The city that made misogyny a hate crime

[Brillopad]

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/vbxga3/the-city-that-made-misogyny-illegal

This sounds a pretty good idea to me in theory considering how big an issue it is and how most women have exoerienced it to varying degrees at least once in their life, but it seems that it makes little difference to many. The message is simply not getting through.

[Oliver_W]

This is a Vice article, so it's probably complete horsecrap.

Leering, groping, stalking, taking unwanted photos, sexually explicit language, unwanted sexual advances and online abuse are among the incidents that can be flagged.
So things which were either crimes or anti-social behaviour anyway?

[Marsh.]

This is a Vice article, so it's probably complete horsecrap.


So things which were either crimes or anti-social behaviour anyway?

Yeah. They don't fall under misogyny, they come under abuse, assault and stalking.

[Beso]

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/vbxga3/the-city-that-made-misogyny-illegal

This sounds a pretty good idea to me in theory considering how big an issue it is and how most women have exoerienced it to varying degrees at least once in their life, but it seems that it makes little difference to many. The message is simply not getting through.

But isnt misogyny on the decline in this country.

[Marsh.]

Misandry is actually on the rise.

[montblanc]

we love a law

[Crimson Dynamo]

Since the enforcement began, there have been 167 reports of misogyny. Of these, 68 were treated as hate crimes, including public order offences, harassment and assault, and 99 were treated as hate incidents, such as intimidating behaviour, inappropriate sexual comments and verbal abuse. The reports have led to four arrests and one charge.


:idc:

[Marsh.]

Since the enforcement began, there have been 167 reports of misogyny. Of these, 68 were treated as hate crimes, including public order offences, harassment and assault, and 99 were treated as hate incidents, such as intimidating behaviour, inappropriate sexual comments and verbal abuse. The reports have led to four arrests and one charge.


:idc:
So were basically criminal offences anyway and didn't require people in their ignorant quest for equality to actually perpetuate inequality. :clap1:

[Brillopad]

So were basically criminal offences anyway and didn't require people in their ignorant quest for equality to actually perpetuate inequality. :clap1:

Could you not say exactly the same about other offences such as racism, religious intolerance and tr@nsphobia all classed as hate crimes - what’s the difference?

Why should misogyny not be classed as a hate crime when it clearly is? Should we remove the offence of hate crimes altogether then? It really should be all or nothing. Anything else is blatant discrimination. .

[Marsh.]

Could you not say exactly the same about other offences such as racism, religious intolerance and tr@nsphobia.

No.

[Brillopad]

No.

Why! Misosgny is a hate crime in exactly the same way and should be treated accordingly. I repeat anything else is blatant discrimination.

[kirklancaster]

Nottingham was famous in my youth for boasting a 2.5 to 1 ratio of Females to Males and was THE destination for groups of hopeful but stupid men who were out to get 'lucky' with all those 'available' girls.

It comes as no surprise, therefore, that decades later the city has a 'Misogyny' problem.

By the way - and purely in my opinion - Misogyny really is a 'Hate Crime' - on a par with, and as old as 'Racism', 'Homophobia', Transphobia or any other 'phobia', and should NOT be tolerated.

[Marsh.]

Why! Misosgny is a hate crime in exactly the same way and should be treated accordingly. I repeat anything else is blatant discrimination.
Not the same thing.

[Brillopad]

Not the same thing.

Why is it not the same thing - unless you can provide a valid reason for why it means nothing.

But then you are not a Woman and haven’t been on the receiving end have you. Physically women are more vulnerable and that vulnerability is abused all the time by hateful men. How anyone can state it is not a hate crime is seriously laughable and reeks of agendas.

[Niamh.]

Closed for cleaning, just a warning aswell for this thread when I reopen it and for any others in here, if people continue to just attack eachother rather than sticking to the topics of threads then I will just ban you from SDs. It's getting tiresome now and all the threads in here are being ruined.

[Ammi]

...actually Oliver I’m going to take it a bit more off dierection../...apologies...and just because the Anne Hegerty thread is closed now...so following on...


...I googled a little bit ...and it seems that many female feminists would prefer ‘non trans’ to ‘cis’...if a term had to be applied at all...but ‘woman’ has always faced suppression in society and in recent years, is only just becoming more powerful...or of more equal power to ‘man’...in some areas, still a struggle etc...the news story at the moment of the leads in The Crown TV series...being an example of equality still not having been reached and ‘man’ having more power than ‘woman’, we could say...their salaries weren’t equal, his was higher..and yet she was The Crown...the title character portrayed...so it’s only recent times that ‘woman’ is being reclaimed as it were in its power and it’s equality...so then woman is told it’s not woman, it’s cis-woman...leaving no choice, leaving ‘suppression’ felt again, surely...?...’man’ has never felt those suppression’s, so it wouldn’t have the same impact of association...if in general a cis-man feels fine about it, you know...but some women don’t at all...and then it’s down to our individuality like all things...I’m fine with it, actually I hadn’t been familiar with it until these discussions...but I completely understand why many women wouldn’t feel so open to it...because they didn’t choose it, they were give no choice and no choice in certain things is something that ‘woman’ is very familiar with...

[Ammi]

....oooops, I think I just got bolded...apologies Niamh, I think we posted around the same time...

[Marsh.]

Why is it not the same thing - unless you can provide a valid reason for why it means nothing.

But then you are not a Woman and haven’t been on the receiving end have you. Physically women are more vulnerable and that vulnerability is abused all the time by hateful men. How anyone can state it is not a hate crime is seriously laughable and reeks of agendas.

Going for the fact I'm a man so I'm incapable of understanding really doesn't help your argument in the slightest.

Presuming I've never been on the receiving end of a hate crime there too. You don't know me.

[Brillopad]

Going for the fact I'm a man so I'm incapable of understanding really doesn't help your argument in the slightest.

Presuming I've never been on the receiving end of a hate crime there too. You don't know me.

You have never been on the receiving end of being assaulted, verballly or sexually abused because you are a woman which is what I was clearly talking about.

Most women, as I mentioned earlier, have been to varying degrees as it goes on everywhere - on the streets, in the workplace, on public transport, in the home, on-line - you name it.

[Marsh.]

You have never been on the receiving end of being assaulted, verballly or sexually abused because you are a woman which is what I was clearly talking about.

Most women, as I mentioned earlier, have been to varying degrees as it goes on everywhere - on the streets, in the workplace, on public transport, in the home, on-line - you name it.
Rubbish.

[Livia]

Misandry is actually on the rise.

Oh please Marshy...

[Niamh.]

Rubbish.

Really? You're stating that as a man, you can say with certainty that women don't face sexism? How is that any different than saying as a white person that you can say that black people don't face racism?

I'm not saying you can't give an opinion on it as a man but to say that you know better than women what they face/have faced seems a bit illogical

[Livia]

I can't have escaped every female's notice, that the people posting negatively in threads about women are all men. Men who have never experienced casual sexual oppression in the way women have. And after thousands of years of men speaking for us, they have to learn that we don't need them to sort it out for us. We waited long enough, now we're going to sort it out ourselves.

[Marsh.]

Really? You're stating that as a man, you can say with certainty that women don't face sexism? How is that any different than saying as a white person that you can say that black people don't face racism?

I'm not saying you can't give an opinion on it as a man but to say that you know better than women what they face/have faced seems a bit illogical

I didn't say women don't face sexism.

I also didn't say I knew better.

Do I think much of the attitude displayed in much of the OP's link? Not really. Nor do I think it justifies the casual sexism thrown at men as some kind of retaliation.

I don't wish to get all "the truth" on a topic about women, that's really not me. But it smacks of self victimisation. Especially in several topics on this forum when I'm told my opinion holds no validity as a man.

Equality doesn't come from a war with the group you want parity with imo. No, I'm not a woman, does that make me incapable of comprehending injustice or discrimination? No. Does it make me incapable of relating to a fellow human being? No.

[Marsh.]

I can't have escaped every female's notice, that the people posting negatively in threads about women are all men. Men who have never experienced casual sexual oppression in the way women have. And after thousands of years of men speaking for us, they have to learn that we don't need them to sort it out for us. We waited long enough, now we're going to sort it out ourselves.
No. But you won't point out all of the female posters making regular condescending and derogatory remarks about men and male posters. That doesn't fit the narrative.

[Marsh.]

You have never been on the receiving end of being assaulted, verballly or sexually abused.

You don't know me.

[Niamh.]

I didn't say women don't face sexism.

I also didn't say I knew better.

Do I think much of the attitude displayed in much of the OP's link? Not really. Nor do I think it justifies the casual sexism thrown at men as some kind of retaliation.

I don't wish to get all "the truth" on a topic about women, that's really not me. But it smacks of self victimisation. Especially in several topics on this forum when I'm told my opinion holds no validity as a man.

Equality doesn't come from a war with the group you want parity with imo. No, I'm not a woman, does that make me incapable of comprehending injustice or discrimination? No. Does it make me incapable of relating to a fellow human being? No.

What casual sexism was thrown at you though? What I've seen is women talking about women and you taking that as a slight against men.

[Livia]

No. But you won't point out all of the female posters making regular condescending and derogatory remarks about men and male posters. That doesn't fit the narrative.

Maybe it's because it feels like we're still being dictated to, told what and how to think, what to be called, how we should react.... men have had a good couple of thousand year run, now women are thinking and acting for themselves without having to have permission.

No one here has a problem with me, only with men telling them how to be women and what should please or enrage us. I don't know how to be a man. I wouldn't have the chutzpah to tell you how to feel or what to be called.

[Brillopad]

You don't know me.

Because you are a woman - you conveniently missed that bit out.

