Woman rapes 14 year old boy, escapes conviction, bemoans she'll be seen as a sex offender anyway

[ruby sparks]

Looks like it left that out, because it is the common one, and it's the one the laws were initially written for. The paper is looking at how other combinations get treated.

Yes, I can see that when it came to case studies, the writer took a limited view. But if your article is about the bit I bolded above, then why sideline by far the most common type of example?

My guess, as before, is that as a Feminist, the types chosen are closer to her concerns. Which as I said, would not be surprising, if true.

The "standard" view of an older male taking advantage of or coercing a younger female don't undermine gender-neutral laws. They're the "norm" for which the law was originally written.

The OTHER combinations - adults of either sex taking advantage of younger males, or older females taking advantage of younger females - are the ones where our socially-conditioned assumptions of gendered behavior can reduce the effectiveness of a gender-neutral law. Especially those cases where the younger partner is male, because there's a sex-based bias that assumes that pubescent males are always horny and can't possibly be harmed by sex with an older person, especially if that older person is female. There's a sex-based bias that an older female engaging in sex with a pubescent male is a "reward" or a "conquest" for the younger male - something he should be proud of. That bias undermines the effectiveness of gender-neutral language in the law.

Nope. Still not making sense to me. Again, the article is not doing the traditional norm, it is instead doing the possible effects on case outcomes of the new non-gender legal language, and straight male adults stand to be potentially (and in that category beneficially) affected as much as any other (smaller) group in light of that change of language, specifically in relation to what the writer herself calls, and what we all seem to agree are, gendered assumptions, and via that set of socially-conditioned assumptions to the fully relevant issue (raised early in the article, indeed implied in the article title) of traditionally less lenient views taken of male perpetrators, and outcomes for them, and what has been described as a double standard, which, it seems, has led to straight, male offenders (the largest group involved) to be the one historically worst affected by outcomes. As such, a case study showing either (a) that the new non-gender language hasn't changed anything for male perpetrators having sex with underage girls or (b) that it has changed something, surely would have been interesting and pertinent.

 

[RVonse]

Child support and custody are much more equitable nowadays than they were 50 years ago.

But they are not based on who can financially support the child. Because if they were based on that criterion (which is the only criterion the state uses), court ordered child support between divorced parents would not ever be used.

Which would also put a lot of lawyers out of work.

 

[Metaphor]

Writing an article that says in part "I, as a woman, take precautions and feel anxiety when I see men around" is publically advertising and justifying your prejudiced reaction to men. I did not attack the feminist for writing it for having those feelings. I said they have the feelings, they do not feel ashamed advertising them, and they would not do the same (advertise them) if it were prejudiced feelings about any other group.

If there were a group (Group A) that had a well-documented history of violence and harm against another group (Group B), then it would not necessarily be considered "prejudice" to acknowledge that some portion of Group B represents a risk to Group A, even if not all of Group B are a risk.

For example... In the 1930s, I think it would have been reasonable for Jewish people (Group A) to acknowledge that German people (Group B) represented a risk to them, even if not all German people were Nazis. Similarly, at this moment, it is reasonable for Muslim people living in China to view Chinese people as a risk, even if not all Chinese people support rounding them up and tossing them into re-education camps.

Is it unreasonable and prejudicial for black men to generally view police as a potential threat and risk? Even if most cops aren't a direct risk to black men, they do face a disproportionate risk from cops.

Is it unreasonable for a gay man to view fundie christian zealots as a potential threat and risk? Not all of them are going to be an actual risk... but can you tell at a glance which of them are safe and which of them are likely to jump you and beat you up for being gay?

I haven't said that prejudiced feelings are morally wrong or unreasonable. I don't think any feelings are morally wrong, nor is it unreasonable to notice patterns and associations. I have prejudiced feelings all the time. If I'm walking alone at night, I'm going to be less anxious if the group of people up ahead is three elderly women rather than three men in their late teens or early 20s.

What I've said, and tried to make clear, is that feminists have made one particular kind of prejudice--their fear of men, and especially white men--something that it is socially acceptable to talk about and form discriminatory policy over. The advertisement of any other kind of prejudice against a group, or the formation of policy over it, is otherwise absolutely verboten.

Black men commit violent crimes at higher rates than white men, and men commit violent crimes at higher rates than women. Yet it is acceptable to say "I'm afraid when I pass a man on the street", but it is forbidden to say "I'm more afraid when I pass a black man on the street than a white man", or suggest any kind of policy that discriminates against black men versus white men.

