619
submitted 1 week ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

Italy’s parliament on Tuesday approved a law that introduces femicide into the country’s criminal law and punishes it with life in prison.

The vote coincided with the international day for the elimination of violence against women, a day designated by the U.N. General Assembly.

The law won bipartisan support from the center-right majority and the center-left opposition in the final vote in the Lower Chamber, passing with 237 votes in favor.

The law, backed by the conservative government of Premier Giorgia Meloni, comes in response to a series of killings and other violence targeting women in Italy. It includes stronger measures against gender-based crimes including stalking and revenge porn.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] gbzm@piefed.social 235 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

People here seem weirdly confused about the term "feminicide": it means homicide motivated by misogyny. It's a subset of hate crimes.

They exist in all western societies I'm aware of, if you're confused it's probably only because you're unused to thinking of women as a protected class and hate for women as aggravating circumstances, the way hate for any race of religion is in most legal systems.

Yes they're 50% of the population, but also yes they're disproportionately the targets of violence because misogyny exists. Yet they are rarely treated as such in many legal systems.

[-] Drekaridill@lemmy.wtf 81 points 1 week ago

Genuinely thought it just meant killing a woman and was confused

[-] daizelkrns@sh.itjust.works 49 points 1 week ago

It does get misused in that exact way sometimes. I'm from Mexico, these cases have been making big headlines here for a while now, some prosecutors are misclassifying cases as femicide to grab attention to their political careers.

Local one a couple of years ago where a dude ran over a woman. Local prosecutor was pushing for femicide, fortunately it was moved to manslaughter as it should have been from the start. Not everything constitutes a hate crime and cases like that (in my opinion at least) would make the distinction meaningless

[-] Saapas@piefed.zip 46 points 1 week ago

It seems weird to consider half the people as "protected class". But only one gender. Dunno why they didn't just make hate crime the charge and make misogyny fall under that

[-] yesman@lemmy.world 57 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

They're a protected class because they're singled out for violence because of their class. And it's a real world problem not a logic quiz. Misogyny and misandry are not equivalent in reality the way they are in the dictionary.

[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago

Does that make hate crime murder against men less worth prosecuting as such? Why shouldn't the legal definition be symmetrical?

[-] rockSlayer 13 points 1 week ago

How many hate crime murders of men are there in Italy?

[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Idk probably less and so the law against hate crimes for men would be used less than the one against them for women. Again, why would you not treat them the same in each individual case? If 80% of thievery was committed against women, would you not also prosecute the 20% committed against men just the same?

[-] ISuperabound@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

At no point did anyone suggest that they weren’t prosecuting murder against men, nor did they suggest they would do so with less effort. All this law does is allow the courts to take misogyny into account so that motive isn’t ignored or downplayed during the charging proces.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (30 replies)
[-] RamRabbit@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago

If someone murdered a male due to their sex, would you treat that any differently than someone murdering a female due to their sex?

[-] its_kim_love 18 points 1 week ago

Nothing more than sex based whataboutism.

[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

Could you elaborate on why you believe this is not a valid line of questioning?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] paraphrand@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago

I would assume the thinking is centered around wanting to draw specific attention to the issue. And to more clearly cite it as a unique thing for awareness purposes.

[-] Canconda@lemmy.ca 23 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

This. The goal is to send a message. Over half the women killed were murdered by intimate partners. Such a crime would already be punished by life imprisonment for Aggravated Homicide.

However femicide also includes refusal for emotional relationship, or resistance to limiting her freedom as motivators, as admissible motives for femicide.

https://eige.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/20211564_mh0421097enn_pdf_0.pdf

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] RamRabbit@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Exactly. This should have been something that applies to all: 'murdering someone due to their sex is now a hate crime'.

Having the law give more consideration to one sex over another, particularly with something like murder, is quite sexist.

[-] its_kim_love 27 points 1 week ago

This would be true if there were commensurate rates of murder where the motivation is misandry. Otherwise you just like the veneer of equality to cover up the rot underneath.

[-] RamRabbit@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

If perpetrators happen to be of one sex more often, then it means the rates of being charged with the relevant crime will be higher for that sex.

A crime must be treated equally, regardless of sex. The law treating one differently based on their sex is itself sexist. As I stated before, this should have been something that applies to all: ‘murdering someone due to their sex is now a hate crime’.

load more comments (30 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[-] falseWhite@lemmy.world 50 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

"Let's slap a bandaid instead of fixing the underlying societal problems causing this and score some popularity points" - every politician ever.

