Misogyny will soon officially become a hate crime.

[ModernMating]

No it would suggest that stealing sex is as bad as stealing something of equal value which cannot be gotten but through equally invasive and traumatic means. It just may be the case that there is nothing like sex in this respect.

But there is no suggestion I think that killing someone for a wallet is less bad of a murder than killing someone for their total networth. It seems to me that murder is murder but in a sexual context it can be aggravating insofar as it proves the rape was forcible

But here is a puzzle, are you culpable if you won't give a mugger your wallet for forcing his hand but not culpable for say not giving up your first born to a kidnapper. That is, could a mugger who receives non-violent resistance be considered less bad of a murderer than a kidnapper because the victim has more justification for resistance in the latter case? The kidnapper places his victim in a bind that almost forces him to refuse (similar to the rapist).

Note that the question isn't is the kidnapper worse overall but is the kidnapper worse qua murderer

I think not, but it is a puzzle.

Yes, it does.

Your assertion is that killing someone for not giving you sex is the same as killing them for not giving you their wallet.

If the assertion above is true, then stealing sex from a person should be the same as stealing a wallet from them.

Really though, this argument is so stupid it makes me not want to participate. If you want to hold your dumb opinion, it's seriously no skin off my back, have at it. I won't hate you or dislike you for it (I'll just think you're kinda slow )

 

[Doranq]

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.

This I do not understand.
No where have I related a person to a material possession and/or believe them to be such. In what part of my post did I say, imply, or even remotely suggest as such? In case of association, prior to your post in which I have chosen to reply, neither has Caller said, implied or, remotely suggest a comparison between humans and material possessions. I would appreciate it if you could provide some insight.

And I am not saying they are always hate crimes. However, I am saying they are usually hate crimes

If this is true what were your intentions behind your previous responses? If you are not arguing the point in which Caller presented and that I agree but also you apparently do not disagree with... then what are you disagreeing with?

 

[AlteredEgo]

This I do not understand.
No where have I related a person to a material possession and/or believe them to be such. In what part of my post did I say, imply, or even remotely suggest as such? In case of association, prior to your post in which I have chosen to reply, neither has Caller said, implied or, remotely suggest a comparison between humans and material possessions. I would appreciate it if you could provide some insight.

Carly Simon's song wasn't about you either.

Statistics and whether or not something is a societal problem is irrelevant to the classification.

If Person A has something that Person B wants, but doesn't want to give it to Person B, and Person B gets pissed off and kills them for it, that's not a hate crime.

By that logic, anytime a cashier is not cooperative with a robber and gets killed for it, it's a hate crime.

This post in its context in the conversation does exactly what I say it does; did you miss it, or are you making assertions about what has and has not been said without reading the thread?

 

[AlteredEgo]

It's a term at least, but we're discussing application of law here, and so the legal terms are the ones that matters.

No, it's not even a term outside of a spell that can be cast in D20! LOL Inanimate objects are things, but someone please find me a legit reference for "animate object" outside of Dungeons & Dragons. Thanks in advance.

 

[TexanStar]

No, it's not even a term outside of a spell that can be cast in D20! LOL Inanimate objects are things, but someone please find me a legit reference for "animate object" outside of Dungeons & Dragons. Thanks in advance.

Lord have mercy, I'm a married man, don't be comin up in here flaunting all your d20 rules knowledge at me!

 

[AlteredEgo]

Lord have mercy, I'm a married man, don't be comin up in here flaunting all your d20 rules knowledge at me!

That's not even my favorite game.

 

[Chrysippus]

No it would suggest that stealing sex is as bad as stealing something of equal value which cannot be gotten but through equally invasive and traumatic means. It just may be the case that there is nothing like sex in this respect.

But there is no suggestion I think that killing someone for a wallet is less bad of a murder than killing someone for their total networth. It seems to me that murder is murder but in a sexual context it can be aggravating insofar as it proves the rape was forcible

But here is a puzzle, are you culpable if you won't give a mugger your wallet for forcing his hand but not culpable for say not giving up your first born to a kidnapper. That is, could a mugger who receives non-violent resistance be considered less bad of a murderer than a kidnapper because the victim has more justification for resistance in the latter case? The kidnapper places his victim in a bind that almost forces him to refuse (similar to the rapist).

