Posts
“We would rather have one man or woman working with us than three merely working for us.” (J. Dabney Day)
Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of getting women in the workplace. And, to generalize, I'm pro gender equality. Why wouldn't I be? But sometimes the solutions that are employed to address gender relation issues just seem to go about things the wrong way. Firefighting is an excellent example.
Take Jenny. Growing up, Jenny always wanted to be a firefighter. Of course she's never been as strong as Jimmy, who also always wanted to be a firefighter. So, unfortunately for Jenny, when it came time for Jenny and Jimmy to take the required fitness test, only Jimmy passed; Jenny was unable to run the required 2.5 kilometers fast enough. So Jimmy gets to be a firefighter while Jenny doesn't.* What's wrong with this picture?
In short, nothing at all. But some people (whether they're idealists, feminists, Maoists, or just biochemists) might try to chirp up and call this outcome unfair. They might argue that having one fitness test for both men and women is inappropriate and discriminatory in virtue of the fact that women are genetically predisposed to have a lower aerobic capacity then men. That is, to appropriately promote equality in the workplace, women should take a different test - one designed for women, based on the typical capacities of a woman; i.e. one not as strenuous as the one men have to take.
Now, I reject this for a few simple reasons. For one, focusing on the capabilities of people taking the test is the wrong places to put the emphasis. At the end of the day, firefighters - regardless of whether the person is a man or woman – are going to be doing the same thing (e.g. carrying someone out of a burning building). Tests, such as the one necessary to become a firefighter, should be reflective of the job. I'm not saying the test should be representative of the hardest physical situation someone might find themselves in on that job; maybe it should be the average. I don't know. And I don't really care. That's not important. Because the responsibilities will be the same for someone in such a role regardless of their gender, the should be held to the same standards. That's what's important. So some solutions to some problems go about it in the wrong way – they seek to fix a genuine problem (e.g. there being too few women in the workplace) without addressing the core issues that actually cause the problem in the first. But, then, the idealists might ask: what would be the best (or even better) way to get women into the workforce in appropriate numbers? Especially for something like firefighting? I don't know. But just because I can't offer an alternative doesn't mean that my objection to these kinds of backwards solutions are unjustified. And so, even without a solution in hand that will work to fix the root problem, we should not employ such bad “solutions”.
Having said that, when you distill it, this post isn't so much about firefighters (or even women in the workplace); it's about women-only gyms. I'm not a fan of them. I understand that such facilities are there for women who don't feel comfortable exercising in the same environment as men. And I agree that it's important for everyone to be comfortable exercising. But here their comfort comes at too high of a cost. Here segregation is used as a the wrong means to a proper end. This solution doesn't seek to address the root causes for why some women aren't comfortable exercising around men. Women-only gyms promote the mentality that it's okay for women to not be comfortable in an environment where they should be able to feel comfortable. So, while initially looking like a good thing, is actually harmful. In short, women-only gyms (like different fitness tests for prospective women firefighters than prospective men firefighters) are like sticking a band-aid on a broken leg - it might look and feel like it's helping but, really, it's not; it's just letting the real problem fester and get worse.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is this: (1) we should try to address the real reasons which strain, and hold back the advancement of, gender relations; and (2) we shouldn't accept solutions that fail to do that, even if they might make things better in some limited capacity. I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. This is just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.
*NB: This example is loosely based on an actual case in Canada. See here for a real short news story about it.
3 comments:
I enjoyed this post. Particulary its brevity. God damn, wish I could express so many concepts in so few words.
I agree with you that in cases where both 'groups' are required to do the same physical activity, the requirements for entry should be the same across all groups.
However, are you a fan of preferential treatment for underrepresented minorities into restricted university courses, even if there grade point averages are below the 'necessary' standard for entry? Or do you see this as equivalent to the women firefighter case?
I realise I haven't worded that question well. But if you can decipher it, heaps keen to hear your thoughts bru.
I too enjoyed this post..
EXPECT your view on the woman only gym.. I think the attitude of the typical male gym user toward woman who endevour to use the weight equipment is disgusting. When the female takes on the 4kg dumbell while the male reaches for the 17.5 and the glare of incompetence that comes with it. I think the female only gym iniciative works well.. and i ask u one simple question...
As a male wouldn't you rather see the results of the gym work out, rather than having to endure the not so attractive sweating, teeth clenching on some occasions grunting more-male-than-female females working out at the gym?
Alex: It looks like you're talking about race relations; which I think is, in a lot of ways, a fundamentally different bag of issues than gender relations. The barriers that stand in the way of visible minorities are different than the barriers women face - at the very least when it comes to physical attributes. That is, the women firefighter case centers on genetic unalterable predispositions (i.e. something that's not anyone or any group's fault), whereas race relation issues centre of social effects they've suffered (which IS someone's fault). So it's different. That's probably not the answer you're looking for, but it's one that keeps this discussion focused on what I wanted to talk about rather than something about which I'm not sure what my opinions are.
Rachel: Yes, I agree the attitude of SOME men have towards women at the gym is disgraceful. But that doesn't mean women-only gyms is the solution; it doesn't address the root problems that make those men think it's acceptable to scoff at women reaching for the 4kg weights. Women-only only gyms, while allowing some women to avoid these kinds of problems, perpetuates them. So I'd like to have my cake and eat it too: I'd like to see the core problems solved so that I can see them sweating it out AND the effects of that effort.
Post a Comment