SeanM Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 Hey all, I was poking around Facebook and I saw this 'amazing' article on the injustice of incarcerating women. http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/06/we-should-stop-putting-women-in-jail-for-anything/ Article mentions that this is in the process in England; anyone from England or familiar with English politics/policies know how this is actually going? "God save all our Queens!"
Guest nickxenol Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 I am getting a message from the article that 'women never commit crimes and therefore women do not belong in prison'. Women may not commit as many crimes as men (I don't know the statistics so I can't say) but this is pure misandry. According to these people, men are always the problem and to them, will never be apart of the solution. The article mentioned mothers in prison and it brings up another thing that misandrists (or 'ultrafeminists' if you will) do. To them, mothers in prison is injustice but fathers in prison is justice. And this is all proposed on before you may know they are in there for.
Alan C. Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 It isn't likely that prisons would exist in a free society. Locking people in cages is an archaic, inhumane, wasteful, and ineffective means of dealing with criminality. In a free society, ostracism would serve the same function to separate uncivilized and dangerous people from everyone else. In cases where people are not in control of their faculties, unable to restrain impulse, and pose a menace to others, there would be institutions to deal with them in a humane manner.
kalmia Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 Men are disposable. The upside of caging men is that it reduces sexual competition. I don't support this. But I believe that the reduction in male sexual competition is one of the primary and unspoken motivators driving support for the prison system. Sperm are plentiful. Eggs are rare. 1
AynRand Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 I agree with Alan Chapman's post the idea of prison's are inherently a violation of rights, and alternatives may be put in place.
SeanM Posted November 12, 2014 Author Posted November 12, 2014 I am getting a message from the article that 'women never commit crimes and therefore women do not belong in prison'. Women may not commit as many crimes as men (I don't know the statistics so I can't say) but this is pure misandry. According to these people, men are always the problem and to them, will never be apart of the solution. The article mentioned mothers in prison and it brings up another thing that misandrists (or 'ultrafeminists' if you will) do. To them, mothers in prison is injustice but fathers in prison is justice. And this is all proposed on before you may know they are in there for. I agree with most of what you say but I don't think the article is going insofar to say that women never commit crimes but instead their crimes are more acceptable, pardonable, or even minor in nature and just require a 'pep talk' to correct their course. If anything, it's just a step down from what you're saying. However, I do agree with you on the fact that this author is incredibly ridiculous and is quite the misandrist stating that, in a fairly obvious manner, that women alone have a monopoly on victimhood and perpetuating this degree of sexism. "What purpose is served by subjecting the most disempowered, abused and nonviolent women to the perpetually negative environment of prisons?" Men can't be disempowered? Men can't be abused? Men can't be nonviolent? Nnnnnaaaaaaahhhh. Men are disposable. The upside of caging men is that it reduces sexual competition. I don't support this. But I believe that the reduction in male sexual competition is one of the primary and unspoken motivators driving support for the prison system. Sperm are plentiful. Eggs are rare. Noooow....this is an interesting and fun theory. The moment I read this reply, I immediately started thinking of The Island, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399201/, with a lottery based system to be allowed to court a woman, only to later have to undergo crazy ass tests, exams, probing etc. to see I was 'fit' to breed. Thanks for the crazy idea, lol! Is this your personal belief or is this based on something/someone else's work?
kalmia Posted November 15, 2014 Posted November 15, 2014 I'm not sure what made me think of it. I may have heard it or read it elsewhere. But I have learned about evolutionary psychology and about "game" in picking up women and have seen how much of society functions in the ways described. It's like pulling back the curtain and seeing what is really going on. Men gain status and climb a social hierarchy so they are no longer disposable. The state is a concept that certain people get to decide who is at the bottom of this heirarchy. People use the state to limit competition, and males seek to limit competition from other males. If they are looking for who to eliminate they can agree on eliminating those who are involved in businesses that do not hold the state as the top of the social heirarchy. These businesses included those who sell mind and emotion altering substances, not the most dangerous but the substances that most upset the social heirarchy. For example, MDMA is far less dangerous than alcohol or many allowable substances. But MDMA upsets the social heirarchy as those subjugated by their internal self attack loops are no longer subjugated. Marijuana can get some people to more openly question society. But some don't see the threat as so great, and promoting the added wealth that will be recieved by those at the top of the state heirarchy has allowed its use. But notice that permission from those at the top of the state heirarchy is a meme that must not be challenged. To challenge it is to flip the social heirarchy where those at the top move to the bottom. Of course many imprisoned are too low in intelligence to rise to the top of any heirarchy. But they still pose a reproductive threat.
PatrickC Posted November 15, 2014 Posted November 15, 2014 Yes, I agree with Kalmia, his view is certainly a reasonable biological consideration. Clearly not the only one of course. But the reason this opinion is often laughed out of the park is largely as an obfuscation of the truth. People mostly rely on the cultural narrative and rarely think beyond the end of their nose on this topic. On an aside, this explains the horror when society hears of a women murdering her children. That said, even then they try and chalk it up to mental illness. Whereas a father that did the same is nearly 'always' a psycho.
J. D. Stembal Posted November 15, 2014 Posted November 15, 2014 I'll leave this here for your perusal: https://www.facebook.com/WomenCriminals (I dug it out of the article comments section.) I also think Kalmia is on to something regarding prison I don't think prison is designed to lock up the violent in our society. These people go into politics, military or law enforcement. The people who go to jail are the people that threaten the existing system or attempt to operate or exist outside of it. If prison was really all about locking up violent people, we wouldn't be seeing articles about freeing the non-violent female criminals. There wouldn't be any non-violent criminals, male or female.
Recommended Posts