[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Don't Imprison Parents (Ooops! Make That Mothers)
posted by Thomas on Monday July 08, @05:21PM
from the News dept.
News Cherie Booth, the wife of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, is apparently about to propose that mothers be sentenced far more leniently than others for given crimes. Her idea is that, if mothers are imprisoned, there is a negative impact on their families. The effect on families of the imprisoning of fathers is, of course, given no such consideration. Maybe the UK should just imprison the children's fathers for the crimes of the mothers.

Source: Times Online

Title: Booth call for curb on jailing mothers

Author: Frances Gibb

Date: July 08, 2002

Special Ed Gender Gap Stirs Worry | Attacks on McElroy Continue, Worsen  >

  
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Hatred By Any Other Name... (Score:2)
by Thomas on Monday July 08, @05:53PM EST (#1)
(User #280 Info)
Why does Ms. Booth's attitude toward fathers, as shown by omission, remind me of Schikelgruber's attitude toward Jews?
Re:Hatred By Any Other Name... (Score:1)
by Dan Lynch (dan047@sympatico.ca) on Monday July 08, @06:20PM EST (#4)
(User #722 Info)
"Maybe the UK should just imprison the children's fathers for the crimes of the mothers. "

Hey, don't give them any ideas.

But don't think they haven't thunk it.
.
Dan Lynch
Hard to believe! (Score:1)
by Tom on Monday July 08, @05:56PM EST (#2)
(User #192 Info)
I can't believe they would push for more leniant sentneces for women and not for men. The reason they are stating is not wanting to break up families. Does this imply that fathers are not a part of the family? Unreal!
Re:Hard to believe! (Score:1)
by BusterB on Monday July 08, @06:52PM EST (#5)
(User #94 Info) http://themenscenter.com/busterb/
I don't find it at all hard to believe.

In fact, most people, when pressed, will tell you that they think that mothers are critical to their children's well-being, but that fathers are expendable.

In Vancouver some years ago a women cut off her husband's penis and flushed it down the toilet because he was cheating on her. There was no testimony that he was threatening her life or being otherwise violent. They argued over his mistress, she then caught him sleeping and whacked off his penis before disposing of it. She was sentenced to community service and English classes but spared jail time because she had "children to look after."

Had the sexes been reversed, as we all know, (he) would have received no such leniency.

Incidentally, the women at work thought that this story was hilarious when it aired, and the media here played it up as a joke. As a couple of "the girls" remarked to me, "Maybe this will make you men think twice before you cheat on us." Neither were these shrewish, man-hating Amazons; they were just normal girls at the office.

We have a long way to go, yet.
Re:Hard to believe! (Score:1)
by Dan Lynch (dan047@sympatico.ca) on Monday July 08, @07:57PM EST (#6)
(User #722 Info)
", "Maybe this will make you men think twice before you cheat on us." Neither were these shrewish, man-hating Amazons; they were just normal girls at the office."

Ya, and goodluck saying something similar like when some guy murders his wife for "cheating on him". YOu can say "Well that will teach you women to think twice about cheating on us". You will definately get the cold shoulder at the very least. But I know even when I brought up the possibility that women harm men for more than in just self-defence it was blaspheme. Yet all day long they would talk about their violent tendancies, like whats going on here. And Im not blaming the women per se' they just havent stopped to think about what they are saying or doing in the context. No objectivety, I mean they are not heavily educated but some of them teach highschool for christ sakes. Its all indoctrination.

Here is a page that challenges that 'indoctrination' a bit, its semi related, but overall related to 'women don't hurt as much as men' type crap and why our general masses are believing it.

http://www.reenasommerassociates.mb.ca/a_new.html
.
Dan Lynch
Rather hypocritical (Score:2)
by frank h on Monday July 08, @06:06PM EST (#3)
(User #141 Info)
This is actually ratehr hypocritical given the value the courts place on the financial support of the father.
unfit parent? (Score:2)
by brad (brad@mensactivism.org) on Monday July 08, @08:10PM EST (#7)
(User #305 Info) http://www.student.math.uwaterloo.ca/~bj3beatt
my housemate just made an interesting point. if a parent (regardless of gender) commits a crime, isn't that reasonable ground to have him/her declared an unfit parent thus removing his/her parental obligations to the child? just something to gnaw on.
Re:unfit parent? (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on Monday July 08, @10:45PM EST (#8)
"my housemate just made an interesting point. if a parent (regardless of gender) commits a crime, isn't that reasonable ground to have him/her declared an unfit parent thus removing his/her parental obligations to the child?"

I imagine that it is contigent on the nature of the crime. In Oregon, for instance, not carrying your driver's license on your person while operating a class C motor vehicle is a crime, regardless of whether you actually have a license or not. In this case, I hardly think that occasional forgetfulness is indicative of unfit parenting.

-hobbes

---
If you're not mad, you're not paying attention
Re:unfit parent? (Score:2)
by brad (brad@mensactivism.org) on Tuesday July 09, @09:34AM EST (#9)
(User #305 Info) http://www.student.math.uwaterloo.ca/~bj3beatt
i suppose i forgot to clarify. by a crime, i meant a crime that would result in jail-time. then again, that raises the whole sticky situation of gender-discrepency for sentencing. circular reasoning might even creep in there.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]