|
|
 |
|
Getting On : All My Politics
Death Penalty | from itsxena2u - Wednesday, May 05, 2004
accessed 2949 times I'm not sure if this subject has been brought up before, but I was wondering where everyone stands on the subject of administering the death penalty for murderers.
I personally don't really know what to think on this subject. I feel that the death penalty via lethal injection is a painless way to die and not much of a punishment if you ask me. (Unless you believe in Hell and therefore they will burn for all eternity) Simply giving a convicted murderer a quick and painless death as punishment for rape, torture and murder is simply not fair! I think they should suffer dearly in prison for the rest of their evil lives. And let the other criminals give them a "taste of their own medicine".
On the other hand, if someone raped or killed my child I would want them killed! I would go insane with hatred and revenge and would not rest until I see the guilty one pay with his life! Prisons in the U.S. are so overpopulated with prisoners and consume so much of our tax money. |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from KennyZ
Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 11:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
I can understand anyone´s visceral reaction to anybody killing or raping their son or daughter; mine, in the heat of the moment, would probably be "kill the S.O.B". However, in principle, I am 100% against the death penalty. I don´t believe it is right. I do believe in life imprisonment, however, and believe more "teeth" must be into it; I am convinced that in America and the West in general, reductions in any sentence handed down for murder should be close to non-existent, if not nil.
(reply to this comment)
| from Cultinvator
Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 02:56
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Yea, the death penalty doesn't solve problems for the most part. There are some people who's death I don't cry over, but I agree that the government should not play 'God' on this issue. They have the right to keep dangerous criminals off the streets who kill without hesitation.
For one, if people think that keeping killers in jail is expensive, they should look at how much the legislation to kill them costs. I've heard that the legal fees to get rid of them surpass life imprisonment costs.
And you can't say, oh let's just skip the legalities, and just kill them if we have a bad hunch on why we feel they're to blame.
This topic does not have easy answers, especially for people who keep killing children and innocent people over and over. I would hope those who are involved in the loss would take a direct role in justice. But that's just my rebellion speaking. I know that revenge can start an endless chain of revenges too.
If one of my brothers is killed by a maniac, I won't think twice of risking jailtime to put a coldblooded killer to justice. I just won't expect the legal system to do it. The government just reflects the majority of interest groups I don't think it's to be trusted fully with individual's destinies.
For the most part I do find a use in government to organize the complexities of our overpopulated planet, including for the most part keeping the peace, and using force when necessary.
As to the later coment about men being caught guilty in most violent crimes, I know it's true statistically, but that figure can also be distorted to make it sound like our natures are naturally more agressive. I think our society's views on what is masculine, or what is whimpy an gay provokes and promotes a lot of aggressive behaviour, especially here in America, and other countries that have a strong 'machismo' attitude.
(reply to this comment)
| from exister
Monday, October 11, 2004 - 10:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
First, let us put this article in context. Xena lives in the great state of Texas, where there are enough yeehaws, yahoos and lynch mob volunteers to elect ol' GW for governer. Now, it is debatable wether GW believes in tough justice or was just too simple to understand the legal complexities of capital punishment, but the result was that he presided over more executions than any governer in US history and granted few if any stays of execution.
I would think it obvious to anyone who thinks about it that the idea of the all powerful state extinguishing the life of someone over whom it has complete control is almost the definition of absurdity. There is simply no reasonable justification for the state to take this action. It is only done to pander to the misguided ideas of the populace. Apparently the masses seem to think that it serves as a deterrent and the victim's families seem to think (before the execution) that it will give them some sort of closure. Neither of these assumptions holds, and for most families the toxic bitterness and vengefulness that made them cry out for blood only consumes them more after they are deprived of a living person toward whom to channel it. They need therapy not death chamber visitor's passes.
Life and death are funny things and there are few valuation systems for them that make much sense. Nearly 3,000 American civilians were killed in the World Trade Center. Since then the US has killed over 15,000 Iraqi Civilians (this figuer does not count Iraqi military personnel). I know that some of you out there think these figures make sense in relation to each other. Please explain why you feel this way.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  From Jerseygirl
Monday, October 11, 2004, 15:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well seeing as I'm on a roll here, I have to say that I think the US has become so politically correct(and worried) that other countries are passing us up in research and health issues. Look to the future people!I wish to --- that we could do without all the crap that prevents us from seeing progress for what it is. Oh yeah--we're a super power--what am I saying! And as far as Senor Reeves, it seems to me that for his death to be headlines is just another sad irony for this country. VOTE KERRY!!!!!!!!!! VOTE for the future! (reply to this comment) |
| | from Vincet
Monday, October 11, 2004 - 08:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
About the Death Penalty. Proponents say it is a deterrent and saves money. Studies I've seen dispute these claims. The cost of the required appeals is actually more than lifetime imprisonment.
But That's not why I am against the death penalty, and I not against it because I think it is inhumane. Actually, I am against it because it is too easy for the felon. In addition, if we put some terrorist to death, he instantly becomes a famous martyr.
Consider the case of Timothy McVeigh. He's gone now, but I wish he was rotting in some penitentiary waiting for the day when a new prisioner, a fierce bank robber, becomes his roommate, and says, "Hey, I know you. You're Timothy McVeigh. You blew up that Oklahoma City building. My mother died in that explosion!
Imagine the possibilities.
(reply to this comment)
| from Baxter
Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 15:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
Do we assume that we can trust any body of people under any circumstances to protect the notion of justice? How can we delegate the power of life and death to any government whose wars or other actions have ever been other than completely justifiable? Is any human being capable of this responsibility? The notion of justice, to me, requires absolute adherence to absolute degree by the body to which we designate this power. Is there anywhere in the world where we might find such a body? Has there ever been such a body or bodies in history?
I'm not necessarily against the notion of killing, I just have a certain diffficulty associating the notion of justice with it. To kill a man or woman in the name of justice implies, to my mind, that there are moral absolutes; if these are not present then our justice is merely determined by consensus, and that's just majority rule rather than justice. Or, what is worse, justice determined by the priviledged minority imposed on the rest of us. Neither are true justice. So then we have to ask ourselves at what point do we consider moral absolutes and at which point we dismiss them.
Is killing a crime because it deprives a person of life? Or is the distinction of crime only in the motivation? This question again implies the gravity of the body to which we delegate the power to assert the distinction. How is killing one man any less of a crime than killing another? Is killing functionally compatible with the institution of justice?
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | from Joseph_S
Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 11:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
I was very pro death penalty until I met Sister Helen Prejean at a conference. Sr. Helen is the Roman Catholic Nun who wrote the book "Dead Man Walking".
She has a lot of good arguments against the death penalty, many from a religious standpoint, but that's not what got me.
The thing that she managed to drive home in my mind is that the death penalty in the US is most often handed out to the poor, uneducated and disabled.
I live in Los Angeles, and I remember when OJ Simpson was first arrested for the murders of his wife and her associate. Before one bit of testimony was heard, the D.A. announced to the press that they would NOT be seeking the death penalty.
I remember wondering why that would be? Was it because OJ was rich and famous? What other reason could there be? He wasn't even indicted yet. But, I have a suspicion that if a poor black man had hacked up two white people in a rich Los Angeles neighborhood, the D.A. would have been singing a different tune.
We have rich and famous murderers in this country, and we can't even get them convicted much less figure out how to legally kill them. Let's keep an eye on the Robert Blake trial, and see if anyone talks death penalty for this guy who is accused of murdering his own wife outside an L.A. restaurant.
If the death penalty were administered fairly in this country, I'd be for it. But, it seems to be a punishment reserved for the poor, disadvantaged and non-famous.
(reply to this comment)
| from cheeks
Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 13:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think nowadays, with DNA evidence it is much easier to catch and try the right criminal. In my State right now a man who was convited and sentenced to death for the muder and rape of a seven year old girl asked for a stay of execution. Not because he was not guilty, but because he said it was cruel and unusual punnishment. So far they have granted it. Why should part of my taxes go to keep this man alive when we have fewer than forty percent of registered teachers in my State? I say if we have undeniable proof of their guilt kill them. And while we are at it let's do it publicly maybe then someone will get the fear of man put in them.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | From cheeks
Friday, May 14, 2004, 06:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
Although it is true that some one could plant a false set it is highly unlikly. Most crime scene investigators look at things like blood spray paterns, semen in vigianal or anal cavities as well as on clothes, skin from under fingernails and such. This type of evidence is unlikly to be planted. Those people that were looked over were usually poor black males sad to say. They did not have the tecnology back then nor did they have the human rights activists that we now have.
