John: I have been thinking. Specifically, I have come to realize that I have a bit of an issue with the feminist push for equality when it comes to certain situations. Actually, that’s no fair. My limited knowledge of the feminist movement leads me unable to specify certain calls and campaigns to their cause. Notwithstanding, I have recently taken serious issue with the continual cries for greater gender equity within the firefighting task force. That is the claim that we need more women firefighters within all precincts. Why is this? Do we really? Who is behind this absurd charge? Personally, I don’t think women should be employed as your prototypical firefighter. They do not have what it takes to complete the necessary and potentially life saving maneuvers that a firefighter must be able to do. I know that if I were to be so unfortunate as to be placed in a situation of dire straits where my life was on the line, I would rather see the face of a male firefighter making his way up the ladder rather than a woman. It is as simple as this: certain jobs can only be completed by certain genders. We should accept this fact and leave it alone.
Sam: Well John, I never took you to be such an opinionated and emotionally encumbered man. It seems you are vehemently apposed to women firefighters.
John: Indeed I am. Can you not see where I am coming from? In fact, I have raised this issue with many females in the past and even some of them agree. It is just not their place; it is unreasonable to coerce otherwise.
Sam: Unfortunately John, I believe that you have strayed severely off course with this argument. In fact, you have veered to the extent that you have become blind to a serious flaw in your argument that renders it absurd.
John: Do tell.
Sam: Let me first ask you this, why is it that you would feel overly comforted with a man wearing that iconic red suite but not a woman? What is it about having solely male firefighters that causes you to be so allayed and assuaged?
John: It comes down to this: men are physically stronger than women and thus, they are more likely to be able to complete the tasks that are often times required by a firefighter. Moreover, men tend to be taller than women, which is another advantageous attribute to possess. In essence, the male specie is more physically equipped and better prescribed to take on the crucial challenges that firefighters must be able to perform.
Sam: I figured you would say that. It seems reasonable enough; when you are in a situation that requires what we may call a feat of strength, you would rather have one of those fortunate souls inhabited with that muscular stature so sought by many to come to your aid. I concur. I would also prefer this individual at my side. But does this premise lead to the conclusion that solely men should be firefighters? If we are in search for the qualities layed out above, should they not be of chief concern? What role does gender even play?
You see, it is not because you have a penis and not a vagina that makes you strong. You are strong due to many factors, not the least of which is completely derived from your gender. Familial DNA, daily routine, workout habits, diet and social structures are just some of the cornucopia of factors that will all play a role in determining the physical strength of an individual. For, as axiomatic as it may sound, not all men are stronger than women, and not all women are stronger than men. I will concede that when averaged out, women are most likely the physically weaker specie, but importantly, this is not always the case. Indeed, I know many woman who are stronger that I. In fact, the majority of women probably are. I ask you then, would you rather have me, a male, but a severely weak and pathetically short individual making my way up that ladder to your rescue or, would you prefer the sight of a strapping young lady with a physical presence unparalleled by many?
John: Well, I guess I would rather see the woman.
Sam: Exactly! Because she possesses the qualities we deemed so necessary above (that is, muscular strength and height). Therefore, as you can see, when you take your argument and consider it through the effectual lens of reason and logic we come to realize that you do not hold some deep animosity towards the idea a woman firefighter rather, you are simply oppose to the idea that we have ill-equipped members on the force; a seemingly reasonable and expectable claim. Furthermore, it must be said that muscular strength itself is rather arbitrary. That is to say, no one is completely inhibited from being able to train to the extent that allows them to form the muscles that you think so necessary for a firefighter. Dare I say that even I, if passionate or fervent enough, could also commit to the personal development of this muscular stature. While it may take certain individuals slightly longer than others, few if any are completely deprived of this capability. Thus, as I see it, your claim that women should not be firefighters is utterly absurd and completely erroneous.
John: But can it not be said that, as you earlier conceded, men are more likely to be physically stronger and taller than women and thus, on the whole of it, be the preferred firefighter? Put another way, if I told you that you had to pick between two individuals to occupy the last position as a firefighter, one of whom is a man, the other a women, which would you choose?
Sam: As you probably might expect, I would choose the man because as you noted, there is a greater probability that he will be physically stronger than the hypothetical woman and therefore better equipping him with some of the firefighter necessities. But, don’t you see the sever detriment that could arise when you begin to play the game of gender barriers and bias?
John: No, its just simple probability statistics.
Sam: Not completely so. By making the statement, as statistically reasonable as it may initially sound, that women cannot be firefighters because it is less probable that they have the physical strength to be able to complete the necessary tasks required of the typical firefighter, you are engaging in simple discrimination; a canard. Furthermore, by utilizing such gender biased language, you may promote further sexism and discrimination against women both during the hiring process (despite the fact that they may be well qualified) and in the actual fire halls; where, need I add, a pervasive problem of patriarchy already exists. Moreover, and as I showed above, your argument itself is absolutely ridiculous.
So, as I see it, the only reasonable statement that one could make is the following, “firefighters should possess the qualities of physical strength and vertical height (although neither is necessary nor sufficient; an argument for another day). Whether they are female or male is a non-issue, both genders could potentially have them and thus, be a well-trained and successful firefighter”.
John: Point taken. I will try to avoid the use of gender typing when speaking on this issue for as you have shown, it is not a question of gender at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment