Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

women don't go to prison

rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 11:44:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I had a friend who worked in the prison system, and she said that if a husband and wife are caught committing a crime in their house, it's always the husband who goes to prison and the wife gets off. She said that it's understood at all levels of the system that this will happen.

This article seems to support this; it says that men get 63% longer sentences for the same crime, and also that women are twice as likely to avoid prison if convicted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

This seems completely reasonable to me. Men go to prison. Men go to war. In exchange, women bear children.

On the other hand, it's not entirely consistent with the rhetoric of equality. I think the idea of equality is at fault. Not only that, I think this equality rhetoric is holding women back.

Anyway. I was just wondering if anyone else had an opinion about it.
TULIP
Posts: 398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 11:53:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 11:44:46 PM, rross wrote:
I had a friend who worked in the prison system, and she said that if a husband and wife are caught committing a crime in their house, it's always the husband who goes to prison and the wife gets off. She said that it's understood at all levels of the system that this will happen.

This article seems to support this; it says that men get 63% longer sentences for the same crime, and also that women are twice as likely to avoid prison if convicted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

This seems completely reasonable to me. Men go to prison. Men go to war. In exchange, women bear children.

On the other hand, it's not entirely consistent with the rhetoric of equality. I think the idea of equality is at fault. Not only that, I think this equality rhetoric is holding women back.

Anyway. I was just wondering if anyone else had an opinion about it.

Do you believe that it's right tht the system works like that?? Cause that's not right IMO. Why just the men? Women are still held accountable for their wrongful actions just as much as men are too.
"We conclude that our salvation is of The Lord. He is the One who regenerates us. Those whom He regenerates come to Christ. Without regeneration no one will ever come to Christ. With regeneration no one will ever reject Him. God's saving grace effects what He intends to effect by it. ~ R. C. Sproul
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 11:58:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 11:53:19 PM, TULIP wrote:
At 7/25/2013 11:44:46 PM, rross wrote:
I had a friend who worked in the prison system, and she said that if a husband and wife are caught committing a crime in their house, it's always the husband who goes to prison and the wife gets off. She said that it's understood at all levels of the system that this will happen.

This article seems to support this; it says that men get 63% longer sentences for the same crime, and also that women are twice as likely to avoid prison if convicted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

This seems completely reasonable to me. Men go to prison. Men go to war. In exchange, women bear children.

On the other hand, it's not entirely consistent with the rhetoric of equality. I think the idea of equality is at fault. Not only that, I think this equality rhetoric is holding women back.

Anyway. I was just wondering if anyone else had an opinion about it.

Do you believe that it's right tht the system works like that?? Cause that's not right IMO. Why just the men? Women are still held accountable for their wrongful actions just as much as men are too.

I suppose so.

There's two things. First, if a husband AND wife are sent to prison for the same crime, the children will be abandoned, which seems to be undue hardship for them.

Second, what is prison FOR exactly? Is is just a punishment? If so, it will indeed punish the wife, because she'll be left as a single mother for the duration of her husband's sentence.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 12:01:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
And then there's the women (married or not) who are pregnant or with small children. To separate mother and child at that early stage seems to me to be intolerable cruelty. Not only will the child be denied breastmilk, but it will damage the attachment process between mother and child which can't be made up later.
TULIP
Posts: 398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 12:05:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 11:58:25 PM, rross wrote:
At 7/25/2013 11:53:19 PM, TULIP wrote:
At 7/25/2013 11:44:46 PM, rross wrote:
I had a friend who worked in the prison system, and she said that if a husband and wife are caught committing a crime in their house, it's always the husband who goes to prison and the wife gets off. She said that it's understood at all levels of the system that this will happen.

This article seems to support this; it says that men get 63% longer sentences for the same crime, and also that women are twice as likely to avoid prison if convicted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

This seems completely reasonable to me. Men go to prison. Men go to war. In exchange, women bear children.

On the other hand, it's not entirely consistent with the rhetoric of equality. I think the idea of equality is at fault. Not only that, I think this equality rhetoric is holding women back.

Anyway. I was just wondering if anyone else had an opinion about it.

Do you believe that it's right tht the system works like that?? Cause that's not right IMO. Why just the men? Women are still held accountable for their wrongful actions just as much as men are too.

I suppose so.

There's two things. First, if a husband AND wife are sent to prison for the same crime, the children will be abandoned, which seems to be undue hardship for them.

Second, what is prison FOR exactly? Is is just a punishment? If so, it will indeed punish the wife, because she'll be left as a single mother for the duration of her husband's sentence.

I understand.. Either way though, the children will still have hardship because of the parents decisions.. I don't believe children should be taken from their parents, but I also don't believe that people (including women) shouldn't be left unpunished or corrected for their crimes.. It's like that saying, "you do the crime, you do the time." It's called man up or woman up to own faults.. Again that's just me though.. But I get what your saying..
"We conclude that our salvation is of The Lord. He is the One who regenerates us. Those whom He regenerates come to Christ. Without regeneration no one will ever come to Christ. With regeneration no one will ever reject Him. God's saving grace effects what He intends to effect by it. ~ R. C. Sproul
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 12:08:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/26/2013 12:05:02 AM, TULIP wrote:
At 7/25/2013 11:58:25 PM, rross wrote:
At 7/25/2013 11:53:19 PM, TULIP wrote:
At 7/25/2013 11:44:46 PM, rross wrote:
I had a friend who worked in the prison system, and she said that if a husband and wife are caught committing a crime in their house, it's always the husband who goes to prison and the wife gets off. She said that it's understood at all levels of the system that this will happen.

This article seems to support this; it says that men get 63% longer sentences for the same crime, and also that women are twice as likely to avoid prison if convicted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

This seems completely reasonable to me. Men go to prison. Men go to war. In exchange, women bear children.

On the other hand, it's not entirely consistent with the rhetoric of equality. I think the idea of equality is at fault. Not only that, I think this equality rhetoric is holding women back.

Anyway. I was just wondering if anyone else had an opinion about it.

Do you believe that it's right tht the system works like that?? Cause that's not right IMO. Why just the men? Women are still held accountable for their wrongful actions just as much as men are too.

I suppose so.

There's two things. First, if a husband AND wife are sent to prison for the same crime, the children will be abandoned, which seems to be undue hardship for them.

Second, what is prison FOR exactly? Is is just a punishment? If so, it will indeed punish the wife, because she'll be left as a single mother for the duration of her husband's sentence.

I understand.. Either way though, the children will still have hardship because of the parents decisions.. I don't believe children should be taken from their parents, but I also don't believe that people (including women) shouldn't be left unpunished or corrected for their crimes.. It's like that saying, "you do the crime, you do the time." It's called man up or woman up to own faults.. Again that's just me though.. But I get what your saying..

Maybe you're right. Why do you think there's a difference in sentencing, then? Do you think it's because people in the justice system think the way I do, or because of something else?

Do you think we should we be advocating for harsher sentences for women, in the interests of equality? o_O
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 12:33:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 11:58:25 PM, rross wrote:
At 7/25/2013 11:53:19 PM, TULIP wrote:
At 7/25/2013 11:44:46 PM, rross wrote:
I had a friend who worked in the prison system, and she said that if a husband and wife are caught committing a crime in their house, it's always the husband who goes to prison and the wife gets off. She said that it's understood at all levels of the system that this will happen.

This article seems to support this; it says that men get 63% longer sentences for the same crime, and also that women are twice as likely to avoid prison if convicted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

This seems completely reasonable to me. Men go to prison. Men go to war. In exchange, women bear children.

On the other hand, it's not entirely consistent with the rhetoric of equality. I think the idea of equality is at fault. Not only that, I think this equality rhetoric is holding women back.

How exactly is it holding women back?

Anyway. I was just wondering if anyone else had an opinion about it.

Do you believe that it's right tht the system works like that?? Cause that's not right IMO. Why just the men? Women are still held accountable for their wrongful actions just as much as men are too.

I suppose so.

There's two things. First, if a husband AND wife are sent to prison for the same crime, the children will be abandoned, which seems to be undue hardship for them.

Second, what is prison FOR exactly? Is is just a punishment? If so, it will indeed punish the wife, because she'll be left as a single mother for the duration of her husband's sentence.

So it is less of a hardship for a child to be raised by a criminal who got away with her crime?

Or are you talking specifically about domestic violence? If that is the case, then separating the two and putting the aggressor behind bars would be less of a punishment for the victim than to endure continued aggression.

If it's an issue about the child, maybe the two would get a divorce and the husband would be on the hook for alimony. The woman would have custody, and welfare and etc is built to take care of people with children.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 2:29:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/26/2013 12:33:11 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/25/2013 11:58:25 PM, rross wrote:
At 7/25/2013 11:53:19 PM, TULIP wrote:
At 7/25/2013 11:44:46 PM, rross wrote:
I had a friend who worked in the prison system, and she said that if a husband and wife are caught committing a crime in their house, it's always the husband who goes to prison and the wife gets off. She said that it's understood at all levels of the system that this will happen.

This article seems to support this; it says that men get 63% longer sentences for the same crime, and also that women are twice as likely to avoid prison if convicted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

This seems completely reasonable to me. Men go to prison. Men go to war. In exchange, women bear children.

On the other hand, it's not entirely consistent with the rhetoric of equality. I think the idea of equality is at fault. Not only that, I think this equality rhetoric is holding women back.

How exactly is it holding women back?

Let's assume that most women will have children and that most women with children will want to spend time raising those children. Further, let's assume that motherhood affects mothers' behavior more than fatherhood affects fathers.

At the present, these assumptions hold, not only in this culture but universally. There may be exceptions, but they are very rare if they exist.

Equality can mean equality of outcomes or equality of opportunity.

In terms of opportunity. If women are "choosing" to take time from their careers to raise children, then - as a group - they will fall behind with work experience, hours on the job, training, etc. Therefore, if opportunity is held equal in relation to these things, men will get ahead in most areas. Therefore, equality of opportunity will never result in equality of outcomes, if my assumptions hold.

Equality of outcomes can be addressed directly through affirmative action etc. In some areas - such as political representation - it may be practicable. But in other areas, such as in the private sector, it's never going to work properly, I don't think. There are too many ways to get around it. Everyone's seen the token woman director who does not have any actual power, but is wheeled out when necessary.

So I think we need to accept that women and men are not equal. That equality of opportunity and affirmative action will not be enough balance the undue influence that men are wielding in politics and business. Feminism needs to find other sources of power for women, and not be limited by a dialogue of equality.

***********

The other option, of course, is to question those assumptions. Lots of people are doing this - claiming that men are as competent at raising children as women and that it's only socialization that has led to this gender difference between mothers and fathers.

But if we accept this as true, it means that women have to give up their special status as mothers. There would be no justification for keeping mothers out of prison or for women to avoid the draft. In divorce cases, men would get custody 50% of the time.

Is it worth it, just for this idea of equality? Wouldn't it be better to advocate for power and rights for women independently of equality?

Of course, equality could be referred to in specific situations. For example, women shouldn't be denied certain positions because they are women, etc. I'm just talking about the overall theory and goal of feminism.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 2:34:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/26/2013 12:33:11 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/25/2013 11:58:25 PM, rross wrote:
At 7/25/2013 11:53:19 PM, TULIP wrote:
At 7/25/2013 11:44:46 PM, rross wrote:
I had a friend who worked in the prison system, and she said that if a husband and wife are caught committing a crime in their house, it's always the husband who goes to prison and the wife gets off. She said that it's understood at all levels of the system that this will happen.

This article seems to support this; it says that men get 63% longer sentences for the same crime, and also that women are twice as likely to avoid prison if convicted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

This seems completely reasonable to me. Men go to prison. Men go to war. In exchange, women bear children.

On the other hand, it's not entirely consistent with the rhetoric of equality. I think the idea of equality is at fault. Not only that, I think this equality rhetoric is holding women back.

How exactly is it holding women back?


Anyway. I was just wondering if anyone else had an opinion about it.

Do you believe that it's right tht the system works like that?? Cause that's not right IMO. Why just the men? Women are still held accountable for their wrongful actions just as much as men are too.

I suppose so.

There's two things. First, if a husband AND wife are sent to prison for the same crime, the children will be abandoned, which seems to be undue hardship for them.

Second, what is prison FOR exactly? Is is just a punishment? If so, it will indeed punish the wife, because she'll be left as a single mother for the duration of her husband's sentence.

So it is less of a hardship for a child to be raised by a criminal who got away with her crime?

How do you mean "got away with"? Are you assuming that the punishment that men get is the "real" punishment, and what women get the variation? How sexist.

But to answer your question, yes, I think in many cases the alternative to staying with a parent would be worse than staying with a parent who has a criminal past - depending on the crime and ongoing behavior, of course.

Or are you talking specifically about domestic violence? If that is the case, then separating the two and putting the aggressor behind bars would be less of a punishment for the victim than to endure continued aggression.

No, I'm not.

If it's an issue about the child, maybe the two would get a divorce and the husband would be on the hook for alimony. The woman would have custody, and welfare and etc is built to take care of people with children.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 2:37:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/26/2013 2:34:19 AM, rross wrote:
At 7/26/2013 12:33:11 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/25/2013 11:58:25 PM, rross wrote:
At 7/25/2013 11:53:19 PM, TULIP wrote:
At 7/25/2013 11:44:46 PM, rross wrote:
I had a friend who worked in the prison system, and she said that if a husband and wife are caught committing a crime in their house, it's always the husband who goes to prison and the wife gets off. She said that it's understood at all levels of the system that this will happen.

This article seems to support this; it says that men get 63% longer sentences for the same crime, and also that women are twice as likely to avoid prison if convicted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

This seems completely reasonable to me. Men go to prison. Men go to war. In exchange, women bear children.

On the other hand, it's not entirely consistent with the rhetoric of equality. I think the idea of equality is at fault. Not only that, I think this equality rhetoric is holding women back.

How exactly is it holding women back?


Anyway. I was just wondering if anyone else had an opinion about it.

Do you believe that it's right tht the system works like that?? Cause that's not right IMO. Why just the men? Women are still held accountable for their wrongful actions just as much as men are too.

I suppose so.

There's two things. First, if a husband AND wife are sent to prison for the same crime, the children will be abandoned, which seems to be undue hardship for them.

Second, what is prison FOR exactly? Is is just a punishment? If so, it will indeed punish the wife, because she'll be left as a single mother for the duration of her husband's sentence.

So it is less of a hardship for a child to be raised by a criminal who got away with her crime?

How do you mean "got away with"? Are you assuming that the punishment that men get is the "real" punishment, and what women get the variation? How sexist.

You said specifically:

"...if a husband and wife are caught committing a crime in their house, it's always the husband who goes to prison and the wife gets off. "

...i.e., the man gets punished, the woman is not. It sounds like the woman isn't even convicted. That's sexist, but not because of anything I said.

But to answer your question, yes, I think in many cases the alternative to staying with a parent would be worse than staying with a parent who has a criminal past - depending on the crime and ongoing behavior, of course.

Or are you talking specifically about domestic violence? If that is the case, then separating the two and putting the aggressor behind bars would be less of a punishment for the victim than to endure continued aggression.

No, I'm not.

If it's an issue about the child, maybe the two would get a divorce and the husband would be on the hook for alimony. The woman would have custody, and welfare and etc is built to take care of people with children.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 2:39:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/26/2013 2:37:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/26/2013 2:34:19 AM, rross wrote:
At 7/26/2013 12:33:11 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/25/2013 11:58:25 PM, rross wrote:
At 7/25/2013 11:53:19 PM, TULIP wrote:
At 7/25/2013 11:44:46 PM, rross wrote:
I had a friend who worked in the prison system, and she said that if a husband and wife are caught committing a crime in their house, it's always the husband who goes to prison and the wife gets off. She said that it's understood at all levels of the system that this will happen.

This article seems to support this; it says that men get 63% longer sentences for the same crime, and also that women are twice as likely to avoid prison if convicted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

This seems completely reasonable to me. Men go to prison. Men go to war. In exchange, women bear children.

On the other hand, it's not entirely consistent with the rhetoric of equality. I think the idea of equality is at fault. Not only that, I think this equality rhetoric is holding women back.

How exactly is it holding women back?


Anyway. I was just wondering if anyone else had an opinion about it.

Do you believe that it's right tht the system works like that?? Cause that's not right IMO. Why just the men? Women are still held accountable for their wrongful actions just as much as men are too.

I suppose so.

There's two things. First, if a husband AND wife are sent to prison for the same crime, the children will be abandoned, which seems to be undue hardship for them.

Second, what is prison FOR exactly? Is is just a punishment? If so, it will indeed punish the wife, because she'll be left as a single mother for the duration of her husband's sentence.

So it is less of a hardship for a child to be raised by a criminal who got away with her crime?

How do you mean "got away with"? Are you assuming that the punishment that men get is the "real" punishment, and what women get the variation? How sexist.

You said specifically:

"...if a husband and wife are caught committing a crime in their house, it's always the husband who goes to prison and the wife gets off. "

...i.e., the man gets punished, the woman is not. It sounds like the woman isn't even convicted. That's sexist, but not because of anything I said.

Lol. OK. Fair point.

But to answer your question, yes, I think in many cases the alternative to staying with a parent would be worse than staying with a parent who has a criminal past - depending on the crime and ongoing behavior, of course.

Or are you talking specifically about domestic violence? If that is the case, then separating the two and putting the aggressor behind bars would be less of a punishment for the victim than to endure continued aggression.

No, I'm not.

If it's an issue about the child, maybe the two would get a divorce and the husband would be on the hook for alimony. The woman would have custody, and welfare and etc is built to take care of people with children.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 11:02:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 11:44:46 PM, rross wrote:
I had a friend who worked in the prison system, and she said that if a husband and wife are caught committing a crime in their house, it's always the husband who goes to prison and the wife gets off. She said that it's understood at all levels of the system that this will happen.

Well, if that's so (and I'm dubious that it is), it's wrong. Both go to jail.

This article seems to support this; it says that men get 63% longer sentences for the same crime, and also that women are twice as likely to avoid prison if convicted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Okay, well, I guess that'll support the FACT that it exists. Although I still strongly think it shouldn't.

This seems completely reasonable to me. Men go to prison. Men go to war. In exchange, women bear children.

lolwut. What Leave it to Beaver-esque world do YOU live in? Women go to prison. Women go to war. Yes, women BEAR children, but men usually raise them too, sometimes even more than the woman as a househusband.

On the other hand, it's not entirely consistent with the rhetoric of equality. I think the idea of equality is at fault. Not only that, I think this equality rhetoric is holding women back.

How is the "rhetoric" of equality holding women back?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 11:09:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
1) men should not be the only one's allowed to go to war
2) no one should be forced to go to war
3) bearing children is a choice
4) just because the bell curve between the genders shows a disparity in strength does not mean that you can apply that to every case. There are weak men and there are strong women.

So lets put that 1950s social backwardness in the historical dustbin where it belongs. Treating people differently solely based on involuntary group associations like gender is unjustifiable.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
makhdoom5
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 11:46:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 11:44:46 PM, rross wrote:
I had a friend who worked in the prison system, and she said that if a husband and wife are caught committing a crime in their house, it's always the husband who goes to prison and the wife gets off. She said that it's understood at all levels of the system that this will happen.

This article seems to support this; it says that men get 63% longer sentences for the same crime, and also that women are twice as likely to avoid prison if convicted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

This seems completely reasonable to me. Men go to prison. Men go to war. In exchange, women bear children.

On the other hand, it's not entirely consistent with the rhetoric of equality. I think the idea of equality is at fault. Not only that, I think this equality rhetoric is holding women back.

Anyway. I was just wondering if anyone else had an opinion about it.

simple who cause more trouble get more punishment.
for women there is large chances to improve their lives.
most of time they are push into crime.
coz women by nature has soft heart.
contrary to this some women are more bad or dangerous than man.
lol.
but overall women are sensitive and need care.
most of time have kids who need them more than fathers.
lol
well.
still there should be equality.
in fact in islam there is very wise distribution of equality.
some time women are given the most high rank than men some time men are given according to the natural needs.
its so complicated and so long.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 12:32:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/26/2013 11:09:26 AM, 000ike wrote:
1) men should not be the only one's allowed to go to war
2) no one should be forced to go to war
3) bearing children is a choice

I agree with this list except for this one, #3. It's a fallacy of composition...bearing children may seem to be a choice at the individual level, but if everyone treats it as a choice and the choice is not taken, then humanity will die out. Therefore, at the aggregate level, bearing children is not a choice, it is an obligation. To hold women solely responsible for this obligation under the language of "choice" would open the field to all kinds of accusations and discriminatory behavior.

Bottom line, it's in the aggregate's best interests to promote reproduction. It is not simply a choice that women make.

4) just because the bell curve between the genders shows a disparity in strength does not mean that you can apply that to every case. There are weak men and there are strong women.

So lets put that 1950s social backwardness in the historical dustbin where it belongs. Treating people differently solely based on involuntary group associations like gender is unjustifiable.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 12:55:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/26/2013 12:32:19 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/26/2013 11:09:26 AM, 000ike wrote:
1) men should not be the only one's allowed to go to war
2) no one should be forced to go to war
3) bearing children is a choice

I agree with this list except for this one, #3. It's a fallacy of composition...bearing children may seem to be a choice at the individual level, but if everyone treats it as a choice and the choice is not taken, then humanity will die out. Therefore, at the aggregate level, bearing children is not a choice, it is an obligation. To hold women solely responsible for this obligation under the language of "choice" would open the field to all kinds of accusations and discriminatory behavior.

Bottom line, it's in the aggregate's best interests to promote reproduction. It is not simply a choice that women make.

Fallacy of composition occurs when a statement becomes factually false when applied on a larger scale. All you've shown is that it leads a consequence we don't want. And in any case, this isn't a fallacy of composition because it's absurd to speak of choice in any context beyond the individual. All women, at least in libertarian forward-thinking western countries, can have children or not have children. No one will force them either way. So it's a choice borne out of a desire.

There are no such things as objective obligations. Each individual will ascribe to herself what obligations she sees fit to respect. There's no such thing as an obligation to continue reproduction. It's a desire and choice.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 4:15:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/26/2013 11:02:23 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/25/2013 11:44:46 PM, rross wrote:
I had a friend who worked in the prison system, and she said that if a husband and wife are caught committing a crime in their house, it's always the husband who goes to prison and the wife gets off. She said that it's understood at all levels of the system that this will happen.

Well, if that's so (and I'm dubious that it is), it's wrong. Both go to jail.

This article seems to support this; it says that men get 63% longer sentences for the same crime, and also that women are twice as likely to avoid prison if convicted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Okay, well, I guess that'll support the FACT that it exists. Although I still strongly think it shouldn't.

This seems completely reasonable to me. Men go to prison. Men go to war. In exchange, women bear children.

lolwut. What Leave it to Beaver-esque world do YOU live in? Women go to prison. Women go to war. Yes, women BEAR children, but men usually raise them too, sometimes even more than the woman as a househusband.

Of course. I'm talking about general trends. There are plenty of exceptions to this.

On the other hand, it's not entirely consistent with the rhetoric of equality. I think the idea of equality is at fault. Not only that, I think this equality rhetoric is holding women back.

How is the "rhetoric" of equality holding women back?

Wrichcirw already asked this. Already gave a comprehensive answer up there somewhere ^.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 4:19:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/26/2013 11:09:26 AM, 000ike wrote:
1) men should not be the only one's allowed to go to war
2) no one should be forced to go to war
3) bearing children is a choice
4) just because the bell curve between the genders shows a disparity in strength does not mean that you can apply that to every case. There are weak men and there are strong women.

So lets put that 1950s social backwardness in the historical dustbin where it belongs. Treating people differently solely based on involuntary group associations like gender is unjustifiable.

Lol. Insulting an argument is not the same as refuting it. Nobody here has argued for applying anything in every case. We're talking about trends and about equality. At the level of the population.

A disparity in strength? What's that got to do with anything? I'm talking about a disparity in the ability to bear children.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 4:29:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/26/2013 11:09:26 AM, 000ike wrote:
1) men should not be the only one's allowed to go to war
2) no one should be forced to go to war
3) bearing children is a choice
4) just because the bell curve between the genders shows a disparity in strength does not mean that you can apply that to every case. There are weak men and there are strong women.


Living in the countryside is a choice. Working as a teacher is a choice. Eating bread is a choice. Depending on how you want to think about "choice".

If any of those activities consistently damaged a person's finances and career, though, wouldn't there be some kind of protest? Would we say, "oh, living in the countryside is a choice. Too bad if it's prohibitively expensive and you don't get electricity. You chose it. Where you live is a choice."

Or when teachers are arguing for better working conditions and pay, nobody says "Teaching is a choice. You could have gone into banking, but you didn't."

No, the choice rhetoric is reserved for women and motherhood. But why? Motherhood is ubiquitous and more common than the examples I gave above (except perhaps eating bread). What does it even mean to say "motherhood is a choice"?

I think, by saying that, you're implying "women who become mothers should SUCK UP any career and financial disadvantage that comes their way." But why should they?

