Mounties to Recruit for Women and Minorities

[Argus]

Yes, that's why we're deluged with stories of female officers failing in real-world physical altercations, and continually getting their asses kicked.

?

I'm no expert but I can't recall the last time I saw a female officer out alone except during Canada Day or some other parade duty. I'd suggest that police forces are more careful about where they place most female constables, in what neighborhoods, at what shifts, and what times.

The last time I recall seeing a female constable in the news it was during some sort of altercation in Ottawa, and there was a picture of her and her male partner together. She was about five feet tall and black. He looked to be about six feet six, and a monster. I doubt the paring was an accident.

[bloodyminded]

I'm no expert but I can't recall the last time I saw a female officer out alone except during Canada Day or some other parade duty.

You don't need to be an "expert" to see them alone...as I have, countless times.

[guyser]

That's an artificial and disingenuous answer. They "qualify" under the newer, relaxed rules designed to ensure they qualify. And even under the newer, more relaxed rules they still aren't as qualified and so have to be jumped over the higher placing white men.

Perhaps it is an artificial/disingenous answer, but ....

As an example, potential firefighters used to have to pick up a 185lb dummy in a fireman's carry, and bring it down a ladder. But that was too hard for most women and a lot of smaller visible minority types (ie asians) so they changed the test. Then you only had to carry it across a flat surface. But even that was too hard for a lot of women. So now you only have to drag it across the floor.

So now they qualify! Yaayyy! And does that make them as physically capable as men? Well, no, but it's not politically correct to say so.

Perhaps it is an artificial/disingenous answer, but ....have fire deaths skyrocketed since weak women have joined up ?

Please explain in what way females are more capable than males in any of those jobs.

Never underestimate the power of a pair of tits and a nice smile. I can name lots of things that women are far more capable doing

Edited September 27, 2010 by guyser

[Shwa]

Since EE and quotas any employers who where involved with and practiced EE went about designing and setting up applications, tests and interview intended to be non discriminatory and non biased. One of those outcomes was the panel interview with set questions for each applicant who is scored by each interviewer. How biased can math be, how biased can asking a simple question on how you would handle a particular situation.

Well you tell me how biased a panel interview question and answer could possibly be. Are you saying that all situational questions are unbiased?

As I said before, the RCMP did at one point in the mid 90's put a hiring freeze on white males which led to a shortage of applicants, they had to rescind it. A school counselor at that time would have known of their policy.

The target groups need to be readdressed or redefined as women for instance are no longer under represented in gov't and probably large organizations. What is a 'minority' in Toronto or Vancouver now, maybe white males should be a target group now

Are we talking about Mounties or do you have the data to show that women make up an equal proportion of all sectors in all branches of public service. I mean, did you not say that you worked in EE, so you must know what a sector is.

[scribblet]

How would I know, I don't know what all organizations ask or what their interviews are like.

http://www.michaelpage.ca/content/80-top-10-interview-questions-and-how-you-should-answer-them.html

here's top ten questions, not biased at all.

I'm pretty sure I posted this allready

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Revisit+protection+women+watchdog/2903003/story.html

“Given the representation of women, I think it’s fair to look at the act,” she said after the meeting.

Women now hold the majority of jobs in the public service, filling about 55 per cent of all jobs. They also have a firm hold on senior jobs, holding about 43 per cent of all executive positions.

Edited September 27, 2010 by scribblet

[Shwa]

That's an artificial and disingenuous answer. They "qualify" under the newer, relaxed rules designed to ensure they qualify. And even under the newer, more relaxed rules they still aren't as qualified and so have to be jumped over the higher placing white men.

Really now. So before the "newer, relaxed rules" black men were not hired as RCMP officers?

As an example, potential firefighters used to have to pick up a 185lb dummy in a fireman's carry, and bring it down a ladder. But that was too hard for most women and a lot of smaller visible minority types (ie asians) so they changed the test. Then you only had to carry it across a flat surface. But even that was too hard for a lot of women. So now you only have to drag it across the floor.

So now they qualify! Yaayyy! And does that make them as physically capable as men? Well, no, but it's not politically correct to say so.

