Two recent cases seem to underline gender double standard in New Mexico's criminal sentencing.
In the first case, Brenda Ray, a 40-year-old high school teacher in Albuquerque, New Mexico began a sexual relationship with one of her male students, who was then only 16 years old. According to police, Mrs Ray had sex with the teenager on multiple occasions over several years and gave him alcohol, marijuana and cocaine. Despite this, the prosecution in the case agreed to drop all charges related to supplying alcohol and drugs. Although the prosecution never determined whether she supplied the teen cocaine as a minor or an adult - in either case its still a crime. Once the unlawful substance charges were dropped, the backstabbing wife then pleaded guilty to having sex with a minor.
During sentencing, Judge George Eichwald decided to give Brenda Ray a pass. She will not serve any jail time nor register as a sex offender. Instead, she was only assigned three years of probation. No explanation was given. Additionally, she lost her teaching job and it also appears she lost her husband.
Contrast this outcome with what happened in the second case. According to police, Edward Christy 58, had a sexual relationship with a 16 year old girl he met online. Once the internet relationship was established, the girl (who lived in California) threatened to kill herself if she could not be with him. Christy then drove to California and took her back to his New Mexico house. Her parents reported her as missing. Over the next few weeks Christy and the girl had consensual sex - some of it involving her fantasies about bondage - until police discovered the missing girls whereabouts.
Edward Christy was sentenced to nine years in prison on charges of coercion and enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity and possession of child pornography. The pornography charge appears related to some videos of underage teenagers found on his computer.
The only real differences in these cases are: supplying a minor with alcohol and drugs transporting a minor across state lines, videos of girls under 18 years old AND THE DEFENDANT'S GENDER.
Its hard to believe driving a minor across state lines and downloading videos of underage girls is significantly more harmful than supplying a minor with illegal substances on multiple occasions. Therefore, gender accounts for the HUGE discrepancy in punishment.
Also, several New Mexico towns recently conducted undercover sex sting operations specifically targeting men looking for girls under the age of 18.Authorities are angered about adult males looking for girls younger than 18 yet have no problem with a 16 year old boy and an adult woman.
This bring up the question of lawsuits. Can Christy sue for sex discrimination AND would it not be better for government agencies to avoid the possibility of these lawsuits by SIMPLY HOLDING GROWN WOMEN ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.
Title IX and Feminism in Sports
In Massachusetts, feminist opposition to boys participation on girls sports teams has raged for months. This year, about 24 high school boys had joined girls swimming teams, because Title IX had eliminated boys teams at their schools. One boy actually helped his team win the Massachusetts South Division swimming championship with a record breaking swim - outraging feminists.
Many are now demanding boys be banned from girls sports. One female coach said “They can’t have a boy be the girls state champion”. The Herald (a Massachusetts media outlet) openly opposes boys on girls teams. It also openly endorses girls on boys teams.
Throughout the state, girls have played football or ice hockey on boys teams, competed alongside boys in golf and wrestled on boys teams. However, boys are now joining girls teams such as swimming in increasing numbers due to the fact Title IX has eliminated their own teams. Boys can receive benefits from joining these teams. Norwood High coach, Kim Goodwin, said she was an opponent of boys competing with girls before she had boys on her team. Then her opinion changed. She saw the boys, who did not participate in other sports, develop self-confidence and mature. “They work so incredibly hard in the pool, and they seem really grateful to be on the team,” she said.
On the national level, a report by Karen Owoc "Title IX and Its Effect on Men’s
Collegiate Athletics" stated schools have eliminated more than 2,200 men’s collegiate athletic teams since 1981 in order to comply with Title IX law. Additionally the report described a 1979 Intercollegiate Athletics Policy Interpretation of this law. The interpretation established three rules by which schools can demonstrate compliance. The first rule, deemed by courts as the most important, states a school is in compliance if participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective fulltime undergraduate enrollments. Thus, if a school is 58% female, then about 58% of its athletes should be female.The other two rules deal with expanding women's programs and proof that both genders interest in sports participation have been accommodated.
Rule #1 is dramatic because the percentage of college students being male continues to drop. By law, more male teams must be eliminated and more female teams created.
Additionally,feminism has created anti male sentiment within the Department of Education (DOE). For example, its new regulations allow schools to kick out any male student accused of sexual harassment without conclusive proof of guilt. Also, many of DOE's sexual harassment guidelines are based on definitions issued by the feminist group 'American Association of University Women'. The DOE's anti male outlook increases male students reluctance to attend higher education. This creates additional need to eliminate more male teams.
Interestingly, obtaining equal access into higher education is not a function of Title IX. Having a predominately female student body is considered acceptable.
The fact that the feminist oriented DOE is uninterested in equal access to higher education and that there is such hypocrisy in Massachusetts concerning boys participation in sports shows feminism was never about equality. Rather, it was about hindering boys opportunity to mature into adulthood & limiting their access to education in favor of girls. Title IX is simply a tool of feminism.
Many are now demanding boys be banned from girls sports. One female coach said “They can’t have a boy be the girls state champion”. The Herald (a Massachusetts media outlet) openly opposes boys on girls teams. It also openly endorses girls on boys teams.
Throughout the state, girls have played football or ice hockey on boys teams, competed alongside boys in golf and wrestled on boys teams. However, boys are now joining girls teams such as swimming in increasing numbers due to the fact Title IX has eliminated their own teams. Boys can receive benefits from joining these teams. Norwood High coach, Kim Goodwin, said she was an opponent of boys competing with girls before she had boys on her team. Then her opinion changed. She saw the boys, who did not participate in other sports, develop self-confidence and mature. “They work so incredibly hard in the pool, and they seem really grateful to be on the team,” she said.
On the national level, a report by Karen Owoc "Title IX and Its Effect on Men’s
Collegiate Athletics" stated schools have eliminated more than 2,200 men’s collegiate athletic teams since 1981 in order to comply with Title IX law. Additionally the report described a 1979 Intercollegiate Athletics Policy Interpretation of this law. The interpretation established three rules by which schools can demonstrate compliance. The first rule, deemed by courts as the most important, states a school is in compliance if participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective fulltime undergraduate enrollments. Thus, if a school is 58% female, then about 58% of its athletes should be female.The other two rules deal with expanding women's programs and proof that both genders interest in sports participation have been accommodated.
Rule #1 is dramatic because the percentage of college students being male continues to drop. By law, more male teams must be eliminated and more female teams created.
Additionally,feminism has created anti male sentiment within the Department of Education (DOE). For example, its new regulations allow schools to kick out any male student accused of sexual harassment without conclusive proof of guilt. Also, many of DOE's sexual harassment guidelines are based on definitions issued by the feminist group 'American Association of University Women'. The DOE's anti male outlook increases male students reluctance to attend higher education. This creates additional need to eliminate more male teams.
Interestingly, obtaining equal access into higher education is not a function of Title IX. Having a predominately female student body is considered acceptable.
The fact that the feminist oriented DOE is uninterested in equal access to higher education and that there is such hypocrisy in Massachusetts concerning boys participation in sports shows feminism was never about equality. Rather, it was about hindering boys opportunity to mature into adulthood & limiting their access to education in favor of girls. Title IX is simply a tool of feminism.
February 1, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)