We NEED Policewomen! -Answering Objections Series

 This series is to answer the objections that people have to support the unBiblical and ungodly notion that it is acceptable for women to be in the military and police force. This series is, in fact, the first chapter of my new and upcoming book.

 

7. What about in regards to a woman being searched? Only a woman should be searching a woman if she is being arrested.

 

This is a question that gets brought up to me often about ‘needing’ female police officers on the street. There are two options that I will talk about that will settle this question. The first is what has been going on for some time now. The men who are on the street search the women. The second option is to outsource this job to civilian employees.

 

According to some statistics, women make up about 13% of the nations police force. Due to the fact that there are not as many women as there are men means that there are some times and circumstances where no female officer is available to come and search a woman if she is being arrested. There were many times where I was not available to come and assist another officer who was calling for a female officer. There were times where none was available in the entire city (5 different precincts). How much more so would a female officer be unavailable or none working in the smaller departments nationwide.

 

Why do I mention the lack of female officers? The men get the job done and the vast majority of the time, they get it done professionally. We will always lack females, because most women do NOT want that kind of job. But people can’t accept this reality. You see, what usually happens is there will be a minimum of two male officers at the scene to search the female suspect. One to search and the other as accountability to ensure nothing gets out of hand. Some departments will require a supervisor to come to the scene and supervise. Most of departments now a days have cameras connected to the patrol vehicles, as well. The officers will bring the suspects in front of the camera to have further proof that nothing inappropriate occurred. Clearly, their isn’t really a ‘need’ for police women, doing a man’s job.

 

The second option as mentioned above is to outsource the job to civilians. I know of a group of community volunteers who drive around following police officers to domestic violence scenes. These volunteers assist the victims of domestic violence and support them through the court process. The same idea can be used of female civilians who drive around and are available to search female suspects when needed. This actually would be the better option if one is extremely worried about officer mal-conduct. This option would ensure that there is always a female citizen available to assist to search female suspects.

 

The objection that women are essential to the police force is false. The men get the job done very well. The areas where it seems that female officers are vital can be outsourced to civilians. There is no excuse; so why are we sending our daughter’s into combat like a bunch of pagans and misogynists? Policewomen are never ‘needed’ in society.

For more in this series:

Answering Objections #1

Answering Objections #2

Answering Objections #3

Answering Objections #4

Answering Objections #5

About Nicole Leaman

Nicole Leaman is a wife and mother of two daughters. With a degree in Criminal Justice, she actively blogs about social matters regarding women and culture.

6 thoughts on “We NEED Policewomen! -Answering Objections Series

  1. I’ve been following this series with interest. I’m pretty sure we’re worlds apart on some of our basic assumptions, but I’ve been impressed at least with the logical consistency of your argument. (Which is not to say I agree; one can be as logical as anything, but if one’s starting premise is flawed one will still not arrive at a correct conclusion).
    I have a question:
    If the idea of women serving in the police or the military is “unBiblical and unGodly”, how would you approach something like the story of Jael in Judges 4 and 5? She’s the one that hammered a tent peg through the enemy commander’s temple and was lauded for her act of valour by Deborah the prophetess. How would you reconcile something like that with the idea that acts of valour are necessarily a male province?

    1. Jael is pretty simple; an open and shut case. The biblical difference lies in her action and attitude. She did not GO to war; war CAME to her. Women are not to seek out combat, but if they need to defend them self it is not sin.

      Looking at Jael, we see that she was NOT a soldier, or she would have used a sword. (And Sisera would have treated her as a threat, instead of trusting her). She used a tent peg because she didn’t have a sword. So clearly, this story actually proves the point that we are trying to make.

      God does not allow women in the military or armed forces capacity. It is foolish to not follow the biblical examples that have been given to us.

      Now my question to you; what do you make of the passage about cross-dressing? It clearly is sin and applies to women who are wearing police and military uniforms. Deut 22:5 says that these women are an abomination to God.

      If we are in doubt, we need to err on the side of caution. Are you suggesting that we be careless and possibly sin against a Holy God?

      Thank you for your comment, as well as taking the time to read. I do hope you stick around, it livins the place up a bit!

  2. You are a disgusting human being, eaten alive with the Dunning-Kruger effect. I am absolutely SICKENED by the very thought of you following my blog, or, indeed, being associated with you in any way. Please, lose my URL, leave my page, and forget you ever knew me. You are the worst kind of misogynist, and the worst kind of idiot. GO. AWAY.

  3. The passages about women wearing men’s clothes and vice versa are nothing to do with police uniforms, or any kind of trousers for that matter. Women’s trousers are a women’s garment in this culture – for one thing the cut is utterly dissimilar. The teaching is clearly about transvestitism.
    Jael is lauded in the prophetic victory song sung by Deborah in what seems to me to be clearly military as well as feminine terms.
    Gal 3:28 does away with the Old Covenant divisions of Jew and Gentile, Male and Female, Slave and Free. From the context of Jew/Gentile social relations, it seems reasonable to suppose that Paul had social rather than purely spiritual purpose in mind in writing that. Part of that, then, is a rethinking of the old hard and fast gender roles.

    1. The passages about women wearing men’s clothes and vice versa are nothing to do with police uniforms, or any kind of trousers for that matter. Women’s trousers are a women’s garment in this culture – for one thing the cut is utterly dissimilar. The teaching is clearly about transvestitism.

      Nowhere did I mention anything about women wearing trousers. You are right that this teaching in Deuteronomy 22 is clearly about transvestitism, isn’t it very interesting that Church Fathers saw women in the military (and therefore the police force) as transvestism? That is the point of what is being conveyed. Transvestism is an abomination to God and is therefore sin. It was then and it still is now. One cannot wear a military or police uniform without looking masculine. Can you name me one other type of clothing that is more masculine than a military/police uniform? Below is what some commentators have written about regarding Deuteronomy 22:5:

      “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man…and the word also signifies armour (h), as Onkelos renders it; and so here forbids women putting on a military habit and going with men to war…” -Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

      “Garments are not in themselves of so much importance; but as it is disgraceful for men to become effeminate, and also for women to affect manliness in their dress and gestures, propriety and modesty are prescribed, not only for decency’s sake, but lest one kind of liberty should at length lead to something worse. The words of the heathen poet are very true: (97) “What shame can she, who wears a helmet, show, Her sex deserting?” -John Calvin

      Jael is lauded in the prophetic victory song sung by Deborah in what seems to me to be clearly military as well as feminine terms.

      Jael is lauded and praised for killing Sisera. The glory that was due man went to a woman. The song was to the shame of Barak and the glory of what should have been man’s went to a woman. Here is what is said about Jael in Deborah’s Victory song (Judges 5). Let’s examine if she is lauded in any type of military terms.

      “24Most blessed of women be Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, of tent-dwelling women most blessed. 25 He asked for water and she gave him milk; she brought him curds in a noble’s bowl.26 She sent her hand to the tent peg and her right hand to the workmen’s mallet; she struck Sisera; she crushed his head; she shattered and pierced his temple. 27 Between her feet he sank, he fell, he lay still; between her feet he sank, he fell; where he sank, there he fell—dead.”

      Where is she lauded in military terms? Besides the smashing of Sisera’s head? Please re-read Masondan’s explanation in his response to you.

      Gal 3:28 does away with the Old Covenant divisions of Jew and Gentile, Male and Female, Slave and Free. From the context of Jew/Gentile social relations, it seems reasonable to suppose that Paul had social rather than purely spiritual purpose in mind in writing that. Part of that, then, is a rethinking of the old hard and fast gender roles.

      I have been reading a book called, “Women, Slaves, and the Gender Debate” by Benjamin Roaech. Roaech, who is an intellectual smarter than I, hashed out the argument you have mentioned. I recommend this book if you want to dive further in the issue than I will go (My response would be 5 pages long). Another book I will recommend is by Wayne Grudem titled, “Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth: An analysis of more than 100 disputed questions.”
      Instead of a response on this comment, I have a few questions for you. How is the Galatians 3:28 passage related to social equality and not spiritual equality? If it was purely social, why did Paul then contradict himself in other passages when he gave direct commands to wives and husbands, children and fathers etc?

      What is important to note is what is at stake with the gender debate (Egalitarian vs. Complementarian). The authority of Sacred Scripture is at stake.

      Thanks for your comment.

Leave a Reply