Feminism

Will Feminists Please Stop Calling the Cops?

The women's liberation movement has gotten tied to mass incarceration. It needs to break free.

|

The last few years have seen a strong, often bipartisan push for criminal justice reform. But certain categories of criminalized acts—those perceived as primarily harming women and girls—have been nearly immune from that spirit.

"Those most vocal about prison reform are also often the most punitive about gendered offenses, even minor ones," writes Aya Gruber, a law professor at the University of Colorado, in her recent book The Feminist War on Crime (University of California Press). Gruber, a former public defender, worries that "women's criminal law activism [has] not made prosecution and punishment more feminist" but instead has "made feminism more prosecutorial and punitive."

There are generations of precedent for that. From the suffragists who played up xenophobic fears through Clinton-era feminists' zeal for sex offender registries, several waves of feminists have contributed to the carceral state. But that alliance isn't inevitable. Another recent book—The Feminist and the Sex Offender (Verso), by journalist Judith Levine and Northeastern Illinois University professor Erica R. Meiners—suggests that if "one kind of feminism helped get us into this mess," perhaps "a different kind of feminism is key to getting us out." This alternative feminist movement would work with, not against, the movements to stop mass incarceration and to protect sex offenders' rights.

The First Wave of Feminist Crime Warriors

By the late 1800s, major feminist groups—like the Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU), which had 10 times as many members as the National Woman Suffrage Association—had moved beyond fighting for equal rights to broader "social purity" campaigns. These often aimed to protect girls and women from ruinous sex, using government force if necessary.

Dance halls were one target, being seen as a root of prostitution and seduction. (One 1912 book was titled From Dance Hall to White Slavery.) "Women's groups championed robust enforcement of the tort of seduction, where a woman, or rather her male family members, could pursue monetary damages against men who falsely promised nuptials to procure sex," writes Gruber. Many first-wave feminists "advocated for the criminal regulation of drunkenness and lust more generally." Progressive Era feminists also embraced the idea that "vulnerable women…required state management for their own good." They often justified this by pointing to sex trafficking, as "the narrative of the seducer who cajoled women into consenting to their own ruin had given way to the narrative of the slaver who captured unsuspecting girls and procured sex through punishment, not persuasion," writes Gruber. None of this was great for girls or women—particularly not if they were women of color or immigrants or if they fell outside conventional bounds of femininity or sexual propriety. But it was good for officials who wanted to tighten U.S. borders and nationalize law enforcement. It helped usher in the first federal immigration restriction, the Page Act of 1875, which banned women from East Asia from coming here "for the purposes of prostitution." Later, it helped give us the 18th Amendment, banning alcohol. And it gave us the Mann Act of 1910, which criminalized bringing a woman across state lines for "prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose."

The law—popularly known then as the "White-Slave Traffic Act"—became a pretext for the federal authorities to monitor transportation and for cops to harass black people, immigrants, interracial couples, LGBT travelers, women dressed immodestly, and ladies whose families complained about them leaving home. "It was women who bore the primary brunt of criminal law management of commercial sex," Gruber reports. In the 1915 case U.S. v. Holte, the Supreme Court ruled that women could be charged for participating in their own interstate transportation.

First-wave feminists also succeeded in sharply raising the age of sexual consent. In 1885, most states followed English law and set the age at 10 years old; by 1920 all but one placed it at 16, 17, or 18. That may seem like an unambiguous win. But in practice, Gruber points out, the law was enforced in a way that "ended up largely punishing girls, who were locked up [by the state] to prevent men from having sex with them." One 1916 study found 51 percent of girls charged in Chicago's juvenile court were institutionalized, compared to just 21 percent of boys.

How Boomer Feminists Learned To Love the State

By the 1960s, a new feminist consciousness was being forged in the civil rights and antiwar movements. Initially, this second wave resembled the "different kind of feminism" that Levine and Meiners call for: It opposed authorities of all sorts, an orientation that held true during its early forays into fighting sexual assault and domestic abuse.

"The nascent battered women's movement was radical and antiauthoritarian at its core," Gruber reports. It was more likely to offer free self-defense classes than to call for new criminal sanctions. But "as the battered women's and antirape movements grew, different feminists with different commitments vied for control of the narrative and agenda….Some feminists allied with state authorities, and indeed, some were state authorities."

Groups like the National Organization for Women and other avatars of mainstream mid-century feminism "lobbied to repeal sexist laws, wrote model legislation, and met with police and members of the judiciary to educate them about women's frustrating and traumatizing experiences with the legal system," write Levine and Meiners. "But anti-violence feminists from the left, especially women of color, were adamantly opposed to outsourcing vengeance to the state." These feminists "learned from experience that prisons do not end violence, but instead perpetrate and perpetuate it, while destroying individual lives, families, and communities."

Domestic violence intensely divided this era's feminists. For the (overwhelmingly white) feminist mainstream—the kind that ran formal advocacy groups and got quoted in the press—the root of domestic violence was cultural, not material. Men abused women because of male entitlement and sexism. Victims who didn't leave were either paralyzed by fear or suffering from false consciousness. "Legal feminists transformed the general claim that patriarchy causes battering to the specific claim that patriarchal criminal law is the cause of battering," notes Gruber. "They reduced [domestic violence] to the phenomenon of violent sexist men emboldened by weak law enforcement."

The cure, they argued, was to toughen up criminal laws and take away police discretion. This led to policies like mandatory arrest in domestic violence cases where police have probable cause (even if a victim does not want the arrest) and no-drop prosecution (in which domestic assault is prosecuted regard-less of a victim's cooperation, even if it requires punishing the victim to make her participate). Decades later, the evidence shows that these policies often sent battered women to jail and sometimes helped escalate abuse—perhaps backing up arguments that life stressors can trigger more domestic violence. In a series of mid-'90s studies, "arrest often produced an immediate protective effect but increased violence over time," Gruber says. Arrest was most likely to backfire among unmarried, unemployed men those "in districts with larger percentages of black suspects." Arrest and jail may serve as short-term deterrents, but they don't fix underlying problems and do produce new ones.

Nonetheless, "throughout the 1980s and '90s, powerful feminist groups identified lax policing of abusers and rapists as the gender justice issue," Gruber observes. "By the close of the millennium, the stalwart suit-wearing SVU prosecutor who throws the book at rapists had replaced the bra-burner as the symbol of women's empowerment."

This carceral turn in feminism aligned with the general zeitgeist in favor of more policing and tougher punishments. Feminist factions pushing harsher penalties and weaker due-process protections were embraced by people in power—especially Democrats, who saw violence against women as a social justice–friendly way to flex their tough-on-crime bona fides. Anti-carceral feminists and others pushing more holistic solutions grew more and more marginalized.

By the time Bill Clinton was in the White House, policies like sex offender registries and mandatory domestic violence arrests were dogma. Those who questioned these ideas—or rising orthodoxies around the prevalence of campus rape—were ostracized. Meanwhile, a bipartisan alliance in Congress ushered through the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), a bill supported by both law enforcement and women's groups.

