First, I wonder if this strange punctuation appeared in the original news print edition. Second, this tells us much about the errors of radical feminism. It insists on improperly stereotyping "men," and on top of that, never bothering to find anything positive about us. Third, I wish I could have asked the, um, enlightened author why we can't offset all the taxable income men create (what do you think that is -- 85% of all the income generate? 95%?) against the cost of crime some men commit? Hmm, my guess is that if we did that -- which would only be fair, of course -- we'd need to impose a very, very hefty Woman Tax to even things out. In fact, I'm sure of it.
Word for Word / The Sir-Charge; A Fair Lady's Question: Why Can't A Man Be More Like a Woman?
New York Times
By SARAH BOXER
Published: Sunday, May 21, 1995
ALTHOUGH the nation professes to be worried sick both about how much money is in the Government's coffers and how much crime is in the cities' streets, few people have come forward with practical suggestions for solving both problems at once. But June Stephenson, a research psychologist from Napa, Calif, has a doozy. In her book "Men are Not Cost-Effective: Male Crime in America," published in paperback this year by Harper Perennial, she spells out her plan. Here is an excerpt. SARAH BOXER WHO do the police investigate if the identities of the perpetrators of a crime are unknown? Almost always they would be investigating young men. Thirty-one percent of the people arrested and sent to prison are men between the ages of 18 and 24, and another 45 percent are men aged 25 to 44. Ninety-four percent of prisoners are males. Whether it is robbery, burglary, arson, white-collar crime, crime against children, crime against women, drug dealing, drunk driving, murder, crime in government, treason, or gang violence, crime is a masculine statement. . . .
Ten years ago there were approximately 200,000 people in prison in this country. Today there are approximately one million behind bars . . .
If one includes those who are on parole or probation, the number rises to 3.4 million, almost all of whom are men. . . .
Throughout the United States, spending for prison construction is the top state priority for the sixth year in a row. . . .
One prison cell costs $100,000 without considering the interest to be paid on bonds raised for prison construction. Keeping a person in prison for a year costs from $20,000 to $24,000; maximum-security prisons cost from $30,000 to $35,000. Approximately 50,000 new prisoners are added to the total prison population each year. In California, $1 million a day is spent on interest for prison bonds. . . .
Your Brother's Keeper
Not all men are criminals, but almost all criminals are men. By a ratio of 94 to 6, men outnumber women in prison. . . .
The question of how responsible noncriminal men are for the horrendous amount of male violence and other crime can be equated with the question often asked after World War II, "How responsible was the rest of the world for the murder of six million Jews?"
Most men would answer the first question with, "I don't rape women, don't participate in drive-by shootings, don't murder, don't drive drunk, don't commit arson, don't bilk people out of their life savings, and I'm not responsible for men who do."
But the response to that answer would be: "Maybe you don't batter women, but your brothers do. Even if you don't commit serial or mass murder, your brothers do. Maybe you're not a drunk driver, but your brothers are. Your brothers are murderers, stock market manipulators, gang rapists, robbers, arsonists, litterers, polluters and child abusers. Your brothers are killing us."
Would that strike a responsive or responsible chord? Probably not. Men are not their brothers' keepers. Except in male-bonding groups, men are not connected to one another emotionally in the same way women are. Women come quietly forward to protect each other from violent men.
They establish rape hot lines and support groups for traumatized victims and set up battered women's shelters to help the four million women battered each year, one million of whom require hospitalization. (A battered men's shelter is not even imaginable.)
We cannot expect men to police their own, to take responsibility for their contribution to the violence in this country, especially at a time when Macho Man has made his comeback. . . . This country cannot count on its men to rectify its violent nature. They are too much a part of it. So what is left? Besides building prisons and increasing incarceration, what is left? Nothing short of men paying for their own criminal gender. To ask such a thing would be a wake-up call for all men to realize what their gender is perpetrating on society.
Half of the taxpayers in this country are women, but men commit most of the crime. Many women pay for male crime with their lives, but all women taxpayers pay for male crime with their tax dollars. . . .
The concept of one group paying more for the services offered for a larger group is not new. Insurance companies in many states require young men 16 to 26 to pay more for car insurance than women of those ages and more than other age groups because males in this age group cause most car accidents. Not all males 16 to 26 cause accidents, but all men in that group pay the higher fee.
As a fee on men for crime it could be called a "user fee" since men are using the criminal justice system almost exclusively. Just walk the halls of any courthouse and notice who's being tried, or simply turn on the TV to see who's being arrested. . . .
The suggestion for the tax equity would be a $100 user fee added to men's I.R.S. returns at the time of filing a return. Of course, there will be screaming and hollering about such a fee, but one might ask, is $100 a year too much to ask help curtail crime? What would a man pay?
Tax and Mend
And how would the money be spent? It could be used to identify boys in primary grades who are not learning to read and who come from violent homes, an often deadly combination. . . . Money from this "user fee" from the gender dominating the criminal justice system could be used for intensive tutoring and for family counseling.
Money could also be used to teach reading in prison. Most prisoners have not graduated from high school and return to society unable to make a living, or even to cope.
If men would recognize that crime is a male statement for which males pay more than females, there is a possibility they might help to "clean up their act." It can be said that women are expensive as well, since teen-age pregnancy swells the welfare rolls, and welfare in general is paid more to women than to men. But if men would pay child support for the children they father, welfare rolls would shrink. . . .
Men are expensive. Their crimes cost this country upward of $61 billion each year in incarceration and judicial costs alone. This figure does not include the cost of the S.& L. scandal nor the costs of toxic waste cleanup. In addition, millions of men do not support the child they have fathered, leaving this up to mothers or taxpayers or both.
Millions of men beat their wives, creating the need for battered women's shelters. Millions sexually abuse children. Drunk drivers and arsonists kill people as surely as the murderers do. The fastest growing crime of rape terrifies half the population of this country. The greatest environmental offender in the country is the government, which is run by men. Male corporate executives and military officers who have dumped toxic waste into the ground or into the air are destroying the planet. Hate crimes are encouraged by male organizations, such as the skinheads and the Ku Klux Klan. . . .
Yet where is the outrage at all this male crime?
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/21/weekinreview/word-for-word-sir-charge-fair-lady-s-question-why-can-t-man-be-more-like-woman.html
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
From the archives: It's crucial that men not forget this sort of lunacy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
You know, I dont what's worse, this story or the feminist creeps that keep posting on this site. Both make me sick.
RM
Another fascist pig.
"Not all men are criminals, but almost all criminals are men."
Well, even though not all women are on welfare, most welfare recipients are women.
So, if men should pay for the incarceration/etc of male prisoners, let's have women pay for all the women on welfare.
Sounds fair, no doesn't it?
Well, I suppose that women on welfare do cost this country far more than the men in prison, so I guess women would like having to pay to be their sisters keepers.
Hummm... You know, I can see so real savings for men.
The cost of research and treatment of breast cancer far exceeds that of prostate cancer, so...following Sarah Boxer's logic:
Not all woman have breast cancer, but most breast cancer suffers are women. If women will agree that they get to pick up that tab, 'm sure men would be happy to get the prostate cancer one.
but, why stop?
Not all gay men and inter-venous drug users have HIV/AIDS, but most of those with HIV/AIDS are gay or use inter-venous drug…if you all catch my drift.
Not all Latino’s are illegal immigrants…
Not all black men are in prison…
That sort of logic can get real sick, real quick.
False Rape Town Meeting
1. What can be done so that women who knowingly falsify rape will be charged with the crime?
2. What are some of the reasons why a woman would falsify a rape?
3. Why do police and prosecutors protect women who commit the crime of false rape?
4. Why don't women's groups’ believe in the existence of false rape?
5. Why do women's groups’ still believe the false accuser even after the investigation proves she lied?
6. How has women's groups’ over the years contributed to an increasing number of false rape accusations?
7. Why doesn't the mainstream news media cover false rape stories more?
8. Why does society automatically believe the woman in a rape case?
9. How can society prevent false rape?
10. How can men protect themselves from women who falsify rape?
This is just a thinly disguised racist diatribe from a privileged upper middle class bitch. And why does she love female crime so much? Why not complain about all criminals?
The feminists share immense reponsibility for crime and excessive incarceration rates because they have contribute more to the destruction of the family and the resulting cycle of poverty than any other group.
98% of all war casualties are men.
95% of all work place deaths are men.
99% of all inventions are made by men (even though women are 51% of college graduates).
In 99% of all rescues where the rescuer’s life is in danger, the rescuer is a man.
99% of all violent criminals are captured by men.
99% of all things that ever get fixed are fixed by men.
99% of all technology is still created by men (even though women are 51% of college graduates).
Add up all of the services such as the ones above, where women don’t pull their fair share of the work load, then assess the woman tax.
--FWO
If you graph the incarceration rate in the USA, you will see that it rose directly proportional to the rise of Feminism.
No other social factor can be as closely tied to the rise of crime in the USA as the influence of Feminism.
You all are missing the big one: men create the vast majority of wealth that pays -- what? -- 90% of all taxes? Totally inequitable. Time for a Woman Tax.
Time for some tax incentives to encourage traditional marriage and other patriarchal institutions. You obviously need strong families to reign in crime, which this female supremacist claims as a priority.
In case this feminist psychopath wasn't already aware, we are already paying the "sir charge" in the form of putting up with false accusations, biased divorce courts, favoritism towards women in hiring, lesser academic opportunities, etc.
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2005/july05/05-07-20.html
http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2005/oct05/psroct05.html
http://www.fathermag.com/authors/Carey_Roberts/002/column/articles/31824.shtml
http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARflyer-CEDAW-and-IVAWA.pdf
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0316blumhorst.html
Anonymous said...
In case this feminist psychopath wasn't already aware, we are already paying the "sir charge" in the form of putting up with false accusations, biased divorce courts, favoritism towards women in hiring, lesser academic opportunities, etc.
SPOT ON!
The links I posted are in regard to VAWA (another "man tax" that has no equal benefit for men).
These criminal men don't just come out of the blue. They are made. The vast majority of the very worst are the product of single mothers. If I was into the fallacy of association, then why blame men at all? Don't they all have mothers, and aren't mothers the greatest influence (for better or worse) on everyone?
Maybe we should start fining mothers of criminals, and confiscating their homes and property whenever they set loose another unbalanced dangerous individual onto the rest of us (sons and daughters alike). Perhaps we should make them share the execution chamber with the killers they raised.
What an incentive that would be to start taking the job of parenting very seriously.
We used to let industry pollute our air and waters, and let them pocket their gains without recompense for the damage they did. Now we know better, and put them in the dog-house if they release their rubbish into the community.
Well, there are rubbish parents doing the same, and it's time we made them pay. Be careful what you wish for missus, because if it's a crime-free society you have your heart set on, eventually you too will be made to pay your share.
A lot of these mothers were brainwashed by the feminists into thinking that single motherhood would be "liberating" and not at all harmful to the children. The result of their toxic propaganda has been disastrous for everybody involved -- except them. The extremists have profited from the destruction of the family, and the rest of us are paying for their party.
FWO: Here here!
Cheers to all the blokes out there doing what women won't.
Anonymous said...
" These criminal men don't just come out of the blue. They are made."
Spot on! Look how our boys are failing in school. I should say how schools are failing boys. Look at society's attitudes/prejudices toward males.
Children live what they learn. If you teach a boy he is worthless and will never amount to anything, what could you expect from him as an adult?
http://www.friesian.com/sommers.htm
I will add , especially if the one main influence the boy NEEDS is removed; a strong father to guide him into becoming a man and everything that a men truely is. How many mothers have the time or inclination to teach their son's respect,honor,decency,morals,honesty,strength,integrity,character,courage and,compassion?
Look around,how many boys exhibit these things?
It's a negative feedback loop. The feminists spread hatred of men and promote careerism over family values, thus breaking more homes, instilling a permanent sense of worthlessness in the boys and a sense of victimhood and entitlement in the girls. Then more boys grow up to be failures or even criminals, giving the feminists more ammunition in their war on men and their brainwashing of women. Even more insane feminist policies are put in place and things just get worse and worse for everybody -- except for the feminists, who eat up more and more VAWA pork.
The feminists didn't get to where they are now by making things BETTER.
" Why Can't A Man Be More Like a Woman? "
Because it is unatural.
A woman's role is whatever she wants it to be.
A man's role is basically the same old role (The one who must fulfill the role of provider and protector) except, with things added.
The role of being the one used to fill jail/prison cells,a smoldering body slumped over in an electric chair,a body suffering as chemicals are pumped into it while,laying on a gurney and/or, a body writhing in agony and pain after the executioner's bullt has found it's mark.
The target for and of false accusations.
Again, I appreciate all the comments, but the fundamental point in rebuttal is this: if women (and some ball-less men) insist on focusing on the fact that "men," as a class are responsible for crime and its drain on the economy, then they must also focus on the fact that "men," as a class, create the vast majority of the wealth that is taxed, which far more than makes up for the crime drain.
You can't have it both ways, ladies.
Of course the fundamental flaw with this lunacy is that it is wrong on any level to hold individuals responsible for the sins of some memebers of the class to which they belong.
I like the earlier suggestion: how about we hold the custodial parent responsible for what their sons do? Isn't it a hell of a lot more fair to hold the inner city single mother, who doesn't need a husband because she has Obama, responsible for their law-breaking sons than it is to hold a law-abiding suburban man who is suppporting a wife and raising four daughters? The question scarcely survives its statement.
I have lost all patience with left wing feminist loons.
Holding parents legally responsible for the actions of their kids is a bad idea because taht undermines parental status and authority. We've already seen how child support laws degrade fathers so let's not take any further steps in the direction of making parents vassals of the state.
I would rather take steps to strongly encourage marriage over single motherhood.
"the fundamental point in rebuttal is this: if women (and some ball-less men) insist on focusing on the fact that "men," as a class are responsible for crime and its drain on the economy, then they must also focus on the fact that "men," as a class, create the vast majority of the wealth that is taxed, which far more than makes up for the crime drain.
"You can't have it both ways, ladies."
100% correct.
Post a Comment