50 REAL Differences between Men & Women

[thecolorsblend]

I'm sure there are both policemen and policewomen who aren't great at the job (as with any field). I object to the assertion that that means there's "no sane reason" to have policewomen, given that some of them are exceptionally good at it.

Your objection is noted.

And I should add that I, at least, am not arguing that there's nothing at all female officers can do well. Surely there's something.

But police work is a dangerous occupation and, apart from a borderline suicidal commitment to egalitarianism, I see no logical reason to have female officers.

 

[Paidiske]

So women shouldn't be allowed to pursue dangerous work? Why? Given that most police deaths are related to gunfire and car accidents, two situations in which women are not at a significant disadvantage, why should the danger disqualify them?

 

[Romans 8]

So women shouldn't be allowed to pursue dangerous work? Why? Given that most police deaths are related to gunfire and car accidents, two situations in which women are not at a significant disadvantage, why should the danger disqualify them?

Because as we witnessed from the videos they're not just putting their own lives at risk, but ours too!

 

[Paidiske]

And policemen never do... [/sarcasm].

 

[Romans 8]

Police women on the job...

 

[Romans 8]

 

[Romans 8]

 

[Romans 8]

 

[thecolorsblend]

So women shouldn't be allowed to pursue dangerous work?

No. They should not.

Why?

I've outlined examples of their instability in previous posts.

why should the danger disqualify them?

Because the tension of the job demands a level of stability, level-headedness and judgment which, bluntly, women are not famous for possessing. Putting aside their physical shortcomings, they're simply not suited for police work in general.

The three or four exceptions we can all name serve only to prove the rule.

Apart from that, judging by the attitudes and behaviors of the female officers I know personally as well as the others whom I have interacted with, I can't shake the suspicion that some women have watched those Charlie's Angels movies and I think they actually believe them.

I've personally seen female officers try duking it out with perps eight inches taller, 50 pounds heavier and with at least a 12 inch reach advantage. These women may think they're strong, they may lift weights several times a week and they may spend hours doing cardio. But when the perp's fist is nearly the same size as her head, it becomes a fairly simple matter of physics.

Pay close attention to this video. The perp is clearly not giving the woman his best fight. And yet, she's STILL coming up short and only apprehends the suspect thanks to a (male) Good Samaritan intervening.

Again, women should not do this kind of work. And I know, rah rah grrrrl power but law enforcement isn't a game and it's not a movie. Women are not equipped for this kind of work and should not do it, period.

 

[Romans 8]

 

[trophy33]

I'm sure some of them do good work but at the end of the day there's just no sane reason to have female cops.

I have three in my previous post. Police should have good psychological and physical tests so they do not take hysterical women or psychopatic men.

And as I said, it depends on the country. If there is practically no crime, no rapes, no fights and guns are regulated, then the work of most of town police is car parking, lost dogs, confused tourists etc. Women are perfect fit, because you need rather diplomacy than physical force for this.

If you live in the USA where every thug can draw a gun on you or people are used to be beaten to death or raped on weekly basis, of course female officers do not make much sense.

Sweden was one of the safest countries in the world, therefore they had a luxury to have only females in patrols etc. Now, Sweden is the number one in rapes in the EU (yes, because of african/arabic immigrants) so they will have to change their police accordingly.

 

[Paidiske]

So, in your view, it's not just a question of strength, but of stability, level-headedness, and judgement, in all of which areas you find women, as a group, deficient. And for that reason, no woman should be allowed in any role in the police force. (Or presumably, any other job you think requires these traits to a significant degree).

What I see there is paternalistic, sexist drivel which belittles and demeans women. It takes no account of our value as participants in society, or even just as human beings each of whom has a contribution to make; some of us even validly in dangerous jobs.

This sort of argument is exactly the problem that women are up against in all sorts of areas, and it is wrong, and it is corrosive to the dignity of women, and to the flourishing of society.

 

[trophy33]

Of course that has no difference as far as equal rights, equal pay for equal work, ect. But men are built differently than women. This is a biological fact.

If they are different, how can they do totally equal work? Not even two men will do the work equally.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I have three in my previous post. Police should have good psychological and physical tests so they do not take hysterical women or psychopatic men.

You're right, of course. I'm not sure how things work in your country but law enforcement here in America is in desperate need of reform.

 

[trophy33]

You're right, of course. I'm not sure how things work in your country but law enforcement here in America is in desperate need of reform.

If 10% of what I see in American movies is true, then the American police should use tanks, should be heavily armed and shoot without warning

But without joking, the USA are one of the most dangerous countries for living (meaning from euro-atlantic countries, lets exclude countries from Africa or south America), so I agree and understand that being a police officer there is not suitable for women (except of in some very peaceful and good quarters).

 

[Paidiske]

If a female cop single-handedly arrests a male suspect, it's because he ALLOWED her to.

That is a matter of undeniable fact... and I find it very telling that you ignore or dismiss this point in your responses.

You know, I'm not a police woman. Never have been. I don't pretend to have personal knowledge of life on the beat. When I think of what little I have observed of how police work, though, I note several things:

- On the whole, police work in pairs or teams, not single-handedly (men and women).
- On the whole, those arrested allow themselves to be arrested because they know that if they don't, the eventual outcome is going to be worse. (Admittedly I've seldom seen an arrest for anything more serious than, say, public transport fare evasion, because my life is pretty boring as regards crime).

All of which leads me to suspect that the occasions when being effective in the job rely on sheer physical ability to overpower someone else are actually relatively rare. Perhaps more common than in my job, but still not an every day, or even every week, thing.

