Femicide is a type of murder. You seem to just be playing word games. Culpability is important for justice. Different types are murder are treated differently…it’s not a complicated concept.
I don’t even know what you’re trying to argue at the end. There are a lot of important “pillars” when you’re dealing with real world issues. You don’t just focus on one/your preferred pillar or attack the other pillars…you work together to build more and buttress what you have.
There’s nothing interesting to me in this comment. You seem more concerned with semantics and self-assurance than engaging with the issue.
I said what I mean and I have nothing more to add.
Are you the layer for this commenter? “I know you are but what am I” doesn’t interest me, as a rhetorical tactic. Speak for yourself.
Yes, the law is discriminatory. Men and women are different, and we should discriminate between them in terms of culpability for murder - when appropriate. In this instance it’s appropriate because there’s an outsized number of women being targeted for their gender.
No, removing gender from a law designed to address a gender issue would discriminate against the gender it’s trying to protect. I’m guessing you were trying to say does it discriminate against men: no, it doesn’t.
No, thank you. I’m not interested in some random chart with no sourcing.
The first word in PPP is “purchasing”. It should be self-evident.
My comment wasn’t intended to be zero sum. Both countries have elements of socialism and capitalism…but one certainly “leans” more in the capitalist direction.
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 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.
PPP also isn’t an appropriate measure because it partially assumes capitlaism.
it’s an appropriate measure.
You can’t compare a large country with low population density to a small one with high density, for example.
No, not “all measures”…by your words - you appear to be making an American exceptionalism argument. Canada is in the top 10, the USA isn’t. I agree that China isn’t.
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.
No it would not be “easier” to pass laws against categories that functionally dot exist, for example.
I said above that, in perfect world, all manners of culpability would be handled differently - but that’s not realistic. What’s realistic is passing a law against something that happens frequently.
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.
Femicide also has a “purpose and effect”, because you’re proving a different crime.
I think you have a limited understanding of the law and the world.
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.
It doesn’t necessarily increase or decrease the sentence.
Are you asking why genders are different, and why violence isn’t equal? That’s a very deep topic the law is attempting to partially address.
Appropriate culpability and awareness. The law is designed to both serve as a mechanism for appropriate justice, as well as a way to highlight and ongoing problem in Italian culture.
“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.
At no point does this law say femicide is more or less important than other murder.
You didn’t understand the link you posted to me correctly and I’d expect you’d misunderstand anything I pasted to you as well.
Nowhere in that quote does it mention the gender or orientation of the perpetrator. You seem to fundamentally project your own biases.
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.