So my daughter (18 years old) was pulled over for speeding. And she was speeding, no question. She shouldn't have been. No discussion or question about that.
We told her to go to court and ask to speak to the judge and see if it was possible, since this was her first offense, to do community service or a driving school in order to keep the ticket off her record and save me a ton of money in insurance costs.
She did that. Court was today. I wasn't there, but my husband was. They called on the way home to tell me that they paid the ticket, and community service was not an option. Oh well, end of story, learn a valuable lesson, etc. Right?
Uh, not quite.
See the judge didn't say community service is not an option. He said community service is not an option for girls.
Boys who are first time offenders are allowed to work and have the ticket expunged. Girls are not. So, if you speed in my hometown it's okay, just as long as you have outdoor plumbing.
I am not happy about this.
Note, it's not that she didn't get to have the ticket expunged - she DID speed, and so I'm fine with her having to pay the penalty for it (and she is having to work to pay us back the cost of the ticket, so it is coming out of her pocket.) What I am unhappy about is that the municipal court in my town allows for male drivers to have an alternative to the penalty, but not female drivers. In other words, if you're going to tell female drivers do the crime, pay the fee, then shouldn't you tell male drivers the same thing? All I ask is equity - just treat males and females equally under the law in this case.
My husband and I are fighting about this right now. He thinks that I have no reason getting upset and having what he calls "an emotional response" to this. I wondered if I might be over-reacting so I called some women and told them the story. They reacted the same way I did.
Now I put it to Hatrack. Is this something worth getting upset over? Or am I just an overemotional female who needs to just shut up and quit complaining because I'm not a part of the good ole boy network? (apologies for the snark, I am still not happy.)
And even if I am justified in getting upset...what can be done? My husband says if I complain all I will accomplish is having the opportunity for the boys taken away. I say good - at least there is equity then if NO ONE gets the community service option.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
The specifics in this case might not be life altering, but the principle certainly matters a lot to me. I think you are absolutely justified in your feelings on the matter.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:My husband says if I complain all I will accomplish is having the opportunity for the boys taken away. I say good - at least there is equity then if NO ONE gets the community service option.
So, your position is that it's better for nobody to get something good than for only some people to get it?
That I do not agree with.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
This sort of arbitrary asymmetry is definitely reason to be upset. The unfortunate thing is that the path of righting this wrong is probably very long and of uncertain success.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Why?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:My husband says if I complain all I will accomplish is having the opportunity for the boys taken away. I say good - at least there is equity then if NO ONE gets the community service option.
So, your position is that it's better for nobody to get something good than for only some people to get it?
That I do not agree with.
I think everyone being equal in the eyes of the law is more valuable than boys being able to get out of a ticket.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
I'm not one to spend a lot of time worrying about sexism, but that makes me mad, too. I would at least want an explanation of WHY boys are given the option and not girls.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Parkour: to me or MPH?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:So, your position is that it's better for nobody to get something good than for only some people to get it?
That I do not agree with.
Is equity important enough for us as a human society to force some people to give up things they had?
In this case, teenage boys would have to pay a ticket rather than work a few hours picking up trash in the park to get that ticket expunged. Is the loss of that opportunity more important in the long run than having a court system that considers males and females to be equals?
I'll take the equity, thanks.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I would say the *ideal* solution would be to have the standard of justice raises for females to equal males. That'd be the first thing to try for. But if that turned out not to be possible, well then there's an injustice being done: to females. It's important to correct that injustice.
Frankly I'm baffled that that's *not* pretty straightforward, and I don't understand the PoV that says it's better for one group to be able to benefit when another can't rather than both groups benefitting. Because another way of saying that is, "Rather than both groups being equal."
That's all aside from the problem of your daughter being treated in a sexist way by her justice system. That's enough for anyone to get upset about. It'd take some pretty specific circumstances for that, "It's not for girls," not to be overtly sexist.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I'm interested in the rational the court uses to justify the disparity.
Suppose it is something like: "Study X shows that males show a lower rate of recidivism after community service, and the same study showed that females respond better to paying a fine instead."
If that was the case, I'd be a lot more likely to cut them some slack. They are at least trying to govern effectively.
If they don't have any such rational reason for it, my outrage would be pretty high.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
As a male, I think you have every right to be upset.
Can you go to the local news station?
EDITED to add that if they DO just take away the option for boys, that would not in any way be your fault. If you point out an injustice, and they react spitefully, it's on them 100%.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
My first guess would be that the program for community service is run by some non-profit organization, and that the court just doesn't have access to an acceptable program that accepts girls.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I consider it worth getting upset over.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I would be livid. I don't see why the solution couldn't be boys and girls get the community service option. But no question for me- this situation is wrong and should be stopped.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Absolutely not an emotional reaction. That is entrenched sexism in the very place it should least be -- the way the government treats its citizens.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Would doing community service put your daughter in any danger? Perhaps putting a girl on a team of mostly boys is what they're trying to avoid. I'm not really sure what type of community service is involved here, so this might be irrelevant.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: Parkour: to me or MPH?
Sorry, mph.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:My husband says if I complain all I will accomplish is having the opportunity for the boys taken away. I say good - at least there is equity then if NO ONE gets the community service option.
So, your position is that it's better for nobody to get something good than for only some people to get it?
That I do not agree with.
Yeah, I have to call this out too. SO many of the same arguments were levied against Title IX.
In this case it is absolutely better to 'ruin' the opportunity for the boys if the state makes it a choice between that and an unacceptably sexist system. It's invalid to blame the whistleblowers for ruining the system, too.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Would doing community service put your daughter in any danger? Perhaps putting a girl on a team of mostly boys is what they're trying to avoid. I'm not really sure what type of community service is involved here, so this might be irrelevant.
Your task, if you choose to accept it, is to pick up trash in the most dangerous city in America, at night, while wearing a suit made out of money.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Belle, I think you have every right to be outraged. Though it's worth at least first trying to get a response concerning the rational for the disparity, before taking any more involved actions.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Boys have the option to keep their criminal record clear, girls do not. That, to me, is a major and indefensible act of discrimination and no, boys should not get that perk if girls cannot. Aren't all government programs supposed to be nondiscriminatory?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Boys have the option to keep their criminal record clean
Small correction: minor traffic infractions such as speeding are generally not classified as crimes, and do not go on a person's criminal record.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
To be fair, I'm not sure Porter was objecting to this case here-but rather the concept expressed. He'll have to clarify (or not) at his leisure, though.
As for this specific case, some of the ideas mentioned here were things I considered-I can imagine some situations where it might be dangerous, but they'd be pretty darn unlikely. A sexist municipal judge seems more likely to me.
quote:Small correction: minor traffic infractions such as speeding are generally not classified as crimes, and do not go on a person's criminal record.
Well, that's usually true (I think), but then the records they go on are easily searched even without paying anyone by private citizens - some people at work were doing it the other day - and apparently traffic infractions, non-criminal all turned up. I'm not sure if they'd still show up if the record was expunged.
In any event, it doesn't matter in the slightest to the overall question of the thread. There are definite benefits to having the opportunity to have one's record expunged of a traffic infraction, and they're being denied to females on what is very likely (for example, if there was a good explanation aside from judicial fiat, it's difficult to credit he wouldn't have said so) a sexist basis.
On a personal level, having one's husband respond to anger over such an event with, "...that's an emotional response..." well frankly, absent knowing other context, that sounds a bit sexist too. Though I quickly point out that it would depend on the entire disagreement and what else went around that statement.
Frankly just getting upset sounds pretty understated. I would be pissed. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:To be fair, I'm not sure Porter was objecting to this case here-but rather the concept expressed.
:nod: I was talking about the broad idea that if everybody can't have something, nobody should.
