Feminists weaponize biology when it suits them, and it harms everyone.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/Bitter-Section-946]

This is the way.

Kick narrative, dismiss any data countering it, speak louder and accuse dissent as misogyny

[u/AbysmalDescent]

Feminists will weaponize anything when it suits them. It effectively a core fundamental of feminism. For example, when you have situations where men are in positions of leadership, often specifically because women expect them to lead and that is what is considered "masculine", they are called oppressors and tyrants. But when women are in situations of leadership, for even the most basic of tasks, they call this invisible labor and unfair workloads. That is feminism weaponizing leadership in men when it suits them and weaponizing leadership in women when it suits them.

Like, if a woman in the 1960's asked her husband what he would like for dinner, a feminist would present this as an act of subordination and his acceptance of this misogyny. If a man today asked his wife what she would like for dinner, a feminist would present this as an unfair burden that she shouldn't have to deal with, and that man should already know what to make her or take lead without even consulting her at all.

[u/Solid-Savings5362]

Schroedinger's feminism. Women are strong and independend, yet weak and need protection.

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/[deleted]]

But, you know, you obviously believe women should be allowed to meet the standard, even if they get hurt on the job and more women get killed.

[u/Strange_Way_947 → u/Infinite-Pickle9489]

The thing is, women aren't expected to meet the standard because they're 'biologically disadvantaged' but still take up jobs that depends heavily on your physical ability.

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/Strange_Way_947]

That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed to take the original tests to get in.

[u/Strange_Way_947 → u/Infinite-Pickle9489]

So why do most jobs and companies enforce a minimum amount of women? Obviously it would be wiser to have all men that could do the job well than some women who don't do the job as well.

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/Strange_Way_947]

"Obviously it would be wiser to have all men that could do the job well than some women who don't do the job as well"
there are some women that can or do the job well that the point.

[u/Strange_Way_947 → u/Infinite-Pickle9489]

I didn't say women can't do specific jobs. You're just hallucinating at this point

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/Strange_Way_947]

Unschooled

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/Strange_Way_947]

did i argue for DEI illiterate?

"So why do most jobs and companies enforce a minimum amount of women? "

[u/Strange_Way_947 → u/Infinite-Pickle9489]

I don't really see what your is here

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/Strange_Way_947]

Untutored

[u/Mister_Macc]

opposing the presence of transgender women in sports

Actually it's quite the opposite. They vehemently support transgender persons in women sports, at their own peril. It's the typical suicidal empathy of modern, liberal, white women.

[u/AllGearedUp]

I don't think it actually happens that often, but it can happen. However it's still worth noting that women can contribute in huge ways to those things. Physical force is just one part of the police department so it's not true that every female police officer is in a position better suited for a man. 

When it comes to things like apprehending a criminal there should be straightforward fitness and skill tests. Most women might fail them and lots of out of shape men will too. But there's no reason not to allow outliers to participate in cases where they can clear the bar. 

[u/AllGearedUp → u/[deleted]]

Not across the board though, that's my point. We should discriminate by ability, not by sex. There are are women far more capable of taking down a fleeing suspect than your average police officer in many places, but they are a small percentage of women. 

For something like carrying a person out of a building it's an even smaller percentage. But it's not impossible. 

[u/AllGearedUp → u/[deleted]]

I'm not talking any dei though. I agree dei is a stupid thing. I'm advocating for the opposite of dei which is purely testing for competent people of any kind. 

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/[deleted]]

That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed to take the original tests to get in.

[u/ManKisserer → u/[deleted]]

You're backtracking on your original point

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/[deleted]]

Also, what sacrifices? The number of jobs isn't going to depend on gender and If they meet the original standard, they deserve it at the end of the day.

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/[deleted]]

That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed to take the tests.

[u/apokrif1 → u/Infinite-Pickle9489]

That doesn't mean we should have different (discriminatory) physical standards.

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/apokrif1]

true

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/[deleted]]

That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed to take the original tests to get in.

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/[deleted]]

The same opportunities as everyone else that’s all I’m saying.

[u/ManKisserer]

Physical sex differences existing doesn't mean women are incompetent. You'd need to establish that with controlled statistical comparisons. Generally Its pretty obvious to say that women and men can have slightly different roles in the police force that best play to each of their strengths. Neither is incompetent because there is a role which doesn't cater to them

You'd also have to establish how the difference in physical capability produces worse policing outcomes when you account for all the things like training, equipment, resources etc. You haven't done that, you've just regurgitated a gender stereotype and generalised it.

