Because that’s the bargain we accept in exchange for rampant stolen valor.
In the real world, women shrink away from virtually all danger.
Women flee war while their men are conscripted to die.
Female cops wait for male police officers to handle the violent criminals.
Women rely on men to fight fires and rescue people.
Women enjoy the cushy office jobs while men build and maintain all of the infrastructure.
So when you watch or play or read some piece of media that features a 50/50 split with women occupying all of these dangerous and heroic roles - which they virtually never occupy in real life - it’s just dishonest and retarded. It’s a false experience that doesn’t map into our observable reality.
We can tolerate this nonsense if and only if the female characters involved are idealized. Are they nice to look at? Are they pleasant to interact with or read? If yes, then maybe we suspend disbelief and try to have some fun. That’s why men don’t object to hot, agreeable Mary Sues.
But the moment these liars are also made to be ugly bitchy feminists, there’s no motivation for us to continue suspending our disbelief. You’re an unrealistic girl boss and butt ugly and an asshole? Gee, where do I sign up?
You are correct: there are VERY few women who could pass the test (even with training beforehand) but if they can? If they're legit firefighters? Then more power to them.
iirc the first girl to pass (many years ago) served 7 years without any complaints by her or against her. Since then there's been maybe 10? 12?
Note: this is for full time professional fire fighters. There's been MANY female volunteers in small communities over the past 100+ years.
In theory, yes. In practice, no. Because what happens in reality is that you get a few women who really do have merit. But because they now exist somewhere, even if it's 1:1000 and there's none in 1000 miles, every fire station is going to be required to have facilities to accommodate these theoretical female fire fighters who may not even exist in the county.
And it sucks for those who want to do it and are capable of doing it. But it's not the taxpayers responsibility to subsidize their dream job either. And that's before "I'm offended" lawsuits, maternal leave, and a whole host of additional costs that aren't benefitting anyone but the employee. Despite current wisdom, making employees feel validated is not the point of hiring employees. If they can perform at the same level per cost, that would be a different story but then they would have to outperform the male applicants.