Monday, May 11, 2009

Reader links on male injustice

Many of you have been sending links this week to stories of male injustice, or stories of interest. I thought I would share a few with other readers. First, there is this story (thanks to the reader who sent it) on sexting where the male teen in the case is put under house arrest and the female must (gasp!) do a research paper:

Two Mason teens who were charged earlier this year with "sexting" nude photos on their cell phones were sentenced today in Warren County Juvenile Court.

The teens admitted to charges of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, misdemeanors of the first degree, according to an announcement from the Warren County Prosecutor's Office.

Juvenile Court Judge Mike Powell sentenced each teen to 100 hours of community service and counseling. The male teen was sentenced to house arrest for 30 days while the female will be required to submit a research paper to the court relating to the dangers of “sexting.”

The teens will be required to turn over their cell phones to a probation officer for 30 days. The sentence also allows for the offenses to be dismissed from their records if they fully complete the terms of the sentence.

“This is a just and adequate punishment,” Warren County Prosecutor Rachel Hutzel said. “It sends a message to the teens of Warren County that this is not a joke, this is a serious issue that can have long lasting consequences.


Can anyone explain to me why the male got a stiffer sentence?

Next up is a sexist story sent in by another reader about male birth control called, "Why I'll NEVER trust a man who says he's had the contraceptive jab... and neither should any girl." What I find ironic is when the author says:

Without being too indelicate, there's also the question of proof. How on earth can a woman know that the man really has had the injection?

Imagine the scenario: boy meets girl, and, like so many young women now, she doesn't know the man particularly well.

As they strip and get into bed, she asks him if he has 'brought anything'. He says: 'Don't worry, I've had the jab.'

What woman in her right mind would believe that? At least you can see a condom with your own eyes. Or would they issue sperm-free certificates for men to carry around with their driving licences to prove they're up to date with their jabs?

But most important of all, you can't buck human nature. Deep inside every man who still has his own hair and teeth, and even those who don't, is a sexual predator who will have sex anywhere, anytime, if he can.


My question is, why is it that if a woman tells a man she is on the pill and she gets pregnant because she lies about it, people say the man should have known better and blame him--and these blamers are often women. I hardly think anyone will blame a woman if she ends up pregnant from a man who lies. Men have been dealing with this situation for years, glad to know the shoe is on the other foot now. And don't even get me started on the "every man is a sexual predator."

I do want to add that if I was male, I would protect myself if I did not want children by getting this contraceptive so I would be at less risk of getting a woman pregnant. This, along with DNA testing, could provide more sexual freedom for men since they have no rights when it comes to pregnancy.

Finally, another reader sends in a sad story about a man who, it seems, killed his wife in an accident with a chain saw. The reader appropriately makes the point, "Seems like a tragic accident, but I'll be trying to find updates to see if the husband gets punished more harshly than Mary Winkler."

Reader, please keep us informed. And if other readers have thoughts on these issues, share them below.

Labels:

41 Comments:

Blogger MikeT said...

Between child support and the typical male desire to have consequence-free sex when he's not ready to have kids with a woman he can trust, most women have absolutely nothing to fear on that front. They have everything to fear about an increased risk of STDs.

4:15 PM, May 11, 2009  
Blogger slwerner said...

On the subject of links to examples of injustices done to men, I'd also profer The False Rape Society http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/

A person could spend a whole day just getting started with the examples they've covered.

And, ditto what MikeT said.

4:46 PM, May 11, 2009  
Blogger Bill said...

When referring to males getting worse punishment than females for sexually charged crimes, are you sure you want to use the phrase "stiffer sentence?"

Bill
http://willstuff.wordpress.com

5:39 PM, May 11, 2009  
Blogger TMink said...

I wrote the gal who called me a repressed sexual predator.

""Deep inside every man who still has his own hair and teeth, and even those who don't, is a sexual predator who will have sex anywhere, anytime, if he can. "

Wow, you are really a sexist pig aren't you? There is no reason for any thoughtful man or woman to ever read a word you write given your deep seated neurosis and paranoia. Get some help, go to a therapist, deal with your own sexual abuse, but stop writing about any issue that you are completely compromised about in terms of reality testing.

Trey"

I wonder if they will run the post. Nah, they will say I am being inflamatory and sexist.

Maybe I can be banned from visiting England!

Trey

6:21 PM, May 11, 2009  
Blogger Archivist said...

Thanks, slwerner. Our readership has exploded the past few months, due mostly to astute readers like you. Pierce Harlan
False Rape Society

7:48 PM, May 11, 2009  
Blogger KG2V said...

"Can anyone explain to me why the male got a stiffer sentence? "

Was the pun intended?

