June 25, 2011

Firewatchers: Much Ado about Very Little

With the press in a tizzy over the epochal importance of gay marriage in New York state, the Chicago Tribune has an unwittingly timely article on a past whoop-tee-doo that has quietly fizzled:
Female firefighters blazed a trail that few followed 
After 25 years, they are still rare in Chicago and suburbs 
Twenty-five years ago, Daniels was among the first group of 20 female firefighters hired in Chicago, a move that gave women entree to a macho profession that had been reserved primarily for white men. The women braved hostility, harassment and low expectations to prove they were capable of doing the job. Yet today, women remain barely visible in the firefighting ranks in the Chicago area and the nation. 
In Chicago, there are 116 women, representing just over 2 percent of the department of more than 5,000. Nationally, fewer than 11,000 women are career firefighters, making up 3.6 percent of the firefighter population, according to the U.S. Fire Administration. ... 
For most women, it was impossible to pass the physical test, which included timed exercises of hanging from a pole, climbing stairs carrying a 60-pound coiled hose and pulling a 150-pound dummy across a room without its feet touching the floor. ...
In the 1980s, the U.S. Justice Department urged the city, then led by Mayor Harold Washington, to hire more women and minorities as part of a 1974 consent decree governing minority hiring at the Fire Department. A new test was developed in 1985 that eased some of the demanding physical tasks and placed more emphasis on the written exam. The physical exam remains a barrier for some women in Chicago and the suburbs. 
The women in the 1986 class were given additional physical training before entering the fire academy. In an affirmative-action move, those who passed the test were placed ahead of men who scored higher, making some men even more resentful. The women were assigned in pairs to 10 stations. ... 
Most of the old fire stations in Chicago have been replaced or retrofitted to accommodate women. 
The same is true in the suburbs. In Schaumburg, for example, all of the firehouses have been built or remodeled with unisex washrooms and bunkrooms. Hoffman Estates has separate female locker rooms and other facilities for women, though the village has not hired a woman. 
One to 2 percent of applicants are women, but none has scored high enough on the entrance exam to make the hiring list, said Hoffman Estates fire Chief Robert Gorvett. 
"We openly acknowledge the fact that we're all white men," Gorvett said. "It's certainly not something we're proud of."

73 comments:

Dutch Boy said...

I'm a white man but I cannot say I'm proud of the fact (my parents were 'though, otherwise my mother would have had some explaining to do!).

Anonymous said...

The advance of women's equality and gay rights are closely linked, I'd bet.

The first women pioneers in all areas, especially macho areas, are more likely to be lesbians.

They'd use feminist standards to rise through the ranks and use bias as an excuse for their failures. Then when that schtick got old, they'd "come out" and cite gay equality as another reason to promote their unqualified asses.

Anonymous said...

"We openly acknowledge the fact that we're all white men," Gorvett said. "It's certainly not something we're proud of."

A blatant expression of the idiocy of our age: White men are practically expected to be ashamed of their existence. At what point do non-bigoted white men start to wake up to the game that's going on and say "Hey, we're actually not so bad, and everyone else is not that great". I suspect the time is not far away. We live in interesting times.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand the point of this post. Did anyone expect 50% of firefighters to be female, or anywhere near that?

It was obvious, then and now, that only a tiny number of women actually want to be firefighters, let alone be able to pass the physical exam.

Female firefighters are not a big deal on a macro scale, but if you're a buff woman who happens to be a fire fighting enthusiast, being able to get a job at a fire department is sort of a big deal.

Only a tiny percentage of marriages in New York are going to be gay, so on the macro scale it won't change anything. But if you're a gay couple who really, really wants to get married, it is a big deal.

Thomas said...

"We openly acknowledge the fact that we're all white men," Gorvett said. "It's certainly not something we're proud of."

Any time Fire Chief Gorvett and the other not-proud white men want to resign and let the ladies and nonwhites fight fires, I don't think anyone will be stopping them. Glad I don't live in Illinois.

Anonymous said...

I hate to be picky, bit he's not saying that they are not happy that they are white, but that they are not happy that they are *all* white.

Still, he probably has been conditioned to feel guilty about being white.

Robert Hume

Anonymous said...

"A new test was developed in 1985 that eased some of the demanding physical tasks and placed more emphasis on the written exam. The physical exam remains a barrier for some women in Chicago and the suburbs."

I somehow suspect that those "women in Chicago" don't do too well on the written exam either.

