Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

http://gazette.com/physical-fitness-testing-suspended-for-all-colorado-springs-police-officers/article/1562995

12 women failed a police fitness test, so they were put on desk work, instead of patrolling the streets.
They felt the test was, somehow, unfair, so they sued, and actually won.

Really, what? How do you claim a fitness exam is discrimination if both sexes are given the same test?

I imagine the military is gonna go through the same shit soon, if it hasn't already.

Because way too many people seem to think that gender equality means 50% women 50% men as opposed to men and women being held to the same standard.

I think it's stupid. Yes, its true that women won't be as strong on average but that's because the requirements need to hit a certain point. This applies to men as well, it just so happens to be that men are less likely to be affected by it by sheer circumstance. I wouldn't want someone who was not physically prepared to conduct their job to do such a job, both on the issue of their own safety as well as the safety of others.

This seems to be a major problem in a lot of activist movements really.

"Yes, sexual dimorphism is totally sexist, how dare evolution give males 30% more upper body strength and a larger build! We demand the police test suspended so women can patrol! It's not like you need physical fitness to chase down, hold down or fight off criminals right?"

The worst part is that this could cost people their lives seeing how people not physically fit are doing a very dangerous job, this could result in they themselves being killed, and not being able to their job and protect civilians. It's amazing how much damage people are willing to fight "Gender inequality" that was not there to begin with.

I think the issue comes from the fact that they were "all decorated officers over the age of 40." Whether you're male or female, you're not going to be as strong as you used to be once you hit that age. Putting someone that old on desk work isn't unreasonable at all.

EDIT:
@Ryumaru

“Yes, sexual dimorphism is totally sexist, how dare evolution give males 30% more upper body strength and a larger build! We demand the police test suspended so women can patrol! It’s not like you need physical fitness to chase down, hold down or fight off criminals right?”

Women have greater lower body strength and more efficient glycogen conversion, making them actually better at long-distance running. If anything, they should be better than the men at chasing down criminals, especially in a gun-filled world where the increased upper body strength of men is becoming more and more useless against armed criminals.

Ya? Feminists have been doing this successfully for two decades. Here's an article from 1997 covering 5 women suing over SEPTA's fitness test.

A couple years ago an FBI agent sued because he failed his push-up test by one, missing the men's mark, and said the agency's different standards for men and women is discriminatory.

12 women officers sued the Colorado Springs PD this year for the same reason as OP.

It was even big news this year when the NY fire department graduated a woman who couldn't pass the fitness test.

Where are you getting this "Women have greater lower body strength" because everything I've ever seen says the opposite.
Armed criminals aside, when dealing with non-armed criminals, you have to chase them down and restrain them, which takes strength.

But the ability to be a good cop isn't really judged on that, it's judged on your physical strength in several types of exercises, your endurance, ect… Your point is honestly pretty moot because those things don't really matter as much as your ability to do the job – which is a combination of many factors. If you don't have the ability to do your job correctly then you don't have the ability to do your job correctly, period.

Chasing them down is one thing, but what about actually restraining them? Actually needing to pull them to the ground, and hold them pinned there while backup arrives? You need speed and strength, and if women can have both, like men can, they should and probably are allowed to patrol. If not, then they shouldn't, no matter their gender.

Let me rephrase that.

Generally, the pure leg muscle strength and mass is actually very similar. However, women have greater flexibility in their legs and hips, and their lower center of gravity gives them greater balance. These factors, combined with the aforementioned greater endurance, gives women an edge in the lower body department men lack. This means women can easily be as good as, if not better than, men in things like gymnastics, long-distance running, and swimming.

also they generally don't have penises, which allows them to assume odd poses in gymnastics and yoga without risking ball injury

And, even though men have higher body strength on average, that's only comparing men and women with similar levels of training. Women can still be much stronger than the average person in all parts of the body if they put enough work into it.

As for the non-armed criminals thing, I'm not saying women are always superior at police work. I'm just saying they have different physical characteristics which give them different advantages, and that they're not going to be inferior to men in every department.

The physical requirements of women in the military are already less demanding than for males.

@snickerway

If what you said about women having superior lower body strength was even remotely true, than they would be the fastest athletes and the strongest squatters. They aren't though because that is not true. The difference in strength between men and women is slightly less though in the lower body. They tend to be more flexible as you stated.

