Russia plans to decriminalise domestic violence!

[Notwhatiexpected]

Is there a thread on this already? The news is hideous:

www.economist.com/news/europe/21715726-it-fits-traditional-values-lawmakers-say-why-russia-about-decriminalise-wife-beating

"But apparently it is only worth taking about if it affects women. "

This is the feminist board.

The idea of it, is that issues are discussed in the context of a feminist perspective, how they relate to women, feminism, etc.

If you want to discuss Russian society in general, not from a feminist viewpoint or how it relates to feminist issues, there are a few sections which might be more appropriate than this one - In the News, Politics?

I haven't mentioned being outraged or where my outrage extends, so please don't make things up

I was referring to your dismissal of my posts as my opinion seems to have offended you. This , if it happens, will affect all vulnerable members of a family, regardless of age or sex, but that appears to be of no interest on here.

Ok, so we agree. For what it is worth, it did only come to my attention this week, and yes from a human rights board, and yes because the levels for female deaths cause by male domestic violence in Russia, is about 4 times (per capita) of that in the USA. I don't have figures for the UK, not for domestic violence related deaths of children or males.

This was staggering to me on a backdrop of a week where the women of the USA seems to be a target for discrimination, at least in rhetoric.

It is horrible that there seems to be such a casual attitude to domestic violence in Russia. Why is that the case?

And isn't this worrying because there seems to be fires across the world where liberalism and equality are being cast aside for less inclusive, harder breed of discourse and politics.

I can’t find the answer to what exactly the law on corporal punishment of children was before this law was passed, but it seems that when they decriminalized simple battery, and then someone said, what about domestic violence?, someone said oh, yeah, we need to make an exception for that, they may have unintentionally criminalized all corporal punishment of children (would depend on the definition of domestic violence). So to “fix” that they just did away with the exception. They could have, as I assume most jurisdictions do, treated them separately. Their choosing not to does suggest a particular lack of concern for protecting adult victims of abuse, of which battered women are likely the majority.

The church supported the elimination of the exception.

It’s disgusting, for vulnerable adults and for children, however it came about.

"I was referring to your dismissal of my posts as my opinion seems to have offended you."

Your opinion hasn't offended me, I just think it's wilfully stupid.

"This , if it happens, will affect all vulnerable members of a family, regardless of age or sex, but that appears to be of no interest on here."

Feminists don't need people to tell them how DV affects all vulnerable members of a family; if you think it's of no interest here, it may be something to do with how you framed your argument.

"It is horrible that there seems to be such a casual attitude to domestic violence in Russia. Why is that the case? "

I think it's partly to do with no historical tradition of feminism in Russia. Feminist arguments about equality, women's rights etc., were taken up enthusiastically by the Bolsheviks and women in Russia were some of the first in the world to get voting rights, abortion rights, the right to work etc.

But anything beyond that, was characterised as "bourgeois feminism" and was heavily discouraged. Women were encouraged to work in the cash economy, but domestic labour was still seen as their job, as was childcare and male supremacy was not acknowledged as a real thing.

There isn't a strong tradition of feminism in Russia.

If Trump is on MN he will have this done before I wake tomorrow too.

The budget cuts he is proposing in order to pay for the Wall all the things he needs to pay for includes elimination of the Violence Against Women grants program, which provides some of the funding for domestic violence and sexual assault agencies.

The idea of it, is that issues are discussed in the context of a feminist perspective, how they relate to women, feminism, etc.

So children and the elderly can go hang. And let's just ignore the fact there are women complicit in trying to normalise domestic violence.

You are saying that children and the elderly can go hang, Lass.

No one on here has said or implied that.

No one on here has said it won't impact other groups.

You OTOH have implied that it isn't really about women, it's about children, or the elderly, or anyone other than women.

That's what people are taking issue with you about.

Stop projecting your own absurdity onto other people here. No-one thinks it doesn't affect other groups than women, but if you want to come into the feminist section and say that it's nothing to do with women because it's all about children and the elderly, you will look ridiculous and perverse and frankly a bit needy and attention-seeking.

If you want to discuss it from other angles, there are plenty of places to do that. But you cannot reasonably claim that we should exclusively discuss the impact only on other groups than women. That's what you're doing, it's pathetic and we see you.

Mmmkay?

Actually I think hitting children directly relates to general violence in society, which by definition includes violence towards women. Seeing as boys are more likely to be spanked than girls, and that mothers are more likely to hit and do it more frequently than fathers. I think it would be grand if we could stop that and perhaps maybe stop violence in general.

Just for the avoidance of doubt it's a stupid law, husbands shouldn't be able to hit their wives and NOBODY should hit children. Although at least women have feminists fighting their corner, whereas children have knack all.

Actually feminists fight children's corner, AntiSocial.

The few laws we do now have regarding not hitting children, are due to feminist agitating against DV in general and demanding that children be seen as people in their own right, not just property of their parents.

There's also always been a recognition that men have often used their children to control their children's mothers (and still do); in the old days, it was by ensuring that custody automatically went to the father in the event of divorce and women would never see their children again, so that was a big disincentive to divorce and now it's through contact, where violent men use their contact visits to threaten women with continued violence, or indeed neglect or abuse their children in order to hurt the children's mother (family annihilators are the most extreme end of this spectrum).

I don't disagree that hitting children directly relates to violence in society and it's a very complex discussion. As a rule of thumb, the higher the status of women in a country and the more unacceptable it is considered to perpetrate violence against them in their own homes, the more legal protection children have from violence in the home. The status of children is quite closely linked to the status of women.

But apparently it is only worth taking about if it affects women.

Oh fuck off Lass with your wilful misinterpretation of anything we say.

Do you honestly believe, in a million fucking years, that feminists only care about women and don't give a crap about the rights of children and the elderly? Especially when those are the two groups that women overwhelmingly look after? That we really believe those groups "can go hang"? Fuck off with your insults.

Lass, why are you even on the feminist boards? You are clearly not a feminist, and not interested in feminism, so why waste your time here?

This is a law that allows men to hit women. The few Russian women who are professional weightlifters and would be stronger than their husbands, if they decided to hit them (which is ALSO unlikely) are a negligible minority.

You know that, Lass. You are being deliberately obtuse. Which is why I will ignore you from now on, if you spew any more antifeminist, derailing nonsense.

You OTOH have implied that it isn't really about women, it's about children, or the elderly, or anyone other than women

I said nothing of the kind. I said and I will repeat it again, it affects all vulnerable family members.

This is a law that allows men to hit women It is a law which allows men and women to hit any one weaker than them.

Are you all so obsessed by the idea that women are the eternal put upon victim that you can't contemplate there will be women dishing out violence to their children ? Not a single mention of the damage this law will do to society as a whole until I "derailed" it and then lots of huffing and puffing about "of course we include children" . Apart from Anti's post I'm unimpressed by just about every other post.

Oh dear, Lass is unimpressed by us.

We'll have to work harder.

I only come on here for her approval.

Actually feminists fight children's corner, AntiSocial.

Especially is this true for domestic violence advocates, for all the reasons stated by AskBasil. As just one example, domestic violence shelters in the US try to have as few rules as possible, but most, more likely all, forbid physical punishment of children within their walls.

Adrenaline you haven't cleared it up, you've just mansplained in a rather bollocky way.

HTH

"I said and I will repeat it again, it affects all vulnerable family members."

And nobody has said it doesn't. Your logic is so lacking at times so I will be patient and spell out to you what posters on this thread think:

1. This will adversely affect all members of the family who are vulnerable to domestic violence.

1. Those vulnerable members are generally made up of women and children and sometimes of men. Feminists care for anyone who is a victim of domestic violence.

1. Feminists don't insist that women are victims. Except when they are.

HTH to clear things up for you and I look forward to your next wilful twisting of my words.

HTH to clear things up for you and I look forward to your next wilful twisting of my words

There has certainly been plenty of twisting of what I said - all these claims that I am supposed to have said such as.

"you OTOH have implied that it isn't really about women, it's about children, or the elderly, or anyone other than women" - that is complete fabrication.

"Seeing it as only a message about children, is wilful avoidance" - not once did I say that. What I said was my first concern was that it will be children which will suffer

"do you think it is ok because it is about beating men and kids too, and ppromoted by a women?" I think that was my favourite one. It's beyond laughable.

It passed

9,800 women were murdered due to serious assaults. A quarter in the home. Over 200 a month.

But we should definitely be looking at other victims instead of that.

But we should definitely be looking at other victims instead of that

Will you stop twisting what I said? We should be looking at all the victims of the frightening attitude that Russian society apparently has to domestic violence. At no point in this thread have I said you should not include women in this.