We want equality - but not here

This is a good example of feminist inconsistency. It's a piece from The Times opining that women are particularly hurt by being imprisoned.

Women are not, on the whole, members of the criminal classes. They are basically law-abiding. Prison is certainly not one of the places where women aspire to equal treatment. The family is central to their world view and their lives revolve round it.

Men are not, on the whole, members of the criminal classes either. Family not being central to a man or a woman is at the core of their criminality.

First and foremost, women bear and look after children. That makes it essential that they serve their sentences within reach of their families.

And men are less entitled to receive visits from their children?

Women's crimes are most often - 36 per cent - theft and handling stolen goods, crimes that may go hand in hand with the men they know who are doing the thieving and asking for a bit of help: “Pop this in the back of the wardrobe, love, until I come and get it.”

All his fault again.

But it is interesting that the worst of all (criminals) - even Myra Hindley and Rosemary West - committed their appalling crimes as the sidekicks of men.

And again.

The attached comments are for the most-part interesting. Here are two.

This article states that women wish to choose where they are equal and where they are not. Several (women) commentators clearly agree with this. It is interesting that the wider world doesn't notice. Proof that you can, in fact, fool all of the people all of the time?

Here we go again. Special pleading for women.So it's equality when it's convenient, and privilege when it ain't.