Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to think that females can in fact be criminals

129 replies

worridmum · 20/07/2017 14:15

Sorry for posting this here but I attended a seminar about feminism and one of the main topics was that of female prisons and how in a just society there should not be any because apprently females cannot be criminals as females who commit crime are just sick and should be in out patiant treatment centres.

It went further and suggested that all female crime root cause was men. for every crime they commited a man was usaually involed eg ether making them do it or not stopping them, with examples of NRP not paying enough CM meaning the mother had to shop lift to get food for her child despite being a self confessed heavy smoker/drinker and that she should not of been in prison but her child's dad should be for forcing her to become a criminal.

She went further and suggested that one of the main root causes of all crime and particaully female crime was caused by influences of there father and was suggesting that men should have less input/involement in their childs lives because they are one of the main causes of crime.

AIBU to think that she is talking total bollackis and suggesting that no woman has antomany over their own actions as what ever they do it is because of a man. and to think that what she is sprouting is boardering on hate speech as if you replace the word man with black person / muslim it would be shut down as a hate crime.

AIBU in also thinking that it is both toxic and dangerous for society as whole if these sort of views are not challanged and feel sorry for her son as she said she would be raising him to be aware that because of his sex he is a boarderline monster and a route cause of all problems in society.

(sorry for spelling errors that might be present I am dysixlica and my phone has a rubbish spell checker and for not naming names as I dont want to out myself or open myself up for slander by identifying the speakers)

OP posts:
worridmum · 20/07/2017 14:40

I am reporting correctly just using less jargon but with the same meaning the person in question is very very trigger happy with lawsuits when disagreeing with her postion and she has the funds to go to court and I do not have the money to defend myself as it would be under US court system rather then UK system....

OP posts:
BertrandRussell · 20/07/2017 14:42

Name the speaker or I call bullshit.

plantsitter · 20/07/2017 14:44

There are a number of things to think about though aren't there. What you think the function of prison is - rehabilitation, punishment, protecting society at large? Whether you believe in bad people (no hope) or bad actions resulting from something else (possibly treatable). Maybe men are more violent for some understandable bullshit reason but should you consider the victims of this violence even so?

I just don't think an academic would talk about all that stuff so simplistically (even though I have to admit I might slightly agree with her simplistic argument).

TheCountessofFitzdotterel · 20/07/2017 14:45

She can't take people to court for disagreeing with her position.
You are quite safe op. Name the speaker.

SaskiaRembrandtWasFramed · 20/07/2017 14:45

Why won't you name the speaker and the seminar? You won't be in any trouble for libel or slander unless what you are saying didn't actually happen.

IloveBanff · 20/07/2017 14:46

Was it Camille Paglia by any chance?

SaskiaRembrandtWasFramed · 20/07/2017 14:47

No, she can't sue you for disagreeing with her, not even in a UK court. I'm sorry but if you aren't prepared to provide specifics I'm not inclined to believe this really happened.

worridmum · 20/07/2017 14:47

it was last year and a guest speaker, but was again recently on tv sprouting these views and over lunch people where commenting on it and wanted to see what mumsnet though.

And she did have evidence but her interputation and presenting of the evidence was very very skewed which could be turned in such away to support her claims in such the same way suggesting people of aficran decent are more likely to be criminal because they make up such a large % of the total prison population

I am being vague as the women in question is very trigger happy with slander lawsuits.

OP posts:
TheCountessofFitzdotterel · 20/07/2017 14:48

Paglia would have her work cut out if she went round taking people to court for disagreeing with her...

DotForShort · 20/07/2017 14:48

Just name the speaker. BTW the libel laws in the US are very different from those in the U.K. You have nothing to worry about if you are simply reporting your impressions of the person's lecture.

YetAnotherSpartacus · 20/07/2017 14:48

Name the speaker in the symposium... samposisam

BitchQueen90 · 20/07/2017 14:48

Of course women can commit crimes, and whether there was a male influence or not the individual has to take responsibility for it.

The majority of violent crimes are committed by men. That is a fact.

The majority of female prisoners as pp have said is to do with money matters. Or drugs. And to be honest I find throwing drug addicts into prison completely counterproductive and a waste of time and but I won't get into that.

This all sounds a bit bizarre to me.

TheCountessofFitzdotterel · 20/07/2017 14:49

'I'm sorry but if you aren't prepared to provide specifics I'm not inclined to believe this really happened.' - ditto.

RiverTam · 20/07/2017 14:49

But isn't it the case that very large numbers of women in prison have mental health issues, and also that very large numbers have experince abuse at the hands of men?

You can't have equality until you dismantle patriarchy. A daily read of MN shows you that the patriarchy is alive and kicking. The patriarchy is indeed the cause of a lot of problems in our society.

DixieFlatline · 20/07/2017 14:50

And she did have evidence but her interputation and presenting of the evidence was very very skewed

"X person presented a case in a very biased manner in my opinion but I can't possibly let you judge that for yourselves so just believe me, alright?" is not a particuarly interesting basis for a debate thread.

KoalaDownUnder · 20/07/2017 14:51

For goodness' sake. Just say who it was!

BertrandRussell · 20/07/2017 14:51

" am being vague as the women in question is very trigger happy with slander lawsuits."

I call bollocks.

Freddystarshamster · 20/07/2017 14:51

The majority of female prisoners as pp have said is to do with money matters

Polite way of saying women are just as capable as men of being thieving bastards...

DixieFlatline · 20/07/2017 14:52

I call bollocks.

Yup.

TheCountessofFitzdotterel · 20/07/2017 14:56

Was it Germaine? She can be quite off the wall sometimes.
Never heard of her suing anyone though. Not her style.

PovertyPain · 20/07/2017 15:05

If you're simply repeating what she has said/suggested, then she won't take you to court. If, however, you're bullshiting, then that would explain why you're being so vague.

CockacidalManiac · 20/07/2017 15:11

I believe the term is 'put up, or shut up'.
Without a reference, this is cobblers.

9unctured6icycle · 20/07/2017 15:12

I am a feminist as i believe in a equal society what i am agaisnt is when people try to take away from that be it by suggesting females can only be victims (as in we dont have self antominay and are controlled by males) or where people are think we should more "equal" then men by postivtie discrimition (aka being promoted simply for being female etc)

Hmm, sounds like some second-wave/NOW feminism. Unless that is also too victimy for you. Though objections to being 'more "equal" than men' isn't something you hear much in feminist literature as you're comparing apples and oranges.

Amd724 · 20/07/2017 15:12

I am going to call bullshit. The excuse that she could sue you doesn't hold up. You cannot be that stupid if you think that by discussing what this person said online and disagreeing with her that you'd get sued. Unless you will fully misinterpret everything you read or hear to match the viewpoint you're trying to make. Making her sound like a lawsuit happy cow, with stupid views that shows how bad radical feminism is really fits in with a viewpoint that feminism is wrong. When you said that positive discrimination is wrong because its solely appointing someone based on their gender, I knew you had a skewed and uninformed view of feminism.

MrsTerryPratchett · 20/07/2017 15:13

I call bollocks. Me too, but it is an interesting question.

I've worked with a lot of offenders. If you took away all the offenders who:

Are ill
Are mentally ill
Are in there for non-violent financial stuff
Are addicted
Have a personality disorder
Have a brain injury
Have a learning disorder
Have severe ADHD
Are there because of a male partner (seems not to happen the other way round )
Were seriously abused or neglected as children
Are care leavers

You would have almost empty prisons. Of both sexes. I actually think the patriarchy is worse for causing men to offend than women. In a truly equal society I think slightly more women would offend but many fewer men.