7 (8) Reasons Why Women Should not be Cops

1. NOT a Woman’s Spiritual make-up: Peter 3:3–4 which urges women to cultivate a “gentle and quiet spirit.” Being a cop is NOT cultivating this. God did not create women to be the aggressive, assertive, dominant sex, and yet, that is precisely what the feminists want and the police force needs.

2. NOT a Woman’s Physical make-up: Clearly God did not design women, as a whole and in general, with this purpose in mind, clearly it was a role that God gave men, so why are women taking it from them? Why are women going against God’s obvious intent? If it is wrong for a man to hit a woman because he is stronger, then what about a woman who is a cop?

3. Image: In Song of Solomon, we see it is the woman’s job is to bare the image of a flower, of beauty and fragility. “I am a rose of Sharon, a lily of the valleys.” Song 2:1. Impossible to do as a Navy Seal or a soldier. A woman should represent womanhood IN the home AND outside the home. This cannot be done in the inherently masculine role of a cop, or, like my previous post talked about, as G. I. Jane.

4. Setting bad example: If it is not something you want your children to emulate, then why are you doing it? A woman as a cop or even a soldier can lead to confusion, and gender confusion leads to homosexuality. The number of lesbians in the military and especially the police force, are incredibly high. There is a correlation that many men in the military have picked up on. Your are leading others kids astray, causing them to stumble…

5. Scandalous: Furthering on the last note, I am afraid that a ‘Christian’ woman who is a cop, is creating a scandal. Because of the reputation of female cops as being lesbians is such a recognized truth among certain groups, it is pure scandal in the church of Christ. Eph. 5:3, “But sexual immorality and any impurity or greed should not even be heard of among you, as is proper for saints. (Italics mine).”

6. Usurping /stealing man’s intended purpose and role: God gave this role to men, so why are women taking it, as if they ‘have a right’ to it? This is not the natural order of things that God has set forth, and yet so many people instinctively  know this. God does not screw up, nor is He arbitrary; He designed men and women for a  purpose, and those purposes are NOT the same. A man’s role is to protect women, children, and society. Why do we have women who are not satisfied with their God given roles?

7. Pragmatic Reason: Men are not being men, to a very large degree, because women are not being women. You want your man to be a man? Then get out of his way and stop doing his job for him. Very, very, few men desire to have a wife who is a cop; it is shameful for a man if a woman is just as, or more so, of a man than he is. This is inherent in the way God made men and women. You want to increase your odds of getting married? Be a woman, not a man.

8. Cross-dressing is Wrong: It is a perversion, it’s ungodly. Society ‘accepts’ men and women who cross dress, but that does not mean the God who created them does. Our God is not a God of confusion so why do we have women who are dressing up in the manliest clothes they can possibly wear? Because they want to be masculine. This is wrong, unhealthy, and only creates confusion. Just because society applauds women wearing clothes that makes are inherently masculine, does not mean the church should.

This feminist culture has redefined what it means to be a woman, now the church needs to redefine it again, back to what it should be. Even little children know that a woman should not be a cop, let us humble ourselves and learn from  the ‘wisdom from the mouth of babes’.


About Daniel Mason

I write from the historic protestant worldview, that is, Reformed, specifically the conservatism within that tradition. That noble line extends from Edmund Burke to F.J. Stahl, Groen van Prinsterer to Abraham Kuyper, Herman Bavinck to H.R. Rookmaaker. View all posts by Daniel Mason

109 responses to “7 (8) Reasons Why Women Should not be Cops

  • Clare Flourish

    Some reasons you should not be a blogger:
    You can’t write
    you can’t spell
    you don’t understand God, or men, or women
    you are a fuckwit.

    Have a nice day.

    • Bruce Burns

      I don’t agree with all of the man’s points, but if I have to choose between a person being honest (if, I think, a bit legalistic) and someone just throwing stones, I’m going to go with the simple speaker every time. Then when one side starts throwing foul language, I find myself valuing the other side all the more. Assuming you’re not just trying to be a troll, I’d offer that swearing at someone is the best way to lose an argument.

    • R. L. Culpeper

      Took the words right out of my mouth.

    • Donn LeVie Jr.

      Why the anger-fueled post? Since you make the claim that he doesn’t understand God, what’s your reference point for making such a claim? How about sharing with the rest of us exactly how he doesn’t understand God–or men, or women for that matter? Can you share something besides uninformed opinion? You slam him for his spelling and grammar, yet you opt to use profanity. Is this to disguise your lack of knowledge or ability to articulate your REASONING? I want to encourage you to THINK, use REASON and LOGIC for your arguments. It contributes to the conversation.

    • Argus

      Very few bloggers can spell, so perhaps we should judge by content rather than the standard of modern ‘education’.
      As for understanding ‘God’ I leave that to the clergy and their sheep. I know that I never can; quite beyond my ken.
      Understand women? Not easy—after many decades I’ve decided that although they look a lot like us, and we can even breed with them, they are in fact a different species. Long may it last.
      And, as old-fashioned as it may seem, I like my women (note the possessive there) to be soft and fluffy. I don’t want to come home to a beloved Spouse in leathers dripping with chains and wildly enthusiastic for an arm wrestle. Tattoos? Currently fashionable but no thanks—if wimmin do that to prove something—they’ve proved it.

      • Donn LeVie Jr.

        Argus: No argument about the issue of spelling (even spell checkers don’t get the context correct sometimes). The “understanding women” is more about celebrating the differences between men and women and understanding the inherent strengths and weaknesses in ALL aspects of our humanity and spirituality each brings to relationships–beyond the physical procreation element you emphasize. As for God, your sidestepping the issue lends absolutely no credibility to the belief or to the claim that Christians are “sheep.” You are, in effect, lobbing mortar rounds from your position without an attempt to understand the position of the other side. With all due respect, that’s an ineffective argument that leads to non-valid conclusion. Otherwise known as uninformed opinion. With all due respect.

      • Argus

        Wow! I’ve lobbed an awesome number of such mortar rounds in my time, yes—but you do me wrong, I have made the attempt. My firebase is one of strength.

        And I’ve noticed that when someone uses ‘with all due respect’ what they really mean is “go crawl back under your rock, dammit~!”

        I’ve also noticed that discussing religion is the ultimate in pointlessness …

  • The Master's Slave

    And the above commenter shouldn’t be allowed to comment…yeesh! Can’t these ultra-feminist man-haters just button their traps and go elsewhere? Great post my brother, take care and God bless.

  • The Master's Slave

    Reblogged this on The Diary of a Slave.

  • Zabeth

    As a Christian mother of four and one that seeks to follow Biblical guidelines as laid out in God’s Word I appreciate reading this post. It is encouraging to see you blogging on this as what we see so much of in this world is anything but true Biblical womanhood. Thank you for this today.

    • Whitney

      I feel so sad for you :/
      I mean that in the most inoffensive way possibly, but I really do. I hope only the best for you 🙂

      • masondan

        I think perhaps you misunderstand. You should rejoice for this woman, for she has found happiness and freedom. Male chauvinism has enslaved women for in this country for 100 years. We can only find freedom in Christ; when submit to God’s plan, we truly find happiness. Thank you for taking the time to check out the blog my friend, best of wishes.

      • Whitney

        I actually really enjoyed reading your blog. Certainly our views our extraordinarily different, but different perspectives generally help those who are strong in their convictions feel stronger about those beliefs. I’m sorry if I offended some of your readers, it truly wasn’t intentional.

  • http://lizardomd.com/

    I appreciate your blog. I think you have some points, just be very careful how you carry yourself when you do. Best wishes on your blogging adventures.Be honet, but sensitive to all audiences.

  • Comment policy | Clare Flourish

    […] with nutcase Christian blogs. When they say that God abominates gay people, I tell them to repent. Here is a man who says women should not be police officers because that is far too manly a role for women, and […]

  • marvelousmadness

    An interesting post. On one hand, the sexes are different. On the other, what if they’re changing the role of the police? What if, instead of wrangling offenders, they took care of them, made them better understand their ways? I know this isn’t the trend, but it’s something to consider. Finally, everyone is a little androgen, and has some of both the sexes, but men are more likely, and more suited to be expressing the masculine, and women the feminine. I think you’re onto something. I’m not sure what I think, to be honest. I guess what I’m saying is that you should ask yourself and God: does a man have to always be manly? Need a woman always be womanly?
    Hope that helps.

