There’s an interesting post at What’s Wrong with the World on women in positions of command. Jeff Culbreath reflects on the appointment of a female police chief in his hometown in California:

This isn’t just any job: the essence of police work is violence and coercion. The employment of violence and coercion by women – in a way that is habitual or defining for them – turns them into something beastly. A female police chief is uniquely perverse because those whom she will be leading (police officers) and those whom she will be coercing (criminals) are predominantly male. Her position is one of wielding power and authority specifically over men. Tell me, is it healthy for any woman to aspire to this? Does it not indicate some deep spiritual and psychological problems?

Certain kinds of work, too, require male cohesiveness to be effective. This is especially true of physically or mentally intense work in which the stakes are very high. The presence of a woman changes the whole dynamic. The psychological and sexual tensions of a mixed group are entirely counterproductive in such circumstances.

Men also respond much, much better to male authority. As do women, for that matter. Even those who give lip service to feminism bristle under female authority when it is actually exercised. And because it is so unnatural, women in authority often feel like they have something to prove, thus distorting their judgments. A chief of police needs the respect of his officers and the men of the community. A female chief – despite the “gender neutral” attitudes most men will express when asked – just isn’t going to get it.

    — Comments —

A female reader writes:

I have recently started reading your blog. I agree with 99% of what you and most of your comments say. However, there is the 1%. I consider myself a Catholic feminist. I recognize the effects of the Fall on both men and women and believe that we should do our part to remedy its effects to the extent grace and God will allow.

So I get a little miffed at the article above.

Our mid sized city had a woman Chief of Police, I knew her and know she was married, had kids, was Catholic, was pro-life, was admired by all and effective as a professional law enforcement person.

Let us not fall into imputing infallibility on the past or on Chesterton. I would hope that we would approach our society with the eyes of the authoritative Church.

Laura writes: 

Thanks for your comments.

I’m sure there are women who have filled this sort of position capably. There are also excellent women soldiers. The point is not whether women can actually execute the work or whether they are good people or not. Society runs on ideals and this is not a workable model for the reasons Jeff Culbreath mentioned. A police force thrives on male teamwork and camaraderie, on stern authority and a culture of daring. It’s a military brotherhood. A woman in command, no matter how likable or competent, is likely to disrupt that atmosphere simply because she is a woman. Even a woman’s voice is less authoritative. A police chief must react harshly to any infractions by officers. Men do not like being dressed down by a woman and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that fact of male psychology. In general, it’s impossible for men and women to interact in a neutral way.

You mentioned that you’re friend was pro-life, which brings up another issue. A pregnant police chief is an affront to decency and common sense. Personally, I hate seeing police women except those doing office work or traffic control. A society that puts women in the job of defending men has lost respect for femininity and concern for its own safety.

The past is not infallible, but neither is the future.

Michael S. writes:

Your miffed female reader writes:

” I consider myself a Catholic feminist.”

The term “Catholic feminist” is a contradiction in terms.

Laura writes:

Yes, logically speaking, there is no such thing as a Catholic feminist.

A. Ser vant writes:

I very much respect the civility, class and quality of the comments on your blog, and as such will strive to stay in that thread, although it will take some effort regarding the current post from “A female reader.”

First, your response to her comment was excellent, thank you, but I feel a need to go a bit further. This individual stated that she was “a bit miffed” by the article as she is a “feminist Catholic”. I have encountered several of these “Christian” feminists recently and must say their position makes me much more than a “bit miffed.” How can anyone with any sincerity of Bible belief reconcile the hateful, selfish doctrine of feminism as being conducive with service of God? I would like this to be an open invitation to any of your readers that hold such a belief to please offer up some proof, even just smallest example as how feminism and Christianity can be compatible. Unless they can make a very convincing argument, which would really need to make me believe that I have been reading a book other than the Bible all this time, they need to be exposed for the frauds that they are. This is an audacity that is paramount, in my opinion, to coming on your site and spitting directly in your face, Mrs. Wood.

“I agree with 99% of what is on here” a female reader writes. Is this supposed to be funny? It seems the central theme, unless I am completely delusional, of the Thinking Housewife site is to debunk feminism and call all to recognize, especially women, that in it’s place needs to be a return to traditional Christian roles. If someone comes to your site from a feminist position and isn’t callously trying to insult or undermine you, Mrs. Wood, by assuming agreement, that they truly believe that they are indeed in agreement with your views, this is truly, truly frightening. It speaks to a level of arrogance, foolishness and willful blindness of an individual that invents a reality wherever they may find themselves. It is more Orwellian than Orwell himself!

I suspect that what is really happening is that this is not foolishness in the least, but rather calculated, knowing that God is on the side of Mrs. Wood and it is impossible to debate openly and win, especially on her home turf. As such, the classic, cowardly method of “divide and conquer” is used. The camel’s nose is poked under the tent by feigning agreement, and then bit by bit, the rest will try to follow under the guise of “friendly debate” from a “peer.”

Don’t be fooled!

By the way, the observations about the role of females in authority, especially over males and even more so in law enforcement, are absolutely correct. Good work!

Laura writes:

Thank you. I agree with Servant. Although I hope the statement from the female reader wasn’t deliberately mischievous. My own reaction to her comment was that perhaps she was a newcomer who hadn’t read much of what I had written. I purposely decided to overlook her point about being a Catholic feminist to give her a chance to look around and see where she was.

Again, let me state, there is no such thing as a Catholic or Christian feminist. Nor can there be a contented feminist reader of the Thinking Housewife.

Fitzgerald writes:

There are always exceptions to every rule, but that doesn’t undermine the reality of the assertion being made. All too often women who seek these positions [of police chief] do so to either prove something, assert authority in a vindictive sense, or to game the system.

I know from personal experience, not me directly, but a close family member who is a police officer. He has been accused on two seperate occasions of sexual harassment for completely innocuous comments he made to women police officers. In the city he serves, political corrections is the first and foremost rule of law within the department and he was horribly persecuted. In both cases the Police union came to his defense and saved his job, although it damaged his credibly irreparably. Both women were intentionally gaming the system for their own advantage. This is very similar to what’s happening in the military with women being shipped out, or looking for a way to shirk duty, get pregnant intentionally. They often abort these children once they have “dodged the bullet” or use the child to gain lighter duty and control over their assignments. In the cases of the officer, both were unstable women with an axe to grind against men, and were able to gain similar control and enormous “sympathy” from their agitating compatriots. One quite soon after on a partial pension and is continuing to receive unjust benefits from her nakedly selfish act. This may been exception to the norm, but this is happening in increasing frequency in departments across the country as the feminist agenda pushes women into careers and occupations they are ill suited for all under the guise of “equality” and “fairness.”

In another case (I know the details through friendship), the fire department in the same city has been forced repeatedly to lower standards and policies to accommodate women. Men used to often ride the back of trucks when hurrying to a fire. It was found most of the women weren’t able to hold on when rounding corners, and so everyone is now required to be ensconced in the cabs. Fewer men.. er.. fire personnel are able to respond now and it added needless delay to their response. Furthermore, the rigorous physical regimes they must be certified under and annually be tested against have been gutted because the women by and large are much less able to carry people out of buildings, rapidly scale stairs or fire escapes, or perform many critically important and physically demanding tasks. It’s a simple biological fact, women have far less upper body strength nor the physical stamina men do. But yet again, reality and safety is sacrificed time and again on the altar of “equality.” We are a great deal less safe and it creates hardship for the remaining men which much cover for the inadequacies of the women in modern departments. Like all other occupations which women have moved into, a large stratum of men choose to quit or not join rather than put up with the PC nonsense of aggressive feminism.

The march of the many headed hydra of feminism is a corrosive force in our society. It is stifling innovation, growth and even our safety at home and abroad. The fact that some women can perform admirably doesn’t negate the overwhelming caustic impacts of the feminist agenda and the ancillary consequences thereof.

Laura writes:

Those are excellent examples. Thank you.

“Like all other occupations which women have moved into, a large stratum of men choose to quit or not join rather than put up with the PC nonsense of aggressive feminism.”

Sometimes this decision is unconscious. But there is an iron law regarding the entry of women into formerly all-male vocations. These jobs instantly become less desirable to men. Therefore, to allow women to become police, firefighters or soldiers is to jeopardize our safety.

Jim B. writes:

I think your “female reader” is using what I call the “world is still spinning” argument: That such-and-so a liberal change change was made, and the world didn’t spin off its axis and fall into the sun, therefore everything must be hunky dory (and any future change will be equally harmless). The idea that there is considerable inertia inhuman societies, and that the negative effects of social innovation can take generations to manifest themselves, seem beyond this sort of person.

Please follow and like us: