No
My cousin’s a CO. She’s 5’3" 130 lbs and she does fine and been doing it close to 20 years. She actually works down in Jessup, where AC was incarcerated. LOL I have dated another woman off and on who is a CO as well and she has been doing it close to 11 years in Philadelphia, with no problems. The only time I have heard of a female CO getting injured is when a male guard was getting the shit kicked out of him and she got stabbed by accident. If someone can handle the job, they can handle the job, period.
[quote]lewhitehurst wrote:
If someone can handle the job, they can handle the job, period. [/quote]
Truth.
And this was my begrudged point. Because I think our gut reaction is to say “no”. But as we actually think it through, and if you actually understand the daily routine of prison and the job requirements, it’s difficult to say “no” and actually support it.
Prison is full of procedure and routine to protect the guards from the prisoners. It’s not a gladiator school for c/o’s to fight prisoners every day, unless you’re part of that team…and what they do is filmed and I doubt women are becoming part of that team any time soon.
I’ve been working in Corrections for almost 4 years now. We have male and female C.O.'s, of course most of the females work in mental health and female pods, but we have females working in the high security pods, and some in med/low risk pods. What I have found is females have it a little easier in male pods than male c.o.'s do. One thing is if an inmate disrespects a female c.o. she can completely emasculate him in front of the entire pod, by just talking trash to him calling him a “pussy” or “bitch” etc… If a male c.o. does that they have a pretty good chance of getting into a fight with that inmate.
I don’t think strength has much to do with it, if an inmate or inmates want to attack you they will. It doesn’t matter if you are 130lbs, 230lbs, or 330lbs. In a lot of cases you won’t see it happen, but traditionally the inmates will attack each other before they attack c.o.'s. Inmates have the unwritten rule that they won’t press charges against one another (in 4 yrs of corrections i hear about 3-4 fights a yr where someone presses charges) , whereas its a class 6 (in AZ) felony for assaulting staff.
How about this…
Upon being hired, you tell the woman CO that ALL of her co-workers will be women, she would be frightened to know that there won’t be a bunch of dudes around to help.
Women will take the job to help themselves feel more comfortable with their issues mentioned earlier (daddy issues, sense of authority/power etc.) but it’s only because they know there will be dudes there working with them to help them feel more safe.
there should be no female firefighters, cops, prison guards etc.
ok…now back to being politically correct for the rest of the day
[quote]carbiduis wrote:
How about this…
Upon being hired, you tell the woman CO that ALL of her co-workers will be women, she would be frightened to know that there won’t be a bunch of dudes around to help.
Women will take the job to help themselves feel more comfortable with their issues mentioned earlier (daddy issues, sense of authority/power etc.) but it’s only because they know there will be dudes there working with them to help them feel more safe.
there should be no female firefighters, cops, prison guards etc.
ok…now back to being politically correct for the rest of the day[/quote]
Actually it has been my experience that men are more confrontational and more likely to be a creator of volatile situations.
Maybe more women in the mix would be better.
[quote]carbiduis wrote:
How about this…
Upon being hired, you tell the woman CO that ALL of her co-workers will be women, she would be frightened to know that there won’t be a bunch of dudes around to help.
Women will take the job to help themselves feel more comfortable with their issues mentioned earlier (daddy issues, sense of authority/power etc.) but it’s only because they know there will be dudes there working with them to help them feel more safe.
there should be no female firefighters, cops, prison guards etc.
[/quote]
THIS.
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]carbiduis wrote:
How about this…
Upon being hired, you tell the woman CO that ALL of her co-workers will be women, she would be frightened to know that there won’t be a bunch of dudes around to help.
Women will take the job to help themselves feel more comfortable with their issues mentioned earlier (daddy issues, sense of authority/power etc.) but it’s only because they know there will be dudes there working with them to help them feel more safe.
there should be no female firefighters, cops, prison guards etc.
ok…now back to being politically correct for the rest of the day[/quote]
Actually it has been my experience that men are more confrontational and more likely to be a creator of volatile situations.
