chop2chip
Well-known member
Presumably neither is any individual firefighter though. I happen to agree that promo was terrible and that it should not be a badge of courage to not be able to do some aspect of a job. But there’s a lot of selective ignorance at play here with the discourse around LA firefighters, beginning with the obvious point of it not ****ing mattering who is fighting these fires right now given the other circumstances.
One area I don’t see explored enough by opponents of DEI is why there’s such a push for it in certain situations. Do people think the reason so many dangerous, difficult or low-wage jobs have big public pushes for diversity is because they just want to lift people of other backgrounds up, or because recruitment is down? I think it’s always worth first asking if this is a job you yourself would want to do for the prevailing wage before asking if a DEI initiative is anything more than a way to reframe a ****ty or dangerous job as something more than that.
It’s not an expectation that regular citizens would ever need to carry unconscious people around. It’s a core understanding that firefighters as first responders would be expected to rush into burning buildings and save people.
Sassy ads from the leadership of the fire department of the second biggest city in the US joking that men who pass out from fire smoke are to blame for their situation is inexcusable. Women can and should be firefighters if they can do the job. We shouldn’t accept lowered requirements so city leadership can congratulate themselves for having a higher percentage of women.