I am so thankful to have a family I can talk to

It’s not like it has negative consequences. What right do you have to call it poor?

Bro doesn’t understand how things work

Loved that sub and how they would get stuck in loops trying to decide loops trying to decide loops trying to decide loops

You’re totally right! The eloquence and creativity showcased in AI comments underscores how they cannot be distinguished from comments by human users.

Yeah, MTG is crazy but she hasn’t been bought, which is unfortunately rare

I do, it bothers me lol

True! I’m glad for this thread. (And, to be clear, I’m not arguing against protections for femicide-- just arguing for extending those protections to cover more scenarios). I think my response to you in the other comment chain conveys my feelings well.

I think I just see the purpose of creating laws differently than you do. To me, there is an abstract ideal law that we should aim for. The relative necessity to current society of different potential laws is not something I consider important to what laws shpuld be added; if we are adding the femicide protections, it makes sense to also add them for other genders, even if those protections are not currently needed to the same degree, and the urgency to add them is therefore lower. But it seems like you are viewing the act of adding a law as something meant to address the problems in current society, and that we should focus on the laws that are most immediately helpful now, because that will do the most good, regardless of if those laws could be improved before passing to cover lesser issues like I am pushing for. I think that’s a sensible enough way to operate-- you can’t make the laws perfect before passing them, so doing the most good you can by passing the most important laws first and coming back later to fix lesser issues that may still exist afterwards makes sense-- but since it’s not the perspective I’m coming from, it took me a while to realize how you are thinking about this issue.

(Sorry for wall of text)

Edit:

Generalizing the law implies that the problem is equal

This is a good example of a disagreement caused by how we view the act of passing laws. To me, modifying a law to cover more scenarios makes it “more correct” and should always be done. But if you believe that more important laws should be passed first rather than revised to be more complete for theoretical future scenarios, me claiming that the law should be extended to all genders is implying that all genders have the same need for the law to be passed, and therefore that the issue is equal across genders, which is clearly incorrect.

I don’t think it’s valid to pretend my arguments are entirely pointless and then dismiss them because it’s a serious issue. Of course it’s a serious issue; that’s why I’m arguing about it. I’m not calling your arguments hysteria or illogical just because they’re motivated by different reasons than mine are. I am perfectly willing to know why you believe generalizing the law would make it less effective; I explicitly asked, even. But if you do not feel that it is worth it to go into detail then I don’t think there’s anything to be gained by continuing this discussion.

It wouldn’t duplicate an existing law, it would provide additional protections to people who are murdered because of their gender. Again, this would not remove a single protection from women. Stop making zero-sum arguments when they don’t apply.

but legislatures don’t tend to pass laws to protect something that figuratively doesn’t happen

I’m saying it would be better if they did.

I don’t think this discussion is going to be much more useful, I think we’ve said everything we need to at this point.

and it would remove specific protections for the very people it’s trying to protect

Does it matter whether the protections are specific to that gender? General protections would still apply to women.

My argument is not performative or based in a “men’s rights” movement, but yes, it is somewhat semantic. I think the law would be more “complete” and overall better if it protected all genders, and so that is what I am arguing for. Although codifying punishments for femicide is good, adding protections for all genders doesn’t remove any protections for women, it just extends them to everyone else. Giving someone something doesn’t have to take it away from someone else.

If you are right that men and women require unique approaches to gender-based protection though, then yes that would be a barrier to making the law gender-agnostic. What do you believe would need to apply differently to men vs women?

I think your humanist approach makes sense, but that doesn’t mean that improving the completeness of the laws is not also worth pursuing. I am concerned about the safety of men and do advocate for improved sexual assault laws; but in this case I am also concerned that the law appears incomplete. Maybe that’s why I’ve been arguing in here so much; my view of the problem does not align with how others are approaching it, and that creates a mismatch of assumptions.

Edit: To elaborate on what I mean by “complete”, I think that the law should always provide equality. Equity should be sought through other (primarily social) avenues. The purpose of the law is to be an impartial judge of what is acceptable, not just to solve the current issues in society. Of course those issues have the greatest motivation to create laws to solve, but the ideal (and, unfortunately, unreachable) form of the law solves not only these problems but many others as well. It should be a solid framework upon which we build, not a series of patches to address single issues.

It’s curious you mention “other identity-based hate crime laws”, because Italy happens to not have categories for homosexual people like other jurisdictions might - for example.

Interesting

I guess I just don’t get the reasoning for not making the law cover all genders. It’s good that we covered one, but why not the rest? Yes, there are infinite motivations for murder, and we can’t cover them all; but that doesn’t mean we should exclude certain motivations when it would make sense to cover them. The impossibility of making a perfect law should not prevent us from makingg obvious improvements.

You could pass a law simultaneously against all gender-based hate-motivated murder by just specifying any gender in the law. You don’t need to enumerate every category.

I’m not seeing how anyone is being harmed by making it easier to prosecute men who commit violence against women when it’s a massively disproportionate problem.

Nobody is being harmed. Codifying punishments for femicide into law is a good thing.

I’m not seeing a better alternative

Making the law cover all genders covers more situations, so it would be better. You could still advertise it for its primary purpose of helping women to try to change the culture and get many of the same benefits.

I’m not seeing anything but a lot of guys in this post who are obviously hurt by this but can’t explain why. Maybe add value to the argument by making an argument and explaining why it bothers you.

It bothers me because I think there is an alternative that makes more sense-- that’s the whole reason I care here. You can assume whatever else you want about me or my feelings towards the matter, but these assumptions haven’t been correct so far, so I doubt they will be accurate in the future either.

Do you have an emotional or personal connection to this topic that is making it hard to see practicality in how our entire society is built?

Not really, I just enjoy arguing against things that I don’t think make sense and for things that do.

A user elsewhere in this thread has made me see the point that you’re trying to make. I’m still not sure it makes sense to enshrine these differences in crime frequency towards different groups into law, but I do see the value in trying to tackle the problem from a gendered perspective in terms of trying to change the culture. So I am now split on whether the value of the law being better (symmetrical) outweighs the value of changing the culture by making a law targetted specifically for women.

I appreciate you sticking with your arguments; this is the first one in the whole thread that’s actually made sense to me. I’m not sure if it makes more sense as a goal to equalize the crimes between two groups than to lower the overall crime, but 1. It does still make sense and 2. Making the law symmetrical would draw less attention and probably result in less of a drop in net crime anyways, so… yeah, ok, I get your point now. Thanks.

I don’t think my model of morality is compatible with yours.

Ok so you responded to none of my actual points, cool.

Your wheelchair analogy doesn’t even make sense in the context of this discussion. It would be more like if my brother was more prone to being injured, so in the event that one of us does get injured, only he gets the wheelchair. That’s the argument you’re making-- basing the appropriate solution to an individual’s situation on the frequency of how likely that situation is to occur. Which makes no sense.

A law which helps all genders fight hate crime here DOES provide equity because it will help the genders more affected by hate crimes proportionally more than the ones that are less affected!

lol ok