Toronto Firefighters fired -- for tweets

[Black Dog]

On your own time, in something as little known as a 'tweet', yeah.

Now if you go on TV and start pretending to represent your department, or speaking while on duty, that's different.

Except nowadays (and precisely because of that obscure "Twitter" thing) the line is getting blurry. I don't see a ton of difference between dressing up in uniform and identifying yourself as a member of the Toronto Fire Services and saying dumb stuff on TV and posting a profile with a picture of yourself in uniform and identifying yourself as a member of the Toronto Fire Services and saying dumb stuff on Twitter.

[Guest American Woman]

So let me see if I get your position here. It seems to be that since some firefighters do other things that don't require physical strength then firefighters shouldn't need to have physical strength. Is that about it?

My comments in the post you are referring to have absolutely nothing to with physical strength; it's in response to a derogatory post that insinuated that firefighters sit around not doing much of anything. So no, that's not about it at all.

[Boges]

As I said earlier, in my experience that's not so perfectly clear. The working class joes tend to be as sensitive to people's potentially hurt feelings as everyone else. I believe I've heard as much bigotry and ugliness in the university as I ever did in the woods or on the construction site.

More F-bombs...no question. But that's about as far as it goes.

EI: The tools at the University of St. Mary's

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/09/17/saint_marys_university_grad_returns_degrees_in_anger_over_sexist_chant.html

Boys will be boys thought right?

[Black Dog]

As I said earlier, in my experience that's not so perfectly clear. The working class joes tend to be as sensitive to people's potentially hurt feelings as everyone else. I believe I've heard as much bigotry and ugliness in the university as I ever did in the woods or on the construction site.

More F-bombs...no question. But that's about as far as it goes.

There's also an underlying assumption that these types of jokes are more often than not a kind of light-hearted banter not meant to be taken seriously versus a genuine expression of someone's underlying beliefs. I don't think that's true. Indeed, someone who jokes about women or minorities is probably going to be harboring some issues towards those groups to make the joke in the first place.

Maybe because men have been making jokes about women for just about as long as women have been making jokes about men?

Maybe because while there are some few people who hate minorities there are virtually no men who hate women, despite overruse of the term misogyny.

oh brother.

[g_bambino]

Just because a couple of the sources (South Park, The Office) were plainly satire doesn't obviously carry over to those who use the same jokes in other contexts. That is, some people find the jokes funny precisely because they aren't true; that is, some people are by implication laughing at the sexist views that some people hold. Whereas other people find them funny because they think they are true.

Well, yes, I guess a conviction can be expressed through a joke. So, the difference isn't between a joke and the expression of a conviction, but between a mockery of sexist convictions or gentle teasing about a gender trait and an expression of a sexist conviction.

And if the firefighters had quoted racist jokes, I don't think we'd even be having this discussion.

Not necessarily. I find some are often as hypocritical and hypersensitive about such matters as well.

[ed.: sp]

Edited September 19, 2013 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

There are few women as strong as them, and if that weren't the case they wouldn't need different tests or need to lower the requirements.

Putting aside the total lack of evidence that the tests the men take have been made easier so women can take the same ones, the point being debated is yours that no firefighter should be a woman. I told you my sister (and another woman) took the men's tests when there were less stringent tests the female candidates were supposed to take. Since she passed the tests designed specifically for the male applicants, what is it, do you think, that disqualifies her from holding and carrying out the job?

[bleeding heart]

Well, yes, I guess a conviction can be expressed through a joke. So, the difference isn't between a joke and the expression of a conviction, but between a mockery of sexist convictions or gentle teasing about a gender trait and an expression of a sexist conviction.

I'm not sure if you're mocking the very idea, but that is self-evidently the case. It's not even debatable.

Now, we cannot know for sure which was on the firefighter's minds; which is why firing them seems to me "oot ay order."

But really, I think most of us genuinely believe they were behaving as sexist little dickheads...a silly, even cowardly way to behave, assuming they have wives, girlfriends, sisters, mothers...or daughters. (That's the one that really makes me wonder about these amusing little loudmouths, frankly.)

I don't think they should be fired. I think they should be called out as morons.

For some reason (unstated, totally unarticulated) you and a few others seem to disagree.

And that some people summon the "working class hero" theme is beyond silly. Like I said, that's been most of my adult working life....and these guys don't behave any worse than your average banker, lawyer, or professor.

And when they do behave badly...it's exactly the same as when people from the professional classes do it.

Edited September 19, 2013 by bleeding heart

[Guest American Woman]

Now, we cannot know for sure which was on the firefighter's minds; which is why firing them seems to me "oot ay order."

First they were suspended with pay while an investigation took place, and then, after the investigation, they were fired. I would think that those who did the firing, after an investigation, should know what was on the firefighters' minds.

Edited September 19, 2013 by American Woman

[g_bambino]

I'm not sure if you're mocking the very idea, but that is self-evidently the case. It's not even debatable.

Isn't it? Cybercoma seems to think there's no difference; if it's about women, it's all aggressive misogyny. (I don't know what he thinks of all the ads and shows and writings and casual chit-chat that degrades men as incompetent oafs or brutal aggressors.)

Now, we cannot know for sure which was on the firefighter's minds; which is why firing them seems to me "oot ay order."

Well, here another significant detail that should be considered is alluded to: the ability of text to convey linguistic tone. Often a joke is mistaken for an insult or attack simply because the reader imposed the wrong intent behind the words because the tone that would otherwise have been heard in vocal communication was totally absent.

[bleeding heart]

First they were suspended with pay while an investigation took place, and then, after the investigation, they were fired. I would think that those who did the firing, after an investigation, should know what was on the firefighters' minds.

Unless the men made a full admission of what was truly on their minds, I don't quite see how it would be the case.

Sodium Pentothal?

[Guest American Woman]

Unless the men made a full admission of what was truly on their minds, I don't quite see how it would be the case.

Sodium Pentothal?

You don't think an investigation would include people they talk to? People who know them? Past histories?

I have to wonder what purpose an investigation would serve otherwise. They weren't immediately fired, after all. They were fired after the investigation.

Edited September 19, 2013 by American Woman

[bleeding heart]

Isn't it? Cybercoma seems to think there's no difference; if it's about women, it's all aggressive misogyny. (I don't know what he thinks of all the ads and shows and writings and casual chit-chat that degrades men as incompetent oafs or brutal aggressors.)

Like what?

Well, here another significant detail that should be considered is alluded to: the ability of text to convey linguistic tone. Often a joke is mistaken for an insult or attack simply because the reader imposed the wrong intent behind the words because the tone that would otherwise have been heard in vocal communication was totally absent.

Yes...and intelligent and reasonable people are aware of this, and make an effort to adapt accordingly.

"Smack her on the head, haw-haw" buffoons (part of the "gentle" ribbing you were alluding to, presumably) tend to be unintelligent and self-absorbed, and so tend to fail at such things.

[bleeding heart]

You don't think an investigation would include people they talk to? People who know them? Past histories?

Well, I don't know. Did their co-workers say they were sexist a-holes? Did some stand up for them, others not, and were "office politics,' as it were, taken into account?

I'm not making an assertion either way; I just find the "know what's on someone's mind" notion a little dubious. But I could obviously be wrong about this case.

[Guest American Woman]

Well, I don't know. Did their co-workers say they were sexist a-holes? Did some stand up for them, others not, and were "office politics,' as it were, taken into account?

I'm not making an assertion either way; I just find the "know what's on someone's mind" notion a little dubious. But I could obviously be wrong about this case.

I don't have the answers to any of those questions, of course, but I imagine the Union will be looking for such answers.

Determinations of what was on someone's mind are made all the time, and it's generally done by investigations that include interviews with people who know the accused, as well as past histories.

If the comments weren't meant as posted, if they weren't meant to be sexist, I would think the Union will be able to prove it. However, if city policy forbids such comments to be posted in the social media in any context by city employees, if it were as simple as that, seems to me they would have been fired immediately and no investigation would have been necessary - but again, they weren't immediately fired; they were fired after the investigation.

[bleeding heart]

Determinations of what was on someone's mind are made all the time, and it's generally done by investigations that include interviews with people who know the accused, as well as past histories.

Yes, and I think I should have clarified a little:

I was still on the mental track of a conversation I was having with g_bambino, on the difference between the South Park and The Office jokes, and the jokes' reiteration by these men.

I contend that people who don't harbor some misogynistic views are probably unlikely to tweet these jokes (or else they'd tweet "OMG, on #South Park, very funny, check it out..." you get the idea.

But, thanks to an argument over semantics, I conceded that, yes, of course, it's not impossible that nothing sexist was meant.

But I still maintain that they were being monumental jackasses, at best.

If this all sounds contradictory, it sorta is....my fault for allowing myself to get sucked into a semantic argument in the first place, I suppose.

[Argus]

Do you think their girlfriends/wives/sisters/daughters/female coworkers enjoy their "jokes"?

Never seen any complaint, just jokes back.

[Argus]

I get that. I don't see why it should be shrugged off, though.

So let me get this straight: if someone makes a serious comment about, say, Jews being cheap, that's bad form. but if the same guy cracks a joke about Jews being cheap, that's ok because, hey, jokes. Is that right?

I have a very liberal friend who cracks jokes about minorities all the time. He also makes a lot of jokes about conservatives. What am I to make of him? Is he a racist? Even though he actually gets angry whenever anyone expresses any kind of serious attitude against minorities?