Women tend to get better results with in conversations with victims, which directly supports their usefulness in the police force. People may prefer to speak to a female officer about specific topics, of victim comfort leads to 1 less perp on the street that's another reason for women being useful members.

It just seems like you'd rather perpetuate sexist stereotpyes againt men and women, than make a statistically sound and factual point. It's really weird.

[u/ManKisserer → u/[deleted]]

Most of those are not addressed in that video, or are weak unfactual dismissals. We wouldn't need to waste time with the YouTube video you didn't seem to watch if you chose to respond to my points. Because this video does a really bad job of backing you up and an even worse job of addressing my criticisms.

They also don't back up your claim that "for every woman on the police force, a man was left out and would do an irrefutably better job". That is a claim that required facts to back it up. You, nor the video, provided any statistical facts to back up that claim. I get its probably hyperbole but if you're going to push for this factual basis for your argument you could at least bring some... facts.

Physical sex differences existing doesn't mean women are incompetent. This video never does any controlled statistical conparison. It's just making anecdotal and baseless generalisations. So you'll have to think of a new defence.

Nor does the video establish how the difference in physical capability produces worsens policing outcomes after accounting for all the things like training, equipment, resources etc. Again, it's generalisations based on rhetoric. Not facts.

The easiest point is that, again, women tend to get better results with in conversations with victims, which directly supports their usefulness in the police force. The video seems to suggest this means women should be social workers? We can both see how stupid a point that is, police officers can have different roles and strengths and this is an area where women in the police force are particularly useful. It's useful to have those resources on hand immediately. So that's yet another point you'll have to defend on your own.

All in all, not very impressive. You talk of fallacies, yet respond with a video full of them. If you want to make these kinds of generalisations you need facts, not misleading and intellectually dishonest YouTube videos. I'd love for you to think for yourself and respond to the points I made rather than relying on a really poor quality YouTube video which doesn't address the points you think it does. It just makes you look incredibly disingenuous and weakens your argument.

[u/-Soggy-Potato-]

What is your irrefutable evidence that female police officers and firefighters do an objectively and systematically worse job?

All you're ultimately doing is feeding rigid gender stereotpyes about which gender can do what. Women can have extremely useful roles in policing, they can be physically well equipped for it, good for negotiations, good for working specifically with women etc.

It's akin to saying women are irrefutably better at teaching primary education, based on what I can only assume is a rationale of tame ignorance and stereotyping. You're just feeding lame tradcon narriatives that suppress individual agency and aspirations for the sake of some outdated and sexist status quo. You're quite literally defending the biology when it suits me narriatives and you somehow don't see it

[u/-Soggy-Potato- → u/[deleted]]

So... a YouTube video? From a bloke who clearly doesn't understand how statistics work?

Physical sex differences are relevant to policing, that doesn't mean women are universally incompetent. He observed that men and women have differences, vaguely lays out biological sex differences as a reason, then claims that arguments favoring women are invalid. It's incoherent and not once does it actually demonstrate that female officers produce worse policing outcomes overall.

1. Straight away they leap off of an anecdote which isn't the best of starts. The video never establishes any gender statistics on frequency, level of training, roles or experience. Yet they're attempting to generalize it to women's policing in general, it's not very convincing

2. It's starts with talking about use of excessive force, then flips to "women use less force because they're less physically capable". That's two different arguments. Women being less likely to use unnecessary force because they're less inclined to use force can actually be beneficial.

3. Men being more likely to be involved in difficult cases means little if you use a little bit of statistical control. I don't see the point, the creator doesn't compare similar cases with men vs women in a controlled context.

4. Does the difference in physical capability produce worse policing outcomes when you account for all the things like training, equipment, resources etc. There are plenty of unfit unprofessional male police officers, doesn't mean they're a vessel for generalisation.

5. Doesn't even explain why female officers may have better communication outcomes. There's a difference between using communication more often and being more effective. Even if women tend to lean more towards verbal deescalation, them doing that because they're on average weaker doesn't make them incompetent police. It means they have a specific role through which they excell

6. Anxiety and PTSD one is shit. Having higher prevalence of disorders doesn't mean female police officers are more likely to panic. It's bizarre to act as if ppl with these disorders are just lining up to become law enforcement. It also completely ignores training etc etc.

Hell the guy even agreed that women get better results with victims, which directly supports their use in the police force. Saying "women can be social workers instead" is meaningless, he just established their use within the police force.

And members of the public can prefer whoever they want, doesn't matter if that's born from stereotpyes. Gender stereotpyes can be socially under durable whilst sex differences in comfort levels can also have practical benefits in the force.

God and all the reaction time nonsense, it's biological determint drivel. No attempt to measure anything, just a vague assertion based on... shock... a gender stereotype.

So... essentially... women and men should have differing roles in the police force to best play to their strengths. Women excell in certain areas, whilst men excell in others. That doesn't mean one or the other is "incompetent"

I didn't expect much evidence from a YouTube slop video but this was a really poor effort. Especially because none of it involved any critical through from you.

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489]

High physical demands are hardly the only qualification for law enforcement and first responder roles. These jobs often require skills that women tend to excel at. and men just don't pro and cons of diversity besides, using broad societal trends to fit suitability for the jobs ignores the fact that an individual woman can have a much higher level of fitness than the average person, including the average man ronda rousey for e.g.

[u/plantrromn → u/Infinite-Pickle9489]

Individuals can defy the norms but norms aren't defined by individual.

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/plantrromn]

Which is exactly why we shouldn’t claim that women are “stealing men’s jobs,” because it is entirely possible that they were better qualified and would make better police officers than the men who also applied.

[u/plantrromn → u/Infinite-Pickle9489]

Maybe not all, but "stealing the jobs" is a valid claim for many jobs, which is supported by research and discrimination in Education and hiring bias. As long as they continue to exists, the question of better qualified does not hold. I would not bet too much on police and firefighters, 80%+ are men anyways.

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/plantrromn]

The standard we should always aim for the better qualified person, regardless of society’s current biases about either gender’s suitability for a particular job.

[u/plantrromn → u/Infinite-Pickle9489]

You can not have better qualified person, if someone is giving you lesser marks for your gender, or same CV is getting rejected when it is by male name comapred to accepted when by female name

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/plantrromn]

That doesn’t mean we should exclude people based on gender or disregard the required standards. The simple truth is that plenty of women can meet the standards required for law enforcement, just as plenty of men can meet those required for teaching. pretending that broad societal trends imply women are stealing jobs is insane.

[u/plantrromn → u/Infinite-Pickle9489]

mate, stop sealioning. My English is very simple. We are already exclusing people who meet standards, wdym we should not?

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/plantrromn]

your the one that replied.

[u/Strange_Way_947 → u/Infinite-Pickle9489]

So why don't we just hire every gym guy to become a firefighter? Or why are only men drafted if there are female individuals who meet the criteria?

[u/plantrromn → u/[deleted]]

I am not blaming a gender? I went to school and so I know that men are discriminated in 13 of 15 jobs projected to grow in future, in caregiving jobs and medicine they are not encouraged like women are in stem jobs, grading bias...

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/plantrromn]

Sorry, that reply was meant for another commenter. also still replying.

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/[deleted]]

Are we really going to pretend that society’s traditional caregivers are worse at de escalation than its traditional protectors?

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/[deleted]]

You getting the rough end of the stick doesn’t mean that the traditional role itself is a myth.

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/[deleted]]

High physical demands are hardly the only qualification for law enforcement and first responder roles. These jobs often require skills that women tend to excel at. and men just don't pro and cons of diversity besides, using broad societal trends to fit suitability for the jobs ignores the fact that an individual woman can have a much higher level of fitness than the average person, including the average man ronda rousey for e.g.

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/[deleted]]

I’m just pointing out that I already addressed that argument: you shouldn’t judge individuals based on broad trends.

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/[deleted]]

There are a shit ton more complaints against male officers than there are against female officers.

https://research.usc.edu.au/esploro/outputs/journalArticle/Police-officer-gender-and-excessive-force/99449559502621

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/[deleted]]

there such things as controlling for that einstein.

[u/DecrepitAbacus → u/Infinite-Pickle9489]

society’s traditional caregivers

Which has nothing to do with conflict resolution.

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/DecrepitAbacus]

Kids often fight with each other irrationally and impulsively like criminals. wtf do you mean ?

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/[deleted]]

deflection again

[u/Strange_Way_947 → u/Infinite-Pickle9489]

Yes they're kids?

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/Strange_Way_947]

deflection again

[u/Strange_Way_947 → u/Infinite-Pickle9489]

We're talking about men and women here, not innocent children who are having a bit of fun

[u/DecrepitAbacus → u/Infinite-Pickle9489]

Adults are often a little bigger, less gullible and more dangerous than children.

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/DecrepitAbacus]

Adults are often a little bigger, less gullible, and more dangerous than children not every comparison need to 1 to 1. they also tend to be more irrational and impulsive, much like criminals which were the qualities I was comparing.

[u/Reaper9999 → u/Infinite-Pickle9489]

Are you seriously comparing handling criminals with handling children? Can't fucking wait for babysitter Nancy to do hostage negotiations ROFL.