No-one is saying men don’t get assaulted but it is less likely to be due to a sexual motive - although before you jump in with a ‘men get sexually assaulted too’ comment - I know that, but it has been happening to women for centuries. And as there are more heterosexual men than gay men it is a bigger problem.

Womens’ physical disadvantage also makes them easy targets for cowards and there are plenty of them around.

[Marsh.]

Maybe it's because it feels like we're still being dictated to, told what and how to think, what to be called, how we should react.... men have had a good couple of thousand year run, now women are thinking and acting for themselves without having to have permission.

No one here has a problem with me, only with men telling them how to be women and what should please or enrage us. I don't know how to be a man. I wouldn't have the chutzpah to tell you how to feel or what to be called.

Funny that, because not once have I told anyone man woman or dog how they should feel about anything.

I haven't dictated any of the things listed. It's not every man's fault that the world worked the way it has. And it has changed and continues to change for the better.

Holding every man up responsible for... having a penis is laughable though.

[Marsh.]

What casual sexism was thrown at you though? What I've seen is women talking about women and you taking that as a slight against men.
Not at all.
Several times in this thread and others I've had replies beginning with "you're a man" "you're male though you don't count". Laughably, even in threads where the topic is not even about women/female. That's what I take as a slight.

[Marsh.]

Because you are a woman - you conveniently missed that bit out.

No-one is saying men don’t get assaulted but it is less likely to be due to a sexual motive - although before you jump in with a ‘men get sexually assaulted too’ comment - I know that, but it has been happening to women for centuries. And as there are more heterosexual men than gay men it is a bigger problem.

Womens’ physical disadvantage also makes them easy targets for cowards and there are plenty of them around.
Men don't need to be women. Contrary to common sexist beliefs they are capable of empathy and emotion, of critical thinking and are certainly not all strangers to discrimination.

[Brillopad]

No. But you won't point out all of the female posters making regular condescending and derogatory remarks about men and male posters. That doesn't fit the narrative.

Where?

[Livia]

Funny that, because not once have I told anyone man woman or dog how they should feel about anything.

I haven't dictated any of the things listed. It's not every man's fault that the world worked the way it has. And it has changed and continues to change for the better.

Holding every man up responsible for... having a penis is laughable though.

I'm not holding every man responsible, only those who repeatedly questioned why as a born woman, I object to having a new title given to me by a group of people who do not represent me. And since this thread started all your posts have been negative. For instance, your first comment was: So were basically criminal offences anyway and didn't require people in their ignorant quest for equality to actually perpetuate inequality Protecting the rights of women doesn't mean that men will suffer inequality, but every time there's a discussion about women, about misogyny, about domestic violence, about rape.... you can set your watch my the men who will arrive and give it "whataboutmenthough..." Women are supportive of men's issues, I've never seen a women enter a discussion about men's issues and say "what about women?"

[Marsh.]

They're negative because I disagree with the OP.

They continue to be negative because I'm then being challenged for being a man and having an opinion on women.

80% of the posts were negative because certain people decided to carry on their little games from another thread but that's mostly now been deleted.

[Livia]

They're negative because I disagree with the OP.

They continue to be negative because I'm then being challenged for being a man and having an opinion on women.

80% of the posts were negative because certain people decided to carry on their little games from another thread but that's mostly now been deleted.

I know you disagreed, but why though? Do you think men lose something by having misogyny made a crime, just like other hate crimes?

Of course you can have an opinion, but it seems that every time a man demands the right to have his say on women's issues, they are negative and full of whataboutisms.

[Niamh.]

Not at all.
Several times in this thread and others I've had replies beginning with "you're a man" "you're male though you don't count". Laughably, even in threads where the topic is not even about women/female. That's what I take as a slight.

Well, It's certainly not my intention to shut you are anyone else down, I'm interested in everyone opinions, It's just I suppose, this topic accompanied with that trans topic and most especially, I suppose "what makes a woman a woman" (or a man a man aswell, it seems to have changed to more of a women topic though because it by far affects women and our rights over men and theirs) It feels a little bit like being told (and tbf in there it was all by men) that what we think and feel about being women is wrong. Anyway I don't want to fall out with you about it. These are just my thoughts on it all

[Marsh.]

I know you disagreed, but why though? Do you think men lose something by having misogyny made a crime, just like other hate crimes?

Of course you can have an opinion, but it seems that every time a man demands the right to have his say on women's issues, they are negative and full of whataboutisms.
Demands the right to have his say?
No. Simply having his say.

Why whenever a man gives an opinion it's then twisted to be him stomping on women's turf and butting in?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Do you think if women were bigger and generally stronger than men this situation would be reversed?

[Livia]

Demands the right to have his say?
No. Simply having his say.

Why whenever a man gives an opinion it's then twisted to be him stomping on women's turf and butting in?

Only when the responses are negative. Like yours have been this time.

And yes, have your say... but make it constructive.

[Niamh.]

Do you think if women were bigger and generally stronger than men this situation would be reversed?

Quite possibly

[Vicky.]

I genuinely do not see why misogyny is not a hate crime to start with.

Do you think if women were bigger and generally stronger than men this situation would be reversed?

I have wondered this a lot.

I think the situation being as it is is a mix between women being physically less able to fight off attackers AND male socialization. So if there was a random reverse in strength, I think attacks on women would lessen to a large degree but I don't think that women would start attacking men instead and behaving the way men do. Unless there was also a change in how boys/girls are brought up at the same time. But even then I am not sure women would be attacking men on such a level because I think testosterone plays a large part in the aggressive side of so many mens behaviour too. So again, I guess if women started taking steroids along with the other changes...then possibly it might completely reverse

[Marsh.]

Well, It's certainly not my intention to shut you are anyone else down, I'm interested in everyone opinions, It's just I suppose, this topic accompanied with that trans topic and most especially, I suppose "what makes a woman a woman" (or a man a man aswell, it seems to have changed to more of a women topic though because it by far affects women and our rights over men and theirs) It feels a little bit like being told (and tbf in there it was all by men) that what we think and feel about being women is wrong. Anyway I don't want to fall out with you about it. These are just my thoughts on it all

Oh I'm not falling out with anyone about it. [emoji23]

But in regards to the other thread it wasn't my view that women don't have the right to feel how they feel as women but that their ire was directed at entirely the wrong thing and the biggest topic of conversation in the other thread was about something that didn't even solely concern women.

I just think the fact that it was a gender split in forum consensus that I objected to that being used as a reason to label me and my view on it "sexist" I found it baffling and if it wasn't so annoying I'd have found it hilarious too. When I wasn't being told I was sexist, I was being told I'm a man so don't understand (men don't think much you see) but the double standard in sexism didn't seem to apply.

This isn't a personal thing. I can't remember whether you personally posted anything in that vein but the general tone of the thread certainly was.

[Marsh.]

Only when the responses are negative. Like yours have been this time.

And yes, have your say... but make it constructive.
So if my response is negative I'm trampling on female territory and my opinion is not valid. But a positive one is acceptable and means it is suddenly worth something?

So basically, agree with me or shut up?

I'd rather not justify my viewpoint to such a ridiculous double standard.

[Brillopad]

They're negative because I disagree with the OP.

They continue to be negative because I'm then being challenged for being a man and having an opinion on women.

80% of the posts were negative because certain people decided to carry on their little games from another thread but that's mostly now been deleted.

In the transphobic thread you, and others, consistently dismissed womens’ views on an issue that affects their privacy and safety - that suggested an element of hostility towards women and their rights.

It raised the issue of misogyny for me so I posted a thread on it. As far as subject matter is concerned I am playing no games and this thread has nothing to do with my response to your general game-playing in many threads. Believe me you really are not that relevant.

[Marsh.]

In the transphobic thread you, and others, consistently dismissed womens’ views on an issue that affects their privacy and safety - that suggested an element of hostility towards women and their rights.

It raised the issue of misogyny for me so I posted a thread on it. As far as subject matter is concerned I am playing no games and this thread has nothing to do with my response to your general game-playing in many threads. Believe me you really are not that relevant.
No I really didnt.

All of your personal posts attacking me were deleted this morning so pack it in, eh?

[Livia]

So if my response is negative I'm trampling on female territory and my opinion is not valid. But a positive one is acceptable and means it is suddenly worth something?

So basically, agree with me or shut up?

I'd rather not justify my viewpoint to such a ridiculous double standard.

No, not at all. But your opinion on this has been clear. And you clearly don't agree with me, and that's fine. I'm not interested in making you justify your viewpoint. But I also have a right to challenge you when you're so negative over something so important.

You're one of my favourite people on here Marshy, of course I'm interested in your opinion, but we should be able to discuss it without you accusing me of shutting you down or having double standards.

[Niamh.]

Oh I'm not falling out with anyone about it. [emoji23]

But in regards to the other thread it wasn't my view that women don't have the right to feel how they feel as women but that their ire was directed at entirely the wrong thing and the biggest topic of conversation in the other thread was about something that didn't even solely concern women.

I just think the fact that it was a gender split in forum consensus that I objected to that being used as a reason to label me and my view on it "sexist" I found it baffling and if it wasn't so annoying I'd have found it hilarious too. When I wasn't being told I was sexist, I was being told I'm a man so don't understand (men don't think much you see) but the double standard in sexism didn't seem to apply.

This isn't a personal thing. I can't remember whether you personally posted anything in that vein but the general tone of the thread certainly was.

I see where you're coming from when you say that it isn't just a womens issue because technically speaking of course it is not. I think the problem is though (and why women are being most vocal/resistant to some of the issues raised in that other thread) it just won't effect men in any real way where as it will women. That's why it feels like men are less understanding of where we're coming from because yes it will effect you to a point but you seem to not really care about concerns we have.

