• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

"Assault on a female": North Carolina's discriminatory law

Metaphor

Banned
Banned
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
12,378
North Carolina has an apparently Constitutional law called Assault on a Female. Only males can be perpetrators of this crime and only females can be victims:
https://www.arnoldsmithlaw.com/assault-on-a-female.html

Assault on a Female is a Class A1 misdemeanor punishable by a maximum sentence of 150 days in jail. This is an extremely common charge that can arise in the area of domestic households, as often times verbal arguments between people in a dating or marital relationship can lead to physical confrontations. For men, this is especially problematic, due to the extra protection our laws afford females as it pertains to being the victim of an assault. To meet the elements of Assault on a Female, an adult male (over the age of eighteen) must commit an assault or battery on a female. Click the following links to learn more about what constitutes an assault or a battery.

Many people find themselves asking how a statute such as this one can pass constitutional muster, given that it punishes males more severely than females for the exact same conduct. For example, a female who assaults a female can only be found guilty of a simple assault (a Class 1 misdemeanor punishable by a maximum sentence of 120 days in jail), whereas a male who does the exact same thing is subject to a harsher punishment and a higher class charge. However, the North Carolina Court of Appeals, in the case of State v. Gurganus, 39 N.C. App. 395, 250 S.E.2d 668 (1979), found it was constitutional, and since then Courts in North Carolina have repeatedly upheld it under the legal doctrine of stare decisis (that where a Court has determined a point of law, later Courts generally follow in their footsteps and come to the same result).

This doesn't appear to have any commentary I can find online, except from law firms.

Leaving aside the constitutionality question, does this offend anybody else's sense of 'equal protection before the law'?
 
Lots of things about North Carolina offend me, to a degree that we crossed it off our list of possible retirement destinations. None of them are as easily fixed as this law.
 
Lots of things about North Carolina offend me, to a degree that we crossed it off our list of possible retirement destinations. None of them are as easily fixed as this law.

I wonder how Metaphor fails to see this as a result of patronizing/patriarchal behavior? It treats women as less than/weaker/subordinate. Just as I would expect to see in the Carolinas. This isn't an argument I would expect from feminism, and if it came from that camp, they need to get themselves right, but my guess is that this was written by old white men.
 
Lots of things about North Carolina offend me, to a degree that we crossed it off our list of possible retirement destinations. None of them are as easily fixed as this law.

I wonder how Metaphor fails to see this as a result of patronizing/patriarchal behavior? It treats women as less than/weaker/subordinate. Just as I would expect to see in the Carolinas. This isn't an argument I would expect from feminism, and if it came from that camp, they need to get themselves right, but my guess is that this was written by old white men.

I have no doubt it went right over Metaphor’s head.
 
Lots of things about North Carolina offend me, to a degree that we crossed it off our list of possible retirement destinations. None of them are as easily fixed as this law.

I wonder how Metaphor fails to see this as a result of patronizing/patriarchal behavior? It treats women as less than/weaker/subordinate. Just as I would expect to see in the Carolinas. This isn't an argument I would expect from feminism, and if it came from that camp, they need to get themselves right, but my guess is that this was written by old white men.

I have no doubt it went right over Metaphor’s head.

On the contrary; it smacks of traditional conservatism that treats women as vulnerable and in need of protection, and the men who violate a woman deserve especial rebuke. Of course, feminists have now come to the exact same conclusion as tradcons, it just took them a few decades.
 
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

I think the courts got it wrong in upholding this law. It clearly doesn't follow Amendment 14, Section 1 as quoted above.
 
I wonder how Metaphor fails to see this as a result of patronizing/patriarchal behavior?

I wonder how Jarhyn came to the conclusion that I didn't see this as patronising.
Perhaps because there is no hint of it in your OP?

Mostly because I have him on ignore, actually: I didn't SEE the OP per se.

I came to the conclusion on the basis that literally every thread Metaphor posts is an effort to point to some crazy feminist/egalitarian/"woke folks" and claim their insanity impugns others.

It is so shocking to think Metaphor would criticize the shit feminism criticises, largely because I have never before seen him do it.

If metaphor agrees that destroying laws like this, as a goal of feminism (as a feminist I personally want to see this law fall!) Then maybe there is hope for him, yet!
 
I wonder how Metaphor fails to see this as a result of patronizing/patriarchal behavior?

I wonder how Jarhyn came to the conclusion that I didn't see this as patronising.
Perhaps because there is no hint of it in your OP?

I did not give any reasons in my OP for what I thought the reasoning or attitude behind the law was. To go from that to "Metaphor does not think the reason is x" is wholly unjustified.
 
Lots of things about North Carolina offend me, to a degree that we crossed it off our list of possible retirement destinations. None of them are as easily fixed as this law.

I wonder how Metaphor fails to see this as a result of patronizing/patriarchal behavior? It treats women as less than/weaker/subordinate. Just as I would expect to see in the Carolinas. This isn't an argument I would expect from feminism, and if it came from that camp, they need to get themselves right, but my guess is that this was written by old white men.

Exactly. This is about females being weak.

That being said, I can't see it passing constitutional muster.
 
Lots of things about North Carolina offend me, to a degree that we crossed it off our list of possible retirement destinations. None of them are as easily fixed as this law.

I wonder how Metaphor fails to see this as a result of patronizing/patriarchal behavior? It treats women as less than/weaker/subordinate. Just as I would expect to see in the Carolinas. This isn't an argument I would expect from feminism, and if it came from that camp, they need to get themselves right, but my guess is that this was written by old white men.