Democrats still brag about VAWA, which was first introduced by then–Sen. Joe Biden (D–Del.) in 1990 and passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. But it was just as pro-incarceration as other aspects of the 1994 crime bill. "VAWA married anti-violence feminists to the violent state," Levine and Meiners write. It "overwhelmingly leans on arrest and prosecution—in other words, criminalization, an option that fails to serve many women."

The 1994 law also included the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act, which among other things required states to participate in a national sex offender registry. The registries now include around 900,000 names, listed for an ever-expanding array of crimes. "In many states and in the federal system, sentences for sex-related offenses exceed those for aggravated assault, arson, or even homicide," point out Meiners and Levine. Yet "twenty-five years of experience and a mountain of research show that no part" of sex offender registrations, notifications, and restrictions "gives the public any reason to feel either safer or less safe." Still, for decades, state and federal lawmakers have been passing ever stricter and more detailed versions, "craft[ing] new statutes from a seemingly inexhaustible store of ideas for policing sex and 'sex offenders.'" Feminists have cheered them on. Sometimes, they've been intimately involved in crafting the rules.

Rape Laws and Registries

Second-wave feminists were able to transform many rules surrounding rape and sexual assault investigations and prosecutions. Some of these changes were positive. But overall, they did less to empower women than they did to empower police and prosecutors. As with the fight against domestic violence, a radical, grassroots movement of women helping women evolved into a fight for stricter criminal laws and weaker due process, with a side order of attacking pornography and prostitution.

"In the post–World War II period up until the 1970s, most rape law reform came from civil libertarians seeking to narrow criminal regulations out of concern for black defendants and sexual liberation sentiments," writes Gruber. "Moreover, until the latter twentieth century, the US criminal system contained no specific framework for intimate partner crimes. Domestic assaults and murders were prosecuted under general battery and homicide laws….With the advent of the modern women's movement, that all changed."

There were divisions within the women's liberation movement, of course. "Dominance feminists," such as Catharine A. MacKinnon, "hoped to craft a legal regime reflecting that sex was presumptively coerced except under the narrowest conditions of equality, mutuality, and authentic feminine desire," writes Gruber. Meanwhile, "liberal feminists favored a framework in which sex was lawful so long as there was 'consent,'" replacing previous standards where rape required the use of force. (Nonconsensual but nonviolent sex had been criminalized under a different category.) Activists went on to champion "special evidentiary rules" and to push "the narrative of a sex-averse, frozen-in-flight, and easily traumatized victim to explain away victims' testimonial inconsistencies, their consensual behavior, and why they didn't say 'no.'"

One such evidentiary reform was known as a "rape shield law." This reform said that in sexual assault trials, victims' past sexual experiences and conduct were off-limits, as was bringing up their clothing, relationship status, and other things deemed prejudicial. On the face of it, this sounded good. Feminists championed these laws as ways to mitigate cultural bias against female promiscuity and to counter outmoded ideas about victims "asking for it," as well as to spare victims the embarrassment or trauma of having their sex lives made public. Biden again jumped on board. Without rape shield laws, the future president argued, a trial could be as "degrading as the rape itself."

But "prior to the rape shield revolution, evidence laws already required judges to exclude irrelevant and unduly prejudicial sexual conduct evidence," argues Gruber. Rape shield laws just took away their discretion. Meanwhile, in pushing for these changes, "it was feminists and their allies who publicized through spectacular narratives that rape trials necessarily involve public humiliations, or 'second rapes,' that produce life-long trauma." In doing so they "took criminal prosecution as a given" and perpetrated sexist myths about women's fragility.

Feminists also pushed to exclude defendants in sexual assault cases from protections afforded defendants accused of other crimes. In "the midst of '90s predator panic, an alliance of women's rights activists, concerned citizens, and tough-on-crime politicians pushed through a novel federal evidentiary rule, Rule 413," explains Gruber. This exempted "sexual assault defendants from the general rule that prior bad acts are not admissible to prove current behavior." Meanwhile, they pushed handy but unscientific explanations of trauma to wave away any inconsistencies in victim stories or peculiarities in their behavior. "'Rape trauma syndrome' reflected popular views that women were 'ruined' by rape (and even imperfect sex)," notes Gruber, and thus "the trauma narrative resonated with judges and juries, and trauma became a prosecutorial trump."

The rape law reform efforts were part of a broader trend to exclude those deemed sex offenders from normal legal protections while simultaneously broadening the definition of sex offenses—and of child.

"Since the late 1980s, the age of a 'child' in federal statute was raised first to sixteen and then eighteen," note Meiners and Levine. And "as the age of consent has risen, most carceral feminists have been content to let the lines blur between the small, prepubescent people we used to call children and the fifteen- and sixteen-year-olds that much of the world regards as mature enough to make their own sexual decisions."

The number of sex offenders behind bars took off, often ensnaring children themselves. Around 200,000 people are on sex offender registries for crimes committed as minors. Reason has documented numerous cases of teenagers charged with child-porn offenses for sexting among themselves.

It's all part of what Levine and Meiners call "the sex offense legal regime." This includes "draconian prison sentences for a growing list of offenses; civil commitment (indefinite post-prison preventative detention in prison-like psychiatric institutions); and the sex offender registry, which is fortified by hundreds of local, state, and federal restrictions on where, when, and with whom registrants may live, work, play, travel, or just be."

Bad Stats Drive Bad Policies

Such changes were helped along by flawed research, which tends to perpetuate itself in the press and the legislatures even after scholars correct it.

Take the oft-made claim that recidivism is much higher for sex offenders than for other kinds of criminals. "Research has firmly discredited this claim—it is in fact the opposite of the truth—yet it has proven almost indestructible, the perfect factoid upon which to fix unnamable fears," write Levine and Meiners. In 2002, for instance, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in a decision (for McKune v. Lile) that the recidivism rate for "untreated [sex] offenders" may be as high as 80 percent. The actual number is debatable, but it is clearly far lower. So how did Kennedy arrive at that figure? He got it from a U.S. Department of Justice guide, which in turn cited a 1986 Psychology Today article that included no supporting evidence or documentation for the claim. And the article wasn't even about national recidivism statistics—it was about a single prison counseling program in Oregon.

"The false 'facts' stated in the opinion have since been relied upon repeatedly by other courts in their own constitutional decisions, thus infecting an entire field of law as well as policy making by legislative bodies," write Ira Mark Ellman and Tara Ellman in Constitutional Commentary, the University of Minnesota's law journal. Notably, they are frequently offered to justify "the increasingly harsh set of post-release collateral consequences imposed on" sex offenders.

Similarly, the case for mandatory arrest in domestic violence situations rested largely on a small study that supposedly showed that arrest deterred future abuse. Those results received a lot of media attention and were cited on statehouse floors. The study's author, Lawrence W. Sherman, went on to conduct five more studies on the issue, following thousands of domestic abuse cases. These times, his research suggested just the opposite: Arrests often escalated domestic violence. With a wider sample, Sherman concluded in 1992, it became clear that mandatory arrests "make as much sense as fighting fire with gasoline." Yet well "into the 1990s," Gruber writes, "states and localities adopted proarrest policies as if the replication studies did not exist."