[Marsh.]

No, not at all. But your opinion on this has been clear. And you clearly don't agree with me, and that's fine. I'm not interested in making you justify your viewpoint. But I also have a right to challenge you when you're so negative over something so important.

You're one of my favourite people on here Marshy, of course I'm interested in your opinion, but we should be able to discuss it without you accusing me of shutting you down or having double standards.
But... You have shut me down with double standards.

In the posts asking me to expand my view you're telling me "Be positive or your dictating to women" "Men have valid opinions on female issues as long as it's positive". Basically an agree with me or shut up.

I like you Livia and enjoy your posts. This isn't personal. [emoji23]

[Brillopad]

So if my response is negative I'm trampling on female territory and my opinion is not valid. But a positive one is acceptable and means it is suddenly worth something?

So basically, agree with me or shut up?

I'd rather not justify my viewpoint to such a ridiculous double standard.

That has been your stance in every thread that I have seen you in and is exactly the reason why we have clashed because I have taken issue with your attitude that anyone, especially women it seemed, would be talked down to and ridiculed in an attempt to dismiss their opinions and shut them up.

Either you don’t know how you come across or or it is intentional - I know which I think it is.

[Livia]

But... You have shut me down with double standards.

In the posts asking me to expand my view you're telling me "Be positive or your dictating to women" "Men have valid opinions on female issues as long as it's positive". Basically an agree with me or shut up.

I like you Livia and enjoy your posts. This isn't personal. [emoji23]

And that's one of the reasons I like you Marshy.

I'm sorry if I've shut you down, that wasn't my intention. But misogyny is a crime and I am not a cis woman x

[Marsh.]

I see where you're coming from when you say that it isn't just a womens issue because technically speaking of course it is not. I think the problem is though (and why women are being most vocal/resistant to some of the issues raised in that other thread) it just won't effect men in any real way where as it will women. That's why it feels like men are less understanding of where we're coming from because yes it will effect you to a point but you seem to not really care about concerns we have.
A fair point well made.

I don't agree a word will make anymore difference than every other sexual/gender identifier but I respect your fears.


:suspect:

[Marsh.]

That has been your stance in every thread that I have seen you in and is exactly the reason why we have clashed because I have taken issue with your attitude that anyone, especially women it seemed, would be talked down to and ridiculed in an attempt to dismiss their opinions and shut them up.

Either you don’t know how you come across or or it is intentional - I know which I think it is.
Apart from this thread, the trans one is the only other thread I've communicated with you about female related discussion so, don't pretend to be familiar with me. You're not.

[Marsh.]

And that's one of the reasons I like you Marshy.

I'm sorry if I've shut you down, that wasn't my intention. But misogyny is a crime and I am not a cis woman x
:lovedup:

I agree most, if not all, of the acts listed jn this law are criminal. I just feel labelling them all as misogynistic hate crimes kind of walks a fine line.

[Niamh.]

A fair point well made.

I don't agree a word will make anymore difference than every other sexual/gender identifier but I respect your fears.


:suspect:

:love:

[kirklancaster]

I DETEST that word 'cis' - or whatever it is.

Cystitis - (WC) Cisterns - Cystic Fibrosis - Cissy - Syphilis - the word has no positive connotations and needs to go back to wherever it came from.

This ever-increasing need by some to 'Label' and 'Name' every single thing under the sun is banal - in my opinion.

[Marsh.]

And I will apologise to Niamh and Livia if I have at all come across aggressive or rude. I suppose the way this thread started and the sour tone stuck throughout. Maybe I got a little defensive.

[Nicky91]

And I will apologise to Niamh and Livia if I have at all come across aggressive or rude. I suppose the way this thread started and the sour tone stuck throughout. Maybe I got a little defensive.

OMG i am SHOOK, i like this sweet side of you Marsh :love: :shocked:

[Marsh.]

OMG i am SHOOK, i like this sweet side of you Marsh :love: :shocked:
I'm always sweet. :hmph:

[Niamh.]

And I will apologise to Niamh and Livia if I have at all come across aggressive or rude. I suppose the way this thread started and the sour tone stuck throughout. Maybe I got a little defensive.

No worries, I mean it's good subject, I hate when we have to close or delete stuff because we can't all just talk about the actual topic. This one in particular seems to get very emotive lately though (and I know I've kind of took it offtopic a bit as well, sorry about that but atleast we kind of understand where we're all coming from a bit more)

[Brillopad]

And I will apologise to Niamh and Livia if I have at all come across aggressive or rude. I suppose the way this thread started and the sour tone stuck throughout. Maybe I got a little defensive.

You aren’t the only one who gets a little defensive when they feel under attack though. And the reasons why I and others have also felt defensive are evident in the previous thread and are reflected in your most recent comment implying it is all really down to me and nothing to do with you. :rolleyes:

[Marsh.]

No worries, I mean it's good subject, I hate when we have to close or delete stuff because we can't all just talk about the actual topic. This one in particular seems to get very emotive lately though (and I know I've kind of took it offtopic a bit as well, sorry about that but atleast we kind of understand where we're all coming from a bit more)

:love:

[Brillopad]

No I really didnt.

All of your personal posts attacking me were deleted this morning so pack it in, eh?

I assume your personal attacking posts to me were too - if not I would want to know why.

[Niamh.]

A fair point well made.

I don't agree a word will make anymore difference than every other sexual/gender identifier but I respect your fears.


:suspect:

For me it's not the word really, the word only annoys me because as I said before the only proper times I've ever seen it used has been negative and always directed at women as kind of insult. I've never seen it directed at men in that way. If I had actually seen it used in a more descriptor type way and not in the negative way maybe It wouldn't bother me at all, i'm not sure but either way it's just tainted for me now

[Brillopad]

I DETEST that word 'cis' - or whatever it is.

Cystitis - (WC) Cisterns - Cystic Fibrosis - Cissy - Syphilis - the word has no positive connotations and needs to go back to wherever it came from.

This ever-increasing need by some to 'Label' and 'Name' every single thing under the sun is banal - in my opinion.

Cisterns and syphillis - Oh Kirk - thanks that gave me a good laugh. :joker::joker::joker:

On a more serious note - I agree completely. Good post btw.

[Marsh.]

For me it's not the word really, the word only annoys me because as I said before the only proper times I've ever seen it used has been negative and always directed at women as kind of insult. I've never seen it directed at men in that way. If I had actually seen it used in a more descriptor type way and not in the negative way maybe It wouldn't bother me at all, i'm not sure but either way it's just tainted for me now
90% of the times I've heard it used in conversation has been on this forum from people like Jack or something tbh. The rest if the time has been people using it differentiate from a transperson.

I can well imagine it sullying your view of it tbf. I suppose like slang and regional dialect, people take offence at all kinds of daft words or things.

Reminds me of my nan always thinking my cousin was criticising her by saying "sick". He is a Scouser but that didn't stop her clicking her tongue every time he said it. :shame:

[Marsh.]

I DETEST that word 'cis' - or whatever it is.

Cystitis - (WC) Cisterns - Cystic Fibrosis - Cissy - Syphilis - the word has no positive connotations and needs to go back to wherever it came from.

This ever-increasing need by some to 'Label' and 'Name' every single thing under the sun is banal - in my opinion.
We need to name things in order to communicate with one another?

But now this is cis thread part 2 and I blame Niamh.

[Niamh.]

We need to name things in order to communicate with one another?

But now this is cis thread part 2 and I blame Niamh.

Sorry :fan:

[Beso]

Do you think if women were bigger and generally stronger than men this situation would be reversed?

Id be doing the dishes a lot more, thats for sure.

[user104658]

I've said before that I hate the word "cis", even though I do think there should be -A- word. Just not "cis". I have multiple reasons for that.

1) The etymology is trash. It's from a chemistry term and I can only guess that whoever thought to use it in the context of gender thought they were being really clever... but it's that sort of "omg so clever guys look what I've come up with!!" that isn't actually very clever and is a bit flimsy.

2) It's not a term that originated in actual biological science or academic psychology. It's a populist "buzz term" that sort of sprung up from the LGBT+ subculture and is trying to worm its way in as the accepted official term. I personally want a proper terminology to use, from an actual source within psychological gender theory... not a word that someone came up with in their bedroom and spread online.

3) It just is a stupid sounding word. Come on. It is.

4) It makes me think of "cif"

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41r84TL8DqL._SX342_.jpg

And that ****ing annoys me anyway because it's called Jif! JIF!! :fist:



I DETEST that word 'cis' - or whatever it is.

Cystitis - (WC) Cisterns - Cystic Fibrosis - Cissy - Syphilis

Syphilis doesn't have "sis" in it Kirk... wtf... :think:

[Niamh.]

I've said before that I hate the word "cis", even though I do think there should be -A- word. Just not "cis". I have multiple reasons for that.

1) The etymology is trash. It's from a chemistry term and I can only guess that whoever thought to use it in the context of gender thought they were being really clever... but it's that sort of "omg so clever guys look what I've come up with!!" that isn't actually very clever and is a bit flimsy.

2) It's not a term that originated in actual biological science or academic psychology. It's a populist "buzz term" that sort of sprung up from the LGBT+ subculture and is trying to worm its way in as the accepted official term. I personally want a proper terminology to use, from an actual source within psychological gender theory... not a word that someone came up with in their bedroom and spread online.

3) It just is a stupid sounding word. Come on. It is.

