Nottingham treats mysogony as a hate crime

[vla1ne]

To be honest, i'm disgusted by the way this is being presented and have many, many reservations about this being implemented as it is discussed in this video.

 

 

so let's discuss it. i'd like to know your views, and hold a discussion on why or why not to implement this kind of law.

 

I don't support it, and i honestly think it's among the most foolish laws to be created in the past couple decades, alongside Australia's blasphemy laws. in no way shape or form, is this a good law, and it'll only serve to cause larger divides in Nottingham, on the bright side, i don't live there, so the law doesn't affect me, and hopefully it ever will. i'd rather not be charged with a hate crime for complimenting/ admiring a nice chest every once in a while.

[mido9]

Oh let me guess, Misandry is not only not going to be a hate crime but is going to be praiseworthy as well.

[vla1ne]

apparently there have already been arrests based upon mysoginistic "incidents" (not crimes, incidents). it's the darkest comedy i've seen for years. and no, misandry is not on the list of hate crimes. wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a praiseworthy action at this rate.

[Dad]

Personally I think complimenting a nice rack every now and then is cool if you're talking among your boys and you don't turn it into a side show.  But only about 50% of the female population want you to walk up and go, "hey, nice tits".  The other half want you to keep it to yourself.  I mean, how hard is it to admire from afar without being a jackass?

 

But yeah, no, this law goes too far.

[vla1ne]

Personally I think complimenting a nice rack every now and then is cool if you're talking among your boys and you don't turn it into a side show.  But only about 50% of the female population want you to walk up and go, "hey, nice tits".  The other half want you to keep it to yourself.  I mean, how hard is it to admire from afar without being a jackass?

 

But yeah, no, this law goes too far.

really, giving a compliment every now and again isn't something that's worth arresting people over. if you legit mean the compliment, and you aren't just complimenting for the sake of sex, then then there's nothing wrong with it. same goes for staring, if you wear short shorts, or some attention grabbing clothes article (be you male or female), then it shouldn't be a surprise when you get more attention than normal. women at my job like to wear yoga pants, If that law were legal here, half the men at my job would be in jail for admiring asses. i get a few compliments from women and guys (for some reason) every once in a while at work, and it feels somewhat nice. i understand if it's literal stalking or harassment, but those are already on the books, this right here is misandry given form. it doesn't just address crimes, it criminalizes innocent incidents based upon feelings.

[.Rai]

Personally I think complimenting a nice rack every now and then is cool if you're talking among your boys and you don't turn it into a side show.  But only about 50% of the female population want you to walk up and go, "hey, nice tits".  The other half want you to keep it to yourself.  I mean, how hard is it to admire from afar without being a jackass?

 

But yeah, no, this law goes too far.

Who does this law affect besides jackasses who walk up to women and compliment their rack?

[vla1ne]

Who does this law affect besides jackasses who walk up to women and compliment their rack?

being a jackass isn't a criminal action though. nor is staring. both of which can now be criminalized on a whim. that's not far by any means.

[.Rai]

being a jackass isn't a criminal action though. nor is staring. both of which can now be criminalized on a whim. that's not far by any means.

No, that's fair. Reckless criminalisation is bad. I don't really think that's what's going to happen though. Nothing I've seen leads me to believe that though.

 

Hate crime is fairly clearly defined. Hell, you probably would not get charged for what I said. Say you go up to someone and say "Damn, I'm funking that tonight." Yeah, that on the other hand, I see no reason why that shouldn't be considered verbal abuse.

[Tentacruel]

I'm not too keen on hate crimes having special laws to handle them, that being said, sexual harassment is bad regardless.

[vla1ne]

No, that's fair. Reckless criminalisation is bad. I don't really think that's what's going to happen though. Nothing I've seen leads me to believe that though.

 

Hate crime is fairly clearly defined. Hell, you probably would not get charged for what I said. Say you go up to someone and say "Damn, I'm f***ing that tonight." Yeah, that on the other hand, I see no reason why that shouldn't be considered verbal abuse.

just so you know, wolf whistling is also considered a hate crime in nottingham it's categorized under harrasment, which can now be categorized under misogyny, which is now a hate crime. the problem first and foremost though, is that this law removes any need to prove intent, and again, makes even innocent actions potentially criminal just because somebdy doesn't like them, they don't have to be physical, they don't even have to harm people. touching a shoulder is not a hate crime, verbal advances are not a hate crime, and being a pervert, is not a hate crime. is it wrong? sure, but arresting people for such minor actions is far worse. and to compound that, there is no such rule on the other end of the scale. men don't get harassed and abused by women? yeah they do, but it's only misogyny that's criminalized. that is neither fair nor equal (which, imo the law should strive to be in all cases). but again, verbal abuse is not a crime, it's a dick move, but not a crime, and definitely not worth prison time in any manner.

