Need a few minutes of your time

[Smurfette_76]

Edited: The paper was completed more than a week ago.


if you're so inclined to help a sister out

I have been taking classes recently. This class I'm currently enrolled in is...wait for it....Women and Justice. Now ain't that just right up my alley?

The Prof isn't having a debate this class (which I personally find just WRONG) and instead we are required to interview two people (one male, one female) on a topic related to...blahblahblah. I'd rather bend the rules a bit, get a more varied response from others and so I'm coming to o.com for points of view.

The following was taken from Women and Justice by Roslyn Muraskin.

The IACP established an Ad Hoc Committee on Women in Policing and surveyed 14,000 members. The survey disclosed that:

-Women still face bias from male officers.
-Many police departments lack strategies for recruiting women
-Women officers may face gender discrimination and a 'glass ceiling' that inhibits promotion
-sexual harassment still occurs in many police department
-there are few mentoring programs for women officers.


17% of the agencies surveyed had no female officers

55% had between one and four female Officers.

91% had no females in policymaking positions

28% of the departments surveyed express concern that "women lack sufficient physical strenth, capacity for confrontation, size, strength and force." (quote from IACP, page 13, The future of women in policing: Mandates for action.)


Now, as not to bias your opinion, I have not included the emperical research or the authors point of view in reaction to the last point specifically. I want to observe/read if the survey taken in 1998 of 14,000 members of IACP is consistent with the general point of view and opinions 10 (ish) years later.

Here's what I ask of you: In your OPINION and EXPERIENCE, do you agree with the survey conducted by the IACP? How do you think the gender issues can be resolved or do you think they should be?

I only ask a couple of things. You can post your opinion here or PM your response to me. We've had similar discussions in the past and I don't want anyone to hesitate in replying because they may have an 'unpopular' opinion. If you choose to respond here instead of PM, please send me: male or female, your years of experience, rank and your location. I will not post your responses here. There is no need to include your name or agency as that information is not needed.

Thanks in advance...Smurfette

Your opinions will not offend me as I am literally 'asking' for them. (Be gentle...LOL)

[mdrdep]

Wait, you got class.......

You can have a minute of my time anytime (well at least anytime I'm here).

Seriously though, my dept. was sued for gender discrimination and we've been under a Federal decree for quite a while now. Because of that we have active plans to increase females within all ranks of the department (except sheriff since he's elected).

My department's recruiting posters and billboards all feature strictly females on the pictures. Promotion and coveted jobs bulletins all state, "Females are highly encouraged to apply". Recently they have even changed up transfers from custody to patrol. They were strictly done by seniority. Now they want a specific mix of females included to increase the number of females in patrol. The result is a large increase in females in various positions through out the department.

Since we are a large department (largest Sheriff's at 10,000 sworn) we have a large rank structure.

From our own website:


© "Copyright 2009The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department is the largest sheriff's department in the world. In addition to specialized services, such as the Sheriff's Youth Foundation, International Liaison and Employee Support Services, the Department is divided into eleven divisions, each headed by a Division Chief.

There are three patrol divisions (Field Operations Regions I, II and III), Custody Operations Division, Correctional Services Division, Detective Division, Court Services Division, Technical Services Division, Office of Homeland Security, Administrative Services Division, and Leadership and Training Division"


The Sheriff, Undersheriff, and assistant sheriffs are all male. 2 of the 11 chiefs are female. I don't know how many female commanders, captains, lieutenants, sergeants, or deputies there are but there are quite a few and increasing. My station captain is female, 1 of the three lt.s is female and 3 of the sergeants.

What has this done for the department. For the females it's opened up huge potentials for them, unfortunatley it's at the expense of some more experienced males. That is prone to caue morale issues. An unintended side effect is also that a number of the best females on the department are reluctant to put in for jobs they deserve because they don't want to be seen as getting it "just because they are female".

My personal opinions are that it's a great time for females in law enforcement. Is there still a belief amongst male officers that females don't belong, of course, but I think that's getting better. I also think there are good and bad female cops just like there are males I would rather not work around. There are some girls I've worked with that I would trust in a fight better than most males. There are some males I wouldn't trust to waive in my assistance, let alone be involved in the fight.

I'm a male deputy with 20 years experience and 2 stripes on my sleeve.

[pulicords]

Response via PM!

[Monkeybomb]

Outdate for my part of the country. We have a fair amount of females on our agency and a high percentage are in command and staff positions.

