I was recently looking over US prison statistics, which demonstrate that the United States imprisons more people by far in terms of both percent of population and overall number than any other country in the world. In fact, the United States may have the highest peacetime incarceration rate in recorded history — we are certainly somewhere near the USSR at the height of the GULAG system (not counting post-war POWs).
While looking at graphs detailing the steep rise in incarceration that began around 1980, it occurred to me that the implementation of feminism and women’s liberation coincided almost perfectly with the rise in the incarceration rate. As single motherhood and “innovations” in family law spread, the number of men in prison grew at a fantastic rate. In the 1990s, Clinton’s 1994 crime bill further increased the growth of the prison industrial complex just as the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) took hold.
It often takes great effort and force to prop up an unnatural social system. The reason the implementation of Communism was accompanied by mass incarceration was that the Communist system wasn’t the best fit for the societies it enslaved. Likewise, although sexual liberation and the destruction of families may come naturally to many – possibly most – women on an individual basis, it doesn’t really work in modern human societies, and probably hasn’t been adaptive since the end of the middle paleolithic.
The decimation of American families began to gain steam during the 1960s, when the illegitimacy rate of black Americans rose rapidly, foreshadowing the current explosion of white illegitimacy. This was accompanied by a record crime rate in the 1970s. As social chaos began to take hold and women marched in the streets for easy divorce and abortion, conservatives’ attention was largely focused on the poor behavior of the young male cohort. As conservatives are wont to do, they blamed men exclusively for the problem, possibly because of their cherished fantasy that all women who have children out of wedlock or who get divorced are innocent victims of rapacious men. In reality, the boys who were out in the street misbehaving were, as often as not, victims of their mothers’ choices.
In addition to the criminality brought about by illegitimacy and broken families, the economic issue of welfare came to be a major point of political contention. As single mothers went on welfare en masse, pressure built up to make fathers pay — again, often for the poor choices of women. Tougher laws were passed to rein in the social chaos in inner cities and attempt to coerce young men into behaving like Ward Cleaver even as their role as provider husband or father had been subverted by revolutionary family law and feminist policies in school and the workplace. Of course, it was impossible for many of these young men to beat the odds stacked against them, so the punitive option was brought to bear, and prisons across the country received them with open arms.
An interesting thing about the meteoric rise in incarceration is that it continued apace for over an entire generation. Starting around 1980, it continued to grow throughout the last Bush administration. If you are a young man today, your chance of being thrown in the slammer has grown tremendously from the day you were born. Even as your real wages have declined, your educational opportunities eroded by higher costs and female domination of higher education, and the likelihood you will have a stable, lasting marriage and family has largely evaporated, you now have a greater opportunity than ever to live the life of a convict.
Feminist policy created a self-reinforcing loop of male disenfranchisement, male crime, public outrage and calls for punishment, incarceration, and then more disenfranchisement as children grow up with daddy in jail or otherwise on the wrong side of the law. There is nothing more responsible for the destruction of the American family than feminism, and there is nothing that breeds crime like broken families.
Subscribe to The Spearhead Newsletter for a free copy of the Book of Zed
{ 59 comments… read them below or add one }
What are the statistics on female incarceration over the same period of time?
I’m curious how the confluence of factors have effected their demographic, in proportion to males.
Increased incarceration in the US is a result of the war on drugs, which started in 1980 under Ronald Reagan and ramped up with three strikes legislation. As sentances for posession or distribution of crack cocaine went up, so did the number of black men in jail.
If it were the fault of feminism, Scandinavia would have far more men in prison than the US. It does not.
Why were all those young black men out on the streets dealing crack cocaine? Do you think it had nothing to do with the decimation of the black family in America?
BTW, Swedish drug laws are as tough as ours, so if it’s the war on drugs Sweden should have a much higher incarceration rate than it does, no?
I maintain that the destruction of the family in America led directly to higher crime, which led to calls for harsh punishments.
Ward Cleaver, Welmer, not Walt.
Thanks, Sestamibi.
It was a little before my time. I should have used Cliff Huxtable as an example.
No, scandinavia does not have the same drug laws as the US. They focus on treatement rather than incarceration. They also do not bother arresting people for posession of minor drugs like pot or hash.
Scandianavian countries provide alot of support to single mothers than the US, and a higher percentage of children are born out of wed lock. For your hypothisis to be true, scandinavia should have a much higher rate of incarceration than the US and they do not.