Fernandinande said...

A blatant expression of the idiocy of our age:

True, but it's also the kind of line that the poor guy would have to parrot in order to become and remain the chief, and that's another expression of the idiocy of our age.

Harry Baldwin said...

We openly acknowledge the fact that we're all white men," Gorvett said. "It's certainly not something we're proud of."

What a uniquely white thing to say!
Maybe he was proud until his crime-think programming kicked in and then he was ashamed to be proud, so he got confused.

Anonymous said...

"We openly acknowledge the fact that we're all white men," Gorvett said. "It's certainly not something we're proud of."


Any woman or minority who can pass those tests is de facto overqualified because competent women and minorities who are also civic minded enough to do a job like firefighting are such mega rare critters that they get promoted into higher pay/prestige jobs.

Geoff Matthews said...

Gay marriage will be like this. From Canada's 2006 Census


The 2006 Census enumerated 45,300 same-sex couples. Of these, about 7,500 (16.5%) were married couples and 37,900 (83.5%) were common-law couples. In 2001 there were 34,200 same-sex couples in Canada.


The census estimates about 1% of Canada's population identifying as homosexual. This means that about 10% of homosexuals are married.

Max Y said...

"At what point do non-bigoted white men start to wake up to the game that's going on and say "Hey, we're actually not so bad, and everyone else is not that great". I suspect the time is not far away. We live in interesting times."

-Actually we (white men) are great, that's the real problem and has been, for a very long time.

Anonymous said...

"We openly acknowledge the fact that we're all white men," Gorvett said. "It's certainly not something we're proud of."


Translation, qualified women and minorities should be ashamed that they are unwilling to help out with the civic duty of firefighting.

What's so interesting about fires for women said...

Even with the lowered physical requirements, a large percentage of women able to pass are probably butch lesbian types.

Butch lesbians don't even get along with gay men, much less testosterone dripping heteros typically found in fire depts.

Can't image many of the few qualified butch lesbians would want to eat, sleep and live with hetero firefighter types.

Even without this, it seems such women would have no interest in fighting fires for a living when they could open a vegan restaurant, radical bookstore or work for the local bureaucracy (government, library, college, etc).

NOTA said...

File this under PC makes you stupid. Gee, a job demanding great physical strength turns out to be really hard for women to do. Who could have forseen such an outcome?

Randall O said...

So I guess we are to continue to lower physical standards for firefighters so that more women can enter firefighting, otherwise, it is vile sexism at work.

And I suppose in this fantasy world, fires will also be in favor of political correctness, so will affect only first floors of buildings to burn when female fire fighters will respond, so they won't have to climb stairs/ladders lugging equipment and will only burn when victims are near doors, so that female firefighters won't have to lug victims far to freedom.

Anonymous said...

"Only a tiny percentage of marriages in New York are going to be gay, so on the macro scale it won't change anything. But if you're a gay couple who really, really wants to get married, it is a big deal."

It will be a very, very big deal when a judge awards a child through adoption (kinda like affirmative action for gays) to a homosexual couple over a straight couple, ensuring that the child has either no father or no mother.

This will be the next squawk of gays: "It's legal to marry in our state so you cannot give a lower priority to a gay couple seeking to adopt over a straight couple. In fact, we gays insist on an AA system for adoptions."


Oh, oh, disparate impact, anyone? I am awaiting the first white liberals to lose an infant up for adoptions to a gay couple.

Whiskey said...

Being a White man is "not something we're proud of" is a giant red flag. It means that White men in general are despised?

Why oh why is that so? A far to frequent Isteve commenter would say "the Jews" but you'll get that in Germany, Scandinavia, France, Spain, Italy, and the Netherlands, as well as the UK, places not known for being Jew-friendly or having lots of Jews. All of them however have equalist attitudes towards the sexes.

Make most men the equal of most women, and most women will find them icky, repellent, and Beta Males to the core. It is White women who find White men mostly icky, and "not something we're proud of."

Anonymasaurus Rex said...

Consider that for the last 40+ years, marriage in general among heterosexuals has fallen to the point where a huge fraction of heteros don't ever bother to marry. So much for all the vaunted privileges of marriage. Over half of all black children are now raised in single parent homes.

The truth is that the two things that encourage couples to get married are: first, some desire to be faithful to each other (including for religious reasons); second, the need for absolute commitment in order to raise children.

