Voices of Justice Now: Sentenced to Panties Only

cookieconcepcion.png
Michelle “Cookie� Concepcion works with Justice Now for the benefit of all prisoners by exposing Correction’s lies of discipline, security and rehabilitation with the truths of abuse, fear and indoctrination.
Wearing boxers makes women less female and more violent. Well that’s the perception by officers and staff at the Central California Women’s Facility (CCWF). I know this because I am an inmate at CCWF and have been harassed because of the type and sizes of the clothes I wear. I also prefer to wear boxers instead of panties. This is a rule violation. I have been verbally counseled, written up and charged money for possessing the less female, more violent boxers.
How does the size of my clothes or the type of underwear I have on change my character of affect my behavior? I have asked staff that question numerous times. The answer I receive is usually, “you are a female you should dress like one.� I promise, if allowed to wear boxers, I will not fall prey to their negative influence on my femaleness.
Lately a lot of time and money has been spent on mandatory “Gender Responsive� training for all the officers and staff. The objective of this training is to define differences between female and male inmates. The basic ideology is that females commit crimes because they are victims, whereas males are just bad and mean. This must be where they learned how dangerous it is for females to wear boxers.
To contact Cookie, email jeremy@jnow.org

and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

36 Comments

  1. LogrusZed
    Posted May 13, 2008 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

    This is typical of administrators in any field who got to their respective position(s) through politicking and not actual qualification or skill sets.
    Of course I’m also basing this on the words of the inmate here. Possibly there is a more legitimate (or at least legitimate sounding) reason for clothing restrictions on underpants.
    This could also be a case of observable correlation commingling with causation, or what I like to call the “Camaro/rottweiler Effect”.
    Rottweilers and Camaros do not cause someone to be an asshole, but many assholes are attracted to them. Often when separated from their dog or car said asshole is prone to behaving more like a reasonable human being. Perhaps a disproportionate number of the female prisoners who are more tough/aggressive also happen to be into boxers than spanks, and when they are stripped (no pun intended) of said britches they act more laid back.
    I suggest a compromise and a period of observation. Let them try “freeballing” (“freelabiaing”?) for a while.

  2. LogrusZed
    Posted May 13, 2008 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

    This is typical of administrators in any field who got to their respective position(s) through politicking and not actual qualification or skill sets.
    Of course I’m also basing this on the words of the inmate here. Possibly there is a more legitimate (or at least legitimate sounding) reason for clothing restrictions on underpants.
    This could also be a case of observable correlation commingling with causation, or what I like to call the “Camaro/rottweiler Effect”.
    Rottweilers and Camaros do not cause someone to be an asshole, but many assholes are attracted to them. Often when separated from their dog or car said asshole is prone to behaving more like a reasonable human being. Perhaps a disproportionate number of the female prisoners who are more tough/aggressive also happen to be into boxers than spanks, and when they are stripped (no pun intended) of said britches they act more laid back.
    I suggest a compromise and a period of observation. Let them try “freeballing” (“freelabiaing”?) for a while.

  3. LogrusZed
    Posted May 13, 2008 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    Sorry for the repeat posting folks, the comment/post thing wasn’t responding so I overclicked.

  4. Megnificent
    Posted May 13, 2008 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

    I often sleep and lounge around in boxers with glow in the dark skulls on them, that must make me extra dangerous and violent!

  5. Posted May 13, 2008 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

    Actually, panties tend to make me more aggressive. When I’m uncomfortable, I’m grumpy. And I rarely find panties to be comfortable (you should have seen hell break loose the few times I wore a thing).

  6. Posted May 13, 2008 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

    er, thong. not thing.

