Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How would this look?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Redders
    replied
    A. Its not stripper, its Erotic Adult Entertainer.

    B. I know 3 officers (2 female, 1 male) that were nakkie for a job.

    Leave a comment:


  • Smurfette_76
    replied
    Originally posted by beachcop05 View Post
    When I respond to calls at strip clubs in my area, and deal with strippers, and arrest strippers for possession of drugs or for being under the influence of drugs, and have them tell me 'I take meth to help me stay awake all night to strip'..thats when it becomes an issue.
    Yes, the judge them all by actions of some stereotype. I sure am glad LE isn't judged that way...oh. Wait.

    Obviously applicants with such drug use wouldn't pass the background regardless of their job.

    Leave a comment:


  • beachcop05
    replied
    Originally posted by Smurfette_76 View Post
    I am not comfortable with applicants being judged based on morality of the moment. With the multiple comments on here about the correlation between strippers and drug use, I'd have to remind y'all there are MANY other profession in which drug use is linked...the first that comes to mind are construction workers....least in the South. Therefore, should I assume the majority of construction workers are suspect as they also might not pass the drug screening? No. The reason strippers are judged harder IS a morality issue. Therefore, I see a slippery slope.
    .
    When I respond to calls at strip clubs in my area, and deal with strippers, and arrest strippers for possession of drugs or for being under the influence of drugs, and have them tell me 'I take meth to help me stay awake all night to strip'..thats when it becomes an issue.

    Leave a comment:


  • Smurfette_76
    replied
    No. I meant mores.

    Leave a comment:


  • LPD003
    replied
    Don't you mean Morals in stead of mores? ... Again, regardless whether it's a female or male stripper, if people find out, they're getting treated differently by the public, co-workers and CERTAINLY the media, should they find out. I guess I've just always been told that in law enforcement, "Don't do anything that you wouldn't want on the 10 o'clock news." If I were a stripper, I wouldn't want that on the ten o'clock news.

    That being said, like I said before, if s/he's got a clean BI and it can be quiet that they were a stripper (not likely), it wouldn't be a DQ in my book. But, even with this, people should be thinking, "If we have to 'cover' something up, we shouldn't be condoning it by covering it up."

    PS, you getting in trouble for "not having a visible pantie line" is ridiculous. It would be different if a thong was sticking out....
    Last edited by LPD003; 05-09-2011, 02:26 AM. Reason: Addition

    Leave a comment:


  • Smurfette_76
    replied
    Mi,

    Sorry, I didn't see your post prior to the one I just responded to. I understand how defense of this would come across to you (and others reading) as a feminist issue from me. It's not and I don't take offense at you saying so. I know that being pro-female has often been equated with being anti-man; but it's not. Regardless, I use the pronoun she in this discussion over strippers as a generalization. I'd feel the same way were it a former male stripper (and his female patrons) were the shoe on the other foot.

    This issue is based (as I stated) on mores, not legality. Mores are constantly changing as newer generations impact what was commonly accepted as standard behavior in society. While older generations tend to whine and moan about the younger generations being the downfall of society, I've never viewed that as true. IMHO, change is frequently seen as negative and not positive, but I suppose that is a whole other discussion right there. I suppose I am one of those groups that have been affected by mores. You wouldn't think so this day and age, but keep in mind that I am in small town South and even as recent as my hire in 1998, being a woman was an uphill battle. I won't even start the discussion reference women promoted due to gender as I agree with you 100%. Gender and race STILL play a role here in the South...MY only experience in LE is obviously here, so whether my statement is true across the board, I have no idea. I can only speak from what I've experienced.

    Quick story: In 1999 as a new Officer in LE, I was disciplined by my former Chief because a citizen complained that while I was on duty and in the performance of my duties (helping to change a tire for a disabled vehicle) he could not see a visible panty line on my backside. I kid you not. Can you imagine being told by your Chief that thongs are not appropriate unattire for a woman in uniform? ROFL. I worked in a tiny tiny town, run by men. Keep in mind that when they hired me it was stated [paraphrase] that they now had one woman and one black and had therefore, "met their quota." Lovely place to work and you can imagine that I went over like a lead balloon, no?

    That's a hell of an impression to give a young, female officer is it not? I honestly don't know what that story had to do specifically with the topic at hand, but it came to mind when I was replying. I still live and work in an area where your gender greatly impacts your acceptance. I get that my defense of women in this job is often viewed an feminist. Perhaps I am. I've never given that specific title to myself because I don't know that I really know what it means with regards to me. I *get* that public perception has great impact on the decision agencies make, but that doesn't mean I agree with it. I don't think anyone (male or female) should be judged by the mores of those influential persons in that particular society...again...that's because in small town South those persons can run a monopoly if they are allowed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Smurfette_76
    replied
    Originally posted by MiGuy View Post
    I don't mean to keep on beating this horse but it's been a long week, I'm tired, and already know I'm not going to get much sleep before my shift in the morning, so I feel like I'm not getting what I'm trying to say across correctly due to my over-tiredness.

    Long speal short, in this quote you are comparing apples to oranges. You are equating comparing the strippers to the ones attending the stripclub. What would be more fair to compare is female strippers to male strippers and female stripclub goes to male stripclub goers.

    It is fair that the strippers are judged differently than the attendees. What would be UNFAIR, is if they treated previous female strippers differently then previous male strippers. Or, if they did judge applicants that have attended strip clubs, it would be unfair if they treated female attendees differently than male attendees.

    Does that make more sense? An analogy: It equates to something like if you treat all people that have gone to jail the same, and lump them all in the same category. Take two people that have gone to jail for instance. Although they both have committed a crime, it would be unfair to treat a convicted murderer to an individual that stole baby formula to feed their kid. Yeah, they fit the same category of committing a crime (such as Strip Clubs is the category of this discussed topic), but it is apples to oranges comparing a murderer to a larcenist (a Stripper compared to one that has attended a strip club)

    Hopefully this rambling cleared up the prior rambling. Either way, I'm going to bed. Good night and be safe everyone!
    However, honey, we're not taking criminals. We ARE talking morality, no? That's the 'issue' the general public has with strippers, is it not? We're not talking about anything criminal. So. If an applicant is judged based on socieities perception of morality, which is what mores are based on, then this should [in fairness] affect patrons of strip joints. And, like it or not, mores have always affected those placed in LE positions....which is proof positive by women and minorities in LE over time.

    I am not comfortable with applicants being judged based on morality of the moment. With the multiple comments on here about the correlation between strippers and drug use, I'd have to remind y'all there are MANY other profession in which drug use is linked...the first that comes to mind are construction workers....least in the South. Therefore, should I assume the majority of construction workers are suspect as they also might not pass the drug screening? No. The reason strippers are judged harder IS a morality issue. Therefore, I see a slippery slope.

    I do see your point...I am quite fond of devil's advocate.

    Leave a comment:


  • beachcop05
    replied
    I agree with what was said before, some strippers have drug use and prostitution issues. And in this day and age of pictures, internet, and public perception of law enforcement, I as a Chief would think long and hard about hiring a former stripper.

    Leave a comment:


  • Magic Matt
    replied
    NO male strippers, auto DQ!

    Leave a comment:


  • MiGuy
    replied
    Originally posted by Smurfette_76 View Post
    At my agency, it would be against policy, not legality, that would get her in trouble. My issue with this is *if* you are judging a female applicant on her previous employment, then why not judge male applicants if they've been to strip clubs. If the citizen perception is that being a stripper is not conducive to being effective in this job, then is it not the same perception for men (or women) that patron such places?
    I don't mean to keep on beating this horse but it's been a long week, I'm tired, and already know I'm not going to get much sleep before my shift in the morning, so I feel like I'm not getting what I'm trying to say across correctly due to my over-tiredness.

    Long speal short, in this quote you are comparing apples to oranges. You are equating comparing the strippers to the ones attending the stripclub. What would be more fair to compare is female strippers to male strippers and female stripclub goes to male stripclub goers.

    It is fair that the strippers are judged differently than the attendees. What would be UNFAIR, is if they treated previous female strippers differently then previous male strippers. Or, if they did judge applicants that have attended strip clubs, it would be unfair if they treated female attendees differently than male attendees.

    Does that make more sense? An analogy: It equates to something like if you treat all people that have gone to jail the same, and lump them all in the same category. Take two people that have gone to jail for instance. Although they both have committed a crime, it would be unfair to treat a convicted murderer to an individual that stole baby formula to feed their kid. Yeah, they fit the same category of committing a crime (such as Strip Clubs is the category of this discussed topic), but it is apples to oranges comparing a murderer to a larcenist (a Stripper compared to one that has attended a strip club)

    Hopefully this rambling cleared up the prior rambling. Either way, I'm going to bed. Good night and be safe everyone!
    Last edited by MiGuy; 05-08-2011, 09:14 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • MiGuy
    replied
    Originally posted by Smurfette_76 View Post
    At my agency, it would be against policy, not legality, that would get her in trouble. My issue with this is *if* you are judging a female applicant on her previous employment, then why not judge male applicants if they've been to strip clubs. If the citizen perception is that being a stripper is not conducive to being effective in this job, then is it not the same perception for men (or women) that patron such places?
    I'm not disagreeing with you and just as everyone says, if she has a clean background, then she should be just fine.

    HOWEVER, I get the feeling (Not saying it is so, just MY perception) that this is kind of a feminist/equality issue with you. Why think of her past and not a guy's past profession? I personally think it is the EXACT SAME if a male was a stripper. It should have the same consideration in L.E. Employment as a previous female stripper.

    As others have pointed out, Officers have been fired for pictures/videos found on websites. I remember in my college days when we had to do write ups on articles weekly, I did one where a husband/wife Police duo got fired because it was discovered they once ran or currently ran an adult site. They were NOT on it and merely ran it, under an artificial name, that was discovered because the admin was tipped off to who really owned it. The reason is because every agency has the whole conduct unbecoming of an Officer clause, that is the catch all when they are worried what you do will embarrass the agency.

    The reason Stripping (Even doing porn) is being viewed different then being a plumber or any other job you want to insert, is because of the view society as a whole have on it. Taking off clothes for room full of people every night for money is seen immoral to many and non-respectful to even more people. It can fall back on the Department if pictures or any other things get out, leading to that whole crap of conduct unbecoming. The Department may get embarrassed (God forbid).

    As far as why are people that go and WATCH the strippers not put in the same boat. Because it does not hold the same stygma as stripping itself. It is acceptable to GO to a strip club and more people than not have seen a strip show before. That is the same as porn. I'm sure there are minimal people that have NEVER seen any type of porn before. That is a HUGE difference than starring in porn.

    Again, I understand where you are coming from. Is it right? Is it fair? If there is nothing questionable in the background then I don't think the fact that she stripped should matter. I also don't think some females should have been promoted to Sergeant in my first Department I worked for simply because they needed more females in leadership positions, when males scored higher on the testing. As much as no one wants to admit, this unfairness goes both ways. I think it sucks. Everyone should be treated the same. Everyone should be considered the same regardless of previous jobs, skin color, sex, etc etc and should be based on merits and the same standards.
    Last edited by MiGuy; 05-08-2011, 09:10 PM. Reason: Fix a few of my many spelling/grammatical errors

    Leave a comment:


  • Magic Matt
    replied
    If the former stripper has an otherwise clean BI, and can pass the psychological and the drug test…

    Leave a comment:


  • Smurfette_76
    replied
    Originally posted by LPD003 View Post
    I'd ask you this - If the hiring panel shouldn't consider her previous job in their decision, because it's not illegal - Then why can't she strip when she's off duty to make some extra coin. After all, it isn't illegal. (Provided the department says they can have side jobs.)
    At my agency, it would be against policy, not legality, that would get her in trouble. My issue with this is *if* you are judging a female applicant on her previous employment, then why not judge male applicants if they've been to strip clubs. If the citizen perception is that being a stripper is not conducive to being effective in this job, then is it not the same perception for men (or women) that patron such places?

    Leave a comment:


  • phillydog07
    replied
    ^ I don't know how long she did it, but I think she did it mostly for the money. I don't really know her all that well.....she's sleeping with/seeing one of my friends. I'm not her biggest fan, but for other reasons.

    Basically what I gather here is that it would be unlikely to be an auto-DQ, but would be looked at and scrutinized and could potentially hurt.

    Thanks for satiating my curiosity, guys (and gals).

    Leave a comment:


  • LPD003
    replied
    I don't know that being a stripper is the actual problem here. If she's got a clean background, I don't see why not. HOWEVER, I think it goes along the lines of the community and co-workers perception of being a stripper. Perception unfairly becomes reality, especially in our job. So, the problem lies with the perception, not the profession in my opinion. I'd expect the panel or interview board to ask why she became a stripper. (This should already be a question asked to all applicants. It certainly would HAVE to be in this situation.) From what I hear, they get paid very well and it's basically cash in hand. If her answer was, "I love to show off my tata's and get attention" ehhhhh. Pry not. But something to the affect of "I was struggling to pay for college and it was very good money which helped me to pay my bills on time" could be a decent answer.

    Smurfette, I understand where you're coming from. "You can't treat them different than any other applicant, so long as the previous job isn't illegal." That being said and while agreeing with you to a certain extent, someone could argue that the applicant should be disqualified for selling the synthetic form of marijuana (K2) before it was banned. The whole "It's not illegal" argument simply doesn't apply to our career all the time. Or maybe a better one: There was a thread on here recently stating that a department fired an officer for leaving his keys in the vehicle and not locking the door. Not illegal... Should he have been fired? I say no, but the point to this is that we're held to a higher standard than most professions. The fact that he can get fired for something like that is ridiculous, but it's our job and we really can't argue with it. Would he have gotten fired if someone didn't take his car? In some agencies, yes. Bottom line.

    I'd ask you this - If the hiring panel shouldn't consider her previous job in their decision, because it's not illegal - Then why can't she strip when she's off duty to make some extra coin. After all, it isn't illegal. (Provided the department says they can have side jobs.)

    I say:
    Try to make sure most of the citizens haven't seen her strip or she did it in another area, keep her previous job VERY hush hush (even to co-workers) and she has a clean background etc. It's certainly not an instance dis-qualifier. If people find out, it most definitely could create problems, even if she is super professional. People will unfairly make it an issue.
    Last edited by LPD003; 05-08-2011, 04:20 PM. Reason: Addition

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 3448 users online. 187 members and 3261 guests.

Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X