Exactly. This is about females being weak.

That being said, I can't see it passing constitutional muster.

It was tested and ruled constitutional in 1979 by the NC Court of Appeals. Perhaps a case needs to go to the Supreme Court.
 
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

I think the courts got it wrong in upholding this law. It clearly doesn't follow Amendment 14, Section 1 as quoted above.
That's from the federal constitution. The appellate court was a North Carolina court; its job was to rule on whether the law violated the North Carolina constitution. Out on a limb here -- I'm guessing there's probably no equal protection clause in the North Carolina constitution. If somebody wants this overturned he'll need to challenge it in federal court.
 
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

I think the courts got it wrong in upholding this law. It clearly doesn't follow Amendment 14, Section 1 as quoted above.
That's from the federal constitution. The appellate court was a North Carolina court; its job was to rule on whether the law violated the North Carolina constitution. Out on a limb here -- I'm guessing there's probably no equal protection clause in the North Carolina constitution. If somebody wants this overturned he'll need to challenge it in federal court.

Indeed. And I hope it goes that far and gets overturned, as pretty much every feminist here will likewise agree (if they post in the thread at all). Though I'll leave it up to them whether to actually agree or not.
 
Perhaps because there is no hint of it in your OP?

Mostly because I have him on ignore, actually: I didn't SEE the OP per se.

I came to the conclusion on the basis that literally every thread Metaphor posts is an effort to point to some crazy feminist/egalitarian/"woke folks" and claim their insanity impugns others.

It is so shocking to think Metaphor would criticize [what] feminism criticises, largely because I have never before seen him do it.
Mostly because you have him on ignore.

It was obvious to me what the OP's point was. But then, much like Christians, left-wingers as a rule stink at figuring out the motivations of non-left-wingers.
 
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

I think the courts got it wrong in upholding this law. It clearly doesn't follow Amendment 14, Section 1 as quoted above.
That's from the federal constitution. The appellate court was a North Carolina court; its job was to rule on whether the law violated the North Carolina constitution. Out on a limb here -- I'm guessing there's probably no equal protection clause in the North Carolina constitution. If somebody wants this overturned he'll need to challenge it in federal court.

The states aren't allowed to deny rights granted at the federal level either.
 
Perhaps because there is no hint of it in your OP?

Mostly because I have him on ignore, actually: I didn't SEE the OP per se.

I came to the conclusion on the basis that literally every thread Metaphor posts is an effort to point to some crazy feminist/egalitarian/"woke folks" and claim their insanity impugns others.

It is so shocking to think Metaphor would criticize [what] feminism criticises, largely because I have never before seen him do it.
Mostly because you have him on ignore.

It was obvious to me what the OP's point was. But then, much like Christians, left-wingers as a rule stink at figuring out the motivations of non-left-wingers.

Sorry, "obvious to me" from yet another right whinger isn't a meaningful defense, for the group for whom bad faith apologia dominates.

It's an object in a long series of patterned events that create a trend. Claiming after the fact rather than merely encoding the information in a manner that can reasonably be expected to a correct interpretation (here, necessarily, that means just stating explicitly), is at issue here.

All metaphor had to say is "this law patronizes and degrades women, and so what do the feminists here think about it?" And then they would get responses like "yes, this is a bad law", from the feminists. For the record they still got that, but the responses lacked, owing to the lack of explicit recognition of deleterious patriarchy, any positive light to cast upon the poster who made it.
 
Lots of things about North Carolina offend me, to a degree that we crossed it off our list of possible retirement destinations. None of them are as easily fixed as this law.

I wonder how Metaphor fails to see this as a result of patronizing/patriarchal behavior? It treats women as less than/weaker/subordinate. Just as I would expect to see in the Carolinas. This isn't an argument I would expect from feminism, and if it came from that camp, they need to get themselves right, but my guess is that this was written by old white men.

Why do you assume that Metaphor doesn't understand that this is a patronizing, traditionalist statute?
 
Jarhyn said:
Sorry, "obvious to me" from yet another right whinger isn't a meaningful defense, for the group for whom bad faith apologia dominates.

But B20 is not a right winger. He is usually accused of being such by left wingers of course. But that does not make it true, and reading his posts shows that it is false.

By the way, I too am often accused of being a right winger by left wingers who read my views, and similarly of being a left winger by right wingers who read my views; wingers usually are like that: they usually see everyone who disagrees with some of the central tenets of the dogma of their ideology as members of the other wing.

Also, there is no bad faith in his posts.

The fact that you do not realize any of the above does not mean it's not obvious to people who are looking at the matter in a proper manner, in particular not from an ideological point of view.
 
Lots of things about North Carolina offend me, to a degree that we crossed it off our list of possible retirement destinations. None of them are as easily fixed as this law.

I wonder how Metaphor fails to see this as a result of patronizing/patriarchal behavior? It treats women as less than/weaker/subordinate. Just as I would expect to see in the Carolinas. This isn't an argument I would expect from feminism, and if it came from that camp, they need to get themselves right, but my guess is that this was written by old white men.

Why do you assume that Metaphor doesn't understand that this is a patronizing, traditionalist statute?

Read my post directly preceding this one where I already answered your question?

Their pattern of communication and general denial that "patriarchy" that is decried by "feminists" is real and pernicious is my guide.

This is, as stated, the first time I've noticed Metaphor apparently accepting a feminist position.

Because this, Metaphor, (and the rest of the MRAs that screed here) upholding a feminist goal, to remove patronizing laws that shun egalitarian treatment of women, seems dubious as a core intent.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom