Hate crimes against men

[Frankenterfer]

Thought this was interesting.

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

I'm intrigued about what constitutes a hate crime against men. My suggestions, off the top of my head so far are:

Expecting them to act like adults in the home i.e. 50% of housework without moaning
Being paid the same as women for the same job
Forcing them to support their children financially
Being prosecuted for rape
Being prosecuted for sexual assault
Being convicted for either of the above

I am not too sure how I feel about the motivation for a crime making it somehow 'worse' -on the one hand it can 'feel' worse, but on the other hand I agree with floral that it is the criminal act itself that's important.
I can see it may have been useful in tackling crimes against specific groups eg racism, but now the concept has been diluted -much like the use of the term 'privilege '

I tend to agree FloralBunting. The whole hate crime legislation is a complete mess especially since they've included 'incidents'. It needs to be rethought on a 'standards of public behaviour' line which covers everyone. No one should suffer bullying in public spaces - that's the real issue. It being about specific groups is what causes the backlash.

Goodbye point about backlash nobody -I think that 'the powers that be' trying to appear concerned by pushing 'PC' language etc has contributed to the rise in populism and violence.

floral I disagree. It's about recording the motive for a crime. At the "lower" end of the spectrum (verbal abuse, for example) I think it is more serious to shout e.g. racist abuse at someone than call them a generic insult.
I also think that unprovoked attacks on someone on the basis of a particular characteristic should be treated more harshly to illustrate that it's totally unacceptable.

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.

You are absolutely spot on, Floral - the whole notion of hate crime is fundamentally flawed. If a man kills his wife, does it matter whether he killed her because she wouldn't cook his dinner, because he was after her money or because he just generally hated women? The crime is the same.

I also think that unprovoked attacks on someone on the basis of a particular characteristic should be treated more harshly to illustrate that it's totally unacceptable.

I'm sorry, I just don't understand your logic. Is there a situation where an unprovoked attack would be acceptable?

I saw this on BBC Breakfast this morning. They led with 'hate crimes against men may become a thing' and then sort of trailed off with 'oh, and also maybe misogyny, and ...um...hate against minority groups like Goths'.

I was absolutely dumbfounded.

Men and goths.

Specifically protecting Goths makes more sense than specifically protecting men. Goths have actually been murdered for being out and about while Goth.

I don't see the problem with including men.
It can't take too many resources to include men, and will result in hardly any cases.
It'll remove the MRA argument about them being the oppressed ones for no real impact.
I thought people on here were generally in favour of hate crime laws? I've certainly seen people calling for crimes against women to be recorded as hate crimes.

Well good luck to the Law Commission in its quest to find whether there ought to be crimes motivated by hatred of the male sex.

The problem is with the word 'hatred' and its definition. The term is straightforward when considering race, religion, and sexual orientation. The prosecution can prove it and the CPS applies for an 'uplift' in the sentence.

'Hatred' is not the right term when it comes to crimes against children, old people, and women. The perpetrator is more likely to be targeted because of an imbalance of power and their vulnerability.

'Hatred' is not the accurate term when it somes to attacks on people who are targeted because of their occupations - teachers, police officers, A&E staff, social workers, MPs, taxi-drivers, bouncers, prostituted women and so on.

Hopefully, the Law Commission won't be have its hands tied by the word 'hate' but can think outside the box.

On Jeremy Vine R2 right now.

That jerk on Jeremy Vine said that women being weaker than men was sexism. And he keeps going on about hordes of women sticking their hands down his trousers on nights out. Yes - sure they do.🤨

He was an absolute wankbadger.

Hordes of women sticking their hands down the front of his trousers uninvited. Yeah.

Jeremy doesn’t sound very impressed

Just listened to Jeremy Vine BBC2 Radio with Andy West and Nina Myskow.
Didn't know whether to laugh or cry,Andy's raving mad.

Nina was awesome on J Vine. Haven't heard or seen her for ages, good to know she is still around (and presumably pretty GC?)

Andy is a scarily good MRA representative - he sounded pretty reasonable and measured, so most listeners would be nodding along with him. It's only when you unpick what he said that it becomes apparent that he's talking tosh (and pretty offensive tosh at that - women getting some power now and therefore using it to abuse men...) and most listeners won't both to do that and have probably already forgotten what was said in favour of singing along to Westlife

People phoning in were obsessed with hate crimes against men just being about equality - totally missing the point that societal structures are misogynistic and when women hate men it is as a reaction to the horrific assaults and crimes that men commit...there are NO structures that are set up as misandrist.

Andy West's voice was shaking with barely concealed rage. He reminded me of Haddock. Nina got the last word which was fab!

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

To be fair, I've seen the reverse happen on here.

A poster was (somewhat argumentatively) making the point that male suicide is hugely overlooked and dismissed as 'male violence'. He gave a few examples where feminists had actively campaigned against events like IMD whixh focus on male suicide - one example was how they managed to successfully ban it at York Uni only several days after a male student had committed suicide, their sated intention being to "focus on the oppression faces by women."

He was called a "misogynist/MRA" and yet I think he had some fair points.

I think part of the problem is what constitutes 'hate'.
When we are talking about a physical attack, then I tend to agree that the crime itself is more important than the motivation.
Shouting random abuse or insults at someone is wrong but I wouldn't necessarily class it as a hate crime. I do think it's a different situation if the insults are based on race, sexuality etc.

Men as a group are not vulnerable.

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

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

I don't want to be accused of mansplaining and I'm certainly not here to be goady, but I really disagree with the above.

84 men week killing themselves clearly indicates that men are vulnerable. It's toxic masculinity if anything that leads to statements like the above - "boys don't cry", "men aren't sensitive", "men aren't vulnerable", etc.

I’m not sure I can think of a hate crime against men - being excluded from night clubs while women are admitted.... possibly, but that’s about it. It’s hardly hate-filled is it!

If there are others, I don’t know what they are.

It’s a logical extension of the law I suppose.

But is the cause of male suicide, men being targeted with hate?

I think it’s more because many young men can’t see their role in society any more. But maybe I’m wrong.

I'm certainly not here to be goady,

ScottCheggJnr yes I agree men are vulnerable but the toxic masculinity comes from men, so are you suggesting a man telling another man to 'man up' should be treated as a hate incident. The law is far too blunt an instrument for this

I agree that male suicide rates are a big problem scot but in this context we're talking about vulnerability in terms of harm caused directly by someone. Males are certainly vulnerable to societal pressure, but I think that's a different issue.