Today, nonsense statistics about sex trafficking and campus rape have likewise proved stubbornly indifferent to debunking, giving rise to revived panics about forced prostitution and ruinous sex.

The rhetoric harkens back to Progressive Era narratives about shadowy male traffickers forcing innocent women and girls into prostitution. These "new abolitionists, like their old counterparts, regularly depicted sex slavery through lurid and racialized narratives and then simply applied the label to all prostitution," writes Gruber. They tell eroticized, sensationalistic tales about unambiguous victims, then mix these with statistics about sex work more broadly to create a distorted picture of the problem's scope.

Lately, this has led to laws like the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA), the 2018 legislation that made hosting online sex ads a federal crime, and the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, the 2015 law that broadened the type of activities that count as "sex trafficking," increased the penalties for these activities, lowered evidentiary standards, and otherwise made it harder for the accused to mount a defense.

Time to Choose

Levine and Meiners—who "believe that the sex offense legal regime must be abolished, along with the entire prison industrial complex"—want feminists to find new allies: not police and prosecutors, but criminal justice reformers, sex work activists, and others with a jaundiced view of state power. They implore feminists to remember that "interpersonal violence and the violence inflicted by the state are not opposing actors in a moral or political war" but "a team, the former the bad cop, the latter the good. They speak in unison: Might makes right."

As the long feminist war on crime has shown, this alliance does more than just send a mixed message. Trying to achieve gender equality, fix interpersonal relationships, change sexual mores, and solve social ills through state force winds up creating systems that get used against those it claims to benefit, backfiring broadly against girls and women or benefiting the most privileged while making life worse for already disadvantaged or stigmatized groups. In short, crime panic has been bad for women's rights, even when the people panicking are themselves feminists.

Gruber, too, calls on current and future feminists to resist the pull of carceral action. Today's activists must "direct feminism away from punishment" and "adopt an unconditional stance against criminalization, no matter the issue." She also asks feminists to stop crafting solutions based on some mythical "everywoman," a tendency that produces carceral policies that can protect more privileged groups while harming others.

But can it be done?

"As with the war on terror, there is an endless supply of frightening bad guys who inspire fear and loathing and have symbolic political meaning," writes Gruber. "The feminist penal regimes implemented in the 1980s and 1990s are now entrenched institutions overseen by prosecutors, advocates working for the courts, administrators, and for-profit actors with vested interest in their continued survival. Politicians are certainly not apologizing for VAWA as Clinton did for the 1994 Crime Bill that enacted it."

On the contrary, speakers at the 2020 Democratic National Convention repeatedly crowed about Biden's role in passing VAWA.

"Plenty of feminists, veteran and ingenue, remain committed not just to upholding the existing feminist crime control regimes and closing 'loopholes' in them but also to creating new ones—new antitrafficking laws, revenge-porn laws, laws against hosting prostitution ads, laws against coercive control in relationships, laws against stealth condom removal," Gruber writes. "Emboldened by a modern antitrafficking consensus so powerful that Trump has touted preventing sex trafficking as justification for his wall, prostitution abolitionists have redoubled efforts to criminalize commercial sexual activities."

So what choice will feminists make? Will we continue on a trajectory that has filled prisons, weakened due process, established biased legal standards, and given cops new reasons to get involved in people's lives? Or will we internalize this history, listen to the women and girls victimized by these laws, and stop looking to the police for social justice?

NEXT: New York City Ends Qualified Immunity for Police Officers

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. There is a simple logic here

    If the State is run by a Toxic Patriarchy that Suppresses Women, to empower Women the solution would be to find ways to Limit State Powers not Expand them

    1. Except they mostly want to replace the Toxic Patriarchal State with the Glorious Matriarchal State.

      1. Feminism has always been about rich white upper middle-class women and their struggle to wrest power from rich white upper middle-class men.

        1. Seeking the equality to be the biggest victim and asking to utilize that for power.

          1. Not equality. Equity. These are far from the same.

            1. JOIN PART TIME JOB FOR USA Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
              on this page…..VISIT HERE

        2. Really its mostly been about rich white upper middle-class women and their struggle to put that bitch Betty from down the street in her fucking place. Who the hell does she think she is anyway? Talking to me like that. Does she not know who the fuck I am?

          1. Soooooo true. Karen The Feminist, calling the manager on those heathen men.

    2. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple works from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simpleBGT job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…. Visit Here

    3. Racist!

      That’s just because the Toxic Patriarchy did it wrong, you racist pig.

      Now hold my Chardonnay and watch this.

    4. My last pay check was $8750 just ecom working 12 hours for every week. My neighbor GHG have found the estimation of $15k for a long time and she works around 20 hours for seven days. I can not trust how direct it was once I tried it information.. ….. Visit Here

    5. So, you don’t see that replacing the patriarchy with a matriarchy would be the safest, most equitable, most diverse and LBGTQAII. also BLM, global warming and education.

    6. Well, that’s simple alright. Stupid, even. Who will “limit state powers” and whose powers will expand as a result? How will these powers be limited? By legislation? Seems like limiting state power presupposes the use of state power to achieve it, and where does that power go? Do you think it automatically falls into the hands of women, because, if you are boneheaded enough to believe that the state is the source of all patriarchy (and no serious feminist believes that,) then all sexism disappears once you repeal laws, including those that guarantee women’s rights.

      1. (and no serious feminist believes that,)

        All serious feminist believe that.

        And all serious feminist believe that not only is the state the source of patriarchy, its also what will destroy it – once the right people are in charge.

        Doublethink. Its not just a word.

    7. A friend of mine who is a police officer regularly reminds us that since COVID started, the only people his city allows to be jailed are “domestics”. Everyone else is turned away.

      Regardless of your views on police or jail, that “domestics” of any sort are treated worse than serious violence or property crime should concern us all.

      1. Most domestic violence by men against women should not be a crime. Men should be able to adequately discipline their wives and ordering her to behave and under some circumstances physically hitting her is justified.

        Men have not only a right but more importantly a responsibility to society to control women.

    8. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple works from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are BHJGH much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page….. Visit Here

  2. Interesting concepts from a purely historical perspective.
    But you can have transgenderism, or feminism; you cannot have both.
    Of course, a libertarian would have neither and treat all free individuals alike.

    1. Equality is racist and sexist!

      1. Yeah, so what?

  3. My woman would probably be in favor of putting me in jail for hogging the remote and aggressive farting — an example of which is when she’s telling you something important or trying to be serious and you fart as loud as you can and then ask her to repeat it even though you heard every word. This one gets old so use it sparingly. * Pro tip, do something nice and sweet immediately after you fart to further confuse the female brain.