  • joeref

    the problem here as I see it is that many of the “biblical guidelines” were created by primitive men at a time when they thought a thunderstorm was God’s retribution for bad behaviour. This is precisely the reason I find “kosher” rules equally absurd. This is 2013. Women should be free to fully express themselves and create the life that is best for them as individuals, and not dictated to them by arcane rules handed down from antquity by men who would keep women in a subservient state.

    • masondan

      My friend, thank you for takin the time to both read and comment on my post. With regards to your statement about women being free to express themselves, I of course think that we should be free to express ourselves. But this does not mean that it is ok to express myself as a women or to have a sex change. There is a line that needs to be drawn. I do not have the freedom to express my hatred with violence, I do not have the freedom to ‘express myself,’ by running around naked in public. I am afraid the way many women are expressing themselves today is both sinful shameful. There will not be true happiness found in such ‘expressions’.

      • Lauren J Barnhart

        How do you know that “there is not true happiness found in such expressions.” Have you tried it? I have been naked in public more times than you could count. The first time being at a nude beach in New Jersey, where I reveled in the loveliness of bodies of all shapes and sizes. Years later, I make most of my income as an Art Model. My job makes me very happy. I get to be with artists everyday in a place of learning, and as I inspire them, they inspire me. Some of the happiest experiences of my life have involved being nude in public.
        As for women who use nudity as a form of political expression – there is tremendous power in claiming one’s body, when for centuries, women’s bodies were not their own. We had no say.
        So my advice to you is, trying being nude in public sometime. It’s a whole lot of fun. Bodies are nothing to be scared or ashamed of.

    • Donn LeVie Jr.

      What’s your source for the claims you make? Sounds like the same tired pablum heard for centuries by those who either (1) hate God, (2) hate people who believe in God, or (3) both.

    • Argus

      Well said, and agreed. Speaking only for myself I tend to go for the ‘feminine’ of the females. A damsel that can run with me, do things with me yet is still soft and fluffy. I’m a dinosaur? Could be …

  • Lauren J Barnhart

    I agree with joeref. Primitive men created the words of “God.” Throughout much of history, belief systems have been used as a means of controlling women, and society in general.
    As people, we all have different strengths and weaknesses, regardless of gender. The sexes are very biologically similar, and it’s only societal pressure that keeps us pretending to be so different.
    Personally, I find a whole lot of love and happiness in my home. But I find empowerment, satisfaction, and well being from the work that I do, and my ability to take care of my own financial needs. My husband feels less pressure because I am an equal partner in our marriage.
    I respect the cops in my neighborhood. It is a tough job. From what I’ve seen, it appears that when there are no female cops around, the men get too macho, and let their emotions get too involved in keeping order. The women bring balance, and keep that in check. In fact, I’ve yet to hear a complaint about a female cop going ballistic, but I hear it all the time about the men.
    Also, lesbians are beautiful people. They are pillars of the community, great at what they do, and they make amazing parents. Maybe you’re too busy judging them to notice that.

    • lilyofthevalley2014

      Before I say anything I would like to first point out that a problem is occurring with some of these comments….One is talking from a Biblical perspective and others are talking with a non Biblical perspective. Trying to come to a conclusion will not happen.

      Secondly, What is true happiness? Can we be truly be happy? Is it a feeling or emotion or state of being? Is happiness based on cultures standard? True happiness is found in Jesus Christ–The Creator of you and me. We find what happiness is in the infallible Word of God. Apart from Christ we are hopeless, helpless, and the opposite of happy.

      Third, Just because men and women were wrong for their actions in the past does not mean that we can blow everything out of proportion. At one point in time or another (and even in the present in some cultures), women were treated like cattle. That was/is wrong. This does not mean that we as women can all of a sudden run around naked in the street because we can. After Adam and Eve sinned, they realized they were naked. It was so shameful that they went and made clothes for themselves. Please post when you run around naked…I will not go outside.

      Fourth, if you don’t know Who wrote the Bible, please don’t insult Him (Not that He needs any help dealing with people).

      Before I end up writing a book, let me lastly point out something. There is no such thing as 50% equality when it comes to authority between a husband and his wife in a marriage. It is impossible and un biblical. There is a reason why there are not two kings, two presidents, or two chiefs. Someone needs to be the final authority. The Bible clearly states that the men are the final authority. This does not mean that women are inferior in their role. The roles are simply different. This does not mean that women are therefore to be treated like cattle. Women are equal in value, respect, and dignity. You said that female police officers bring balance. You are saying that women are different than men. Again, it is not bad or inferior….it’s simply different.

      Only in Jesus Christ can we find freedom . Freedom from sin. Only in Jesus Christ can we find true happiness. Please look at this link and listen to the audio by John Piper. http://silbithomas.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/what-is-the-gospel-simple-explained-by-john-piper-audio-download/

      • Lauren J Barnhart

        It’s true that we won’t reach a conclusion. I was raised in the church, and attended Christian schools from grade school through college. I know the Bible backwards and forwards. I’ve witnessed thousands of Christians in action. And I can honestly say, I rarely ever met anyone who was well-balanced or happy. Learning about the truth of the matter has taken years of research and exploration.
        A study published in The American Sociological Review revealed that theology and spirituality do not make people happier. What gives people life satisfaction is the social aspect of building friendships and community at church.
        And men wrote the Bible. If they were influenced by a God or not, well, that’s what faith is for.

      • JunkChuck

        The problem with the biblical perspective is that folks who look out at the world from that lofty perch are rarely satisfied until they’ve done all they could to force the rest of us up on the same narrow balcony.

    • lilyofthevalley 2014

      A part of me wants to feel very sad for you because you have not grown up in a Christ believing environment where true forgiveness, joy, and satisfaction is evident. The truth that you claimed you have found is a lie and you are without excuse. You are even more without excuse because “you know the Bible backwards and forwards.” True Truth is found in Jesus Christ and in Him only (John 14:6-7)….not in society or culture or your neighbor.
      “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death” Proverbs 14:12. Do not listen to your heart…”The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9)…Listen to the Word of God. Listen to the Word of God. Romans 3:10-11 As it is written: “There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 10:9-10 That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead you will be saved. For with the heart one believes to righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made to salvation. Romans 10:13 For “whoever calls upon the name of the LORD shall be saved.
      If you are interested in assurance of salvation look at this sermon from Paul Washer. Washer says these quotes, “If you are not walking with God now you can have no assurance you have ever been saved.” Are you continuing to repent today and continuing to believe today. “A true Christian is sensitive to sin.” A part of me wants to feel very sad for you because you have not grown up in a Christ believing environment where true forgiveness, joy, and satisfaction is evident. The truth that you claimed you have found is a lie and you are without excuse. You are even more without excuse because “you know the Bible backwards and forwards.” True Truth is found in Jesus Christ and in Him only (John 14:6-7)….not in society or culture or your neighbor.
      “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death” Proverbs 14:12. Do not listen to your heart…”The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9)…Listen to the Word of God. Listen to the Word of God. Romans 3:10-11 As it is written: “There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 10:9-10 That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead you will be saved. For with the heart one believes to righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made to salvation. Romans 10:13 For “whoever calls upon the name of the LORD shall be saved.
      If you are interested in assurance of salvation look at this sermon from Paul Washer. Washer says these quotes, “If you are not walking with God now you can have no assurance you have ever been saved.” Are you continuing to repent today and continuing to believe today. “A true Christian is sensitive to sin.” http://www.heartcrymissionary.com/sermons-en#!sid=3 There is no hope apart from Jesus…Without Jesus you will be eternally separated from God Himself.
      I will pray the Lord’s Will in your life.

      • Lauren J Barnhart

        Thank you for the prayers for your will in my life. But no need. I’m a very happy and satisfied Atheist who forgives those who don’t understand. I even experience joy on a daily basis. Imagine that. And yes, my family forgives me for not turning out like carbon copies of themselves.
        I would love to hear you talk in your own voice. Your comment is a regurgitation of all the things you’ve been told. You sound very afraid. As though you hide away from reality in the Jesus comfort zone. He was just a man. And due to mistranslation and cultural misunderstandings, now you think he’s a god. A god who began as a tribal desert deity, who spread throughout the world due to really great salesmen who were just as afraid and controlling as you are.
        Despite all that, I think you are probably a very nifty person beneath all the mumbo jumbo. I enjoy these debate challenges, and they energize me as I continue to write on how faith-based living limits our capacity for happiness and freedom. For example, telling a woman she doesn’t have the right to be a cop.

