Opinion of the sexism in North Carolina assault/battery statues?

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

In North Carolina, its considered an aggravating factor to assault and battery, and something that specifically results in an increased sentence, if an adult male is the perpetrator and a female of any age is the victim.

[dead0man]

no one* gets upset over the aspects of the patriarchy that are negative towards men



*comedians, men's rights advocates and the tiny fraction of people who actually care about equality (feminists do not care about equality) excepted, but the "serious" people and the sheep voters that follow their leaders don't listen to those people

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Sounds like it would be deemed invalid if challenged under Moritz v. Commissioner.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Good stuff. Lock Him Up!

This. #BanAllMen

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Reason #2320239329 to pass the ERA.

[David Hume]

Great law. We should have it in every state.

[John Dule]

I think it's perfectly fair to hold men to a higher legal standard than women. Men should be rational and chivalrous at all times, shouldering their burdens with stoicism and resolve, which is something you just can't expect from the fairer sex. This is why I'm fine with sex discrimination in the military draft or child custody-- you need to give the ladies a break from responsibility every so often, otherwise they tend to get emotional.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It's fine for the same reason that males don't belong in women's sports.

[Goldwater]

It's fine for the same reason that males don't belong in women's sports.

Using a thread about sexist double standards to promote transphobia? Weird flex but okay.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It's fine for the same reason that males don't belong in women's sports.

Using a thread about sexist double standards to promote transphobia? Weird flex but okay.

It's really too bad that sexually dimorphism is inherently transphobic.

[Goldwater]

It's fine for the same reason that males don't belong in women's sports.

Using a thread about sexist double standards to promote transphobia? Weird flex but okay.

It's really too bad that sexually dimorphism is inherently transphobic.

k

[It’s so Joever]

I think it's perfectly fair to hold men to a higher legal standard than women. Men should be rational and chivalrous at all times, shouldering their burdens with stoicism and resolve, which is something you just can't expect from the fairer sex. This is why I'm fine with sex discrimination in the military draft or child custody-- you need to give the ladies a break from responsibility every so often, otherwise they tend to get emotional.

Is this a s-post, to be honest I’m not even sure with you anymore.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

As someone who has misandrist tendencies, this aggravating factor is bad and wrong. Both because its sexist against men and because its kind of insulting to women.

[Alben Barkley]

Women being victimized by men in these crimes is both more common and typically more severe than any other variant of these crimes. You don't have to be so crazy/cringe as to label yourself a "misandrist" or be a radical feminist to support this statute; cold hard data backs it up. It's the same reason hate crimes exist; I can't even think of an ideologically consistent way of defending them while denouncing this. You either think all crimes should be treated equally regardless of who the perpetrator/victim is, or you accept that sometimes that is a relevant factor, and it certainly is in the case of violence against women at least as much as it is in the case of violence against minorities. Especially because, yes, there ARE meaningful biological differences between men and women that lead to a big qualitative difference between a husband beating his wife within an inch of her life and two drunk guys getting in a bar fight, or a woman slapping her husband.

As always, pretending these differences don't exist doesn't make them go away; it just leads to women getting the short end of the stick in the name of "equality." What happened anyway to the idea of "equity" I've been preached to about for the past 3 years, that equality is in fact NOT good enough, that people who have been historically marginalized need extra advantages? I guess this only applies to black and LGBT people, not women apparently? Despite being half the population instead of a small fraction of it? Despite it taking even longer for them to get basic rights like the right to vote than racial minorities? Despite sexism against women still being at least as prevalent as any other kind of prejudice? And I'm not talking in just America (as bad as it is post-Dobbs), I'm talking about around the world, if not in a majority of the world to this very day.

Help me make sense of it...

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Women being victimized by men in these crimes is both more common and typically more severe than any other variant of these crimes. You don't have to be so crazy/cringe as to label yourself a "misandrist" or be a radical feminist to support this statute; cold hard data backs it up. It's the same reason hate crimes exist; I can't even think of an ideologically consistent way of defending them while denouncing this. You either think all crimes should be treated equally regardless of who the perpetrator/victim is, or you accept that sometimes that is a relevant factor, and it certainly is in the case of violence against women at least as much as it is in the case of violence against minorities. Especially because, yes, there ARE meaningful biological differences between men and women that lead to a big qualitative difference between a husband beating his wife within an inch of her life and two drunk guys getting in a bar fight, or a woman slapping her husband.

As always, pretending these differences don't exist doesn't make them go away; it just leads to women getting the short end of the stick in the name of "equality." What happened anyway to the idea of "equity" I've been preached to about for the past 3 years, that equality is in fact NOT good enough, that people who have been historically marginalized need extra advantages? I guess this only applies to black and LGBT people, not women apparently? Despite being half the population instead of a small fraction of it? Despite it taking even longer for them to get basic rights like the right to vote than racial minorities? Despite sexism against women still being at least as prevalent as any other kind of prejudice? And I'm not talking in just America (as bad as it is post-Dobbs), I'm talking about around the world, if not in a majority of the world to this very day.

Help me make sense of it...

A: Beating another person within an inch of their life is going to garner much harsher punishment in any sane courtroom than slapping someone else.

B. Hate Crimes are based on the motivation of the perpetrator, not on whether the victim is of a protected class. The law doesn't treat a white guy assaulting a black guy for calling him a "whiney b**ch" or whatever worse than a black guy assaulting a white guy for the same reason.

C. I can't really verbalize quite why I feel this way, but the law feels insulting to me. I guess it gives vibes of the same kind of paternalist nonsense(eg acting like sex workers who actually like or at least don't hate their jobs are just brainwashed victims of patriarchy*) and strict gender roles a good chunk of the second wave of feminism was guilty of.

D. There are much bigger barriers to us becoming equal to men than people not acting like a man spitting on a woman is inherently worse than a woman spitting on a man.

*Generally sex work is exploitative in modern society, but that's caused by various stigma's, the sexism in our society, the same things that cause so many other "low-skill" jobs to be exploitative as crap, and other such noninherent s**t)

[Horus]

If you hit someone, you should get in trouble. Gender should not be relevant.

It really is that simple.

[Alcibiades]

It seems completely reasonable that if the perpetrator of an assault is significantly more physically imposing than the victim, then that should be an aggravating factor. Obviously, this is going to be the case in the vast majority of assaults by men on women. Yes, it would be better if the statute was written in the above gender-neutral terms, but the actual result is going to be the same in almost all cases.

[Goldwater]

What happened anyway to the idea of "equity" I've been preached to about for the past 3 years, that equality is in fact NOT good enough, that people who have been historically marginalized need extra advantages?

That idea was always cringe.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

As someone who has misandrist tendencies, this aggravating factor is bad and wrong. Both because its sexist against men and because its kind of insulting to women.

Jokes aside, I agree.

[Donerail]

It seems completely reasonable that if the perpetrator of an assault is significantly more physically imposing than the victim, then that should be an aggravating factor. Obviously, this is going to be the case in the vast majority of assaults by men on women. Yes, it would be better if the statute was written in the above gender-neutral terms, but the actual result is going to be the same in almost all cases.

Given the context in which the vast majority of assaults by men on women occur, I imagine the sentencing enhancement functions in practice as a DV enhancement without requiring the state to also prove all of the other elements of domestic violence (existence of an intimate relationship, members of the same household, etc.) beyond a reasonable doubt.

[RilakkuMAGA]

It's bad to explicitly codify things like race and gender into law, especially when you have neutral methods of reaching the same end.

Prosecutors, judges, and juries should take into account significant physical disparities in these kind of cases, which gender very heavily correlates with.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It seems completely reasonable that if the perpetrator of an assault is significantly more physically imposing than the victim, then that should be an aggravating factor. Obviously, this is going to be the case in the vast majority of assaults by men on women. Yes, it would be better if the statute was written in the above gender-neutral terms, but the actual result is going to be the same in almost all cases.

Given the context in which the vast majority of assaults by men on women occur, I imagine the sentencing enhancement functions in practice as a DV enhancement without requiring the state to also prove all of the other elements of domestic violence (existence of an intimate relationship, members of the same household, etc.) beyond a reasonable doubt.

Wouldn't that be a likely violation of Moritz v. Commissioner and possible violation of due process to get such an enhancement though?

[Donerail]

It seems completely reasonable that if the perpetrator of an assault is significantly more physically imposing than the victim, then that should be an aggravating factor. Obviously, this is going to be the case in the vast majority of assaults by men on women. Yes, it would be better if the statute was written in the above gender-neutral terms, but the actual result is going to be the same in almost all cases.

Given the context in which the vast majority of assaults by men on women occur, I imagine the sentencing enhancement functions in practice as a DV enhancement without requiring the state to also prove all of the other elements of domestic violence (existence of an intimate relationship, members of the same household, etc.) beyond a reasonable doubt.

Wouldn't that be a likely violation of Moritz v. Commissioner and possible violation of due process to get such an enhancement though?

I don't think it's particularly consistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause, but it appears North Carolina courts have consistently upheld it against Equal Protection challenges. The logic is that assaults by men on women are more likely to result in serious injury, and the more serious crime merits a more serious punishment. (Similar logic applies for hate crime laws — an enhanced punishment for a particularly dangerous type of violence.) They distinguished cases like Moritz by saying they were based on social roles, but the distinction here is based on measurable biological differences between the sexes.

[Reactionary Libertarian]

If you hit someone, you should get in trouble. Gender should not be relevant.

It really is that simple.

An able-bodied man hitting a woman is much, much worse than the reverse and should be treated as such. Same for crimes like statutory rape.

[Goldwater]

If you hit someone, you should get in trouble. Gender should not be relevant.

It really is that simple.

An able-bodied man hitting a woman is much, much worse than the reverse and should be treated as such. Same for crimes like statutory rape.

Man, this thread really just brings out the best in people.