USA wrote:
> Freeze! I just had my nails done! (ANN COULTER)
>
> WorldNetDaily ^ | 3/16/05 | Ann Coulter
>
> How many people have to die before the country stops humoring
> feminists? Last week, a defendant in a rape case, Brian Nichols,
> wrested a gun from a female deputy in an Atlanta courthouse and went
> on a murderous rampage. Liberals have proffered every possible
> explanation for this breakdown in security except the giant elephant
> in the room – who undoubtedly has an eating disorder and would
> appreciate a little support vis-à-vis her negative body image.
>
> The New York Times said the problem was not enough government spending
> on courthouse security ("Budgets Can Affect Safety Inside Many
> Courthouses"). Yes, it was tax-cuts-for-the-rich that somehow enabled
> a 200-pound former linebacker to take a gun from a 5-foot-tall
> grandmother.
>
> Atlanta court officials dispensed with any spending issues the next
> time Nichols entered the courtroom when he was escorted by 17 guards
> and two police helicopters. He looked like P. Diddy showing up for a
> casual dinner party.
>
> I think I have an idea that would save money and lives: Have large men
> escort violent criminals. Admittedly, this approach would risk another
> wave of nausea and vomiting by female professors at Harvard. But there
> are also advantages to not pretending women are as strong as men, such
> as fewer dead people. Even a female math professor at Harvard should
> be able to run the numbers on this one.
>
> Of course, it's suspiciously difficult to find any hard data about the
> performance of female cops. Not as hard as finding the study showing
> New Jersey state troopers aren't racist, but still pretty hard to
> find.
>
> Mostly what you find on Lexis-Nexis are news stories quoting police
> chiefs who have been browbeaten into submission, all uttering the
> identical mantra after every public-safety disaster involving a girl
> cop. It seems that female officers compensate for a lack of strength
> with "other" abilities, such as cooperation, empathy and intuition.

If a woman does not know how to pacify a man she
ain't no woman.

D.

> There are lots of passing references to "studies" of uncertain
> provenance, but which always sound uncannily like a press release from
> the Feminist Majority Foundation. (Or maybe it was The Pew Research
> Center for the People and the Press, which recently released a study
> claiming that despite Memogate, "Fahrenheit 9/11," the Richard Clarke
> show and the jihad against the Swift Boat Veterans, the press is being
> soft on Bush.)
>
> The anonymous "studies" about female officers invariably demonstrate
> that women make excellent cops – even better cops than men! One such
> study cited an episode of "She's the Sheriff," starring Suzanne
> Somers.
>
> A 1993 news article in the Los Angeles Times, for example, referred to
> a "study" – cited by an ACLU attorney – allegedly proving
that "female
> officers are more effective at making arrests without employing force
> because they are better at de-escalating confrontations with
> suspects." No, you can't see the study or have the name of the
> organization that performed it, and why would you ask?
>
> There are roughly 118 million men in this country who would take
> exception to that notion. I wonder if women officers "de-escalate" by
> mentioning how much more money their last suspect made.
>
> These aren't unascertainable facts, like Pinch Sulzberger's SAT
> scores. The U.S. Department of Justice regularly performs
> comprehensive surveys of state and local law enforcement agencies,
> collected in volumes called "Law Enforcement Management and
> Administrative Statistics."
>
> The inestimable economist John Lott has looked at the actual data.
> (And I'll give you the citation! John R. Lott Jr., "Does a Helping
> Hand Put Others at Risk? Affirmative Action, Police Departments and
> Crime," Economic Inquiry, April 1, 2000.)
>
> It turns out that, far from "de-escalating force" through their
> superior listening skills, female law enforcement officers vastly are
> more likely to shoot civilians than their male counterparts.
> (Especially when perps won't reveal where they bought a particularly
> darling pair of shoes.)
>
> Unable to use intermediate force, like a bop on the nose, female
> officers quickly go to fatal force. According to Lott's analysis, each
> 1 percent increase in the number of white female officers in a police
> force increases the number of shootings of civilians by 2.7 percent.
>
> Adding males to a police force decreases the number of civilians
> accidentally shot by police. Adding black males decreases civilian
> shootings by police even more. By contrast, adding white female
> officers increases accidental shootings. (And for my Handgun Control
> Inc. readers: Private citizens are much less likely to accidentally
> shoot someone than are the police, presumably because they do not have
> to approach the suspect and make an arrest.)
>
> In addition to accidentally shooting people, female law enforcement
> officers are also more likely to be assaulted than male officers – as
> the whole country saw in Atlanta last week. Lott says: "Increasing the
> number of female officers by 1 percentage point appears to increase
> the number of assaults on police by 15 percent to 19 percent."
>
> In addition to the obvious explanations for why female cops are more
> likely to be assaulted and to accidentally shoot people – such as that
> our society encourages girls to play with dolls – there is also the
> fact that women are smaller and weaker than men.
>
> In a study of public-safety officers – not even the general population
> – female officers were found to have 32 percent to 56 percent less
> upper body strength and 18 percent to 45 percent less lower body
> strength than male officers – although their outfits were 43 percent
> more coordinated. (Here's the cite! Frank J. Landy, "Alternatives to
> Chronological Age in Determining Standards of Suitability for Public
> Safety Jobs," Technical Report, Vol. 1, Jan. 31, 1992.)
>
> Another study I've devised involves asking a woman to open a jar of
> pickles.
>
> There is also the telling fact that feminists demand that strength
> tests be watered down so that women can pass them. Feminists
> simultaneously demand that no one suggest women are not as strong as
> men and then turn around and demand that all the strength tests be
> changed. It's one thing to waste everyone's time by allowing women to
> try out for police and fire departments under the same tests given to
> men. It's quite another to demand that the tests be brawned-down so no
> one ever has to tell female Harvard professors that women aren't as
> strong as men.
>
> Acknowledging reality wouldn't be all bad for women. For one thing,
> they won't have to confront violent felons on methamphetamine. So
> that's good. Also, while a sane world would not employ 5-foot-tall
> grandmothers as law enforcement officers, a sane world would also not
> give full body-cavity searches to 5-foot-tall grandmothers at
> airports.


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/18/05 4:59:42 PM ---