|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:12 PM August 2nd, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
It's interesting to note that the two law professors who defended the practice on theoretical grounds are women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:41 PM August 2nd, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
In theory, a male inmate convicted of passing bad checks would serve more of his sentence than a women serving time for assault. But the male inmate would have little ground to contest the early release program, said Sharon Dolovich, a UCLA law professor.
"The Sheriff's Department is entitled to keep the check kiter for as long as his sentence,' she said. "He isn't owed an early release ... it seems reasonable to assume that these women in county jail are within the population that would be safe to release early.'
Notice that it's a feminist speaking about male rights. No bigotry here. NOT! Also, notice that there is no consideration that jail may make the problem worse.
When we examine history, it turns out that females have always gotten special treatment in relation to jail. They always get off easy. At one time their husbands went to jail for their criminal activities!
Now if it is true that females are less violent because of their special treatment then one must ask what would happen if the ratios were reversed?!?!? Naturally, nobody believes that women get special treatment in relation to their criminal activities. Yet it is a documented fact that they have gotten special treatment for hundreds of years.
We all know that jailing and holding females would make them more violent criminals. It is obvious, yet because of our culture of male hate this cannot be seen as true for males.
Thus our record criminalization rate of males increases and America outstrips even the Communists in their hatred of men....oh I forgot. America has embraced and codified into law most all of the Communist Manifesto.
This is simply an example of how public officials feel "entitled" to treat men differently and with hatred because of their Marxist feminist ideals.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:50 PM August 2nd, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
On Friday NCFM-LA sent a Public Records Act (PRA) request to the Sheriff's department for all their info on this early release policy. PRA is the California version of the Freedom of Information Act. A lawsuit may be in the works.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:40 AM August 3rd, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
One of the things I found out in a class I had to take, when I was getting my teaching credential, was that students will respond to your expectations of them. The theory is called the Pygmalion effect, and even your subtle prejudices can influence the learning of a student negatively or positively. Clearly, our government leaders should be made aware that their hateful prejudices and practices against men contribute to the problems that men have in their lives.
It is tragic that our elected politicians spend so much time and money, bending over backwards to comply to the demands of the feminist agenda at the same time they insult and short change the needs of men. Men have valid issues too, but government routinely shows how little it values the lives of men. That prejudice runs throughout society as we have seen. It is rampant in the news media as well, and it all stems from 30 years of male bashing/man hating feminism providing the negative impetus.
By their words and actions our bigoted man-hating governments are clearly telling men that they are 2nd class citizens, and "GET TOUGH OR DIE."
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:27 AM August 3rd, 2004 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Feminists are just opportunists.... if you thought that whining and complaining would win EVERYTIME - you would do it too. The fact is, since the dawn of time Men are individuals that compete (for power and for women) and they use whatever method they can to hold power over other men. Men screw each other - it is their nature. They want to control.
The Constitution means nothing if an activist judge can simply "interpret" it in a way to fit his/her desired outcome. Look at "the best interest of the child" or rape shield laws... or this story.
There is no way that any of those things would be allowed if the constitution were actually interpreted the way it was meant. But if you can change the meaning... sky is the limit.
Feminists are good at this.. they can manipulate the meaning.. but the force behind feminists real power over us is OTHER MEN. Through Chivalry, religious self-righteousness, or simply the desire to control other men (power) - men will always screw each other.
You see it in humans and in other primates.
In Apes for instance, in the species that primarily eats the fruit from the ground with little effort - women are able to collude together and rule.. they use their cliques to rule.. it is a true matriarchy. In the Ape species that eats food that is more difficult to get (ie high in the trees) women are not able to do this - to survive they must attach themselves to a male.. and those societies are male dominated.
We are moving from a male dominated society to a female dominated one for the same reasons.
And the men will never collude to prevent it.. if there were just a few men left, they would still compete against each other - and would rarely be able to collude. It is this competition and desire for power (to win the money and the woman) that makes our struggle seem nearly impossible.
