Australian Federal Police Recruitment - Pushing for Women Applicants. 50/50 Gender Balance Representation. Beneficial, or not?

So the AFP are pushing for more women in the recruitment of their officers - you can apply for a position as a male, but women are preferred.

Should a government agency be pushing gender quotas for, let's be honest here, a job that requires the best candidate. Having anyone hired based on their gender rather than their merit can result in societies safety being in jeopardy!

ABC Article on the AFP recruitment

Poll Options expired

  • 29
    This will be beneficial for Australia
  • 5
    This will be beneficial for women only
  • 39
    This helps no one
  • 9
    Australia is likely to be worse off because of this

Comments

        • And yet, you've chosen to whine SEXISM at representation in the workforce.

          Really makes you think, doesn't it?

        • +5

          @thescarecrow84:

          Discrimination is discrimination. Either allow it or don't.

          Dont allow it against one group but not another.

          And its whining sexism at sexism. Don't masqurade it as "representation"

        • @Mrgreenz: Hahaha, spoken like a true person that is totally, ignorantly unaware of the concept of male privilege.

        • +2

          @thescarecrow84:

          Ad Hominem

        • -2

          @Mrgreenz: No, you REALLY are ignorant. Go do some research, get a little bit of education and stop your pointless bleating about sexism towards men, which is patently ridiculous.

        • +5

          @thescarecrow84:

          This is bona fide sexism and should be illegal, to make matters worse its a public funded agency.

          Somehow the rules are twisted or ignored and this is the result, the definition of sexism occuring with my tax payer dollars in 2017.

          Not much more research required. They are hiring peoples based on their sex.

        • @Mrgreenz: It's telling that you're so hung up on this. It really, really is.

        • +5

          @thescarecrow84:

          Facts > personal attacks

        • @Mrgreenz: oh, you don't even know what a personal attack is! Haha, why am I not surprised?

        • +5

          @thescarecrow84:

          Hahaha, spoken like a true person that is totally, ignorantly unaware of the concept of male privilege.

          Sorry, but Mrgreenz is pointing to literal discrimination "For the next few months the police force will only accept female applications for entry-level positions" you are pointing to a "concept" of "privilege". It's in no way comparable to the documented discrimination Mrgreenz has pointed too. Now you might feel that one justifies the other but I think the subjective basis required to make such calls is a very bad basis from which to make decisions.

        • +1

          @thescarecrow84:

          Scarecrow84 according to your moniker you are most likely born in 84 that would make you 32-33 depending on your birthday. I do not understand why a 30+ year old is resorting to acting like a 12 year old child by personally attacking people when they are using an objective fact based argument. I mean he didn't even say anything to you personally he just used an objective approach and presented some facts then bam you personally attack someone?

          It actually really truly saddens me that someone your age would act this way. What kind of role model you? Think about it for a second, if you can't have an objective discussion on a topic why even post?

        • +1

          @thescarecrow84:

          yet, you've chosen to whine SEXISM at representation in the workforce

          You're saying he should ignore the AFP's discrimination because there are bigger problems facing men. By your warped logic, women shouldn't complain about workplace discrimination because there are bigger problems facing women too (e.g. murder, terminal illnesses).

          Your comment is ignorant and you're lowering the tone of this discussion.

        • +1

          @thescarecrow84:

          I'm not surprised that you're resorting to insults and personal attacks. Your comments show that you're incapable of forming coherent, intelligent arguments.

        • +2

          @Mrgreenz:

          Discrimination is discrimination. Dont allow it against one group but not another.

          Beautiful. We should just end this thread with that quote.

          Just noticed that the troll has run away. Say hello to DisabledUser164976. Typical troll. Come in, insult people and then run away like a coward.

  • So, the AFP wants to be the PCP.

  • I don't see a problem with aiming to get a 50/50 split, as long as they're not passing up qualified candidates because of gender. That would be discrimination.

  • +6

    I heard a little while back they are trying to redress the gender gap in education to bring more male teachers in, considering scholarships for males doing education at uni and other incentives to become teachers. It's not just women that see affirmative action and quotas - seems like female dominated sectors push to get males too. It's about balance. I don't think we can quite say that men are under attack quite yet, although people sure do get fired up when they hear about things like this.

