Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Amanda Marcotte pushes affirmative consent standards vis-a-vis rape

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Amanda Marcotte pushes affirmative consent standards vis-a-vis rape

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor...standards.html

    Which I think are a bit ridiculous considering how things really go vis-a-vis sex. Aka, it cannot be scripted. Well, maybe it can be. Maybe society should have a social convention that says "if you went to the fraternity party, you went there to have sex" or "if you went to his room, you went there to have sex." Such a social convention, if widely broadcasted, would apply as long as that was the consensus that that's what both actions mean. After all, the only reason to argue that a woman who went to a man's room alone WASN'T planning to have sex is if there are tons of societal myths out there saying that women SHOULD be able to expect a man NOT TO EXPECT SEX when they are alone together in his room in private. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy to say women should be able to go to a man's room and not expect sex. Only if you say it too much does it become true.

    On the other hand, if people started WIDELY BROADCASTING that men, particularly when young enough, have higher testosterone levels than women which leads to desperate and irresistible horniness making it impractical to expect him to exert much self control -- and any woman who wants to should go to a doctor and have him prescribe her testosterone dose sufficient to give her testosterone levels of an 18 year old man before she ventures an opinion -- then it would be good advice to tell women don't go to a man's room alone. It's just stupid to try to deny reality regarding men's sex drive, and then badmouth them as "defective" because they have the sex drives they do. Or, perhaps feminists might argue all young men in high school or college should be given testosterone depleting medications, all so young women can go to their rooms alone and expect them to exert perfect self control?

    In any case, notice at the end of the article how she is referring to the issue of scared men. Maybe that means she has begun to start thinking about it whereas, before, she never did.

  • #2
    Originally posted by dmschlom View Post
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor...standards.html

    Which I think are a bit ridiculous considering how things really go vis-a-vis sex. Aka, it cannot be scripted. Well, maybe it can be. Maybe society should have a social convention that says "if you went to the fraternity party, you went there to have sex" or "if you went to his room, you went there to have sex." Such a social convention, if widely broadcasted, would apply as long as that was the consensus that that's what both actions mean. After all, the only reason to argue that a woman who went to a man's room alone WASN'T planning to have sex is if there are tons of societal myths out there saying that women SHOULD be able to expect a man NOT TO EXPECT SEX when they are alone together in his room in private. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy to say women should be able to go to a man's room and not expect sex. Only if you say it too much does it become true.

    On the other hand, if people started WIDELY BROADCASTING that men, particularly when young enough, have higher testosterone levels than women which leads to desperate and irresistible horniness making it impractical to expect him to exert much self control -- and any woman who wants to should go to a doctor and have him prescribe her testosterone dose sufficient to give her testosterone levels of an 18 year old man before she ventures an opinion -- then it would be good advice to tell women don't go to a man's room alone. It's just stupid to try to deny reality regarding men's sex drive, and then badmouth them as "defective" because they have the sex drives they do. Or, perhaps feminists might argue all young men in high school or college should be given testosterone depleting medications, all so young women can go to their rooms alone and expect them to exert perfect self control?

    In any case, notice at the end of the article how she is referring to the issue of scared men. Maybe that means she has begun to start thinking about it whereas, before, she never did.
    It's honestly hard to tell if you're going for satire... but if not, it's kind of shitty reasoning, hate to break it to you.

    Your first idea basically states that no one's able to go to a party for fun in general without sex somehow being attached to it, which is kind of nuts. The idea of going to a guy's bedroom? Doesn't work as soon as you realize that this automatically guarantees that it's impossible for there to be any platonic relationships between men and women by enforcing that it must always be a sexual encounter.

    Onto the next points, you've basically said that men have zero capacity to control themselves, and affirmed that men only ever think about sex, ever, without any other thoughts, which is kind of blatantly absurd and one of the major myths we're trying to fix - please don't feed the trolls.