Maybe that wasn't fair of me to do, because it is more important that things be equitable when dealing with the legal system than in the general case.
As far as this specific case is concerned, it's definitely not fair. Without knowing more about why the community service is not an option for everyone, I don't have an opinion about whether anybody did anything unreasonable.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I want to go back to the OP: that's clearly sexism. How .. nefarious it is depends on the reason it works that way. Porter gave an example of a reason that would, in my mind, reduce the terribleness of it. Certainly you're justified in getting upset (I don't quite understand your husband's reasoning but it's always hard to communicate someone else's reasons, particularly when you disagree with them) but that's a different question than the thread title, "is it worth getting upset?". It really depends on what you plan on doing with your unhappiness. I know a lot of people who really like getting worked up into a lather about something and using the excuse that we need to take responsibility for the world around us. Which is true but they never do anything about it besides posting nasty things online so then I'd say it's not worth getting upset over because it will accomplish nothing other than you spending more time upset. If you have plans to do something about it, I think that would be great (and worth it). I have no idea how one would go about that, or what you can and can not accomplish that way.
I go into that because I've been thinking about my reaction if I was not given a job due to being LDS (I doubt this has happened but for some reason it's been on my mind a lot). I imagine I'd be quite upset but it would not be worth it. I'm pretty sure I would do nothing about it either; though I think I'd then be unhappy with myself as a result. I see these as corollary situations and I think it's a really hard situation to be in. Something was done that is clearly wrong (unjust, not a good thing for the justice system) but the cost of actually changing the reality of it is daunting at best. Can you choose not to be upset when it accomplishes nothing? If not, is that an indicator you should do something? I think the answer to both is 'no' but I'm not sure.
Hobbes Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Thing is, this is a situation where something could be done. If the local media gets interested, or enough people raise their voices and demand an explanation, I think the unfairness of this is obvious enough that it could be changed.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah. To emphasize, you're absolutely right to be outraged by this situation. Your husband is flat-out wrong.
Take the whole story to the local media. Get some other people to call in with it. It's wonderfully sensational. It needs to be prodded at until it gets revoked out of shame.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I would be livid. I don't see why the solution couldn't be boys and girls get the community service option. But no question for me- this situation is wrong and should be stopped.
Agreed! Your husband is absolutely wrong about this and his response is also sexist and kind of patronizing. Outrage is by definition an emotional response. That had nothing to do with whether its justified.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: My first guess would be that the program for community service is run by some non-profit organization, and that the court just doesn't have access to an acceptable program that accepts girls.
I would look into WHY things are that way. If it is arbitrary, then get a little mad about it. If there is a good reason, such as the one mph has suggested, then be less mad.
Find out if there are plans to allow girls to do it in the future. If they want to implement it but are having trouble finding a vendor or program to run it I would at least be a little more understanding of the current situation.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: My first guess would be that the program for community service is run by some non-profit organization, and that the court just doesn't have access to an acceptable program that accepts girls.
I would look into WHY things are that way. If it is arbitrary, then get a little mad about it. If there is a good reason, such as the one mph has suggested, then be less mad.
Find out if there are plans to allow girls to do it in the future. If they want to implement it but are having trouble finding a vendor or program to run it I would at least be a little more understanding of the current situation.
If the program for community service was run by a non-profit that would only accept Christians, would you consider it OK for the courts to offer this option only to Christians?
If not, why is discriminating against girls different?
[ April 08, 2011, 08:14 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Agreed! Your husband is absolutely wrong about this and his response is also sexist and kind of patronizing. Outrage is by definition an emotional response. That had nothing to do with whether its justified.
What, precisely, makes the husband sexist?
My wife has called me out on emotional responses, when the proper course of action was to let the rage run its course and then decide on how to act.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I agree that Belle's husband finding her outrage out of line is sexist. I can't think of a good reason why she shouldn't at least be a little weirded out by this imbalance between the apparent choice given to men that isn't given to women.
It's easy not to be annoyed when it doesn't affect your gender.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Based on the limited information presented, I don't agree. There's no definite link between the snark and the husband's statement. I don't think it's fair to label someone who isn't here to defend himself.
If there WAS a link(i.e., the snark was a quote/paraphrase), then I'd agree.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi: I don't think it's fair to label someone who isn't here to defend himself.
Agreed, given the little amount of information we have.
quote:It's easy not to be annoyed when it doesn't affect your gender.
As a man, of course I am immune to empathy. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Well, clearly there are male people who are annoyed here, Scott, no need to put on the snark hat.
But I can't think of a reason why reacting fiercely to an unbalanced justice system isn't justified. The only reason could be that you think it's fine that men get a choice whereas women have to pay a fine (which seems to be what is going on here).
Some male people might find it harder to sympathize with the situation because it wouldn't affect them and has, by default of their gender, probably not affected them personally.
Some female people might have the same problem when faced with an issue that only men have (for example, if men are ONLY given the community service option in this scenario or, more dramatically, only men being drafted into war.)
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
The advice to not act in an emotional state is good. If this had happened to my kid, I'd have been livid. Then I'd wait until that had burned out to do something.
Actions undertaken in the heat of passion tend to be actions regretted.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Swampjedi,
It's sexist to believe that there is nothing wrong with a judicial policy that denies equal treatment based on gender.
There is an enormous difference between saying that someone is overly emotional right now, and should wait until they've calmed down to decide what to do and saying that a person has no valid reason to be upset in the first place and is just being overly-emotional.
Assuming that what Belle reported is accurate, her husband's response is sexist first and foremost because he thinks there is nothing wrong with the courts descriminating based on gender. The fact that he criticizes Belle for being overly emotional about it (a common negative stereotype of females), just adds frosting to the cake.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
The only justification my husband was able to give me was the judge said "you don't want your daughter picking up trash with a bunch of boys do you?" My husband said he responded "yeah, actually I'm fine with that a little manual labor won't hurt her."
But that's beside the point. One of the cops is our neighbor and he said the judge can assign driving school to first time offenders and most judges in the area do. Driving school will take both boys and girls. He prefers to assign community service because he thinks it's better for them, but only for the boys because he doesn't think girls should pick up trash.
I can't confirm that what the cop says is true...I just know that we were told she cannot do community service and that driving school was not given as an option.
The main reason I'm angry with my husband is he thinks there is no reason to be upset about it because we cannot change it. He says getting emotional over things we cannot change is pointless.
My feeling is things don't generally change until someone IS emotionally upset about it. That's the first step. Of course, you don't always need to act in the heat of that emotion (and I did not, though I wanted to, storm down to the courthouse and give the judge a piece of my mind because it would have been counterproductive - it would have just gotten me charged with contempt of court). But you do need to have that emotion as a precursor to action designed to change something, I feel.
I just don't know what to do. The mayor is aware of the issue, according to our neighbor. I suppose this judge reports to someone, somewhere. I just don't know where to go with it. Getting the media involved would be an option if I were willing to go on TV and make a big production and fight about it, but as a non-tenured teacher I'm not really willing to do that. I will write letters to people if I think it will get something done but I don't know who to write it to.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The only justification my husband was able to give me was the judge said "you don't want your daughter picking up trash with a bunch of boys do you?" My husband said he responded "yeah, actually I'm fine with that a little manual labor won't hurt her."
quote:He prefers to assign community service because he thinks it's better for them, but only for the boys because he doesn't think girls should pick up trash.
I can't confirm that what the cop says is true...I just know that we were told she cannot do community service and that driving school was not given as an option.
That really does seem to point to gender discrimination.
Do you know what kind of supervision the trash-pickers get? Do you know the county's policy on mixed-gender community service groups?
I'd definitely contact your local paper, Belle, and see what kind of storm you can conjure. Does anyone know of a professional association or something (like the bar, for lawyers) that governs judges? It might be worthwhile to make a complaint.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Are judges elected in your area Belle? If so, campaigning for someone who will apply justice more equally is an option, if not immediately satisfying.
