Federal Civil Rights Report: Women Inmates Often Punished More Harshly Than Men - NPR
Federal Civil Rights Report: Women Inmates Often Punished More Harshly Than Men - NPR |
- Federal Civil Rights Report: Women Inmates Often Punished More Harshly Than Men - NPR
- Commentary: Will there ever be a right time for a woman president? Busting the 'electability' fears - The Daily World
- Naomi Ishisaka: Busting the 'electability' fears for women - PostBulletin.com
- ABC is launching 'Bachelor' spinoff for senior citizens - New York Post
- Paradox for Women Emerges in Imaging of Ischemic Stroke - Medscape
| Federal Civil Rights Report: Women Inmates Often Punished More Harshly Than Men - NPR Posted: 26 Feb 2020 02:05 AM PST  Lashonia Thompson-El, who spent 18 years in prison, says she once was placed in solitary confinement for three months after making an unauthorized phone call to her 10-year-old daughter. Joseph Shapiro/NPR hide caption  Lashonia Thompson-El, who spent 18 years in prison, says she once was placed in solitary confinement for three months after making an unauthorized phone call to her 10-year-old daughter. Joseph Shapiro/NPRWomen in prison, when compared with incarcerated men, often receive disproportionately harsh punishments for minor violations of prison rules, according to a report released Wednesday by a federal fact-finding agency. The report from the United States Commission on Civil Rights comes after public hearings in 2019 and a yearlong investigation. The commission's findings reflect and cite stories by NPR that looked at why prison discipline policies often punish women more harshly than men. "What we saw was that women themselves are substantially more likely [than men] to be subject to disciplinary practices for minor infractions," says Catherine Lhamon, the commission's chair. Those minor offenses include "being what's called insolent, or disobeying an order, or swearing." In 2018, NPR and the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University collected data from prisons across the U.S. and found that women were disciplined two to three times more often than men for more minor violations of prison rules. Women were more likely to get punished for nonviolent and often subjective violations, like disobeying or talking back to a corrections officer.   The NPR stories found that punishment for these minor violations carried often significant consequences. Women lost "good conduct credits," and days were added to the time they spent in prison. They lost privileges such as being able to buy food or women's hygiene products from the prison commissary. They lost phone and visitation privileges. Sometimes, they were sent to solitary confinement. "If people — women — are serving time in harder ways than they would if they were men for like behaviors, that is classic discrimination," Lhamon adds. "And also, it is counterproductive for the goal of making sure that women who will reenter society, as most [incarcerated people] do, will be able to be successful when they do." The commission's report, "Women in Prison: Seeking Justice Behind Bars," looks at a range of issues for women in prison, including the discrepancies in discipline. Among its recommendations:
Lashonia Thompson-El, who testified before the commission last February, says prison discipline policies were created to keep safety in men's prisons but don't work when applied to women's prisons, where there is less violence. "Some of the things that women get punished for that men don't involve stealing from the kitchen, whether it be fruits or vegetables or even a leftover piece of cornbread," she says. "Or for disrespecting an officer. They call it insolence." Thompson-El spent 18 years in prison. She once got placed in solitary confinement — for three months, she says — after she made an unauthorized phone call to her 10-year-old daughter. Then she lost phone privileges home. "So when you're in prison, it's difficult to try to transform your life and rehabilitate yourself and be strong and be positive when you can't speak to your kids," she says. "Because they're like the most important thing in the world to you." After prison, Thompson-El came home to Washington, D.C., and started The WIRE, or Women Involved in Reentry Efforts, to help other women. "I know a lot of men who have been incarcerated," says Thompson-El. "My husband's been incarcerated, my brother, my godbrother, a lot of my peers. And I talk to them about this stuff all the time, and they're always surprised and amazed when I tell them about some of the things women were disciplined for. And I'm always struck by the level of violence and the level of harm they have experienced in the facilities." In women's prisons, black women get some of the harshest punishments, according to the new report. The commission calculated that black women make up 23% of women in prison, but they make up 40% of women in solitary confinement. The report looked at states that cut back on the use of solitary confinement, replaced it with less punitive alternatives and got good results. "They are seeing dramatic reductions in incidents of violence, dramatic reductions in the kinds of behaviors that the prisons don't want to see repeated," says Lhamon. "And they are better preparing the women for reentry upon release from prison." Approximately 231,000 women and girls are incarcerated in the U.S., according to the Prison Policy Initiative, with around 99,000 in state prisons, 16,000 in federal prisons and 101,000 in local jails. Eighty percent of women in jails are mothers, and most of them are the primary caretakers of children, according to the Prison Policy Initiative. Sixty percent of women in jail have not been convicted and are awaiting trial, usually because they are unable to pay bail. Women are just a small percentage — about 10% — of people in jails and prisons, but their numbers are rising far faster than those for men. The commission calculates that over the last 40 years, the number of women in state and federal prisons has increased by more than 730%. |
