|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The facade of female innocence and male "evil" and culpability continues to progress unimpeded even when evidence to the contrary is smacking the world in the face. It's frustrating, sad, demoralizing, and exhausting to continue trying to awake a world that seems to desire to keep sleeping in the comfortable bed of status quo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As if we needed any more evidence that the gynocracy, under which we live, is pure sexist evil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by nagzi
(nagziNO@SPAMPLEASEphreaker.net)
on Thursday November 29, @08:35PM EST (#3)
(User #86 Info)
|
|
|
|
|
If we use a little logic (gasp...how dare i!) here for a sec. If women are used a lot today as drug couriers, and they lower the sentencing time. Wouldn't that mean the drug dealers will start using women even more? And then they would most likely ended move up in the ranks and being the drug dealers themselves. But I degress, you would have to use some logic for this.
I do hope this blows right up in their face, and they look like even more of a bunch of idiots than they already are.
Also what about, you do the crime, you do the time?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just filed this one under “double standards for future reference”. The sexism in this article is so blatant I wonder if maybe the writer means it as a parody. Is it really meant to be taken seriously? Could the writer be a closet masculist making his point the only way he can?
OK maybe my imagination's running away with me you’ve got to wonder sometimes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A.J.: If this does prove to be serious, remember the next time you hear of insane, radically extreme discrimination against men, there's a very good chance that it's real.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If women are used a lot today as drug couriers, and they lower the sentencing time. Wouldn't that mean the drug dealers will start using women even more? And then they would most likely ended move up in the ranks and being the drug dealers themselves.
Exactly, Nagzi. It's pure logic. The individual quoted in this story as saying crowding women into prisons the way men are crowded into prisions is "indecent" is obvious pandering to the anti-male, girl power culture of the West.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am reminded of my absolute favorite line ever from a Jack Nicholson movie. For once, it's not a horror movie. If any of you have ever seen As Good As It Gets, you may remember that Jack plays a rude, selfish, and slightly mentally ill writer. At one point, he walks into his publisher's office. The receptionist recognizes him, stops him, and asks him "How do you write women so well?"
Jack's response: "I think of a man. Then I take away reason and accountability."
Apparently, the people supporting these prison decisions believe women shouldn't be either reasonable or accountable for their actions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"We do not overcrowd women to the same extent - it is not decent to do so - so I need to find fresh accommodation if the population accelerates."
Have you ever seen a better endorsement for men as second-class citizens?
He will never be the same. He will never change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I Think if "we" (those attending to and at this site) are to maintain credibility as a political force, then we must be scrupulous in our outlook. Women have historically received deferential treatment when it comes to doing time in prison. While in some respects this development may appear to be an outrage, it really and truly is not germane to the men's activist movement. That men and women are different is not in question here. That they respond differently than men to any given stimulus is not in question either. The real question here is:
Are men to be held accountable for women's behavior?
It is the old rape scenario turned around on us (a whore cannot have been raped if she was paid) that identifies the true face of discrimination. Many men, specifically physically smaller and weaker men, are kept from prison or from the general prison population simply because they would not survive the experience, and to incarcerate them would be cruel and unusual punishment. I think all of us would agree that that is a compassionate and humane practice that all civilized societies engage in. Whether or not jail is a "suitable" punishment or deterrent for women in any particular case may be a valid question for "disinterested" public forums on the criminal justice system, however for a men's activist forum the important if not critical question should be instead this:
Are the men, with whom these women acted in concert, being judged and sentenced differently than their peers who deal exclusively with male accomplices?
If they are, then that is the real face of discrimination, because they are then being held accountable for the behavior of their female peers.
We should try to maintain our focus and not be lead astray by red herrings. Red herrings can undermine the best efforts of any political force and in this case the red herring looks like this -
It would be a foolish travesty to simply put more women in jail to balance out the punishment mathematically when the real question should be: Are too many men being jailed for their crimes, and is prison appropriate for these types of crimes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"We do not overcrowd women to the same extent - it is not decent to do so - so I need to find fresh accommodation if the population accelerates."
I thought women were supposed to be so great at getting along with each other, unlike we primitive males. Darn, there I am being sexist again. How typically male!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women have historically received deferential treatment when it comes to doing time in prison. While in some respects this development may appear to be an outrage, it really and truly is not germane to the men's activist movement.