And in terms of feminism, the reality is that most women become mothers (about 80%), so any overall conception of rights and power for women needs to include motherhood.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 4:37:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/26/2013 12:55:52 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/26/2013 12:32:19 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/26/2013 11:09:26 AM, 000ike wrote:
1) men should not be the only one's allowed to go to war
2) no one should be forced to go to war
3) bearing children is a choice

I agree with this list except for this one, #3. It's a fallacy of composition...bearing children may seem to be a choice at the individual level, but if everyone treats it as a choice and the choice is not taken, then humanity will die out. Therefore, at the aggregate level, bearing children is not a choice, it is an obligation. To hold women solely responsible for this obligation under the language of "choice" would open the field to all kinds of accusations and discriminatory behavior.

Bottom line, it's in the aggregate's best interests to promote reproduction. It is not simply a choice that women make.

Fallacy of composition occurs when a statement becomes factually false when applied on a larger scale. All you've shown is that it leads a consequence we don't want. And in any case, this isn't a fallacy of composition because it's absurd to speak of choice in any context beyond the individual. All women, at least in libertarian forward-thinking western countries, can have children or not have children. No one will force them either way. So it's a choice borne out of a desire.

lol, the desire is not valid on a larger scale, since on a larger scale it leads to undesirable outcomes. Therefore, fallacy of composition.

There are no such things as objective obligations. Each individual will ascribe to herself what obligations she sees fit to respect. There's no such thing as an obligation to continue reproduction. It's a desire and choice.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 4:46:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/26/2013 4:37:33 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/26/2013 12:55:52 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/26/2013 12:32:19 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/26/2013 11:09:26 AM, 000ike wrote:
1) men should not be the only one's allowed to go to war
2) no one should be forced to go to war
3) bearing children is a choice

I agree with this list except for this one, #3. It's a fallacy of composition...bearing children may seem to be a choice at the individual level, but if everyone treats it as a choice and the choice is not taken, then humanity will die out. Therefore, at the aggregate level, bearing children is not a choice, it is an obligation. To hold women solely responsible for this obligation under the language of "choice" would open the field to all kinds of accusations and discriminatory behavior.

Bottom line, it's in the aggregate's best interests to promote reproduction. It is not simply a choice that women make.

Fallacy of composition occurs when a statement becomes factually false when applied on a larger scale. All you've shown is that it leads a consequence we don't want. And in any case, this isn't a fallacy of composition because it's absurd to speak of choice in any context beyond the individual. All women, at least in libertarian forward-thinking western countries, can have children or not have children. No one will force them either way. So it's a choice borne out of a desire.

lol, the desire is not valid on a larger scale, since on a larger scale it leads to undesirable outcomes. Therefore, fallacy of composition.

You're not applying the fallacy correctly. Logical fallacies refer to factual inconsistencies and non-sequiturs,....not desires. A desire cannot be "valid" or "invalid". I'm not even sure what it is you're arguing against. So you're saying that women individually have a choice whether or not to have children but as a whole, they do not. That's absurd. Just because a choice leads to an undesirable outcome does not mean it ceases to be a choice. If every woman in American decides not to have children, how exactly are you going to override their choice?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Fanny
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 5:06:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It is true that women get lighter prison sentencing then men, are favored in custody cases, are more likely to be believed in domestic violence cases then men, and if men report domestic violence cases, people will call him "weak" and "feminine" and if a women touches a mans chest when the man says stop, the entire police station will laugh him out of the station for reporting it, but if a women reports a man touching her breasts when she says stop, that is taken more seriously. Many domestic violence advocates blame patriarchy for domestic violence, when patriarchy is not related to domestic violence, just like it's not related to any type of violence.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 6:12:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/26/2013 2:29:57 AM, rross wrote:
At 7/26/2013 12:33:11 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/25/2013 11:58:25 PM, rross wrote:
At 7/25/2013 11:53:19 PM, TULIP wrote:
At 7/25/2013 11:44:46 PM, rross wrote:
I had a friend who worked in the prison system, and she said that if a husband and wife are caught committing a crime in their house, it's always the husband who goes to prison and the wife gets off. She said that it's understood at all levels of the system that this will happen.

This article seems to support this; it says that men get 63% longer sentences for the same crime, and also that women are twice as likely to avoid prison if convicted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

This seems completely reasonable to me. Men go to prison. Men go to war. In exchange, women bear children.

On the other hand, it's not entirely consistent with the rhetoric of equality. I think the idea of equality is at fault. Not only that, I think this equality rhetoric is holding women back.

How exactly is it holding women back?

Let's assume that most women will have children and that most women with children will want to spend time raising those children. Further, let's assume that motherhood affects mothers' behavior more than fatherhood affects fathers.

At the present, these assumptions hold, not only in this culture but universally. There may be exceptions, but they are very rare if they exist.

Equality can mean equality of outcomes or equality of opportunity.

In terms of opportunity. If women are "choosing" to take time from their careers to raise children, then - as a group - they will fall behind with work experience, hours on the job, training, etc. Therefore, if opportunity is held equal in relation to these things, men will get ahead in most areas. Therefore, equality of opportunity will never result in equality of outcomes, if my assumptions hold.