How is a firefighter an example of a general condition? What we do know is that any woman is more than capable of doing your job isn't that correct? Or are we talking about the 185 lb dummy sitting on a chair all day? (sorry, couldn't resist. )

Leaving aside whether we ought to be "growing" foreign culture areas in Canada, who's to say the Black cop from Trinidad has any more insight into a Somalian neighborhood than the white cop from Vancouver?

Whose to say we are talking about a "Black cop from Trinidad?" What an absurd thing to say.

In certain cases, in certain investigations, yes, but that's no reason to hire en masse in an attempt to artificially increase the number of those minority groups and women in the work force.

Oh, so I see now, there are actual exceptions to the rules now. And making 30% or 20% quotas for new recruits is equal to hiring them "en masse" is it?

Please explain in what way females are more capable than males in any of those jobs.

No. What I will explain is that females are just as capable as males in all those occupations. You seem to have this weird problem with language where you confuse "equal" with "better than" or "more capable than."

Ah, now we come to the real reason. But most of us don't feel that's terribly important, not to the extent of having police recruiters basically draped around the legs and shoulders of every Black woman who stops by their booth to ask directions to the bathroom. 'Oh please come and work for us! Please! We'll give you a gun!'

So did someone elect you spokesman of "us" like Prime Minister or something, or when you say "us" you are referring to a powerless and out-moded group of people that have been left behind by evolution? Because really, if you had any power at all, you could actually change the employment equity laws. I think your "us" us a small majority of people who confuse equal with unequal - am I correct? You know, think that "equal" somehow means "better than" or "more capable of." That sort of thing.

It's about hiring whoever is best, not whoever has a womb or different skin colour.

It is about hiring whomever is best - all things being equal. And they are not, or we would not even have employment equity in the first place. Like duh-uh.

Whether you wish to admit it or not they ARE the weaker sex. Case closed, hands down. Absolute physical fact. Can they still do the work? Sure. Can they do anything better than men can? Not that I can think of, really, other than sexual assault cases. Can men do anything better than them? Yes, anything which requires physical force - which can be quite important to a police officer at very important moments in time.

So you are saying that sure they can do some things better, but not all things, just like men can do some things better, but not all things. So do you have some list or something that tilts the occupational requirements in favour of men somehow? You know, ride a horse better, drive a car better, type a report better, shoot a gun better or something like that? You know, some generic list of things that men can do better than women. Please... do share.

Plus, the fact is that masses of young white men want to be cops. So many that the police can pick the very cream of the crop, only the best. Meanwhile they desperately attempt to entice just about any woman or minority who shows an interest, regardless of qualifications.

So are you saying that before EE, there were no non-white-males serving in police forces?

[Shwa]

How would I know, I don't know what all organizations ask or what their interviews are like.

http://www.michaelpage.ca/content/80-top-10-interview-questions-and-how-you-should-answer-them.html

here's top ten questions, not biased at all.

So you don't know what questions organizations ask, or what their interviews are like, but maintain they aren't biased. Hmmmm...

[scribblet]

Hmmmmm - are you saying you didn't read anything posted or are you just trying to impute words

Generally speaking from my own knowledge and various seminars etc. etc. most large organizations go out of their way to design and implement questions and tests which are unbiased.

So are you saying that before EE, there were no non-white-males serving in police forces? where on earth did he say that !

Edited September 27, 2010 by scribblet

[Shwa]

You don't need to be an "expert" to see them alone...as I have, countless times.

I see lone female police officers out all the time. A couple of months ago, one stopped us on the main drag because she noticed our plate tag was out of date.

Now if she were a male, I am certain the out-of-date tag would have been spotted much sooner, from much farther way, you know, seeing how men are much more phsycially stronger with their eyesight. And when she pulled us over, it was probably difficult for her to put on the brakes of the police car, but would have been much easier - and safer I might add - had a man done so - especially a cream-of-the-crop more qualified white male. Never mind about her actually opening that big he-man like cop car door and physically walking all those 4 yards to the driver's side of our car. But she did and if she stuggled, she didn't show any pain because women seem to be able to handle pain much easier than men. But that doesn't count.

Now she didn't struggle with the physical requirements of opening the ticket book, even though her fingers were probably weaker and she managed to write out the ticket with those weaker fingers too. How she did all this work that was intended for cream-of-the-crop more capable white male is beyond me, but it still cost us a hundred bucks.

But I can say something about gender differences. She was pretty sweet about it all.

[Shwa]

Hmmmmm - are you saying you didn't read anything posted or are you just trying to impute words

Generally speaking from my own knowledge and various seminars etc. etc. most large organizations go out of their way to design and implement questions and tests which are unbiased.

So why do large organizations do that then? Go out of their way to design and implement unbiased tests and questions?

[scribblet]

So why do large organizations do that then? Go out of their way to design and implement unbiased tests and questions?

So their questions and testing are - well - unbiased, to create a level playing field.

[regroup]

There is nothing wrong with trying to attract women or minorities to the RCMP but the actual hiring should reflect approximately the proportions represented by the applicants - NOT the proportions of the desired mix. It is not a good idea to have any public servant selected because they are "good enough". They should be selected because they are the best of those who applied. Anything else id discrimination.

[Shwa]

So their questions and testing are - well - unbiased, to create a level playing field.

Right. So this leads me to two further questions:

How do they determine that their questions and testings are unbiased and that it actually achieves a level playing field? And;

If they determine that their questions and testings are biased resulting in an uneven playing field, how do they change that?

[Wilber]

That's nice, and either one would almost certainly get their ass kicked up and down the street by just about any burly man who knows how to fight. I'm not saying there aren't some strong women who know how to fight who could kick my ass. But the fact is that all things being equal, a large man beats a large woman 10 times out of 10. Men have more upper body strength, bigger muscles and more weight behind them. Most RCMP officers never get out of uniform and their job is ultimately to keep the peace. Sometimes that means the application of force, and men are just better at that than women.

Seems you don't feel 50% of the population should be represented on police forces at all.

One of those young white men you speak of who wanted to be a cop is my son, and he became one. Before he became a cop one of those female sergeants I spoke of was a patrol officer at the time and took him on a ride along one shift. Patrol officers normally ride alone in this town regardless of gender. She is a somewhat short Chinese girl but quite buff. They got a call to a domestic dispute and when they got there a large guy and a woman were going at it in the front yard. The officer told my kid to stay in the car and went to intervene. The guy started in on the officer and before he knew what hit him he was spread eagle over the hood of the car and the cuffs were going on. In the words of my six foot rugby playing son, "f@*& is she tough". He has a lot of respect for the women he works with even if you don't.

She might not be able to kick your ass but I know she could kick mine.

Edited September 28, 2010 by Wilber

[Wild Bill]

Seems you don't feel 50% of the population should be represented on police forces at all.

She might not be able to kick your ass but I know she could kick mine.

The question is not whether there is one lady who could "kick your ass". Rather, it is if there are enough such ladies applying for the position to fill the quota.

[Wilber]

The question is not whether there is one lady who could "kick your ass". Rather, it is if there are enough such ladies applying for the position to fill the quota.

The question is also whether the number one qualification to be a police officer is the ability to kick every male's ass.

[bloodyminded]

The question is also whether the number one qualification to be a police officer is the ability to kick every male's ass.

Wild Bill wasn't making that claim. He was only responding to Argus's postion that women are frail little creatures incapable of physical altercation.

[The_Squid]

In my opinion, hiring quotas have led to worse policing not better. This initiative has led police forces to reduce the physical criteria to become officers, such as height requirements and strength requirements. It used to be that a cop was a big burly person that you wouldn't want to mess with (man OR woman). This is no longer the case. Now you have 5'6" people of Asian descent and small women. This leads to the situation that in order to defend themselves, they are having to turn to their weapons rather than their physical assets.

The new lack of requirements have put police and the public in more danger.

I am not against hiring minorities.... but don't reduce the requirements in order to do so.

[Argus]

You don't need to be an "expert" to see them alone...as I have, countless times.

On safe streets.

[Argus]

Really now. So before the "newer, relaxed rules" black men were not hired as RCMP officers

Almost none. Even today, the great majority of Black adult males are immigrants to Canada, and generally lack the language skills, the communications abilities and the mindset - and the desire - to be a cop. Being a cop is not considered a great job in much of the world, you know.

Oh, so I see now, there are actual exceptions to the rules now. And making 30% or 20% quotas for new recruits is equal to hiring them "en masse" is it?

I'll try and make it simple, given my audience.

Say you want the cops to reflect the population. So you're hiring 200 cops. You want 100 males and 100 females.

Male applicants - 10,000

Female applicants - 112

Which group is going to wind up having the best people in it?

Like it or not, you PC people can't change the fact that in our culture, very few women have the slightest interest in being a cop. Meanwhile, hordes of young men are practically salivating at the faintest change of applying. That means you can select only the very, very best of the male applicants, whereas you pretty much have to take any female that walks in the door, and lower the standards to make your quota.

The same goes for visible minority applicants. Almost all adult visible minority men are immigrants, and mostly from cultures which have never venerated policing as a profession.

No. What I will explain is that females are just as capable as males in all those occupations.

You seem to believe that saying it somehow conveys an air of reality to the gibberish you're spouting. I'm not sure what sense of entitlement gave you that belief but it's quite untrue.

[Argus]

So why do large organizations do that then? Go out of their way to design and implement unbiased tests and questions?

The lawyers want it to help discourage the PC fascists from screaming and howling and calling them names when they don't hire enough illiterate third world goat herders to design microchips.

[Argus]

Seems you don't feel 50% of the population should be represented on police forces at all.

You're quite mistaken. I feel there are a number of areas where women can play important roles - if they're the right women. But lowering the standards, and imposing hiring quotes force organizations like the RCMP to accept female applicants who wouldn't even make it in to an introductory interview if they were male. And this is not driven by organizational need for women but political correctness.

Patrol officers normally ride alone in this town regardless of gender. She is a somewhat short Chinese girl but quite buff.

Spare me. How "tough" she was probably had more to do with the guy not resisting - most people don't resist uniformed police officers. But even if she were tough, a tough, well-trained, five foot tall woman will get her ass bounced up and down the street by a tough, well-trained, six foot four man every time.

You know, there's a reason why men and women do not play on the same teams in sports which require physical strength. There's a reason why we don't see females boxing or wrestling males in the Olympics. Because even if you put them in the same weight range as males they'll still be weaker and less capable. For that matter, there's a reason why we have weight categories in sports - because a big man who knows what he's doing is virtually always going to pummel a little man who knows what he's doing. That's simply the reality of life.

[Argus]

The question is also whether the number one qualification to be a police officer is the ability to kick every male's ass.

It's not. But all things being equal, being able to do that is a big bonus.

And, given the disproportionate number of males who apply for the job, everything isn't equal.

[Wilber]

It's not. But all things being equal, being able to do that is a big bonus.

And, given the disproportionate number of males who apply for the job, everything isn't equal.

Being able to kick ass is only a small part of being a police officer. Most of their time is spent refereeing arguments, playing social worker and actually helping people like trying to find shelters for them or looking for lost kids. There are things in policing that women generally do better than men.

Hiring should be based on requirements, not where the most applicants come from. If you just want people who can kick ass, go down to a martial arts gym and forget everyone else.

[Argus]

Being able to kick ass is only a small part of being a police officer. Most of their time is spent refereeing arguments, playing social worker and actually helping people like trying to find shelters for them or looking for lost kids. There are things in policing that women generally do better than men.

Very few. The thing is, by the time cops are called to "referee an argument" it's because that argument is threatening to become violent. Polite, law-abiding people don't need police around. It's the nasty sort who don't behave who need an enforcer - and that, ultimately, is what police are; enforcers.

I'm not saying no woman can do a good job as a cop. I'm saying that the way these quota systems make recruiters desperate to accept just about anything with a womb or dark skin means that right from the start you're dealing with lesser candidates.

Being a cop has always had a huge appeal to young men in this country, probably because of Hollywood and all the cop shows on TV. It has never had that appeal to young women and it has not had that appeal to people who grew up in different cultures for whom the cop is the nasty guy who shakes them down for money all the time. So recruiters must, of necessity, lower standards and accept far less stellar candidates in order to even approach their recruiting goals for women and minorities. I just don't see the bonus of "inclusion" being worth the considerable degradation in the quality of the candidates we accept.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Argus