Would I take a day off for a public hanging? I like to think not but neither would I feel sorry for the bloody bastard. After all he showed no remorse for his victims.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from moon beam
Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 11:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
Nick broomfeild did an excellant documentory on Elieen, America's first serial killer. She grew up in a christian community was raped consistantly as a child by her father, brother and her grandfather, who was actually her father as he raped her mom, who ran away from home at 13 and left her there. She became pregnant at 13 but because the family went to church and were considered "God fearing" threw her out, where she had to sleep in the woods for two yrs. The whole town knew what went on and instead of giving this kid help and arresting those responsible, spat on her and ostracized her from their community (real loving and christian eh!) She ran away and sold her body to get money and eventually killed 5 of her clients who were brutal to her. She was executed by Jeb Bush. Anyway it explores why society can abuse people and then blame the victim with the only mitigating circumstances being, she was possessed by the devil. The only devils in her life were the ones that were human!
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | From Ruthie
Saturday, May 15, 2004, 06:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
Oh, I saw that movie: Monster. Anyway, it's pretty good... Charleze Theron is awesome. You would never believe that she could look so ugly. The only thing that (I thought) was wrong with the movie was that it was overly sympathetic to the murderess. It was almost as if they made the movie specifically so people would feel sorry for her. But other than that it was great and I would recommend others to see it.(reply to this comment) |
| | from dave
Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 09:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
I am no law expert or experienced on this topic, but I think people like Charles Manson, Jeffery Dahlmer and the "Hannibal Lecters" of our time must be executed. Monsters who abduct women and girls and use them as sex slaves chained in basements for eons, and who eventually starve to death, should not be permitted to live. Whereas, some gang member who shot a cop or a rival out of "business", or a lover who kills another out of rage and jealousy or passion, although that's no excuse, is not the same as in my opinion as cutting someone open and torturing someone for days.
I wish I can say that the death penalty reduces crime, but the numbers to do not necessarily support that claim. There has to be consequnces though. Recently, a young radio host/dj was attacked in here apartment. She was robbed, raped then strangled to death by the intruder's bare hands... all this right across the street from the "safe" and ritzy downtown where I work. While crime is no supprize around here, the way in which people just take life as if it nothing is deeply troubling.
Having lived for some time in Johannesburg SA several years ago, I felt the pain of the poor who've suffered for so long. But, I could never understand why the robber couldn't just take the BMW, the rollex, the clothes, the credit cards... and go; why execute the whole family at pint blank range and leave them to die in a ditch on the side of the road? Don't the kids deserve a chance to grow up? The hatred in that place runs too deep. I kind of apply the same though process to Mideast politics: The only way the Palestinans will be taken seriously, is when they permanently abandon any and all suicide attacks, and violence... regardless what the Israeli policies are. Killings are just no answer.
Again, I am no expert on such complex law and political topics.. just a few thoughts.
(reply to this comment)
| From
Sunday, May 09, 2004, 12:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
From what I understand the Manson jury thought like you and he got death, but then California revoked its death penalty. Although California re-instituted it afterward (I don't know if it's still on the books today), they can't reapply it to the self-declared Son of Man ("Manson is Man's Son," as he declared).
So Manson gets to appear before the parole board with varying beard lengths and give interviews to journalists using his sleight-of-mouth ability to make his superficial acquaintance with a number of areas make him appear to be the repository of esoteric revelation, and his insanity and mental disorganization seem like brilliance -- not unlike Berg.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from Ruthie
Saturday, May 08, 2004 - 08:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167#STATES%20WITH%20THE%20DEATH%20PENALTY%20V.%20STATES%20WITHOUT
The death penalty is no deterrent to crime. States with the death penalty usually have higher crime rates.
Problems with the death penalty are that:
(a) The convictions are often proven to be false. People long thought to be guilty of crimes were exonerated. I know many people say that the new technologies and DNA-science make wrong convictions non-existent, but I don't agree with that. I respect science, but sometimes it is not exact. The main problem I have, however, with this is that I distrust many law enforcement officials. For example, people were often convicted based on confessions which were later exposed as false or obtained by unlawful means.
(b) The death penalty is applied inconsistently. Why are people who commit almost identical crimes given different sentences? Some judges/juries may want different sentences based on qualities that cannot be defined legally. For instance, a jury may suggest life in prison for a murderer because of a certain way he/she acts, smiles, looks, etc and death for one that did the same thing. I don't believe that the death penalty is effectively employed for justice. Do we really want to support capital punishment contingent on certain intangible qualities?
(c) It is hypocritical. Why is it acceptable for the state to kill a human but not for another person to do the same? Does killing someone right a wrong or create another wrong? You can't fix death with death- it doesn't make sense.
In my opinion, the only argument that is somewhat acceptable is that the death penalty is society's self-defense. But if one considers the aforementioned implications of capital punishment, the "self-defense" defense is not so clear. Also, there are other ways (jail) to defend society.
*Every time a person is put to death, it is done in your/my/ everyone's name(s).
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From Ruthie
Friday, May 14, 2004, 05:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
The death penalty was reinstated in 1976 in the US. Before 1976, most were blacks- a little over half. But after 1976, most were white men. Historically, the death penalty has had strong racial overtones. You can read more here: http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/death/history.html
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/drrace.htm
An important thing to remember here, though, is the disproportion of blacks vs. white. Blacks make up a much smaller percentage of the entire population. However, they are over-represented in jail and death row. 36 % of those on death row are black while blacks make up only 12 % of our population. Another interesting thing about death penalty cases is that 82 % of them involve white victims. Do you think that blacks deserve the death penalty more when they kill a white person? You can find an interesting article about that here: http://archive.aclu.org/executionwatch.html
Another interesting factor regarding the death penalty is its relation to poverty. Obviously, the wealthier you are, the more skillful of a lawyer you can employ. The ACLU also found (see link above) that “Ninety percent of criminal defendants in this country who are charged with a capital crime are indigent when arrested, and virtually all are penniless by the time their case reaches the appeals stage.” This suggests that such individuals have trouble avoiding the death penalty not just because they committed horrendous crimes, but also because they were too poor to receive adequate representation in court.
Here are some more interesting facts about capital punishment:
http://www.criminaljustice.org/public.nsf/deathpenalty/critical_info?opendocument
*Sorry to put so many links here but I find them interesting. Also, many people have misconceptions about crime and race… You have no idea how many think that racism and discrimination are archaic sentiments that no longer have an effect on the US. Here people are still discriminated against based on race and socioeconomic status, even though it is much more subtle now.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From frmrjoyish
Tuesday, October 12, 2004, 06:43
 (Agree/Disagree?)
That's because upwards of 98% of all violent crimes are committed by men. It begs the question of whether or not violence is a societal problem or a gender issue. If only 49% of society is commiting almost all the violent offenses why generalize it as a problem with the whole society? If we looked at it as a male problem or issue, whatever PC term you want to put on it, maybe we could actually find some real solutions instead of the ineffective bandaid treatments like the death penalty that we put on this problem.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Tuesday, October 12, 2004, 12:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
The problem with this forum format is that previously sequential comments can be separated - as happened in this case where I had added that part of the finding was that women were likely to be given lesser sentences than men for the same crimes.
What we have is a society that is in a reactionary swing in favour of womens' rights (divorce laws are another example that is currently in the British media) where in an attempt to eliminate gender 'bias' women are essentially given preferential treatment. I mean, what man would have the right to demand a year off work with the guarantee that they could return to the same position, and in many cases would even be paid for the full time? That's what women are able to demand as maternal leave in many cases.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Ne Oublie
Tuesday, October 12, 2004, 14:50
 (Agree/Disagree?)
First of all, who needs a bunch of women passing laws blatantly in favour of women - when that's what's already happening? There are NO laws protecting men's rights, for all the discrepancy there may be between salaries and net worth, it has nothing to do with legal protection. You're right, men will tend to do deals with other men - but this is just a matter of people prefering to deal with people with whom they can relate. At worst, it is no more than a cultural hangover - and no more prejudicial than your assumptions above that women are somehow superior because they have a lower representation in our penal system.
One thing is for certain, men didn't collectively reach their current financial status by griping for governments to give them their 'rights' - they did it by working for it. An income is something that one should EARN - it is not a right that they can demand! The irony is that all these attempts to legislate 'equality' are self-defeating in the long run, since the way to become truly wealthy is never by working for someone else, so all these efforts are never going to tip the balances in womens' favour - to do that would require them to actually get out and start working at it: start their own businesses, start making money, and quit trying to force governments and companies to pay them.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From frmrjoyish
Tuesday, October 12, 2004, 15:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
It appears your macho paranoia is getting the better of you if you seriously believe that the laws are tipped in favor of women. You need a serious reality check! You are right that an income should be earned. That is what women before me fought and died for, to ensure that if other successive women chose to, they had a right to earn a living. What does need to be demanded, however, is that the government enforce equal pay for equal work. What does need to be demanded is that colleges and universities admit men and women on an equal basis so the top earning jobs are not available only to the gender who has dominated them for all of time. What does need to be regulated is the rights of women to even own business's and property in order to "earn" their money. You need to wake up and smell the coffee and realize that women didn't get where they are today by sitting on their asses "griping" about equality. They fought and continue to fight tooth and nail for equality. If anyone has "earned" the benefits they enjoy today it's women. And I dare say we appreciate them more since they weren't just handed to us in the same manner much of your rights and freedoms were!(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Tuesday, October 12, 2004, 16:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
Macho paranoia - I hope you're keeling over in hysterics as you type that, because it is simply laughable! (I know I'm laughing as I'm typing!)
