posted
I tend to think the individuals are to blame, more so than society at large. There are a great number of men who behave themselves, and haven't become predatory simply because some women choose to dress in revealing clothing or flash their breasts.
There are lots of jerks out there, and they make a point to stick out in a crowd, and get your attention. Nobody notices the 50 guys in the bar who didn't make an ass of themselves.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm. I'm still grappling with the proposed idea that somehow there is a difference between targeting violence at a religious group (i.e, those of a certain faith such as Jewish, Mormon, Catholic, or Amish) or a race-based (Hispanic, African-American, Native American, etc) or a sexual orientation group (gays or transexuals)and targeting violence at a gender based group (i.e., hating males or females and seeking to hurt them on the basis of their gender.)
Which -- I still think -- is what the author was trying to get at. Whether or not we liked his method or starting place. There is pervasive violence against females, yet if violence were against any other "recognized" group, it'd be labeled a hate crime, and society would cry out, and action would be taken to stop it. But violence against girls and women, according to the author, apparently flies under the radar precisely because it is "just" against women and girls.
And leaving aside the questions and debate about "personal behavior", it seems like he makes a valid point in reviewing what is seen, sold, bought, pushed in our society currently. Which, IMO, is disprespectful and disgraceful and very damaging to both females and males.
Which then opens a very old debate -- rather like the chicken and the egg. Did society make the individual, or the collection of individulas the society? It seems there is a societal ill when it comes to sexual mores and behavior and the way we treat each other, and I think it goes far beyond the age-old generational disputes of whether or not a particular dance is okay, or a style of clothing is okay, etc.
Ahhh - Saturday morning coffee thinking. All in avoidance of laundry and other chores. Off to chores I go!
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Again, what about the fact that a male is three times more likely to be murdered than a female? Does that mean we should recognize those murders as hate crimes? And, if so, now that everyone is covered, can we just go back to trying to fight violence as violence?
Enormous resources in this country are spent to stop violence and punish violence of all sorts. Someone needs to point out what we gain by saying "this type of crime is a hate crime" instead of simply focusing on crime in general, and violent crime in particular.
This country is enormously focused on stopping violence against girls and women.
Maybe I'm missing something. What, exactly, should be done that's not being done now? More importantly, why do those things require recognition of violence against women as a hate crime in order to be done?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me say first, that I don't agree with much of what's been said in this thread. I don't think any of the examples brought up in this thread would qualify as hate crimes as defined in the thread on hate crimes.
But in answer to this question:
quote: Maybe I'm missing something. What, exactly, should be done that's not being done now?
I think domestic abuse is possibly one of the most misunderstood and mistreated crimes in our society.
I think there need to be more resources available for abused women.
I think there need to be stricter laws against domestic abuse.
I think there need to be more laws to protect women once they do leave.
I think the law enforcement community should be educated on domestic abuse so that they no longer see it as an internal or private matter.
I think our society needs to shift from seeing domestic abuse as the victim's fault for not leaving, to seeing it as the abuser's fault for abusing her.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with much or all of that. But that was a lead-in to the next question.
It should also be noted that there has been tremendous progress on every single one of these fronts in the last two decades. More needs to be done, of course.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing that I'd like to see personally (and this is a local thing and a unisex thing) is actual enforcement of restraining orders.
I don't know how it is in other areas, but here, if you have a restraining order...well, that's just something that can be brought up at trial AFTER some horrible, violent thing has happened to you.
But the biggest issue that I see with providing resources for battered women is that ultimately, we can't just forcibly drag them from their homes. And there are plenty of women who won't leave. Heck, there are plenty of battered men who won't leave. That's not really something that you can educate people about beforehand because I don't think people really pay attention. Sure, you can teach people as many times as you want that when their spouse strikes them, they need to leave...but when it happens, it's a whole other ball game.
quote:I don't know how it is in other areas, but here, if you have a restraining order...well, that's just something that can be brought up at trial AFTER some horrible, violent thing has happened to you.
There's not much else that can be done with them, unfortunately. Many experts question their actual usefulness in many situations. Some jurisdictions fail to prosecute violations that can be prosecuted, but, in many cases, only the egregious, violent violations can be proved.
quote:That's not really something that you can educate people about beforehand because I don't think people really pay attention.
Unfortunately, all too many have been educated to stay (and to abuse, for that matter) by their parents before them.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If a person subject to a restraining order comes onto your property, throws a brick through the window, and is gone before the police arrive, there's pretty much nothing anyone can do.
Even in face-to-face confrontations, it can be hard to convict someone without additional witnesses. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a very high standard of proof.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
For a "can't take the hint" stalker who's basically socially ineffective but not abusive, they can provide a useful wake up call.
The more the abuser has a sense of proprietorship concerning the victim ("she's mine" in the ugly possessive sense), the more possibility of provoking danger.
They do make it far easier to convict after an event, and they make it easier to detain suspects awaiting trial without bail. They also allow conviction in quite a few non-violent violation cases. Also, they make it a federal crime to possess a firearm, which can provide some significant leverage to officers.
Gavin de Becker's "The Gift of Fear" talks about our over-reliance on the orders, what they're good for, and when they are harmful. Other domestic abuse experts consider them to be great in all or most situations.
What needs to be recognized is that the state can't use force to physically detain someone except in a few circumstances:
1.) following a conviction. 2.) prior to trial in some circumstances. 3.) during an arrest. 4.) when the officer sees something happening.
Law enforcement is reactive. It does not provide a general bodyguard service, nor can it in most cases.
Prior to any of these four events, all the law enforcement community can really do is threaten someone with consequences. To make this as effective as possible, we need to make sure the consequences are severe enough and that they are likely to be imposed.
Even then, some abusers are basically nuts. Even if they believe they'll get the death penalty for sure if they're caught, they'll still proceed.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: And leaving aside the questions and debate about "personal behavior", it seems like he makes a valid point in reviewing what is seen, sold, bought, pushed in our society currently. Which, IMO, is disprespectful and disgraceful and very damaging to both females and males.
To repeat myself, I don't believe that there is any real evidence for this belief. That is, I would think that if what you and the author are proposing are true, we would be seeing a noticable upswing in crimes against women.
You and the author also totally overlook that there are many, many other messages in society which promote the idea that violence is wrong, and that men and women should treat each other with respect.
The crux of the question to me is how well most people can distinguish between fantasy and reality. A lot of the things that the author talks about are just fantasies that some people indulge in.
Consistently, we often see people outside of certain groups that engage in a fantasy draw a parallel between the fantasy and how a person will act in real life that is unwarranted. GTA, Dungeons and Dragons spring instantly to mind. While a few flawed people take these fantasies to heart in unhealthy ways, most people can engage in them and not lose sight of what is real.
Please understand that I am not saying that fantasies can't be dangerous, however I think that how people function in relation to any particular fantasy can't be predicted very well.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Off to chores I go!
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