    1. When I was a young man, I would dress like a liberal, modern male and pick up women in bars by lying to them about my commitment to Feminism. In actuality, I didn’t really need to lie, I just agreed with them as they rambled on. It gets them really hot.
      One particular evening, I had a fantastic night of drunken sex with a well known, modern feminist. When I woke up, the cops were in the apartment, telling me that I was being arrested for domestic violence under the newly enacted “doggy style law”. The feminist claimed that I beat her ass with a sack of nuts. Guilty!

      1. Now that payoff was worth the work of reading

    2. No one cares how you and your mom act around each other Screech.

    3. Does that pro tip also work if you do a “Dutch oven” on her? Asking for a friend.

    4. Any jury should find you not guilty of raping your wife.
      Jury nullification is what MeToo sexual assault charges are for. If you’re called for jury duty and any man is on trial for sexual assault of any woman ALWAYS vote NOT GUILTY!

  4. DAMNED UPPITY WOMEN!

    MIGRANT CARAVAN! OPEN BORDERS! SHIT YER PANTS, BOYS! BIDEN IS RUINING THIS COUNTRY!

    1. Are we talking about the Same Biden who still is arresting Migrants and Putting Children in Cages?

      1. That is the amazing thing about the wingnut noise machine. They can maintain two contradictory memes at once.

        “OPEN BORDERS” JOE IS PUTTIN’ CHILDREN IN CAGES!

        1. Nothing contradictory about it. Just stupid and evil.
          Joe really did invite Central America to move to the US, and then started packing them in what you were calling “cages” six months ago.

          1. I suspect that they’re really just sorting out the best slaves employees for the DNC oligarch’s factories.

          2. Kamala Harris stated that she would give free college and free healthcare to illegal aliens. It is cruel to make promises like that to people. Ask any combat veteran that is waiting for an appointment at the VA or dealing with months late payments under the GI Bill.

        2. You prove yourself time and time again as an idiot incapable of any sort of depth to a discussion.

          Joe wants open borders. He wants amnesty. He pleaded for migrants to surge the border. He relaxed deportations. He promised not to remove others.

          But he has to follow the law.

          You seem to think these are contradictory because you are an idiot.

          1. Just when I thought some of the newer posters were gonna steal shrike’s crown for being the stupidest piece of shit here, he farts out a gem like this thread.

            1. It’s not easy being number 1.

      2. It’s the same Biden who doesn’t know where he is or why he’s here, so, that’s possible. He also thinks his wife is a doctor. Sometimes he thinks about dogs, too. Or ponies. Or dog-faced ponies. Soldiers.

        1. I’ll tell you this: I’d rather have Biden than Donald Trump, any old time! Donald Trump got us into the mess we’re presently in with Covid-19, resulting in a pandemic that resulted in an unnecessary half a million American lives lost.

    2. “Age of consent raised from ten” was the part that hurt SPBP the worst.

      1. Xhe thought it was too high at 10.

      2. The age of consent should be lowered to seven or removed altogether.

    3. Did you see the amazing economic news, Mr. Buttplug?

      Warren Buffett earned $2.31 billion yesterday.

      He’s already up over $10 billion this year. And someone told me your favorite indicator of economic health during the Obama years — even more important than his fantastic GDP growth — was to document Mr. Buffett’s net worth increases.

      At the risk of getting overly ambitious, I’m beginning to think the Biden economy might surpass the Obama economy.

      #VoteDemocratToHelpWarrenBuffett

      1. I absolutely love it. Buffett and Gates generated enormous good will by promising to donate away half their total wealth, and then parlayed that good will with governments into special measures that helped quintuple their total wealth.
        Genius. That’s true progressivism in action.

      2. “Mr Buttplug” slays me every time

  5. #BidenBoom update.

    In 2021 Democrats have raised the minimum wage by: $0.00 / hour

    In 2021 Reason.com benefactor Charles Koch’s net worth has increased by: $4.58 billion

    Mr. Koch earned $477,000,000 yesterday. Mere weeks into the Biden Administration, our benefactor has almost erased the $5 billion loss he suffered in 2020 because of Drumpf’s high-tariff / low-immigration policies.

    #LibertariansForBiden
    #InDefenseOfBillionaires

    1. Wow. How is he going to spend that $477 million?

      1. Bingo and Viagra.

  6. I’m just glad that Megan Rappin’hoe is still fighting for equal pay for female soccer players. Her struggle, is our struggle. I’ve dyed my hair pink in support. They will have to take women’s soccer seriously now.

    1. She’s an inspiration indeed.

      Of course bigots like my brother-in-law ridicule women’s soccer with an obviously BS anecdote about them losing to a bunch of 15 year old boys. LOL! It’s like, if you’re going to make something up, it should at least be somewhat believable.

      #WomenAreJustAsGoodAsMenAtEverything
      #(AndYesThatIncludesSports)

        1. If they can get their asses handed to them by some 13 and 14 year olds from Dallas, then I wonder what the score would be for the U.S. Women’s National Team versus Bayern Munich or Real Madrid.

          1. Based on my experience – in our division we had one high school that required boys to play at least one sport so they didn’t have to have gym classes – they stop counting after 10, unless the team with no goals manages to somehow score.

            Also in my experience, if the hapless team does score, they put the rest of the goals back up on the board. I think 21-1 was a state record when we did it. Everyone on our team scored except the goalie, who scored twice.

      1. Perhaps they should make the next Olympics boys against girls. Who knows? Maybe girls are just as good. We could always find out. I would especially enjoy the boxing, wrestling, and judo. Surely those gals would do very well in one on one combat sports against an opponent of the same weight. That outcome may just silence your “bigot” brother in law. Gosh, what is he thinking?

        1. Prefaced by the largest trans athletes recruitment by US Olympic Women’s Sports

      2. Women can do anything a man can do provided a man has invented it, perfected it and made it easy for a woman to do and they still fuck things up. Backwards and in high heels indeed. It’s no wonder women are so eager to allow trannies into their club.

        1. Well, you know what they say in the construction trades……..

          “If it was easy a chick could do it.”

  7. “gender equality”

    No, you mean sex equality. There are two sexes, male and female. Men and women. Every time you say ‘gender equality,’ or any other such construction, you tell a lie. A so-called effeminate man is … a man. Male is his sex. Whatever gender is meant to be, it is irrelevant to equality between the sexes. The sexes, not the genders. There are no genders – it’s that simple.

    1. Semantics.

      1. You said semen. Uh…huh huh huh.

  8. What will feminists do? Be unhappy and try to spread their unhappiness to others.

    1. Happy feminist; that would be a paradox or an oxymoron?

  9. Modern feminism promotes an ambitious scam. They simultaneously demand equal treatment and status as well as special treatment and status.

    Which makes them just like 99% of humans throughout history, and just another self-promoting special interest group in our fucked-up post-modern society.

    1. University-educated Western women are some of the wealthiest, most privileged people in the history of the world, but they pule and groan about microaggressions, triggers, being othered, safe spaces, and their own personal pronouns.
      As if any of that shit matters… or ever could matter.
      Fuck them, and fuck their enablers.

