Queen Christine and Feminist Anti-logic

WA State’s legislature has enacted yet another example of obsessively control-freak law, this time banning discrimination against people based on their “sexual orientation.” The language of the original law was suitable for unchosen and non-changeable characteristics such as race, but is full of all sorts of weird interpretations when applied to something that is at least partially a matter of personal choice and self-control (or lack thereof). For example, is sexual preference for farm animals now a protected behavior?

At any rate, with little evidence that actual discrimination against gays actually occurs in WA State, there was really no reason to waste so much time and energy updating the statute in question with special protections for gay people. We all know that this addition to the anti-discrimination laws of the state will not do much to help an oppressed people simply because gays are not oppressed. Meanwhile, it adds to the burden of state control over our lives through the now vastly expanded ability to file lawsuits against any person or organization that does anything a gay individual or group does not like.

This is going to be a huge burden for businesses in the state as well as the judicial system. Consider this: Why shouldn't any of us who get fired from a job just claim to be gay and then file a lawsuit? And, if a business is sued for allegedly firing a self-identified gay person because she is a lesbian, the first line of defense will be to claim that the self-identified lesbian is not really a lesbian.

Then, the judge will be in the unenviable position of having to decide if someone is really gay. Worse, contemporary feminist theory claims that we all exist on a "spectrum of gayness," somewhere between hetero- and homo-sexual. Ultimately, will the State Supreme Court have to define a test of where one lies on this "homosexuality spectrum" and then tell us just where the bright line is drawn as a starting point for receiving special protections? That's scary enough after watching the mess the Court made after creating a new legal concept called "meretricious relationship."

As seemingly the only person with power to set up a roadblock against our state lawmakers' silliness, Tim Eyman filed an initiative to roll back the special rights for gay people passed by the legislature. Yes, if this initiative passes, gay people will have to live within the protections afforded the rest of us. It’s a good move on Eyman’s part as opponents of gay marriage (which is part of the agenda and it’s ridiculous for anyone to suggest otherwise) will fund his initiative and be happy to reward him through contributions to his personal income fund as well. Eyman says:

Politicians are deciding based on special interest group pressure and their own reelection calculations. The voters have watched this disgusting display of arrogance and selfishness for weeks.

Queen Christine, a rabid fan and supporter of anything gay (her chief attorney, after all, is a lesbian) used feminist anti-logic and trickery to argue against Eyman’s new initiative:

I'm surprised someone would file an initiative to say let's discriminate against our fellow citizens. It strikes me as counter to the values of the state of Washington to have an initiative now that would say to the people of the state of Washington it's ok to discriminate... against gays and lesbians.

It’s sad to see our legislature pursue something so unnecessary simply because it makes them feel good while also pandering to a group of people that seem to be more celebrated than oppressed. But, it’s even worse to see Governor-through-theft Queen Christine Gregoire deliberately insult our intelligence.

Rolling back a special “protection” is not the same as saying it is “OK to discriminate.” For example, there is no special protection for people who like the color blue, but that doesn’t mean that the state is saying to people that it is OK to discriminate against them. Meanwhile, discrimination occurs constantly in all sorts of settings and over all sorts of issues. For example, the Seattle Silly Council deliberately set out to discriminate against men in their choice of a new member to replace Jim Compton. Nobody in state government, least of all Queen Chirstine, seemed to mind.

Our state’s self appointed Queen is hoping she can prey on the ignorance of logic rampant among King County voters. That’s hardly surprising since gender feminists have been getting away with emotional baiting for years at the expense of fathers and families.

Next, the chivalrous combination in the phrase “women and children” that is often leveraged by gender feminists in order to get special protections and rights for women (often at the expense of children) will be updated to include gays. “Women, gays, and children” will become the moniker for all to drop rational behavior.

But, in this one rare case, I think voters are not going to fall for this sort of dishonesty. Personally, I could care less whether gay couples are able to get married or not, and with the ability of the state to meddle in marriages I don't see why anyone does it. I simply want to keep the irrational ship-of-state out of yet another issue where it seems to do more harm than good. Thankfully, Eyman’s initiative will probably pass, providing at least one moment of sanity in an otherwise depressingly anti-liberty year in WA State politics.

Click here for more.