  7. Posted May 13, 2008 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    OK, so it’s a rule violation. She knows it is. She’s doing it anyway. And it certainly isn’t a health issue, or a religion issue, or a first amendment issue, or an issue of a constitutionally protected right.
    In fact, it doesn’t even appear to be a comfort issue, insofar as the above quote doesn’t cite “panties are uncomfortable” as a reason. (And FWIW, even if she did, it’s not clear that prison policy should give way to comfort preferences.)
    It’s therefore not entirely clear whether she’s getting harassed because she (as she thinks) is violating gender norms, or whether she’s getting harassed because she’s breaking a rule, without any especially good reason to do so. Prisons, unsurprisingly, are not generally supportive of “follow your heart” when it comes to rules compliance.
    I am frequently quite sympathetic to prisoner causes but this one seems like a bit of a stretch.

  8. Posted May 13, 2008 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    Seriously? Is this for real?! UNDERWARE makes women more “masculine” and “violent”?! Of course, it wouldn’t have anything to do with personal histories, the general prison environment, or self defense or anything. Neh.
    Can someone tell me how these people manage to dress themselves and get to work in the morning?

  9. Posted May 13, 2008 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

    ur, underWEAR. Not underware. That’s a whole different category :)

  10. Tori
    Posted May 13, 2008 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

    Well, wow. I don’t know if it’s a good idea to have someone that cracked out running anything.
    That logic really does support that male prisoners should wear panties, though.

  11. natmusk
    Posted May 13, 2008 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

    The idea of fighting for the right to wear a particular type of underwear may seem ridiculous and not worth focusing on for us. However, these women are in an institution that attempts to squash any individuality and self-will out of them. The idea of a rule dictating what type of underwear to wear may seem something you should just stand up and take but for many it’s a way to fight for their rights without getting into too much trouble.
    I worked in a jail for a year and often times these women would break small rules and fight for certain things just because they wanted to feel their independence and individuality. They didn’t want to just roll over and take it yet they didn’t want to jeopardize the few freedoms they have and it’s a tricky line to walk.
    I think it also highlights how many things in the criminal justice system are occasionally ridiculous and designed to create an atmosphere of failure and despair within those caught in it.

  12. natmusk
    Posted May 13, 2008 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

    The idea of fighting for the right to wear a particular type of underwear may seem ridiculous and not worth focusing on for us. However, these women are in an institution that attempts to squash any individuality and self-will out of them. The idea of a rule dictating what type of underwear to wear may seem something you should just stand up and take but for many it’s a way to fight for their rights without getting into too much trouble.
    I worked in a jail for a year and often times these women would break small rules and fight for certain things just because they wanted to feel their independence and individuality. They didn’t want to just roll over and take it yet they didn’t want to jeopardize the few freedoms they have and it’s a tricky line to walk.
    I think it also highlights how many things in the criminal justice system are occasionally ridiculous and designed to create an atmosphere of failure and despair within those caught in it.

  13. Posted May 13, 2008 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

    Saliorman, it makes ZERO sense that the CCWF is assigning causality to the women’s underware. Whether it’s panties, boxers, g-strings or nothing at all- it is ABSURD to think that your undergarments have anything to do with levels of violence. If this made sense, you’d see the most violent criminals in Super Max prisons outfited in lacy merry widows and garter belts to cut down on violent outbreaks. It make NONE, ZERO, NO sense. It’s just perposteriously poor policy backed by a complete lack of critical thought and understanding of the complexity of human behavior. It’s ALL that, and I haven’t even addressed the glaring gender stereotyping and multitude of other issues. So, while it isn’t a matter of life and death for the prisoner, it puts into stark relief the utter lack of intelligent planning and organization within the prison system. This is reason enough to view it (and the people who came up with it) as problematic, IMHO.

  14. natmusk
    Posted May 13, 2008 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

    Just another point, this is just another side of the coin like the warden in Arizona who makes his male inmates wear pink because he things they will be less violent

  15. LogrusZed
    Posted May 13, 2008 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

    Sailorman: I don’t know how you are about following arbitrary rules but for many, if not most, folks just doing something or making a personal change just because someone tells you so rubs them the wrong way.
    As presented this rule makes less sense than a prohibition against jaywalking.
    I think there is something deeply un-American about blind obedience to rules for the sake of rules.
    However, if someone were to substantiate the seeming B/S about a causative effect of underpants or drop it entirely in favor of saying “You’re convicts, you got to be convicts by making bad choices. So your right to make some choices has been revoked as a form of punishment.” I would be ok with it.
    My problem isn’t so much with the rule, but the bullshit justifications that seem to be offered to bolster said rule.