      • lilyofthevalley2014

        To Barnhart’s last response:

        This will be my last response to you. I will be shaking the dust off my feet. There are two things that you as an atheist believes: 1. You believe there is no God. 2. You are a liar (Romans 1:18-32). And apart from Christ you can do nothing good (Romans 8:8). I don’t want you to hear my voice. My voice is like grass that withers and dies, but the Word of the Lord will endure forever (Isaiah 40:8). I am not afraid. It is you who should be afraid. I beg you to reconsider…Below is the story of The Rich Man and Lazarus Luke 16:
        19 “There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side.6 The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’ 27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house—28 for I have five brothers7—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’” Please don’t be him.

    • Donn LeVie Jr.

      What’s your source for claiming the sexes are biologically similar? What’s your source for making the claim that “primitive men created the words of “God”? Which books of the Bible, specifically? Lauren, what I’m asking is that you have to have some ultimate authority for anything you claim–what is that? Your “experience”? Have you experienced everything there is to experience? What you’ve heard from others? Can you not investigate and discern for yourself what is truth and what isn’t? (hint: you have to investigate claims yourself in order to make an intelligent decision).

      The Good Samaritan parable that Jesus taught was that everyone is our neighbor, not just the people who live on either side of us or across the street. Our neighbors are people of other faiths, people of other worldviews, gay people, people of other races and ethnic origins. It’s our job as Christians to serve the needs and interests of all our neighbors in my community–whether gay or straight; whether Hindu or Muslim, whether Republicans or Democrats, Yankees or Red Sox fans. Yes, a few people claiming to be Christians fail in this regard, but you can’t condemn all Christians for the actions of a few, yet that’s what atheists and agnostics do all the time.

      Christianity has an account of what human beings were built to do and what will help human flourishing. Homosexuality does not contribute to human flourishing, but that doesn’t send you to heaven or hell. It’s the sin underlying the sin–that of human autonomy; of being my own savior and lord that will do it.

  • emike1

    Great post. You sure have a point. God bless

  • victoriadougherty

    Thanks so much for following me on Cold.

  • elliebelfiglio

    Great Ideas and great writing.!
    To the first person (Clare) who left you a nasty comment, “Clare, you’re one twisted minded feminist who has forgotten how to be a woman. I thought everybody should be nice. What is your problem, you liberal, feminist with its wrong meaning? Feminism is not what you are, it is to be a woman of honor, who nurtures, loves, and is a feminine, too “

  • Anna

    Hi, I consider myself a feminist but in no way am I man hating. I understand that men and women are physically different, with men usually being stronger than women. However to say that women can’t be cops or in the military simply because “that’s what God wants” seems short sighted and arrogant. Who are you (not you, but people) to say what women can and can’t do? Who is anyone to say what God wants, either? No human can speak on behalf of God Himself. Also I think roles are shifting. Women are nurturing but can also be strong, men are strong but can also be nurturing. God designed both of us to be loving parents and caretakers and partners. Thoughtful post though, I enjoyed reading it.

    • masondan

      Thank you for taking the time to both read and comment on my post. With regards to speaking on behalf of God, that is exactly what both Jesus Christ and all the apostles did. In fact, that is what all of His prophets have done over the centuries. How are we to NOT speak on behalf of God, if that is what He has commanded us to do? It would be arrogant not to. We are told to go forth making disciples in all the nations…this means speaking on His behalf. It is an unBiblical concept that goes against God’s intentions; allowing women to serve in the police force and military and other roles of combat. This shift that we see has done nothing but make both men and women unhappy and what is worse, the gender confusion has promoted homosexuality, a very serious sin. God is not being honored in all this. The role of man as protector and provider and leader is sacred, and the role of woman as life giver and nurturer and caretaker is also, and equally sacred. A man cannot bare the woman’s image nor can the woman properly bare the image God gave man to bare. The God we serve is very interested in doing things symbolically and with representations. A woman is to represent God in a certain way that is equal but different than the man. Does all that help make more sense? I hope so, in the mean time I wish you well and again thank you.

      • Anna

        Hi and thanks for your kind response. I never thought about speaking as a disciple before-that is a wonderful way of thinking of things. I do want to say, I know we disagree perhaps, but I don’t think not following (sorry, double negative) traditional roles will necessarily make men and women unhappy. I earn more than my husband but we treat each other like equals. I don’t ever treat him as less than me, if anything he’s better than me! 😛 But we love each other very much and are very happy. I know couples where the woman makes more and couples where the man makes more. It seems to me that’s not the determinant of their happiness but rather their respect and love for each other is. I know in some cases “breadwinner” women will look down on their husbands, but the ones I know don’t, I don’t think that’s usually the case either. Anyway God bless, I wish you well too.

  • alishapowell2013

    I think that I can see both sides of the coin in this perspective. While I think that women may have to step down in order for men to step up, I think that there are circumstances where the emotional and nurturing side of a woman could be helpful and necessary on the police force. Someone who could empathize with a victim of a violent crime or just think of some small thing that could bring comfort to someone in a bad situation. Men and women are meant to complement each other and I think that that could be useful in a high stress job that deals with very sensitive and unique situations.

  • Truckinwife

    Boy talking about taking on the feminist agenda by the horns. ALL I can add to this is you keep it up. As men have been pushed around for way too long, as women try to take over the pedestal only men should stand on. Now I will say this, I do carry a gun and will protect my family if need be. Even as a women I firmly believe protecting loved ones can be a nurturing thing as well, IE consider how a mom will rush in to protect her children. ( at least I would hope that they do, there are women who shouldn’t have been a mothers )
    But men have the place of being the leader of the home both spiritually and physically. Or as I think of it, my husband is the captain of this household and I am the first mate. If the captain can not for what ever the reason be there I will take control of the “ship” house hold. For too long women have sought to be on the pedestal that men stand on. And honestly we ( women ) have forgotten what an honor it is to be on the pink pedestal.

    • masondan

      Thank you for reading my post as well as your support. Clearly there is a lot of hatred and vitriol from many people who have a deep seated misunderstanding of what equality means. A red light and a green light are both different colors, but both are equally colors; one is not superior to the other. We are so foolish for thinking that if I am not the exact same, I am either superior or inferior. But only God can open peoples eyes, so I would greatly appreciate your prayers. God bless!

  • pbachmeyer

    We live in a time of enormous confusion about gender. It makes it difficult to explain certain concepts in a brief way. I will try anyway. I accept as an axiom a basic principle: all men are meant, or designed, for fatherhood, and in the same way, women for motherhood.

    We can talk about the capacity of women to be trained to be cops. We can talk about the capacity of men to be trained to be nurturers. But these things are besides the point, because they miss the main point.

    The main point is fatherhood and motherhood. Fatherhood and motherhood literally do not exist if there is no sexual union of husband and wife, with consequential pregnancy and birth. For this reason, the genders, and fatherhood and motherhood, cannot be conceptually detached from the natural cycle of sexual reproduction.

    So, if there is a problem with a woman being a cop, it is because her being so prevents her from more fully obtaining motherhood. First, because it is a job, which takes her out of the home and her attention away from her children. Second, because that job requires a certain attitude and bearing that is masculine in nature, meaning that she is training herself in a pattern that is not conducive to the gentle (feminine) touch needed for the loving care of a child.

    This is the basis for understanding gender difference. The rest builds on top of this. For example, even if the above mentioned woman never has a child her whole life, by pursuing the masculine function of men, she thereby deprives her community that much more of the feminine contribution she would have otherwise made.

    The real injustice here is the failure to recognize the value of women, and everyone is suffering from it – men and women. If there are people rabidly fighting for the idea that women can be cops, they are doing so because they have been taught, and have believed, that the feminine function is less valuable than the masculine one. The tragedy is that so many people in our society have come to agree with them.

    God bless

  • crystaldelarm

    I would add as a devout believer in the sanctity of life and Christ, Christ did not create the laws of dress or imply in any way that either sex was inferior. I believe that the covering of the head and the submission of the woman to her husband, is in fact simply showing respect for the provisions, love and honors given back to her.

    Lest we forget Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. It is our charge to be love and live in love with each other. I think that our society denied the female her feelings for so long that they had to fight back and are now doing anything and everything to be heard and recognized, whether healthy, realistic or even warranted. Man can not reproduce without a woman’s ova and neither can a woman without a man’s seed. Why can we not simply go back to respecting each other as fellow children of the same God?

    In defense of the author, it is well known that females have a greater capacity to share their emotions and thus might be limited in self control in a combative situation. Or the reverse could be true and she would over compensate.

