Fem firefighters sidelined, as males won't protect them

Started by TerryGale, Sep 20, 2005, 08:18 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down


Just wondering, how many women were actually threatened? Also, when was this a "woman" issue?

Fire Chief Jamie Geer said the threats were made because some of the city's nine female firefighters had discussed leaving the city's fire union. The women were displeased with the union local's leadership, the chief said.

News of the discussion made it to other union members, who relayed messages to the women that if they resigned their membership, they may not make it out of their next structure fire, said City Manager Bill Horne.

Geer said he does not believe the threats were based on gender.

Personally, this sounds more like a problem with the union. I think that this article is simply making the issue appear to be a "discrimination against women" issue in order to support some of the city's nine female firefighters.

Sir Percy

Come on Guys and Gals. Pick your fights with some care. This is not an issue of competency. Let's look at what is really happening here and level the criticism accordingly.

No one in that particular service has expressed any gripe about these women not pulling their weight - or shouldering rescuees for that matter. When (if) I am inside a burning building and in need of rescue, I would not like to be so picky as Realman - who himself even acknowledges that there are some really tough women out there - and who just might have that genetic endowment that is very suitable to my immediate needs, thanks very much. Assume for the moment that these women all achieved their roles and ranks through personal, competetive effort. There is no indication otherwise in the article. So leave that one alone unless you have proof otherwise.

What is of interest is the response of management. Pull the women from the line. Why?

The 'threat' seems as ephemeral as a ghost. No one claims to have made a threat, only that someone else, un-named, unknown, has made some intemperate noises. Some passionate souls do sound off easily. No one there believes for a moment that any of the men would not support his colleagues, male or female. It is seen clearly as a slur on their professionalism and resented. Yet the full 'protection' of the women is advanced on the basis of being against the Union. They haven't even said they were against the Union, only that they had some issues to resolve. So why the knee-jerk reaction from the  Fire-Chief?

There is more here than meets the eye. Is it a woman/feminist thing, or a Union thing, or a manager under pressure thing, or a newspaper stirring thing? I don't know. Watch and listen before we mis-identify the issue and the people involved. Sit back and let them have their skirmish and if eventually necessary or appropriate, attend to  the surviving miscreants with your swords.
vil, like misery, is Protean, and never greater than when committed in the name of 'right'. To commit evil when they are convinced they are doing 'good', is one of the greatest of pleasures known to a feminist.

Go Up