imported post
ixtow, I gotta agree that a lot of young women are not prepared to wield the responsibility of the uniform or the weapon. I've met young men that I wouldn't trust with my garbage bag out of my sight.
generally to all ...
I believe women have biology to overcome. I also believe that many girls are still being raised that "as agood [insert religion of preference here]woman, your role is to be wife and mother" which is still in conflict with the feminist movement that "you can have it all, baby" or "you can bring home the bacon, cook it up and be a (wonderwoman) wife and mother."
Ibelieve that men have biology to overcome, too. I also belive that many boys are still being raised that "as a strong man, you are to protect weakerwomen." A paternalistic viewpoint, but based on men's biology, therefore valid.
I believe in equal pay for equal work, and equal opportunity, but the feminist movement of the 1960's and 1970's was not in our(women's) best interest. It defeminized a whole generation of women and debased us in the eyes of a whole generation of men ... well, I'm probably not stating this very well (long day).
Women aren't the same as men physically, intellectuallyor emotionally. Nor are we meant to be.We are different. Our brains and bodies work differently. That doesn't mean that we cannot perform the same jobs, it just means that we may arrive at the same outcome by a different route. Our driving forces give us a different perspective than men ... that is what being human is all about. Someone from a different cultural background will not think like me, nor would I want them to. Nor would that make them wrong. Just different. (No, we are not all going to sing Kumbaya :lol
I had to fight this attitude from my mother ... the "you don't need a man to be a whole woman" crap she bought into in the 1960's.
The way I see it is 'men are hunters' biologically, and 'women and children are gatherers.' There is a lot of 'nature' in there, but also a lot of 'nurture' in there, too. Don't forget, in nature, the female of the species generally raises the offspring alone or with limited help from the male. The female of a species is often the more dangerous of the two, especially in defense of the offspring. As 'civilized human beings' too many believe we have moved past the need for such differentiation. I don't happen to buy into this. With the right nurture, a woman's nature can be expanded to incorporate such traditionally male occupations as warfare, security (police), provider, and protector.
I am a lady first and foremost. I also provide nurturing for my family which means I cook, clean, gather (shop), and provide partnership to my SO. He is a he-man first and foremost. He also provides safety, security and hunts (works to earn a living) and provides me with a partnership. We are equal in our own ways. I also worked a full time job, but when we were young and broke, and it was 15F with 8" of snow and a 25mph wind out of the north and the one vehicle needed repair so we could get to work the next day, I was out there with him, wrenching under the car, in the engine compartment ... whatever needed done. Was it an equal partnership, split 50-50 all the time, no. But it was equal in it's own way.
IMHO, the female officer simply needs the time to gain experience. There may be a problem with the training program she was given, and that is the problem that needs to be addressed. But, sadly, EOE will probably not allow adjustments to be made that would equalize the final output (graduated officer person.)
climbing down off my soapbox with my opinions