First of all, just because success was fought for centuries ago doesn't mean that it was any less fairly won, or less appreciated, yet even to date you will find that men are largely responsible for new start-up companies - that has nothing to do with any prejudice amongst the 'old boy' clubs, since they are equally (or perhaps even more) opposed to the new-money start-up mavericks that have come out of the hippy era. The men who started those businesses - Bill Gates, for example - did so against equally daunting inertial roadblocks, and equally daunting prejudice against the very concept that he could possibly succeed in 'their world' as a woman would have faced. But the reason he did is that he didn't sit around and gripe about how no one was treating him fair, instead he got up and did it, and now look where he's at.
You'll find the same with every successful man or woman: they got to where they are by DOING, not by waiting for the government to pass yet another law to force society to allow them to do what they want.
If women really are all that concerned about the financial inequality, and are so convinced that they are not welcome in the current economic establishments, then let them come up with their own companies to challenge the status quo - after all, they do make up 51% of the population so they can't claim a shortage of potential consumers.
There are NO regulations in the Western world preventing women from starting or owning businesses. As a rule they are able to attend the same colleges and universities as men - a few gender-specific institutions aside - bottom line is that there is nothing to prevent them from all of the same opportunities that present themselves to men. And SO WHAT if a company here or there decides to hire a man instead of a woman? There are other companies that will conversely hire a woman instead of a man - the difference is that when the white male is turned away from a job because a company hasn't met whatever 'quota' they've been set, they are just as deprived of a job as the woman (or other minority). The difference is they don't have a 'cause' to rally the media around, and so they instead set out finding an alternative, and EARNING their right to a job.
All I'm saying is take responsibility for yourselves, and quit trying to pass it on to the government, big business, or just the company-next-door. You're right, it is sad for a woman to lose out on her career when the chooses (yes, with the availability of abortion these days it IS a choice) to have a baby. But look at it from the perspective of the company - they pay someone to perform a duty, that is what a salary is. When a woman - or man, as is increasingly the case - is at home taking care of the baby she is no longer performing a duty for the company - therefore, why should she be paid for it? Assumedly that woman is performing a vital role in the company, therefore a replacement is required for the time that she is away - so the company ends up paying EXTRA for LESS service (even if the replacement is equally qualified, they will require a learning curve to be brought up to speed on the state of affairs at hand). Does the fact that a company is a non-sentient being somehow negate its primary purpose: to generate the maximum possible profit?(reply to this comment) |
| | From A Response to Mucho-Macho Paranoia
Wednesday, October 13, 2004, 15:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
I am sorry to say that many men are seriously out of touch with reality… A lot of people (actually, men as well as women) seem to think sexism has completely disappeared from our society. But actually, Ne Oubile’s attitude is what contributes to sexism. For instance, imagine that you have a boss who believes that women aren’t really interested in working and will take any opportunity to take a year off and sit at home (like getting pregnant). It is unlikely that he will then treat men and women equally in the work place… it is more likely that he will informally support this good-ole-boys-club attitude.
And if you think that sexism has completely disappeared from the workplace, just read the newspaper. WalMart just lost in a major trial which showed how women were discriminated against. Women were continuously looked over for promotions and pay-raises. I will say that although the management was not deliberately discriminating against women, they were promoting this good-ole-boys-club attitude which resulted in some women being in a job for decades with minimal increases in pay and little to no promotion.
Also, Ne Oubile said that women don’t move upwards on the corporate ladder because they “choose” to have a baby. He made it sound as if it was women’s choice alone. Well, I haven’t noticed any women suddenly evolving the ability to reproduce asexually, have you? Yes, women could CHOOSE not to have babies, the same way MEN could CHOOSE not to have a baby. Married couples (and unmarried alike) collectively decide to have children all the time. So tell me, why should women alone be penalized for this decision? And if men are not penalized for their part in the child-producing, why should women be penalized?
Another factor that is being ignored here is that women do not live in some sort of strange vacuum. Even if you are right and there is no such thing as sexism (which I totally disagree with), we are still social creatures. So, how much are the decisions we make influenced by the environment? I would say a lot… For example, why do women choose (more often than men) to take more time than necessary off from work? I would say that it probably has something to do with how child-rearing has been viewed, and not, as Ne Oubile suggests, to milk their time off because they are simply too lazy to work. Since we were children, boys and girls were “supposed” to play differently. Girls play with dolls, but boys who play with dolls are sissies or gay, etc. etc. So what you propose is that, all of a sudden, women who are all grown up are just gonna shake off years, decades, of social conditioning? Will men? Maybe, but probably not very frequently. (Obviously, I’m not saying that society is completely responsible for such choices, but it is an important factor.) It’s kinda like women are behaving the way they have been taught they should, since they were children, and are being punished.
Phew! (Sorry for being long-winded) One last thing to consider… Women aren’t the only ones who can benefit from a more equal sharing of child-rearing responsibilities. I am sure there are plenty of men who would like to take paternity leaves to spend time with a new-born but it’s not financially feasible. I know plenty of guys who say they wouldn’t mind if, after the baby was born, they were to take time off work while their wife continues. Unfortunately, U.S. doesn’t allow for any of these considerations but it is something to think about! (reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Thursday, October 14, 2004, 10:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
In regards to the issue of maternity leave, the reason I emphasised the choice aspect of it is because it is a choice which is taken by the employee which has negative repercussions on the employer. There is a major difference between someone claiming medical leave when they have suffered an accident, sickness, or medical emergency which is beyond their control. But to have a baby is a choice which is made by the individual - therefore to legislate that the employer is forced to accommodate for that choice is, IMO, ridiculous.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Ne Oublie
Wednesday, October 13, 2004, 14:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thanks for your concern about my career, but I can safely say that I'm doing pretty alright with that so far. So far I have had both male and female managers and supervisors, and I have gotten along excellently with them ALL. The reason being that I don't classify them by their gender, I treat everyone as an individual and don't go into situations with preconcieved notions based on racial or gender stereotypes.
What I am opposed to - hard as it obviously is for you to grasp - is not women having power, but rather women demanding it BECAUSE they are women. There is a very big difference, and I hope that you can understand it.(reply to this comment) |
| | From frmrjoyish
Thursday, October 14, 2004, 07:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm going to try to explain this to you one more time! Women have historically been disadvantaged and disinfranchised BECAUSE they are women meanwhile men have not BECAUSE they are men. You have a problem with the fact that women are now stepping up and empowering themselves, daring to "demand" their fair share. Meanwhile you express not even a shred of indignity or regret at the massive imbalance in power tipped towards men that has existed since humans have been recording history. Your words have already betrayed you regardless of the little PC spin you just tried to put on it with your last comment.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Baxter
Friday, October 15, 2004, 06:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ne Oublie's point was that the legal system (disproportionately run and controlled by men- and a minority of socially priviledged men, no less) is now biased AGAINST men and FOR women. This has NOTHING to do with women's empowerment. This is about instituting a superficial change of face. In this country (UK) the men who are suffering as a result of this bias are almost all lower middle-class to working-class men.
Women's empowerment can only be facilitated by women facilitating and asserting their equality on their own terms. They WILL NOT succeed if they try to ride on the backs of the scraps thrown to them by the white male power base. If anything, their position will be incalculably undermined if they choose to accept a cosmetic recognition of this kind. I think this is what Ne Oublie is talking about. I mean, it's hard not to be pissed off the way things are going in this country right now. Certainly in the area of child custody, men who do not represent the predominant social group are being thrown to the fucking wolves.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From
Friday, October 15, 2004, 09:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
They kinda created a rod for their own back by saying that womans role was, raising kids, cooing, caring professions, and now when they want to do the raising (which I agree men in general are) they are merely fighting against their own propaganda. But fortunitly ;) we woman don't have a female friendly bible that can be touted as truth, we have science and physcology, research etc.. so I am sure the balance we need, won't be to far off. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From A woman
Friday, October 15, 2004, 09:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
It's one of those things that may take a while to sort itself out and find it's equilibrium, maybe men need to feel all the helplessness and unfairness (switching roles) that woman were subjected to for centuries to be able to start understanding how it was and still is for some. It sounds like, if Ne Oublie had his way those suffregetes would still be tied to railings. Of course the paradox is that we as woman don't want to treat men the way they treated us, as that wouldn't solve the problem, just change the demographic of power.
Men were also mistreated by the submission of woman, not being able to show emotion, be close to their child etc.. I see the future as one that excepts the qualities of both sexes, in both sexes. (not the archcaic "qualities" of woman are good in the kitchen etc..)