Equality of outcomes can be addressed directly through affirmative action etc. In some areas - such as political representation - it may be practicable. But in other areas, such as in the private sector, it's never going to work properly, I don't think. There are too many ways to get around it. Everyone's seen the token woman director who does not have any actual power, but is wheeled out when necessary.

So I think we need to accept that women and men are not equal. That equality of opportunity and affirmative action will not be enough balance the undue influence that men are wielding in politics and business. Feminism needs to find other sources of power for women, and not be limited by a dialogue of equality.

***********

The other option, of course, is to question those assumptions. Lots of people are doing this - claiming that men are as competent at raising children as women and that it's only socialization that has led to this gender difference between mothers and fathers.

But if we accept this as true, it means that women have to give up their special status as mothers. There would be no justification for keeping mothers out of prison or for women to avoid the draft. In divorce cases, men would get custody 50% of the time.

Is it worth it, just for this idea of equality? Wouldn't it be better to advocate for power and rights for women independently of equality?

Of course, equality could be referred to in specific situations. For example, women shouldn't be denied certain positions because they are women, etc. I'm just talking about the overall theory and goal of feminism.

All of this makes a lot of sense to me.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 6:16:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/26/2013 4:46:18 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/26/2013 4:37:33 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/26/2013 12:55:52 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/26/2013 12:32:19 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/26/2013 11:09:26 AM, 000ike wrote:
1) men should not be the only one's allowed to go to war
2) no one should be forced to go to war
3) bearing children is a choice

I agree with this list except for this one, #3. It's a fallacy of composition...bearing children may seem to be a choice at the individual level, but if everyone treats it as a choice and the choice is not taken, then humanity will die out. Therefore, at the aggregate level, bearing children is not a choice, it is an obligation. To hold women solely responsible for this obligation under the language of "choice" would open the field to all kinds of accusations and discriminatory behavior.

Bottom line, it's in the aggregate's best interests to promote reproduction. It is not simply a choice that women make.

Fallacy of composition occurs when a statement becomes factually false when applied on a larger scale. All you've shown is that it leads a consequence we don't want. And in any case, this isn't a fallacy of composition because it's absurd to speak of choice in any context beyond the individual. All women, at least in libertarian forward-thinking western countries, can have children or not have children. No one will force them either way. So it's a choice borne out of a desire.

lol, the desire is not valid on a larger scale, since on a larger scale it leads to undesirable outcomes. Therefore, fallacy of composition.

You're not applying the fallacy correctly. Logical fallacies refer to factual inconsistencies and non-sequiturs,....not desires. A desire cannot be "valid" or "invalid". I'm not even sure what it is you're arguing against. So you're saying that women individually have a choice whether or not to have children but as a whole, they do not. That's absurd. Just because a choice leads to an undesirable outcome does not mean it ceases to be a choice. If every woman in American decides not to have children, how exactly are you going to override their choice?

lol

"bearing children is a choice" at the individual level. Making this choice in the negative leads to more choices in the future. If one woman dies, others may still make the choice.

"bearing children is not a choice" at the macro level. Making this choice in the negative does NOT lead to more choices in the future...it can lead to extinction. If all women die, no others may make the choice.

Fallacy of composition. What applies at micro does not hold at macro.

Not sure why you're being so stubborn about this, although that does seem to be a defining characteristic of anyone with a hard-core libertarian position.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 6:20:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/26/2013 4:46:18 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/26/2013 4:37:33 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

You're not applying the fallacy correctly. Logical fallacies refer to factual inconsistencies and non-sequiturs,....not desires. A desire cannot be "valid" or "invalid". I'm not even sure what it is you're arguing against. So you're saying that women individually have a choice whether or not to have children but as a whole, they do not. That's absurd. Just because a choice leads to an undesirable outcome does not mean it ceases to be a choice. If every woman in American decides not to have children, how exactly are you going to override their choice?

To make another example:

Becoming an investment banker is a desirable choice to make. However, not everyone can become one...if everyone became an IB, then production of goods and services would cease, and there would be nothing to finance, thus leading to the extinction of IBs as well.

Therefore, becoming an IB is not a desirable choice for everyone to make.

All the fallacy of composition entails is for what is true or valid for the individual to not be true for the whole. There's nothing improper with my usage, your arguments notwithstanding.

To address the underlined, lol, you give them incentive to have children. C'mon bro. Don't be dense.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 6:42:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is just a brazen misapplication of composition fallacy. You're confusing the conclusion "it will be desirable for every woman not to have children" with the conclusion "every woman has the choice to not have children".

"To address the underlined, lol, you give them incentive to have children"

It never looks good when someone's who's utterly wrong inserts intermittent laughs in his self-refuting response. Incentive implies choice... unless you're going to force women to have children, it is necessarily their choice. The choice exists. That's my argument. Your's is either totally absurd or you're not clear on what's at issue here. There is no woman or sum of women that HAVE to have children. If they're not interested in continuing the human species, then they won't have children - hence choice. Incentivising pregnancy does not undermine choice. Are you even listening to yourself?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 1:22:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/26/2013 6:42:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
This is just a brazen misapplication of composition fallacy. You're confusing the conclusion "it will be desirable for every woman not to have children" with the conclusion "every woman has the choice to not have children".

lol. The "desirability" aspect is attached to your libertarian leanings, which prizes freedom of choice above other considerations, to include existential considerations.

