It was the clearest signal to date that Californians are fed up with the growing costs and ineffectiveness of mass incarceration. Following the passage of Prop. 36 in 2012, which reduced third strike status for non-violent and non-dangerous offenses, Prop. 47 went a step forward by reducing to misdemeanors offenses for drug possession, petty theft, receiving stolen property or writing bad checks, when the amount involved is less than $950. It would continue to allow for felony sentences if the person has a previous conviction for crimes such as rape, murder or child molestation, or is a registered sex offender.
Despite a series of attacks from law enforcement groups that perhaps oversold their case in warning that handgun thefts would be charged as misdemeanors, the voters overwhelmingly approved Prop. 47 by an over 850,000 vote margin, 58.5 to 41.5 percent.
Opponents argued, “Prop. 47 would eliminate automatic felony prosecution for stealing a gun. Under current law, stealing a gun is a felony, period. Prop. 47 would redefine grand theft in such a way that theft of a firearm could only be considered a felony if the value of the gun is greater than $950. Almost all handguns (which are the most stolen kind of firearm) retail for well below $950. People don’t steal guns just so they can add to their gun collection. They steal guns to commit another crime. People stealing guns are protected under Proposition 47.”
However, voters rejected that logic.
“The overwhelming support for this reform sends a powerful message nationally, demonstrating that voters are not just ready but eager to reduce prison populations in ways that can enhance public safety,” said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, part of a coalition of groups supporting the measure.
It also will require “resentencing for persons serving felony sentences for these offenses unless court finds unreasonable public safety risk.” The attorney general projects, “Net state criminal justice system savings that could reach the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually, which would be spent on truancy prevention, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and victim services. Net county criminal justice system savings that could reach the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually.”
The Legislative Analyst’s Office explains, “This measure reduces penalties for certain offenders convicted of nonserious and nonviolent property and drug crimes. The measure also allows certain offenders who have been previously convicted of such crimes to apply for reduced sentences.”
Proponents of the proposition argue that this would prevent the wasting of prison space on low-level nonviolent crimes. They argue, “[It] changes the lowest level nonviolent drug possession and petty theft crimes from felonies to simple misdemeanors. It authorizes resentencing for anyone who is incarcerated for these offenses and poses no threat to public safety. These changes apply to juveniles as well as adults.”
Furthermore, it “keeps rapists, murderers and child molesters in prison” by maintaining current laws for registered sex offenders and anyone with prior convictions for rape, murder or child molestation.
“For decades, California has relied on the mass incarceration of its offenders as the answer to crime control, no matter the crime,” Yolo County Public Defender Tracie Olson wrote in an op-ed. “Despite the high cost, prisons offer little to no meaningful rehabilitation programs to offenders. Not surprisingly, recidivism rates consistently hover around the 70 percent mark, meaning that seven out of 10 inmates released from state prison are back behind bars within three years.
“Under current law, most simple drug possession and petty theft offenses are punishable by up to three years in state prison, with a $60,000 price tag attached to each year of incarceration. However, at a 70 percent recidivism rate, the current system has created a costly revolving door that cycles offenders in and out of prison without any deterrent or rehabilitative effect.” She wrote, “Proposition 47 seeks to change the state-incarceration-for-all paradigm by reducing to misdemeanors the lowest-level crimes.”
On the other hand, Davis Police Chief Landy Black argued, “It is my professional opinion that if Prop. 47 passes, the results would be bad for law-abiding citizens, businesses and property owners, and entirely contrary to my and the Davis Police Department’s crime prevention and community safety efforts.”
The voters clearly were willing to take the risk that Prop. 47 would reduce the ability for Drug Courts to work, and by reducing penalties for theft under $950, risk that handgun thefts could fall into a misdemeanor category.
It will be very interesting to see how these new charging policies will impact the local judicial system.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I think that given his career choice, it is entirely reasonable that Chief Black feels that “if Prop. 47 passes, the results would be bad for law-abiding citizens, businesses and property owners, and entirely contrary to my and the Davis Police Department’s crime prevention and community safety efforts.”
However, I feel that his view is extremely shortsighted and does not take into account the underlying causes of crime and how the amount of money saved by not incarcerating the non violent offender might better be spent on drug rehab programs or education, volunteer and mentoring programs so as to provide better alternatives to petty, non violent crime as a means of self support. It would appear that it is not just we “bleeding heart liberals” who disagree with Chief Black on this issue.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0917-gingrich-prop–47-criminal-justice-20140917-story.html
I’m glad drug possession will become a misdemeanor, very sad stealing guns in California will be on the increase, come to the sunshine state to steal guns. More Liberal Democrats stupidity! Liberal Democrats gun control oppression to law abiding citizens is the worst in California, but now give gun thieves a pass. Congratulations to stupid liberal democrats.
Carlos, according to Democrats, we’re not supposed to judge all Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we’re encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.
why do you see those two things are related?
There have been some recent studies about cognitive process difference between liberals and and non-liberals, and different parts of the brain light up when presented certain challenges and scenarios. And one pretty conclusive finding is the difference in how liberals tend to process assessments of fairness. It tends to dominate their processing… overwhelming other considerations. And there is also a victim mentality present at almost every human and social consideration.
From the standard liberal mindset…
A gun owner is not a victim, and it is not fair that some own guns and it creates danger for others, and that is not fair.
People using plastic bags are not victims. But one bag might end up corrupting a pristine view of a scenic vista and that is not fair.
Some minorities are over represented in prison. They have less. They are victims. That is not fair.
Muslims are persecuted victims and western societies have so much more than do most Muslim people and that is not fair.
That is the thought process. I see it as half-baked logic presented by people with high IQs and advanced degrees.
DP wrote:
> why do you see those two things are related?
