I didn't read the article but the picture they chose to use is just biased as hell.

A picture of a woman behind bars but the frame is a heart and the background is red (to match the heart).

What does this imply? It implies that these women are in jail because they fell in love. Now, if a man went to jail for pedophilia, would they use this picture?

http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/...PrisonerTN.jpg

Now I am going to read the article.

The author seems to boil down to this:

"Yeah, women get less jail time because they do less damage".

I was impressed by this statement though:

"Why is it when a man rapes a little girl, he goes to jail," CNN's Nancy Grace complains, "but when a woman rapes a boy, she had a breakdown?"

From Nancy Grace....I had to pick up my jaw.

The police never seek out female paedophiles nor their vicitms, thus most data on the subject is flawed.

They quote figures such as 4% of paedophiles being female, but in reality it's far higher as we're now finding out in the UK, more like 15 to 20%.

Also experts here suggests their offending generally tends to be at the high end of the scale.

I guess we can't really blame teh journalists for this so much, it's more the police, the government and gender feminist researchers who are responsible.

And while their sentences are, on average, shorter than sentences given to male offenders, the main reason is that their crimes are objectively less vile.

So a child being raped by a woman is less vile than a child being raped by a man, I wonder how they gauge that?

Garak's right, their use of that vile picture is nothing short of disgraceful, if it was men they were talking about, the picture would have been a distressed child or a teary-eyed child. Showing the picture they did, they're trying to say these women are being punished for being in wuv, awww.

Are teachers who sleep with boys getting off?

Sleep? Not abuse? Do men who rape children sleep with them?

Quote from johnkimble1

....
I guess we can't really blame teh journalists for this so much, it's more the police, the government and gender feminist researchers who are responsible.

""I guess we can't really blame the journalists for this so much, it's more the police, the government and gender feminist researchers who are responsible.""


journalists are supposed to objectivley and fairly present facts not to put a feminit spin on objective reality; journalists nowadays have the same relationship to truth as did the journalists of the rag they called Pravda

when reading newspapers it is wise to read just the simple facts presented by passing interpretaion of the journalist who are told what to write or not by the editor whos bias might be extreme

This entire article is a disgusting promotional work in support of paedophilia and sexual abuse, but since it exonerates women I suppose that makes it ok. This guy needs to wake up. These women are sex criminals and deserve severe punishment; end of story. The fact that he refers to them with phrases like 'bespectacled babe,' shows his attitude; he probably thinks the victims have scored and are lucky guys, or is jealous of them. Pure filth.

From the article:
At first glance, the sentences look biased. The men got an average of more than 11 years; the women got less than two. But compare the crimes, and the story gets more complicated. Most of the men molested victims younger than 15; most of the women didn't.* Half the men molested multiple victims; only three of the women did. Ten men on the list had multiple victims, including victims younger than 16. These men earned an average sentence of more than 17 years, drastically inflating the average.

I can say with a level of certainty that had this same person been asked to explain the pay gap disparity between men and women that he would not have gone into this much detail to explain why it isn't a result of discrimination against women. Yet, to disprove discrimination against men he looks beyond first glance. This in and of itself is a form of discrimination.

Three weeks ago, at Slate, Emily was suggesting that there is no empirical evidence of female perpetration of domestic violence. Lilith is a feminist. This past weekend and early this week someone was posting Barbara Kay's comments as reported by Percy, Michigan Mom finds son online and rapes him, three pieces relating to Dominic Carter the victim of sexual abuse by his Mother and something else in a similar vien (I can not remember just now) and here comes Saleton to join the rebuttal of Emily and challenging Lilith. Well done Saletin!!! I quick view of comments at the Fray for Saletins Human Nature http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums...ShowForum.aspx shows not a single supporting comment. Mates may I humbly assert, that chatting anmoungst ourselves is all well and fine, here we are in the middle of a rebuttal of Emily's misandric comments and we are silent when instead we should have been finding our way to the Fray (see link above) to offer well thought out supportive comments?