It is desirable to have this choice according to you (otherwise you wouldn't be advocating for it). My point is that this choice ceases to be desirable at the macro level.

Strictly speaking, you say that bearing children is a choice. I say that is true at the micro level, not true at the macro level. I've said this a couple times now. If you want to continue to pick and choose what you read instead of reading the entire argument, you will continually misunderstand what I write.

"To address the underlined, lol, you give them incentive to have children"

It never looks good when someone's who's utterly wrong inserts intermittent laughs in his self-refuting response.

lol, luckily that is not the case. I find your temperament amusing.

Incentive implies choice... unless you're going to force women to have children, it is necessarily their choice. The choice exists. That's my argument.

No it is not your argument, lol. You specifically asked what people can do to "override their choice".

Your's is either totally absurd or you're not clear on what's at issue here.

I'm completely clear. You are simply contradicting yourself at this point.

There is no woman or sum of women that HAVE to have children.

The idea is that survival is a necessity. Without survival, choice becomes irrelevant, as you are no longer alive to choose. Thus, when survival is at stake, yes there is a choice, but exactly which option is taken is determined by whichever one ameliorates existential risk. In this case, having children allows for society to survive. Without it, we will all die off.

If they're not interested in continuing the human species, then they won't have children - hence choice. Incentivising pregnancy does not undermine choice. Are you even listening to yourself?

It "overrides" choice, lol. I never said anything about "undermining" choice, although you're more than welcome to butcher your own argument into some totally unrecognizable form.

Anyway, please define choice. Is every decision you make a conscious decision? I'm beginning to think that whatever it is you believe about choice, that even the most cruel and draconian system imaginable would still allow you to choose, thereby making the concept rather irrelevant to well-being and livelihood.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 9:05:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/26/2013 12:01:27 AM, rross wrote:
And then there's the women (married or not) who are pregnant or with small children. To separate mother and child at that early stage seems to me to be intolerable cruelty. Not only will the child be denied breastmilk, but it will damage the attachment process between mother and child which can't be made up later.

What's wrong with formula milk? I was raised on formula milk.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 12:08:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 9:05:59 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/26/2013 12:01:27 AM, rross wrote:
And then there's the women (married or not) who are pregnant or with small children. To separate mother and child at that early stage seems to me to be intolerable cruelty. Not only will the child be denied breastmilk, but it will damage the attachment process between mother and child which can't be made up later.

What's wrong with formula milk? I was raised on formula milk.

This is another example of the difference between action for individuals and populations.

Breastfeeding (compared with formula) is associated with reduced risk of respiratory infections, asthma, gastroenteritis, diabetes, leukemia and SIDS among other things.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

This finding is for developed countries. In countries with less reliable access to clean water and consumer protection, the benefits of breastfeeding are much greater, of course.

Because the best evidence available indicates the health benefits of breastfeeding, it is recommended by WHO, the AAP, and most other relevant health authorities.
http://www.who.int...
http://www.healthychildren.org...

Lots of babies are raised and thrive on formula, though. Babies do well in families that are financially secure, so if a mother has to go back to work (for example) she may decide it's in her family's best interests to put the baby on formula. Or there may be other reasons why breastfeeding isn't workable in any particular case. Nobody is contesting this - I'm not, anyway.

But it's very different when we're talking about policies that affect breastfeeding at the level of the population. For example, if breastfeeding reduces the risk of some illness from 3% to 1%, say, chances are an individual baby won't get the illness whether they're fed on formula or breastmilk.

However, for a population of 10,000 babies, that means about 200 babies (although you don't know which ones) will almost certainly get the illness as a direct result of any policy that separates breastfeeding mother and infant.

The mothers may be criminals, but the babies obviously aren't. So it does seem unduly harsh to make the babies suffer in this way. And indeed, the scant evidence I've gathered so far does indicate that this is taken into account, in a humane fashion, when sentencing occurs. As it should be.

And what arguments are there on the other side? Nothing much. A few sneering remarks about how old-fashioned this thinking is, and some vague theoretical remarks about equality.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 12:31:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Fascinating analysis. It's amazing how something like breastfeeding would have an effect on the justice system.

At 7/28/2013 12:08:14 AM, rross wrote:
At 7/27/2013 9:05:59 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

The mothers may be criminals, but the babies obviously aren't. So it does seem unduly harsh to make the babies suffer in this way. And indeed, the scant evidence I've gathered so far does indicate that this is taken into account, in a humane fashion, when sentencing occurs. As it should be.

And what arguments are there on the other side? Nothing much. A few sneering remarks about how old-fashioned this thinking is, and some vague theoretical remarks about equality.

This goes back to my original question for you:

"So it is less of a hardship for a child to be raised by a criminal who got away with her crime?"

The idea is that a criminal is already irresponsible enough to warrant having certain rights to freedom removed from her person. You may talk about that 2% risk, but IMHO it's easily conceivable that the risk to an infant's development stemming from being raised by an irresponsible caregiver would be much higher than 2%.

I'm not sure what the alternative would be though...perhaps the alternative would be far worse than having an irresponsible criminal raise a child.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?