Standing up for family- again

Our good friend Andy Maris, who doesn't have kids, but does have a boatload of good sense went to Olytown with us yesterday, in order to try to get the thick-headed pols to understand that children need BOTH parents in their lives, even after divorce.

His blog, reproduced from www.thurstonpundits.blogspot.com, is below.

He is much more eloquent than the Geez, so I will let him say it.

The Geezer.


Andy sez:


The shared parenting bill is getting the majority of my political attention this session. The bill was up for hearing on Thursday morning and it was quite a battle of good and evil. Thurston County’s most disgraceful bench sitting Mustela nivalis was first to testify against the bill. From what I could gather, his intent was to muddy the water such that only judges and commisioners are capable of determining what a parenting plan should entail.

Though our good friend to talk radio attempted to make it seem like a “complicated process”, it was pretty clear by the end of the hearing that what he REALLY meant to say was “It takes about a year of profiteering from lawyers to empty a man’s bank account. Then and only then, will I bang my gavel on reducing his parenting role to 2 weekends a month and a support check.” But we already knew that.

Senator Kastama has vetted this bill for nearly a decade with the opposition, yet each time they parade out the same sob story and irrelevant statistics. The bill clearly states that when domestic violence and criminal wrong doing are in play, joint custody is out of play. How freaking thick are the skulls that can’t read that? While the background of some of the victims our opponents put on parade today is sad, their argument that this bill puts women in jeopardy for DV is a thin and a cheap tactic to keep the family court money train running smoothly at the expense of our children.

It reminds me of the deposition joke that starts out “So Mr. Smith, when DID you stop beating your wife?” Unfortunately, many family law attorneys and judges (especially in Thurston) finance their yachts by allowing and even encouraging false accusations. Not that the practice cannot be fathomed. After all, who in their right mind discourages stupidity that puts another $30k in their own pocket? I’d think the battered woman from Montesano who stood up to testify would eventually get tired of being a prop for those who like screwing over families and children for profit. The answer to DV is asking for accountability for the shed loads of money flowing from the Violence Against Women Act, not robbing kids of two good parents.

Below are some of the statistics common of children who grow up without fathers. I take serious issue to a few powerful lobbyists holding our state hostage for profit at the expense of families and children.

Fatherless children have higher probabilities of :
o Teen pregnancy
o Dropping out of school
o Committing rape [males]
o Being raped or molested
o Illegal drug use/addiction
o Committing murder or other violent crime
o Being incarcerated for other crime
o Suicide
o Cyclical poverty
o Public Assistance
o Chronic unemployment as adults
o Self esteem issues
o Gang membership
o Not attending college or secondary school
o ...and about 10 thousand more.

Click here for more.

Alito hearings bring fathers back into the abortion debate

Carey Roberts
January 24, 2006

The pictures said it all.

First was the shot of the unflappable judge, serenely gazing...waiting...hoping...that senator Joe Biden would finally get around to asking his question. Then the unforgettable image of judge Alito's wife Martha-Ann, gasping at the accusation that her husband was a closet racist.

And at the end of it all, there was Teddie Kennedy, his contorted face reduced to a helpless, choleric rage. Richard Durbin buried his brow in his hands. And poor Dianne Feinstein — she looked like she had just returned from a back-alley encounter with a pack of mating wildebeests.

Much of the Judiciary Committee's scrutiny revolved around Alito's views on abortion, including his 1991 dissent in the now-famous Planned Parenthood v. Casey case.

Predictably the "engaged and enraged" feminists had worked themselves into a lather. Rep. Lynn Woolsey of California fumed that Alito's position "takes us right back to the 1950s," and a hyperventilating Louise Slaughter said that Alito had "argued that the state effectively has the right to give a man control over his wife."

It may come as a surprise to many that Planned Parenthood used to be against abortion. Back in 1963 they issued this warning: "An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it."

But along came Roe v. Wade in 1973, and Planned Parenthood decided to milk the cash cow of abortion-on-demand. Eventually it realized that state laws that placed restrictions on access to abortion were robbing them of their market share. In Pennsylvania, the Planned Parenthood chapter began to eye a 1982 law that required a pregnant woman to "notify" her husband of her intention to abort.

Contrary to Rep. Louise Slaughter's rant, the spousal notification requirement of the Pennsylvania law did not give the husband any kind of veto power. In fact, the law didn't even require a woman to "plan" the pregnancy with her spouse. It only required a simple notification, as in, "Hey hon', I'm going to go out to have my nails done, pick up some groceries, and maybe get an abortion."

But Planned Parenthood would not tolerate even that minimal concession to the father's interest to keep his unborn child alive. So it sued to overturn the law.

At the time, Samuel Alito happened to be one of three judges on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Two of the judges ruled that the spousal notification requirement was not lawful, but Alito disagreed. He argued the provision was "constitutional because it is 'rationally related' to a 'legitimate' state interest."

As we know, the next year Planned Parenthood took the case to the Supreme Court. In 1992, the Supreme Court affirmed that fathers had no legitimate role in decisions to continue the lives of their own offspring.

In retrospect, we have to ask how so many learned judges, most of them fathers themselves, failed to discern a legitimate state interest in respecting the bonds between biological dads and their children?

The 1992 Supreme Court ruling came just months after vice-president Dan Quayle gave his famous Murphy Brown speech which deplored the fact that, "Where there are no mature, responsible men around to teach boys how to become good men, gangs serve in their place." The opinion followed a decade of revelations by social scientist Sara McLanahan, who discovered to her horror that fatherless children do far worse on a broad range of social indicators.

One of the tragic results of the decision was that fathers were banished from the abortion debate. From the Left, fathers were scorned as simply irrelevant. On the Right they were reviled for their alleged hit-and-run treatment of women, even though rape and incest accounted for less than one percent of all abortions. The sad fact was, dads were now persona non grata.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey amounted to the biological disenfranchisement of dads and the radical de-legitimization of fatherhood itself. For every beating heart snuffed out by Roe v. Wade, Casey drove a stake through the heart of a proud father-to-be.

Judge Samuel Alito, whose confirmation is expected later this week, has almost single-handedly deflated the Leftist hegemony over the spousal notification debate. Now we can to begin to acknowledge the obvious: men are grievously wounded when they are removed from the life-and-death decisions affecting their own flesh and blood.
______

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism.

Mr. Roberts' work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh show. Besides serving as a regular contributor to RenewAmerica.us, he has published in The Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, ifeminists.net, Men's News Daily, eco.freedom.org, The Federal Observer, Opinion Editorials, and The Right Report.

Previously, he served on active duty in the Army, was a professor of psychology, and was a citizen-lobbyist in the US Congress. In his spare time he admires Norman Rockwell paintings, collects antiques, and is an avid soccer fan. He now works as an independent researcher and consultant.

© Copyright 2006 by Carey Roberts
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/060124

Click here for more.

S is for Schizophrenia

Imagine wanting one thing, but then working as hard as you can to prevent it.

This is the position that the state of New Jersey finds itself in again and again as it tries to enforce its misandrous legal system.

Case in point. If you lose your job, you are left on unemployment. Which doesn’t pay too much. But the state requires that you keep paying the same amount in child support and alimony irregardless because “Temporary unemployment is no grounds for a reduction in alimony or child support”. Don’t ask me for the source of the quote – I have heard the words from every judge and lawyer I have spoken to. It also doesn’t matter what percentage of the time you have your children. You could have them 90% of the time, and if you find yourself out of work, you still have to pay your ex-partner her required pound of flesh. If you do not have the income to do this, the court demands that you show that you TRIED to take out loans to pay off your human leach, and that you keep trying to do this. Never mind that you have no real income to pay off the thousands of dollars of back debt and your ex’s legal fees that will build up in weeks… This is by itself schizophrenic…

But what is the next step in schizophrenia, is that if you owe more than $1,000 in back support (and if you owe that, it isn’t worth the human leach’s time to chase you), the state of New Jersey will report you to credit agencies as having a bad debt. Never mind that you have not been found at fault by a court of law, “Pursuant to NJSA 2A:17-56.23A, child support debts are entered as judgments by operation of law.”

Get that? Even if there is no judgment, even if this may not be a legitimate debt, your credit gets whacked. But… How… Can you get a loan, …with bad credit?

Of course the answer is that you can’t. Ma Jersey never wanted you to succeed as an absentee parent anyway. She just wants you as a deadbeat dad statistic, helping to show that her politicians are beating the bad guys and protecting the poor defenseless wives.

Thanks, Ma.

My best to you all in your struggles!

-M

Simulposted on MIsForMalevolent

Click here for more.

Fathers Keep Children Safe

Mark Lunsford, the single father of a nine year-old girl that was kidnapped and raped by a stranger to the family, is on a mission to revenge the death of his daughter. His mission is inspired and much of what he wants from lawmakers – stiffer sentences for pedophiles and better tracking of them after they are released - is the right thing to do. Pedophiles have been shown over and over again to be very hard to reform.

He is missing one crucial detail though. In case after case of children gone missing, the police focus first on the parents, usually the father. The same thing happens when a wife or girlfriend goes missing or is found murdered. The husband or boyfriend is the first to fall under suspicion.

In fact, Mark Lunsford went through this, as law enforcement intensely interrogated him and his father (Jessica’s grandfather). They were given polygraph tests and underwent intense scrutiny. The media focused its attention on these two as well. Suspicion of Mark Lunsford and his father was further fueled by the fact that they both had previous arrest records, even though those arrests were not in the least bit related to sex crimes. In fact, the suspicion Jessica’s family was held under carried as far as her grandmother, who was also given a polygraph test.

Is this what should be happening?

Steve Groene might have something to say about that. His ex-wife and mother of his two children, together with her boyfriend, were found murdered. Groene’s two children, a boy and a girl, were missing. Groene was immediately held under suspicion. The news media spent considerable time focusing on this poor man, while he was in the most desperate state of his entire life.

Because of today’s environment of domestic violence hysteria and hype, the focus on Groene was exacerbated by the fact that he apparently had a heated argument with his ex-wife a few days before the murders and kidnapping. It didn’t seem to matter that his ex-wife was a known drug abuser and that Groene was distraught over the environment his children were spending time in.

During a good part of the time that Groene was being closely scrutinized by both the media and law enforcement, previously convicted pedophile Duncan apparently had both of the children. Somewhere along the way, he murdered the boy. He repeatedly raped the girl.

Was it appropriate for suspicion to have been placed in such inordinate weight on Groene, the biological father? Might that have proven to be a distraction? Wasn't there plenty of time to grill Groene after putting every possible resource into pursuing the possibility that a stranger had indeed abducted the children? Groene wasn't going anywhere and, if a stranger had the kids, there would likely be a point when it would be too late to save them.

Then there is the case of John Mason, the Georgia man whose fiancée, Jennifer Wilbanks, freaked out and disappeared, leaving him standing at the alter. While she was on a Grey Hound odyssey across the country, local police and the FBI were giving Mason polygraph tests. Convinced they had another Scott Peterson type case to pump up their ratings, one could sense the collective sigh of disappointment from the media once Wilbanks showed up, bugged eyed as usual.

Was it appropriate to consider John Mason suspect number one from the get go?

Why does this happen? Because fake “experts,” the feminist state and it’s associated government sponsored industries, have spent so much time and energy trying to convince us that fathers are generally a negative force, oppressive, controlling, and prone to abuse.

The focus that law enforcement and the media put on husbands and biological fathers is based on the myth that most abductions, kidnappings, and rapes are committed by the man closest to the victim. They are basically practicing CYA – cover your ass. They’ve been burned and criticized when husbands and fathers actually were the culprits, and have learned they are never criticized if they blame the father/husband first and work out the details later. Even when the father or husband was not involved in foul play, the police and the media are still not blamed. Even when a stranger has a child, and law enforcement does not catch them before it is too late, the police and the media are not blamed for focusing on the father/husband. Even though it is very rare for biological fathers to harm their own children, law enforcement seems to protect their own reputations first and worry about finding missing children second.

Here is a great example of how this myth is perpetuated. At About.com, under the category of incest and abuse, you can find a guy named Douglas Larson posturing as an expert on the topic of child abuse. He promotes the idea that we should be more concerned about parental abuse of children than we are about strangers doing the sort of thing that one did to Jessica Lunsford. Throughout this article, Larson hints that fathers should get primary focus.

For example: Larson say, “70 percent of men who batter their wives, also abuse their children.” Larson leaves out the fact that all non-feminists ideology based research shows that women are as prone as men to domestic violence (for details, just ask Indianapolis Colts Nick Harper). He also fails to point out that most abusive relationships are mutually abusive, with both the female and the male instigating violence. He fails to point out the pervasive problem of abuse within lesbian relationships. And, worse, he fails to point out that the majority of child abusers are in fact women.

This pseudo expert is happy to have you believe that most child murders and rapes are committed by their biological fathers. Dig a little deeper, though, and you will see that Larson has an ideological agenda and nothing in the way of actual credentials that would lead any sensible person to believe he should be listened to at all. His only credential is that he is a “women’s advocate.” Larson apparently figured at that laws like the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) provide funding to anyone willing to attack families and fathers, while promoting victimhood among women.

But, Larson is entirely wrong. In fact, according to all serious scholarship and studies by the Department of Justice, the safest place for a child is in a home with the biological father present.

Does this mean that law enforcement should not consider the possibility that a parent is responsible for a missing child? Does it mean that biological fathers should never be held in suspicion upon evidence that child has been abused, sexually or otherwise?

Absolutely not. But, it does mean that if we really want to keep our children safe, we should get gender feminist ideology out of the conversation. It leads to gross distortions in the behavoir of law enforcement and the media. More importantly, government policy should not be designed to willfully keep fathers in large numbers out of the lives of their children.

And, when a child like Jessica disappears, and the father is right there working with law enforcement, perhaps the presumption should be that a stranger has abducted the child. Any law enforcement resource distracted from the search to find a child possibly abducted by a pedophile stranger is a resource distracted from the most difficult type of search. And, as we see over and over, there is not much time before it is too late.

After all, usually, the biological father is right there working with law enforcement and uncomfortably in front of the media - scared, lonely, desperate, and too often erroneously standing accused. He doesn’t need to be found. The child does.

I applaud Lunsford for taking a stand and working so hard to increase the seriousness with which society takes the terrible scourge of pedophilia. It probably is too much to ask that he dilute any of the anger he has for the horrible murder of his daughter by questioning the fact that law enforcement and the media wasted time and resources putting him under suspicion. But, someone should.

Click here for more.

WA Schools Perform? No, But Prisons Better.

One would think it would be no skin off the back of the Washington Education Association for students to be required to take and marginally pass a standardized test (WASL) in order to graduate. Teachers are not required to take the test (scary thought what the results would be) and, if nothing else, it gives them a day to relax while their students are taking the tests.

But, we already know that “Education Association” is a misnomer, because the WEA is simply a labor union with only its own interests in mind, not education. This is why it is impossible to take any of their concerns about the WASL seriously.

Quoted in a Seattle Times article, the head of the WEA actually claims that the WASL will lower academic performance. As with many of the positions and statements of Washington State’s political interest groups, there is no logical basis for such an absurd claim, so there is no sense in trying to find one. What the WEA really wants is to hide the dismal performance of their members as measured by the dismal academic performance of students.

There is another fact they don’t want you to focus on. They admit that more than 20% of high school students in the state of Washington drop out of school before they graduate. Of course, they blame this on the WASL.

What they don’t point out is that most of these drop-outs are boys. The media and state politicians don’t want to talk about this fact. Neither does the WEA. What this corrupt triad of power doesn’t want any of us talking about is that schools are anti-boy territory.

In addition to wanting to protect their members from having to improve their own performance, the WEA also wants to hide its anti-boy bias. They obfuscate by pointing out that roughly 80% of blacks and hispanics do not pass at least one section of the WASL. This, they claim, shows racial bias and, of course, the need to spend more money. The biggest chunk of those racial groups not passing the test are boys, however, and the difference between boys and girls is even more glaring among white kids. Race clearly is an issue in education, but this results primarily for economic reasons - parent's income predicts WASL performance as well as race does. The difference in performance between boys and girls results from a system designed to punish the former and nurture only the latter.

The WEA is populated in part by politically correct members that still buy into the “girls are victims” and “girl power” ideology of radical feminists. Some of these people are actually interested in destroying the academic achievement of boys because they believe that destroying the future earning power of males in our society will destroy the dreaded “patriarchy.” Others simply don’t want us to see what a mess they have made, and test scores on the WASL is the clearest evidence.

In both cases, it’s much easier for the WEA if we give boys a free lunch and a basketball court to play on until they are 18, then usher them through graduation ill-prepared to participate in our economy. It's then a matter for the police and the state’s prison system anyway, so why should the state’s teachers suffer?

Click here for more.