Just think guys you won't have to spend centuries being burned alive with your spouse, disinherited, made to marry for money and position, branded a whitch, you don't have to spend time going on self inflicted starvation protests to get your voice heard. Just write your MP,Use your vote, join disscussion groups, support groups, form groups and scale the wall of the palace in a batman outfit and get on tele. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Baxter
Monday, October 18, 2004, 06:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
As a man I have not lived long enough to find myself in a position in which I could exploit the gender divide to my advantage, so I don't truly know how I would have behaved had I. In my position I have had my own battles with prejudice to fight, and mostly, I've had to fight them on my own. But do I think that I would have behaved any differently had the roles been reversed? I honestly doubt it. Maybe in time I would have/ could have come to realise the error of my ways, (maybe) but I think the circumstantial likelihood of me being as happy in the biased majority as everyone else is probably quite high.
Women have had an atrocious time of it over the greater duration of human history- this I do not deny. But to think that it would have been any different had women ruled and built the world seems just a bit naive.
Besides that, you yourself have never been branded a witch; you yourself have not seen any of your female relations burned with their dead husbands. Nor is it likely that you will. Maybe you will marry for money or status (two can play that game). And I hate to remind you, men have gone on extended stavation protests in the past also (Bobby Sands died for his- and it had nothing to do with his gender). We could spend hours discussing the history of inequality, but in the end it is pointless, because all it will provide is a reference to somthing that none of us have any true experiential relation to.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From A woman
Friday, October 15, 2004, 09:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
It's one of those things that may take a while to sort itself out and find it's equilibrium, maybe men need to feel all the helplessness and unfairness (switching roles) that woman were subjected to for centuries to be able to start understanding how it was and still is for some. It sounds like, if Ne Oublie had his way those suffregetes would still be tied to railings. Of course the paradox is that we as woman don't want to treat men the way they treated us, as that wouldn't solve the problem, just change the demographic of power.
Men were also mistreated by the submission of woman, not being able to show emotion, be close to their child etc.. I see the future as one that excepts the qualities of both sexes, in both sexes. (not the archcaic "qualities" of woman are good in the kitchen etc..)
Just think guys you won't have to spend centuries being burned alive with your spouse, disinherited, made to marry for money and position, branded a whitch, you don't have to spend time going on self inflicted starvation protests to get your voice heard. Just write your MP, join disscussion groups, support groups, form groups and scale the wall of the palace in a batman outfit and get on tele. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Thursday, October 14, 2004, 10:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ha! I don't think I need to describe what I think of PC - let's just say I'm not a fan!
First of all, whatever injustices may have been done by some stranger with whom I may happen to share a gender is absolutely nothing to do with me! So no, I do not feel the need to apologise for their actions to you, who similarly share a gender with the victim. Obviously, you find this attitude to be hard-hearted. But let me reiterate, I have so far not made a single insult or derogatory comment based on someone's gender - I can't say as much for you. You you tell me who is sexist?(reply to this comment) |
| | From exister
Thursday, October 14, 2004, 09:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
I am so sorry for all of the indignity women have suffered. I think we men should pay, and pay dearly. We should also make restitution to the following historically demeaned and mistreated groups.
1. Midgets. Society should compensate them for the humiliation suffered by their fellow short people working in medieval freak shows.
2. Gypsies. Just 'cause they stink and cheat you out of your money doesn't mean they don't deserve payback for being driven from Europe hundreds of years ago.
3. Carnies. Somebody has to fix the ferris wheel, right? That greasy long haired guy with the wrench may have tried to feel you up while you were waiting in line, but he still deserves to be compensated for the fact that his family hasn't held a steady job in over 5 generations.
4. The Slavic People. Let's face it. They got a raw historic deal at the hands of the Germanic and Hellenic races. I say they deserve the continent of Europe as restitution.
Semantic Hint: If you want to correctly use the word "equate" in an enraged feminist context now would be a good time. Except it wouldn't really count since I am joking. :-P(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Jules
Tuesday, October 12, 2004, 22:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
As a non-caucasian man (judging by the pictures I have seen of you) in the UK, it is somewhat surprising that you don't understand the concept of intolerance.
Out of curiosity, why exactly are you planning to move to Canada?
You should know that in Canada we already enforce a one year maternal leave for women. We also have, and this is one of the many reasons I am proud to live here, a one year paternal leave. If I ever get married and have a child, guess who will be taking the leave?
The person who makes the least money.
I think that a child definitely benefits from having a stay-at-home parent. It's not economically feasible for every family unit to have someone stay at home.
The company I work for tops up the federal maternity/paternity leave to 87% of their salary for the entire year. I think that is a good thing. I think that is a responsible decision. I believe that how we treat our children today will effect who we are tomorrow. I believe that both genders have a responsibility to the next generation. I believe that money we earn has no comparison to time we spend with our children. I believe that a society that values and respects children is investing in the best dividends they can reap.
For you to insinuate that maternal leave is a poor decision on the part of government and companies and means that women don't "want to work" for their wages and seniority is quite annoying. When you have a put a few more years into corporate life and have learned to see past the water cooler macho posturing then we might be able to talk seriously. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Thursday, October 14, 2004, 10:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
Jules, throwing around sexist terms like 'water cooler macho posturing' doesn't strengthen your position. It's painfully obvious that you either don't want to, or just simply don't, understand the point I'm making, which is that as much as I support anyone - regardless of gender - in their endeavours to achieve economic success, what I cannot abide is the attitude of 'I deserve this because others like me have suffered in the past'. To me that is evidence of a lack of accepting responsibility for ones'own life - something I do not respect.
I don't have a problem with women being given time off to take care of their babies - I equally don't have a problem with men doing the same. What I have a problem with is lobby groups pressuring governments into making these issues into law - that, IMO, is a self-defeating, short-sighted move, and in the end only amounts to another unwelcome avenue for the governments to pry into our lives.
Simply demanding a job... leave... promotion... pay raises... because of one's gender or race is nothing more than discrimination in reverse, and THAT is what I take issue with - not the hard earned results of an individual's labours.
Believe me, I KNOW what intolerance is! Regardless of my ethnic heritage (which is caucasian, btw) I have been disadvantaged, or inconvenienced, for not matching some demographic profile or another. But I have long ago determined that I would earn my way through life, and that is why these instances have been limited to no more than an inconvenience in most cases.
PS: It appears that there has been (another) misunderstanding along the way - I do not currently have any plans to move to Canada.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Thursday, October 14, 2004, 12:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
I fail to see your logic. How exactly is paid maternity/paternity leave a short sighted move?
I was a project manager in IT for eight years and I can tell you that the greatest hidden cost in most companies is the high turn over rate of their employees. In complex organizations or skilled positions, it can take years for new employees to get up to speed and the loss of productivity that occurs with the entire process of hiring, training and supervising an untested new employee is very expensive.
If you can provide a healthy workplace that maintains a good balance between work and life, you can create mutual respect between employer and employees and your workers are much more happy and therefore more productive.
The greatest challenge as a manager is finding people who are not only skilled and capable but a good fit within the particular corporate culture, I would much rather give maternity leave to a trusted and experienced worker than take a chance on hiring someone new only to have them leave after a year or so. Some of the people I work with have been with this company for 30 years.
In Canada the government pays the parental leave for the employee. This comes out of the federal Employment Insurance (EI) program that all employees contribute to (about 2% of each pay cheque). Employers are required to still maintain benefit payments during the period of the leave. However many companies (such as mine) voluntarily top up the amount paid by EI (about 60%) to up to 100% of the employee's salary. They do this because they value their people and for all the reasons stated above.
When women are passed over for promotions or pay raises simply because of their gender, that is a stupid decision fiscally. The job should go to the most qualified person. Bottom line. This is what women are now demanding. Women in the US still earn only 76 cents for every dollar a man does. Unless you can categorically say that women are inherently less qualified then men, there is obviously still a discrepancy.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Thursday, October 14, 2004, 13:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
Again... I am not opposed to giving the leave, what I am opposed to is the way that extremists try to turn these things into law. In the cases that you described there is no need for such legislation, since every company is working towards whatever they believe is most profitable. If there truly are any companies that are deliberately promoting less qualified individuals out of prejudice, then first of all, they aren't going to be successful for long, and secondly, why would you want to be a part of it? Do you really think that passing a law that says they first of all HAVE to give you a job, and then HAVE to give you leave, etc, is going to change their mind? Do you think the environment that that kind of situation will create is one of mutual respect and that is condusive to productive working relations?
Conversely, by de-regulating things, you allow companies to reward those who are actually productive and contributing to the company, while allowing those who aren't to pursue other careers - after all, as you said, the goal is to pick the BEST PERSON for the job, right?