      1. Not without their consent.

        1. Even with consent, there could be trouble years down the road.

        2. Consent should not be required. Men should be entitled to sex contact with women. Rape should be decriminalized.

  10. Is individualism compatible with feminism at all?

    1. Yes. There is a narrow band of feminism which stated that no woman who is competent in a job or task should be denied the opportunity to do that task based solely on the fact that she’s a woman.

      Now, that description contains a lot of baggage and a lot of ‘ifs’. In its purest form, the above never suggested that we were supposed to see 50% of corporate boards be women. None of it presumes that 50% of combat roles would be women, nor race car drivers, nor police officers, nor politicians and so on. That’s where feminism went off the rails. And as I allude below, Camille Paglia is one of the few feminists that understands this fact.

      1. She makes that point well – they slam men but men do 99% of construction work among other trades.

        Asking liberals to think about what they say is a waste of time though.

        1. Ten out of ten of the most dangerous jobs in the country are utterly dominated by men far, far more than the tech industry is. And yet I only ever hear complaints that there aren’t enough women in high status, high paying, low death rate fields.

          I mean hell, it’s not like refuse collection even requires a lot of upper body strength anymore, now that cities have those robot arm garbage trucks.

      2. “There is a narrow band of feminism which stated that no woman who is competent in a job or task should be denied the opportunity to do that task based solely on the fact that she’s a woman.”

        Individualism says the same thing, but if the feminism doesn’t differentiate itself from individualism, I suspect there’s more to the definition of feminism than that or, maybe, being an individualist is a more than sufficient way to say the same thing. We should note that individualism isn’t rationally consistent with discriminating against people on the basis of gender, orientation, race, nationality, or any other collectivist grouping. Actually, presenting the interests of any group of people based on some shared characteristic would seem to defeat the cause of individualism.

        When we think of a group of individuals as women, rather than individuals, we are undermining the cause of individualism, which is meant to insist on one’s rights being respected on an individual basis. Individualism isn’t about being treated the same as men or the same as all other women. It’s about having our individual right to make choices for ourselves respected regardless of whether our interests or characteristics are shared by any other group. And we really are unique on an individual basis.

        I saw someone have their paper run through a plagiarism detection service like Turnitin as part of a Freshman English composition class awhile back, and this person was writing something about the trial of Socrates. The service runs the submitted assignment against every other paper that’s been turned into that service plus a library of books and a search engine like Google–and it will find a similarity and flag it if you quote something. I thought to myself, of all the millions of papers that are turned in on the trial of Socrates every year, how many original takes can there possibly be? Eventually, you’ll write the same thing someone else wrote by accident, right?

        That’s not what happened. It’s amazing how millions of students writing on the same topic will each write about it in their own way. It’s almost as if they really are individuals despite sharing common characteristics and despite writing on the same topic!

        I know Cathy Young and Camille Paglia have both been eviscerated by other feminists for their individualist libertarian arguments, and I’m convinced Kerry Howley, one of my all-time favorite writers here at Reason, was both thoroughly feminist and thoroughly libertarian. Libertarian feminists seem constantly get in trouble with other feminists for not being collectivists, and I think that contradiction goes to the heart of libertarian feminism.

        There isn’t anything about being a white, protestant, heterosexual male that necessarily puts me on the same page as every white person, every protestant, every heterosexual, or every male, and there isn’t anything about being a white, protestant, heterosexual male that pits me against blacks, Muslims, gays, or women either.

        From an individualist perspective, making common cause with others because they share some personal characteristic seems like the cause of a lot of problems, and persuading people to stop doing that and treat each other as individuals seems like the solution to a lot of problems. Why is feminism different in that regard from an individualist perspective?

        I suspect it’s just not possible to be cool unless you call yourself a feminist in some people’s minds.

        1. I’m convinced Kerry Howley, one of my all-time favorite writers here at Reason, was both thoroughly feminist and thoroughly libertarian.

          You’re deluded. Howley wasn’t “thorughly libertarian” when she worked here and I’m not so sure she even identifies as “classically liberal” anymore.

          Remember this?

          1. “But libertarians for whom individualism is important cannot avoid discussions of culture, conformism, and social structure. Not every threat to liberty is backed by a government gun.”

            —-Kerry Howley

            Went looking for something to disagree with, but came back wishing for more of the same. Whatever other problems we have with the government, those problems are often a consequence of culture–like the collapse of the protestant work ethic.

            The solution to some of our biggest problems is persuading our fellow Americans to work hard, save their money, invest it wisely, and keep it out of the hands of other greedy Americans, who’ve grown up in a culture where helping yourself to other people’s hard earned money seems to be socially acceptable.

            To the extent that Howley was writing about social conventions being a threat to our liberty, she was right–and she doesn’t appear to have been advocating for anything like a government response.

          2. “Not every threat to Luberty is backed by a government gun” – exactly. She is dead on here.

      3. I would just more succinctly call it Individualist Libertarianism + Vagina.

        1. Individualist libertarianism + an empty hole is not more succinct.

  11. A feminist woman called the police on Jacob Blake, and just look what happened to him. There hasn’t been a single news story about her, but Biden and Harris slobbered all over Blake’s family before the election.

  12. If the goal is equity now instead of equality, shouldn’t we be locking up a lot more women?

    1. Or a lot fewer men.

      1. Larry Nassar should be released immediately.

  13. Nonetheless, “throughout the 1980s and ’90s, powerful feminist groups identified lax policing of abusers and rapists as the gender justice issue,” Gruber observes. “By the close of the millennium, the stalwart suit-wearing SVU prosecutor who throws the book at rapists had replaced the bra-burner as the symbol of women’s empowerment.”

    Interesting. As an aside, I find Law and Order: SVU an appalling show as a libertarian. Premiered in 1999 and is still apparently being produced. I have seen many episodes as I had a family member who was addicted to that show. I do believe it perpetuates the idea that rapists are around every corner. By feeding into the lie that all men can be or are rapists, it has done much damage to gender relations.

    1. All the first responder worship shows are appalling.

      1. Not just perpetuating that stereotype either, but Overton window shifting as well. They used to have a decent mix of batshit crazy women, no shit bloodthirsty rapists, and ‘got drunk and woke up in bed together’ cases where the women didn’t win. Even a feminist prosecutor who felt that men shouldn’t be held accountable for women’s poor judgement.

        Now, every episode parrots the idea that all sex is rape until proven otherwise, even known false allegations deserve due prosecution, and the main female characters openly question is there are any good men left in the world, when their male partners aren’t around.

        It’s mind blowing to go back and watch the early 90s non-SVU episodes and see the difference.

    2. There are rapists around every corner. And they’re all climate denying, homophobic nazis.

      How dare you!

  14. If you would like an excellent critique of modern feminism, I strongly recommend Camille Paglia.

  15. “the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU), which had 10 times as many members as the National Woman Suffrage Association”

    Yeah, but they get far fewer mentions by progressive historians than the NWSA, so that means the WCTU was simply a fringe clinger group.

  16. It’s interesting that in an era where we have decided that women may go into combat we also find it necessary to enact special protections for them such as the VAWA.

