Toronto Firefighters fired -- for tweets

[Argus]

It wasn't private.

If you're a nobody, ie, not involved in media or politics, or in any way a public person, then everything you do online is basically private. There was a more afoot some time back to have us all forced to use real names here, for example. Should our opinions and statements here be used by our employer to fire us when they have nothing to do with our employer? I mean, if i start spouting, as a CRA employee, that CRA is a crappy place to work and management are subliterate cretins (which they unfortunately tend to be) that's one thing. But if I simply say something sexist or politically incorrect, why should my employer be able to punishme for that?

[Argus]

Again, there's little 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.

No, there is a huge difference between having a head and shoulders shot of yourself in a minor and ongoing tweeting thing, and going on TV in uniform. If you're going on TV in uniform you are explicitely representing the TFD. If you have a part of your uniform visible in your little pic as you tweet over the months and years you're simply a private individual tweeting as a private individual who happens to work for the TFD. And if one of those tweets violates policy then you should be warned to not do it again in future without removing your pic from the tweet. Even though, realistically no one reading this guy's tweets would have thought his opinions, which mostly had to do with his not very exciting life, represented the TFD.

Firing is ridiculous.

[Argus]

Ad hoc fallacy.

I disagree. Many aspects of general male behaviour have come to be demonized by society. Those include the agression, competetiveness and yes, the hard-wired sexual interests.

Female porn is called erotica and is an example of empowerment for women.

Male porn is porn and is dirty and exploitive towards women and an example of how perverted men are.

If it rurned out the woman in the next cubicle from you wrote 'erotica' about whips and chains and posted it online nobody would feel threatened by her. If the guy in the next cubicle did the same there'd be complaints to HR from frightened women demanding he be removed for their safety.

Male sexuality is menacing. Female sexuality is empowering.

Edited September 23, 2013 by Argus

[Black Dog]

I disagree. Many aspects of general male behaviour have come to be demonized by society. Those include the agression, competetiveness and yes, the hard-wired sexual interests.

Female porn is called erotica and is an example of empowerment for women.

Male porn is porn and is dirty and exploitive towards women and an example of how perverted men are.

If it rurned out the woman in the next cubicle from you wrote 'erotica' about whips and chains and posted it online nobody would feel threatened by her. If the guy in the next cubicle did the same there'd be complaints to HR from frightened women demanding he be removed for their safety.

Male sexuality is menacing. Female sexuality is empowering.

What the hell does this even mean? Do you have any actual proof of these so-called hard-wired interests are indeed hard-wired? Any actual examples of normal male behaviour being "demonized" (whatever the hell that means)?

No, there is a huge difference between having a head and shoulders shot of yourself in a minor and ongoing tweeting thing, and going on TV in uniform. If you're going on TV in uniform you are explicitely representing the TFD.

Why is it assumed you'd represent the TFD if you're ion TV in uniform but not if you are in uniform in your profile pic?

If you have a part of your uniform visible in your little pic as you tweet over the months and years you're simply a private individual tweeting as a private individual who happens to work for the TFD.

The one guy's profile pic was a shot of him in full firefighting regalia in front of a TFD truck.

Link

[Boges]

I disagree. Many aspects of general male behaviour have come to be demonized by society. Those include the agression, competetiveness and yes, the hard-wired sexual interests.

I would agree but none of which were explored by the controversial tweets. It's a false comparison.

[cybercoma]

I wanted to post this article because it echoes a concern about work and leisure that I mentioned earlier, but did not articulate in length as this commenter does here. What I posted earlier:

I don't like what all of these firings imply. It implies that if you work for a company, then that company owns you and every part of your life. They don't just own your labour while you're there. They own every statement that comes out of your mouth or gets posted to Twitter, regardless of whether you're on the clock at the time or not. Combine that idea with employees being tethered to work via cellphones or email these days and you have a complete blurring of the work-leisure divide. The notion is troubling.

Elizabeth Renzetti defends the firefighters against losing their jobs, while still objecting to the content of their posts as I have here. It's worth reading, as it highlights a troublesome trend we're seeing in modern employer-employee relationships.

ELIZABETH RENZETTI

Firing people for offensive tweets is worse than offensive tweets

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/whats-more-offensive-the-tweeting-or-the-firing/article14450045/

Stripping someone of his or her livelihood is the direst punishment, but I fear we’re going to see more of it as the intersection between work and life becomes increasingly blurred. Workers are expected to extend their company’s “brand” online, and God help anyone who accidentally besmirches the brand.