As for discrepancies between pay rates - there are so many factors involved in gathering data such as that, and the real essence of any such research is not so much the attention-grabbing-headlines and catchphrases that everyone remembers, but rather the specific criteria that is used in obtaining that data. Criteria such as how the positions were compared, whether location, industry or company profitability were taken into account - and to what extent. The comparitive productive output of the individuals, and demographic breakdown of their teams... and the list goes on of the numerous factors that I would have to take into account before making an informed comment on those statistics you like to quote.(reply to this comment) |
| | From roughneck
Thursday, October 14, 2004, 15:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
Uh-huh, and I'm sure those people who fought long and hard for racial integration in schools, public services and employment were merely "extremists" too, right? After all, weren't they demanding that laws be amended or created to allow equal opportunity, even though "separate but equal" was a system that "worked" (if you were white, that is)? Oh right, white southerners just doing what they believed to be the most profitable for them,(ie: smart jobs for whites only) so all should be fair, yes?
I'm not entirely certain if I should be amused or annoyed at your astonishing naivete in thinking that people, much less corporations, are just going to *voluntarily* do the right thing if there is any personal cost involved. By the by, this is why quality of life under anarchy is seldom superior to that under government: people are generally not innately good or altruistic, and so must be made to be civilised by (yes, scaaaaary) LAWS which must be followed if one wishes to remain part of society. This is doubly so in the case of corporations, which are persons under the law only by the leave of the state/crown. They damned well should be on their best behaviour and I wish people like you would stop whining that companies being good citizens inordinately gets in the way of profits.
I hate to sound so scorningly condescending all in one post, but you obviously can't have spent much time in the corporate world if you are shocked by the notion of less-than-qualified people being hired and yea, promoted. (you're going to say that companies are *forced* to hire sub-standard employees due to legislation, aren't you? Seems all republicans/conservatives/whiteys can do is bitch about Equal Opportunity being the source of all ills, but it just doesn't cut any ice, so please don't start.) The truth is, shit floats to the top often enough that it's the rule, not the exception. Whether or not you wish to be part of a company that does this is indeed up to you, but it's a matter of choosing between your livelihood and your principles sometimes.-Not everyone has the luxury of just up and leaving their job just because some goofball was appointed manager, you know. I realise you're fresh off the boat and all, but out here in the real world, the "best man for the job" isn't always going to be the most diligent or hardest worker. - At the end of the day it's the guy that the boss likes best, with ability as a secondary or tertiary consideration - but methinks we've been over this before, you and I.
Back on topic, if you were to repeatedly find yourself in a position where you could not be promoted higher than your current position due to your gender (or other unalterable feature), I'm certain we'd be seeing a quick defection on your part to the "please government help me not be discriminated against" "extremist" camp. The fact that you're a young white male doesn't lend a shred more credence to your view that corporations should be permitted to discriminate as much as they please, with the baaaaad old government (ie: the hoi polloi) not being able to say different. In other words, I'd listen to you a lot more closely if you stood more chance of being discriminated against. Yes, I've heard of reverse discrimination, and as a caucasian male, and I say it's by and large a crock. In fact, it's more often than not the underqualified guy's way of complaining that he was beat out by woman or a member of some minority group.
I'll end with a joke. It's not very funny, but it's about half way to being within sight of the topic (OK, not really), so here goes: A company is going through a downsizing, and there are 2 equally qualified candidates, Jill and Jack, but only one position available. At the end of the day the boss tells Jill that he can't decide whether or not to lay her or Jack off, to which she replies, "you'd better jack off,-'cause I'm already late for my train..." (reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Thursday, October 14, 2004, 15:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
Roughneck, maybe looking up the word extreme would be a good first start to commenting on my post - anything can be taken to the extreme, no matter how good or noble the initial concept is. And just because someone honestly believes in what they are campaigning for doesn't make it right either. There were many reasons why White Southerners treated Blacks the way they did, the primary one being that they actually believed that they were superior beings. Contrary to the Hollywood stereotypes of 'evil slave masters' the vast majority were not maliciously trying to make life hard on their slaves, rather they were making decisions based on the 'faulty' information that they possessed at the time.
Much the same as medicine or science have advanced incredibly over the past centuries, so has mankind's knowledge of itself. While the practice of ancient doctors to bleed their patients in a, typically futile, attempt to cure them would be considered abusive now, at the time it was the cutting edge of medicinal technology. The doctors who performed it were not malicious sadists, they were simply misguided by a lack of information. It's the same with most of these issues that we are discussing here, throughout history decisions were made based on faulty or incomplete information, in hindsight those decisions appear stupid, or even malicious, but that doesn't mean that those making them were actually stupid or malicious.
I can guarantee you that I will not turn squealing to the government if I were ever in the position you described. The reason being that I don't see a job as something I am entitled to, or that I need to hold on to at all costs. If I find conditions in a job to be intolerable I will leave, and find a better position to continue my career. I will always take responsibility for my own life and economic standing, whether I earn my income through a salary, investment or trade, I still manage my own life and finances.
You and Jules repeated the accusation that men often prefer working with other men, hence the majority of males in top corporate positions. Well, what exactly do you consider to be the criteria that makes someone 'the best' for a job? Jules promoted maternity leave for the reason that it promoted a favourable work environment in which to work, by the same criteria, wouldn't you consider a situation where you got on with your colleages preferential to one where you faced fundamental differences? As such, wouldn't the best person for the job be the one who best fits in with the team?(reply to this comment) |
| | From frmrjoyish
Thursday, October 14, 2004, 17:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
So the systematic abuse of a particular demographic is tolerable because it was simply "misguided"? I am amazed at your callous disregard for even the most basic of human rights. Your basic defense is that the bottom line takes precedence over everything including what is fair and just. I think it's despicable and goes beyond the bounds of naivety. It saddens me to say this but I think much of what is wrong with the world rests on the shoulders of people who think like you. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Friday, October 15, 2004, 12:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
I did not say that it was tolerable - I said that it wasn't committed maliciously. C'mon, isn't there enough in what I actually DO say for you to comment on without putting words in my mouth? From the perspective that we currently have those actions were simply detestable, however taken in the context of the common understanding of the time that saw blacks as barely human, the actions of slave owners becomes understandable - though still entirely repulsive. As I said above, overall they were not malicious in their intent - just as one would not deliberately damage one's own house or property, slaves were the owner's property, and therefore the owner had a vested interest in protecting their investment.
And no, there you go again putting words in my mouth! I did not say that 'the bottom line takes precedence over everything', what I stand for is the individual's right to make FREE DECISIONS, without intrusive involvement by their government. By removing an individual's right to make what you consider to be 'wrong' decisions, you are removing the essence of their freedom - after all, it is no longer a free choice if the outcome is pre-legislated. People complain about Right-Wing governments being morally restrictive, while entirely ignoring the blatant impositions that the Left makes into both our freedoms and our pocketbooks. One comment that I particularly agreed with Jules on was where she said that money is power - that is why I want control over my OWN income and finance, and why I am not happy to sign away 50% of my life (income) ineffective and inefficient governments.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Jules
Thursday, October 14, 2004, 14:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
Goodness, you really haven't been working very long if you think that executives always act in the best interests of the company. Even the novice employee is usually aware of the unproductive politics and power struggles that often occur in corporations because people are usually always short sighted and self interested.
Have all your supervisors been competent? There are all sorts of reasons that people are promoted, and unfortunately it's usually nothing to do with their abilities. In fact there is a principle in business known as the Peter Principle, which states that people are promoted to their level of incompentence, because if when they are capable and perform well, they will be promoted.
Men often prefer to work with and promote other men because there is a macho climate of solidarity that comes with high powered positions. When women enter this top bracket, it changes the dynamic and can make them uncomfortable. A lot of male bonding is engaging in certain types of behaviours that women are not part of. CEO is a skill and men tend to move from one CEO position to another. This is based on my observations of knowing a large number of these men personally, and being able to observe them in a way that most women would never see.
To suggest that women just pack it in if they come up against discrimination because: "why would we want to be a part of it?", is certainly not putting the responsiblity where it should lie. Why regulate any type of equity at all? After all historically children, women, immigrants, black people etc. have always been treated fairly by business owners and have had the same opportunities as everyone else, right? Oh wait...(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Thursday, October 14, 2004, 15:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ahhh, thank you for opening my eyes! Now I understand that the reason (men, in this case) set up companies is NOT to make money - rather they want to see how many stupid decisions they can! So these laws are to help save them from their own idiocy! Wow! Now it all makes sense!
I mean, I really want the government telling me how to run my company - they've got such great track records of efficiency and astute financial management, they really do put the business community to shame as far as profitability and financial returns.(reply to this comment) |
| | From roughneck
Thursday, October 14, 2004, 18:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
I realise you're being sarcastic, but you're not just wrong, you're bassackwards wrong. If memory of your history lessons extend so far, you'll remember that it was big business (not governmental over-regulation) that caused the Great Depression, arguably the best example of what you can expect from an unfettered Corporatocracy. And yes, it was "government" (and a bigass war of course) who bailed out the entire frickin economy that a small number of greedy businessmen wrecked. Furthermore, the "government" you love to bash changed things so that the common man (that's you!) wouldn't get screwed over by the consequences of a corporation's business gamble. I would have thought this being a Good Thing would be an easy concept to grasp for a bright guy like you.
While it may be the primary purpose of a corporation to turn a profit, the price that corporations pay for the rights and privileges they possess is being bound by the will of the people in the place of incorporation. If the will of the people (that is to say, the government) is that corporations don't get to decide who is hired or fired solely on the basis of an arbitrary trait like skin tone or gender, then so fucking be it. You speak as incorporation were a natural right and not a privilege granted by we, the people, by way of our government,- what gives you that idea anyway?
And while I'm asking, why this "big bad gummint" prejudice anyway? I mean, I could understand your kvetching if you were living in Josef Stalin's USSR and you had no say in anything, but you are living in a *democracy* for christ's sake. Kindly quit bitching about "government" -this and "government" -that already, at least until you've spent a little time participating in the society you choose to denigrate. Either that, or run your own flag up the flagpole and see who salutes. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Thursday, October 14, 2004, 23:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thanks for the advice, I am, incidentally involved in politics at a local level, including having attended focus group meetings with my local MEP. Incidentally, I was surprised when I recognised parts of the recent Tory party conference as being essentially what I had suggested in that group. Obviously someone 'up there' had either come to the same conclusions I had, or they had heard my suggestions and agreed with them - in either case, the point being that I AM an active participant, thank you very much!(reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Thursday, October 14, 2004, 16:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well if you want a country run solely by multinational corporations and corporate interests, I suggest you move to Iraq. One of the primary principles of democracy is the right to property. You cannot have a healthy democracy without a healthy NATIONAL economy, so yes; it is one of the responsibilities of government to encourage economic growth.
However, you are still missing the point. There are two issues here:
1. The Human Factor.
People make stupid decisions because they let emotions like greed, arrogance and fear cloud their judgement. Anyone who has worked (or lived) anywhere has seen this in play. You can find backstabbing, dishonesty and sucking up everywhere. None of these are productive or efficient behaviours and do not contribute to the wellbeing of a company, but they are bound to occur at some point where ever you work. Give a small person a little power and watch what happens.
2. Short-sightedness.
As you rightly noted, people are often short-sighted. The same is sometimes true for corporations as well. The reason corporations exist is to make a profit. Each quarter, they must return a profit to their shareholders. As companies grow larger and larger, the profits must continue to increase as well. However, judging profits only by the fiscal bottom line each quarter is short-sighted in many ways. There are many hidden costs in a national economy that this type of corporate myopia does not take into consideration.
If a company dumps their toxic waste, it's cheaper for them than disposing of it properly, but does a lot of harm to the environment and will cost someone much more eventually to clean up. Outsourcing jobs away from a community means more federal funding will be needed for welfare, training and government support. Drug companies are a prime example of short-sightedness. Due to amalgamations and the already enormous profit margin they make, they are forced to spend the majority of their budget on advertising and sales to keep increasing their profits. This cost is borne by the consumers in the US and means that medicine is increasingly unaffordable. Poorer, more unhealthy citizens means a lot more cost to the government, which means higher taxes and/or an increasingly out of control deficit. Eventually someone has to pay the bill.
A year and a half ago I wrote a whole (umm, so not a manifesto) commentary on my research and beliefs on this issue, but my computer died, I lost all my data, have just recovered it, and haven't had the time to update the article yet. Let me just say that Naomi Klein is one of my heroes.
I am not a socialist, but I believe in responsible Capitalism. An economy that discriminates against half its population is shooting itself in the foot. Both companies and economies thrive when there is a true equal playing field and people have the opportunity to succeed. If women are forced to choose between motherhood and a livelihood then the US may soon be facing the same crisis with its aging workers that Europe is headed into.
The very first thing I realised when I left the Family is that money and power are inseparable. Empowerment for women is equal to financial independence. When we are equal financially, we will truly have equality. Women have pride as well and I know I would never want something I did not earn. I now frequently go out of my way to not flirt or be "girlie" for this very reason.
I am actually against affirmative action. I think that companies that hire disproportionate numbers of white men (and no or close to no women and/or minorities) in senior positions should be investigated, but I am against hiring someone just because of their gender or race to fill a quota. What you sometimes end up with is incompetent women and minorities in senior positions, which feeds the stereotype that we all need these types of laws to advance, because we could never compete without them.
Why on earth would we want to tarnish ourselves by demanding jobs we do not deserve? Equality means equal and equal competition. Look at the qualifications, abilities, versatility, charm and professionalism and may the best person win, not who did you go to your boy’s school with or meet in your yachting/my lips are sealed club. All we want is an equal playing field and that, I, for one, am very willing to fight for. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From yank
Wednesday, October 13, 2004, 07:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well if NeOublie gets sick of the women taking a year to raise their infants he can come to the US where employers "covered" under the law have to give you (IF you're an "eligible" employee") a whopping 12 weeks UNpaid leave for CERTAIN family or medical reasons AS LONG AS you've worked at least 1,250 hours over the past 12 months and there are at least 50 employees within 75 miles.
As an aside, NeOublie, I don't think the women changing diapers and giving baths and making bottles (while doing whatever other housewife women still do in *some* some families) are the primary beneficiaries of maternity leave. Maybe you never did childcare in The Family...that was simply a exacerbated version (tons of kids, untrained crateakers who may be kids too) of a job that is not a cinch normally either.
Of course, there is the child who (usually) stands to gain from being, during the year when neural pathways are being formed and the basics of personality and psyche could be permanently affected by lack of caring handling, under the care of the being who has the fundamental genetic and hormonal attachment to the being it carried for 9 challenging months and whose biological drive makes that being central to its own.
BUT, also, if a man is married and the family has to get trustworthy childcare in this wild world (oops, hope I don't get in trouble for quoting the singer formerly named after the first feline martyr), does he not get involved in finding or choosing, and does it not affect the family budget (or is he unaffected by family economics?).(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From frmrjoyish
Tuesday, October 12, 2004, 13:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
What we have is a society that readily accepts the "preferential" treatment afforded to men but balks and squirms at any attempt to enforce gender equality as "preferential" treatment. What man would not be up in arms if the majority of law makers were women passing laws blatantly in favor of women? What man would not raise holy hell if he was only paid 75 cents for every dollar earned by women? What man would not be incensed by the current disparity in the distribution of weath if it were so blatantly tipped in favor of women? Give me a break!
God forbid women should ever get "preferential" treatment. What lazy asses demanding an entire year in which to raise a child with the reassurance that she can return to her job afterwards. Well, I've got news for you, women vote and if we wanna vote for politicians who will create laws that enable us to be with our kids during the most important year of a childs life without having to worry about losing our jobs, then we will. If we wanna vote for laws that enable us to earn at the same level historically afforded only to men then we damn sure will! And anyone who has a problem with it can kiss our collective ass! I don't usually think of myself as the militant feminist this comment makes me appear to be, but some of the comments on this site just brings it out in me!(reply to this comment) |
| | From exister
Tuesday, October 12, 2004, 10:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
Nice feminist plug joy, and you do make a valid point. However, I can tell you from first hand observation that the tendency for cops not to ticket hot female speeders extends to other criminal activity as well. Case in point: I used to know a hot female who lead the cops on a high speed chase while waving a loaded gun in the cab. She ran over lawns, curbs and embankments and eventually passed out (drugs) down by the river.
The legal result: no charges filed. If that were me or any other man we would have been shot dead.
I've known plenty of cops and testosterone runs through their veins just like those of any other man. They usually find the idea of a hot chick "resisting arrest" to be entertaining and mildly arousing. Why lock her up when you can cut her loose to "resist" again? (reply to this comment) |
| | From frmrjoyish
Tuesday, October 12, 2004, 11:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
Batting eyelashes at a cop to get out of a ticket can hardly be compared to violent crime. And your little testosterone driven fantasy story of some "hot chick" resisting arrest is certainly an anomaly and doesn't belong in the realm of what is normal or commonplace. The fact remains that men commit the vast majority of violent crime and any attempt to detract from that is simply a distortion of the truth. You can do better than chauvanistic anecdotes to make a point, ex!(reply to this comment) |
| | From exister
Tuesday, October 12, 2004, 12:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
" Batting eyelashes at a cop to get out of a ticket can hardly be compared to violent crime."
Anyone with the most rudimentary logical abilities can see that this is a misrepresentation of what I said, so I won't even bother to address it further.
"'hot chick' resisting arrest is certainly an anomaly"
So what exactly is your experience in the areas of Corrections, Law Enforcement or Emergency Medicine? Angry feminists like to pretend to be experts, but don't make a fool of yourself by venturing beyond your real world experience.
Tata my little sheltered academic...