The left will bash ALL Christians if one crazy Christian guy shoots up an abortion clinic. but if a crazy Muslim guy shoots up a military base the left is the first to jump and point out how we can’t get mad at Muslims and remind us that Muslims are the ‘Religion of Peace”…
P.S. And don’t forget about all the people with “Pro Choice” bumper stickers who don’t think you should get to choose paper or plastic (or if you want to join a union and pay union dues)…
Frankly, you have mentioned these studies before, which sound very interesting. Can you provide a link or a few titles and authors?
Thank you.
Hey Carlos,
Not sure if you saw my analysis from a few weeks ago but theft of guns is sill almost always going to be a felony. There are a lot way to get there.
David wrote:
> almost always going to be a felony.
It won’t “almost always” be a felony if the guy stealing the gun is a High School kid without any priors (the next Daniel Marsh is probably happy about the election results last night)…
felon in possession is just one way to get a felony on it. what were the circumstances of the theft? what other crimes were committed along with it? who did he steal it from?
btw, as i look it up i found this frontline story:
so that undermines part of the argument. but if they are stealing them from people’s homes, then it’s first degree burglary and a felony.
if they are caught with a stolen gun while committing a crime, that’s automatically a serious felony.
so i think david’s comment is right, most gun thefts are going to be felonies.
DP wrote:
> Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15%
> of guns used in crimes
It is hard to believe that 85-90% of the criminals with guns were the legal owners who went through the 10 day waiting period and background check to buy the guns…
you didn’t read the link i accompanied the quote with…
DP wrote:
> Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns
> is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when
> someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to
> do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf.”
Anyone that has bought a gun in CA knows that you are asked multiple times if the gun is for yourself and told that it is illegal (I’m pretty sure it is a FELONY) to be a “straw buyer”.
If the “most common” way to get a gun was to use a “straw buyer” why don’t we also have a “straw buyer” in jail for “most” gun crimes (not like it will be hard to find the people that bring multiple photo IDs, prove they live at an address with a utility bill and provide prints before waiting 10 days to buy a gun in CA)…
Only time will tell whether Chief Black was right or not about Prop 47.
this is a cop-out. the voters in the state of california are fed up with the amount of money that has been put into incarcerating people for very mild crimes. yes, landy black and others raise legitimate concerns, but not one of them – NOT ONE OF THEM – lifted a finger to change the system. when there are glaring needs and no one changes the system, you end up with more extreme legislation than is probably useful.
How about the amount of money people spend to put bars on their own windows out of fear of crime? How about people who are burned alive in these scenarios, when they can’t get out of their own home during a fire?
How about the cost to a family when a car is stolen?
Better yet, how about the cost of one of these other “minor” crimes, graffiti? No quicker way to spot a bad area, to spot gangs, to drive out good people, attract the bad, and drive down property values.
It was Bill Clinton, a New York Police Chief, and 100,000 additional police officers clamping down on “petty crime” which helped to drop New York City’s murder rate in half in quick order.
You want to talk about saving money, and lives? People have short memories.
I am sure the next Leslie Pinkston is happy to hear that criminals will be getting out of jail sooner rather than later now….
Didnt the Vanguard just post a story the other day about how the system failed Leslie and that her murderer SHOULD NOT have been released????????? You cant have it both ways!
While I agree you can’t have it both ways, the issues are very different. In the one case, we are filling up our jails and prisons with people who aren’t particularly dangerous to society. In the case of Pinkston, we have a person who exhibited dangerous qualities, who committed additional crimes in violation of a court order, and somehow he was released. Asking that some crimes be treated as misdemeanors and that stalking crimes be treated more seriously by law enforcement is not trying to have things both ways.
Maybe I have goggles on, my stance is this… I have kids… I have no problem with drug dealers who may potentially come in contact with my kids some day in jail… I have worked very hard to make sure my kids stay on a path to a future. Those drug dealers who could give a rats behind about that hard work and would be willing to destroy that hard work have no business on the streets… Call me self centered….. I am trying to protect my kids!
I don’t think we need to whip out the kids card. I have kids too. The misdemeanor charge on drugs is only for possession, not sales. Sales is still a felony.
Really, a Democrat saying we don’t need to whip out the kids card, things are changing.
Correct me here, but it seems that you don’t put property crime in a category of dangerous to society.
There seem to be two type of people that don’t care so much if people steal. One – people that don’t have a lot of material possessions worth stealing. Two – people that have so much stuff and so much money that they can just replace their stuff, and the they have a level of guilt that they don’t really deserve the money and stuff that they have.
Then there are all those other people that work their ass off to earn the money to buy stuff, and other people steal it and that is supposed to be ok because it isn’t dangerous.
AGREED! I am hitting that proverbial “like” button!
Thank you Frankly for stating the obvious without the vitriol I feel toward people who declare my “stuff” as not worth anything. If you have ever lost an heirloom to a petty thief, like a ring my grandmother gave me, my class ring, or a few other things, which were not particularly valuable, I despise the people who took them and the people who excuse the actions. How many hundreds of people have to deal with unnecessary property damage, even from a car accident, that does not make you feel disgusted?
To come home and realize someone has been in your space, unwanted and uninvited, broke things and took other things, from your children and from you, why people would excuse that and even decriminalize it will always be a mystery to me. Why do you bother to lock a car, a door, or anything? Someone might “need” it.
justme
You speak as though all criminals are equal. Do you really not see a difference between the person who has been passing bad checks, or has been selling stolen property to support a personal drug habit and the individual who himself has been documented to engage in physical violence against women, has a history of past incidents of violence involving this particular woman, and who has made threats against her life ? Really, no difference between the risks and behaviors at all in your mind. Because if you are truly unable to make this distinction, then I would like the reassurance that you are not a police officer, a corrections officer, a lawyer, a judge since any of these positions, without this critical ability to differentiate, would make you truly dangerous in my mind.
Considering I am changing insurances to Kaiser this next year, I am really glad there are several OB/GYN’s to choose from! This is why some people really should consider going to anonymous postings! Some of the things you post truly amaze me!!!
The stolen property that the “non-violent” criminal is selling happens to be your family heirlooms… That wouldnt bother you to not have that person in jail??? Give me a break!!!!
Yes I know the difference, I am not a moron! Does it bother me to see criminals of any kind behind bars?? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!! Get off your high horse!!
Thank you, justme, for stating the obvious. Tia should just leave her keys in the car, because she just stated she loves criminal equality, and they might need something like a car. Hope your insurance doesn’t go up! Mine always does after I get ripped off, and I don’t hit the insurance for any of the costs. No cost? there is always a cost to illegal actions, thanks to this Prop, we will have to deal with these criminals in our own way. Some of them will die. The price, for them, has just went up too.
“Some of the things you post truly amaze me!!!”
Which only means that we would probably not be a good patient/doctor match. The good thing about Kaiser is that you are always free to choose someone who is a good match for you.
Tia wrote:
> The good thing about Kaiser is that you are always free to
> choose someone who is a good match for you.
Will Kaiser also let you chose the race of your phlebotomist?
Great! we will meet up here again in 6 months to a year and you can let me know how the increase in crime and the criminals wandering the streets are working out for you….
I’m sure we’ll also see an upsurge in our downtown homeless.
Whats this you say???? Davis has homeless?????? I just got curious and looked at DPD arrest log online… Many of the calls are for Transient in public…. Of course there is one who called about her neighbors blinds not dowmn and she/he can seee in her neighbors house… Guess that is why you rarely see homeless in public… Davis residents call the police on them and have them arrested!!!! Pretty hypocritical since people dont want drug possessors in jail….
The media and politicians will hide it, just as they hide crime committed by undocumented immigrants and crime committed by Section 8 inhabitants.
Frankly
“there is also a victim mentality present at almost every human and social consideration.”
I would never have guessed it, but now I suspect that you are a closet liberal.
1. You’re ability to get a free bag made you a bag activist victim according to your recent post.
2. You have stated clearly in previous posts that you feel that male students are the “victims” of teaching favorable to females.
You even said that you believe that boys are victimized by policies that allow girls equal athletic opportunities.
3. As a Christian, you have claimed victimhood because of the “War on Christmas”.
Maybe we should each schedule our brain imaging studies and see where the chips really fall ?
Tia wrote:
> You even said that you believe that boys are victimized by
> policies that allow girls equal athletic opportunities.
Most (but not all) people define “fair” as the outcome they want.
Some people considered the schools with all black kids “fair” since they were “separate but equal” (most of the people that voted for Torlakson feel the same way about the “separate but equal” inner city schools we have in CA today where less than half the kids have graduate).
Some people consider it “fair” when a school like UC Davis has 45% more sports for women than for men (despite the fact that a higher percentage of college age men then woman want to participate in NCAA Division I sports) while others feel that an “equal number” might be more fair.
P.S. I’m wondering if Tia thinks the current system where the women at UCD have more sports is “fair”…
“I’m wondering if Tia thinks the current system where the women at UCD have more sports is “fair”…”
That would depend on what you mean by “more sports” . Are you saying that they have more money for funding of sports ? Are you saying that they have more different sports available to them ( such as synchronized swimming, or rhythmic gymnastics) for which there is no male equivalent just as there is no female equivalent of tackle football ? I would have to see the specifics that you are referring to have any idea whether or not the situation is “fair”.
You both are partly right. The reason there are more female sports is because football often has upwards of 90-100 participants, and there is no female equivalent (numeric) sport. So to meet the numeric balance, which some see as a goal, schools have to add 2 or 3 teams reach the same number of female athletes.
What gender equity doesn’t account for is desire or interest levels. Intramurals are open to everyone, yet there is a much larger participation rate by men.
Women aren’t required to volunteer the same amount as men, to do the physical labor that men donate (like the soccer or baseball field), or to raise / give funds. The numbers game is usually used when it benefits them.
Title Nine was a war on men win with significant negative social consequences. I see it part of many so called “wins” that value daughters over sons and give the females everything they want in life… except a compatible mate.
Where are we heading… let’s just say women today more than ever should thank the stars for male hormones. Because without them, men would certainly be choosing a life without women. I see this taking place… many young men telling me they never want a steady girlfriend and never want to get married, and many young women complaining that they cannot find a “good” man.
I would really be fine accepting that we are better as a society as we promote women to a dominant positions in society if I had not had the pleasure of working with and managing hundreds of smart and capable women… most that eventually quit or bailed from career goals to pursue their version of better work-life balance. It is like we are cutting out the opportunities for boys to make room for girls to then go off and find out that they really didn’t want to take charge. And in the end we have unhappy and unfulfilled women and unhappy and unfilled men.
Scholastic athletics evolved around boys and was designed for the unique challenges of male childhood development. We are making great mistakes eliminating so many of the athletic choices for developing boys. And we are making mistakes failing to understand and support gender difference to the extent we should. They exist. Sorry those of you that feel that they should not.
Title IX “requires that schools
(1)provide male and female students with equal opportunities to
play sports,
(2) give male and female athletes their fair shares
of athletic scholarship dollars, and
(3) provide equal benefits
and services (such as facilities, coaching, and publicity) to
male and female athletes overall.”
That’s a “war on men”?
What happens when Title IX gets amended to apportion dollars by race or sexual preference? More teams?
