Using race to obscure female supremacism in America’s prison problem

In a recent speech, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton declared that “it’s time to end the era of mass incarceration” in America. Trying to manipulate African-Americans for votes by framing the problem as primarily about race, she carefully avoided how female supremacism like her own has been the greatest driver of mass incarceration in the United States.

However, to illustrate how Feminists exploit legitimate concerns about racial biases in sentencing, it helps to go back a few years to the rise of another powerful Feminist.

During Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing for the US Supreme Court, there was some controversy about a memo on the death penalty which she had signed with two other judges, and which she failed to disclose to the US Senate. Now, to be fair and honest, the failure to disclose was likely an innocent oversight on her part. I mean, how many documents does a professional sign in a decades-long career?

But the memo’s text reveals how utterly skewed our culture’s dialogue on justice can be. It contains the following argument:

Capital punishment is associated with evident racism in our society. The number of minorities and the poor executed or awaiting execution is out of proportion with their numbers in the population. For example, 47% of the inmates on death row are Black although Blacks constitute 11% of the population of the United States.

Now, as many have pointed out, the statistical reasoning here is exceptionally unscientific,to the point that it is alarming to hear it from benched judges with life-and-death power over other human beings. Convictions are not supposed to be demographically representative of the population at large. They are supposed to be representative of people who have committed crimes.

The numbers are certainly suggestive that something racist is going on, but far from “evident.” The real evidence would be to compare sentences blacks and whites face when convicted of the same crime, or rates of investigation they face for the same charges.

But, there are more devastating death penalty facts missing from this memorandum.

Equal Justice is the Only Kind of Justice

In the country Clinton wants to run, men are 20 times more likely than women to receive the death penalty for the exact same violent crimes, according to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Profile of Felons Convicted in State Courts,” NCJ 120021, 1990. (And this disparity persists: “Chivalry is Not Dead: Murder, Gender, and the Death Penalty,” Univ. of San Francisco Law Research Paper No. 2011-08 Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice, Vol. 27, No. 1, 2012, Shatz and Shatz)

That means that a woman convicted of a capital crime is only 5% as likely to receive the death penalty as a man convicted of the same crime. This means that 19 out of 20 men on death row are not there for their crimes; had they been women when convicted, they wouldn’t be there. They’re being marched to execution because they were born men.

Unlike the memo’s inept comparison of death row inmates with the general population, this actually demonstrates “evident” discrimination among those who had been found guilty of crimes.

Even assuming for the sake of argument that people of different races commit capital crimes at the exact same rate, the difference between the discrimination against African-Americans the memo condemns (roughly 4x) and the discrimination against men found in the 1990 study (20x) indicates that men are five times more likely to be discriminated against by the judicial system than blacks.

In other words, not being a woman is far more of a predictor of death penalty discrimination than being a minority, a fact that Sotomayor both ignores and, ironically, demonstrates at the same time.

Moreover, it means that a black male on death row is more likely there because he’s male than because he’s black. So, even among the black death row inmates that Sotomayor and associates claimed to advocate for, 95 percent of them are probably more victimized by unexamined pro-female prejudice than pro-white prejudice.

Innate gynosympathy and Feminist ideology blinded them to this. They’re patting themselves on the backs as champions of social justice even as they participate in a system that kills people for being born the wrong type of person.

The Feminist Eichmannization of Politics

Most importantly, the sexist discrimination exhibited by conspicuous omission in the memo itself (the 20:1 gender bias divided by the 4:1 racial bias, so … 5x) is actually measurably worse and more corruptive of justice than the racist discrimination the memo condemns (4x). Far from being an instrument of justice, the memo is an administrative instrument of bigotry and genocidal murder.

Courtroom bias does not stop at the death penalty. For example, a man convicted of assault is more than twice as likely to be sentenced to prison (rather than probation, etc.) than a woman convicted of the same crime, according to Jodi Brown and Patrick Langan, “State Court Sentencing of Convicted Felons, 1994,” NCJ 164614, US Department of Justice, 1998. (Again, the bias persists: “Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases,” University of Michigan Law and Economics Research Paper, No. 12-018 , Sonja B. Starr, 29 Aug 2012.)

Moreover, women receive on average one-third the jail time as men when they are tried and convicted for the same crime, according to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Domestic Violence: Violence Between Intimates,” 1994. Other research has found similar sex biases in reporting, arrest, investigation, and prosecution. Men are selectively hunted and slandered at every step in the process.

And, Feminists cannot pretend that this reality is buried in obscure research papers, because it has been reported in the Huffington Post. One can assume Feminists are aware of HuffPost, right?

If it is reasonable to conclude, as many have, that the racial disparity in sentencing makes many African-American inmates in effect political prisoners (and we at NWF believe it does) then it must also be true that millions of American men are now in prison or sentenced to die simply for being men.

There are, in a very real sense, already Feminist concentration camps in the United States. After all, had most of these men been women when they committed their crimes, they’d be free. It’s not the crime that put them in prison or death row. It was being born the wrong kind of human being. Their convictions are merely a veil disguising a system that uses any convenient excuse to imprison and murder men.