Lastly, when subduing a criminal, being able to do the splits won't help much. So I do men have the physical advantage hands down.

This test isn't about averages I've thought, it's about people who can preform above average of everyone. At least that's what I'd hope it would be.

What seems crazier to me is that I don't think these tests are one and done. You can take them again later, and with more training and perhaps adjustments to your routine, you can probably increase your performance to do better on the next try. Unless this was the latest in a bunch of tries, or unless there was a male and female standard and the male one was easier, I don't see what the big deal is.

Flexibility and balance aren't really terrific qualities for a cop, a martial artist maybe, but police usually hold down and restrain criminals, something flexibility and balance do not help with.

I'm talking about averages, I'm well aware that a woman can be stronger than a man, I'm talking about over a group, if you have a strength line needing to be reached, on average, more men are going to clear that line than woman.

If you want to be fair, make tests easier for their sex. If you want to be safe, don't.

This just shows that traditional gender roles are the roles men and women are supposed to have been taking in the first place. Women don't have the physical fitness compared to men and were not made to do those things. Here is more evidence.

Even when I interact with women, I have always noticed how skinny their arms and legs were (Don't assume I stared at them like a pervert), I mean seriously they look like children.

Men are naturally stronger than women, but women aren't fragile, weak creatures.
There is also a lot more to fitness than brute strength.

You are being very borderline sexist, almost implying all men are stronger than all women.
When exorcising, men generally focus more on lifting weights while women focus more on running/endurance. So that is one thing to consider.

^ to be absolutely objective, there are grains of truth in what he said. For example, women tend to have weaker bones on average to men, just as a genetic quark. That's why osteoporosis affects so much more wkmen then men, 80% of women in fact. There's other examples of such things that highlights differences between men and women that are biological and unavoidable fact. Not that it's all women mind you, just the very overwhelming majority of women. It's why calcium is so important in the diet.

Oh yea, of course, its just his This just shows that traditional gender roles are the roles men and women are supposed to have been taking in the first place. comment that bothered me a little bit.

What I've said was that women can't do physically demanding tasks, but that doesn't mean they can't do other tasks. Like a woman can have a highly academic job; physicists for example (cough particle mare cough).

women can’t do physically demanding tasks

Why not?

Why not?

I mean, should I even explain?

Many women can do physically demanding tasks. Just not these ones apparently.

yes.

Yes. Because as long as the woman meets the requirements and can prove she can do her job correctly, I don't see any reason why she shouldn't get the job.

We have just been discussing about how women on average cannot do the physically demanding tasks that men on average can do. A woman that can outperform a man as far as physical fitness goes is in fact a rarity; there are exceptions like female bodybuilders/athletes, but that came after years of hard work and if a man did the same amount of work he would likely outperform the woman.

If a woman is able to do the tasks given then common sense dictates it would be fine, but then I would start getting sceptical if she is supposed to perform at her absolute peak and compete with the men.

>A woman that can outperform a man

Its not even about outperforming, its just about performing. You said, simply, women can not perform physically demanding tasks, but that is not true at all.
On average, men might be stronger, but that has nothing to do with most, or even all, women being weaker than men.

A woman doesn't have to be a bodybuilder to be stronger or tougher than a man.

Have you even met a woman in your life before?

I said it before, yea, men, on average, are stronger than women, but there is a lot more to it than just brute strength.

It takes a HUGE leap to say, men are, on average, stronger than women, therefore, we should just assume all women are too weak and fragile to do any type of physical work.

yes, that fact that men are stronger on average does not mean that women are incapable of physically demanding labor. look at Ama divers and tell me you could do that shit. Women can be athletic and fit for most jobs I'd say.

>A woman that can outperform a man

We are talking about female police officers chasing men which means women having the capabilities of outperforming men.

look at Ama divers and tell me you could do that shit

Any woman that takes the time and effort to become an athlete will perform better than a man on average, if anything it is a well know fact.

^
exactly, if they take the time they can perform fine. So a Women can perform just fine in physically demanding jobs if she puts in the effort needed, same as a man needs to put in effort.. Also, lets not pretend that cops are all shining examples of human fitness or that the average guy on the street is going to outperform an athletic women.