 

[Metaphor]

“It must be great being a female pedophile!”: The nature of public perceptions about female teacher sex offenders
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1741659016674044?journalCode=cmca

Abstract of a small study which suggests that the public (based on the sample of 900 comments analysed) do recognise the double standard traditionally applied against men and in favour of women (teachers in this case), and that these results suggest that the public believes in equality in sentencing for all sex offenders. However the abstract notes that this result is contrary to existing research which found that more punitive attitudes were expressed toward male sex offenders.

Men get longer prison sentences if they've murdered women versus murdering men, the sentencing gap is hardly a surprise.

The justice system is harsher on men (especially black men) than on women. It's clearly unjust. It essentially assumes a higher level of agency and responsibility for men than for women. I disagree with it. To be fair though, I don't want lighter sentences for men, I'd rather have harsher sentences for women.

There are some feminists who believe women don't belong in prison--for anything. They'd certainly disagree with you.

 

[ruby sparks]

There are some feminists who believe women don't belong in prison--for anything.

Citation please.

 

[Metaphor]

There are some feminists who believe women don't belong in prison--for anything.

Citation please.

I have not found the article I was specifically thinking of (which had a title of something like "Women don't belong in prison. For anything." which sounds click-baity but was in no way misleading--it really did argue that women, including violent murderers, did not belong in prison).

There's this:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ns-prisons-and-treat-their-crimes-more-fairly

The sentencing system should be reformed radically to deal more fairly with female offending. The starting position is that no female offender should be imprisoned. In relation to most forms of crime, they should be dealt with by way of intermediate sanctions including the greater use of electronic monitoring.

In the rare instances that women commit heinous crimes, community protection and the need to impose proportionate penalties requires a prison term but this should be the exception, not the increasing norm. The exception is so rare that the utopia of closing prisons would readily become a reality.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-met-women-prison-population-20180711-story.html
https://chuffed.org/project/no-gatton-womens-prison-women-dont-belong-in-cages
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...answers-than-jail-for-women-who-have-offended

Related: abolishing prison because women suffer from it:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...sons-to-disrupt-a-society-built-on-inequality

EDIT: Found it
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...ould-stop-putting-women-in-jail-for-anything/

 

[ruby sparks]

EDIT: Found it
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...ould-stop-putting-women-in-jail-for-anything/

Thanks.

That certainly seems to go too far, even if there is a case for putting fewer women in prison (which there may well be, and indeed men too, as the writer acknowledges briefly). And yes, she is a Feminist it seems, as you say (I checked).

We should not be surprised, of course, that Feminists generally advocate primarily for women. It is Feminism, after all.

And to be fair, I now see that it isn't just Feminists who say such things, apparently. When I googled your link, the 2nd hit was a piece in The Guardian by a Croatian man (a professor of Law in Australia as it happens). I googled him, and couldn't find anything to suggest he is a card-carrying Feminist:

Why we should close women's prisons and treat their crimes more fairly
https://www.theguardian.com/profile/mirko-bagaric

And one can find similar articles making a case for going down the route of stopping putting men in prison:

Why Are We Not Outraged That Prisons Are Filled With Men?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/...hy-are-we-not-outraged-prisons-are-filled-men

It concludes:

"The fact that we feel we have to put so many men in cages to keep us safe is the symptom of a diseased society. We are failing our men, and we urgently need to do something about it. Only when we teach and reinforce empathy, understanding, and self-control as desirable male traits can we begin to stop having to put men in prison."

So I don't think it's verboten to publicly air such a view on either men or women. As such, what I might call the typical Feminist perspective on behalf of women is just one valid argument among many to give consideration to, even if we were to disagree with it. Personally, I don't think it (the suggestion) would necessarily bother me that much. It's not a zero-sum game after all, and there could be aspects of it which might benefit everyone. As such, objecting is not necessarily the only reasonable reaction, imo.

 

[Jokodo]

Or in other words, from the widely acknowledged facts that women are people, that people don't have mind reading skills, and that it requires mind reading skills to reliably recognise a potential predator it necessarily follows that women are "unable to distinguish predatory men from non-predatory men". By treating this statement as some outlandish piece of feminist propaganda and insulting to all men rather than as the rather trivial truth thatit is, you're denying one of these truths. Which one is it?

What. On. Earth.

I did not say anything was 'outlandish feminist propaganda'. I said that feminists perpetuate the social attitude that men should be pre-emptively treated as predators/regarded with suspicion.

