Joan Bakewell, a British commentator, continues the feminazi trend of demonising men and glorifying women. These articles are full of the usual feminist conceits that mothers are more important than fathers, that only men are violent (with the disgusting corollary that violent women are mere subsidiaries of male violence e.g. Myra Hindley), that mainly women suffer abusive relationships, that women fare worse in prison than men, and so on. It’s all hogwash.
To quote a friend: ‘The fact that such opinions are taken seriously in the mainstream press shows just how much trouble we are in as a society. Imagine an article called “How to solve the prisons crisis: free all the whites”. Would that be acceptable? Yet this is the same.’
Just to be clear, I value equality of the sexes in the law, a level playing field, and other attributes of first wave feminism. I do not value half of humanity being treated primarily as potential/probable violent rapists and paedophiles.
Mainstream media like controversial issues as much as they like the cash they bring in.
If you look at the comments, you’ll be happy to see the lack of support for the proposition. What you may not be as happy to see, is how some use the article to make sweeping statements about feminists and women in general.
Yes, the response is encouraging. But I am unhappy that mainstream feminism is not what most people seem to think it is. There are two broad classes of feminist, labeled ‘equity feminist’ and ‘gender feminist’ by Christina Hoff Sommers in “Who Stole Feminism”.
The former are probably what most people, male and female, think of as feminists, and it is hard to disagree with their aims of equality. I have always thought they made sense.
The latter are endlessly preoccupied with putting men down, and promoting preferential treatment for women in all contexts. And with portraying women as victims of male violence as if no other relationship is possible, while ignoring the violence that women commit against each other and against men. These fantasists regard our society as a male conspiracy to victimise women.
Sadly for us all, it is this poisonous bunch of misandrists who are in the ascendency in influential academic and political circles.
If you think about it, every movement has it nuts. The Black rights movement had Malcolm X, even though he was for equal rights, he went about it in the opposite direction that MLK, Jr did. The whites have the KKK, enough said there. And the muslims have Jihad. It can all be taken to the extreme by any one individual. And usually, that one individual has stupid friends who agree with them, and the club gets bigger and bigger. While not everyone in the organization is a r-tard, it can be said that most do it just to be on the band wagon, try to be a part of something they know nothing about, to be on TV for when your club gets shafted. Then, its ok to take that t-shirt in the store front window, OJ was innocent!
I don’t think we should close all women’s prisons, of course.
But in the UK we do have more of the population behind bars than most other developed countries, and certainly more than most other democracies.
People only go to prison when they’ve already committed the offence, been caught, and convicted. Something that prevented them committing the offence would be far better for everyone.
I believe that two things prevent people from committing offences:
[LIST=1]
The certainty of being caught.
The certainty of the disapproval of their peers.
[/LIST]
Money can buy the first.
Only social reconstruction can achieve the second.
Myra Hindley and Rose West are the “iconic” proof that some women deserve to be in prison for a long time.
But below them in the pecking order are many thousands of women who are victims of circumstances: people who have made bad choices; prostitutes, drug addicts, abused wives and girlfriends and so on.
Uncomfortable as it is, we still live in a society where men are socially, economically and politically dominant. Add to that the simple fact of superior physical strength and greater aggression, and men feature strongly in the list of reasons why some women are driven to desperation and end up in prison.
Fair point, but possibly more relevant to a different but overlapping debate. I should have prefixed my own comment with, "In theory… "[people only go to prison when…]
No, but I believe it is a reasonably accurate description of the morality of society at large.
There is autonomous morality and heteronomous morality. (Auto = self; hetero = other.)
Autonomous morality is the sort where you make a moral decision purely for internal reasons. Heteronomous morality is when your moral decisions are primarily influenced by the fear of the actions of other people if youre found out.
Some religions appear to control large parts of the population by convincing them there is an all-seeing God who will see them and punish them even if no one else does. This exploits the general tendency to heteronomous morality.
If evidence is required that large parts of the population do not make their own internal moral judgements, look at what happens when a change in society suddenly gives “permission” to behave badly: the widespread sadism and brutality found under Nazi and fascist regimes, or in fundamentalist societies.
