How are Marxist and Feminist theories compatible in explaining crime?
471123
I don't think Marxist dealt with crime. He dealt with capitalism and how one group dominated another group. I guess feminist would have men dominating women in their theory. It is true afterall.
984127
Since you're obviously new to the game of rhetorical slandering, I'll go easy this time and offer a bit of advice:\n\nExamine closely which party most resembles the  Marxist doctrine, and try again.\n\n\nFozzy: if I could give thumbs up, I'd give you one.\nnice lesson.
308132
if your society systematically puts down or punishes a specific group of people on a racial basis then there is no difference between the two, because that kind of discrimination (jobs, schools, neighbourhoods) will lead to an increase in criminal behaviour....simply because there are fewer and fewer alternatives, if any, available.\n\nif white anglo-saxon protestants were systematically beaten down for generations, then they'd pretty much match the criminal profile.
468230
Does this work for you?\n\nhttp://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idbnew.html\n\n\nI also came across this tidbi you might find interesting.\n\nSome crime statistics from 19th Century India are particularly illuminating with regard to our thesis. In 1881 the frequency of crime by religion was as follows: one of 274 Christian Europeans committed a crime; one of 799 Christian Indians did so; one of 1,361 Hindus; and one of 3,787 Buddhists. If the Jains had been included in this count, one would have expected an even higher ratio for them. With regard to the native Christian count, an English official made the following observation: "It appears from these figures that while we effect a very marked moral deterioration in the natives by converting them to our creed, their natural standard of morality is so high that, however much we Christianize them, we cannot succeed in making them altogether as bad as ourselves." An 1899 statistical dictionary reported that for every 100,000 people in Western Europe there were from 100-230 prisoners; 190 for England; and 38 for India.\n\nhttp://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/hindfund.htm\n\n\n\nThere may be something here:\nhttp://www.thearda.com/\n\nOr here:\nhttp://www.worldchristiandatabase.org/wcd/
987643
Four things come to mind: First, their attitude towards government. They believe in a big, cradle-to-grave nanny state that controls every aspect of the people's lives, taxes the rich to redistribute wealth to the "poor" and expects the vote of all of the "victims" who receive their largess.  Can you say "Socialism?" Re: From each according to his ability; to each according to his need. - Karl Marx.\n\nSecond: Nuances, shades of gray, believing there is no such things as Good and Evil or Right and Wrong. No absolutes. No one is really responsible for their own actions.\n\nThird, they depend heavily on "moral equivalency" to make an argument. Don't debate the issue with facts, offer a moral equivalent instead. A moral equivalent can be used to "abuse, excuse, accuse or confuse". \n\nFourth, their response to almost every problem is what they feel, not what they think. My own personal opinion?  Feminism has made masculine logic politically incorrect. "I feel your pain." has replaced, "I see your problem. Let's fix it."\n\nYou asked for our honest answers. There's mine.
655967
Both the criminals and those who encourage the crime.
1132568
I'm confused?  Why is being a woman a crime?  \n\nIs this some feminist ideal of, I'm not making as much money as someone else?
436715
Hey!  The best way to deal with crime is to give Mike a job!\n\nBTW, love the schlevyhat!
230494
Thanks for the link. Although I have so much to read already, I may have to get that book. I also don't need anyone to tell me that Communism is run by thugs, all power structures have the same problem, e.g. the GOP in this country albeit in a different way.
358142
Crime (in general): thought to be the work of Satan, proven to be the activity of the masses. Crime is this Nation's largest employer and the mover of more money through our economy than any other activity. To prove this point, simply try to envision how our society and its economy would be with the total absence of all crime: no police, no private security industry (rent-a-cops, etc.), no lawyers, no judges, no courts. no FBI, no ATF, no law makers (senators, representatives, county supervisors, city councilpersons, etc.), no criminal justice system of any kind, half as many firefighters (arson and criminal code violations account for most fires), half as many doctors, nurses, and hospitals (with all their supporting personnel) to take care of all the stabbings, beatings, shootings, poisonings, and a host of others injuries and ailments brought about as the result of crime, no more lock, key, and safe industry, few walls and fences would be needed, the media (TV, news- papers, etc. would have to lay off thousands without crime stories and dramas), the paper industry would all but collapse, two million inmates would have to be released, a million hookers would have to be cared for, and the number of industies, large and small, that supply all the cars, vans, buses, helicopters, uniforms, medical supplies, and thousands of other products and services that are needed as the result of crime, would simply disappear. Without all crime, tens of millions would be instantly unemployed, millions upon millions of square feet of real estate would lie vacant, and the domino effect from all this would bring ruin. And just who is committing all this crime? There aren't enough atheists and freethinkers around to hold accountable. Got any ideas? The ads say "Take a bite out of crime." (Don't take too big a bite, it just may cost you your job or business.)
515683
check out DAVID HOROWITZ book, the title escapes me at the moment.\nMr. Horowitz was a big leafiest in the late 60's and has keen and personal insights into this group of thugs.  they are responsible for murders that have still not been punished because they are a 'civil rights organization'.  In your hat! Like I am a astronaut who will be singing opera at Carnegie hall tonight standing on one hand.
741828
There will always be crime. As long as there is more than one person on this planet there will be crime. Because no two people see things the same way. What is fine in one persons book is wrong is someone elses. So there is no solution. Even if people were to stop breaking the laws there are today new laws would be made just to make sure that laws continued to be broken. When the govenment says it is at war with crime and that everything is being done to end crime they are giving a pacifier to a baby thats all they are doing. To many jobs depend on the fact that people are commiting and will continue to commit crimes.  Crime is a business. In the jungles where they dont worry about money and business they dont have jails or police and have very little crime. They dont have drug addicts and they dont have drive bys or hit and runs or drunk drivers. The men hunt and the women stay with the kids so they also dont have strange people watching thier children that could be doing more than watching them. They dont watch tv so they dont have bad ideas made to look like something really glamourous or exciting. \nI think it is a crime for parents to hit thier kids and other parents think that is a crime for parents who dont.  The only macro solution would to be to start all over again with all new people but there would still end up being crime as soon as greed sets in just like today.
505446
Don't get excited by a new word.\n\nWhat caused the crime?\n Environment?\n Mental impairment?\n Motivations of revenge?\n Passion? (blinded by love or infatuations)\n Learned behavior?\n\nThe list goes on and on. The arguments can be appreciated by both sides in the interest of justice and corrections.
874797
Well, let's take a look at it. Feminist women attack the Biblical structure of the home and support abortion, the killing of unborn babies. So, I would say, yes.\n#1denverfan
553431
Feminism is an ideology that seems logical, but proves contrary when truly analyzed. Feminism, by implied definition, is "the ensuring of complete equality of men and women". However, to both followers of Christ, and respecters of true science, this ideology is ilogical and irrational.\n\nTo Christians, feminism is nothing more sophisticated than rebellion against Christ's ordinances for man and woman. Christ ordained Adam, and all men, to stand in HIS stead as shepherd, provider, protector, father, and husband. Christ also ordaind Eve, and all women, to stand in the stead of HIS Church as nourisher, bearer of fruit, nurterer, bride, and mother. Feminists display arrogance when attempting to overcome the God ordained offices of man and woman.\n\nTo respecters of science, feminism is a contradiction of nature itself. By nature, a man's body is built for manual labour. The bone structure, muscle, speed, and endourance of man is perfectly designed and balanced for manual labour. As well, a woman's body is built for child bearing and nourishment. Again, the bone structure, lower center of balance, excess body fat, menstral cycle, and mamory glands of women affirm that a woman's body is designed for child bearing and nourishing. Thus, nature itselft enforces certain duties and responsibilities of men and women. Man cannot bare the children, while the woman labours. Man cannot be impregnated while the woman provides. Nature demands the woman bare children and the man labour. Nature demands the woman be impregnated and the man provide.\n\nTo Christians, a society that strives against God, (in any manner, including sexual duties) is only mocking and provoking HIM. Such a society should not expect Christ to hear their prayers in time of need.\n\nTo believers in science, a society that strives against nature is destined for confusion, chaos, and eventual destruction. A society that believes it can conquer nature by denying its truths is just as foolish as a nation that believes it can withstand fire, water, and wind by ignoring their heat, overwelmingness, and strength, respectively.\n\nAll being said, the ideology of "ensuring equality amongst men and women" by denying their obvious differences is destructive, delusional, and foolish. Much more wisely, men ought to embrace ther GOD given and nature enforced masculine bodies and duties, and women embrace their GOD given and nature enforced feminine bodies and duties. Nonetheless, understanding that the man is incomplete without the woman, as well the woman is in need of the man. Therefore, appreciating and complimenting one another without denying the natures and uniqueness of one another.
635039
Wow, that's tough.  Is your assignment to argue that retribution is socially cohesive, or did you come up with this yourself?\n\nThis is what I can think of:\n\nRetributive justice is based on the idea that criminals should be punished for undermining social "harmony" or "balance."  Therefore, we can't dole out retributive punishment before we first have a definition of what is social harmony or balance.  Social harmony and balance can be defined through laws, custom, or religion.  The PROCESS of defining social harmony and balance is socailly cohesive because, to some extent, we must generally agree on what the definition of social order is.  In other words, the PROCESS of accepting and agreeing on laws/customs/religion is socially cohesive.\n\nThe rehabilitation theory of punishment is probably the most socially cohesive because it is based on rehabiliting the criminal so that he can successfully reenter society.
943912
What is axiomatic need not be proved by experience. The data collected only confirms the fact.\n\nThe previous answerer 'libido' sounds like a drop out from the degree college. She does not have elementary knowledge of epistemology and by just quoting Socrates and M.N. Roy an unknown Indian Marxist,  one just can not address such serious issues.\n\n 'Empiricism', 'Truth' and 'Blasphemy' are very ambiguous words and unless one is sure about its philosophic connotation, the debate can not proceed. Rather, we will be landing in total confusion using high sounding words with the least regard to the grammatical norms. 'libido' who loves to brag as a 'rationalist' to please take care of the grammar while framing sentences in English. It is certainly not a proletarian platform for the pseudo Marxists! It is a bourgeoisie club to exchange novel ideas and not ignorance. Beware!