To think mysogeny should not be made a hate crime?

[Olympiathequeen]

Of course mysogeny is rife (sadly), but women make up 50% of the population so we are hardly a minority, like disabled, BME or religious minorities.

There are plenty of laws to protect women against men’s aggression and plenty of laws to protect both sexes against discrimination.

I can’t even see what practical application this has and would tie up valuable police time.

And how can we have equality if 50% of the population are pitted against the other 50%? Surely we can’t have a situation where a man is charged with mysogeny for putting vile stuff on the internet, yet a woman could say the same about him and not be prosecuted?

We’re in danger of alienating reasonable, decent men by having a law which would cast them as the villeins and of giving entitled men more reasons to abuse women.

On the other hand I think there should be something to prevent the type of abuse Diane Abbott and other female politicians suffered but this doesn’t need to be female centred but applicable to men and women.

I’m happy to be convinced otherwise if the arguments are good.

OP, the logic of your argument is that you don’t agree with the concept of hate crime at all. Is that accurate?

Otherwise I can’t see how your arguments make any sense if you are only against one kind of hate crime, when they could logically be applied to others.

Seriously, do people think that racially aggravated etc means that every crime committed against BME people is recorded as a hate crime?

No, I know that's not the case, and I'm open to having my initial option on this changed if I'm missing something, but so far I just can't see why we need this. If it's even going to happen anyway.

Crimes against ethnic minorities are often identified as hate crime because of the language used. You don't use the n word or other racially derogatory terms if you aren't racist. But both men and women often use words like wanker if referring to a man or cow if referring to a woman, I know I have done, but it doesn't mean there are any underlying feelings of hate towards a whole half of the population.

OP, if both misogyny and misandry were made hate crimes, would you have a problem then?

I know it wasn't me being asked, but I'll answer anyway! Personally, I would have much less of a problem then, but I'd still see it as a pretty pointless piece of legislation because we already have discrimination and domestic abuse laws.

A minority isn't a minority in a numerical sense. It's in the sense of their political power. Women have been systematically oppressed through the centuries. Job protected Maternity Pay only came into effect in 1976. Women are still paid less than men. The list goes on.

Black South Africans were a majority in numbers, but a minority in judicial, political and social terms. In short powerless and therefore vulnerable

I’ve already said in the op I can see the justice in hate being a factor in race, religion etc but can’t see a practical application not already covered by law.

I would agree with a law for both misogyny and misandry if it is proven to be a significant factor in the crime, but think both are unnecessary.

After all it can’t be prosecuted as a criminal act by itself, and if it’s tacked into other crimes, well, isn’t it also likely the misogynistic aspect would be reflect in the sentence?

Can you seriously prosecute someone for hating women when they don’t act on it and if they act on it there are other legal avenues?

The Yorkshire ripper hated women but it paled into insignificance when place with his crimes.

lougle those are social and historical inequalities which need addressing, but they’re not crimes. Probably not even related to hate just a general acceptance of men’s entitlement.

Fuck this shit.

Black South Africans were a majority in numbers, but a minority in judicial, political and social terms. In short powerless and therefore vulnerable

There you go: women, your own definition, are minorities and therefore are deserving of protection.

"The Yorkshire ripper hated women but it paled into insignificance when place with his crimes."

I think the whole entire point is that it was his misogyny that fuelled his crimes. Racism isn't a crime in itself, until it is evidenced by something tangible. Once it is evidenced, then it becomes a crime. The Yorkshire Ripper could be as misogynistic as he liked, in his head, but the minute he evidenced his misogyny by killing women, he was guilty of murder, and then, if this change of law had been passed, it would have been misogyny motivated murder.

shrod which laws discriminate directly against women? Where is there a law that says women can’t have an equal place in government?

An equal place in business? Apartheid SA definitely suppressed the majority using the law. It doesn’t happen here. That’s just silly.

The fact that there is less representation is to do with social and historical precedence. That’s what education and representation should be addressing.

Lougle. What fuelled his crimes was his criminal insanity

Driggle. But in what way is that relevant to the sentence he received? He hated women. If he hadn’t killed anyone then he wouldn’t have been prosecuted.

There are laws already in place. Please don’t insinuate that I agree it’s ok to hate women?

Laws are there to protect everyone. I just see this proposed legislation as a waste of time when we should look at real inequality in education, jobs, marriage and society

According to research women have a bias against other women. We need to address that far more urgently.

That’s just silly.

As are your posts.

Peter Sutcliffe's crimes were driven by misogyny, and compounded by the misogyny of the police who characterised the crimes as being directed against sex workers, thereby ignoring other offences almost certainly committed by Sutcliffe and contributing directly to the long delay in apprehending him - read anything by Joan Smith on the subject. The police actually made an appeal to the offender along the lines of "up until now you've been killing prostitutes but are now attacking innocent girls" when they couldn't ignore his signature behaviour any longer. The mutilation of his victims was very specifically directed at the fact they were women.

Olympia - women have a bias against other women.

You are clearly a case in point.

It would be an aggravating factor, like race hate or homophobia, that is part of another crime.

If it’s an aggravating factor in another crime then it should be applied to men and women. Not just women.

It’s such a nebulous idea to criminalise someone for their beliefs whether is influenced a crime or otherwise I just can’t see the point. If a man attacks and rapes a woman then he clearly hates the woman he rapes. How do you separate or add the two? If his hatred pushes him to murder her, then it’s murder.

Sadly you can’t stop some men hating women and vice versa. Legislating a difficult concept isn’t going to make anyone’s life easier, and I think will make it harder by fueling misogynistic men into greater misogyny because they will claim injustice and inequality

Yes, if you like, add the concept of hate against men just for being men to hate crime.

It seems like you're saying that racism/homophobia etc should also not be an aggravating factor in a crime?

You would determine if a crime is also a hate crime the same way as you do now for racist/homophobic etc crimes. It doesn't need to be any more or less than how those hate crimes work now.

I think there is a hell of a lot more misogyny than misandry. In fact id say in some areas misogyny is ingrained, whereas misandry rarely (never) is.

We’re in danger of alienating reasonable, decent men by having a law which would cast them as the villeins and of giving entitled men more reasons to abuse women.

What does this mean? If they’re not misogynistic they have no need to worry. If they are then how does calling it what it is make it any worse?

The ‘my husband would never’ arguement is a funny one that always comes up on threads like this. If your husband isn’t misogynistic then it won’t affect him at all. Unless he automatically sides with misogynistic men then why would he be offended?

It shouldn't be a crime to hate people. It should be a crime to act upon that hate, or discriminate against someone because of it. We can't police people's thoughts.

Misogyny itself should not be a crime. It should be, and is, a crime to abuse women, to harass women, to discriminate against women, to assault women.