"Women's Rights!" "You Can't hit me, I'm a girl!"

This is something that bothers me a lot. I probably could get bashed for this, and a lot of it may not make sense, but hear me out.

I was watching SVU the other day (as I do on a regular basis) and it was 'hate crime' based. A white guy was sent to prison for a 'hate crime' against a black guy blah blah your usual SVU stuff. But it got me thinking...
Minority groups campaign for equal rights, yes? But why is it, as soon as someone attacks THEM, its a hate crime?
Its the same old thing: "I'm a woman! I want equal rights! But you can't hit me, I'm a girl!"

It doesn't make sense to me that people want to be treated equally, yet nobody can touch minority groups because its considered hate. What if the reason wasn't hate based?

Let me ask you something:
If a white person hits a black person, its considered a hate crime. If a black person hits a white person then its not?
If a white person hits a black person for the same reason a white person would hit a white person (so its not race-based) is it still considered hate?

A woman hits a man for the same reason a man would hit a woman. Same amount of damage done etc. Why is she considered a strong woman? Why does the man not look like a victim, and just someone that people look at and say "he was probably abusing her, he deserved it."

These are pretty far-fetched situations, but do you see what I'm getting at? There is no such thing as a "Reverse Hate Crime." A man goes to prison for the exact same thing a woman would be praised for. If we really wanted equality, wouldn't they get the same punishment?

I guess my answer is that it would be based on the rules that society has carried over decades. But if everyone wanted to be treated equally, then why is there such a thing as a hate crime in the fist place?

Thoughts?

 

While it's still wrong, I think the reason it's not made into much when a male hits a male, but is when a male hits a female, is because females seem to be more fragile than males.

Don't quote me on that, though. That's just the answer I got from my 6th grade PE teacher when I asked him that question in middle school.

 

In order for something to be classified as a hate crime, do they need to prove (or at least, make a convincing case) that it had a prejudiced intent?

Honestly not sure, just asking. It would make logical sense for that to be a stipulation, to me, but you never know.

 

It's social perception.
We're taught there are different social/racial/gender groups, even though we're told everyone is equal, a strange mix.

Law rarely deals with truth, it only deals with justice, which is in itself a justification for actions. Hate crimes whether truly fuelled for hate or not doesn't matter, the reason of a crime is near enough impossible to statistically explain, it's subjective intentions.

That is why things are the way they are in law. Because it's rarely about the fact of the matter and more about justifying why from law enforcement.

 

I completely agree with you. I pull that card whenever a girl gets mad at me for punching back when I get hit. This was the conflict back when the Equal Rights Amendment was being fought for. But back then it was about drafting to the military. You want your equal rights? Take a punch and don't complain.

 

Technically girls are the majority group.

It' s considered a hate crime if the accused displayed obvious hate for a category of people, whether that group is the majority or minority group is irrelevant. I' m not sure there are lots of cases of hate crimes against caucasians in court, if any, but technically it is possible. Not that it really matters though, I don' t know how things are in your country but in mine I don' t think whether it is a hate crime or not affects the sentence.

Besides, despite the existence of dictionaries you can' t expect every people to label each information the same way. It seems that more and more people try and brandish a right to not feel offended, ever, which is quite incompatible with freedom of speech. There have been cartoons published in a French journal recently, cartoons about a US you-tube video that also made a fuss. I can' t post those cartoons nor the video on a PG 13 site (oh, sweet irony ^^), but here' s an article about it :

http://gawker.com/5942748/it-makes-...e-was-deceived-had-no-idea-it-was-about-islam

People have been murdered over this video. I honestly don' t see what the problem is with it. If you don' t like it then also exert your right to free speech and say so, but that' s it. This other video didn' t raise a single **** in my country, so why would a slur at the Koran be treated any differently ?

Spoiler

I think this picture sums it all up pretty nicely :

Spoiler

 

I'm probably going to regret getting involved here, but hey, here goes.

First of all, let me say that I consider myself a feminist. No, this does not mean that I hate men, which would be silly as I AM a man, it just means that I believe in gender equality. That is what feminism is, not the man-hating women supremacy demanding nuts that have stereotyped feminism as complete batshit insanity.

Ah, this old thing. A white suspect hurting a black victim is not automatically called a hate crime. Generally, there are clues that point investigations to declaring it a hate crime. If the suspect has a history of associating with racist organizations, race motivated crime or makes racist remarks, then there are clues pointing towards their crime being a hate crime. Investigators aren't going to assume that the crime is a hate crime without evidence to support that assumption.

This is an example of a double standard that the feminist movement is trying to stop. In the eyes of the law, if a woman commits a crime towards a man, she is as much as criminal as a man who would commit the same crime to a woman. You are basing your opinion on something that just flat out isn't true based on society's idea that men are "strong," while women are "delicate." In the eyes of the law, men and women are treated equally, as they should be, but in the eyes of society, things aren't quite as nice.

Part of what the feminist movement is trying to do is stop these kinds of double standards for the sake of everyone, not just women. However, it has been time and time again been proven difficult due to how society sees how men are "supposed" to be and how women are "supposed" to be.