And I pointed out that supporting pre-emptive treatment with suspicion, if it were applied to any other group, would be a cancellable outrage.

There was a question. You didn't answer it. Do you believe the statement that women are "unable to distinguish predatory men from non-predatory men" is false? If so, which of the premises from which it logically follows do you deny? (A) that women are people, (B) that people don't have mind reading skills, or (C) that it requires mind reading skills to reliably recognise a potential predator?

Or are you denying logic?

If it's true on the other hand, what's the fuss about?

 

[Metaphor]

There was a question. You didn't answer it. Do you believe the statement that women are "unable to distinguish predatory men from non-predatory men" is false?

No: where did I imply I thought it was false?

If so, which of the premises from which it logically follows do you deny? (A) that women are people, (B) that people don't have mind reading skills, or (C) that it requires mind reading skills to reliably recognise a potential predator?

Or are you denying logic?

If it's true on the other hand, what's the fuss about?

You're the one making the fuss. I did not "treat the statement as outlandish propaganda". That is a fantasy entirely of your own making.

 

[Metaphor]

EDIT: Found it
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...ould-stop-putting-women-in-jail-for-anything/

Thanks.

That certainly seems to go too far, even if there is a case for putting fewer women in prison (which there may well be, and indeed men too, as the writer acknowledges briefly). And yes, she is a Feminist it seems, as you say (I checked).

We should not be surprised, of course, that Feminists generally advocate primarily for women. It is Feminism, after all.

And to be fair, I now see that it isn't just Feminists who say such things, apparently. When I googled your link, the 2nd hit was a piece in The Guardian by a Croatian man (a professor of Law in Australia as it happens). I googled him, and couldn't find anything to suggest he is a card-carrying Feminist:

Why we should close women's prisons and treat their crimes more fairly
https://www.theguardian.com/profile/mirko-bagaric

And one can find similar articles making a case for going down the route of stopping putting men in prison:

Why Are We Not Outraged That Prisons Are Filled With Men?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/...hy-are-we-not-outraged-prisons-are-filled-men

It concludes:

"The fact that we feel we have to put so many men in cages to keep us safe is the symptom of a diseased society. We are failing our men, and we urgently need to do something about it. Only when we teach and reinforce empathy, understanding, and self-control as desirable male traits can we begin to stop having to put men in prison."

So I don't think it's verboten to publicly air such a view on either men or women. As such, what I might call the typical Feminist perspective on behalf of women is just one valid argument among many to give consideration to, even if we were to disagree with it. Personally, I don't think it (the suggestion) would necessarily bother me that much. It's not a zero-sum game after all, and there could be aspects of it which might benefit everyone. As such, objecting is not necessarily the only reasonable reaction, imo.

There is a strong reason to object to the 'reasoning' in Bagaric's piece. One of his arguments is essentially: women as a group don't commit as much crime as men, so don't put them in prison for anything. He has the line:

Moreover, when it comes to sexual offences, rounded off to the nearest whole number, women constitute 0% of all offenders – that’s right, zero.

He doesn't say where he sourced this statistic, but he treats it as if it implies women actually do not perpetrate sexual offences of any kind!

He says women commit 17% of serious crimes, and later on indicates that women are 8% of the prison population. In other words, women are already getting sentenced more lightly than men, and he thinks that's still too much!

You are correct that Bagaric doesn't seem to publish other articles from a feminist perspective, but especial concern for the perceived suffering of women is not limited to feminist thought or feminists.

 

[Jarhyn]

Personally I want, as a feminist, to eliminate the culturally driven ideas that men must be any particular thing. Men are treated some way preemptively because men are expected, preemptively, to behave in certain ways by other men or be considered "lesser" by those men. It isn't feminists driving this. The fact that Metaphor insists that they can tell that anyone has a penis and testicles in their pants by how they act and look pressages that fact.

At best I see such anti-feminists as angry because the feminists want to take away their excuse for being a shitty person: "it's because I am a man; boys will be boys amirite?"

If being a man is no longer sufficient excuse for being an asshole, what ever will they do?

 

[ruby sparks]

Personally I want, as a feminist, to eliminate the culturally driven ideas that men must be any particular thing. Men are treated some way preemptively because men are expected, preemptively, to behave in certain ways by other men or be considered "lesser" by those men. It isn't feminists driving this. The fact that Metaphor insists that they can tell that anyone has a penis and testicles in their pants by how they act and look pressages that fact.