    In my humble opinion, women can do a lot of things. Having said that, a lot of these things should never have become a necessity. Respect for a woman choosing to celebrate child bearing and homemaking is fundamentally flawed in American society. These persons myself included deserve the utmost respect for delivering the future of mankind in dignity, wisdom and full of character and respect for each other. That is how I raised mine and I did not get that respect from anyone except my children. We are not all a total loss, even when pressed down, I stood up and finished the job the father of my children would not do. I encourage all people given a child to do the same.

    • Donn LeVie Jr.

      Crystaldelarm: You are correct about what Galatians 3:28 says about how men and women are in Christ; Paul’s letter to Timothy (and the churches) in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 was about the woman’s role in the church hierarchy (complementarianism): “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” Women have roles in the church hierarchy that complements those of men, but not in roles that have authority over them. Ephesians 5:22-33 is a beautiful passage that relates the loving relationship between husband and wife, giving “submission” the proper context–one that is missed by many others whose anger and hate override their willingness to listen or understand.

  • ninagrandiose

    In order to embrace your argument, one has to accept the new testament in particular because you quote it. What if you are Hindu?

    • masondan

      I am afraid I have no way of helping you my friend. Nonetheless, I do thank you for reading the article.

    • Donn LeVie Jr.

      Hi Nina: A Hindu can still embrace the New Testament. There’s nothing stopping a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Muslim from embracing the truth of the New Testament. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom.
      We can’t learn a foreign language without studying the language and even associating with people who speak that language. I encourage you to seek that knowledge and understanding….

      God bless

  • theyknowHISvoice

    Wow, this post sure sparked a lot of discussion! 🙂 I commend you for standing in your faith. Word of God never changes, unlike the world who’s values are decaying by the hour… God Bless you!

  • ninjacaity

    This is really quite sexist. Firstly, how is protecting people setting a bad example? I would be insanely proud of my child if they chose to be an emergency services officer or a member of the defence force! Secondly, your post is completely irrelevant to the billions of people out there who do not believe in your god. And thirdly, it brings a bad name to those who do, and are still moral and compassionate people.

    • masondan

      Thank you for reading the blog and patiently taking the time to comment, I truly appreciate it. You are mistaken in you understanding of what is sexist and what is not. I am sad to say that you have an incredibly corrupt and perverted view. Nonetheless, commenting will not be enough to suffice a persuasive argument. I aim to be publishing a book eventually, if your interested.

      Lastly, you are most mistaken about your last point, I do not bring a bad name on Christianity, but represent Christianity as it ought to be. Homosexuality is immoral and sinful, but unloving people who are full of hate would say that I am hateful for lovingly pointing out the truth. Hence the perversion. You are incredibly unloving and a bully if you think that you can imply that i am an immoral and un-compassionate person for speaking the truth. Even if you don’t like it. Such is hypocritical.

      Nonetheless, I wish you well. Again, thank you for stopping by and commenting, peace.

  • JunkChuck

    Thanks for the follow–at first glance, you clearly come from a very different vantage point than do I–yours is a perspective which, quite frankly, I find incomprehensible. That’s okay, though. I like to learn, and I like when learning isn’t easy.

    • Donn LeVie Jr.

      Nice reply, JunkChuck…it’s when we can reason together with respect for each other that adds value to any conversation. “I like when learning isn’t easy” is a brave confession!

      God bless,

  • CuriousityRover

    I have an honest question and I hope that someone will be able to give me a straightforward answer on this. When Lauren (above) made her points the replies from lilyofthevalley2014 quoted scripture to her, and it got me to thinking. Who decided what would and wouldn’t be in the Bible? I know that it is a deep Christian belief that all of the Bible is the word of God, but it has, of course, come through the mouths of prophets. What defined a prophet? Whilst one man says (amongst many other things) that it is wrong for a man to lie with another man and this is taken as His word, What if someone else said at the same time that it was against His will for man to keep an animal as a pet. Who decides which is the word of God and which is the opinion of someone who simply doesn’t like other peoples lifestyles? I’ve wondered about this since I was a child going to Sunday school, but never really knew the answer. Would welcome anyone who could educate me, politely and kindly preferably.

    • Donn LeVie Jr.

      Hi CuriosityRover:
      Great question! I’ll try to keep this short. Christians believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, written in 66 books by more than 40 different authors over a 1600-year time span. The Bible contains nearly every type of literary genre known–from epic poetry and history, to prophecy, parables, and epistles (letters to the churches). There have been several Councils that have convened early in the history of the church to ensure that the New Testament books are in fact inspired by God. The disciple John had a disciple named Polycarp (69-155 A.D.) who also had a disciple named Irenaeus (130-202 A.D.). Both quoted from 23 of the 27 New Testament books during their lifetime and specifically indicate that such texts are authentic in what they represent. Through the Jewish historian Eusebius, we know that Papas (60-120 A.D.) affirmed the authorship of Matthew and Mark. While the major works of the New Testament were immediately seen as authentic by these early church fathers, most of the New Testament was accepted before 200 A.D., and all of it was officially and finally recognized as authentic by the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. Several manuscripts were proposed as being “canon” however, the various Councils that met agreed that the content and writing style did not comport with that which was already accepted by the Church. Some of those books are included in the Catholic bible but are not in the Protestant Bible. Check out my blog at shpcapologetics.wordpress.com where you can contact me for more details.

      God bless…

    • masondan

      I hope the replies have been helpful. Thank you for checking out my site and I wish you well! If you are still curious about the subject, I can recommend a few books, for it’s a long subject to that one can dig into. God bless.

  • OldManMontgomery

    Greetings, Dan.
    Thanks for following my blog; I hope I can keep your interest.

    The doctrine of sexual identity is one that seems to raise much hatred among those who resist the laws of nature. I agree with your main premise to some degree, but I also see some flaws in your argument and presentation. Feel free to contact me for details.

    Junk Chuck, you are correct. Without a relationship with God through Jesus Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, you are confined to a different vantage point, and you are essentially blocked from seeing our vantage point. That’s not a judgement, just an agreement of your statement and the reason for it. (Much like one must be a member of ‘the club’ prior to learning the secret hand shake.) You say you like to learn, excellent! Being in a relationship with God is the ultimate learning experience. It is however, available only on a full-time and permanent commitment.

    Curiousity Rover, your question about the assembling of the modern Bible is answered in various places. Do a search for ‘the canon of the Bible’ and you should find several sources. However, one of the commonalities of all Christian groups is God wants humanity to have the Bible – His message – and has made sure it exists in the meaning and format He so chooses. (If one discards God, then the Bible is merely a curious book that has survived some 2700 years while being suppressed and attacked constantly.)

    Dan, keep in touch. Do research and keep writing. God’s blessing upon you.

  • littlebtomato

    WOW! It takes courage to write what you’ve written. Love it. The righteous are truly bold as a lion. Thanks also for being gracious with some not-so-gracious comments. You could’ve hit “delete” and not shared them. Notable for you to give them a voice.
    Not that you need it, but I agree with what you’ve written 100%. When we accept our roles, instead of competing with each other; we succeed. My husband is in law enforcement. I get it.

  • Donn LeVie Jr.

    Thanks for following me at SHPCapologetics.wordpress.com! God bless…

  • siddya2013

    Thanks for following my blog! Hopefully you’ll drop by when you need a break from the feminazis. God bless you and keep you.

  • siddya2013

    Thanks for following my blog! Hopefully you’ll drop by when you need a break from the feminazis. 🙂

  • bretagnebko

    This blog post created the most controversial comments I have seen to date. Even if I don’t agree that women shouldn’t be cops great post considering the engagements that ensued.

  • catherineanned44

    Are you KIDDING me? I honestly thought this must have been a joke but sadly, I see I’m wrong. I have a criminal justice background and please believe me, women play very important roles. In my case, it was working with juvenile delinquents. Most of them came from very violent situations. All from their fathers. Out of thousands of cases I had, only one child was abused by his mother. These kids didn’t need a macho probation officer. They needed compassion. Women cops tend to peacefully resolve serious domestic fights, are known to be good negotiators, and are highly intuitive. Male cops are absolutely necessary as well.
    You seem to want fair treatment by women (feminists) from what I have read. Yet you don’t reciprocate. Although you’re entitled, of course, to your opinion, perhaps you should realize that this sort of sweeping generalization of women you project is harmful to both men and women and extremely close minded.