Edited September 23, 2013 by cybercoma

[Bob Macadoo]

: Elizabeth Renzetti defends the firefighters against losing their jobs, while still objecting to the content of their posts as I have here. It's worth reading, as it highlights a troublesome trend we're seeing in modern employer-employee relationships.

As I said earlier one should look into the TFD union contract. I do believe termination was dramatic but most likely that's the way the discipline section is structured. The TFD must fire first then negotiate a lesser term later with the union. Such is the way of a poorly structured contract.

[jacee]

I disagree. Many aspects of general male behaviour have come to be demonized by society. Those include the aggression ...

Yup.

Female porn is called erotica and is an example of empowerment for women.

Male porn is porn and is dirty and exploitive towards women and an example of how perverted men are.

If it rurned out the woman in the next cubicle from you wrote 'erotica' about whips and chains and posted it online nobody would feel threatened by her. If the guy in the next cubicle did the same there'd be complaints to HR from frightened women demanding he be removed for their safety.

Male sexuality is menacing. Female sexuality is empowering.

Sexuality isn't menacing.

Aggression and violence are menacing.

Sexual violence isn't about sex:

It's about VIOLENCE.

You don't know the difference between sexuality and violence?

It's called CONSENT.

[Argus]

Yup.

Sexuality isn't menacing.

Aggression and violence are menacing.

Sexual violence isn't about sex:

It's about VIOLENCE.

You don't know the difference between sexuality and violence?

It's called CONSENT.

Actually, a lot of women like rough sex.

As for agression, in our society (still) men are expected to be the pursuers and the women the pursued. I realize that's a generalization and doesn't always hold true (especially among teenagers) but it's still a cultural standard. Women like confident men too. And it's a fine line between being the confident pursuer and showing "agression". Of course, not having agression is called "being a nice guy". That's usually the guy women like a lot but aren't interested in dating because he's not exciting enough.

And what I said holds true. Male erotica is dismissed as 'dirty' while female erotica is called empowering. Men who read/view porn are perverts or pathetic. Women who do it are modern and have 'taken control of their sexuality'. Men with sex toys are sad. Women with sex toys are perfectly ordinary.

[Argus]

As I said earlier one should look into the TFD union contract. I do believe termination was dramatic but most likely that's the way the discipline section is structured. The TFD must fire first then negotiate a lesser term later with the union. Such is the way of a poorly structured contract.

Disciplinary structures, along with rules and regulations, are rarely, if ever set out in the collective agreement. Only appeals processes (grievances).

[Black Dog]

And what I said holds true. Male erotica is dismissed as 'dirty' while female erotica is called empowering. Men who read/view porn are perverts or pathetic. Women who do it are modern and have 'taken control of their sexuality'. Men with sex toys are sad. Women with sex toys are perfectly ordinary.

None of this is true. Thanks to the internet, porn-watching has become pretty normalized for both genders.

[Argus]

I would agree but none of which were explored by the controversial tweets. It's a false comparison.

On the contrary, the tendency for young men to use outrageous and insulting terms for each other and others is a cultural trait which forms much of the basis of the tweets. The South Park tweet in particular is a perfect example of this.

[Argus]

None of this is true. Thanks to the internet, porn-watching has become pretty normalized for both genders.

Men have been watching porn forever. I'm not disputing both sides look at porn. I'm saying that society's reaction to it is entirely different depending on the gender involved.

Have you ever been in an office where men openly talked about the porn book they've been reading, and all the hot sex involved? I bet not. But virtually every woman in my office has mentioned having read 50 Shades of Grey, young and old. Even my boss's boss's boss.

[Black Dog]

Men have been watching porn forever. I'm not disputing both sides look at porn. I'm saying that society's reaction to it is entirely different depending on the gender involved.

I think that's changing.

Have you ever been in an office where men openly talked about the porn book they've been reading, and all the hot sex involved? I bet not. But virtually every woman in my office has mentioned having read 50 Shades of Grey, young and old. Even my boss's boss's boss.

Funny thing is, though, you make it sound like the only difference between porn aimed at men and that aimed at women is the branding. But I'd suggest there's some real, qualitative differences between mainstream erotica like "50 Shades..." and "Underage Assbangers 6" or whatever. That people treat them and the people who consume them differently is not a double standard.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Black Dog

[Argus]

Funny thing is, though, you make it sound like the only difference between porn aimed at men and that aimed at women is the branding. But I'd suggest there's some real, qualitative differences between mainstream erotica like "50 Shades..." and "Underage Assbangers 6" or whatever. That people treat them and the people who consume them differently is not a double standard.

There is indeed! Although I would put it to you that the quality of the writing/plotting in 50 shades was almost as abysmal by the standards of writing as assbangers is by the quality of video.

