Should be noted that his justification is a lunatic the CIA hired and then brought back from Afghanistan.

At no point did anyone suggest that they weren’t prosecuting murder against men, nor did they suggest they would do so with less effort. All this law does is allow the courts to take misogyny into account so that motive isn’t ignored or downplayed during the charging proces.

You really look like your mother!

“…I have an idea…”

Not really a “wild idea”, as much as something a 12 year old would come up with.

Yeah…I thought a Robotech/Star Wars crossover would have been cool…when I was 12.

China, in large part, raised people out of poverty at the expense of the so-called “west”…so it’s no mystery that the US was unable to do the same. The wests’ corporations needed cheap labour, and China was happy to accept the jobs. We all know this. Trump got elected because he was the first to overtly acknowledge that reality and propose a solution. Now, his “solution” will only exasperate the problem because he’s ultimately a corrupt fascist…but there’s a lesson there that hasn’t been learned yet.

We already knew this…because forced rehab has been tried. It’s barbaric, and it’s depressing that a “socialist” premier pulled the trigger.

Femicide isn’t a new word.

You, of course, realize that we’re using an existing word in the English language to describe a different existing word in the Italian language?

I absolutely agree. In my mind this is an example where people could be “yes-and”ing the law: Yes, female victims absolutely need more nuanced protection, and male sexual assault victims need more nuanced protection (for example).

The reason you don’t see a lot of these folks arguing for a men’s equivalent…is they know that it’s functionally not a problem…which also undercuts their own argument.

I can imagine…I work in poverty outreach and with at risk youth…I hear some grotesque things from across the spectrum.

I’m a full Reddit refugee…a few months ago I got a 3 day auto ban for directly quoting Worf from Star Trek. Not going back, this time…the time I was away from it made me realize what an enshitified mess it has become.

The currentl law doesn’t appropriately “handle” the problem of femicide…or else it wouldn’t be an outsized problem.

Symmetry is the problem. The justice system anywhere isn’t “one size fits all” for murder. There are already categories for infanticide, assisted suicide, accidental death, indirect murder, etc. It would be very very nice if there was an appropriate category for the infinite motivations for murder…but that’s not realistic.

Femicide is a problem in Italy so they passed a law. If males being targeted was a problem…they’d pass that law. Making an appropriate category for an existing phenomenon doesn’t mean it “ignores” anything else, as you’re claiming.

Yes, and when somebody murders a woman because they’re a woman, now there’s a charge where the relevant jurors can take into account state of mind etc.

That’s why I used the wording I did. They both potentially carry life sentences. It should go without saying that femicide is a type of murder with a portion of the culpability “baked into it”.

The reason is because the genders aren’t the same. If there was (functionally) anyone being murdered because they were a man, then the law would also cover men. 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.

Yes, I believe that gender-based crime is a different crime and it should be treated as such. Ideally there would be a category for the infinite potential culpabilities for murder, but that’s not realistic. I think femicide is realistic because the crime is relatively common.

I’m from London…back in the 80s it was a hotbed for these folks…but they did it indoors.

Again, making the law non-gender specific would be trying to protect a category that functionally doesn’t exist…and it would remove specific protections for the very people it’s trying to protect. It would actually do what some opponents are incorrectly speculating this law does to existing murder laws.

Are you advocating that we protect men from gender-based physical violence? Is this important to you? Your argument appears to be semantic and performative…rooted in a so-called “men rights” argument. The logical argument wouldn’t be to remove a law that’s needed, but rather add a law that specifically protects men…because women and men aren’t the same and they require unique approaches.

My approach, the humanist approach, would be: yes this is forward movement, and we can look at other categories that are also at risk. For example, if you were concerned about the safety of men you wouldn’t spin your tires on something that figuratively doesn’t happen and advocate for, say, additional laws to protect men from sexual violence (a category that is often ignored and woefully under-reported).

I mean…ya…but this “quote” doesn’t appear to me to be talking about the wealthy…but rather addressing the notion that poor people and the unemployed have no value if they don’t have employment/can’t find better employment.

Could be wrong.

At no point didn’t anyone ever say that it was “criminally worse” it has the same sentence…it’s just a different charging mechanism like infanticide.

What’s absurd (but not surprising) is this notion that adding a class somehow diminished the existing classes.

It’s not “more than murder”, no. It’s a type of murder.

No there shouldn’t, the vast majority of cases of rapes are committed by men. If you were being logically consistent, you’d advocate for a different word/charge for cases of rape against men - because that’s one of the largest category of unreported sexual crime.

My guess this is a so called “traditional” family, and this woman is trying to bring her family up to date with the 1960s.

“Triggered” is really good way to categorize these responses.

The topic makes them project concepts onto it, like the perpetrators must be male - which is basically telling on themselves.

Finally happened after The Last Jedi…it jolted me out of Star Wars, and now I just wait, sometimes years, to watch stuff.

Lol, the French don’t really like Quebec, and vice versa.

Right…but you can’t swing from one extreme (zero poverty) to the other (hundreds of millions living like it’s the Great Depression). Neither are true.

It should be noted that poverty in China isn’t the same as poverty in the USA, ie when you adjust for wages v cost of living it doesn’t tell us much, because the systems are incompatible. All those people in China making below $1.90 US a day (or whatever your metric is) aren’t in the same boat they’d be in in the US, and vice versa.

But all of this ignores the topic of the post: China did indeed raise virtually all of its citizens out of poverty, and the US didn’t. But it’s really weird to just throw that factoid out there without acknowledging that China did it at the expense of the US.