One more last working class hero

Jefferson 1990; Fielding 1991 1999; Young 1991 and 1995; McConville, and Shepherd 1992; Punch 1993;
Northern 1995; Pallister 1998; Campbell 1999; Dodd 1999; Mcpherson 1999; Norton-Taylor 1999; Chapters 3-6).
Currently, on the mainland the extent to which UK policing can be seen as manual labour may be increasing, and
what is interesting about the police (political allegiances apart), is that the more reactive policing gets the more public
support they loose.
It is not the same for firefighters, who are rarely criticised by the public and in stark contrast to the police are
more often seen as the public’s friend. The fire service also differs because it has a TUC affiliated trade union with
considerable working class credentials based on democratic leadership. However, it may be that a central argument of
this report, which is that firefighter form their masculinity by proving themselves in the action side of their job, may
also apply to police officers who could be seen to prefer crime fighting to crime prevention and the arduous and
meticulous work involved in solving crimes.
Nevertheless, whilst the fire service may appear similar to other public servants, it is not the same. This report will argue
that firefighters have found a way to keep public support and this is a fundamental to firefighters’ resistance and their
gender construction in at least two ways. First, in general terms the public support the commonsense notions concerning
masculinity, and more specifically that firefighters are masculine and male (see Chapters 1 and 5). Second, I take the view
that the public are primary stakeholders in ‘Best Value’ terms and as such they provide support to and justify firefighters
who resist attempts to cut and deskill the fire service 71 .
17
1.11. THEORETICAL VIEWS ON GENDER
Most cultures socially construct gender by labelling occupations, activities and goals as either masculine or feminine.
These binary gender divisions polarise gender characteristics to advantage men and what is seen as appropriate behaviour
in one sex, is sanctioned in the ‘other’ 72 . Men it appears always see women as the ‘other’, that which is not man. For
firefighters this report will argue that the ‘other’ is that which is not firefighter (a person who cannot fight fires, sometimes
referred to as the civvie). The use of ‘other in very simple generalised terms can lead to a society that encourages
boys/men to:
• think ‘rationally’;
• limit their emotions and caring skills;
• develop their ability to be physically and mentally tough;
• prove they are not sissy/feminine.
These standards are all what men believe the ‘other’ (women) cannot do. This list is also a set of characteristics that
firefighters would say form a fundamental requirement of their job/masculinity. The polarised opposite happens for
girls/women. They are encouraged to ‘prove’ their femininity by:
• connecting with their emotions;
• being unthreatening, attractive and caring (for men);
• limit their physical skills and experience within a narrow feminine range;
• prove their attractiveness by demonstrating dependence on men.
In even simpler terms, these social characteristics lead to the belief that ‘boys don’t cry and girls do’ (Frieze et al 1978;
Toch 1998). All roads point to men’s superiority and a world led by masculine standards makes a self-fulfilling-prophecy
out of a gender hierarchy erected on those standards. The outcome is a view in which “[m]ass culture generally assumes
there is a fixed, true masculinity … inherent in a man’s body” (Connell 1995: 45; see also Kant 1959; Pateman and Gross
1986: 5; Cockburn 1991a: 206; Hearn 1994; Seidler 1997; HMCIFS 1998; Kimmel and Messner 1998). This
commonsense understanding, in turn, underpins men’s assumptions that they are the (pre-ordained) dominant sex and the
71 Young 2000, argues that the Strategic Fire Authority is the ‘primary stakeholder’ and that the public are the ‘secondary stakeholder’; see also Hutton
1995; Chapters 1 and 5.
72 This view is supported by a number of writers, although their reasoning may differ they all consider that the social environment influences gender
(Kanter 1977; Millett 1971; MacKinnon 1979; Hartmann 1981; O’Brien 1981; Hochschild 1983, 1989; Gerson 1986; Pateman and Gross 1986; Walby
1986, 1990, 1997, 2000; Bradley 1989, 1992, 1994; Segal 1990; Cockburn 1991a, 1991b; Collinson et al 1990; Humm 1992; Morgan, 1992; Hearn 1994
1996; Connell 1989, 1993, 1995, 1996, 2000; Hollway 1996; Kemp and Squires 1997).