Because it wasn't already.
Good to know.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-37431466
Good to know.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-37431466
I'm actually curious how that'll play out in the long run. Sometimes misogyny is a difficult thing to both catch and prove. Time will tell i guess.
Chrysippus
Superior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2015
- Posts
- 4,566
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 3,828
- Points
- 148
- Location
- Oregon (United States)
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Not as long as men control at least half of everything. Ever been to Utah or Tennessee?
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Posts
- 14,086
- Media
- 70
- Likes
- 20,564
- Points
- 668
- Location
- United States
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 60% Straight, 40% Gay
- Gender
- Female
Not if Donald "grab her by the pussy" Trump gets in office.
Except you've tagged it onto legislation which by it's definition is meant for far serious stuff such as attacks on members of the gay and trans community or when you get people harassing people with learning difficulties or abusing ethnic minorities.
Someone paying you a compliment is hardly hostile, someone calling me a paki bastard is being hostile, and since it's been tagged onto existing legislation any court case that is taken to court isn't going to result in a conviction because most barristers are going to argue going by the definition of what a hate crime is "Hostility/prejudice" all it's going to end up doing is wasting public money and diverting police from more serious crime.
That is really insulting. How the hell would paying someone a compliment be equivalent to calling someone a paki?
Unless you have watched the video, and think that a taxi driver locking a female passenger in his taxi and offering her money for oral sex is actually a compliment?
I've no idea. The last time I was at my local police station (actually it was the time before that one), the twats were standing around telling each other 'wife' jokes.
@xnxxxv Wife jokes are just about as funny as paki jokes.
Frankly i don't see the difference. Hostility/prejudice should have already included misogyny. Just because calling a woman a bitch because she rejected you with the resulting physical actions has been normalize culture wise it doesn't mean it isn't along the same lines as racial slurs and etc with their resulting physical actions. And really if this were just about compliments as you seem to want to level this too then it would only be an issue of mild annoyance.
Aside from that i'm not really up to snuff on your overall definition of hostile. Undesired advances an all that.
I've no idea. The last time I was at my local police station (actually it was the time before that one), the twats were standing around telling each other 'wife' jokes.
@xnxxxv Wife jokes are just about as funny as paki jokes.
Ah comedy. Seems to be the new escape for those who want to say something without actually saying it. No matter if it's actually funny or not. People tend not to really understand how much effort goes into real comedy and what it's really for. Then again these are the same types of people who can usually dish it out but god forbid they ever have to take it.
I've no idea. The last time I was at my local police station (actually it was the time before that one), the twats were standing around telling each other 'wife' jokes.
@xnxxxv Wife jokes are just about as funny as paki jokes.
Except that video is clear case of sexual harrasment and is already covered by another portion of the law, you can't just got around forcing yourself on women or trying to get them to perform a sexual act on you that's called sexual assault... all of this was in relation to a woman getting cat called in Nottingham
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-36775398
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...-crime-nottingham_uk_579756cce4b06d7c426da55d
If a woman receives unwanted attention in the street that is considered a hate crime, I'm sorry cat calling which is what triggered all of this since a reporter was harassed in nottingham this is not the same as calling a down syndrome sufferer a downey or a gay bloke a faggot.
Abuse directed to the said women is already illegal under the 1997 harassment act so why enact another legislation which wasn't even originally meant to tackle the issue.
All that's really left for it to go after is cat calling and comments like show us your tits, the article I linked even said that incidents that aren't even considered a crime which I'm assuming given the stupidity of how they've mis appropriated a type of legislation reserved for actual scummy behaviour means if a woman were to take offence to someone complimenting her the police feel they have a duty to investigate it.
Ah but who gets to decide if it's a compliment or not. You as a guy? Wouldn't that be the same as letting someone who disliked disabled people determine what is or isn't an insult to disabled people?
The law does defines it by it's intent which isn't to cause alarm or distress whereas calling someone a retard has only one intention to cause them alarm or distress. or do you think a bloke telling someone she's attractive is secretly insulting her (regardless of how stupid and obvious signs of their lack of intelligence)?
Unless you think people like the CPS and the courts don't know what they're talking about?
You're assuming thats what happening. And also assuming thats all that happens. As far as the law goes. It is defined by people. Do you not think that these "compliments" aren't meant to cause distress? If i'm not mistaken there are literally a group of guys out there who purposefully insult women as a means of getting attention.