  16. LogrusZed
    Posted May 13, 2008 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

    Nazrafel: Crazy Joe Arapao of AZ uses pink underpants because apparently inmates were swiping the old white ones.
    At least this is the justification he uses. Out of everything he does, from rotten bologna to his tent-city where even those awaiting trial (unless said person is famous or rich) and are therefore not convicts are forced to reside, the underwear issue is possibly the most sane.
    Joe is a scumbag.

  17. marileec
    Posted May 13, 2008 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

    natmusk: That is Sheriff Joe Arpaio (I’m an Arizona native). He does not force male inmates to wear pink underwear to make them “less violent” but rather to shame them. I actually think he might have been key in making pink such a trend for men a few years ago (remember Kanye and his pink polos?). He also has pink handcuffs and such.

  18. marileec
    Posted May 13, 2008 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    LogrusZed: Yeah, he says it’s because the others were being stolen, but I’m pretty sure it’s because pink is supposed to be a “girl” color and so he’s trying to shame people.
    I HATE JOE SUPPORTERS. Most Joe supporters have NO IDEA that he treats people who have NOT been commited like criminals. It’s disgusting.

  19. Posted May 13, 2008 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

    Joe Arpaio uses the pink to shame male inmates (which is whole different rotten can of worms). Like Marileec said, he doesn’t claim that the inmates’ underwear contributes/detracts from violent tendencies. (and it’s just the color of the underwear, as far as I know Joe hasn’t forced his male inmates to wear panties- just pink boxers). Not the same as the lacy merry widow I referenced earlier. While I have a BUNCH of problems with Joe’s approach, at least it isn’t ass-insane (“just” insulting to women). If someone actually BELIEVES the premise that underwear style correlates with violence, the are, in a word, MENTAL. At this point my problem isn’t even the obvious gender conformity issues, it’s the general STUPIDITY of the people behind the policy.

  20. Posted May 13, 2008 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

    Saliorman, it makes ZERO sense that the CCWF is assigning causality to the women’s underware. Whether it’s panties, boxers, g-strings or nothing at all- it is ABSURD to think that your undergarments have anything to do with levels of violence.

    Agreed. Assuming that the prison management IS actually doing that… and I don’t see that it’s the management, it’s the guards, ya?

    …So, while it isn’t a matter of life and death for the prisoner, it puts into stark relief the utter lack of intelligent planning and organization within the prison system.

    Sure: Prisons are horribly run, abusive, nasty, places. I get upset about all those things.
    However, this is not horrible, abusive, or even nasty IMO. It’s more like someone trying to find something to make a fuss about.

    This is reason enough to view it (and the people who came up with it) as problematic, IMHO.

    In all honesty, in the grand scheme of prison issues this seems close to entirely irrelevant. To me, this is a whole different thing from the lunatic pink-underwear sheriff dude.

    LogrisZed said:
    Sailorman: I don’t know how you are about following arbitrary rules but for many, if not most, folks just doing something or making a personal change just because someone tells you so rubs them the wrong way.

    I hate it, hate it, hate it. However, I don’t think it’s inappropriate for prisoners.
    Part of prison is retributive. It’s actually fairly hard to punish people without slipping rapidly into abuse or entirely unethical behavior, especially on a oarge scale–that’s much of why prisons are such horrible places.
    As a result, things like this (which aren’t abusive or unethical) don’t really bother me in a prison setting.

  21. lyndorr
    Posted May 13, 2008 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

    Funny, just yesterday I was wondering wearing skirts or pants could subconsciously influence girls to act differently. I’m sure I read a study once in which they had people play a sport wearing black and people play a sport wearing white and the people wearing black engaged in more violent incidents. If this woman really wants to wear boxers though then I don’t see why a rule should be made about that especially with a reason like “you are female, you should dress like one”. But I don’t think it’s so far-fetched that what you wear could have some kind of influence on how you act.