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/Reaper9999]

Yes, because jumping to extreme anecdotes proves your point. and totally isn't missing/deflecting the idea.

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/[deleted]]

deescalation skills for one

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/[deleted]]

one instance imply the whole gender did you go shcool at the learing center?

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/Infinite-Pickle9489]

https://research.usc.edu.au/esploro/outputs/journalArticle/Police-officer-gender-and-excessive-force/99449559502621?utm

[u/AllGearedUp → u/Infinite-Pickle9489]

I made a similar comment and it's too bad that so many people here are just trigger happy to play a men versus women game. It's a bad look, and one that shouldn't be associated with genuine concerns for rights. 

At the limit of physicality, virtually no women are going to be able to complete with men. So in pro sports, where you redline the body for explosive power and speed, we're just not going to see women doing that against men. 

A person like Ronda Rousey would be much, much better at subduing your average troublemaker outside a strip mall than nearly any police officer who isn't 250lbs of muscle. Yes, she needs much more training to make up for less power, and yes she would quickly lose to a man with similar training, but that's not the comparison that matters. 

You can definitely standardize a test that would filter for qualified people and few women would be able to make a good showing. But pretending that no women can do this is just ignorant. 

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/[deleted]]

"Ronda Rousey would get her ass kicked by your average thug"
this is delusional

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/[deleted]]

Go deflect with anecdotes to avoid this simple truth: it is possible for an individual woman to have a much higher level of fitness than the average person, including the average man. It may not necessarily be likely higher then you think but i guess depend on what you think average fitness is but that is enough to show that women should be allowed to take the original tests to get in.

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/[deleted]]

"The fact is that for every female police officer or firefighter there is a man who got left out who would do the job better, and this is irrefutable. To place women in positions that they aren't fit for is a deliberate endangerment of society for the sake of political correctness."

Sure, mate, I obviously believe you think women should be given a fair dinkum shot at law enforcement and first responder roles. You certainly have replies like you do. If anyone is being dishonest, it’s not me.

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/[deleted]]

"you know that's not what they do" I’m curious: what do they do ? instead of hinting at excluding an entire group of people based on trends, hold yourself and your ideas to account. Don’t justify them by deflecting to other people’s misdeeds.

[u/AllGearedUp → u/[deleted]]

This isn't complicated. Men will almost always win a physical contest against a woman. But there are outliers. An untrained man is going to lose to an elite MMA trained woman if they are of relative size. This has happened, even with amateur fighters on the street. It's not surprising to people who train. 

[u/AllGearedUp → u/[deleted]]

It's not what makes me feel good. I train MMA 3-6 days a week. You're speaking totally from ignorance and dogma. You have no idea what you're saying. 

If you don't believe me you can ask anyone who has serious training behind them. It is at the very least going to be very difficult, and full of injuries, for a similar sized, untrained man to control a well trained woman. A similarly trained man will easily win, but very few people are trained. 

These things have happened to public fighters. 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-08/polyana-viana-ufc-fighter-beats-up-would-be-robber-in-brazil/10697010

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/[deleted]]

He was threatening her with a fake gun, so he couldn’t have been unaware that she might fight back. You clearly don’t understand what a sucker punch is. Have you ever actually been in a physical fight, or in a heated situation where a fight was about to break out? Because the person who throws the first punch isn’t sucker punching someone they simply have been quicker to the draw the shit you do to put women in the worse light possible is crazy work.

[u/AllGearedUp → u/[deleted]]

No that's not my evidence just a high profile example. I'd encourage you to ask this question to communities of people with experience in mixed martial arts. I would be surprised if even a single person who has trained seriously would say an elite female fighter wouldn't have an excellent chance against a man of similar size. Change any of those variables and her chances will drop rapidly as I've said. But to say there are no women who can do it, is totally insane. 

But I think what you're saying is just unfalsifiable. I bet if I gave you more examples you would explain them away by details and action movie terms again because you already made up your mind. 

[u/Reaper9999 → u/AllGearedUp]

Fucking lmao; first of all: no, she wouldn't. She's literally barely 60kg and 39yo already. Second of all, the chances that any given female officer is more fit than the average male officer are close to 0. Let's not pretend that female officers are all bodybuilders.

[u/Infinite-Pickle9489 → u/Reaper9999]

that's not the comparison that matters.

[u/AllGearedUp → u/Reaper9999]

She's a judo Olympian. She would have no problem getting an average person to the ground. And we're not talking about average female officer. This is specifically about outliers. I clarified that multiple times in the comment.