It’s also worth pointing out that women are the base of support of anti-freedom laws like the war on drugs. After women got the vote in 1920 just a few years later prohibition was passed because of groups like the Women’s Christian Temperance Union. Even now why are there groups like MADD (Mothers against drunk driving) and not people against drunk driving? MADD was responsible for raising the drinking age from 18 to 21 which anyone can tell you hasn’t stopped drinking among 18 – 21 year olds. It’s more anti-freedom laws from women and more men in prison as a result.
The war on drugs was started by Ronald Reagan. I would hardly call him a feminist.
ORLY?
There is no real distinction between hard and soft drugs in Sweden. Marijuana is viewed as a dangerous drug that leads to harder drugs and lifelong addiction. Drug education programs start early and regularly appear throughout the school curriculum. The Swedish vision of a drug-free society is so widely accepted that it is not questioned in the political arena or the media.
I’m guessing you’re one of those people who thinks that America could be just like Sweden if only we implemented social welfare policies as the Swedes have done. Sorry, but it wouldn’t work here.
Another thing to keep in mind is that Swedish feminism has never been as coercive as American feminism. Men are not routinely thrown in jail or dispossessed when their wives decide to abuse the justice system to gain an advantage in divorce. Joint physical custody is routine. Women do not have the same advantages there. That’s one thing I’d welcome about Swedish law.
I do not think that welfare policies should be implemented in the US.
I think the war on drugs is a failure, needlessly incarcerates men, breaks up families and wastes an incredible amount of money.
mobil February 9, 2010 at 16:51
“The war on drugs was started by Ronald Reagan. I would hardly call him a feminist.”
The war on drugs was started by the Illuminati, Reagan was merely the puppet. It is not widely known that one of the FIRST things that Reagan did was at the behest of Donald Rumsfeld which was to halt the FDA stopping the entry of Aspartame into the food chain. Reagen, reportedly known as ‘red Ronnie’ in his younger days, was put into power by the PTB after Carter had run the term of ‘democrats’ and it was ‘time for a change’. Reagan was as dirty as Bush Snr and Bush Jnr but people don’t want to hear that.
It is also well reported that Reagan got a bit full of himself and thought he might actually have some power. So he reportedly asked where all the personal income tax went and how much gold was in fort knox. He was not supposed to be asking these questions so they organised a ‘lone gunman’ assassination attempt early in his first term.
Since Ronnie did not die I figure he was persuaded that there might be a ‘role’ for him to go down as a ‘great hero’ in history and he took it. So he then made a majestic performance “Mr. Gorbachev, pull down that wall”. Only trouble is it is reported that Gorbachev made the comment that the committee of 300 approved the fall of the berlin wall. It was all an act and the REAL evidence is the handshake between Gorbachev and Reagan being an Illuminati handshake. How this these two manage to do that so naturally? An accident? I think not.
The high incarceration rate in the US is required by the financial system. Period. While in jail these men are required to ‘work’ and also there is a massive industry for ‘correction services’. They need to have the credible threat to people to put them in jail. And yes, they might have more sinister reasons for having so man men in jail.
In the US a kid was recently given 8 years for grafitti while in Australia women are regularly ‘walked’ for murdering even their own child. That ONLY makes sense in the case where the banksters WANT more prisoners. And as the chart clearly shows the banksters do want more prisoners in the US.
Connection with feminism? Nothing much except the same bunch of scumbags are calling the shots. Of course, it is much easier to create an ‘offender’ when the ‘offense’ is that the man didn’t pay money he could not afford for ‘alimony’ or ‘child support’. Lots of guys in jail are there for non payment of things they don’t have the money to pay. They could ALL be freed using the exact same techniques I promote for refusing the jurisdiction of the courts. Possession of a drug is not a ‘crime’ under common law it is a ’statutory offense’ under uniform commercial code. Only those who have actually caused harm, loss or injury or committed fraud in their contracts should be in jail. And that’s not many.
mobil:
The war on drugs was started by Ronald Reagan. I would hardly call him a feminist.
Really? Is this the same Reagan who appointed the first female justice to the Supreme Court? And the same Reagan who, as governor of California, signed the Family Law Act of 1969 which introduced to the U.S. and the world the concept of no-fault divorce?
No, he was no feminist, he was, after all, a (ahem) conservative.
I’m sorry, I must correct something. I did a bit of reading (yes, it was Wikipedia…) and found that the concept of no-fault divorce was pioneered by the Bolsheviks long before Reagan got a hold of it. Wait, that can’t be–I thought Reagan was anti-communist…must be some mistake here…
I agree with you the link between crime and weak family structure is clear and sexual liberation has a lot to do with it.