  22. noname
    Posted May 13, 2008 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

    A dress code in prison? Attica! Attica! Attica!

  23. r0cket-
    Posted May 13, 2008 at 11:36 pm | Permalink

    I rather doubt she’s actually discussed this with anyone who knows what they’re talking about. Probably the prison has a dress code established by the legislature or the corrections bureaucracy, and she has discussed it only with a bunch of lower-levels who don’t know what they’re talking about.

  24. r0cket-
    Posted May 13, 2008 at 11:41 pm | Permalink

    I rather doubt she’s actually discussed this with anyone who knows what they’re talking about. Probably the prison has a dress code established by the legislature or the corrections bureaucracy, and she has discussed it only with a bunch of lower-levels who don’t know what they’re talking about.

  25. Emz
    Posted May 14, 2008 at 1:42 am | Permalink

    “Actually, panties tend to make me more aggressive. When I’m uncomfortable, I’m grumpy. And I rarely find panties to be comfortable (you should have seen hell break loose the few times I wore a thing).”
    -earlgreyrooibos
    I agree – panties can make the wearer more aggressive. When I have worn undergarments that are made from itchy lace, are riding up my bottom or are made with a centre seam that digs into my clit, I get really, really, REALLY irritable. It certainly doesn’t make me feel “feminine” or “sexful” – yeah, whatever. I find my husband’s jocks more comfortable.
    I went to an all-girl’s school for a few years and wearing boxers was all the rage, not only for comfort, but because the damn school uniform happened to be a dress and it’s nice not to have to worry about other people seeing more than you want them to when you are merely bending over to get your bag.
    In the prison situation, though, I gather the authorities don’t want to lose any control over their inmates. The less freedom and expression of individuality a person has, the easier they are to control, as other posters have already mentioned.

  26. Posted May 14, 2008 at 3:50 am | Permalink

    It’s therefore not entirely clear whether she’s getting harassed because she (as she thinks) is violating gender norms, or whether she’s getting harassed because she’s breaking a rule, without any especially good reason to do so. Prisons, unsurprisingly, are not generally supportive of “follow your heart” when it comes to rules compliance.
    It is possible that both are true. It is not exactly unheard of for institutional rules to be based implicitly or explicitly on gender norms.
    The fact that something is made into a rule does not, ipso facto, make it legitimate.
    One could, for example, imagine a rule specifically singling out observant Jewish and Muslim prisoners for a requirement that they consume at least one serving of pork per day (in fact, this practise is known to exist in Guantanamo).
    If one of the prisoners to whom such a rule would apply were to refuse to eat the pork for religious reasons, that would constitute rule breaking. However, it would be rather nonsensical to act as if the religious beliefs were somehow unrelated to the rule and their noncompliance with it.
    Similarly, responding to suggestions that there is a problem with the rule with the argument-by-tautology that: “Those are the rules” is rather less than convincing.
    It makes little sense to simply say “it’s the rule!” in response to an argument that the rule is arbitrary, capricious, bigoted, or otherwise unjustified. Yes, it is the rule. True, but irrelevant. Anything can theoretically be made into a rule; that does not in any way make it immune to doubts as to its legitimacy.

  27. enhancedvibes
    Posted May 14, 2008 at 10:23 am | Permalink

    @sailorman – I would agree with you about the rule breaking, certainly seems like much ado about nothing, but I think the issue of WHY there is a rule stating female inmates are only to be given panties to wear IS worth discussing. Since the prison system provides the clothing they CHOOSE to give female inmates ONLY panties and panties are a gendered piece of clothing intended only for women. I’ve read various stories about male COs harassing and assaulting female inmates and the idea that they are only given panties to wear shows that even the prison system wants them to maintain some type of femininity – I know it may be reaching but that’s kinda scary to me. Frankly, I think ALL inmates in California prisons/jails should be given boxers (but then we would have people arguing that female inmates are not allowed to be feminine because they are given gender neutral underwear, maybe there are no winners here). I think it would probably cost less money to provide both genders with the same clothing across the board.
    @natmusk – though I hear where you’re coming from and some of it I agree with, inmates have little to no rights regarding individuality. They committed a crime (or they were convicted of one at least) and they lose a lot of rights when they are imprisoned. That is a tenet of the prison system – you lose the right to determine when you go to sleep, when you get up, what you eat, what you wear, what “work� you do, what you can do during free time, etc, etc, etc.
    Based on the blurb form the inmate herself, I would agree with rocket- if she only asked some COs why she has to wear panties scuse my language but wtf do they know? Its likely she has not been able to ask someone higher up at the prison because she is a convict and the issue seems so trivial to them probably, not even worth addressing. Admin’s job is to maintain control and authority over the female inmates – if they can do this by claiming boxers make women more aggressive (I am not even bothering to comment on this cause its just too lame) then that is what they will say. There does not have to be logical reasoning behind it. (It is just like the police who continually try to justify excessive force by stating they feared for their lives or the suspect was behaving erratically leading to the fear for their lives claim – same reason every time.)

  28. Posted May 14, 2008 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    I haven’t read it in a long time, but Dean Spade has a pretty neat article called Compliance is Gendered about how gender norms are used to police, regulate, and punish gender nonconforming people in prisons, homeless shelters, welfare facilities and other public relief institutions. I think it’s a gross mistake to read this issue as some kind of benign (if ill-informed) bureaucratic prison rule (as some of the commenters here seem to have interpreted it) — requiring prisoners to wear gender-specific clothes regardless of their gender expression/identity is part of a much larger system of violence and oppression that uses gender (in collusion with race and class) to police and punish folks in the criminal justice system. There’s been some interesting feminist work done on how masculine women and FTMs are especially likely to be targets of police brutality because they are perceived to be violent (I think Amnesty’s Stonewalled report mentions this). Transgender activists and academics have also pointed out that masculine people in women’s prisons are routinely punished/discriminated against for their gender nonconformity (just offhand I remember Alex Lee has an article on trans and gender-variant prisoners which you can download from SRLP’s website at http://www.srlp.org/index.php?sec=03N&page=criminaljust)

  29. Posted May 14, 2008 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    Elise said:
    It is possible that both are true. It is not exactly unheard of for institutional rules to be based implicitly or explicitly on gender norms.

    Agreed.

    The fact that something is made into a rule does not, ipso facto, make it legitimate.

    Also agreed.

    One could, for example, imagine a rule specifically singling out observant Jewish and Muslim prisoners for a requirement that they consume at least one serving of pork per day (in fact, this practise is known to exist in Guantanamo).
    If one of the prisoners to whom such a rule would apply were to refuse to eat the pork for religious reasons, that would constitute rule breaking. However, it would be rather nonsensical to act as if the religious beliefs were somehow unrelated to the rule and their noncompliance with it.

    Sure–but what’s that have to do with this example?
    As I clearly said, there are a variety of practices in the prison system which are inappropriate, abusive, etc. My responses are related to THIS example, which is not in those categories.
    So, if you want to ask me whether I think the prison system in general is problematic: yes, absolutely. But responding to a claim that THIS issue is irrelevant or minimal by attacking the system in general makes no sense.

    Similarly, responding to suggestions that there is a problem with the rule with the argument-by-tautology that: “Those are the rules” is rather less than convincing.

    I don’t think that’s what I am doing here at all. See my above comment regarding distinguishing between this specific rule and other rules.

    It makes little sense to simply say “it’s the rule!” in response to an argument that the rule is arbitrary, capricious, bigoted, or otherwise unjustified.

    Actually, that’s not true.
    You are claiming that those above categories create an “unjustified” rule. But in a situation which provides for arbitrary and/or capricious rules–a prison is an excellent example–the fact that a rule is arbitrary does NOT support a per se conclusion that the rule is unjustified. In this situation, you need more–your example of bigotry would work.

    Yes, it is the rule. True, but irrelevant.

    Again, I fail to understand why you think it’s not relevant.
    The fact that “it’s a rule” does not mean it’s a good rule. but in the entire context of the prison–including the prison’s need to maintain order and to enforce regulations, and the prisoner’s complaint about harassment–it is extraordinarily relevant.
    For example, let’s imagine that a prisoner WAS entitled to wear boxers of briefs—but that they were harassed for choosing boxers. That would be an entirely different situation, in which the guards would spontaneously be enforcing their own, private, rules on the prison population. And THAT, unlike this, WOULD be a problem.
    Surely you can distinguish between those two situations.
    I imagine that the reason the prison provides panties is fairly simple: some large segment of the female population prefers panties. Similarly, I imagine that the reason the prison forbids other items such as but not limited to boxers is also simple: 1) lack of self expression is an effective and nonabusive punishment, and 2) individuality in the prison context can sometimes be problematic.
    The “majority argument” is IMO fairly supportable (no pun intended.) While the fact that most women prefer to wear panties may be based on a significant amount of gender bias, the prison’s action is exactly the type of behavior that I think IS justified.
    And I have such a hard time focusing on this because, like I said, prisons are generally shitty places. When I read a story that begins “the prison administration did ___” I expect it to be something fairly horrible, as a rule. And to see the concept of “forbade boxers” to be be only a few posts below “denied medical care to pregnant women, resulting in injury and death,” well… I just don’t think those are even on the same scale.

  30. enhancedvibes
    Posted May 14, 2008 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

    sailorman said it better than i could so thanks for that — a couple posts commented that other posters were merely responding with “its the rule” but that is now how i interpreted sailorman’s initial post and not what i intended to convey in my response – SO, thanks for clearing that up sailorman!

  31. zombieprincess
    Posted May 14, 2008 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

    Just a guess, but perhaps the prison rule has something to do with PREA–the Prison Rape Elimination Act. Google it. Another thought, if they allow women in that facility to wear boxers, then men in another facility might be able to sue to wear panties (kinda like when Idaho made women’s facilities tobacco free, but not the mens. The women sued, and won. The only way to make the women’s facilities tobacco free was to also make the men’s facilities tobacco free. Fair’s fair in that regard, it seems.) The whole rule is probably more of a clumsy CYA by the DOC than a gleeful control move. Of course, I could be wrong, I’m just making an edumacated guess…

  32. Posted May 14, 2008 at 10:24 pm | Permalink

    The fact that “it’s a rule” does not mean it’s a good rule. but in the entire context of the prison–including the prison’s need to maintain order and to enforce regulations, and the prisoner’s complaint about harassment–it is extraordinarily relevant.
    You are claiming that those above categories create an “unjustified” rule. But in a situation which provides for arbitrary and/or capricious rules–a prison is an excellent example–the fact that a rule is arbitrary does NOT support a per se conclusion that the rule is unjustified.
    So the arbitrary exercise of power is justified? I thought the whole nature of arbitrariness was that it didn’t require a justification. The lack of a justification is rather the definition of arbitrariness.
    Even in the prison context, a rule is constitutionally required in the US to have a “legitimate penological purpose”. Arbitrary rules and other forms of chicanery are not permissible, though it has become extremely difficult to combat them since the passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
    If a rule is justifiable even if it is arbitrary (i.e. has no justification at all), then there’s no real reason to have this discussion. In that case, prisons can simply do whatever they want to prisoners with no accountability.
    In this case, the rule is the harassment. As in many cases when arbitrary rules are made, their primary justification is to justify the chicanery of a particular group of people. The fact that “it’s a rule” does not preclude it being merely a pretext for harassment.
    But if arbitrary rules are OK, there’s no reason to have the discussion. If no justification is sufficient, then any random rationalisation will do.
    This, of course, is the import of Sailorman’s argument.