    • It's only fragile, egotistical men that get fired up over this. They don't like that the world is changing and that women are getting to invade their precious boys clubs.

      It's latent misogyny.

      • +2

        It's only fragile, egotistical men that get fired up over this

        So speaking up against discrimination make a person fragile and egotistical. By your warped logic, women must be the most fragile, egotistical beings because they have been speaking up against discrimination for decades.

        Your comment is ignorant and you're lowering the tone of this discussion.

    • They talk about / consider this but haven't they been talking about / considering it for 15+ years? Too scared to implement something pro male, even in a female dominated industry imo.

      From an article dated 2016:

      Surprisingly, offering male-only scholarships is unlawful. These male-only scholarships would breach the 1984 Sex Discrimination Act – unless, that is, the act is amended or an exemption applied.

      So there you go, it is just women getting affirmative action in regards to these types of scholarships.

  • +2

    Depends on the ratio of applicants. If after filtering out the duds there is 8 qualified male applicants for every 2 qualified female applicants, then it stands to reason that they will hire roughly 80% males (give or take) based on picking best applicants.

    If there is a strong deviation from this estimate, then maybe it should be looked in to, just to ensure there is no bias. But to just balance 50/50 at the expense of the most qualified applicants is obviously not beneficial to anyone.

    That 30% in this poll believes it's a good thing makes me a bit sad, especially since general public would then have an even higher approval rate as this forum tends to be quite cynical with issues like these (myself included).

    Edit: don't get me wrong, I'm all for encouraging women to apply and even to bridge the gap slightly if men happen to be overrepresented. But balancing 50/50 just for the sake it (and let's be honest, it's usually based on politics one way or another) is such a stupid trend that it's not something I can support.

        • +2

          Crikey, that was original.

  • +2

    This kind of approach creates more divisions than benefits within general population and workforce. We will now hire a person on the right even though there are quite a few applicantson the left side that are more skilled and suitable.

  • If they did an arbitrary study on example 500 males and 500 females and discovered that the number of males and females who would like to join the police force is equal then I think this sort of rule would make sense.

    However, if this is not a reality then this could be a problem.

    • +1

      I guess if women want guaranteed employment, they can apply at the police force.

  • +6

    Blatant sexism. Modern society is seriously screwed up.

    • -5

      Lol is this your idea of a joke?

      • +8

        No? Gender quotas are stupid in any industry. Employ people on merit not their genitals.

        • -2

          Men are not oppressed. Get that through your head. Women deserve representation after centuries of being blatantly discriminated against. I am glad they are being presented better opportunities now. You should be too, unless you hate women and want to keep them in their "place".

        • +8

          @thescarecrow84: Saying to a man you cannot have this job slot because it is reserved for a woman only is oppression. Newsflash…….

          Who said I hate women? I don't believe in sexist gender quotas, that's not a synonym for misogyny.

        • -6

          @Skramit: That's not oppression. Not in the slightest. Educate yourself.

        • +2

          @thescarecrow84:

          When I have no reply I insult the other person to attempt to invalidate their argument.

        • +9

          @thescarecrow84: So discrimination against women in the past justifies discrimination against men in the current day? I think the biggest losers from gender quotas are the women who would have received the position based on merit but now will always be viewed as likely only getting the job to increase the representation as opposed to getting the position because they were the best person for it.

        • @Mrgreenz: You call that an insult? Sensitive little snowflake, aren't you?

        • -1

          @tryagain: Oh the poor, poor men! Whatever will they do?

        • +4

          @thescarecrow84: Need a safe space?

        • +4

          @thescarecrow84: who cares about insults. You can’t defend the indefensible. Gender quotas are sexist.

        • +5

          @thescarecrow84:

          Scarecrow84 according to your moniker you are most likely born in 84 that would make you 32-33 depending on your birthday. I do not understand why a 30+ year old is resorting to acting like a 12 year old child by personally attacking people when they are using an objective fact based argument. I mean he didn't even say anything to you personally he just used an objective approach and presented some facts then bam you personally attack someone?

          It actually really truly saddens me that someone your age would act this way. What kind of role model you? Think about it for a second, if you can't have an objective discussion on a topic why even post?

        • +1

          @thescarecrow84:

          Men are not oppressed. Get that through your head.

