Title of the Year Award.

And I'm giving it to: Men Are Not Cost-Effective, by June Stephenson.

Now that's an eye-grabbing title, admit it.  Sometimes when I'm searching for other titles in my library catalog, I scan the other titles that come up in the alphabetical list, which is how I found this title.  So I just had to order it.

I know.  I have the nerdiest bad habits EVER.  I also spend a lot of time on the Internet, watching videos I shouldn't...of Jane Austen adaptations.  That's right.  It's porn for girls, and I'm addicted.

But, I digress.  Now, from Men Are Not Cost-Effective.  Check this out:

"Of the first-timers in state prisons, 73 percent of the males are charged with committing violent crimes, compared with 7 percent of the females.  Of those who had prior violent crime convictions, 98 percent of the males are returned to jail for committing another violent crime after being released, compared with 2 percent of the females." (p. 8.)

"The best case for making the point that men are not cost-effective is found in the group of almost entirely male criminals who are now costing US taxpayers an anticipated half trillion dollars.  These men are involved in the worst financial scandal* in the history of the United States.  Men fraudulently and premeditatively, or at the very least greedily, siphoned off savings and loan depositors' money to their own advantage, knowing that the government, or more precisely the American taxpayers, would make good on their crimes." (p. 126.)

"A consistent element in most rape is the lack of concern for the victim. As a consequence, the most difficult task in rape counseling treatment centers is to get rapists to develop a sense of empathy.  This is almost impossible for men who are devoid of emotions other than anger or frustration." (p. 209.)

June, God love her, goes on to suggest adding a "user's fee" of $100 on men's tax returns (since men are using the criminal justice system almost exclusively).  She also points out, succinctly, that "if guns made us safer, the US would be the safest country in the world."

The pub date on the book is 1995, so I would take all those statistics with a grain of salt.  But I like June's spirit.  How's 'bout it, boys?  Anyone up for putting $100 in the kitty voluntarily?  Mr. Citizen Reader probably wouldn't be in to it, but I could just start taking the money out of his wallet if it's all for the greater good.

*In our current era of government and financial scandal, doesn't the Savings and Loan scandal seem almost quaint?

Comments

[Lesbrarian]

Oh wow. I may have to ILL this.

And now, promise me-- PROMISE ME-- that you will get your hands on a copy of Porn for Women. I had to order it for the 'brary through Amazon, I think (I seem to recall that B&T wasn't stocking it), and I tell you, we just cannot keep that book on the shelf. Every time it gets checked back in, it stays on the new book shelf for about an hour, then zap! Out for another four glorious weeks!

It's a super-quick read featuring glossy photos of men vacuuming, men cleaning the cat box, men asking for directions... I mean the whole thing is based on shameless stereotypes, and it is hilarious.

It has nothing to do with "Men Are Not Cost Effective," other than having a funny title, but anyway.

[Melanie]

I've been on a bit of a Pride and Prejudice kick lately. I've read The Darcy's Give a Ball by Elizabeth Newark and Darcy's Story by Janey Aylmer. Both were good. I'm waiting for Mr. Darcy's Diary, The Darcy Connection, and Lost in Austen to come in.

[Citizen Reader]

Lesbrarian,
Yes, it's worth a look. As noted, it's dated, but I would actually be interested in tracking down some similar stats from the past few years to see if things have changed appreciably. I know that women are getting in on the action with fights, etc., so I'd be interested to see what's changed. Very disappointing, actually; would we have to become more masculine in violent tendencies? Couldn't we become more "male" in a helpful way, like hosting fewer bridal showers and believing that greeting cards are a waste of money?

Okay, you're not going to believe this, but a friend and I TOTALLY had the idea for "Porn for Women" long before it was published--came out of a conversation where my friend opined that men just did not understand that the best foreplay in the world was them emptying the dishwasher without being told. I kicked myself (I literally figured out a way to physically kick myself) when I saw this one had been published. I was so despondent I never even checked it out--I'll have to get on that. Great suggestion!

Melanie,
Good luck with the Mr. Darcy jag. Have you read Pamela Aidan's novels, starting with "An Assembly Such as This"? I loved those. And I enjoyed "Lost In Austen," too, even though it was weird. Have fun!