Edit: okay maybe there are a few smart politicians, but they're not scoring the popularity points with this:

“Italy is one of only seven countries in Europe where sex and relationship education is not yet compulsory in schools, and we are calling for it to be compulsory in all school cycles,” said the head of Italy’s Democratic Party, Elly Schlein. “Repression is not enough without prevention, which can only start in schools.”

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] paraphrand@lemmy.world 44 points 1 week ago

A lot of people in here seem upset for some reason.

[-] Canconda@lemmy.ca 22 points 1 week ago

It's actually pretty sad. Kinda scary to.

[-] ButteryMonkey@piefed.social 21 points 1 week ago

Pretty sure threads like this are why there aren’t more women on Lemmy..

[-] Tujio@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago

Fucking hell some of these comments read as redpill bullshit.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] DishonestBirb@lemmy.world 39 points 1 week ago

This is confusing. So killing a woman is now criminally worse than killing a man? That seems absurd.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] DomeGuy@lemmy.world 33 points 1 week ago

Does this imply that previously killing women wasn't criminal in Italy?

I presume that femicide is a subset of "homicide", but I can't tell if it means "any killing of a woman", "any killing of a woman by a man", "any killing of a woman because she's a woman", or "any killing of a woman by a man because she's a woman".

And I shudder to imagine how trans-women and trans-men fit into this weirdly sexist label.

(In America we have nice gender-neutral crimes, with enhancers if it was done out of prejudicial hate.)

[-] gbzm@piefed.social 42 points 1 week ago

It means the murder of a woman motivated by misogyny. It is a subset of homicide and also a subset of hate crimes. It can be thought of as recognizing misogyny as a motive of hate and thus an aggravating circumstance to a homicide, and women as a protected class. Killing a trans woman or a trans man could very well get a "transphobia" label for a double hate crime, depending on the motives that get established. This is not as complicated as you seem to believe.

[-] DomeGuy@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago

It's not complicated, it's just sexist and not explained in the linked article.

If a man kills a woman out of hatred for women that's a terrible crime and should be severely punished. But if a woman kills a man out of hatred for men, that is exactly as horrific a crime and should be punished no less severely.

Sexism in law benefits nobody.

[-] erin@piefed.blahaj.zone 24 points 1 week ago

It isn't sexism in law. Laws are written in blood. If women are frequently being killed because they refused sex or a relationship, then a law should exist as a deterrent. It isn't just "killing a woman because they hate women," it's specifically in cases where women are stalked, harassed, or pursued non-consensually for sex or a relationship. If women were targeting men in the same way, a law should exist in that case as well. That isn't the case, though. Women are VASTLY disproportionately killed by men for reasons pertaining to sex and relationships compared to the other way around.

Italy sees a problem: women are being frequently killed by intimate partners, stalkers, and harassers specifically because of their gender. They made a law to deter that. If the opposite problem presents itself they should do the same.

[-] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 week ago

They made a law to deter that.

Assuming murdering women was already considered murder, this law will make absolutely nothing to deter that, and might in fact increase violence against women due to the press about it causing an increase in misogyny.

It's just politicians scoring brownie points by doing absolutely nothing significant.

The way to deter that is education, not adding some symbolic years to a sentence that should already have been deterrent enough.

If the possibility of being sentenced for murder didn't deter someone, neither will the possibility of being sentenced by femicide, or any other form of aggravated murder.

What will deter them is understanding that murdering someone who isn't an immediate terminal danger to society as a whole (billionaires and the like) is monstrous and inhumane and shouldn't ever be done unless it's the last option in self defence, and that “because they refused to have sex with me” is among the stupidest and most embarrassing justifications for murder they could come up with, but, again, that could only be achieved through education, something Italy doesn't seem to be doing because, unlike inventing new names for already existing crimes, it actually costs money.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] paraphrand@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago

The whole point is centered around how sexism runs deep in society. Specifically men dominating the world and placing women below them.

the way you object to this sounds like someone on Reddit talking about men’s rights. To me.

[-] DomeGuy@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago

Every time we draw a line and say "women need special protection", we are implicitly saying "men don't matter."

