Man Resists a Taser

Off Topic
201

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
but the level of sexual harassment and bullying toward female firefighters is unbelievable. Unfortunately, the same is true of pretty much all male-dominated fields. Earlier in this thread, someone said something about no one saying anything when men have to do all the “hard” (physically demanding and/or dangerous). Well, the reality is, the men in those jobs go out of their way to keep women out.

I thought we were talking about physical standards, and not sexual bullying/harassment.

Fire-fighters have a bad rep that I don’t think is deserved. I can believe that the level of sexual harassment and bullying was very high when women were first breaking into the field. But speaking only of the City of Richmond, when I interviewed with the department 2 of the 5 lieutenants on the panel were women. I have also been on ride alongs with 2 different houses, 1 had a female lieutenant in charge, and the other was all male. The crew with the female lieutenant showed nothing but respect to her, even the “old timers”, both to her face and behind her back. The all male crew had a crass, politically incorrect sense of humor, but they said nothing but good things about the female fire-fighters in other crews.
[/quote]

Good to hear. Unfortunately, this is not (yet) the norm. Although I am concerned about the “politically incorrect sense of humor”, as it may be a “safe” way of expressing negative attitudes, sexualizing women, or creating a hostile environments. Or not. I’d have to hear what was being said, and how it was being said.

And this is test DOES have the same standards for men and women, right? If so, I don’t see where we are disagreeing.

[quote]
I think having women pass the same PAT as men, which many have done and will continue to do, goes a long way towards ending the sexual harassment and bullying that you referred to, because the women will have proven from the day they were hired that they are just as physically capable as their male counterparts.[/quote]

Let’s hope so. But this is what makes it so important that they “prove” that they can do the job, and nothing more. It would be a major setback to allow selection tools that eliminate female candidates that could competently perform the job, and that’s why such tools are not defensible in the US and Canada.

EDIT: I didn’t make the connection between biased selection tools and bullying/sexual harassment clear. They are related in that both are a means to keep women out of male-dominated fields. Moreover, biased selection tools reduce the number of females in the job, and this increases the chances that the women who are there will be bullied/harassed.

202

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:

Good to hear. Unfortunately, this is not (yet) the norm. Although I am concerned about the “politically incorrect sense of humor”, as it may be a “safe” way of expressing negative attitudes, sexualizing women, or creating a hostile environments. Or not. I’d have to hear what was being said, and how it was being said.
[/quote]

To be honest, I think you’re overreacting to this statement. Particularly as far as the term “sexualizing women” goes. Perhaps you meant “objectifying”. Women are (or should be) very sexual creatures. They should be comfortable with that and open about it. Most of the ones I know are, and are open and that’s not a problem. They don’t have any problem knowing that men are in general always sexually “on” around them or in regards to any pretty woman that walks by. The women I know understand that’s our basic biology and don’t hold it against people, as long as they show respect for the person inhabiting that body in a general way.

Also, in my group of friends (a very well balance co-gender group), we make fun of everyone in a very politically incorrect way. We are equal opportunity haters. No one has a problem with this. The women give as good as they get. I prefer it this way, and I believe this is healthy and normal.

[quote]
EDIT: I didn’t make the connection between biased selection tools and bullying/sexual harassment clear. They are related in that both are a means to keep women out of male-dominated fields. Moreover, biased selection tools reduce the number of females in the job, and this increases the chances that the women who are there will be bullied/harassed.[/quote]

I would agree with this. I would also note, however, that I personally think sometimes biased selection tools are simply a result of ignorance on the part of those who are supposed to make the process work. Or the result of a process that just hasn’t been revised because it hasn’t even been thought of before. So I don’t think 100% of cases are those where there is an intent to deny.

203

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:

Good to hear. Unfortunately, this is not (yet) the norm. Although I am concerned about the “politically incorrect sense of humor”, as it may be a “safe” way of expressing negative attitudes, sexualizing women, or creating a hostile environments. Or not. I’d have to hear what was being said, and how it was being said.