I don't see any gender bias from the line level. For the most part the line level only cares if you do the job. If your a lazy SOB gender doesn't matter your just a lazy SOB and we can't wait to scrape you off our shoe.

The only problems I have seen are the typical problems when any men and women are together. Those that want to use the office as a dating pool. This happens in every workplace that has both genders present.

[Smurfette_76]

Seriously though, my dept. was sued for gender discrimination and we've been under a Federal decree for quite a while now. Because of that we have active plans to increase females within all ranks of the department (except sheriff since he's elected).

I'm ignorant to how this works. Your agency was sued because women (or minorities) stated there weren't enough women? What is the litmus test for "enough women?" Why does the Federal Government make the decision for your agency?

Isn't that rather like reverse discrimination? In lieu of hiring women, competent men are being overlooked or dismissed for the sake of looking like it's equal? Or have I just hit the crux of the issue?

[RoadKingTrooper]

Gonna have to change my name after this response

Here goes nothing!

28 years, State Agency, Male, Investigator

My Agency actively started recruiting females shortly after I joined.

Initially they were some of the toughest looking women I have ever seen. Those that had the strength didn't always have the brains or common sense. Several were promoted past their abilities simply because they were women.

Don't get me wrong, a number of them were able to perform their jobs along with their male counterparts. One I will never forget even made the MC team and rode a motor.

Had a Major who decided it was her task to take these young things under her wing and have monthly meetings to "mentor" them. Wound up evolving into an "us vs them" mentality.

Do they belong? YOU do! Others I have met and chatted with serve as examples daily. My question and observation.

Is it REALLY worth all the extra effort a Female has to exhibit in order to appear equal with her male counterpart?

Some wimmins have the stamina and determination to perform this job and never bat an eye. Sadly some are just a "token"

(loading up trailer and preparing to move and change name)

[Smurfette_76]

Hehehehe...no need to move.

I remember when I got started a little more than a decade ago, I found msyelf minimalizing my talents because I noticed the better I got, the more offended some of the men around me became (perhaps it's a regional thing?). When I got promoted, it wasn't because of my abilities, it had to be because I was effing my way to the top. At first, I was offended, then I made the conscious decision to stop apologizing for my success...aka...i cannot change the opinions of others.

I personally think I have an excellent working relationship with the majority of the people I work around. I don't agree with the promotion or hiring of women merely because they are women. I don't think all women (or men) can do this job. I ALSO think the majority of men that have issues with women in LE base their opinions on physical ability. I don't think nor have I experienced the majority of this job being physical. I actually think the majority is cerebral. I realize not all share that opinion...

[PhilipCal]

Sent you a PM

[oneoldcop]

sent ya a pm.
forgot to tell you I work in a very small dept. (always have-33 years)

[mdrdep]

I'm ignorant to how this works. Your agency was sued because women (or minorities) stated there weren't enough women? What is the litmus test for "enough women?" Why does the Federal Government make the decision for your agency?

Isn't that rather like reverse discrimination? In lieu of hiring women, competent men are being overlooked or dismissed for the sake of looking like it's equal? Or have I just hit the crux of the issue?

It started with a lawsuit from a woman who was passed over for promotion. She believed it was because of the simple fact that she was a female (there are varying opinions of this because other females that were deffinetly qualified did get promoted). My understanding of it is that some things were said about her when the chiefs put their list together that made refrence to her gender amongst other sterling qualities and she was passed over. She took it to Federal court and won. My dept. at that time thought they were above the system in this regard and basically thumbed their collective noses at the Federal Court until they were forced into a consent decree.

As to has it become reverse discrimination...............well I would be interested in seeing how it fits with a recent USSC decision this past year. The one where several white firefighters sued about the same thing and won......................

[DAL]

Part of the problem has to do with the expectations of the public. I got involved in law enforcement when women were first be allowed to work patrol. I remember that we had an older female dispatcher who was set against women being police officers. I also remember responding to one call where, as a reserve officer, I was dispatched to back up one of our smaller female regular officers on a complaint from a middle-aged woman. She told the regular officer that she wanted to speak to a "real" police officer, so I handled the call. It was simply the easiest way out.

I think that the influx of female officers has had substantial benefit to the profession. I also think that there are physical strength issues, just as there are with firefighters, but the job of a police officer is less physical in most cities than is the job of a firefighter.

[Smurfette_76]

It started with a lawsuit from a woman who was passed over for promotion. She believed it was because of the simple fact that she was a female (there are varying opinions of this because other females that were deffinetly qualified did get promoted). My understanding of it is that some things were said about her when the chiefs put their list together that made refrence to her gender amongst other sterling qualities and she was passed over. She took it to Federal court and won. My dept. at that time thought they were above the system in this regard and basically thumbed their collective noses at the Federal Court until they were forced into a consent decree.

As to has it become reverse discrimination...............well I would be interested in seeing how it fits with a recent USSC decision this past year. The one where several white firefighters sued about the same thing and won......................

And what does that decree mandated? Does it now require your agency to higher a specific number of women?

Thanks to everyone for the PMs and responses.

[School Cop]

Male.
4 years on.
Patrol officer.
Texas, mid-sized city.

I assume this is the part you are asking opinions on?

-Women still face bias from male officers.
-Many police departments lack strategies for recruiting women
-Women officers may face gender discrimination and a 'glass ceiling' that inhibits promotion
-sexual harassment still occurs in many police department
-there are few mentoring programs for women officers.

I can only speak for the two agencies I've been a part of; one had 10 officers, one of whom was female. She was highly liked and respected and is now a sergeant there. Tougher than most guy cops I've met. She was attacked from behind on a crime scene and her arm was broken; she would not leave the scene and continued to do the job until the scene was secure and safe for other officers. My current agency, we have the average number of female patrol officers and I can think of only one who is not respected as the popo by her peers.

As for the glass ceiling, it's not there for the promotable ranks. However, chief and asst. chief are appointed, and are all male. I haven't seen females try for promotion since I got here, but some of them were already highly placed in the department.

Mentoring programs are non-existent, except that new female recruits always seem to be assigned to a certain female FTO (a very good officer) for one of their rotations. I can't imagine harassment occurring because, to a woman, none of the ones I know would put up with it. They wouldn't have to because they have earned the backing of the rest of the "good guys" in the department. Harassing one would be the death knell for your career. Not saying it doesn't occur, just that I would be real surprised to hear about it.

Recruiting? There is nothing special done, although there *might* be a certain tendency in the oral board to hire females; I wouldn't know. Other than the board, we are civil service and you couldn't keep them out. And like I said, they are good hires for the most part. During testing, they have to do the same physical things a man does (no sissy push-ups, same run time).

28% of the departments surveyed express concern that "women lack sufficient physical strength, capacity for confrontation, size, strength and force." (quote from IACP, page 13, The future of women in policing: Mandates for action.)

I really wonder how this was surveyed. Was the agenda to find the truth, or make the situation for women in LE look discriminatory? I can imagine the question might have been, "Women are generally not as strong, fast, and forceful as men - is that a concern in police work?" Well geez, what would your answer be to that? "It's a big plus when we get the fittest and strongest of the qualified candidates, and it's important, but so are lots of other things." Bingo, if you want to make that sound like I think women are less capable, you sure could. You're only putting your summation on lots of department's answers, not the actual answers. It can say whatever the surveyor wants it to say. So I guess I'M saying that I don't give a lot of credence to that article.

Do good, Smurfette; give 'em blue hell for us. I wouldn't have written so much for just anyone on here. You're a class act.

[pulicords]

What is the litmus test for "enough women?"

Isn't that rather like reverse discrimination? In lieu of hiring women, competent men are being overlooked or dismissed for the sake of looking like it's equal? Or have I just hit the crux of the issue?

Sorry, but the phrase "reverse discrimination" really doesn't make sense. Hiring practices are either non-discriminatory or discriminate against otherwise qualified applicants. It isn't any less racist or sexist to hire/promote "X" because of his/her race or sex, than to refuse to hire/promote "Y" because of his/her race or sex.

[LA DEP]

And what does that decree mandated? Does it now require your agency to higher a specific number of women?

Thanks to everyone for the PMs and responses.

The consent decree would take several pages to explain....

It basically states that 25% of all coveted jobs SHALL be considered for females, even though the number of females in the department is around 14%ish.....

Once a test is conducted for a 'coveted position' (basically anything besides regular patrol/custody/court services, and ALL 'Bonus-1/Bonus-2' two striper jobs), then the lawyer that is in charge of making sure the consent decree is being enforced has to give his blessing to let them make the promotion list. God forbid you don't have enough females on the list, even if it is a job that no female deputies even put in for because they aren't interested in it.

The lawyer had been known to DQ a testing process, and make them start over at square one (which is usually several months down the road by the time this happens)