It is futile to try to furnish an adequate introduction for this post so I will just say it: NOW's New York chapter says that "all crimes against women must be regarded as hate crimes . . .."
You read that right. All crimes.
It goes on: "When a police officer is called to the scene of a violent assault against a woman by her husband/partner or stranger, the officer should arrest the perpetrator for a 'hate crime.'" See here.
Try to understand the implications: if a gunman (or gunwoman) goes on a rampage at the mall and kills 15 men and boys and five women, the killer will receive enhanced sentencing for the crimes inflicted on five of the victims -- only the crimes against the women.
Women's lives are worth more than men's because women historically have been oppressed by men, NOW believes.
This is quite possibly the most inane idea that this organization has ever concocted, which is saying a lot.
Never mind that innocent men are victims of violent assaults by strangers twice as frequently as innocent women, that possibly more men are raped than women (because of prison rape), or that women initiate domestic violence against men with far greater frequency than the domestic violence cottage industry will ever admit.
You see, none of that matters to NOW. NOW is not after gender equity. NOW is nothing more than a lobby for certain women (not all women, by any stretch of the imagination), and its agenda is simple: it wants nothing less than a legislative articulation that women are perpetual victims of subjugation by males -- even though they are not -- and, therefore, women are automatically entitled to special advantages over men.
Never mind that the facts don't support this inane, thoroughly un-nuanced and factually incorrect world view.
NOW is, of course, trivializing the meaning of "hate crime" for its own political expediency. Its attempt to expand the definition of "hate" crime to fit whatever crime against whatever female for whatever motive is an affront to the blacks, gays, young men like the Duke lacrosse guys and and other minorities who actually have been targeted for crimes because of the class to which they belong. NOW doesn't care if women are being criminally attacked because they are women; to NOW, any criminal attack on a woman is enough to show that the crime was motivated by a hatred for women.
There is a legal word for this kind of thinking: horseshit.
But NOW has given us an idea: while rape victims are both male and female, the vast majority of false rape victims are male. If there is one gender crime that ought to classified as gender "hate" crime, it's false rape claims. And if NOW's attempt gains traction, we need to strongly assert our entitlement to such legislation on behalf of all falsely accused men and boys.
Christina Hoff Sommers has addressed the wrong-headed notion that rape is a crime of gender bigotry: "To view rape as a crime of gender bias (encouraged by a patriarchy that looks with tolerance on the victimization of women) is perversely to miss its true nature. Rape is perpetrated by criminals, which is to say, it is perpetrated by people who are wont to gratify themselves in criminal ways and who care very little about the suffering they inflict on others."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
By not holding women equally accountable under the law, we regress further into sort of matriarchal anarchy.
Like America had to do in the past (14th amendment), it must again restate that men and women are to be equally protected under the law.
These misguided gender feminist laws are creating matriarchal anarchy.
I don't think NOW believes it will get what it's asking for - they're just making an extreme claim in order to extend further the mental boundaries of how far we will indulge women. The pay off is in the numerous concessions that will be made in recognition of denying them 'what they really want'. The tactic has worked repeatedly in the past. Every extreme claim has had a payoff.
We men don't do it. We're like the guy who goes to market and always lets the other party frame the negotiation, then wonders why he pays more than his neighbors.
We could start by demanding massive reparations for all the war-dead, the millions who died on the job without any monetary settlement, and the development and institution of voting democracies, land registers that facilitate the concept of land ownership and transfer, universities, legal systems, orderly government etc.
We won't get it, but just by making the claim, we get people thinking in ways that are beneficial to us. If we continue to let women seize the mental real-estate without counter charging, then our right to even vote will soon be under threat. If any man doubts this, remember that prisoners can't vote.
Lets be honest. NOW is as much a hate organization as the KKK, the Black Panthers, and those nutty church people who protest at soldiers funerals.
They don't need a reason to hate, just a place. NOW has NEVER been about gender equality. It has always been about gender supremacy.
