Extreme misogyny will be classed as terrorism !

[Omlettes]

"Extreme misogyny will be treated as terrorism for the first time to combat the radicalisation of young men online, according to reports."
Government plans will look to tackle violence against women and girls in the same way as Islamist and far-Right extremism, amid fears that current Home Office guidance is too narrow."

Wow, and its the full moon and all...

I do not understand how anyone can be skeptical for making misogyny a hate crime when that is so desperately needed.

I'm afraid I'm sceptical because it will be used by trans-identified men against actual women.

Don't get me wrong - I really would like misogyny to be a hate crime, because we live in a society which doesn't regard women as fully human. But I worry that such a law would be used by transwomen against real women ...

Please read my comment again instead of jumping off the deep end into a rant. I'll repeat once again for you; misogyny needs to be dealt with. What I'm saying is both misogyny and misandry are a problem though. They are both forms of hate, usually born on social media. One problem needing attention doesn't mean another problem should be ignored. To pretend so is part of the overall root problem. I'm just writing as a 11 yr old boy mum who can see the sort of online misandry posts. Social media really is one of the very worst inventions of the 21st century and needs to be regulated properly. It's just a platform for spreading hate and division.

@YellowAsteroid but unless I'm mistaken posters upthread say she disagreed with misogyny becoming classed like this (or was that hate crime?)

As @IwantToRetire posts here (sorry to quote, I'm trying to clarify the arguments.)

Is the answer therefore, as Labour seem to be saying, not classing it as hate crime but terrorism? And as such treating it much more severely

What I don't think will be useful at the chalk face in classrooms is talking overtly about misogyny.

I think it's needs to be more grassroots and radical, battling sexism, gender stereotyping and also focusing on respect between peers and in relationships.

Some boys turned to Tate thanks to perceived sexism around women's rights.

I remember a discussion on WH a few years ago about misogyny and misandry and a male teacher caller felt he experienced misandry in his school environment (and actually I think I know who he was through the details he shared) but in reality it was sexist teasing. Not right, and not good for school culture, but not 'misandry.' If that even exists.

As long as it isn't a group of men who create the rules and laws around. No doubt they will give themselves and every other man plenty of legal loop holes.

I wonder what the definition of extreme means to them and how bad does it have to be for men to be deterred? Quite frightening to see what they decide the thresholds will be

Flying visit: haven't been able to read the thread.

Somewhere here in this video (sorry, not time to find it)
s

Helen Joyce explains the dangers inherent in any anti-misogyny law, saying that any law passed for women contains the danger that it will be used against us. I hope Sex Matters are in touch with Yvette Cooper.

Why, even here, are men trying to make everything ABOUT THEM?

What I'm saying is both misogyny and misandry are a problem though.

More whataboutery. What about the men and boys? Not all men are like that... The usual derailing from women's issues.

Please go and start a separate thread about misandry and boys, Emily.

You must have a limited debate ability if you refuse to look at the big picture of any given debate and can only debate in tunnel vision. My opinion is that misogyny feeds misandry and misandry feeds misogyny. You won't defeat misogyny without also defeating misandry.

And who do you think you are to tell people what they can and can't debate on this topic? It's not even a thread you started. Besides, you can bet your bottom dollar if I did start a separate thread that some Knuckle Dygger would derail the thread to champion a crackdown on another form of hate instead.

I share your caution @ResisterOfTwaddleRex - and that's why I'm also sceptical of including misogyny in the hate crime legislation. I can see how men would use it against women they want to silence or harass.

OTOH, there's pretty solid research data by feminist academic sociologists & criminologists that many terrorists (the obvious kind - bombers, knife wielders, shooters) are domestic abusers before they become terrorists.

Yes.

This is a thread about misognyny on the Feminism Sex and Gender board. Many of us who post here regularly have had it up to the back teeth with people wanting to centre men and boys in our discussions about women. This is a board that focuses on women's rights and issues.

At the risk of lowering the tone of the discussion by quoting a 1980s pop song -- there's a song going through my head as I flip-flop between thinking 'hell yeah, misogyny should be a crime' and 'but I'm not sure anything good will come of it'

Well, they passed a law in '64
To give those who ain't got a little more
But it only goes so far
'Cause the law don't change another's mind
When all it sees at the hiring time
Is the light on the color bar

And unless misogyny is specifically defined as being against biological females, the law would work against women instead of in our favour - a woman could be accused of misogyny against transwomen.

Finally, could someone please explain 'misandry' - is it a centuries-old global scourge that keeps men out of positions of power, denies them education, and includes the killing of six men by women, every hour?

This is how many women are killed by a partner or family member each year | World Economic Forum (weforum.org)

Exactly.

