Feminism? Discussion?! Of course! or Why there is no Discussion forum anymore

[Odjn]

Originally Posted by Satan's Onion

Until comparatively recently in human history, Bells, it was considered more okay--or at least less wrong--for a man to beat his wife than it was for him to, say, get in a fight with some other guy at a bar.

I know it kind of seems like "aw man, women're getting special laws and rights just for them, and that's not fair!" But the fact is that for much of human history women have already had a sort of "special law" apply to them, even when on paper it purports to apply to them equally--and that law amounts to "women will get the shit beat out of them and murdered regularly, because, well, maybe she shouldnt've burned the pot roast, I dunno, and whoever did it maybe gets the judge to wag his finger at him disapprovingly, at worst". All those "special laws" are just trying to make the law do what it's supposed to do already, because left by itself the law was (and in many places and many ways, still is) hopelessly broken.

This has been A Minute of Feminism.

This is utter horseshit and I will tell you why.

There are three parties involved in domestic abuse. The perpetrator, the victim, the system of justice. The perpetrator is pretty much always an asshole; there may be exceptions, but they are pretty much nonexistent. The victim is the person who gets abused, and the system of justice exists to protect the victim and punish the perpetrator.

With these laws, more perpetrators are being successfully prosecuted. The problem is that other victims are being punished based solely on their sex.

Let's take a look at what feminism means.

Merriam Webster says feminism means:
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

The only way you could justify that law is on the second definition. The first, which speaks of both sex and gender equality would in fact designate, rightfully so, that law sexist. Because it discriminates by sex, and not in a way such as, let's face it, childbirth/abortion which are strictly female because a person born male is not in the forseeable future carry a fetus inside them.

So, in effect those laws are twisting the system of justice. The system of justice is pretty clear in its goal, which as previously stated is to punish perpetrators, protect victims. Why is twisting? Because in order to punish more perpetrators, you are explicitly casting the system in one direction which is more likely to punish minority victims.

Now, as you've claimed and I support, the system is hardly equal. So in this little triangle, the system of justice is not punishing the perpetrators who abused the victims. The laws you mentioned may punish the system and those who run it, I am not familiar with them since you did not state them. But they DO punish victims, and by employing those laws you in fact perpetrate inequality the same way the operators of the system did, and you are no better than them.

The way to punish said people legally and equally is to punish THEM through shame. Know someone at a newspaper? Bring evidence of a judge letting three abusers off because he considered it acceptable-most transcripts are available to the public, or to the involved of the case. Go to his house with resized photographs on signs of the abused with their injuries and other signs with the general statement "This judge/police officer let this continue." Go outside the police station with the names of officers who were involved and negligent. Write letters to every newspaper, television studio, senator and representative, city council and mayor's office. Deluge them. Shame them into taking action, because what they allow is shameful.

A feminist would not allow either sex, or gender, to be discriminated against no matter what the gains from it may be because the act of doing so is against the very belief of gender equality.

Originally Posted by Satan's Onion

O-kaaay. Look, if someone here wants to have a semi-intelligent discussion about the law and its response to people who've traditionally been the victims of oppression, they can feel free to start a thread about that. I kind of thought last night that that was how this thread might pan out, despite the way it started. But seriously, what the shitting fuck? I don't know whether you guys meant it to be "ironic" or some shit but the several-page cavalcade of "cunt punt" jokes on display still comes off creepy and awful more than anything.

I think I'm gonna close this before it gets even worse. Then I may go drink. (Look, drinking! We've come full circle!)

Bringing this up:

Never heard a feminist argue that it's an example of discrimination that dick kick humor is totally wrong/acceptable as cunt punt humor.

Both are acceptable or unacceptable!

[DFM]

For a similar example, making it cool for white people to get lynched by black people every now and then because white people had it coming is also not okay!

EDIT: Satan's Onion I am kind of mad you called that first post a moment in Feminism because that's not Feminism at all! I usually only get that mad at Solid Snake!

[Odjn]

Shush you just like lynching.

[Funka Genocide]

You don't know enough about the legal systems of Western Society to make a valid point Odjn. Don't mean that as an insult, just finding the desultory tone of this post to be completely baseless and somewhat ignorant.

Find me some relevant laws and case studies, along with pertinent statistics that suggest men are routinely victimzed by either women or the system to such an extent as to overturn the general consensus that a historically victimized minority does need additional legal consideration.

Otherwise, I assume you are being back-handedly misogynistic.

Point in case: Women are smaller and physically weaker than men. Ergo, additional legal consideration is required in cases of physical assault. This doesn't even bring into account literally millenia of female oppression.

[Ryanderman]

Originally Posted by Funka Genocide

Point in case: Women are smaller and physically weaker than men. Ergo, additional legal consideration is required in cases of physical assault. This doesn't even bring into account literally millenia of female oppression.

Why is than an Ergo? Are you saying it's because women in general are smaller and weaker than men? Should Asians recieve additional consideration in situations with Africans? It can be argued that stastically they're smaller.

Or are you saying because in each case, the woman is smaller and weaker than the man. But that's just not going to be true in each case. Should the man receive special consideration in a case in which he is the smaller and weaker party?

I don't see how your point in case makes sense.

[DFM]

Originally Posted by Funka Genocide

Point in case: Women are smaller and physically weaker than men.

Because that doesn't sound sexist!

Edit: Back-handedly misogynistic are you serious?

[Magus]

Extenuating circumstances is what is the problem. Judges are always trying to take people's life stories into account when setting a judgment, which is why some people who have clearly committed assault are not given as harsh a punishment as they should probably be given. If one person hits another person, prove it and put the hitter in jail for assault for whatever the average amount of time is for assault. Case closed.

The problem, of course, crops up when you start taking gender, race, etc. into account, which causes all the dissatisfaction and is pretty much the basis of the arguments here. A man who hits a woman will probably face a harsher penalty than a man who hits another man or two men who get in a fight or a woman who hits another woman or two women who get in a fight (I'd say the penalties go in that order of harshness). You also have the problem of proving domestic violence charges, since the spouse is usually unwilling to testify against the assailant.

So, in a perfect world, the system would 1. be impartial and 2. would not need to be partial due to the rest of history and 3. would have victims willing to testify against their attackers.

Since all three are impossible to get all together you guys might as well save your breath and agree to disagree because it's never going to be the perfect system for probably 90% of the assault victims.

[Mirai Gen]

Originally Posted by Funka Genocide

You don't know enough about the legal systems of Western Society to make a valid point Odjn. Don't mean that as an insult, just finding the desultory tone of this post to be completely baseless and somewhat ignorant.

It doesn't take a lawyer to recognize prejudice.

Originally Posted by Funka Genocide

Point in case: Women are smaller and physically weaker than men.

Yeah! Cause women bodybuilders don't exist.

I mean, duh.

[Premmy]

Originally Posted by Mirai Gen

Yeah! Cause women bodybuilders don't exist.

I mean, duh.

Body builders, fighters, and people in severely physical professions don't represent average human bodies.
Conversely, people who don't even engage in regular physical activity don't either.

Women have better lower body strength, due to their hips, usually, men have better upper body strength, due to their shoulders.

People are DIFFERENT from each other, you guys! SHOCKER! And this DOES"NT mean one is better than the other! OMG!

[DFM]

I think every woman I know is bigger and stronger than me unless she is also twelve.