Poland to withdraw from Istanbul Convention

[Vassenor]

Ie, if you make it only illegal to rape women and not men, that's ok and allowable under the Istanbul convention, as a special measure necessary to protect women (and only women) from gender based violence.

Discrimination is fine!

Negligence doesn't equal an active endorsement. This Treaty doesn't ban you from creating more laws concerning men's rights, in fact Section 2 Article 2 of the Treaty encourages member states to expand the protections to all victims of domestic violence.

Parties are encouraged to apply this Convention to all victims of domestic violence. Parties shall pay particular attention to women victims of gender-based violence in implementing the provisions of this Convention.

But the convention is supposed to be about saying it's OK for women to beat their husbands. The MRAs are very explicit about this.

[Galloism]

Ie, if you make it only illegal to rape women and not men, that's ok and allowable under the Istanbul convention, as a special measure necessary to protect women (and only women) from gender based violence.

Discrimination is fine!

Negligence doesn't equal an active endorsement. This Treaty doesn't ban you from creating more laws concerning men's rights, in fact Section 2 Article 2 of the Treaty encourages member states to expand the protections to all victims of domestic violence.

Parties are encouraged to apply this Convention to all victims of domestic violence. Parties shall pay particular attention to women victims of gender-based violence in implementing the provisions of this Convention.

I'd like to point out the part you didn't bold for the audience. It directs them to engage in gendered discrimination in efforts to implement the provisions of the convention.

Imagine this:

Parties are encouraged to apply this Convention to all victims of gang violence. Parties shall pay particular attention to white victims of gang violence in implementing the provisions of this Convention.

Sounds pretty terrible doesn't it.

And you know, I hear the negligence excuse a lot. Yet it's negligence in the same direction, the same way, over and over and over again. At some point, you have to recognize either the politicians are not negligent, they're malicious, or they are so stupid they need to be removed from power. Yet no one tries to do either one.

[Galloism]

And specifies it's not discrimination under the convention if they institute special measures to protect women and leave men out in the cold.

Think about a country where marital rape is legal. But they make it illegal, but only against women, to protect against gender based violence against women.

This is an allowable and ok form of gendered discrimination under the Istanbul convention, and not discrimination under the terms of the convention.

BS. Protections for women doesn't equal allowing men to be abused without punishment. Just because the Treaty only covers women's rights doesn't mean that it forbids men's rights legislation from being made.

It's funny you said BS then immediately agreed I was right and the treaty allows this.

Weird.

[Galloism]

Negligence doesn't equal an active endorsement. This Treaty doesn't ban you from creating more laws concerning men's rights, in fact Section 2 Article 2 of the Treaty encourages member states to expand the protections to all victims of domestic violence.

But the convention is supposed to be about saying it's OK for women to beat their husbands. The MRAs are very explicit about this.

You know, if there was a convention about protecting whites from race-based violence, with exactly one token mention of black people at the beginning, I don't think you'd be supportive.

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

Restoring the Tsar. -nod-

Don't quote me on this, but he probably unironically thinks that.

So, really, why waste time responding to him?

Are you referring to me or someone else? I'm confused.

[Gormwood]

Don't quote me on this, but he probably unironically thinks that.

So, really, why waste time responding to him?

Are you referring to me or someone else? I'm confused.

The Panslavic guy.

[Picairn]

I'd like to point out the part you didn't bold for the audience. It directs them to engage in gendered discrimination in efforts to implement the provisions of the convention.

No, it doesn't. Protections for women does not equal allowing men to be abused without punishment. No one, absolutely nobody, is forbidding the member states to pass more laws to fill the gaps on men's rights.

Imagine this:

Parties are encouraged to apply this Convention to all victims of gang violence. Parties shall pay particular attention to white victims of gang violence in implementing the provisions of this Convention.

Sounds pretty terrible doesn't it.

If white victims are disproportionately affected by gang violence, then it's a good thing that the priority is being given first to white people. I have no qualms with the Treaty if black people are also given the first priority in protections against police brutality, since it disproportionately affects them. Then I'll expand those protections to all white, Asian, Hispanic, etc. people, because the Treaty doesn't ban me, in fact, it encourages me to do so.

In fact, your whole argument reminds me of this:

And you know, I hear the negligence excuse a lot. Yet it's negligence in the same direction, the same way, over and over and over again. At some point, you have to recognize either the politicians are not negligent, they're malicious, or they are so stupid they need to be removed from power. Yet no one tries to do either one.

Your gripes with politicians doesn't remove the fact that no one is stopping these member nations from making up their own laws addressing men's rights.

[Picairn]

It's funny you said BS then immediately agreed I was right and the treaty allows this.

Weird.

Upgrade your reading comprehension, then re-read what I said.

[Vassenor]

I'd like to point out the part you didn't bold for the audience. It directs them to engage in gendered discrimination in efforts to implement the provisions of the convention.

No, it doesn't. Protections for women does not equal allowing men to be abused without punishment. No one, absolutely nobody, is forbidding the member states to pass more laws to fill the gaps on men's rights.

Imagine this:



Sounds pretty terrible doesn't it.

If white victims are disproportionately affected by gang violence, then it's a good thing that the priority is being given first to white people. I have no qualms with the Treaty if black people are also given the first priority in protections against police brutality, since it disproportionately affects them. Then I'll expand those protections to all white, Asian, Hispanic, etc. people, because the Treaty doesn't ban me, in fact, it encourages me to do so.

In fact, your whole argument reminds me of this:

And you know, I hear the negligence excuse a lot. Yet it's negligence in the same direction, the same way, over and over and over again. At some point, you have to recognize either the politicians are not negligent, they're malicious, or they are so stupid they need to be removed from power. Yet no one tries to do either one.

Your gripes with politicians doesn't remove the fact that no one is stopping these member nations from making up their own laws addressing men's rights.

If anything, -this- interpretation is the one that's going all WHITE LIVES MATTER about the convention. Since you're trying to claim that, like how Black Lives Matter doesn't include white lives in the name it must be discriminating against them, since this convention doesn't say "and men too" on every clause it must therefore be discriminating against men.

[Galloism]

I'd like to point out the part you didn't bold for the audience. It directs them to engage in gendered discrimination in efforts to implement the provisions of the convention.

No, it doesn't. Protections for women does not equal allowing men to be abused without punishment. No one, absolutely nobody, is forbidding the member states to pass more laws to fill the gaps on men's rights.

Imagine this:



Sounds pretty terrible doesn't it.

If white victims are disproportionately affected by gang violence, then it's a good thing that the priority is being given first to white people. I have no qualms with the Treaty if black people are also given the first priority in protections against police brutality, since it disproportionately affects them. Then I'll expand those protections to all white, Asian, Hispanic, etc. people, because the Treaty doesn't ban me, in fact, it encourages me to do so.

In fact, your whole argument reminds me of this:

Notably, if one is gender consistent on the usage of gender based violence, men do receive the majority of gender based violence. But we focus on the people suffering the least violence as needing more protection from violence.

Istanbul is a "white lives matter" treaty. I'm saying that yelling "white lives matter" is racist for the same reason "violence against women" is sexist - you're selecting those who are already more likely to be protected from violence as needing more protection from violence.

I'm saying "black lives matter", while you're saying "this convention is about white lives, nothing stops you from focusing on black lives, but we need a treaty about white lives".

And you know, I hear the negligence excuse a lot. Yet it's negligence in the same direction, the same way, over and over and over again. At some point, you have to recognize either the politicians are not negligent, they're malicious, or they are so stupid they need to be removed from power. Yet no one tries to do either one.

Your gripes with politicians doesn't remove the fact that no one is stopping these member nations from making up their own laws addressing men's rights.

Right. But then they tell the politicians of those nations that discrimination is not only ok, but they should give extra attention to the privileged class.

[Gormwood]

No, it doesn't. Protections for women does not equal allowing men to be abused without punishment. No one, absolutely nobody, is forbidding the member states to pass more laws to fill the gaps on men's rights.


If white victims are disproportionately affected by gang violence, then it's a good thing that the priority is being given first to white people. I have no qualms with the Treaty if black people are also given the first priority in protections against police brutality, since it disproportionately affects them. Then I'll expand those protections to all white, Asian, Hispanic, etc. people, because the Treaty doesn't ban me, in fact, it encourages me to do so.

In fact, your whole argument reminds me of this:

Your gripes with politicians doesn't remove the fact that no one is stopping these member nations from making up their own laws addressing men's rights.

If anything, -this- interpretation is the one that's going all WHITE LIVES MATTER about the convention. Since you're trying to claim that, like how Black Lives Matter doesn't include white lives in the name it must be discriminating against them, since this convention doesn't say "and men too" on every clause it must therefore be discriminating against men.

Pretty much. An attitude of entitlement that men MUST have their pet issues addressed in every convention regardless of how narrow the subject actually is.

[Galloism]

It's funny you said BS then immediately agreed I was right and the treaty allows this.

Weird.

Upgrade your reading comprehension, then re-read what I said.

Here's what I said:

And specifies it's not discrimination under the convention if they institute special measures to protect women and leave men out in the cold.

Think about a country where marital rape is legal. But they make it illegal, but only against women, to protect against gender based violence against women.