Quote from BobV01

Three weeks ago, at Slate, Emily was suggesting that there is no empirical evidence of female perpetration of domestic violence. Lilith is a feminist. This past weekend and early this week someone was posting Barbara Kay's comments as reported by Percy, Michigan Mom finds son online and rapes him, three pieces relating to Dominic Carter the victim of sexual abuse by his Mother and something else in a similar vien (I can not remember just now) and here comes Saleton to join the rebuttal of Emily and challenging Lilith. Well done Saletin!!! I quick view of comments at the Fray for Saletins Human Nature http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums...ShowForum.aspx shows not a single supporting comment. Mates may I humbly assert, that chatting anmoungst ourselves is all well and fine, here we are in the middle of a rebuttal of Emily's misandric comments and we are silent when instead we should have been finding our way to the Fray (see link above) to offer well thought out supportive comments?

Instead of arguing with those lowlife scum it may be more productive to try to win over more to our side. If it ever comes down to war we can out-number them, out-manuever them, and obliterate them.

Popadibs, I disagree with you on this one to some extent. 1960 was fifity years ago, we have outnumbered for some time and yet come under the oppression. Win them over though I have to agree: it absolutely is all about public perception.

Mr. Saletin, presumably getting off is one of the reasons a female Teacher would do this, power and control over another might be one as well. I apprecaite your effort to address the double standard, which in and of itself is misandric. It probably would have been pleasant to have seen your extrapolations not only 1996 to 2003 but even into 2010 to better understand the trend. An interpolation of other trends such as Mothers sexual abuse of her children, female student violence in schools, non mother sexual abuse of children and abuse of children by females may have illuminated a growing trend our children face in their tender years.(hint look in the explainer to make sure such evidence is not already available)
I understand you to have said we should not be in hysteria about female teacher's sexual abuse of children only that perpetrated by men: is that a misandric double standard?

http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums...d.aspx#3627163

Quote from BobV01

Popadibs, I disagree with you on this one to some extent. 1960 was fifity years ago, we have outnumbered for some time and yet come under the oppression. Win them over though I have to agree: it absolutely is all about public perception.

http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums...d.aspx#3627163

If there ever was a time where we outnumbered them we worked in their favor and fought each other. We have to be prepared to think and behave differently than we did in the 1960s.

I can see your point about countering the cant, Bob.

And it is cant too. The article is a fluff-piece that underplays crime simply because it is female criminals.

I do not agree with John Kimble (unusual for me) about the 20% figure. The point is we do not know and one guess is as bad as another. Just throwing up a guesstimate that continues to show men as the major perpertrators is as bad - to my mind - as exonerating the women.

The point is that MOST of women's sexual misconduct is overlooked.

It is ignored.

Deliberately.

Similar behaviour from a man can get a jail sentence, or at last a ruination of reputation.

If I can join in the guessing, from anecdote and experience, personal and vicarious, if half of the 'criminal' behaviour of men vis a vis sexuality with children were counted when women did it, the women's numbers would be far higher than men's.

A man washing his child and touching his / her genitals in the washing process is likely to be accused of sexual misconduct. Simply sitting in bed reading a story with a child was enough to have Woody Allen branded a paedophile by his extranged wife.

Sexual harrassment is a criminal offence - even though often dealt with by a 'Tribunal' imposing fines on third parties - yet the main harassers are women dressed in revealing clothes in the workplace.

Women teachers do not even have to molest a child to be accused of sexual grooming if we were to apply the same suspicions to them as we do to men. We do not though. Leaning over children and showing their breasts is hardly neutral bahaviour. Wearing skirts that barely cover their underpants is as bad. See-through blouses that show their bras is a sexual signal to a teen boy and a lesson in 'how to do it' to a teen girl.

Yet in a school it is not even considered sexual harrassment.

If a male teacher 'looked' at a female student (or a female teacher for that matter) who was wearing revealing clothes, he could be suspended, ridiculed, charged and convicted for sexual misconduct. Nothing happens to the exhibitionist.

Even if the chap didn't look, the very accusation that a female 'felt' as though he had is enough to ruin him.

Usual fucking hysteria and BS that surrounds anything to do with dubious sex "crimes" and the silly expectations of "equal treatment"..

The biggest crime I see in such matters is the abuse of position power, the fact that some folk would classify the sexual interactions as "rape" is to be expected, but I dont think we should jump on the hysteria bandwaggon, not that the MRM ever does much else but tailgate the femifilth down every alleyway to hysteria..