Gays mostly don't have children. If they do, those children tend to be leftovers from prior hetero relationships, not the result of adoption or IVF. They are seldom in sole custody, raising children with their gay/lesbian significant other.

As for commitment: having lots of gay friends, I can tell you that the actual sex life of the average gay man is a lot like the fantasy sex life of most straight men. Gay men don't commit. Why? First, because they're men. Second - go back to the child-rearing part. If you're not having children, the need for commitment is not all that pressing. Lesbian couples aren't really all that more committed than gay couples.

I don't think that gay marriage is inevitable. What is inevitable, however, is that in 30 years, after seeing how few gays marry in states where it is legal, we'll be wondering why they wanted it to begin with. In countries where it's legal almost none of them take advantage of it.

Anonymasaurus Rex said...

Recently overheard at a joint meeting of the Supreme Court, the Federal Reserve Board, and Hollywood moguls: "We openly acknowledge the fact that we're overwhelmingly Jews," Ruth Bader Ginsburg said. "It's certainly not something we're proud of."

Kylie said...

"I hate to be picky, bit he's not saying that they are not happy that they are white, but that they are not happy that they are *all* white."

I understood that. (Actually, I think he is saying that they are not happy that they all are white.)

And I still find it disgusting.

mae west said...

"We openly acknowledge the fact that we're all white men," Gorvett said. "It's certainly not something we're proud of."

The gentleman's words are cringe-inducing taken out of context. Nobody living in the modern world really believes it. In context the words mean they're "supposed" to be more "integrated." Nothing more.

"Translation, qualified women and minorities should be ashamed that they are unwilling to help out with the civic duty of firefighting."

We've already been through that. Women don't qualify physically. Would you try out for the NBL (right intials?) if you were 5'9"? Only in your dreams. As for gay, I think they do feature in gay fantasies quite a bit, but only fantasies; don't ask don't tell, and all that jazz.

People who crow the loudest about being "proud" have the least reason to be, as a rule. Relates to those studies showing how the least competent people have the least insight into their flaws, and are, in fact, far less competent than those less confident of their own omnipotence.

"Make most men the equal of most women, and most women will find them icky, repellent, and Beta Males to the core. It is White women who find White men mostly icky, and "not something we're proud of."

You don't have to "make" either gender the equal; they already are and always were. They just have different physical functions.
Please own your own race fetishes and stop attributing them to those about whom you plainly know nothing. This stuff is absurdly over-stated. I haven't known many, and frankly, I'm not sure what it is about these non-whites that is supposed to be so compelling. The relationships do not have a reputation for longevity or stability, they rarely seem to have any real chemistry between them after some initial of lust; and statistically result in a lot of violence and murder. If I read of one more mixed-race kid being raised by a single white mother with the black daddy skipping out as soon as his genes got into the white race, I am going to freakin' scream at the stupidity of it all. They almost never have ANYTHING to offer. So, no, white men are not any more "icky" than non-whites. Quite the contrary, though the quality of icky knows neither race nor gender nor religion nor nationality. Beware--everything you call someone comes back and sticks to you.
Now what were we talking about? oh yeah. Firemen.

Black maid to Mae West about a suitor-cop:
oh Miss West, I wouldn't want a policeman chasing after me!
Mae West: How about a fireman?

No One Knows I'm a Syrian said...

DADT was overwhelmingly used against female enlistees, of whom one can reasonably assume the lioness's share were by and large sufficiently sub-standard as soldiers to justify invoking the policy in the first place--so it was only logical, really, that it had to be portrayed as an epochal trauma for all those war-fevered homosexual guys you knew who used to clamor to serve in the military (just like that scene from the Kids In The Hall movie). For momentary political convenience the lesbian desk jockeys in Arlington County were willing to be grouped with the G in LGBTIUP/Two-Spirited/SA/Morphin Power Rangers.

If you hear the term "gender imbalance" it's a mistake to take this for a reference to some potentially soluble problem. Modern feminism is best understood as an insincere marketing strategy preoccupied with irrelevant causes celebres like liberating the Augusta National Golf Club restroom. Everybody on both sides knows there will never be a resolution or even an intermediate compromise; that's not the point of the charade.

It'll be fun to see the two world-champion special pleaders--aggrieved distaff bourgeoisie vs. aggrieved violent Muslims--in their inevitable Turtle Bay steel cage match.

Let's! said...