This is an allowable and ok form of gendered discrimination under the Istanbul convention, and not discrimination under the terms of the convention.

Here's what you said:

BS.

BS = Bullshit, and is a colloquial expression to say the above isn't true. If the above isn't true, then this would be true:

And specifies it is discrimination under the convention if they institute special measures to protect women and leave men out in the cold.

Think about a country where marital rape is legal. But they make it illegal, but only against women, to protect against gender based violence against women.

This is not allowable and a form of gendered discrimination under the Istanbul convention, and it is discrimination under the terms of the convention.

So your BS, calling my statement false, is asserting the above. Then you said:



Which doesn't cite the convention as a source for this, or provide any basis. Just that it "doesn't mean that".

THen you followed up with:

Therefore agreeing with the ORIGINAL statement, the one you called BS, that this is an allowable form of discrimination under the convention, but the countries who signed it COULD be nondiscriminatory, unrelated to the convention, if they so chose to be.

Which, again, agrees with my original statement, that the convention doesn't disallow this - in fact it's explicitly allowed under the convention for countries to have such extreme gendered discrimination - so long as it favors women.

[Ostroeuropa]

And specifies it's not discrimination under the convention if they institute special measures to protect women and leave men out in the cold.

Think about a country where marital rape is legal. But they make it illegal, but only against women, to protect against gender based violence against women.

This is an allowable and ok form of gendered discrimination under the Istanbul convention, and not discrimination under the terms of the convention.

So what's actually stopping signatories from creating identical measures to help men?

What was stopping individual US states from voluntarily giving votes to women and black people?

Are you suggesting a constitution that mandates votes for all white men but is silent on other groups isn't discrimination? Is that seriously how far down this denial of misandry rabbit hole you're prepared to go?

[Picairn]

Notably, if one is gender consistent on the usage of gender based violence, men do receive the majority of gender based violence. But we focus on the people suffering the least violence as needing more protection from violence.

Istanbul is a "white lives matter" treaty. I'm saying that yelling "white lives matter" is racist for the same reason "violence against women" is sexist - you're selecting those who are already more likely to be protected from violence as needing more protection from violence.

I'm saying "black lives matter", while you're saying "this convention is about white lives, nothing stops you from focusing on black lives, but we need a treaty about white lives".

Your premise about "men do receive the majority of gender based violence" is entirely wrong when we consult statistics. Yes, women are more affected than men in domestic violence. So the rest of your analogy is wrong, it should be flipped.

Right. But then they tell the politicians of those nations that discrimination is not only ok, but they should give extra attention to the privileged class.

No, none of the articles said that, only your convoluted mis-interpretation can cook up such an inane scenario.

[Galloism]

No, it doesn't. Protections for women does not equal allowing men to be abused without punishment. No one, absolutely nobody, is forbidding the member states to pass more laws to fill the gaps on men's rights.


If white victims are disproportionately affected by gang violence, then it's a good thing that the priority is being given first to white people. I have no qualms with the Treaty if black people are also given the first priority in protections against police brutality, since it disproportionately affects them. Then I'll expand those protections to all white, Asian, Hispanic, etc. people, because the Treaty doesn't ban me, in fact, it encourages me to do so.

In fact, your whole argument reminds me of this:

Your gripes with politicians doesn't remove the fact that no one is stopping these member nations from making up their own laws addressing men's rights.

If anything, -this- interpretation is the one that's going all WHITE LIVES MATTER about the convention. Since you're trying to claim that, like how Black Lives Matter doesn't include white lives in the name it must be discriminating against them, since this convention doesn't say "and men too" on every clause it must therefore be discriminating against men.

If this was a black lives matter type convention, it would be the "Istanbul Convention on Violence Against Men", and have some token references about women, instead of the reverse, given men suffer the vast majority of all violence due to gender, and both men and women predominantly target men as victims of violence.

This isn't an all lives matter treaty. It's a white lives matter treaty, and I'm saying that's wrong.

[Ostroeuropa]

Notably, if one is gender consistent on the usage of gender based violence, men do receive the majority of gender based violence. But we focus on the people suffering the least violence as needing more protection from violence.

Istanbul is a "white lives matter" treaty. I'm saying that yelling "white lives matter" is racist for the same reason "violence against women" is sexist - you're selecting those who are already more likely to be protected from violence as needing more protection from violence.

I'm saying "black lives matter", while you're saying "this convention is about white lives, nothing stops you from focusing on black lives, but we need a treaty about white lives".

Your premise about "men do receive the majority of gender based violence" is entirely wrong when we consult statistics. Yes, women are more affected than men in domestic violence. So the rest of your analogy is wrong, it should be flipped.

