AIBU to think that females can in fact be criminals

[worridmum]

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)

Yep, I understood why you were doing it. They also like to pretend we haven't had this type of radical thinking in the past, whereas its how we've actually made progress.

Anyone who commits a crime is a criminal. No one else to blame but themselves.

Yes-anyone who commits a crime is by definition a criminal. The point is what do we do with them next.

sorry donquixote - it's all too easy to leap to the wrong conclusion in this kind of weird thread..

this 'poor me' cry does not get far with me

But, from what I've read from what seem to me to be similar symposiums, these are people who are looking at the wider effect here. For example, women are more likely to have caring responsibilities, so if you put a mother in jail, who's looking after her kids? Are they in care? Are they in poverty, overcrowding? Does society benefit more by putting a woman who shoplifted clothes in jail, and putting her kids in care than it does from some kind of rehabilitation program which she can work whilst still looking after her kids? Does it make economic sense? Is it really better to keep her in jail, costing x thousand a week, or divert those funds to projects to get her family out of poverty so she doesn't feel she needs to shoplift?

Shouldn't these questions be asked? Don't we want to have a better society?

I hate dealing with women, very often they are a criminal with an extra bitchy edge. Wow. Having worked with offenders over 3 decades, that hasn't been my experience.

They also like to pretend we haven't had this type of radical thinking in the past, whereas its how we've actually made progress. Overton window!

this thread wasnt meant to be about people and there shitty views I wanted a debate like what SpaghettitandMeatballs post suggested.

but using the same token should we be putting anyone in prison for none violent / dangerous crimes?

Should we put a father in prison for shoplifting as while the children might not have to be put into care but it could cause massive problems for the children ? is there benifet for society to taking childrens fathers away risking causing another generation of criminals?

These were the questions i wanted to debate.

I just hated how it was only looking at females and going down the track that women cannot be held repsoability for their actions which was the annoying thing

Sorry, worridmum. You won't quote your sources. You don't know what a radical feminist is. I honestly find it hard to believe that you really are up for a debate.

Yes, but you still haven't told us who said what you claim was said. Are you planning to do that, or are we expected to just take your word that it actually happened?

Statisically speaking most male prisoners are like mentioned drug addicts, abuse survivors or from poverity stricken homes why are people only sprouting this sort of crap that i mentioned in my OP when its women it effects and how she was able to present in a respectable instution when if it was about any other group it would not of happened.

Not higher education would allow someone to sprout the things they were sprouting if it was using termonolgy like black people are the root cause of all crime, statically speaking black people are more likely to be criminal so should have intervention and saying the children should be removed from these influences?

But why was it ok for it to be males and I and many of the attendies did put complaints in about it.

Seems like you haven't understood the content of the lecture or (more likely) are lying about having attended.

As a rule of thumb I don't believe anyone who uses the verb "spout" to mean "expressing a view"
Name the fucking speaker, worridmum! Then we can talk about ir

The problem is that none of us know what the speaker was "spouting" as you haven't said who it was, and we have only your viewpoint which is coming across as very biased. It's not a discussion when no one else apart from you know what was said. No one is going to be able to sue you in anyway for mentioning the name of the speaker and the title of their talk!

I'm happy to debate if anyone should be in prison. It's a favorite topic of mine.

Firstly, you have to work out what you want the justice system to do; you cannot have everything. Retribution, prevention, revenge, better society, rehabilitation, separation of offenders from society, equality? What do you want? Prison is relatively ineffectual or cause the opposite in most of those cases.

Secondly, you have to look at cost benefit. Locking up a man who shoplifts causes less 'cost' in lost cases.

Thirdly, you have to look at the absolutes. Like in the US that's no 'cruel and unusual punishment' even if it would meet your aims. I know they don't stick to this at all but you know what I mean.

Then you work out a system that works. I think that the only way prison is effective is separating offenders. That would be dangerous, repeat killers and sexual abusers. People for whom rehabilitation won't work and are dangerous enough to require separation. I would still make prison humane in this case.

In my system you would have almost no women locked up. The numbers are very small.

why are people only sprouting this sort of crap that i mentioned in my OP when its women it effects Utter bullshit. I'm a feminist and am often on threads about male offenders arguing for different systems.

Are you one of those people who goes 'lalalalalala' when people don't fit in your idea that feminists don't care about men?

Female what? Female dog? Female hamster? Female naked mole rat?

The term for a female human is 'woman'.

Please stop all this dehumanising 'females' shit.

Which kind of views?

The views espoused by the individual cited by the OP.

And some names, please?

Witchwind for one!...

I'm not sure why there's such defensiveness... there are people of all persuasions who are extreme. Their views don't nullify the validity of more mainstream opinions. For instance, there are very likely anti-semites in the Labour Party. The fact there are doesn't mean Labour's policies and positions are invalid! Where extremism is identified it should be confronted not denied because it's awkward to acknowledge.

"Witchwind for one!..."

Beside witchwind- who published her think piece blog about 10 years ago, if I remember correctly!

People are asking for the name of the person the OP claims made these statements at an academic symposium, not the name of some internet random who uses a pseudonym. As the Op refuses to give this name, I and others suspect her claims are not genuine.

What a weird thread.

I dont want to out myself or open myself up for slander by identifying the speakers)

If this speaker really did say the things you are claiming they did then you won't get sued for slander. Do you even know what slander is?

replace man with black person / muslim it would be shut down as a hate crime

Not really, men are not an oppressed group, black people and Muslims are.

Men are responsible for 96% of violent crime in the U.K. Women can be criminals, of course, but are by large far less dangerous than men, and I think it's fair to recognise this. I agree that this sounds over simplified and I'd actually be interested in hearing that lecture.

Even if legal action was likely it would be libel not slander. Libel is written, slander is spoken.

Actually I recognise OP's username. I can assure you this thread is not from the perspective of a feminist

And the sentencing of women is very complex because it is much more likely to have an immediate practical impact on the lives of children. Of course the sentencing of a man can too, but it is much less likely, for example, to land children in care. And men are much more likely to be convicted of violence than women are, and to be a continuing risk to others. So different criteria have to apply. Which is different from saying women can't be criminals.

However, we spend a fortune locking g people up for no real gain

The biggest gain is giving their communities a break from their constant reoffending. Prison doesn't work in this country for male or female in terms of recidivism (because it's a piece of piss especially in the female estate that's another argument mind)