by Jack
Why would female prison guards be in a male prison? Why would any female prison employee be in close and unsupervised contact with a male prisoner? This is asinine and it’s another one of these liberal fantasies where they think women should be allowed to be guards because otherwise its pure gender discrimination.
In actual practice prison officials found the women are more like prey than guards. They are a huge liability. But, liberals refuse to believe that there are some jobs a women shouldn’t do, because they can’t do it as well as a man. This is pure baloney of course, otherwise we would have women tennis players competing against the men tennis players. We wouldn’t have women’s tee’s at the gold course. Women would be in the NFL and the list goes on and on.
“As incarceration numbers have topped out in recent years thanks to what looks like the beginning of the end of the war on drugs, women have gained a stronger foothold in the prison industry, getting jobs that—like so many others in America—have traditionally been dominated by men.
But along with that progressive change has come a steady drip of lurid tales about sex between guards and inmates. Last week, Ciara Jones, a guard at the St. Louis City jail, was charged with three counts of sexual contact with an inmate, each punishable by up to four years in prison.
We probably shouldn’t be too shocked, though. There is no rule, regulation, or state of affairs a savvy prisoner cannot subvert. This has been proven many times over and is confirmed when you talk to long-time inmates.”
“I love when I see a new, young, and naïve female working in prison,” a convict once said, and here’s a guy who has spent the last 21 years behind bars, a total predator and women fall for these animals. Cons love to play their games and women fall for it time after time. I’ve seen it happen right within the Butte County Jail.
ABC news report, “Almost half — 48% — of substantiated incidents of sexual victimization involved guards and inmates, while the other 52% involved only inmates.
The majority of the 48 percent of staff sexual misconduct cases involved female staffers, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported.
Gender appeared to play some kind of role in the nature of the banned relationships, as 84 percent of the relationships that female staffers had with inmates “appeared to be willing,” whereas only 37 percent of the relationships between male guards and inmates qualified as such.
I’ve watched several videos of females trying to break up fights inside prisons and they last about two seconds, one was laid out cold on the concrete for 5 minutes while other guards rushed to her aide. It’s rather obvious, only a very liberal idealist could think women guard belong in a men’s prison, ok, maybe in a guard tower, but that is about as close as I would want them.
Stupid is as stupid does.
Off Topic —
Leftists become incandescent when reminded of the socialist roots of Nazism
From the above (which I forgot to insert) —
“Marx’s error, Hitler believed, had been to foster class war instead of national unity – to set workers against industrialists instead of conscripting both groups into a corporatist order.”
Contrast that to today’s prominent American socialists such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders who foster class warfare while at the same time giving lip service to “unity.”
How clever.
Clever all right.
Too many Americans buy into the scheme. Now they’re importing people from socialist countries to explode the numbers and solidify their power!
It should be pointed out Hitler proposed they USE corporations and factory owners to provide revenue. Under Obama healthcare, education, banking/lending, and energy have all been subjected to expansion of government control. Both Bernie and Hillary would expand further. Socialism, Hitler style! They control, rather than take over (communism), the means of production.
The pretense of freedom is not freedom.
Fantastic…this paragraph should be of particular interest to Dewey:
Conscripted is a polite word for enslaved. Feel that Bern all the way to corporatism!
LOL, Pie…just realized I pulled the same quote as you…great minds!
Same quote? That is incredible, what are the odds! lol
Tina you have not a clue my friend. Hitler was not a democratic socialist. Hitler was supported by the fascist corporations many American. Also Prescott Bush participated.
The Revolution is more than 1 election. What are we fighting? Corporatism. I am not sure why you are so misguided in your beliefs of what people are doing. My guess is you follow RW Propaganda and since any real facts are the enemy you remain clueless.
Independents Rock! Cut the cord and find the real news!
Corporatism? Ya mean the ones with huge superpacs or big bank accounts? Money comes with strings attached. They donate for the profits they expect back. Buying Legislation is very profitable.
Re “Tina you have not a clue my friend.”
Dewey SCORES! Always the best way to win an argument!
(If you are an LOL ignoramus idiot.)
Like most Liberal ideas, it only works on paper, or leading their flock to the ballot box with moonbat promises.
Or in their wild imaginations. I’m pretty certain that’s where most of them live.
Jack, they’re entitled to take a shot … to try. If they can’t do the job, they’ll quit, or be sacked.
I think what you’re worried about is a breed of female that might succeed.
Tee. Hee.