P is for Personality Disorder

At Men's News Daily, William A. Eddy writes about the prevalence of personality disorders in divorce court. I disagree with him as to the cure for this (more shrinks in the process is not the solution, I think) but I sure do recognize some of the disorders and behaviors he cites - take a look at the below excerpt and see if anything rings a bell for you (Bolding is mine):

People with personality disorders also appear more likely to make false statements. Because of the thought process of a personality disorder, the person experiences interpersonal rejection or confrontation much more deeply than most people. Therefore the person has great difficulty healing and may remain stuck in the denial stage, the depression stage, or the anger stage of grief - avoiding acceptance by trying to change or control the other person.
Lying may be justified in their eyes - possibly to bring a reconciliation. (This can be quite convoluted, like the former wife who alleged child sexual abuse so that her ex-husband's new wife would divorce him and he would return to her - or so she seemed to believe.) Or lying may be justified as a punishment in their eyes. Just as we have seen that an angry spouse may kill the other spouse, it is not surprising that many angry spouses lie under oath. There is rarely any consequence for this, as family court judges often believe the truth cannot be known - or that both are lying.

Projection

Just as an active alcoholic or addict blames others for their substance abuse, those with personality disorders are often preoccupied with other people's behavior while avoiding any examination of their own behavior. Just as a movie projector throws a large image on a screen from a hidden booth, those with personality disorders project their internal conflicts onto their daily interactions - usually without knowing it. All the world is a stage - including court.

It is not uncommon in family court declarations for one with a personality disorder to claim the other party has characteristics which are really their own ("he's manipulative and falsely charming" or "she's hiding information and delaying the process"), and do not fit the other party. Spousal abusers claim the other is being abusive. Liars claim the other is lying.
[...]

How Family Court Fits Personality Disorders

Family Court is perfectly suited to the fantasies of someone with a personality disorder: There is an all-powerful person (the judge) who will punish or control the other spouse. The focus of the court process is perceived as fixing blame - and many with personality disorders are experts at blame. There is a professional ally who will champion their cause (their attorney - or if no attorney, the judge). A case is properly prepared by gathering statements from allies - family, friends, and professionals. (Seeking to gain the allegiance of the children is automatic - they too are seen as either allies or enemies. A simple admonition will not stop this.) Generally, those with personality disorders are highly skilled at - and invested in - the adversarial process.

Sigh. Too True.

My best to you in your struggles!

-M
Simulposted at MIsForMalevolent

Click here for more.

P is for Prison

Happy New Year!

For your interest and amusement/horror, I present:

"Women In Prison" - no, this is NOT an episode of Jerry Springer, it is a report of the US Dept of Justice, penned in 1991.

The report notes with concern how the number of women in prison was increasing at a shocking rate - faster than the rate for men:

Across the Nation the number of women in prison has grown at a faster rate than that of men. In a year-to-year comparison, the percentage of women is now the highest it has ever been, beginning with the first annual collection of prison statistics in 1926.

Frightening, and one would think, evidence of a bias against women, but the report doesn't go there. It is, to the degree possible, I think, a dry and unhysterical accounting of facts.

The explanation for the relatively rapid increase in female incarcerations, although not made excessively clear, was simple - laws were tightened down a bit, and people started being treated ever so slightly more equally with respect to their gender;

The growth in the number of male and female prisoners is also reflected in the overall rate of incarceration - defined as the number of sentenced prisoners (those sentenced to more than 1 year) per 100,000 residents. From 1980 to 1989 the incarceration rate nearly doubled, from 146 sentenced prisoners per 100,000 residents to 283 sentenced prisoners per 100,000. During this period the rate for women increased by 158%, from 12 to 31 sentenced prisoners per 100,000 female residents; the rate for men increased by 91%, from 287 to 549 per 100,000 male residents.

But bias is not dead. The general anti-male bias we ignore every day is omnipresent. Note that 0.549% of the male prison residents are 'Incarcerated', compared to 0.031% of the female prison residents.

Do we really think that men are SEVENTEEN TIMES more criminal than women, in general?

Or do we think that the courts are seventeen times less likely to incarcerate a woman?

-I think the latter.

Or take a look at these numbers from the report:

The number of women under the jurisdiction of State and Federal prison authorities at yearend 1989 reached a record 40,556. Although the female inmate population had grown by more than 27,000 since 1980, an increase of over 200%, females still comprised a relatively small segment of the prison population - 5.7% at yearend 1989.