[Brandon]

Fuck that shit.

Sorry for my language. But why the hell should *I* pay $100 "user's fee" for a prison I never go to? What a bitch.

It's this kind of sexism that pisses me off. What, it's wrong to discriminate women based on gender, but not men? Little Junebug needs to get her head out of her ass. Maybe she and every woman in America can pay $100 on their tax returns for Junebug using her ass exclusively as a megaphone.

[Citizen Reader]

Brandon,
Hmmm, swear words and lots of anger in your comment...are you a...gasp...BOY?!?! Who let you in here?

Rest easy, my friend. No one's going to charge you $100. I'm pretty sure June Stephenson has no power and very few followers, so I think you're safe. In the meantime? Try to stay out of trouble, you boy, you.

[brandon]

oh, it's not that i'm afraid of being charged 100 dollars; it's the idea of paying for something just because i'm a man. come on--every man in america should pay 100 bucks simply because more men use the criminal justice system than women? that's utterly ridiculous. maybe our stalwart steed should shoul advocate something like making every woman in america pay 100 bucks simply because some women use abortion services.

then again, maybe not. you can't expect logic from femi-nazis like our intrepid, forward-thinking junebug. but by her whacked-out logic, it would make sense, yes?

[Citizen Reader]

Well, Brandon, there's fair, and then there's life. Should young people have to pay more for car insurance? Should women have higher health insurance premiums during their child-bearing years? Should some married people get health insurance coverage from their spouse's employer (note the emphasis on some--in today's increasinngly cheap employer culture, this is not necessarily a given anymore) while single people don't get that benefit?

I guess that's what I didn't find Junebug's logic all that whacked out; businesses assess these types of charges (just because of who you are) all the time, why can't government?

For the record, rather than charging men (or really anybody who has violence issues) I wish we could discover more about what leads to the violence. But I guess the answer is probably just "human nature." And frankly, $100 isn't going to put a dent in that greater problem.

I'd be remiss if I didn't add I owe you about $100 in consulting fees for your help with TypePad, BTW. As they say on the Footloose soundtrack, let's hear it for the boy!

[brandon]

You're missing the point, as well as the crucial factor behind Junebug's so-called "logic": she advocates charging ALL MEN an extra $100 because MEN use the criminal justice system more than women. That's discrimination. What you're saying is that people WHO USE certain services pay for them. Well, of course they do; I accept that. I also realize that $100 bucks over the course of a year is chump change, but it's the principle of her idea: she's advocating gender discrimination. Little Junebug says every man should be taxed more because our gender uses the criminal justice system "almost exclusively." See the difference? It doesn't matter to this woman WHO'S actually using the system. This femi-nazi is basing her reasoning strictly on gender.

Now let me ask you this: how would you feel about charging all blacks extra money because their ethnicity uses the criminal justice system more often than any other ethnicity? The black community would raise hell if I went public with that idea. But that wouldn't be a far cry from what Junebug is saying; she's just using gender, not race. But discrimination is discrimination.

Of course, this underlies a certain irony in the gender wars: namely, that if a woman is discriminated against, she'll raise a stink about it, but if a man is discriminated against, he's expected to roll with it and not say a word. Sadly, that's often what we do.

[Citizen Reader]

Brandon,
I don't think I'm missing the whole point. If I, as a woman of child-bearing age, choose not to have children, I will still be charged higher rates because I am of child-bearing age. Even if I never use those ob-gyn services, I'll get charged for them nonetheless. Likewise, teens who never have car accidents are still being charged for a service (insurance coverage) that they never use.

Or is there something in the logic I'm missing? I'll freely admit formal logic has never been my strong point.

I would guess that if anyone spent a little time looking, you probably could find a book that proposes charging or otherwise discriminating based on all kinds of things, race and gender included. But no, I wouldn't advocate that, so I guess I can't advocate the $100 from men plan either, and Mr. Citizen Reader's wallet is safe.

I am glad you unrolled with it and said some words. You may be unhappy with Stephenson's suggestions (it's just a feeling I'm getting) but it certainly seems like a book that could spark conversation. Is that all bad? I know that thanks to you I've already moved from basic and generalized amusement at her thoughts to trying to think about it more carefully.