Quote:
Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I thought his point (and what RT was getting at) was: if women aren't protected by hate-crime laws, despite the fact that women historically have been terribly abused and discriminated against and presently are criminally preyed upon frequently due to their status as women, then it becomes obvious that hate-crime laws are written, not to protect those segments of the population that are victimized and discriminated against because of their status, but instead to protect only certain favored groups that are selected based on some criteria other than the fact that they are routinely (and/or historically) targeted because of their membership in the group.
Or: including women highlights the inherent problems with hate-crime laws, but excluding them eviscerates the supposed justification for having the laws at all.
|
I recognize the issue you are talking about. But the statutes have drawn a distinction, I believe, for a slightly different reason -- and not because blacks and gays are "favored groups" as compared to women. While there are many crimes that are committed against women either because they are women (rape), or because women are generally more vulnerable (domestic violence), the group of "women" occupies a different place than groups like "blacks", "Jews", "gays." Put differently, there is not the same history of crimes that are directed against women with the intent of striking fear into all women in a given community. There is some history of it, but there's a basis for the conclusion that it's not the same.
