THE FAIRER SEX

Short Stories on Male Privilege

No. 16

Do Not Pass Go

'Men make the moral code

and they expect women to accept it'.

- Emmeline Pankhurst

I'd like to explain how the Women's Social and Political Union came to be formed, and why there was so much civil disobedience. I was a reporter at the time of these events, and I personally interviewed some of the leaders.

It all began with the women's march along Oxford Street, and the subsequent rally held in Hyde Park.

At this rally, Emmeline Crankhurst, feminist professor of feminist studies, gave a famous speech that is every bit the equal of any a man gave, such as 'I have a dream', 'We shall never surrender' and 'One small step for a wo/man, wimmin, womyn, womon.'

The transcript goes as follows.

"We know that men have all the advantages - that's what we mean by male privilege. Men are given many things just because they're men, things they don't have to earn or work for, the same things that women must strive for, often unavailingly.

"I want to speak today about one particular type of male privilege - I refer to the preferential treatment that men receive from our criminal justice system.

"There are twenty-one times more men in prisons than women. 'Yes, but men break the law more often than women', you will say. That is correct; men do break the law more often than women. But that explanation will simply not do. Men are convicted of indictable offences six times more often, yet there are not six times more men in prison, there are twenty-one times more.

"The prison population is now three times the size it was in the 1940s. 'Yes, but there's a bigger population today', I hear you say, True; but that explanation will simply not do. The number of women in prison has increased only marginally over that time. We have three times more prisoners, because we have three times more male prisoners.

" 'Yes, but men commit more of the dangerous and violent crimes", I hear you say. Well, that is true as far as it goes - in total numbers. But offending rates for numerous crimes have a similar pattern. You will not be surprised to learn that the commonest reason for a man to be arrested is for violence. You will, however, probably be surprised to learn that it's just the same for women. You will not be surprised to learn that the largest proportion of male prisoners were sentenced for violence against the person. You will, however, be surprised to learn that it's just the same for women.

" 'Yes, but men are more likely to re-offend", I hear you say. Actually, no. The rates of recidivism for men and women are not markedly different.

"The real reason why there are twenty-one times more men in prison than women is this: a convicted man is far more likely to be imprisoned than a woman is for the same offence; this is true across most offence categories. Why, exactly, are men found guilty of drink-driving more likely to be imprisoned? Why, exactly, are men found guilty of fraud more likely to be imprisoned? Why, exactly, are men found guilty of public order offences more likely to be imprisoned? These disparities have been increasing for many years. Why?

"Nor is it solely the greater likelihood of a custodial sentence. Men receive longer sentences; they wait longer for parole; they are less likely to receive a conditional discharge; they are less likely to receive an unconditional discharge; they are less likely to receive a suspended sentence; they are less likely to receive a community sentence; they are less likely, even, to be offered a police caution. Why? A far smaller racial disparity would be considered absolutely outrageous! Lady Justice, holding her scales of justice, sits suitably blindfolded atop the Old Bailey. Everyone is equal before the law, unless, that is, you compare women with men.

"Are you a man? Then go directly to jail; do not pass go; do not collect £200. Are you a woman? Then here's your get-out-of-jail-free card. This is discrimination - prejudice, let's be honest - and it's driven by deliberate policy, as laid out in the Equal Treatment Bench Book, the guidance given to judges on 'equality' [air quotes]. This wicked, sexist document mandates punishment for men, but compassion for women.

"The Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, David Gauke, has announced a new policy designed to divert women away from prison. The same government, however, plans to build six more prisons for men!

"To explain this discrimination, we need only go to that intellectual giant, David Lamby. This man, this giant of intellect, said the following: 'most women in prison are there because of a man'. In other words, it is wrong to hold women accountable; for they are easily led astray by men. Men are agentic: ergo, their wrongdoings must be punished; women are nonagentic: ergo, their wrongdoings must be excused. Well, there are humans that do not have agency, or do not have a full measure of it - they are called children. But women are not children. Women, just like men, should be held fully accountable, and to the same degree as men. The doctrine that men are accountable, but women are not accountable, is male privilege in action. That attitude is drawn from traditional gender norms - the norms that feminists have long fought against. We must destroy systemic barriers that prevent women's full participation in custodial environments. This privileging of men - giving them harsher sentences - must stop.