(reply to this comment) |
| | From frmrjoyish
Tuesday, October 12, 2004, 13:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ok, so I'm no expert "in the areas of Corrections, Law Enforcement or Emergency Medicine?" (what that last one has to do with the subject at hand appears to be beyond the capabilities of my rudimentary logical ability) so if you could take enough time away from your chauvanistic patronization, would you do this "sheltered academic" a favor and provide me with data to the contrary? I'd love to see the stats showing that women leading men on some dramatic high speed chase occurs more often in real life than in the movies or TV. Good luck!(reply to this comment) |
| | From exister
Tuesday, October 12, 2004, 13:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
That's my whole point. There aren't really any records because the incidents are largely ignored. Just like there aren't really any records for the actual number of women who use sex appeal to get out of traffic tickets.
What Emergency Medicine has to do with Law Enforcement and Corrections is that these three professions inevitably have to deal with the men and women who fall through the cracks of society. I worked as an EMT and as a prison medic, and I can tell you that in a law enforcement culture dominated by men it is considered "unsporting" to go after female criminals with the same zeal as one pursues male delinquents. Whether this is favorable or unfavorable to women in the long run is debatable, but I think it is fair to say that the statistics that you love so much do not adequately represent the reality of crime as a function of gender.
I agree with you that men are responsible for the majority of violent crime. But I don't think women receive full credit for the criminal chaos that they perpetuate. In fact, let's give a shout out to all of those batty females out there. It's just not fair to give men the credit for all of the crime. I think it's time this injustice to women stopped. Equal time for equal crime! Criminal justice for women now! Estrogen can make you wacky too!
P.S. Eat a queer fetus for Jesus!(reply to this comment) |
| | From Batty woman
Wednesday, October 13, 2004, 11:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
"considered "unsporting" to go after female criminals with the same zeal as men.."
Do the % of female cops go after men and with more zeal then woman? This answers the question, men are more physicaly violent and feel if its another men it's fair play.(Some men also feel it's fair play to beat up on woman too, though I am not saying this is exclusive to men, a lot has come out about men being abused by woman, but fear that they would be ridiculed, say nothing.)
Most cases of woman commiting violent crimes are mitigated due to systematic torment and abuse from the husband/ boyfriend, but it is usually a one off, not a patern of behaviour.
While the saying "suger and spice/ frogs and snails..thats what boys are made off" and blue for boys/pink for girls... boys play with guns not dolls...boys don't cry/express emotions etc then it is little wonder they bottle up their anger and fustration which seeps out or explodes into violence.! (reply to this comment) |
| | From Still Batty
Wednesday, October 13, 2004, 11:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
Further more, to what I believe Ne Oubile was getting at is, the backlash for men (due to more and more equal opportunities) is that the courts are far more wiling to grant full custody to the mother and many fathers are kept/left out of their childrens lives. The fact is men in general are just as important in the childs life and can be in some cases better at nuturing then the mother. Research has clearly shown that both are capable of giving the child what it needs. So each case should be decided on it's own merits, without the moral laziness that occurs today. Men are trying to prove they are trustworthy but by their track record of wars and demanding submission from woman, a lot of woman are still suspicious) (reply to this comment) |
| | From frmrjoyish
Tuesday, October 12, 2004, 14:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
Come on, ex! You're on shaky ground and you know it! What is "unsporting" is distorting the minute percentage of the crimes committed by women and attempting to equate them to male crime. And you don't have to tell me how wacky estrogen can make someone! I deal with it for two weeks out of every 28 days and so does almost every other woman of childbearing age on this planet. The difference is that we don't generally use it as an excuse to knock off every jackass that is most likely making our estrogen driven moodswings much worse! Imagine the crime stats if we did! :-P(reply to this comment) |
| | From exister
Wednesday, October 13, 2004, 08:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
You really should go to work for the Bushies as you seem to have a penchant for verbal distortion. Specifically, I said:
"I agree with you that men are responsible for the majority of violent crime."
To which you responded:
"What is "unsporting" is distorting the minute percentage of the crimes committed by women and attempting to equate them to male crime."
Just so we're both on the same page here consider this:
e·quate
1. To make equal or equivalent.
2. To reduce to a standard or an average; equalize.
3. To consider, treat, or depict as equal or equivalent.
In light of my statement quoted above it is ludicrous to claim that I "equated" male crime stats to female crime stats.
You are quickly becoming as pointlessly annoying as the talking heads on the Sunday morning political talk circuit.(reply to this comment) |
| | From frmrjoyish
Wednesday, October 13, 2004, 11:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes, you did say: "I agree with you that men are responsible for the majority of violent crime". You also went on to say: But I don't think women receive full credit for the criminal chaos that they perpetuate." I assumed that the reason you have been hammering away at that point is that you believe that if women are given full credit for the crimes they are responsible for that the difference between male and female crime would become less significant. I could be wrong but why else would you be going on and on about it!? And I do apologise for becoming "pointlessly annoying". Seems I fell short of my pointed effort at being annoying! I will do better in the future! ; ) (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Jules
Tuesday, October 12, 2004, 21:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
Oh goodness, who asked you?
Darling, women "deal with" estrogen all the time. This is the hormone that makes us female. Goodness, the world would be a much better place if men would deal with testosterone for 28 out of 28 days.
Y'all dealt with being women at one time too. Did you know that every embryo is female by default? If you get enough hormones to make you male then you become male. Otherwise you stick with what you were conceived as. If the Y chromosome in your DNA is activated, that usually does it, but not always. As we know now the SRY gene can create XX males and XY females. (That damn Human Genome Project, giving us knowledge that said that those dominant white males were biologically just the same as the rest of us--god help the rest of us) Apparently Science Is Evil; especially when it discovers things we don't want to know.
Let us all bow our heads in the Bush prayer: "God grant me the facial dexterity to grimace when people say things I do not understand."(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From sarafina
Tuesday, October 12, 2004, 18:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
Not that I'm a expert in this either but she did say that she "deals with it 2weeks out of 28 days " not 28 days out of 28 days. I also do know a girlfriend of mine who does have it for 2weeks out of every month and has seen many doctors for it and they still don't really know how to stop it. She's taken pills and different forms of birth control that are suposed to help regulate it but none of that has worked so far. So It can happen altho I don't think it's normal.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Ruthie
Friday, May 14, 2004, 06:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
Interesting little bit of information: women are more sympathetic to men and men more sympathetic towards women. I am a Court TV junkie. Anyway, I was watching this piece about the Martha Stewart trial. One woman was saying how she didn’t know why the defense team would allow eight of the jurors to be men. Contrary to what most people think, women are not usually very sympathetic toward other women; in fact, they are often distrustful of other women. That woman went on to say that Stewart’s defense team should have selected more men… This just challenges the preconceived notion of discrimination, huh?
Anyway, I do believe that women have an unfair advantage in criminal cases (and not what else?). It is discrimination if a man and a woman commit identical crimes but are given a less severe sentence. However, the usual argument is that men commit more violent crimes than women and are thus more likely to receive the death penalty. Those that do not believe discrimination plays a role in the justice system have a similar argument. They argue that blacks are put to death more often simply because they commit more crimes. I will accept this right now and discuss two things that have an impact. If you believe that men commit more murders than women and blacks more than whites you would probably view the issue in one of the following ways:
(a) Biological- Men are born more violent than women. Blacks are born more violent than whites. Men have a genetic predisposition towards violence. Blacks have a genetic predisposition towards violence. Women are born with less violent tendencies than men so they commit fewer crimes. Whites are born with less violent tendencies than men so they commit fewer crimes.
(b) Sociological- Men are not born more violent than women. Blacks are not born more violent than whites. Societal pressures (stereotypes, the media, family relations, etc.) play an important role in how men react to violence vs. women. Societal pressures play an important role in how blacks react to violence vs. whites. Men are more likely to participate in violent cries because they were often conditioned/taught/raised to view violence as a solution to problems. Blacks are more likely to participate in violent cries because they were often conditioned/taught/raised to view violence as a solution to problems.
Most people would agree that biological/genetic factors do not play a significant role in the reasons for a higher percentage of “black” crime vs. “white crime.” If you believe that blacks are more likely to commit crime because they were born that way, well, most would call you a racist. It is commonly thought that men are born to be “more macho,” more G-I-Joe-ish, more Rambo-ish, more like I’ll-be-back-to-come-kick-your-ass-and-be-so-much-of-a-man-just-like-Arnold-ish, and all around more violent than women because they were born that way. This is not usually considered sexism, but biology (I won’t get started on that). Anyway, your comparison of gender and incarceration/crime race and incarceration/crime does not fit here simply because of the big difference between the two issues. Try telling a black person that they are more likely to be violent because they were born that way and you will discover what I mean. Try telling a man the same thing and he might just agree with you.