 

in addition, the way it's explained appears to be based upon feels. that's bullshit through and through. feels are not substantial enough to be used as evidence of a crime, and everything outside of feels abuse is already categorized into separate offenses. there have already been cases where men have been arrested for things now, as for your example, tell me why somebody should be arrested, or even fined for saying it? especially if it's a one time thing, or said among friends and happens to be overheard, it's a sentence, that is not criminal in the least, unless it's followed up by action, or persistently repetitive (in which case there's already a law on the books for it) there is no reason it should be criminalized in a whole new category just for women.

[.Rai]

I couldn't give a clear cut answer. Harassment laws are pretty clear. If one person was repeatedly sexually harasses a woman (with a statement such as the one I gave as example), that would fall under harassment laws, which (as you mentioned) already are in the book. I think criminalising harassment is fair and makes sense.

 

It certainly doesn't address one person making similar statements to lots of different women, say walking past, as the 'repeated' element of harassment laws no longer applies.

 

My instinct tells me that it's overkill to be criminalising statements like that, especially if it's between friends and overheard or whatever, but the disparity between the way the two circumstances are dealt with is noticeable. The anti-misogyny law at least deals with that in some respect.

 

Not saying it's a great law though. Wishy-washy laws never are. But, no person (regardless of gender) should be in a situation where they feel unsafe on the street. Any law that goes towards that should be considered, and at least improved on, rather than being swept aside.

[vla1ne]

statistically, men are by far the higher recipients of violence in all forms, people feeling unsafe is not the problem of the state, the county, or whomever else, their actual safety is, this law will only detract from their actual duties. but to put the current definitions of misogyny being used in nottingham out there for you:

 

"incidents against women that are motivated by an attitude of a man towards a woman, and includes behaviour targeted towards a woman by men simply because they are a woman"

again, to highlight the issues with this statement, merely flip a few key words and you've got: "incidents against men that are motivated by an attitude of a woman towards a man, and includes behaviour targeted towards a man by women simply because they are a man"

 

the problem is clear is it not? it's making women into a protected class of it's own. based only upon feels. also included: "Back in Nottinghamshire, police officials said domestic abuse would not be included in the new misogyny hate crime policy, "as it is dealt with comprehensively within its own procedure."

they already have laws on the books to deal with the crimes, this is literally just finding people to turn into criminals, on the basis of feels. women are by far safer on the street than men in first world countries, whether they feel safer or not, by the stats' if you're a woman, you are already less at risk of being attacked than a man, which is why feelings is not a good reason to put laws on the books, because feelings are neither facts nor stats. and acting upon them is how you get such misandrist laws on the books.

 

and yes, this law absolutely deserves to be swept aside. it does nothing productive, it will only create more criminals, even though said criminals clearly won't hate or have anything against women until this law kicks them in the shin. if you wolf whistle at somebody, it's the opposite of a hate crime, it's appreciation more often than not. this is a law that does nothing good, and deserves to be swept aside, as all it will do is forster bad blood between genders in nottingham.

[.Rai]

I don't think you have the right to tell someone how they're supposed to interpret a wolf whistle. More often that not, I imagine most women don't really want to treated as sex objects by strangers on the street they have no intention in pursuing relationships with.

 

I'm not really sure how addressing the lack of an equivalent law for men is even a reply to my comment. Nothing that I mentioned seems to have been addressed by what you've said.

 

It's pretty obvious there should be an equivalent law for men as well. The lack of one does not make the other irrelevant. I'm baffled to see how any of the statistics you've mentioned fall into the conversation at all.

[vla1ne]

I don't think you have the right to tell someone how they're supposed to interpret a wolf whistle. More often that not, I imagine most women don't really want to treated as sex objects by strangers on the street they have no intention in pursuing relationships with.

 

I'm not really sure how addressing the lack of an equivalent law for men is even a reply to my comment. Nothing that I mentioned seems to have been addressed by what you've said.