Maybe more women in the mix would be better.
[/quote]
THIS
How many female c/o’s do you think got to square off with the infamous Fleece Johnson?
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]carbiduis wrote:
How about this…
Upon being hired, you tell the woman CO that ALL of her co-workers will be women, she would be frightened to know that there won’t be a bunch of dudes around to help.
Women will take the job to help themselves feel more comfortable with their issues mentioned earlier (daddy issues, sense of authority/power etc.) but it’s only because they know there will be dudes there working with them to help them feel more safe.
there should be no female firefighters, cops, prison guards etc.
ok…now back to being politically correct for the rest of the day[/quote]
Actually it has been my experience that men are more confrontational and more likely to be a creator of volatile situations.
Maybe more women in the mix would be better.
[/quote]
Maybe?..Maybe NOT
SOOOOOOOOOOOOO…
You’re telling me that you would RATHER have MORE (the more the better?) women CO working with you than men?
This reminds me of when I was in high school. Liberal twat as my teacher and she had us watch this video about sexism etc in the work place. In the video, firefighting was an occupation that was being looked at. The argument was made that most women would not be able to CARRY most people out of a burning buidling, so they would have to resort to dragging the body (assuming the victim of the fire is unconscious) out, possibly down flight(s) of stairs. Then a feminist being interviewed was given a chance to make a point…her point?
“I would RATHER be dragged down a flight of stairs than be carried down them” - feminist twat
“I would RATHER work with more women as a CO” - you
don’t kid yourself. Chicks may be better than dudes at somethings, but this isn’t one of them.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]carbiduis wrote:
How about this…
Upon being hired, you tell the woman CO that ALL of her co-workers will be women, she would be frightened to know that there won’t be a bunch of dudes around to help.
Women will take the job to help themselves feel more comfortable with their issues mentioned earlier (daddy issues, sense of authority/power etc.) but it’s only because they know there will be dudes there working with them to help them feel more safe.
there should be no female firefighters, cops, prison guards etc.
ok…now back to being politically correct for the rest of the day[/quote]
Actually it has been my experience that men are more confrontational and more likely to be a creator of volatile situations.
Maybe more women in the mix would be better.
[/quote]
Oh no! Not THIS[/quote]
FiCKSed
Around here I know of a few female guards who took the job for attention be it from the male prisoners. guards, and/or the public. Not saying it was the only reason but it does come up a lot during conversations.
[quote]carbiduis wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]carbiduis wrote:
How about this…
Upon being hired, you tell the woman CO that ALL of her co-workers will be women, she would be frightened to know that there won’t be a bunch of dudes around to help.
Women will take the job to help themselves feel more comfortable with their issues mentioned earlier (daddy issues, sense of authority/power etc.) but it’s only because they know there will be dudes there working with them to help them feel more safe.
there should be no female firefighters, cops, prison guards etc.
ok…now back to being politically correct for the rest of the day[/quote]
Actually it has been my experience that men are more confrontational and more likely to be a creator of volatile situations.
Maybe more women in the mix would be better.
[/quote]
Maybe?..Maybe NOT
SOOOOOOOOOOOOO…
You’re telling me that you would RATHER have MORE (the more the better?) women CO working with you than men?
This reminds me of when I was in high school. Liberal twat as my teacher and she had us watch this video about sexism etc in the work place. In the video, firefighting was an occupation that was being looked at. The argument was made that most women would not be able to CARRY most people out of a burning buidling, so they would have to resort to dragging the body (assuming the victim of the fire is unconscious) out, possibly down flight(s) of stairs. Then a feminist being interviewed was given a chance to make a point…her point?
“I would RATHER be dragged down a flight of stairs than be carried down them” - feminist twat
“I would RATHER work with more women as a CO” - you
don’t kid yourself. Chicks may be better than dudes at somethings, but this isn’t one of them.[/quote]
Almost all male security guards have a story about being involved in dangerous situations(stabbed with a used needle, chased by a hooker with a box cutter, kicked in the balls by a homeless person, etc) I on the other hand have been working the same sites and the same places as them and have never had this problem, and I rarely hear of other female guards having the same problems as the men.
