The Pussy Pass Remains Alive and Well
While we have more recently seen occasional examples in which female offenders were given sentences comparable to those given to males, the pussy pass is still evident in most cases.
This female manager behaved violently towards a subordinate, then repeatedly boasted about and celebrated her violent bullying on social media. She was found guilty of possessing an offensive weapon (even the minimized charge represented a pussy pass given by the prosecutor), then was DISCHARGED WITHOUT CONVICTION! because a conviction would have cramped her style in her future management career. Her name suppression was also continued and she was given an opportunity to make this permanent. No male who behaved as she did, taking all her bad behaviour into account, could expect such leniency.
This couple was sentenced for essentially the same tax fraud and exporting their ill-gotten gains back to China. The male was sentenced for almost 4 years while his wife was sentenced to just over 2 years. Why?
The case of the female teacher STACEY RERITI who was today sentenced robustly for years of sexual exploitation of her young, vulnerable male pupil was interesting.
Firstly, the prosecutor felt the need to tell the Court that her offending was no better than that of male offenders who abused girls. Why should such a comment be necessary? It was a tacit admission that our Courts generally treat female offending as less serious than male offending of exactly the same nature.
Secondly, this saga may not be over. Ms RERITI may well lodge an appeal against her sentence and the pussy pass may well apply then. Certainly, she has much more chance of sentence reduction than any male would.
Thirdly, the issue of sexism in sentencing is not necessarily that female offenders should be treated more harshly, but instead that men should be treated more reasonably and compassionately. Sexual offences have had their sentencing increased steadily mainly out of feminist hatred towards men who are more likely to commit such offences. For Ms RERITI or any male who committed the same offending to be sent to jail for over 10 years (similar to a sentence for murder) while people who kick the hell out of someone on the ground and cause them permanent brain damage typically receive much less prison time, can only be seen as excessive and part of a witch hunt. Should women continue to experience such harsh sentences, we can soon expect this witch hunt to be moderated somewhat. However, the pussy pass is likely to continue for a long time yet and the era of male-bashing and the witch hunt against male sexuality is long from over.
We wait with bated breath for the sentences given to this couple who are jointly charged with illegally disposing of a dead baby.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Fri 27th November 2015 @ 12:36 pm
This might be interesting also MOMA
Comment by Downunder — Fri 27th November 2015 @ 12:50 pm
Some are more equal than others it seems . . .
Comment by sharingiscaring — Sat 28th November 2015 @ 1:42 pm
Pussy passes keep on being handed out.
This woman cheated during her university exams by going out repeatedly to the toilet where she appears to have consulted notes. When she realized she had been caught out by supervisors, she went home, grabbed rubber gloves and disguising clothing, hid in the university building until everyone had gone, then smashed her way into offices until she found her exam paper and a pile of the other students’ completed exam papers, stole them all, went home to change her clothes then took the exam papers to the harbour and threw them in. The almost 100 unfortunate students were then informed they had to sit their exams again! In our view this woman was basically dishonest, selfish, callous and she deliberately planned and committed this despicable crime to cover up her earlier wrongdoing. Her crime was an act of considerable violence against many people. But the pussy passes are already being handed out with the judge ordering name suppression because of her ‘fragile mental health’, referring to the ‘facts of the case’ as ‘bizarre’ and refusing to enter a conviction so that she could apply for a discharge without conviction! WTF? The facts of the case weren’t bizarre, they simply involved a female behaving very badly in order to try to avoid consequences for earler wrongdoing. When women commit crimes people can’t bring themselves to accept that women can be just bad so they attribute the offending to mental health problems (and usually blame some male in their lives). When males are anxious because they are facing consequences for bad behaviour, it’s very rare and only in extreme cases that we ever hear of their ‘fragile mental health’ allowing them various forms of leniency.
