No one said we can’t have a discussion about it. Female guards are more vulnerable in prisons in some ways. (It is a weakness, actually.) They are also less likely to physically abuse inmates, not just because of their physicality but because women are less violent in general. We need to be careful that male guards are not bashing heads and we need to keep in mind that female guards are more susceptible to being taken advantage of by inmates. There is no reason not to acknowledge the sexual differences and their is no reason to ban female guards.

All 13 guards who have been indicted were female, describing the problem as “female guards” is entirely factual and relevant to understanding it.

“Now, I think we have to acknowledge their are some weaknesses specific to female guards just as there are some weaknesses in male employee in many professions”

Human sexuality is not a weakness or a deficiency, but it is a powerful factor in governing social behavior. There probably are ways to create a structure that can allow women to reach their potential, but the present climate won’t allow the frank discussions needed to find those solutions.

What’s going to happen instead is that bureaucracies will deal with it by pushing women into dead-end administrative positions. The irony is that rigid adherence to feminist dogma is creating the real glass ceiling.

Now, I think we have to acknowledge their are some weaknesses specific to female guards just as there are some weaknesses in male employee in many professions, including, I’m sure, prison guards.

Second, in the wake of these deeply troubling indictments some have questioned if women should be able to serve as Correctional Officers in situations where they monitor male inmates. There should be no discrimination against women in consideration for any job. It goes without question that women are just as equally qualified as men to serve.

My boldface. I also like the phrase, “just as equally qualified,” that could be a beautiful euphemism.