But remember that to women, emotion is invariably an important part of sex. Womens erotica almost always links sex with romance, with some kind of relationship BECAUSE women want that. Mens erotica does not because men don't require that. Men are are more graphicallly/visually oriented than women in terms of sex. So yes, there is a big discrepency, but it's based on the likes/wants/needs of the gender involved.

I have a fairly good notion of what would happen to a man in a government office building who started talking about the whips and chains book he's been reading. He'd be brought up on harrassment charges in no time at all.

[Black Dog]

There is indeed! Although I would put it to you that the quality of the writing/plotting in 50 shades was almost as abysmal by the standards of writing as assbangers is by the quality of video.

Sure. But that's neither here nor there.

But remember that to women, emotion is invariably an important part of sex. Womens erotica almost always links sex with romance, with some kind of relationship BECAUSE women want that. Mens erotica does not because men don't require that. Men are are more graphicallly/visually oriented than women in terms of sex. So yes, there is a big discrepency, but it's based on the likes/wants/needs of the gender involved.

That's entirely due to social conditioning and not, as you claim, a hard-wired thing. Again, though, that's neither here nor there.

I have a fairly good notion of what would happen to a man in a government office building who started talking about the whips and chains book he's been reading. He'd be brought up on harrassment charges in no time at all.

Barring any actual examples, this is just speculation.

Now, I'm not arguing there aren't real differences in how sex and sexuality are viewed among men and women. Quite the opposite. However, the notion that this is a product of feminism or something like that doesn't really hold. On asserting their sexuality, women still get the short end of the stick in all spheres; that any attempt to reign in the excesses of socially constructed masculinity is seen as an assault on the essential elements of manhood itself speaks to a degree of privilege that women just don't enjoy.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Black Dog

[jacee]

I have a fairly good notion of what would happen to a man in a government office building who started talking about the whips and chains book he's been reading. He'd be brought up on harrassment charges in no time at all.

You don't seem to grasp the difference between appropriate and inappropriate behaviour: verbal aggression, sexual harrassment and sexual violence are inappropriate if the other party does not consent.

Inappropriate sexual acts or sexual talk isn't defined by its content, but by consent of other parties involved.

Do you really not grasp that?

[Boges]

On the contrary, the tendency for young men to use outrageous and insulting terms for each other and others is a cultural trait which forms much of the basis of the tweets. The South Park tweet in particular is a perfect example of this.

Can you cite any of that or is this just your humble opinion?

[cybercoma]

Actually, a lot of women like rough sex.

What a terrible thing to say. Even women that like rough sex don't like non-consensual sex. That's called rape.

[Wilber]

That doesn't mean they speak on behalf of their employer.

If you wear a uniform, what you do in it (good or bad) reflects on your employer whether you like it or not. I don't know if these idiots should be fired but they need a butt kicking and sure as hell need to grow up.

[Argus]

You don't seem to grasp the difference between appropriate and inappropriate behaviour: verbal aggression, sexual harrassment and sexual violence are inappropriate if the other party does not consent.

Inappropriate sexual acts or sexual talk isn't defined by its content, but by consent of other parties involved.

Do you really not grasp that?

Well then, since the followers of these guys had to 'consent' to read them, then there should be no issue with what they said, right?

And if they were female firefighters and said the same sort of things we never would have heard about it in the first place because nobody would have cared.

[Argus]

Can you cite any of that or is this just your humble opinion?

Are you a man? If so you shouldn't need any sort of cite.

[Argus]

What a terrible thing to say. Even women that like rough sex don't like non-consensual sex. That's called rape.

Did I SAY a lot of women like rape? How did rape even get into this? Was anyone advocating rape? Ever? In the tweets or in this thread? Put a bandaid on your bleeding heart.

[Argus]

Now, I'm not arguing there aren't real differences in how sex and sexuality are viewed among men and women. Quite the opposite. However, the notion that this is a product of feminism or something like that doesn't really hold. On asserting their sexuality, women still get the short end of the stick in all spheres; that any attempt to reign in the excesses of socially constructed masculinity is seen as an assault on the essential elements of manhood itself speaks to a degree of privilege that women just don't enjoy.

This isn't really even about sexuality but gender. Its about male culture being what it is, and being looked at askance by cultural elites who have adopted delicate feminist sensibilities and use them to desparage and claim deep offense at what is perfectly normal male conduct. Thus these firings.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Argus

[Boges]

Are you a man? If so you shouldn't need any sort of cite.

I've never felt the need to publicize the crude conversations I've had with my friends on social media.

It seems this generation feels that everyone needs to hear every offensive thought that pops in their head.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Boges