Political Correctness and Hiring Standards

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
But women cannot simply train harder and longer to pass some of these standards; it is literally impossible.

No, in most cases it is not. For example surely you will not tell us that the standards for men that clip11 posted are “literally impossible” for a woman to achieve.

Rather they would require hard work for most women and some women could not achieve them.

Where I live it is even worse than physical standards being absurdly lax for female police officers. An officer belonging to my gym said to me that in his department, the result of their allowing women as wide in the ass as they are tall (we’re talking very short women) to join the force has resulted in men likewise being able to argue that the traditional standards were arbitrary for them as well and not acceptable grounds for rejection.

[/quote]

As a libertarian, what am I to make of this?

State power, held in check by coronary heart disease?

Oy vey…

I agree that for jobs that have physical requirements the standards should be equal and equally difficult.

At the same time I understand having “fitness” standards as opposed to “physical” standards.

I also see a lot of good reasons to hire women onto a police force, even if they can’t do however many pushups.

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I also see a lot of good reasons to hire women onto a police force, even if they can’t do however many pushups.
[/quote]

Is you crazy?! Think of the children!

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Either certain physical standards mean something for particular professions or they just serve as a means to discriminate in the hiring process. If they are important and not just a means for discrimination then why even bother letting anyone be cops if they cannot meet those “minimum” required standards at all?

I mean, I do not want my child’s safety to be threatened because some wannabe cop cannot do 32 push-ups. Think of the children!![/quote]

These tests are stuipid anyways, when was the last time a cop dropped and did 32 pushups during a traffic stop? During a robbery? I mean come one. Test them on shooting, tackling, and wrestling. Take a 250 pund dude and have people chase his ass down, tackle him and confine him. Pretty simple, either you can or you can’t oh year and he isn’t playing he can turn around and punch you in the face, kick you whatever. I’d like to see how many women even take that test let alone pass it.

Even better, do a deal with a local crackhead, one a week he gets do do supervised crack session with no penalty, the only stipulation is that cops are gonna be trying to detain him and he has to fight back. So you get to wrestle a real live crackhead. It’s simple, you win, you can be on the force. He stabs your eye out with his dirty fingernail, you lose and go home. Oh and you get to have a glass eye too.

V

[quote]Vegita wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Either certain physical standards mean something for particular professions or they just serve as a means to discriminate in the hiring process. If they are important and not just a means for discrimination then why even bother letting anyone be cops if they cannot meet those “minimum” required standards at all?

I mean, I do not want my child’s safety to be threatened because some wannabe cop cannot do 32 push-ups. Think of the children!!

These tests are stuipid anyways, when was the last time a cop dropped and did 32 pushups during a traffic stop? During a robbery? I mean come one. Test them on shooting, tackling, and wrestling. Take a 250 pund dude and have people chase his ass down, tackle him and confine him. Pretty simple, either you can or you can’t oh year and he isn’t playing he can turn around and punch you in the face, kick you whatever. I’d like to see how many women even take that test let alone pass it.

Even better, do a deal with a local crackhead, one a week he gets do do supervised crack session with no penalty, the only stipulation is that cops are gonna be trying to detain him and he has to fight back. So you get to wrestle a real live crackhead. It’s simple, you win, you can be on the force. He stabs your eye out with his dirty fingernail, you lose and go home. Oh and you get to have a glass eye too.

V[/quote]

Dude! When have you ever seen a 250 lb crackhead? Besides, it isn’t the crackheads that need to be policed.

The physical standards need to be even toughter: No less than 100 pushups; a 5 minute mile for 2 full miles; and the ability to lift at least 200 lbs overhead 1 time. Or not. I really don’t care.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Vegita wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Either certain physical standards mean something for particular professions or they just serve as a means to discriminate in the hiring process. If they are important and not just a means for discrimination then why even bother letting anyone be cops if they cannot meet those “minimum” required standards at all?

I mean, I do not want my child’s safety to be threatened because some wannabe cop cannot do 32 push-ups. Think of the children!!

These tests are stuipid anyways, when was the last time a cop dropped and did 32 pushups during a traffic stop? During a robbery? I mean come one. Test them on shooting, tackling, and wrestling. Take a 250 pund dude and have people chase his ass down, tackle him and confine him. Pretty simple, either you can or you can’t oh year and he isn’t playing he can turn around and punch you in the face, kick you whatever. I’d like to see how many women even take that test let alone pass it.

Even better, do a deal with a local crackhead, one a week he gets do do supervised crack session with no penalty, the only stipulation is that cops are gonna be trying to detain him and he has to fight back. So you get to wrestle a real live crackhead. It’s simple, you win, you can be on the force. He stabs your eye out with his dirty fingernail, you lose and go home. Oh and you get to have a glass eye too.

V

Dude! When have you ever seen a 250 lb crackhead? Besides, it isn’t the crackheads that need to be policed.

The physical standards need to be even toughter: No less than 100 pushups; a 5 minute mile for 2 full miles; and the ability to lift at least 200 lbs overhead 1 time. Or not. I really don’t care.[/quote]

Come on now, I didn’t say a 250 Lb Crackhead, a burglar, a rapist, a bank robber, a gang member, all of these could potentially be a big athletic 250lb + male with a bad attitude. Cops should be able to take someone of this stature down and control them. I don’t care if it’s an 80 Lb old lady, if she can get the guy down, and restrain him, she is qualified. Now thats never gonna happen, which is my point. Do you even realize we are in agreement? I think police should be tested based on the extreme physical activities of thier job, and like I said before, I have never seen a cop do a pushup or pullup during a traffic stop, or a high speed chase.

V

To make the battery test even more realistic it should include:

Donut eating
“Forgetting” to pay for coffee
Showing up late to a crime scene and putting up crime scene tape
Hiding drug/alcohol* addiction
Tasering innocent bystanders

*Bonus points for Irish applicants

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
To make the battery test even more realistic it should include:

Donut eating
“Forgetting” to pay for coffee
Showing up late to a crime scene and putting up crime scene tape
Hiding drug/alcohol* addiction
Tasering innocent bystanders

*Bonus points for Irish applicants[/quote]

Hey donughts are to cops like spinach is to popeye. All the others I agree with you on though :wink:

V

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I like these equalizing standards for cops. Soon all police stations will be run by out of shape shit bags. I cannot wait.[/quote]

speaking of shit bag cops…

while in the police helicopter in d.c., i witnessed a fat ass female cop (rounder than tall), refuse to walk down a VERY moderate hill to reach a vehicle that possibly contained injured victims (turns out it was abandoned) because she didn’t know how steep it could be and almost fell when she tried.

how fucked up is that? if there’s someone hurt, fucking fall if you must but get there it’s your job!

[quote]HoratioSandoval wrote:
Police work involves a lot more than physical strength, and aside from having different skills in resolving conflicts, sometimes a force can just plain benefit from lots of female officers.

For instance, a female rape victim might not want to give a statement if a female officer isn’t available for the call, and choose not to cooperate rather than report the crime.

Men can be less suspicious of female undercover officers, etc…

[/quote]
Perhaps females in uniform taking statements from female victims of sex crimes should be ancillary police department specialists of some type, rather than normal-duty police officers.

Perhaps undercover operatives should also be ancillary specialists with their own separate sets of requirements.

Or alternatively, perhaps there should be a two-tier system of physical standards for women police officers:

Those who meet the lower standard would be eligible to be trained for duty in situations where females are specifically advantageous and other than that would only be eligible for limited duty; and those few who meet the same physical standards as males would be eligible to perform the full spectrum of duties.

But that would make too much sense.

[quote]streamline wrote:
Natural selection. Police work is not all that physical. Therefore more women seek it for a career. Now being a firefighter is very physical work which reguires constant physival training. Therefore very few women seek it out as a career.

Women have been told that they can’t do alot of things. So don’t be surprised when they have to find out for themselves.

Plus I know some male cops that couldn’t run 100 yards in less than 20 seconds. That’s if they made it at all.[/quote]

But all those male cops could when they were rookie cops. Having all the rookie cops able to meet certain somewhat relevant physical standards is better than not having all the rookie cops able to meet those same standards.

[quote]Vegita wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Either certain physical standards mean something for particular professions or they just serve as a means to discriminate in the hiring process.

If they are important and not just a means for discrimination then why even bother letting anyone be cops if they cannot meet those “minimum” required standards at all?

I mean, I do not want my child’s safety to be threatened because some wannabe cop cannot do 32 push-ups. Think of the children!!

These tests are stuipid anyways, when was the last time a cop dropped and did 32 pushups during a traffic stop? During a robbery? I mean come one. Test them on shooting, tackling, and wrestling.

Take a 250 pund dude and have people chase his ass down, tackle him and confine him. Pretty simple, either you can or you can’t oh year and he isn’t playing he can turn around and punch you in the face, kick you whatever. I’d like to see how many women even take that test let alone pass it.

Even better, do a deal with a local crackhead, one a week he gets do do supervised crack session with no penalty, the only stipulation is that cops are gonna be trying to detain him and he has to fight back.

So you get to wrestle a real live crackhead. It’s simple, you win, you can be on the force. He stabs your eye out with his dirty fingernail, you lose and go home. Oh and you get to have a glass eye too.

V[/quote]
These are not half bad ideas. Except that if you win, that only constitutes passing the physical part. You still have to pass written requirements, shooting requirements, etc.

[quote]NealRaymond2 wrote:
Vegita wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Either certain physical standards mean something for particular professions or they just serve as a means to discriminate in the hiring process.

If they are important and not just a means for discrimination then why even bother letting anyone be cops if they cannot meet those “minimum” required standards at all?

I mean, I do not want my child’s safety to be threatened because some wannabe cop cannot do 32 push-ups. Think of the children!!

These tests are stuipid anyways, when was the last time a cop dropped and did 32 pushups during a traffic stop? During a robbery? I mean come one. Test them on shooting, tackling, and wrestling.

Take a 250 pund dude and have people chase his ass down, tackle him and confine him. Pretty simple, either you can or you can’t oh year and he isn’t playing he can turn around and punch you in the face, kick you whatever. I’d like to see how many women even take that test let alone pass it.

Even better, do a deal with a local crackhead, one a week he gets do do supervised crack session with no penalty, the only stipulation is that cops are gonna be trying to detain him and he has to fight back.

So you get to wrestle a real live crackhead. It’s simple, you win, you can be on the force. He stabs your eye out with his dirty fingernail, you lose and go home. Oh and you get to have a glass eye too.

V
These are not half bad ideas. Except that if you win, that only constitutes passing the physical part. You still have to pass written requirements, shooting requirements, etc.

[/quote]

Second thoughts:
A big police officer is better than a small police officer, even if the two have equal physical abilities. The reason why the bigger one is better is because he looks more intimidating, which will reduce the need to use force and result in fewer injuries to all parties.

[quote]NealRaymond2 wrote:
Second thoughts:
A big police officer is better than a small police officer, even if the two have equal physical abilities. The reason why the bigger one is better is because he looks more intimidating, which will reduce the need to use force and result in fewer injuries to all parties.[/quote]

Yes, because we expect rational decisions from people prone to criminal behavior…

[quote]clip11 wrote:
Dont get me wrong, there are some tough women out here and some female cops or firefighters or military personnell do their job as good as any man.[/quote]

You don’t think some women can “do their job” better than some men?

Please stop using the term “Political Correctness” as a container for everything under the sun. The word you’re looking for is “sexual discrimination”. The motives behind such policies have been thoroughly documented.

http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1117&context=key_workplace

It’s easy, yet very dangerous to take things out of context. Consider what women had to put up with only a century ago. You can argue that giving them a head-start is unfair, but please don’t pretend that you’re unaware of the underlying reasons.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
NealRaymond2 wrote:
Second thoughts:
A big police officer is better than a small police officer, even if the two have equal physical abilities. The reason why the bigger one is better is because he looks more intimidating, which will reduce the need to use force and result in fewer injuries to all parties.

Yes, because we expect rational decisions from people prone to criminal behavior…[/quote]

  1. Perhaps I should clarify: the intimidation factor of a bigger police officer will not be effective in every single case – I was referring to aggregate and/or average outcomes.