Soldiers from every country commit attrocities when the “permission” appears to be there. A small number have the strength and internal morality to stand up against it. Read about this guy: Hugh Thompson Jr. - Wikipedia.
He did what he thought was right, and got his official recognition posthumously, 30 years after the event. On occasions before that, the greatest country in the world treated his courageous and moral actions as if he were a traitor.
In the line of my work, I have dealt with thousands of people from all social backgrounds from the very rich down to the extremely poor and underprivileged. Whether it is a dispute over liability for a motor accident, or an attempt to exaggerate a claim for a piece of jewellery, the overwhelming experience I have over 27 years in the job is that most people’s morality is based largely on what they can get away with without incurring the condemnation of their peers.
I don’t claim to be perfect but I do claim to have spent more time and effort than most in reading and thinking about these things, and I am (un)lucky enough to have a strong sense of autonomy.
About 70% of people on death row in the USA who were exonerated by DNA evidence were wrongly convicted by eye witness testimony. Apparently many innocent people are convicted, and even put to death.
White priveledge, and higher socioeconomic status, grants access to crimes which are less likely to be discovered or prosecuted.
women and poor people are forced into “alternative economies” where they are not making victims – except prostitutes themselves are victims.
So it’s the other people that can only be persuaded to do the right thing out of fear of repercussions, but not you. Doesn’t that sound a bit elitist to you?
Sure, but it seems to me that the morality of their god mimics their own morality. Just look at the different stances toward homosexuality of different Christian sects. Or the way the Catholic church has changed over the decades.
It is probably the thinking part that makes the difference. It is hard, can be uncomfortable and doesn’t always get you where you thought you were headed. It’s easier to not do so and just try to avoid repercussions.
Someone earlier made a similar point which I acknowledged.
This is true, and a corrolary of part of what I said. If some people are disadvantaged and have low socioeconomic status, it follows that some others are the opposite. The point that these privileged people have opportunities to commit crimes which are less likely to be discovered and prosecuted is a good one.
Forced, coerced, persuaded, drawn… I note you use the passive case. “women and poor people are forced…” rather than the active case, “women and poor people choose…” I think I broadly agree with you, although Sartre probably wouldn’t have.
Not quite what I said. Most people are persuaded to do the right thing largely out of the fear of repercussions. A small number of people choose to do the right thing despite the repercussions. I do count myself in the small number, by observation of actual decisions I have made at crucial times. Whether that is “leitist”, “elite” or merely “wishful thinking” is for others to decide.
No doubt, man portrays God in his own image - regardless of whether God exists. But I was referring to the leaders rather than the followers. The most famous (fairly) relevant quotation is that “Religion is the opiate of the masses.” Religion is capable of being used as a tool for behavioural control. The Roman Catholic Church (which is not the same as the Catholic Church) is widely seen as promoting feelings of guilt in its followers.
I agree. People like certainty; that is the root of many forms of bigotry. Far easier to believe all gypsies are thieves than to get to know each gypsy as an individual and make your own judgement. Far easier to say all homosexual activity is wrong than to consider the many subtleties of homosexual behaviour and compare and contrast them with mainstream heterosexual behaviour.
(Put this another way: in Nottingham tonight, many hundreds of girls will have heterosexual one night stands. Some of those will catch STDs: some will fall pregnant and bring ther children up alone on state benefits; a few will be date raped. It’s a social mess that is a real issue that needs addressing by our so-called moral leaders. Meanwhile the Anglican church is far more worried that one of its male Bishops might have a genuine and deep love for a male partner.)
I find feminism to often be offensive. It makes us guys look like a whole bunch of greedy, selfish chauvinist pigs. This is not the case at all.
I think both women and men are equally greedy of what men are accused of being by feminists. There are some evil selfish sexist ones, and there are some nice ones.
I said:Originally Posted by Mikefule
… Meanwhile the Anglican church is far more worried that one of its male Bishops might have a genuine and deep love for a male partner.
About once a year over here we have the news headline, “Church warns homosexuality might cause a split.”
