> “We [the expert panel] were shocked, and I say that as someone who is a pretty dyed-in-the-wool criminal lawyer who thought that she had heard it all.
After what we are hearing recently from how bad it is in Westminster this has to be an ‘ouch, ouch, ouch’ revelation for Scottish men.
Ay right hen, nae need to get yer knickers in a twist
Has Baroness Kennedy never been to a Rangers game then?
I’ve been saying it’s got worse for a while now, but mostly I get told I’m wrong and there’s either nothing wrong or “the problem is men are too soft”. Oh and the messages from women saying “at least one guy gets it”.
There is a big issue with redpill/incel/mgtow shit and just general shitty misogynist behaviour. It’s only going to stop when guys call their mates out for being inappropriate. If you see anyone acting inappropriately (it doesn’t have to be extreme, just uncomfortable) then call them out.
I saw someone in the UK sub the other day tell me how they knew all about respecting women, but they still couldn’t work out why I said it was problematic of them to comment “she’s too ugly for her to arouse anyone” when talking about Angela Rayner. I said that type of comment isn’t needed, but apparently it’s not demeaning to women to talk about them that way.
There’s people who don’t think they’re a problem but are. Plenty of them will downvote me here or say some sort of nonsense about how there’s no misogyny in Scotland, but there is. Sure other countries may be worse, but the fact remains too many guys do not respect women, or think they do but don’t.
It’s up to those of us who know better to get this sorted. It’s a very deeply ingrained thing within society, we all know one guy who sees all women as targets, we’ve all known someone who was inappropriate towards women.
Fuck, any guys who don’t believe me, ask a girl you know if they’ve ever had any sexual harassment. Most of them will say yes, that’s how normalised this shit is.
Anyways, yeah, we need to do something about misogyny in society and the people in the best position to fix it are guys and the first step is admitting that some of us are problematic and need to change.
Edit: knew the misogynist “joke” answer would be upvoted and the cold hard truth would be rejected. State of this country is dire
> I was also asked to consider the option of creating a separate, stand-alone offence based on misogyny. This idea was finding favour with many women in Scotland and elsewhere, because hate crime legislation is principally designed to protect minorities, and women are not a minority.
Bizarre. Presumably men are to be treated as a minority? Or are they saying it’s close enough as makes no difference, and trying to get a (literal) privilege for women this way?
> Treating as equal those who are not yet equal only furthers inequality
Ah, that settles it then.
> Misogyny is prejudice, malice and/or contempt for women. Sadly, it is rife in our society. Literalists cling to the word’s origins and insist that misogyny means hatred of women, but it means more than that.
Quite, it apparently also means ‘prejudice, for women’. Anyone would have thought that it meant prejudice *against* women, but the learned QC Kennedy knows better; it’s unsurprising, then, that she has a short way with ‘literalists’.
> We take the view that antagonism towards ‘kinds’ of women ultimately denies the humanity of women as a whole, and therefore follows the pattern of other hate crimes.
How convenient; that would make it a misogynistic hate crime to be antagonistic towards QCs who fill official reports with poorly-written tripe. But wait! The report goes on to wax lyrical about the beauty and necessity of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Conscience and how neither hatred nor even misogyny are, or ought to be, crimes per se, until:
> The ECHR and ICCPR allow public authorities to limit our freedom of expression in certain very specific circumstances where the limitation amounts to a proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim, such as preventing incitement of hatred that is incompatible with a democracy that respects human rights and the dignity of all persons. These limitations can in certain circumstances include criminalising expression that causes harm and where there is a pressing social need to apply the criminal law.
Who is to determine what is proportionate, what aims are legitimate, what is or is not incompatible with such elusive spectres as “dignity” and “democracy”? Who is to divine our “social need”?
> Law has a symbolic purpose. Women should know that there is law that is clearly there for them, for when they experience frightening, humiliating, degrading or abusive behaviour.
Literal patronising.
> Law matters in a society. It tells us who we are, what we value, who has power and who hasn’t.
No kidding.
> Unfortunately, many potentially protective laws are hidden away in myriad pieces of legislation
Perhaps you should pass fewer laws then, not more.
> Misogyny is hard to define. And like many abstract concepts, whilst it may be difficult to define, many people feel they ‘know it when they see it’ (or hear it, or feel it). The classical definition of misogyny (from Greek misos ‘hatred’ + gunē ‘woman’) was inadequate for the task of the Working Group.
It can’t be that hard to define: you just did so. But apparently that definition was “inadequate” (note: not ‘inaccurate’). Perhaps you should have sought for another word instead of seeing what else you could tack on to this one?
> The Working Group’s view, ultimately, was that the idea of the neutrality of law is largely a fiction. When law is created which is designed to protect men as well as women, it usually creates a blur around the ways in which women’s lives can be markedly different from those of men and an ignorance of the life experiences of women, in terms of threat and fear in the public space. This blurring, or denial of difference of experience and of offender profiles, is never adequately challenged.
The neutrality of law is largely a fiction, you see, because the law is too neutral and doesn’t take into account how women have it different from men. Puzzle that one out!
> Adding ‘sex’ to the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 would not create law for women, as women, reinforced by international human rights frameworks which are clear that there should be a presumption against gender-neutral laws (CEDAW, Istanbul).
Well, if it’s alright for Istanbul, it must be fine and dandy for Scotland. Bring on the international human rights frameworks!
Just for clarity, is this article saying there’s a lot of misogyny in general, or compared to some kind of benchmark?
6 comments
> “We [the expert panel] were shocked, and I say that as someone who is a pretty dyed-in-the-wool criminal lawyer who thought that she had heard it all.
After what we are hearing recently from how bad it is in Westminster this has to be an ‘ouch, ouch, ouch’ revelation for Scottish men.
Ay right hen, nae need to get yer knickers in a twist
Has Baroness Kennedy never been to a Rangers game then?
I’ve been saying it’s got worse for a while now, but mostly I get told I’m wrong and there’s either nothing wrong or “the problem is men are too soft”. Oh and the messages from women saying “at least one guy gets it”.
There is a big issue with redpill/incel/mgtow shit and just general shitty misogynist behaviour. It’s only going to stop when guys call their mates out for being inappropriate. If you see anyone acting inappropriately (it doesn’t have to be extreme, just uncomfortable) then call them out.
I saw someone in the UK sub the other day tell me how they knew all about respecting women, but they still couldn’t work out why I said it was problematic of them to comment “she’s too ugly for her to arouse anyone” when talking about Angela Rayner. I said that type of comment isn’t needed, but apparently it’s not demeaning to women to talk about them that way.
There’s people who don’t think they’re a problem but are. Plenty of them will downvote me here or say some sort of nonsense about how there’s no misogyny in Scotland, but there is. Sure other countries may be worse, but the fact remains too many guys do not respect women, or think they do but don’t.
It’s up to those of us who know better to get this sorted. It’s a very deeply ingrained thing within society, we all know one guy who sees all women as targets, we’ve all known someone who was inappropriate towards women.
Fuck, any guys who don’t believe me, ask a girl you know if they’ve ever had any sexual harassment. Most of them will say yes, that’s how normalised this shit is.
Anyways, yeah, we need to do something about misogyny in society and the people in the best position to fix it are guys and the first step is admitting that some of us are problematic and need to change.
Edit: knew the misogynist “joke” answer would be upvoted and the cold hard truth would be rejected. State of this country is dire
Some thoughts on [the report](https://www.gov.scot/publications/misogyny-human-rights-issue/pages/1/):
> I was also asked to consider the option of creating a separate, stand-alone offence based on misogyny. This idea was finding favour with many women in Scotland and elsewhere, because hate crime legislation is principally designed to protect minorities, and women are not a minority.
Bizarre. Presumably men are to be treated as a minority? Or are they saying it’s close enough as makes no difference, and trying to get a (literal) privilege for women this way?
> Treating as equal those who are not yet equal only furthers inequality
Ah, that settles it then.
> Misogyny is prejudice, malice and/or contempt for women. Sadly, it is rife in our society. Literalists cling to the word’s origins and insist that misogyny means hatred of women, but it means more than that.
Quite, it apparently also means ‘prejudice, for women’. Anyone would have thought that it meant prejudice *against* women, but the learned QC Kennedy knows better; it’s unsurprising, then, that she has a short way with ‘literalists’.
> We take the view that antagonism towards ‘kinds’ of women ultimately denies the humanity of women as a whole, and therefore follows the pattern of other hate crimes.
How convenient; that would make it a misogynistic hate crime to be antagonistic towards QCs who fill official reports with poorly-written tripe. But wait! The report goes on to wax lyrical about the beauty and necessity of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Conscience and how neither hatred nor even misogyny are, or ought to be, crimes per se, until:
> The ECHR and ICCPR allow public authorities to limit our freedom of expression in certain very specific circumstances where the limitation amounts to a proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim, such as preventing incitement of hatred that is incompatible with a democracy that respects human rights and the dignity of all persons. These limitations can in certain circumstances include criminalising expression that causes harm and where there is a pressing social need to apply the criminal law.
Who is to determine what is proportionate, what aims are legitimate, what is or is not incompatible with such elusive spectres as “dignity” and “democracy”? Who is to divine our “social need”?
> Law has a symbolic purpose. Women should know that there is law that is clearly there for them, for when they experience frightening, humiliating, degrading or abusive behaviour.
Literal patronising.
> Law matters in a society. It tells us who we are, what we value, who has power and who hasn’t.
No kidding.
> Unfortunately, many potentially protective laws are hidden away in myriad pieces of legislation
Perhaps you should pass fewer laws then, not more.
> Misogyny is hard to define. And like many abstract concepts, whilst it may be difficult to define, many people feel they ‘know it when they see it’ (or hear it, or feel it). The classical definition of misogyny (from Greek misos ‘hatred’ + gunē ‘woman’) was inadequate for the task of the Working Group.
It can’t be that hard to define: you just did so. But apparently that definition was “inadequate” (note: not ‘inaccurate’). Perhaps you should have sought for another word instead of seeing what else you could tack on to this one?
> The Working Group’s view, ultimately, was that the idea of the neutrality of law is largely a fiction. When law is created which is designed to protect men as well as women, it usually creates a blur around the ways in which women’s lives can be markedly different from those of men and an ignorance of the life experiences of women, in terms of threat and fear in the public space. This blurring, or denial of difference of experience and of offender profiles, is never adequately challenged.
The neutrality of law is largely a fiction, you see, because the law is too neutral and doesn’t take into account how women have it different from men. Puzzle that one out!
> Adding ‘sex’ to the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 would not create law for women, as women, reinforced by international human rights frameworks which are clear that there should be a presumption against gender-neutral laws (CEDAW, Istanbul).
Well, if it’s alright for Istanbul, it must be fine and dandy for Scotland. Bring on the international human rights frameworks!
Just for clarity, is this article saying there’s a lot of misogyny in general, or compared to some kind of benchmark?