And, yes, so long as that 20:1 gender disparity exists, 95% of men executed in the United States are effectively murdered by the state, whether one believes in the underlying justification of the death penalty or not. It’s not a just sentence if one denigrated and hunted type of human being gets it and another favored and exempted type of human being does not.

Hard Truths

In her speech, Clinton said that “we have to come to terms with some hard truths about race and justice in America.” Yes we do. It’s undeniable that race bias skews sentencing in the United States and indeed throughout the world. But, in America at least, racial bias pales in comparison to the sex bias in sentencing. That’s the real “hard truth” that Feminists like Clinton are trying to distract us from.

As has been pointed out, the mass incarceration system Hillary is claiming to oppose exploded under her husband, Bill Clinton. The Clintons didn’t create this supremacist system, of course, but neither were they politically inclined to do anything about it. The upward sweep in the mass incarceration of males in America, as one might suspect, matches the rising political influence of the pseudoscientific slanders, Dolchstoss narratives, and paranoid Global Patriarchal Conspiracy theories levied against men by Feminists like the Clintons. And, not to find causation in correlation, but it started leveling off very recently alongside rising opposition to Feminist supremacism and hate.

So, Hillary Clintons didn’t start this wave of hate-driven police action against men, but she and her husband rode it into power. Now, Hillary Clinton is trying to ride into the White House by pretending it doesn’t exist.

– Sam, with lots of editorial help from everyone else in NWF, who write gooder than Sam

This entry was posted in News and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. jon
    Posted May 2, 2015 at 9:50 pm | Permalink

    “The numbers are certainly suggestive that something racist is going on, but far from “evident.” The real evidence would be to compare sentences blacks and whites face when convicted of the same crime, or rates of investigation they face for the same charges.”

    But it is not just the same crime, the individual is supposed to be taken into consideration. While I have no doubt that there is Black and Male bias. Men have been treated more severely and valued less since the first mammal was born, if not far longer, that does not necessarily make the numbers correct. It if possible that a man is more likely to be likely to reoffend. I have always respected NWF for its stance of being anti-feminist while not being MRA. And on that note I would point out that it is entirely possible that women very well might react better to a light punishment and men better to a severe punishment. It is entirely possible that you can rehabilitate men with beatings and imprisonment, while it being better to just talk to women criminals about their feelings.

    Would you not view a criminal who killed children worse than one who killed adults? on this note is it entirely illogical to view a man’s life as worth less than a woman’s? It is all well and good to be honest about the world, but that does not mean that equality of treatment or opportunity is a logical goal.

    There are so many variables to take into consideration. It is not honest to look at racial criminal treatment without controlling for poverty, without controlling for IQ, without controlling for education, without controlling for interpersonal skills, without controlling for physique (a person who looks intimidating is going to get a worse sentence). All of these variables will almost certainty have a huge effect and are stacked against men and Africans more then anyone else.

    • Posted May 4, 2015 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

      The research we’re citing controls for other variables. Also, it’s a little odd to argue for different rehabilitation methods for criminals who have committed the same crimes. A woman who murders in cold blood should get a stern talking to while a man who murders in cold blood should be beaten? That’s precisely the bias we’re exposing.

      • jon
        Posted May 4, 2015 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

        It controls for many variables yes, but there are a number of variables that I am almost certain it does not control for [1].

        it is odd if you are an MRA or an equalist. I am neither, I am not for treating everyone the same. Different people require different teaching methods, we understand this when it comes to children, is it hard to believe that different types of adults may require different types of discipline? Most would argue that true justice is mainly worried about helping and reforming criminals into good citizens and good human beings. And these people would rightly know that the “punishment” must fit the criminal not the crime. If you can reform a mass murderer with a fine while it takes 20 to life to reform a petty thief, well that is just what it takes. We also must worry about what danger the criminal posses to society, and a number of soft personal variables.

        [1] For one it is important to figure out other variables than might be lumped with the biased against men vs women, other variables that are correlated to being a man. Maybe it is biased against physical strength (aka the ability to cause harm). You could argue that it is more dangerous to put a man on the streets who could break a cop is halve with his bare hands than someone less strong. This variable will be significantly in “favor” of men, and also disproportionaly in favor of black men. And I am almost certain that variable was not controlled for.

        We might also see a correlation between testosterone and sentence. Men will have more than women and black men even more. Or masculinity and sentence, do we find that raging fairies share similarly biased sentences like their male peers or not? At least some of this male bias will be able to be explained away with the well known wealth bias in courts and the fact then females are unproportionately wealthy, and have unproportinate access to help and support. And perhaps some can be explains away because women are better liars or simply better speakers.

        Some of these examples are definitely indicative of potential biases that most people would condemn and say have no place in a fair system, others are clearly and publicly engraved in our laws as the proper course of action. But all of them are not technically male biases (just problems unproportionately faced by men).

        Men commit most of the crimes, for a number of reason, would you have us enforce a 50:50 gender incarceration to make everything fair? This study controlled for as many variables as possible, but there are hundreds of thousands of differences between men and women, and you can never control for all of them.