From: mbisted@ssf-sys.dhl.com (Morris Bisted)
Subject: Re: Males Doing it to Themselves
Organization: DHL Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:24:26 GMT
Keywords: feminist wish-fantasies; mesomorphic thugs

In article <18983@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>In article <robert.711838032@labyrinth> robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman) 
>writes:
>
>>jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress) writes:
>
>>>  Does our legal system have an anti Male bias?
>>>  Of course it does -- it kills, fines and jails
>>>  men FAR FAR FAR more than women.
>>>     But its MALES who are doing it to themselves
>>>  -- due to their own competitiveness.   [Mr. EuStress]
>
>>	Beg pardon?  Males are in competition with women to receive longer
>>sentences?  Male judges are in competition with each other to give men longer
>>sentences for the same crime than women?  What in the world do you mean?
>>[Robert Coleman]
>
>I don't know what Mr. EuStress means, but let me point out the obvious:
>Anyone who has ever looked around at boys and girls, men and women, in
>the real world, knows that boys and men are more aggressive and more
>violent than girls and women.  This is true in every society on earth.
>system on feminist wish-fantasies.  Any legal system that wound up fining 
>and jailing equal numbers of men and woman would have to be unjust.

I have read of non-western societies where women take on traditional male 
roles and are the aggressor and resolvers of violent conflict.

I am neither feminist nor do I subscribe to wish fantasies and I think
it a very sweeping statement when you purport to examine the "real world"
and come to a conclusion for "every society on earth".  There are very
probably trends, but all societies is overreaching.

>There is neuro-endocrinological evidence to show that men's greater
>aggressiveness is *innate*, meaning we are *born that way*.  Some may
>*wish* that this were not true, that by changing "cultural conditioning"
>and other aspects of people's environment we could make men no more
>aggressive than women, but the only ones who profess to *believe* this
>are feminists, and no society in its right mind would build its justice

My cursory research on this topic leads me to conclude that there are
experts who support both sides of the "heredity"/ "environment" issues of
causation.  Thus, you make a very large leap of faith when you make this
conclusion, as people who devote their life to research on these issues 
have disparate opinions.

Further, mens greater aggressiveness, even if innate is just one of many
factors that embody the commission of violence.  I seldom see random acts
of violence committed by men or women which one can attribute to a man's
innate aggressiveness.  What I do see, is initial non-violent conflict 
which escalates to a violent resolution.  All men don't escalate conflict
to violent resolutions, some use the legal system to resolve it, etc.  I 
think if a causal link were to be found, it would not be here.  In my mind,
even if I accept your assertion above as true, it carries little weight
in the ensuing discussion.  

By using the innate argument you eliminate any volitional argument.  There
are some people who prefer violence and intimidation to any other conflict
resolution in certain
situations.  When I play sports, for example, depending on how rattled I
think I can get my opponent, I may swear at him, push him, etc. when he
fouls me, but this is calculated to give me what I perceive is an edge.
In a friendly game with the neighbors, I'd never do that.  Thus with 
essentially identical stimuli, I choose to react completely differently.
This does not mean that the rest of the world works this way, but I tend
to think this is one of the few places in life, where I'm just an
average guy :-).

So from this vantage point, your argument appears specious and contrary
to my research and experience.

>

>I admit it:  The ones I want behind bars for a long time are the ones
>I'm afraid will hurt me or my family.  They're the ones who have been
>convicted of violent crimes against strangers.  I'm not afraid of some
>broad [sic] who bumped off her boy-friend or beat up her husband's
>girl-friend or the like.  I'm not even afraid of "Squeaky" and the
>rest of the "Manson girls."  I don't care if she gets a lighter sentence,
>'cause when she gets out, she won't pose any danger to me.  But the
>young mesomorphic violent thug ought to be put away until he is too 
>old to harm anyone.  That's only common sense.  And just as in virtually
>every area of life, common sense means different treatment of men and
>women.

That is confidence!!  It's tough to outrun a bullet regardless of who holds
the gun.  I readily see the difference between the estranged
lover and the psychopath, but I think I would come to different 
conclusion.  The scope of violence of an estranged lover is very likely
not to reach to me by accident or intent, thus I can see your lack of fear.
However a psychopath (Squeaky) is trying to hurt society, and thus me; 
and I am more likely to be hurt.  But it is my view, that all preceding 
arguments are irrelevant.  

Those acts that are so counter to the progression of humanity/
society that they eliminate or injure the participants should be sanctioned
by removal from the society at some level.  Jails should be for punishment,
primarily, and retraining and relearning of societal skills secondarily.  
The safety of society, to me, trumps the revitalization and reinitialization 
into society of the offender, and thus incarceration is reasonable for 
violent acts regardless of motive and regardless of sex of the offender. 
Squeaky Fromme should get the same sentence as Arnold Schwarzenegger(sp)
if they do identical unlawful acts.  Common sense, in my view, requires 
deeming the act as the dictator of punishment.

There may be a high correlation between sex and incarceration, but that
would result from a particular set of men *choosing* to act more violently and
thus meeting the criteria for incarceration.

Morris
mbisted@ssf-sys.dhl.com