4) It makes me think of "cif"

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41r84TL8DqL._SX342_.jpg

And that ****ing annoys me anyway because it's called Jif! JIF!! :fist:





Syphilis doesn't have "sis" in it Kirk... wtf... :think:

and this is probably why the only times I ever heard it used before(other than on TiBB) was through tweets and other such platforms where people were using it to insult other people

[Brillopad]

I've said before that I hate the word "cis", even though I do think there should be -A- word. Just not "cis". I have multiple reasons for that.

1) The etymology is trash. It's from a chemistry term and I can only guess that whoever thought to use it in the context of gender thought they were being really clever... but it's that sort of "omg so clever guys look what I've come up with!!" that isn't actually very clever and is a bit flimsy.

2) It's not a term that originated in actual biological science or academic psychology. It's a populist "buzz term" that sort of sprung up from the LGBT+ subculture and is trying to worm its way in as the accepted official term. I personally want a proper terminology to use, from an actual source within psychological gender theory... not a word that someone came up with in their bedroom and spread online.

3) It just is a stupid sounding word. Come on. It is.

4) It makes me think of "cif"

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41r84TL8DqL._SX342_.jpg

And that ****ing annoys me anyway because it's called Jif! JIF!! :fist:





Syphilis doesn't have "sis" in it Kirk... wtf... :think:

Here, here - if there has to be a word it has to be a proper word. They can stick ‘cis’ where the sun don’t shine!

[Nicky91]

don't get me wrong or if it sounds nasty or rude, but serious debates well you usually have heated conversations in debates anyway, especially when it's about something what hits you emotionally

[Vicky.]

Biological works just fine for me tbh. You have biological women, transwomen, biological men and trans men.

Though tbh, the only way to actually be a man, rather than a transman, or a woman rather than a transwoman is biologically.

Cis is almost always used in a sneery/negative way. It also assumes that you identify with all of the stereotypes forced onto you because of your sex. Plus, I have been told many times that I am 'just cis' when this is not actually the case at all given I do not have a 'gender' at all and do not follow that religious type thinking of gendered souls and whatnot. But when I state I am not actually cis, I am told I am wrong :laugh:

[montblanc]

sis :love:

[Tom4784]

The crimes listed should be considered crimes and they are for the most part but I think the umbrella term it comes under is wrong, it's sexual harassment and assault and it should simply be called that, in an age where sexual attacks against men are high profile and being talked about, I'm not sure if it's the right move to class sexual crimes as misogyny since some people will take it as that it only affects women, which, undoubtedly they are the main victims but potentially making it out to be a problem that only affects women could affect male victims willingness to come forward.

I think it would just be a better move to simply put more resources into preventing and solving sexual crimes as a whole.

[montblanc]

The crimes listed should be considered crimes and they are for the most part but I think the umbrella term it comes under is wrong, it's sexual harassment and assault and it should simply be called that, in an age where sexual attacks against men are high profile and being talked about, I'm not sure if it's the right move to class sexual crimes as misogyny since some people will take it as that it only affects women.

I think it would just be a better move to simply put more resources into preventing and solving sexual crimes as a whole.

:clap1:

[Livia]

Misogyny is a hate crime. Like racism. When there's a discussion about someone being the victim of racist abuse, I never see anyone arguing that white people get abused too so we should all be lumped in together, black, white, brown.... But mention misogyny and you'll see men using that same strange argument over and over again.

[Niamh.]

Biological works just fine for me tbh. You have biological women, transwomen, biological men and trans men.

Though tbh, the only way to actually be a man, rather than a transman, or a woman rather than a transwoman is biologically.

Cis is almost always used in a sneery/negative way. It also assumes that you identify with all of the stereotypes forced onto you because of your sex. Plus, I have been told many times that I am 'just cis' when this is not actually the case at all given I do not have a 'gender' at all and do not follow that religious type thinking of gendered souls and whatnot. But when I state I am not actually cis, I am told I am wrong :laugh:

hey why aren't you allowed to know your gender? :oh:

But yes Biological now you mention it is what it should be. Like if you're adopted you have a mother who isn't your biological mother but she's still your mother, wouldn't that be the same?

[Brillopad]

Misogyny is a hate crime. Like racism. When there's a discussion about someone being the victim of racist abuse, I never see anyone arguing that white people get abused too so we should all be lumped in together, black, white, brown.... But mention misogyny and you'll see men using that same strange argument over and over again.

Exactly. There is always some excuse to attempt to undermine misogyny and as such treat it differently. I think some men are uncomfortable with its meaning and may be able to identify with it to some degree but refuse to acknowledge it. If it has no name it doesn’t exist.

[Brillopad]

Biological works just fine for me tbh. You have biological women, transwomen, biological men and trans men.

Though tbh, the only way to actually be a man, rather than a transman, or a woman rather than a transwoman is biologically.

Cis is almost always used in a sneery/negative way. It also assumes that you identify with all of the stereotypes forced onto you because of your sex. Plus, I have been told many times that I am 'just cis' when this is not actually the case at all given I do not have a 'gender' at all and do not follow that religious type thinking of gendered souls and whatnot. But when I state I am not actually cis, I am told I am wrong :laugh:

There does seem to be a link with cis to sister. Out of interest a sister company is described as “less important or supplementary to”.

Just a thought but I wonder if transgenders want to see themselves as more relevant in some way in the modern world - special because they see their situation as more difficult, perhaps feel they have had more to endure (bearing in mind the word was thought up by the LGBT community apparently) and this is their own little way of feeling like real women by allocating the word cis to biological women. Like some kind of silent protest.

I agree biological is the word - it is factual and to the point - not some made-up word in the minds of those with their own situation in mind.

[Vicky.]

I don't doubt that transsexual people face problems in their lives. I mean, living with dysphoria about your sexed body must be horrific. But the experiences of transsexual males (transwomen..its easier to use sex to describe what I am talking about) is NOT the same as womens. Of course not all women have the same experiences, but the one thing we all have in common is actually being female. Transwomen are not female.

Transgender is such a useless term tbh, people think it means transsexual but it does not. I have no issue accepting transsexual people. But I refuse to call transvetites and such women, they are not women. Even transsexual women are not actually women but I will call them that if it helps them deal with dysphoria. I still do acknowledge that they are male though, and so do they, on the whole.

Biological makes the most sense. And everyone understands what it means too. There are so many negative aspects of 'cis'..as I said it assumes that you believe in gendered souls and that you 'identify' with feminine stereotypes or whatever. And it is generally used as a term of abuse, from what I have seen. Not on here, but elsewhere. Its never really used as a 'neutral' type term, its loaded. And its just nonsense. Biological women, transwomen, biological men, transmen makes sense to me and I don't understand how this could possibly be offensive as is claimed.

[montblanc]

Exactly. There is always some excuse to attempt to undermine misogyny and as such treat it differently. I think some men are uncomfortable with its meaning and may be able to identify with it to some degree but refuse to acknowledge it. If it has no name it doesn’t exist.

yes! & the toxic masculinity in our society is probably a factor in why the men that do identify with it to some degree refuse to acknowledge it

sad how supporting women isn't an expectation in the male community

[Niamh.]

I don't doubt that transsexual people face problems in their lives. I mean, living with dysphoria about your sexed body must be horrific. But the experiences of transsexual males (transwomen..its easier to use sex to describe what I am talking about) is NOT the same as womens. Of course not all women have the same experiences, but the one thing we all have in common is actually being female. Transwomen are not female.

Transgender is such a useless term tbh, people think it means transsexual but it does not. I have no issue accepting transsexual people. But I refuse to call transvetites and such women, they are not women. Even transsexual women are not actually women but I will call them that if it helps them deal with dysphoria. I still do acknowledge that they are male though, and so do they, on the whole.

Biological makes the most sense. And everyone understands what it means too. There are so many negative aspects of 'cis'..as I said it assumes that you believe in gendered souls and that you 'identify' with feminine stereotypes or whatever. And it is generally used as a term of abuse, from what I have seen. Not on here, but elsewhere. Its never really used as a 'neutral' type term, its loaded. And its just nonsense. Biological women, transwomen, biological men, transmen makes sense to me and I don't understand how this could possibly be offensive as is claimed.

yep agree with that, to me gender and sex are the same thing (unless you're talking about stereotypes - gender roles and that sort of thing which is just plain sexist)

[Vicky.]

I'm not a cis woman, I'm a female dysphoric person who has been saved by single-sex spaces and services, I liked that they don't care how I identify but rather my experiences in this body which deserves at least as much consideration as my dysphoria. I don't mind others believing in innate gender identity, but I certainly don't - I think gender is what is applied to me by society - and I have found the pressure to view it as innate has really not helped me cope with being dysphoric. I liked when we could just female/male to discuss sex-based issues but now even those get treated as identities these days.

Ihatemyclients Please stop comparing sexuality to being trans. I don't require medication to live a full life as a bisexual, I have required therapy for my dysphoria and transitioning does generally require medical interventions. Also, straight doesn't mean "not gay", it means someone attracted only to those of the other sex, so those are not very comparable. The reason T is part of LGBT is because same sex attraction used to be considered part of being trans, even part of the diagnostic criteria in many places, it isn't so much anymore.

Gender dysphoria is a mental illness. Quite a few dysphoric people like me think it is very insulting to erase that. It's caused me years of problems I'd love to be able to "identify" out of but I can't. Do you think it's mentally healthy to want to cut parts of one's body and to get upset if people recognize me as my sex? What about having a mental illness/disability, which I've heard will affect a quarter of people at some point in our lives, is so bad that you think it shouldn't be recognized? The move to erase that is only going to make it harder for dysphoric people, trans or otherwise, to get the care we need. I want better mental health care, it will make living with dysphoria far easier than any of the things currently being proposed in wider society.