Libby obviously I can’t speak for anyone except myself, but I’m not the least bit worried that a woman might succeed at being a prison guard in a male prison. No doubt a number of women could be successful, but I believe them to be the inefficient exception and not the cost effective rule. The only thing I am REALLY concerned about is #1. Officer and Inmate Safety. #2. Cost to the Taxpayer for training and retention. #3. Keep prisons corruption free and contraband out of the hands of the inmates.
They deserve a shot at being manhandled and/or raped by gang-bangers and murderers who work out daily with weights…that’s “equal rights” in the absurd before it’s ever launched. What happened to common sense in the women’s rights ranks…or notions of self preservation?
Breed of female? Robot maybe. You better watch out or the female will be relegated to the ash heap of history. Scientists are attempting to do an awful lot of awful things these days.
From the stats posted by Jack above, it’s the male guards who are “doing the raping,” to put it in Trump terms. And yet no one has concluded from that that men shouldn’t be prison guards.
Gee, it’s almost like it’s just assumed that men are always qualified for everything, while women always have to justify their place in every concievable line of work.
Go back 100 years, Tina, and you’ll find plenty of men with plenty of reasons why you shouldn’t have the job you have now because of your gender.
What a stupid thing to say. Some people follow the patterns of the day, others march to the sound of their own drummer. Some wave flags thinking they have done something important and others charge ahead with their plans knocking down doors in the process. A lot of changes are attributed to the flag wavers when in fact the door breakers, and sometimes circumstances, are the real authors of change. Many of the so-called barriers to “equality” were traditions that most people never questioned because they were content in their roles and had no other burning ambitions or passions.
But let’s play. My grandmother (born 1895) came to America on a boat from Germany traveling only with with her sister (ages fifteen and sixteen). She owned her own shop within ten years. Nobody told her she couldn’t do it or stopped her from doing it.
I can’t imagine anyone trying to tell Amelia Earhart (born 1897) she couldn’t fly. A woman with her own drum.
Likewise Lucille Ball (Born 1911), a woman of determination, talent, and grit. She struggled her way to the top working first in modeling and on Broadway. She was a natural born comedienne and star of television and movies and became the first woman to run a major television studio in 1962. Nobody else beat that redhead’s drum!
Nancy Astor, Politician, 1879-1964 – Born in the United States. She became the first woman to take up a seat in House of Commons in 1919. She was renowned for her acerbic wit and right-wing views. (Forerunner of the Iron Lady) She refused to join the suffragette movement. A woman after my own heart.
WWII required that women leave their homes to fill the factory jobs their military husbands left to fight the war. Women’s roles were never the same. Entrepreneurs invented the tools to make housework easier and more efficient. Women found new ways to fill their time and went to work. Within a decade they were attending college in greater numbers.
There are many examples. It’s a damn shame that women’s studies and colleges don’t bother to showcase them more. (Interesting, it’s the same with minority studies…they need victims and villains to survive)
Sorry Chris, I just don’t buy the gender made women victims game pushed by modern feminists. Their version of things leaves out too much history, often makes men the bad guys, and places blame rather than recognizing circumstances, choices, and traditions. I think in most cases people do what they want.
…Except in this case, you are arguing that people shouldn’t be able to do what they want, if what they want is to be prison guards in male prisons and who they are is female. You are the one arguing against the flag wavers and the door breakers.
Nothing you wrote above was relevant to your argument, and was only relevant to a strawman argument about women’s studies not celebrating strong women without history, which is complete nonsense that you invented in your imagination. You also imagined that women such as Lucille Ball and Amelia Earheart didn’t face sexism in their positions, which is demonstrably false, and bizarrely implied that women who opposed women’s suffrage were the real heroes.
Extremely poor showing, even by your standards.
That should have said “strong women throughout history,” not “without history.”
Arguing the smarts behind having women guard men, or men, women for the same reason, isn’t the same as writing law preventing it. Jack didn’t suggest a law preventing women guards in men’s prison.
Jacks original point was that in general it isn’t smart policy. Later in comments he also mentions the cost effectiveness. His point was that not every policy opinion is based on discrimination and that common sense has a place in decision making.
You mangle what we say because you filter it through your own prejudices and biases.
Try filtering our thoughts through the “less government control” filter first because that is the bottom line. People should be able to pursue what will make them happy. They should also be able to recognize and support common sense ideas when forming policy.
I was NOT making a “straw man argument” when I wrote, “It’s a damn shame that women’s studies and colleges don’t bother to showcase them more.” I was stating an opinion. It IS a damn shame that minorities and women are being trained toward a sense of victim-hood through incomplete, selective instruction.
Facing sexism in your job isn’t much different from facing other obstacles that both men and women face. Men have been subjected to sexism on the job also. Obstacles have to be overcome by pushing through them or going around them. People have choices. Finding a different job, with a well penned letter to the president of the company explaining your reason for leaving, might be the last resort option but it is an option. Nobody chains us to our jobs. I did not “imagine” that Lucille Ball and Amelia Earhart didn’t face discrimination; I just don’t make it the defining factor in their success. the bottom line is that these women were strong enough to overcome and push through obstacles and have what they desired. They did not live like helpless victims who couldn’t move past ignorance.
You are perfectly free to see the women who complained about men holding them back, who marched in rallies, and who petition the government as the “real” heroes.
I am likewise free to think that the women who led the way, the ones that we should call heroes, were the ones who rolled up their sleeves, acted on their desires, and became examples of what is possible. This is a basic truth for all mankind.
A good question is why would leftists place these people in the closet? My answer is that it’s because they acted as rugged individuals, confident and resolved…the very symbols of freedom, and the spirit behind the American dream. Commies/Socialists can’t have that!
Not a poor showing at all but an in your face challenge to the politically correct rules by which you form your opinions and ideas.
Tina: “Arguing the smarts behind having women guard men, or men, women for the same reason, isn’t the same as writing law preventing it. Jack didn’t suggest a law preventing women guards in men’s prison.”
…And I didn’t suggest that he suggested that, so what is your point?
“You mangle what we say because you filter it through your own prejudices and biases.”
You’re the one responding to an argument I never made.
“I was NOT making a “straw man argument” when I wrote, “It’s a damn shame that women’s studies and colleges don’t bother to showcase them more.” I was stating an opinion.”
An uninformed and ignorant opinion. You have never set foot in a women’s studies class, and you have no idea what you are talking about.
“the bottom line is that these women were strong enough to overcome and push through obstacles and have what they desired.”
Just as there are and will continue to be women who are strong enough to overcome and push through the discrimination advocated by yourself, Jack, and others who share your sexist worldviews.
“You are perfectly free to see the women who complained about men holding them back, who marched in rallies, and who petition the government as the “real” heroes.
I am likewise free to think that the women who led the way, the ones that we should call heroes, were the ones who rolled up their sleeves, acted on their desires, and became examples of what is possible.”
*sigh* Man, you love your false dichotomies.
Tina, in many cases, those were the exact same women. I have not said anything that would minimize or invalidate the heroism of women who broke barriers without simultaneously engaging in political activism. Only you have decided that one of these groups (which you seem to think are entirely separate, with no overlap) are worthy of scorn and derision, even though they were all part of the same struggle. Then you project that onto me, and onto colleges and women’s studies departments around the nation, creating the ludicrous strawman argument that we do nothing to celebrate female and minority pioneers and only care about women who actively protested. It’s ridiculous, and it’s based on nothing but your imagination. I have been in women’s studies classes. You haven’t. Your impression is entirely false.
“A good question is why would leftists place these people in the closet? My answer is that it’s because they acted as rugged individuals, confident and resolved…the very symbols of freedom, and the spirit behind the American dream.”
The correct answer is that we don’t do that. You’re just making things up.
We were DISCUSSING whether it’s wise policy to have women guards guard male prisoners and how stupid it is to insist that if you’re against it, discrimination against against women must be the reason. Jack wrote in comments that his main concerns are:
#1. Officer and Inmate Safety. #2. Cost to the Taxpayer for training and retention. #3. Keep prisons corruption free and contraband out of the hands of the inmates.
But you’re so well indoctrinated to think in terms of gender roles and discrimination that you immediately pounce! How dare someone have the temerity to counter PC rules.
“You also imagined that women such as Lucille Ball and Amelia Earheart didn’t face sexism in their positions.”
I said no such thing! I said everyone has to face obstacles of some sort in their lives. People like Lucille Ball stood in the trenches and fought through those obstacles as have many others. Albert Einstein’s application to college was rejected because he failed the entrance go on to do incredible things…he fought through the obstacles. Gender and race are not the only difficult barriers people face…they should also not become automatic guarantors for every job.
In the last twenty to thirty years we have made gender and race into super special categories that challenge the purpose of “equal” rights. We’ve continued the grievance period for past wrongs far beyond what was needed. And we have certainly seen people being slammed for discrimination when they were simply being practical. There comes a time when people have to stand on their own two feet and do the work. And if one of the obstacles we meet is insurmountable due to practical reasons we should have the ability to honor what makes good sense!
It is not up t me to dictate who can do a job.
The more I read recent posts the more I am reminded of Germany in the 30-40’s
Re : “It is not up t me to dictate who can do a job. ”
Thank God.
You find what you’re looking for…it’s called projection.
Jack, the taxpayers are already sacked for the cost is trying and imprisoning murderous male prison guards … and of course for your male rapist prison guards in women’s prisons.
I think maybe you should just drop the subject.
I agree
So with all the issues today why are we once again talking about sexism? Add race and that describes the prevalent content here.
I think it is time to put seniors back in the workforce. Let them see what has changed. Your responses are relevant to a time in history long gone.
No more free healthcare and checks. See how they feel after a little employer abuse. Although in CA labor laws are more protective than other states. Maybe send them to right to work for less states.
Dewey I’m a senior and I’m in the workforce…so is my husband! We’re not alone. We are also employers keeping our doors open FOR our employees…terribly abusive, I know.
Why More Americans Are Working Past Age 65
“Just 11 percent of people older than age 65 were still working in 1993, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Today, that figure has reached almost 18 percent – and it’s climbing.”
Dewey how old are you? Free stuff from the government won’t make life easier at 65 than it is now…may make it worse and it will definitely burden your children.
I find interesting that Chris’ so called “Women’s Study Class”
That makes him an expert.
Pie,
Note that it was Tina, not myself, that began expounding upon women’s studies classes and their purported failures. I pointed out that while Tina has never been in a women’s studies class, I have, and I’ve watched them do exactly what Tina accuses them of not doing: celebrating the achievements of women who went out and did things for themselves, despite the obstacles.
And yet you derisively say “That makes him an expert,” while you say nothing of Tina’s feigned expertise. Why? Bias. It was Tina who made uninformed comments while pretending to know what she was talking about, but you admire her and hate me, so you make a snarky comment about me that would have been far more appropriately directed at her.
You also did the same thing just now in a comment to Jack’s article, in which I pointed out that he made several factual errors. Instead of checking the facts yourself, you thought it would be a more productive use of your time to mock me for pointing out the errors. Why would you do that? Wouldn’t you want to know the truth, even if it isn’t as sensational as the original story? Even if it’s from me?
You’re clearly an intelligent person, but you constantly sabotage yourself in this way. You would make far better arguments if you could find a way to overcome your biases, your misplaced anger and your pettier impulses.
I was commenting on your “expertise”, dear Chris, not Tina’s. Tina who actually is a woman, and you who think you are.
A little time well spent.
Tina: “We were DISCUSSING whether it’s wise policy to have women guards guard male prisoners and how stupid it is to insist that if you’re against it, discrimination against against women must be the reason.”
You don’t even seem to understand the terms you’re using.
“Discrimination” is an action, not a motivation. You and Jack are in favor of men’s prisons discriminating against female guards; that’s not my interpretation, it’s just a fact. You’re merely arguing that such discrimination is logical and fair.
“Jack wrote in comments that his main concerns are:
#1. Officer and Inmate Safety.” #2.
Yes, and I addressed this. You ignored it and instead changed the subject to the content of women’s studies classes, a topic which a) is completely irrelevant and b) you are completely misinformed about.
Here was my response, again, to Jack’s argument about safety:
“From the stats posted by Jack above, it’s the male guards who are “doing the raping,” to put it in Trump terms. And yet no one has concluded from that that men shouldn’t be prison guards.”
To clarify, Jack’s stats show that relations between male guards and inmates were less likely to be consensual than relations between female guards and inmates. He cited ABC News’ report that said:
Gender appeared to play some kind of role in the nature of the banned relationships, as 84 percent of the relationships that female staffers had with inmates “appeared to be willing,” whereas only 37 percent of the relationships between male guards and inmates qualified as such.
You could just as easily conclude from this that men are unfit to be prison guards because they are more likely to rape inmates, as you could conclude that women are unfit to be prison guards because they are more likely to engage in consensual relationships with inmates.
It is my opinion that you and Jack have concluded the latter due to ingrained bias against women doing jobs traditionally reserved for men, which is why I wrote, “Gee, it’s almost like it’s just assumed that men are always qualified for everything, while women always have to justify their place in every concievable line of work.”
I do not, obviously, think such bias is rational.
“I said no such thing!”
This is what you said:
“I can’t imagine anyone trying to tell Amelia Earhart (born 1897) she couldn’t fly. A woman with her own drum.