Should we recruit people for the exceptional circumstances they might face, or for their ability to be exceptionally competent and diligent on a day-to-day basis? Perhaps - and here's my point - in a team, there's room for more than one kind of strength or skill set.

[/QUOTE]Do attitudes like those "set women back"? Maybe so. And maybe they NEED to be set back because there are certain career paths they should not pursue, as a rule.

I couldn't care less how this affects their self esteem.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure you can understand that I don't accept your willingness to override the basic dignity of women, or the good of wider society, in that way; and am likely to, annoyingly, continue to point out the damaging consequences of views such as these.

And it's not about self-esteem. But it is about building a world I'm not ashamed to raise my daughter in.

 

[thecolorsblend]

You know, I'm not a police woman. Never have been. I don't pretend to have personal knowledge of life on the beat. When I think of what little I have observed of how police work, though, I note several things:

- On the whole, police work in pairs or teams, not single-handedly (men and women).
- On the whole, those arrested allow themselves to be arrested because they know that if they don't, the eventual outcome is going to be worse. (Admittedly I've seldom seen an arrest for anything more serious than, say, public transport fare evasion, because my life is pretty boring as regards crime).

All of which leads me to suspect that the occasions when being effective in the job rely on sheer physical ability to overpower someone else are actually relatively rare. Perhaps more common than in my job, but still not an every day, or even every week, thing.

Should we recruit people for the exceptional circumstances they might face, or for their ability to be exceptionally competent and diligent on a day-to-day basis? Perhaps - and here's my point - in a team, there's room for more than one kind of strength or skill set.

Do attitudes like those "set women back"? Maybe so. And maybe they NEED to be set back because there are certain career paths they should not pursue, as a rule.

I couldn't care less how this affects their self esteem.

I'm sure you can understand that I don't accept your willingness to override the basic dignity of women, or the good of wider society, in that way; and am likely to, annoyingly, continue to point out the damaging consequences of views such as these.

And it's not about self-esteem. But it is about building a world I'm not ashamed to raise my daughter in.

Once again, avoiding the issue. You've surely noticed videos posted in this discussion of lone female officers being overpowered by suspects. There are plenty more where that came from, most of which have content so extreme that I'd land in CF jail for posting them here. One in particular shows one male suspect overpowering two female officers.

Women are not men. Men are not women. Men and women are not interchangeable with each other. Especially in dangerous careers such as law enforcement. Your entire premise requires me to believe that the same sex who struggles with parallel parking is somehow ready to drive a police cruiser 80+mph in a high speed chase. Women generally weigh, what, 20 pounds less and are on average something like six inches shorter than men. They're at a strategic disadvantage from the jump.

Frankly, I find it absolutely nuts that I'm having to explain why it is that while having female officers may scratch some utopian PC itch, the risks far outweigh any hypothetical egalitarian benefit.

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

You know, I'm not a police woman. Never have been. I don't pretend to have personal knowledge of life on the beat. When I think of what little I have observed of how police work, though, I note several things:

- On the whole, police work in pairs or teams, not single-handedly (men and women).
- On the whole, those arrested allow themselves to be arrested because they know that if they don't, the eventual outcome is going to be worse. (Admittedly I've seldom seen an arrest for anything more serious than, say, public transport fare evasion, because my life is pretty boring as regards crime).

All of which leads me to suspect that the occasions when being effective in the job rely on sheer physical ability to overpower someone else are actually relatively rare. Perhaps more common than in my job, but still not an every day, or even every week, thing.

Should we recruit people for the exceptional circumstances they might face, or for their ability to be exceptionally competent and diligent on a day-to-day basis? Perhaps - and here's my point - in a team, there's room for more than one kind of strength or skill set.

How you're more concerned with this as a perceived attack on your dignity rather than on the facts of the matter is largely reinforcing the point.

 

[Paidiske]

Once again, avoiding the issue. You've surely noticed videos posted in this discussion of lone female officers being overpowered by suspects. There are plenty more where that came from, most of which have content so extreme that I'd land in CF jail for posting them here. One in particular shows one male suspect overpowering two female officers.

Sure, that happens. I'm sure it happens to men too. It's not a gender problem.

Women are not men. Men are not men. Men and women are not interchangeable with each other. Especially in dangerous careers such as law enforcement. Your entire premise requires me to believe that the same sex who struggles with parallel parking is somehow ready to drive a police cruiser 80+mph in a high speed chase. Women generally weigh, what, 20 pounds less and are on average something like six inches shorter than men. They're at a strategic disadvantage from the jump.

You know, at one point I had a job with a significant security component to it. I was the first woman ever appointed to that role, and there was quite some talk that I wouldn't be able to do it, that I would be assaulted by the "difficult" people, and so on.

The reality was that in the years that I held that job, I was never physically assaulted; unlike any of my male colleagues. Not because I'm so physically impressive (I'm really not); but my guess would be that I dealt with those people in a way which helped them feel safe and able to de-escalate (to borrow a term from an earlier post).

So, I had advantages and disadvantages. I suspect this is true for everyone in the police force, too. Refusing to see any strengths in what stereotypical women (because what you say isn't true of all women, of course) is a fairly profound denial of reality.

Frankly, I find it absolutely nuts that I'm having to explain why it is that while having female officers may scratch some utopian PC itch, the risks far outweigh any hypothetical egalitarian benefit.

And yet the actual police forces haven't found it so.

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

Sure, that happens. I'm sure it happens to men too. It's not a gender problem.

Comments like this are good for a laugh but afterwards sour in the mouth when you realize the person is being serious. I suspect that it is intuitively obvious that the reason this happens to men and women is not the same. It is comparable to the argument about facial hair not being a particularly male thing because "it happens to females too". Do you see the logical error?