Okay, I admit it, I´ve also been quietly following the thread.
ANd i also admit it: I´m a feminist.
And Mankan, I´m with you from the very start of it :)
Printable View
Okay, I admit it, I´ve also been quietly following the thread.
ANd i also admit it: I´m a feminist.
And Mankan, I´m with you from the very start of it :)
Quote:
Originally posted here by debwalin
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.
Agreed. Women are needed in the Police Force. Women, not only have advantages as you mention, and in those situations, but have a different way of dealing with perps, which can be quite beneficial. Sometimes a different way of handling people can produce the best results. But to reserve women for just these special instances seems like a bad idea. Women officers should be as qualified for EVERY situation, because if they are male or female, they are still COPS and dealing with criminals. Therefore, they should have to deal with the same entrance requirements as anybody else. To lower the bar for women just so that they can meet a quota is obsurd, and dangerous, for both the women and the public. If they don't have the strength and stamina to handle an 200 pound wife-beater, they aren't going to get a chance to deal with the victim. If you want to have a person to just handle female victims, get a social worker. A cop should be able to handle themselves in ANY situation, regardless of sex, race, or age, or actual position in the force.
Gee, I thought the consensus was that there should be no differences between entrance requirements for both men and women. I wouldn't "let" a woman have a job, just as I wouldn't let a "man" have a job. I would let the best person have the job. As long as they can meet the specifications laid down by the PD.Quote:
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
I've know women police officers. I've known women soldiers. Hell, I've even met women fighter pilots. I know that they could ALL hold their own against their male equivalents. I have no problems what so ever with women in any job. I'm all for equality in the sexes. But as I've said before, it comes with making things equal, not by lowering the bar so that women have an easier time and statisticallly it looks equal. Instead, people's attitudes should be changed -- in particular, the HR director who has it in his head that a man would be better suited for the position. I know that is why these AA policies were put into place -- to offset that mindset. But personally, if I were in that position, I would be insulted to be hired to meet a quota. I would want to be hired because they thought I was the best for the position, not to bump up a statistic.
As someone in the field, let me offer some of my own insights....
Police Work (as in most so called "Physical Professions" like Solidering and the like) is actually mostly paperwork and inter-personal skills. Few Cops pull there guns, and even fewer use them. Being able to beat someone to a bloody pulp is no longer the most important skill. Being able to effectively communicate with the community, however, is. As deb said, female victims want to speak to female police officers. Same with minorities. One of the biggest issues we have in the field (that is a Gov't Agency requesting a police officer to take a report) is getting a police officer who is a woman or speaks a forgien language.
Now to get more police that have these skills, we have to change (some here might call it lowering) the physical standards so that people who spend more time on their mind than their body building can make it into the academy. Sure some women can make the same standards as men, but that lowers the number of acceptable applicants, and prevents us from getting the numbers we need. Likewise police agencies make exceptions for cadidates with special skills, such as a second language and the like...
An exception to this rule: SWAT teams/Civil Disturbance Units (CDUs)/Emergency Response Teams all have the same standards for men and women. These specialized units have more men than women, but as they mostly are responsible for "physical" work (i.e. breaking heads) they do not have the need of the diversity of knowledge and experience that a beat cop needs.
Just my 2¢.
BTW As a man who thinks that women are or should be given equal chances as men, I consider myself a feminist....
Here is my short and Simple answer:
I DOn't care, not that the topic isn't good, but as it stand's only Short-sighted people even notice the diference, men and women are basicaly the same on eatch and every level, so why whine about it, I can't see why a woman couldn't do a man's job just as well any one else, and there for, there should be no sutch thing as "A Man's Job"
At least that's how I feel.....
Don't flame, it's just my 2 cent's, I can't change the world, but I can have my twisted opinion's :)
- Noia
:D
Ouch. :(Quote:
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.
That sort of offended me. I can't really see where, in what's been written so far, you've been able to experience this patronisation or whatever you want to call it.
I don't feel that way at all because I know that I myself would've reacted to any "shoulder patting" going on.
I have only argued for an actual demand, a need for female police officers. Others have debated against it, the argument beeing that if physical standards need to be lowered in order for women to stand a chance, the profession in question is not for women.
The argument was originally that the word feminism was used in a wrongful way. When the thread drifted away to physical standards I noticed a concensus in that there is an actuall need for both sexes in the law enforcement business.
i have to agree with noia on this one
i think considering the main job focused on by this thread being an officer of the law that as some one from the field jcmcb mad his view known very well he definatly has the most objective view to the situation
ok i didnt read this much but i say that ill fight beside any woman in combat if she earns it. i dont mean that if she reaches her 'female' standards. i mean if she reached my 'male' standards. its not like the guy shooting at you will say, oh shes a woman, shes physicaly slower than a male so ill only shoot at her once every 10 or so shots....... hell no, shell get picked out and picked off in no time. but then again, if shes faster than me, stronger than me, and can shoot better than me, then damnit shes a better soldier than me and ill be the first to admit it! but im not talking on this graded slope for women thing. if she can sctualy take me to the ground, out run me, and out shot me, THEN ill stand beside her in combat. army doctrine is to meave no man behind. thats in the event of a retreat, now if your riunning for your life do you really wanna have to go as slow as your slowest member which hapens to be a famale and shes running with her 18 min 2mile time, while i make a 13 min 2 mile? nope, not me. not to say that if the **** hit the fan i wouldnt not suport a female that just hapened to end up beside me some how, no. but i wouldnt take someone that is not up to the level of the unit out with me. but if she can run my 13 min 2 mile and shoot as good as the rest of the troops then hell yeah, ill have her any day! but in combat if you cant hold your the same weight as everyone else then you unbalance everything and other people have to compensate for it. if i have on my team a woman and shes not as hardened as the rest of my troopers then this 30 mile trek were setting out for at 3am is gonna turn out to be only 20 miles cause SHE cant make it, meaning that if were to make the other 10 miles, the other people have to compensate for her, that means posibly carry her, or even just push her harder and risk injury to her, if not the unit.
for those of you that are saying that im being sexist by talking only about women, well news flash, if a man didnt hold to the standard that i set, then hes not gonna be beside me either. unfourtionatly in combat theres no going back and re planning your team cause some of them died, one shot one kill, if shes an easy target then shes dead, if shes the one thats the slowest then shes dead, if she cant fix her weapon if it jams then shes dead. theres no second chances, life is a one shot deal and if you can prove to me that a woman is as well suited to kill as this man over here then by god ill take her, till then frontline of the military is going to be off limets to women. sorry, its the truth, women are not as physicaly equiped to perforn the riggors of war.
ok thats my 2 bits, welcome any thoughts or flames
Personally, I have never been in favour of reverse discrimination, discrimination, rabid feminism, et. al..
It basically boils down to one thing: some people feel the need to segregate other people into groups. Be they women, black-skinned, olive-skinned, white, come from a different country, or speak a different language. It all boils down to segregation, be it in whole or in part. And I have a feeling that most people have something against segregation. The people who are racist, mysoginists, etc., are not the norm, they're the exception to the rule, if you will.
What you have to look at is the motivation behind creating different requirements for women than men. The motivation, as I understand it, is not because of discrimination, but rather because the police force wants more women -- along with men -- to join the police force. As it has been stated, police work isn't all about beating people constantly or running all the time, most often it's about driving around, filling out paperwork, and only occassionally running and etc.. There are legitimate reasons to have more women in the police force. Let's face it, it's real hard for a woman to rape a man. It's not anywhere near as difficult for a man to rape a woman, so it makes sense to increase the percentage of female officers with counselling training on a police force, does it not?
I'm in IT, yet the office I work in is a slim majority female. This is because while the IT department is comprised of 5 men, 1 woman, the rest of the company is comprised of 8 men, and 14 women. In total, that's 13 men, 16 women. Only one working 'position of power' is held by a man, two if you include our CEO who is only there to make company-wide decisions.
The department head positions are held by a slim majority by women, but it's a close 3-2 split as well. The pay rates are equal as well. The men who are workers in one department make the same amount of money as female workers in the same department (though it does vary based on skills).
I'm only going on about this because contrary to popular belief, there ARE places out there where women are treated equally. I'm lucky to work in one, and I don't think it's such a massive thing to have different required qualifications for women than men.
I think there ate plenty of places where women and men are treated equally but I also think we have a long way to go. I see danger in declareing the society equal just because women earn the same money as men.Quote:
I'm only going on about this because contrary to popular belief, there ARE places out there where women are treated equally. I'm lucky to work in one, and I don't think it's such a massive thing to have different required qualifications for women than men.
When the EU, the UN and the US Congress consists of 50% women we are equal. Until then I think something is wrong. I refuse to belive that women aren't interested in those kinds of jobs or that it's in their interest to break off their careers to stay home with kids or whatever.