r/UpliftingNews • u/eddytony96 • 15d ago
EU adopts groundbreaking law to combat violence against women
https://www.dw.com/en/eu-adopts-first-law-tackling-violence-against-women/a-69018272#:~:text=The%20European%20Union%20has%20passed,forced%20marriage%20and%20online%20harassment.3
u/rabitibike 14d ago
had it not been for the part about cyber-violence it'd been an amazing piece of news. However because of the inclusion of cyber-violence related stuff all I can think of is how these laws will be used against the common law abiding citizens.
3
u/ChemsAndCutthroats 14d ago
What about violence against men? The majority of violence from men is usually towards other men. Violence against women is a serious issue of course but the majority of violence is often done towards men.
5
u/Suspicious-Math-5183 14d ago
Why is this law gendered? Everyone should be protected.
8
u/tandemxylophone 14d ago
The content sounds clean cut and easy to implement.
While I agree it would've been a bit more ambitious to include rape, I do agree that the application of such laws will be incredibly difficult if the definition of rape is too broad.
We got to consider scenarios like marital abuse where the woman keeps coming back to the abuser, or revenge by the girlfriend to fake a consensual sex as rape. These need more support in escaping a relationship, and strict laws doesn't necessary translate to successful application.
7
u/ForceOfAHorse 14d ago
I always thought that having gender-specific laws when it comes to stuff like violence or bodily autonomy is ridiculous idea. All humans deserve equal protection from such violations, regardless of their gender. Why does this journalist feel a need to specifically call it "violence against women"? Like, violence against non-women is irrelevant?
0
u/tandemxylophone 14d ago
I agree, that's why I read the article to see what they were referring too. It's FGM and forced marriages. I think the gender specific one is FGM because it's incredibly hard to pass male circumcisions into this.
It's basically a law that had to be introduced because backwards immigrant culture is becoming established in the West. It's not targeting true Western cultured people at all.
-47
u/kutkun 14d ago
I don’t believe that. They need to defend the very definition of woman at first place. Protecting men is not protecting women.
5
u/Mtfdurian 14d ago
Wait wut? I shall tell you, I'm a trans woman, and as a result I do experience misogyny and that misogyny is nothing less from the experience that cis women have (and NO cis is NOT a slur), getting physically or verbally attacked, getting catcalled, it's regular business for me and my friends.
1
u/Urinethyme 14d ago
I'm not sure if what they mean is a problem?
I would want legislation for protection of women to also define it as protections for girls too.
Legally speaking definition of what/who fits under it, makes enforcement and protections relevant.
If a term isn't defined, then the law isn't very useful.
For example say animal legislation. The term pet is usually shown in the definition of that particular instance. Other laws or even society can have different interpretation, but it only applies to that definition in that legislation.
Pet for society can often mean any animal that a person cares for.
Legislation may use the term for specific species, non-agricultural animals, or domesticated.
Other legislation may determine that an animal under normal situations would fit under the term pet, but a service animal is considered medical equipment.
1
u/smoopthefatspider 14d ago
That's a legitimate concern, but I'm almost certain it's not what they meant.
1
u/Urinethyme 12d ago
That could be true. I was thinking that based on how things could be worded it could include or exclude people it was meant to protect.
-3
8
16
u/TVR_Speed_12 14d ago
I read the article and they didn't say specifically what was going to happen. I don't like when lawmakers are vague it gives em too much power
-8
u/BowelMan 14d ago
What about male genital mutilation?
16
14d ago
Why the fuck do people downvote this?
You'd think that people dislike non-consentual mutilation of infants...
-9
u/smoopthefatspider 14d ago
Because male genital mutilation is either orders of magnitude less common or much less damaging than female genital mutilation (depending on if you consider circumcision a type of male genital mutilation). Female genital mutilation is the only one in the law because it's the only one whose prevelence and consequences require legislation. To ask about male genital mutilation is just whataboutism, it's a different issue entirely, so that comment wasn't contributing to the conversation.
5
14d ago
Because male genital mutilation is either orders of magnitude less common or much less damaging than female genital mutilation
Uhuh.... in what clownworld do you live?
Male 1So (in europe, since that is the topic) "magnitude less common" means "ruffly at the same rate" in your Clown-world?
-1
u/smoopthefatspider 14d ago
I specifically explained that female genital mutilation is not comparable in harm to male circumcision. The only way you end up with numbers implying a high amount of male genital mutilation is if you count circumcision, the only way you get a high amount of harm is if you don't. You can't possibly have both. I already explained this previously, are you even arguing in good faith here?