    To make matters worse, you don't seem to grasp the concept of how hormones work; shoving an 18 year old male's level of testosterone into a woman literally enacts physical changes - her voice will drop, she'll grow a beard and mustache, she'll go through a second puberty that will be painful as hell among other things, but there's also the fact of the matter that her body has never experienced remotely that much testosterone so doesn't know how to react to it, which will amplify the effects to be much stronger than it would for a male that had lived with it for years. For example, adults have more hormones running through them than teens; teenagers just are more emotional and such because their body's not accustomed to it is all.

    Regardless, testosterone doesn't completely shut off your capacity for thought, or turn you purely into a sex fiend by any means; there is a bit of an increase to aggression levels, but it's not particularly overwhelming by any means, and yes, it does increase energy levels, and somewhat affect sex drive, but not to the level that it's a massive change. This can be seen quite clearly in FtM trans men who go on the hormone swap that you've just suggested, so there's plenty of data to show exactly what effects it has.

    I dunno, maybe you're going for satire, but if you are, it kinda sucks because you've basically just spouted off a bunch of idiotic myths about men being completely incapable of not having sex with anything that looks remotely female to do it, which is patently absurd. Again, don't feed the trolls, especially if they aren't even in the forum in the first place. About all you've done is leave a diamond quote mine to chew on.
    It doesn't matter if they're right; if they can't prove they're right, then they\'re wrong, no matter how right they may be.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by dmschlom View Post
      http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor...standards.html

      Which I think are a bit ridiculous considering how things really go vis-a-vis sex. Aka, it cannot be scripted. Well, maybe it can be. Maybe society should have a social convention that says "if you went to the fraternity party, you went there to have sex" or "if you went to his room, you went there to have sex." Such a social convention, if widely broadcasted, would apply as long as that was the consensus that that's what both actions mean. After all, the only reason to argue that a woman who went to a man's room alone WASN'T planning to have sex is if there are tons of societal myths out there saying that women SHOULD be able to expect a man NOT TO EXPECT SEX when they are alone together in his room in private. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy to say women should be able to go to a man's room and not expect sex. Only if you say it too much does it become true.

      On the other hand, if people started WIDELY BROADCASTING that men, particularly when young enough, have higher testosterone levels than women which leads to desperate and irresistible horniness making it impractical to expect him to exert much self control -- and any woman who wants to should go to a doctor and have him prescribe her testosterone dose sufficient to give her testosterone levels of an 18 year old man before she ventures an opinion -- then it would be good advice to tell women don't go to a man's room alone. It's just stupid to try to deny reality regarding men's sex drive, and then badmouth them as "defective" because they have the sex drives they do. Or, perhaps feminists might argue all young men in high school or college should be given testosterone depleting medications, all so young women can go to their rooms alone and expect them to exert perfect self control?

      In any case, notice at the end of the article how she is referring to the issue of scared men. Maybe that means she has begun to start thinking about it whereas, before, she never did.
      1. I've been to a party, even blackout drunk, with girls without trying to have sex with them.
      2. I've been alone with a girl, in her room or in mine, without trying to have sex with her.

      I don't know where you came up with this bullshit, but maybe you should rethink it. Propagating the assumption that men are uncontrollable sex addicted rapists is one of the main reasons why I don't like feminism in the first place.
      Disillusionment: Another word for reality.

      Comment


      • #4
        Would it not be far simpler to make it illegal for women to consume alcohol so that we may be sure that her ability to consent or not to interactions of a sexual nature can never be called into question?

        making it illegal for everyone because women are unable to consume it safely would however be unjust, men remain responsible for their own actions even while under the influence of alcohol as demonstrated by the laws as they currently stand.
        There is even a legal president for this, women who are pregnant are already prevented from drinking because it is unsafe...

        really the question is which makes more sense placing one side at risk to protect the other, or protecting both sides from each-other?
        "It is the greatest inequality to try to make unequal things equal." - Aristotle

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by dmschlom View Post
          http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor...standards.html

