Misogyny will soon officially become a hate crime.

[AlteredEgo]

Im not trying to say Im some genius, but you do realize you make good use of the jump to conclusions mat sometimes?

Is this a setup? What the hell. I'll swing at it.

Yes. Previously I jumped to some serious conclusions about you being intelligent, but willfully ignorant. I never should have just assumed you were intelligent. Won't happen again.

 

[Chrysippus]

Anyone else reminded of Orwell's thoughtcrime in Nineteen Eighty Four when thinking of misogyny as a hate crime?

 

[AlteredEgo]

Anyone else reminded of Orwell's thoughtcrime in Nineteen Eighty Four when thinking of misogyny as a hate crime?

Not I. But I don't confuse actions with thoughts, and motive is generally a part of any criminal investigation.

 

[Scarletbegonia]

How is that a hate crime?

If a guy kills another guy for not putting out, is that a hate crime too?

No. Because assembly both people are in the same classification, i.e. Gay/bisexual males.
It's when a crime reaches across the classification lines and includes an aspect of the difference between them, that the hate crime wording comes into play.

See post #33 in this thread, too.

 

[Scarletbegonia]

Anyone else reminded of Orwell's thoughtcrime in Nineteen Eighty Four when thinking of misogyny as a hate crime?

Only as a warning. Some proof of the motivation based on sex, race, gender identity, ethnic origin, religion, etc has to exist.
If a white guy rapes a black woman, it isn't technically a hate crime, but if that guy posted on Stormfront, etc, then it can come into play.

It's the standard about yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Fwiw, I believe that the US strives to squelch some freedom of thought, even as freedom of speech is enshrined in the constitution. I contend that without freedom of thought, there is no freedom of speech.
There is not, however freedom of infringing action.
Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

 

[Ldnn]

Why are you bringing people who commit massacres into this?

We were discussing swoons assertion that some shithead killing a woman because she wouldnt be his girlfriend or whatever constitutes a hate crime.

I am a little wary of delving in to a thread with more than a few straw men arguments. I did a research project a few years ago on individuals who commit inter-partner violence and it was certainly illuminating both to the assumptions made (it is all male on female violence), and that as the violence increases, so does the hatred of the other person/group - it doesn't, it is more a function of sociopathy.

A lot of the core motivators behind inter partner violence is about the instigator's inability to process emotions, vocalise them and discuss with a partner - you end up with 'anger' being a default reaction, which can easily then turn to violence. It would appear that these individuals would be toxic to those around them, regardless of the individual in question they were with. When discussing their violence later, there is very little "they deserved it" from the instigator, but more a realization it was an incorrect way to process those emotions, but in the moment they have very little self control.

What this would indicate is that, since violence against another, sexual harassment and even anti-social behaviour are all currently legal grounds to spend time in jail - broadening that spectrum further to incentivise good behaviour (by penalising the bad) does not appear to be the silver bullet required, it just criminalises more of the populace. A better plan would be to send these people to anger management classes, or resocialisation of some sort, rather than send them to a jail full of violent, angry people, in the expectation they will learn to not be angry and violent..

 

[950483]

Why are you bringing people who commit massacres into this?

We were discussing swoons assertion that some shithead killing a woman because she wouldnt be his girlfriend or whatever constitutes a hate crime.

You can actually quote my posts, so there's no need to make shit up.

 

[950483]

Anyone else reminded of Orwell's thoughtcrime in Nineteen Eighty Four when thinking of misogyny as a hate crime?

No. Does it bring Orwell's 1984 to mind for you more so than any other kind of hate crime?

 

[950483]

I know! Let's play 'spot the misogyny'. I'll start. This is an interesting one:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-37518450

 

[firsttimecaller]

You can actually quote my posts, so there's no need to make shit up.

Oops!

Sorry, that post was made by AE. I think the mix-up happened cause you we're the first response.

 

[950483]

I am a little wary of delving in to a thread with more than a few straw men arguments. I did a research project a few years ago on individuals who commit inter-partner violence and it was certainly illuminating both to the assumptions made (it is all male on female violence), and that as the violence increases, so does the hatred of the other person/group - it doesn't, it is more a function of sociopathy.