Personally as someone that has suffered racial abuse I find it insulting to think someone can compare what I've gone through to a bunch of drunken idiots wolf whistling or someone other crude comment.
what you're essentially saying is that this is in the same vein as racist comments that disparage someone because of their ethnicity/sexual orientation/disability/religious beliefs, by it's very nature hate implies that you hate them the definition of hate in the oxford dictionary is thus
Definition of hate in English:
VERB
[WITH OBJECT]
- 1Feel intense dislike for.
‘the boys hate each other’
‘he was particularly hated by the extreme right’- 1.1Have a strong aversion to (something)
‘he hates flying’
[with infinitive] ‘I'd hate to live there’ - 1.2[with infinitive]Used politely to express one's regret or embarrassment at doing something.
‘I hate to bother you’
- 1.3informal [no object]Express strong dislike for; criticize or abuse.
‘I can't hate on them for trying something new’
- 1.1Have a strong aversion to (something)
NOUN
- 1[mass noun] Intense dislike.
‘feelings of hate and revenge’
- 1.1[as modifier]Denoting hostile actions motivated by intense dislike or prejudice.
‘a hate campaign’
- 1.2informal [count noun]An intensely disliked person or thing.
‘Richard's pet hate is filling in his tax returns’
- 1.1[as modifier]Denoting hostile actions motivated by intense dislike or prejudice.
Now going by the legal definition of the word hate I don't see it implying any of those things do you?
Actually, yes yes i do. Is there no such thing as men out there who hate women? Is there no such thing as men out there who discriminate against women? Is there no such thing as men targeting women specifically for horrible acts? Are there women out there who've suffered abuse at the hands of men who dislike or hated them specifically because of their gender?
See what you're attempting to do here is devalue the grander ideology here down to just a compliment. Well i have news for you saying black men have big dicks is also in a way a compliment. Though it's also a racial stereotype that goes right along with being stupid, aggressive, lazy and untrustworthy. Speaking properly, having good credit, not having kids at a certain age. All of these things could be considered compliments. Why or how could those be compliments when they are directly referring to stereotypes? If they are indeed referring directly to stereotypes could they really be considered compliments?
Wouldn't that be like telling someone they're pretty smart for someone who comes from a group of idiots. I'm only asking because the nature of a compliment isn't black and white. What one person sees a compliment could be an insult to another. Meaning that is a very shaky stance to make wide ranging judgments on. Not to mention that we aren't just talking compliments. And the same goes for hate. In many ways they both are too simplistic a term to completely dismiss. There are men who hate women. And those men do "compliment" women in such a way as to cause distress.
If your argument is that it is only a compliment...which is doesn't have to be...and that that should be dismissed...which it should not then all i have to do to prove you wrong is hint at times where "compliments" weren't only that and point to times where they were used purposefully to make women feel uncomfortable simply because the men who did it hated women. Now i don't really feel up to posting link after link proving exactly that. And hope that your internet searches on the subject would suffice but if you want i can.
So in general yes i do think it's in the same vein. What actually is the difference between calling a woman something derogatory and doing the same for black people, mexicans, asians, gay people, trans, the disabled, people from other countries and etc? They all have history, flawed reasoning, bias and etc behind them. And they all could without some form of protection or knowledgeable understanding...escalate into physical violence. Hell with women in general even more so simply because of how much women are dismissed when expressing themselves around the globe.
I said this:
and this:
I've no idea. The last time I was at my local police station (actually it was the time before that one), the twats were standing around telling each other 'wife' jokes.
@xnxxxv Wife jokes are just about as funny as paki jokes.
and you responded to my posts by ignoring the words in them.
Just to clarify, are you saying that cat-calling / wolf whistling is a compliment, and should be considered as such?
No-one is comparing racism as a whole to wolf whistling apart from you,
, and you are insisting that wolf whistling is a compliment .I haven't got time for this thread right now, but I will certainly be back on Sunday night, maybe Monday to have a look. That will give you plenty of time to actually think about what you're typing before you type it.
I said this:
and this:
and you responded to my posts by ignoring the words in them.
Just to clarify, are you saying that cat-calling / wolf whistling is a compliment, and should be considered as such?
No-one is comparing racism as a whole to wolf whistling apart from you,
I haven't got time for this thread right now, but I will certainly be back on Sunday night, maybe Monday to have a look. That will give you plenty of time to actually think about what you're typing before you type it.
And you're ignoring mine... have a look back through the news as to why triggered all of this classifying misogyny as a hate crime, it was a reporter being told "fuck her right in the pussy"
which fair enough is dickhead move. Nottinghamshire police then decided to have it encompass all forms of unwanted attention. Considering wolf whislting is already considered sexual harassment you know implying that a person is attractive and giving them your unwanted opinion.
However the police have stated that this legislation can be used to investigate things that aren't a crime. it's not me comparing it, it's the police themselves since they feel the need to investigate it and treat it like someone being racially abused except that implies that the intent of wolf whistling and cat calling is the same as racially/sexuality/religious based abused, it's not me saying this it's the police themselves in their own words in the link that I mentioned. Because a woman getting cat called in the street is likely to escalate into a racially motivated attack and given the increase in racially motivated attacks post brexit this is considered to be a issue along those lines? I don't see sexual assaults having gone up by 42%
My argument is based in the law which they way in which it is interpreted here in the UK you're trying to apply a emotional argument to a legal one. In the uk the nature of the offence is based on intent, public nudity isn't an offence here but flashing someone is, in both scenarios the person in question is naked his intent defined the act. much like if you punch a guy and he hits the pavement and dies, that's not considered murder here in the eyes of the law it's manslaughter, since he didn't intend to go out and kill him but he ended up doing it.
despite you not taking it as a compliment it doesn't mean that the offender didn't intend for it to be one, so in the same respect while you don't deem it a compliment you can't speak for the intent of the perpetrator since we're not mind readers.
I agree we aren't mind readers but we can come to some conclusions based on readily available information. Such as, you are now saying i'm attempting to apply an emotional argument to a legal one. Which tells me based on readily available information that you somehow completely forgot your own stance of being insulted that anyone would liken catcalling to race based derogatory statements. Meaning you started out with, if only in part, an emotional argument. You were the one offended that such a thing existed. And insulted, offended and etc are things based in, if only in part, on emotion. Once again, readily available information....
Personally as someone that has suffered racial abuse I find it insulting to think someone can compare what I've gone through to a bunch of drunken idiots wolf whistling or someone other crude comment.
Which weirdly levels your own argument and dismisses it along with what you are attempting to dismiss. If women have to deal with language they didn't ask for that is undesired and attached to a history of people thinking they can say whatever they want then doesn't the same go for people who make statements towards people of other races? Sure, catcalling may not seem to be as bad initially as race based comments but neither women or people of other races asked for those comments. Neither are respected on individuality when those comments are made and depending on where it happens, when it happens violence could be the next step.
As an example. What usually happens when cat calls are rebuffed? Do men take it in stride and go about their business? Generally speaking do men understand when their advances are rejected? While there are laws on the books. How enforced are they? How wide spread is this problem? How many women have been raped simply for turning down a man's "compliments"? Now how many people of certain races have been who weren't women? How many women were then stalked and murdered because they either rejected or ignored a man's advances? How many men of certain races where stalked and killed because they turned down comments about their big dicks, advancement in math, or ability to stretch a penny?
You assume it's about "compliments" and also assume it's only about "compliments" because you choose to. Men in general have that privilege. Do you have to notify someone when you're going on a blind date? How accepted is misogyny around the world? How quickly can just a "compliment" turn into just another statistic?
Except while I'm offended by it, my response is based on fact and the interpretation of the law. Since most acts of misogyny like the one of the taxi driver trying to force himself on the woman fall under the purview of sexual assault which is in itself a serious crime.
when this goes to court it will be defined by the intent, see how that works in english law, regardless of the victims opinion generally speaking they're given leeway if they felt that their actions weren't meant to cause that affect as I pointed out with the manslaughter and flashing scenario.
If you want this to actually work then tacking it onto existing legislation isn't going to work since the framework from that legislation is based on a different circumstances and intent (race crimes are generally done by someone trying to intimidate or cause distress to someone because of either their relgion, race,disability) because while the victim if offended by it the defendant didn't have the intent to cause distress which would mean under the legislation in which this is going to be tried against. the case is probably going to be dismissed.
the law needs to be carefully crafted not piggy backed onto another one since in it's current state it's nearly impossible to prosecute someone because making it legal but unenforceable is a good idea?
Similar threads