  33. alicepaul
    Posted May 14, 2008 at 11:37 pm | Permalink

    “I think it’s a gross mistake to read this issue as some kind of benign (if ill-informed) bureaucratic prison rule (as some of the commenters here seem to have interpreted it) — requiring prisoners to wear gender-specific clothes regardless of their gender expression/identity is part of a much larger system of violence and oppression that uses gender (in collusion with race and class) to police and punish folks in the criminal justice system.”
    agreed 100%, talknormal.
    Also, I’ve known a few women who get chronic yeast infections when they wear panties, and have had doctors actually suggest to switch to boxers. In this instance it IS a health issue, whether or not inmates feel like sharing this personal information with gaurds.

  34. Jabes1966
    Posted May 18, 2008 at 10:48 pm | Permalink

    What I found particularly interesting is this quote:
    “Lately a lot of time and money has been spent on mandatory “Gender Responsiveâ€? training for all the officers and staff. The objective of this training is to define differences between female and male inmates. The basic ideology is that females commit crimes because they are victims, whereas males are just bad and mean.”
    This is the kind of thinking that allowed Mary Winkler to serve a farcically brief 2 months in prison for shooting her preacher husband while he slept, then yanking the phone out of the wall letting him bleed to death. She claims she was abused and as evidence she displays “THIS SHOE!”
    It’s like some sick macabre Monty Python skit.
    It’s also the reason there was a (rather vocal) group in the media that stated Clara Harris (the woman who repeatedly ran over her dentist husband, with HIS daughter in the car) should have went free.
    Check this link and read to the bottom how main-stream-media personalities are extolling the justification of women slaying their husbands for cheating.
    http://www.glennsacks.com/in_defense_of_david_harris.htm
    Many are saying she was “justified” to kill her husband for cheating. But if the genders were reversed, would ANYBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MINDS be saying a husband was “justified” in slaying his wife for cheating?
    Of course not. This goes to show just how deep is the misandry that is in our current culture (and justice system). Your spell-checker doesn’t even catch the word misandry, lol.
    When you see PSA posters in high schools guidance counselors/doctor offices/hospitals that say:”there is never a reason to hit”. What they really mean is:”There’s never a reason to hit (a woman).”
    It’s always open season on men.
    I think it’s interesting that authors on this board are highlighting this prison activist who is REFUTING an idea that feminist authors and liberal mainstream media people lean on ALL THE TIME!
    I can’t hardly EVER read a single story in which the woman was the aggressor without hitting the disclaimer about her being a victim or just unhealthy or some other b/s within the first paragraph.
    Check this link:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_ij_Tt-Vtk
    In which violence against men is seen as justified (and funny) when they buy the wrong xmas gift.
    Women who commit crimes are “troubled”, men who commit crimes are bad. And if a woman commits violence against a man, it’s often FUNNY!
    There is a huge sentencing disparity by gender (to women’s advantage). Women (with identical records, from identical backgrounds) often receive sentences way under 50% of the prison terms of men. They are also much much more likelier to receive therapeutic or training sentences.
    So I basically feel about this prisoner the way most people feel about sexual offense criminals who can’t find a place to live due to the sex offender list laws (about not being close to parks or schools): too bad!
    Boo Hoo. You’re a violent criminal and nobody ever said prison would be fair or easy. Get over yourselves. Jeez

  35. Posted May 28, 2008 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

    I’ve got a penpal in CCWF, and judging by her last letter the staff there are suffering from severe brain-fade issues… as apparently she did not receive the last letter I sent her (which was 12pages long, and took me AGES to write a bit at a time)… the reason? The notification paperwork she forwarded to me said some BS about “No Frontal Nudity” + “No female breast”… the only thing they could have been referring to would be this cartoon: http://www.thehumorarchives.com/attachment/202/breasts.gif
    which has been doing it’s rounds on the ‘net for at least the last 9-10yrs I’ve been using the internet, and was printed on a seperate sheet of paper… surely it doesn’t take the intellect of Albert bloody Einstein to extricate the seperate piece of paper if there’s a problem with it, and hand over the rest of the package?

  36. Glenn Weyant
    Posted March 6, 2009 at 3:16 am | Permalink

    I agree with Jabes1966, it’s about time!!!

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

203 queries. 0.890 seconds