And a woman could be accused of misogyny against transwomen is exactly what Helen Joyce warned against. Because we live in a world where a significant proportion of the cabinet have declared that TWAW and haven't firmly and genuinely rolled back from that position — including Yvette Cooper.

This is fwr where we talk about women and girls and womens rights and basically all things women. We do not centre men in any of our ramblings. The whole entire rest of the interwebs is for that purpose.

So namalt is unwelcome.

We should have this pinned at the top of the board!!

Is misandry even a thing?

Sexism can be a problem for both sexes and sexism amongst men also impacts women as it furtherers the possibility of misogyny. But men experiencing sexism is not misandry.

Men are not experiencing the type of fear women are on a daily basis, due to the threat that men pose.

I'm sorry, you don't know what you are talking about. Terrorism has a specific, technical definition, in the same way that war crimes have a specific definition. These kinds of designations exist to allow states to deal with certain kinds of militaristic, politically motivated acts, but also hold states to account in doing so. It does not just mean any crime with an ideological motivation, much less a personal belief.

"Terrorism" doesn't just mean that it makes people afraid.

What difference do numbers make in this kind of question?

If it is going to be prosecuted to commit a crime against someone because she is female, how can it NOT be a crime for someone to commit a crime against a man because he's male? Even if it's only one guy, ever?

This is also an issue with getting into definitions around things like Islamophobia. If hatred on the basis of religion is not acceptable it's still not acceptable if it's against Hindus or Christians.

So much of this stuff just reflects poorly executed legislation, that doesn't really know what it wants to accomplish.

It has to do what the basis of laws like this would be.

Such rules are based fundamentally on the legal equality of the sexes, and the equality of dignity.

We don't actually protect certain groups above others. It's really important to maintain that principle, as we've seen.

Creating legal hierarchies of special named groups is incredibly dangerous.

Firstly:

I am really bored if not angry that anyone should argue that because trans women might be included in something that would be of overall benefit for actual women we shouldn't campaign for it.

For heavens sakd, why bother campaigning for anything based on that logic.

The obvious answer is to finally make sure trans women are not legally included in the laws, policies relating to actual women.

Secondly:

I think I was clear that in referencing Joan Smith it was about misogyny not being a Hate Crime. Hate Crimes are about the legal system. The powers that be have decided that whilst other groups that are one of the protected characteristics are covered by Hate Crimes Sex (and strangley disability) are not.

Again for the same whingey "oh its so difficult to get convictions for crimes against women this will just make it worse" waffle, which is where Joan Smith comes in. If the rushed courts can for instance (and these are just magistrates not Judges) convict someone of rioting, and additionally add that it was based on racism, I think we can assume that a court should have the legal training to consider whether an attack on a woman was just about violence or whether it was violence based on misogyny.

In two ways this is an insult to women, that they shouldn't be protected from misogyny, but sends a clear message that there is a two tier system in relation to protected characteristic. Some are treated as more important. ie arguing that misogyny shouldn't be a hate crime is confirming that women are just second class systems.

Thirdly:

Classifying misogyny as terrorism is saying it has societal threats. It isn't about an act of violence or discimination against an individual woman. It is about having a set of beliefs that are considered to be antithetical to the values of society.

Which is why it is complete hypocrasy.

If it isn't a hate crime to be misogynistic, how can it then be classified as a "terrorist" threat on society, when society doesn't care about the individuals harmed by the hate that misogyny inflicts on individual women.

yeah we all read it.

you are equating "misandry" and misogyny. 2 women a week. A suicide every 4 days. Countless cases of judges not convicting men in case it ruins their lives.

You're so worried about misandry, go and start your own bloody thread about it and keep the WhatAboutDaMenz whining away from this.

And who do you think you are to tell people what they can and can't debate on this topic? It's not even a thread you started. Besides, you can bet your bottom dollar if I did start a separate thread that some Knuckle Dygger would derail the thread to champion a crackdown on another form of hate instead.

well @Emily1583 why don't you go and start one, eh?

you can show us how many men are killed by women every week. How many judges refuse to sentence women for raping them. and all the other massive harms women cause men.

I can tell you what will happen: lots of women will have anecdotes and stories to tell. Nobody will start whining on WhatAboutDaWomenz and so on.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence and I was already thinking ‘what do they know that we don’t’ Especially about the Southport attacks.

Incels are vile creatures and a lot of them hate Taylor swift and her fans, even the very young ones, referring to them as mini femoids, I’m not surprised they’re trying to cut their innocent lives short before they grow old enough to reject them.

The government are not telling us the motive’s because there will be panic in the streets, that these freaks are now going after our children. Note how it wasn’t so important when it was mere women getting murdered and raped by them.