On October 30, 1985, Sylvia Seegrist opened fire on shoppers at a Philadelphia suburban mall, killing two men and a little boy. A 24-year-old man confronted her and convinced her to stop. Her first words to him were: "I'm a woman," she mumbled, "and I have family problems and I have seizures."
Ms. Seegrist, like the two females who tried to kill President Gerald Ford, was a poor shot, thankfully. She missed a lot of people. But were her killings "hate" crimes?
I am waiting for NOW to explain how a would-be murderer who goes on a mall rampage and kills some men and some women can be considered a "hate" criminal -- only for the killings of the women.
There is a legal term for this misandry: horseshit.
NOW is trivializing the meaning of "hate crime" for its own political expediency. Its attempt to expand the definition of "hate" crime to fit whatever crime against whatever female for whatever motive is an affront to the blacks, gays and and other true minorities who have been targeted for crimes because of the class to which they belong. "Female" is not a minority. Even if females were an oppressed class, the mere fact that one is a female and that one is also a victim of a crime does not mean that one has been victimized by a hate crime. To conflate the two is to render hate crimes meaningless. No person of ordinary intelligence needs to have this explained, but NOW is engaging in an inanity that is breathtaking even for it.
And what's next? Will every black who happens to be a victim of any crime also be considered victim of a "hate" crime?
If we want to talk about true "hate" crimes, the Duke Lacrosse boys -- THEY were victims of a hate crime, beyond question.
I grow weary of radical feminism trashing men and practicing Catholics and Republicans and whoever else they think stands in their way, but they are given a free pass when they make absurd statements like this one. We need to start calling them on their stupidity far more strenuously. We need to declare war on people who hate men and who use as a justification for their actions the lie that men hate women.
I don't really see why ANY crime against a woman is a hate crime. But if so, then there must also be possible to be hate crimes against men! For example if some guy shoves an object inside a woman, then gets on tv and says "I did this because I hate all women"..okay, fine; but then do the same for women nuts, like the lesbian gang that beat up some guy a while back.
I agree 100% with the post by Anonymous (the second post above).
I'll extend it to say we're headed for '1984' unless someone puts a stop to all this, or until people take to the streets in large numbers.
Anonymous said...
These misguided gender feminist laws are creating matriarchal anarchy.
They're creating something... but it's not anarchy. You obviously have no comprehension of what anarchy is. Might I suggest you not make statements you do not understand.
As Pierce stated, NOW is not interested in equality, they are not even interested in freedom for women. They are only interested in one thing: power.
mark says
"They're creating something... but it's not anarchy. You obviously have no comprehension of what anarchy is. Might I suggest you not make statements you do not understand."
anon says, that's a quite presumptuous and arrogant statement.
might i suggest you keep you're simpleton, pedantics to you're self.
pat..riarchy..father run
mat...riarchy...mother run
ana...archy..no one run
okay, guys, we're all on the same side. btw I've often wondered, what is an 'oligarchy'? Is that like when you have a king?
did it again - wrong link to my site.
I think Anon may have meant chaos. Which in my honest opinion is a sister of hysteria.
Norm,
Not quite. Oligarchy is where power rests in the hands of just a few groups/families. In that definition, feminism definately fits.
That they have the power to define rape, DV, etc., and get laws passed to favor women under those definitions, is a good example of an oligarchy. Sadly, head in the sand politicians kowtow to these groups, because they know it is a career ending move to ignore them. Say what you want, but women organize and vote more, and much more collectively than men.
We need to get off our butts and start getting better organized. That, other than a violent revolution, is the only way to combat thier influence.
wolfboy,
sounds like feminism is also an aristocracy of sorts, which makes sense in light of the fact that it is really an elitist movement, which ulitmately serves the interests of only a few.
Norm,
Kind of makes you wonder just how oppressed they can be, doesn't it? :)
Post a Comment