          Nobody said anything about oppression. This says a lot about you. You've come in here with an agenda and you're going to pursue it regardless of what others actually say.

          Women deserve representation after centuries of being blatantly discriminated against.

          You're saying that past discrimination justifies present discrimination. That's called revenge. Everyone will lose if our society heads down the revenge path.

          I am glad they are being presented better opportunities now.

          If health officials stopped hiring women in order to increase the number of male nurses, would you view that as men "being presented better opportunities"? Of course not. You'd scream sexism and discrimination. Yet you support a program that discriminates against men. Shows how sexist you are.

  • +2

    AFP officers are judged on their ability to do the job AND their desire to do the job. Hence why people aren't dragged off the street and put in a uniform.

    Consider 22% of sworn female AFP officers and 13.5% protective service. That's the percentage of females who both fit the criteria AND desire to be a police officer.

    If 35% is the target by 2020, 13% more female Police officers need to he found. If no more women apply out of the desire to be a police officer and their remains a short fall in female recruits, what kind of recruit will they be hiring…

    Its not a game about sexes. If females want to apply and they can do the job, power to them…

    • Its dumb for USA but not Australia. It may work in Australia as the crimes are lower than countries like USA. also people are not allowed to carry fire arms and police officers here are usually are not dealing with criminal offences. Its mostly junkies and bikies which is fine.
      I guarantee USA would never apply this policy as it would be the dumbest idea for them. It doesn't matter if SJW's or Feminists say women can be as good as men but the fact is we are not the same. If i tell my wife you are FAT and even though she is not, she will be sad for two days that why i said that. if NORMAL women go to deal with real criminals i highly doubt they can handle the aftermath of the situation as they may get attacked or be offended. its just Physiological.

      My opinion at the end we will never have 50/50 police officers in Australia as the applicant won't ever be 50/50 it will most likely be 85/15 men and women. women are not interested to be a cop overall. if they continue like this to only empty women over men they may just have bunch of old man cops and young ladies as cops in the next 20years.

  • Can't speak from experience, but I imagine 99% of the work would involve paperwork, or sitting in front of a computer. I can't see how men outperform women in this area, so why not promote the police force as a viable option for young women to aspire to. Maybe some police officers can speak up about how they see it

  • +1

    I don't really see a huge issue. The problem might be that sometimes, some people are hard to convince to enter into certain careers. Low gender or racial/ethnic numbers aren't always because of active discrimination.

    As an example, we had some issue with Indian Taxi drivers being robbed and bashed a few years ago in Melbourne. Some people argued we needed better Indian representation in the police force and an Indian acquaintance of mine thought it was a great idea. I agreed, but asked how many people in the Indian community would be interested in pursuing careers in the police force or would encourage or condone their children doing so. He begrudgingly admitted it was probably fairly few.

  • This will absolutely ….. single male or single gay/bi female police officers to hook up with female cops.

  • +7

    You know, I only see men driving the council garbage trucks in the mornings, why arn't women complaining about that?

    • -1

      Since when were women complaining?

  • +2

    Female officers are always easier to outrun, so this just makes things even more easier for me in the future.
    Good call!

  • +5

    Why did you set the poll to expire so quickly?

  • +4

    Sometimes there are sinister motives for gender positive recruitment.
    I am aware of a surgical college that discriminates favourably towards female trainees.
    This may seem like a positive move, but it is also widely known that women will work less hours and take time off for family/pregnancy and this works in favour of the surgeons who want to limit the supply of new competition.

    • +1

      This is true. Someone with an agenda or wants to win brownie points.

  • +5

    Well first the Army and now this!

    Look at the North Korean and Russian defense minister and their recruitment policy, and look at ours!
    Look at our home brewed terrorists and criminals we are dealing with here and our hard working police force and then look at these policies.
    There is no doubt that women should be respected, cherished and have equal opportunity to take any position they desire but it should be equal. Changing and lowering the requirements or using double standards for men and women and marginalising men in such a case when they need to take on savage hostile enemies, is not helping Australia nor the women.
    These women, either are going to fight in the front line against ruthless criminals which will be weakening our and their safety or they are not which will be weakening our and their safety!
    Australia is worse off with this stupidity.
    For darn sake, watch some videos of female officers dealing with criminals!
    If true, this is not only discrimination against competent candidates but also a mental illness.
    Ps:Thanks OP for bringing this up. Kudos.

    • +4

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoqXLbchg6Y - enough said. I have known and met a lot of strong women, who were able to outfight/outlift men. If these are the people who are applying, regardless of gender, they should be accepted because they would be able to do the job well. Neg me I don't care. Are we going to be the southern hemisphere Sweden? What a joke…

  • I'm all for lower physical standards for women. But you can't go below 6.5 beep test, 10 pushups and 3 phase sit ups, otherwise they might as well install a trough and fill it with stale donuts…

  • Having read the comments in this thread so far, I'm confident that both sides of the debate will reach a consensus quickly and this issue will be resolved for all that read it.

    It definitely won't continue to be two groups of people with unshakable and engrained viewpoints repeating themselves over and over again with no hope of changing the other party's mind. That's for sure.

    • +1

      I disagree.

  • +6

    You should be hired based on your qualifications / ability, not on what is or isn’t between your legs.. The end.

    • It's based on what is between your ears. That discounts a few people on here.

      • +5

        No it's not, it's based on recruiting more females.

      • +1

        Cool, I like discounts

        • +1

          Any deals on females? I hear AFP are interested…

  • +13

    As an Australian Police Officer I can say this will impact AFP negatively. My state are pushing female recruits through and it is impacting us negatively already.

    Let me preface this by saying that I am not trying to imply that males are better. Some of the best members I have worked with are female, some of the worst members I have worked with are also female.

    The issue lies with them having to lower standards in order to get the numbers. Females are applying and doing the panel interviews, they are being found unsuitable by the people interviewing them, but they are being overridden by the people higher up because they need to hire every female that applies in order to meet the quota. These females are then eventually making their way out to stations and are completely useless. They freeze up in tough situations and in the previous twelve months there have been numerous incidents where junior female members have locked themselves in their cars while their partners get attacked. Members have ended up in hospital because of this. Not all are like this, but unfortunately there are many getting through.

    Many of the females they are hiring are very young (between 19 to 21 years old) which in many cases also means they have very low maturity levels. Low maturity levels are not something you want within a police force.

    Another issue with having more female members is that they will ultimately need to hire more staff as it takes more staff to run the organisation with more females. As an example, a station I worked at was nearly 50/50 male and female. We had a period where out of 30 members at the station, 11 females became pregnant and as a result were on light duties or maternity leave of up to two years. Those members don't generally get replaced. We just have to make do without them but in our case, we lost so many members at one time that other stations were having to send members over to us so we could staff the station and then those stations were running on too few members.

    I'm not saying females should not be allowed to get pregnant and have babies, I am just saying this needs to be another consideration when hiring so many females and that they should hire far more members to cover it.

    It should be based off of merit and suitability for the job, not based on gender.

    EDIT: Further to this, at the academy they have regular fitness tests. There has recently been numerous squads that have had females that never passed a fitness test at the academy and are still graduating, yet in other squads, males aren't passing the fitness tests and are being back-squaded and not allowed to graduate until they have passed. How is this fair not only on the males but the other females who are honestly trying their best?

    • +2

      It's great to hear from a police officer on this issue. I'm disappointed by the decision-makers. They have decided that hiring unsuitable women is more important than the safety of frontline officers. It's utterly irresponsible.

    • Thanks for your service and thanks again for taking the time.

    • +1
      Guarantee the AFP doesn't give a shit, but its lowly members do…

    • Thanks for the post.

      I have no problem with women meeting a different physical level than men. Obviously a physical test that is hard for men will be near on impossible for women. It needs to be difficult for both, not impossible or simple which it would be if you made the requirements the same for both genders.

      The other issues you bring up though, that is really bad. They cant just be rushing people through into positions they are not ready for. I guess this recruitment drive could be a good thing though. If they get significantly more female applicants the number of top quality female applicants will be higher?

  • +3

    I don't have a problem with gender equality but I want to see that same equality in blue collar jobs like construction, tree cutting, electricians, carpenters, plumbers, mechanics etc. Also, firefighters, paramedics and front line soldiers should go for 50/50.

    But I also want to see more male hairdressers, secretaries, cosmeticians, babysitters, masseusses, teachers, etc. Would anyone ever give a male babysitter a chance?

    • +1

      I also want to see more male hairdressers, secretaries, cosmeticians, babysitters, masseusses, teachers, etc.

      I have a solution. Let's stop hiring women in these professions in order to increase the number of men. No, wait. That would be discrimination and discrimination is never okay… except when the victims are men, as this thread shows.

  • +1

    This is the lefts long march through the institutions at work.

    Normal Person: Why do you need equal representation of women and men?

    Marxist: Thats the only way you will get diversity of opinion!

    Normal Person: So youre saying that all women think alike? That sounds kinda sexist to me!

  • -1

    I don't know and it is not our problem

  • Doesn't sound very meritocratic, doesn't sound beneficial to the populace at large. It's best to have a set of objective standards that have to be met.

  • Ooh I have a theory.

    It's been found that police work often results in social isolation. This leaves work being one of the few opportunities to form relationships with the opposite gender.

  • -1

    TL:DR but yeah, quotas are helpful in getting more women into the force. Doesn't mean they aren't going to hire males that aren't great candidates tho.

    • +2

      Yes it actually does there is a suspension on hiring males?

      "police force will only accept female applications for entry-level positions in an attempt to make up for heavily male-dominated recruitment courses over the past year."

      I mean you didn't even read 1 sentence into the article.

      • -4

        At least quote properly, you left off this part at the start "For the next few months…"

        It is a few months, big deal.

        • +4

          So if you're a male, wanting to become a police officer "in the next few months" then you will be told "sorry, females only".

          If the situation were reversed, even just a SINGLE female applicant being told "sorry, males only" everyone would be up in arms about it.

          People should be hired on their merit, not whether or not they are female or male. That is the definition of equality - that people are judged equally. Ensuring an artificial 50/50 split between male and females is not equality. Excluding someone based on gender is discrimination, plain and simple.

        • @serpserpserp:

          There's a difference between trying to encourage men and women into a particular role, and artificially ensuring an equal amount of men and women are in a role.

          The thing is, there are more men applying to work in the police force. If all applicants have an equal chance, than statistically there should be more men working in the police force.

          They're not trying to encourage more women to apply. They're actively preventing a group of people from receiving a position, because of their gender - regardless of how fit they may be for the role.

      • It depends. Is this women only recruit course additional to the recruit courses already decided upon for the coming year, or has a sexist recruit course of mixed male and female been ditched for the wholly women course that is in no way sexist or discriminative..?

  • +1

    I prefer the old fashioned way of doing things. If you're a bit shit you shouldnt be picked. Especially if the person next to you is better in all categories.

  • Its dumb for USA but not Australia. It may work in Australia as the crimes are lower than countries like USA. also people are not allowed to carry fire arms and police officers here are usually are not dealing with criminal offences. Its mostly junkies and bikies which is fine.
    I guarantee USA would never apply this policy as it would be the dumbest idea for them. It doesn't matter if SJW's or Feminists say women can be as good as men but the fact is we are not the same. If i tell my wife you are FAT and even though she is not, she will be sad for two days that why i said that. if NORMAL women go to deal with real criminals i highly doubt they can handle the aftermath of the situation as they may get attacked or be offended. its just Physiological.

    My opinion at the end we will never have 50/50 police officers in Australia as the applicant won't ever be 50/50 it will most likely be 85/15 men and women. women are not interested to be a cop overall. if they continue like this to only empty women over men they may just have bunch of old man cops and young ladies as cops in the next 20years.

  • +2

    I'm sort familiar with this push.

    I find no benefit to anyone, in fact, I believe this goes backwards.

    The Victorian Governments is strongly pushing women forward. Which is truly find and well. However, the push become a shove.

    In my department, I saw discrimination against men where women were pushed in positions they had no qualifications whatsoever against much better prepared men.

    I was discriminated and lost money and opportunities against women who had been pushed against me not once, but 11 times. I'm about to make a formal complaint against the government for this.

    I have women colleagues who are very good at what they do, however, I have A LOT of women colleagues who I'm afraid to work with because if things go south, I'm on my own and we will get fcked. This is true for man also, but the ratio is far smaller, only because the stringent entry requirements of when they got in.

    I'm all for the best person for the best job, however, with strong push for women and policy of take whoever you can get your hands on, I see 18 - 19 yo females, with absolutely no idea wtf they are doing in positions that they have to decide someone else's life, literally.

    I see more and more of this and I'm not sure if it will get to a point where everything gets stable and things go back to normal, but I'm tipping not in the near future.

    I'm not a sexist or whatever you want to call it. My wife earns much more than me as she's smarter than me and I support her 100% in whatever she does. When the time came for someone to stay home with the kids, I was the one to take it. I admit where I fall short or where my weaknesses are.

  • +5

    There are less female officers, not because of bias or sexism or discrimination, but because less females apply for the role due to lower interest in being a police officer.

    That's why the current push for females is unfair and discriminatory to men who are otherwise suitable applicants based on merit and merit alone.

    When I see male only positions in teaching and healthcare, THEN I'll support this rubbish.
    Having a 50/50 police force doesn't make for a better police force. What you're insinuating is that the current balance isn't working… which it most certainly is. Just have a look at the AFP's Facebook post on this topic, and the majority of females commenting and asking "Do I have to be an ACT Police Woman, or can get straight into K9's, or Forensics (or any other goochi role NOT actual general duties policing)?"

    They do not want to do general duties policing. And that's fine. They also typically don't want to empty rubbish bins, or build houses, or clean drains, or dig for iron or gold in the mining industry. That's fine too.

    But no way any of those industries would run a campaign for women only. Because common-sense prevails and they know most women (not all women) aren't interested in those fields.

    AFP has this all wrong.

    Most women do not want to go hands on with drunk man at 3am. Most women shy away from violence, not actively put themselves in harms way to stop it.
    And once again, this isn't a bad thing… it's human nature.
    Women can be terrific cops. But most women choose not to be and go for another profession. 50/50 is an arbitrary goal that means nothing and proves nothing. It ticks a box and shows "the people" look how awesome we are… when it makes no positive difference to how effective the police force is. If anything, it weakens it because you aren't picking the best PERSON for the job on MERIT alone.

  • It concerns me that I often see police officers working alone. Recently I had a RBT on a dark quiet road (at night, regional town in North Qld). The officer was friendly and of a solid build, but I still worry about potential dangers in such situations. Is it sexist that I would worry much more if the officer who pulled me over was Female?

    • Of course, everything is now sexist. Even thinking this makes you a misogynist pawn of the patriarchy.

  • The men still get in eventually, and the retention rate for women is quite low.

  • -1

    OP seems to be conflating the actual event (advertising for candidates) with a perceived result (hiring a 50:50 ratio irrelevant of qualifications).

    I have no problem with the AFP targeting a 50:50 ratio of Qualified men to women.
    Since women outnumber men, arguably they should be looking at a 45:55 split.

    Assuming that's their aim, it doesn't really surprise me that they have to advertise harder targeting women to achieve that aim. If they're typical candidate pool has a ratio of (I'm guessing) 70:30, then achieving that 50:50 ratio of qualified candidates is likely going to result in less/un-qualified women being employed. As a result, having a women's only Interview round to balance out the numbers from the first round is completely logical and correct.

  • was told by a fed cop years ago they they prefer brawns over brains

  • +1

    Personally don't care about gender at all could be 100% women or whatever but I do think it should be only a focus on traits like intelligence, emotional intelligence, interpersonal skills, fitness, morals, reaction under pressure, pain tolerance, stress tolerance, administration skills, team skills ect ect anything else a cop can be measured by.

    They say they test for these things and weight them up only picking the best candidates however I've personally spoken to people who currently works in recruitment and they have told me at this time it's extremely common to adjust test results or flat out just prioritize women over men despite some women having lower results. This is where I truly think it's a big step backwards.

    You can argue that women are better at somethings but really they should just unbiasedly test for the qualities they want so anyone can prove if they are better or not.

    Equality should be about fair opportunity and success should be directed by pure results.

    At the end of the day you want the best team for the job at hand especially when the work such as policing is so important, perhaps having so many women given preference is going to achieve this.

  • And the leftist feminist push continues. Male hate to the stars we go in the land down under.

Login or Join to leave a comment