Quite a few MRAs and MGTOWers seem to have have convinced themselves that women rarely if ever serve real time, or face any real consequences, for committing crimes. In the parlance of the manosphere, this is known as the “Pussy Pass.”
Now, this is, of course, almost complete bullshit. Why the “almost?” Because women do in fact receive somewhat lesser sentences when compared with men committing the same crimes. (So do white people, though you don’t hear the MRA crowd talking much about the “Honkey Pass.” )
Are the lighter sentences for women the result of evil feminist man haters? Not so much, Ampersand of Alas, A Blog argues in a thoughtful look at several studies on the subject. The author of one study concludes, as Ampersand summarizes it,
that this may be caused by sexist paternalism among judges; women are seen less as full adults, and as being less capable of being responsible for their own actions, and as a result judges depart from sentencing guidelines to give women lighter sentences.
Another study found that, contrary to what virtually every MRA or MGTOWer would assume, male judges were more likely than female judges to give especially harsh sentences to men. Let me repeat that: Male judges gave the harshest sentences to men. As the study’s author noted, “the greater the percentage of female judges on a district’s bench, the smaller the gender disparity.” (Emphasis mine.)
Just don’t try telling this to the MRA/MGTOW crowd. We saw the other day how the idea of the “pussy pass” – the notion that “the law does not serve justice” – has led some MRAs to advocate or voice their support for lynching female perps (with what degree of seriousness I don’t know).
Meanwhile, over on NiceGuy’s MGTOW forum, nigeles175d “humorously” suggests that the supposed existence of the “Pussy Pass” should also give guys the right to rape women who happen to give them boners:
[I]f we men cannot control our passions as women often claim, why don’t we get a Dickie PassTM like women get the Pussy PassTM? If women cannot control their tears, their screams, their giggles, and if women are driven to poisoning or murdering their sleeping husbands and use the excuse of years of abuse and being unable to control their mental state, why do we not consider a similar excuse for men. The way some women dress (hint, hint, SlutWalkers) to deliberately entice men to want sex with them, why is it not an exonerrating circumstance in the same way as it is for women? It seems women are never made to take responsibility for their actions, nor are they ever held accountable. Alternatively, if men are not allowed it, but women are, then we’re treating them like children and they don’t deserve the vote or positions of authority.
And of course it all goes back to women having the vote — the source of all evil in the modern world. Attitudes like this are, of course, what make the Slutwalks (and feminism in general) necessary in the first place.
I find it just as disgusting that white people get less time and lower conviction and arrest rates than people of color as I do that women get lower conviction rates and less time (and I’d argue lower arrest and ticket rates). BTW, I’m caucasion, male, and a feminist (I’m an anarchist and part of that tradition is feminism).
I understand that white males dominate the judge psotions in this country, and so there will be these biases based on negative racism and positive sexism (as in positive results if your the female on trial, not that it’s good per se). I accept these things as facts.
But what is the result?
It’s that the fastest growing group of criminals in America are…young women.
What has been the result of divorce laws (as marriage is simply a demeaning property arrangement where women are the property, not the fairytale girls are brainwashed into believing it is) and child support laws of the state? (Laws, BTW, I have to see supported by “feminists” in most cases.)
Less female independence and more irresponsibility in choosing mates for both sexes.
The (ugly) fact is, the “Honkey Pass” is just as real as the “Pussy Pass” (sorry to use the terms, but for the sake of this discussion you’ll forgive my colloquialisms I hope). Both need to be abolished (along with the state if I might influence you toward anarchism…lol).
BTW, as a feminist and an anarchist I’m also against the female right to vote (women’s suffrage)…but it’s not what you think:
“There is no freedom that I would grant to any man that I would refuse to woman, and there is no freedom that I would refuse to either man or woman except the freedom to invade … whoever has the ballot has the freedom to invade, and whoever wants the ballot wants the freedom to invade. Give woman equality with man, by all means; but do it by taking power from man, not giving it to woman.” — Benjamin Tucker, 19th Century American anarchist
And like many anarchists, like Henry David Thoreaux, I’m pro-pornography. You see, the Comstock Law prevented stories being published about rapes inside of marriage (then a legal practice), calling them pornographic. Thoreau and others violated this law (tyranny) to get those stories out to show the indignity of marriage upon women. They risked prison, and often went to jail. These people were pro-prostitution as well, as self-ownership and individually sovereignty was prized above all else. “Free Love” was also espoused by these 18th Century philosophers and feminists.
It always intrigues me how many “feminists” today (especially women, ironically) are pro-marriage, pro-voting, pro-state, anti-pornography, and anti-prostitution. It just goes to show how far the philosophy has deviated from it’s original ethics, and how the original feminists (like the proto-anarchist Cynic philosopher of Ancient Greece, Hipparchia) were so very ahead of their time (even as late as the 19th Century feminists followed this tradition inside of anarchism while others risked nothing by paying it lip service or simply protesting legally).
Much of the advances in sexual equality came by way of Civil Disobedience of the anarchists like Hipparchia and her “husband” (they refered to their relationship as cynogamy, or “dog coupling”, not monogamy), Thoreau, and Emma Goldman. These were brave warriors in the sexual revolution, to be sure…and their ideas shouldn’t be forgotten or mocked as antithetical to feminism today.
other than your stance of voting…
how do you have a democracy without voting? i get that *YOU* are an anarchist in political inclination [but are you an anarchist in everything? do you ignore traffic laws? zoning regulations? etc] but in a democracy or republic – and we’re a republic here in the US – voting is a keystone to how it works.
i wouldn’t want to living in an anarchy – because, despite what the anarchists i know claim, truth is, most *people* don’t respond well to anarchy, and it would quickly devolve to “the strong in charge”. read another way, it would be “the strong MEN in charge”. as a woman, no thank you.
voting is both a right and a responsibility in a political system that is run, in part or whole, by voting. removing voting from our country would just further the ends of those trying to turn us into a straight up theocracy [or those going for other forms of tyranny – a capitalarchy is possible, for instance, if certain groups have their way…]
anarchy only works when everyone agrees to not attack each other – which means it stops being an anarchy.
Numbers? Citations? Facts? Please.
Ahh, why isn’t there an edit button!!
Holy thread necromancy, Batman.
erm… is thread necromancy a Bad Thing here? if so, i apologize for my part in it…
I don’t think it is, I was just surprised that trollboy took the time to resurrect such and old thread.