Right. But then they tell the politicians of those nations that discrimination is not only ok, but they should give extra attention to the privileged class.

No, none of the articles said that, only your convoluted mis-interpretation can cook up such an inane scenario.

That depends entirely on how you decide what constitutes gender based violence.

Why did we need a federal ammendment to make sure women and minorities got the vote again? Nothing was stopped the states passing their own laws on the topic. Nothing racist and sexist about "White men must have the vote" clauses for federal law, right?

Only an insane and convoluted interpetation could think otherwise, right?

[Galloism]

Notably, if one is gender consistent on the usage of gender based violence, men do receive the majority of gender based violence. But we focus on the people suffering the least violence as needing more protection from violence.

Istanbul is a "white lives matter" treaty. I'm saying that yelling "white lives matter" is racist for the same reason "violence against women" is sexist - you're selecting those who are already more likely to be protected from violence as needing more protection from violence.

I'm saying "black lives matter", while you're saying "this convention is about white lives, nothing stops you from focusing on black lives, but we need a treaty about white lives".

Your premise about "men do receive the majority of gender based violence" is entirely wrong when we consult statistics. Yes, women are more affected than men in domestic violence. So the rest of your analogy is wrong, it should be flipped.

Yeah, so probably not - we just don't prosecute women's domestic violence as much. There are over 100 studies at this point that demonstrate symmetry in domestic violence, and a couple that report extreme asymmetry in prosecution.

It's sort how like white on black crime isn't punished as much or as harshly as black on white crime.

In fact, there's been a concerted campaign to suppress this -

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _Treatment

Men and women suffer domestic violence at about the same rate, rape at about the same rate, and all other forms of violence at much higher rates. They are repeatedly targeted for violence based on their gender, and beaten and abused in situations where women would not be, which is gender based violence.

Far far greater violence than women suffer.

Right. But then they tell the politicians of those nations that discrimination is not only ok, but they should give extra attention to the privileged class.

No, none of the articles said that, only your convoluted mis-interpretation can cook up such an inane scenario.

You just quoted a part to give "special attention" to women, who are the privileged class.

[Picairn]

-snip-

Tf is this mental gymnastics? Section 2, Article 2 of the Treaty explicitly encourages member states to expand the laws to all victims of domestic violence. And none of the articles say men can be discriminated against to protect women, that's nonsensical mis-interpretation.

[Ostroeuropa]

-snip-

Tf is this mental gymnastics? Section 2, Article 2 of the Treaty explicitly encourages member states to expand the laws to all victims of domestic violence. And none of the articles say men can be discriminated against to protect women, that's nonsensical mis-interpretation.

That isn't a misinterpretation, that is quite literally what the treaty provides exemption for.

[Picairn]

That isn't a misinterpretation, that is quite literally what the treaty provides exemption for.

As I have repeatedly said, Section 2 Article 2 explicitly encourages member states to expand protections to other victims, including men. And protections for women doesn't equal discrimination against men. That's a black and white fallacy.

[Galloism]

-snip-

Tf is this mental gymnastics? Section 2, Article 2 of the Treaty explicitly encourages member states to expand the laws to all victims of domestic violence. And none of the articles say men can be discriminated against to protect women, that's nonsensical mis-interpretation.

Um, what about the part that says explicitly, verbatim that I quoted, that special treatment of women is not discrimination?

What do you think special treatment of women IS?

[Galloism]

That isn't a misinterpretation, that is quite literally what the treaty provides exemption for.

As I have repeatedly said, Section 2 Article 2 explicitly encourages member states to expand protections to other victims, including men. And protections for women doesn't equal discrimination against men. That's a black and white fallacy.

Please define a legal protection that is ONLY for women that does not discriminate against men. I'd like an example.

[Picairn]

Please define a legal protection that is ONLY for women that does not discriminate against men. I'd like an example.

Prosecution of male abusers is not discrimination towards men in general.

[Galloism]

Please define a legal protection that is ONLY for women that does not discriminate against men. I'd like an example.

Prosecution of male abusers is not discrimination towards men in general.

Is prosecution of ONLY male abusers discrimination?

Keep in mind, we're talking about legal discrimination being not discrimination if it's a protection of women. So would make only male perpetrated abuse illegal (that's the type of thing the convention is referring to) not discrimination against men?

[Picairn]

Um, what about the part that says explicitly, verbatim that I quoted, that special treatment of women is not discrimination?

What do you think special treatment of women IS?

Because women are disproportionate victims of domestic violence, and thus need to be given first priority in protections. No one is banning member states from addressing men's rights. Do I need to pull up that picture about all lives matter again for you?