To be honest, I think you’re overreacting to this statement. Particularly as far as the term “sexualizing women” goes. Perhaps you meant “objectifying”. Women are (or should be) very sexual creatures. They should be comfortable with that and open about it. Most of the ones I know are, and are open and that’s not a problem. They don’t have any problem knowing that men are in general always sexually “on” around them or in regards to any pretty woman that walks by. The women I know understand that’s our basic biology and don’t hold it against people, as long as they show respect for the person inhabiting that body in a general way.
[/quote]

There is no way I can explain this in less than 10 pages or so. If you are interested, I suggest starting with Glick’s work on the ambivalent sexism inventory, and Franke’s 1997 paper.

That is far from ideal. You can argue that it’s ok, because everyone is just having fun, but research by Berdahl has found it leads to negative work outcomes. On top of Berdahl’s findings, these sexual harassment and bullying is more common in environments such as these, and it’s therefore far from ideal.

[quote]
EDIT: I didn’t make the connection between biased selection tools and bullying/sexual harassment clear. They are related in that both are a means to keep women out of male-dominated fields. Moreover, biased selection tools reduce the number of females in the job, and this increases the chances that the women who are there will be bullied/harassed.

I would agree with this. I would also note, however, that I personally think sometimes biased selection tools are simply a result of ignorance on the part of those who are supposed to make the process work. Or the result of a process that just hasn’t been revised because it hasn’t even been thought of before. So I don’t think 100% of cases are those where there is an intent to deny. [/quote]

That’s probably true. I’d bet misconceptions (look at the crazy stuff folks have said in this thread), a lack of knowledge about the issue, and carelessness are a huge part of the problem. But whether it’s intentional or not, it seems to lead to similar outcomes: a “masculinized” organizational culture, where women and men that aren’t manly enough are abused. On the second point, you’d be amazed how many cases of “unmanly” men being raped or otherwise sexually assaulted actually happen.

And it seems worth mentioning, many of the cases of sexual assault seem to occur when someone refuses to “play along” with the “politically incorrect” humor, and suddenly finds themselves victimized by their colleagues. If this is something that interests you, next years issue of the Annals of the Academy of Management is expected to have a chapter on sexual harassment that is going to cover a lot of what I’ve mentioned in this thread, only more coherently and fully referenced :slight_smile:

204

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
but the level of sexual harassment and bullying toward female firefighters is unbelievable. Unfortunately, the same is true of pretty much all male-dominated fields. Earlier in this thread, someone said something about no one saying anything when men have to do all the “hard” (physically demanding and/or dangerous). Well, the reality is, the men in those jobs go out of their way to keep women out.

I thought we were talking about physical standards, and not sexual bullying/harassment.

Fire-fighters have a bad rep that I don’t think is deserved. I can believe that the level of sexual harassment and bullying was very high when women were first breaking into the field. But speaking only of the City of Richmond, when I interviewed with the department 2 of the 5 lieutenants on the panel were women. I have also been on ride alongs with 2 different houses, 1 had a female lieutenant in charge, and the other was all male. The crew with the female lieutenant showed nothing but respect to her, even the “old timers”, both to her face and behind her back. The all male crew had a crass, politically incorrect sense of humor, but they said nothing but good things about the female fire-fighters in other crews.

As far as the C-PAT, it does not test a “general level of fitness.” It is entirely based on the equipment fire fighters use, the gear they wear, and the activities they have to do on the job. A fire truck cannot carry two different sledge hammers, or a lightweight version of the Jaws of Life for women, so when they take the C-PAT they have to swing the same ten pound hammer, drag the same hose and carry the same equipment for distance in the same time frame that the men have. Therefore, the test is as objective and fair as it could be.

I think having women pass the same PAT as men, which many have done and will continue to do, goes a long way towards ending the sexual harassment and bullying that you referred to, because the women will have proven from the day they were hired that they are just as physically capable as their male counterparts.[/quote]

There was a woman named Brenda Berkman who was one of the first female firefighters for FDNY, back in 1982, where the movement first began…when they first opened the position to women. After passing the test, and hiring the women that were able to pass…before long the department decided to ‘alter’ the test in a clear and aggressive move to disqualify the women. Brenda Berkman happened to be a lawyer who had opted to become a firefighter instead.

She personally defended womens rights in this case, and the men were convinced she was a one trick pony lawyer making noise for the sake of it…and that she was not serious about her goal in becoming a firefighter. She was. The test was re-evaluated and the women were put to it again. Brenda passed along with several other women, who went on to be sexually assaulted, physically assaulted, threatened and abused on a daily basis. This is not exaggeration it is fact.

Anyway, it was a constant struggle and there were major obstacles and attitudes to overcome…some of these attitudes it is sad to witness are still alive and kicking today.

Brenda Berkman is now a Captain for FDNY …26 years later.
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/takingtheheat/brenda.html

[quote]dollarbill44 wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
Bob760 wrote:
buckeye girl wrote:
oh god. here we go.

I’m pretty sure we are not “allowed” to hit anyone, regardless of sex.

Men and women still are not equal in society. White male privilege continues to exists, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that men have it easy.

And, I’m pretty sure I’ve said this before, but…I can open my own fucking door.

Alright then answer this, why then do women have lower requitements and lower standards than males do for certain jobs such as fire/rescue and law enforcement and their requirements are roughly 1/2 to 3/4 of the male standards so shouldn’t then get 1/2 to 3/4 the normal pay? I think its silly to think that one could have lower requirements and still argue that they weren’t getting paid enough when the males have higher standards but are receiving the same pay as someone who had lower standards.

anyone who disagrees that females should have to make the same HIGH requirements as males for positions like this are worthless human beings. I already hate how soccer mom organziations are trying to sugarcoat military traning. Having weak people in the polive and fire dept is going to make our cities worse places to live.

How old are you? I’m not picking on you for your age, but rather your apparent lack of life experience before throwing out regurgitations like these. Go out and serve with women in the public sector before you say shit like this, honestly. That goes for everyone. Some of the best soldiers I served with in the Army were women who couldn’t perform as well as men on a physical basis. This doesn’t lessen their worth on the job. Sure, there are some situations that require more strength than others when the shit hits the fan. But you know what, sometimes the big, strong macho man couldn’t sack up and get it done either. There are reasons why combat, fire, rescue, etc are formed into units. They recognize that it takes multiple people with different skill sets to be most functional.

So, do yourself a favor and stop listening so much to your Lazy-Boy entrenched, bitter, beer-soaked old man in his stained wife-beater and experience the world a bit more with open eyes and ears.

DB[/quote]

DB I just wanted to say this is a great post.

205

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:

Good to hear. Unfortunately, this is not (yet) the norm. Although I am concerned about the “politically incorrect sense of humor”, as it may be a “safe” way of expressing negative attitudes, sexualizing women, or creating a hostile environments. Or not. I’d have to hear what was being said, and how it was being said.

To be honest, I think you’re overreacting to this statement. Particularly as far as the term “sexualizing women” goes. Perhaps you meant “objectifying”. Women are (or should be) very sexual creatures. They should be comfortable with that and open about it. Most of the ones I know are, and are open and that’s not a problem. They don’t have any problem knowing that men are in general always sexually “on” around them or in regards to any pretty woman that walks by. The women I know understand that’s our basic biology and don’t hold it against people, as long as they show respect for the person inhabiting that body in a general way.

There is no way I can explain this in less than 10 pages or so. If you are interested, I suggest starting with Glick’s work on the ambivalent sexism inventory, and Franke’s 1997 paper.
[/quote]

Perhaps you could take a paragraph, just one, and try to tell me which parts of my statement you have a problem with. Is there a specific use for the term “sexualizing” that I misunderstood? Or perhaps you were disagreeing with something else…perhaps it’s the idea that a pretty woman passing by makes men in general excited. Sorry, that’s biology speaking, and it doesn’t care about anything else. It’s what you do or refrain from doing with that biological instinct that matters.

Maybe I should clarify–I’m talking about my friends. Not co-workers, not colleagues. Friends, whom I talk to and confide in. I don’t see that it is possible to create a ‘negative work outcome’ when you are not in a work environment and are not with co-workers. I reiterate that I think this sort of interaction is normal and healthy. These women are independent and sexual creatures and are fine bandying words and insults with me and their other male (and even female!) friends.

Well there’s no argument from me that the outcome is the same. I was just mentioning possible alternatives because I sometimes feel that there is an undercurrent of demonization that may not always be correct. Of course, when it is true in motive, demonization is probably warranted, and fine by me. No comment on the second point.

[quote]
And it seems worth mentioning, many of the cases of sexual assault seem to occur when someone refuses to “play along” with the “politically incorrect” humor, and suddenly finds themselves victimized by their colleagues. If this is something that interests you, next years issue of the Annals of the Academy of Management is expected to have a chapter on sexual harassment that is going to cover a lot of what I’ve mentioned in this thread, only more coherently and fully referenced :)[/quote]

Already addressed re: they’re not colleagues in my case, they’re friends.

206

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

Perhaps you could take a paragraph, just one, and try to tell me which parts of my statement you have a problem with. Is there a specific use for the term “sexualizing” that I misunderstood? Or perhaps you were disagreeing with something else…perhaps it’s the idea that a pretty woman passing by makes men in general excited. Sorry, that’s biology speaking, and it doesn’t care about anything else. It’s what you do or refrain from doing with that biological instinct that matters.[/quote]

When i say “sexualizing”, I mean categorizing as “sexual woman”, as opposed to “mother”, “career woman”, or any other of the categorizations of women that are socially created (and the propensity to do such categorization is typical of people that score high on the ambivalent sexism inventory). “Banter” can turn real ugly, real fast.

lol, I misunderstood. I presume anyone that hangs out with you does it because they enjoy it (or, if you are a little kid, to play with your atari).

207

[quote]Molotov_Coktease wrote:
There was a woman named Brenda Berkman who was one of the first female firefighters for FDNY, back in 1982, where the movement first began…when they first opened the position to women. After passing the test, and hiring the women that were able to pass…before long the department decided to ‘alter’ the test in a clear and aggressive move to disqualify the women. Brenda Berkman happened to be a lawyer who had opted to become a firefighter instead.

She personally defended womens rights in this case, and the men were convinced she was a one trick pony lawyer making noise for the sake of it…and that she was not serious about her goal in becoming a firefighter. She was. The test was re-evaluated and the women were put to it again. Brenda passed along with several other women, who went on to be sexually assaulted, physically assaulted, threatened and abused on a daily basis. This is not exaggeration it is fact.

Anyway, it was a constant struggle and there were major obstacles and attitudes to overcome…some of these attitudes it is sad to witness are still alive and kicking today.

Brenda Berkman is now a Captain for FDNY …26 years later.
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/takingtheheat/brenda.html

[/quote]
That’s an awesome story. I apologize if I seemed to down play the bullshit that she and other women like her had to go through when fire departments first integrated. When I said that firefighters have a bad rep, what I meant is that things have changed greatly for the better in the last 10-20 years. Change tends to be generational, and as more and more of the seasoned veterans that rookie firefighters learn from and look up to happen to be women, the notion that it is a male-only profession will die out. In the mean time, I hope those who assaulted Ms. Berkman and her female colleagues are in jail.

208

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Molotov_Coktease wrote:
There was a woman named Brenda Berkman who was one of the first female firefighters for FDNY, back in 1982, where the movement first began…when they first opened the position to women. After passing the test, and hiring the women that were able to pass…before long the department decided to ‘alter’ the test in a clear and aggressive move to disqualify the women. Brenda Berkman happened to be a lawyer who had opted to become a firefighter instead.

She personally defended womens rights in this case, and the men were convinced she was a one trick pony lawyer making noise for the sake of it…and that she was not serious about her goal in becoming a firefighter. She was. The test was re-evaluated and the women were put to it again. Brenda passed along with several other women, who went on to be sexually assaulted, physically assaulted, threatened and abused on a daily basis. This is not exaggeration it is fact.

Anyway, it was a constant struggle and there were major obstacles and attitudes to overcome…some of these attitudes it is sad to witness are still alive and kicking today.

Brenda Berkman is now a Captain for FDNY …26 years later.
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/takingtheheat/brenda.html

That’s an awesome story. I apologize if I seemed to down play the bullshit that she and other women like her had to go through when fire departments first integrated. When I said that firefighters have a bad rep, what I meant is that things have changed greatly for the better in the last 10-20 years. Change tends to be generational, and as more and more of the seasoned veterans that rookie firefighters learn from and look up to happen to be women, the notion that it is a male-only profession will die out. In the mean time, I hope those who assaulted Ms. Berkman and her female colleagues are in jail.[/quote]

Again, while you may have seen progressive fire departments, you can be sure that this stuff still happens.

But you are right that overt sexism is no longer socially acceptable, so, like racism, it’s becoming covert. When yuo hide behind “jokes” or just being rude (eg “he’s not sexist, he’s just an asshole”), it becomes much harder to take action against it. If this interests you, you may want to read a paper by Lilia Cortina, this year (2008) in the Academy of Management Review. It’s entitled something like “unseen injustice: incivility as modern discrimination in the workplace”, or something like that.

209

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Here is a paper on the issue by a social researcher in Australia.

http://www.mfb.vic.gov.au/asset/PDF/GenderProjectPaper3.pdf

This is the type of logic that I have an issue with:

"The shuttle run (or beep/bleep test) is a test to determine the maximum aerobic endurance of a person and is often used in sporting and physical aptitude testing. The test was developed in 1982 by Leger.

Basically you run up and down across the gym between two lines twenty meters apart. The test is performed indoor and the speed of the participants is determined by the
interval between two beeps played on a cassette. The starting speed is 8 km/h and each minute the speed is increased by decreasing the interval between the beeps (this is called the next stage).

The cut-off used by the MFB is the level of 9.6. Women cannot compete with men fairly as a group using the same shuttle run cut-off as their bodies are simply different. Not inferior but different."

If performance level on the test is arbitrary, then it absolutely does not make sense to place the level unrealistically high for women, nor is it legally defensible (at least in the US or Canada).
[/quote]

I guess if the only goal of the beep test is determine a minimum level of physical fitness then yes I can see the logic in having differing standards. That being said even a level of 9.6 is pretty damn low.

Personally I don’t even see the logic behind having such arbitrary tests. Surely it would make much more sense to have much more specific tests, ie only test things that are direct functions of the role (eg carrying equipment up stairs while wearing full firefighting equipment).

If this were the case do you agree that there would be no sense in having different standards for men and women?

210

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I love this thread. [/quote]

Thanks for letting us know EmilyQ.

Some of us were getting quite concerned that you might not approve of the thread.

211

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Again, while you may have seen progressive fire departments, you can be sure that this stuff still happens.
[/quote]
I’m not arguing that with you. But again I think things have improved greatly since Ms. Berkman’s day.

[quote]
But you are right that overt sexism is no longer socially acceptable, so, like racism, it’s becoming covert. When yuo hide behind “jokes” or just being rude (eg “he’s not sexist, he’s just an asshole”), it becomes much harder to take action against it. If this interests you, you may want to read a paper by Lilia Cortina, this year (2008) in the Academy of Management Review. It’s entitled something like “unseen injustice: incivility as modern discrimination in the workplace”, or something like that.[/quote]

Yes so the assholes generally keep their mouths shut. Eventually they retire and die. Meanwhile, new recruits come up with positive female examples like Ms. Berkman, and eventually the ingrained sexism becomes a thing of the past.

In the meantime, no one should have to put up with what Ms. Berkman did. If the “jokes” get out of hand I hope that most departments would prefer to fire a few assholes rather than get sued.

212

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
I guess if the only goal of the beep test is determine a minimum level of physical fitness then yes I can see the logic in having differing standards. That being said even a level of 9.6 is pretty damn low.