[guyser]

I have a very liberal friend who cracks jokes about minorities all the time. He also makes a lot of jokes about conservatives. What am I to make of him? Is he a racist? Even though he actually gets angry whenever anyone expresses any kind of serious attitude against minorities?

Tell him to tweet them, in the uniform of his employer, and or identify his employer in same.

Then come back and ask.

Go ahead, you make a political rant against Harper, make sure the Rev Can logo is prominent

(yeah I know but I cant recall the new name of Rev Can..oops)

[jacee]

I have a very liberal friend who cracks jokes about minorities all the time.

Violent 'jokes'? Because that's the issue here.

Edited September 19, 2013 by jacee

[jacee]

Never seen any complaint, just jokes back.

I wasn't asking for personal information, but maybe you should see what you get for these:

would swat her in the back of the head been considered abuse or a way to reset the brain?

the way to a womans heart is through anal.

These are not "mildly sexist" jokes.

They are aggressive and violent sexist jokes.

And that's why they got fired.

I think firing is too good for them: They should be assigned to an all women (with axes) crew.

[Argus]

Putting aside the total lack of evidence that the tests the men take have been made easier so women can take the same ones, the point being debated is yours that no firefighter should be a woman. I told you my sister (and another woman) took the men's tests when there were less stringent tests the female candidates were supposed to take. Since she passed the tests designed specifically for the male applicants, what is it, do you think, that disqualifies her from holding and carrying out the job?

I don't know much about the tests she took so I can't say. However, it looks like Toronto uses the CPAT testing services, and those only require dragging a mannequin, not carrying it. Further, I couldn't find anything about a difference between tests for men and women. I suspect they're the same but that women are allowed lower scores.

In any event, I'm not speaking on an individual basis. However, let's look at the facts. Women are not as strong as men (use of equipment and brute strength is often needed for rescues and breaking into buildings on fire). They also don't have the weight of men (which is important in controlling a firehose among other things). They don't have the height (reach) of men (pulling down ceilings is often important). As they age, they lose muscle mass much more than men. Right now a lot of fire department set up special physical fitness classes with trainers to help women pass the tests (which themselves are often eased for women). But what about ten or fifteen years later?

As the following shows, despite intensive efforts at recruitment and help to pass tests, very few women manage to get onto the NYFD. The situation at the TFD is similar. They make a huge effort to recruit women and give them every opportunity to pass weakened tests. Why? What is the point? Does society's notions of equality really hinge on making such stringent efforts to persuade women to enter jobs they aren't generally suited for and don't generally want? We've had to spend tons of money on recruitment, not to mention on redesigning firehalls to move away from the open bunks, open showers they used to have, all to accomodate a handful of women. I just don't understand why this is done. For something like firefighting, merit should be the only criteria. You can make the case that police need to show minority faces, and female faces at times, in dealing with minority/female witnesses and suspects. I don't see that case as being able to be made for firefighting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/03/nyregion/despite-recruiting-few-women-do-well-in-firefighter-tests.html

You know, I'm a big utube fan. I've seen tons of videos of police and firefighters in action in various locations, and I've often seen examples of where the situation becomes more difficult because of the lack of strength and size of the women involved (granted mostly police since there are few female firefighters). I just think we should be hiring people who have the size, the mass, the weight and height and toughness these jobs sometimes urgently require. And if that means I can't be a firefighter or cop, well, that's okay. I'll accept that.

[Black Dog]

I have a very liberal friend who cracks jokes about minorities all the time. He also makes a lot of jokes about conservatives. What am I to make of him? Is he a racist? Even though he actually gets angry whenever anyone expresses any kind of serious attitude against minorities?

Just because your friend might not "mean it" when he cracks jokes about minorities, it doesn't follow that everyone else who cracks jokes about minorities doesn't mean it either.

And, as has been pointed out, there's a difference between good buddies sharing a running joke between themselves and broadcasting the same joke to the public. Whether you mean it or not, you'd have to be a bit thick to do the latter and still expect people (or-ahem-your employer) to "get it".

Edited September 19, 2013 by Black Dog

[bleeding heart]

Well, that's another good point, BD.

Twitter is not a private email account.

[Guest American Woman]

Well, that's another good point, BD.

Twitter is not a private email account.

One has since deleted his Twitter account while the other has made his private, so apparently the comments were all made on a "public" domain. I have to say, though, this comment at least is apparently totally connected to watching The Office:

[Boges]

One has since deleted his Twitter account while the other has made his private, so apparently the comments were all made on a "public" domain. I have to say, though, this comment at least is apparently totally connected to watching The Office:

I think we should call into question his judgement if he actually think the American version of the Office is better than Seinfield.