|
This is absolutely disgusting (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| baystreetboi |
| quote: | Originally posted by Carney
they kinda pulled the same a couple years back for fire fighting making the test (physical) easier for women to pass so they could get on the union |
Studied a case like this in a public law course I'm currently taking.
The truth behind the case was that the physical standards were arbitrary and set at such a level that it would be virtually impossible for most women to pass.
It's one thing when the physical tests involve things like hauling fire hoses, etc. (which are still legitimate and must be passed... these are known as bona fide occupational qualifications or requirements). However when a standard for a test is arbitrary and has no reasonable basis to be applied in that way, it can be struck down. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| Standards should be equal no matter who applies. And if women can't physically meet the requirements to be firefighters than too bad! I dont care who is saving my life as long as they have the capability to do so. |
|
|
| baystreetboi |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Standards should be equal no matter who applies. And if women can't physically meet the requirements to be firefighters than too bad! I dont care who is saving my life as long as they have the capability to do so. |
My understanding is that the standards are now equally applied... there isn't a "lower" physical standard that has to be met by women, and a "higher" standard for men.
The standards were lowered after an examination of what (in a physical sense) should reasonably be expected of a firefighter rather than have an arbitrarily higher standard which served no rational purpose other than to exclude women.
Here are the Toronto requirements for ALL:
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/fire/recruitment/york.htm |
|
|
| TheVrk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
No this has been going on since the Trudeau government in the 70s. Dont think it was always this way. |
Your kidding right? EVERY gov't EVER has been impartial
in their own way.....EVER. |
|
|
| jdjd |
| quote: | Originally posted by TheVrk
Honestly, who cares? It doesnt bother me |
I can think of someone who cares, that guy who got turned down for the job. Maybe he really needed it?
>My understanding is that the standards are now equally applied... >there isn't a "lower" physical standard that has to be met by >women, and a "higher" standard for men.
>The standards were lowered after an examination of what (in a >physical sense) should reasonably be expected of a firefighter >rather than have an arbitrarily higher standard which served no >rational purpose other than to exclude women.
This I find even more disgusting. Lowering your standards for people in emergency services is a step in the wrong direction, I don't care how they distort it to look like discrimination. They used to be really brutal with the testing before, my friend went through it and said it was pure hell. They would make you run until you pass out. But when people's lives are on the line, I would rather have it that way. I guess they should lower the standards in the army to include more women also huh. If Sarah wants to work for me as a firefighter then sure, but she better be one strong, fit badass chick able to keep up with the guys :) |
|
|
| baystreetboi |
| quote: | Originally posted by jdjd
This I find even more disgusting. Lowering your standards for people in emergency services is a step in the wrong direction, I don't care how they distort it to look like discrimination. They used to be really brutal with the testing before, my friend went through it and said it was pure hell. They would make you run until you pass out. But when people's lives are on the line, I would rather have it that way. I guess they should lower the standards in the army to include more women also huh. If Sarah wants to work for me as a firefighter then sure, but she better be one strong, fit badass chick able to keep up with the guys :) |
Where do you draw the line to set objective standards then? For example, a Toronto firefighter must be able to pull 91kg of weight, equivalent to an average firefighter wearing full gear. If the standard should be higher / more grueling, what should it be? 110kg? Why not 130kg then? Hell, shouldn't the standard be that every firefighter has to be able to pull the heaviest known person on the planet just "in case" they are the individual that requires rescuing? The 91kg standard is built on a rational requirement - a firefighter should be able to resuce an "average" weight person. Beyond that, higher arbitrary standards simply become a way to maniuplate who you choose and choose not to let on the force. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| Jay's post is an example of overt discrimination, but covert discrimination happens on a daily basis in corporate Canada. |
|
|
| SkyHigh |
| ever wonder why ,on the news they say 5 foot male , or a 5 foot white male??? |
|
|
| sufee_b |
| quote: | Originally posted by dEsidEL
WHITE POWER !
|
lol...ohh the poor hungry white man |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
welcome to reality.... this isnt the first time this has happened. 5 years ago when i first applied for my engineering internship with ford i was told that i didnt get the job because i didnt meet the needs of their diversity initiative. after they fired him for not showing up for work for 2 weeks straight. they called me back and i then found out that he was selected based onthe fact taht he wasnt white, even though i was enroled in an acredited engineering program at university and he was enroled in business at a comunity college. might i add taht the job description was straight engineering....
ya its bull but thats what happens when we put laws in place to make people politically correct. |
|
|
| Arsondude2.0 |
Our soceity is built so that a white man will suceed, and if a white man fails, he has to try really hard to screw up, because in a white male straight dominated society, he has everything going for him.
So like whatever...we will in a WM Dom society...
Arsondude |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | | Our soceity is built so that a white man will suceed, and if a white man fails, he has to try really hard to screw up, because in a white male straight dominated society, he has everything going for him. |
^^^ Agreed, but it was built on white male domination. now because they are trying to convert it to a "equity utopia" they are inadvertantly discrimintating agains white males just because they are the "norm" when they started legislating people to no be racist, they created more problems than they solved. its the same thing with the whole gay marriage fiasco. with society's current trends, it is unacceptable to be openly prejudiced, so alot of people started to tolerate homosexuals, but now that the government is considering giving them the same rights as heterosexuals, people arent accpeting them, just tolerating them.
all these equity laws dont solve any of these problems, they just hide them. there are alot of racist and prejudiced people out there, they are just being legislated to act unbiased. ya it sucks but this is the society we have created. i dont think its possible to ever solve the racism and prejudice problem since there are always going to be ignorant people. |
|
|
|
|