In the mean time, I found this talk by Mark Kleiman very interesting about ideas of how to manage crime and reduce incarceration in the short term. I think its worth watching if you have some time and are interested in the subject :
http://zocalopublicsquare.org/full_video_2007.php?event_id=330
The poor guys in that pic are representative of US prison population in general. They look sorta majority black 0r Mexican – even though their combined percentage of America is approx 25%.
Their being incarcerated has nothing to do with missing an alimony payment.
I’m sure they are great champions of my causes and mean me no harm. Still, I’ve no interest in taking up their cause.
I don’t want to free Tookie and Mumia.
Sorry – the “war on drugs” was given most of its momentum by Harry Anslinger back in the late 1920s – early 1930s – years before Ronald Reagan even took his first screen test.
Reading the progressive Mark A. R. Kleiman he indicated that only 20% of criminals in our jails are low level drug offenders. There are a lot of people in jail for drug convictions but most are because going after a drug offense was easier to convict a dealer or a burglar than being a gang leader or a burglar. The war on drugs is a bad idea, but it’s not the cause of our high incarceration rate.
The rate is so very high because we got tired of liberal judges letting criminals go to terrorize us and we locked most of them up. This brought about the large crime rate reduction in the 90s. Alas, the root cause remains. We are producing human filth from these single parent families. They grow up without fathers to mold them and with no allegiances to the larger culture. They are rewarded with sex and fame for their exploits. It’s a perverse system that just keeps on chugging out more and more criminals.
We can’t let these people out without returning to crime levels even worse than the 80s and early 90s. I lived through that crap and I don’t want to go back to it. The problem must be solved at the root. Stop supporting single mothers. Shame them, cut off their welfare checks, treat them like the evil creatures they are. Most of them will settle down and get married if take away the intensives to stay single. And if we give them a decent culture and their children have fathers the crime factory will stop and our jails will empty out with in 20-30 years.
“Antiphon February 9, 2010 at 17:27 ”
The idea of destruction of the family was first written into the communist manifesto. Lennis was a BIG feminist and the result was about 100M dead russian men. Even today russian men remember the treachery of their women in siding with Lennin and crew and remember the treachery of their women refusing to lift a finger against the wholesale slaughter of men.
Russian women complain bitterly about how badly they are treated by their men, like 3rd class citizens after their dogs. When I go through the communist revolution and how the women supported the communists and how the men were slaughters in such large numbers etc and then ask these women if they think the fact that so many men died while so many women did so little for them has anything to do with how they are treated now.
Usually the women go into ‘but it was not me who did that’. And I explain that the men in communist countries know and understand the true nature of women and THAT is why they treat women so badly. I often point out to them that if their great grandmothers and grand mothers had not betrayed their men, they might be treated a little better today. So when they come to the west and see all these pussy whipped manginas they very easily hussle a whiny western bitch out of the picture. LOL!
“zed February 9, 2010 at 18:03 ”
Yep..I thought the first ‘war on drugs’ was prohibition…and we all saw what a great success THAT was.
@ mobil February 9, 2010 at 12:08
Okay, I only got this far in your posting – 12:08. 1. Please think in broader terms, we are not arguing the good or bad of US drug policy. Also, please note comparing one country to another IS apples to oranges. Summarizing all this is shallow at best.
I do agree that more stringent drug laws is “one” explanatory variable in determining why there are higher incarceration rates – that is obvious. But it tells only one part of the story, and it’s not the only reason. One can come up with a seemingly endless mosaic of reasons for more men being locked up. Let’s get back on track. Feminism and exponentially rising incarceration rates are more than a spurious correlation…methinks. I’d argue that things like truancy, arrested development, violence and also drug abuse now prevalent with men are consequences of feminism. So, I fully agree with this thesis, in that when compiling all the variables to describe this issue, I would put a very high weighting on the advent of radical feminism.
Women are right in wanting the guys in that picture to stay locked up in their air-conditioned hells.
That is the group that rapes robs and kills women more than any other.
Look it up yourself. You’ll have to go after the race-based stats our “open” Obama government buries in BJS stats.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=kfa
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=836
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/cpracept.cfm
But they’re in the links.
Beware the lumping in of Hispanic offenders to swell “white” crime rates.
Any group that gets its own checkbox on an employment app for preferential hiring doesn’t get to deceptively hide in a group it so vociferously, traditionally seeks to separate from.
Scandinavia has less men in prison because it’s full of Scandinavians.
Here is a typical weekly arrest report-card from a typical US jurisdiction. Greene County in Jacksonville Florida.
http://www.kinston.com/articles/county-61289-greene-reported.html
Note at least 2 of the 20 arrests are for overdue spousal-support/child-support. I have less sympathy for the c/s cases, but Spousal Support? It’s patently unfair that these men go to prison because some lazy woman somewhere wants to be taken care of in the manner that she was accustomed to during the now defunct marriage. A marriage, mind you, that SHE ended with 66-75% likelyhood.
Thank you Feminists!
The article is spot on. And things are getting much worse. This subject is one of the items on my writing “to do” list.
First, look CAREFULLY, at the agenda of organizations like NOMAS and their increasing advocacy for the New York Model, which treats batterers (all male of course) as unresponsive to mental health intervention and leaves them to be dealt with exclusively by the criminal justice system.
They are even launching efforts to treat men who secure the services of prostitutes as rapists because female prostitutes cannot be seen as able to give informed consent to sex due to their history of being victims of abuse.
In fact, if you look through the litany of NOMAS objectives, you will find that most of them end with a man behind bars. This is far from a joke.
What the prevailing powers to be, that largely act with feminist influence are doing to men is a repeat of the aggressions committed against minorities in times past. The legal system is rigged against men and the social indoctrination has been completed to the extent that the mass jailings can be carried out with public approval.
The war on drugs is just one more misguided policy that winds up as a very effective tool used to imprison men.
It was a war that started originally with the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914, so it’s origins are approaching the century mark. It was originally devised as a way to wage further war against blacks, and later against Hispanics in America’s border regions. Of course, like most illicit agendas, it rose up and started affecting whites much later. But its primary affect now, as then, is to target and imprison the economically disadvantaged male.
VAWA has followed the same course. Touted as addressing domestic violence, the net result has been to largely further the gutting of black family structure, incarcerating a lot of black men in the process. And of course it has made its way into the white population and even some of the affluent are now starting to get bitten by it, aka Charlie Sheen, et al.
Add to that a combination of things like incarceration for contempt of support orders, false allegations, the effects of rape shield laws, etc., etc., etc., all of which result in men getting locked up.
Social shit rolls uphill, and right over the backs of men.
My final word is:
Those altar boys aren’t in prison for skipping a child support payment.
Using convicts
as a method to drum up sympathy
for an “MRA” agenda
is a losing proposition.
It depends. Sentencing disparities, false imprisonments and the like seem to be men’s issues. But I don’t think what you said will be the last word on things. If you don’t address it from the law and order crowd, someone else will. As it should be.
But I contend that part of the problem is people who think that justice can be had with night sticks and the myopic application of laws. Especially when so many of the laws themselves are myopic to begin with.
If the prisons we have now were filled only with violent threats to society, well now, they wouldn’t be filled at all, would they?
The thing is, this is not self-financing.
Keeping an inmate in prison costs $50,000 a year.
If a lot of these are decent men who have been caught in the VAWA and Bradley Amendment traps, then they have been prevented from paying into the tax base.
So instead of paying, say, $20,000 in taxes, they are costing $50,000 in expenses, for a net $70,000 loss to the state.
These net $70,000 losses add up, and eventually the state will calculate that feminism costs more than it is contributing.
The tax base in the US is maxed out, which means that not many more people can be imprisoned.
A marriage, mind you, that SHE ended with 66-75% likelyhood.
In reality, it is 90%. We need more research to back up the 90% figure, though. 66-75% is not nearly as shocking as the unofficial reality of 90%.
As an outside observer living in a country with a strong Calvinist background, The Netherlands, I stumbled upon the same question. In The Netherlands, about 0.08 percent of the population is imprisoned and this percentage has remained rather constant (although over a longer period it also shows a slow, but constant decline), and in the US, according to what I know, it is now about 0.78 percent of the population, about the tenfold. With regards to feminism, the radical 2nd wave feminists do and did have an influence in The Netherlands but to turn their ideas into legislation with imprisonment as one of the possible penalties was much harder. The feminist movement has a more indirect influence, it changes the culture. We have ‘positive discrimination’, the glass ceiling discussion, the DV discussion, the ‘if females had been CEO’s we wouldn’t have an economic crisis’ discussion and what not. A lot of man-hatred and man-bashing. The political agenda of the feminist movement in the Netherlands bears a striking similarity with the agenda and changes and direction of the feminist movement in the US. Sometimes it’s lagging behind a couple of years. I also have the impression that feminism is on the decline in the Netherlands, but the radical elements of the movement can still be dangerous.
So, what might the possible factors that could account for the differences in incarceration be ? Here are my two cents.
