Please help me with a debate

[Tiddleywanks]

Got myself into a stupid argument about female police officers - and I've had a constant barrage of "how can a woman deal with a big, strong, male criminal?"

"They even had to change the fitness test to suit women police candidates, so now the test is much easier!"

"It's not right! We're all less safe because of these changes!"

My arguments against have been around the fact that just because men tend to genetically stronger than women, doesn't mean women aren't strong enough, and there are huge individual variances. The job isn't just about brute force, lots of other skills needed etc ("but you don't chose which job you get sent on, what if it's a twenty stone man?!!").

And on the test - well now it's even easier for men then, as they're typically stronger/faster on average.

Can anyone help me express my rage in a clear coherent argument? I'm being shouted down, and I can't think!

Oh, that's quite tiresome.

If it's a twenty stone man, no male police officer is going to be able to restrain him physically on his own either. And the police try to avoid physical contact as much as possible any way.

The police test getting easier thing is bs, I think. A misunderstanding of what actually happened. I may be able to find a link about it.

Tbh, if the person you're discussing this with is shouting you down then it's not about the topic it's about them wanting to dominate in an argument. I'd probably back off and leave them to their ranting.

You are arguing with people who think the main role of a police officer is physically wrestling people. That is a small part of the job and usually done when the police have numbers on their side.

Why are you bothering? Stop wasting time arguing with idiots.

I thought it was actually very rare for any police officer to respond to an incident on their own unless it was assessed as very low risk. The facts on recorded crime show you are right about the big increase in crime being around fraud etc.

As for the fitness test, my understanding is that it is not repeated annually like in the army so it is not just about where you start but whether you maintain your fitness. Who would you want to chase a criminal? A fit woman who may not have reached a man's level of fitness when she signed up but who maintained her fitness or a man who was wonderfully fit and strong when he passed out but who spent the next 20 years in cars and eating fast food?

1. Not all police officers physically come into contact with criminals
2. Some criminals are very big men so using the logic of your opponent all police officers must be men 6 foot 5 or taller under the age of thirty who can lift their own body weight
3. Combat is about technique not strength. A black belt in taekwondo could take a man twice her size any day
4. Not all police officers come into contact with criminals! They absolutely do get to choose which jobs they do (to the extent that there are different departments and different roles).

Is it not the case both of you are right? In the most part a woman can and will do an equal if not better job as a man. However there is no denial that the fitness tests have been made easier. There was also a recent case of sexual discrimination against a male recruit who was turned down in favour of less able female recruits.

So, from a quick refresher search, any changes to fitness tests to enable more women to pass have happened because the police couldn't show any valid justification to keep the tests as hard as they are. This obviously means that many more men could pass those tests as well as women.

Oh dear, not this one again!

I've always really, really hoped that modern policing really really does not rely - solely and completely - on police officers' ability, unarmed, to bring down a 20-stone man.

As if that was the one and only qualification for current police officer work.

Oh dear. There is so, so much more.

I know. I've given up as it feels like it's getting nasty. It's not a debate, it's shout the woman down, one is asking for fellow mysogynists to join in, safety in numbers and all that 😂. It's literally a little live snippet of the patriarchy in action. The irony is unreal. One I always knew was an arrogant arse, so I didn't expect anything less, but the other guy has really surprised and disappointed me.

And It's just the most ridiculous argument.

Police operator: can you describe the criminal?

Member of public: yes, about 6 ft, med build, brown hair, male

Police operator: could you give me their grip strength and bleep test score? How energetic are they feeling today? Have they eaten well? Any injuries? I need this info so I can dispatch an appropriately matched officer to the scene to wrestle them into oblivion you see. Modern policing innit?

One is clearly bitter than he didn't get in twice. I think he's possibly teetering on the brink of setting up a campaigning group to protect the rights of the white male.

Thank you all..I feel.so much better for your replies!

Your twice failed man... did he fail the fitness test twice? Because it should have been easier for him to pass, if the test has been made easier to enable women to pass.

If he failed at later stages then he just wasn't suitable for the role, naff all to do with women.

I remember some book - possibly a 'raising boys' type book that said that males increase testosterone around other males so it sort of escalates things quite quickly. So having someone with less testosterone would stop this happening.

I can't remember the book - i'll see if I can find the source.

Been there, done that. Its a stupid male centered argument that assumes that there is only one job to do in the police, and ignores the fact that some victims of crime want female officers, or that a female suspect might need to be searched.

Often the case that the drunk who wants to fight a big burly copper can be pacified by a diplomatic female officer.

The female firearms officer who confronted the murderers of Fusilieer Rigby denied them the martydom they sought and shot them both in the legs.

And, Emilia Fox, QED.

The twice failed guy failed at the interview stage once, and second time didn't get past the application stage, because apparently the police only hire women and ethnic minorities 🤔

I suggested perhaps his experience (which he kept banging on about - I stuck to facts/linked to articles containing facts...) was affecting his view point and made a joke (he had previously likened me to Hitler (🤣) which I took as joke) and left the convo. Sneaked a peak to see what else had been said since I left and omg! I've ruined his weekend by bringing up his past failures - there was a long post but I stopped reading. It's just SO fucking pathetic, and I'm now a nasty, harsh, man hating feminist, which they all agree with 🤣.

The fact that he made a debate in sexism all about poor him, made a pretty bleeughhhh 'joke' about me and constantly shouted me down is invisible. But his poor feelings!! How dare I! (Err, own your feelings for a start). The double standards are shocking, and right there for all to see and they don't see it, at all.

It couldn't be a more text book interaction with a group of sexist men.

It was a pretty depressing experience really. Not something I'll bother to get involved in again - not least because some women supported their views - all young people (20s- 30s).

Thanks for all your replies, makes it a slightly less depressing situation!

"how can a woman deal with a big, strong, male criminal?"

Even if police work was all about bringing in huge men, how heavy is a taser anyway?

Even if police work was all about bringing in huge men, how heavy is a taser anyway. Exactly!!