This is not the same as the job of a firemen which requires strength and stamina.
And I think a lot of the responses in this thread by men demonstrates why they are the ones who get attacked while on the job. They think the best way to do the job is to intimidate and it’s about fighting ability and it isn’t. This job is about being able to communicate. I’m not saying having strong men isn’t a good idea but they would need to be less confrontational and maybe they would be if they knew they had women watching their backs instead of men.
My thoughts on dealing with the “interesting characters” on my shifts is respect, kindness, homour, threat them like they’re human beings. Unless my instincts tell me not to approach then it is observe, call it in, then wait until something happens ready to call the cops/RCMP(who use many officers to deal with just one person).
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]carbiduis wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]carbiduis wrote:
How about this…
Upon being hired, you tell the woman CO that ALL of her co-workers will be women, she would be frightened to know that there won’t be a bunch of dudes around to help.
Women will take the job to help themselves feel more comfortable with their issues mentioned earlier (daddy issues, sense of authority/power etc.) but it’s only because they know there will be dudes there working with them to help them feel more safe.
there should be no female firefighters, cops, prison guards etc.
ok…now back to being politically correct for the rest of the day[/quote]
Actually it has been my experience that men are more confrontational and more likely to be a creator of volatile situations.
Maybe more women in the mix would be better.
[/quote]
Maybe?..Maybe NOT
SOOOOOOOOOOOOO…
You’re telling me that you would RATHER have MORE (the more the better?) women CO working with you than men?
This reminds me of when I was in high school. Liberal twat as my teacher and she had us watch this video about sexism etc in the work place. In the video, firefighting was an occupation that was being looked at. The argument was made that most women would not be able to CARRY most people out of a burning buidling, so they would have to resort to dragging the body (assuming the victim of the fire is unconscious) out, possibly down flight(s) of stairs. Then a feminist being interviewed was given a chance to make a point…her point?
“I would RATHER be dragged down a flight of stairs than be carried down them” - feminist twat
“I would RATHER work with more women as a CO” - you
don’t kid yourself. Chicks may be better than dudes at somethings, but this isn’t one of them.[/quote]
Almost all male security guards have a story about being involved in dangerous situations(stabbed with a used needle, chased by a hooker with a box cutter, kicked in the balls by a homeless person, etc) I on the other hand have been working the same sites and the same places as them and have never had this problem, and I rarely hear of other female guards having the same problems as the men.
This is not the same as the job of a firemen which requires strength and stamina.
And I think a lot of the responses in this thread by men demonstrates why they are the ones who get attacked while on the job. They think the best way to do the job is to intimidate and it’s about fighting ability and it isn’t. This job is about being able to communicate. I’m not saying having strong men isn’t a good idea but they would need to be less confrontational and maybe they would be if they knew they had women watching their backs instead of men.
My thoughts on dealing with the “interesting characters” on my shifts is respect, kindness, homour, threat them like they’re human beings. Unless my instincts tell me not to approach then it is observe, call it in, then wait until something happens ready to call the cops/RCMP(who use many officers to deal with just one person).
[/quote]
very good post. agreed. just not sure it entirely transfers to a prison setting, but much of it does. at some point, physicality in a prison setting will occur. men are better suited for it. there can be no argument there (all things being equal). do male c/o’s instigate and/or inflame a situation? probably. from what i’ve seen, they adopt the demeanor of the people they imprison. however, and remember this, the female c/o’s usually adopt and mimic that behavior.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]carbiduis wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]carbiduis wrote:
How about this…
Upon being hired, you tell the woman CO that ALL of her co-workers will be women, she would be frightened to know that there won’t be a bunch of dudes around to help.
Women will take the job to help themselves feel more comfortable with their issues mentioned earlier (daddy issues, sense of authority/power etc.) but it’s only because they know there will be dudes there working with them to help them feel more safe.
there should be no female firefighters, cops, prison guards etc.
ok…now back to being politically correct for the rest of the day[/quote]
Actually it has been my experience that men are more confrontational and more likely to be a creator of volatile situations.
