Posted on 03/16/2005 3:57:24 PM PST by AZ_Cowboy
How many people have to die before the country stops humoring feminists? Last week, a defendant in a rape case, Brian Nichols, wrested a gun from a female deputy in an Atlanta courthouse and went on a murderous rampage. Liberals have proffered every possible explanation for this breakdown in security except the giant elephant in the room – who undoubtedly has an eating disorder and would appreciate a little support vis-à-vis her negative body image.
The New York Times said the problem was not enough government spending on courthouse security ("Budgets Can Affect Safety Inside Many Courthouses"). Yes, it was tax-cuts-for-the-rich that somehow enabled a 200-pound former linebacker to take a gun from a 5-foot-tall grandmother.
Atlanta court officials dispensed with any spending issues the next time Nichols entered the courtroom when he was escorted by 17 guards and two police helicopters. He looked like P. Diddy showing up for a casual dinner party.
I think I have an idea that would save money and lives: Have large men escort violent criminals. Admittedly, this approach would risk another wave of nausea and vomiting by female professors at Harvard. But there are also advantages to not pretending women are as strong as men, such as fewer dead people. Even a female math professor at Harvard should be able to run the numbers on this one.
Of course, it's suspiciously difficult to find any hard data about the performance of female cops. Not as hard as finding the study showing New Jersey state troopers aren't racist, but still pretty hard to find.
Mostly what you find on Lexis-Nexis are news stories quoting police chiefs who have been browbeaten into submission, all uttering the identical mantra after every public-safety disaster involving a girl cop. It seems that female officers compensate for a lack of strength with "other" abilities, such as cooperation, empathy and intuition.
There are lots of passing references to "studies" of uncertain provenance, but which always sound uncannily like a press release from the Feminist Majority Foundation. (Or maybe it was The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, which recently released a study claiming that despite Memogate, "Fahrenheit 9/11," the Richard Clarke show and the jihad against the Swift Boat Veterans, the press is being soft on Bush.)
The anonymous "studies" about female officers invariably demonstrate that women make excellent cops – even better cops than men! One such study cited an episode of "She's the Sheriff," starring Suzanne Somers.
A 1993 news article in the Los Angeles Times, for example, referred to a "study" – cited by an ACLU attorney – allegedly proving that "female officers are more effective at making arrests without employing force because they are better at de-escalating confrontations with suspects." No, you can't see the study or have the name of the organization that performed it, and why would you ask?
There are roughly 118 million men in this country who would take exception to that notion. I wonder if women officers "de-escalate" by mentioning how much more money their last suspect made.
These aren't unascertainable facts, like Pinch Sulzberger's SAT scores. The U.S. Department of Justice regularly performs comprehensive surveys of state and local law enforcement agencies, collected in volumes called "Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics."
The inestimable economist John Lott has looked at the actual data. (And I'll give you the citation! John R. Lott Jr., "Does a Helping Hand Put Others at Risk? Affirmative Action, Police Departments and Crime," Economic Inquiry, April 1, 2000.)
It turns out that, far from "de-escalating force" through their superior listening skills, female law enforcement officers vastly are more likely to shoot civilians than their male counterparts. (Especially when perps won't reveal where they bought a particularly darling pair of shoes.)
Unable to use intermediate force, like a bop on the nose, female officers quickly go to fatal force. According to Lott's analysis, each 1 percent increase in the number of white female officers in a police force increases the number of shootings of civilians by 2.7 percent.
Adding males to a police force decreases the number of civilians accidentally shot by police. Adding black males decreases civilian shootings by police even more. By contrast, adding white female officers increases accidental shootings. (And for my Handgun Control Inc. readers: Private citizens are much less likely to accidentally shoot someone than are the police, presumably because they do not have to approach the suspect and make an arrest.)
In addition to accidentally shooting people, female law enforcement officers are also more likely to be assaulted than male officers – as the whole country saw in Atlanta last week. Lott says: "Increasing the number of female officers by 1 percentage point appears to increase the number of assaults on police by 15 percent to 19 percent."
In addition to the obvious explanations for why female cops are more likely to be assaulted and to accidentally shoot people – such as that our society encourages girls to play with dolls – there is also the fact that women are smaller and weaker than men.
In a study of public-safety officers – not even the general population – female officers were found to have 32 percent to 56 percent less upper body strength and 18 percent to 45 percent less lower body strength than male officers – although their outfits were 43 percent more coordinated. (Here's the cite! Frank J. Landy, "Alternatives to Chronological Age in Determining Standards of Suitability for Public Safety Jobs," Technical Report, Vol. 1, Jan. 31, 1992.)
Another study I've devised involves asking a woman to open a jar of pickles.
There is also the telling fact that feminists demand that strength tests be watered down so that women can pass them. Feminists simultaneously demand that no one suggest women are not as strong as men and then turn around and demand that all the strength tests be changed. It's one thing to waste everyone's time by allowing women to try out for police and fire departments under the same tests given to men. It's quite another to demand that the tests be brawned-down so no one ever has to tell female Harvard professors that women aren't as strong as men.
Acknowledging reality wouldn't be all bad for women. For one thing, they won't have to confront violent felons on methamphetamine. So that's good. Also, while a sane world would not employ 5-foot-tall grandmothers as law enforcement officers, a sane world would also not give full body-cavity searches to 5-foot-tall grandmothers at airports.
They should use handicapped bathrooms, because obviously they are mentally handicapped.
The deadly dosing of Political Correctness has long since passed the LD50 for America. I fear it is too late to turn around the decline so carefully plotted by the feminists and ushered along by the liberal societal engineering courts. Any DNC voting constituency must be fed the usual bilge spittle.
LOL! Of course, the judges have some blame in this as well. They don't want the perp to look like a perp in front of the jury. Shackles and lots of court room officiers makes the perp look bad, and we can't have that.
No disrespect, but get back to me in ten years and let me know if you feel differently about things then than you do now....
Then where is the burden of proof? If a company has mostly male engineers, does the company have to prove that men make better engineers, or do the plaintiffs in a discrimination suit have to prove that men and women have equal ability and therefore the company discriminates.
It is an important question because engineering is just as much a life and death occupation as being a guard at courthouse.
I am a Marine military policeman (Reserve). Our MOS is the only one where women will be sent into combat. It is true that women are weaker than men, but the most important factor is controlled aggression. Often times a man might think, since he is almost always bigger, that a women is a pushover. However, if the women policeman is aggressive (ie yells, threatens in a sure manner, displays ability to exert force through mannerisms), the man will submit. Also note that civilian police in dangerous areas are usually in pairs, so the strength of the male officer and the more tacit nature of the female officer compliment each other well.
Also, I remember my Senior Drill Instructor telling us then-recruits a story about how he dated a woman Marine Military Policeman. He said she thought she was so tough, as is the reputation for Marine MPs. So, despite being a woman she thought her self bad a$$ as well. That story ended on a funny note, however...
Your profile says you love the military. If you really want to go into law enforcement and surmount the stereotype that women and weaker, less active, less aggressive, then join the Marine Corps military police occupational field. You will be exptected to do pretty much the same as guys, and if you can equal them in all standards, you will be one of the fewer, the prouder--a woman Marine.
Can you name anyone who would be worthy?
I absolutely agree with this. We should not searching passengers for weapons and we should not be prohibiting people from carrying them. If citizens were allowed to carry weapons on planes, the 9/11 attacks would not have occurred.
Hey Tyne Daly did the right thing in the Dirty Harry flick - she soaked up about 30 bullets.
Too bad she came back to haunt television.
Like a stake in the heart of a Vampire.
Cheers,
knews hound
A single bullet can down an aircraft. There are some deranged people our there, who care little for their own lives. There is also misfires...
That's the problem for Ann and for Laura Ingraham. Women marry up. That's a tough bill to fill for these two.
I agree with that, too, but I have yet to here of grandmothers getting full cavity searches at airports. Did I miss a thread here?
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighting Male Troops
But seriously, that scene is like something from an old Blake Edwards comedy.
"These aren't unascertainable facts, like Pinch Sulzberger's SAT scores."
Guess Ann wouldn't be doing any work for the NY Times anyway, so no personal risk here. LOL.
I made some of the same comments yesterday, and some people I work with looked at me like I was a space alien, or something. Incredible.......... and Duh!
Good article from the supposed "Michael Moore of the right." I'm looking forward to the next time Moore, or anyone on the left that I've seen, puts out anything half as reasonable as this.
Each of them was at least 6' tall, and at least 200, built like a tank. I was swooning.....
If a woman can't perform to male standards, then she has no business being out there.
Yes, and it has happened when a man shot out the cockpit windshield (he got past security because he was a commercial pilot). But that was because no one else on the plane was armed.
Only a deliberate attempt to down the plane would be a risk. You can shoot a hole in the fuselage or even a passenger window with little effect. The explosive decompression scenario in "Goldfinger" is a movie myth.
For years people were allowed to carry guns on planes and there were very seldom incidents. But after they were banned we had many more hijackings and then Sept 11 which resulted in huge damage to the economy, the airline industry, and the overthrow of two countries.
I think we it would be better off to deal with the occasional armed nut by armed passengers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.