Frankly wrote: “I would really be fine accepting that we are better as a society as we promote women to a dominant positions in society if I had not had the pleasure of working with and managing hundreds of smart and capable women… most that eventually quit or bailed from career goals to pursue their version of better work-life balance.”
While not politically correct, your post made me think about some of the highly educated women I know. Three women from a top-10 law school who are at their peak as far as career, who don’t want the time commitment or pressure. Two want to pursue art. A woman with 2 engineering degrees, top of her class both times, who doesn’t want the pressure and who wants to make art. Top saleswomen who made over $100,000 per year, who step back from the fight. A UC-MBA who re-enters the outside-the-home work world as an artist.
You also allude to the important needs of young men, I guess you are referring to their need to control their physical strength, tame the beast, become gentlemen. Experienced, and tougher, male coaches and role models helped to do that, and get them on the straight and narrow, through high school, sometimes into college, where their brains and maturity catch up with their size. I guess this whole “we are all the same” is what has led us to US Marines (female) who aren’t required to complete even one pull-up… because that would be sexist. Some have also mentioned that the Secret Service member who was overpowered in the White House recently, by an intruder, was a woman. Not PC, but some think important. Our President could have been killed due to fuzzy thinking.
Great for them. More men should consider this, if it’s what’s best for them and for their families. Some do. I don’t see why this is a concern at all.
Changing the fitness requirement for USMC was intended to make more jobs open to women in the Corps. They are phasing IN the requirement for pullups. I’m pretty sure that when my daughter got through boot camp she was adequately prepared for her five years of service. The only change was intended to open more jobs to her and her fellow female marines. I actually believe the USMC knows what it is doing on this issue, probably better than you do.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20121127/NEWS/211270320/USMC-changes-fitness-requirement-women
Agree with all of this TBD, and don’t really care so much for PC when it precludes us talking about important things like this.
Isn’t this the same liberal cadre that took California from number one in education, to number 48 or 49? Why aren’t they ever called out on this?
I am told that oftentimes, bigger crimes are plead down in our current system, there are probation programs for first-time offenders, etc.
I also read a report years ago that when we catch a person committing a crime, they have probably committed 20 or more crimes before that. It’s not like they stumbled into their first crime on a bad day, they are making career choices.
“I am told that oftentimes, bigger crimes are plead down in our current system, there are probation programs for first-time offenders, etc.”
you are told? i’ve practiced in the system for over 30 years. more often what happens is you end up with a main crime and a number secondary crimes, you will often plead to the main crime, the secondary crimes are dropped and you’ll do so in exchange for probation or lower-based terms for first offenses.
why? expense of taking every cases to trial, uncertainty, risk, etc.
it really depends on the crime. if you commit a serious first offense, you’re not likely to avoid prison. but that’s different from this issue. what we have hear is are people who are going to prison for relatively minor crimes. do you think someone found in possession of a small quantity of meth should go to prison? they may not on the first few offenses, but eventually, they will go to prison for possession of meth with no other associated crime. in yolo, the da has figured out interesting ways to get prison time for even the most minor of all petty theft charges. the system doesn’t work because no matter how many times you catch these guys, they keep recommitting crimes. putting them in jail for a long time for minor crimes is inhumane and frankly not very cost effective.
i read how with the loss of the felony sanction, drug offenders won’t have the incentive to go to drug court. i don’t necessarily buy that, but there is a converse to this and that is preventing minor crimes from being charged as felonies will force lawmakers and police and prosecutors to come up with alternative ways to deal with these crimes.
I have never seen the numbers of the Drug Court success, like the War on Drugs. How izzit doing? 🙂
Three Strikes reduced the recidivism rate, but that last nail in the coffin was the “minor offenses” problem. They tell ex-cons that even a misdemeanor gets trumped up to a felony when they get out, and the criminals still think they can plea bargain. Now the recidivism rate in this article claims 70%?
Stealing is stealing, and we are not dealing with children. Get some clues and statistics, but one thief in your neighborhood is too many. IMO.
This article makes it sound like you want to have more criminals out there. I appreciate all the comments and opinions.
i just think there are better uses of resources than putting people in prison, especially for long periods of time, for minor offenses. three strikes did nothing to reduce the recidivism rate, we had it in place for nearly twenty years before prop 36 in 2012 turned third strike offenses for non-violent, non-dangerous crimes into two-strike offenses, which btw, still ends up putting people away for a very long time for minor crimes.
Letting people back out for “minor offenses” is the whole point. They keep doing what sent them there in the first place. My vehicle has broken into twice this year. If three strikes kept these morons in for a longer time, I am all for it, Because you and others don’t want to take care of these thieves once and for all. I don’t know what kind of mental illness they have that cannot figure it out, but I have seen children get their hand slapped and they stop something. Others never seem to “get it”. It is not poverty, bad families, or discipline. It has to be something else. If people argue the “costs” of incarceration, then why don’t we do what needs to be done?
On the central coast a man is serving time for a cross burning, and he will get out early due to “good behavior”. Makes no sense to me.
This vote was a sign of hope that alert and thoughtful sheep are still out there in the pasture and leaving it long enough to vote. Mass incarceration is the other side of the coin on which is stamped selective enforcement, both dangerous tools in the hands of the Porcine Pinnacle of Power.
Effective education is perhaps the most threatening thing to an entrenched and powerful porcine power-monger, so I doubt if this victory of reason will result in any real benefit to the schools, but at least it is a step forward in the rational evolution of that phenomenon we like to call “civilization.” Oink!
Frankly said “Title Nine was a war on men win with significant negative social consequences. “
Don asks “That’s a “war on men”?”
Tia opines : Only if you have a significant “victim mentality”.