This woman left two babies unprotected in a car with a window open on a hot day while she went into a large shopping mall. A member of the public noticed the babies, waited for the mother for some time then became concerned about the by now distressed babies so reached in to unlock the car and take them out. A mall security person became involved and the mother was called over the mall’s sound system. She ‘sauntered’ back at least 30 minutes after she had left the car. Neither the security person nor the mall’s management thought it was a big deal, a mall spokeswoman stating “Everyone was ok, everyone went home happy”. How’s that? We bet that if the parent had been a father, police and/or CYF would have been notified. As it turned out, the person who rescued the children decided the next day to notify police. This mother already received pussy passes from the mall personnel and we expect she will get more such passes from the police. But we probably won’t hear any more about it; police will probably give her advice not to endanger her children like that again, CYF may not even be notified. Different story if it were a father. Here’s a quote from a 2010 posting here on MENZ Issues:
And here’s another pussy pass. This mother who smoked during her pregnancy and continued to smoke after her premature baby’s birth was repeatedly warned of the particular risk factors for her if she slept with her baby. A safety plan was prepared for her given the risk factors, and she was given a free baby pod that protects babies if they do sleep in the same bed with a parent. She was repeatedly advised not to sleep with her baby unless she used the pod. She ignored the warnings, slept with the baby who thereby died of asphyxiation, the baby pod found unused leaning up against her wall. She was charged with ‘endangering life by criminal nuisance’ and was sentenced to 12 months supervision, i.e. a helping sentence with no punishment component. Criminal nuisance? Why wasn’t she charged with manslaughter? Oh right, we forgot, because she doesn’t have a penis.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Fri 4th December 2015 @ 3:07 pm
And in each case we don’t know the name of the offending woman. It seems that name suppression is much more often granted to female offenders than to men. In the case of the woman who killed her baby by smoking and failing to follow safety advice, name suppression was given to the woman and the child. Was that so the dead baby wouldn’t be bullied at school?
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sat 5th December 2015 @ 7:12 am
We must protect women from that painful emotion that creates awareness of having done wrong – we can’t have them feeling shame, can we Moma?
Comment by Downunder — Sat 5th December 2015 @ 8:31 am
Amandeep Kaur, 32, and Gurjinder Singh, 27 were both found guilty of jointly murdering Ms Kaur’s husband. We await sentencing. We predict a pussy pass with one of two outcomes: either Ms Kaur will receive a lesser sentence than Mr Singh under some judicial creative accounting, or both parties will get an equal sentence that is lower than what males usually receive for murder. We would be most surprised if the couple both receive the same sentence much beyond the 10-year default before parole eligibility (as male murderers always seem to recieve), and we will fall over backwards if Ms Kaur receives a harsher sentence than Mr Singh. No disrespect is intended to the victim or his family and associates, to whom we offer our sympathy. Gender inequality in sentencing is a matter we consider very important.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Thu 10th December 2015 @ 9:36 pm
In this case gender disparity might be a more appropriate concept.
Comment by Downunder — Thu 10th December 2015 @ 10:50 pm
Rarely a day goes by…
In this case, a woman stabbed her partner who currently remains in hospital after surgery. The pussy pass is evident in comments from Detective Sergeant Geoff Ruddick who was reported to have said the couple were in a relationship, and
What white-knight minimizing stuff when it comes to a violent woman! It wasn’t a ‘domestic violence related incident’ but serious intimate-partner violence that might have been fatal. If the offender had been male and victim female, no way would the police be describing the ‘incident’ in terms of a ‘relationship deteriorating to this level’. The police would make some statement admonishing men for being violent toward women, and they would probably throw in some comment based on the long-discredited ‘male power and control’ explanation for all family violence.
There may well be a number of agencies to help people with ‘issues’ but if this male victim held any concern about violence or potential violence from his female partner he would have been unlikely to find any suitable agency, because he happened to have a penis. There would have been no refuge for him to go to. If he went to police he would have been likely to have been either laughed at, blamed or prosecuted based on their preference to believe lying women over honest men. If he approached a domestic violence service he would either have been told that they don’t work with men or he would have experienced the same blaming attitude that police showed him. That’s the reality for most male victims.
We await the traditional male-blaming from this female offender, a possible mental health assessment order by the judge who just can’t believe women can be responsible for behaving badly, and the traditional soft treatment of her by the Court, assuming police even persist with a prosecution.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Fri 11th December 2015 @ 12:10 pm