| Posted: 26 Feb 2020 01:30 AM PST By Naomi Ishisaka The Seattle Times Will there ever be a right time for a woman president? I understood why progressive voters were ambivalent at best about Hillary Clinton in 2008 and 2016. Clinton was a core part of a powerful political dynasty, with centrist policies and backed by the Democratic power structure. With that gigantic head start, it was easy to feel that Clinton's election would not be a true test of the potential for women to ascend to the highest office in the land. But four years later, the landscape looks dramatically different. We now have an open field that includes two staunchly progressive candidates vying strongly for the nomination, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Running for the moderate vote, Amy Klobuchar is the last viable woman in the race and is facing three men, Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden and Mike Bloomberg. I'm not here to tell you who to vote for or to suggest you should vote for a woman just to see a woman elected. But I would encourage everyone not to count out a woman candidate over false concerns of "electability." For all of our talk about being a model of democracy, the U.S. ranks 75th in representation of women in government. Even with a surge of women elected to the House in 2018, the U.S. doesn't rise to the worldwide average of 25% women in lower houses. Women seeking higher office have to thread a very fine needle of double standards and biases. If you seem too ambitious, you won't be likable by both women and men. If you are too aggressive, you will seem angry, which is "not a good look." If you are too passive, you will be seen as weak. One of the biggest and most persistent challenges for women candidates is the issue of "electability." Electability is a Catch-22 for candidates who are vying to be the first to break a barrier. You can't be elected because you aren't "electable," you aren't perceived as electable because nobody like you has ever been elected. Democratic women running against Trump face another bind. Voters fearing another four years of Trump worry that now is not the time to take a risk on a woman candidate when sexism could be leveraged to hurt her campaign. In other words, we want a woman candidate, but now is not the right time. While 74% of voters in a June Ipsos poll say they would be comfortable with a woman president, only 33% believed their neighbors would be. This "I am not sexist/racist/homophobic, but I think everyone else is" attitude can create a fait accompli for those trying to break the most persistent glass ceiling. The fears are not unfounded. In exit polls from 2016, those who had a negative view of both Clinton and Trump still voted for Trump by 20 points. This holds up even when voters believe a woman is more qualified. Voters are more open to women in legislative offices than they are to women in executive roles. Just nine women serve in state governor's offices across the country. As scholar Brittney Cooper wrote in Time magazine, while simply being a woman does not make you a better leader, it matters that a candidate is a woman. "Being progressive doesn't mean that one's race or gender ceases to matter in one's leadership style and prerogatives," she wrote, "especially not in a world where gender and race are always presumed to matter for how women and people of color will govern." Some women candidates worry talking about these dynamics reinforces them and adds to the belief that women can't win. It's a legitimate concern, but I disagree. Just as we talked about the impact of race in 2008, we should be able to talk about gender in politics and about the headwinds women (and nonbinary and trans people) face in 2020. These headwinds are compounded when you are a woman of color. Only by being honest with ourselves about how far we have to go will we be able to marshal the strategies to create a more equitable playing field. Part of that honesty requires vigilance in calling out sexism, racism and homophobia wherever it appears, even when it's from people who support our favorite candidates. If supporters allow sexism and sexist double standards to be the wind beneath the wings of their favorite male candidate in 2020, that should be challenged, no matter who does it. The ends never justify the means. Sanders supporter Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez modeled this solidarity beautifully in defending Warren against such attacks last week. After 231 years, and 44 male presidents, is now finally the right time? We will see in the coming months. But what we do know is that as the campaign gets tighter, the rhetoric will get uglier and more sexist — if we let it. Naomi Ishisaka (nishisaka@seattletimes.com) writes about race, culture and equity through a social justice lens. |
| Naomi Ishisaka: Busting the 'electability' fears for women - PostBulletin.com Posted: 26 Feb 2020 06:56 AM PST  Will there ever be a right time for a woman president? I understood why progressive voters were ambivalent at best about Hillary Clinton in 2008 and 2016. Clinton was a core part of a powerful political dynasty, with centrist policies and backed by the Democratic power structure. With that gigantic head start, it was easy for progressives to think Clinton's election would not be a true test of the potential for women to ascend to the highest office in the land. But four years later, the landscape looks dramatically different. We now have an open field that includes two staunchly progressive candidates vying strongly for the nomination, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Running for the moderate vote, Amy Klobuchar is the last viable woman in the race and is facing three men, Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden and Mike Bloomberg. I'm not here to tell you who to vote for or to suggest you should vote for a woman just to see a woman elected. But I would encourage everyone not to count out a woman candidate over false concerns of "electability." For all of our talk about being a model of democracy, the U.S. ranks 75th in representation of women in government. Even with a surge of women elected to the House in 2018, the U.S. doesn't rise to the worldwide average of 25% women in lower houses. Women seeking higher office have to thread a very fine needle of double standards and biases. If you seem too ambitious, you won't be likable by both women and men. If you are too aggressive, you will seem angry, which is "not a good look." If you are too passive, you will be seen as weak. One of the biggest and most persistent challenges for women candidates is the issue of "electability." Electability is a Catch-22 for candidates who are vying to be the first to break a barrier. You can't be elected because you aren't "electable," you aren't perceived as electable because nobody like you has ever been elected. Democratic women running against Trump face another bind. Voters fearing another four years of Trump worry that now is not the time to take a risk on a woman candidate when sexism could be leveraged to hurt her campaign. In other words, we want a woman candidate, but now is not the right time. While 74% of voters in a June Ipsos poll say they would be comfortable with a woman president, only 33% believed their neighbors would be. This "I am not sexist/racist/homophobic but I think everyone else is" attitude can create a fait accompli for those trying to break the most persistent glass ceiling. The fears are not unfounded. In exit polls from 2016, those who had a negative view of both Clinton and Trump still voted for Trump by 20 points. This holds up even when voters believe a woman is more qualified. Voters are more open to women in legislative offices than they are to women in executive roles. Just nine women serve in state governor's offices across the country. As scholar Brittney Cooper wrote in Time magazine, while simply being a woman does not make you a better leader, it matters that a candidate is a woman. "Being progressive doesn't mean that one's race or gender ceases to matter in one's leadership style and prerogatives," she wrote, "especially not in a world where gender and race are always presumed to matter for how women and people of color will govern." Some women candidates worry talking about these dynamics reinforces them and adds to the belief that women can't win. It's a legitimate concern, but I disagree. Just as we talked about the impact of race in 2008, we should be able to talk about gender in politics and about the headwinds women face in 2020. Only by being honest with ourselves about how far we have to go will we be able to marshal the strategies to create a more equitable playing field. Part of that honesty requires vigilance in calling out sexism, racism and homophobia wherever it appears, even when it's from people who support our favorite candidates. If supporters allow sexism and sexist double standards to be the wind beneath the wings of their favorite male candidate in 2020, that should be challenged, no matter who does it. The ends never justify the means. After 231 years, and 44 male presidents, is now finally the right time? We will see in the coming months. But what we do know is that as the campaign gets tighter, the rhetoric will get uglier and more sexist -- if we let it. |
| ABC is launching 'Bachelor' spinoff for senior citizens - New York Post Posted: 25 Feb 2020 09:19 AM PST  Calling all single seniors! On last night's episode of "The Bachelor" Season 24, ABC announced that it was seeking unattached men and women over 65 years old to participate in a spinoff dating show for senior citizens. "#BachelorNation, give us your Grumpiest Old Men, give us your Goldenest Girls. #TheBachelor," wrote Robert Mills, ABC's head of alternative programming, in a tweet yesterday. He adds, "To be clear, this is 65+." According to the show's casting description, "The Producers of 'The Bachelor' are looking for active and outgoing single men and women IN THEIR GOLDEN YEARS for a new exciting dating show!" The network hasn't specified many eligibility requirements beyond that, other than "applicants must be legal US residents." For more on this new senior-centric "Bachelor" spinoff, listen to this episode of the Page Six podcast, "We Hear" The recruitment ad for the senior-centric "Bachelor" spinoff comes just after the current season was criticized for its female contestants being too catty and immature, reports Showbiz CheatSheet. Indeed, only one contestant topped the age of 30, according to The Wrap. Last month, Mills even hinted at the senior-targeting series in a recent interview with Entertainment Tonight. "You see a lot of people talking about the age of contestants," he said. "I think that's something we'd probably look at and say, 'Does it need to be aged up?' " ABC has yet to announce the show's name or air date. This isn't "The Bachelor's" first spinoff series. Last month, ABC announced they were launching a musical iteration of the dating show called "The Bachelor: Listen to Your Heart" — an "American Idol" meets "The Bachelor" concept. |