An alternative would be civil disobedience, but you've already paid the fine.
-Bok
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Belle, you are definitely justified in getting upset.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The fact that he criticizes Belle for being overly emotional about it (a common negative stereotype of females), just adds frosting to the cake.
This, to me, is the problem. You can't immediately go from "emotional reaction" to "dude's a pig". THAT is a sexist response, and that is what I am objecting to.
quote:The main reason I'm angry with my husband is he thinks there is no reason to be upset about it because we cannot change it. He says getting emotional over things we cannot change is pointless.
There's nothing sexist about this. It's not an opinion that I agree with (and I think it is insensitive), but it isn't sexist.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
The judge probably assumes that the any fines will be paid by the parent; he's not giving the boys the option of workin, he's giving the boy's parents the option of making them work.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:My husband says if I complain all I will accomplish is having the opportunity for the boys taken away. I say good - at least there is equity then if NO ONE gets the community service option.
So, your position is that it's better for nobody to get something good than for only some people to get it?
That I do not agree with.
I think everyone being equal in the eyes of the law is more valuable than boys being able to get out of a ticket.
Agreed. This is a problem.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi:
quote:The main reason I'm angry with my husband is he thinks there is no reason to be upset about it because we cannot change it. He says getting emotional over things we cannot change is pointless.
There's nothing sexist about this. It's not an opinion that I agree with (and I think it is insensitive), but it isn't sexist. [/QB]
As far as I can tell, Belle has not called her husband sexist.
Posted by Selran (Member # 9918) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I will write letters to people if I think it will get something done but I don't know who to write it to.
You should get in touch with the local ACLU organization.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Do you know what kind of supervision the trash-pickers get? Do you know the county's policy on mixed-gender community service groups?
Why does it matter? If the county had a policy against mixed-race community service groups, would it justify the court also being racist? If the county outsourced the community service to a church, would it justify religious discrimination in the courts?
The traffic laws are the same for both genders. They should be enforced the same for both genders. It's unethical for a judge to consider gender as a factor in a traffic appeal.
If the county also have behaved unethically in outsourcing oversight of its community service sentences to a group that will only accommodate citizens of a particular race, creed or gender, that makes two wrongs not zero.
Governments have a responsibility to treat all their citizens equally.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The fact that he criticizes Belle for being overly emotional about it (a common negative stereotype of females), just adds frosting to the cake.
This, to me, is the problem. You can't immediately go from "emotional reaction" to "dude's a pig". THAT is a sexist response, and that is what I am objecting to.
I did not say "dude's a pig" and I don not appreciate your sticking those words in my mouth.
Did you even read the first part of that quote. I found Belle's husband's response, as described in her OP, sexist because IT IS SEXIST TO THINK GENDER DISCRIMINATION IS NOT WORTH GETTING UPSET ABOUT. The rest is a side issue. GOT THAT NOW??
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie: The judge probably assumes that the any fines will be paid by the parent; he's not giving the boys the option of workin, he's giving the boy's parents the option of making them work.
It is not simply an issue of fines vs community service. It is also the opportunity to have the ticket expunged from your driving record. Having a clean driving record is over the long run worth a great deal more than the cost of the fine.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Why does it matter?
It's possible that the county's policies regarding underage minors restrict community service to single gendered groups, supervised by same-gendered authorities in order to minimize the possibility of sexual assaults. If the resources are lacking for one gender, then they may not offer that option to that gender.
That's about the only reasoning I can come up with that makes sense.
quote:It's unethical for a judge to consider gender as a factor in a traffic appeal.
I agree that community service of some type should be available for both genders, if it's offered to one. I don't know whether it should be removed for the one it IS available for, though; as a general principle, I don't like the idea of removing someone's advantages because another person doesn't have access to them. (Didn't Vonnegut write a story about this...?)
quote:Governments have a responsibility to treat all their citizens equally.
Sure.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Did you even read the first part of that quote. I found Belle's husband's response, as described in her OP, sexist because IT IS SEXIST TO THINK GENDER DISCRIMINATION IS NOT WORTH GETTING UPSET ABOUT. The rest is a side issue. GOT THAT NOW??
Your definition of the issue isn't the same as mine, obviously. For that reason, plus the wall of caps in your reply, let's just drop it.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi:
quote:The main reason I'm angry with my husband is he thinks there is no reason to be upset about it because we cannot change it. He says getting emotional over things we cannot change is pointless.
There's nothing sexist about this. It's not an opinion that I agree with (and I think it is insensitive), but it isn't sexist.
As far as I can tell, Belle has not called her husband sexist. [/QB]
No no, I was quoting Belle as part of my disagreement with Rabbit. I agree with your assessment, FWIW.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:It's possible that the county's policies regarding underage minors restrict community service to single gendered groups, supervised by same-gendered authorities in order to minimize the possibility of sexual assaults. If the resources are lacking for one gender, then they may not offer that option to that gender.
I would find that highly unethical. The state has an obligation to provide equal opportunities to all its citizens. It is not acceptable to deny opportunities to girls that are given to boys based on lack of resources. If the resources must be rationed, they should be rationed based on merit not gender. Why do you consider it acceptable for the government to ration resources based on gender?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Did you even read the first part of that quote. I found Belle's husband's response, as described in her OP, sexist because IT IS SEXIST TO THINK GENDER DISCRIMINATION IS NOT WORTH GETTING UPSET ABOUT. The rest is a side issue. GOT THAT NOW??
Your definition of the issue isn't the same as mine, obviously. For that reason, plus the wall of caps in your reply, let's just drop it.
Swampjedi, I'll drop it when you apologize for putting nasty words in my mouth that I did not in any way say. I'll drop it when you apologize for stripping my quote in order to ignore my main point.
If it is simply a question of definitions, you could have responded by saying that you do not believe it was necessarily sexist to think gender discrimination wasn't worth getting upset about. You didn't. You ignored that and cut to the point that I said wasn't the issue.
My wall of caps was because you not only ignored it when I said it the first time, you stipped it off rather dramatically changing the meaning of my second sentence. It really pisses me off when some one takes one of my points out of context in order to grossly misrepresent what I've said. Its dishonest and insulting.
I'll drop it, when you indicate that you have made the slighest attempt to understand my point.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Why do you consider it acceptable for the government to ration resources based on gender?
Hey, don't put words in my mouth. This is what I said:
quote:I agree that community service of some type should be available for both genders, if it's offered to one. I don't know whether it should be removed for the one it IS available for, though; as a general principle, I don't like the idea of removing someone's advantages because another person doesn't have access to them.
"GENERAL PRINCIPLE"
quote:If the resources must be rationed, they should be rationed based on merit not gender.
Do you mean generally, or in the specific case affecting Belle and her family?
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
I will retract the way I phrased my statement. I shouldn't have used quote marks, or the pig statement. I did not intend for anyone to take that as something you said, or for you to think I was putting words in your mouth.
You don't get to define what the issue was for me.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:That's about the only reasoning I can come up with that makes sense.
Here, "makes sense" does not mean, "reasoning I agree with." It simply means that it's a policy I could understand a bureaucracy implementing in order to safeguard themselves and the minors in their charge.
I'm on the fence, in this specific instance, about whether the opportunity should be taken away from boys; I think I'm tending toward 'yes it should be,' because of the ability for community service to allow their records to be expunged, and the apparent inability for girls to have the same opportunity.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi: I will retract the way I phrased my statement. I shouldn't have used quote marks, or the pig statement. I did not intend for anyone to take that as something you said, or for you to think I was putting words in your mouth.
You don't get to define what the issue was for me.
No, but you objected to me saying his response was sexist so it isn't about how you define it. There is also the question of why "I" thought is was sexist and it is grossly unfair of you to apply your definition to my statement. And when you asked why I thought it was sexist, it was down right rude of you to ignore my response and replace it with your own.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: "GENERAL PRINCIPLE"
quote:If the resources must be rationed, they should be rationed based on merit not gender.
Do you mean generally, or in the specific case affecting Belle and her family?
If by "General Principle" you mean something that has lots of exception, then no I don't think of it as a "General Principle", I'd call it a "moral imperative."
I think its unfair to represent this as a case "taking something away from the boys". If it is actually a question of the country not having enough resources for two programs, it's an issue of whether public resources should be used in ways that are discriminatory.
If the country could only afford one juvenille detention facility and it was deemed inappropriate to house boys and girls in the same facility, would it be acceptable to let girls who had committed serious crimes do community service while boys went to jail. Would it be acceptable to expunge the crimes from their records because their wasn't enough money to put them in jail?
I also think its a bit disingenuous of communities to claim they don't have enough resources to fund programs for both genders. In America, when we think its important we find the resources. And if there truly is a resources shortage, programs are rarely binary in nature. Resources can generally be split between girls and boys programs, giving both less support rather than eliminating one or the other.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
In our county, first-time youth traffic offenders can get out of it with an essay and community service.
The logic is that if it's just a fine and increased insurance rates, it's the parents who are mostly being punished, not the kids.
The essay and community service option are seen as a punishment for the kids to help deter them from repeat offenses.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I don't understand why the only definition of community service is picking up trash outside. Where yeah, if the only cops who can supervise that are male, then perhaps it does make sense not to have girls as part of those crews.
But the City has many female employees who I'm sure could use some extra help. Let girls work in our library - they can shelve books, clean and dust shelves, vacuum, scrape gum off the tables, etc. Let them clean restrooms in the courthouse. There are lots of "unpleasant" jobs that they can do that will benefit our community and have them give something of value back to the community in exchange for having their records expunged.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:. Where yeah, if the only cops who can supervise that are male, then perhaps it does make sense not to have girls as part of those crews.
Wouldn't most communities even have female cops who could supervise girl crews? Its hard to imagine that there are no women on the police force who are qualified for the duty.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:But the City has many female employees who I'm sure could use some extra help. Let girls work in our library - they can shelve books, clean and dust shelves, vacuum, scrape gum off the tables, etc
I would imagine that in many of those scenarios, managing the surly teens that don't want to be there would take considerably more effort than just doing the job yourself. Not that there's not value in that -- we make that sort of bargain with our kids all the time, letting them "help" us cook, work in the garden, etc.. But I can see why a local government wouldn't want to bother with community service that they get less out of than they put in to it.
For mandatory community service with high turnover, you want something that a) requires no or little skill, b) keeps everybody together so that they can all be supervised at once, and c) does not involved expensive equipment that they might damage and d) does not involve dangerous equipment.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Wouldn't most communities even have female cops who could supervise girl crews?
Ours doesn't. I don't think we have a single female police officer either in the city police department or with the sheriff department.
[ April 08, 2011, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Another thought -- there's quite a bit of liability involved with working with youth.
In order to work with the Boy Scouts, I have to take periodic "youth protection" training and jump through some other hoops. I don't have any personal knowledge, but it would not surprise me if there's a lot more involved in being qualified to work with youth in the government.
So, it might be possible for the city or county to have female employees and still not have anybody that can supervise teen girls.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Wouldn't most communities even have female cops who could supervise girl crews?
Ours doesn't. I don't think we have a single female police officer either in the city police department or in the sheriff police department.
What do they do when a woman is arrested and needs to be searched?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I would like to hear why the judge said that. Perhaps there's some reason for the rule that actually makes sense; or perhaps Belle simply misunderstood what was said. Observe that we are not getting the judge's words, we are getting Belle's report of her husband's report of the judge's words. There's room for error in that chain. But if the report is accurate, then yes, I think there's grounds for being upset.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Another thought -- there's quite a bit of liability involved with working with youth.
In order to work with the Boy Scouts, I have to take periodic "youth protection" training and jump through some other hoops. I don't have any personal knowledge, but it would not surprise me if there's a lot more involved in being qualified to work with youth in the government.
So, it might be possible for the city or county to have female employees and still not have anybody that can supervise teen girls.
I still don't think this is relevant. If the government has to pay for someone to supervise people doing community service, it doesn't matter whether it transfers existing employees to the job or highers new people. The expense is the same.
If there are X dollars available for programs that allow offenders to expunge their records, the choice is never between
Spend X dollars on male programs.
Spend X dollars on female programs or
burn the money
There are always many other options that would not be discriminatory and wouldn't amount to "if everyone can't have it, nobody can".
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Wouldn't most communities even have female cops who could supervise girl crews?
Ours doesn't. I don't think we have a single female police officer either in the city police department or in the sheriff police department.
What do they do when a woman is arrested and needs to be searched?
I don't know.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I still don't think this is relevant. If the government has to pay for someone to supervise people doing community service, it doesn't matter whether it transfers existing employees to the job or highers new people. The expense is the same.
Belle said "But the City has many female employees who I'm sure could use some extra help". I was showing that the existence of female employees does not necessarily mean that the city has anybody that can supervise teen girls for community service.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:It's possible that the county's policies regarding underage minors restrict community service to single gendered groups.
quote:it would not surprise me if there's a lot more involved in being qualified to work with youth in the government.
quote:I would imagine that in many of those scenarios, managing the surly teens that don't want to be there would take considerably more effort than just doing the job yourself.
There seem's to be a presumption that Belle's daughter is a minor. Belle said she is 18. She's legally an adult, so none of this actually applies. She would be treated in court as an adult, not a juvenile.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Ah. Yes, I was presuming that. Good catch.
I will note, however, that that doesn't change the third quote of yours. Surly 18-year-olds who don't want to be there aren't all that much different from surly 16-year-olds who don't want to be there.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
In my experience, 60 year olds who don't want to be there can be as surly as 16 year olds.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
*nod*
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I think the community service should be supervising a bunch of surly teens in some cleanup project. If I had to do that, I'd never speed again. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I still don't think this is relevant. If the government has to pay for someone to supervise people doing community service, it doesn't matter whether it transfers existing employees to the job or highers new people. The expense is the same.
Belle said "But the City has many female employees who I'm sure could use some extra help". I was showing that the existence of female employees does not necessarily mean that the city has anybody that can supervise teen girls for community service.
Resources must be expended to supervise people doing community service. It doesn't matter whether we are talking existing human resources or human resources we have to hire new -- it's still a question of public resources and whether public resources should be spent to offer a benefit to males that is not available for females, when the alternative is always available to spend those resources on a program that will be available to both genders.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I don't understand why the only definition of community service is picking up trash outside. Where yeah, if the only cops who can supervise that are male, then perhaps it does make sense not to have girls as part of those crews.
Actually, that doesn't make sense at all. Adults should be able to supervise other adults of any gender picking up trash on the side of the road, where there are lots of cars driving past. While your daughter and the other men in this program would be there because they violated a law, these people are probably not violent, attempting to escape, or requiring whipping or pat downs to pick up the trash. I would assume that the workers are issued proper gear in the form of gloves and sticks. I would also assume that civilians doing community service for legal reasons are NEVER mixed with inmates doing the same. And if only gender is preventing the supervisor from taking his charges from the side of the road into the woods and doing unspeakable things, we've got a major problem with our law enforcement officers.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Could there be any liability issues involved?
I could see the judge just being plain sexist, but I can also see there being some good reason why girls aren't allowed to do this community service. The judge does need to be more forthcoming if this is the case.
However, if there is a good reason not to send girls to community service, there should be an equivalent way for them to work off the ticket so it doesn't go on their record.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The main reason I'm angry with my husband is he thinks there is no reason to be upset about it because we cannot change it. He says getting emotional over things we cannot change is pointless.
My feeling is things don't generally change until someone IS emotionally upset about it. That's the first step.
Imagine you are trying to buy a car at an auction. Also imagine that it is an "all pay" auction, meaning that you have to pay whatever bid you make, whether or not you actually have the highest bid and win the car. So if you bid $1,000 and someone else bids $1,500, then you still pay $1,000 but get no car. In such a situation in only makes sense to make a bid if you are willing to bid enough to actually win. Making a smaller losing bid would only cost you money and get you nothing in return.
Your situation is similar. It only makes sense to get mad if you are willing to commit enough effort/expense to actually change things. Otherwise getting mad only hurts you and nothing gets changed. If you aren't willing to go all the way, getting mad won't help.
It sounds like your husband doesn't think the cost of changing things is worth it. It's definitely not worth it if you are just considering your daughter, because paying a fine is not really a big deal... it's less costly than the expense of fighting this judge. On the other hand, if it's about a moral principle instead of your daughter, then I'd have to leave it to you to determine how much you are willing to give up for the moral gain.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I suppose it depends on what type of community service the court system deems appropriate, though that shouldn't matter either.
My wife worked for a non-profit organization that fed homeless kids attending public schools. Every Friday the kid would receive a backback full of food that they would bring back empty on Monday. They always needed help from people to pack the bags on Thursday afternoons, and there were plenty of people that would come help out to get community service hours in.
It may differ in your city/county/state though. I would try to find out the reasoning behind why your daughter was unable to get community service. If there is really no good reason, I'd hire a lawyer.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Selran:
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I will write letters to people if I think it will get something done but I don't know who to write it to.
You should get in touch with the local ACLU organization.
I don't know how you feel about the ACLU Belle, but this is actually a really good suggestion. This is the kind of issue they are very good at handling.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Resources must be expended to supervise people doing community service. It doesn't matter whether we are talking existing human resources or human resources we have to hire new -- it's still a question of public resources and whether public resources should be spent to offer a benefit to males that is not available for females, when the alternative is always available to spend those resources on a program that will be available to both genders.
Belle indicated that they already have the necessary resources. I am pointing out that this may not be true.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Your situation is similar. It only makes sense to get mad if you are willing to commit enough effort/expense to actually change things. Otherwise getting mad only hurts you and nothing gets changed. If you aren't willing to go all the way, getting mad won't help.
Perhaps I'm far less disciplined that the average person, but I'm unable to only feel angry when it makes sense. I am able to control my actions, even when I'm outraged and I am able with time to temper my anger when it is unproductive. But I can't not feel simply because not feeling would be more reasonable. I don't want to feel.
I respond to injustice with a feeling of outrage. I think its a moral failing not to have strong feelings about injustice. Those feelings, not cold reasoning, are what motivate people to fight injustice.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Resources must be expended to supervise people doing community service. It doesn't matter whether we are talking existing human resources or human resources we have to hire new -- it's still a question of public resources and whether public resources should be spent to offer a benefit to males that is not available for females, when the alternative is always available to spend those resources on a program that will be available to both genders.
Belle indicated that they already have the necessary resources. I am pointing out that this may not be true.
I guess its possible, it just seems extremely highly unlikely to me. Community service has become a common sentencing option for both adults and teenagers. In most cases, the only supervision that's necessary is some one to verify that you actually came and worked. I think its more than a little stretch to imagine that in Belle's community there are no possible community service options that would be appropriate for an 18 year old girl.
If its really true that Belle's community offers men the option of a community service sentence but that option is never offered to women, then the problem is much bigger and far worse than if this is only an issue with this judge for 1st time speeding tickets.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: ... And if only gender is preventing the supervisor from taking his charges from the side of the road into the woods and doing unspeakable things, we've got a major problem with our law enforcement officers.
This. If young women aren't safe with police officers then there is a big problem. Unfortunately, sometimes there is such a problem, but "we just won't have them supervise girls" is not addressing it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't think it's safe to assume that law enforcement officers are the ones supervising the community service. It could very well be volunteers, for all we know.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That is a problem as well.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I don't think it's safe to assume that law enforcement officers are the ones supervising the community service. It could very well be volunteers, for all we know.
Why does that make a difference and why does it justify excluding girls from community service? Boys and young men get molested too.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Boots said that if young women aren't safe with police officers there's a big problem.
She's right -- we need to be able to have a high level of trust in our law enforcement officers.
It's not nearly as big a deal if we don't trust some random person who volunteers their time.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Why does that make a difference and why does it justify excluding girls from community service? Boys and young men get molested too.
There's a probability issue here though. If it is true as on wiki that 91% of rape victims are female and 9% are male, then it kinda makes sense to wait until female volunteers are available to supervise females (assuming that female-female rape is uncommon).
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I respond to injustice with a feeling of outrage. I think its a moral failing not to have strong feelings about injustice. Those feelings, not cold reasoning, are what motivate people to fight injustice.
I can see that it would be a moral failing to not have strong feelings about *any* injustice, but I don't know if its a moral failing to not have strong feelings about every injustice.
Even if we're talking about gender issues, maybe someone has already spent their outrage quota on female circumcision or gender ratios at birth in India/China.
I'm not saying that the current situation is ok, and if someone is motivated to change it, then all power to them. I'm just not convinced its a moral failing for a specific person to not have strong feelings about this.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Why does that make a difference and why does it justify excluding girls from community service? Boys and young men get molested too.
There's a probability issue here though. If it is true as on wiki that 91% of rape victims are female and 9% are male, then it kinda makes sense to wait until female volunteers are available to supervise females (assuming that female-female rape is uncommon).
You also have to factor the probability that someone will be raped by a supervisor. We do not in general in our society forbid women from working under the supervision of men, I do not see why an exception should be made for community service.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Most supervisors aren't volunteers that volunteer to supervise youth though. I think that category warrants special scrutiny and/or care.
(And I was responding in the line of thought that mph had where we don't necessary trust the random person)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Boots said that if young women aren't safe with police officers there's a big problem.
She's right -- we need to be able to have a high level of trust in our law enforcement officers.
It's not nearly as big a deal if we don't trust some random person who volunteers their time.
I'm still trying to figure out why it makes a difference within the context we are discussing. If government is assigning people to supervise those sentenced to community service who can't be trusted not to assault their charges, it seems like a big problem whether or not those persons are police officers.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Most supervisors aren't volunteers that volunteer to supervise youth though. I think that category warrants special scrutiny and/or care.
(And I was responding in the line of thought that mph had where we don't necessary trust the random person)
Once again, we aren't talking about youth. Belle's daughter is 18, she is not a minor.
Second, given the large number of scandals recently in which teenage boys have been sexually assaulted by their leaders (including priests, scout masters and even female school teachers), I think its kind of hard to pretend that sexual assault of minors is only a problem for girls.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Once again, we aren't talking about youth. Belle's daughter is 18, she is not a minor.
quote:The United Nations, for statistical purposes, defines ‘youth’, as those persons between the ages of 15 and 24 years
quote:Second, given the large number of scandals recently in which teenage boys have been sexually assaulted by their leaders (including priests, scout masters and even female school teachers), I think its kind of hard to pretend that sexual assault of minors is only a problem for girls.
To be honest, if the volunteers for picking up trash were priests and scout masters, I'd be similarly reluctant.
But teachers aren't really statistically more likely to assault children than anyone else and I'd think that the percentage of female teachers sexually assaulting female students is fairly small.
More to the point, none of what you said speaks to the relative numbers of assaults against males and females. It may very well be the case, that assault against boys is a serious issue. But that doesn't mean that there isn't more assault directed against girls.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Most supervisors aren't volunteers that volunteer to supervise youth though. I think that category warrants special scrutiny and/or care.
(And I was responding in the line of thought that mph had where we don't necessary trust the random person)
I'm curious about the statistics on this. Do you suppose its more common for teenage girls to be assaulted by an adult leader of a girls group than it is for teenage boys to be assaulted by an adult leader of a boys group.
I would speculate that sexual assaults by leaders are less common in girls clubs, since the adult leaders of girls groups are usually women, and sexual assaults by women are far less common than sexual assaults by men (though not unheard of), but that's just speculation.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unyin/qanda.htm Let's not quibble about definitions, you know what I mean.
We aren't talking UN definitions here, we are talking about US law, which treats people as adults after the age of 18. If Belle's community has regulations that would keep minor girls from doing community service under male supervision, they would not be relevant since Belle's daughter is not legally a minor. The implication is that in Belle's community, the community service option is not available to adult women.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'm curious about the statistics on this. Do you suppose its more common for teenage girls to be assaulted by an adult leader of a girls group than it is for teenage boys to be assaulted by an adult leader of a boys group.
If I had to speculate, totally off-the-cuff, I'll go out on a limb and guess the order of riskiest to least risky would be:
1. (Male)Priest supervising male youth 2. Male volunteer supervising female youth 3. Male volunteer supervising male youth 4. Female volunteer supervising male youth 5. Female volunteer supervising female youth
I'd not wedded to those guesses, but under those kinds of assumptions I can understand why one might want to wait for a female supervisor for female youth. (Or in other words, to draw a line as to what is acceptable risk between 2 and 3 rather than 1 and 2)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:More to the point, none of what you said speaks to the relative numbers of assaults against males and females. It may very well be the case, that assault against boys is a serious issue. But that doesn't mean that there isn't more assault directed against girls.
I have no doubt that women and girls are more likely to be assaulted overall than men and boys. I simply don't think that is a reasonable justification for denying women and girls the opportunities open to boys. Vulnerability to assault is not a uniquely feminine problem.
Even if it were, the solution to sexual assaults is not to discriminate against women.
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
Something doesn't jibe here. I live near a small city (approx 90,000) and when the city court gives someone community service they give that person a letter of instruction and a list of more than 100 local organizations they can go to work with. They get their hours logged and their paperwork signed to take back to the judge. It can range from Angels of Assissi to Habitat for Humanity.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... we are talking about US law, which treats people as adults after the age of 18.
Maybe you're talking about US law.
I was talking about managing risk of sexual assault between adults and youth.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The implication is that in Belle's community, the community service option is not available to adult women.
That isn't my understanding of the situation, although I could be wrong. Based on
quote:See the judge didn't say community service is not an option. He said community service is not an option for girls.
it seems to me that the restriction is on what the judge considers to be girls.
I think an across-the-board restriction barring even adult women would just be too ridiculous to be realistic.
(Prepares for Belle to show that things are indeed that ridiculous )
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Flying Fish: Something doesn't jibe here. I live near a small city (approx 90,000) and when the city court gives someone community service they give that person a letter of instruction and a list of more than 100 local organizations they can go to work with. They get their hours logged and their paperwork signed to take back to the judge. It can range from Angels of Assissi to Habitat for Humanity.
Yes, this is the way it normally works. That's why I keep saying that I think people are stretching an unreasonably long way to find a justification for this.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... we are talking about US law, which treats people as adults after the age of 18.
Maybe you're talking about US law.
I was talking about managing risk of sexual assault between adults and youth.
Sorry, I thought you were making a point that was relevant to Belle's daughter being denied the option of community service to expunge a speeding ticket from her record.
If you are simply talking about managing the risk of sexual assault between adults and youth, the groups I work with are all coming to the consensus that drawing the line between your 2 and 3 was a mistake and are now moving to requiring that there are always 2 adult leaders present, regardless of gender. The idea is to remove the opportunity for assault by making sure no adult is ever alone with a youth.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
*nod* That's what the Boy Scouts do.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: *nod* That's what the Boy Scouts do.
That was the policy when I was assistant scout master back in the mid 90s. It's also now the official policy in the LDS primary for their to be two teachers in every class. This is causing me headaches as Primary president since we are having trouble getting even 1 teacher for each class.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Flying Fish: Something doesn't jibe here. I live near a small city (approx 90,000) and when the city court gives someone community service they give that person a letter of instruction and a list of more than 100 local organizations they can go to work with. They get their hours logged and their paperwork signed to take back to the judge. It can range from Angels of Assissi to Habitat for Humanity.
This is the way it was for me when I was in high school and received a tresspassing violation. I was able to make a deal to do community service, and was able to choose from a list of organizations. I ended up volunteering at Goodwill.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*nod* That's the big thing that led me to conclude that casual judicial sexism was the much more likely explanation for this than some other, more justifiable reason. I'm just a layman on the topic, so I could very well be wrong-but I think it's an unlikely municipality that doesn't have some setup in place to interface community service and minor violations of the law.
In fact, I'll just go out on a limb and make a guess. I'm not committed to this, but here's a possible explanation: the judge is irritated because females can get out of speeding tickets by poppin' the tears, and guys can't-thus this is a bit of equity in his eyes.
I mean, I would almost be willing to say, absent knowing other facts about this situation, that that guess is more likely than this community not having the kind of setup FlyFish has described. There being organizations that help communities basically in every community in the country, and those organizations having ties with local government everywhere they exist, and needing help where they exist.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: *nod* That's what the Boy Scouts do.
That was the policy when I was assistant scout master back in the mid 90s. It's also now the official policy in the LDS primary for their to be two teachers in every class. This is causing me headaches as Primary president since we are having trouble getting even 1 teacher for each class.
Nursery too. There are also one way windows that allow people outside to see in as well.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: *nod* That's what the Boy Scouts do.
That was the policy when I was assistant scout master back in the mid 90s. It's also now the official policy in the LDS primary for their to be two teachers in every class. This is causing me headaches as Primary president since we are having trouble getting even 1 teacher for each class.
Nursery too. There are also one way windows that allow people outside to see in as well.
Yes, Nursery is part of the primary. We don't have two way windows in our building. That's the very least of my concerns about what we don't have in our building.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:There are also one way windows that allow people outside to see in as well.
While those, or revere-mounted peep holes are present in many LDS buildings, it is not policy. Our very nice building doesn't have them. I think they exist more so that parents can peek in to see if their kid is crying than to make sure no shenanigans are happening.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I called an organization today that advertises for traffic school that is court approved. They told me the traffic school can be used to remove points from a license, but each court makes its own decision as to whether or not to accept traffic school as an alternative. They are approved for Alabama courts, but the individual judge has to assign traffic school.
So there is an easy, built in system that costs the community nothing (the offender pays the cost for traffic school) that he could assign equally to males and females but he chooses not to. Instead he assigns trash pick up on the highway to boys, and according to my neighbor the cop, the reason it's only males is because there are no female officers to supervise.
The age of my daughter has nothing to do with it. We were told that males under 18 and over 18 were allowed to do the community service.
I've been trying to clarify information today.
I think I'm going to ask to be put on the city council agenda and address the council over the issue. And I may call the ACLU. I'm debating about turning it into a big media affair.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: 1. (Male)Priest supervising male youth 2. Male volunteer supervising female youth 3. Male volunteer supervising male youth 4. Female volunteer supervising male youth 5. Female volunteer supervising female youth
I know this will derail the thread yet further, but I think its unfair to put Priests at the top of this list of people likely to abuse young men and boys. Catholic Priests sex scandals have certainly aroused more media attention than others, but I don't think there is evidence to suggests Priests are actually more likely to abuse youth than other men.
The Catholic Church undoubtedly made a lot of serious mistakes in handling sexual abuse cases, including cover ups and transfers that made it possible for individual pedophiles (or technically Ephebophiles) to assault more young people. But that does not imply that Priest as a whole are more likely to abuse youth in their care than other men.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:There are also one way windows that allow people outside to see in as well.
While those, or revere-mounted peep holes are present in many LDS buildings, it is not policy. Our very nice building doesn't have them. I think they exist more so that parents can peek in to see if their kid is crying than to make sure no shenanigans are happening.
I imagine both things are reasons for it.
-----
Rabbit: Primary? Really? I don't think I was ever beholden to the Primary leadership while in Nursery. Maybe I was, and just didn't know it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Rabbit: Primary? Really? I don't think I was ever beholden to the Primary leadership while in Nursery. Maybe I was, and just didn't know it.
Yes, you were in the primary even if you didn't know it. Its unquestionable. Nursery is part of the primary. Its been that way for at least 2 decades.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Catholic Priests sex scandals have certainly aroused more media attention than others, but I don't think there is evidence to suggests Priests are actually more likely to abuse youth than other men.
&
quote:But that does not imply that Priest(s) as a whole are more likely to abuse youth in their care than other men.
These are actually two different statements, in one noteworthy respect: the priesthood is an occupation (calling, career, etc.) which must be pursued deliberately and places an individual in a position of authority and trust over young people, potentially in a one-on-one environment. Given that, priests - like other roles which must be pursued and have degrees of power over others, like you say in your second quote - are not to be compared simply to men in general, I don't think.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Rabbit: Primary? Really? I don't think I was ever beholden to the Primary leadership while in Nursery. Maybe I was, and just didn't know it.
Yes, you were in the primary even if you didn't know it. Its unquestionable. Nursery is part of the primary. Its been that way for at least 2 decades.
You're not the boss of me!
Especially since I've been released from Nursery.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Rabbit: Primary? Really? I don't think I was ever beholden to the Primary leadership while in Nursery. Maybe I was, and just didn't know it.
Yes, you were in the primary even if you didn't know it. Its unquestionable. Nursery is part of the primary. Its been that way for at least 2 decades.
You're not the boss of me!
Especially since I've been released from Nursery.
If you should happen to move into my ward (which admittedly seems highly unlikely), expect that to change so fast your head will spin.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I called an organization today that advertises for traffic school that is court approved. They told me the traffic school can be used to remove points from a license, but each court makes its own decision as to whether or not to accept traffic school as an alternative. They are approved for Alabama courts, but the individual judge has to assign traffic school.
So there is an easy, built in system that costs the community nothing (the offender pays the cost for traffic school) that he could assign equally to males and females but he chooses not to. Instead he assigns trash pick up on the highway to boys, and according to my neighbor the cop, the reason it's only males is because there are no female officers to supervise.
The age of my daughter has nothing to do with it. We were told that males under 18 and over 18 were allowed to do the community service.
I've been trying to clarify information today.
I think I'm going to ask to be put on the city council agenda and address the council over the issue. And I may call the ACLU. I'm debating about turning it into a big media affair.
Good for you!
Hobbes Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Belle, at the very least you can write a letter to the editor of some of your local papers.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Catholic Priests sex scandals have certainly aroused more media attention than others, but I don't think there is evidence to suggests Priests are actually more likely to abuse youth than other men.
&
quote:But that does not imply that Priest(s) as a whole are more likely to abuse youth in their care than other men.
These are actually two different statements, in one noteworthy respect: the priesthood is an occupation (calling, career, etc.) which must be pursued deliberately and places an individual in a position of authority and trust over young people, potentially in a one-on-one environment. Given that, priests - like other roles which must be pursued and have degrees of power over others, like you say in your second quote - are not to be compared simply to men in general, I don't think.
Rakeesh,
I'm not seeing the distinction you are between the two statements. It's certainly not something I intended. Both were looking at the likelihood that a man (whether Priest or non-Priest) who was supervising youth would abuse them
If your argument is that Priest's should be held to a higher standard than random men, you will get no argument from me. If your argument is that when a trusted religious leader abuses a kid, its more serious than when a random guy abuses a kid, you also won't get any disagreement from me. But this was not the context of Mucus's original post nor my response.
Mucus was speculating that a there was a greater risk of abuse when a Priest was supervising young men than when a random male was supervising young men. He thought that difference was significant enough to make it a separate category. I think that reflects an unfair prejudice which is not supported by the data.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't know if it's unsupported by the data, so I'll agree that it might be an unfair prejudice.
However, I do know that there has been a whole helluva lot of work done by the group leading the priests to stop there being any reliable data on that problem...so that rather puts us at an impasse on that particular issue.
ETA: To be clear, I don't think you intended the distinction-I just meant to point out that there was something different about people who seek out positions of authority and people in general. I didn't mean to suggest you didn't recognize there was a difference-my bad.
[ April 08, 2011, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If I am recalling correctly, there is no reliable data about the percentage of priests who abuse. It is suspected to be slightly above that of the general male population due to various issues and is usually estimated at between 2% and 6%. The USCCB estimates that about 4% of US priests since 1950 have been accused.
Also, most of the victims are post-pubescent boys rather than young children.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
There is no reliable data on the rate of child/teenage sexual assault, period. What data there is (numbers of accusations and assorted studies) indicates the rate for priest is slightly higher than the overall rate per-capita but some what lower than the rate for men. That data is far from conclusive.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not suggesting that absent impediments the data would be conclusive one way or another. I'm just pointing out that when there is a lengthy, documented history of a group throwing up lots of roadblocks, worldwide, to discovering the kinds of things that would really start to give us a complete picture, well-in that situation talking about what the data supports at all in a neutral way is a bit unfair. Because to bring in 'the data' in that way is to do so as a rejection of accusations against the group.
I don't think you can reasonably do that, say that the data doesn't support charges against priests in defense of criticisms of the priests, when the priests themselves (or their leadership, anyway) are often working really hard to ensure the data doesn't get out.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, from what I understand, you are absolutely correct about attempts to gather data being hindered by the hierarchy but such data is very hard to get anyway.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm not suggesting that absent impediments the data would be conclusive one way or another. I'm just pointing out that when there is a lengthy, documented history of a group throwing up lots of roadblocks, worldwide, to discovering the kinds of things that would really start to give us a complete picture, well-in that situation talking about what the data supports at all in a neutral way is a bit unfair. Because to bring in 'the data' in that way is to do so as a rejection of accusations against the group.
I don't think you can reasonably do that, say that the data doesn't support charges against priests in defense of criticisms of the priests, when the priests themselves (or their leadership, anyway) are often working really hard to ensure the data doesn't get out.
But the Catholic church isn't unique is this regard. The Boy Scouts of America (another group that has had numerous sex scandals) has also done a great deal to cover up the extent of the sexual assault problem. Sex abuse scandals are popping up essentially everywhere where adult men have had authority over teenage boys. From what data there is, there is no reason to believe that Priests are more likely to abuse young boys than other men. That data is flawed and it may well be that when all the data comes to light the conclusion will be different, but its also possible that when all the data comes to light we will find that Priest are less likely to abuse not more. Making a judgement in the absence of reliable data is prejudice.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Another thought -- there's quite a bit of liability involved with working with youth.
In order to work with the Boy Scouts, I have to take periodic "youth protection" training and jump through some other hoops. I don't have any personal knowledge, but it would not surprise me if there's a lot more involved in being qualified to work with youth in the government.
So, it might be possible for the city or county to have female employees and still not have anybody that can supervise teen girls.
I still don't think this is relevant. If the government has to pay for someone to supervise people doing community service, it doesn't matter whether it transfers existing employees to the job or highers new people. The expense is the same.
If there are X dollars available for programs that allow offenders to expunge their records, the choice is never between
Spend X dollars on male programs.
Spend X dollars on female programs or
burn the money
There are always many other options that would not be discriminatory and wouldn't amount to "if everyone can't have it, nobody can".
Not true, because of two major things.
1. Someone else would have to do their job, as supervising them would take most of their day. It sure wouldn't make doing their jobs easier.
2. Most people don't know this, but working with youths, especially in a government supervisory position, requires special training and classes, all to make sure that the person supervising them provides a safe work environment, and to shield them from legal action if something were to go wrong. This is without a doubt an additional expense, both in cash and in time invested.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I called an organization today that advertises for traffic school that is court approved. They told me the traffic school can be used to remove points from a license, but each court makes its own decision as to whether or not to accept traffic school as an alternative. They are approved for Alabama courts, but the individual judge has to assign traffic school.
So there is an easy, built in system that costs the community nothing (the offender pays the cost for traffic school) that he could assign equally to males and females but he chooses not to. Instead he assigns trash pick up on the highway to boys, and according to my neighbor the cop, the reason it's only males is because there are no female officers to supervise.
The age of my daughter has nothing to do with it. We were told that males under 18 and over 18 were allowed to do the community service.
I've been trying to clarify information today.
I think I'm going to ask to be put on the city council agenda and address the council over the issue. And I may call the ACLU. I'm debating about turning it into a big media affair.
Good for you. I agree, this isn't fair.
My only disagreement is with the idea that thinking it may not be worth pursuing automatically makes someone sexist, particularly if the person stating that is male. I can think of a lot of things that I find are not fair, but that I don't think they are worth fighting about most of the time.
I save my energy to tilt at the windmills that are closer to my heart. If this one is close to yours, and you feel that it is worth the effort, go for it. I hope you get the inequity resolved.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:My only disagreement is with the idea that thinking it may not be worth pursuing automatically makes someone sexist, particularly if the person stating that is male.
Yes.
Hobbes Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Instead he assigns trash pick up on the highway to boys, and according to my neighbor the cop, the reason it's only males is because there are no female officers to supervise.
The age of my daughter has nothing to do with it. We were told that males under 18 and over 18 were allowed to do the community service.
I really can't see any good reason why male police officers could not be trusted to supervise a mixed gender group picking up trash on the side of the highway. We have male school teachers supervising mixed gender groups all the time. If police officers can't be trusted to supervise young girls, why should we believe they can be trusted to supervise young men. Excluding young women from this task is outright sexism.
Denying young women opportunities is not an acceptable way to protect them from sexual assault.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:I really can't see any good reason why male police officers could not be trusted to supervise a mixed gender group picking up trash on the side of the highway. We have male school teachers supervising mixed gender groups all the time. If police officers can't be trusted to supervise young girls, why should we believe they can be trusted to supervise young men. Excluding young women from this task is outright sexism.
This is also a yes. I can never figure out when society thinks its OK to have one person of indeterminate gender to supervise a group and other times when you need same gender or multiple people. There seem to be rules about it but I can't figure out what they are, or even why they are.
Hobbes Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Not true, because of two major things.
1. Someone else would have to do their job, as supervising them would take most of their day. It sure wouldn't make doing their jobs easier.
2. Most people don't know this, but working with youths, especially in a government supervisory position, requires special training and classes, all to make sure that the person supervising them provides a safe work environment, and to shield them from legal action if something were to go wrong. This is without a doubt an additional expense, both in cash and in time invested.
I have no idea what part of my statement is contradicted by this. Yes, administering a program takes resources. Nothing I said suggested it didn't. Administering the program for males only, takes resources. Administering a parallel program from females would take resources. Those aren't the only two options for spending public resources.
Are you saying there is no possible way the resources currently being used for the male only program might be used for a program open to both genders? Are you saying that the public has to choose between a program for only one gender or no program at all?
Also, your point 2 is irrelevant. Restrictions about working with minors do not apply. Belle's daughter has reached the age of majority.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm not suggesting that absent impediments the data would be conclusive one way or another. I'm just pointing out that when there is a lengthy, documented history of a group throwing up lots of roadblocks, worldwide, to discovering the kinds of things that would really start to give us a complete picture, well-in that situation talking about what the data supports at all in a neutral way is a bit unfair. Because to bring in 'the data' in that way is to do so as a rejection of accusations against the group.
I don't think you can reasonably do that, say that the data doesn't support charges against priests in defense of criticisms of the priests, when the priests themselves (or their leadership, anyway) are often working really hard to ensure the data doesn't get out.
But the Catholic church isn't unique is this regard. The Boy Scouts of America (another group that has had numerous sex scandals) has also done a great deal to cover up the extent of the sexual assault problem. Sex abuse scandals are popping up essentially everywhere where adult men have had authority over teenage boys. From what data there is, there is no reason to believe that Priests are more likely to abuse young boys than other men. That data is flawed and it may well be that when all the data comes to light the conclusion will be different, but its also possible that when all the data comes to light we will find that Priest are less likely to abuse not more. Making a judgement in the absence of reliable data is prejudice.
Here is (for those interested) a very good article by one of the foremost experts on the subject of sexual abuse by priests that talks about why priests have some factors in whether they become abusers that are not the same for the population in general.
I would emphasize that the original estimates were
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: ... off-the-cuff ... I'd not wedded to those guesses ...
. That said, Rakeesh basically said what I would have. There is obviously uncertainty when reasoning about a group that is systemically covering up evidence. But when the stuff that actually got out is as bad as it is, I wouldn't take on the additional risk for no gain.
quote:Originally posted by Belle: The age of my daughter has nothing to do with it. We were told that males under 18 and over 18 were allowed to do the community service.
This is unclear to me. But if it is the case that even adult females are barred from this, then it pretty much should be a slam-dunk. Jia you.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I don't think you can reasonably do that, say that the data doesn't support charges against priests in defense of criticisms of the priests, when the priests themselves (or their leadership, anyway) are often working really hard to ensure the data doesn't get out.
I don't think I've even questioned the validity of charges made against any priests or their leadership. I even stated that I felt the Catholic Church had made major errors.
My only claim it is unfair to condemn Priests who have not been accused of any wrong doing simply because they are Priests. I object to guilt by association. Both the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts of America have been involved in covering up sexual abuse. That does not make it fair to expect every Priest and every Scoutmaster of being a sexual predator.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Hobbes and Kwea, I get the impression you have taken some of my comments as personal attacks. For the record, I haven't found anything either one of you has said to be sexist. Neither one of you has said that Belle should not have been upset about this or that you thought the Judges behavior was acceptable.
I'm guilty of hyperbole. There is enough injustice in the world that no one can be outraged about every instance of it. We all pick our own battles and I see no problem with that. Its possible to recognize and injustice and respect someone else passion to fix it without feeling that passion yourself. My criticism was only intended against those who think Belle is being overly emotional about a trivial issue.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... That does not make it fair to expect every Priest and every Scoutmaster of being a sexual predator.
Ranking priests as being higher risk than normal males doesn't mean that we expect *every* priest to be a sexual predator anymore than ranking males as higher risk than females means that we expect *every* male to be a sexual predator.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
First off Rabbit, I appreciate your clarification: class move and good for the discussion.
I was actually, at least partially referring to you but in reference to Belle's husband rather than myself. I don't agree with his position but I hardly think it's sexist. His position seemed to be: "you can't do anything about it so no use getting upset". Besides not being one of those people that control if I'm upset I disagree because Belle is proving you can do something about it. But being wrong isn't being sexist. Telling someone not to get upset about something that is sexist isn't necessarily sexist. Assuming he's consistent across subjects it's just his outlook on dealing with problems.
Hobbes Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I'm debating about turning it into a big media affair.
Sharing this sentiment may be sufficient go get action.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)