Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
[
It's a tough call. In the military, standards are not only different for women but they change as soldiers age, becoming easier starting at the age of 22 in the Army. It's an attempt to make standards that accommodate differences in gender.
Good. Then we lower the standards for men because that's the only way to avoid breaking laws against discrimination.[
It's a tough call. In the military, standards are not only different for women but they change as soldiers age, becoming easier starting at the age of 22 in the Army. It's an attempt to make standards that accommodate differences in gender.
HAHAHA. The new lib euphemism for special treatment for women is "accommodate differences in gender".
It's NOT a tough call. Standards should be the same for both sexes.
It's a tough call. In the military, standards are not only different for women but they change as soldiers age, becoming easier starting at the age of 22 in the Army. It's an attempt to make standards that accommodate differences in gender. For instance, women don't have to do as many pushups as men and they get more time on the 2 mile run, but their situps are roughly the same. Women don't have as much upper body strength, but they are equal in abdominal stamina.We want different standards where different standards make sense. Just because you're mad that they have a tampon machine in their bathroom and you don't doesn't mean we give a good goddamn.Of course, they want lower standards as they're A LOT weaker then men. Somehow, we have to make men do more to earn the same thing so we can say how fair we're! LOL
Yup - liberals want different standards so every group has equal chance of passing!!!
Your right that it's about fairness, and in all fairness I have to say this isn't a big deal. Female cops are usually working together with men to accomplish joint tasks and I imagine that instances where a woman's lesser physical strength proved a serious liability are exceptionally rare. I don't think they're being unreasonable.
No its not unreasonable to have slightly lower standards for women. And its not unreasonable to say women cant do certain jobs. Like being a door breacher on a SWAT team. Those guys need NFL player builds.
But my goodness....the standard was 10 pushups in a minute and 10 situps in a minute. I mean....cops WILL have to fight people. And they carry guns which can be taken from them.
I want cops, of all sizes and capacities, all races and religions, who know that they are serving the community, by walking around and getting to know people, by living there, by keeping an eye on things but not treating the citizens who pay their salaries as either criminals or enemies. For that you don't need to look like a movie hero, or act like one.We want different standards where different standards make sense. Just because you're mad that they have a tampon machine in their bathroom and you don't doesn't mean we give a good goddamn.Of course, they want lower standards as they're A LOT weaker then men. Somehow, we have to make men do more to earn the same thing so we can say how fair we're! LOL
Yup - liberals want different standards so every group has equal chance of passing!!!
Does it make sense to lower standards for cops?? If anything they need to be raised. Cops need to be strong and able to fight. Otherwise they get killed....or....they PANIC and shoot someone who doesnt have to be shot. Why? Because they dont have the confidence that comes with being STRONG and able to FIGHT.
You liberals want cops who are smaller and weaker....but then want them to use weapons less often in a fight.
Its so retarded its honestly hard to explain. Its like explaining why you shouldnt try to let a lion. Its so obvious.
It's a tough call. In the military, standards are not only different for women but they change as soldiers age, becoming easier starting at the age of 22 in the Army. It's an attempt to make standards that accommodate differences in gender. For instance, women don't have to do as many pushups as men and they get more time on the 2 mile run, but their situps are roughly the same. Women don't have as much upper body strength, but they are equal in abdominal stamina.We want different standards where different standards make sense. Just because you're mad that they have a tampon machine in their bathroom and you don't doesn't mean we give a good goddamn.Of course, they want lower standards as they're A LOT weaker then men. Somehow, we have to make men do more to earn the same thing so we can say how fair we're! LOL
Yup - liberals want different standards so every group has equal chance of passing!!!
Your right that it's about fairness, and in all fairness I have to say this isn't a big deal. Female cops are usually working together with men to accomplish joint tasks and I imagine that instances where a woman's lesser physical strength proved a serious liability are exceptionally rare. I don't think they're being unreasonable.
No its not unreasonable to have slightly lower standards for women. And its not unreasonable to say women cant do certain jobs. Like being a door breacher on a SWAT team. Those guys need NFL player builds.
Any woman who can meet the standards should be able to get that job. I suspect my wife would be able to meet the men's standards for SWAT. (As long as she can shoot a rifle that is not an AR15.)
But my goodness....the standard was 10 pushups in a minute and 10 situps in a minute. I mean....cops WILL have to fight people. And they carry guns which can be taken from them.
Yeah, those standards are pretty low.
