Hate crimes against men

[Frankenterfer]

Thought this was interesting.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45870948

I've just heard the headline on the news and thought I must have misheard. Hate crimes against men? What?

On looking at the article, though, it's clear that some vocal MRAs have started yelling 'But what about the menz, sometimes people say nasty things about my willy and it hurts my feelings!' So it will be considered, but surely to god it will then be kicked into the long grass. I don't know how workable it would be to make misogyny a hate crime, but the evidence that it exists and causes women real suffering is overwhelming. Misandry, not so much.

It's a bit of an attention grabbing headline. They're examining whether discrimination against women should be considered a hate crime, it makes sense that they'd also examine discrimination against men, since other hate crime laws are against particular types of characteristics rather than specific characteristics themselves. For example, treating discrimination based on race as a hate crime, rather than only discrimination against [specific race].

I'm struggling with this a bit. Are men attacked purely because of their sex? Usually it's by other men, isn't it? Do they commit the hate crime because they've got a problem with themselves?
Every crime could be a hate crime surely?

Blimey

My eyes really rolled.
Mind you it might be helpful in the long run to have statistics for "misandry ". I doubt there will be much of it.

Well, if they are foolish enough to put this on the statue books (and they probably are) they will see the most enormous spike in vexatious litigation. (That's not a "misandrist" comment, that's a mis-narcissistic-abuserist comment, because that's who'll use such legislation.)

Mind you it might be helpful in the long run to have statistics for "misandry "

Since it's treated as a hate crime in the United States, we do have FBI statistics:

ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime
ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2016/tables/table-1

For single bias incidents, about 26% of all singly gender-motivated hate crimes in the United States in 2016 were against men.

For those who believe there should only be hate crime laws against misogyny, rather than sex in general, do you believe that hate crime law shouldn't offer protection to Caucasians and/or Christians?

I don't think anyone said there should only be laws against misogyny.
I feel (hopefully speaking for most posters) that the people calling for "misandry" to be recognised as a crime are more likely to be motivated by unwillingness to recognise misogyny/General dog in a manger attitude than they are to be motivated by genuine concern for male victims.
The reason I think this is there are an awful lot of men who get very aerated about "equality" when it comes to their perception of women (e.g. family courts, DV refuges) but are unwilling to actually do anything practical about it. It makes me question their motives.
This is another example - feminists have been campaigning for a long time for this. Now there is a review, some men are whining that it isn't fair cos equality.

You know it is going to be used to silence/harass women who name men as the problem.

They're only giving it consideration which is a fair and balanced approached. I fully believe misogyny should be a hate crime. Misandry no, because whilst it does exist to some extent men as a group are not vulnerable.

Indeed. Men are only vulnerable when they belong to other groups - eg disabled, not because they are men.

I dont have a massive problem with it, but i doubt there are many instances of women attacking men just because they are men

Having said that anything which may stop casual gropes or cat calling that hapoens to both sexes that people think are just 'funny' would be good

It will also be interesting to see how long it takes before the stats even up because men are believed more than women

I think this may be another law of unintended consequences

For single bias incidents, about 26% of all singly gender-motivated hate crimes in the United States in 2016 were against men.

There were seven incidents. Sounds about right. The problem is clearly that they’re not recording crimes/incidents motivated by misogyny properly. I don’t know what their criteria are but they aren’t accounting for street harassment, upskirting, revenge porn, women murdered by domestuc abusers, murders of sex workers, planting hidden cameras, or rape, to give a very non-exhaustive list of crimes/incident types which misogyny is a driving factor. I’m not making the case that all of those should be accounted for as misogynistic crimes/incidents, it would depend on the purpose of the law. But there’s a case to be made for all of them. I don’t see any such case for “misandric” hate crimes, or even understand what those might be.

Good point homestar

I was trying to write something similar but gave up and wrote the believed bit

What with crimes being misreported as female crimes and the vexatious claims i think females may be fucked

Thanks for the links Gronky, will check them out in a minute.

I do believe everyone should be protected, and it does make sense to consider all groups, it just struck me as odd that men would need this extra protection. I don't doubt there would be some legit circumstances where it is necessary but given that we know about violence against women it seems less pressing.

Stella Creasy is championing this and she is also believes trans ideology.

This is to assist self - ID.

Invisible1234,
Creasy's idea was to criminalise misogynist hate crime. Including misandry is the government proposal. Not sure if Creasy has weighed in on that yet?

Just seen it on the telly news. Joanna Gosling used a quote about it being about 'protection for all vulnerable and minority groups'.

I'm sorry, but what? 'Men' are a vulnerable or minority group in what way, shape or form?

Clearly a silly way to frame the discussion by the BBC, but then, given how bloody ridiculous the BBC are right now, perhaps not surprising.

This is just sensible isn’t it? What it means is adding ‘sex’ as a category to the hate crime legislation. It would be unacceptable to add it for one sex and not the other.

For single bias incidents, about 26% of all singly gender-motivated hate crimes in the United States in 2016 were against men.

Not a particularly helpful set of statistics but the FBI goes to some lengths to discuss their hate crime data and what it doesn't cover. When I looked:

Single-bias incidents (Based on Table 1.)

Analysis of the 6,063 single-bias incidents reported in 2016 revealed that:
...
0.5 percent (31 incidents) were motivated by a gender bias

*Gender bias (See Table 1.)

There were 36 offenses of gender bias reported in 2016. Of these:

26 were anti-female.
10 were anti-male.

The 31 then 36 number seems to be related to single bias incidents and offences by bias motivation within other incidents. So, yes, 10/36 is approx. 28%.

Had the news on in the background (not really listening) but this jumped out and made me WTF?
This screams of a direct push back at women standing up for ourselves.

I had thought that categorising something as a hate crime was intended to protect vulnerable groups. As floral said, how on earth are men considered a vulnerable group?

This is just sensible isn’t it? What it means is adding ‘sex’ as a category to the hate crime legislation. It would be unacceptable to add it for one sex and not the other.

I agree. If sex is a protected characteristic then it applies to both sexes, whatever the relative prevalence of anti-woman crime and anti-men crime.

If crimes against men who identify as women are recorded as hate crimes and crimes against men who identify as men are not it prioritises gender identification over sex.

I see the logic there aspie and you're right, it just feels disingenuous in the context of what's happening at the moment.

One step closer to the eternal incelMRAF4J goal of making saying no to sex with any wanker who asks for you it a hate crime!

Yes aak. Will calling out misogyny become classed as misandry?

No, I don't think it's sensible at all and actually just exposes the flawed thinking around this whole topic of hate crime.

If you commit a crime, your motives should be relevant only in so far as proving you were the person who committed the crime. If a person is killed because they are black, it is not more 'aggravated' simply because of that motive. If a person is killed because they are a woman, it is not more 'aggravated' by that. If a person is killed because someone wants their money, or someone is very angry, it is not more aggravated by greed or anger. All are appalling crimes that should be adequately punished.

Recording the motives is useful in being able to direct public policy so that protection is given and things are taken more seriously, but specifying that the same crime is worse because of the motive is ridiculous.

And this review of hate crime just shows that, because to be fair they have had to include men in the classification of sex-based hate crimes.

All it shows is that there shouldn't be special characteristics that give extra badness to criminal acts. Protection against discrimination, laws against harrassment should be perfectly adequate along with the existing laws against assault, rape and murder.

They are taking the piss by including misandry as a hate crime, but by doing so, they are showing the whole thing up for the facade it is.

I mean seriously, violence against women is not adequately dealt with because the already existing crimes of abuse, assault, rape and murder are not actually prosecuted properly, adding another crime to the statute books is going to dick all in changing that. It will require much harder work than a new law to be ignored.

But doing the work is too hard, so let's just call the crimes we already belittle and ignore 'hate crimes' so we can continue to ignore them but say we did something.