How the inequality is rationalized Sentence compounding
When the state gives the female the first option to plea bargain and receives extra evidence about a man in exchange for repressing evidence about a woman, this leads the press to report the evidence against the man, which leads the public to reinforce its stereotype of man-as-criminal, woman-as – innocent. Thus the initial belief that women are more innocent becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy which becomes the rationalization for continuing to allow the woman the first option to plea bargain.
Should they both commit a second crime, not only is the man the only one with a prison record, which justifies his gening a longer sentence, but his longer time in prison is also more likely to harden him, something a jury will pick up on and something that contributes to his higher recidivism rate In these respects, men’s criminal records are multiplied, women’s minimized. And so, discrimination begets discrimination begets discrimination.
How the commissions on gender bias rationalize gender bias
Recently, state commissions on gender bias have reported that it is women who are victims of discrimination. For example:
ITEM When women go free on probation while men get prison sentences, the state commissions on gender bias say women are victims of discrimination because women receive longer periods of probation?’
The commissions also mention that women are discriminated against because there are fewer women’s institutions, forcing relatives to go farther to visit them. Not mentioned is the reason: There is rarely any need for more than one women’s prison near a city because of all the discrimination in favor of women. Were women to receive equal charges, equal bail, and equal sentencing, there would be more women’s prisons.
For women to have the privilege of avoiding prison by going free on probation, doing less time when sentenced, or receiving treatment sentences rather than prison sentences – and then to complain about there being fewer prisons, well. . . there could hardly be a better example of chutzpa. Yet The New York Times reports these conclusions without questioning them.32
Why wouldn’t a government commission on gender bias see through this gender bias’ Because these "government’’ commissions are not really government commissions – they are feminist commissions. That is, the government relies upon recommendations of organizations such as the feminist National Organization for Women and the mostly feminist National Association of Women Judges in choosing which issues to research and which to ignore.33 They are government commissions only in the sense that they are paid for by the government – meaning us. Even the key staff members are more likely to be women than men – frequently feminist activists, almost never a men’s movement activist.34
Thus the commissions were able to see the overcrowding in women’s prisons while ignoring the more intense overcrowding in men’s prisons; they were able to see how women’s prisons need to pay attention to problems unique to women, but not how men’s prisons also need to pay more attention to problems more common among men, such as male-to – male rape.
A feminist government commission on gender bias is the equivalent of a Republican government commission on political party bias. Imagine having a government commission on political party bias sponsored by one political party, staffed by the same party, systematically having the other рапу excluded, its findings unquestioned in The New York Times, and having taxes increased to pay the bill. If a political party did this, we’d call it a scandal; when feminists do this, it’s called official. Feminism has become gender politics’ one-party system.