The very simple fix for this is to keep laws gender-neutral, and let the disparity between prosecutions for hateful murders of women vs hateful murders of men be reflective of the actual disparities in the two sexist hatreds.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where a fact like "41% of American women report experiencing domestic partner violence" will be read as an excuse to ignore that 21% of men report the same thing.

https://www.cdc.gov/intimate-partner-violence/about/index.html

I've encountered women arguing that all domestic violence and rape is from men, which would require one-in-five men to have had a homosexual relationship and all such to have been violent.

Yes, men tend to be physically stronger than women and thus male-on-female IPV is often more harmful, but we already have laws that distinguish based on level of harm. And, yes, too many counties are sexist hell-holes that make American red-states look like feminist utopias.

But I don't think we as a species can sexism our way out of sexism.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] BarbecueCowboy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 week ago

It sounds like it's killing someone specifically because they are a woman and not for another reason. So, intent is what they're trying to target here.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 28 points 1 week ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] frog_brawler@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago

Yea… I’m with the incels that don’t really understand the point. If murder was already a crime that would be punished by life in prison, narrowing the specificity of who was murdered doesn’t change much of anything.

“Cool, if it makes you happy I guess 👍”

[-] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 22 points 1 week ago

It includes stronger measures against gender-based crimes including stalking and revenge porn

Read?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[-] El_guapazo@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago

There needs to be more accountability for law enforcement for this too have any real effect. Studies show up to 40% of law enforcement self identify as domestic abusers. So why would they investigate themselves?

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] DupaCycki@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago

I don't see how the femicide part makes any sense or difference. There were already the exact same punishments for killing of anyone, so isn't this essentially copy pasting existing laws but with a specific group highlight? If that's the case, it will do absolutely nothing.

The second part is fine, though I hope it's meant for everyone and not just women. I don't know about Italy specifically, but in many European countries if you fall victim to these crimes as a man, you'll likely receive no help.

Would be great to see some more protections for everyone, as well as more serious punishments for violations against anyone. Making anything like this gender-specific will just fuel already problematic anti-other-gender sentiment.

[-] Smoogs@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

inequity is real.

If each and every person should matter then It should be ok to recognize each and every person for what they are being targetted for. And I see this law as doing just that. It’s recognizing that a person may not be targetted for being an individual but a part of a group. And that is important. So That is taking their individualness into importance by recognizing the group they are being targetted by.

This should be allowed if you’re being legitimately concerned for EVERYONE’S safety here.

people who may be at their job as a sex worker. Or if they are simply female and that in itself could be weaponized against them.

They will face a violent discrimination just as another person fitting into a different group might. And it’s important to recognize that, make that a law, and keep them safe too. So if “Being targetted for”is a law , recognizing group profile is part of that.

[-] DupaCycki@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

If you aim for equality, making separate laws for separate genders is not the solution. This is anything but equality. Especially when there are already laws protecting the groups in question, as part of the entire nation. The problem here is completely different and requires different solutions.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] falseWhite@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago

It take a certain type of flaw in logic to assume that because a group is “getting” something, it means another group is losing something.

What if one group is getting something unproportionally more than the other.

That creates inequality, essentially meaning that the disadvantaged group is losing something. I.e. they get less that the other group.

So yeah, if you give one group much more than the other, they are losing something.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] ParadoxSeahorse@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

These comments seem to be full of the same people who misunderstand that the word “racism” describes a massive cultural and societal issue that affects people in large, hidden ways throughout their life, rather than using bad words.

If they had a problem in Italy of men being murdered for not being obedient, it might be worth considering broadening the scope of this classification.

This does not even target the perpetrators as a class (even though we can probably guess a general demographic), just classifies the crime according to what has happened to the victim, and why. This is the same for all hate crimes that are prevalent enough to warrant it. Imo it is the culture and society that makes it a hate crime, not just the intent.

[-] ameancow@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

I find it amazing that half the threads on this post I can't open because they're being piled on by people I've already blocked on lemmy. 🙄

Men with sexual insecurity is a driving force of contention and violent politics in this entire world. If you read that special protections are being made for a class of people who are suffering dis-fucking-proportionally and you say "What about meeeeee?" to it, you need to get your shit together. You're not healthy.

load more comments (19 replies)

♡ step in the right direction ♡

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2025
619 points (100.0% liked)

World News

51022 readers
3545 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS