Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Ann Coulter on female police (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Ann Coulter on female police
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree with you Dagonee. It's too bad - I think she's pretty intelligent, but I don't know, 'cause I really can't read anything she says with any sort of seriousness.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've come to the conclusion that we are suckers for polemicists. Ann, Michael, Rush, and Al come up quite a bit on these boards, and rarely does anyone say that they are a fan. Is reading, viewing, or listening to inflammatory rhetoric like watching a car accident?

Why pick the Coulter article? Is it because she's the only one who has articulated this idea or is it because she's the most controversial writer who's written on the subject? It's funny because any thread involving the aforementioned media whores inevitably hijacks itself and degenerates into a Coulter v. Moore discussion.

We are freaking suckers.

Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Big Grin]
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
Why have all the vitriol?

For the same reason why Bill O'Reilly absolutely dominates the cable news ratings and Micheal Moore rakes in a fortune in box office sales. Vitriol sells, and when employed humorously, can be quite profitable.

I remember trolling by theDemocraticUnderground after Bowling for Columbine came out. Those folks were overjoyed with glee at Moore's ambush of the obviously alzheimer's afflicted Charleton Heston.

AC plays to the exact same mentality...just on the other side of the ideological divide.

And it obviously pays very well.

Think of it. The woman has made a living for what many people do on political message boards every day for free.

Wouldn't you do it if you could make the same $$$$? [Smile]

[ March 22, 2005, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I hope I wouldn't.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK, fair enough.

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our media stars,
But in ourselves...

Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Haggis:
I've come to the conclusion that we are suckers for polemicists. Ann, Michael, Rush, and Al come up quite a bit on these boards, and rarely does anyone say that they are a fan. Is reading, viewing, or listening to inflammatory rhetoric like watching a car accident?

Why pick the Coulter article? Is it because she's the only one who has articulated this idea or is it because she's the most controversial writer who's written on the subject? It's funny because any thread involving the aforementioned media whores inevitably hijacks itself and degenerates into a Coulter v. Moore discussion.

We are freaking suckers.

Absolutely Haggis. Absolutely.

I always get a laugh at her writing...but I hardly take it all as absolute fact, and do recognize that she definitely goes over-the-top to be purposely inflammatory.

I do want to clarify though, that being a fan of a polemicist is not the same as agreeing one hundred percent with everything they say or believe.

I disagree with O'Reilly on just about 60% of every position he takes, but I do find the "Factor" an entertaining debate show, where half the time I want to throw something at the TV because Bill is pissing me off, and half the time rooting for him to bring the verbal hammer down on a schmuck guest.

In the end, polemicists turn our most serious debates into entertainment, which has good and bad effects. It keeps people engaged and interested....but it does lead to unfair demonizations and further polarization.

I wonder if their are other people that enjoy polemicists of an opposing viewpoint? I find Bill Maher, Tom Tomorrow and AL Franken interesting and entertaining as I find Ann...even though most times their is not a single thing I may agree with them about.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have a rather perverse fascination with Michael Savage. Even though he's a total nut job, I find myself listening to his show every now and then. I think it's the same perverse fascination that makes Se7en one of my favorite movies and Hannibal Lechter one of my favorite characters.
Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lewkowski
Member
Member # 2028

 - posted      Profile for Lewkowski   Email Lewkowski       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"If Nichols had taken the gun from a smaller guy, her thesis kind of falls apart doesn't it?"

No but it is a problem. Standards have been lowered because of feminists. Thats a fact.

The Nichols example is just that... an example. Its something most people know about and is a good jumping point to the larger issue and that is how stupid feminists are. I know feminists have pushed for lower physical standards for the military and firefighters. John Stossel did a report on it and he interviewed this deranged feminist who suggested firefighters don't need to be strong because carrying someone by their feet is better then over the shoulder because of the danger of smoke inhalation.

Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidA
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lewkowski,

Nichols was a big guy and could've overpowered an average-sized male cop. The mistake was in letting just one person - of any size - be left alone with him.

Feminists are not necessarily "stupid." You don't know what you're talking about.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If Nichols had taken the gun from a smaller guy, her thesis kind of falls apart doesn't it?
No. Not at all.

quote:
I stand by my point. In place of a reasonable discussion on the actual causes of the incident, she blames feminism. Not just the double-standards for height for cops...but feminism in general. And she offers not even a shred of evidence that "feminists" are a unified body that has made the claims she says they make.
Ok, fair enough. Now that I think of it, I guess you're right. I was really confusing the arguments she used to support her thesis with her thesis. Incidentally, even though blaming "feminism" is itself somewhat hyperbolic, I do think that she is right in pointing out that certain forces in society, some of them feminist in origin, are not exercising good sense in forming policy about hiring female cops, and that the media has been avoiding even the mention of the issue, for fear of being politically incorrect. It's much the same way I see OSC's writing vis a vis the left: like AC, OSC writes as if there is some kind of grand conspiracy perpetrated by this unified force known as "the left", who seem to always have evil motives. I consider this kind of thinking, like Coulter's ravings against "the feminists" to be hyperbolic. Yet, I still think that the arguments are not without merit.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
At least the cop wasn't blind.
Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, contrary to what Coulter was babbling about, the problem wasn't that necessarily that a 5' middle aged woman was employed. It was that the sherrif's department and jail were run like crap, with employees thereof being mired in bad working habits.

Dear aliens, we get the point. Please take her back now.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think that's CONTRARY, more like COMPLIMENTARY - they both are valid points.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
A. Alzabo
Member
Member # 1197

 - posted      Profile for A. Alzabo   Email A. Alzabo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't think that's CONTRARY, more like COMPLIMENTARY - they both are valid points.
But to prove AC's thesis, you would need to prove that this deputy was hired due to feminism and not some other reason -- that she wouldn't otherwise have been a deputy. In particular you would have to show that standards were lowered because of feminism, rather than being inadequate for other reasons, to hire her. It would also help to show that by not hiring her, a fit, strapping male deputy would have accompanied Nichols in her place and not been overpowered.

Given how bad their procedure seems to have been, I think that "feminism" is not the most determinative factor in this sorry debacle.

[ March 23, 2005, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: A. Alzabo ]

Posts: 2519 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Alzabo - I agree with this statement:

quote:
Given how bad their procedure seems to have been, I think that "feminism" is not the most determinative factor in this sorry debacle.

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thank you Alzabo [Smile]
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It sounds to me like the problem was not that the guard was female, or less than 200 lbs.

First of all, the fact of the matter is this: while physical strength may be an asset in law enforcement, it is not the only thing to look for. Given the limited labor pool, one cannot expect every deputy to the 200 lbs.

Secondly, even if the single deputy guarding the prisoner was a 200 lb male, he still could have been overpowered. It would have been significantly more difficult, but it might have happened. Desperate people make desperate choices.

The solution would be to change the proceedure rather than the deputy-hiring process. Take the cuffs off before court - but as late as possible. Assure that there is more than one deputy present after the cuffs have been removed. Add a panic/need assistance button to radios (some departements already have them, some do not).

These steps would be much more effective than changing hiring policies. While we can expect that LEOs should be in shape, expecting them to be stronger than anyone they meet is unrealistic.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Agree with Daruma28. Coulter is aggressive, but she does it purposefully as a contrasting style-point to show other debaters, who generally take the same side of an issue as she does, but wimp out and accept PC abuse and then bend a knee to maintain an acceptable relationship with the media and the Left who are abusive and aggressive, but get no redress from the MSM.

She has written extensively about it, and documented the one-sided allowance of nastiness in all of her books, and why it is necessary for her to mirror the style used by the Left in order to document the different treatment handed out by the MSM. If one wants the same opinion Coulter puts out without the rancor, check out Mona Charen's latest book, Do-Gooders. Both Charen and Coulter source and verify their writinig. Unlike Moore, you can count on them to be honest and factual.

As for the female court officer, she was overpowered and her keys were taken away. He dragged her unconcious body into a room under the direct view of a security camera where the male observers were unattentive and missed it all. He then opened her locker and retrieved her gun and walked into the courtroom and killed everyone he could.

The problem was not just a weak officer of the court being in charge of a prisoner, it is how the security environment should have backed her up, but came up lacking. In order for a 60-year old grandmother to perform a babysitting job like this, she must be recognized for what she is, and have the rest of the security system in place to compensate for her shortcomings. The PC feminism was probably responsible for the lack of attention. Does anyone doubt the surveillance camera observers were not told that female court officers require more attention than others? Does anyone doubt that the PC gun banning mindset was not what dissallowed her from having a gun with which she might have controlled the "former linebacker?"

Bull may have handled Brian Nichols without a gun, but I'm sure that Rosalind, Selma, or Flo would have needed their guns to keep him in line. Harry would not have forced them to lock their guns away in a locker.

Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Does anyone doubt that the PC gun banning mindset was not what dissallowed her from having a gun with which she might have controlled the "former linebacker?" Bull may have handled Brian Nichols without a gun, but I'm sure that Rosalind, Selma, or Flo would have needed their guns to keep him in line. Harry would not have forced them to lock their guns away in a locker.
Your complete ignorance of police procedures is showing through, Wm. In all jails that I have ever heard of, guns are not allowed in the cell areas because of the risk of a prisoner getting hold of it. Ask anyone, in any prison facility, and you will get the same answer. Allowing anyone to bring a gun into a prison area would endanger everyone.

The obvious breakdown in security here was the monitors of the jail cell area. Whether it was a 59-year-old woman or a 20-year-old, 200 pound linebacker, a prisoner could overpower the jailer at any time. One lucky punch could do it. It was the monitor's job to keep an eye out for such an incident and lock-down the facility immediately if it occurred.

Blaming feminism and the "PC" movement for the guards irresponsibility is downright silly. Who would you blame if the guard were a 200-lb linebacker, Wm? The chance may have been less, but it was the monitor's responsibility to look out for such unlikely occurances. Saying they were bullied into not performing the job they should do even for males by feminists really is stretching it.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lewkowski
Member
Member # 2028

 - posted      Profile for Lewkowski   Email Lewkowski       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Who would you blame if the guard were a 200-lb linebacker, "

And if the 200lb guard was able to subdue the Nichols? Would you then say "hey having a tough guy as a police officer is a good idea!"

Yes or no. Do you think the guard that was killed should of been the one on Nichols? If your answer is no, then the feminists will call you a sexist.

Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There may be good illustrations of feminism causing problems and it may be a legitimate concern with respect to law enforcement. This case, however, is not a powerful example. There are many ways to have avoided this catastrophe without having to fire the diminutive guard and replace her with a lummox.

* Don't take the gun into the cell.
* Unlock the cuffs from outside the cell after locking the cell.
* Have another officer present.

It also should be pointed out that there are times when it is very handy to have female officers. Dealing with rape victims and searching female prisoners come to mind immediately.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
A. Alzabo
Member
Member # 1197

 - posted      Profile for A. Alzabo   Email A. Alzabo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yes or no. Do you think the guard that was killed should of been the one on Nichols? If your answer is no, then the feminists will call you a sexist.
If proper procedure had been followed, it wouldn't have mattered what the guard's gender or size was.

This case is an extremely weak indictment of feminism.

Posts: 2519 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lewkowski
Member
Member # 2028

 - posted      Profile for Lewkowski   Email Lewkowski       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"It also should be pointed out that there are times when it is very handy to have female officers. Dealing with rape victims and searching female prisoners come to mind immediately. "

No one is suggesting that we should get rid of all female officers. What is being suggested is that you don't have small women guarding large violent criminals.

"If proper procedure had been followed, it wouldn't have mattered what the guard's gender or size was. "

What is the point of having a guard on a prisoner? In this situation and in any situation with such a huge size disparity a guard so small is more of a liability then an asset. Even without a gun, the criminal could have easily broken her neck or used her as a hostage.

Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
A. Alzabo
Member
Member # 1197

 - posted      Profile for A. Alzabo   Email A. Alzabo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No one is suggesting that we should get rid of all female officers. What is being suggested is that you don't have small women guarding large violent criminals.

Then the "feminism" argument breaks down. The one (tenuous) link this incident has to feminism is that female officers now exist. If you can't show that feminists somehow demanded that this particular deputy guard Nichols because she was a woman or that the sherriff's office shouldn't have followed good procedure due to the demands of feminists, then this isn't really a gender issue.

Was it a good idea to have a single small person handling Nichols? Clearly not, but also not a gender issue -- thus not the fault of feminists. The entire procedure the Atlanta Sheriff's Dept. used was ill-advised, and I see no evidence that political correctness was the culprit.

quote:
What is the point of having a guard on a prisoner? In this situation and in any situation with such a huge size disparity a guard so small is more of a liability then an asset. Even without a gun, the criminal could have easily broken her neck or used her as a hostage.
The point in this case was just to shuttle the prisoner from point "A" to point "B". In a normal "perp walk," the handler is usually unarmed for now obvious reasons. Prisoners don't usually bolt because there is usually a group of other law officers outside of close range ready to pounce if he tries anything.

This makes more sense than demanding that all law enforcement officers be bigger and stronger than all professional footbal players; again, this is not a gender issue but a procedural one.

Posts: 2519 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The guard did not have a pistol on her person. It was in a nearby locker. The suspect retrieved it after subduing the guard.

IMO, the problem was not the guard's size. Generally guards vary in weight and muscle-mass. It's not a problem because fighting with a single guard generally does nothing more than result in backup arriving.

