Saturday, April 27, 2013

Prison Guards and Prison Guardesses

It shouldn’t come as a surprise, but it does. In today’s America large numbers of prison guards in male-only prisons are female. For the sake of clarity, we’ll call them guardesses.

How’s that one working out?

Here’s the latest scandal from the Baltimore City Detention Center, via Justin Peters:

… the Baltimore City Detention Center… had been effectively taken over by a prison gang called the Black Guerrilla Family (BGF). Recently, 25 people, including 13 prison employees, were indicted for their alleged roles in the BGF's robust drug business and other criminal enterprises.

David Freedlander shows what happens when the inmates run the prison:

Female guards smuggled cellphones, marijuana, and prescription drugs to inmates. Gang members ordered hits from inside the jail and dined on salmon and Grey Goose vodka that was smuggled in on their behalf. Corrections officers stood guard for one another so they could have sex with inmates. They warned prisoners of upcoming searches of their cells by unfriendly colleagues. Tavon White, the leader of the Black Guerrilla Family who allegedly impregnated four of the guards and was there waiting for his murder trial to commence, was caught bragging on a wiretap: “This is my jail. You understand that? I’m dead serious. I make every final call in this jail.”

Apparently, the biology of gender differences is at play in highly predictable ways.

Peters writes:

That’s not to say that female guards in men’s prisons have an easy time of it. Women are generally smaller and less strong than men, which can be a problem if you are working in a physically intimidating environment with aggressive men who might want to have sex with you. 

You have to start wondering about the state of the American mind. How did it happen that no one imagined the consequences? How did it happen that no one cared? Couldn't anyone have figured out that alpha males in prison gangs might be inclined to collect a harem of guardesses?

It gets worse. The AP discovered, to its shock, that many of these guardesses had been threatened or intimidated into having sex…  against their will. There’s a word for that, but no one is allowed to use it:

As the AP story reported, “While many [of these sexual encounters] could be considered consensual, incarceration experts and female prison guards say the problem is much more complicated. In some cases, the women reported that they couldn't say no to the inmate out of fear, or were afraid to go to a co-worker out of shame at what had happened.”

American judges and legislators are up in arms about violence against women. And yet, when that violence is part of the job, no one cares. If you do not allow women the opportunity to be part of a prison harem, you are depriving them of equal opportunity. If you, as a matter of policy, put women in a position where they can’t say no to sex you are treating them as unequal.

The depth of the stupidity is difficult to fathom.

Fear not, progressives are hard at work rationalizing this absurd and dangerous policy.

Peters makes a feeble-minded effort in his closing paragraph:

The issue, ultimately, isn’t that female prison guards have no place in men’s prisons. It’s that prisons are terrible places that are often overcrowded and poorly managed, in which the strong will prey on the weak if they are allowed to do so. And that’s unlikely to change no matter who’s on guard.

If the strong naturally prey on the weak, then naturally you would want to give them the opportunity to prey on individuals who are especially weak.

Washington Post columnist Petula Dvorak examined the issue and arrived at the politically correct answer.

The real problem, Dvorak says, is that there are not enough men who are qualified for the jobs. Maybe I missed it, but do you really believe that the nation is running short of unemployed able-bodied young men?

If the prison system can modify its requirements to give jobs to women who are manifestly unqualified, why can’t it adjust its standards to give more jobs to men who might have the strength to maintain good order and discipline?

If you believe that these guardesses are being preyed on by violent males, well, all you need to do is to change the meaning of words. By its lights, these guardesses, the ones who are threatened and intimidated into having sex with inmates, are… take a deep breath… sexual predators. They have been raping male inmates.

Dvorak quotes a Justice Department report:

 “Among the 39,121 male prison inmates who had been victims of staff sexual misconduct, 69% reported sexual activity with female staff,” according to the 2008-09 Bureau of Justice Statistics study.

It’s even higher in juvenile detention facilities, where 90 percent of the boys who said they were victims of sexual advances by officers said they were approached — and frequently raped — by women.

For the Justice Department, sexual misconduct as a function of a power imbalance. If a teacher has sex with a student, it is assumed that his position of authority deprives her of her ability to say no. If a president has sex with an intern, it is assumed that his position of authority… you know.

Dvorak wants us to see the prison inmates as victims of predatory guardesses.

And where's your empathy? Don't you know, these women are starved for love.  Dvorak explains their plight:

What about the female guards who are targeted by cunning and charismatic inmates? The women who are loveless, lonely and easily seduced? Are they predators or the prey?