I disagree completely. I think it is germane to the men's movement. The question most certainly is not balancing men and women in prison mathematically, it's about women being unfairly held unaccountable for their actions.
Also, the argument that smaller, weaker men aren't put in population with other male criminals isn't really a good analogy because no one is talking about sending women to male prisons.
The real question is: are women getting away with more criminal activity than men because they are women?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday November 30, @01:30PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Because minors are almost always given slaps on the wrist, adult drug dealers and gangbangers often put them to work as couriers, lookouts and the like. And you're right, these kids grow up to be bangers and drug dealers themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes it is unfair, and I submit that fair and unfair is a red herring. Law is not about fair. It is about structure and procedure form and function in deciding, declaring and enforcing - societal rights, wrongs, limits, and boundaries.
We risk losing our identities if we continuously compare ourselves to women.
If you must compare then do so in terms of visible minorities. Do so in terms of right and wrong. The hypocrisy we see in this type of legal maneuver would cause riots in the streets if white convicts were being released to make room for Black or Asian convicts. There is an outrage being perpetrated here but it is much more dangerous and wrong than simply unfair treatment of men verses women.
Why were not more male convicts being released to make room for these women?
The practice is bad and unethical because it is a legal pronouncement from outside the legal checks and balances. It was an elected official (or bureaucrat) taking control of the courts.
A blend of clemency and early release would have been within jurisdiction of the courts. The outrage is not about men Vs women it is about treating law frivolously.
We must identify these tactics as they come to light through our vigorous scrutiny of the press and government pronouncements and "revealed" as violations of human rights by the different treatment of women and men. However, the issue must always remain an issue of human rights.
The women's movement has virtually destroyed women and paralyzed motherhood. Let us not let the men's movement do the same to men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes it is unfair, and I submit that fair and unfair is a red herring. Law is not about fair. It is about structure and procedure form and function in deciding, declaring and enforcing - societal rights, wrongs, limits, and boundaries.
Law is not about right and wrong, either. It's about justice as a result of a wrong, and women not serving the time for doing the crime just because they're women is not justice.
A blend of clemency and early release would have been within jurisdiction of the courts. The outrage is not about men Vs women it is about treating law frivolously.
Indeed, it is about treating law frivolously, but it's also about men and women because the law is being treated frivolously only on one side.
Men's issues are not criminal's issues nor issues about what punishments should be doled out for what crimes. Men's issues is about equal rights and equal treatment under the law. Regardless of what type of offense, if the circumstances are the same, a woman should receive the same sentence as a man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will agree with women and men being treated with the same legal ethics, controls, balances and safeguards.
But this issue is not as simple as "5 to 10 regardless of gender". If the law is to view women as less accountable or responsible than men, then how can either assume to have any claim to equal rights?
The issue comes to light in comparing the treatment of the two genders, but this "difference" is a symptom of something much deeper. Our responsibility is to address the underlying issue. The frivolity of law, and the disintegration of human rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The issue comes to light in comparing the treatment of the two genders, but this "difference" is a symptom of something much deeper. Our responsibility is to address the underlying issue. The frivolity of law, and the disintegration of human rights.
Although I think we are basically on the same side here, I still believe that this is a matter more of inequality between the sexes, which then results in a failing of the application of law to justice, and not the other way around. Perhaps we simply just won't see eye-to-eye here. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This issue is complicated and there is much room for discussion. Please understand that these thoughts are not carved in stone.
"Law is not about right and wrong, either. It's about justice as a result of a wrong, and women not serving the time for doing the crime just because they're women is not justice."
That is not what happened, the jails were overcrowded and some prisoners had their sentences commuted as an expedient solution.
The problem here is that law was being taken frivolously here and long before the crisis.
When law becomes frivolous, human rights are in grave danger.
You are focusing on only one particularly harmless aspect of the problem.
Look at it from a different angle if you would please.
For example, we are just not experiencing large numbers of men throwing their cheating or abusive wives onto the street locking them out of the house and giving up their jobs staying home to look after the kids then screaming for child and spousal support while pressing charges.
Most men, the vast majority of men, I suspect, first and foremost protect their jobs - damage control, postponing meetings, reducing overtime, transferring to less demanding positions, while "worrying" or fighting about the children and the "X".
That is the reality. that is, by and large, how it transpires. We are different, we make different kinds of sacrifices; we expect different kinds of rewards. Most little boys do not dream about having babies.
The feminist movement demanded equality to men without even considering if that is what they needed, and now we have chaos in society. I do not want to be treated like a woman; I'm a man. I do not want my wife to be treated like a man. She is woman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL, no that is probably not going to happen. How ever I do agree that we are stumbling around each others syntax.
Maybe we need to look at our language as men and see if we need our own lexicon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday November 30, @03:34PM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
"I do not want to be treated like a woman; I'm a man. I do not want my wife to be treated like a man. She is woman. "
I agree. But the US Constitution, 14th Amendment requires that everyone be treated equally under the law. While I'm not one to say that "equal treatment" is the same as "identical treatment" I do believe that women are given a pass whenever they act in collusion with a man in a crime: the man receives the harsher charge, and hence the harsher sentence, regardless of the scope of the woman's participation. Our society has made it a misdemeanor for a mother to kill her child within three days of it's birth. For a man, the crime is murder. Our society has found a way to make women like Andrea Yates into victims of the father's irresponsibility instead of identifying her actions with evil. The law treats fatherhood as a luxury, that is, except for the part where father is the bank account. In Massachusetts, the practitioners of the law have conspired to destroy marriages with the sole intent of separating fathers from both their children and their money. This used to be called extortion until the feminists found a way to make it "legal."
The time a woman spends in prison may weigh more heavily with her than the same time with a man. This may be a reasonable justification for the differences in terms for the same crime, but before I accept it, I want to see multiple, objective studies that prove it. It does not excuse the prosecution's selecting less serious crimes to charge women with. It also does not excuse the differences in the conditions of prisons where women have more space, better health care and counseling, and more opportunities for visits with their children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are focusing on only one particularly harmless aspect of the problem.
I fail to see how a woman getting a lighter sentence than a man for the same crime is "harmless." It sounds rather harmFUL to me, as a matter of fact, because it perpetuates the notion that men are less valuable human beings than are women, and more deserving of a comeuppance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The full (real) impact of giving women various legal advantages over men is still a long way off yet. Most of the impact we are seeing currently is due to guys having had the marriage and parenting rules changed on them halfway through the game of married life.
The loud choruses of "oh if I had known that before I got married I would have done something different". Is as old as marriage itself. Even God had to tap Joseph on the shoulder and say "you are staying with her buddy cause the kid is mine!" The most immediate impact of the new world order is I believe a staggering drop in the divorce rate.
It seems that couples would rather just grin-and-bear-it than go through the nightmare that has become family law.
There is no substitute for family planning. And for boys this means something very different than it does for girls. As long as men are willing to marry women with less care and investigation than purchasing a house, you are going to hear howls of pain for years to come.
Gentlemen I ask you in all sincerity, do you think women are spending billions on cosmetics and cosmetic surgery so they can be good wives and mothers?
Men's liberation takes place in the brain, and in spite of the penis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"because it perpetuates the notion that men are less valuable human beings than are women"
well I think it probably just suports the belief that men are simply less vulnerable than women.
I'm not in favour of this belief I just think it is a red herring or diversionary tactic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paying for the services of women is not new.
Using women's bodies as places in which men can put things to make money is not new.
Pimps and hookers share this kind of relationship.
Male hookers tend not to have pimps; female hookers tend to have pimps. There is a reason for this; and you won't find equality in law if you defend practices that support the pimp/hooker syndrome in any of its variations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This article was of great interest to me as an anti-Drug War activist. Notice that the article was talking not about murderers, but about women convicted of non-violent drug offenses. In my eyes, these women should not be charged with crimes in the first place. Neither should their male counterparts.
At the very least, non-violent drug offenders should not go to prison. The only problem I have with this (besides the fact that it doesn't go far enough for me, ending the Drug War is what I want) is that they are not talking about extending it to men. That is the angle at which I, personally, would protest this.
>Are too many men being jailed for their crimes, and is prison appropriate for
>these types of crimes?
To the first question, a hearty YES. To the second, an equally hearty NO.
End the War on Truth NOW!!!!! Let non-violent drug offenders out of prison, and then we'll have plenty of room for the real criminals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>As long as men are willing to marry women with less care and investigation than purchasing
>a house, you are going to hear howls of pain for years to come.