So it wasn't just in doleing out the over-1-year sentences that women were treated much more lightly, it was in jail time in general. The pecentage bias is almost exactly the same, which one would probably expect from a bias that operates independently of fact (Women are 5.3% of the 'incarcerated' population). To be fair, if men are in fact generally 17 times more criminal than women, you would expect to see these kind of percentages too.

Some other interesting bits:

- An estimated 41% of the female inmates in 1986 were in prison for a violent offense, compared to 49% in 1979. Nearly half of the women in prison for a violent crime in 1986 were serving time for a homicide.

- An estimated 89% of the women in State prisons in 1986 had a current conviction for a violent crime or an earlier sentence to probation or incarceration for any offense.- Women released from State prison in 1986 had served an average of 16months. Those convicted of a violent offense had served an average of 27 months in prison, about twice as long as released property offenders (13 months) and drug offenders (14 months).- More than a third of the women serving time for a violent crime had victimized a relative or intimate; about a fourth of the women in prison for violence were convicted of the homicide of a relative or intimate.

A significant percentage of the women in prison were in prison for violent crimes against their own families. THERE IS NO SIMILAR STUDY OF MEN IN PRISON, but from a study of violent prisoners we get a little more clarity:

Almost one-half of the women in prison for violent crimes were serving time for homicide, and half of these (26 percent of all violent female inmates) had killed a relative or intimate, according to the survey report, "Violent State Prisoners and Their Victims."

The study of violent prisoners goes on to indicate that men are much more likely to commit their crimes against strangers. "Almost 60 percent of the male violent offenders had committed their offenses against strangers, compared to 37 percent of the violent females." The violence of women (when reported, prosecuted, and resulting in conviction) is much more often directed towards the family. The "Women in Prison" study clarifies this even further: "While less than 6% of males were serving a sentence for the homicide of a relative or intimate, more than 25% of female violent offenders had killed a family member, ex-spouse, or other intimate."

The suspicion I am holding is that the courts are somewhat less tolerant of violent women who attack their families than we are of other female criminals.

Some evidence on this topic is found in the "State Court Sentencing of Convicted Felons -- Statistical tables":

Doing a little quick math you can compare the relative sentence length male against female for offences overall, and for each offence.

Total Time Sentenced

Offense % of Male
All offenses 59%
Violent offenses 64%
Murder 17%
Sexual assault 220%
Robbery 50%
Aggravted assault 145%
Other violent 71%
Property offenses 66%
Burglary 62%
Larceny 71%
Fraud 77%
Drug offenses 71%
Possession 70%
Trafficking 75%
Weapon offenses 69%
Other offenses 73%

So, if you automatically presume that women are treated more lightly than men by the courts, well, on average, you are right. On average, women receive less than 60% of the overall sentences recieved by men for the same crimes. But some of the items in particular are suprisingly skewed. For Murder, women are sentenced to 17% of the sentence length of men. So I was wrong in presuming that women are treated more harshly when they murder. In fact they are treated with an outrageous deference. On the other hand, the court seems to treat women sexual offenders worse than men, with sentences on average that are twice as long. Here is where the tolerance of the court break down.

If the court generally treated women the same with respect to their crimes - giving them about 60% of the sentence a man would get, why would these two specific areas be skewed, sexual abuse being treated more harshly, and murder so much less harshly?

We already have the answer, it is staring us in the face: Violent women tend to harm their own families, not others. They tend to murder their husbands (much more often then their kids), and the well documented bias of the courts against men leads to these crimes being treated with kid-gloves. Women's sexual abuse tends to be against their children, and these are victims that the court is capable of recognising.

So husband-killers get treated with kid gloves, so what? How often does this happen? Well again, according to this domestic violence statistics webpage, citing "Violent State Prisoners and their Victims" again, of first time women offenders in state prisons for homicide, 65% killed an ex-spouse, and 23% had killed a spouse.

So in total, 88% of women in state prison for homicide killed their spouse or ex-spouse!

-Why are female murderers treated with kid-gloves? they killed men.
This is the crime that is being sentenced at 17% of the amount of time a man would get for a similar crime.

-As far as 'Justice' goes, I am still disgusted.

Happy New Year and Hope for Freedom and Equality!

-M

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is Here.
A list of of some paper-based USDOJ Publications is Here.
A great source of online abstracts and data relating to prisons is Here.

Click here for more.