As for the "reverse hate crime" thing, well, you're right, there is no such thing, but not for the reason you think. "Reverse racism" doesn't mean anything. It is not uncommon for people to assume it means racism towards white people, which is ridiculous because racism towards white people is just racism, plain and simple. It is not inconceivable that someone belonging to a minority could be charged with a hate crime towards a white victim if there is evidence to suggest that it is a hate crime. I would be interesting in seeing numbers on this and would assume that society believes that minorities are incapable of being seen as racist by the law would be because white committed hate crimes get more press than minority committed hate crimes.

Because, quite simply, there is a **** load of racism, sexism, homophobia and general bigotry left in the world, despite the efforts of equal rights movements and organizations, equality laws and decent people in general. If a crime is committed based on bigotry, such as a gay man assaulted for being gay or a black man having his property vandalized by white people just for being black, it IS a hate crime.

Of course, despite all this, it is not, nor will it ever be, nor SHOULD it ever be, illegal to be a bigot. Freedom of speech protects hate speech. What it does not protect are crimes committed based on hatred, nor does it protect bigots from consequences to their bigotry.

And the award for missing the point on what equality actually means goes to... This guy!

Equality isn't "everyone is the same." Equality means that one's actions, rights and freedoms are not determined, justified or limited based on race, gender, sexuality or anything else that could be considered "different." It amazes me that so many people don't understand such a simple concept.

 

What's an even bigger problem is that there is a significant part of society that thinks if a woman is raped, it was somehow also her fault for where she was at the time, what she was wearing or how she was acting. The problem with this should be completely obvious. Rape is a horrible thing and anyone who does it is a horrible person (pen this down as a massive understatement, please). If a woman wants to wear extremely revealing clothing, that's her problem and she shouldn't have to fear being attacked for it, let alone BLAMED for a potential attack.

 

Actually this photo ignores the point. What she was wearing is utterly irrelevant, she could have been nude and taking Kama Sutra poses for all I care. If she said no she said no, period.

 

Well, for the hate-crimes I think they should have to be able to prove without a doubt it was out of a prejudiced reason for the crime. Though it should work both ways. If a black guy hits a white guy simply because he's white, that is a hate crime. Same with any race.

As for the man not being able to hit a woman, I think if you're up against a body builder you should fight back (in my case use a ball bat before she snaps me in half), but in a normal situation a man should never lay his hands on a woman. I don't think rights has anything to do with it. Even before women had rights men (husbands mostly) would slap there wives around. There's no need for that kind of BS. I can honestly say i'd beat the **** out of any man I caught hitting a woman. I'm sorry if you guys think this may not be the case but that's the way I was raised. It shouldn't have to be a law, just don't do it.

Closing Statements: Hate-crimes should work both ways. Men shouldn't hit women (unless that woman is 7' tall, weighs 320 90% being muscle. Then you do what you can to survive)

 

The problem is one thing... People are different, but they are intitled to be trated as equals... how do you trate equaly people that are naturaly different?
When women's right began it wasn't to state that "A woman can kick a man's but", it was that woman should have the same rights as man.

When a group has a problem, or difficulty the system is obligated to support it so they can be trated as equals, thats why there are special entraces for Weel chairs, different kinds of floor for the blinds, special care for the old.. they need to be supported to have the same oportunitys as the others.

Women's are psycally weaker than man (and children also are) so they have to be protected , and a crime against them is judged as specialy evil as you are targeting a weaker person, the number of violent crimes against women and children are greater than against 30 year old white mans, so you can see that it's a pattern.

The same occurs in crimes against minority, even though not all crimes are motived per se in the person belonging to a minority all them combined could have a depper meaning not only to the opresor, but to the minority group so society shaw punish these actions for "payingback the minority group" It's like why do we arrest people? Not only to make sure they don't do evil again, but because society demands that they suffer the consequece of their crimes, so Yes even vegence should be accounted if not only to prevent "viligantes acts" but to mantain society's lucid.

 

One thing that annoys me about these equal rights movements is that at times they don't come off as asking for equal rights, but rather special privileges powered by guilt and sympathy.

I understand that these groups wouldn't exist if they had equal rights, but it seems like they're asking for compensation for their suffering rather than equal rights. Also, people who have been the victim of a hate crime, from what I have seen, tend to blame everyone like the person that attacked them. They shouldn't let the bigotry of a few warp their view of the entire population. There has to be a mutual understanding and acceptance from both sides in order for there to be truly equal treatment. If the majority won't accept the few, than the few will demand that the majority not only accept them, but give them special treatment. I'm not taking any sides, I'm simply saying that everyone should let everyone be and keep to themselves.

As far as hitting women goes, sure there is a certain respect that people should have for women, but this goes for everyone, male and female both.
First of all, people shouldn't be hitting anyone regardless. It's barbaric and shows a lack of self control, that said a woman shouldn't act like just by virtue of being a woman, that she will not be held to the same regard as a man, and will be let off easy. Time and time again I have seen a woman be let off easy because she is a woman, and often times these are the women who whine about not having equal rights.