No, it isn't, that's the point. It's based on how a man thinks it needs to be done. It's not science, or even rational thought necessarily, it's heroism and balls.
You believe the requirements are based upon the realities of the job, and I do not, and even if they were simply because we designed them for men of unusual strength and ability doesn't mean we designed them correctly. That usually means the exact opposite? Anyone should be able to put out a fire or save a life but the hero crap got in the way. As I said, it's great TV but not reality, and not what it should be.
I can't say about great but it would be mostly peaceful.
You can have requirements, you just have to make sure they are valid. not sexist or historical. The requirements in this case were written by Fire-men. That's not a good to start to making sure they are truly rational.
Yes, yes, and yes, but not necessarily a good one. You seem to be hung up on the penis thing? Most men are, as I suggested, and that makes them biased. It's not a Global Conspiracy, it's more hero crap and biology, but it does get in the way, often. I believe it does in this case as well. If the average woman can put a 10-year-old over her knee she can run into a burning building and put one over her shoulder and carry them to safety, and then put out the damn fire. That is more than enough, more than we should expect.
You win the prize for using the most "penis's" (???) in a post.
This is what I'm trying to get across. The only people I would ever ask anyone to run into a building to rescue are children, young children. It's the hero crap again to expect another human being to run into a building to rescue you. The job has been designed incorrectly, by men, who like to play the hero. Rescue the little guys and put out the fire, that's more than enough. If you are 300 pounds at best you will be dragged out and it's nonsense to expect to be so.
The job was created by men for men, and they like to play the hero. There are other ways to do the job, and most lifesaving is done by people who would never run into a burning building. What I'm telling you is, they shouldn't do that either but they do so they said you have to be big, and strong, and oddly enough, almost without exception male to do this. Go to a firehouse and check out the accommodations. It's a frat house, and they always assumed it would be. The job is just too tough for those little panty-wearing people to do they said, but it isn't if you look at it Rationally. Then it's just a job, training, tools, and common sense, something men are not known for which is why they run into burning buildings!
You actually have that backwards. You are defending that status quo. I am saying look at the job Rationally, not Historically, and that hasn't been done. Historically there were no women so of course the standard excluded nearly all of them. It excluded most men as well. That's not rational, just historical and traditional. Changing the job so a woman can do it is perfectly fine, like adjusting the toilet on the Space Shuttle. Just because it was always boys peeing into the hose doesn't mean that's as it should be, it just was that way so that is the standard and the standard is biased.
And who established those standards? Scientists? Accountants? A group of both men and women?
A group of big, tough men who like to play heroes. They wrote the specs for the gear and the physical standards. It's a boys club so it's no surprise that's what they standards are. And while they may be traditional, that doesn't mean that they are correct or entirely incorrect, it means they were written by men for men based on the ideas of men, which means they are biased towards men. They are therefore open to being looked at just as much as you don't need to be a Garbage-man now, the lift on the truck does the work for you if you have the modern garbage can.
So would I. Anyone with common sense runs Out of burning buildings, not In.