Sometimes I think we would be far better off with much more women judges simply because most men these days are not fair to other men... they cannot separate that paternal instinct to "protect" a woman, and therfore will ALWAYS screw the man.
We can't win.
What about a mens group that goes to every rape, DV, custody case and protests and makes public every detail - similar to the way feminists do...
You can't really blame the feminists - they are opportunists. They know by whining there are many many men in power that cannot bear to hear a woman cry and will gladly use whatever power they can to squash the poor man that might have caused it..
How do we fight that??
I saw someone post the most profound thing on SYG a few weeks ago. In looking at all the men killing their wives and getting violent feminists point to it and say it is proof that men have all the power and women have none - but the truth is most violence from men is caused by a strong sense of POWERLESSNESS.
Violence isn't used because these men think they can control women.. it is occuring because of the complete POWERLESSNESS men are feeling in relationships and in life.
The amazing thing is feminists think that we need to look at things always from the female perspective to see how they really feel or perceive things.. but they never seem to apply that to trying to see the real motivation behind men's behaviour.. it is just thought of as a deep misogyny instead of what it really is - a lashing out at a feeling of complete and utter powerlessness.
Sorry.. just rambling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're on to something that is clearly demonstrable - men working vs. the interests of men and their own interests. But I disagree as to the reason being specifically male in its origin. Competition for resources is part and parcel of the human (and animal and plant) experience. Being in bodies in a 4-dimensional (at least) world, and needing things from our environment to survive, our minds are either pre-programmed or shortly form, after whatever period of time after birth, a tendency to want to gain and keep resources of whatever kind in order to help ensure survival. This is true for people of both sexes in both the human and animal world (I would mentiuon plants but they are for the most part ambisexual, having both male and female repro. facilities, or the designation is not relevant in some cases). You will find for example in the case of the apes that you mention wherein their habitat includes trees that provide non-perennially-deciduous (ie, the fruit isn't falling off the tree limbs all year round) fruit, and thus the male apes are most capable of getting that fruit and thus have dominance in the society, that female apes will compete quite strenuously for the attention of the male apes that are best at the task of getting the fruit.
Now jump species and go to humans. Before industrialization, when a lot of hard work was needed to make a living from the ground, healthy young men were very much competed for by single young women because of the ability of such men to provide the fruit. They were just as competitive over men because of what they could do for them as men can be over women [because of what women can do for them, or what men think women can do for them - and I am not just referring to sexual acts here, either, you people! =)]. Now that society is industrialized and a healthy man is not considered an indispensable asset to a woman's survivial, the focus of competition has shifted from that among women (and among men) for the attentions of the other sex to competition largely among men for the attentions of persons of the female sex. I speculate that this categorical shift began to occur in the early 17th century and has been in process ever since, though in the case of the urban areas of civilizations prior to that time, it was likely in operation (since urban life tends to reduce substantially the need for hard physical work; it is urbanites that live off the surplus produced by farming country folk and consequently the competitive shift I describe above was likely to be in play in urbanized settings in, for example, the classical world).
The point I am making here is that men are not inherently more competitive than women or vice versa. Competitiveness and its expression arises from circumstance and also from social conditioning. It can be conditioned right out of people as well (take for example the lives of monastics whose conditioning to be competitive is trained out of them, at least in monasteries where they take such things seriously). It is a natural part of being stuck living in a physical body that has needs of all kinds. One reason, IMJ, people see the afterlife (so-called) as going to be better than this life is that they imagine that life without a body to have to deal with will be a relief. Well, who knows, but we all find out one day. =)
OK, my 2 cents is up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:53 AM August 3rd, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
The reason (supposidly) more women are let out is becuase they tend to be less violent, or perhaps because they find less violent ways and thus less obvious ways to commint their crimes, such as murder.
Men are the slaves and backbone of society, to see yet more priveledge to the aristocrats, I mean women, is not surprising.
apetr
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