The second factor is much more complicated. The extent to which one’s environment contributes to her/his likelihood of committing a crime is difficult to discern. But surely it has some impact. Males are often encouraged to “act like a man.” Many argue that this encourages them (directly or indirectly) to be more violent (because they are supposed to be tough, and also they may repress their feelings). Men are expected to be more violent than women. This has (historically at least) been the case with reference to race issues. Blacks were historically thought to be more savage and violent (even recently, I have heard comments about “them killing each other-their own- like animals”---this is interesting because whites kill other whites, Hispanics kill other Hispanics, etc.). Other things that sociologists consider to be important: the history of slavery and discrimination, the relatively high proportion of blacks living in poverty, anti-government/ anti-establishment attitudes, distrust of the justice system and police, etc. Anyway, this can be argued over indefinitely. The point is that if you believe that blacks tend to be more violent than whites, and you don’t believe they were born that way, you probably believe that society has something to do with it. The question is: Do you try to change society or change the person? And how do you change the person without changing society?
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ruthie
Friday, May 14, 2004, 07:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
Oh, and I’m not trying to say that it is entirely society’s fault that a person commits crime or murders another person. But it is something to consider in relation to race. Why do blacks commit more violent crimes than whites (if you agree that they do)? Obviously, a person is responsible for her/his crimes but the disproportion of race should be alarming or, at the very least, curious.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Friday, May 14, 2004, 07:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
Without getting into a long discussion on it right now (I'm still at work) I opt for the Sociological reason in both instances - combined with a large element of choice on the part of the individual. Therefore I consider that the increased levels of criminal activity in various groups is not something which can be blamed on either biology or society.
The explanation of men being more lenient towards women and vice versa, is perhaps the difference between these race/gender issues, in that whites will typically be more lenient towards whites, and blacks to blacks. But even so, that is not always the case - particularly if a crime is committed by a man against a woman. There are a lot of factors to consider so that what may have been a good choice in Martha Stewart's case won't necessarily be so in another case, depending on the nature of the crime, the victim, etc.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ruthie
Wednesday, May 19, 2004, 05:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree with you that each individual has a choice in the matter. Obviously, stronger, better individuals can resist the life of crime with no problem. What I am saying, however, is that the disproportion should be of concern to everyone in this country. Especially a country that prides itself on “equal opportunity.” Obviously, there must be some inequality of opportunity if some specific (racial/ethnic) group is failing in life more frequently than others. The problem is that most people in the U.S. blithely accept the “common” knowledge that everyone has an equal chance, which is simply not the case. If people actually accepted that there is an inequality of opportunity, they will have to accept that: (1) The American way is a failure in some ways.; (2) People in power want to keep their power and will hurt others to do so; (3) Changing society is necessary to achieve equality of opportunity.
Yes, there are a lot of exceptions to the rule. But usually, lawyers select juries based on certain stereotypes. I was reading some other article about this (written by a lawyer)… some lawyers even make decisions based on the way a person’s face is shaped. Anyway, what was my point with the Martha Stewart trial? Well, I’m not sure exactly. I mostly thought it was an interesting thing… Many (not all) women would like to see a woman at fault rather than a man. My mom, for example, is a prime example. For example, my mom thinks that women that get raped were usually provoking it somehow (by their clothes, attitude, etc.). I, on the other hand, would be more likely to distrust the man and believe the woman.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Vicky
Thursday, October 14, 2004, 13:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hmmm, I think I am in the mood for quibbling over insignificant details...
I'm fairly certain that the conversation played out like this:
From Elle Thursday, May 13, 2004, 10:30: 'We hear in Sweden that it's mostly young black males that end up on American death row. True?'
From Nick Thursday, May 13, 2004, 10:39: 'Whatever! Now that sounds like the most naive comment I have seen on this site.
I am sure that there are a lot of blacks on death row, but you can't say it's because they are black. They are there because the committed the crime, not because they are black.'
From Vicky Thursday, May 13, 2004, 11:16: 'Nick, is the above comment to Ruthie or to Elle? 'Cause if it's to Elle, you are sort of putting words into her mouth, aren't you? She only asked for confirmation of the statistic she had heard.'
From Elle Thursday, May 13, 2004, 11:21: 'And why is that naive Nick, wanting to know if something is true? With that line of thinking you must assume that everything said about the United States of America is true.
Wow, now that IS naive!'
The comment you mention above was posted at 11:25, almost an hour after Nick posted the comment in question.
Goodness me, I must be seriously bored or something! : P
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from Nick
Thursday, May 06, 2004 - 08:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
I do agree that there have been quite a few innocent people executed over the years, but I think that with today’s forensic advancements like DNA we have less and less innocents on death row. I really believe that in time innocent people on death row will be a thing of the past. Or at least an extreme rarity.
I think that capital punishment is just as much a deterrent as it is a punishment. If you know that you are going to get death for something you are less likely to do the crime. But as far as the punishment side goes we do need to have punishments that fit the crime in some cases. How can you say that death is not appropriate for the murder and rape of a young 14 yr old girl? Anyone that has the mindset to do that deserves death IMO.
Then we have the argument of why would we want to keep a severe criminal in the already over crowded prison system at the expense of you and me when he is clearly unable to be reformed?
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From seeker
Thursday, May 06, 2004, 10:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
To my knowledge there is no established correlation between the death penalty and a drop in major crimes. Canada dropped the death penalty in 1976 and there was no spike in murders, etc.
My anecdotal research -- reading, going to conferences, school -- suggests that lawbreakers are influenced by the likelihood of getting caught -- not so much by what punishment awaits them.
Crim is fascinating stuff, and if I had another life or two I would be a crim major and run the corrections system -- or be a parole officer. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From seeker
Thursday, May 06, 2004, 13:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
yeah, crim is criminology. I wudda been a crim major if I cudda. But I don't want to be a cop, and prison guard isn't a big draw either. (I asked about it at a job fair once and they said my first job would be to drive around the perimeter of a max prison in a pickup with a shotgun)
So I took a few 100 level intro electives, and it gave me some decent understanding of the dynamics at work. Now I can watch "Cops," "Law and Order" and other real life :) shows and critically analyse them.
Factoid: In Canada, the average education of inmates in maximum security prisons is Grade 8.
As I said, I'm a wannabe. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Joe H
Thursday, May 06, 2004, 10:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't know, Nick. The thought of being a "prison bitch" scares me much more than lethal injection. I don't have a lot of hardset opinions on this topic, but it occurrs to me that it's a bit hypocritical for society to say "You can't kill, but if you do, we can kill you."
About the overcrowded prisons, they got that way because of harsh drug laws. Decriminalize marijuana, or at least remove the mandatory minimum sentences, and the problem will be solved. Currently, murderers and rapists have to be let out early to make room for drug offenders. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Banshee
Thursday, May 06, 2004, 09:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
In your comment, you mentioned that "capital punishment is just as much a deterrent as it is a punishment. If you know that you are going to get death for something you are less likely to do the crime." It made me wonder about the statistics from state to state on crime. I could, of course, look it up myself on the Internet, but I was just wondering if maybe you knew. Do the states that have capital punishment have less crime than the ones that don't?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from seeker
Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 23:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
Actually, very few countries still have the death penalty on the books. Part of the problem is that there ARE so many wrongful convictions, especially in the U.S. The death penalty is SO final.
An interesting case happened several years ago that illustrates the point.
Two teenagers who lived in Canada decided to kill their parents, who lived in Seattle -- for the inheritance.They did the deed, then returned to Canada, where they were eventually arrested. Washington State wanted them extradited, the young men faught it, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The SC ruled that they could be extradited only if WA State agreed not to seek the death penalty. The reason: The SC had no faith in the American criminal justice system, citing many wrongful convictions in homicide cases. (Canada does not have the death penalty)
I'm not sure what the purpose of the death penalty is. It does not deter. Revenge is nice, but studies have shown that it does not necessarily bring closure or healing for the victims. A complex subject.
As for rates of incarceration, the US has the highest in the world, about five times that of western Europe.
As for the cost of incarceration, in Canada it costs about $60,000 to keep someone incarcerated each year, vs about $14,000 if they serve their sentence in the community, on parole or probation.
The question has to be asked -- if someone is not a threat to the public, not a threat to reoffend, is it in our -- the taxpayer's interests -- to keep him locked up to satisfy a primal lust for revenge?
Another question that has to be asked is that most prisoners are going to be released into the community one day. What kind of people do you want being released? -- living in YOUR neighbourhood?-- Angry men who have not been made part of a rehabilitative and reintegration process, or someone who has had a chance to rehabilitate and reintegrate?
Maybe I'm droning on too much, but I'm a crim wannabe. My take on much of this is that the views we adapt on these issues reflect a lot of our deeply held personal values.
(reply to this comment)
| from jpmagero
Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 23:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
I guess depends if the ultimate goal is to inflict punishment or remove the possibility to re-offend.
For the first goal, prison is better, but its costly and while "there's life there's hope" so there is always that possibility that they could be let free, escape etc.
On the other hand, death is so "final" that if the person is innocent, they might be hurried to their death and that's that. But for the guilty, its better for society to be rid of the offenders (assuming the punishment fits the crime, which is a whole other matter) and all the cost thats associated with them, as well as the possibility that they might be let out. It could be better to spend that money somewhere else.
I'm not sure I agree with the death penalty, but those are some things I have thought about.
(reply to this comment)
| | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]