          Which I think are a bit ridiculous considering how things really go vis-a-vis sex. Aka, it cannot be scripted. Well, maybe it can be. Maybe society should have a social convention that says "if you went to the fraternity party, you went there to have sex" or "if you went to his room, you went there to have sex." Such a social convention, if widely broadcasted, would apply as long as that was the consensus that that's what both actions mean. After all, the only reason to argue that a woman who went to a man's room alone WASN'T planning to have sex is if there are tons of societal myths out there saying that women SHOULD be able to expect a man NOT TO EXPECT SEX when they are alone together in his room in private. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy to say women should be able to go to a man's room and not expect sex. Only if you say it too much does it become true.
          conduct
          On the other hand, if people started WIDELY BROADCASTING that men, particularly when young enough, have higher testosterone levels than women which leads to desperate and irresistible horniness making it impractical to expect him to exert much self control -- and any woman who wants to should go to a doctor and have him prescribe her testosterone dose sufficient to give her testosterone levels of an 18 year old man before she ventures an opinion -- then it would be good advice to tell women don't go to a man's room alone. It's just stupid to try to deny reality regarding men's sex drive, and then badmouth them as "defective" because they have the sex drives they do. Or, perhaps feminists might argue all young men in high school or college should be given testosterone depleting medications, all so young women can go to their rooms alone and expect them to exert perfect self control?

          In any case, notice at the end of the article how she is referring to the issue of scared men. Maybe that means she has begun to start thinking about it whereas, before, she never did.
          I have an easier solution for you and Amanda. MHRA's should wip out their cell phone, and whenever they see inebriated women walking around campus, they should call 911 and report drunk and disorderly conduct. The police will promptly arrive and throw them in jail. It seems a much better technique to teach those dirty sluts a lesson than raping them.

          IMHO.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Katsuni View Post
            It's honestly hard to tell if you're going for satire... but if not, it's kind of shitty reasoning, hate to break it to you.
            Not this is not satire. I'm attempting to have a serious discussion about serious issues, which aren't about male and female socializing in general but are issues where the legal system -- feminist governance -- and institutional concerns of academia intersect with the social world and create a need for certain legal types of reasoning which aren't always straightforward. If the reasoning sounds shitty, well that's just because I may be thinking out loud in a certain way without producing the full context, and the underlying issues are very complex.

            You should read the following link and scroll down to my post:

            http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...-quot-Rebuttal

            Where I include another link which is also useful to read:

            http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nance-feminism

            At issue is the toxic direction governance feminism has gone in, leading to allegedly "unintended consequences" which can be very severe in some cases. This issue can get serious when the only qualification to be considered a "feminist" is to call yourself feminist and then fulfill a few superficial stereotypes of what the public thinks a feminist is. Then you get to be considered a "feminist" with impunity, yet you might simply be a political hack or lobbyist working a hidden agenda for some big business interest that wants its agenda pushed secretly under the guise of "feminism" as a way to pull the wool over the eyes of people. You can then propose laws which, superficially, appear to be promoted under the guise of helping women, yet if you read the fine print carefully enough, it may turn out they benefit some special interest that donated to the feminists, and possibly in a toxic way that is very detrimental to any number of other people, including not just men but women as well. Apparently most feminists today are funded by big business and the rich.

            From one of the legal briefs quoted in the above links:

            till, GFeminists frequently complain that they have no power at all. We think this is a profound error, one which—if GF continues to grow— will lead GFeminists not only to wield power in bad faith, but to make pro- found miscalculations about what to seek by way of law reform. The de- nial will mask the many moments in which some feminisms win over other feminisms as they jostle for legal and political priority. ... Speciacally, we and that American and European feminists, making seemingly sym- bolic victories in the U.S. Congress, the United Nations, the ICTY, or the Rome Statute negotiations, can put in motion chains of legal causation that—by the time they reach Tel Aviv, Kolkata, or Chicago—can be ex- ceedingly acute, and not always feminist in any intelligible sense.
            Some of the "chains of legal causation" speculated on were literally enslavement of migrant male workers, along with other situations where -- I don't fully understand it but it looks like perhaps the implication is that overly criminalizing military rape could lead to situations where commanders exploit the threat of rape allegations against soldiers to force/manipulate an army into engaging in wholesale liquidation/extermination of a whole entire population without leaving a single living individual. This is a serious threat given the fact that exterminations and holocausts often are related to natural resources, with Stalin engineering a famine killing 11 million people in Ukraine, which happened to be the biggest oil exporter in the region.