"At one time, women did not have the vote - we were deemed nonagentic, unreasoning, immature creatures, just like children. Well, we now have the vote - but we are still fighting the same battle! Instead of "votes for women", it is now "prisons for women". Equal time for equal crime! Equal time for equal crime! Equal time for equal crime!"

The feminist crowd greeted these chants with the greatest zeal. 'Equal time for equal crime!' they shouted. 'Prisons for women!' 'Stop gender discrimination in criminal sentencing!' 'Women demand full participation in custodial environments!'

Emmeline Crankhurst's famous speech gave rise to the Women's Social and Political Union, a feminist organisation the central goal of which was gender equality in the criminal justice system, particularly in criminal sentencing.

Famous feminists like Angela Reiner, Jess Fullips and Lorrie Baits gave the organisation considerable cachet, and numerous media interviews resulted.

But it was an uphill battle.

'Thank you for coming on the program for the usual softball interview', said Jon Snow on Channel Four News.

'Thank you for inviting me' said Angela Reiner, crossing her legs in the high-seated chair, then re-crossing them. Again. And again.

'Perhaps you could start by telling us why you think the criminal justice system discriminates against women', said John Snow. 'Women are fifty per cent of humanity that's true; but why should fifty per cent of prisoners be women? Most crimes are committed by men, are they not?'

'That isn't what we're saying. We don't think that fifty per cent of prisoners should be women. We're saying that if a man and a woman are convicted of the same offence, then they should receive the same sentence. That’s equality.'

'That's all very well; but isn't it a matter of historical power imbalance? Women have been oppressed by men for thousands of years. Isn't some compensation due?'

'That argument is morally execrable. You can't justify benefits for women today, just because long-dead women were badly treated.'

'But women are still disadvantaged, are they not?'

'Are they? We've had three women Prime Ministers. The Home secretary is a woman. Several Chief Constables are women. The President of the Supreme Court is a woman. We've had a female Director of Public Prosecutions. I'm being interviewed at prime time on a national network. The patriarchy's not been doing a very good job lately, has it? I can tell you one way though in which the patriarchy still disadvantages women - the criminal justice system. This system infantilises women, and shamelessly so. Women must be held accountable for wrongdoing - just as harshly or as just as leniently - as men. That is what we demand, as feminists - full equality before the law.

'But there is equality', said Jon Snow. 'If a man and a woman are convicted of exactly the same offence, under exactly the same circumstances, then the man gets five years, say, and the woman gets one year. That is equality, because it's equal punishment - women aren't as capable of handling prison as men. They're more fragile and more vulnerable than men'.

'If women can be CEOs, presidents, prime ministers, judges, chief constables, etc., just like men, then we can hardly argue that women should be softly treated because they're fragile, vulnerable creatures. Feminists are not hypocrites, after all.'

Slogans began appearing everywhere: prisons-for-women tee-shirts; prisons-for-women coffee mugs; prisons-for-women ashtrays; prisons-for-women pussy-hats; prisons-for-women soap-on-a-rope. Years later, these artefacts would establish fabulous prices on the second-hand market.

The Women's Social and Political Union assiduously maintained a database of criminal trials in which male and female defendants were carefully compared. It showed no progress: women were not being imprisoned at the same rates as men; nor were they given sentences that were sufficiently harsh. Summing-up remarks by judges were notoriously patronising. 'It is clear that drug addiction has played a large role in your offending.' 'I am reluctant to send you to prison, just to teach you a lesson.' 'Clearly you've been forced to abide by the rules of a male-ordered world.' 'As a woman, you've been disadvantaged in many areas of life.' 'You have two children to care for.' 'You provide unpaid care for an elderly mother.' 'You were depressed.' 'You had just given birth.' 'You were subjected to coercive control by your husband.' 'I'm confident that you're actually a respectable woman who's been enticed into crime by a man.'

The gender bias was blatant; for judges never made excuses like these for male defendants.

Two quite distinct feminist factions now emerged: the 'Justicists', who held to peaceful and legal methods, such as demonstrations, marches and rallies; and the 'Justicettes', who were militant, and argued for stronger means.

At first the Justicettes glued themselves to roads; but the police brought them bottled water and, after arrest, charges were routinely dropped under some flimsy pretext.