I always like to say that one should screen potential mates as carefully and thoroughly as a diligent employer would screen a potential employee.
A woman who quit school when she turned 16, is 26 years old and still living with her parents, drives a clunker older than she is, and has gone through five (usually minimum-wage) jobs in as many months, is not someone who aspires to be on the cover of Fortune. It is guaranteed that the day you marry or move in with this woman is the SAME DAY whatever menial job she's working will disappear. Then she'll embark on her new career of "looking" for another job and watching The Cartoon Network all day.
Job-hopping is always a huge red flag. How many jobs has Petunia gone through in the past year? Has she been with the same company for three years, or does she change jobs as often as she does shoes? There's a very good reason why employers turn a fish eye on applicants who are job-hoppers. It is a hallmark of irresponsibility and instability. Never date a woman who can't hold down a decent job, or you'll end up supporting her forever.
That's just finances. There are other issues too. If you don't want kids, you also shouldn't marry a woman who constantly talks about how much she just wovvvvvvves chilllllddddddrunnnnnnnn.
Women do similiar things. Too many people marry people because they're "cute and fun to be with," without ever asking if that person's value system and life goals are in total conflict with their own. People who are on opposite spectrums regarding finances, child issues and stay-at-home parents should never marry. It will never work out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>We are different, we make different kinds of sacrifices; we expect different kinds of
>rewards. Most little boys do not dream about having babies.
BUT, men should not be told that they must, must, MUST agree to breed in order to land a wife or girlfriend. Not all little girls dream about having babies. I never did. I dreamed of having a ranch full of animals, but never kids. Other girls played with Barbies and baby dolls. I preferred plush toy animals.
A man who questions whether he really wants kids should not feel he must have them, or despair over ever finding a woman who won't demand to sprog. :p Nor should he be told he's being selfish or immature, as we childfree folk are often accused. The childfree choice should be a valid, acceptable choice. A man who does not want children should not be afraid to tell that to potential mates. In fact, he should always be upfront about his not wanting children. Sure, some girlfriends will break up with him, but isn't it better to lose a girlfriend than to end up in divorce court 10 years later, being told to pay child support for a kid (or multiple kids) he never wanted in the first place? In the end, when he does marry, he'll marry someone who is compatible with him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Absolutely!!
Tell her/him a story or two or three stories.
See if she/he can handle a metaphor (and the moral of this story is?).
Why? Psychopaths don't get metaphor. Metaphors require empathy. It is empathy that allows us to learn from our mistakes.
Don't work hard at being a "beautiful" man or woman, sincere people find it hard and unnatural to compete with trophy hunters.
Do most of your repeat dating without make up.
Give a little warning first if you wish.
He should ask her not to wear it on subsequent dates and she should advise him and then not wear any for most of the following dates.
It is for better and for "worse", in "sickness" and in health.
A little narcissism is healthy and constructively competitive where as vanity is not the stuff of happy and supportive marriages.
Be very cautious with intolerant people.
These people ...
... carry on running monologues about everyone else. - "That guy is an A** H*le", "What a jerk" etc.
... criticize everyone else's driving.
... blame other people for most of their problems
- "I could make more money if my boss, my friends..."
- my ??? is isn't working properly because the mechanic ...; the salesman ...; the repairman ... is a so-and-so or incompetent etc.
does your date ...
... freak out or get annoyed if you confront them.
... put their hands on you so they can talk.
... make you feel guilty.
... get caught in a lie and instead of admitting to it or apologizing, change the subject, keep on talking like it didn't happen, deny it, or ignore it in some other way.
Do friends or family find your account of past dates remarkably different than your dates?
These are all common weaknesses that show up in everyone to some degree or another in some combination or other. When they show up repeatedly and many together or they are VERY noticeable they are warning signs that may indicate that cohabitation is not very suitable arrangement for this person.
There are worse things in life than loneliness trust me I have learned the hard way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, been there done that
I couldn't agree more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The bit about short/weak men being kept away from the general population does not have any real application to women, since they are not housed with men. Perhaps it would apply to small/weak women in female populations.
In any case, I think prison is a huge waste of time on many levels, but if you're going to have it, you can't say that one gender is going to get reamed and steamed and another is going to be let off with a slap on the wrist.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