What Frankly is forgetting to mention in his negative portrayal of equal opportunity for women is what I have seen in my profession which is couples finding the right balance for themselves. I know couples who have chosen for the woman to stay home with the children while the man works, couples who have chosen for the man to be the stay at home partner, and couples who both work and divvy up the hours to best suit their own schedules. Frankly’s vision of how a successful society would look is with the man as the breadwinner and the woman home with the kids. This would be fine if everyone’s physiology and outlook were identical. Unfortunately for this vision, it is not. I know many women who are much more academically and career oriented than their supposedly “testosterone charged” husbands who have managed to raise happy, stable and successful children. My vision of a successful society would be one in which every individual, regardless of gender, would have the opportunity to rise to the level allowed by their interest and endeavor in any field they choose. If one gender is successful only because we do not allow the other equal opportunity, is that really the society we want ?
I posted (above) about a number of highly educated women I know who are stepping back, ramping down, or ending well-paying legal, engineering, and business careers right when one would typically enter the prime years of a career. These are anecdotes, but an academic study on the topic would be interesting.
TBD
You are right. It is anecdote. I also posted anecdotes about men who are highly educated and the stay at home partner in “power couple” relationships. I also provided a piece written by a highly successful male CEO stepping down to spend more time with family. Academic studies will be very useful as time goes on to see how this trend towards economic equality of men and women plays out. What is ironic to me is that many who post here and favor rapid economic development do not seem to be able to connect with the economic advantages of having women engaging equally with men in all spheres of activity. I believe that for some, this may date back to some fairly archaic beliefs that all men are “high testosterone” types and all women will be happier at home raising children and making dinner. These are stereotypes and clearly a one size which does not fit all. I think that this is a fine choice for those who find those activities fulfilling whether they are male or female. But then I am the one that believes that all productive activities should be rewarded equally economically since all are necessary to our success as individuals, as communities and ultimately as a country.
This would all be fine if more women wouldn’t check out from their profession for a less stressful (or more fulfilling) life.
I don’t care if either Bob or Jane stays home to care for the kids… really, I don’t.
What I care about is the women’s movement pushing women to expect the man to stay home and watch the kids but then the woman changes her mind and wants that life or something less than 100% breadwinner. And so the man having less team athletic experience (because of Title 9) and having been out of the workforce… now is suppose to go make up for the lack of personal development to give the woman what she wants.
Let’s consider a hypothetical situation where we force 50% women to enrolled in all engineering classes because the women’s movement is lamenting the lack of female engineers… but after the women get their engineering degree, they go do something else because they really never liked engineering.
Why is having a life goal of working at home and raising children, or working part-time and raising children, something that the women’s movement sees as inadequate for women when many, if not most, women end up wanting that?
The way I see it, we are punishing men by taking away their opportunities for personal growth and development to make room for women who then only use that opportunity to confirm that they really didn’t want it. Would it be better to figure out what you really want and then go do that thing?
So many straw men, so little time.
Straw man: That “the women’s movement is pushing women to expect the man to stay home”? Equality of genders means men and women have equal opportunity — to go to work, or stay home. I think you’re still arguing with feminists from your college days.
Straw man: That men lacking “team athletic experience” somehow are less prepared to re-enter the work force because of “lack of personal development.” You are way over-rating the value of team sports.
Straw man: that anybody wants to make quotas for the field of engineering.
Athletics are largely funded by student fees. 75% at UC Davis, if I recall. So if they’re paid equally, there should be some attempt at parity in how those funds are used.
Attention all men with mid-life crises: quit waging war on men! You’re making Frankly mad.
You wrote: “Why is having a life goal of working at home and raising children, or working part-time and raising children, something that the women’s movement sees as inadequate for women when many, if not most, women end up wanting that?”
You’re not being very PC.
Next thing you’ll bring up is that female Marines don’t even have to complete one pull up in order to qalify for the job… surely, that req is sexist!
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20140703/NEWS/307030068/Marines-delay-female-pullup-requirement-again-time-until-end-2015
Tia wrote:
> I know couples who have chosen for the woman to stay home
> with the children while the man works, couples who have chosen
> for the man to be the stay at home partner,
Do you know any couple (still together) where the Man was a ‘Stay at Home Dad” for 30+ years?
I have never seen (or heard of) a single example the “stay at home dad” plan working long term (the people either get divorced or the dad goes back to work to save the relationship).
P.S. I’m betting even less college women would say they want to marry a guy that stays home with the kids than would want a male OB/GYN…
Frankly….and any one else who believes that only women are seeking a work/life balance, I offer this, found completely coincidentally
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-schireson/why-i-am-leaving-the-best_b_5675769.html which was written by a definitely male CEO.
Good article Tia. Here is another one.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=5227334
Let’s just say if everyone dropped out to play with the kids American would be more like Greece.
Frankly
Yours also is an interesting article. I think that perhaps we may draw different conclusions from it.
“The reasons for attrition in the private sector are vast and complex, according to Sherbin, and can’t be attributed solely to women leaving to raise families.
“The top two reasons why women leave are the hostile macho cultures — the hard hat culture of engineering, the geek culture of technology or the lab culture of science … and extreme work pressures,” she said.
The article also discussed another aspect of women’s prospects in the traditionally male network. Women may be less willing to spend time away from other interests if they see that their prospects are likely to be limited to begin with. Women in the traditionally male dominated fields such as those highlighted in this article are where women in medicine were 30-40 years ago.
