Doesn't putting "violence against women" in a separate category defeat the purpose of feminism?

Question

You're essentially saying that women are NOT equal to men and that violence against them is its own category because they're too weak to defend themselves.

Answer 1

This kind of question gets asked over and over again.

Feminism has never claimed that women (as a group) are a gender with equal physical strength to men (in general).

Feminism is about equal respect for women. Its about valuing women equally. Its about equal opportunities for women when those women have equal ability.

Violence against women (abusive husbands/boyfriends and sexual assault) is about hatred of women, specifically. These are crimes of control, hatred, oppression, and violence directed at women because they are women. Men who commit these crimes would never commit the same crime against another man.

Feminism is about respect for women and not having women be oppressed or attacked because of nothing more than their gender. A category of "violence against women" does not conflict with the agenda of feminism.

There are hate crimes against gay/lesbian people, racial minorities, etc. These crimes have their designation because the people are attacked for their orientation or race. Designating that these are "hate crimes" does not imply that these people cannot defend themselves. The designation is about the intent - not whether or not someone can defend himself well or not.

Besides that, though, violence against women is designated as it is because the reality is that men take advantage of their physical size and testosterone. Also, abusive men take advantage of women's compassion, fear for family members, etc.

Feminism has never said women and men are generally of equal physical size and strength. Instead, the idea is that physical size and strength involve only physical size and strength and are not the measure of a person's intelligence, integrity, or character. Feminism was started in order to point out that just because many women are not as big and physically strong as many men are that does not mean that women should not be valued for their intelligence, capabilities, and those ways in which women are often superior to men.

It is about recognizing women for what they are and not seeing them as less than human just because they don't have the Big-Brute physique.

Deserving equal respect and expecting to be valued as equal human beings does not mean blindly believing that there are not differences between the genders and, say, that both genders can give birth for example.

People who believe that a big physical build and more muscles are the measure of a person's worth will, of course, not see women as equal. People who value intelligence, character, integrity, emotional solidness, and any number of other skills see men's physical strength as something that may be handy to have but that is not the measure of a person.

Answer 2

Violence is a poor force in our society. There's an excessive amount of of it in the leisure industry, which desensitizes the public in regards to the damage it does. Violence is violence - whether it is against men or women, it contains terrible consequences. There is whatever flawed in a society that makes it possible for ladies to commit violent acts against guys with out receiving appropriate penalties. These reviews about schools where ladies are permitted to hit boys and the boys are punished if they hit again.... Are appalling. WHAT are these adults considering? You let a youngster get away with assault and they are going to develop as much as think they may be able to proceed to get away with it. If you want a nation of criminals, ok, however I *notion* we were more civilized than that.

Answer 3

Violence is a adverse rigidity in our society. there is too a good number of it interior the entertainment marketplace, which desensitizes the regularly used public with reference to the wear and tear it does. Violence is violence - whether that's against adult adult males or women individuals, it consists of adverse outcomes. there is something incorrect in a society that facilitates women individuals to commit violent acts against adult adult males without receiving perfect outcomes. those thoughts approximately faculties the place females are approved to hit boys and the lads are punished in the event that they hit returned.... are appalling. WHAT are those adults thinking? You enable a new child destroy out with attack and that they're going to strengthen as much as have faith they are in a position to proceed to destroy out with it. in case you desire a rustic of criminals, ok, yet I *concept* we've been greater civilized than that.

Answer 4

Women have had "equal protection" under laws for only a couple of generations. Not until feminism were domestic violent crimes against women treated equally in courts. Because of that, especially in nations where women remain without benefit of equal protection under laws, their condition is considered as a "separate category" and will continue to be for as long as laws treat them "separately".

Answer 5

In a way, it's similar to Hillary Clinton complaining that she's being picked on because she's a woman. If she wants to run for president, she's subject to the same criticism as anyone else. I don't want to hear Romney say that they're picking on him for his religion, Obama for his race, McCain for his age, or Edwards for his hairstyle. Let's strive for equality across the board, that should be the ultimate goal!

To The Mrs., above me,

I really dislike the concept of the "hate crime." If a man of one race assaults a man of another race, why does the emotion of the assaulter potentially worsen the crime?

I've been told that the stiffer sentences associated with hate crimes has reduced the number of hate crimes. Well, wouldn't increasing the sentences for all crimes reduce the number of all crimes? I think so.

Answer 6

I am a feminist and I consider us all equals and I am not too weak to defend myself. But if we live in a society that believes that males have the physical upper-hand in these situations, and males attack males as well as females, it might be the reason why it is categorized as "violence against women" when it pertains to that. If some men specifically attack females, then it makes sense to categorize it as such. Hate crimes can be against specific targets: women, blacks, elderly, homosexuals....Whether these victims fight back or not isn't relevant. What matters is that there are people who specifically target them.

"Hate crime" is a term used when there is strong reason to believe or evidence that the crime was committed where the perpetrator had targeted the victim under such reasons. Not all crimes are hate crimes - it all depends on the circumstances involved. It does not automatically make it worse when a man of one race attacks a man of a different race....In this case, you are combining the question of equality between the sexes and also violence. Not all crimes against women are 'hate crimes' but they are called that when there is substantial reason for that. As a feminist, I believe women are equal to men, but I did not create the term "violence against women" nor do I consider it a weakness. But many other people consider females at a physical disadvantage when they are attacked by males.

Answer 7

Feminism and violence are two separate things.

Answer 8

Yeah, but it goes with the purpose of feminiSTS, to get special treatment over men.

Answer 9

Well it sort of does, but feminists are hypocrites, they want equality where it benefits them and all the special rights and treatment they can get.

Answer 10

Uhhh.... nooooo...
Sociologists & criminologists strive to get to the heart of a problem. It is teased apart, to see what makes it tick.

Is 'violence against children' (child abuse) in the same category as violence perpetrated by Neo Nazi skinheads against blacks in rural Mississippi? What about inner-city gang violence? What about bullying in schools? What about elder abuse? Are these different categories the same? Pretty stupid question: the answer is obviously "no". Each class possesses unique characteristics; each involves a different set of variables: sometimes there is overlap, and sometimes not. Obviously they can't be studied effectively all lumped in together. They need to be teased apart - 'DISSECTED' if you will.

Doesn't putting CARDIOLOGY in a separate category as RHEUMATOLOGY defeat the purpose of medicine?

Obviously NOT. Cardiologists have a different area of specialisation than do rheumatologists. Ditto for the social scientists studying gang violence, and those studying elder abuse.

It wasn't until the 1980's that cases of child abuse and cases of spousal abuse were even PROSECUTED. Until that time, "family violence" was a closely guarded secret. It was a case of 'don't ask, don't tell' and swept under the carpet. After all, one doesn't air one's dirty linen in public, right?