yes, yes, I meant income tax specifically, proportionally to the aforementioned income.
Argue all you want though, factual reality is just there if you want to look at statistics, both for perpetrators and victims. If you meant like anyone can kill anyone, then money is also symmetrical in that anyone can get it and spend it in precisely the same way.
It would seem weirder to me to have 100% of people be a protected class
The word just existed since 1652
Of course murdering someone due to their sex is illegal if the victim is male, it’s murder
Are you purposefully taking the exact same stance that maga is taking on DEI?
If you look at the rates of social class transitions, you’ll find being rich or poor is not much less of an unchangeable identity than gender… But that’s not the point, you keep saying you don’t get the reasons why this law should be asymmetrical, so I’m trying to explain by analogy. The answer is equality is a bad foundation for lawmaking, equity is a better one.
Your hypotheticals and examples are very bad for someone who says elsewhere that
Of course men can still be prosecuted for murder either way; surely you didn’t think that’s what I was saying?
I’ll answer a better analogy : in a world where 80% of [insert any act of violence] is committed against women, should [insert any act of violence] against men still be prosecuted? Yes. Now, assuming a lawmaker believes that the harshness of punishments deters from crimes*, should that lawmaker make the punishment harsher for [insert any act of violence] committed against women? Also yes, that’s what’s happening here. That’s the definition of an aggravating circumstance such as a motive of hate: a reason for worsening the punishment. It’s still murder, only worse to account for the asymmetry.
*If you don’t assume that, then the reasons for punishing anything more or less are mostly symbolic anyways, so by making an asymmetric law you’re only acknowledging symbolically that there’s an asymmetrical problem, but it’s mostly just posturing.
It’s not an insult, it’s an apt analogy. This argument is childish. In an unjust reality, law should strive for equity, not equality. The US is not a model for how hate should be treated.
Yes. Violence from the oppressed is not the same as violence from the opressor. In an unjust reality, law should strive for equity, not equality.
Reading other comments they’ve made, that person is definitely not a feminist. But alright I’ll give the painful answer to the whataboutism: yes.
Yes, in a society where misogyny is rampant one should consider misogyny differently than misandry. Same for racism. If you take a less extreme case than murder, a white person using a derogatory term for a black people will get canceled and labeled racist, at worse a black person using a derogatory term for white people will get laughed at, and people will assume any actual racial hate is a response to the systemic racism they’ve experienced. And most likely they’ll be right. Even if logically those are two sides of the same coin, if your coin is unbalanced applying every correction to both sides will never work.
The asymmeyrical social reality informs what people feel about hate, and there’s no reason why it shouldn’t inform lawmakers decision in trying to correct this asymmetry.
How about you tell us why the legal system should be symmetrical if the situation isn’t? Why do the rich pay proportionally more tax than the poor? People are trying to make an unjust factual reality more just by acknowledging injustice is why.
Because the situation is not symmetrical. Acknowledging that there is an oppressed side is not the same thing as denying the privileged one. Pretending murder will not be prosecuted in Italy if the victim is male is just you larping and not at all what enshrining feminicide in law means. It’s just aggravating circumstances. Murderers of males will be prosecuted for murder without the aggravating circumstances of misogyny as a motive because it wouldn’t make any sense. And misandry is not the societal problem that misogyny is, so it would be kind of insulting to make them a protected class.
You’re acting like a four year old whose disabled brother got a wheelchair and who wants one of his own, saying “it’s not fair”. It is.
It means the murder of a woman motivated by misogyny. It is a subset of homicide and also a subset of hate crimes. It can be thought of as recognizing misogyny as a motive of hate and thus an aggravating circumstance to a homicide, and women as a protected class. Killing a trans woman or a trans man could very well get a “transphobia” label for a double hate crime, depending on the motives that get established. This is not as complicated as you seem to believe.
Feminicide means murder motivated by hate for women, also known as misogyny. If you kill your gran to get the inheritance and don’t have a family chat calling her a dumb broad that doesn’t deserve to be richer than the males of your line you’re only liable for regular murder
People here seem weirdly confused about the term “feminicide”: it means homicide motivated by misogyny. It’s a subset of hate crimes.
They exist in all western societies I’m aware of, if you’re confused it’s probably only because you’re unused to thinking of women as a protected class and hate for women as aggravating circumstances, the way hate for any race of religion is in most legal systems.
Yes they’re 50% of the population, but also yes they’re disproportionately the targets of violence because misogyny exists. Yet they are rarely treated as such in many legal systems.
You should read Firefall, by Peter Watts.
In which they do do that, in a way that is simultaneously the most absurd you’ve ever read, and the most hard sci-fi credible. Mostly so they can hibernate iirc.
Another way to look at it is “one can’t fuck children, because fucking implies consent so you should use the appropriate term which is rape”, which is what I believe they meant.
At a glance it even looks like an AI wrote the whole thing, doesn’t it?
EDIT: 3 posts in history, all with the same hollow Green LinkedIn vibe…
Yes and 1$=1$. If you look at stuff in a vacuum everything is symmetrical, that’s a nothing statement.