When male prison guards are corrupted, the issue is usually money. When it happens to guardesses, it’s about love.

In Dvorak’s words:

There was surely some of that in this Baltimore case. According to the indictment, investigators found an operating manual of sorts used by BGF that detailed “how new BGF recruits are taught to target a specific stereotype of a CO [correctional officer], specifically women with low self-esteem, insecurities and certain physical attributes.”

Once seduced, the women saw themselves as the wives and girlfriends of White and his associates.

Finally, Dvorak concludes that we should continue to have guardesses, because, male guards have also been corrupted:

Female guards aren’t really the problem; incompetent bosses are. If women weren’t there, White and BGF might have been trying to figure out a way to use money and power to corrupt male guards.

As long as there has been work, there have been men who have screwed it up. Dirty cops, corrupt bankers, shady businessmen, filthy politicians, molesting dentists. At no point do we say, “Men don’t belong in this field.”

After explaining clearly that women cannot do the job because they cannot command respect and exercise authority, Dvorak reduces it to a question of corruption.

Let’s frame the question somewhat differently. Let’s say that women cannot do the basic training required to be in the infantry or to be Navy SEALS or Army Rangers. If so, then putting women in these jobs will reduce the combat effectiveness of a military unit.

Less effective military units are less likely to win wars. So now, the great minds of major media outlets want to rationalize the policy on the grounds that, after all, men have lost wars too?


n.n said...

The Left justifies this nonsense because they are either unwilling or unable to initiate a violent revolution. Instead, they have resorted to a progressive (i.e. incremental) ideology to gradually overcome latent resistance in the population.

Their redistributive change economic model causes a dissociation of risk which sponsors corruption.

Their diversity social model denigrates individual dignity and sponsors development of prejudice.

Their "reproductive rights" model encourages liberal, irresponsible behaviors, which often culminate in the commission of elective abortion (i.e. premeditated murder), and sponsors a general devaluation of human life.

They favor evolutionary fitness for a minority class, while advocating for the normalization of dysfunctional behaviors in a majority of the population.

Their principles are selective.

They really do offer little value to a rational conversation.

Lastango said...

If less-effective integrated units are in battle, it's clear the root cause is "war", not diversity.

Let's do some meta-analysis on this. The best first step is to stop defining the other side as "the enemy". Some great steps in this direction have already been taken, helping us to move beyond thinking of the military the way to deal with aggression. Get rid of the fighting, and our units will no longer be less effective.

Anonymous said...

Wow! What a misogynistic post! If you're looking for prison guards to be the biggest baddest dudes in the prison, good luck with that applicant pool. The guard’s authority comes from the system, they shouldn't need physical stature. These women are just as wrong as men would be if they had sex with inmates. The guards are in trouble because they made bad choices, not because they are small.

Sam L. said...

Anon has drunk the Kool-Aid. We have a conflicted society. One side sees a problem and wants to fix it. The other side celebrates the diversity of it all.

Sam L. said...

And Anon accuses Stuart of being misogynistic! Anon, heal thyself!

n.n said...


The guard's authority may be granted by the system, but it is not, by definition, respected by criminals, which is why the guard must be capable of enforcing their authority. In a prison, the likelihood is that most inmates will not respect authority unless it is imposed. If the guard can be intimidated, or is derelict in their duty, then the guard has no practical authority.

This is the same problem which exists with the current gun control discussion. They are proposing proscriptive measures which do not address the situation they claimed gave impetus to their actions. They ignore that criminals, by definition, are not constrained by laws. They are only constrained by risk and opportunities cost. The actions of criminals who are willing to murder (e.g. Newtown's Lanza) or rape another person, are particularly liberal and progressive until they are forcefully constrained.

Anonymous said...

"Wow! What a misogynistic post!"

Anon, Welcome to Stuart's world.

I think it's pretty obvious Stu has some sort of mother complex fueling his hatred of women--especially women in positions of authority, like prison guards and CEOs. He can't stand it. It doesn't take a Freudian to see the obvious: the prototype for all "high-powered" women in positions of power is, of course, good ol mom.

Poor Stuie was probably dominated by an overbearing martinet of a mother and he just can't get over it.

Unknown said...

Students who want to work as prison guards in the federal prison system usually require a bachelor's degree, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons

Stuart Schneiderman said...

But, why can't they change the rule?

Dennis said...

It does seem that we have a couple of commenters who lack the intellectual skill to present a well reasoned rationale for their ideas so they resort to S.T.F.U. pejoratives not understanding that they have lost any credibility that they might have garnered. The word misogynist has lost any real meaning just as the "race" card no longer buys the acquisition of greater standing with almost anyone with active brain cells. The use of such terms is how most of us know we have won the debate.
It is laughable and childish to see it used especially in this case. When subjects and issues are off limits just because one does not like where it might lead is not our problem. It is the problem of those who cannot use their intellect to rebut. The ability to discuss any issue, no matter how contentious, is the mark of a free society. All ideas are subjected to the "marketplace" of ideas where they can be challenged. Otherwise we are ruled by those who would control us.
Given anon's analysis one would be correct in assuming that these commenters have "father" issues with just a bit of misandry involved. Aren't making assumptions about other people fun?
As n.n makes clear a prison guard has to have the ability to project authority to those who are under their control. If they cannot do that then they are not suitable for the job just as a woman who cannot meet the physical requirements for advanced combat positions should not be placed in those positions fro political expediency. A group is only as strong as its weakest link.
Questioning the advisability of putting women in positions where they lack the physical wherewithal to handle very smart criminals who know how to use people to their advantage is a question that needs to be dealt with in an intelligent manner.
To our radical feminist master: How about a demonstration of your mastery of intelligent discourse!

Anonymous said...

I think Stu has fantasies of hot lady prison guards. It's an Oedipal thing.

n.n said...


And that's the point. The discrimination is according to requirements for the job. It is not limited to women. It also includes men who are not physically or mentally capable of carrying out the assigned task. This is true for law enforcement (e.g. prison guards), combat forces, etc.

It is simply amazing how easily meaningful debates and conversations are derailed through introduction of emotional appeals, irrelevant exceptions, or counterfactuals. There is a propensity for some people to deny the terms and circumstances of our common reality.

Well, I understand why they do it; but, exploiting differentials and gradients to advance political, economic, and social standing, is not only selfish, it is actually counterproductive, certainly for the general Welfare, and ultimately for individual welfare. In the worst cases, it serves to denigrate individual dignity and devalue human life.

Anonymous said...

It's remarkable how thin the actual substance of the anony-mouse comments is.

Looking at the list, I think I can see one point made that actually constituted an argument:
"The guard’s authority comes from the system, they shouldn't need physical stature. These women are just as wrong as men would be if they had sex with inmates. The guards are in trouble because they made bad choices, not because they are small."
3 sentences, the first obviously wrong: it's patently obvious that physical stature is required.
The second, correct but irrelevant.
The third, deliberate obfuscation: they made bad choices for all sorts of reasons, small body stature being only one of them.

And the other two (if indeed they were different people) were just mudslinging.

I'm going to use this tack more often in face-to-face arguments, in future. I never realised just how infantile the left is!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @7:44 AM

Who doesn't have "fantasies of hot lady prison guards?" You don't have your Bureau of Federal Prisons 2013 calendar?


Dennis said...


Well stated. The Left has gotten so inured to name calling that they now lack the skills to do otherwise.

Anonymous 8:45AM
After reading you comment I am glad I was not drinking coffee for it really got me laughing uproariously.
Normally I would ignore those who seek negative reinforcement, but noticed your comment. Thanks

Anonymous said...

That was me, Dennis. I'm glad it got you laughing. I needed a little comic relief after after what my comment on "Newtown or Boston?" And I was also adding a bit of humor to the strange comments earlier in this thread. I'm glad you didn't burn yourself...


Dennis said...


Again thanks. I went back and reread it and it still gets a big laugh. The perfect response to the inanity of their (?)comments and their, almost certain to be, "sock puppet."

Anonymous said...

I love sock puppets.


Anonymous said...

Methinks that the USA is completely insane when it comes to dealing with sex offences?One woman teacher was handed 30 years by a male judge who was obviously out for blood for having sex with a 16 year old boy but the authorities demand,in spite of male unemployment that women should virtually run male prisons and somehow they imagine nothing will happen.After many years stories start to develop and the whole thing will be a crisis inasmuch as that those same authorities may or may not come to the conclusion that
women are every bit as bad as men
when it comes to the need of having sex and can be just as power struck, as these women are.I suspect that
the number of women will be increased but the few highlighted examples will be fired and things will just go on the same for another 10 years.As long as nobody is too badly hurt does it matter.
Only to the self confessed psychologists it would seem,then, any sex at all ios bad in their book.