Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Viking on November 23, 2014, 08:01:07 AM
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/06/we-should-stop-putting-women-in-jail-for-anything/
Equality, except for when equality does not benefit women.
-
The argument is actually quite straightforward: There are far fewer women in prison than men to start with — women make up just 7 percent of the prison population. This means that these women are disproportionately affected by a system designed for men.
How are they "disproportionately" affected, and how/where is this documented?
Essentially, the case for closing women’s prisons is the same as the case for imprisoning fewer men. It is the case against the prison industrial complex and for community-based treatment where it works better than incarceration. But there is evidence that prison harms women more than men, so why not start there?
And where, exactly, would that be?
Efforts to make prison “work” for women have only perpetuated the growth of the prison industrial complex. These putative reforms have helped some individuals, and possibly brought the nature of mass warehousing of poor, black and brown bodies more into focus, but the number of incarcerated people still continues to rise.
Ah, now we're getting to the point: prison is racist. No need to read any farther.
-
We need to stamp this nutty feminist bullshit into the ground right now, before it becomes a problem. It's the next play the liberals are pulling...
Ah, now we're getting to the point: prison is racist. No need to read any farther.
Well of course. Let's release all the people of color and the womyn, you know, victims of The White Man, and everything will be just fine and dandy. They won't go back to stealing, rape, kidnapping, murdering and so forth that got them into jail in the first place...no sir, they will be model, upstanding citizens. Hug a Thug is the way to go!
-
She actually gets paid to mouth these kinds of thoughts. Unbelievable.
-
This is not a new perspective. There have been many cultures where, because they are not considered to have moral agency, women are not punished as men are. Perhaps the man in charge of the woman would be punished, much as a farmer is the one punished if his animals cause damage. As usual in upside-downland, this attitude is backwardly considered to be liberating to women rather than dehumanizing.
-
I'll also point out that I've known some prison guards who've worked in both male and female prison populations.
They said that the womyn were WAY worse than the men to control, and a lot more animal like.
-
We need to stamp this nutty feminist bullshit into the ground right now, before it becomes a problem. It's the next play the liberals are pulling...
Well of course. Let's release all the people of color and the womyn, you know, victims of The White Man, and everything will be just fine and dandy. They won't go back to stealing, rape, kidnapping, murdering and so forth that got them into jail in the first place...no sir, they will be model, upstanding citizens. Hug a Thug is the way to go!
Dude. It's already a problem.
-
This is not a new perspective. There have been many cultures where, because they are not considered to have moral agency, women are not punished as men are. Perhaps the man in charge of the woman would be punished, much as a farmer is the one punished if his animals cause damage. As usual in upside-downland, this attitude is backwardly considered to be liberating to women rather than dehumanizing.
This is why I call them "regressives."
-
*snort*
As far as non violent offenders and drug related offenders who want rehab, I'm all for changing up the current prison situation, for both sexes.
As far as violent offenders, f 'em, and that goes for both sexes.
Want to lower the amount of people headed to jail? Improve social infrastructure in areas with high crime rates, which at this point in time, pretty much means get rid of most the BS.
As far as woman convicted of violent crimes being near their children? Are you *expletive deleted*ing kidding me? I'm guessing that a good portion of those violent crimes involve child abuse. Why on earth would you want her around those children?
And woman being victims of poverty, abuse and what not that lead to them commuting a criminal act and ending up in jail? Ummmm... I'm pretty sure a significantly large portion of male criminals are in the exact same boat.
I'm really tired of this theme that all woman are naturally some kind of innocent, angelic beings that are just overflowing with love, happiness and communal spirit, and the only reason they go rotten is the big bad man.
It's BS.
Woman are, naturally, a million times meaner than men, and all you have to do is watch a bunch of 13 year old girls go at it to know that. The female of the species is just more sneaky about it.
-
Want to lower the amount of people headed to jail? Improve social infrastructure in areas with high crime rates, which at this point in time, pretty much means get rid of most the BS.
???
As far as woman convicted of violent crimes being near their children? Are you *expletive deleted*ing kidding me?
Just like immigration laws are to blame, when families get broken up.
I'm really tired of this theme that all woman are naturally some kind of innocent, angelic beings that are just overflowing with love, happiness and communal spirit, and the only reason they go rotten is the big bad man.
It's BS.
That goes for both sexes. If we'd just give stuff to poor people, they would not commit crimes. If no one was motivated by profit, we would all work together for the common good, and be well-fed and happy. If it wasn't for "rape culture," every drunken, naked co-ed would be escorted safely home, etc.
-
???
"educational" system that wearhouses instead of educates. Social programs that encourage the special snowflake syndrome. Welfare programs that pay out for having babies and sitting on asses. Laws that criminalize actions that hurt only the individual doing it rather than society as a whole (I.e. drugs)
and on and on I could go.
Poverty and crime go hand in hand, and both are social problems that can be reduced by dealing with it before it overloads the system. You can't eliminate crime, but don't tell me you can't reduce what is currently going on. Most of the current social infrastructure is broken beyond repair, largely due to the liberal attitudes that brought you this article of nonsense. Throw it out, start from scratch.
-
Oh, OK. I wasn't sure which BS you intended. I don't know that I've ever heard "social infrastructure." I would guess you're talking about families, and other social groups and relationships. Correct?
-
Oh, OK. I wasn't sure which BS you intended. I don't know that I've ever heard "social infrastructure." I would guess you're talking about families, and other social groups and relationships. Correct?
not really.
bigger than that. Think entire communities.
-
not really.
bigger than that. Think entire communities.
Yep. The whole communities are *expletive deleted*ed up beyond belief. "Ghetto thug" is a normal way of life, vs. something to avoid, and if any one in that community tries to make something of themselves, they are ostracized.
-
not really.
bigger than that. Think entire communities.
So you are saying It Takes A Village?
-
So you are saying It Takes A Village?
When things are this screwed up? Yes. A healthy extended family, given that I don't particularly believe in the effectiveness of the 'nuclear family', can do most of what's needed. But we're not looking at health extended families here. All too often we're looking at single mothers trying to make it alone.
It's a nasty, expensive way to try to do it, but making it so the schools actually EDUCATE, rather than acting as pre-prison warehouses, is pretty much step 1 to lowering the long term crime rates in an area. Step 2 is keeping policies in place such that businesses want to hire the graduates of said school. IE keep the regulations and taxes from being too imposing. Somebody busy working in a legal job is a lot less likely get into criminal mischief.
-
So you are saying It Takes A Village?
It takes a village that's willing to say "Stop having babies, go to *expletive deleted*ing school and get your *expletive deleted*it together, because we are sick of paying for your crap."
-
I agree that far too many non-violent men and women are in prisons. Legalizing and regulating prostitution, and decriminalizing some drugs, would help solve part of the problem. Purely from a cost/benefit perspective, prisons are far too costly, on several levels.
-
So you are saying It Takes A Village?
It takes a village that's willing to say "Stop having babies, go to *expletive deleted*ing school and get your *expletive deleted* it together, because we are sick of paying for your crap."
Eminently sig-worthy right there, that is...
-
. . . There have been many cultures where, because they are not considered to have moral agency, women are not punished as men are . . .
And women couldn't vote, own land, enter into contracts, testify in court on their own behalf, or drive cars.
Some of this cr@p still exits today in places.
That someone can seriously make the proposal in the OP shows that the inmates are running the asylum.
Or trying to. :facepalm:
-
"educational" system that wearhouses instead of educates. Social programs that encourage the special snowflake syndrome. Welfare programs that pay out for having babies and sitting on asses. Laws that criminalize actions that hurt only the individual doing it rather than society as a whole (I.e. drugs)
...town squares being used for rallies and candlelight vigils instead of frequent hangings, a disability system that doesn't focus on getting someone trained up for some job they're physically capable of doing, etc.
-
not really.
bigger than that. Think entire communities.
Yeah.
Remember, "It takes a village to raise a child."
<Exit, stage left>
-
Yeah.
Remember, "It takes a village to raise a child."
<Exit, stage left>
read the whole thread, than post. ;)
-
a disability system that doesn't focus on getting someone trained up for some job they're physically capable of doing, etc.
What about mentally? I still have that great aunt who's around 7 mentally.
Also my grandfather - he was expected to be dead within 7 years after his accident. It was a long hard road getting him to his maximum mobility after his accident, getting another 30 years and counting was seen as very low probability :P. They decided it wasn't worth it - and this is with the state of NY paying the disability(he was a state employee working in a state facility when the accident occurred). They eventually regretted their decision, but by then it was too late.
-
What about mentally? I still have that great aunt who's around 7 mentally.
If there legitimately isn't any job they can learn to do, then that's a different situation. That's a pretty small percentage of the people living off the disability system, though.
-
If there legitimately isn't any job they can learn to do, then that's a different situation. That's a pretty small percentage of the people living off the disability system, though.
She had a few years where she helped assemble sprinkler sub-systems, but even at below minimum wage(legal exemption) they had too hard of a time competing against China.
Roughly speaking, all I'm trying to point out is that there actually ARE lots of people in the disability system that are legitimately disabled. In many cases while they can find some employment, it's insufficient to cover their extensive medical requirements. IE my grandfather, even if they'd retrained him for light office work he probably wouldn't have been able to work full time. Due to the injuries even operating a typewriter* at an acceptable rate for the time would have been improbable. Heck, his position as a mechanic was due to his first training/retraining program after a really nasty case of Polio(iron lung, final rites multiple times).
Since there is a legitimate need for the program, we keep it. REFORMING it is a slightly different topic which I'm perfectly willing to discuss and agree with. Personally, I'm fond of the idea of increasing the idea of 'partially disabled' where you receive assistance in the form of coverage for medical care and devices related to your disability as well as income lost due to restricted ability to work. You're still expected to work, at least for the most part.
Maybe have a rule that encourages charities to hire them.
*Remember we're talking 30+ years ago.