| Paradox for Women Emerges in Imaging of Ischemic Stroke - Medscape Posted: 26 Feb 2020 02:53 PM PST  LOS ANGELES — Although women appear to have more favorable vascular and hemodynamic measures after an ischemic stroke than men, overall, they experience worse functional outcomes, new evidence demonstrates. The findings suggest other factors may be driving this inconsistency. Women "had smaller penumbra, better collaterals and slower lesion growth, but still, paradoxically, had worse outcomes than men" at 90 days, Steven Warach, MD, PhD, said here at the 2020 International Stroke Conference (ISC). "This even held true among those who achieved satisfactory recanalization," he added. Results also were published online in the February 2020 issue of Stroke. Stroke Strikes DifferentlySex differences in ischemic stroke are well known, said Warach, Professor of Neurology at the University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School. "In general, women have more severe strokes with worse clinical outcome." Furthermore, women were more likely to experience a large vessel occlusion and a penumbral mismatch in the first 24 hours after stroke onset compared with men in previous work evaluating the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke lesion database. There can also be differences in how women and men respond to thrombolytic and endovascular treatment, he said. "But the published data have been inconsistent." Seeking a more definitive answer, Warach, lead author Adrienne Dula, PhD, and colleagues performed a subanalysis of the Endovascular Therapy Following Imaging Evaluation for Ischemic Stroke (DEFUSE 3) trial. They wanted to determine if baseline sex differences in core and penumbra imaging measures predict outcomes or differential response to endovascular therapy. They evaluated 182 adults — 92 women and 90 men. At baseline, DEFUSE 3 participants had a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 6 or greater and a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 2 or less. Overall, women featured a smaller median core volume than men at baseline, 8.0 mL versus 12.6 mL. The difference was not significant (P = .087). Women also had a smaller median perfusion deficit at baseline, 89 mL, compared with 134 mL among men, defined by a Tmax delay threshold of 6 seconds. This difference was statistically significant (P < .001). Another favorable finding for women was better collateral function, reflected by a lower median hypoperfusion intensity ratio, 0.31, compared with 0.39 in men (P = .006). Key FindingsAt 24 hours after stroke onset, women had significantly smaller ischemic core growth, a median 22 mL, compared with 42 mL among men (P < .001). In contrast, reperfusion volumes did not differ significantly by sex (P = .407). The researchers also assessed outcomes between sexes by whether they received medical or endovascular treatment. "In the medical treatment arm, outcomes were very similar to the overall sample," he said, including women having a smaller ischemic core and men experiencing greater lesion growth in 24 hours. Investigators found no difference between sexes receiving medical treatment regarding mRS scores or functional independence at 90 days. Additionally, outcomes did not differ based on time to randomization. More striking differences emerged, however, between women and men receiving endovascular therapy plus medical treatment. "The women had a worse modified Rankin Scale score at 90 days," Warach said. Median mRS scores at this point were 3.5 among women compared with 2 for men, despite similar NIHSS scores and mRS results at discharge. Furthermore, fewer women who had endovascular therapy and successful recanalization achieved functional independence at 90 days, 36%, versus 67% of men (P = .016). Time to randomization and recanalization also differed in this group, which "was about 90 minutes longer in women than men." Warach repeatedly emphasized that endovascular therapy was associated with an overall advantage regardless of sex. "Both men and women showed a benefit to thrombectomy versus control, but in the thrombectomy group, nonetheless, women had a worse clinical outcome than men." Limitations of the study include its post hoc design, which means there could have been unaccountable factors that could help explain the paradox for women. Going forward, Warach said, "with support from the Lone Star Stroke Research Consortium, we have started an observational prospective study of baseline multimodal imaging to determine if sex differences in vascular and hemodynamics predict differences in outcome." 'Women Should Be Doing Better'"We've known for some time that men and women process stroke differently," session moderator Justin F. Fraser, MD, director of cerebrovascular surgery in the Department of Neurological Surgery at UK HealthCare at University of Kentucky in Lexington, told Medscape Medical News. "There has been a growing interest in really trying to dig into this." For example, although previous studies evaluating uric acid for neuroprotection after stroke appeared unsuccessful, "when you dug into the data, it worked for one sex but not the other," he added. More work is needed to evaluate differences in treatment outcomes by sex. "You saw that today with the paradox — by prediction models, women should be doing better but they are doing worse." The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) and support for Dula from the Lone Star Stroke Research Consortium. Warach reported grant support from NINDS StrokeNet and consulting for Genentech. Fraser disclosed no relevant financial relationships. International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2020. Abstract 56. Presented February 19, 2020. For more Medscape Neurology news, join us on Facebook and Twitter |
| You are subscribed to email updates from "women seeking men" - Google News. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
Comments
Post a Comment