Maybe more women in the mix would be better.
[/quote]
Maybe?..Maybe NOT
SOOOOOOOOOOOOO…
You’re telling me that you would RATHER have MORE (the more the better?) women CO working with you than men?
This reminds me of when I was in high school. Liberal twat as my teacher and she had us watch this video about sexism etc in the work place. In the video, firefighting was an occupation that was being looked at. The argument was made that most women would not be able to CARRY most people out of a burning buidling, so they would have to resort to dragging the body (assuming the victim of the fire is unconscious) out, possibly down flight(s) of stairs. Then a feminist being interviewed was given a chance to make a point…her point?
“I would RATHER be dragged down a flight of stairs than be carried down them” - feminist twat
“I would RATHER work with more women as a CO” - you
don’t kid yourself. Chicks may be better than dudes at somethings, but this isn’t one of them.[/quote]
Almost all male security guards have a story about being involved in dangerous situations(stabbed with a used needle, chased by a hooker with a box cutter, kicked in the balls by a homeless person, etc) I on the other hand have been working the same sites and the same places as them and have never had this problem, and I rarely hear of other female guards having the same problems as the men.
This is not the same as the job of a firemen which requires strength and stamina.
And I think a lot of the responses in this thread by men demonstrates why they are the ones who get attacked while on the job. They think the best way to do the job is to intimidate and it’s about fighting ability and it isn’t. This job is about being able to communicate. I’m not saying having strong men isn’t a good idea but they would need to be less confrontational and maybe they would be if they knew they had women watching their backs instead of men.
My thoughts on dealing with the “interesting characters” on my shifts is respect, kindness, homour, threat them like they’re human beings. Unless my instincts tell me not to approach then it is observe, call it in, then wait until something happens ready to call the cops/RCMP(who use many officers to deal with just one person).
[/quote]
very good post. agreed. just not sure it entirely transfers to a prison setting, but much of it does. at some point, physicality in a prison setting will occur. men are better suited for it. there can be no argument there (all things being equal). do male c/o’s instigate and/or inflame a situation? probably. from what i’ve seen, they adopt the demeanor of the people they imprison. however, and remember this, the female c/o’s usually adopt and mimic that behavior.
[/quote]
I agree that it sounds like the woman guards adopt the male guard traits. Also why I thought maybe a more equal mix might bring down the likelihood of that too.
Not sure I’d want to try my hand at being a CO, part of it is I would worry that the male guards could put me in a dangerous situation. But that is because of my experiences with male security guards, although the job appears to attract the same type of men so…
There are definitely more young women in security thinking like men though.
This thread is burdened by so much political correctness and inability to state the biologically obvious, that it’s getting hard to read. For example,
[quote]What Charlie Horse wrote:
Unless my instincts tell me not to approach then it is observe, call it in, then wait until something happens ready to call the cops/RCMP(who use many officers to deal with just one person).
[/quote]
…Could be better re-rewritten to say, “I’m perfectly comfortable as a female CO. And at those times when my female instincts tell me I’m not, I then call in the MOSTLY BIGGER, STRONGER MALE cops/RCMP to solve the situation.”
Good grief!
And as for the very saccharine-sounding opinions of,
[quote]lewhitehurst wrote: “If someone can handle the job, they can handle the job, period” [/quote] or,
[quote]sphereninewrote: People [of either gender] qualified for the job should be able to work as corrections officers in male prisons
[/quote]
Such statements only sound so polite and benign because they side-step the debate! Indeed, they refrain from stating anything at all about gender. Such statements use gender-neutral pronouns and make the subject “the job” rather than any one “male” or “female” gender. …But this is just timid avoidance. Such statements merely elicit an unspoken new version of the very same question: that is, which gender is, in fact, more qualified or can better handle the “job” as a prison CO?
And the answer to this question is the same as it was when the OP first posted: that men are, on average, better able to “handle the job” and are, on average, “more qualified for the job” as a prison CO than are women.
Sure, we can all imagine the odd and hypothetical situation in which a well-trained 200lb female CO could subdue a 140lb male inmate. Or there may indeed exist, in some corner of space and time, a somehow chivalrous male prisoner who responds better to a non-threatening female CO than he might to a more confrontational male guard. But these are exceptions to the rule. The very fact that we have to imagine these scenarios or consider them as hypothetical should be a logical warning sign.
The CENTRAL TENDENCY is that men are, on average, bigger, stronger, and faster than women. That’s not sexist. It’s biology. Moreover, there exist gender-specific differences in mental or psychological TENDENCIES that parallel the physical. Again, that’s not sexist. It’s biology. By and large, it’s these predominantly male physical and mental traits and tendencies (i.e., mostly found in males!) that likely serve a prison CO better than do female traits.
All other politically correct posturing, such straining and squinting against the biologically obvious, is just so much mental masturbation. While it feels good, it really doesn’t accomplish anything.
This thread is leaking out so much PC thought, I felt it all the way over in the SATMA forum.
[quote]dr.mcmc wrote:
T
[quote]What Charlie Horse wrote:
Unless my instincts tell me not to approach then it is observe, call it in, then wait until something happens ready to call the cops/RCMP(who use many officers to deal with just one person).
[/quote]
…Could be better re-rewritten to say, “I’m perfectly comfortable as a female CO. And at those times when my female instincts tell me I’m not, I then call in the MOSTLY BIGGER, STRONGER MALE cops/RCMP to solve the situation.”
Good grief!
[/quote]
Never said I was a CO.
Do not get yourself hurt. <-Number one rule for security guards.
And it is usually broken by the big strong men.
The one who got stabbed with a used needle was a big strong man and she was a little tiny junkie.
[quote]dr.mcmc wrote:
This thread is burdened by so much political correctness and inability to state the biologically obvious, that it’s getting hard to read. For example,
[quote]What Charlie Horse wrote:
Unless my instincts tell me not to approach then it is observe, call it in, then wait until something happens ready to call the cops/RCMP(who use many officers to deal with just one person).
[/quote]
…Could be better re-rewritten to say, “I’m perfectly comfortable as a female CO. And at those times when my female instincts tell me I’m not, I then call in the MOSTLY BIGGER, STRONGER MALE cops/RCMP to solve the situation.”
Good grief!
And as for the very saccharine-sounding opinions of,
[quote]lewhitehurst wrote: “If someone can handle the job, they can handle the job, period” [/quote] or,
[quote]sphereninewrote: People [of either gender] qualified for the job should be able to work as corrections officers in male prisons
[/quote]
Such statements only sound so polite and benign because they side-step the debate! Indeed, they refrain from stating anything at all about gender. Such statements use gender-neutral pronouns and make the subject “the job” rather than any one “male” or “female” gender. …But this is just timid avoidance. Such statements merely elicit an unspoken new version of the very same question: that is, which gender is, in fact, more qualified or can better handle the “job” as a prison CO?
And the answer to this question is the same as it was when the OP first posted: that men are, on average, better able to “handle the job” and are, on average, “more qualified for the job” as a prison CO than are women.
Sure, we can all imagine the odd and hypothetical situation in which a well-trained 200lb female CO could subdue a 140lb male inmate. Or there may indeed exist, in some corner of space and time, a somehow chivalrous male prisoner who responds better to a non-threatening female CO than he might to a more confrontational male guard. But these are exceptions to the rule. The very fact that we have to imagine these scenarios or consider them as hypothetical should be a logical warning sign.
The CENTRAL TENDENCY is that men are, on average, bigger, stronger, and faster than women. That’s not sexist. It’s biology. Moreover, there exist gender-specific differences in mental or psychological TENDENCIES that parallel the physical. Again, that’s not sexist. It’s biology. By and large, it’s these predominantly male physical and mental traits and tendencies (i.e., mostly found in males!) that likely serve a prison CO better than do female traits.
All other politically correct posturing, such straining and squinting against the biologically obvious, is just so much mental masturbation. While it feels good, it really doesn’t accomplish anything.
This thread is leaking out so much PC thought, I felt it all the way over in the SATMA forum.
[/quote]
Since you quote me, I will say I didn’t sidestep anything, nor was what I stated politically correct. I stated facts. In MY personal experience, the two women that I know who are COs CAN handle the job and have done it for years with no problems. If you are going to quote me, please quote me in the context in which the statement was made. And for the record, yes as a general rule men are stronger than women and as a general rule, they would be the best choice as COs on the surface if you were simply talking about physicality. But there is more to being a CO than the physical aspect. In the example that the OP used most MEN couldn’t handle the prisoner, so gender had nothing to do with it. Being a good CO is about negotiation and being able to read a prisoner’s body language, mood and mental state more than it is just about being bigger and stronger. The idea is to diffuse the situation before it becomes physical. Physical confrontation is how most of the prisoners ended up there so you being Billy bad Ass doesn’t mean shit to a real hardened criminal, especially if they are in there for a very long stint or may not even get out.
[quote]dr.mcmc wrote:
This thread is burdened by so much political correctness and inability to state the biologically obvious, that it’s getting hard to read. For example,
[quote]What Charlie Horse wrote:
Unless my instincts tell me not to approach then it is observe, call it in, then wait until something happens ready to call the cops/RCMP(who use many officers to deal with just one person).
[/quote]
…Could be better re-rewritten to say, “I’m perfectly comfortable as a female CO. And at those times when my female instincts tell me I’m not, I then call in the MOSTLY BIGGER, STRONGER MALE cops/RCMP to solve the situation.”
Good grief!
And as for the very saccharine-sounding opinions of,
[quote]lewhitehurst wrote: “If someone can handle the job, they can handle the job, period” [/quote] or,
[quote]sphereninewrote: People [of either gender] qualified for the job should be able to work as corrections officers in male prisons
[/quote]
Such statements only sound so polite and benign because they side-step the debate! Indeed, they refrain from stating anything at all about gender. Such statements use gender-neutral pronouns and make the subject “the job” rather than any one “male” or “female” gender. …But this is just timid avoidance. Such statements merely elicit an unspoken new version of the very same question: that is, which gender is, in fact, more qualified or can better handle the “job” as a prison CO?
And the answer to this question is the same as it was when the OP first posted: that men are, on average, better able to “handle the job” and are, on average, “more qualified for the job” as a prison CO than are women.
Sure, we can all imagine the odd and hypothetical situation in which a well-trained 200lb female CO could subdue a 140lb male inmate. Or there may indeed exist, in some corner of space and time, a somehow chivalrous male prisoner who responds better to a non-threatening female CO than he might to a more confrontational male guard. But these are exceptions to the rule. The very fact that we have to imagine these scenarios or consider them as hypothetical should be a logical warning sign.
The CENTRAL TENDENCY is that men are, on average, bigger, stronger, and faster than women. That’s not sexist. It’s biology. Moreover, there exist gender-specific differences in mental or psychological TENDENCIES that parallel the physical. Again, that’s not sexist. It’s biology. By and large, it’s these predominantly male physical and mental traits and tendencies (i.e., mostly found in males!) that likely serve a prison CO better than do female traits.
All other politically correct posturing, such straining and squinting against the biologically obvious, is just so much mental masturbation. While it feels good, it really doesn’t accomplish anything.
This thread is leaking out so much PC thought, I felt it all the way over in the SATMA forum.
[/quote]
I know you’re trying to be provocative and insightful, and I don’t disagree with your general observation of the sexes (all things being equal, because there are plenty of physically “weak” men), but what you are missing is the requirement of the job.
Now, I’m not a C/O, but I doubt very much the job description includes “subduing prisoners”. That might be the job as YOU imagine it, but I can tell you that prison and jail are full or routine and procedure. That routine and procedure is intended to protect inmate and guard alike.