A lot of the core motivators behind inter partner violence is about the instigator's inability to process emotions, vocalise them and discuss with a partner - you end up with 'anger' being a default reaction, which can easily then turn to violence. It would appear that these individuals would be toxic to those around them, regardless of the individual in question they were with. When discussing their violence later, there is very little "they deserved it" from the instigator, but more a realization it was an incorrect way to process those emotions, but in the moment they have very little self control.

What this would indicate is that, since violence against another, sexual harassment and even anti-social behaviour are all currently legal grounds to spend time in jail - broadening that spectrum further to incentivise good behaviour (by penalising the bad) does not appear to be the silver bullet required, it just criminalises more of the populace. A better plan would be to send these people to anger management classes, or resocialisation of some sort, rather than send them to a jail full of violent, angry people, in the expectation they will learn to not be angry and violent..

Where to begin... The thread isn't specifically about inter-partner violence, and neither is the law about misogyny as a hate crime.

Firstimecaller misquoted me, but if you were replying just to his post, I feel the need to point out that if a woman is murdered by someone because she didn't want to be their girlfriend, inter-partner violence is not relevant to the conversation. She wasn't his fucking partner, and didn't want to be, that was the problem.

It does make me sick to my stomach every time a woman is murdered for leaving, or attempting to leave an abusive partner, and is then still described in the news reports as being his wife or girlfriend.

 

[Doranq]

How is that a hate crime?

If a guy kills another guy for not putting out, is that a hate crime too?

I believe I understand what it is you have said. Should this be the true then I also agree with what you have said in Pg.3 and partially of Pg.4.

If a man or woman kills another man or woman for refusing to engage in sexual intercourse that does make it by default a hate crime.
The victim did not comply with the demands of the offender. In return the offender murdered the victim because they refused to meet their demands. They were not killed out of prejudice. They were killed for refusing to comply, thus not a hate crime

“Criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against
a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.”

​

Crimes of these nature are not always hate crimes. This is due in part to the fact that the offender does not inherently hold a bias against the victim's membership of any particular social group(s). In this case the social group being gender. One may argue that it is a hate crime because the victim would have not been otherwise targeted for the same crime and reason had they been of the opposite gender. This is may or may not be true in regards to whether or not the victim's gender played any role in the offender's selection. However even so that still does not make it a hate crime. The offender's crime remains non biased as the crime was never committed out of prejudice against the victim simply because of their gender. The gender in which was selected by the offender was selected out of a bias for that particular gender as opposed to a bias against the gender held by the victim. For example when one is heterosexual and proceeds to select an individual of the opposite gender they are expressing a bias for that particular gender, not against. A bias against the victim's gender is therefore not present and therefore not making these crimes inherently hate crimes. To say otherwise is incorrect.

For sake of clarity I am not saying that these kinds of crimes are never or rarely hate crimes. I would imagine a large percentage and possibly the majority being a hate crime.

I do not understand what was not understood in your post but I should hope this helps.

 

[Ldnn]

I know! Let's play 'spot the misogyny'. I'll start. This is an interesting one:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-37518450

Mhm, there is something a little distasteful to dissecting a stranger's low point in their life to play misogyny bingo, but there is clearly a lot of misunderstanding over what constitutes as such, so I shall give it a go.

My view, is the exact same actions could have been perpetrated against a gay partner, for the same reasons (depression, intended murder/suicide), and no hatred of that individual would be implied from the violence. Therefore, because the violence happened to occur against a woman, does not make it misogynistic violence by extension of that.

What could be seen as misogyny is that he intended to kill his wife before killing himself when planning his suicide, the implication that she was somehow "his" and not an individual outside his control could certainly be seen as such.

 

[firsttimecaller]

Is this a setup? What the hell. I'll swing at it.

Yes. Previously I jumped to some serious conclusions about you being intelligent, but willfully ignorant. I never should have just assumed you were intelligent. Won't happen again.

Not a setup, just an observation.

As Doranq just elaborated, nothing I said is illogical.

What's with the insults? Does assuming I'm some uneducated knuckle-dragger makes you feel better about your views?

 

[Shackleford]

If a man or woman kills another man or woman for refusing to engage in sexual intercourse that does make it by default a hate crime.
The victim did not comply with the demands of the offender. In return the offender murdered the victim because they refused to meet their demands. They were not killed out of prejudice. They were killed for refusing to comply, thus not a hate crime.

True, but if said offender's expectation of compliance was rooted in his twisted views on women's role in either socieity in general or his life in particular, then where does that leave us?​

Not all such crimes will fall under the prejudicial hate umbrella. Surely some are isolated incidents rooted in simple rage, psychological instability, etc. However, as you said, there will certainly be cases to which the premise applies. Why not allow the investigators & the court the opportunity to make that determination?

 

[Bluebastard]

Anyone else reminded of Orwell's thoughtcrime in Nineteen Eighty Four when thinking of misogyny as a hate crime?

Normally no it wouldn't. Now that you mention it, the general topic kind of does. In that story most if not all people were manipulated into thinking the current circumstances were normal. They thought nothing of ignoring, destroying and generally manipulating information for the benefit of a larger group. Along with their being a certain group of individuals with whom the rest were in agreement on a certain kind of treatment. The proles i think they were called. At the same time there were very clear distinctions regarding men and women. The women had to dress a certain way and the men had to dress another.

Also in that story only those with enough power could express themselves. Only certain people in certain places were allowed to experience certain foods or drink. With regard to the proles they were only allowed to do what they did to help instill jealousy and hatred in the so called higher classes. Been a while since i read it but if i'm not mistaken the main character realized something was wrong only because he was getting more in touch with his emotional side. A side of himself that wasn't allowed because it was against the rules of how the people in control thought he should be.

Now it isn't a perfect match for this thread but the elements in the story are a little similar to the topic of misogyny. There being a group of people out there whose agenda is directly responsible for other ignoring, destroying and manipulating information. There being a shared opinion on how women should dress and what it means if they don't. That larger group using other groups to divide other people up. Specifically to create red herrings for the masses. Men in general not being able to express themselves emotionally for fear of retaliation. So yeah it isn't an exact match but now that you mention it there are similarities there.

Also, keep in mind. The people who created thoughtcrime in that book were very very powerful. While misogyny as a hate crime is only being pushed or even talked about by certain people. And each time they've brought it up a wave of people try to get them to think differently. Which once again, does sound familiar. Just, maybe not in the way you're thinking.

 

[TexanStar]

Anyone else reminded of Orwell's thoughtcrime in Nineteen Eighty Four when thinking of misogyny as a hate crime?

No. But it's not describing the crime of holding misogynist views any more than racial hate crime law criminalizes holding racist views (that's not the way the laws work).

 

[Chrysippus]

I guess the point I was aiming at (but obviously missed) is that misogyny (dislike of, contempt for, or hatred of women) is a feeling or emotion within an individual, which runs counter, I suppose, to generally held views of others or those of society at large: this is not and cannot per se be a crime because it is not an illegal act, or a consipracy to act. Malevolence isn't a crime: acting on it may be, should it take the form of physical personal violence, the destruction of property, or curtailing the legal rights of others.

The notion of thoughtcrime or crimethink in 1984 is Orwell's fictional societal and legal intrusion into an individual's private thought. Exaggeration is one of the tools of the satirist, and I think this is what Orwell is doing and his warning of what to stop short of: making certain thoughts illegal--the inquisition redux, so to speak, state-enforced conformity to that which an individual does not within him/herself think or feel.

This goes back to the thinking informing another of my posts about the futility of the attempt to eliminate the word 'nigger'. The word exists, it can't be voted or suppressed out of existence. It won't disappear--it exists in our culture and cannot be unwoven from our literature, art, or history without making these cultual artifacts into doilies. The one recourse that I have as an individual is not to write, say, or think it myself.

 

[AlteredEgo]

Not a setup, just an observation.

As Doranq just elaborated, nothing I said is illogical.

What's with the insults? Does assuming I'm some uneducated knuckle-dragger makes you feel better about your views?

No. I shouldn't have been rude to you. I apologize. I was very sick and should not have been engaged in any type of social interaction.

Someone agreeing with you changes my mind not an iota more than someone agreeing with me changes yours. Your argument remains invalid because human bodies do not compare to material possessions. Not only should that be obvious to you and Doranq, but our laws imply as much. That's why a robbery is a robbery, and a rape is a rape. They are both theft, but not the same thing.

 

[TexanStar]

Not only should that be obvious to you and Doranq, but our laws imply as much. That's why a robbery is a robbery, and a rape is a rape. They are both theft, but not the same thing.

THISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Seriously you guys, this should be patently obvious. Please take a few minutes and really think about this before continuing this absurd argument.