Lets get this out into the open: MRAs

[El_Machinae]

I'm more than open to the possibility that there may be something in what you say, as I do like to find logical explanations for things, I just think the premise is a little thin at the moment.

Oh, Lordy, it's not thin. The idea of differential sentencing 'based on exogenous circumstances' is ginormous. All you need is for women to more easily qualify for the circumstances for the difference to show up in the statistics.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

about semtencing and conviction rates
even with women judges now common a lot of men still sit at the high end of the justice system, and they are normally on the older side, they carry old stereotype with them, so the women is either a saintly mother and just got in over their head, or the devils own slut and deserves burning, it depends on if they show the right attitude, do they cry a lot, or wear sunglasses and stoically declare their innocence... it only takes a small sample to shift the % of convictions, jail time. Women are a lot better at this game on the whole, a good example is the hatred exhibited towards Lindy Chamberlain,("a dingo took my baby") based largely on the fact that she did not act like most women should act, so really it is a male problem that gets blamed on women, something feminism is really trying to get past...

Again, the stat isn't about conviction rate, it's about the average sentence for people who ARE convicted. And your argument seems to suggest that women would either get more lenient sentences, or harsher sentences, depending on the whims of the sexist judge. But wouldn't that then just balance out and overall the average sentences would be the same? Unless, despite a few cases of harsher sentences for "devil's own sluts", the majority of women are actually treated as a saintly mother and given more lenient sentences. In which case all you're doing is just re-describing the original problem, not explaining or justifying anything.

And your last sentence is precisely the kind of divisive thing that always crops up in these debates. You've turned a problem with sentencing that should be blamed on the criminal justice system, that we should all want to fix... into a male problem that's blamed on women that feminists are trying to fix. It's just the wrong way of looking at it and instantly puts it on the context of man-vs-woman and picking sides.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Oh, Lordy, it's not thin. The idea of differential sentencing 'based on exogenous circumstances' is ginormous. All you need is for women to more easily qualify for the circumstances for the difference to show up in the statistics.

Yes. You're saying that's "all you need" and I agree, but that's like saying "all you need" to walk about happily on the moon is a breathable atmosphere. Recognising what is needed, and showing that what is needed actually exists, are two entirely different things. Positing the former goes no way to proving the latter without any sort of evidence or example. And you've only given one example so far which I don't think holds up to much scrutiny (in my opinion).

If I'd claimed that there could well be a simple reason why black people are given harsher sentences than white people for the same crimes, and it could just be that white people more easily satisfy the criteria for reduced sentencing... would you just accept that as a reasonable argument? Perhaps you'd be willing to entertain it as a possibility, but only provided I actually back up that stance with some form of evidence or explanation surely?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Regarding the issue of sentences - women get better grades for being women. Women have a stigma of innocence and frailty attached to them. Judges are probably predominately male. It just makes immense sense that women get slighter sentences basically for being women.
I am close to 100% certain that this is going on.

 

[Light Cleric]

Regarding the issue of sentences - women get better grades for being women. Women have a stigma of innocence and frailty attached to them. Judges are probably predominately male. It just makes immense sense that women get slighter sentences basically for being women.
I am close to 100% certain that this is going on.

Um, do you have comparisons for sentences of men vs women for similar crimes to support this?

Because I would assume you do if you are "close to 100% certain".

 

[Formaldehyde]

Let's just forget all about the fact that women typically don't engage in the same sort of violent crimes which frequently have far harsher, and even draconian sentences, since the Reagan era.

In 2011, the United States Department of Justice compiled homicide statistics in the United States between 1980 and 2008.[1] That study showed the following:

Offenders

Males committed the vast majority of homicides in the United States at that time, representing 90% of the total number of offenders.[2]

Young adult black males had the highest homicide offending rate compared to offenders in other racial and sex categories.[3]

White females of all ages had the lowest offending rates of any racial or age groups.[4]

The overall offending rates for both males and females have declined since 1990.[5]

Of children under age 5 killed by a parent, the rate for biological fathers was slightly higher than for biological mothers.[6]

However, of children under 5 killed by someone other than their parent, 80% were killed by males.[7]

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Nope, just putting 1 and 1 together.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Um, do you have comparisons for sentences of men vs women for similar crimes to support this?

Because I would assume you do if you are "close to 100% certain".

I'm not saying I've done any research on this at all, but isn't the statistic that is always quoted that women get more lenient sentences for men when CHARGED WITH THE SAME CRIMES? By all means question the statistic, I have no idea of how reliable it is, but at least recognise the statistic for what it purports to be. Same thing to Formaldehyde's point.

 

[Gori the Grey]

This is actually much more interesting than talking about MRA's.

Absolutely!

Mr Grey is one smooth operator.

Well, I scarcely tend need much egging on. But I’ll use these kind comments as the occasion to complete my analysis of “Be a man!” In part because now we’ve reached the fun part, the part that requires creativity. I will say, though, Narz, that I think we still are talking (indirectly) about men’s rights, and I’ll swing back to them, directly, soon.

To recap, in answer to Yeekim’s question, I have proposed that patriarchy continues to operate in developed countries mostly as an ideology, a system of notions and perspectives, that exists as a sort of conceptual wallpaper to people living in a particular society: noticable if one directs attention to it, but generally operating in the background of our consciousness. One place one can make it visible is the formulations of common parlance.

So “Be a man!” (perservere through small pains) has no simple equivalent, “Be a woman!” Nor do I propose that we devise a simple counter phrase. One could imagine an ad campaign that highlighted some “womanly” action and associated it with the phrase “Be a woman!” But, first, you’d never get anyone to agree what that womanly quality should be. And second, there would be plenty of people opposed to singling out any quality whatsoever on the grounds that it would essentialize and reduce femininity.

Much better, in my mind, to start circulating a new little slogan: “Be a bee!” Be industruous and flower-relishing. If we could get this phrase into circulation, it could reframe the Be a man/Be a woman dichotomy. Now, instead of one of two genders having a slogan and the other not, two of who-knows-how-many beings (men and bees) have a slogan. Women would have something positive to be. Men would have something else they might be than just men, as defined by a reductive one-characteristic vision. Hell, women could now be men (in the sense of perservering through small pains); after all, it’s no bigger a stretch than either gender being a bee. Destabilize the binary, and it’s to the advantage of both genders.

 

[Old Hippy]

And your last sentence is precisely the kind of divisive thing that always crops up in these debates. You've turned a problem with sentencing that should be blamed on the criminal justice system, that we should all want to fix... into a male problem that's blamed on women that feminists are trying to fix. It's just the wrong way of looking at it and instantly puts it on the context of man-vs-woman and picking sides.

no I don't see that,blame a system that is designed by people (like the US senate where the average age is 60, and the reps are young at 55, or that their have been 44 women since 1789 ) I see that existing attitudes, held by males, are held by males in the criminal justice system, feminists are after equallity, yet you see this as a man vs women problem which is just saying their are sides and they are different, thats the problem with all sorts of institutions, so if women are different from men, is it any surprise that they get diferent treatment, from institutions that are for the most part male dominated at higher levels, it will change but even in my family there are males born in the 1940's that still work and they have their fathers attitudes inherited from the 1900's from before women could vote, divorce,have a carreer etc. sure they have changed, adapted to the modern world, feminism, the 60's/70 and probaly compost they garden waste, but they still see it as a mans world.

Feminism is mostly there, but still has to wait a generation (or two?) for the changes to pass right through the system

feminist values on display?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_United_States_Senate

88 year old male still going strong on equality?
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15348258/ns/politics/t/grayest-congress/

 

[Borachio]

Much better, in my mind, to start circulating a new little slogan: “Bee a bee!” Bee industruous and flower-relishing. If we could get this phrase into circulation, it could reframe the Bee a man/Bee a woman dichotomy. Now, instead of one of two genders having a slogan and the other not, two of who-knows-how-many beeings (men and bees) have a slogan. Women would have something positive to bee. Men would have something else they might bee than just men, as defined by a reductive one-characteristic vision. Hell, women could now bee men (in the sense of perservering through small pains); after all, it’s no bigger a stretch than either gender being a bee. Destabilize the binary, and it’s to the advantage of both genders.

Yup. Bee a b.

This is exquisitely silly, I think.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Nope, just putting 1 and 1 together.

Then you might want to check your answer to assure it is actually 2. That you aren't completely dismissing other factors while dwelling upon one minor aspect.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Yup. Bee a b.

This is exquisitely silly, I think.

And the silliness is a big part of the point. First because kids love wordplay like this, so it will stick in their minds. Second, because it calls attention to a little silliness in our starting phrase: “Be a man!” What sense does it make to have to do some (one) specific action in order to be the gender that one already is? That Dad, he’s so silly in telling Toby to “be a man.” Patriarchy can be undone, perhaps, as much through outflanking and gentle mockery as through stern direct confrontation (though one should always stand ready to oppose it directly and sternly as needed, too, of course.)

All of which you were probably saying in "exquisitely"

 

[Borachio]

Yup. I'll take the credit for some of that.

I do actually agree with you, here. (If only I weren't so lazy in thought and deed, I might, might, have written something similar.)

But it will never catch on, I think.

Let's print the T-shirts anyway, though.

 

[cardgame]

Let's just forget all about the fact that women typically don't engage in the same sort of violent crimes which frequently have far harsher, and even draconian sentences, since the Reagan era.

That is 100% irrelevant to sentencing time discrepancy for similar crimes

do you have anything contributory to say?

 

[Formaldehyde]

That obviously isn't what I was discussing, and what was posted earlier.

Do YOU have anything contributory to say for a refreshing change?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Yay it's one of those threads again.

 

[Tarquelne]

research suggests that when compared to incarcerated males, women in
prison are more likely to have suffered sexual and physical abuse (Covington & Bloom, 2007; Ditton, 1999) and more likely to be addicted to illicit drugs (Houck & Loper, 2002). Moreover, a recent report found that female inmates have higher rates of documented mental illness than male inmates, with 73% of female inmates in state prison (vs. 55% of male inmates) reporting symptoms of mental illness either currently or during the previous 12 months (James & Glaze, 2006). Furthermore, research suggests that incarcerated females are more likely to be primary caretakers of minor children prior to incarceration (Greenfeld & Snell, 1999) and more likely to engage in criminal behavior for economic reasons (Covington & Bloom, 2006).

Recidivism rates for women, so far as I can tell, range from around 100% to 60%. It seems to vary quite a bit for different times and places, but tends toward the lower end.

The number of female prisoners is rising quite a bit faster than the number of male prisoners. (X5 in the 90's! 20-ish % more recently.)

 

[Phrossack]

"Be a man!" seems more an admonishment than encouragement most of the time. It's used to get a man to endure pain, deal with problems directly, and endure the consequences of his actions, especially when he isn't doing so. I can't think of any female equivalent, but perhaps there otter be one.

Much better, in my mind, to start circulating a new little slogan: “Be a bee!” Be industruous and flower-relishing. If we could get this phrase into circulation, it could reframe the Be a man/Be a woman dichotomy. Now, instead of one of two genders having a slogan and the other not, two of who-knows-how-many beings (men and bees) have a slogan. Women would have something positive to be. Men would have something else they might be than just men, as defined by a reductive one-characteristic vision. Hell, women could now be men (in the sense of perservering through small pains); after all, it’s no bigger a stretch than either gender being a bee. Destabilize the binary, and it’s to the advantage of both genders.

Now you're just encouraging us to lead brief, sexless lives of toiling purely for the good of the community until we die.

 

[Tarquelne]

"Be a man!" seems more an admonishment than encouragement most of the time. It's used to get a man to endure pain, deal with problems directly, and endure the consequences of his actions, especially when he isn't doing so. I can't think of any female equivalent

I've heard "Stop being such a guy." used to convey about the same thing.

Women, by upbringing, are traditionally taught quite a bit about basic responsibility and enduring things. They're valuable characteristics for a helpmeet. Very "sellable."

For men, those subjects may be skipped in favor of extra machismo lessons. Hmm ... I might even argue they're antithetical to machismo as it's commonly expressed.