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-a-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
911," the Richard Clarke
show and the jihad against
the Swiftboat 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 Jr. 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.
Thanks Ann - No Man could
ever say this without losing
his job in today's "politically
correct" world.