  2. People prone to criminal behavior are not 100% irrational, although on average they might be less rational than other people.

As a matter of fact, we do expect some degree of rational decision-making from at least some people who are prone to ciminal behavior:

  • a police officer points his gun and yells “freeze”, on the assumption that a criminal’s rational wish to stay alive might influence him to comply

  • we let people out of prison on parole and threaten to put them back if they misbehave, on the assumption that rational calculation will influence at least some of them to comply

  1. Reaction to another person’s size is not a purely intellectual, rational process. Even cats and dogs on average are more fearful of larger animals than they are of smaller animals. Also, when a cat is afraid it puffs out its fur to make itself look bigger, to reduce the likelihood of being attacked.

[quote]lixy wrote:
clip11 wrote:
Dont get me wrong, there are some tough women out here and some female cops or firefighters or military personnell do their job as good as any man.

You don’t think some women can “do their job” better than some men?

Please stop using the term “Political Correctness” as a container for everything under the sun. The word you’re looking for is “sexual discrimination”. The motives behind such policies have been thoroughly documented.

http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1117&context=key_workplace

It’s easy, yet very dangerous to take things out of context. Consider what women had to put up with only a century ago. You can argue that giving them a head-start is unfair, but please don’t pretend that you’re unaware of the underlying reasons.[/quote]

If you have a female firefighter, will her equipment be any less heavy during a real situation because she is a woman? If you are unconscious in a burning building and the only one to get you out is a female firefighter, are you going to magically lose weight right then and there so she can drag you out of that building before you die? I dont think so…so it wouldnt be a good thing if the female firefighter in question got hired because of a reduced set of physical standards.

And as an experiment,why doesnt L.A. have an all female SWAT team and let us know how it does. We’ll see how many times they’ll have to call the men to save their asses.

It doesn’t even make sense. If the female standards are good enough, why have seperate male standards? Just use the female standards for everyone.

[quote]clip11 wrote:
lixy wrote:
clip11 wrote:
Dont get me wrong, there are some tough women out here and some female cops or firefighters or military personnell do their job as good as any man.

You don’t think some women can “do their job” better than some men?

Please stop using the term “Political Correctness” as a container for everything under the sun. The word you’re looking for is “sexual discrimination”. The motives behind such policies have been thoroughly documented.

http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1117&context=key_workplace

It’s easy, yet very dangerous to take things out of context. Consider what women had to put up with only a century ago. You can argue that giving them a head-start is unfair, but please don’t pretend that you’re unaware of the underlying reasons.

If you have a female firefighter, will her equipment be any less heavy during a real situation because she is a woman? If you are unconscious in a burning building and the only one to get you out is a female firefighter, are you going to magically lose weight right then and there so she can drag you out of that building before you die? I dont think so…so it wouldnt be a good thing if the female firefighter in question got hired because of a reduced set of physical standards.

And as an experiment,why doesnt L.A. have an all female SWAT team and let us know how it does. We’ll see how many times they’ll have to call the men to save their asses.
[/quote]

I’m in agreement here. Woman should have to go through the same standards as men. Sorry, but the post above is a good example of this. Same thing with women in the military. They aren’t given the same standard fitness requirements, they have to do fewer reps, longer running times as well. My guess is because they still don’t allow women in the battlefield, and why should they if they aren’t going through the same thing men have to go through. As much as I respect the women’s movement push for equality, this isn’t the way and I’m sorry but when I see a female cop that doesn’t look or act as though she belongs in her profession, then it’s very hard for me to take her serious and give her the same amount of respect I’d give to a male officer.

I read in some posts saying that cops passing a physical fitness test is a waste of time, well it isn’t. I’m from Chicago, and looking at some of the fat cops, male or female, it’s pretty embarrassing. They couldn’t chase a criminal on foot, they’d pop an artery. Anytime i’ve been pulled over or talked to by a fat cop, it’s hard to take him/her seriously and they usually have the fat asshole attitude to go with it. But an officer that’s in shape speaking to you, then respecting him/her comes easy.