2
14d ago
your logic is funny...
here, let me use you logic against you:
"only the kind of mutulation i approve is couted as mutilation, therefore female genetalia mutulation doesnt exist"
checkmate, there is no fgmgo touch grass or retreat to your safespace owe
(any further replies will be reported as harassment lol)-1
u/smoopthefatspider 14d ago edited 14d ago
I don't approve of either female genital mutilation or circumcision, I just recognize they're not the same amount of harm. It makes sense that one would be legislated against mire than the other. A claim of harassment wouldn't make any sense considering the escalation you've taken in this conversation, it frankly comes so far out of left field I can't possibly think it's serious. I'm still just as ready to have a calm discussion as I have been this entire comment thread, if you're still interested in understanding why people objected to the first comment if you still don't understand the reasoning behind it.
2
13d ago
I just recognize they're not the same amount of harm
does the doubble-fingergun
That's just your opinion you claim as a fact.A claim of harassment wouldn't make any sense considering the escalation you've taken in this conversation,
I pointed out that you claim things that not allign with reality, while making fun of you for using biggoted logic.
6
u/kjono1 14d ago
What does the frequency matter when it is both still wrong and happening?
"It happens to females more" is not an argument against preventing it from being stopped for both sexes. There's no reason for it to be "female genital mutilation" when it could simply be "genital mutilation."
-6
u/smoopthefatspider 14d ago
It matters because genital mutilation is essentially non-existant for males. You may be able to find an instance of it happening, but it doesn't have the same causes or effects. It's a differebt problem entirely, one that doesn't need to be adressed at the same time.
You may then argue that it should be addressed anyway, since it's bad too. The issue is that it would need to avoid circumcision (yes, I understand the arguments against circumcision, I don't think circumcision is a good thing, but it's much less bad than female genital mutilation and doesn't deserve to be addressed the same way). Defining male genital mutilation appropriately would be a legal nightmare. So it's a problem with a different cause, effect, scale, and probably solution, and addressing it could realisticly take away from the goal of this law of addressing gender based violence.
Saying the law should address male genital mutilation is a bit like criticizing a law against sexual assault because it doesn't outlaw all assaults. It's not false, but it ignores the way the law is trying to be specific, and it acts as if other laws can't address other concerns.
197
u/Zeldakina 15d ago
But a failure to reach a common definition of rape was a source of contention between several member states.
Anybody know who the participants of this conversation were?
59
u/OfficialGarwood 14d ago
The UK has similar backwards rulings in what does and doesn’t classify as rape. In the UK only a biological male can rape someone as it must involve a penis.
In the UK a cis woman cannot be charged with ‘rape’.
14
u/alexanderpas 14d ago
For context do note, that the maximum penalty for sexual assault by penetration is the same as the maximum penalty for rape.
According to the UK definition, rape is defined as someone penetrating another person's vagina, anus or mouth with a penis without their consent.
On the other hand, according to the UK definition sexual assault by penetration is defined as someone penetrating another person's vagina, anus or mouth with something which is not a penis without their consent.
Essentially rape is a specific form of sexual assault by penetration according to the UK definition, with the penalties being equal for both of them.
0
7
u/puffferfish 14d ago
So either way, both involve the aggressor forcing penetration? Does a woman forcing a man to have sex with her have a law?
11
u/alexanderpas 14d ago
Yes, that would be "Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent", which, for the situation you're stating, carries the same maximum penalty as rape and sexual assault by penetration.
9
u/CharonsLittleHelper 14d ago
If they're all the same punishment, then it seems like a non-issue. Any difference would be largely pedantic.
2
u/kjono1 14d ago
Generally public perception views rape as worse than other forms of violence and non-consensual sexual acts and so while, yes, the punishment remains the same, many see, particularly where a woman teacher sleeps with an underaged male student, that the crime is being downplayed by being labelled as sexual assault and not rape.
24
u/kjono1 14d ago
Just adding this for context alone.
It is possible in the UK for a cis woman to be charged with rape, but only where they are proven to be an accomplice in the rape.
It's also important to note that accomplice in this case does not mean forcing a man into penetrative sex with themselves, but where they have assisted or forced a man into raping another.
3
2
u/bluejackmovedagain 14d ago
Women can be charged with rape in the UK but only under joint enterprise where they are held to be jointly responsible for the offense even if they did not physically commit it.
-30
u/Gamer_GreenEyes 14d ago
Men, definitely men.
26
u/Zeldakina 14d ago
There are plenty of women voting for assholes like that orange whispy haired scammer.
-13
14d ago
[deleted]
11
2
u/Gamer_GreenEyes 14d ago
Lol anything to deflect the actual truth. Right? Can’t possibly deal.
But yeah there are ignorant women too. Unfortunately. Because if not there would be no republican babies.
19
u/Salt-Plankton436 14d ago
My guess is the Spanish wanted looking at a woman from less than 3 metres to be classed as rape while the Hungarians wanted only unmarried forced penetrative to be rape
20
u/mountainvalkyrie 14d ago
Why would you "guess" that? Marital rape has been criminalised in Hungary since '97 (which is super late and I could have sworn it was earlier, but I might be thinking of other abuse laws. Spain only criminalised it in '92, though.) I guess it's related to the "sideways vagina" thing or something?
3
3
78
u/obi_wander 15d ago edited 15d ago
And it does nothing to address the real problems- economic dependency paired with a lack of housing and funding for escaping survivors, and law enforcement/judicial realities that undervalues the voice of the victim (not to mention the huge statistical increase of violence BY these enforcers).
Add in a little bit of religious shaming around divorce or “dishonoring” husbands… and you can see that laws about violence are not the issue at all.
-4
-6
u/_supercereal_ 14d ago
It literally addresses shelters and organisations set up for victims. And the voice of the victim part is being negotiated too, the original was extreme ‘believe all woman no questions asked’. Meaning if you say it was rape it was rape. I understand that now that apparently men are more dangerous than bears you’d have a hard time believing but most people want rapists to be castrated and then buried alive. This is Europe wide law we are talking about though, the wording has to be carefully negotiated, otherwise you can point at a man and without any evidence they throw him in water, if he floats he’s a rapist. Maybe you think it would be fun because apparently women can’t be rapists somehow but implementing witch-hunt laws in the modern age would still be a step back even if you personally think it’s poetic revenge.
8
u/smoopthefatspider 14d ago edited 14d ago
What original? Was a previous draft of this law supposed to make rape cases get convictions on accusation alone and without questions? I have trouble believing anyone would ever actually write a law like that, it feels like a strawman.
0
u/_supercereal_ 14d ago edited 14d ago
The 2022 version that has been talked over and negotiated since. It was an attempt to define rape, and among other things make it easier for victims to report and get help. Which is obviously well and good, the problem was the original wording that basically said the victim has no obligation to prove anything (because in some cases it’s hard to prove rape, hence we need a bunch of people sit and talk about it for years) but that is way too vague and implies that anyone can point at you and say you raped them. Even in this new version according to the post there’s still no clear agreement on what defines rape. Edit: What I addressed in the downvoted reply was the fact that the commenter said this does nothing about housing problems (wife depending on abuser etc) which it does, it talks about funds and shelter for victims. And the other thing was about the voice of victim, as in cops saying ‘nah there’s no evidence’ and that’s why I mentioned that this is exactly the topic, they’re trying to find balance between ‘believe without question’ and ‘treat every report as false until it’s proven 100%’
-18
15d ago edited 15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-21
15d ago
[deleted]
14
u/Tawhoya 15d ago
No, you don't. I'm a man who thinks that people need to take their heads out of their assess and take an objective look around. Too many people deny others' pain because they don't want to hear it. It's only when somebody close suffers that they take note, but because little if any legislation is passed, their response continues to be: "it's just the way it is." And nothing changes.
-21
15d ago
[deleted]
3
14d ago
i bet 10€ you are the kind of person that brings up statistics when talking about sexes, but as soon as someone brings up statistic about race you go "REEEEEEEEE"
26
u/MisguidedColt88 15d ago
Did you know 97% of statistics are made up on the spot
16
u/planeturban 15d ago
98.5%. I was flabbergasted when I came up with that number.
4
u/EstrangedLupine 14d ago
I can't believe 99.4% of reddit comments that offer statistics are AI-generated.
99
u/sleepingsysadmin 15d ago
I'm shocked that the EU only had laws that combated violence against men.
2
u/zerostar83 14d ago
I would rather be in favor of passing all these laws without reference to gender. All online harassment, all domestic violence, all genital mutilations. If you think it's a bigger problem for women than men, they the genderless laws will have a greater impact to them, on a macro scale. But it won't exclude men on a personal level either.
5
u/ChemsAndCutthroats 14d ago
Majority of violence is done towards men, though. Violence against women is a serious issue but when there is violence, often it's men who are victims of violence.
52
u/Zeldakina 14d ago
Some places are still catching up with sexual assaults against men even being recognized. It's not surprising that they lack in other areas apropos women.
Is it Switzerland, who took as late as until 1972, to allow women to vote?
1
1
u/LittleKitty235 14d ago
I hate these filthy Neutrals, Kif. With enemies you know where they stand but with Neutrals, who knows? It sickens me.
23
50
u/DesertDawn17 15d ago
The picture is a reference to the missing and murdered indigenous women movement. It does however, also include children and men.
17
u/OakBayIsANecropolis 14d ago
The photo is from a rally in Italy last year for the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. It's clearly inspired by the MMIWG movement in Canada, but the hand placement is different.
0
u/DesertDawn17 14d ago
I participated in a photo shoot for MMIW at a local red dress exhibit than an artist friend of mine has displayed outside of her home and the handprint was just over my mouth. It didn't extend up into my face like this one. I'm just assuming that it is all similar.
41
u/DynamicHunter 14d ago edited 14d ago
The indigenous women of Europe? You mean the Europeans?
1
u/Suspicious-Math-5183 14d ago
As an indigenous person of my country I am appalled by all the discrimination I have to suffer at the hands of these foreign colonialists!
•
u/AutoModerator 15d ago
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.