

[TerraPrime]

There's also the uneven gender distribution in occupations to consider. Women make up a significant portion of the child care, health care and education sectors, and guess which sectors suffer greatly from being underpaid in general? Male nurses make as little as female nurses, and the problem here is that nurses are underpaid.

I guess you could argue that these occupations are underpaid because they are traditionally female jobs.

The story is often more complicated than that.

Some professions suffer a loss in pay level when women became the dominant working forces behind it. So it's not that the job became low-paying, and so men moved away, and women took over. It's more like, women began working in these positions, and then wages dropped. We see that in jobs like secretaries, and also some factory line works.

I'd also say that "traditionally female jobs" is rather subjective. Tradition at what period? Many of the jobs we now associate with women were male-dominated at some point, for the simple fact that only men get to work at jobs for a long time.

[Kat]

I'd also say that "traditionally female jobs" is rather subjective. Tradition at what period? Many of the jobs we now associate with women were male-dominated at some point, for the simple fact that only men get to work at jobs for a long time.

I would say that nursing is probably one of the better examples of a profession that is traditionally female-dominated, considering that it doesn't have a long history of being a profession (that is, something with specific required education and standards), and was basically started and developed by and for women.

[Jaerv]

Regarding Jaerv's complete dismissal of male privilige being prevalent and his notion that women are, in general, the priviliged sex, I give you:

You misrepresent what I have said and I think you know it. I never said that women are the privileged sex. I said that, when I look at the advantages and disadvantages of men and women, I cannot see a clear picture in present-day western societies that could be called a male privilege. When a class of people is called privileged, they should have a clearly better life than the others, otherwise the term is inappropriate IMHO. But women have several advantages that men do not have (and men have several advantages that women do not have, of course), and I find it extremely difficult to evaluate the value of all these different advantages with regard to the quality of human life. Thus, the picture is unclear for me.

You also accused me of making “unfounded statements” without specifying what you mean. I assume you refer to the study with cloistered populations that I mentioned. See below please

Luy, M.:

Causes of male excess mortality: Insights from cloistered populations

The degree to which biological factors contribute to the existence and the widening of mortality differences by sex remains unclear. To address this question, a mortality analysis for the years 1890 to 1995 was performed comparing mortality data on more than 11,000 Catholic nuns and monks in Bavarian communities living in very nearly identical behavioral and environmental conditions with life table data for the general German population. While the mortality differences between women and men in the general German population increased considerably after World War II, they remained almost constant among the members of Bavarian religious orders during the entire observation period, with slight advantages for nuns. Thus, the higher differences observable in the general population cannot be attributed to biological factors. The different trends in sex-specific mortality between the general and the cloistered populations are caused exclusively by men in the general population who were unable to follow the trend in mortality reduction of women, nuns, and especially monks. Under the special environmental conditions of nuns and monks, biological factors appear to confer a maximum survival advantage for women of no more than one year in remaining life expectancy at young adult ages.

Population and Development Review, Volume 29, Issue 4, December 2003, Pages 647-676

[WinterBreeze]

I've always sort of wondered, what is this respect that people keep demanding?

I keep hearing people say stuff like they are a person and deserve respect.

Isn't one supposed to earn respect, not gain it freely?

[AverageGuy]

I've always sort of wondered, what is this respect that people keep demanding?

I keep hearing people say stuff like they are a person and deserve respect.

Who are you referring to exactly?

[peterbound]

I would say that nursing is probably one of the better examples of a profession that is traditionally female-dominated, considering that it doesn't have a long history of being a profession (that is, something with specific required education and standards), and was basically started and developed by and for women.

Indeed.

My first stab at an undergrad was going to be in Nursing (coming out of the fire department and having a strong EMS background this seemed like a good fit).

So i take the classes, filled with women, and all of them hate me. They hate me for intruding on 'their' profession. No joke. I've never felt more out of sorts than when I was in my CNA class (which i dropped) and the instructor started going of on 'Male' nurses.

Male nurses she says. You won't be called nurses, you'll be called RN's, and you'll want to be our bosses, and you'll be too friendly with the doctors (there is some serious beef between doc's and nurses), and you'll try to date all the single young girls, ect. ect. I dropped the class shortly thereafter and switched to a pre-med major.

I don't know if it was years of pent up rage and bitterness that made them that way, or if it was feminism (of which i'm usually a fan), but at that point in my life, they were the Bad Guys.

And i don't know how commented upthread about nursing pay being low, but you need to do some research on that statement. Those cats do alright.

[Galactus]

The story is often more complicated than that.

Some professions suffer a loss in pay level when women became the dominant working forces behind it. So it's not that the job became low-paying, and so men moved away, and women took over. It's more like, women began working in these positions, and then wages dropped. We see that in jobs like secretaries, and also some factory line works.

I'd also say that "traditionally female jobs" is rather subjective. Tradition at what period? Many of the jobs we now associate with women were male-dominated at some point, for the simple fact that only men get to work at jobs for a long time.

It should be pointed out that, all other things being equal, women entering a new profession *should* lower the wages (you're essentially doubling the pool of potential applicants)

A male-only proffession is, by definition, more "elite" and "exclusive": You have only half the potential human resources to draw from, which means you're going to have to pay more to keep them.

Which is one of the reason that many fight so hard to keep women out of "their" jobs: They're competitiors for limited resources.

[Stalker]

There's also the uneven gender distribution in occupations to consider. Women make up a significant portion of the child care, health care and education sectors, and guess which sectors suffer greatly from being underpaid in general? Male nurses make as little as female nurses, and the problem here is that nurses are underpaid.

I guess you could argue that these occupations are underpaid because they are traditionally female jobs.

One could, but I wouldn't bother. Plenty of professions that are seen as tractional male are surprisingly poorly paid. And male nurses are paid more than female nurses, while male truckers are paid more than female truckers, on average.

Almost all the paygap is due to children. While there are a difference between men without children, and women without children, it is at most a few percentage, and for some groups doesn't exist at all. But the gap between men with children, and women with children is vary large. (there is also a gap between men with and without children, but again, it's small.)

Actual data: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=167

[Greg]

In all the years I've done the message board thing, never have I seen a feminism thread go well. Ever. Not once. I do not understand why we still make them.

"What is the point of this story

What information pertains?

The thought that life could be better

Is woven indelibly

Into our hearts

And our brains"

-Paul Simon

[sologdin]

However, the strength issue is a real issue. For one, apparently you really need to be at least 150 lbs, minimally, to even think about being able to carry and drag the weight. And even then it's awfully tough. I can't imagine there are really that many 170 lb physically fit women wandering around.

this information is barbaric. i was teaching one time when the anti-feminist argument came up, with this as the central objection: BUT FRIEFITORS NEDE TO BE STORNGS!

the proto-teabaggers rattled for a bit, and this kid in back who'd never spoken up before says, yeah, i'm a firefighter.

he then informs us all that firefighters tend to work in teams of four, with a fifth on the truck. and that the scenario where a lone firefighter would need to deploy the strength that anti-feminists require is not reasonable outside of bad movies. and that he prefers to work with female firefighters because, as they do tend to be smaller, they also tend to use less oxygen, and can therefore stay inside a burning building for longer periods of time.

so, yeah, this anti-feminist argument is a total loser.

[Guest Raids]

Okay? I think we are talking past each other here.

The physical test you are required to pass to become a firefighter requires, amongst other things, that the applicant be able to carry 175 lb dummy 100 feet.

Whether this is necessary is something to fairly consider, I suppose, but that it is currently part of the examination and therefore a minimum qualification for becoming a firefighter is a fact. This is the particular part of the test that women historically have a hard time passing.

There is another test in some states involving raising and extending the ladder - some areas have assigned three people per ladder instead of the two people previously assigned to allow more women to pass this section. This is controversial.

So, okay, I hear what you are saying as an argument that we should change the minimum strength requirements to be more accommodating to people with less brute strength. With regard to that, I also know that the current qualifications were not decided on at a whim, but determined through an objective assessment of the job duties with an eye toward allowing for maximum diversity in the workforce of firefighters. There has been *so* much recruitment effort in this particular area, that I'm guessing the grounds for the standards that are in place now are pretty solid. And the validity of the tasks in the physical examination vis a vis the actual job function of the applicant is way better here - where the applicants are actually doing the stuff they'd do in the field in the equipment they'd wear - than trying to equate number of pull-ups and push-ups, etc., as is often done in the military and elsewhere.

[Lyanna Stark]

You misrepresent what I have said and I think you know it. I never said that women are the privileged sex. I said that, when I look at the advantages and disadvantages of men and women, I cannot see a clear picture in present-day western societies that could be called a male privilege. When a class of people is called privileged, they should have a clearly better life than the others, otherwise the term is inappropriate IMHO. But women have several advantages that men do not have (and men have several advantages that women do not have, of course), and I find it extremely difficult to evaluate the value of all these different advantages with regard to the quality of human life. Thus, the picture is unclear for me.

That means that you cannot see male privilige. Despite us showing time and time again that society isn't equal, you REFUSE to recognise this fact.

You also accused me of making “unfounded statements” without specifying what you mean. I assume you refer to the study with cloistered populations that I mentioned. See below please

Refered to you cherry picking which links to use. Refer you back to my post where I posted a partial list of areas where women are at a clear disadvantage. You completely disregarded this and keep harping on and on about life expectancy, which has been explained and discussed at length but you ignored this as well.

So yes, you are making completely unfounded statements since you happily disregard any facts that don't fit your argument, and you use arguments (life expentancy) that can be explained by other factors.

TL;DR

1. You are wrong again by cherry picking facts and ignoring others

2. You cherry pick your reasons = unfounded statements since you ignore facts