Actually, it appears that you are so bent into the ideals of bigotry and ignorance that you are in fact the one twisting what was said to mislead others with false information. Nowhere did I say they should be devoid of anything other than bigotry, stereotyping, dishonor, and unethical conduct. One does not have to segregate based on gender, race, sexuality, or any other factor to push the idea that abuse is wrong in any way, shape, or form, no matter who the victim is and no matter who the attacker is. Apparently, it hurts YOUR sensibilities to treat everyone as an individual rather than to treat them as superior or inferior to someone else based on segregated groups. At NO point whatsoever did I question the honor and ethics of a department for hiring anyone based on gender, race, or ANY such factor. What I questioned was the honor and ethics of a department which may very well have hired someone who was raised to follow an ideal of bigotry and hate based on gender. If she, in fact, follows your own clear and obvious discriminatory ideals of treating a whole groups of indiviuals as inferior based on gender, then, yes, she truly is incompetent to serve the general public in an authoritative position. This would be true no matter who the deputy was and no matter who they treated as inferior based on gender, race, sexuality, or other such factor. And once again, you play the stereotype card. Men are supposed to be men? Everyone is an individual and clearly it is your opinion that if anyone steps out of a stereotypical role, then they must be abnormal, no matter what the reason. And you question MY sanity? You're the one who seems to feel that it's perfectly justifiable for someone to be an abuse victim based on the gender of the victim and the gender of the attacker. That, in fact, is the sign of a sociopath, in case you weren't aware. Andrew