 

It's pretty obvious there should be an equivalent law for men as well. The lack of one does not make the other irrelevant. I'm baffled to see how any of the statistics you've mentioned fall into the conversation at all.

just to clarify, i'm not saying that people can't interpret whatever they like however they like, what i'm saying is that they don't then get to have somebody arrested over their interpretation. if somebody doesn't like a remark, then that's ok, but having people arrested over it, on the grounds of a hate crime, is in no way deserving of respect also, side note: nobody wants to have sex with an object, they want to have sex with a human being (outside of weird kinks). the term "sex object" is a term that makes little to no sense.

 

because this law has no place, for males or females, in both cases it damages male-female relations, and it's based upon little more than feels. unwanted attention =/= assault, same goes for feeling uncomfortable. it is making an uncomfortable situation, capable of being turned into a criminal offense with no further actions necessary, which should in no way be possible. discomfort is not criminal, and all other manner of laws cover any and all other harmful actions already.

 

no, there should not be one for either gender. at all. this is a law that makes basic interaction punishable via police intervention. it in no way deserves to be a law. yes, it can cover heavier cases, but said cases are already covered by better laws, this here, is not only unneeded, it's regressive in practically all facets. i am not asking for a male equivalent, i listed the male equivalent to highlight how foolish this law is. the stats fall into the conversation because they highlight that feelings should not be a core factor in a law. you can feel unsafe all you want, that does not mean the law should cater to said fears, especially when said fears are unfounded. the law is not a nanny, feeling safe and being safe are two different things, and this new law jumps clear over that line.

[.Rai]

I should probably clarify 'an equivalent law within reason' for men. This law is obviously flawed in a variety of ways.

 

Perhaps even me saying 'law' is too strong a word. I guess I'm really aiming for more awareness of these sort of issues, rather than criminalising them. A wolf whistle is obviously not worth fining over or prison time, but there's space there to reduce that sort of behaviour.

 

Also, the pedantry over the phrase 'sex object' is just inane. It's a figure of speech.

[vla1ne]

I should probably clarify 'an equivalent law within reason' for men. This law is obviously flawed in a variety of ways.

 

Perhaps even me saying 'law' is too strong a word. I guess I'm really aiming for more awareness of these sort of issues, rather than criminalising them. A wolf whistle is obviously not worth fining over or prison time, but there's space there to reduce that sort of behaviour.

 

Also, the pedantry over the phrase 'sex object' is just inane. It's a figure of speech.

the very foundation is flawed, woman or male, it assumes you can't handle yourself as a grown adult, and need the police to assist you at will. 

 

spreading awareness is fine, making a law out of it, is not, which is why this video disgusts me. they present it as if it were a good thing that they are turning such mundane actions into criminal offenses. i understand reprimanding them, but criminalizing them, to any degree is simply foolish. and i hionestly feel bad for men in nottingham. similar to the "subway manspreading" law, or the "misgendered pronoun" law, in new york, this new trend of laws that base themselves upon feels is growing more common, targeting men more often than not, and that does indeed worry me, for many reasons.

 

It was a minor nitpick. wasn't making it into a main point or anything, just something that bugs me about that particular saying.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Who does this law affect besides jackasses who walk up to women and compliment their rack?

It's a witch-hunt

 

Just say you felt abused by the man. 

 

Ruin his life, give him an arrest record. 

Also law is misogynistic and misandrist af, implies women cannot stand up for themselves and need more protection than males

[Dad]

Just out of curiosity, when was the last time any of you guys actually walked up to a stranger and complimented their breasts or ass, and how did it go for you?

[vla1ne]

Just out of curiosity, when was the last time any of you guys actually walked up to a stranger and complimented their breasts or ass, and how did it go for you?

never in such a rude manner, but there have been numerous times where i simply complemented women at a register or somewhere as a bit of small talk, and that can now be categorized as a hate crime if it makes the woman feel uncomfortable.

 

but even if the manner was rude, it is not criminal, and it is in no way a hate crime, as this new law would make it.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Just out of curiosity, when was the last time any of you guys actually walked up to a stranger and complimented their breasts or ass, and how did it go for you?

Told a girl she was beautiful today, does that count?