Not a parody or a page from "Camp of the Saints." - Here's the nice white San Antonio Express-News editor reveling in his superiority over other knuckle-dragging whites who have the gall to oppose Sanctuary Cities.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/news_columnists/article/This-is-no-time-for-a-return-to-racism-1440489.php

I love how he acts as if San Antonio is some kind of rainbow paradise when most of the city's real estate lies in absolutely worthless public-school districts.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure how the article on firefighting led to a discussion about gay marriage, but to answer the question from Anonymasaurus about why gays want gay marriage: marriage is beside the point. Major changes to society come in stages, at least as regards gay rights. Attempts to make this change by court fiat have not been entirely successful, and there has been a counter-reaction from the voting public in some states. Thus, in NY, the Republicans had to be bribed or blackmailed into voting for legislation (one wonders what the price was). Otherwise, the Dems, which held a majority in boith houses of the legislature until recently, would have had to take responsibility for this event.
The point of gay marriage is to enshrine homosexuality as a legally recognized and protected "lifestyle." The next stage will be for further legal protection for cross-dressers and transexuals (whether post-surgical or merely aspirational), and for their "right" to be treated as women, including the right to use ladies' rest rooms and locker rooms. There have already been a few legal skirmishes in New York City, not widely reported in the New York media for obvious reasons.This will be the next stage. I have not yet seen a court case upholding the right of a man to wear women's clothing to work, but this will happen.

thunk said...

"A new test was developed in 1985 that eased some of the demanding physical tasks and placed more emphasis on the written exam"

Progressive changes are espoused by the left to be good for all of the nonwhite, nonmales, what's good for the nonmale goose must be good for the nonwhite gander. But often there are winners and losers, just they don't fight each other for it. In this case the changing of emphasis from physical to written is good for those very few white women who want the job. However, for the many black and hispanic guys who want the job, the change could only have hurt. But we don't see any fighting between the groups.

Consider adding gays to the list of diverse groups your state or company is trying to hire. This should be good for nonwhite nonmales, right? Actually no, because hiring qualified gays is quite easy (as is hiring qualified women for most jobs). Same thing with asians. So you can say, "We are hitting our diversity goals in 2/3 areas" or otherwise pad your numbers. It makes it a lot easier to ignore the fact that you are missing your black goal. But you don't hear blacks complaining about the dilution of diversity spoils.

thunk said...

OT: Famous latin celebs you didnt know were latin. An unimportatn but interesting article in yahoo news that is right up your alley.
http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/bet-you-didn-t-know-they-re-latino-2501381/#photoViewer=6

It includes Charlie Sheen and a blue eyed actress who is mexican, an asian whose chinese parents are from argentina and a quote you need to add to your "there are no mexican star" points.

Benjamin Bratt

The television and film actor, whose own mother emigrated from Peru as a teenager, is very vocal about the status of Latinos on the big screen and in the U.S. “What I’m troubled by is, you cannot name a brown-skinned Latino male who can get a film green-lit. There isn’t one. Why not? It still seems we are treated like an exotic other,” says Bratt.

jody said...

"We openly acknowledge the fact that we're all white men," Gorvett said. "It's certainly not something we're proud of."

and there you have it.

Anonymous said...

I wonder how much longer until the military is forced by the courts, lawyers, and bureaucrats to become completely "integrated" from a sexual perspective. We can't allow men to take all those prestigious jobs jumping out of airplanes, reconnoitering enemy positions, and coming ashore under cover of darkness and getting all those medals and career advancement, that would be unfair to women.

Anonymous said...

"But you don't hear blacks complaining about the dilution of diversity spoils."

I dunno, they did vote hard against that California gay marriage thing, while they were electing Obama president.

Average Joe said...

The problem for liberals is that white men make the ideal firefighters. We are stronger than women, Jews and Asians and smarter than blacks and Hispanics. When you recruit women and non-whites to be firefighters, you are replacing the best ones with intellectually or physically inferior candidates.

DYork said...

"We openly acknowledge the fact that we're all white men," Gorvett said. "It's certainly not something we're proud of."

LOL. One of the great quotes of all time. Seriously.

Steve, you need to put that one at the head of your blog.

NOTA said...

No One Knows:

The goal of gender and racial balance in all thinks is misguided because we're not all the same, neither in ability nor inclination. The older goal of equal opportunities was, IMO, a very good thing. (And it's great if a few women who really want to be firefighters can do it, but there probably won't ever be many.)

Firefighters have a rare job where size and strength really matter. That's not true for most jobs, particularly not skilled jobs. You don't need to be strong enough to carry an unconscious 200 lb man down the stairs draped over your shoulder, in order to be a dentist or a computer programmer or an accountant.

At a guess, relatively few women will end up unloading freight in the warehouse, for the same reason--that's a job where being big and strong gives you a huge advantage, and men do big and strong a lot better than women do.

Fred Reed wrote an interesting piece some years back about women as police officers, with the interesting comment that while the women did fine most of the time, there were situations where they'd end up having to draw their guns and maybe kill someone, and a large man have some other options.

NOTA said...

Anon 6/25/11 8:14 PM:

Gay marriage will probably be commonplace in another 20 years all across the US. As far as I can tell, there's no reason at all to think there will be any huge societal impact.

A very small fraction of people are gay or lesbian--less than 5%, probably more like 2%. Some subset of them will marry, and derive some legal and social benefits. A very few will want to adopt kids. (It's not all that uncommon to see lesbians with kids now. After all, a woman doesn't need anyone's permission to have a kid. A male friend and a turkey baster will do the trick.) But this will be rare, just because of the numbers. Perhaps a few more of those nice but strangely unattractive middle-aged women who've been "roommates" for 20 years will change what they call one another.

For all the outcry right now, my guess is that this will have a relatively small impact on the world, except that some gay couples will have a better life because they'll be able to get their partners health insurance and such.

Just as an aside, as far as the "bribery" needed to pass this, there's a pretty obvious form of blackmail available for this vote in particular. If you're a closeted gay legislator, there are pretty much guaranteed to be people who care about this issue quite a bit, who also know firsthand about your secret. I wonder how big an impact this had on the vote....

Whiskey said...

Oh certainly there are relatively few cross-racial marriages. The point of most White women HATE HATE HATING Beta White males is not to import lots of Mandingo fantasies.

It is to sort out, as ruthlessly as possible, all the "true Alphas" from the Beta Male provider "losers" among White guys. When you have mass immigration, preference AGAINST White guys (constantly see the quote "not something we're proud of") so that its internalized completely by a Fire Captain ...

Well the only high-ranking White guys left by definition are Alpha males. Think of mass immigration, anti-White preferences, and the like (porn star Ginger Lee who inadvertently brought down Weiner is a hard-core Lefty like most White women) as one giant Shit Test ala Roissy. The guys who pass are those who are important even though anti-White guy sentiment abounds.

John Craig said...

"It's certainly not something we're proud of."

Everybody seems to be taking this comment at face value. Trust me, the guy doesn't really mean it. He knows it's something he's supposed to say, especially given the monochromatic nature of his department. Behind closed doors, those guys are probably chortling about having been able to remain all white and all male.

Things have gotten pretty bad, but they haven't gotten so bad that guys like this actually believe the idiocies they know they're supposed to pay lip service to publicly.

DYork said...

Whiskey said...
Oh certainly there are relatively few cross-racial marriages. The point of most White women HATE HATE HATING Beta White males is not to import lots of Mandingo fantasies.


Whiskey is there any chance you could stop being a bigot against women in general and White women in particular?

If you stopped demonizing White women what would actually happen in your life?

What do you think is your reason for misrepresenting White women's basic humanity to the degree that you do?

Let's be clear White women don't hate, hate hate beta White men. Most White women are the daughters, sisters, wives and girlfriends of what could be called "beta" White men.

Most White women like, love, date and marry White men who are essentially beta White men. Not alpha creeps or omega losers.

I'd really like to know why you troll the manosphere/steveosphere/HBDsphere with the same nasty hatred for White women and the same tired, obsessively inaccurate sighing about White women's alleged hatred of White beta - normal - men.

Grow up already. And get some professional help.

Anonymous said...

"Gay marriage will probably be commonplace in another 20 years all across the US. As far as I can tell, there's no reason at all to think there will be any huge societal impact."

Social indoctrination of children, rigged adoptions to favor gays, and lawfare against Christian groups qualifies as a pretty huge in my book. More.

Kylie said...

"Things have gotten pretty bad, but they haven't gotten so bad that guys like this actually believe the idiocies they know they're supposed to pay lip service to publicly."

Apparently, you have not been privy to the conversations liberals have among themselves when they think that you are one of them.

The baseless assertions they make as though they were absolutely factual and indisputable are just ludicrous. Hearing such drivel from intelligent, educated (indoctrinated) people is nauseating.

There are those non-believers who cynically pay lip service to the party line. But there are also many who have not only drunk the Kool-Aid but evidently have wallowed in a vat of it, absorbing it through their pores.

Because I "pass", I hear more of this than I suspect the rest of you do. It's why I often seem so much more pessimistic than so many of you here.

Anonymous said...

If the problem with liberalism is that it treats everyone as simply a member of a group like " blacks" or "women", isn't the actual number of female firefighters irrelevant?

The point is that building a women's locker area removes barriers to otherwise qualified individuals becoming firefighters, even if those individuals compose just 2% of the total.

Anonymous said...

"I hate to be picky, bit he's not saying that they are not happy that they are white, but that they are not happy that they are *all* white.

Still, he probably has been conditioned to feel guilty about being white.

Robert Hume"

Of course he expects someone else to give their job to a non white. He certainly doesn't intend to bear the balance of his guilt.

Anonymous said...

"Gay marriage will probably be commonplace in another 20 years all across the US. As far as I can tell, there's no reason at all to think there will be any huge societal impact."

On a micro level, no.

On a macro level, it will have the same kind of impact that LBJ's Great Society, AA, Freud, the psychobabble of most social science of the last century, etc. had, which is the cavalier attitude that people are all the same (including that males and females are the same, that heteros and homos are the same, that all people have the same or similar IQs if only they had the same experiences in the womb and without the womb) and that if_ per_ chance people are not really the same (notice how such people cover all angles) they can be MADE the same, and if_per_chance they cannot be made the same, we all ought simply to pretend they are the same, and that acknowledgement of difference must be avoided at all costs because difference=inequality and sameness=equality and on and on and on.

As CA Supreme Court judges have made clear (and the Ninth Circuit, of course) there really is no such thing as the will of the people. Don't like something? Redefine it. All you need is money, a call to "civil rights," some motivated people, Hollywood and the media on your side because they like any cause that is deemed a civil rights cause, some loopy judges who share the idea that difference always means inequality, and you have what you want.

Jack said...

Women in NYC want to have sex with firemen, not be them.

Anonymous said...

"We openly acknowledge the fact that we're all white men," Gorvett said. "It's certainly not something we're proud of."

OMG. Someone like this needs to be called down on his ball-lessness.

David Davenport said...

... The physical exam remains a barrier for some women in Chicago and the suburbs. ..

I'll bet that Michelle Obama could pass the physical test.

Simon in London said...

'"We openly acknowledge the fact that we're all white men," Gorvett said. "It's certainly not something we're proud of."'


They could make that a bumper sticker.

Anonymous said...

Gotta agree with Dyork, Whiskey is a demented nerd virgin.

Grizzlie Antagonist said...

Shut up, DYork. Whiskey knows what he is talking about.

I am not Whiskey, and I would correct him simply by suggesting that women as a group hate all men as a group -- alpha, beta, cheetah -- whatever.

Acknowledging that fact is a sign of mental health, not a sign of its absence

Anonymous said...

"most White women HATE HATE HATING Beta White males"

Someone should tell them to stop having kids with them, then. They don't seem to have got the memo.

Trew said...

Fire Chief Robert Gorvett is an example of the average IQ (at best) of those in the overpaid fire fighting trade. It's a trade. It's not a profession. It's manual labor for crying out loud, even the article implies that. Yes, today, many firewhiners get their 8-week EMT certificate or their 6-month paramedic certificate. Big woop.

But, back to IQ -- Gorvett was able to rise to chief, he's an example of their cream of the crop. Dumb dumb.

Why do fireweenies need a union?

Mr. Anon said...

"Whiskey said...

Why oh why is that so? A far to frequent Isteve commenter would say "the Jews" but you'll get that in Germany, Scandinavia, France, Spain, Italy, and the Netherlands, as well as the UK, places not known for being Jew-friendly or having lots of Jews. All of them however have equalist attitudes towards the sexes."

Nobody mentioned jews in this thread, Whiskey, until you brought it up. You seem to be obsessed with the topic in a way that only a true son of Scotland can be. I think I now know what is meant by the phrase "No true Scotsman".

Anonymous said...

"most White women HATE HATE HATING Beta White males"

Beta ranges from nice guy to total dork. Upper betas should be appealing to many women.
Josh Hartnett in WICKER PARK is borderline lower alpha and upper beta, which makes him so likable.

Besides, money turns any beta into an alpha. Proof? Bill Gates.

Anonymous said...

"A senior firefighter was demoted and eight of his colleagues officially warned today for refusing to hand out safety leaflets at a gay pride march.

The nine officers were rapped by Strathclyde Fire and Rescue (SFR) after disobeying orders during the Pride Scotia rally in June.

Fire service managers have also ordered the group, from Glasgow’s Cowcaddens station, to undergo intensive "diversity training" as part of their punishment.

The punishment sees one of the men involved, a watch manager, reduced to the rank of crew manager, losing an estimated £5,000 in salary. The others have all received official written warnings about their behaviour."


Link

carol said...

OT - another social media flashmob?
http://tinyurl.com/3nzmq32

Whiskey said...

Somewhat OT, Obama has enacted the DREAM ACT, by executive order. Who needs Congress when you can just order ICE to not take any action against illegal aliens in HS or College, showing interest in the military (not even enlisting) or working a regular job?

A President can do whatever he wants by executive order. He does not need laws passed, given the extraordinary power he has as the Executive. The DREAM ACT is already here, and it is very unlikely that a Romney or other RINO would overturn the executive order.

Meanwhile a NYT columnist (appealing to his built-in female audience) calls people in MO and KS "the dance of the sloped foreheads." Modern female-oriented celeb culture is the core of the self-reinforcing uber-liberalism. An endless effort to find the most uber-Alpha male.

Anonymous said...

But, back to IQ -- Gorvett was able to rise to chief, he's an example of their cream of the crop. Dumb dumb.

Obviously Gorvett rose to the top because he understands how to play the political game. Doesn't mean he believes what he said. Like duh. Who's the dumb one?

Baloo said...

Kylie, any time you want to do a guest post at Ex-Army, just go there and enter it as a comment on the current post and I'll reformat it as a post.

EX-ARMY

An elaboration of what you said here about 'passing' and listening to liberals would be superb.

beowulf said...

I wonder how much longer until the military is forced by the courts, lawyers, and bureaucrats to become completely "integrated" from a sexual perspective.

Nahh, judges leave the military alone (if any other employer required job applicants to take the g-loaded ASVAB, they'd be instantly shut down by an EEOC lawsuit). Its left up to Congress to establish military recruitment and service policies.

Harry Baldwin said...

Anonymous said... The point is that building a women's locker area removes barriers to otherwise qualified individuals becoming firefighters, even if those individuals compose just 2% of the total.

As we continue to erase distinctions, how long before the rationale of the "women's locker area" no longer makes sense? Can some "training" resolve any residual hang-ups?

John Craig said...

Kylie --
No question a lot of people have drunk the Kool-Aid. But the odds that the chief firefighter in an all-white, all-male department has done so are slim. The blue collar types generally have much more common sense than the highly "educated" types, and the odds of a white firefighter being a liberal are about the same as that of a white cop being a liberal.

I'm guessing you travel in academic circles, where, unfortunately, what you say is overwhelmingly true.

ben tillman said...

Translation, qualified women and minorities should be ashamed that they are unwilling to help out with the civic duty of firefighting.

You're not paying attention. Everyone's a minority. If you mean "non-White", say it.

Anonymous said...

"were all white men. Its certainly not something were proud of".

Can anyone imagine a black saying that?

Isn't it amazing what brainwashing can do?

Anonymous said...

Why do we always assume some conspiratorial force is at work in matters that just reflect natural choices and abilities at play?

So females are 50% of the population but they are not 50% of firefighters. Why is this taken to imply some ambiguous conspiratorial discriminatory practice?

Are 50% of professional wrestlers and truck drivers female?

Are 50% of dental hygenists and nurses males?

Are whites proportionally represented in the NBA?

Are blacks proportionally represented in the NHL?

Rather then look for a non-existent conspiracy, why not admit that people are equal but different? That men and women have different capabilities?

Anonymous said...

“What I’m troubled by is, you cannot name a brown-skinned Latino male who can get a film green-lit. There isn’t one. Why not? It still seems we are treated like an exotic other,” says Bratt.

Then Bratt should really be complaining to his mother who tore him from the bosom of his native Peru.

No doubt he will take the trouble to do that on the way to the airport for his one way flight back home. Any time now.

Anonymous said...

Gay marriage will probably be commonplace in another 20 years all across the US. As far as I can tell, there's no reason at all to think there will be any huge societal impact.

Wait and see.

Liberal thinking is a bit like that weird tractor pulling event.

Progressive policy has impressive power moving it alomg but its dragging that heavy weight, and its getting harder and harder to shift as it moves closer to the power source.

This widespread gay marriage of the future iis implicitly in a tolerant, affluent white society of course. But that weight the progressives are dragging along, thats the vibrant minorities.

Imagine gay marriage in a city where hispanics are controlled by MS-13, blacks by the Crips, Somalis by a Muslim gang etc etc.

Thats a world where gay marriage is even going to be discussed?

Kylie said...

"I'm guessing you travel in academic circles, where, unfortunately, what you say is overwhelmingly true."

Guess again. I live in a small town in a red state and I'm married to a blue collar worker. The closest I get to "academic circles" is my next-door neighbor, a teacher who took early retirement in part b/c she didn't want to teach the mandatory doctrine of multi-culturalism.

"The blue collar types generally have much more common sense than the highly 'educated' types, and the odds of a white firefighter being a liberal are about the same as that of a white cop being a liberal."

And males generally have more common sense than females, who are generally more liberal. Unfortunately, in my particular blue collar/red state environment, the females seem to be running the show. For example, I'm shocked at how many of my husband's coworkers have to sneak legally purchased guns into their own homes b/c their wives don't approve of guns. (No law-breaking or small children are involved--the women, in the way of lefties everywhere, just don't like guns.) One guy had to trade in the truck he liked b/c his wife didn't like it. Never mind that she had her own vehicle she did like and that he paid for his. She didn't like him owning it so it had to go. She decides how her income will be spent and also how his income will be spent. My husband regularly regales me with tales of how p-whipped his coworkers are in this and other respects by their more liberal wives.

This is exactly the kind of guy who could be made without too much trouble to say something as stupid as what that fireman said.

Don't get me wrong--I wish your take were true. But I'm guessing there are more factors at play than you realize.

Kylie said...

"Kylie, any time you want to do a guest post at Ex-Army..."

Thanks for the invite, much appreciated. I will surely take you up on it if I think I have something worthwhile to say.

Anonymous said...

A friend of mine once said that the main problem with the USA is its prohibition of drugs. He cited as an example his brother who became a heroin addict. His brother would not hurt a fly if he could just get his freakin' drugs, for God's sake. As my friend said " Give him his drugs and he'll stay inside all day. Let the Fire Department deliver the drugs. It will give them something to do."

Svigor said...

David Carr was pandering to himself. He'll probably write an article soon, about how women (or gay men) need to start finding men with giant foreheads more attractive, lest society implode.

I assume you did a background check on him to ensure he wasn't Jewish before you posted his typically Jewish contempt for rural/"flyover" types. I can't imagine what the NYT is thinking, employing a guy with attitudes like that.

Oh yeah, right, white women got him hired.

Anonymous said...

Hey Whiskey,

Just do the www.bride.ru thing. Those girls are expecting to a beta to sweep them off their feet.

Svigor said...

I don't advise wedding a party's innocence to similarities in policy or circumstances to those in countries where the party less in evidence, if the circumstances or policies in question may in fact prove less present in those countries. Which I pointed out at Mangan's: the immigration problems in Europe pale next to the immigration problem in America.

When you do this, you invite people to draw conclusions opposite your own.

And it's just bad logic, anyway; people get sick from virus x in Buena Vista, doesn't mean people can't be sick from virus y in DisneyLand.

Svigor said...

I'm a white man but I cannot say I'm proud of the fact (my parents were 'though, otherwise my mother would have had some explaining to do!).

DWLs should start saying "I'm not thankful to be born white" instead. That would sound more honest.

Anonymous said...

The point is to attack and marginalize religious groups.

Many religious groups can never religiously sanction gay marriage because it totally antithetical to their core beliefs on marriage.

When anti gay marriage gets classified as bigotry, many religious groups from Catholics to Orthodox Jews to Mormons get labeled as bigots.

That is the point and liberals think they love it.

But what liberals don't get is that the churches that radically discard their core on marriage to appease political correctness are just the ones in terminal decline.

Orthodox Jews in the UK have an average of 7 kids per woman versus 1.4 for secular liberal Jewish women who embrace gay marriage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7411877.stm

Liberals are trying hard to undermine the family but it is having a disparate impact on themselves. The biggest disparities in liberal-conservative birthrates are found where liberals have been waging culture war hardest: The US, the UK and Israel.