Personally I don’t even see the logic behind having such arbitrary tests. Surely it would make much more sense to have much more specific tests, ie only test things that are direct functions of the role (eg carrying equipment up stairs while wearing full firefighting equipment).

If this were the case do you agree that there would be no sense in having different standards for men and women?
[/quote]

If the requirements are bona fide occupational requirements, adverse impact is not an issue. Yes, the same standards would be applied.

But for the record, the many of the hoops in the selection process are designed to reduce the applicant pool to a manageable level, and don’t actually reflect job requirements. Like I’ve said, you cannot do this when there is adverse impact.

213

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
I guess if the only goal of the beep test is determine a minimum level of physical fitness then yes I can see the logic in having differing standards. That being said even a level of 9.6 is pretty damn low.

Personally I don’t even see the logic behind having such arbitrary tests. Surely it would make much more sense to have much more specific tests, ie only test things that are direct functions of the role (eg carrying equipment up stairs while wearing full firefighting equipment).

If this were the case do you agree that there would be no sense in having different standards for men and women?

If the requirements are bona fide occupational requirements, adverse impact is not an issue. Yes, the same standards would be applied.

But for the record, the many of the hoops in the selection process are designed to reduce the applicant pool to a manageable level, and don’t actually reflect job requirements. Like I’ve said, you cannot do this when there is adverse impact.[/quote]

Well for my money this resolves our dispute in most ways–we were saying the exact same thing, only I was implicitly assuming that the standards I was referring to in my original post were accurate descriptors of a job.

214

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Molotov_Coktease wrote:
There was a woman named Brenda Berkman who was one of the first female firefighters for FDNY, back in 1982, where the movement first began…when they first opened the position to women. After passing the test, and hiring the women that were able to pass…before long the department decided to ‘alter’ the test in a clear and aggressive move to disqualify the women. Brenda Berkman happened to be a lawyer who had opted to become a firefighter instead.

She personally defended womens rights in this case, and the men were convinced she was a one trick pony lawyer making noise for the sake of it…and that she was not serious about her goal in becoming a firefighter. She was. The test was re-evaluated and the women were put to it again. Brenda passed along with several other women, who went on to be sexually assaulted, physically assaulted, threatened and abused on a daily basis. This is not exaggeration it is fact.

Anyway, it was a constant struggle and there were major obstacles and attitudes to overcome…some of these attitudes it is sad to witness are still alive and kicking today.

Brenda Berkman is now a Captain for FDNY …26 years later.
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/takingtheheat/brenda.html

That’s an awesome story. I apologize if I seemed to down play the bullshit that she and other women like her had to go through when fire departments first integrated. When I said that firefighters have a bad rep, what I meant is that things have changed greatly for the better in the last 10-20 years. Change tends to be generational, and as more and more of the seasoned veterans that rookie firefighters learn from and look up to happen to be women, the notion that it is a male-only profession will die out. In the mean time, I hope those who assaulted Ms. Berkman and her female colleagues are in jail.[/quote]

No worries Uncle Gabby, I wasn’t implying you downplayed anything, but I thought it was just a pretty good reminder of how things were in the not so distant past, for others who seem to think women might have just tap danced in and got anything they didn’t earn or deserve.

Not only did they earn it, they displayed remarkable ongoing strength in the face of total opposition. They endured it all to ensure a better future for women later. That’s a rare quality that is to be admired in either gender. I’m glad to hear their efforts for the most part, have not been in vain.

215

[quote]Molotov_Coktease wrote:

… I thought it was just a pretty good reminder of how things were in the not so distant past, for others who seem to think women might have just tap danced in and got anything they didn’t earn or deserve.

Not only did they earn it, they displayed remarkable ongoing strength in the face of total opposition. They endured it all to ensure a better future for women later. That’s a rare quality that is to be admired in either gender. I’m glad to hear their efforts for the most part, have not been in vain. [/quote]

100% Agreed

216

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
I love this thread.

Thanks for letting us know EmilyQ.

Some of us were getting quite concerned that you might not approve of the thread.
[/quote]

Yes, I figured as much. That’s why I said something. But you can rest easy on that score. I approve!