When I applied to medical school, I had never seen nor met a woman doctor. I was told repeatedly that I could not do it. UCD at the time was one of the most forward thinking schools in the country with a 50% female entering class in my year. At most schools women were very underrepresented. At that time the specialties were still gender divided with almost no women in the more highly lucrative surgical subspecialties most being confined to Family Practice, Medicine or Pediatrics. My generation was the first that started entering the intermediate specialty of OB/GYN with its office and surgical aspects. Fortunately for me, there were starting to be a few women attendings as role models and mentors. What we still saw at the time was that our male colleagues were invited to such activities as golfing and fishing with the male staff which essentially excluded us from the informal bonding sessions that often determined who got offered jobs coming out of residency and who got advancement. It took a while for us to form a critical mass of women to start such informal systems on our own, start advocating for other women as candidates for positions of leadership, and start advocating for more equal and a more liveable lifestyle for all of our doctors, not just women.
Your article touches on a broader trend that is being seen in our younger incoming work force. Both men and women are caring more about having a better work life balance. For a doctor this likely means favoring a 40 hour work week over 50 to 60 hours which is not unusual in early to mid career since we almost invariably work more time than is “on the books”. I have to periodically check on my own generational bias when I am thinking critically about the “work ethic” of the younger doctors and realize that it is far healthier to invest time with ones loved ones than it is to be exclusively focused on the “climb up the ladder” which makes the assumption that more money and more professional recognition will trump everything else in life. This does not necessarily hold true for either men or women.
Thank you for highlighting this. There are some work cultures that are still steeped in sexism, where traditions and practices exist to retain those old gender role limitations.
When I went into the nursery business, my business partner and I joined the nursery association and attended trade shows. My wife was the sole female at our first local chapter meeting. She felt very uncomfortable and chose not to attend very many more through the 1980’s. Trade shows were a sea of white male faces. Women were limited to sales roles at the trade show booths.
I knew for a fact that an increasing number of the small retail nurseries were mom-and-pop operations, but you wouldn’t have known that from those in the higher circles of the industry.
When one of my great long-term employees left to go to work as a sales rep for a bedding plant grower, she found that some of the bigger nurseries wouldn’t work with her. The buyer at the largest retail chain in Sacramento didn’t think women should be in the workplace, so he wouldn’t talk to female sales reps. The owner had to send the availability lists and make the calls.
When I got more active in the nursery association in the 1990’s, my main goal for our local chapter was to get more families, and female owners and staff, attending the meetings. The change had begun, but it took conscious effort to remove some of the obstacles. Breaking up a good-ol-boys club can be challenging and takes time. We were, after all, the California Association of Nurserymen. It took six years to get the name changed, and the old guard fought that every step of the way.
It shouldn’t be an uphill battle to get gender equity of opportunity in the workplace, and to get those clubby exclusionary practices to change. It’s happened in the fields of veterinary medicine, and I guess it’s happened or happening in medicine in general. There’s no reason engineering and computer sciences have to remain male-dominated. But it takes people at the top to help break the patterns. Men who are at the top need to recognize that hostile macho culture and affirmatively act to end it.
Don
Thanks for sharing the view from your field. It also brought a smile to my face as I remembered an old episode of the TV comedy Scrubs that I used to watch with my kids. It featured a very aggressive ( and lovely) trio of female gynecologists trying to recruit the equally attractive Dr. Elliot Reid by encouraging her to leave internal medicine in favor of their specialty.
In my field we have unfortunately made a complete turn around to the point where males can find themselves discriminated against in the gynecologic workplace. Some say that this is merely a reflection of patient preference. I disagree. The ability to demonstrate compassion for, successful treat women’s conditions and operate on women’s bodies is no more gender specific than is say the ability to perform orthopedic or neurosurgery. One does not have to personally possess ovaries to understand their function and dysfunction than one has to possess testes to function capably as a urologist or an oncologist treating testicular cancer. It is up to those of us in the field to welcome, mentor, and promote all capable practitioners to our ranks regardless of their gender. I believe that this is as true for those in the still male dominated fields as it is for we females who have reached the administrative ranks ( and thus make hiring decisions) in gynecology.
Frankly
“Let’s just say if everyone dropped out to play with the kids American would be more like Greece.”
Let’s just say if everyone were to agree to share the fun and responsibility of raising their children, and the challenges and rewards involved in employment outside the home in a fashion that best represented the abilities, goals and desires of the individual couple regardless of gender mix, we would probably have a population much more satisfied with their life choices and less regretful of what was “lost” in making those choices.
Tia wrote:
> Some say that this is merely a reflection of patient preference. I disagree.
You can “disagree” but that does not change the fact that every women I know “prefers” a female OB/GYN (and I was just at a party where a bunch of females were complaining how “weird” it is that there is a male “midwife” at one of the local hospitals)…
SOD, you are exactly right, my son-in-law is a male OB/GYN and when he was recently applying for jobs he said it was harder for him to find a position due to his gender.
I understand your points here, and I absolutely agree that in the 1980s and earlier there where many more roadblocks and stereotypes that presented challenges for women to move up and take different roles. but I think you are missing the large point and are yourself guilty of reverse sexism. “sea of white male faces”, “good-ol-boys-club”… although these things certainly exist, they are not in and of themselves evidence of sexism or female gender bias. Today they are more an indication of reverse anti-male sexism and anti-white racism.
Who said breaking in and moving up was easy?
Where you and others mess up on this narrative is to ignore the stress and competition for the majority demographic to move up and take different professional roles. In fact, I would argue that these days it is much easier for women and minorities to get their foot in the door for many things due to our civil rights march and PC sensitivities. In fact it can much more difficult to stand out as a male working in a male dominated industry. It is that dog-eat-dog environment.
Much of what I see in complaints related to “women’s rights” in the workplace is anti-male sexism. Today most of what is attributed to sexism against females is simple the female response to the standard and long-standing level of professional stress and competition. I see the same in some claims of racism in the workplace.