The problem was procedural.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is a difference between saying the "cause is thus" (too simplistic, IMHO), and "the cause is this, and therefore it is not that, and "the cause is this, and therefore cannot be that".

Whether you agree or not, the point made is that standards laid out for physical requirements for guards have been suppressed in order to meet the quota for women. Is this true or not? If it's true, then it's argued that this is a shame.

Whether this is germaine to this particular incident is, I agree, rather tenuous of a connection. Whether the point is valid or not, isn't, IMHO, dependant on the connection, or even the primary cause of this situation. By arguing that the guard being a woman isn't the cause of this incident doesn't speak towards "feminists forcing standards to be warped in order to fulfill quotas".

I'd suggest that we argue on the same subject - otherwise we are just shooting hot air over each other's heads [Smile]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jordan
Member
Member # 2159

 - posted      Profile for Jordan   Email Jordan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lewkowski:
"Who would you blame if the guard were a 200-lb linebacker, "

And if the 200lb guard was able to subdue the Nichols? Would you then say "hey, having a tough guy as a police officer is a good idea!"

Yes or no. Do you think the guard who was killed should have been the one on Nichols? If your answer is no, then the feminists will call you a sexist.

You have artificially restricted the domain of answers, and then you beg the question by assuming the implications of giving a particular answer without presenting evidence to suggest your conclusion.

The problem isn't whether or not this woman, on her own, is sufficient to guard this particular criminal. And answering that she shouldn't isn't an admission that feminism is misguided, or that you are anti-feminist. Reducing it to 'tough cop = good, weak cop = bad, feminists = weak cops' is hardly helpful. We're discussing whether or not they were procedurally at fault in these circumstances, and, broadly, whether they should have been. That doesn't mean we can't hire weak cops, nor even that weak cops shouldn't be guarding huge linebackers; it is, however, evident that weak cops shouldn't be doing so unassisted.

I ask you, what would be better -- another 200lb policeman, ex-linebacker himself, or two female police, individually weak, but both easily able to call for backup or incapacitate the prisoner (using a weapon, if necessary) if he tries something? It depends, of course, on a lot of things, but remember that it is possible that one man might get taken out before he can even call for help. Does that mean we need two of these giant coppers to be on duty for each large prisoner? When does a sense of perspective (and of limited resources in terms of huge, physically fit men) come into the equation?

If the majority of feminists think that there is no problem with setting up situations like this, fine -- they're nuts. But, if (as I suspect) feminists have more of a problem with having unrealistic expectations of one little old woman, and then people pointing the finger at them when it doesn't work out, they might just have something valuable to contribute to the debate -- such as, where to start looking for a very different sort of nut.

[ March 28, 2005, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: Jordan ]

Posts: 2147 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Procedures are developed precisely so that the police force does not have to consist solely of large, muscular men. Following the proper procedures should allow Steven Hawking to freaking deal with prisoners effectively.

I have a buddy that is a prison guard, and he constantly interacts with a room full of prisoners with a partner, or sometimes even by himself. Using some of the logic listed above, one would think that two guards in a day room of 30-60 inmates would be a pretty dangerous situation, as 30-60 people could easily take two unarmed guards, no matter what their size. The reason they can be in the day room with the inmates is that there is a control deputy overlooking the room, ready to call in backup if necessary. And when the backup arrives, they are going to bring the pain.

The whole idea of policing or guarding as an individual's responsibility is ludicrous, as any individual may be overpowered, depending on the situation. That is why law enforcement acts as a team. It is not solely this "60 year old grandmother's fault" that the prisoner was able to overpower her. The team broke down.

To blame "feminism" for this tragedy looks plausible if one does not know anything about police procedures, but the accusation really breaks down when one understands the hows and whys of police procedures.

Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hey guys, stop arguing the straw man please.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jordan
Member
Member # 2159

 - posted      Profile for Jordan   Email Jordan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Damn! Simulpost. Haggis says it shorter (and sweeter) than I did.
Posts: 2147 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jordan, what's funny is that I liked your post better than my own. Cheers!
Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jordan
Member
Member # 2159

 - posted      Profile for Jordan   Email Jordan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK, guys, I have some questions.

1. Do they have lower standards of entry for women, in terms of physical strength?

2. If yes, is the difference in physical capability considered to be made up for by (for example) superior interpersonal skills, and why?

3. If no, what rationale do they have for allowing women to have lower entry standards relative to a man, and why is this rationale considered sufficient?

I've never investigated going into the police force in the UK, never mind in America -- in fact, the only time I discussed the police meaningfully in a debate was while studying the psychology of criminality. So I don't know the answers to those questions, and I'm interested in seeing if anyone else does.

Posts: 2147 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
A. Alzabo
Member
Member # 1197

 - posted      Profile for A. Alzabo   Email A. Alzabo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Whether you agree or not, the point made is that standards laid out for physical requirements for guards have been suppressed in order to meet the quota for women. Is this true or not? If it's true, then it's argued that this is a shame.

Javelin, you need to show that the requirements were supressed in this case, in order to allow an otherwise unqualified female deputy to guard this prisoner. You need to show that "surpressing" physical standards is what allowed this situation to occur -- that any other male deputy that met the "unsurpressed" standards would not have been overpowered in the same situation. It would also help to show that the only way this deputy could have been an officer was through feminism -- rather than nepotism or other circumstances.

A number of years ago, I read about the NY Police Dept. getting sued by a couple of groups over their physical standards. One of the contentious standards was that applicants must be taller than 5'6" -- which had the effect of disqualifying large numbers of Hispanic men. Men who would otherwise be a boon to the police department.

I bring this up only to point out that changing standards isn't always lowering standards. Also, standards should probably be reviewed for their efficacy. Are they arbitrary?

Posts: 2519 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lewkowski
Member
Member # 2028

 - posted      Profile for Lewkowski   Email Lewkowski       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Following the proper procedures should allow Steven Hawking to freaking deal with prisoners effectively. "

No. Thats a hostage situation waiting to happen.

"We're discussing whether or not they were procedurally at fault in these circumstances, and, broadly, whether they should have been. "

No your not. The argument is - "Look feminism is bad" and then the other side says "No you see it was a procedure problem its not the feminists fault"

DUH of course procedure wasn't followed. If it had been only one person would of died instead of four! The idea of assigning someone to guard that big is horribly stupid. Of course a prisoner could subdue a big male as well... its possible, but it is less likely.

The larger issue here is that feminists DEMAND women have an equal shot at jobs that do require phsyical strength. And feminists have decided that lowering standards is the best way to do it. Standards have been lowered. That is a fact. And with lower standards situations like this will happen.

Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Alzabo - EXACTLY my point. In order to argue the that thrust of the original article, that information would have to be known, and discussed. And, at this point in the thread, it isn't and hasn't. I have no IDEA if it's a valid point, but I DO know that so far, no one has presented a case agianst or for the issue at hand - everyone has pulled together these straw man cases that go right by everyone else. [Smile]

Oh, and yes, Alzabo - that IS important to the consideration of the point - I appreciate you further elucidating what's required for an actual arguement to be made, for either "side".

[ March 28, 2005, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Come on Javelin. Isn't this the second time in a few days you've claimed that a multi-page thread doesn't contain ANY argument for or against the issue at hand? The other subject was Terri Schiavo. Was that you?
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
A. Alzabo
Member
Member # 1197

 - posted      Profile for A. Alzabo   Email A. Alzabo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The larger issue here is that feminists DEMAND women have an equal shot at jobs that do require phsyical strength. And feminists have decided that lowering standards is the best way to do it. Standards have been lowered. That is a fact. And with lower standards situations like this will happen.
Why does "an equal shot" mean "lowering standards?" Why wouldn't "an equal shot" mean using the same standards?

Why does changing standards necessarily imply lowering standards?

Posts: 2519 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lewkowski
Member
Member # 2028

 - posted      Profile for Lewkowski   Email Lewkowski       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Why does "an equal shot" mean "lowering standards?" Why wouldn't "an equal shot" mean using the same standards? "

Because thats what feminists have said fire departments should...

"Why does changing standards necessarily imply lowering standards? "

Because thats what feminists have said should be done. Oh and guess what, its already happened several times.

Changing standards doesn't meaning automatically lowering them, but in what feminists want it does.

Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
A. Alzabo
Member
Member # 1197

 - posted      Profile for A. Alzabo   Email A. Alzabo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"Why does "an equal shot" mean "lowering standards?" Why wouldn't "an equal shot" mean using the same standards? "

Because thats what feminists have said fire departments should...


What fire departments? What do fire departments have to do with the Nichols situation?

quote:
"Why does changing standards necessarily imply lowering standards? "

Because thats what feminists have said should be done. Oh and guess what, its already happened several times.


What feminists? Where has it already happened several times?

quote:
Changing standards doesn't meaning automatically lowering them, but in what feminists want it does.
What do feminists want that requires lowering standards?
Posts: 2519 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1