[Dad]

never in such a rude manner, but there have been numerous times where i simply complemented women at a register or somewhere as a bit of small talk, and that can now be categorized as a hate crime if it makes the woman feel uncomfortable.

 

but even if the manner was rude, it is not criminal, and it is in no way a hate crime, as this new law would make it.

 

 

Told a girl she was beautiful today, does that count?

 

That's not what I asked.  I asked if, per your previous statements, had you ever complimented a woman on the way her rack or ass looks?  Making small talk is not criminal.  Neither is complimenting her rack or ass.  But that would imply that you know that freedom of speech is not freedom of consequence, and she would've slapped the sheet outta you 50% of the time.

 

Don't get me wrong.  Me and the guys get together and talk about beautiful women all the time.  But never in my funking right mind would I walk up to a woman and go "aye ma, nice rack".  And neither would you.  You're implying it's okay to do something like that, but you wouldn't do something like that.  Because she's not gonna reply "wanna come back to my place?".  She's gonna think you're a jackass.  And while this isn't a crime, it's stupid to say "well I can tell these women what I want because it's not a crime".  And I'm not completely understanding why you assume women would be okay with being treated that way.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

That's not what I asked.  I asked if, per your previous statements, had you ever complimented a woman on the way her rack or ass looks?  Making small talk is not criminal.  Neither is complimenting her rack or ass.  But that would imply that you know that freedom of speech is not freedom of consequence, and she would've slapped the sheet outta you 50% of the time.

 

Don't get me wrong.  Me and the guys get together and talk about beautiful women all the time.  But never in my funking right mind would I walk up to a woman and go "aye ma, nice rack".  And neither would you.  You're implying it's okay to do something like that, but you wouldn't do something like that.  Because she's not gonna reply "wanna come back to my place?".  She's gonna think you're a jackass.  And while this isn't a crime, it's stupid to say "well I can tell these women what I want because it's not a crime".  And I'm not completely understanding why you assume women would be okay with being treated that way.

No, I don't find tits or asses to be the most attractive part of a female body. For me it's in the face, voice, and hair mostly. So me going around saying "nice ass" would be outa character. I have told people their face is perfect before

[Tentacruel]

I think the reason these discussions always go bad is because of the sheet-slinging that occurs on the internet.  You've got a bunch of people who have/will never harass a woman fighting against these laws because a bunch of people are blaming the first group of people on all things misogyny. (And vice-versa)

 

Basically, people get too wrapped up in their social justice war they lose sight of the actual issues at hand. 

[Dad]

I think the reason these discussions always go bad is because of the sheet-slinging that occurs on the internet.  You've got a bunch of people who have/will never harass a woman fighting against these laws because a bunch of people are blaming the first group of people on all things misogyny. (And vice-versa)

 

Basically, people get too wrapped up in their social justice war they lose sight of the actual issues at hand. 

 

If by the actual issues at hand you mean the fact that this is the dumbest law to impose as a form of controlling freedom of speech, then yes.

[vla1ne]

That's not what I asked.  I asked if, per your previous statements, had you ever complimented a woman on the way her rack or ass looks?  Making small talk is not criminal.  Neither is complimenting her rack or ass.  But that would imply that you know that freedom of speech is not freedom of consequence, and she would've slapped the s*** outta you 50% of the time.

 

Don't get me wrong.  Me and the guys get together and talk about beautiful women all the time.  But never in my f***ing right mind would I walk up to a woman and go "aye ma, nice rack".  And neither would you.  You're implying it's okay to do something like that, but you wouldn't do something like that.  Because she's not gonna reply "wanna come back to my place?".  She's gonna think you're a jackass.  And while this isn't a crime, it's stupid to say "well I can tell these women what I want because it's not a crime".  And I'm not completely understanding why you assume women would be okay with being treated that way.

 

i don't compliment random strangers in that manner, that's just not the kind of person i am, but others are, that's their way of doing things.  

 

i simply object to making it punishable by law. it's a matter of social vs legal consequence. social consequence is perfectly fine for that manner of behavior, legal consequence, is not. especially when it compounds already existing and better established laws. there is a quote that i use rather often: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" i do not approve of those kinds of comments, but i will protest any action to criminalize them, because they are not criminal actions, they are merely words. i do not care if those words make people uncomfortable, i care that people are attempting to make them illegal for mere convenience. go ahead and ignore, or reproach anybody who says them, but to arrest them is to convict a man of thought crime.