http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17393

By Ann Coulter
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 17, 2005

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.

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.


--
Men are everywhere that matters!





--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/18/05 4:59:49 PM ---