News
Are women employees born equal?
First published in The Independent, 19 December 2007.
Firefighting is an occupation which - almost universally - is steeped in tradition. A masculine, tough-guy tradition.
And none more so than in New York where the legendary FDNY would boast literally generations of firemen from the same hard, stoic families.
In the 1970s, however, as women were claiming equality in employment, a case was brought - successfully - to challenge the male monopoly in the firefighting profession.
It succeeded and as a result, the Fire Department of New York was forced to allow women to apply to join its service.
About 90 women turned up to sit that first test. Precisely none of them passed.
Why? Because the test was set deliberately so that, based on average figures for female height, weight and strength - no woman could pass. In fact, only the strongest, fittest man would have been able to clear the required hurdle.
Many Americans were appalled by this show of male chauvinism. One woman, a successful student at law school, gave away a promising career in law to become one of New York's first female firefighters.
Her name was Brenda Berkman, and to achieve this feat she had to endure several years of legal battling - and then pass an arduous test. Her story is now the subject of a binding documentary called Taking the Heat.
Berkman's success turned upon an argument that equality in employment did not necessarily equate to requiring men and women to sit the same test. The fact is, as a simple equation of average physical dimensions and capacities, women cannot be expected to do the same things as men. But that does not necessarily mean that they cannot do the same job: it just might mean that they might have to do it differently.
This revelation led to a complete rethink in the fire service, as it probably did in many other occupations. Put simply, women could be trained to be effective firefighters by performing the required tasks of the role in a manner different to that which had previously prevailed.
For example, women could be taught to drag people out of a burning building primarily using the strength in their legs rather than carrying them atop their shoulders (akin to the sort of scene that one might expect to see in Backdraft).
This sort of realisation might seem simple but the inherent discrimination possible in this sort of case is, according to some recent academic writing, still part of our everyday society.
A recent thesis by an American academic Jessica Roberts titled Accommodating the Female Body likens the issue to the challenges faced by disabled people in the workplace.
Problems arise not necessarily because of the person's inability to do certain things but in the inability for the environment to accommodate those incapacities.
For example, a person in a wheelchair may be able to programme a computer and administer an employer's network. But if the building in which the person is required to work does not have wheelchair access, or a workstation that can accommodate a wheelchair, the person is practically incapable of performing the job.
The argument is made that, perhaps at a more subtle level, women can face the same sort of challenges.
Certain environments have been designed with men in mind meaning that, as a matter of pure practicality, it is more difficult (or even impossible) for women to perform the role required.
Perhaps the best example offered is that of a fighter pilot.
The person flying a combat aircraft needs to be able to sit freely in a cockpit, with full access to all required instruments and controls. Further, the person needs to sit at a particular height to enable them to see in all required directions whilst flying.
A court in the United States has established that it would be possible to design a cockpit in an almost infinite number of ways to accommodate these different requirements. The manufacturers of such aircraft have, however, decided that the minimum height that will be accommodated is 5 feet 7 inches.
Because the average height of women is less than that of men, this means that a greater percentage of the female population is thereby rendered unable to perform the fighter pilot role.
And that, Ms Roberts argues, is inherently discriminatory.
The more interesting question, however, is whether any action would be conceivable by such a woman against the manufacturer of aircraft on the basis of this apparent discrimination.
Under New Zealand's human rights legislation, it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender - unless an employer can demonstrate a genuine occupational reason for doing so. It may, however, be a long stretch to argue that the actual manufacture of an article (such as a fighter plane) is, in itself, a breach of the law, even though there may be real merit to Ms Roberts arguments.
This recent academic thesis provides some real food for thought - 30 years on from the amazing trials of Brenda Berkman and the FDNY.