And like for the military the requirements are dumbed down and softened to be more accommodating. That serves to reduce the overall pool of capability… and it is not good.
Everybody that has established themselves as successful in any highly competitive professional career should have plenty of stories of overcoming adversity, stress, long work hours, risk-taking, hostility, bias, etc., etc., etc. Without traversing and overcoming the gauntlet of challenges the lessons of leadership will not have been learned and earned, and in the end the capability of the person winning the job will be diminished and he/she will be at disadvantage.
Is it gender and or race bias, or is it just difficult? These days I think it is mostly just difficult and some people don’t like it to be so difficult. They want a shortcut.
This modern claim of racism and sexism is largely a result of people bailing out with the excuse that they were prevented from getting something they wanted and thought they deserved but had not yet earned. The existence and acceptance of that excuse is to their detriment and top-down social engineering remedies are damaging to the entire economy as it drives down overall talent and competency in the area of personal relationship management skills…. those skills that trump pure technical skills for people in higher levels of leadership.
There is a connection to this last point and the frustration of academics that also has an ideological connection. In their mind a promotion should be based on academic credentials and work experience. That is fine for lower level technical roles, but get to a position of leadership and now you need to master “people-ware”. And if your career path was not through the gauntlet of challenges learning how to deal with politics, conflict, negotiating, bias, hostility, competition and stress… you will be forever on your heels in defense and likely will not like your job and will want out.
Today in my business there are a lot of Asian clients that prefer to do business with my employees of Asian descent. I have other clients that prefer to work with either male or female of my loan officers. Is that racism and gender bias? Tell my clients they cannot choose, and they will more likely go somewhere else to do business. But it does not mean they will not work with someone else, it just means that someone else will have a more challenging time getting their foot in the door. Is that fair? Who said life is fair.
Yes it is. If they would refuse to do business with your firm unless they could deal with someone only because of the race and gender? Of course it is. How you choose to deal with it is your decision, obviously, though personally I would urge you to help them get more comfortable with your other employees as well. But at the very least you need to recognize it for what it is, assuming you’ve accurately described their preferences.
Is it racism or simply a comfort level? Language barrier? Trust issue?
I only speak English.. is it easier and more comfortable for me to speak with someone who speaks English clearly… Sure. Is it easier for someone who speaks Spanish to speak with someone who speaks Spanish clearly? Sure.
You are correct justme.
Don Shor is not correct.
These days, most of the bias we see in business is simple a bias of being easy to do business with. Business is not served well by bias that makes it more difficult to do business with. Business bias is generally rational bias.
Don Shor clearly indicates the separation in mindset here that is the essence of the different worldviews related to groupism and business. Don makes the case that I should help my clients overcome their bias instead of striving to simply meet their expectations.
Likewise, the overall message from those that see perpetual gender and race bias is that we should change the system to make it less challenging for people of certain groups to break in and move up.
I have a different perspective…
1. The levels and types of gender and race bias that exist today are de minimis compared to what has justified our civil rights march. We have progressed to a point that we are at phase-III, but people like Don and Tia are still arguing the Phase-I points.
2. The system is fine. We just need people to toughen up, pull up their bootstraps and get to work. We all need greater coping skills and to learn that goal-setting, persistence and perseverance is the stuff of success no matter what demographic you belong to. And if you bail because of the stress and pursuit of some easier life, you don’t have the right to claim that bias prevented you from greater achievement.
3. That there are differences, and we need to identify, respect and respond to the differences instead of being irrationally obsessed with fairness… thinking that we can make everything and everyone exactly the same… because we cannot because we are not and will never be exactly the same.
But we don’t see the liberal system trying to stamp out perceptions or real bias in Asian or Latino businesses. I worked for an Asian-owned company, I could tell you story after story.
Frankly, can you describe this phase I, II, III movement of civil rights you refer to? Thank you.
BTW, the above-average success of new ethnic groups like Ethiopians, Nigerians, Chinese, Vietnamese, etc., really shows how minimal racial barriers have become.
Frankly
“Is it gender and or race bias, or is it just difficult? “
Well, you certainly seem to think that it is when it is white males who do not hold the upper hand. Drawn from your own post:
“Today they are more an indication of reverse anti-male sexism and anti-white racism.”
“Much of what I see in complaints related to “women’s rights” in the workplace is anti-male sexism.”
Equality for women in sports is a “war on men”.
Frankly, I think that you are exhibiting far too much of a victim mentality. After all, whoever said that life is fair.
The difference is organic and dynamic social and business organization verses top-down social engineering.
If you take a subset of people matching the demographic make-up of a community and put them on some island to start a society and the schools provide more sports for boys because boys tend to like sports more, and then a few people gain political power and force the schools to take money away from boys sports and give to girls… even though it means fewer boys that want to play sports will have the opportunity and the schools have to actually actively recruit and push girls to play sports because they generally don’t want to… then yes the boys certainly are the victim.
The problem with your attempt at moral equivalency Tia is that statistics are not on your side. The opportunities for boys have been significantly diminished while those for girls has been significantly increased. The latter is coming primarily at the expense of the former.
I talked to friends that have sons and daughters and 100% of the time they are more concerned about their son’s future than they are the future for their daughter… except that the fact that she can’t seem to find a boy to settle down with. So in that respect the girl is a victim too… an unsuspecting and compliant victim, but a victim nonetheless.
You are getting into deep, practical analysis I don’t think they will want to confront. Gangs are exploding, most people in jail are men, most drug dealers are men, but we have taken away thousands of male role models and hundreds of thousands of healthy activities to channel the energies of these young testosterone filled young men. Do the math. Now many are choosing pot, video games, tattoos and gangs.
I don’t see the feminist movement clamoring for 50% of roofers, military, or ditch diggers to be female.