  • smukkecirsten

    First of all thank you for following my blog. As a writer it’s always nice to be noticed

    You have the right to believe what ever you want. We first get a problem when you try to put out some rules for what others can and can not do. You are on a very slippery slope here. Telling women not to do something because of a (misguided) religious believe you have, does not make you any different from all the mulahs and muftis and imams of this world, who tell women to cover themselves up and obey there husbands. We all know how that is working out.

    I agreee with George Carlin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

  • gaustin00

    First thank you for stopping by my blog. Now as to your blog post here: I do think that there is a purpose for women to be “cops”..I prefer law enforcement officers”…so let’s get that out of the way. Yes I agree with all of the scriptures you post but on the other side of the coin, just as I choose a woman who is a physician because I am a woman I think that women in the police force bring a side to women who are in trouble, abused, or whatever reason need that woman to tend to their needs which a man cannot do. Let’s not take verses out of context to prove a point that is irrelevant and unproductive. Our goal is to present Christ not a personal viewpoint. Remember this adage: you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

    You would do well to ponder your views on women and also your presentation with love and grace. I found your post pretty “hard nosed” and in need of a gentle touch. Just think of it from that perspective.

    Now as to the responses above ..I found some rather repugnant because they were angry. We offend others with our anger and our anger does not present a loving side to those who write. Now as to how we should present ourselves to others even if we disagree…do it with a gracious spirit not with anger nor words that offend.

    Let’s all take time to formulate our thoughts so as to present logically and graciously and if you find you cannot, please disregard and go on your way…we don’t need your anger nor your filthy choices of words.

    Remember this rule: whatever you write here is on here for all the world to read and some day it may come back to bite you.

  • deathoftheblogger

    If this post isn’t a joke please don’t interact with my blog again, I’m not going to follow you.

  • Mel Lefebvre

    Is … is this a JOKE? Do you live in a magical cave that has wifi? Are you a big ‘ol troll? Don’t answer that. We just have drastically different world views, and I’m going to interpret this misogynistic bologna as a joke, because otherwise, I don’t even know how I would begin to respond to such narrow minded, utterly despicable and hateful writing.

  • misterjep

    Thanks for liking my blog, I appreciate it. I only wish that you weren’t a moron. That would make it feel better. Maybe, to help, you could take a class in something real. Get smarter. You are currently pretty stupid. You can do better.

    • masondan

      Perhaps I am stupid, but I have laid out my reasoning. You have not. So unless you do, you are foolishly and stupidly trying to win an argument by calling people names. That’s pretty stupid.

  • nemuigakusei

    Hi, you followed me. I tend to support feminism, and I’m also non-religious. We’re pretty much polar opposites here, so I’m wondering, what made you follow my blog?

  • V.A. Farria

    Thank you for following my blog.
    Love, light and blessings

  • El Vega

    Thanks for following my blog and all, but I have to say I respectfully disagree with you.

  • paulfg

    Good morning – and all I can say is WOW! Your blog took far less time to read than the passionate response it elicited (and still is). The curiosity for me is not “proof and evidence” to support who is “right or wrong”. It is this – why do we need to make things so black and white, to reject so many questions, to prove others wrong, to selectively quote a fragment or two from the bible, to ignore the full body and sense of the bible, to tell rather than wonder, to stamp out any mystery, to impose logic and rational conclusions … to Know (if our own faith is strong – or if our aetheism is in place)? Because it is called faith/belief for a reason (in any christian and in any aetheist). In a court of law you do not swear that “the faith and belief I shall give …” At this point in my life I would not have written a blog like yours. But I am so glad you did. Thank you. 🙂

  • Nancy Babbitt

    Greetings Mr. Masondan,

    Thank you for visiting my blog. I suspect that you did so, and followed my blog because you discovered that we have some views that differ from one another and had hoped I would increase your status as a blogger by visiting and commenting here. I will oblige first by clarifying some definitions and then I will ask a question of you, OK?

    Sex – Contrary to what many of us realize, even one’s biological sex can be a matter of uncertainty. Approximately 1-2% of the population has ambiguous biological sex characteristics not clearly fitting into either a male or a female category, allowing them an opportunity for choice. Some societies recognize a third ‘gender’ (a term sometimes confused with one’s biological sex) with which these folks may perhaps better identify.

    Gender – is not a characteristic inherent to specific body types, but rather it is a social construct, as is one’s race. A process of socialization ‘teaches’ us our gender roles – how we ‘should’ act as either males or females, for example. Gender roles change over time and place. By definition then, gender might have fluidity, depending on personal awareness and circumstance.

    Sexuality – is also socially constructed. How people express their sexuality, and what is considered socially normal and acceptable and what is not, changes over time and place, too.

    Please remember that Jesus taught with parables and he spoke much concerning those who had eyes and could not see and had ears and yet could not hear. It is important to know that when one has a good understanding of ancient history and also of cultural and of linguistic relativism they gain a different understanding of the stories that are recorded in the Bible. To read only passages, or sentences, which have been removed from their historical and cultural context is to remove much of the original meaning of the communication. If one chooses to ‘slice and dice’ the ancient text and take pieces of it out of context and to read and understand the ancient stories with a typically modern and western worldview, one is likely to miss the original message.

    There is something even worse than misunderstanding the original message though. There are some folks who claim to be doing work for God and Jesus who do this ‘slicing and dicing’ while at the same time using the bible passages to suit their own purposes for their own personal gain. Many times, the result is the oppression of women and other marginalized groups of people. This is far harmful than simple misunderstanding, yet it is very common.

    When Jesus’ teachings and actions are studied in an historical and cultural context, it is revealed that he taught a method of non-violent social change, quite similar to the methods that Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. used. Jesus was working to restore justice in a society that had unjustly marginalized, stigmatized, and penalized the non-Jewish, the women, slaves, and those who deviated from social norms, for example. Remember, Jesus did not condemn the woman at the well. He taught that the one without sin should be the one who should throw the first stone of condemnation to execute her. No one followed through. Jesus taught those who had no power or authority how to regain personal power and dignity in an otherwise oppressive situation. If anyone is interested in reading an historical and culturally appropriate interpretation of Jesus’ teachings that demonstrate nonviolent social change methods (and I hope that you do), I highly recommend reading The Powers that Be, by biblical scholar and theologian, Walter Wink.

    Mr. Masodan, surely you, as a Christian, must believe that what you teach must also be in-line with all of Jesus teachings, no? If so, will you please help me to understand how your post relates to Jesus command to judge not?

  • barbarastanley

    You are very wise. Don’t allow the so-called progressive women to dissuade your beliefs. God meant for women to act like women and for men to act like men. MS. Babbitt sounds as if she may be a Lesbian or is sympathetic to homosexuality. We don’t get to choose our gender. God decides who is male and who is female. Yes, there are a very few who are born with both gender sex organs. Surgery may be needed in those cases, but once they decide which gender they feel most comfortable being, they must live as male or female, not female with female or male with male mates. Personally, I love being female and living within the role of female. I believe what God taught, that the male is the head of the home. You are right on and I applaud your courage to stand for Christ.

    • Nancy Babbitt

      Dear barbarastanley,

      I would like to clarify my position. Your assumptions and judgments about me are incorrect, and I don’t appreciate the fact that you (incorrectly) labeled me. I am Mrs. Babbitt, not Ms Babbitt. I am a feminine (submissive) female married to a masculine (dominating) male and we both are very comfortable in the gender-roles norms in which we have been socialized.

      Yet, I do wish for a different masculine reality for my boys than what my husband learned. I do not want them to define themselves in the typical masculine dominating way (who would they dominate over anyhow? women, children and weaker people ? ? ?). Instead, I want them to understand that to be masculine is to be an effective leader (quite distinct from domination) and that to be an effective leader, one must empower weaker members of society. (Because, of course, being a leader is quite distinct from being a boss.) I teach my boys that their strength(s) are gifts from God, and that their role is to protect and empower women and children and all people who are weaker than they are. This includes all socially stigmatized and marginalized people.

      Furthermore, I do believe that God is the creator, and that what he creates is good. This includes the 1-2% of people who are born with ambiguous sex organs. HE created them that way. If these folks are born in less affluent nations, surgery may not be an option, likewise all who were born in previous centuries would not have had that option either. Your ‘solution’ is very short-sighted, indeed.

      Additionally, there are many family types on earth. The ‘traditional’ ‘nuclear family’ of mother, father and two children is a mythical notion that was created in the 1950’s and this family type is the least common family type world wide. More typical are blended families, extended families, and many other creative arrangements that assist people in caring for one another. Family arrangements and sexuality are not the same thing.