  17. Did the writer have a bet regarding how many times “carceral” could be used in one article?

    1. Did she self identify as a “libertarian carceral feminist”?

  18. ‘if “one kind of feminism helped get us into this mess,” perhaps “a different kind of feminism is key to getting us out.”‘

    So feminism is like socialism – it’s not the ideology which is at fault, it’s that the wrong top (wo)men have been implementing its policies.

    What will it actually mean – this hair-of-the-dog cure of replacing one kind of feminist craziness with another variant?

    I suppose the charge of false consciousness will be redirected. Before, it was women who *didn’t* want their (alleged) rapists/abusers prosecuted who had false consciousness. Now, women who *do* want prosecution will be accused of a false (carceral) consciousness. Do these victims even intersectionality? Don’t they know that there are too many POC in prison?

    We’ll go from a regime where suspects are presumed guilty and are limited in the ability to defend themselves, to a regime where suspects are presumed victims and it would be considered mean and racist to lock them up too long.

    1. Had the exact same sentiment. ENB is all about exploring all 32 different flavors of ice cream to figure out which one is most responsible for her weight gain. Then, once she’s got the ice cream situation squared away, figuring which of the dozens of cuts of french fries and potato chips allows her to eat the most without getting fat.

  19. Oddly, feminism harbors a learned helplessness, and finds that it continues to foster a sense of individual weakness that can only be addressed by seeking a higher authority.

    As a cultural reference point of how our daughters are trained, and have been trained for a century, for ‘leadership’ and individual empowerment, look no further than the Girl Scouts, and compare with Boy Scouts.
    Girl scout troops are always grouped by a single grade level, none older, none more experienced, exactly the same rank and level of achievement, none ever expected to teach, train, coach, or a peer. The adults manage everything, planning, organization, teaching, training, dispute resolution.

    Rather our expectations of boys are in stark contrast: youths from 11-18 are in a single troop, they have rank based on individual achievement, not social advancement, they are elected to leadership positions by their peers, operate a heirachical leadership structure, they are expected to teach, train, and mentor their peers, and this is facilitated by adult mentorship and guidance. The boys are encouraged to manage disagreement or dispute.

    This is the microcosm of how our sons and daughters are raised differently. We should not be surprised that as long as women inculcate into the youths individual weakness and encourage future women to always look to authority rather than to seek to become the authority, they will continue to do so as adults.
    Women need not be weak, but they should not be surprised at the result of how they choose to raise their daughters.

    1. “From each according to his ability, to each according to her needs.”

      1. Sorry, I meant that for Cal Cetin’s post. Still, it oddly applies here.

        My wrinkle on Scouting is just get some books on the skills and pactice them, alone or with friends, with adult supervision, regardless of sex, gender, orientation, or religion, and kids can do fine without either Scouting organization.

  20. First-wave feminists also succeeded in sharply raising the age of sexual consent. In 1885, most states followed English law and set the age at 10 years old; by 1920 all but one placed it at 16, 17, or 18. That may seem like an unambiguous win.

    I’m struggling to think of a libertarian justification for prohibiting adolescents from having sex.

    1. We have a situation now where a young woman 12-13 can have sex, get pregnant and either have an abortion or a baby as she wishes.

    2. Girls often start menstruating at 10, so can they consent to sex?

      1. Although that is possible with some 10-year-old girls, the notion of that being widespread probably comes from urban legends about chemical pollution affecting Puerto Rican girls’ puberty. Usually, it’s more like 12 or 13.

        But anyway, I’m sure there there are a lot of fathers polishing their 12 Gauges on the front porch that would answer “no.”

      2. Yes! If she bleeds she should be available to breed with any interested man who marries her.

    3. Elh, there is that little thing about thing about having the capacity to give rational consent and stuff.

      Also, kids having sex that leads to more kids would create a lot of burdens on both the parents of adolescents and the taxpayers supporting the Welfare State, especially if the adolescents don’t have jobs that could support kids.

      Fortunately, a lot fewer adolescents are having sex or having kids than in previous decades, so that’s becoming one less burden for taxpayers to bear.

      1. I was looking for a principled justification rather than a list of practical justifications. And, the notion that adolescents can’t give “rational consent” is ridiculous.

        1. Because the same people saying teenagers can give rational consent to sex are the same ones who want said teenagers to have access to birth control because their brains aren’t capable of rational consent to the responsibilities of parenting.

          1. And the same people who want to try young teens as adults for serious crimes. And the same people who think kindergartners can be sex offenders.

      2. More adolescent should start having sex, specifically teen girls should have sex interaction with adult men.

        The age of consent laws should be repealed.

  21. ‘”Women’s groups championed robust enforcement of the tort of seduction, where a woman, or rather her male family members, could pursue monetary damages against men who falsely promised nuptials to procure sex,” writes Gruber.’

    Is the implication that such behavior should be legal?

    Even if we limit ourselves to strictly libertarian considerations, this sort of seduction violates the consent of the woman, since the only reason the woman had sex was because the man lied to her.

    1. Men should be regarded as entitled to have sex contact with girls and women. The laws and rules of society should be reformed to support that. Men should organize huge movements in order to redesign society and make it happen!

  22. If they were in the kitchen making sandwiches, like they should be, they wouldn’t even have time to call the cops.

  23. laws against stealth condom removal

    How bizarre. Is this practice so widespread it must be outlawed?

    1. Also, where do I get these “stealth condoms”?

    2. Stealth condom piercing and spermjacking by women are most likely more common.

  24. So what choice will feminists make? Will we continue on a trajectory that has filled prisons, weakened due process, established biased legal standards, and given cops new reasons to get involved in people’s lives? Or will we internalize this history, listen to the women and girls victimized by these laws, and stop looking to the police for social justice?

    The first one

  25. Will Feminists Please Stop

    I don’t yet know how to put a line throught text, but I hope that FTFY. 🙂

    1. The women’s liberation movement has gotten tied to mass incarceration. It needs to break free.

      This sentence makes it sound like The Big, Bad Patriarchical Oil Can Harry grabbed Little Nell Feminism, tied her up, then forced her to go along with Prohibitionism, The Mann Act, and criminalization of prostitution, pornography, and victimless adult vice. Yet the article clearly states that Feminists were both instigators and willing parties with other repressive forces.

      This is just sloppy writing and the whole topic is one big, sloppy “package-dealing” of things that don’t belong together.

      Drinking, drugging, whoring, whoremongering, strip-clubbing, peep-show-ing, glory-holing, “Netflix and chill,” and other victimless adult vice are not in the same boat as coercive, criminal acts such as child abuse (including circumcision and clitorectomies,) partner abuse, spouse abuse, arranged marriage, slavery, and statutory or forcible rape, coercive acts which do deserve a punitive, carceral response.

      Victimless adult vices we can all take or leave, but not even the most well-armed citizen carries a “rape kit” in the purse or has a C.S.I. lab in the S.U.V. or in the bunker at the compound, or has a prison cell on the back fourty.

      For those latter functions, we create governments and we need to assure that they know their proper role and perform it consistently with ruthless regard for justice.

  26. First-wave feminists also succeeded in sharply raising the age of sexual consent. In 1885, most states followed English law and set the age at 10 years old; by 1920 all but one placed it at 16, 17, or 18. That may seem like an unambiguous win. But in practice, Gruber points out, the law was enforced in a way that “ended up largely punishing girls, who were locked up [by the state] to prevent men from having sex with them.” One 1916 study found 51 percent of girls charged in Chicago’s juvenile court were institutionalized, compared to just 21 percent of boys.

    Not a take I expected from ENB or reason. So, should we be allowing adolescents girls to marry older men?

    1. Absolutely! Little girls age 7 or so should be available for adult men to marry. Let’s change the laws!

  27. Until women kill themselves 5 years before they naturally would expire, they can fuck off about equality.

    1. Either that or they can work on skyscraper construction, road construction, logging, or suiting up, booting up, and going to fight and die in the Sandbox. Then we will have parity.

  28. Women Against Registry advocates for the families who have loved ones required to register. I wanted to take a brief moment to introduce our nationwide grassroots family advocacy organization. Women Against Registry advocates for the families who have loved ones required to register.

    There are over 917,000 men, women and children (as young as 8 and 10 in some states) required to register. The “crimes” range from urinating in public (indecent exposure), sexting, incest, mooning, exposure, false accusations by a soon-to-be ex-wife, angry girlfriend, or spiteful student, viewing abusive OR suggestive images of anyone 18 years old or younger, playing doctor, prostitution, solicitation, Romeo and Juliet consensual sexual dating relationships, rape, endangering the welfare of a child, the old bait-n-switch internet stings (taking sometimes 12 months before a person steps over the line) guys on the autism spectrum or with intellectual disabilities and many others.

    Multiply that number by 2 or 3 family members you can clearly see there are well over 3 million wives, children, moms, aunts, girlfriends, grandmothers and other family members who experience the collateral damage of being murdered, harassed, threatened, children beaten, have signs placed in their yards, homes set on fire, vehicles damaged, asked to leave their churches and other organizations, children passed over for educational opportunities, have flyers distributed around their neighborhood, wives lose their jobs when someone learns they are married to a registrant. Academics and researchers indicate 3 things are needed for successful reintegration; a job, a place to live and a “positive” support system. Banning a registered citizen from drug treatment centers is not positive support.

    The Supreme Court’s Crucial Mistake About Sexual Crime Statistics – ‘Frightening and High’ (Debunks the high recidivism rate cited by retired SCOTUS Justice Kennedy and current Chief Justice Roberts)

    It is very important that you read the abstract below and then the full 12-page essay by Ira Mark and Tara Ellman.

    ABSTRACT This brief essay reveals that the sources relied upon by the Supreme Court in Smith v. Doe, a heavily cited constitutional decision on sexual offense registries, in fact provide no support at all for the facts about re-offense rates that the Court treats as central to its constitutional conclusions. This misreading of the social science was abetted in part by the Solicitor General’s misrepresentations in the amicus brief it filed in this case. The false “facts” stated in the opinion have since been relied upon repeatedly by other courts in their own constitutional decisions, thus infecting an entire field of law as well as policy-making by legislative bodies. Recent decisions by the Pennsylvania and California supreme courts establish principles that would support major judicial reforms of sexual offense registries, if they were applied to the facts. This paper appeared in Constitutional Commentary Fall, 2015. (attached)

    A study reviewing sex crimes as reported to police revealed that:
    a) 93% of child sexual abuse victims knew their abuser;
    b) 34.2% were family members;
    c) 58.7% were acquaintances;
    d) Only 7% of the perpetrators of child victims were strangers;
    e) 40% of sexual assaults take place in the victim’s own home;
    f) 20% take place in the home of a friend, neighbor or relative (Jill Levenson, PhD, Lynn University)

    There is a tremendous need to fund programs like “Stop It Now” that teaches parents how to begin and maintain a dialog with their children to intervene before harm occurs and about grooming behaviors as well as other things at age-appropriate levels in their Circles of Safety.

    Our question to the public is one of, when does redemption begin? Ever? When are human beings required to register given their lives back without the stigma and hate?

    We support the principles of Restorative/Transformative Justice; restore the victim, offender AND the community. Unfortunately, our justice systems, federal and some states, prefer to annihilate human beings using mandatory minimum sentences, leaving our families destitute for years or decades and call that justice. Institutionalization is counter-productive to what we pretend to be doing.

    Our country is evidently proud to be ‘the incarceration nation’ with 5% of the world’s population and 25% of the world’s incarcerated.

    Here is an example of how our families are harmed. A well-meaning teacher printed out profile pictures of local registrants and put them on the board around the classroom. She promoted her effort to protect her students by suggesting they look at and remember those people. One student pointed at one picture and said, “Katie isn’t that your dad?” It was….

    1. I agree with your position on the registry. But it’s not a popular take. Most people seem to be for it. Hell – most people seem to think rape is funny/ok when it happens to prisoners.

    2. There are many points I agree with you on, as well as some caveats that need further exploring.

      The big problem with the Sex Offender registry idea is, once again, it comes back to “package-dealing.”

      The Sex Offender Registry takes victimless vices like public nudity, prostitution, and solicitation and lumps it in with violent child abuse, partner abuse, spouse abuse, and rape…then stigmatizes everybody on the list equally!

      Victimless adult vices shouldn’t even be illegal, the laws against them should be repealed, and those punished or incarcerated for victimless adult vices should be free, fines restored, and all records of their conviction should be shreaded, burned, and atomized.

      As for justly convicted, violent, sociopathic offenders, they should not even be out in a free society to require registration in the first place. If their victims don’t kill them on the spot in flagrante delicto, sentence such criminals upon conviction to live in exile in some fortified island Alcatraz or Devil’s Island among themselves and away from the rest of us.

      Under no circumstances should any punishments apply to the falsely accused, who deserve restitution if falsely incarcerated.

      And under no circumstances should family be collectively threatened or attainted in their life, liberty, and property for the violent, criminal acts of their family member. The U.S. Constitution prohibits corruption of blood and bills of attainder for both Federal and State Governments and that should apply here too. Justice in a free society requires nothing more or less.

      As for “Restorative/Transformative Justice” that’s a harder nut to crack. One can restore damaged property or pay for lost wages or even missed opportunities, but lost time and lost innocence are a whole different story. Doing this perfectly would require time travel, bringing the dead back to life, or both. Until that technology is perfected, I can only wish victims everywhere well.

  29. What a daft historical narrative. What kind of moron thinks feminism is to blame for the huge prison population of your backward empire? Factors like corporate interests in the prison system, the war on drugs, and the continued imposition of American apartheid through your corporatised judicial system are to blame for that. Only 5 of every 1000 rapists go to prison, but crazed “libertarian” reactionaries think it’s the wimmin to blame for your carceral regime. I love the way that these lunatic ideas are well-argued in a plausible way in these kind of outlets, but then 95% of the comments reveal what kind of foaming loony goes for this crap!

    1. Funny how you mention three different causes for the huge prison population (and ones that most libertarians would agree are causative factors), but you can’t believe there might be a fourth.

      In writing this, ENB isn’t saying that it’s the only causative factor, she’s saying it’s one that’s largely unknown or ignored.

      As for libertarians being reactionaries, it’s clear you haven’t met any actual libertarians. You can’t go by commenters on this site, some of whom don’t even try to claim to libertarians.

    2. If not for women’s suffrage, things like drugs, prostitution, and probably even gambling wouldn’t be illegal. And there wouldn’t be such silly controls on alcohol and drugs.

      1. You think conservative Christian male voters would legalize drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc.?

    3. Nonetheless all men in prison for sexual assault of women should be released. And adult with children sex interaction should be legalized.

      Sex trafficking shouldn’t be a crime.

  30. Only 5 of every 1000 rapists go to prison

    I will donate $10,000 to the woman’s shelter of your choice if you can provide a peer reviewed citation showing that claim is true within an order of magnitude. Remember, Haven Monohan and the other 200 people Jackie Coakley implicated don’t count in the denominator. Nor does the Duke Lacrosse team. Or the definition of rape that counts withdrawing consent after the fact. Or the men and women who do not report their rape to the police. And I seriously doubt you are including prison rape.

  31. Has ENB recently been screened for mental illness? I would recommend a screening based on this essay.

  32. This article is long, and long on conclusions and short on proofs. Maybe everything the author says is true, but how am I supposed to know that? It relies heavily on “woke” categories, “white feminists bad”, “women of color good”. Is that always true? Just because I don’t agree with Catherine MacKinnon doesn’t mean I have to agree with Elizabeth Nolan Brown.

  33. When I went to work after I stopped dyeing my hair, some of my colleagues made fun of my unprofessional hairstyles when they noticed that my hair was not dyed.

  34. For the (overwhelmingly white) feminist mainstream—the kind that ran formal advocacy groups and got quoted in the press—the root of domestic violence was cultural, not material.

    What would it mean for it to be material?

  35. Anything on reason about two nigger chicks murdering an innocent man? No. But more junk about jailbreak. Fuck all you nigger lovers. Niggers are destroying this country.

    1. But her phone!

    2. What about Niggas?

    3. Very classy. Very cool. Very compelling.

  36. My mother’s feminism versus this new sort:

    I am woman fluid-gendered identifying as female, hear me roar beg for special privileges.

  37. by journalist Judith Levine and Northeastern Illinois University professor Erica R. Meiners—suggests that if “one kind of feminism helped get us into this mess,” perhaps “a different kind of feminism is key to getting us out.”

    So . . . there’s more than one type of feminism?

    If there’s more than one type of feminism then the very word means nothing any more.

    1. See above, “I ate tons of chunky monkey ice cream and now I have a all the problems associated with obesity, perhaps switching to rocky road is the key to getting me out of this obesity mess.”

  38. “Will Feminists Please Stop Calling the Cops?” This should be entitled “If men want to stay out of jail they need to stop abusing women.

    Stop beating women, stop verbally and mentally abusing women. Stop calling them bitc6es and hoes. Treat women with respect. Stop committing crimes. Stop doing/selling drugs, stop using weapons.

    You act like men have no responsibility for their actions. Until men change woman can, and should keep calling the police, if they get abused, raped, or see crimes being committed in their homes with their children watching. Women bear the entire burden in families, men need to step up, and start being men.

    1. Rape shouldn’t be a crime. They should repeal all the laws against rape. If you’re a juror, nullify!

      1. Including raping you?

    2. Men have a responsibility to control women. Women should be purged from every institution where they have power. Men should organize a militia to invade all institutions and remove women from power.

  39. “There are only two means by which men can deal with one another: guns or logic. Force or persuasion. Those who know that they cannot win by means of logic, have always resorted to guns.” ~ Ayn Rand

    1. If Kamala Harris or any woman becomes president the whole US military should mutiny.

  40. The bigger danger nobody is talking about is “Covert Non-Confrontational Blacklisting” – a life sentence of abuse without any accusation, without any indictment, without judge or jury and without an overt guilty verdict.

    The 9/11 Blacklists uploaded local and state blacklists from as far back to the 1980’s or earlier – having nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorism.

    In other words, we have likely hundreds of thousands of totally innocent Americans, dating back to the 1980’s or earlier, being punished exploiting 9/11. None have been even accused of anything and never indicted.

    States, like Virginia, apparently have “Animal House” lists (Super Secret Probation) where an extremely dirty cop or prosecutor can place you on a list without your knowledge (called a felony under Title 18 US Code 245).

    These are so dangerous because not only do they defame and destroy innocent Americans but they rob you of “legal standing” to seek relief from a judge or jury. In other words you are deemed guilty but never notified about it. These are life sentences of police abuse for no wrongdoing whatsoever. This also creates a risk free incentive for cops, prosecutors, intel agencies, etc to frame people they simply dislike.
    When feds commit these felonies, it’s called “Cointelpro” or similar tactics but likely originated at the local police/prosecutor level (ex: Fred Hampton assassination engineered by the FBI).

  41. Rape should be legalized. Also they should remove all age of consent laws. Men should organize movements to demand that women be removed from all institutions of power.

    Society should adopt a system where men are clearly declared to have strict authority over women and women should be clearly restricted and forbidden to have any power over men.

    Harvey Weinstein , Larry Nassar, Bill Cosby, R Kelly should all be pardoned and released immediately. And so should the millions of men imprisoned for sexual assault worldwide.

    Anyone called for jury duty should always vote NOT GUILTY on any man on trial for any sexual assault of any woman. Also jurors should always vote NOT GUILTY for any man on trial for sex with a girl child.

    Women should be purged from anywhere they’re in power. Universities should be completely closed and rebuilt from scratch as men’s institutions.

  42. Good enough article about the “Broken Justice (System)” in my book, but what I got from it was the need to abolish things in the ‘system’ such as the, punitive, Registry for sexual related crimes. As more [important] people get hit with a sexual based crime, there will be more reform for the attributes of the registry and the “sex offender” scare/classification. Recently a Milwaukee Judge Brett Bloome had been arrested and has a very interesting affirmative defense that might upset a lot of child abusive image possession case law.

    “There is not a word in there [that] my client directly did anything that tried to put him in touch with any minors—his or anyone else’s,” Van Wagner said. “There’s not a scintilla of factual suggestion in the criminal complaint that—other than the use of the internet—that he ever posed a danger to any children.”

    https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2021/03/16/milwaukee-judge-brett-blomme-arrested-child-pornography-charges/4721766001/

    And there are other high profile cases that could bump the morbidity of the poor use of the registry as well. This has been my outlook from the beginning, that it will take some people with money that have been put “into the system” to make the registry “go away.”

  43. Sex trafficking shouldn’t be a crime.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.