~ archived since 2018 ~

Steal a million bucks from kids, robbing them of their scholarship money and new rink. Punishment? None what soever. At All. She still keeps the money. Guess the gender

AnnArchist

August 28, 2009

9 upvotes

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20090827/OPINION03/908270486/1331/OPINION0321/Judge-coddles-a-crook--and-youth-hockey-group-ends-up-paying

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Steal a million bucks from kids, robbing them of their scholarship money and new rink. Punishment? None what soever. At All. She still keeps the money. Guess the gender
Author	AnnArchist
Upvotes	9
Comments	28
Date	August 28, 2009 6:04 PM UTC (16 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/9f4h5/steal_a_million_bucks_from_kids_robbing_them_of/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/steal-a-million-bucks-from-kids-robbing-them-of.1053154 https://theredarchive.com/post/1053154

Comments

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points21 points 16 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Li17 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

2) Why is this a gender issue at all?

It sort of isn't, but the Men's Rights FAQ gives a decent explanation of why it is at least relevant.

But in the specifics of this case, her being a woman is more or less irrelevant. The article makes a good point of:

Which brings us to a central problem with embezzlement cases in general -- and this one in particular. The old joke goes, if you owe the bank $10,000, they've got you. But if you owe the bank $10 million, you've got them. Apparently, the more you steal, the more power you have, the softer you can make your sentence.

and

Something tells me it's pretty hard to burn through a million bucks with nothing to show for it. And if Judge Morris had the backbone to put Knight in jail, I bet you'd see Ms. Knight cutting a rather large check by lunch.

However, the biggest question comes up in whether the judge would have been as lenient with a man. Now, this would be an issue with the specific judge, but in the grand scheme of things, this could act as another example of how the legal system is more forgiving of females, but on it's own and out of context, this is rather irrelevant to the Men's Rights issue.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 16 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]tomek77 7 points8 points9 points 16 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist[S] 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist[S] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 16 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist[S] 7 points8 points9 points 16 years ago* (25 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist[S] 6 points7 points8 points 16 years ago* (20 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist[S] 4 points5 points6 points 16 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cassio 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BestServedCold -3 points-2 points-1 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

Im talking about Dick Cheney's Crimes against America. wink wink

What about the hundreds of CEOs that "borrow money from their own companies for their own personal enjoyment?

What about the men who benefitted from the bailout, and used millions of it to take their friends on vacations? Those men didn't even get tried; despite the fact that they manipulated the taxpayers money. I don't believe there was a single woman in that bunch.

This is not a matter of men and women. This is a matter of people manipulating the system. Nowhere in this article does it say a thing about her getting off because she has a vagina. This kind of thing happens all of the time, and you can't say that it's always women who get off.

It's so funny to me that some guys are so blinded by their obvious distain to women, and belief that women will always get away with murder, that they take a crime that is attempted and gotten away with by both sexes, and made it a vagina issue. I have looked at your posting record, and you are NOT just an advocate for men's rights. You are either a troll, or flat out hate women. You make posts about how terrible women are on just about every post you make. Pathetic.

Look, we both know that there are some situations where woman have the upper hand; but this isn't one of them.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 16 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 16 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

I am saying that this case specifically has nothing to do with men's rights, nor does it have anything to do with sexism in courts.

Let me get this straight then. If under any circumstances, a woman gets off after committing a crime; it is clearly her vagina's fault. If a man gets off with a crime, no biggie. There are clearly a million reasons why it could have happened. You guys sure are equal opportunity people. I personally only believe the sexism card should be called for when there proof that it had a role in a case.

If I cried out "SEXISM" every time a man got off with a terrible crime (because let's face it, people of all genders get off with terrible things all of the time. Welcome to America) wouldn't you look at me like I was a radical nutcase?

If there was evidence of sexism in this case, I would certainly recognize it and accept it. I call them like I see them.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 16 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]tomek77 3 points4 points5 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 16 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I see what you're saying, but this is just something some MRAs got from the years of how feminists and minorities have been playing the system.

Just take the Violence Against Women Act. A clear implication – confirmed by more than a handful of feminists I've debated with – is that this is a measure against crimes perpetrated against women because they are women.

A violent man lashing out his frustrations at the weakest link available – his wife? He did it because she was a woman. Nevermind that his son ran away to escape his frequent abuse a few years ago. No, the real issue was her gender.

A black man was arrested? He was arrested because he was black. Nevermind that he did not comply to the officer's instructors and became aggressive. No, the real issue was his color.

A hispanic did not get a job he applied for? That happened because he was mexican. Nevermind that he was simply not qualified. No, the real issue was his ethnicity.

You see how easy it is to pull the gender and race cards – when you're a woman or not white? You get instant credibility and sympathy. So that's why some MRAs think it's a valid course of action – we've seen it work flawlessly for so long.

Except they forget it doesn't work when you are the oppressor, or when you want to use the gender and race card against itself.

I am reminded of a feminist writer who writes op-eds for newspapers, Susan Estrich, complaining of discrimination against female writers from the editor of Los Angeles Times (a man), because she had a few pieces refused "without the courtesy of a call".

It is the fate of probably 98 percent of all op-ed hopefuls to have their work silently rejected, without the “courtesy of a call.” But when a woman experiences the silent treatment, it’s because of sexism. Similarly, it is the fate of most e-mail correspondence to editors to be ignored. But when Estrich’s e-mails are ignored (“I sent e-mails to my old friends at the Times. Neither time did they even bother to respond.”), it’s because the editor is a chauvinist pig.

Also, it is the experience of many MRAs that, whenever some disparity happens to appear to favor women, or a woman, it is not a systematic gender thing, but downplayed to be only a matter of "this case", or a general problem.

You said this case is not about gender, but "assholes playing the system".

We've also seen the argument that the fact that boys all over the western world have been falling behind girls in academic achievement for the past 30 years is not a matter of gender, but education. (Nevermind that when it was girls who were falling behind, it was indeed about gender.)

And that is when you people even acknowledge the problem at all – the most frequent response is that we're simply whining to get out male privileges in education back.

The fact that 75% of suicides are of men? It's not a gender problem, it's a gun control problem (I kid you not).

So I'm sorry, but we live in a society that thinks women are angels and men are scum, and the statistics of incarceration and sentencing reflect that bias. So it's a little hard for us not to think chivalry had nothing to do with that bizarrely light sentence, just like people have a hard time believing some rich man was not not convicted because of his money.

Of course you won't see any declaration from the judge or whatever saying "I'm letting this woman off the hook because of her gender". You know that's not how it happens. Even when the bias and chivalry is brutally blatant.

If feminism achieved what it did precisely because it put everything in terms of bad stuff happening to women because they are women, then maybe we should try that, too.

It makes us no more misogynists than it makes feminists misandrists.

[–]finalflash22[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kalazar 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link