      As for sexual orientation, I will not speak for others. I will have to answer for my own sins someday, and it is written that we will be judged by the same measure in which we make judgements against others. We have been commanded to judge not. Contrary to making judgements, we have been commanded to love thy neighbor as our self: feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked . . . care for the marginalized . . . this is how we have be taught to act in love toward one another.

      • barbarastanley

        His reasons why women should not be cops are valid. They are based on God’s word. While there are no perfect families, God does expect us to strive for perfection. His word does not change to fit ‘the times.’ A Godly man is expected to be the head of the family. Do some men abuse this power? Of course they do. God does not sanction abusive men.Yes, there are blended families. Still, God said that one man, one wife is ideal for happiness and joy. Ideal. God wants us to be happy, but we sabotage our own happiness by making unwise choices in life. God says we will be happy if we abide by his word. When we don’t, we experience the pains that come with living less than ideal lives. We cause our own pain. We are free to live by God’s laws or live by our own laws. He was trying to explain why marriages don’t last. Women are usurping the role of man. If a woman wants a man for a husband, she needs to be a woman. There is nothing wrong with enjoying your role in life. Women are not to be slaves to men. They are to walk beside them.

        I judge no one. Judging means looking at someone and the life they live and pronouncing whether or not they are saved. No man knows this but God only. God said we could not tell what is in the heart of man. He did tell us to use common sense and judge whether a person was honest, a pedophile, a murderer, a prostitute, etc. and flee from such persons. We make this type of judgement every day. We are told not to associate with people who are obviously not striving to please God. It is possible, for some of us, to love a person, yet realize they are living in sin. Simply put, a person lives in sin when he knows that what he is doing is not pleasing to God, yet he does it anyway. I love my homosexual uncle and niece, but they know God said not to be engaged in homosexual activity. If you accept what they do, how will they ever feel the conviction by the Holy Spirit that they need to make a change? We do them no service by saying, “It is ok. You are fine just the way you are.” We will have to account for their salvation if we uphold them in this.

  • Halim

    Hi Masondan, this is an interesting post. I don’t agree with it, but everyone are entitled to their views.

    One pragmatic reason we need to consider why it’s important, actually essential, to have women in the police force is that, male police officers should not handle female offenders/suspects. This is to avoid the female offenders/suspects from being molested and just as importantly, to avoid male police officers being accused of sexual assault. Even more so when frisking (also called ‘patdowns’) are deemed necessary to check for concealed weapons, drugs, etc. So we need women in the police force, as well as in other security agencies like airport customs, for example.

  • pbachmeyer

    And yet, Mrs. Babbit, there is such a thing as truth. Certainly, we cannot judge the souls of others. But that is not to say that we cannot recognize the fundamental truth held in Church teaching that, for example, homosexual behavior is morally wrong and that, if we are to be faithful to Christian teaching, then we cannot simply stand by allowing such behavior to be called “normal and healthy”.

    You are an interesting case, from what you have described about yourself. You are right that there is no place for domination in God’s plan, and that authentic masculinity does not consist in domination of women, or anybody else. But the absence of a dominating husband does not equate to the absence of a wife who chooses to be subordinate to her husband. There is such a thing as a husband who loves his wife, and a wife who respects her husband all the more for it. In other words, there is such a thing as a woman who embraces her femininity and a man who embraces his masculinity.

    What we don’t need today are people to be raised up with inferiority complexes, thinking that because of some quality about themselves (i.e., gender) they must therefore limit themselves in their potential. But what we also do not need are people who think that gender is meaningless, because in doing so they unknowingly limit themselves and as a consequence limit what they will give to the communities in which they live.

    Christ said judge not; but he also said, “judge justly” (John 7:24).

    Mrs. Babbit, I appreciate your testimony, but I think that some of your facts are incorrect. If you think that gender is purely a social construct, that is a belief you have chosen to take on – that doesn’t make it true. “God can raise up children to Abraham from these stones”, and so also we can find “experts” for almost any position or belief that exists: but that doesn’t make it the truth.

    The other thing is that if you view Christ in that purely “socio-economic”, “non-violent change” sort of way, it seems to me you are falling for the same error as those who thought he came to be a political savior of his time. He is not a political savior, come to rescue us first and foremost from social injustice and poverty; he is a spiritual savior, whose truth will certainly lead to the reduction of social injustice and poverty, but far more than that, it will lead us to spiritual salvation…eternity in heaven with God. Let us be concerned with injustice and poverty, but let us not lose the priority of the spiritual focus.

    -God bless

    • Nancy Babbitt

      Dear pbachmeyer,

      Thank you, for your thoughtful reply.

      I would first like to clarify the fact that my statements about Jesus teaching non-violent social change in no way precludes his holy sovereignty. Additionally, I do not see a hierarchy (priority) in the written word where spiritual focus is declared to be of a higher status than works. I see that the written word has declared them to be interconnected in a relational world.

      “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and filled,’ without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

      But someone will say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness’—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.” (James 2:14-26 NEV)

      As for social construct of gender – it is an historical fact that women and men lived fairly egalitarian lives in the time period we know of as pre-history. The evidence of this fact is in the archeological record – men and women each had similar hunting and working tools in their individual grave sites. This changed with the advent of agriculture – the time period we, paradoxically, know of as the beginning of ‘civilization’. At this time in history, land became more valuable, because it could produce more abundantly to serve human needs and wants. This is when land ownership became common. So, too, did the ownership of women. It was a common practice that women were used by men as a form of slave labor, to work the land, and as property to trade for the purpose of making alliances with other wealthy land-owning men, and also to produce more slave labor. It is also very probable that at the time of the advent of agriculture, that men and women segregated themselves according to chores that were more suitable for the rearing of children – therefore women tended the fields, produced clothing, and did other tasks that were more easily managed with little children nearby. All of this resulted in gender-roles and these roles and rules for women and men have, and still do, change over time and place (and position within a hierarchical society that one holds). Because gender-roles do, in fact, change over time and place makes them social constructs. If gender-roles were given to us by God (like instinct) there would be no change or need of discussion – they would simply be. The truths that you claim exist concerning gender-roles and rules are judgments that are placed on certain actions according to male versus female bodies.

      “Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?” (James 4:11-12 ESV)

      I do so appreciate that you wrote that Jesus said that we should ‘judge justly’. The complete thought and statement of Jesus is a comparison of behaviors: “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” (John 7:24 ESV) Perhaps we should discuss what justice or ‘right judgment’ is, that is keeping our own notions of justice or ‘right judgment’ in accord with what Jesus proclaimed, taught and lived.

    • Nancy Babbitt

      Dear pbachmeyer,

      You to have labeled and judged me in your statement, “You are an interesting case, from what you have described about yourself.” Yet, I do not consider myself a ‘case’, but rather a child of God. I have found your labeling and judgments about me to be offensive. When you use the term ‘case’ in reference to my human being, this implies that you are perhaps a psychologist, who is examining a mentally-ill patient. Is this true? Am I an object to be studied, by your estimation and perspective?

  • pbachmeyer

    Thanks for your response, Mrs. Babbit. If I caused you offense, I apologize; it was not my intention. Rest assured, I am not a psychologist, nor do I consider you a mentally-ill patient. I consider you as a human being, loved by God, and in fact I have been praying for you since we began our interactions.

    The topic threads here are multiplying; I will restrict myself to the primary topic at hand, which is the subject of gender. You said, “it is an historical fact that women and men lived fairly egalitarian lives in the time period we know of as pre-history”. I don’t think this is a historical fact, but rather it sounds more like someone’s interpretation of historical evidence filtered through a particular (liberal) worldview.

    A historical fact would be that in ancient times women were sometimes made second-class citizens or considered inferior to men. Aristotle’s view that “the female is a misbegotten male” is a testament to this. You made some reference to this in your last comments.

    However, that problem was corrected in the teachings of Christianity. It is important to note what Christ did, pertaining to gender, and what he did not do. He broke customs of his time in speaking with the woman at the well. This is noteworthy and important. He did not break customs of his time in choosing only men to be his apostles. This is also noteworthy and important. The net effect of these things is that Christ presented an understanding of gender that valued both men and women as equally important, but it also shows an understanding highlighting their differences. This same line is continued by the work of his apostles after his death. We have the well-known Galatians 3:28 (“…there is not male and female…”); we also have the equally well-known Ephesians 5:22-24 (“Wives should be subordinate to their husbands…For the husband is head of his wife…”). To put it in contemporary language, there is both equality and inequality between the genders which must be honored.

