omen did not have. Women were kept out of firefighting because those opposed to their entry argued that women did not have the strength to do what might be required in emergency situations. The strength of women was also questioned with respect to routine firefighting work such as carrying equipment up ladders and controlling high-pressure hoses during fires. Those opposed to women as firefighters maintained that they would be jeopardizing the lives of victims of fires as well as other firefighters.
             Women also met opposition to becoming firefighters on the ground that firefighting, like police and military work, required especially strong bonds between individuals working together under demanding, as well as often physically challenging, conditions. Individuals working together in such hazardous, stressful work would have to have a high level of dependence on one another. Women would disrupt the male bonding which took place among groups of men firefighters so they could work together as a cohesive team, so the opponents of women in firefighting argued. (Yoder, 1997, 328-32) As the opponents argued, men just would not--and could not--bond with women the way they could with other men to form a reliable, highly-skilled, cohesive firefighting unit. Nor could men ever depend on women in hazardous or emergency situations in the way that was necessary to met these effectively.
             While women have overcome these objections to prove that they could perform firefighting work, including nearly all of the physical work, as effectively as men and have not disrupted the bonding and mutual dependence required for a firefighting unit to work effectively and professionally, women nonetheless continue to face subtler forms of discrimination. While women may find it easier to get work as firefighters, they continue to face subtle forms of resentment and discrimination which discourage larger numbers from entering the field, take a toll on wome...