At 11/6/09 12:35 PM, quagmire690 wrote:
thus those studies would never happen because we dont want them to happen... thus we can not hold judgements either way ... we just leave it to the fact that it is a problemthe people invite apon them selves when they partake when the go ahead and preditor someone...
Or rather, studies have probably already been carried out, but because this is actually a very specific sort of crime, it's hard to tackle in a very off-hand way. I disagree with the majority "not wanting" the sort of study carried out, and at least the directors of this sort of thing tend to be the most critical of them all, throwing that assumption out of the window almost. The way crime statistics are made out make it hard to study that way, because they tend to be more general, and hence any data spurring from those numbers is bound to be incomplete. A further independant investigation would be costly, and ethical issues would splurge out of the author's ass. If the study were successful, the author could probably wipe the mess up with one of their dollar bills, and they'd have a cinsiderable amount of dollar bills to choose from by then. Forming the investigation itself would be a complicated matter of methodology, though "closer" studies have proved possible and beneficial before... but even after that, how much time would be the media give to that, leading on to the next point below.
If I find any studies that are relevant, I'll link them, but the meat of this sort of thing can't usually be found online, erm, easily, at least from past experiences.
At 11/6/09 12:21 PM, MrFinland wrote:
Man gets punished for this = Justice
Woman gets punished for this = Sexism
The way you worded that makes it seem as if you believe any positive media coverage and general public bias about the female offenders in this case is the fault of the offenders themselves, which I disagree with. I don't even think it's the fault of "political correctness", which although is an abstract thought I've criticised before for allowing extreme minority thinking to enter what some believe is a mainstream idea (and giving people the impression that the best way to fight a minority thought is to promptly eject all related thought, extreme or not).
***
In the eyes of the media, it's simply easier to glamourise female offenders like myths of many centuries ago. A passive majority of women are probably not too keen on that really (I don't know for sure, it's hard getting them on the phone), never mind non-radical feminists, which you know, comprise most of the postmodern feminist base... you know, apart from... media exaggerations. I think I just found a cycle. I don't know.
Ironically, the one(s) that usually suffers most as a result of this air-time is the offender(s) herself/themselves. Aileen Wuornos is a famous example. On the topic of violent crime here, contrast with Henry Lee Lucas, another popular romantic of the American non-fiction murder scene. It's a typical comparison, I know, but it fits here, as much as Lucas' stories are hugely artificial themselves at times. I don't think my words here prove MrFinland's post, because I don't think I'm using the "popular" form of sexism - I think there's a great deal of background to it, but I don't know, hmm?
Related: try to watch Nick Broomfield's 1994 documentary on Aileen Wuornos. It's not a nice film, but it's put together brilliantly, and it makes you think about this issue.
I won't argue that small pieces of evidence has been found that supports the chivalry thesis:
"Finally, the chivalry thesis suggests that in response to the women's movement, the criminal justice system has lessened their leniency (chivalry) towards women who commit crimes, "creating the 'if it's equality they want, it's equality they'll get' mentality (Simon & Landis, 1991, p. 12).""
That author then says however,
"However, Simon and Landis point out there is little evidence of chivalry in the court system, and that any favors granted are probably granted to white, upper-class women. Since the typical female offender is not a white, upper-class woman, chivalry probably does not have any great impact on the crime rate among women."
Anyway, most examinations show that the chivalry thesis is largely not observable if you look at the numbers (enter alternative debate!). Any other assumptions we make is, like the linked article fom the OP says, men generally commit more crimes than women, not just in this specialist case. Most study time has focused on male motivation: subculture and/or masculinities, the role of a responsible man in a failing economy, and so on. When the popular media has a pretty much insatiable appetite for something different, there's bound to be a bit of glamourising... and you know, making it the norm for everyone. It's just an unfortunate gift of the time, if I'm making sense. We have the information, but pegging abstract, unproven thought is more convenient. Then the information turned weird so to speak.
Right, I've gone on far too long, and apoligies to the OP for not really directly tackling your point, but maybe there's something, I don't really know anymore. I would go further with my media related rambling, but I'm either lazy, tired, or self-conscious. hmmhmm.
