Are the courts biased against men?

Women with AIDS guilty of sexual assault gets 1 yr community service?

She had unprotected sex with the man who would become her common-law husband for 5 years before she threw him out with a DV charge. Sometime in the first 6 months of their relationship she disclosed her previously known condition and after that, he took precautions. He has apparently not been infected, although we are expected to "feel sympathetic" for this Quebec women as she must take drugs to treat her AIDS condition. Both identities are protected.

Further west, Trevis Smith (shown), a former-football player has sex with 2 women without disclosing he had AIDS but says he did NOT have unprotected sex with them. One women who was a nurse has tested positive for AIDS and it is not clear if he infected her as she claims. She said she broke off their relationship because Smith was involved with other women. Another women came forward after charges were laid and also testified against Smith. Smiths testimony was ignored by the judge as he was deemed "not-credible" and his appeal was thrown out. His picture and reputation was splattered all over the place, plus he was released from his pro contract once the charges were laid (ok, it was only the Saskatchewan Rough-Riders - but still he is out of a job.)

He gets 6 1/2 years "hard time" (less time served while at trial) - why the difference?

Harsher legal treatment for men than women has long been evident in Canada 1.

• Woman's conviction rates are lower than men (55% found guilty vs 59% for men) 2.

• Women are "half as likely as men to receive a prison sentence (19% vs 38%) and more likely to receive probation (56% vs 37%)" when found guilty of crimes against the person (i.e major assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm) in adult court. This "bias" holds regardless of the severity of the crime.

• Women also receive lower sentences for property crimes such as "robbery (62% versus 76%), break and enter (41% versus 61%) and fraud."

• When found guilty in youth court - regardless of the crime - a boy is more likely to "do time" (24% of males get prison sentence vs 16% of females) than a girl and she will be out in 2/3 the time (average sentences are 48 days for females vs 71 for males).

The question is why?

Footnotes:
1. 2008 January - Female Offenders in Canada, Statscan Juristat - Vol. 28, no 1. Table 5 & 6.
2. Higher conviction rates for men may be related to fact that men face more "multiple-charge" cases than women (52% vs 45%) and as women are more often first-time offenders they receive more lenient treatment.

Male discrimination of Title IX in US Colleges

Recently, Glenn Sacks revisited this issue after being quoted from an article he wrote 7 years ago! [Editorial. Honestly, shouldn't reputable newspapers have a statute of limitations on the use of such attributions to keep lazy journalists honest - quotations of the dead excepted.]

Apart from the "ain't feminism great" tone, Glenn pointed out that Title IX led to wholesale dismantling of many men's sport programs. The Orange County Register article piously points out that "nationally, football has been a major stumbling block to achieving gender equality" without acknowledging that at many US colleges, Football teams are probably the only teams that are profit centers1 and the "social glue" that keep alumni coming back and giving to their Alma Mater! And in many cases, the profits went back into general sports activities - for both genders.

The 7 year old quote was also a "sop", taken out of context. It sounded like Glenn was against women's sports - but he was merely pointing out discrepancies in the California National Organization of Women (Cal-NOW) lawsuit from 1993 and how it has hurt men.

Other points were:

1) Activity bias - more women participate in "personal fitness" activities (jogging, aerobics, dance etc.) than teams sports yet these activities were not included in determining "gender contributions". In addition, more men than women are interested in team activities but the "gender equity" benchmark was based on Total percent Male/Female enrollment and not #athletes or better - "interest". Even at All-Women Colleges, team sports participation would be below the levels that would support Title IX (if it applied). [Studies2 show that female "organized sport" participation is 30-40% versus 50+% for men.]

2) Pink Wash - some very popular women's "activities" like cheer-leading were not counted in the "female sport" ledger. (Hence, we now have both men and women on these university squads.) I find it an eerie coincidence that this discriminatory lawsuit was launched by Cal-NOW in February 1993 - immediately after Superbowl XXVII when the infamous Superbowl DV Hoax was launched and then quickly unmasked.

3) Funding Bias - Similar to Football, Basketball is often a big profit at some US Colleges but the revenue earned is not counted in funding although things like scholarships are. Many women's sports programs athletes have no where to go after leaving the college ghetto - unless they have the orientation to become coaches.

Glenn estimates that Cal-NOW and other feminist organizations have been responsible3 for the elimination of 20,000 male athletic positions since 1993. When Title IX was passed in 1972 it was an important achievement for women's sports but it was never meant to be a sword wielded against men's sports activities.

Footnotes:
1. Football operations contributed an average profit of $1.8 million per school for 322 Div I Colleges. p.25 Table 6 - Overall Revenues & Expenses 2003-4. April 2005 NCAA Gender Equity Report.
2. Cohen vs, Brown 1992. 50% of of male students who submitted SAT scores for entrance to Brown College indicated interest in organized sports versus 30% of female applicants. The Gender Refs 1997 Dec/Nov - Hoover Institute.
3. Estimated loss of Men's Athletic positions for 902 NCAA Colleges from 1994-1997. April 1998 NCAA Gender Equity Report.

[The article was penned by a female journalist, Mary Jo FISHER of the Orange County Register in response to the release of California State University's (CSU) Annual Title IX Compliance Review in June 2008.]

Some additional links of interest.

2008MAY13 USA Today - Title IX Issues Continue

2001APR Reason Magazine - Title IX Pyrrhic Victory