Los Angeles, CA (May 30, 2012) Female sex offenders receive lighter sentences for the same crimes than males says a study recently published in Feminist Criminology, a SAGE journal and the official journal of the Division on Women and Crime of the American Society of Criminology.
Embry and Lyons looked at the sentences that male and female sex offenders received for specific sex offenses and found that even after the implementation of sentencing guidelines to ensure equality in sentencing, on average male sentences were between 6% and 31% longer than female sentences for the same or similar crimes.
“It appears as if the criminal justice system actually treats women more leniently than men,” wrote Randa Embry and Phillip M. Lyons, Jr., authors of the study.
The researchers explained this disparity by discussing the American idea that “women are weaker and, therefore, must be protected at all times regardless of their status as victims or offenders.”
Embry and Lyons analyzed data from the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Corrections Reporting Program from the years 1994 to 2004. Sex offenses included rape, statutory rape, sexual assault, child sexual assault, and forcible sodomy.
“This leads to the supposition that women, regardless of the departure from social and gender norms committed in concurrence with the offense for which they are being sentenced, continue to be viewed as individuals who should be protected by the justice system,” wrote the researchers. “Obviously, as a social institution, the criminal justice system is reluctant to break those social norms and gender roles in response to atypical gendered behavior.”
Rape culture anyone?
Patriarchy anyone?
Feminism anyone?
No?
Thanks to thatsnotcanon for the link.
dumbthingssocialjusticeblogssay:
“I need misandry because society would rather I hate myself than hate men.”—
- someone over at whoneedsmisandry (via lolliguncula)
Because it’s one or the other…
I’m 18 years old.
I still sleep with my baby blanket and can’t sleep without it.
I am not ashamed of this.
Blankies are the best. <3
Aw cute. Someone who willfully misunderstands people because they’ve attacked their dogma.
It’s hilarious, because I know exactly where they got this from, and it’s entirely clear that they have absolutely no idea what she was actually saying.
I wonder though is she finacally raping her ex husband in family court? Since she is divorceda) Not an appropriate way to refer to it. Rape is rape, financial victimization is not rape.
b) No, she isn’t. She doesn’t receive any support from her ex-husband, this is mentioned in one of her videos. Regardless of whether one agrees with her politics, she isn’t a hypocrite and she practices what she preaches.
~Neko
This one was on the list for angry vs. asshole, but I do think it deserves to be it’s own post as well, especially given some posts I saw today.
I have to disagree on this one a bit. A lot of people on Tumblr misuse the word “trigger.” You aren’t triggered if someone disagrees with you. You’re annoyed. “Ableist slurs” don’t trigger you. They offend you.
Tumblr seems to use “triggered” as a stand-in for “annoyed,” “offended,” or “angered.” It’s hard to tell if someone is legitimately triggered or if they’re just misusing a term. That’s the problem with misappropriating and abusing terms.
exactly. thank you. you’re not triggered. this isn’t bring up some traumatic memory. you’re just annoyed at the world. join the rest of us in a giant vodka tonic won’t you?
In my case, what they were doing really was triggering me. They were telling me to go kill myself, that I was a terrible person, etc. A lot of people misuse the word “trigger” but there are many times when a person is legitimately triggered in an SJ argument.
SOMETIMES I can’t help but feel when someone tells me to stop doing something, they’re being an insufferable little bitch and are testing their limits of power over my actions. This of course, is a one way ticket to me doing something they don’t like, again and again.
The word “Trigger” is psychobabble bullshit my mom uses it all the time. Just a way to inflate the severity of a grievance, thus misdirecting the attention from said person’s inability to conduct themselves properly.That’s all that all of this is about, “offended,” “triggered,” “tolerance,” it’s all an attempt to exert control over other people’s speech in order to exert control over other people.
I don’t buy any of it for one second.
Nice to know that expecting someone not to try to get you to commit suicide or self-harm is too much to ask.
This one was on the list for angry vs. asshole, but I do think it deserves to be it’s own post as well, especially given some posts I saw today.
I have to disagree on this one a bit. A lot of people on Tumblr misuse the word “trigger.” You aren’t triggered if someone disagrees with you. You’re annoyed. “Ableist slurs” don’t trigger you. They offend you.
Tumblr seems to use “triggered” as a stand-in for “annoyed,” “offended,” or “angered.” It’s hard to tell if someone is legitimately triggered or if they’re just misusing a term. That’s the problem with misappropriating and abusing terms.
exactly. thank you. you’re not triggered. this isn’t bring up some traumatic memory. you’re just annoyed at the world. join the rest of us in a giant vodka tonic won’t you?
In my case, what they were doing really was triggering me. They were telling me to go kill myself, that I was a terrible person, etc. A lot of people misuse the word “trigger” but there are many times when a person is legitimately triggered in an SJ argument.
Yeah. :/ But the good news is, I haven’t cut since October! I still feel the urge whenever I get stressed, but I’ve managed not to. :)
*Hugs back*
The idea behind the tone argument is that it’s okay to be angry, and to have an opinion, and that being angry/having emotions doesn’t invalidate your argument.
HOWEVER, there is a culture online where the “tone argument” has been pulled out to mean ANY criticizing of someone’s tone, even if the person who’s being criticized is being an asshole or telling other people to go kill themselves.
Instead of validating the tone argument, this instead leads to a further culture of people who dismiss the tone argument as “something people use to get out of being called out for being an asshole” which is a shame, because the original tone argument is a lovely, wonderful thing.
Even if you think the other person is using the tone tone argument, that doesn’t mean that actually are using the tone argument.
Ask yourself, the elements that this person is singling out as ‘attacks’, are they really are attacks? Ask yourself, “am I attacking the ideas, the actions, or the people?” Can you mount a coherent defense of your statements, beyond claiming ‘tone argument’?
Edit: description reworked with help from the wonderful mwchase. :)
(The original was deleted accidentally, I’m sorry to all the people who reblogged/liked the original!)
This one was on the list for angry vs. asshole, but I do think it deserves to be it’s own post as well, especially given some posts I saw today.
AnonymousNo problem! And do whatever you want, I’m fine whether I get credit or not.