How would you recommend a dysphoric person who does not identify as trans be labelled? According to multiple studies, the vast majority - over 80% - of dysphoric people are not trans. We can't be cis, it would be pretty gross to say we are "on the same side" of what is causing us distress, but it would be equally wrong to say we're trans (even though people do try) when we're very clear that's not how we identify.

That's the issue with having a term that are 'everyone else but'. Like neurotypical, there are dozens and more ways that makes a person not be neurotypical. Just not being autistic does not make one neurotypical, obviously. It's useful in some settings, like education, to discuss certain things but it catches several issues in broader settings. Just being not depressed does not make one mentally well. Just not identifying as trans should not make one cis - there are many many ways people are not on the same side of a gender. Dysphoria, sex role nonconforming, politically... labelling everyone who not trans as cis erases people.

It's weird that there are so many labels under the trans umbrella now, many of which don't want to be together and seems to include almost everyone, but the other side just gets cis.

A post from a dysphoric female. In a large thread about the word cis

( https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3198379-do-women-like-cis?msgid=76522737 )

I wonder if all this cis stuff should be put into another thread tbh..but splitting threads make threads not make any sense :laugh: Mind this whole trans debate fits in pretty well in a thread about misogyny and female rights I guess.

[Brillopad]

Truscum (transsexuals) and cisscum (biological women) are words apparently used by men who consider themselves biological women - so anyone that doesn’t agree with them gets called ‘scum’ - and this the group of people we are supposed to be bending over backwards for to accommodate their feelings.

“The second cohort - men who claim they are biological women, because sex is determined by your brain, not your body, therefore their penis is a female organ, and lesbians are transphobic for not including them in their dating pool”.

Never have I heard a stronger example of men wanting it all. They verbally abuse men who consider themselves transsexuals, women for being biological women and lesbians for not considering them women and refusing to have sex with them. Self, self, self in my opinion .

Done with it all it’s ridiculous and taking the pi**. No once is telling me to consider the feelings of people who clearly don’t consider the feelings of anyone else.

[Vicky.]

Yeah truscum is very common. It basically means, anyone transsexual. And its those classing themselves as 'transgender' who have issues with transsexuals. Anyone who thinks that sex dysphoria is necessary to be trans in the first place (if you do not have dysphoria, exactly HOW are you trans?) is a transphobic bigot, even transsexual people themselves D:

[Northern Monkey]

Well i think CIS should be banned now as hate speech.It has negative connotations.It’s been used to oppress biological males and females in sentences such as ‘die cis scum’.

[montblanc]

Well i think CIS should be banned now as hate speech.It has negative connotations.It’s been used to oppress biological males and females in sentences such as ‘die cis scum’.

it shouldn't be classified as 'hate speech'

[user104658]

I don't doubt that transsexual people face problems in their lives. I mean, living with dysphoria about your sexed body must be horrific. But the experiences of transsexual males (transwomen..its easier to use sex to describe what I am talking about) is NOT the same as womens. Of course not all women have the same experiences, but the one thing we all have in common is actually being female. Transwomen are not female.

The thing is, I think perhaps more weight is put on this than is actually needed or necessary... There's been a lot of social research done that shows pretty conclusively that out experiences of life / what we have in common are far more liked to "class / wealth" than ANY other factor. So for example... A working class woman has FAR more in common, both in terms of interest and experience, with a working class man than she does with an upper-middle class woman.

This extends all the way to the top and what is all too often overlooked in feminism and causes a lot of the confusion. There's a lot of feminist rhetoric about "the patriarchy"; that women have been historically oppressed by men. Well, no. Women have been oppressed by WEALTHY, POWERFUL men and the oppression is far more linked to the wealth than the gender of the oppressor. Generalising it out even more; it basically comes down to the fact that everyone has been oppressed by a very small number of powerful, privileged individuals who happen to mostly have been white men. This message has gotten confused somewhere, and now there's this idea that "all men are oppressors", "all white people are oppressors". It's just a totally inaccurate view of society. The vast majority of men, and white folks, past and present, have never had a sniff of that sort of power or wealth.

But then, that's what all of these squabbles are still about. Socially engineered "battles" because in the wake of the last recession, people started looking around, and noticed those people, and got angry about it, and we ALMOST managed to focus briefly on where the real oppression is and always has been... But, they have the means and ability to distract us back to ground level petty squabbles and so that's what happened. Black Lives Matter happened, the celebrity nudes leak happened, Brexit, Trump, school shootings, historic sex scandals were outed, men and women went to war, feminist movements and trans movements went to war... We forgot about "the 0.01%", that's yesterday's news... And the real oppressors rubbed their hands together and walked away.

:shrug:

[Brillopad]

The thing is, I think perhaps more weight is put on this than is actually needed or necessary... There's been a lot of social research done that shows pretty conclusively that out experiences of life / what we have in common are far more liked to "class / wealth" than ANY other factor. So for example... A working class woman has FAR more in common, both in terms of interest and experience, with a working class man than she does with an upper-middle class woman.

This extends all the way to the top and what is all too often overlooked in feminism and causes a lot of the confusion. There's a lot of feminist rhetoric about "the patriarchy"; that women have been historically oppressed by men. Well, no. Women have been oppressed by WEALTHY, POWERFUL men and the oppression is far more linked to the wealth than the gender of the oppressor. Generalising it out even more; it basically comes down to the fact that everyone has been oppressed by a very small number of powerful, privileged individuals who happen to mostly have been white men. This message has gotten confused somewhere, and now there's this idea that "all men are oppressors", "all white people are oppressors". It's just a totally inaccurate view of society. The vast majority of men, and white folks, past and present, have never had a sniff of that sort of power or wealth.

But then, that's what all of these squabbles are still about. Socially engineered "battles" because in the wake of the last recession, people started looking around, and noticed those people, and got angry about it, and we ALMOST managed to focus briefly on where the real oppression is and always has been... But, they have the means and ability to distract us back to ground level petty squabbles and so that's what happened. Black Lives Matter happened, the celebrity nudes leak happened, Brexit, Trump, school shootings, historic sex scandals were outed, men and women went to war, feminist movements and trans movements went to war... We forgot about "the 0.01%", that's yesterday's news... And the real oppressors rubbed their hands together and walked away.

:shrug:

With respect TS I don’t think that is exactly the case. We know those men with money and power at the top, a small minority, are pulling the strings over all aspects of our lives, men and women alike - but for a man to suggest that women are not generally oppressed by ordinary working-class men and only by men in power and that they are not even aware of it is quite patronising. Many women are oppressed by men they are in relationships with, men they work with and other areas of their ordinary everyday lives - what about the huge impact domestic abuse has within working-class families - how many women are killed by their partners every werk in this country and live in fear.

No-one has said all men are oppressors but the evidence is there that most women have experienced oppression and assault at the hands of working-class men at some time or other. For example Women have to be cautious and fearful about walking home on their own late at night - and it isn’t generally men in power they have to worry about just some low-life scumbag hiding in the shadows. If this isn’t oppression controlling what women can and can’t do I don’t know what is. Women have been made to feel for years that they have to watch what they wear for fear of sexual assault and being accused of asking for it - what is that if not oppression. Women from time in memorial have often been belittled, put in their place and their opinions dismissecd by ordinary working-class men around them.

There are many examples of how womens’ lives are oppressed by your average Joe and I bet most women know exactly what I’m talking about so for you to imply womens’ experiences of oppression are somehow misplaced or misunderstood is lacking experience of what it is like to be a woman out there in the real world.

[montblanc]

With respect TS I don’t think that is exactly the case. We know those men with money and power at the top, a small minority, are pulling the strings over all aspects of our lives, men and women alike - but for a man to suggest that women are not generally oppressed by ordinary working-class men and only by men in power and that they are not even aware of it is quite patronising. Many women are oppressed by men they are in relationships with, men they work with and other areas of their ordinary everyday lives - what about the huge impact domestic abuse has within working-class families - how many women are killed by their partners every werk in this country and live in fear.

No-one has said all men are oppressors but the evidence is there that most women have experienced oppression and assault at the hands of working-class men at some time or other. For example Women have to be cautious and fearful about walking home on their own late at night - and it isn’t generally men in power they have to worry about just some low-life scumbag hiding in the shadows. If this isn’t oppression controlling what women can and can’t do I don’t know what is. Women have been made to feel for years that they have to watch what they wear for fear of sexual assault and being accused of asking for it - what is that if not oppression.

There are many examples of how womens’ lives are oppressed by your average Joe so and I bet most women know exactly what I’m talking about so for you to imply womens’ experiences of oppression are somehow misplaced or misunderstood is lacking experience of what it is like to be a woman out there in the real world.

.

[montblanc]

misogyny is ingrained in society

[Vicky.]

With respect TS I don’t think that is exactly the case. We know those men with money and power at the top, a small minority, are pulling the strings over all aspects of our lives, men and women alike - but for a man to suggest that women are not generally oppressed by ordinary working-class men and only by men in power and that they are not even aware of it is quite patronising. Many women are oppressed by men they are in relationships with, men they work with and other areas of their ordinary everyday lives - what about the huge impact domestic abuse has within working-class families - how many women are killed by their partners every werk in this country and live in fear.

No-one has said all men are oppressors but the evidence is there that most women have experienced oppression and assault at the hands of working-class men at some time or other. For example Women have to be cautious and fearful about walking home on their own late at night - and it isn’t generally men in power they have to worry about just some low-life scumbag hiding in the shadows. If this isn’t oppression controlling what women can and can’t do I don’t know what is. Women have been made to feel for years that they have to watch what they wear for fear of sexual assault and being accused of asking for it - what is that if not oppression.