10:04 PM, May 11, 2009  
Blogger TMink said...

Freud was wrong about many things, but it is har. . ., I mean, it is difficult to discuss sexual matters without a Freudian slip.

Trey

11:27 PM, May 11, 2009  
Blogger randian said...

Can anyone explain to me why the male got a stiffer sentence? Because female criminals aren't fully responsible for their crimes, they're really just puppets of their male co-defendant.

That kind of sentencing disparity is SOP for multiple-offender crimes.

1:55 AM, May 12, 2009  
Blogger J. Bowen said...

Can anyone explain to me why the male got a stiffer sentence?She was on her period.

2:04 AM, May 12, 2009  
Blogger GawainsGhost said...

Well, there was an article in the local paper down here this morning about two taco stand waitresses that conspired to hire a hit man to kill one's common law husband. They were successful; the man is dead.

They were also arrested and plead guilty to the conspiracy, recieving sentences of 10 and 17 years respectively. I guess the reason why they're not both going to prison for life is because neither of them actually killed the man, merely conspired to hire someone to murder him.

But that doesn't make any sense. I thought murder-for-hire was a worse crime than murder itself. Oh, that's right, there were women involved. Poor oppressed little souls, surely they must have a good reason to have a man killed.

7:34 AM, May 12, 2009  
Blogger Trust said...

Women Who Kill Too Much and the Courts That Free Them: The Twelve 'Female-Only' Defenses and Six Binders:

http://www.harrysnews.com/tgWomenWhoKillTooMuch.htm

I don't think women kill more than men, but I do think they get away with it far more. It's impossible to know the real numbers, but I am pretty confident the numbers would shock many (on second thought, maybe not, there wasn't much shock over Mary Winkler).

7:52 AM, May 12, 2009  
Blogger Helen said...

KG2V,

"Was the pun intended?"

Not consciously.

8:00 AM, May 12, 2009  
Blogger TMink said...

Trust wrote: "I don't think women kill more than men,"

Well, not adults. Women are responsible for most of the murders of children.

Trey

8:11 AM, May 12, 2009  
Blogger Trust said...

@TMink said... "Well, not adults. Women are responsible for most of the murders of children."
____________

True. Of course, I think women are far more likely to be around children than men. But, and this is part of the problem, Farrell also cites a stat that "a man is 25 times more likely to go to prison for inappropriately fondling a child than a woman is for killing of maiming one."

Anytime you remove punishment, you remove disincentive to avoid certain behaviors.

8:20 AM, May 12, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

Women are more likely to use surreptitious methods such as poisoning. If the woman is also a better manipulator (and can appear to be an innocent person) they were historically not caught at all before the advent of modern poison detection techniques.

But even today - as I understand it - many poisons cannot be detected and many or most autopsies do not even include a broad screen for lesser-used poisons. If there even IS an autopsy.

Men seem to be direct as a gender/sex (they will also directly kill) and women are more indirect (manipulative?) as a gender/sex (they will also kill people in indirect ways).

I suspect that lots of women who used poisoning, hepping up another man to kill the target etc. are going free.

8:36 AM, May 12, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

Mary Winkler was kind of stupid to just shoot her husband in the back as he slept - but she didn't get into much trouble anyway.

Maybe that's why society is seeing a rise in violent women (who also kill directly) - if they get very little punishment ANYWAY, why go to the trouble of doing something in a sneaky way?

8:38 AM, May 12, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8:40 AM, May 12, 2009  
Blogger Novaseeker said...

Their advocates are also looking to change the criminal law in several ways that would be even more indulgent to women:

1. Change the "heat of passion" partial defense that allows murder to be commuted to manslaughter, so that women can get the benefit of this if they kill their spouse the next day or the next week, rather than actually in the "heat of passion" as the rule has always required. This would make most murder charges against women who kill their husbands impossible, with manslaughter being the highest possible crime.

2. Change the self defense full defense for women such that, unlike the way the rule has always worked in requiring proportionate force in response to a currently taking place or immediately imminent attack, women would be able to 'retaliate' later on -- hours or even days later -- and still claim their retaliation was in self-defense and therefore be fully immune to being criminally liable. This would allow women to escape liability for most attacks and killings of their husbands or partners.

3. Get rid of women's prisons altogether. Baroness Corston in the UK proposed this a few years ago -- her recommendation was to convert all women's prisons to male prisons, and have women's sentences be served during the daytime hours only in community detention centers, so that they could spend the evenings with their families and children.

-----------

As feminism marches on, these changes will be advanced in the legislatures. Some of them will pass, and women will be given, in effect, a license to kill their husbands, boyfriends and partners with impunity.

