Transcription
Can women really make good firefighters? Should they be actively recruited within Los Angeles? Its fire chief was known for being the first female chief, the first openly gay chief, and someone who made sexual diversity a very public goal of the department.
Outside of LA, as the fires were burning, this video clip went viral, and it made a lot of people furious. "You want to see somebody that responds to your house, your emergency, whether it's a medical call or a fire call, that looks like you. It gives that person a little bit more ease knowing that somebody might understand their situation better." "Is she strong enough to do this?" or "You couldn't carry my husband out of a fire." "Which my response is, he got himself in the wrong place. If I have to carry him out of a [Music] fire."
She's not a low-level recruiter but a deputy fire chief who earns over $300,000 a year. There now, the last half of that video is just bizarre victim-blaming, and it's somewhat insane for her to say it, let alone for the department to then promote it. The first half, we'll get to that later. That clip sparked a worthwhile debate about female firefighters and beyond. And for fighting fires, is there really strength and diversity? But as is often the case, that debate devolved into stupidity.
I mean, for years, we've heard in the corporate media that of course there should be more women and diversity in fighting fires. Don't be a bigot. And now, mainly online, there's a backlash that essentially says wokeness caused Los Angeles to burn. So, look, if you want to get angry, this isn't the the best video for you. But if you want to actually get smarter and understand the philosophy and the reality of that issue, stick around. I'm Ken Lort, and I will give this to you as even-handed as I possibly can because as fun as outrage videos might be, they make us a little dumber and more smug at the same time. I'll show you what I learned about the history of LA and female firefighters and answer: Can they do the job as well? As why aren't there more females fighting fires? Finally, we'll look at: Should diversity be a goal? As well as the hidden downsides of diversity.
First, Los Angeles has tried hard, really hard, to recruit female firefighters. But despite spending millions on diversity programs and hiring its first female chief, women still make up just 4% of the force. It's barely budged since women first joined the department years ago, and it's pretty similar to rates throughout America and most other countries. In LA, they launched ambitious programs to change it. The city hired Kristen Crowley, who promoted a number of women into top positions. They launched special recruitment initiatives, a fire department girls camp for teenagers, and a big DEI program. They're spending serious money on it too, about a million dollars annually just on the diversity staff. On one hand, it made some differences. In 2022, about 8% of applicants were women, double the previous rate. But getting women to apply is one thing, and getting them through training is another. 83% of male recruits completed the training; for women, just 57%.
But here's something that rarely gets mentioned. When people talk about the percentage of female firefighters, they're specifically talking about the frontline firefighting positions. The numbers look very different in support roles. For instance, 77% of 911 dispatchers are female, and they have a much higher representation in fire prevention and public education and medical roles. Those roles are crucial to public safety, but the focus and the controversy remains on getting more women into active firefighting positions. Should we be doing that? It's a complex answer, but the very first question should be: Can they do the job? After all, fighting fires is life or death. I know that sounds cliche, but it's true. And firefighting is a physically demanding job. And I researched into the standards that they have for men and women. Now, most physically demanding jobs offer lower standards to help women get involved. Virtually all police departments and much of the military do this. So I was surprised to learn that for the most part, male and female firefighters are held to the exact same physical standards. Most departments use the CPAT, a nationwide standardized physical fitness test that doesn't care about your gender. You either pass or fail. And the standards are pretty clear: You've got 10 minutes and 20 seconds to complete eight critical events while wearing a 50 lb vest to simulate breathing equipment and protective gear. Want to climb up the stairs? Here's an extra 25 lbs to simulate carrying tools. The test has withstood legal challenges because it's not theoretical; it mirrors what firefighters actually do: dragging 165lb dummies, handling high-pressure hoses, carrying heavy equipment upstairs. Fire doesn't care about who's fighting it, and neither does physics. And importantly, despite what you might hear on social media, the LA Fire Department and most other cities haven't lowered those standards to help women. They're using the same national testing requirements as most major departments. Still, accusations pop up. In 2005, the city controller alleged that the chief had overruled drill master recommendations in nine cases involving female recruits who failed the test. But here's what doesn't get enough attention: When women pass these tests, legitimately pass them, they perform as well as their male counterparts. And speaking of demanding, it's not about just passing one test. The job gets harder when you add in real-world conditions. Firefighting gear alone weighs 50 to 75 lbs, and you're wearing it in intense heat, often for extended periods of time.
But also, amid all this focus on physical capabilities, we're missing something else important. The recent problems in Los Angeles had little to do with female firefighters. What we've seen so far is that potential failure issues were about basic infrastructure and management. Some fire hydrants didn't work, fire trucks weren't strategically placed ahead of time, a major city reservoir was dry for a long time, and finally, the department hasn't kept pace with LA's growth. So the finger-pointing there hit everyone from the mayor's office to the fire chief's office on down, but not one criticism was really about the performance of a female firefighter on the line. Now, from my point of view, women who can meet those physical requirements can absolutely do the job. If not, those standards should be raised for everyone. So, given that, it seems to me that the real question should be: Should departments expend serious resources trying to recruit women into those roles? Now, they're doing it, of course, but still, with all that attention and extra resources, why aren't there more women fighting fires? As always, there's not one answer to a question like that. For some, it's lack of role models. A good number of firefighters had dads who were firefighters before them. The firehouse living situation has its own challenges. These aren't just workplaces; firefighters live there as well. Many stations weren't designed with mixed-gender crews in mind and don't have separate bathrooms or sleeping quarters. Then there's the "guys' club" environment. Guys have a tendency to talk sex, read porn, and just be generally inappropriate. And sometimes it's about gear. The protective gear often doesn't match a female body. Motherhood also throws a wrench in the works. The stats are pretty eye-opening: pregnant firefighters have miscarriages twice the normal rate. Even after giving birth, mothers face unique challenges. Those who want to breastfeed have problems with erratic schedules and a lack of proper facilities.
But here's a real elephant in the room: Most women just don't want to be firefighters. And that's not a criticism; it's just reality. I mean, it's a tough job. The same pattern shows up across almost all dangerous professions. The jobs with the highest fatality rates: logging, fishing, roofing, mining – they're overwhelmingly male. Look at logging: 97.8% male. Commercial fishing: 96% male. Roofing: 97.4% male. In fact, when you look at the top 10 most dangerous jobs, men make up between 85% and 98% of all workers. And nationally in the United States, men account for over 91% of all workplace deaths. Now, city officials obsess over the gender ratio in firefighting but don't really seem to care about those other jobs. You don't hear anyone demanding more female loggers or roofers. Why? That's because cities don't run logging companies. It leads to a key question: Is the lack of females in firefighting actually a problem that needs fixing? I mean, look, past discrimination absolutely needed to be addressed. But we've reached a point where women have equal opportunity to join the force. The fact that most choose not to just might reflect different career preferences between men and women, something we see all the time. Look at the flip side: some careers are overwhelmingly female. Speech-language pathologists: 95% female. Dental hygienists: 95% as well. School teachers, nurses: overwhelmingly female. Yet there's no push for gender equality in these fields. The point isn't that we should discourage women from becoming firefighters; it's about recognizing that equal opportunity doesn't always lead to equal outcomes, and that just might be okay.
How about when we look at elements beyond sex? I mean, it's a question we need to wrestle with. Should diversity overall be a goal in firefighting? Launching its first-ever Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Bureau, it is dedicated to ensuring a fair and equal workplace environment. So, by creating this new bureau, our Diversity, Equity, Inclusion Bureau, now we actually have the staff to do the work when it comes to doing a deep dive in regard to how we do business. I welcome all of you in this room to join, whether you're LGBTQ+ or not, or you're just an ally. You have family members. Now, let's break this down carefully because it's more complex than the slogan suggests. The word "diversity" means a lot of things these days. So let's look at it carefully. I mean, first, there's the concept of equal opportunity, and no one should dispute that. I mean, there was a time when women and minorities faced real discrimination in the fire service, and probably still do in some areas. Now, that wasn't just wrong; it was stupid. I mean, keeping qualified people out of a profession because of things that might not affect that profession, that hurts everyone. But the broader concept of diversity usually means something different. It's usually now become code for "hire more of this particular type of person," whether that's based on gender, race, or something else. But in LA, they really want diversity. Alvin Brewer, the department's assistant DEI chief, wants the department to be recognized nationally and possibly even globally as an agency that is very serious about diversity, equity, and inclusion. And whilst I have the utmost respect for the men in our fire service, this image that we have in our heads, it needs to change. You see a homogeneous workforce, and this outdated calendar stereotype are no longer relevant in the modern fire service, and they actually limit our capabilities. The gal in this video, which I've linked to below, she cited an instance of a female being small enough to free someone from a trapped space in a fire after a car crash, or that women can be more sympathetic to someone facing trauma. And those might be some real goals, but much of it is similar to what I saw when I read through the LA Fire Department's racial equity action plan, where, to me, there was a lot of feel-good talk that essentially says diversity in the fire department is good because overall diversity in life is good. I mean, they claim that the public will trust us more if we're diverse, and that it'll strengthen the fabric of a community overall. The most cogent argument is what the assistant chief said in that video: "We opened with the public will be more trusting if they see firefighters who look like them." But with the exception of language barriers, I'm not really sure that anyone who's facing a fire or any kind of catastrophe really cares about the race or gender or religion of the person, as long as that person can do the job. I mean, if I had to choose between this guy or this guy, that's an easy choice. But we hear time and time again that city employees should look like the community they serve. And at first blush, that sounds wholesome. Here's something to think about: I live in a city right north of San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge. In my town, over 82% of the residents are white, and only 0.3% of them are black. Should our city workforce really mirror that? I mean, that would mean only one black person for every 300 employees. I grew up in Arcadia, California, near LA, a city that's overwhelmingly Asian. Should its employees match those demographics? Or should a better policy be to instead try for firefighters, police, and teachers: find people who are good at their job and have good character, and not try to judge them by the color of their skin? Because there are downsides to DEI and prioritizing diversity. Now, I'm getting away from statistics here because it's difficult to quantify, but it's a real issue. When an organization prioritizes non-paramount concerns, it can hurt their overall mission. Let me share something I've seen firsthand in multiple organizations. Now, I was a senior manager at Fox News for about 20 years, and I hated firing people. It was horrible for them and emotional for everyone involved. But sometimes people just couldn't do their job, and there was nothing we could do to fix it. But here's a reality people don't often talk about: I could fire a young white guy at will. I'd call up HR, explain the situation, and that would be it. But if that person was older, or a minority, or a female, there were always multiple meetings and extra accommodations made. If someone checked multiple diversity boxes, we'd often have the legal department involved too, because they knew, right or wrong, a lawsuit might be coming. Now, to some, that sounds good and protective, but if you're a manager, you naturally start cutting some people more slack. You tolerate a level of incompetence among some that you wouldn't accept from anybody else. And when you have a fire chief prioritizing certain demographics, I guarantee these same dynamics are at play, especially when you're routinely filling out forms like these, wanting to know how many male or female Filipinos you have in your fire department. And there's also a matter of focus. Did the top brass focus on diversity too much instead of fighting fires? I mean, there are major concerns about how the LA Fire Department positioned resources prior to a known major windstorm. They certainly should have known that fire hydrants wouldn't work and have dealt with that ahead of time, but they didn't. And the cost isn't just in compromised standards and a lack of focus. The LA Fire Department spends over a million dollars a year just on DEI staffing. Now, that's a lot of money, even for a large department. Their equity plan openly pushes for changes in state law to bring back outright racial quotas and was surprisingly direct about sneaky ways to give more pay to firefighters who they thought were the right color. Of course, there is a flip side to this, and I understand that women and minorities have faced real discrimination in most professions. Having laws and systems to prevent that is imperative. But what we're seeing now goes way beyond preventing discrimination into something else. Let me give you one example from my personal knowledge. I had one very good friend who was a paramedic in a city near LA. Now, years back, when outright quotas were still legal, he was told that because there weren't enough managers of the right race, in his instance, it was Hispanics, for at least the next decade or so, no matter how good he was, he wouldn't be considered for a promotion solely because he was white. Now, they called it affirmative action, but from his point of view, it was ugly racism sanctioned by the government. Now, that certainly hurts morale, and it just seems as though the goal should be ensuring everyone has a fair shot at becoming a firefighter or a manager or whatever that is, not ensuring that every firehouse matches census data. So I reject many of the arguments that I see in this whole topic. I mean, we want equal opportunities, but the warm and fuzzy push for diversity for diversity's sake, there's a definite downside to that that can't be ignored. But I was happy to see that despite that, in firefighting at least, they're not overtly lowering standards to make that diversity happen.
So, on a related topic, while we're talking about women, there's something that's undeniably true, but you can get in trouble for saying it. It seems on average, women are more neurotic than men. Now, that sounds like an insult, but it's not. It's got strong science behind it being true, and it's got some interesting theories as to why. Here's a short video showing you what I learned about that. Hey, thanks for watching. I love doing this research and sharing it with you. I'm active in the comments, and I hope I did a fair job here. Take care.