If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Laws 'protecting' women from men are misogynistic.
Knight1
Deactivated Posts: 23 Boards Initiate
UK law allows men/women to consent to serious physical injury in boxing matches, but refuses to give women the right to consent to harm when they're in need of physical discipline from their husband.
This is clearly misogynistic as it suggests women are 'oppressed' and incapable of deciding for themselves whether they want to be physically disciplined.
The law should give women the right to decide for themselves, instead of telling women that they don't want to be disciplined which wrongly suggests that it's only the man that holds power in the relationship.
It's also clearly Islamophobic not to allow Muslim women to agree to harm only because their reasons are religious - when they're more than able to agree to a harmful boxing match for entertainment.
This is clearly misogynistic as it suggests women are 'oppressed' and incapable of deciding for themselves whether they want to be physically disciplined.
The law should give women the right to decide for themselves, instead of telling women that they don't want to be disciplined which wrongly suggests that it's only the man that holds power in the relationship.
It's also clearly Islamophobic not to allow Muslim women to agree to harm only because their reasons are religious - when they're more than able to agree to a harmful boxing match for entertainment.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I'm interested in hearing more about your opinion on this!
Edit: To clarify you said women shouldn't be able to vote unless married, and my question still stands, I'm curious to understand your thoughts on this further.
The boxing match comparison is used to illustrate the absurdity of the ‘standard’ that exists for women to be able to consent to harm in some situations (sport) but not others (such as a domestic situatio). If, even under supervision, the risk of injury from boxing is still great, how can consenting to this be reasonable but consenting to a light beating cannot?
The idea that this prevents harmful power dynamics and abuse is a misogynistic ‘justification’ for a rule that removes women of their agency. Why is it a ‘harmful power dynamic’ as opposed to the women submitting as is correct for her to do?
Indeed, what goes on behind closed doors should remain between the man and his wife. What constitutes “in need of physical discipline” is down to the judgment of her husband as it is to his authority that she must submit. (As she has agreed to by marriage).
A good example would be if she leaves home without permission and the husband’s rebuke does not work.
What reconciliation is necessary between this comment, and my comment that women should not be allowed to vote unless they are married? Voting should be restricted to people whose behaviours/lifestyles are conducive to society. We already prevent criminals from voting, for instance, so women who don’t fulfil their civil obligation to marry should not vote either.
In what way?
Voting shouldn't be restricted either. Not every woman wants to be married. Everyone should be allowed to vote
You also say that it's correct for women to submit to this. Would you ever consent to receiving physical discipline from your wife if you left the home without permission?
There's no civil obligation to marry, nor does marrying mean the wife has to submit to the husband. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on marriage in homosexual relationships. Do you think women married to other women should be able to vote for instance? Who submits to the whims of their partner and who decides the punishments to dole out? Who decides this?
Many women who accept the headship of the husband - although this might be quite an alien concept to you Green - absolutely agree that there are circumstances under which they are in need of physical discipline.
Your view that this is 'abuse' is only so because you reject the premise that a woman can believe in and submit to her husband's authority over her. It is not domestic abuse to a woman who agrees this is the proper thing for her husband to do. As the post makes clear, the problem is that the law precludes women from being *able* to consent to certain forms of discipline.
Unfortunately, your comment is filled with racist presuppositions as you've placed yourself into the shoes of a woman of a different culture and concluded, by saying that no woman views this matter differently to yourself, that her non-Western view of relationships is irrational and illegitimate. Your cultural view that this is not healthy is more 'correct' than the view of a woman from a different culture, and so her disagreement with you is not 'evidence' of her oppression.
Edit: Delegitimising ethnic voices is not okay, and minorities should not automatically be held to the standard of *your* culture even if you consider it superior.
I don't agree with physical discipline, different culture or not. Physical discipline is against what I agree with and I am very much allowed to have my opinion here.
I'm not suggesting you are a racist, as this term holds connotations that go beyond the 'beliefs' and 'attitudes' that I think you've expressed in your post.
This does not mean, however, that your views aren't problematic or come from a position of racial/cultural superiority.
Do you agree that the position you expressed delegitimises the view of ethnic minorities? @GreenTea
Your first assumption is correct, although I don't believe this 'expectation' should be extended to include those who do not hold to the same world-view as I do. A different example would be the expectation that an environmentalist demonstrate concerns associated with environmentalism - but these expectations shouldn't exist of someone who isn't an environmentalist. Obviously, I believe everyone *should* hold the same world-view as I do (as the environmentalist would also believe of non-environmentalists) but this should not be achieved through force or coercion in a 'free society'.
I would be interested if you could give further explanation on how expectation negates consent, however. Consent is arguably 'tainted' in the way you suggest it is in almost any situation that requires it - and the 'pressures' that push someone to consent to something they *may* otherwise not can often not be blamed on an individual thing. Peer pressure or any type of social pressure are, for example, powerful forces. The law (and I) agree that pressure/expectation can only (reasonably) be considered problematic when the circumstances influencing someone's 'consent' fall into coercion.
No I wouldn't consent to being disciplined by my wife as I think this is contrary to how the family should be ordered. Although a man who believes that he should indeed be able to be struck by his wife should be free to consent to this in the UK as this country is, again, premised as a 'free society'.
Regarding Voting...
The lack of a civil obligation to marry is detrimental to society and civilisation which is why I believe that those who don't believe it exists should be 'encouraged' to view that it does. This (as mentioned) is the reasoning used to disenfranchise criminals which most people take no issue with.
Apologies for not clarifying this earlier. The vote should only be given to those in a monogamous heterosexual marriage. Although I'm not opposed to those in what the state considers a 'same-sex marriage' receiving the 'spousal rights' that heterosexual couples receive. Such as 'automatic' primacy in medical decisions that concern the other spouse, or 'automatic' rights to their property if they die and so on.
The voting rules, however, should concern what state of affairs is most conducive to society - and same sex 'marriages' don't qualify in this regard.
Finally...
The homosexual couple could decide who 'heads' the relationship according to whatever beliefs they hold; if they don't both follow an 'ideology' (such as a religion) that makes this decision on their behalf.
As much as we encourage open dialogue here, The Mix is more than a political site.
If you came here solely to debate then there are platforms that are suitable for this intention.
Otherwise, feel free to share whatever issues you're going through, if you need advice about something, feel free to ask. if you're unsure about certain things, don't be afraid to ask @TheMix about it!
I'm aware that The Mix is more than a "political site" haha; and I certainly didn't come here only to debate on political issues.
I simply saw the political forum page, and thought I would participate in the 'open dialogue' as this subject area is of interest to me.
As I'm sure you know, whether topics are 'debated' depends on those who are want to do so leaving comments.
--
"I'm interested in hearing more of your opinion about this!"...
What more would you like to know Moon??