- A belief in punishment as an effective means to enforce the law. Most Dutch don’t think that punishments are that effective. There is more focus on enforced psychiatric treatment and social control as a means to the goal. The more traditional Calvinists do think more in terms of punishments by the way. Social control is more easy in a crowded country like The Netherlands, compared to most of the US, The Netherlands is more like the Bay area, it is not like the plains of Colorado. When a ‘prison for life’ (we don’t have death sentences) sentence is dealt, it is for life. It’s a way to lock people out of society for the rest of their lives. I am under the impression that in the US, more people see punishment as ‘the right thing to do’ and an effective means to enforce abiding the law.
- The process of law creation. Laws are for everybody in the Netherlands. There are no local regulations. Effectively, this means sort of a national discussion about every letter in the law, and this is mostly done by a lot of intermediate discussions throughout society, which is called the ‘Polder model’, and the political parties. Political parties have ever changing coalitions, there is no ‘two-party’ system. Besides being rather slow, it also means that it is difficult for special interest groups, like a feminist movement, to lobby their way into legislation. Equality has been one of the ingredients, since 1600, of the Dutch society, so there is a cultural problem for any special interest group to further the idea that their inequality should lead to a change in general laws.
- In spite of the Calvinist background, the general attitude is more ‘do first, talk later’, that means that after, and not before, some incidence has occurred the discussion about morality, laws and punishment usually starts. The Dutch language is crowded with expressions that are related to this general attitude, in this way the culture has a definite Calvinistic, moral undertone but the practice does not reflect this (Double Dutch anybody ?). I have the impression that in the US, the Calvinistic worldview is more practiced and this might mean that ‘morality first, act later’ is more preferred. It might also mean that it is easier to change the rules of law and the punishments in view of a foreseen moral danger, before the disaster has taken place. In this case, the impeding disaster as viewed by the feminists.
- The ‘fear factor’. Less of this individual factor ( I don’t mean the ‘wisdom’ and sentiments of the masses) might have to do with a more crowded country, although in the last decades, influenced by general changes in local economics, housing, Internet and the influence of the baby-boomers culture of the ‘Me’, the tendency in The Netherlands has been towards less social communication and more individual communication. This is reflected in a rise of individual fear, not withstanding the general tendency that crimes are declining, and this has brought stronger demands for heavier punishments and a change towards regarding punishments as a better way to enforce the abiding of the laws. Local politicians are using this as a means to gain popularity and this reinforces the fear. I have the impression that this ‘fear factor, for different reasons, one of them being the physical distances between people, is stronger in the US.
- Commercial interests in the prison system. In the Netherlands, commercial interests in prison systems is a taboo. It is seen as a cost, and there is a continuous discussion about the costs and the benefits.
So, how would feminism play a part in the rise of incarceration of men in the US ? In general, the actual ‘traditional’ crime rates, as percentages of the population over a fixed period of time, have remained roughly the same and some have declined. At least that is what I make of it. My guess is that, as part of the US culture and as a fear-driven movement in that culture, feminism rode on the back of the existing system and very cleverly used it to preach and practice more punishment as the best way to deal with all the perceived dangers, mostly coming from men. It is in this way the standard answer of the Calvinist to deal with fear (I come from this origin). Create the enemy and let the law, in the name of the Lord, deal with it. And so, with the newly created enemy and the new rules of law, it was almost predictable that American men would become, in droves, the final victims.
I predict that as the drug war is being lost or abandoned because it is gradually sinking in how insane it was to begin with, emphasis will shift to another victimless crime as the war on sex will be escalated to keep the prisons filled. The men’s movement, except me and Angry Harry, will be either complacent about this or engage in activism to demand an equal war on female sexuality. This is already happening.
@ Arpagus
Wow! Can you support any of that?
While I do agree that feminist policies have helped create a self-reinforcing loop of male disenfranchisement, which in turn mat lead to more male crime and incarceration, I am not certain that there is a direct correlation with feminism and high incarceration rates of males. I think it incidental, i.e. that the policies that were created and used excluded males in a way that left them with fewer options and choices than females. The reason for this is that most of the policies that cause high incarceration rates were created by conservatives. The drug policies stem from that, the prosecution of juveniles as adults stem from that, the high mandatory minimums stem from that and so on.
Feminists policies played a role, but I do not think they are the reason why males are at such risk. I do agree, however, that feminist framing does disproportionally harm males, especially minority men and working-class men because they are often excluded from community services. Few organizations reach out to them, and most that do lack any feminist support.
To all the guys who say: “X goverment will finally realize that their X stupid agenda is economically unsustainable”.
Get real. Politicians would rather lead a country to bankrupt than backing down off their agenda. They will do some token efforts here and there, but they only follow the votes.
Sine women would happily send the 80% of males to jail, or slavery, or whatever that keeps them without sex but in the blood sucking machine, women shouldn’t vote.