[
It's a tough call. In the military, standards are not only different for women but they change as soldiers age, becoming easier starting at the age of 22 in the Army. It's an attempt to make standards that accommodate differences in gender.
HAHAHA. The new lib euphemism for special treatment for women is "accommodate differences in gender".
It's NOT a tough call. Standards should be the same for both sexes.
[
It's a tough call. In the military, standards are not only different for women but they change as soldiers age, becoming easier starting at the age of 22 in the Army. It's an attempt to make standards that accommodate differences in gender.
HAHAHA. The new lib euphemism for special treatment for women is "accommodate differences in gender".
It's NOT a tough call. Standards should be the same for both sexes.
Not only that, but they must be the same as in a major war the weakest link will lose us battles.
I don't think it's worth being pc to lose a major future war to china.
[
It's a tough call. In the military, standards are not only different for women but they change as soldiers age, becoming easier starting at the age of 22 in the Army. It's an attempt to make standards that accommodate differences in gender.
HAHAHA. The new lib euphemism for special treatment for women is "accommodate differences in gender".
It's NOT a tough call. Standards should be the same for both sexes.
Not only that, but they must be the same as in a major war the weakest link will lose us battles.
I don't think it's worth being pc to lose a major future war to china.
The Israelis have a kick ass military and they use women in it, in the most elite units. Women aren't nearly the liability many people think they are, especially the type of women we're talking about here.
The Israelis have a kick ass military and they use women in it, in the most elite units. Women aren't nearly the liability many people think they are, especially the type of women we're talking about here.
Physical standards that accommodate their gender is not special treatment. The military does that too. Men and women are built differently and having a standard that's easy for men to meet but difficult for women is just a way to try to keep women out of the police force. And sometimes I wonder if that isn't exactly what you people want.The Israelis have a kick ass military and they use women in it, in the most elite units. Women aren't nearly the liability many people think they are, especially the type of women we're talking about here.
If they're so good why do they demand special treatment.? THINK
It's a tough call. In the military, standards are not only different for women but they change as soldiers age, becoming easier starting at the age of 22 in the Army. It's an attempt to make standards that accommodate differences in gender. For instance, women don't have to do as many pushups as men and they get more time on the 2 mile run, but their situps are roughly the same. Women don't have as much upper body strength, but they are equal in abdominal stamina.We want different standards where different standards make sense. Just because you're mad that they have a tampon machine in their bathroom and you don't doesn't mean we give a good goddamn.Yup - liberals want different standards so every group has equal chance of passing!!!
Your right that it's about fairness, and in all fairness I have to say this isn't a big deal. Female cops are usually working together with men to accomplish joint tasks and I imagine that instances where a woman's lesser physical strength proved a serious liability are exceptionally rare. I don't think they're being unreasonable.
No its not unreasonable to have slightly lower standards for women. And its not unreasonable to say women cant do certain jobs. Like being a door breacher on a SWAT team. Those guys need NFL player builds.
Any woman who can meet the standards should be able to get that job. I suspect my wife would be able to meet the men's standards for SWAT. (As long as she can shoot a rifle that is not an AR15.)
But my goodness....the standard was 10 pushups in a minute and 10 situps in a minute. I mean....cops WILL have to fight people. And they carry guns which can be taken from them.
Yeah, those standards are pretty low.
Depends on the SWAT team. Larger the department the harder the standard. Think she is strong enough to break down a 3-4 inch thick front door? Think she could carry a 50 pound ballistic shield with 35 pounds of gear...for a 10 hour or more barricaded hostage callout?
Our departments was 3 mile run in 21:30.
Had to bench press your body weight + 25% (250 for a 200 pound man).
Do 5 dead hang pullups.
And pass the standard shooting course...but instead of a silhouette target they stapled a standard paper plate to it. 75 rounds. You could have 7 miss the plate. 8 fails.
It's a tough call. In the military, standards are not only different for women but they change as soldiers age, becoming easier starting at the age of 22 in the Army. It's an attempt to make standards that accommodate differences in gender. For instance, women don't have to do as many pushups as men and they get more time on the 2 mile run, but their situps are roughly the same. Women don't have as much upper body strength, but they are equal in abdominal stamina.We want different standards where different standards make sense. Just because you're mad that they have a tampon machine in their bathroom and you don't doesn't mean we give a good goddamn.
Your right that it's about fairness, and in all fairness I have to say this isn't a big deal. Female cops are usually working together with men to accomplish joint tasks and I imagine that instances where a woman's lesser physical strength proved a serious liability are exceptionally rare. I don't think they're being unreasonable.