Likewise Lucille Ball (Born 1911), a woman of determination, talent, and grit. She struggled her way to the top working first in modeling and on Broadway. She was a natural born comedienne and star of television and movies and became the first woman to run a major television studio in 1962. Nobody else beat that redhead’s drum!”
The problem with these statements, Tina, is that there certainly were men who told Amelia Earheart she couldn’t fly, just as there were men who told Lucille Ball she couldn’t be the star of her show, or run her production company, or do about half of the things she ended up doing despite these objections.
Just like there are and will continue to be female prison guards and female soldiers in the frontline despite your objections.
“Gender and race are not the only difficult barriers people face…”
No one ever said they were. This article argues against people of a certain gender performing a certain job, so that’s the obstacle that’s relevant to our conversation. You and Jack are saying this obstacle is necessary and good. I disagree, as I don’t believe Jack showed sufficient evidence that women are less fit to be prison guards than men, and I think his statistics could just as easily be read to show the opposite. That’s the argument. It’s not about women’s studies, and it’s not about Lucille Ball; those were distractions. I’m sad to say they worked.
“And if one of the obstacles we meet is insurmountable due to practical reasons we should have the ability to honor what makes good sense!”
I’ve yet to see any evidence that there are any “insurmountable” obstacles to women being suitable prison guards, or that simply not hiring them at all would make good sense. Jack named some types of undesirable behaviors that are more commonly displayed by female prison guards (while failing to notice that he was also citing undesirable behaviors more commonly found in MALE prison guards [there’s that bias again!]), but that is hardly enough to prove the need for gender discrimination in this area. You cited nothing to support his argument, and instead spent the whole time leading me in circles by making uninformed comments about women’s studies and hypocritical comments about women who broke into other jobs that men (and some women) said they weren’t suited for.
Poor showing, indeed.
I should clarify that I don’t believe any relationship between a guard and an inmate can be consensual; I should have said “appeared to be willing,” which was the framing used in the ABC News article. Still, the stats show that relations between male guards and inmates were less likely to “appear to be willing” than relations between female guards and inmates, and male perpetrators were more likely to use threats.
To argue that this proves that men should not be prison guards would be considered preposterous.
So why is Jack’s argument not equally preposterous?
“So why is Jack’s argument not equally preposterous?”
Chris, the main reason is for guard and prisoner safety. Even though a male in a female prison may be stronger, he should never be left alone where there is any chance of contact with a female prisoner. Double custody prevents allegations of sexual abuse, if not actual abuse, so yes I do see problems on the male side. But, the incidents of males being involved sexually with female prisoner is quite a bit less than the reverse and the female is also far more vulnerable physically… generally speaking of course, always the exception. So, yes, both sexes have issues and that suggests if there is to be fairness and equality here, then same sex prison guards is probably the best. Need I say it when the article was intended to be focused only on the most egregious flaw? Why do I have list everything flaw in the system?
Sad Chris… you miss so much good in our articles trying to find something that isn’t there.
Precisely.
Chris’ forte.
Just imagine Chris as a prison guard.
Well, I agree that guards should never be left alone one on one with prisoners, period, and that same-sex guards are generally best.
Nice to agree on something once in a while isn’t it?
Sorry to stomp all over the love fest but I must respond to Chris’s bizarre statement the I, “…cited nothing to support his argument, and instead spent the whole time leading me in circles…”
My first comment on the article was in response to Libby and about common sense…women having the “right” to rape and assault…followed by a joke about robots.
It was YOU who introduced feminist granola flakes when you responded to my opinion regarding common sense…which you were free to ignore, with a snarky feminist rant followed by an insult:
I followed up with an insult, just to be fair, and suggested that gender didn’t stop women 100 years ago from doing what they wanted and offered examples. Then you decided I needed to get one of Chris’s special lectures, presumably so I could, “get my mind right”:
So? They pioneered on and established a new order through the power of their individual grit!
Besides, in this day and age, what is there left to fight for and what do you want to do? String people up? Burn them at the stake for daring to suggest it might be safer, smarter, and more cost effective to have women guard women (pay grades equal) and men men? When did safety take a back seat to feminist’s radical, unnecessary demands?
Intolerance has a face on the left, it should be pointed out, and the bullying is becoming quite tiresome!
Jack is right! “…you miss so much good in our articles trying to find something that isn’t there.”
I am glad there was finally something worthy of agreement.
Yes, criticizing you is just like stringing you up and burning you at the stake.
You are completely irrational, and it has nothing to do with your gender.
Chris is a specious idiot, get over over it.