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.

Do you disagree 50% of the population might resent being lumped in with violent and abusive men,

Race hate is a crime. OP are you resentful of being 'lumped in' with potentially racially hateful people?

No, presumably, because you're secure in the knowledge that you're not one of them. Nothing to fear. Certainly nothing to be resentful about!

If there was in depth research amongst men and women and the outcome was in favour of this legislation and it’s parameters were clear, then I would support it.

Many normal men are afraid to bathe with their baby daughters because they fear being labelled paedophiles.

I'm sorry but that has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've read! You are lost just posting on Mumsnet. You should work for the Daily Mail.

@Olympiathequeen these things are already used as evidence in a crime. They are used to show evidence of an additional aggravating factor e.g. racism/homophobia which has been deemed to make the crime more serious. That then informs sentencing.

They're doing that research now in Nottinghamshire and North Yorkshire where it has already been implemented. It's thus far been favourable, in line with results they've seen from other hate crime legislation, and the parameters are the same as the evidence requirements for other hate crimes. I already posted links on this.

I do think the groups that researched this and worked with the police to implement it are likely to know better than you, OP. They will be watching the impact, working alongside the police, and making rational judgements about it rather than just 'having a feeling' that it shouldn't be.

I read the BBC online article, but - correct me if I'm wrong - all it seems to do is criminalise harassment by calling it a misogynistic hate crime. Which surely raises more questions than answers. They are using it to record as 'offences' actions that aren't addressed by current legislation.

So we then have the debate about what constitutes harassment with many different views on that as shown in the aftermath of the Fallon, Green/ President's Club incidents.

How would you prove that someone who has attacked an elderly woman in her own home, perhaps calling her an old bitch in the process, was committing a misogynistic hate crime?

As I see it, part of the point of criminalising misogyny would be to change the social acceptability of language such as "old bitch".

The introduction and definition of a race hate crime has removed the word 'n....er' from everyday language; and similar social changes would occur if misogyny-motivated crimes were similarly defined.

So we then have the debate about what constitutes harassment with many different views on that as shown in the aftermath of the Fallon, Green/ President's Club incidents.

Well then I guess it comes down to ‘someone thinking it was a misogynistic attack’ ie if you think it was, you can report it as a hate crime. I don’t see how that raises more questions than it answers.

Pumper, because you can't put someone in jail for what one person thinks is sexual harassment when another person would describe the same set of circumstances as a clumsy attempt to see if a person was interested in them and brush it off. Michael Fallon had to resign because he put his hand on Julia Hartley Brewer's knee, she told him not to, end of story. She wrote an article defending him. Andrea Leadsom claimed he made a lewd innuendo in her heari

I don't think either of them thought Michael Fallon was a misogynist.

sorry - Andrea Leadsom claimed he made a lewd innuendo in her hearing, went to Theresa May and claimed sexual harassment, and he lost his job.

There is loads of hatred against men too. I've seen it on MN lots of times. Men are responsible for a high percentage of violent crime. So that makes all men responsible for violent crime does it. No. And the transphobia and sometimes hatred on here is beyond shocking.

Pumper, because you can't put someone in jail for what one person thinks is sexual harassment when another person would describe the same set of circumstances as a clumsy attempt to see if a person was interested in them and brush it off

This is exactly what a hate crime is. The definition is based on victim perception.

Why is it different for race hate, or homophobia? What one BAME individual thinks is acceptable, another may view as racially motivated harassment. What one gay man thinks is play fighting banter from his work colleagues, another may view as assault.

Why is it that when crimes against women are motivated by hate, there isn't the same respect for the victim?

Women may be 50% of the population, but for a very long time, we were neither equally respected nor protected. We are still fighting that legacy.

ThymeOut what Daily said above but also, are you seriously claiming that what Michael Fallon did wasn’t misogynistic? How many men did he behave that way to?

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/10/women-killed-at-home-refuges-womens-aid-survey

I suppose it depends on your definition of 'misogyny'. To me, it's a strong word meaning 'hating women'. Based entirely on press reports, since I've never met the man, I think Michael Fallon is a bit of a slime bag with wandering hands. The sort of creep that's a laughing-stock rather than a threat to women.

But don't pay any attention to me, I've just been told I'm a misogynist for having a different opinion from someone on the ,binning the word Feminism' thread.

And, regarding hate crime, I'm surprised to hear that the offence is in the eyes of the offended. That seems a very dangerous route to go down, when the far more serious offence of rape needs more evidence than a woman thinking she was raped to get a conviction in court.

Based entirely on press reports, since I've never met the man, I think Michael Fallon is a bit of a slime bag with wandering hands. The sort of creep that's a laughing-stock rather than a threat to women.

I'm sure these men are laughing stock, but I doubt his victims were laughing.

This type of comment focus on the perpetrator and minimises what he's done while ignoring how the victims felt.

The sort of creep that's a laughing-stock rather than a threat to women.

That’s a really dangerous way to think. You have no idea if he’s a threat or not, he’s definitely not harmless - just look at how he treats his female colleagues. By laughing it off you’re minimising the problem. You’re also minimising it by comparing it to rape - and I’m not sure why. He’s not a rapist, as far as I’m aware, but he definitely can’t control what he says and does around women. So why not call a spade a spade - he doesn’t behave that way to his male colleagues, he does say inappropriate sexualised comments to his female colleagues and he thinks it’s ok to touch a young colleague (for want of a better word) on the knee - of course he’s a misogynist. He pushes on the boundaries of women, not men.

Did you know that most rapists start off with ignoring boundaries - flashing and groping, for example? So not the same thing but definitely on the same spectrum of ‘inappropriate behaviour that should be stopped’.

But what he's done is important, if he's to be branded as a 'woman hater'! From what I've heard, he put his hand on Julia Hartley-Brewer's knee more than once and she told him if he did it again she'd punch him in the face. And he made a lewd remark when Andrea Leadsom said her hands were cold. A silly man who drinks too much and thinks he's funny.

I'm not a big fan of JH-B, but hers is the example that women should emulate rather than AL's, coming over all vapourish about an off-colour joke.

Old-style feminism was about empowering women, assertiveness- training, not portraying us as traumatised victims needing trigger warnings and hand-holding in the adult world.

Patting someone's knee is minimal compared with rape. That's my objection to the Me Too campaign. I don't think the two should be conflated into the same list of 'offences against women'.

All rapists start off by flashing and groping is like arguing against the legalisation of cannabis by saying all crack addicts started with a spliff.

I'm not a big fan of JH-B, but hers is the example that women should emulate rather than AL's, coming over all vapourish about an off-colour joke.

If we all took that approach then what’s the incentive for these misogynists to stop? Do you not think that might encourage other men to do it too? And why should we put up with leacherous men when we’re just trying to do our jobs? You cannot seriously think this is a good idea?

I didn’t say all rapists started off flashing and groping, but you know that.

I don’t understand how you can seriously say that groping minimises sexual assault in the same post as you minimise sexual assault.

But what he's done is important, if he's to be branded as a 'woman hater'

Also, it’s you who’s arguing that it’s not important. I think what he did is really important. And widespread enough that it needs dealt with.

Patting someone's knee is minimal compared with rape. That's my objection to the Me Too campaign. I don't think the two should be conflated into the same list of 'offences against women'.

There's a difference between being in the same category and meriting the same penalty.

Rape will be among the worst cases, while patting on the knee will be among the minor, but still listed offenses.

And there's a huge difference between patting on the knee between colleagues (worse if the boss does it) or on a date.

The MeToo campaign is about empowering. It's about being able to speak and about being heard. Not as helpless victims, but being able to hold your head straight and say it was not your fault, and that the behaviour was not ok. Being able to talk about how sexual harassment made us feel is empowering. Shutting up isn't.

Why should anyone have to threaten a man to stop him pestering her in her place of work?

Does every woman have to be strong enough to threaten to punch someone, now? What about those who have already been abused and no longer have the energy/confidence to fight back?

There are plenty of women on here who consider leaving their job under those circumstances.

Why can't A young woman go on public transport without being harassed by a random bloke? In Nottingham before the hate crime against women category came in, a shocking number of girls were pestered on their way to school. They had to have PCSO's riding the buses, if I remember rightly.

It is a hate crime to pester someone because they are a woman.

There is a very fine line in what ure saying I get that it should be an equal law but in reality police have a big campaign about domestic violence etc but when women finally speak up to have them arrested they go to court and it's pitiful sentence or slap in the wrist there's no real deterant for him it's about statistics for police but it should be the same law if this abuse happens to a man but it's shame in admitting that it happened but there are also Far to many women who use this as a tool when nothing happened to them and they make it up for revenge at it can ruin innocent peoples life so this should be looked at again for these reasons as for this not to happen but it should be for both sex