At best I see such anti-feminists as angry because the feminists want to take away their excuse for being a shitty person: "it's because I am a man; boys will be boys amirite?"

If being a man is no longer sufficient excuse for being an asshole, what ever will they do?

Hm. To me, complaining about Feminism is as valid as any other valid complaint. It may be true that some do it for the reason you suggest, but 'there's always some', for almost any issue.

I agree with the first part of your post though, except I would as much include 'expected by women'. Mileage will vary, obviously.

And of course the same is true in reverse for women. They too are often 'expected' to be....certain things (by both men and by women). Less so than in the past in western societies of course. But to some extent gender roles can be quite resistant to change, for a variety of reasons.

 

[Politesse]

It matters what they're being expected to be, though, surely? There is ugliness on both sides of gender expectations, to be sure, but no men are expected to be responsible for both the bulk of domestic and vocational labor, for instance. The child-like, violent stereotype of men is very damaging to young men. But it is also, in a way, an expression of privilege, that is more likely to beget than prevent violence whether against women or against young men who are accused of femininity or homsoexuality. I think it needs to be countered for everyone's sake, not just "for women" or "for men".

 

[Emily Lake]

The "standard" view of an older male taking advantage of or coercing a younger female don't undermine gender-neutral laws. They're the "norm" for which the law was originally written.

The OTHER combinations - adults of either sex taking advantage of younger males, or older females taking advantage of younger females - are the ones where our socially-conditioned assumptions of gendered behavior can reduce the effectiveness of a gender-neutral law. Especially those cases where the younger partner is male, because there's a sex-based bias that assumes that pubescent males are always horny and can't possibly be harmed by sex with an older person, especially if that older person is female. There's a sex-based bias that an older female engaging in sex with a pubescent male is a "reward" or a "conquest" for the younger male - something he should be proud of. That bias undermines the effectiveness of gender-neutral language in the law.

Nope. Still not making sense to me. Again, the article is not doing the traditional norm, it is instead doing the possible effects on case outcomes of the new non-gender legal language, and straight male adults stand to be potentially (and in that category beneficially) affected as much as any other (smaller) group in light of that change of language, specifically in relation to what the writer herself calls, and what we all seem to agree are, gendered assumptions, and via that set of socially-conditioned assumptions to the fully relevant issue (raised early in the article, indeed implied in the article title) of traditionally less lenient views taken of male perpetrators, and outcomes for them, and what has been described as a double standard, which, it seems, has led to straight, male offenders (the largest group involved) to be the one historically worst affected by outcomes. As such, a case study showing either (a) that the new non-gender language hasn't changed anything for male perpetrators having sex with underage girls or (b) that it has changed something, surely would have been interesting and pertinent.

Let me try a different approach.

Starting Point: Men aren't allowed to have sex with underage girls"

Premise: Older men take advantage of naive young women, exploit their developing minds, and end up exerting coercive control over them. Underage girls are not sophisticated enough to realize that they're being taken advantage of, and aren't cognitively mature enough to give informed consent.

Social gender roles confirm this view, because girls are viewed as delicate, innocent, vulnerable, and to be protected. Girls that age don't (read shouldn't) want to have sex anyway, and they need to be shielded from it. Plus they could get pregnant.

Law Change: Older people aren't allowed to have sex with underage people

Premise: Older people, regardless of their sex, can exploit and take advantage of younger people, because younger people (regardless of sex) aren't cognitively developed. Sometimes young boys get taken in by older people too.

Social gender roles do NOT confirm this view, for several reasons. First off, and most apparent, is the assumption that pubescent boys want sex and are horny all the time. Boys and men in general are assumed to be less naive and more knowledgeable than girls. Plus, they don't get pregnant, so there's no real harm done to boys who have sex at a young age.

Study: We put gender neutral language into place, but social gender roles hold very different assumptions for girls and boys. We already know the intent for the original law, and that view is already supported by social gender roles. We'd like to find out if gender roles around young boys might be getting in the way of this law being fairly and justly applied to both sexes.

 

[Emily Lake]

I haven't said that prejudiced feelings are morally wrong or unreasonable. I don't think any feelings are morally wrong, nor is it unreasonable to notice patterns and associations. I have prejudiced feelings all the time. If I'm walking alone at night, I'm going to be less anxious if the group of people up ahead is three elderly women rather than three men in their late teens or early 20s.

Why are you less anxious of old women than of young men?

Do you think this is an irrational and bigoted response?