The Justicettes therefore turned to violence, which, they argued, was merely a logical response - women were, after all, still being denied a basic fundamental right to be treated just as harshly as men. They announced that the violence would continue until women were locked up at the same rate as men; until women's sentences were as long as men's sentences; and until women waited just as long for parole as men, etc. Another source of bitter grievance, was the way the police offered cautions disproportionately to women.

Windows in public buildings were smashed.

Milk was poured on the floor of Fortnum and Mason.

Artworks were slashed in the National Gallery.

An 'official' window smash was organised, at which a large crowd of Justicettes ran amok in Whitehall and on Fleet Street. The roads were littered with glittering slivers.

'What do we want?' they shouted.

'Prisons for women!'

'When do we want them?'

'Now!'

'Fight the patriarchy!'

'Fight male privilege!'

'Send women to prison!'

'Equal time for equal crime!'

Two hundred protesters were arrested; they were disgusted, however, to be given only police cautions; or suspended sentences rather than custodial ones.

The sole fatality in this campaign was one Emily Davison, who stupidly believed the King's horse would stop if she stood in front of it, and who two days later died of her injuries. The Justicettes claimed that this was suicide; that she'd sacrificed her life for the movement by 'throwing' herself in front of the horse; which she had not.

When Justicettes finally succeeded in getting themselves locked up, they were horrified to discover that women's prisons were easier than men's prisons. There was far more space; cells even had soft furnishings! Equally abhorrent to them, was the way state expenditure per female prisoner was three of four times that for a male prisoner. They therefore went on hunger strike, demanding to be treated just as harshly as men. Then, just as the hunger strikers were on the point of dying, Parliament rushed through the Temporary Discharge for Ill Health Bill. This was another affront; for Justicettes demanded the right to starve themselves to death while in prison. They argued that men are not treated compassionately, so neither should they.

As a result of this failure the Justicettes became still more dangerous: they began speaking of arson and bombs.

They held a secret meeting.

Arson was proposed as the surer method; for making bombs was a 'man's job'; just like changing the washer on a tap, unblocking the u-bend under the sink, or going up a ladder to clear the guttering. Unlike ironing, vacuuming, and making sandwiches, which both men and women must do; for that is equality.

But the bomb idea was ultimately shelved, as they'd need some mansplaining about detonators and timing devices.

Emmeline Crankhurst, one of the protestors on the infamous Oxford Street Window Smash, came up for sentencing.

This would be a test case.

Wary that charges might ultimately be dropped under some sexist pretext, she'd refused to 'go quietly'. Instead, when the constable tried to arrest her, she slugged him in the face, in full view of CCTV.

While being marched into custody, she shouted to the news cameras.

'I am guilty' she screamed. 'I have assaulted a police officer. If I'm convicted, it's to prove that punishment is not being justly imposed upon women.'

This was assault with intent to resist arrest, contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 section 38, and which carried a maximum sentence of two years.

There was much debate in the media about whether the judge would, at long last, treat her as agentic, just like a man; or whether he would abide by the Equal Treatment Bench Book, and concoct some excuse to let her off.

Feminists demanded the full penalty of the law, and threatened riots if this was not so.

Lady Justice looked down at the proceedings in the Old Bailey; or would have looked down, had she not been blindfolded.

'You will go to prison for two years' said the judge.

There was uproar, cheering and applause from feminists in the court. The maximum sentence, just like a man would receive.

'Oh, thank you, your honour!' gasped Emmeline Crankhurst. 'Free at last! Free at last! Thank God almighty, I'm free at last!'

'On second thoughts,' said the judge, 'suspended.'

Endnotes

1.     Bax E. B. (1913), The Fraud of Feminism. (I have consulted a modern reprint by Amazon, undated). This essay, a vintage work, shows how leniency toward women in the criminal justice system is hardly a new phenomenon.

2.     Casey G. (2020). After Me Too.

3.     Collins W. (2019). The Empathy Gap - Male Disadvantages and the Mechanisms of Their Neglect. Chapter 8, 'Imprisonment'. The facts that relate to incarceration in my short story are drawn from real-life sources, as cited in this book.

4.     Farrell W. (1993). The Myth of Male Power - Why Men are the Disposable Sex. Chapter 11, 'How the system protects women, or . . . two different laws we live in'. Chapter 12, Women who kill too much and the courts that free them: the twelve female-only defenses'.

(c) Cufwulf Montagu

Cufwulf@aol.com