    In this way, sure, gender roles can change over time and in various places…but only so much. The reason for this comes back to the unchangeable sexual functions that WERE given to us by God: conjugal union, conception, pregnancy, birth, nursing, weaning, etc… In addition, there is a spiritual reality to these things. For example, Jesus taught us to call God “Father” – how is this possible unless there is a fundamental connection between human natural sexual relations (leading to human fatherhood and motherhood) and the spiritual reality of God the Father (who has no body but is pure spirit)? In this way, then, we see that even beyond the physical realities of human procreation, there exist realities of gender difference which should be honored.

    -God bless

    • Nancy Babbitt

      Mr. pbachmeyer,

      Thank you also for your apology for citing me as a ‘case’. Sometimes we all (including myself) can be very unaware of how our use of language can be violent. When a metaphor is used, as you did when you referred to me as a ‘case’, it carries with it unstated assumptions of comparison. In this circumstance, it cast me in a light of being stigmatized as mentally ill and therefore inferior to an unstated point of (superior?) reference (was that yourself?).

      Many times, this is a metaphorical way of dominating over another, it is a way of attempting to ‘win’ in a situation of conflicting goals. To label me in such a way, discredits my perspective and harms ‘my face’, while at the same time building up your own. This is not a just way of dealing with conflicting views. Domination tactics, such as this, are certainly is not the type of actions that a man should have toward anyone, especially the weaker sex, no? I appreciate the fact that you recognized this and offered your sincere apology.

  • Nancy Babbitt

    Yes, Mr. pbachmeyer, (I am making the assumption that you are a man, please correct me if I am wrong.)

    I appreciate that you have mentioned the differences between men’s bodies and women’s bodies and how both have value, as demonstrated by Jesus Christ’s teachings and actions. I agree wholeheartedly! It is true that the difference negates equality between the sexes. Men and women are not equal because if there is difference there is not equality. I especially dislike when I am treated ‘like a man’ at work, and men place the 70 lb boxes that I am to stock on the sales floor on a shelf way over my head where it is difficult for me to reach and handle. I find this situation very demeaning and oppressive. For what purpose would they do that when other options are available? This situation does not respect my difference is physical strength.

    This brings us to notions of justice as distinct from notions of equality. What Jesus taught, is that we are to have justice in our thinking and justice in our actions toward others. This is why I teach my sons to be leaders (leaders set an example for others to follow), and to be wary of acting in dominating ways, which is a typical manifestation of ‘masculinity’. There is no justice in masculine domination, because in order to dominate someone must also be oppressed.

    I would also agree and say that you are correct that facts and interpretations are not the same. I was not clear in my writing for sure. I should have put more thought into those statements. The facts are that similar tools (hunting tools, for example) have been found in individual grave sites of men and women who lived in the time period we know as prehistory (the time before written records).

    This leads to an interpretation that both men and women used similar tools, and therefore performed similar tasks in prehistory. I am intrigued by your claim that this interpretation has been filtered through a liberal worldview. Can you please expand on that idea? Your statement carries an unstated assumption of a comparison between the liberal worldview concerning the use of the tools and also about other worldviews concerning the use of the tools. Please, do tell me, what other filters or worldviews might one use when interpreting these facts? Also, please tell me what would be the ‘logical’ conclusion of each of those other views? I am anxiously waiting for your reply.

    • pbachmeyer

      My friend, I apologized because you seemed to take offense at something I said, and I meant no offense. If you can deduce the possibility of some kind of latent attempt at domination, well, that may be the case with some types of manipulative people, but in this case I will just say that you are wrong. You might take note that your repeated attempts to conjecture about who I am, and what my motivations are, have been repeatedly wrong. In the future, I suggest you simply let someone explain himself.

      In order to not bring this topic too far off the main topic, I will answer your question with the most obvious response in my mind, pertaining to the question of gender. If we find the same tools in the grave sites of both men and women, why can we not infer from this that between men and women at that time their existed some kind of egalitarianism? Because, even back then, women would have become pregnant. When a woman becomes pregnant, she needs a safe place to rest; when she has a child, she needs a safe environment for that child; but the world, especially back then, would not have been a safe place. In other words, women would have been put at a serious disadvantage if they were supposed to have been able to take care of themselves the same way a man could have. This is not the kind of environment in which egalitarianism could flourish.

      The travesty of today’s understanding of gender is its refusal to recognize the importance of women: in particular, the importance of motherhood. It is just like that mentality to look at some ancient evidence and determine that men and women must have been quite the same in their daily activities, as if motherhood did not even exist.

      -God bless

      • Nancy Babbitt

        Greetings and blessings to you, Mr. Bachmeyer!

        Please, once again, I fear that you have misunderstood my words. My attempt to point out a tendency that exists in the English language to make comparisons to unspoken points of reference (I pointed this out twice in) does not likewise mean that it is done so with malicious intent. On the contrary, this manner of using our language is imbedded into our very culture, and because of that, we may hardly notice it. Yet the effects of this reality are very real and sometimes harmful, even if unintended. I absolutely did not mean to imply that you purposefully intended to dominate over me (any more than my husband does). I was simply pointing out how this happens without one intending to do so. Your stated views concerning a role of men as being a protector of women and children testifies to the fact that there is no intent of harm in your heart.

        You may be surprised to learn that I truly appreciate your views on men’s and women’s roles in society. It is very true that it is quite difficult to be employed outside of the home and to raise children at the same time. It seems that when one attempts to do this, a bargain must be struck, and neither ‘side’ benefits as much as it could if the parent’s focus could be either completely on the children or entirely on work. I love my role as a wife and a mother, and I believe that I am a good mother, and a submissive wife and a good homemaker, too. Yet I do see that not everyone can (or wants to) live the choices I have made for myself (or rather, my husband most often makes for me).

        I can use the example of my sister, who’s husband became disabled. He lost his ability to be the breadwinner. Their financial needs still need to be met. This same situation exists for widows (and widowers), and perhaps too, for women who were raped and chose to bear and raise the child, or those who are battered and beaten (women or men) and therefore take their children and leave their marriage. There are many circumstances in which a woman who might otherwise be happy and content in a loving relationship with a ‘breadwinning’ husband who supports, protects and leads the family. There are likewise many reasons why a single man may be raising his children without their mother. Both my sister and I had believed that we had married into this very idyllic notion of a family when we also married our husbands. Yet life circumstances did not allow us that version of marriage and family, and this was definitely not by our own choosing. So, I ask you, in the world as it exists today, can this idyllic version of marriage and family truly be an option for all women and men in the world?

        I thank you for your willingness to continue this important dialogue with me.

        Peace to you.

  • pbachmeyer

    Mrs. Babbitt,

    Thank you for the clarification about language use, and your charitable response.

    There are two points I would like to respond with: the first is an observation that I have; the second is the response to your question. The observation is that you seem to have an unusually strong belief that masculinity connotes domination of some kind. In a healthy relationship between husband and wife, there should be no domination whatsoever.

    Some clarification. Male domination of women is one of the perversions or distortions of masculine energy, but a wife who freely chooses to be subordinate to her husband, respecting his wishes (even if this takes some charitable insistence on the part of the husband) is not being dominated.

    Domination is the forceful submission of a weaker one to a stronger one. Consequently, it is not domination if one freely chooses to be subordinate to another. This is what the Scripture means when it says, “Wives, be subordinate to your husbands” – it does not say, “Husbands, force your wives to be subordinate.” The duty of the husband instead is to love his wife, and this means doing what is good for her (emotionally, spiritually, financially, etc…).

    As for the question, I answer that the type of marriage I am describing is certainly an ideal. It is a question of how close can we reasonably get to the ideal. You mentioned many barriers to people being able to live this kind of marriage – these, and other examples, are barriers to coming closer to the ideal. What I would like to point out is that a great many (though not all, for example, your sister) of these barriers are the direct consequence of lifestyle CHOICES that were made. In other words, if people had been raised to know better, many of these barriers would not exist. The reality, of course, is that a great many people are NOT raised to know better, and consequently we have what we have today.

    I am a married man, and my vocation and first priority is my marriage. However, my ministry in these writings is dedicated to trying to teach others some fundamental, basic things about gender which will lead us to live, and teach our children how to live, healthier lifestyles, so that we, our children, and all of society, can come closer to the ideal.