Very well.
Best of luck sanitizing La Eme and the Black Gangster Disciples into an effective recruiting campaign.
@ Paul Elam
Yes, just take a look a this thread, where Harry, me and Schopenbecq are the only exceptions to what I’m talking about.
Here is a New York Times report on the “powers that be” setting the Family Law traps that will send multiple generations of innocent men into the slammer:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/30/us/legal-group-urges-states-to-update-their-family-law.html
Folks, it doesn’t get any more “Smoking Gun” than this. These ALI people are apparently the spawns of Satan.
Here is an arrest of the “Thought Crime” variety:
Meanwhile this is not the US, and I have no idea what this guy wrote in his blog, arresting him and denying him bail sounds very Orwellian.
BTW. This news is only 5 days old.
Here is the link to the Montreal male blogger’s “Thought Crime” story:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gb_8r3VXaU2jhigE1-T_2VRqTaWw
Globalman is right, fuck judicial activism.
These jerk offs are there to interpret the law not make it up as they go.
The Marc Lepine blog is still up:
http://marclepine.blogspot.com/
What I’ve read of it so far seems pretty reasonable to me.
When I taught the murderers in a juvenile detention center in the United States I thought about the purpose of the war on drugs. It was obvious that the proportion of extremely violent teens in the Black and Hispanic communities was extremely high. Not all of the killers were stupid enough to stand around and get caught. Most were too stupid to take the drugs out of their pockets. Arresting large numbers of people who were too stupid to take the drugs out of their pockets kept many killers off the streets.
Here is some food for thought; Cops As Feminist Enforcers
http://www.fredoneverything.net/yyNOWCops.shtml
So does VAWA and all laws that resulted from, and were/became patterned by it.
Mobil: Reagan wasn’t even in office until 1981 and all Nancy ever did was tell kids to just say No. It was Clinton who really began all of these draconian punishments in the 90’s. From what I’ve seen it’s the Liberals who want to control both drugs and the populace and it’s the liberal states that have the harshest penalities, like NY.
TFH » Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:38 pm
The thing is, this is not self-financing.
Keeping an inmate in prison costs $50,000 a year.
If a lot of these are decent men who have been caught in the VAWA and Bradley Amendment traps, then they have been prevented from paying into the tax base.
So instead of paying, say, $20,000 in taxes, they are costing $50,000 in expenses, for a net $70,000 loss to the state.
These net $70,000 losses add up, and eventually the state will calculate that feminism costs more than it is contributing.
The tax base in the US is maxed out, which means that not many more people can be imprisoned.
—————————————————————————————————-
VAWA and feminist jurisprudence are responsible for many men being convicted and incarcerated because " the victime MUST be believed" regardless of the absense of corroborating evidence, her word is taken as evidence. This not only includes DNA based crime(s) (rape or sexual assault) but also includes assaultive crimes ( simple assault, aggravated assault [ with or without a/any deadly weapon(s) ]). Look at how the definition for each of these has changed since feminism affected (infected) how laws are created/defined. Anything that she claims to put her in fear of harm/loss of life ( offends/scares heris considered as an assault).
Here are Tennessee’s definition of assault ( pay attention to the bullets) ;
http://www.tennesseecriminallawyerblog. … _aggr.html
Arpagas” I’ve read it too and it does seem reasonable. I see no credible threat against any individual female here. But I did see something which I can see would get the government all upset, mainly because they would be powerless against it and it’s actually a tactic I would use and recommend other men too as well. Here are some of his tactics and I have a few more myself which I’ll post later. This is what really got the gov’t after him.
They prefer to hurt society as a whole and to hurt the governmment. They know that in doing so they can hurt women indirectly. A man cheating on his income tax can do more damage than using a gun. A million men refusing to pay alimony at the same time can overwhelm the system and hurt women much more than open rebellion. In fact, men can hurt much more society in stalling, refusing to pay, with passive resistance and inertia. What we’ll see in the future is much more men sabotage their own society. For instance, many men are for abortion now: less children means a reduction of the number of future feminists. Have those feminists any idea how far some men are willing to go to win the Gender War? Some are saying that if a victory of Islam is the only way to stop the feminists, then they’ll go for it!
mobil: Sweden has harsh drugs laws for ALL drugs.They had alcohol prohibtions in the past too and even when it was legal it was sold by gov’t stores and rationed. There aren’t that many drug users in Sweden which is why not more people are in jail. But jail isn’t necessary because all of Sweden is like a prison lol Sweden was always a poor small country throughout its history and was dominated by the Lutheran ministers. Half of the population left the country in the 1800’s and went to the US etc Swedes are a repressed people and I have no idea how they got the reputaion of being so sexually open and liberal. Norway is not much different and I can remember when Liv Ulman had an affair with a married man and it was discovered that she had to make a public apology.
mobil: Sweden has harsh drugs laws for ALL drugs.They had alcohol prohibtions in the past too and even when it was legal it was sold by gov’t stores and rationed. There aren’t that many drug users in Sweden which is why not more people are in jail. But jail isn’t necessary because all of Sweden is like a prison lol Sweden was always a poor small country throughout its history and was dominated by the Lutheran ministers. Half of the population left the country in the 1800’s and went to the US etc Swedes are a repressed people and I have no idea how they got the reputaion of being so sexually open and liberal. Norway is not much different and I can remember when Liv Ulman had an affair with a married man and it was discovered that she had to make a public apology.
If one needs proof of what happens when men are stripped of the provider role they’ve been ordained to perform since the beginning of time; if one needs proof of what happens when it becomes customary for families to be headed by women without men; if one needs proof of the critical importance of men to the fabric of society beyond merely inventing practically everything, beyond dreaming up the greatest art, music, and literature, beyond doing the vast majority of technical, dirty, and physically demanding jobs — I give you exhibit “A”: the American inner city. Every social pathology known to mankind flourishes there, and there is a direct link between the absence of fathers and the rate these pathologies flourish.
The effort to drive fathers out of the inner city has been promoted by American progressives and mainstream feminism, and it’s long past time that both of them assume some responsibility for creating and fostering America’s great shame. They won’t, because they are too busy buying votes of the black women who are not convicted felons and are permitted to vote.
On our web site, False Rape Society, we chronicle the cancerous effects that this progressive movement, and mainstream feminism, has had on innocent men and boys falsely accused of rape. False rape claims are our taboo epidemic, too politically incorrect to talk about. The fac is, crying rape is easier than ever. We have handed women and girls untold power to destroy the lives of the presumed innocent by crying rape, but we haven’t bothered to do anything to deter rape accusers from abusing that power.
Persons falsely accused of rape, almost exclusively men and boys, are subjected to an immoral and farcical rush to judgment more appropriate to the old gulag system. Young men are locked up and tossed into jail with bail set sufficiently high to insure they won’t get out before trial based on nothing more than the lone, unsubstantiated, and often far-fetched allegation of a rape accuser. Men’s good names are routinely destroyed as police become little more than stenographers for far-fetched rape accusers, and the news media becomes parrots for the police. When police get around to investigating the claim, and when they often find it just doesn’t add up, it is often too late to restore the good name of the wrongly accused. The toothpaste can’t be put back in the tube.
There are innumerable examples of the terrible effects of false rape reports on innocent men and boys. We report many on our site, and I receive emails with regularity from the falsely accused (and more often their female relatives) who report these horror stories. Rape lies have caused males to be killed and to kill themselves; to be incarcerated often longer than their false accusers are legally permitted to be imprisoned when their lies are finally brought to light; to lose their good names, their jobs, their businesses, their life’s savings, their wives, and their girlfriends; to be beaten, to be chased, to be spat upon, and to be looked upon with suspicion long after they are cleared of wrongdoing. It is often impossible for the falsely accused to ever obtain good employment once the lie hits the news: for the rest of his life, a falsely accused man will have prospective employers Googling his name and finding the horrid accusation. Virtually every falsely accused male will be affected by his ordeal. Many develop emotional problems that will plague them for the rest oft their lives; most will not be able to trust women, for at least a time, and sometimes forever. Every example in this paragraph is from a recent false rape story.
That is where progressives, and mainstream feminism, have led us. And this site is to be commended for helping to spread the word.
Pierce Harlan
False Rape Society
As a corrections employee, I can attest to the fact that most inmates came from broken families, or never knew their father at all. Not having a father to emulate, they looked to gang members and such as examples of manly behavior. I would place the starting point for this when President Johnson’s ‘Great Society’ and ‘aid to single mothers’ became law in the ’60’s. The children brought up then became the inmates of the ’80’s.
Something I have not seen brought up: the other most common trait among inmates is the inability to plan ahead, to think long-term. When you don’t see the probability of apprehension and punishment later on, committing a crime has very little downside. The only factors that deter many of them are danger or immediate apprehension during the crime act itself.
Why? Why can’t these people plan for the future? Because their mother didn’t pass that on, not needing that ability herself. When the government provides, you don’t need to plan for short-term problems, let alone for a career. Uncle Sugar took care of mommy and her meal ticket(s), no need for a savings account or even a few days of food put away for a rainy day. Then those meal tickets grew up.
If they were girls, they could follow their mother’s lead and rely on Uncle Sugar, but the boys? They’re out on the street, with no clue about how to act or how to plan. It’s amazing we’ve had so few additional criminals, considering how we’ve handicapped our men this way.
tweell February 10, 2010 at 11:56
It’s not only legal retribution, it’s that ubiquitous aura of invincibility the young possess by virtue of their lack of experience.
That’s why youth make ideal soldiers.
The best benefit to us, is taking this very type of youth and turning it into our own footsoldiers.
Re: Firepower
“That’s why youth make ideal soldiers
The best benefit to us, is taking this very type of youth and turning it into our own …..” footsoldiers “.
Comment Logged in as merrimac.
To a MRA, what PRACTICAL, HAND-SHAKABLE, PERSON TO PERSON venue you suppose, could or might exist so a person could have access at the minds of such wounded, footsolders ?…LOL…so many ” Pro-Male Protectionistic ” venues to choose from , now days, I’m dizzied by 0% prospect alone !
Any suggestions of direct involvment in such a thing ?
This article is precisely what Amneus referred to in calling a Matriarchal-based society, The Garbage Generation.
Off subject but a Prison related and supreme court judge related connection. The topic…strip searches of men by female guards…enjoy or get pissed off, or a little of both ! http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/showth … t=418828...
When men and females commit a crime together and even if the female was the ringleader, he goes to jail and she gets off with either nothing or a small sentence. Why? Because prosecutors know that they can easily crack a female and get her to testify against the man.Here’s an example. This girl who worked in a bank concocted this scheme where her bf would drive up to the window and send in a demand note for money to her. Now, it was her idea and they both participated but when they were caught he got a few years and she got probation.
I’m with mobil on this one. The ballooning of the prison population is due to the draconian drug laws. They actually started under Nixon, if I have my history right. (Not going to argue about whether Nixon and/or Reagan were whatever political or feministical stripe.) There may be other factors as well in the prison crisis, rather than the lone issue of drug law. But you haven’t convinced me that this evil is yet another branch of the feminism=misandry root of all evil. And by the way, there are allowed to be multiple evils in your worldview. You don’t have to attribute everything to one meanie.
Welmer, I’m frustrated. You’ve done this great job of identifying a goat (feminism and misandry) and convincing us that it’s a goat. With this article, it looks to me like you’re slipping into scapegoating, as you find new and creative blames you can pile on the proven goat. I mean this with all respect. I’ve been lurking here and learning (not to mention enjoying the entertainment — love the blog) so I feel the need to provide this reader feedback.
The ‘war on drugs’ accounts for some of the prison population, but not as many as even the sentencing indicates. It’s easy to put someone away for possession, and plea-bargaining often dumps the other charges, like assault, burglary, grand theft auto, etcetera. I work for the prison system, this is my area of expertise. Yes, what people are charged with versus what they plead down to is public knowledge and something prison systems look at to determine where the inmates are put and how we deal with them. Someone who is in only for drugs goes to a minimum with AA and drug counseling, another who was charged with assault and pled down will go to a medium security with an observation tag on their file.
There are many reasons why people are in prison, this article is highlighting a root cause very rarely looked at.
Study how small, organized groups successfully infiltrated greater society to force change. Many a centrally-organized behemoth government was defeated by smaller forces.
We did it to the British in 1776. This is not the only useful example.
GREAT POST WELMER! You will also find that these factors you mention are also inline with the rise of the welfare state as seen here
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/Sj3zHMFgB6I/AAAAAAAAAKU/MinwcWCp4IU/s1600-h/ScreenShot002.jpg
Here is a very nice graph of the increase in single mother birthrates which also correspond. I find it interesting and suspicious that while America was fighting in Vietnam against communism, classical Marxism which evolved to more of a cultural Marxist subversion took hold in America…
Here you will see in a button from what looks like the beginning The Feminist Majority Foundation promoting votes for Socialist Workers in 1970.
To me the steadfastness at which our national polices changed in this time frame in terms of divorce law, welfare, women only laws, you name it spells out nothing less than the overwhelming evidence of willful and complicit action by the federal government to subvert the American people. I think the rabbit hole may go very deep.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/SkRszMvJa_I/AAAAAAAAAKk/Yk-3oOwEgok/s1600-h/Copy+of+ScreenShot007.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/SfvMfKUzC8I/AAAAAAAAAJs/CfygtiiWmMA/s1600-h/ScreenShot003.jpg
You must log in to post a comment.