Maybe it is time to have young women register for the draft.
Racism or just comfort level ? I’ll let you decide.
A hospitalized patient refuses to accept a needed blood draw from a black phlebotomist because she states it is against her principles to be touched by a member of a non Caucasian race. She requests me to place an order in her chart stating that no one other than Caucasians can participate in her care. She explains to me that it is not racism, but what she considers akin to a religious belief for her.
Racism or just comfort level ? I’ll let you decide.
A veteran police officer asks two young black men, walking down the middle of the street in broad daylight, to use the sidewalk. The officer, white, has a clean record and no history of racial animosity. One of the young men, in contrast, is a huge young man (300 pounds) who just tossed around a store clerk like a rag doll while committing a petty theft and battery (all on camera). Shockingly, the police officer’s weapon is dislodged in his own car, there is blood from the young man in the car, and he is shot dead by the police officer. Reports say that the police officer has a bloodied face and broken eye orbital. It is a very sad scenario, and a complicated crime scene.
Two white sheriffs are – unprovoked – gunned down in Sacramento by a twice deported illegal immigrant.
Attorney General Eric Holder brings in the FBI and Federal officials to investigate the former; he ignores the latter.
You decide.
Most of my left of center friends think:
1. The white cop was racist for bothering the black young men
2. The white cop was racist for bothering the illegal immigrant in the Sacramento parking lot.
3. Eric Holder is a hero
4. Anyone that calls an “undocumented” immigrant an “illegal” alien is a racist (and guilty of a hate crime)…
Tia wrote:
> A hospitalized patient refuses to accept a needed blood draw
> from a black phlebotomist because she states it is against her
> principles to be touched by a member of a non Caucasian race.
Why is that your problem? If the patient does not want to use your phlebotomist she can pay to have one come in that is the race or religion she wants (and pay thousands more for another night in the hospital).
Here is a question for Tia is it sexism or comfort level if a 16 year old girl does not want a young male MD (that looks like a 29 ye old Patrick Dempsey) do her first vaginal exam?
Tia, some people are just a**holes…. more times than not, it is a comfort/language barrier issue…
justme wrote:
> Tia, some people are just a**holes….
> more times than not, it is a comfort/language barrier issue…
As a white guy I (sadly) run in to quite a few a**holes…
I’m sure that at least one of these a**holes (of every race) hates white guys, but I would never go there unless the guy specifically “said” he hated white guys.
Unfortunately most (but not all) of my “friends of color” seem to assume that every time a jerk cop gives them a hard time or they get bad service from a retailer that the person is “racist” (not just an a**hole)…
I suppose David should create another article focused on admirable (IMO) Tia Will’s decision to remain identifiable on the website and in her postings, so she can be unfarily targeted and mass-attacked by the far right – maybe she could give them all a referral to psych. The comments are getting inappropriate and far off topic.
I agree, Chase….
Perhaps refraining from personal digs on one another would be a show of greater self-respect, control, and moral character/fiber. Just a thought….
Back to the topic of Prop 47, I am perplexed at how many people think by reading a statistic alone, they have an accurate account of reality. I encourage you to come sit in a Law and Motion hearing day. You may be enlightened.
I fail to see how “misdemeanor crimes,” do not affect people. ANY crime has an affect….it is a criminal act, Never just affects the one committing it…sorry folks.
There are some who appear to be remorseful, overcome with sorrow but in the two years I have covered cases, that number is about one out every 50 to 100 people, trust me. Of course, the operative word being, “appear,” I could be wrong.
I agree, however, the punishment should fit the crime,as in the words of Judge Rosenberg. But if we have more people on the street, homeless after being released, what do you think they are going to do under pressure to eat or feed an addiction?
It wouldn’t be rocket science to understand the temptation they will face. I am not saying keep them locked up forever, just that we need to think about how these people will survive? What is the next step? What will prevent them from repeating? How will we fund programs to keep them from repeating? Or have we come that far into our logic? These are serious questions to think about.
It’s a tough call…one I pray does not backfire on us! Leaving more fallen officers and their families to suffer, not to mention more victims of any type of crime.
I hope we are not “burying our heads in the sand but what our butt end don’t stick out,” guess we will have to play,” wait and see.”
“But if we have more people on the street, homeless after being released, what do you think they are going to do under pressure to eat or feed an addiction?”
Part of what you are missing is that if you tag people with felonies early that means they effectively cannot get good jobs because of the “box.” By eliminating felonies on minor crimes, more people will stay out of the system and perhaps be able to recover from an early run in with the law.
A few might recover and straighten themselves out, but most will go back to doing what they do best, stealing and drugs.
One of the things we learned when we went through fost-adopt training, is that you will see these women who have five, six, seven kids, and maybe the first five or so get taken away, but at some point, often in their 30s, they start getting their act together. One of the problems with how we do incarceration is that we lock up people who were committing crimes during their teens, twenties and early 30s into the years when statistically speaking people become less likely to commit crimes. That’s a problem that our system has not learned to deal.
So do we just let them wreak havoc until they ‘grow up’?
Right now we spend around $50,000 a year to incarcerate people. So what if we took that money and plugged into to college or job training – would that make them less likely to wreak havoc now?
David, I do agree about the felony part, it is tougher on a person with those charges but my point is again, “What do we do to keep them from repeating? and how can we get the state to help fund a program where a newly released felon can be guided to make better choices, get work, housing and keep themselves fed?”
I am just thinking about the long answer. We may have won a battle, perhaps? but the war is far from over, agree?
I am concerned the temptation will be greater to commit crime if left to themselves. But I do realize age may give them a bit more ability to refrain. I guess it would depend in part on what type of skills and/or rehab they find in prison, if any?
Good debate, David.