 

[Emily Lake]

There are some feminists who believe women don't belong in prison--for anything. They'd certainly disagree with you.

Some people are dumb. Your quip is kind of irrelevant here, don't you think?

 

[Emily Lake]

EDIT: Found it
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...ould-stop-putting-women-in-jail-for-anything/

Thanks.

That certainly seems to go too far, even if there is a case for putting fewer women in prison (which there may well be, and indeed men too, as the writer acknowledges briefly). And yes, she is a Feminist it seems, as you say (I checked).

The article did also say that the ultimate goal is to reduce imprisonment for everyone... but suggests starting with women. Obviously, it's a bit of a feminist approach. There's also a much lower rate of violent offence among women, and a much lower rate of recidivism, and a much lower flight risk in general.

Substantially revising drug laws would get rid of a huge number of male prisoners, as well as a huge number of female prisoners. If they also stopped incarcerating sex workers (feel free to go after consumers if it tickles your fancy), it would leave only a small fraction of the currently incarcerated women in prison.

 

[Emily Lake]

There is a strong reason to object to the 'reasoning' in Bagaric's piece. One of his arguments is essentially: women as a group don't commit as much crime as men, so don't put them in prison for anything. He has the line:

Moreover, when it comes to sexual offences, rounded off to the nearest whole number, women constitute 0% of all offenders – that’s right, zero.

He doesn't say where he sourced this statistic, but he treats it as if it implies women actually do not perpetrate sexual offences of any kind!

He says women commit 17% of serious crimes, and later on indicates that women are 8% of the prison population. In other words, women are already getting sentenced more lightly than men, and he thinks that's still too much!

You are correct that Bagaric doesn't seem to publish other articles from a feminist perspective, but especial concern for the perceived suffering of women is not limited to feminist thought or feminists.

I think his rounding is a bit "over-rounded". But it is true that 98% of sexual crimes are committed by men.

Regarding the rest... women are less likely to be repeat offenders, which contributes in part to the lower percentage of incarcerated people being women. I think it's also likely to be skewed by different sentencing lengths for different types of crimes, and since the types of crimes aren't evenly distributed between male and female offenders, I wouldn't expect the total current proportion of prisoners to be the same as the offense rates.

 

[Metaphor]

The fact that Metaphor insists that they can tell that anyone has a penis and testicles in their pants by how they act and look pressages that fact.

The fact that Jarhyn thinks that I am generally incapable of telling one sex from another says significantly more about him than about me.

At best I see such anti-feminists as angry because the feminists want to take away their excuse for being a shitty person: "it's because I am a man; boys will be boys amirite?"

Only in the fever-dreams of feminists do people actually say 'boys will be boys' to excuse shitty behaviour.

People say 'boys will be boys' when male toddlers have torn and soiled their clothes from the kind of rough and tumble play more typical of boys. People say 'boys will be boys' when a teenage boy comes home from school and eats 1,000 calories before dinner. And in feminist la-la land only, people excuse gang-rape by shrugging and saying 'well, boys will be boys'.

If being a man is no longer sufficient excuse for being an asshole, what ever will they do?

I don't know Jarhyn. What do you do to excuse yourself?

 

[Metaphor]

I haven't said that prejudiced feelings are morally wrong or unreasonable. I don't think any feelings are morally wrong, nor is it unreasonable to notice patterns and associations. I have prejudiced feelings all the time. If I'm walking alone at night, I'm going to be less anxious if the group of people up ahead is three elderly women rather than three men in their late teens or early 20s.

Why are you less anxious of old women than of young men?

Do you think this is an irrational and bigoted response?

I am less afraid of old women than young men because old women are less likely to attack me in the first place, and because if they did I am far more confident of my ability to overpower them. (I might change my mind if the old women were obviously on drugs--people do fucking violent, crazy, unexpected shit when they are high on certain drugs and they might be armed).

I am struggling to understand why you think I would have called it 'irrational'.

The response is prejudiced, but I would not say 'bigoted'. It's prejudiced because I'm pre-judging a group of people based on the characteristics of some of them, or applying an average when of course there exists individual differences in all groups.

Possibly the problem is that 'prejudiced' has a very unsavoury connotation? Yet it's the only term that fits in this situation.

Women are not somehow wrong to have personal prejudices that make them afraid of men. In fact, I completely understand it. But it's wrong to discriminate against men and form policy on this prejudice. I also find it morally dubious to expect the men who don't pose a risk to alter their behaviour to suit the prejudices of women (or anyone).