here's a thread gaureteed to cause controversy...

Alright. I get you both, Draziw and 8*B@LL.

Police work in Sweden and in the US is quite different I guess but I still think female police officers have a place to fill in a modern law enforcement agency.

The way I see it, police work is so much more that physical labour. It's a about psychology. It's about helping people. It's about understanding very complex psychological situations.

Female cops can talk to gang bangers or whatever in a way that a male cop can't because the gang banger doesn't feel threatened/patronized/whatever by a female.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

What I find wrong with the system isnt just about women, but about the favoring of minoritys in general. I am a police officer candidate, and scored 97 of 100 on my entry exam. Yet I am not placed because I am a "white" male, so I am of the majority applying.
I have nothing against ANY other race or gender. What my grudge is watching someone who scored lower than me get placed first because a quota must be filled, where so many of this race or so many of that gender must be placed. I say we should be putting those who did the best on the force, not by a government quota, but by the ability to perform and do the job. Would you want someone defending your life and property, etc, simply because of race/gender and not because they were the best person for the job??
My 0.02

Avenger

All about quotas unfortunately. When the masses allow themselves to be led by fools with certain agendas, political correctness is only one of the downsides.

Seems like this thread is running a bit wild. There's an excellent discussion going onhere on reverse discrimination, affirmative action and what not.

I'm still of the opinion that affirmative action can be a good thing at certain times. It does not, however, have anything to do with feminism.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by 8*B@LL
i mean why is it that the physical standards for a woman to get a job as a police officer in connecticut is a joke while the standards for men are quite high? for instance(all numbers gathered from www.policecertification.com - a website for the company that does the physical testing in CT, where i happen to work from time to time):
a 21 year old male has to do 40 situps in 60 seconds, sit and reach 17.5", benchpress 106% of his weight, and run a mile and a half in 11 mins 49 seconds
while a 21 year old female has to do only 35 situps in 60 seconds, sit and reach 20", benchpress 65% of her weight, and run a mile and a half in 14:08

now, look at these standards. they are drastically different, but they HAVE to be to avoid "sex discrimination" law suits. there is nothing fair or just about this. if we are going to do physical assesment, it should be UNIVERSAL(btw, this includes getting rid of the different requirements for different ages). what i want to see is the only fastest strongest cops, only the best coders, only the most proficiant at WHATEVER the job is.

---

Ok, the lessening on the sit-up requirements is ok, because it is offset by the sit-and-reach, where the women have to reach 2.5" longer. But a woman should be able to lift 106% of their body weight, and their 1.5 mile time should be reduced (not necessarily equal, but close). If you look at marathons, the women's pack always finishes behind the men's pack -- not by much, but enough to demonstrate that men are naturally faster than women. But it also shows that women can make those marks (hell, I can make the men's running reqs, and I'm in crappy shape!!). But the lifting reqs should be the same, as the equality is taken into consideration by using percent of body weight.

Let's face it -- it you can't lift your own body, how do you expect to restrain a 200 pound speed addict? It's not safe for the public, and it certainly puts the women at risk. Standards are put in place for everybody's safety, and should never be lowered to avoid offense and 'quotas'.

And stuff like this would piss me off if I were a woman or a minority. I would want the job because I earned it, because I the best person for the job, not because of my sex or race. Hell, that's discrimination in and of itself, IMHO. All because soem people whined about equality and took it too far.

I'm all for equality, and equal rights. However, I fail to see how Affirmitive Action and the like make things equal by tipping odds in other's favors, just because of their minority status. Somehow, I think we have to change people's attitudes toward one another, rather than institute policies to make up for it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by DarkGuardian
Ok, the lessening on the sit-up requirements is ok, because it is offset by the sit-and-reach, where the women have to reach 2.5" longer.

---

well not really...the sit and reach is just a simple flexibility test that NOBODY fails(well, almost nobody). all you have to do is sit down with your feet against a wall and reach as far farwards as you can. i cant see how this could in any way make up for not having to be able to do the same ammount of sit-ups

Quote:

---

But a woman should be able to lift 106% of their body weight

---

agreed.

Quote:

---

their 1.5 mile time should be reduced (not necessarily equal, but close). If you look at marathons, the women's pack always finishes behind the men's pack -- not by much, but enough to demonstrate that men are naturally faster than women.

---

erm...well a marathon is 26 miles, so if you were to keep the same ratio, but scale it down to only a mile and a half it would be AT MOST a difference of about 15 or 20 seconds...not something in the order of minuits like that is. also, who cares if men are naturally faster? isn't getting the best people for the job all that matters?

Quote:

---

And stuff like this would piss me off if I were a woman or a minority. I would want the job because I earned it, because I the best person for the job, not because of my sex or race. Hell, that's discrimination in and of itself, IMHO. All because soem people whined about equality and took it too far.

---

exactly, all it takes is a few pissed off idiots and next thing you know there are such stupid things as "race quota's" and "sex quota's"(and not in the good way :D

Quote:

---

I'm all for equality, and equal rights. However, I fail to see how Affirmitive Action and the like make things equal by tipping odds in other's favors, just because of their minority status. Somehow, I think we have to change people's attitudes toward one another, rather than institute policies to make up for it.

---

most definatly agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Mankan
Alright. I get you both, Draziw and 8*B@LL.
[...]
Female cops can talk to gang bangers or whatever in a way that a male cop can't because the gang banger doesn't feel threatened/patronized/whatever by a female.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

---

I see what you're getting at, but gang bangers are, in-general, going to be less respective of a female they might be able to intimidate than a big burly dude with no neck, wearing a handgun and a bullet proof vest who can't put his arms all the way down to his size because his lats are so freakin' big (and yes, seems to be a lot of male cops that look that way in and around violent neighborhoods (in California, that's Oakland, East Palo Alto, and all sorts of places in the LA area)).

In those areas, I'd presonally say that the women cops can go in to "psych," but that's primarily people who talk to jumpers or hostage negotiators, as far as I know.

Quote:

---

In those areas, I'd presonally say that the women cops can go in to "psych," but that's primarily people who talk to jumpers or hostage negotiators, as far as I know.

---

Yeah it might be so. I dunno. Still, there seems to be a need for female cops too.
Anyway, seems like we've reached some sort of consensus. Thanks for a most interesting discussion. :)

yes, i'd say we have a relitive consensus, but i still dont quite understand where the NEED for female cops comes from...just like i dont see where the NEED for male cops is. all i want is the best, male/femal, black/white/other...doesnt matter to me, as long as they can get the job done. for instance, i would rather have Chyna(i think thats how she spells her name...the WWF chick who was in playboy) as a cop than some of the wimpy-looking guys that i have personally tested(like i sad above(i think), i work for that poliece certification company from time to time) because of her mere intimidation factor...i mean she's HUGE.

my problem really is with this idea that there is a "need" for X type of person, when infact, the only need i see is for the person who gets the job done the best.

Yes there is a need for female police officers. When you have a woman or girl who is brutalized, beaten or raped by a man...she is not going to talk to a man, she is not going to feel comfortable with a man, she is not going to report the crime to a man. Whether you like the physical requirements or not, it is a fact of life. A very large number of violent crimes commited (in the US anyway) are commited by men to women. That is where the need for female officers come in.

I have been following this thread for several days, and I think you've not come to a concensus. I think you've come to an agreement of men patting themselves on the back for agreeing that "letting" women have a physical job is pretty decent of you men.

Deb