by Nicholas Stix
March 24, 2005
See Part I: Brian Nichols in Atlanta: PC Kills … Again
Tiny women may kick butt against big, bad guys in the movies, but in the real world, sending women against ultraviolent criminals is a suicide mission.
Without the marriage of political convenience of feminism and anti-white racism, Brian Nichols would never have been in Fulton County Superior Court on March 11, and four people would still be alive today.
It is due to feminism that a female, Deputy Cynthia Hall, was given the responsibility for guarding a male suspect charged with violent crimes, and who had already been caught with weapons on his person. (I addressed racism’s role in the Nichols case in Part I.)
It is due to countless frivolous lawsuits and incessant academic propaganda that has worked its way into court decisions, that women have forced their way into jobs where they are a danger to public safety: “Firefighter”; “military person”; “police officer.” Deputy Hall had no business being within fifty feet of Brian Nichols.
For over thirty years, feminism has insisted that “no innate differences” distinguish women from men. In a complementary, if contradictory strategy, feminists argue that what seems like innate differences are more than offset by compensatory mechanisms.
The “no innate differences” claim has been accompanied by claims that differences in strength between men and women are due not to fundamental biological differences, but to sexist socialization. Feminists have replaced sex differences with “gender differences.” They claim that “gender” is a purely social construct, invented by men to oppress women.
(The only place the term “gender” properly belongs is in a discussion of foreign languages. Since the English language has no genders, no one should ever have made gender an issue in the English-language world. In the English-speaking world, one may properly debate the relations between the sexes. But that feminists would impose their dogmas, of all place, on the English-language world first, illustrates their linguistic ignorance, their utter divorce from reality, and their conviction that they can rape reality, if they do not like it. Every time a self-styled conservative writer uses the term “gender,” as opposed to “sex,” score another victory for feminists, who believe that if they can force their terms on people, they can thus force their “consciousness” on them.)
The “compensatory mechanism” strategy is typically accompanied by claims that women are more empathetic, cooler under fire, less prone to macho over-reactions, and somehow more intelligent than men. Such claims contradict the claim that men and women are alike, but feminists can contradict themselves at will, since they will make the life of any man who dares to point out their contradictions miserable. And of course, no feminist ever got into trouble for claiming that women are superior to men.
If we accept the “no innate differences” claim, the existence of sexual disparities in any profession or workplace can only be explained by reference to anti-female sexual discrimination.
Truth=Violence Against Women
Feminists have never supported their positions with empirical research. Rather, their response to contrary facts and claims has typically been to publicly excoriate, sue, charge with sexual harassment, and demand the dismissal of any man who disagrees with them. As Steve Sailer has observed in the Lawrence Summers case, powerful men who are thus targeted by feminists typically beg forgiveness, pay blackmail to incompetent feminists, and then discriminate against qualified men.
During the 1980s, hundreds of colleges and universities instituted hate speech codes, such that any man student, staffer, or faculty member who contradicted a feminist’s lies about female abilities, or merely sought to tell the truth about biological sex differences, could be brought up on sexual harassment charges and suspended, expelled, formally reprimanded or fired. Although the federal courts have long since struck down the speech codes in the case of public institutions, most public campuses simply ignored the rulings and maintained the codes, or introduced codes where none had previously been in place.
As my old grad school logic teacher, Michael Levin, showed in Feminism and Freedom (1987), already in 1982 court decisions in lawsuits brought by female applicants in male-dominated fields took the “no innate differences” claim for granted, in arguing that the inability, for instance, of any female applicant to pass the New York Fire Department’s strength test was the result of invidious discrimination. (In 1989, leftist professors and grad students in the City University of New York system, most of whom had never read Levin’s work, and none of whom could refute it, sought to have him fired, as revenge for his research.)
In an example of hypocrisy typical of feminism, the judges contradicted themselves by imposing dual standards for men and women, rather than by eliminating the strength test altogether.
The same arguments are used on behalf of lady police officers and soldiers. Feminist activist Lory Manning promotes the no-innate-difference strategy, in seeking to get women placed in military combat positions. Rather than counter all the scientific evidence—much of it assembled by the Pentagon—that women are not physically able to function in combat, Manning’s feminist shills in the press act as if the evidence did not exist, refuse to quote Manning’s opponents, and quote her as saying that her opponents have “given up” arguing that women cannot function in combat situations. Meanwhile, the socialist MSM suggest that female soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are the equals, if not the superiors, of their men counterparts.
Consider New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof. Two years ago, celebrating a coed in uniform in Iraq, who wore flowers in her helmet (I kid you not!) while bearing a machine gun, Kristof claimed that she was thoroughly “intimidating” the Iraqi men who saw her. In the same column, Kristof claimed that the enemy would perceive female soldiers as less threatening. (Which is it, “intimidating” or “less threatening”? Both! In feminism, everything is “dialectical”—“Heads we win, tails you lose.”)
Unfortunately, Kristof failed to understand that in warfare, as in police work, you want your people to be as threatening as possible to the enemy. When bad guys or enemy soldiers do not feel threatened, they feel emboldened. Bad guys and enemies do not feel threatened by girls with flowers in their helmets.
Kristof argued that women would make excellent soldiers (in this context, cops), because:
• They will cause the most bloodthirsty enemy troops to show compassion, and perhaps not bomb vehicles occupied by both women and men;
• They can pat down women; and
• Hey, female journalists function fine at the front lines, so why not as infantrypersons?
Back in the real world, in 1992, Pentagon research determined that the average man has 81.8% more upper body strength than the average woman, can run much faster and much longer than the average woman, and that only 3.4% women achieved a score equal to the male mean score for physical strength and endurance.
The Mommy Track
In military, police, and fire training, female recruits run an easy mommy track, while the men run a marathon. Think of the difference between a real golf course, and miniature golf.
And bad guys and enemy soldiers alike tend to be much stronger and faster than the average man. On TV and in the movies, tiny women may kick butt against big, bad guys, but in the real world, sending women against enemy soldiers or ultraviolent criminals is a suicide mission, or a case of asking men to die defending women. (That is why, after experimenting with sexually integrated combat units in the 1948 War of Independence, the Israeli military dropped the idea.)
During the early 1990s, I had a chat with a chubby, 4’11” NYPD policewoman in a subway train. As she walked along, smiling and greeting all manner of criminals, she told me it wasn’t worth it to get into confrontations with people. But New York’s taxpayers were paying her to do just that. Although the lady surely had a partner at the other end of the train, he could not have gotten to her in time, had she been attacked, and as a law enforcement officer, she was laughable.
“Life is Unfair”
Steve Sailer is a foot taller than me. Now, I’d love to say, a la Fred Sanford, “Hey, Sailer, you big dummy!” but the truth is, he probably has about 20 IQ points on me. (Postscript 2008: Alright, I was exaggerating.) As Jack Kennedy said, “Life is unfair.” God or nature does not necessarily compensate for a person’s deficiencies by giving him offsetting strengths. In the NBA, for instance, some players are great defenders, while others are great scorers. And yet, some players are great at both ends of the court. For a time, Michael Jordan was not only the greatest offensive player in the game, but its greatest defensive player, as well. Most unfair.
Sure there are big, dumb, bully cops; I’ve been shoved around by a couple in my time. But there is no correlation between being small and being smarter, more courageous or more professional. In any event, all the courage, intelligence, and professionalism in the world won’t help you, if you don’t have the necessary physical equipment. There’s a reason there are different weight classes for boxers and wrestlers.
In the case of 6’1” Brian Nichols and 5’1” Deputy Hall, it wouldn’t surprise me if Nichols had 30 IQ points on the deputy. Not that she’s necessarily a dummy, but he’s that smart. People stereotypically think of violent men as having low IQs, because the stereotype is generally true. But Nichols proves an exception to the rule.
In any event, it is the voice of reason that tells a violent felon that he can have his way with a female officer.
There has always been police work for females, but it used to be exclusively in subordinate roles: Matron, police administrative assistant, etc. But now, women want the power, privileges, and pay of being policemen, even though they lack the ability.
Some feminists have sought to get around refutations of the “no innate differences” strategy by claiming that that notion is only operative for “radical” feminists, but as Michael Levin showed, all feminists at least imply it. (Even a libertarian like Wendy McElroy does!)
As if feminist dogma hadn’t been responsible for enough bloodshed the previous day, it dominated the coverage of Nichols’ March 12 re-arrest. TV news viewers were treated to endless repetitions of the videotape of the handcuffed Nichols being led to a police vehicle by a slender, female, Gwinnett County police officer (surrounded by beefy, shotgun-wielding men!), as if she’d taken him in.
The “no innate differences” strategy also made an appearance in the person of DA Paul Howard, who the following Monday told reporters, “I think women are capable of doing anything a man is capable of doing.”
And yet, at Nichols’ next court appearance one day later, he was surrounded by 19 officers, and was shackled, to boot. What is the truth today, DA Howard?