No its not unreasonable to have slightly lower standards for women. And its not unreasonable to say women cant do certain jobs. Like being a door breacher on a SWAT team. Those guys need NFL player builds.
Any woman who can meet the standards should be able to get that job. I suspect my wife would be able to meet the men's standards for SWAT. (As long as she can shoot a rifle that is not an AR15.)
But my goodness....the standard was 10 pushups in a minute and 10 situps in a minute. I mean....cops WILL have to fight people. And they carry guns which can be taken from them.
Yeah, those standards are pretty low.
Depends on the SWAT team. Larger the department the harder the standard. Think she is strong enough to break down a 3-4 inch thick front door? Think she could carry a 50 pound ballistic shield with 35 pounds of gear...for a 10 hour or more barricaded hostage callout?
Probably. Breaking down a door is less about size and more about technique. I know she could handle a battering ram.
Our departments was 3 mile run in 21:30.
Easily.
Had to bench press your body weight + 25% (250 for a 200 pound man).
That would be the only thing she had any trouble with, though she could probably do it...might need to adjust her workouts a bit.
Do 5 dead hang pullups.
Has been doing 6-8 a day for 20 years--not a problem.
And pass the standard shooting course...but instead of a silhouette target they stapled a standard paper plate to it. 75 rounds. You could have 7 miss the plate. 8 fails.
What distance, and rifle or pistol?
Physical standards that accommodate their gender is not special treatment. The military does that too. Men and women are built differently and having a standard that's easy for men to meet but difficult for women is just a way to try to keep women out of the police force. And sometimes I wonder if that isn't exactly what you people want.The Israelis have a kick ass military and they use women in it, in the most elite units. Women aren't nearly the liability many people think they are, especially the type of women we're talking about here.
If they're so good why do they demand special treatment.? THINK
Physical standards that accommodate their gender is not special treatment. The military does that too. Men and women are built differently and having a standard that's easy for men to meet but difficult for women is just a way to try to keep women out of the police force. And sometimes I wonder if that isn't exactly what you people want.The Israelis have a kick ass military and they use women in it, in the most elite units. Women aren't nearly the liability many people think they are, especially the type of women we're talking about here.
If they're so good why do they demand special treatment.? THINK
No its not. Its to ensure that if they get attacked by a thug they are fit enough to survive. Or...if your family is victim of home invasion the cops responding are fit to fight.
Like it or not...SOME jobs simply require strengh and stamina. Its why the NFL has a combine for physical testing. If the NFL found a female who could block JJ Watt....they'd sign her instantly. But they havent. There just arent any women who are able to match his physical abilities.
Physical standards that accommodate their gender is not special treatment. The military does that too. Men and women are built differently and having a standard that's easy for men to meet but difficult for women is just a way to try to keep women out of the police force. And sometimes I wonder if that isn't exactly what you people want.The Israelis have a kick ass military and they use women in it, in the most elite units. Women aren't nearly the liability many people think they are, especially the type of women we're talking about here.
If they're so good why do they demand special treatment.? THINK
No its not. Its to ensure that if they get attacked by a thug they are fit enough to survive. Or...if your family is victim of home invasion the cops responding are fit to fight.
Like it or not...SOME jobs simply require strengh and stamina. Its why the NFL has a combine for physical testing. If the NFL found a female who could block JJ Watt....they'd sign her instantly. But they havent. There just arent any women who are able to match his physical abilities.
I'm a constitutional libertarian. I believe that private entities such as the NFL can practice whatever discrimination they want. Governments, however, including state and local governments cannot. The military matches PT test requirements to gender, so can police forces. Female cops working as part of a team have never proven a liability just because they have a little less upper body strength.
I'm a constitutional libertarian. I believe that private entities such as the NFL can practice whatever discrimination they want. Governments, however, including state and local governments cannot. The military matches PT test requirements to gender, so can police forces. .
Some jobs have physical demands. Some...like police or military. ...have jobs where lives are on the line. Physical abilities make the difference. Its a disservice to the individual. ..and to the public they protect...to allow sub standard people into those jobs OR to lower those standards for social fairness. Its disturbing to think some dont see this.
I'm a constitutional libertarian. I believe that private entities such as the NFL can practice whatever discrimination they want. Governments, however, including state and local governments cannot. The military matches PT test requirements to gender, so can police forces. .
You just contradicted yourself, you brainless jackass.
No need to go further than the door breaking part. Its absolutely about size and strength. The only technique is hitting above the lock.
Other than that...its simple mass + speed.