            The question becomes, understanding the legal reasoning or kind of reasoning behind this sort of thinking, and then trying to figure out the "unintended consequences" of feminist laws in the USA. I am seriously thinking, the unintended consequences may be bad enough, in terms of ripple effects, so that in certain settings like academia, they should go back to how they had it when men and women were in separate dorms and not allowed to mix unchaperoned -- unless they got a hotel room, but once that happened, you knew for sure she consented and it wasn't rape. But I'm not going to elaborate anymore now. It is something I am still thinking about.

            Your first idea basically states that no one's able to go to a party for fun in general without sex somehow being attached to it, which is kind of nuts. The idea of going to a guy's bedroom? Doesn't work as soon as you realize that this automatically guarantees that it's impossible for there to be any platonic relationships between men and women by enforcing that it must always be a sexual encounter.
            I am reminded (and was thinking of) a New York Times article on hook up culture in colleges that specifically discussed certain fraternity parties on certain campuses where the article said point blank that word on the street (or around the campus) was, all women attending these parties were considered to be consenting to sex. Aka, these parties were very nearly equivalent to what gay males openly advertise as sex parties. However, unlike with gay men, there was just enough ambiguity so it would be possible for a woman attending such a party to claim rape or for the issue of false rape accusations to be a problem.

            Onto the next points, you've basically said that men have zero capacity to control themselves, and affirmed that men only ever think about sex, ever, without any other thoughts, which is kind of blatantly absurd and one of the major myths we're trying to fix - please don't feed the trolls.
            All men are not the same. There are high testosterone men out there with sex drives way higher than most men. In addition, age of maturity varies along with development of impulse control. The presence or absence of a father in the home makes a big difference, with sons of single mothers developing very poor impulse control. At some point, when they mature and are flooded with testosterone, combined with low impulse control, I think that can be a problem. Studies show, high testosterone levels are correlated with high incarceration rates. However they are also correlated with high success rates too. That suggests males with exceptionally high testosterone levels either do exceptionally well or crash and burn. And a huge factor in the outcome is whether they have absent fathers or not. In other words, some men have greater need for supervision and protection from themselves for a longer amount of time than others. We cannot assume all men are the same, or are to be treated the same and then if some fall through the cracks, too bad.

            In addition, I should point out, any assertions you make about male sex drive are subjective. Some men have low testosterone levels, low sex drives, and are easily able to control themselves and need little supervision. Those men are called beta men. Alpha men are generally admired much more and are more aggressive, but you should not pooh pooh the notion of uncontrollable sex drive in some cases. How do you know, pray tell? How does any woman know, pray tell? Scientists might know -- and I have heard from some verbally (so I can't produce a link to any study) that scientific studies have been done suggesting in some cases male arousal does at times become uncontrollable if they are led on too much, and it may depend on the type of male, not all are the same, and that such studies have been ignored by feminist rape hysteria promoters.

            To make matters worse, you don't seem to grasp the concept of how hormones work; shoving an 18 year old male's level of testosterone into a woman literally enacts physical changes - her voice will drop, she'll grow a beard and mustache, she'll go through a second puberty that will be painful as hell among other things, but there's also the fact of the matter that her body has never experienced remotely that much testosterone so doesn't know how to react to it, which will amplify the effects to be much stronger than it would for a male that had lived with it for years. For example, adults have more hormones running through them than teens; teenagers just are more emotional and such because their body's not accustomed to it is all.

            Regardless, testosterone doesn't completely shut off your capacity for thought, or turn you purely into a sex fiend by any means; there is a bit of an increase to aggression levels, but it's not particularly overwhelming by any means, and yes, it does increase energy levels, and somewhat affect sex drive, but not to the level that it's a massive change. This can be seen quite clearly in FtM trans men who go on the hormone swap that you've just suggested, so there's plenty of data to show exactly what effects it has.

            I dunno, maybe you're going for satire, but if you are, it kinda sucks because you've basically just spouted off a bunch of idiotic myths about men being completely incapable of not having sex with anything that looks remotely female to do it, which is patently absurd. Again, don't feed the trolls, especially if they aren't even in the forum in the first place. About all you've done is leave a diamond quote mine to chew on.
            My point is rhetorical. However, the issue of testosterone in males is that all men are more definitely not the same. But high testosterone men are ones who end up having big muscles, are very athletic, etc. Those men deserve a chance in life too. And such a chance may mean some kind of recognition that they should not be expected to exert the same kind of self control -- or be as easily able to sit still -- as women or other types of men.
            Last edited by dmschlom; 02-21-2014, 06:23 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              As someone who visited lots of guys in their rooms while at University, and remained a virgin until 22 (not through any moral conviction on my part, just didn't find a willing man), you are talking out your arse.

              I visited for coffee, chat, watching videos, doing project work, getting help on assignments, tending various ailments, borrowing books and the odd snogging session too.

              As for horniness, trust me there is little difference in genders when it comes to wanting to fuck. Where the difference lies is in the cultural constructs around sex. Women who fuck around get shit from other women. Women who don't fuck around also get shit from other women. That's why young women are generally dishonest about their sexual interest and desire.

              I learned a cute trick at Uni - unlike most of the women, I wouldn't talk about guys and how I related to them, so 99% of my female peer group assumed that nothing much was happening for me...and the guys who hung with the girls thought the same. Most of that group of people would now at a reunion assume I would be married with 2.4 children and never had more than a couple of partners. This is so far from the truth as to be total fiction - but I have no need to prove to anyone that I'm doing anything at all.

              Consent is about saying "yes" and its also about expressing what you will or won't do. There are certain things I won't do (mostly have tried it and it didn't ring my bells), and any partner I'm with knows it because I use words like "sorry, not into that, but we can do this"

              So much of feminism is sex negative, and there is also a belief that with the sexualized culture that both genders of young people know more than us old farts on sex - but in my youth pastoral work I've found the kids ask simple shit like "how do you know when you are ready to do it with someone?"

              (My standard answer to that one - a) you trust them and b) you have condoms and have agreed you are going to use them, c) you are sober and d) you are both so aroused from fooling around that neither of you has any worries that it is going to be painful or difficult.)
              Be still and cool in thine own mind and spirit.
              George Fox

              Comment


              • #8
                Well, you can't blame me for being naive. After all, I'm gay. From my standpoint, I don't see the reality, and have to trust what my impressions end up being from reading a media saturated with sex negative feminist religious rhetoric obsessing non-stop about rape. Read too much of it and, at some point, you start thinking "ok, we need to have all the same sex segregation as Saudi Arabia, then there will be peace." And it's not like I'd mind it, being gay and all.

                Try reading about it: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/saudi-arabi...lt-shop-428989

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_...tion_and_Islam

                Saudi Arabia is a gay man's dream.
                Last edited by dmschlom; 02-21-2014, 12:36 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  The story begins with this interesting double standard:
                  rehashing the unevidenced claim that most rape cases are a matter of drunk women regretting their sexual choices. (In the mythology of misogynists, women often prefer to spend months and years reliving a bad night of sex, especially if they can involve juries and the police.) I blew the piece off when it first came out, since Taranto's schtick of painting women as so irrational and hateful that they don't even seem human gets old fast.
                  So if we suggest that many rape claims are faked, we are "painting women as irrational and hateful"

                  But if Amanda Marcotte believes that millions of men every year are so irrational and hateful as to commit rape, that belief says nothing about her personal inadequacies, nothing about her ignorance-fuelled fears?
                  Last edited by numbCruncher; 02-21-2014, 01:24 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    You know what feminists have done for some women? They can do illegal drugs and, so long as they are doing it with a man, if they get caught they can cry rape as an automatic get out of jail free card -- but then the man gets put away for a very long time. Now think about mass incarceration and how it's mostly men incarcerated -- but not for violent crimes. For low level drug offenses. Such an increase in mass incarceration for non-violent crimes SHOULD have been much more gender neutral. I wonder if the whole rape issue is one of those things ensuring that men are disproportionately imprisoned ANYWAY.

                    This phenomenon may not show up in statistics so much as it may be responsible for preventing a woman from being charged, plus most cases are plea bargained away. That may also be one reason why the racial sentencing disparity with rape is something like 8 to 1. Aka, it's really all about uneven drug war law enforcement.

                    I think that the imprisoning of males is more profitable than the imprisoning of females.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      See now look at this:

                      http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-pri...f-slavery/8289

                      I think it's very possible, they prefer male prisoners over female prisoners.

                      There is a reason for "feminist governance" or "carceral feminism" -- aka, feminism in the criminal justice system. And it isn't a nice one.

                      Human rights organizations, as well as political and social ones, are condemning what they are calling a new form of inhumane exploitation in the United States, where they say a prison population of up to 2 million – mostly Black and Hispanic – are working for various industries for a pittance. For the tycoons who have invested in the prison industry, it has been like finding a pot of gold. They don’t have to worry about strikes or paying unemployment insurance, vacations or comp time. All of their workers are full-time, and never arrive late or are absent because of family problems; moreover, if they don’t like the pay of 25 cents an hour and refuse to work, they are locked up in isolation cells.

                      There are approximately 2 million inmates in state, federal and private prisons throughout the country. According to California Prison Focus, “no other society in human history has imprisoned so many of its own citizens.” The figures show that the United States has locked up more people than any other country: a half million more than China, which has a population five times greater than the U.S. Statistics reveal that the United States holds 25% of the world’s prison population, but only 5% of the world’s people. From less than 300,000 inmates in 1972, the jail population grew to 2 million by the year 2000. In 1990 it was one million. Ten years ago there were only five private prisons in the country, with a population of 2,000 inmates; now, there are 100, with 62,000 inmates. It is expected that by the coming decade, the number will hit 360,000, according to reports.

                      What has happened over the last 10 years? Why are there so many prisoners?

                      “The private contracting of prisoners for work fosters incentives to lock people up. Prisons depend on this income. Corporate stockholders who make money off prisoners’ work lobby for longer sentences, in order to expand their workforce. The system feeds itself,” says a study by the Progressive Labor Party, which accuses the prison industry of being “an imitation of Nazi Germany with respect to forced slave labor and concentration camps.”

                      The prison industry complex is one of the fastest-growing industries in the United States and its investors are on Wall Street. “This multimillion-dollar industry has its own trade exhibitions, conventions, websites, and mail-order/Internet catalogs. It also has direct advertising campaigns, architecture companies, construction companies, investment houses on Wall Street, plumbing supply companies, food supply companies, armed security, and padded cells in a large variety of colors.”

                      According to the Left Business Observer, the federal prison industry produces 100% of all military helmets, ammunition belts, bullet-proof vests, ID tags, shirts, pants, tents, bags, and canteens. Along with war supplies, prison workers supply 98% of the entire market for equipment assembly services; 93% of paints and paintbrushes; 92% of stove assembly; 46% of body armor; 36% of home appliances; 30% of headphones/microphones/speakers; and 21% of office furniture. Airplane parts, medical supplies, and much more: prisoners are even raising seeing-eye dogs for blind people.

                      CRIME GOES DOWN, JAIL POPULATION GOES UP

                      According to reports by human rights organizations, these are the factors that increase the profit potential for those who invest in the prison industry complex:

                      . Jailing persons convicted of non-violent crimes, and long prison sentences for possession of microscopic quantities of illegal drugs. Federal law stipulates five years’ imprisonment without possibility of parole for possession of 5 grams of crack or 3.5 ounces of heroin, and 10 years for possession of less than 2 ounces of rock-cocaine or crack. A sentence of 5 years for cocaine powder requires possession of 500 grams – 100 times more than the quantity of rock cocaine for the same sentence. Most of those who use cocaine powder are white, middle-class or rich people, while mostly Blacks and Latinos use rock cocaine. In Texas, a person may be sentenced for up to two years’ imprisonment for possessing 4 ounces of marijuana. Here in New York, the 1973 Nelson Rockefeller anti-drug law provides for a mandatory prison sentence of 15 years to life for possession of 4 ounces of any illegal drug.

                      . The passage in 13 states of the “three strikes” laws (life in prison after being convicted of three felonies), made it necessary to build 20 new federal prisons. One of the most disturbing cases resulting from this measure was that of a prisoner who for stealing a car and two bicycles received three 25-year sentences.

                      . Longer sentences.

                      . The passage of laws that require minimum sentencing, without regard for circumstances.

                      . A large expansion of work by prisoners creating profits that motivate the incarceration of more people for longer periods of time.

                      . More punishment of prisoners, so as to lengthen their sentences.

                      HISTORY OF PRISON LABOR IN THE UNITED STATES

                      Prison labor has its roots in slavery. After the 1861-1865 Civil War, a system of “hiring out prisoners” was introduced in order to continue the slavery tradition. Freed slaves were charged with not carrying out their sharecropping commitments (cultivating someone else’s land in exchange for part of the harvest) or petty thievery – which were almost never proven – and were then “hired out” for cotton picking, working in mines and building railroads. From 1870 until 1910 in the state of Georgia, 88% of hired-out convicts were Black. In Alabama, 93% of “hired-out” miners were Black. In Mississippi, a huge prison farm similar to the old slave plantations replaced the system of hiring out convicts. The notorious Parchman plantation existed until 1972.

                      During the post-Civil War period, Jim Crow racial segregation laws were imposed on every state, with legal segregation in schools, housing, marriages and many other aspects of daily life. “Today, a new set of markedly racist laws is imposing slave labor and sweatshops on the criminal justice system, now known as the prison industry complex,” comments the Left Business Observer.

                      Who is investing? At least 37 states have legalized the contracting of prison labor by private corporations that mount their operations inside state prisons. The list of such companies contains the cream of U.S. corporate society: IBM, Boeing, Motorola, Microsoft, AT&T, Wireless, Texas Instrument, Dell, Compaq, Honeywell, Hewlett-Packard, Nortel, Lucent Technologies, 3Com, Intel, Northern Telecom, TWA, Nordstrom’s, Revlon, Macy’s, Pierre Cardin, Target Stores, and many more. All of these businesses are excited about the economic boom generation by prison labor. Just between 1980 and 1994, profits went up from $392 million to $1.31 billion. Inmates in state penitentiaries generally receive the minimum wage for their work, but not all; in Colorado, they get about $2 per hour, well under the minimum. And in privately-run prisons, they receive as little as 17 cents per hour for a maximum of six hours a day, the equivalent of $20 per month. The highest-paying private prison is CCA in Tennessee, where prisoners receive 50 cents per hour for what they call “highly skilled positions.” At those rates, it is no surprise that inmates find the pay in federal prisons to be very generous. There, they can earn $1.25 an hour and work eight hours a day, and sometimes overtime. They can send home $200-$300 per month.

                      Thanks to prison labor, the United States is once again an attractive location for investment in work that was designed for Third World labor markets. A company that operated a maquiladora (assembly plant in Mexico near the border) closed down its operations there and relocated to San Quentin State Prison in California. In Texas, a factory fired its 150 workers and contracted the services of prisoner-workers from the private Lockhart Texas prison, where circuit boards are assembled for companies like IBM and Compaq.

                      [Former] Oregon State Representative Kevin Mannix recently urged Nike to cut its production in Indonesia and bring it to his state, telling the shoe manufacturer that “there won’t be any transportation costs; we’re offering you competitive prison labor (here).”
                      …..

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        More from same article:

                        PRIVATE PRISONS

                        The prison privatization boom began in the 1980s, under the governments of Ronald Reagan and Bush Sr., but reached its height in 1990 under William Clinton, when Wall Street stocks were selling like hotcakes. Clinton’s program for cutting the federal workforce resulted in the Justice Departments contracting of private prison corporations for the incarceration of undocumented workers and high-security inmates.

                        Private prisons are the biggest business in the prison industry complex. About 18 corporations guard 10,000 prisoners in 27 states. The two largest are Correctional Corporation of America (CCA) and Wackenhut, which together control 75%. Private prisons receive a guaranteed amount of money for each prisoner, independent of what it costs to maintain each one. According to Russell Boraas, a private prison administrator in Virginia, “the secret to low operating costs is having a minimal number of guards for the maximum number of prisoners.” The CCA has an ultra-modern prison in Lawrenceville, Virginia, where five guards on dayshift and two at night watch over 750 prisoners. In these prisons, inmates may get their sentences reduced for “good behavior,” but for any infraction, they get 30 days added – which means more profits for CCA. According to a study of New Mexico prisons, it was found that CCA inmates lost “good behavior time” at a rate eight times higher than those in state prisons.

                        IMPORTING AND EXPORTING INMATES

                        Profits are so good that now there is a new business: importing inmates with long sentences, meaning the worst criminals. When a federal judge ruled that overcrowding in Texas prisons was cruel and unusual punishment, the CCA signed contracts with sheriffs in poor counties to build and run new jails and share the profits. According to a December 1998 Atlantic Monthly magazine article, this program was backed by investors from Merrill-Lynch, Shearson-Lehman, American Express and Allstate, and the operation was scattered all over rural Texas. That state’s governor, Ann Richards, followed the example of Mario Cuomo in New York and built so many state prisons that the market became flooded, cutting into private prison profits.

                        After a law signed by Clinton in 1996 – ending court supervision and decisions – caused overcrowding and violent, unsafe conditions in federal prisons, private prison corporations in Texas began to contact other states whose prisons were overcrowded, offering “rent-a-cell” services in the CCA prisons located in small towns in Texas. The commission for a rent-a-cell salesman is $2.50 to $5.50 per day per bed. The county gets $1.50 for each prisoner.

                        STATISTICS

                        Ninety-seven percent of 125,000 federal inmates have been convicted of non-violent crimes. It is believed that more than half of the 623,000 inmates in municipal or county jails are innocent of the crimes they are accused of. Of these, the majority are awaiting trial. Two-thirds of the one million state prisoners have committed non-violent offenses. Sixteen percent of the country’s 2 million prisoners suffer from mental illness.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The system feeds itself
                          How true. The more men we lock up, the more deeply embedded becomes the idea that "men commit the vast majority of crime". This prejudice feeds back into the legal system, resulting in even more men being locked up. A vicious circle has developed.

                          I used to have one female friend who freely admitted to having stolen from every shop in our local high street. (Needless to say I don't talk to her anymore). She was never caught because no one ever suspected her. Because "everyone knows" that women don't commit crime.

                          Amanda Marcotte herself offers proof of this attitude. The article does not even acknowledge the possibility that men can be raped by women. The written consent she talks about is only consent obtained by men from women - the reverse is simply not an issue for her. It's a man's obligation to obtain consent, and a woman's prerogative to grant or deny it. The man should always "want it".

                          Feminists are pushing the "rape" button so often now, it's losing its power to shock.
                          Last edited by numbCruncher; 02-21-2014, 02:08 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I think it's more useful to de-stigmatize sex so that it's not such a big deal.

                            Most of the time what femtards consider "rape" I consider bad sex, drunk sex, buyer's remorse, etc etc.

                            And the only reason they even call it rape is to stigmatize it to a man, instead of herself being stigmatized as a "slut" or whatever.

                            TLDR; rape hysteria is about nothin but jailin men over super-sensitive egos, that every bad sex is a rape, and that's just BS

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Well, the biggest problem is the focus on incarceration. Justice can be bought. When it comes to subjective issues like date rape -- he said she said -- the potential for enormous disparities to exist based on whether you have the money to hire a good lawyer or not is huge.

                              Sentences for rape are nearly as long as for murder -- this is all because virginity used to be so prized that rape had potential to condemn women to perpetual spinsterhood. From the point of view of lawyers who wish to make tons of money off of defense, they love the idea of rape being hyped so much and sentences being kept long, even after the sexual revolution changed things so much. But the criminal justice system is simply not to be trusted -- and that is one blind spot feminists have which, if you call them on it enough, they'd have no answer to. It's dangerous to make it so easy for women to destroy the life of a man through a mere allegation, and then to encourage them to try to do it as much as possible.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X