Note that the question isn't is the kidnapper worse overall but is the kidnapper worse qua murderer

I think not, but it is a puzzle.

Stealing sex? What is that? How do you steal sex? Would that be petit or grand larceny?

 

[Scarletbegonia]

Stealing sex? What is that? How do you steal sex? Would that be petit or grand larceny?

Would size matter?


Onto a serious bit; rape is a crime of power, in most cases. It is using sex to victimize someone.
(And I have a very conflicted opinion of rape law, including the offender registry)

Rape is also used when someone cannot give consent, and that gets so very squishy. (Assuming both parties are equivalently unable to make decisions, not a mostly sober person manipulating a not so sober person, any gender)


But back to general misogyny as it relates to bias crimes.
Theoretically, if someone commits a crime, and there's sufficient evidence that the woman's gender is a contributing factor to the crime (say, a service provider that consistently overcharges female clients), it's a bias case.

Can biases layer? If a service provider consistently charges more to clients who are, say, South Asian and female, is that two biases?

 

[43698]

Great let charges go both ways. Plenty of women out there who have an axe to grind with the male gender. There are also plenty of SJW's that are rude, destructive, and belligerent.

Everyone likes equality until they get it.

 

[Bluebastard]

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.

I think everyone got your point. I just don't agree. The similarities you've brought up between that story and what is currently happening, in my opinion, are so far a part that it only applies if the group pushing for misogyny as being a hate crime did indeed have full control over everything and everyone. The way i see it it has been the opposite. Generally speaking misogyny and misogyny leading to violence has been so accepted by most people that they will consistently blame the victims in a very large percentage no matter what the actual facts dictate. To the point where women who have been abused or are being abused become targets.

The only way your likening of that book to current events works is if men are the ones in charge. And men are the ones attempting to control the masses by way of..ignoring information, destroying information and manipulating information to fit their agenda. I could come up with thousands of different examples to prove that point. All in all though when it comes to sexism/misogyny the very same tactics used in that book have been used against women in general. So if there are simularities they most certainly work against your argument.

 

[AlteredEgo]

Great let charges go both ways. Plenty of women out there who have an axe to grind with the male gender. There are also plenty of SJW's that are rude, destructive, and belligerent.

Everyone likes equality until they get it.

Um... that's how law is supposed to work. Equal application, etc. You seem to have a real problem putting aside your own emotion to make that statement cogent. Rudeness is legal. Belligerence is legal. Disagreeing with you is legal.

 

[Bluebastard]

Great let charges go both ways. Plenty of women out there who have an axe to grind with the male gender. There are also plenty of SJW's that are rude, destructive, and belligerent.

Everyone likes equality until they get it.

I'm just wondering here. How many people have social justice warriors killed, raped, silenced and generally fucked over as compared to people who call others social justice warriors? While there are women out there who hate men how many of them, as compared to men who hate women, have actually hurt someone because of it? Also, aren't you implying with your overall post here that things aren't equal yet? Which in a round about way justifies why more attention needs to be paid towards equality in general.

Inside the gunman's head: Rejection, jealousy and vow to kill 'beautiful girls'

Elliot Rodger's difficulties with women were so devastating to him that he vowed to kill anyone he couldn't win over.​

"My orchestration of the Day of Retribution is my attempt to do everything, in my power, to destroy everything I cannot have," Rodger wrote in a 137-page manifesto obtained by CNN affiliate KEYT.
"All of those beautiful girls I've desired so much in my life, but can never have because they despise and loathe me, I will destroy."
He also said he despised men who had luck with women and said he would eliminate them, too.
"I will kill them all and make them suffer, just as they have made me suffer," he added. "It is only fair."


Thats one guy who wasn't a social justice warrior and who not only targeted women because of him being rejected but men too. So where are the female mass murderers who kill people simply because their advances were rejected. How many can you find?

 

[AlteredEgo]

Altered ego wrote:
'Words fall out of existence all the time'. Wrong--they 'fall out of' usage' but not existence--otherwise you couldn't use 'marry' as an example. And frankly I cherish 'gramercy', 'zounds', 'swyve' and the like.

Fine, then. Usage. Cherish those words all you like, I certainly do. However, try dropping them into a typical conversation, and all communication will break down from lack of comprehension. What, precisely, is your point? I would be just as happy to see any racial slur be as familiar in the mouth of a high school senior as fopdoodle.

 

[Chrysippus]

Fine, then. Usage. Cherish those words all you like, I certainly do. However, try dropping them into a typical conversation, and all communication will break down from lack of comprehension. What, precisely, is your point? I would be just as happy to see any racial slur be as familiar in the mouth of a high school senior as fopdoodle.

1.) I wouldn't dream of dropping archaic words into a conversation--I live in 2016 in the western US.
2.) My point is that words can't be legislated, as you put it, 'out of existence'. They just drop out of current usage, or people choose not to use them because they aren't popular, considered polite, or are replaced. Case in point, new words are accepted into usage and even into the Oxford Dictionary, like 'adorbs'. But 'nigger' will culturally always be there, it can't be got rid of.
3.) And believe me, 'nigger' is in the mouths of high school seniors far more than fopdoodle, which Urban Dictionary describes as 'an old timey swear word'.

 

[Scarletbegonia]

Great let charges go both ways. Plenty of women out there who have an axe to grind with the male gender. There are also plenty of SJW's that are rude, destructive, and belligerent.

Everyone likes equality until they get it.

I'll address this after we get an Equal Rights Amendment for Women.

 

[Scarletbegonia]

Fine, then. Usage. Cherish those words all you like, I certainly do. However, try dropping them into a typical conversation, and all communication will break down from lack of comprehension. What, precisely, is your point? I would be just as happy to see any racial slur be as familiar in the mouth of a high school senior as fopdoodle.

I have totally used zounds.

Chatting with a woman in the office building led to a talk on how people "reclaim" slurs. We were focusing on bitch and nigga/nigger. Between the two of us, four ethnicities are represented, so we aren't so atypical, but not common.
I mentioned that hearing racial slurs uttered by those who suffered for them only gave strength to the haters. That hearing these (especially) young men and women use an owners term for themselves made my heart ache.
She mentioned how the word is used within the community, and some times it had been leveled against her. One tenant in the apartments behind prefaced it with house.
That isn't reclaiming. That's infighting.

 

[TexanStar]

I've lost track of what you're all talking about now.

 

[950483]

I have totally used zounds.

Chatting with a woman in the office building led to a talk on how people "reclaim" slurs. We were focusing on bitch and nigga/nigger. Between the two of us, four ethnicities are represented, so we aren't so atypical, but not common.
I mentioned that hearing racial slurs uttered by those who suffered for them only gave strength to the haters. That hearing these (especially) young men and women use an owners term for themselves made my heart ache.
She mentioned how the word is used within the community, and some times it had been leveled against her. One tenant in the apartments behind prefaced it with house.
That isn't reclaiming. That's infighting.

Black music, and music videos where they reclaim the 'n word' tend to also contain a lot of 'bitch' and 'hoe' and suchlike, and are just generally demeaning and derogatory to women.

Does anyone else remember, years ago, when that woman had a tantrum at the mobo awards? Someone won an award, and she went onto the stage with a mic to tell them off, and tell them that they should be ashamed of themselves? Who was that?

 

[Scarletbegonia]

I've lost track of what you're all talking about now.

Catch up, Tex. These rivers run fast with class IV Rapids.

 

[AlteredEgo]

The problem with this thread is swoon overestimates a lot of our peers here. She thought she could be slightly hyperbolic and that people would all get what she was saying. She figured common sense could just apply itself, I guess. I bet she knows better now. Next time I bet she'll just say that women are going to finally be considered protected minorities under hate crime laws.