In its own between the lines, reveals not only the industry leads danger and error of the proposal, but also its notorious limitations. The idea of adding women to the security forces to solve police brutality is, a priori , a tragic reduction of a structural, institutional and, in some specific cases, industry leads constitutional problem. Not only are we not facing a problem that can be read exclusively from a gender perspective, but, if it were, the gender "type of perspective" that the article proposes is nothing more than a change of image of what it wants to be modified and, in turn, reinforces other industry leads narratives of brutality that should not be reduced to gender either.
Let's review the CNN headline. Who industry leads are "the women" ? And who are "the women" who ask for "more women" in different spaces and positions of power? Furthermore, who are "the women" who access these places of power? These questions are answered, industry leads fundamentally, in a very determined representation of «the woman»: the white woman, from the middle and upper classes, fundamentally elitist. This representation is as archaic as it is tricky: it industry leads constitutes an idea of "women" that responds to a macho imaginary. On the one hand, the name "women" omits and dilutes racialization.
That racialization that – as we industry leads will see – also speaks to us of a class matrix. Women who have relatives (both male and female) in prisons should be asked, and who not only know the internal reality of imprisonment, but are themselves exposed to a series of industry leads abuses at the hands of male and female officers , if the solution to all the scenarios they must face is to add women to the system. On the other hand, the name "women" also displaces diversity. How industry leads many times do we see included in “women”, for example, the trans community?