Have you been to K-Mart recently? Women are not always smaller than men.
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.
"Is it my imagination, or does it seem like Alan Colmes gets serious constipation whenever she is on with Hannity?"
I've noticed that, too, and you're right...Alan IS scared sh*tless of Ann, LOL!
Great article. And I agree with her 100%, even with being retired Army and female myself. There are some jobs that females shouldn't do. (I'm bulking up so I can pass Ann's pickle jar test...)
Let's all send her jars of pickles! Wouldn't that be funny? She'd get the humor.
While females are fine in some areas of public safety in others I see hazards. Firefighters have to be able to lift heavy equipment, rescue potentially heavy civilians and do other tasks that require considerable upper body strength. Sorry gals the typical female doesn't have this strength and is often accomodated with reduced physical requirements in selection to comply with equal opportunity. On the contrary I have worked with female paramedics who are well suited to their role.
With the suicidal non-Muslim folks that keep popping up, I would expect deliberate attempts to be quite frequent...
Ann and Matt Drudge are good buddies. A good match. Both are pretty fearless.
Have you been to K-Mart recently? Women are not always smaller than men.
But if they want to kill a lot of people, they can do it on the ground without having to use up a perfectly good suicide fanatic.
But there haven't been any major attacks against the US since Sept 11. I think the reason is that radical Islamists have realized that terror doesn't work on Americans the way it does on, for example, Spanish voters or Italians or the Clinton administration. When terrorists attacked us, they lost two host countries.
Piece of cake,I showed my wife the process, many times over; Turn the jar upside down, give it a good whack on the bottom until you hear a "pop", turn around twist the cap...and "voila" it is open!
The secret is that you have to whack it, really, really hard to pop. It takes some ooomph to do it. Female wise good luck with the tiny hands!
BTW she always is asking me to open all jars no matter what, because she ain't got no ooomph!
It was surreal..we had gotten the situation somewhat under control and she came in like she was Hulk Hogan and put all of us in danger...and the other cops naturally became protective of her and we got pepper sprayed. It was out of control.
P.S. your parents gave you a great name
Equal Opportunity for Guards (It's not just PC; It's the [Judge-Made-Up] Law)
Duke Law Journal ^ | ukn | John Dwight Ingram
Posted on 03/15/2005 7:57:33 AM PST by wouldntbprudent
III. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR GUARDS
A. Title VII
Both male and female guards have frequently claimed a right to gender-neutral employment in prisons housing inmates of the opposite gender. Their claims are based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits gender discrimination in employment.73 Because there are far more male inmates in prison than there are females, in most states there are only one or two women's facilities.74 If women can only guard women, there will be fewer jobs open to women [SHREIK!!!!!!], and it may well be that none of those that are available will be near the guard's home.[GASP!!!!!!!}]
(Excerpt) Read more at law.duke.edu ...
Many LE agency policies are driven by the results of lawsuits, where female officers claimed they were discriminated against if they weren't allowed to do every job men did and just the way men did it.
Yeah, it was SUPREMELY stupid for the Atlanta sheriff's office to handle the Brian Nichols case the way it did.
OTOH, what's a sheriff's office to do if it assigns duties based on physical strength, etc. and that happens to lessen the job opportunities for, gasp, women?
There's no excuse for all the mistakes made in Atlanta. But the bigger picture is that this is MORE ROTTEN FRUIT FROM THE ROTTEN JUDICIAL TREE in America.
A lot of this crapola is because judges are legislating agency policies from the bench instead of leaving it to, say, professional law enforcement agents who might still employ a modicum of common sense.
GO ANN!
It's judges that crammed these dangerous PC policies down the throats of many otherwise common-sense people. It's judges that are partly responsible for these deaths by harping to employers, on pain of stiff economic and political penalty, that they MUST ignore the realities of the genders.
perhaps the question should be - can I name any man cantankerous enough! (answer is "no")
didn't Heather Locklear also have a turn as a policewoman? With Will Shatner? Or am I confusing my tvland?
Not only did pipsqueak escort Nichols, she (1) escorted him alone, and (2) was required to take off his handcuffs so he could change into civilian clothes, so as to not be discriminated against as a prisoner. Oh and (3) the guys supposedly watching on the vid cameras for any funny business were getting a donut at the time.
Rich, Dowd, Pinch, et. al., I have a very funny line to type, ready?
"Paper of Record."
Yep. And I'm the queen of England.
5.56mm
Wonder how many of the vast left wing conspiracy want their gandmothers in this situation? What a tragedy.
Great line though.
Maybe you should contact her directly. I'm sure she would be happy to assist.
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.