Talk:Feminist school of criminology

[Untitled]
Submissions such as this point out just how important emotional responses have become--is so many cases, superceding facts. The truth is that in some age groups, reports (by State-based agencies, now often populated with many women in positions of authority) of abuse, the numbers of men abused by women approaches that of women abused by men. In many places over-all interpersonal maltreatment report that male victims (from female violence) hover around 1/3 of all cases. Yes, that leaves 2/3 for the female victims of male maltreatment, but the entire matter is hardly one-sided. Then there's the inconvenient truth that children are neglected, abused, and killed by women at far higher rates than men, often in the range of five to ten times as high. It hardly helps to identify and blame men, alone, for these problem, and it's hardly worth digging up references and posting them in main articles here, as there are plenty of "resentment feminist" eager to delete legitimate references unfavorable to their dogma. I worked in a big city hospital emergency room for fifteen years and reports of abused women as a major fraction of ER admissions are fundamentally false. To say these things is NOT to suggest that domestic violence doesn't exist or is not a significant social problem. Thus, it is way past time to consider how boys and girls, alike, respond as you might expect, when presented with fifteen years of pathological socialization from absent and/or deficient parenting. HOMEBUILDING75.41.35.141 (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm interesting article. I can not see how this has come to be on Wiki? It is not what one could call balanced in any way and the majority of sources referenced are from the early 1980's (is this because they matched the authors bias perhaps?)

Agreed, this is totally biased towards positivism.Nightside eclipse 21:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This article certainly has the potential to be expanded. What about the impact of the feminist school of jurispruence? For example its impact on the criminal justice system? Seaflat

I read through the Victimology at the bottom, and there is a distinct lack of references. Some of the claims appear to be self-evidently absurd: "Assault is the largest cause of injury to women in the US." (More than traffic accidents?) "Three out of four women will be victims of violent crimes during their lives" (If 75% of my circle of female acquaintances have been victims of violent crime, wouldn't I have noticed by now?) "Feminists have introduced the possibility that females suffer equally when men are imprisoned." (Odd. When females are imprisoned, I don't recall anyone ever suggesting that their male partners suffer just as much.)

Clearly, this stuff doesn't fit into Wikipedia's quality standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamantaka (talk • contribs) 03:06, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
Statements like Feminists have introduced the possibility that females suffer equally when men are imprisoned. which are uncited and border on WP:PN are far too common in this article. JCDenton2052 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Victimology
That is comical. A bunch of facts with no citations. Another comment has already suggested this be removed. I suggest an experienced editor remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.239.116 (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

WHAT IS THIS GARBAGE
Wikipedia does special-snowflakes blogs now? Wow... wikipedia is sliding into oblivion with these SJW skewed POVs. Delete or heavily re-write this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.80.179 (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

References?
What is the "References" section here for? There are 24 sources mentioned, in contrast to the very weak list of 10 citations of wholly different sources. Is this just for decoration? A proof by authority by decorating the article in a sham of reputable context, whilst actually being an unsourced essay that may (or may not!) have any of these behind it to support it.

Would this article pass AfD? I have no idea. Nothing here is verifiable, because it's not connected to these nearby sources. It's not even traceable as to which school of thought is behind each section. Presumably this has been written by an academic sociologist, who ought to know better. As it is it's just an opinion piece and no better than a blog. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It needs work for sure. Who wrote the article though? Figured it was just another user.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 22:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)