If there is a measure of physicality required, it should be measured, and it should be tested for qualification. And here is where our respective opinions can find middle ground. If you create a physical test that is required for qualification, and that SAME test is administered to both sexes and not otherwise adjusted, and a woman can qualify, she should be able to fill the job. Anything else is just discrimination and has NOTHING to do with the realities that you so loudly and proudly shout about that we are all very much aware 
[quote]lewhitehurst wrote:
[quote]dr.mcmc wrote:
This thread is burdened by so much political correctness and inability to state the biologically obvious, that it’s getting hard to read. For example,
[quote]What Charlie Horse wrote:
Unless my instincts tell me not to approach then it is observe, call it in, then wait until something happens ready to call the cops/RCMP(who use many officers to deal with just one person).
[/quote]
…Could be better re-rewritten to say, “I’m perfectly comfortable as a female CO. And at those times when my female instincts tell me I’m not, I then call in the MOSTLY BIGGER, STRONGER MALE cops/RCMP to solve the situation.”
Good grief!
And as for the very saccharine-sounding opinions of,
[quote]lewhitehurst wrote: “If someone can handle the job, they can handle the job, period” [/quote] or,
[quote]sphereninewrote: People [of either gender] qualified for the job should be able to work as corrections officers in male prisons
[/quote]
Such statements only sound so polite and benign because they side-step the debate! Indeed, they refrain from stating anything at all about gender. Such statements use gender-neutral pronouns and make the subject “the job” rather than any one “male” or “female” gender. …But this is just timid avoidance. Such statements merely elicit an unspoken new version of the very same question: that is, which gender is, in fact, more qualified or can better handle the “job” as a prison CO?
And the answer to this question is the same as it was when the OP first posted: that men are, on average, better able to “handle the job” and are, on average, “more qualified for the job” as a prison CO than are women.
Sure, we can all imagine the odd and hypothetical situation in which a well-trained 200lb female CO could subdue a 140lb male inmate. Or there may indeed exist, in some corner of space and time, a somehow chivalrous male prisoner who responds better to a non-threatening female CO than he might to a more confrontational male guard. But these are exceptions to the rule. The very fact that we have to imagine these scenarios or consider them as hypothetical should be a logical warning sign.
The CENTRAL TENDENCY is that men are, on average, bigger, stronger, and faster than women. That’s not sexist. It’s biology. Moreover, there exist gender-specific differences in mental or psychological TENDENCIES that parallel the physical. Again, that’s not sexist. It’s biology. By and large, it’s these predominantly male physical and mental traits and tendencies (i.e., mostly found in males!) that likely serve a prison CO better than do female traits.
All other politically correct posturing, such straining and squinting against the biologically obvious, is just so much mental masturbation. While it feels good, it really doesn’t accomplish anything.
This thread is leaking out so much PC thought, I felt it all the way over in the SATMA forum.
[/quote]
Since you quote me, I will say I didn’t sidestep anything, nor was what I stated politically correct. I stated facts. In MY personal experience, the two women that I know who are COs CAN handle the job and have done it for years with no problems. If you are going to quote me, please quote me in the context in which the statement was made. And for the record, yes as a general rule men are stronger than women and as a general rule, they would be the best choice as COs on the surface if you were simply talking about physicality. But there is more to being a CO than the physical aspect. In the example that the OP used most MEN couldn’t handle the prisoner, so gender had nothing to do with it. Being a good CO is about negotiation and being able to read a prisoner’s body language, mood and mental state more than it is just about being bigger and stronger. The idea is to diffuse the situation before it becomes physical. Physical confrontation is how most of the prisoners ended up there so you being Billy bad Ass doesn’t mean shit to a real hardened criminal, especially if they are in there for a very long stint or may not even get out. [/quote]
My point exactly. And I’d say that a good portion of prisoners could more than handle any single male C/O, no matter what his physical stature is. It’s sites like this, that interest people that want to be “bigger and stronger” that have people confused about being big and being able to fight. A guy inside for violent crime is willing to do things in a fight that regular people, no matter how large or strong, ARE NOT WILLING TO DO OR WOULD NEVER THINK OF DOING. The job is more than subduing prisoners.