    -God bless

    • Nancy Babbitt

      Greetings and blessings to you once again Mr. Bachmeyer!

      I am glad that we have continued this dialogue. In doing so, I have discovered that our views are quite similar, both concerning notions of masculinity and that of an idyllic version of a family.

      You have asked why I use the term domination when I use the term masculinity, and you have responded that “Male domination of women is one of the perversions or distortions of masculine energy.” I agree wholeheartedly. Yet this is very, very common in society, so much so that it goes unnoticed a great deal of the time. That is the reason I use the the two words together (to call attention to this fact), and then clarify that my notions of masculinity do not include domination, but rather a very distinct notion of leadership, which is sometimes confused with domination.

      I do think that when I choose to submit to my husband and he acts in a dominating way out of habit as a consequence of his socialization, it is still a form of domination, even though I have agreed to submit, end even though he does not have an intent to dominate, and I will explain this reasoning. An example I will give, is one of communication. If we have differing views (and of members of the opposite sex, we certainly do have differing views) he has a tendency to speak over me, and ‘correct’ me, believing his way is the one ‘correct’ way. He tends to ‘see’ with a technical ‘objectified’ view, where I tend to ‘see’ with a relational and inclusive view. When I am ‘corrected’ instead of listened to, I believe that neither my perspective nor my being is being valued or respected. This is a situation of male domination in an environment of wifely submission. It has taken me 20 years (of less than happy) marriage to finally gain some words and language to communicate these ideas to him a little better, and he is now beginning to understand that there is indeed, other correct views. To be concise, I have told him that I will submit if he acts with effective leadership, but I will no longer submit to sheer domination. The key words there are effective leadership – if his actions are not effective in successfully leading the family – I cannot submit to a situation where I think that my children will suffer. When both ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ perspectives are taken into consideration, a more holistic outcome can result. Therefore, I now only agree to submit to effective leadership when my perspective is also taken into consideration and when I can see a history of effective and successful leadership.

      I will also clarify that my husband is a good husband and father, and that much of our marriage struggles are a consequence of both of us growing up in very abusive and dysfunctional families. How he learned to ‘do masculinity’ and how I learned to ‘do femininity’ has not been healthy, and we have been attempting to ‘re-write our programming’ so to speak to a more healthy way. My first year of college (at almost 50 years old) has helped a great deal with this. I have taken courses such as Sociology; Thinking About Race, Class and Gender; Women in European History; Power and Privilege; and Interpersonal Conflict Management. What I have learned (and my husband, too) is that gender is a very important issue. How we typically ‘do gender’ in mainstream U.S. culture is very damaging for both men and women. Adjusting how we think about and how we do gender is a very worthwhile pursuit. I am glad that you feel so, too.

      Might we also discuss the possibility of another ‘unspoken assumption’ that seems to be present in your statement, “Male domination of women is one of the perversions or distortions of masculine energy.” Do you believe that domination is acceptable in situations where women are not involved? If so, might you clarify.

      Again, many thanks for your willingness to continue discussing this with me.

      • pbachmeyer

        Mrs. Babbitt,

        Thank you for your response, and I am happy to continue our discussion.

        Masculinity and domination. Domination is not always an evil. For example, the basis of sports such as wrestling is essentially a competition highlighting the domination of one competitor over the other. Most other sports are likewise based on some kind of superior performance – outperforming the other team – which is, in some sense, a kind of domination. Also, social authorities, such as police, have the authority and the right to subdue persons against their will (that is, dominate them), when they have just reason to. In a more abstract sense, the State has a right and an authority, in this way, to exercise some level of “domination”. Finally, war is also a case where domination is a necessary course of action.

        It seems to me that domination becomes manifestly evil when it is exercised unjustly, inappropriately, or disproportionately. However, the relationship between the sexes, especially in marriage, is not a grounds for competition of strength, nor is it an appropriate place for physical violence or aggressiveness. More subtle forms of domination, such as passive aggressive manipulation, are certainly not done in love. So, domination in the context of marriage or the relationship between the sexes is never appropriate.

        You have shared some of your own experience, and it seems to me what you are describing is a common problem. That problem is the husband who is not loving his wife as he should. All of the negative things you have described, from what you have said about the way he treats you, to the degree that you have felt you have had to stand up to protect yourself and your children – all of this is what happens when a husband does not take the responsibility that is rightly his in family life…it is what happens when a husband does not love his wife. You are right in calling his behavior towards you domination because that is what it is.

        This is indeed a problem that needs to be addressed, but I strongly encourage you to be very wary on one point as you address it. The world today (especially all those college courses you mentioned) will say that the domination consists in this statement: “Wives should be subordinate to their husbands”; but that is not where the domination truly exists. The domination actually exists in a man’s failure here: “Husbands, love your wives”. If a husband does not love his wife, then even if the wife refuses to submit to him, even if she stands up and challenges him and puts him to shame, she will still not get from him that which she needs: love.

        This is where the importance of how young men are raised comes in, and what kind of role models they are given. We can go into more detail on that, if you are interested. For now, you will be in my prayers.

        -God bless

  • nicegirlnotsoniceworld

    There is only one thing I agree with on here, being as I am not a spiritual person and parts of this were kind of like “Whoa, what the crap?!” but, the following is something I’ve said for a long time –

    “Men are not being men, to a very large degree, because women are not being women. You want your man to be a man? Then get out of his way and stop doing his job for him. ”

    I don’t think this ideology goes so much in the job field as other aspects in life.

    I think that overall roles have been twisted. I’m a VERY independent woman, I can and will do a majority of things on my own. I don’t need a man, I don’t even want one currently – my life goal isn’t to get married and have babies, nor do I see an issue with that.
    I do, however, see an issue with women who want to wear the pants in a relationship and men who allow it. I’m strong willed and I’ve dated men of a weaker disposition, it’s not attractive. Men should be strong. Men should know what they want and find ways to attain it. Men should be listeners so their women don’t have to be aggressors.
    Women should be ladies. They should appreciate when a man is man enough to stand up for her.. (on the flip side of that, men should know when to let their ladies fight their own battles as well)
    I have to run, but this is an interesting post, I have a lot to say on this matter – strictly opinion, obviously.
    Have a good day!

    • masondan

      Thanks and you too (have a good day that is lol). Thank you for reading my blog and taking the time to comment. I would actually love to hear more if what you have to say.

      It’s nice to hear from people who disagree it come with a different perspective, but are not being irrational and uncouth in their language an temperament. I enjoyed readin your comment actually. Please stop by and bless us with your graciousness more often.

      Again have a great day!

  • mikesteeden

    You plainly have provoked a wide and varied reaction and that is no bad thing. However, as a wise man once said, ‘Man made God in his own image’ and that’s all anyone needs to know. Try reading Richard Dawkins sometime.

  • ZinalBhadra

    Let’s not generalise what is a man’s role and what is woman’s role. To each his own. Every person is different. This is a rather bigoted viewpoint. If we extend this logic, then a woman’s place is only in kitchen?

    • masondan

      It is not a matter of generalizing, and even if it was, it is not wrong, but wise and helpful. Only a fool would not generalize. To look at the American people and say that we are richer then most other people in other countries is a generalization, and it is not wrong or immoral.

      People should not be offended by things, I find people getting offended, offensive.

      With regards to a woman’s place being ‘only’ in the kitchen that is NOT what is said, nor the conclusion. It IS the woman’s job to tend the home and children. Your conclusion is a false one that is meant to scare people. A woman does not belong in war, that does not mean that she is to be ‘imprisoned’ in a home. I do not appreciate your hateful and degrading remarks about women.

      The kitchen is a wonderful place for a woman, and what you have implied is that it is demeaning and lowly. This is a very misogynistic thing, and many women will take offense.

      Rules are meant to help protects us, in them we find freedom and happiness. We cannot just do whatever we want, and if we do we will live with the consequences. I am fighting to protect and free women from the bigotry of people who do not see the love and happiness that is found in living in accord with God’s will. That is the only place true happiness and freedom is found; obedience to God and His Word.

      • ZinalBhadra

        Your blog implies that women and men should do what they have been doing traditionally. To which I said, to each his own. Each individual can decide for himself what s/he wants to do.

        I never said that woman’s place is only in the kitchen. That was an extension of your own logic. Since traditionally, a woman’s role was to cook and look after the family. And I would be the last person to say that kitchen is a lowly place to be in. I am in kitchen all the time. I love to cook and nurse.

        Looks like you yourself are offended.
        I would say these are just different perspectives. So Peace.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: