Nashville police department lowers its standards… so it can recruit more women

Has there ever been a scenario in which lowering the standards for candidates trying to enter a career field has raised the quality of said candidates? I’d think the obvious answer would be “no” but apparently the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department, or the Nashville police, doesn’t agree, because the agency is doing just that in an effort to recruit more women.

As long as suspected criminals in Nashville only hop small fences and don’t run too fast, the police department’s newest hires (recruited after standards were lowered), shouldn’t have a problem apprehending these suspects. Or, as Matt Walsh said, “I can only hope that the only people committing crimes in [Nashville] are 600 pounds and have no legs.”

Here’s the video that Walsh posted to X, illustrating the department’s new “standards” for future cops:

I share a similar confidence with Walsh; both of my sons (aged 12 and five) could easily pass this test, and both probably faster than many of the female candidates that will inevitably be evaluated.

This lowering of standards to include women (again) makes the case that… women can’t compete with men physically. And, this is exactly why I’m a firm believer that women have absolutely no business being in occupations that are physically demanding, and where life and death hang in the balance. Yes, I’m aware that this opinion ruffles a lot of feathers, but hear me out.

Sure, maybe there’s a woman out of countless who might be able to meet the standards required of men—but if that’s the case, you can guarantee there’s still going to be a man that can do it better. Just last month, AT contributor Selwyn Duke highlighted the epic and most-mortifying humiliation of an all-female SWAT team as they tried to compete in an obstacle course. See the clip below, and if you have time and want a laugh, watch the whole thing:

(The women had to be informed that, in fact, they could not cheat to “win” the contest.)

From Duke’s essay came this great analogy:

It’s like spending money training Chihuahuas to be guard dogs when German shepherds are readily available. You could do it, I’m sure.

But why would you?

Exactly. Why would you ever force others to take on the liabilities that being a female brings to an environment that requires exceptional strength and physical prowess? We aren’t built like men—and truly, thank God for this, for all our sakes.

There’s never a scenario in which a female is the best option for a physically-demanding life-and-death job… which is why for all of human history, wars have been fought almost entirely by men. Can a woman hold and shoot a gun? Of course, many of them extremely well; I myself am a big proponent of armed women, and carry everywhere I go. Does that mean we females should demand a spot on the battlefield, knowing full well that we are guaranteed to be the weak links? What right do we have as females to compel inclusion in an environment, which in doing so, puts others at an increased risk because of our physical limitations? There’s a rumor about a particular helicopter crash that occurred within the last decade or so overseas: when a military helicopter pilot suffered a cardiac event at the controls, his female co-pilot was physically unable to move him, because women are not equal in terms of physical capabilities, causing the aircraft to crash and kill all on board. (I believe the military blamed an alleged “mechanical failure.”) And rumor or not, it represents a very real concern for those in the military whose lives depend on their comrades’ physical as well as mental and moral strength.

Law enforcement is supposed to be public service, and like military service, the emphasis is on… service; in fact, there’s zero emphasis on the individual. But, apparently that makes me a misogynist, because now public service and military service are about what the individual wants, and not about what’s in the best interest of the law-abiding and civilian community—enter women, drag queens, and those just trying to score some “free” college. And, considering that my two sons are both interested in hostage rescue and military sniping, should we lower the standards for them too? I mean, they also want to be included, despite the fact that their presence would be a serious detriment to everyone reliant upon their physical performance.

Where’s the line?

The fact that an institution is lowering standards clearly means the pool of applicants will diminish in quality—and for the sake of public safety and national security, women should not hold “combat” roles.

Image from X.

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com