There are many examples of how womens’ lives are oppressed by your average Joe so and I bet most women know exactly what I’m talking about so for you to imply womens’ experiences of oppression are somehow misplaced or misunderstood is lacking experience of what it is like to be a woman out there in the real world.
Yup, exactly. Nothing else to add really.

[user104658]

The thing is though, domestic abuse and assault are a completely different thing to economic or legislative oppression. The latter can be addressed politically and so requires one type of campaigning... The others are already illegal, so what legislative change can actually be made to address the issue? Abusers know they are breaking the law... and continue to abuse... So what political or legislative change can actually address that problem? What is being campaigned for?

[Beso]

Yup, exactly. Nothing else to add really.

You could add that women walking home could just as well be assaulted by other women..like that poor girl who lost her life after 6 girls jumped her...
Or that a lesbian relationship has just as much chance of having one partner attack the other as a male n female relationship has.....


Just playing devils advocate on this one.

[Vicky.]

You could add that women walking home could just as well be assaulted by other women..like that poor girl ejo lost her life after 6 girls jumped her...
Or that a lesbian relationship has just as much chance of having one partner attack the other as a male n female relationship has.....


Just playing devils advocate on this one.

Well yes, women can be attacked by other women, I did not deny that? Its just very very rare compared to attacks by men.

The part about a person in a lesbian relationship having just as much chance of being attacked as a male and female relationship is just entirely false. There is a small risk yes, but again nowhere near the risk of heterosexual relationships. And the 2 women who are actually killed by their partners per week are almost always killed by men, not other women.

[Beso]

Well yes, women can be attacked by other women, I did not deny that? Its just very very rare compared to attacks by men.

The part about a person in a lesbian relationship having just as much chance of being attacked as a male and female relationship is just entirely false. There is a small risk yes, but again nowhere near the risk of heterosexual relationships. And the 2 women who are actually killed by their partners per week are almost always killed by men, not other women.

I would like to see the stats on the percentages of male n female relationship abuse compared to lesbian ones...2 people a week....but if you compare that with the amount of relationships that there are featuring male and female to female n female it is obviously going to be higher.

[Vicky.]

I would like to see the stats on the percentages of male n female relationship abuse compared to lesbian ones...2 people a week....but if you compare that with the amount of relationships that there are featuring male and female to female n female it is obviously going to be higher.

Sorry it seems you might be right on that one actually.

Domestic abuse in the lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender community is a serious issue. About 25% of LGBT people suffer through violent or threatening relationships with partners or ex-partners which is about the same rates as in as domestic abuse against heterosexual women. As in opposite-gendered couples, the problem is underreported. Those involved in same-gender abuse are often afraid of revealing their sexual orientation or the nature of their relationship.

http://www.endthefear.co.uk/same-sex-domestic-abuse/

But that does include gay men in relationships too.

[Beso]

Sorry it seems you might be right on that one actually.



http://www.endthefear.co.uk/same-sex-domestic-abuse/

But that does include gay men in relationships too.

Thanks for digging that up vicky..i would imagine its pretty even across the board....apart from female to male violence in a relationship..
I think its fair to say that even though it happens it will be far far less than any of the others.

[Brillopad]

The thing is though, domestic abuse and assault are a completely different thing to economic or legislative oppression. The latter can be addressed politically and so requires one type of campaigning... The others are already illegal, so what legislative change can actually be made to address the issue? Abusers know they are breaking the law... and continue to abuse... So what political or legislative change can actually address that problem? What is being campaigned for?

Oh I’m sure women could come up with some ideas on how to campaign against this everyday oppression from ordinary men such as better education for boys and less tolerance of these attitudes in general, tbh this site would sometimes be a good example of some of the examples I gave, but they have been there before and Little changes. As another poster said sexism is too ingrained - and often ignored and treated as less important than other isms - all this self-identified crap being a good example of that.

[user104658]

Oh I’m sure women could come up with some ideas on how to campaign against this everyday oppression from ordinary men such as better education for boys and less tolerance of these attitudes in general, tbh this site would sometimes be a good example of some of the examples I gave, but they have been there before and Little changes. As another poster said sexism is too ingrained - and often ignored and treated as less important than other isms - all this self-identified crap being a good example of that.But "better education" is an idea that's been floating around for a while, e.g. Mandatory lectures for males at University to teach them that sexual assault is wrong. This is based on the frankly insane premise that abusers are abusive because they aren't aware that what they're doing is wrong or immoral. In almost all cases, they are aware. Telling them "that it's wrong" isn't going to stop them, because they don't care. The fact that there are people in the world who are violent, manipulative and abusive is awful... It's unfair, and it's wrong but those people will always exist. It's unhelpful and unhealthy for the majority of people - who would never dream of being violent or abusive - to be tarred with a wide brush... Especially when doing so doesn't actually do anything to improve the situation.

[Niamh.]

With respect TS I don’t think that is exactly the case. We know those men with money and power at the top, a small minority, are pulling the strings over all aspects of our lives, men and women alike - but for a man to suggest that women are not generally oppressed by ordinary working-class men and only by men in power and that they are not even aware of it is quite patronising. Many women are oppressed by men they are in relationships with, men they work with and other areas of their ordinary everyday lives - what about the huge impact domestic abuse has within working-class families - how many women are killed by their partners every werk in this country and live in fear.

No-one has said all men are oppressors but the evidence is there that most women have experienced oppression and assault at the hands of working-class men at some time or other. For example Women have to be cautious and fearful about walking home on their own late at night - and it isn’t generally men in power they have to worry about just some low-life scumbag hiding in the shadows. If this isn’t oppression controlling what women can and can’t do I don’t know what is. Women have been made to feel for years that they have to watch what they wear for fear of sexual assault and being accused of asking for it - what is that if not oppression. Women from time in memorial have often been belittled, put in their place and their opinions dismissecd by ordinary working-class men around them.

There are many examples of how womens’ lives are oppressed by your average Joe and I bet most women know exactly what I’m talking about so for you to imply womens’ experiences of oppression are somehow misplaced or misunderstood is lacking experience of what it is like to be a woman out there in the real world.Perfectly put.

[GiRTh]

With respect TS I don’t think that is exactly the case. We know those men with money and power at the top, a small minority, are pulling the strings over all aspects of our lives, men and women alike - but for a man to suggest that women are not generally oppressed by ordinary working-class men and only by men in power and that they are not even aware of it is quite patronising. Many women are oppressed by men they are in relationships with, men they work with and other areas of their ordinary everyday lives - what about the huge impact domestic abuse has within working-class families - how many women are killed by their partners every werk in this country and live in fear.

No-one has said all men are oppressors but the evidence is there that most women have experienced oppression and assault at the hands of working-class men at some time or other. For example Women have to be cautious and fearful about walking home on their own late at night - and it isn’t generally men in power they have to worry about just some low-life scumbag hiding in the shadows. If this isn’t oppression controlling what women can and can’t do I don’t know what is. Women have been made to feel for years that they have to watch what they wear for fear of sexual assault and being accused of asking for it - what is that if not oppression. Women from time in memorial have often been belittled, put in their place and their opinions dismissecd by ordinary working-class men around them.

There are many examples of how womens’ lives are oppressed by your average Joe and I bet most women know exactly what I’m talking about so for you to imply womens’ experiences of oppression are somehow misplaced or misunderstood is lacking experience of what it is like to be a woman out there in the real world.Excellent post.

[Beso]

Sorry it seems you might be right on that one actually.



http://www.endthefear.co.uk/same-sex-domestic-abuse/

But that does include gay men in relationships too.


http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=248781

An intetesting old thread.

[Maru]

Truscum (transsexuals) and cisscum (biological women)

It took me a while to realize that was a consolidated version of scum?... or is -cum actually a new "new wave" feminist suffix now? (Seriously asking)

I just made the joke in another thread I welcome my new title as cis cum queen from my new overlords... but don't want my new title to get confused with some cheesy pre-existing term.

I think folk in these movements are probably trying to attempt to create a new English dialect. It makes sense. If they shift the language in such a way that people will popularize their narratives and is particularly social justice-aware... then it can go farther than just creating new terms, it can literally shape how we think about ourselves (and others) and how we choose to express ourselves as individuals..

Yes, if those folk are on the net and have enough reach, they can create all sorts of new-fangled words/grammar/verbs/adjectives/etc on the fly... though tbf, it seems to me the gaffe words are the ones that tend to catch on quicker... like i.e. covfefe/deplorables, the more "amusing" SJW-esk terms out there... the ones that people tend to take and weaponize.

But, most average folk are not going to pick up a term that has been highly stigmatized and bring it into an everyday conversation. People are very sensitive to this... they know when a term is loaded and so folk generally lean towards more neutral terms... unless it's particularly trendy, in which case, it's "socially accepted".

misogyny is ingrained in society

Misandry too, sadly. We aren't exactly a tolerant species by design. Let me tell ya...

[Kizzy]

It took me a while to realize that was a consolidated version of scum?... or is -cum actually a new "new wave" feminist suffix now? (Seriously asking)

I just made the joke in another thread I welcome my new title as cis cum queen from my new overlords... but don't want my new title to get confused with some cheesy pre-existing term.

I think folk in these movements are probably trying to attempt to create a new English dialect. It makes sense. If they shift the language in such a way that people will popularize their narratives and is particularly social justice-aware... then it can go farther than just creating new terms, it can literally shape how we think about ourselves (and others) and how we choose to express ourselves as individuals..

Yes, if those folk are on the net and have enough reach, they can create all sorts of new-fangled words/grammar/verbs/adjectives/etc on the fly... though tbf, it seems to me the gaffe words are the ones that tend to catch on quicker... like i.e. covfefe/deplorables, the more "amusing" SJW-esk terms out there... the ones that people tend to take and weaponize.

But, most average folk are not going to pick up a term that has been highly stigmatized and bring it into an everyday conversation. People are very sensitive to this... they know when a term is loaded and so folk generally lean towards more neutral terms... unless it's particularly trendy, in which case, it's "socially accepted".



Misandry too, sadly. We aren't exactly a tolerant species by design. Let me tell ya...

Like SJW... That's a weaponised term isn't it?

Who would ever deny that this should be a hate crime too?... Not that globally it's on the same scale or would ever be tolerated to the extent that misogyny is.

[Vicky.]

In all honesty, I struggle a bit with 'hate crimes' to start with. Surely they are just crimes. A crime tends to require hate to be committed in the first place! I wouldn't say an assault for example was 'worse' because it was committed against a minority, than it was if it was committed against someone who is not a minority.

[Niamh.]

In all honesty, I struggle a bit with 'hate crimes' to start with. Surely they are just crimes. A crime tends to require hate to be committed in the first place! I wouldn't say an assault for example was 'worse' because it was committed against a minority, than it was if it was committed against someone who is not a minority.

On an individual level they're aren't worse obviously but I think the danger with "hate crimes" is as a grouping they can become organised and specific. You know we all hate black people so lets group up a target some or whatever?

[Vicky.]

On an individual level they're aren't worse obviously but I think the danger with "hate crimes" is as a grouping they can become organised and specific. You know we all hate black people so lets group up a target some or whatever?

Ah I guess. Its not something I have really given too much thought to tbh but I have always found it a little strange that some crimes are deemed worse than others, regardless of the outcome, because the victims are a certain group of people.

But while we have this kind of two tier system, of course its right for crimes based on sex to be considered just as bad as others.

[Nicky91]

i also find our dutch crimewatch a bit racist tbh, cause they only show us crimes committed by people with middle-eastern, eastern-european, and caribbean backgrounds


like they want to say to us that the normal ''white'' dutch people do nothing wrong at all :rolleyes: i find that such bullsh*t


everyone is equal to each other ;)

[user104658]

On an individual level they're aren't worse obviously but I think the danger with "hate crimes" is as a grouping they can become organised and specific. You know we all hate black people so lets group up a target some or whatever?

To be fair though I still think it's different... my understanding of a hate crime is exactly as you say but what makes it a hate crime is that hatred of the group is the motivation for the crime... like there is literally no other reason for the attack than "I just hate Muslims" or whatever.

Attacks on women by men are different. They would usually have either a personal motivation or be a sexual assault... and it's not that they aren't driven by misogyny - it's just that misogyny is what makes the attack "psychologically permissible" to them (i.e. they see women as lesser, not deserving of respect, open to being made their victim... hating women allows them to feel like they "deserved it" etc.) but the motivation in itself is very rarely "I just randomly attack women because I hate women."... and groups of men aren't attacking women "because they hate women". They may well hate women of course, but their motivations tend to be "other".

I guess for that reason I find it slightly dangerous to start labelling them "hate crimes". Understanding the motivation behind crime is important to tackling it, and it seems that when asking "why did this happen", the answer "Oh he just hates women is all" would be falling well short of the mark there. Whereas with other actual hate crimes it literally can be as simple as "she hates black people" / "he hates gay people" etc.

[Livia]

To be fair though I still think it's different... my understanding of a hate crime is exactly as you say but what makes it a hate crime is that hatred of the group is the motivation for the crime... like there is literally no other reason for the attack than "I just hate Muslims" or whatever.

Attacks on women by men are different. They would usually have either a personal motivation or be a sexual assault... and it's not that they aren't driven by misogyny - it's just that misogyny is what makes the attack "psychologically permissible" to them (i.e. they see women as lesser, not deserving of respect, open to being made their victim... hating women allows them to feel like they "deserved it" etc.) but the motivation in itself is very rarely "I just randomly attack women because I hate women."... and groups of men aren't attacking women "because they hate women". They may well hate women of course, but their motivations tend to be "other".

I guess for that reason I find it slightly dangerous to start labelling them "hate crimes". Understanding the motivation behind crime is important to tackling it, and it seems that when asking "why did this happen", the answer "Oh he just hates women is all" would be falling well short of the mark there. Whereas with other actual hate crimes it literally can be as simple as "she hates black people" / "he hates gay people" etc.


How about, he has no respect for women and thinks they're worth less? Especially if that male is from another culture, because there are plenty of cultures where women are worthless.

I honestly don't see how "he hates women" is any less believable than "he hates gays".

[user104658]

How about, he has no respect for women and thinks they're worth less? Especially if that male is from another culture, because there are plenty of cultures where women are worthless.

I honestly don't see how "he hates women" is any less believable than "he hates gays".

Yes I think the former probably is what ALLOWS the person in their head to justufy the crime - but again, self-justification is different from motivation. e.g. many sexual predators justify their crimes by dehumanising women and seeing them as lesser, but the REASON for attacking is different. With religious minorities / homosexuals etc. hate crimes occur when people specifically set out to hurt someone, specifically because they think what that person is is "wrong".

As for cultures where women are devalued... to make a really crass comparison... is it not more like the men in those cultures consider women to be like possessions or livestock? A farmer doesn't "hate" his animals... he just believes that he owns them and they are "his". Again I'm not saying this is permissible or a good thing - and it's not that one is worse than the other - but I still think that, for example, a sexually-motivated crime committed by someone who devalues women is not psychologically the same thing as a purely hate-motivated crime.

[Niamh.]

I can see both your points on it tbh But if you see a person as "less than you" and therefore can be treated whatever way you want, how is that different from how racist people see black people for example, they think that black people are less than them so they can treat them whatever way they want

[Livia]

Yes I think the former probably is what ALLOWS the person in their head to justufy the crime - but again, self-justification is different from motivation. e.g. many sexual predators justify their crimes by dehumanising women and seeing them as lesser, but the REASON for attacking is different. With religious minorities / homosexuals etc. hate crimes occur when people specifically set out to hurt someone, specifically because they think what that person is is "wrong".

As for cultures where women are devalued... to make a really crass comparison... is it not more like the men in those cultures consider women to be like possessions or livestock? A farmer doesn't "hate" his animals... he just believes that he owns them and they are "his". Again I'm not saying this is permissible or a good thing - and it's not that one is worse than the other - but I still think that, for example, a sexually-motivated crime committed by someone who devalues women is not psychologically the same thing as a purely hate-motivated crime.

Whatever their motivation or mindset, I would personally spend less time worrying about why he's done it and what his state of mind was, and instead calculate how many years his actions will get him locked up in the chokey.

[user104658]

I can see both your points on it tbh But if you see a person as "less than you" and therefore can be treated whatever way you want, how is that different from how racist people see black people for example, they think that black people are less than them so they can treat them whatever way they want

True and that causes people to commit other crimes against minority groups that would not necessarily be classed as hate crimes... e.g. justifying robbing a shop or mugging someone because of their colour but the primary motivation being financial gain. It's different from a straight up "hate crime" because again, the motivation isn't purely to hurt someone for no reason other than that their very existence is offensive to you, such as a gay person being assaulted simply because "that's disgusting!", or an innocent person with middle-eastern appearance being assaulted "because Muslims are terrorists!"

The reason for identifying motivation / mindset isn't to excuse the crime or to make one crime less serious than another... it's to identify the causes and risk factors of crime with a view to reducing risk in future. It's important not to muddy definitions I guess :shrug:. Now, certainly, I'd say there's a probability that there ARE a few cases of men who are just very, very angry at women in general and attack someone innocent for that reason... and that WOULD be a hate crime... I just doubt it's the "usual" that male-on-female attacks are literal hate crimes. A hate crime isn't just "a crime that involves some element of hatred or dislike", it's a crime specifically motivated by hatred.

Of course people wrongly label things as "hate crimes" all the time... e.g. a white guy assaults a black guy on a train over some disagreement (unrelated to race) they're having and it's labelled a hate crime because they're different colours.

[Niamh.]

True and that causes people to commit other crimes against minority groups that would not necessarily be classed as hate crimes... e.g. justifying robbing a shop or mugging someone because of their colour but the primary motivation being financial gain. It's different from a straight up "hate crime" because again, the motivation isn't purely to hurt someone for no reason other than that their very existence is offensive to you, such as a gay person being assaulted simply because "that's disgusting!", or an innocent person with middle-eastern appearance being assaulted "because Muslims are terrorists!"

The reason for identifying motivation / mindset isn't to excuse the crime or to make one crime less serious than another... it's to identify the causes and risk factors of crime with a view to reducing risk in future. It's important not to muddy definitions I guess :shrug:. Now, certainly, I'd say there's a probability that there ARE a few cases of men who are just very, very angry at women in general and attack someone innocent for that reason... and that WOULD be a hate crime... I just doubt it's the "usual" that male-on-female attacks are literal hate crimes. A hate crime isn't just "a crime that involves some element of hatred or dislike", it's a crime specifically motivated by hatred.

Of course people wrongly label things as "hate crimes" all the time... e.g. a white guy assaults a black guy on a train over some disagreement (unrelated to race) they're having and it's labelled a hate crime because they're different colours.

Interesting points, I do see where you're coming from. Tackling the issue of why some men think women are less than them or why one race thinks another is less than them etc should be the way to go.

Going back to a point Brillo made earlier on about educating boys, I think this is the way to go but girls too and from a younger age so you never have to get to a point where it's necessary to tell people about consent etc. I think it's just as important to teach girls to expect to be treated with as much respect as boys (both by men and women) and that their input is as valid as boys etc from a young age (and also of course vice versa but I think its mainly an issue that girls get listened to less, get portrayed negatively when they display the same kind of traits that are seen as positives for boys (eg. girls are bossy/boys show good leadership skill. Girls are bitchy/Boys are behaving like girls....) Anyway I'm rambling a bit, basically I think all these tiny little things add up to girls being seen as less important and that leads to some men thinking they can do whatever they want because women are just playthings/objects for their amusement/not as important as men etc. And maybe if they grew up not thinking that it wouldn't be as big a problem in the future?

[Tom4784]

I'm all for the idea of preaching hatred or violence towards women being a hate crime, I'm all for violence towards a woman BECAUSE they are a woman being a hate crime but it's just the bringing of the sexual crimes under that umbrella that I take issue with, I think it has the inadvertent affect of potentially making male victims less likely to come forward when most male victims will rarely come forward in the first place.

[Kizzy]

To be fair though I still think it's different... my understanding of a hate crime is exactly as you say but what makes it a hate crime is that hatred of the group is the motivation for the crime... like there is literally no other reason for the attack than "I just hate Muslims" or whatever.

Attacks on women by men are different. They would usually have either a personal motivation or be a sexual assault... and it's not that they aren't driven by misogyny - it's just that misogyny is what makes the attack "psychologically permissible" to them (i.e. they see women as lesser, not deserving of respect, open to being made their victim... hating women allows them to feel like they "deserved it" etc.) but the motivation in itself is very rarely "I just randomly attack women because I hate women."... and groups of men aren't attacking women "because they hate women". They may well hate women of course, but their motivations tend to be "other".

I guess for that reason I find it slightly dangerous to start labelling them "hate crimes". Understanding the motivation behind crime is important to tackling it, and it seems that when asking "why did this happen", the answer "Oh he just hates women is all" would be falling well short of the mark there. Whereas with other actual hate crimes it literally can be as simple as "she hates black people" / "he hates gay people" etc.

I don't understand your logic here how can you apply reasoning to misogyny and not racism or homophobia?

'they see women as lesser, not deserving of respect, open to being made their victim.'

Are not the explanations for all three practically identical?

[user104658]

I don't understand your logic here how can you apply reasoning to misogyny and not racism or homophobia?

'they see women as lesser, not deserving of respect, open to being made their victim.'

Are not the explanations for all three practically identical?

They're not, but I can't think of any way to explain it differently so :shrug:.

IF a man were to attack a woman for NO other reason than that she's a woman... then that would be a hate crime. It's just very unusual for that to actually happen. The vast majority of male-on-female attacks are either domestic abuse related, or sexual in nature. Muggings are also not hate crimes, they are financially motivated crimes, but that point is largely moot here as men are actually far more likely to be victims of mugging than women.

It's a hate crime when hatred is the motivation. Whether that's against women or minorities. A group of guys jumping a gay man because they noticed a fat roll of £20's in his wallet and want to take them is not a hate crime. A group of guys jumping a gay man because they saw him kissing his boyfriend and it made them angry is a hate crime. Likewise, a man attacking women because he's been rejected or something and has now decided that he simply hates all women and simply wants to hurt them could be called a hate crime... but a man attacking a woman he knows in an argument (the most common type of assault) is very unlikely to be a hate crime, and a sexual assault is a sexual assault. They're not "less serious" offences - I think this seems to be what some people are getting worried about - it's just a definition of the type of crime. A hate crime could be something as simple as someone being spat at or destruction of property. A domestic incident can range all the way up to murder in terms of seriousness. It's not about "how bad it is", or throwing the word "HATE!" at it to make it seem "more bad".


Then again, people don't seem all that bothered about actual definitions these days and are happy to clutter up language with their own ideas. "I'm gonna call X, Z because I think that X is Z... even though X should only be X, and actually was Y all along, but I wanna call it Z so it's Z."

[Jack_]

There are some really interesting reflections on the drawbacks of hate crime/anti-discrimination legislation in Dean Spade's Normal Life

Critical race theorists have developed analyses about the limitations of anti-discrimination law that are useful in understanding the ways these all reforms have and will continue to fail to deliver meaningful change to trans people. Alan Freeman's critique of what he terms the "perpetrator perspective" in discrimination law is particularly helpful in conceptualizing the limits of the common trans rights strategies. Freeman's work looks at laws that prohibit discrimination based on race. He exposes how and why anti-discrimination and hate crime statutes do not achieve their promises of equality and freedom for people targeted by discrimination and violence. Freeman argues that discrimination law misunderstands how racism works, which makes it fail to effectively address it.

Discrimination law primarily conceptualizes the harm of racism through the perpetrator/victim dyad, imagining that the fundamental scene is that of a perpetrator who irrationally hates people on the basis of their race and fires or denies service to or beats or kills the victim based on that hatred. The law's adoption of this conception of racism does several things that make it ineffective at eradicating racism and help it contribute to obscuring the actual operations of racism. First, it individualizes racism. It says that racism is about bad individuals who intentionally make discriminatory choices and must be punished. In this (mis)understanding, structural or systemic racism is rendered invisible. Through this function, the law can only attend to disparities that come from the behavior of a perpetrator who intentionally considered the category that must not be considered (e.g., race, gender, disability) in the decision she was making (e.g., hiring, firing, admission, expulsion). Conditions like living in a district with underfunded schools that "happens to be" 96 percent students of color, or having to take an admissions test that has been proven to predict race better than academic success or any of a number of disparities in life conditions (access to adequate food, health care, employment, housing, clean air and water) that we know stem from and reflect long-term patterns of exclusion and exploitation cannot be understood as "violations" under the discrimination principle, and thus remedies cannot be won. This narrow reading of what constitutes a violation and can be recognized as discrimination serves to naturalize and affirm the status quo of maldistribution. Anti-discrimination law seeks out aberrant individuals with overtly biased intentions. Meanwhile, all the daily disparities in life chances that shape our world along lines of race, class, indigeneity, disability, national origin, sex, and gender remain untouchable and affirmed as non-discriminatory or even as fair.

(pp. 83-85)

Hate crime laws are an even more direct example of the limitations of the perpetrator perspective's conception of oppression. Hate crime laws frame violence in terms of individual wrongdoers. These laws and their advocates portray violence through a lens that oversimplifies its operation and suggests that the criminal punishment system is the proper way to solve it. The violence targeted by hate crime laws is that of purportedly aberrant individuals who have committed acts of violence motivated by bias. Hate crime law advocacy advances the fallacy that such violence is especially reprehensible in the eyes of an equality-minded state, and thus must be punished with enhanced force. While it is no doubt true that violence of this kind is frequent and devastating, critics of hate crime legislation argue that hate crime laws are not the answer. First, as mentioned above, hate crime laws have no deterrent effect: people do not read law books before committing acts of violence and choose against bias-motivated violence because it carries a harsher sentence. Hate crime laws do not and cannot actually increase the life chances of the people they purportedly protect.

Second, hate crime laws strengthen and legitimize the criminal punishment system, a system that targets the very people these laws are supposedly passed to protect. The criminal punishment system was founded on and constantly reproduces the same biases (racism, sexism, homphobia, transphobia, ableism, xenophobia) that advocates of these laws want to eliminate. This is no small point, given the rapid growth of the US criminal punishment system in the last few decades, and the gender, race, and ability disparities in whom it targets. The United States now imprisons 25 percent of the world's prisoners although it has only 5 percent of the world's population. Imprisonment in the United States has quadrupled since the 1980s and continues to increase despite the fact that violent crime and property crime have declined since the 1990s. The United States has the highest documented rate of imprisonment per capita of any country. A 2008 report declared that the United States now imprisons one in every 100 adults. Significant racial, gender, ability, and national origin disparities exist in this imprisonment. One in nine black men between the ages of 20 and 34 are imprisoned. While men still vastly outnumber women in prisons, the rate of imprisonment for women is growing far faster, largely the result of sentencing changes created as part of the War on Drugs, including the advent of mandatory minimum sentences for drug convictions. An estimated 27 percent of federal prisoners are noncitizens. While accurate estimates of rates of imprisonment for people with disabilities are difficult to obtain, it is clear that the combination of severe medical neglect of prisoners, deinstitutionalization of people with psychiatric disabilities without the provision of adequate community services, and the role of drug use in self-medicating account for high rates.

In a context of mass imprisonment and rapid prison growth targeting traditionally marginalized groups, what does it mean to use criminal punishment-enhancing laws to purportedly address violence against those groups?

(pp. 87-88)

https://biblio.csusm.edu/sites/default/files/reserves/ch_2_whats_wrong_with_rights.pdf

It's (that chapter especially) definitely worth a read

[MTVN]

Spot the Sociology grad

[Jack_]

Not sure if sarcasm but :hee:

[Kizzy]

That's all we need 'gradsplaining'... ;)
(Thanks for that Jack will read later)

[MTVN]

Yeah sorry that came across a bit rude lol, that's just some serious academic stuff

[Alf]

I genuinely do not see why misogyny is not a hate crime to start with.


I have wondered this a lot.

I think the situation being as it is is a mix between women being physically less able to fight off attackers AND male socialization. So if there was a random reverse in strength, I think attacks on women would lessen to a large degree but I don't think that women would start attacking men instead and behaving the way men do. Unless there was also a change in how boys/girls are brought up at the same time. But even then I am not sure women would be attacking men on such a level because I think testosterone plays a large part in the aggressive side of so many mens behaviour too. So again, I guess if women started taking steroids along with the other changes...then possibly it might completely reverseWell for one, there isn't enough prison spaces to accommodate million's of men (I'm assuming this rule is only for men?)

Is misandry also a hate crime?

[Alf]

Why are we looking for and creating reason's to lock everybody up?

What happened to freedom?