12:38 PM, May 12, 2009  
Blogger Brooklyn Redneck said...

Novaseeker,

Men do not need to take this. Take a hint from out islamic friends and start practicing "honor killings". the only that keeps women (who are basically immoral when it comes to sex) in line is violence and male leadership.

4:58 PM, May 12, 2009  
Blogger Trust said...

@Brooklyn Redneck said... "Men do not need to take this. Take a hint from out islamic friends and start practicing "honor killings". the only that keeps women (who are basically immoral when it comes to sex) in line is violence and male leadership."
____________

Aside from the fact that murdering a woman just because she's a bitch is immoral (as it should be), I guarantee if you "lead by example" on this one you will in no way be getting the Mary Winkler treatment by our justice system.

In fact, you may very well find yourself in a world where rape and abuse of a woman is acceptable--only difference is you'll be the woman in prison.

It's responses like this that give feminists ammunition to say they are oppressed and need protective laws.

6:22 PM, May 12, 2009  
Blogger GawainsGhost said...

Sugar and spice and everything nice? My ass.

That said, I totally agree with Trust. It's far better to just ignore her completely.

6:27 PM, May 12, 2009  
Blogger Mary said...

Can anyone explain to me why the male got a stiffer sentence?She was on her period.Naw. They just figured they'd go easy on the guy, knowing it would take him longer than 100 hours of "house arrest" for him to "submit a research paper to the court relating to the dangers of “sexting.” .... Heh. (oh lighten up -- it was a joke. Surely the average sexting boy would have that thing done in ... 90, 95 hours, say...)

And re. : these blamers are often women. I hardly think anyone will blame a woman if she ends up pregnant from a man who lies. I will.
And I'm done giving baby shower gifts in those situations too.

(When oh when will we wise up and realize it's not ignorance and more education of the facts of life that are needed, but cultural u-turns in so many cases. I'm betting that 50 - 90% of "unplanned" pregnancies actually were "wanted" by one party or the other ... often naive, un-critical-thinking women who have no clue what they are getting themselves into when they let such an accident occur...

All the best, helen!

7:58 PM, May 12, 2009  
Blogger Mary said...

Btw -- what is up these days with women teacher sexxing it up with male students? Has this always occured but never came to light, or are there slimmer pickings for the ladies these days so that they're committing statutory rape to get a piece of action?

Another story out of Cretin-Durham Hall in St. Paul this week, helen, if you're following these things too...

8:00 PM, May 12, 2009  
Blogger Laura(southernxyl) said...

"Has this always occured but never came to light"

I've wondered that, too. I wonder if it's always occurred but the idea that you still sometimes run across, that all sex is good sex for a male, was prevalent enough that it would have been seen as a victimless crime.

10:26 PM, May 12, 2009  
Blogger TMink said...

Part of the imbalance is, I think, from the view of women as property and that all they have to give a man is their virginity.

How strange that such an abhorent idea lingers on in sentencing inequity.

Trey

10:36 PM, May 12, 2009  
Blogger Mary said...

...that all sex is good sex for a male, was prevalent enough that it would have been seen as a victimless crime.Or, it was never "reported to authorities", for those very same reasons. Nowadays -- more "proof" w/cell ph. records, text messages, other electronic tracking, etc.

Have you read McMurtry's Last Picture Show in Texas? That was the Coach's wife, not a teacher herself, and fictional, but a realistic enough portrayal of the pre-cell ph. days, I'm guessing.

6:34 AM, May 13, 2009  
Blogger Mary said...

How strange that such an abhorent idea lingers on in sentencing inequity.
That's only if your assumption of the reasoning behind it holds true though. I'm guessing, that's not it though. Probably they tried to fit the punishment to the gender: make her think about it and write up her "feelings" in a paper; "How strange that such an abhorent idea lingers on in sentencing inequity.
"isolate" him from friends and associations by keeping him at home "thinking about what he's done."

I think it's more the assumption of the "doer" and the "misled" person, stereotypically being masculine and feminine, despite the fact that (or becausee even?)no one is looking to the Adam and Eve literature for basic instruction countering that myth...

I agree that the punishments should have been equal though, since it's probably more personality than gender who's leading who at that tender age and all. Particularly if it was just sexting and no actual sex/loss of virginity on trial as Trey suggests.

6:44 AM, May 13, 2009  
Blogger Laura(southernxyl) said...

The article really doesn't have enough detail to determine why the school people might have felt that the two deserved different punishments. Possibly there was no good reason. Or maybe she sent the pictures to him alone (still a stupid thing to do) and he disseminated them to everybody he could think of without her knowledge or consent. I can kind of see differentiating between them if that was the case. Further, suppose for the sake of argument that he had insisted that she send him the pix and promised her that no one would see them. I have no reason to think that that was the case here - once again, the article is too lacking in detail to know what really happened - but if it was the case I would probably not punish both in the same way. Actually, I'm glad that I don't have those situations to deal with.

7:33 AM, May 13, 2009  
Blogger TMink said...

Mary wrote: "Probably they tried to fit the punishment to the gender:"

That is exactly my point Mary.

"I think it's more the assumption of the "doer" and the "misled" person, stereotypically being masculine and feminine"

Again, that is exactly my point.

Trey

8:19 AM, May 13, 2009  
Blogger Mary said...

Sorry you didn't make your points clearer in writing originally, Trey.

Now go sit in the corner for 10 hours ...

8:24 AM, May 13, 2009  
Blogger TMink said...

Perhaps the problem was with my clarity, perhaps the problem was in your being oppositional.

Telling me to sit in the corner gives more credence to one! I bet you can figure out which one!

Trey

12:59 PM, May 13, 2009  
Blogger Trust said...

They identified the woman from the chainsaw accident and gave some more details. The authorities so far are ruling out foul play. Her name was Debra Daniels, 39, and it appears her husband, Jerry Danniel simply did not see her approach him from behind. It looks like her husband won't be charged.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/272500

Seems like the correct call, but it is sad that our system is so lost that we had legimate worries that he would get punished worse than Mary Winkler.

8:14 AM, May 14, 2009  
Blogger wolfboy69 said...

Trust,

Glad that someone is using a little common sense in that case. It's way too rare in our judicial system nowadays.

In relation to the Mary Winkler thing, I was watching the news this morning just before heading to work, and there was a commercial for Oprah (I live in chicago). She is going to have on a woman who shot her husband 11 times.

11:40 AM, May 14, 2009  
Blogger Mary said...

Perhaps the problem was with my clarity, perhaps the problem was in your being oppositional. Lol... no Trey, I think you just weren't very clear in what you wrote the first time around.

Perhaps next time, concentrate more on the direct point you wish to make, as I did in my comment that you agreed with, and steer away from "side" point like the virginity/property example you fixed early on.

Then -- your main point, apparently echoed in my comment -- would have been much clearer to readers outside your own head. (Sometimes it's difficult to edit/proofread/comprehend one's own work, because you assume that everyone is coming at the material the way you did, as the writer.)

Hope this is helpful to you in the future, and you don't take my criticism as "opposition." Not meant to be such, and I'm not looking to top you here or anything. Just better communicate...

2:39 PM, May 14, 2009  
Blogger Mary said...

ps. The "go sit in the corner" line was a joke, if I need to spell that out. See, it went with the general theme of this post, "Boys sit it out as punishment. Girls write an essay..."

If you didn't get that, nevermind. But I won't apologize if you took offense at a joke that was mean in good play. That sets a bad precedent, imo...

2:41 PM, May 14, 2009  
Blogger Mary said...

(Next time, I'll use the reliable emoticon. As in, "Now go sit in the corner for 10 hours ..."

:-)

People don't like em, but I swear they help communicate online!)

2:50 PM, May 14, 2009  
Blogger Trust said...

@GawainsGhost said... "I thought murder-for-hire was a worse crime than murder itself. Oh, that's right, there were women involved. Poor oppressed little souls, surely they must have a good reason to have a man killed."
__________

Related to this true story...

"Dixie Dyson tucked in her husband for his last night's sleep. She had arranged to have a lifelong friend and a boyfriend pretend to "break and enter,", then rape her, kill her husband, then "escape." She would collect the insurance money. At the last moment, the lifelong friend backed out, but the boyfriend and Dixie managed to kill Dixie's husband after 27 stabbings. They were caught. Dixie "cut a deal" to reduce her sentence by reporting the boyfriend and his friend. The friend who backed out got 25 years for conspiracy."
http://www.harrysnews.com/tgWomenWhoKillTooMuch.htm

2:00 AM, May 17, 2009  
Blogger Trust said...

Here's a more detailed story with a picture of the chainsaw accident victim.
http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2009/05/details_emerge_in_chain_saw_ac.html

12:14 PM, May 17, 2009  
Blogger 9988 said...

smilinfaaeod,nteoyma,alsosor,itnbtween,huonHappie-notistig-mA-aouie~shapp<-ectation............

11:40 AM, May 24, 2009  
Blogger 9988 said...

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...

11:41 AM, May 24, 2009  
Blogger 9988 said...

H i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11:42 AM, May 24, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home