I am from Spain and yes, I can confirm that this law does exist. And, indeed, it is a problematic law because it creates a unequal relationship between both sexes (But only if there is a emotional relationship. If a male friend hits a female one this law does not apply). I think it is necessary to have some laws to protect women from harm when her husband threatens and abuses her, but this law is too extreme in the measures it takes to fix those situations. It makes men in some sort of way "guilty until proven innocent" and it does not protect them when it is the women who abuse their husband (even if there are many less cases, they still exist and have to be taken into consideration). It is a good example of how not to make a law to stop domestic violence.

BUT (and I think this is where most people is misguided) this law was not made because feminists wanted it to be this way. It was made as a result of a combination of mediocre politicians who made a fast law without thinking of all consequences it would bring and socially assumed gender roles and stereotypes. The reason men are not protected by this law when they are abused by their wives is not because women want it than way. It is because traditional gender roles say that a man must be stronger than a woman, and if it is not then it is a pathic worthless man or, as many people would call someone like that, a "faggot" or a "sissy". A lot of men get mocked even by policemen when they try to denounce their situation, only to be told to "man up" or "behave like a real man". They get ridiculed for not "putting their wives where they belong" and for not "showing them who is the boss of the house". The law does not contemplate when men are abused only because it asumes they are stronger and, because of that, can't be harmed by "just a woman". These are roles and stereotypes that most traditional social structures have, and is sexist in different ways both to men and women because it does not respect anyone who is out of these boundaries. This kind of social pressure is called "structural violence", and these kind of roles and stereotypes form a superstructure called "patriarchy". As I already said, it affects both genders, and this is what feminism really tries to fight.

Feminism is a social and political movement that want to bring equality to all gender relationships, not power to the women over men. That is a misconception that even some women who call themselves "feminists" have (which, of couse, makes them sexists, not feminists). There are always rotten apples on human groups, but you should never judge an entire group only because of them (of couse, if the group is structured in some sort of way it would be their responsibility to get rid of them. But feminism, in general terms, is not an structured group but a political movement). Feminism strives for equality, not inverted roles of power. That would only mean the subsistence of the patriarchy and its power structures in an inverted way (even if it was called a matriarchy). Both men and women who want to destroy this kind of gender role subjugation are feminists, where men and women who want to fight a war against each other are just plainly sexists. I know the name "feminism" can be misleading, but it is just named that because the traditional role of women was of subjugation under men and this movement was originally created to fight that. But this doesn't mean it doesn't also try to fight against abuses of women over men. It could very well be called "egalitarianism", but that name is already chosen for a movement with a more general focus than just gender inequality.

That's why i think it would be wise for some people who consider themselves part of this gemergate movement to think twice about how it is generally behaving like a group. I know in theory it is supposed to fight for ethics in journalism. But in practice, most of what you will read in this thread and other forums, 4chan, youtube comments, etc., are just comments against feminism and other social movements (Wich they call SJW). In my opinion, what you should really fight is against bribery and other "gifts" that wealthy videogame companies could give to game reviews webpages. It should be a fight against money and company lobbies, not women and feminism. What feminists are currently criticizing in videogames are true problems that had plagued this cultural industry for many years and that, luckily, is slowly beginning to recede, specially since indie games began to have more recognition. I love videogames, but I would be lying to myself if didn't acknowledge some problems they generally have. There is, indeed, an oversexualization of many female characters (For example, in many fighting games and japanese games) whereas male characters are usually designed to fit male power fantasies (like Kratos or Marcus Fenix). Also, until these last years, there were very few realistic non sexualized female protagonists (good examples are Faith, from Mirror's edge, or Jade, from BG&E). You may think this is not important, but for most people is easier to emphatise with someone who resembles them. Also, even if you don't care who is your avatar, you would probably begin to feel out of place when you realise people who is like you is clearly under-represented. And on top of that, there is social pressure and educational differences that conditions women to not enter inside a domain that was always considered "boy's territory". The virulence that began spreading when these status quo began to change is proof enough of the existence of this gender structural violence. How is it possible that so many people defend the incredibly violent reaction and harassment that sparked just because some youtube videos began analyzing female gender tropes in videogames and because there was one isolated case of supposed journalism corruption with a relationship involved (wich is not even clear if it was really true)? I honestly believe this gamergate vs feminism is just a battle of blind people who do not really understand the true complexity of this issues and do not want to acknowledge how most supporters are really behaving. This also applies, of couse, to radical feminists.

Anti-feminists and radical feminists are just the two faces of a same coin: that of hate about those who are different from us and difficult to empathise. It is much easier to hate the unkown that to understand it. And that is the crux that humanity has carried over the course of all its history. It's time that, as a society with much more information and freedom than our elders, we begin to change that.

P.S. Equal rights given by laws or a constitution does not mean people are really treated equally in society. A lot of countries where women or people of different ethnicity are repressed give them legal equal rights in theory.

Politician and feminism are not mutuality exclusive. Don't absolve the responsibility and consequence of feminism.

It does not matter what your definition or the dictionary definition of feminism says or what feminism claim to fight for when reality is different from what you claim.

With so many bad example all over the internet, it is hard to buy the a few rotten apples argument. Even if we buy that argument, feminism can be judge by what's it done.
All it is doing now is just wanting to add more privilege to the women, I had yet to see any major movement of feminism to remove unwarranted privilege of women.

I will believe it only when feminism fight AND SUCCEEDED in removing extra incentive to women who work, attend college which men did not have, Spouse alimony which consider men does not contribute to the family at all thus have to pay, child custody which women always win and man have to pay for child support. Punishment for women who commit crimes as heavy as men, media propaganda of men as dumb and women as strong and whatnot.

The word feminism has been hijacked by too many rotten apples and corrupted beyond repair. I keep hearing one absurd outrage after another and lost faith that feminism is salvageable.
One can uphold equality without labeling one selves as feminist. If you must join a movement, join some egalitarianism movement.

As for gamergate, I think it is dumb to dox and harrass people, even in the past on this thread I condemn GG for harassing a charity movement because they won't accept donation from GG. It just shoot them in the foot and undermines their own credibility. However, unlike feminism I think they police their own members and stop doing such dumb stuff, at least I did not heard of it anymore.
If you do have a valid transgression of GG recently I will comdemn GG with you and see what they have to say.
And that lead me to listen what they have to say if their argument hold any salt. That's a difference between harassing a social movement or pointing our a valid criticism against the wrong of a social movement. So far I find their criticism valid.

I don't think it is only GG that criticize against feminism, not everyone posting here is GG and some of them condemn against the wrong doing of feminism. Maybe everyone that go against feminism is actually going against the wrongdoing of feminism, but these day feminism has such a bad name that feminism = wrongdoing. Even you see it as the comments against feminism instead of comments against the wrongdoing of feminism.

But this is the thinking of someone that is not GG and may represent them wrongly, maybe later a GG member can give a better account?

As for video games, I think video games developers should create games that their customers want. If there is a increase in numbers in female gamers and their wallet can support it, games developers can create more games that cater to women.
However it is wrong to say that because I like this and don't like that, all of you must agree with me and only play games that I like and not create games with elements I don't like. Up to the point to harass game developers and gamers alike if they do not agree to my point of view.
Feminist also does not speak for all female gamers, and I see some female gamers prefer sexy character over so called "realistic" characters.

I don't think you understand the concept of a chromosome...or fully grasp it? Idk, you tell me that, this is a debate thread, so let's have at it.

You should see any spanish video of femi propaganda, you would be surprised how many MALE supporters say the exact same line this law goes through specification
Not all special snowflakes have gender disphoria, but anyone with gender disphoria is a special snowflake :P

Is like Muslims and Terrorism really.

Feminism in Spain, and in general Gender Violence, is the new ETA to gain votes. That is why these laws are the way they are, the same way some use feminism to make money. Social causes are difficult to target and judge, even in the slightest of the disagreements, you will be named HITLER soon or later... so the possibilities to use them to make money or gain power are simply huge, and easy.

Eh, I'd be careful with that type of rhetoric, because that's the same kind of judging-in-broad-strokes stuff that has been used against GG. Reality is rarely so black and white.

That said (and this is really a generic response to a lot of the stuff I've seen here and there in this thread, though I haven't followed it very closely lately), I think all these arbitrary divisions are more harmful than people are willing to admit. People separate themselves into this group and that group, but no one ever became tolerant of others by shutting out opposing viewpoints and/or demanding special treatment. I suppose I just find the idea of shooting for equality by creating further divisions to be self-defeating. At the very least, it doesn't seem to be doing a very good job lately, looking at all of the racial and gender stuff happening right now. The more conflict over these things erupts, the more convinced I become that the only real path to equality is actually treating people equally as individuals, entirely apart from any kind of any kind of cause or "ism."

Yes I am wrong about that. I believe feminism is still needed in third world countries.

However specifically on feminism in developed countries, I see they are doing more harm then good. Why is feminism needed when women already has equal rights and more that women have an unfair advantage?

Because rather than fighting for equal rights as men, feminism has twisted the narrative to make women see entitlements as rights. Rather than a woman saying, 'I bend over backwards for this company I work for and I deserve a raise and a corner office for being a good asset to this business, instead they say, 'I deserve that raise and corner office 'BECAUSE I'M A WOMAN.' That is pure, unfiltered, grade A BULLSHIT.

So long as entitlements and privileges are going to be seen as equality, feminism and civil rights movements will continue to be viewed as disingenuous and partisan. You can't make any argument to me about wanting freedom and equality when all you're really saying is 'give me a bunch of your shit because I have less shit than you.' That goes over like a lead balloon with people, and ultimately any movement preaching 'service at the barrel of a gun' is going to lose their traction and support. These systems and movements have failure built into them... so another even more monstrous movement can take its place. It's the never ending and usually fruitless process of recycling failed human systems.

There's a much larger problem here, and it doesn't have a damn thing to do whether your boss at work has a penis or a vagina.

I don't follow any of that stuff well enough to agree or disagree on the "unfair advantage" claim, but I'm definitely not disagreeing that causes eventually become redundant and even destructive. For an example that I'm sure will make me wonderfully popular, take this thread: for awhile it was really about GG news, and while it was full of disagreement and butting heads, it was also on-topic and positive (at least in the sense that it was full of people who weren't all in complete agreement that I was automatically a terrormisogynist for having a problem with how gaming journalism was being conducted). If there's anything about gaming journalism that's come up in the past couple of pages, though, it's completely eluded my notice; instead, the thread seemed to have veered pretty heavily into unrelated feminism and trans stuff, which is strange since I remember there being both feminists and trans individuals in GG.

So I guess my point is that causes have a way of self-perpetuating and eventually spiraling into shadows of their former selves despite the genuinely good intentions of those involved. Everyone gets pushed to their respective corners to duke it out, and without anyone to declare the fight over, tangents are explored and things start to get a bit crazy. Given the push against censorship in gaming these days and the heightened awareness about some of the less than wonderful stuff that happens in gaming journalism, I can't help but wonder if GG is even needed anymore, and yet this thread continues on seemingly endlessly. Just like feminism and everything else, which like this thread have self-perpetuated by going completely off-topic.

Which, again, doesn't reflect on the intentions of the people involved in these causes. Stopping is just hard, and doubly so when you believe you're doing good. What we really need are referees. Or maybe some kind of giant, cause-eating space jellyfish. Or maybe something more realistic I can't think of right now.

Happened already in 2014:
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2014/06/18/when-a-feminist-near-a-fireplace-grabbed-hold-of-a-copy-of-the-war-against-boys-this-happened/

Thanks for filling us in! Is ''emotional relationship'' defined in the constitution/ particular bill and is the definition tight?

I agree with the equality and not power struggle theory, and hope it gets more traction. As to a ''patriarchy'' existing, its even less convincing than the illuminati. Calling the laundry list of problems faced by women ''patriarchy'' really doesn't seem apt unless we're suggesting there is a group of people actively engaging in......patriarching? On a sidenote, patriarchy is just a system of inheritance of property and running of a family as you may know.

I completely disagree with your 2nd paragraph. I'll list out so its easier to read :

1.Journalists pushing their ideology into games reviews and reviewing games for mainstream reviews with their political agenda is political bias. They can write what they want, but there is a point where a game review becomes something else. And even though that something else has a right to exist, it should not be called a review. A good example is Jim Sterling's Hyperdimension Neptunia review. I like the guy a lot and follow his youtube, but his written review was the worst piece of shit review for any game I've ever seen. He said ''the game didn't take itself seriously, so I didn't either''. As a reviewer, he has a duty to inform consumers about the quality of the product. Not write an almost funny fluff piece looking down on the game and label it a ''review''.

2.None of the intersectional feminist theory people like Anita Sarkeesian spew is proven. And all evidence is to the contrary. When game journos report on their unproven claims as facts, they're lying. Playing a shooter doesn't turn people into school shooters and playing Tomb Raider doesn't turn them into a misogynist. Just search for even a shred of proof that it does. And these journos are writing as if this is fact.

So are you comfortable with game devs' freedom of creativity being limited by unproven hollow claims?

3.Oversexualization is bad why? They have age ratings. No one is forced to buy, play or watch the game. If you don't like it, don't buy it. But don't tell adults what art to consume and not to consume.

4.''Realistic body sizes'' what? That literally has nothing to do with anything. Again, no one is forced to buy, the games have age ratings, and no one is forcing anorexic 12 year-olds to watch this; if somehow they get the impression that they want to look like a block of graphical clay. And most of them are NOT unrealistic. There are people with the same body types.

5.No proof about who empathize with who; and forcing character choice into games originally not planning it will just dilute the writing and story more. Also, can we please stop talking as if men only empathize with men and same for women? There are multitudes of other arguably more significant factors. You're just fixating on one.

6.Anita and GG are 2 years apart. Anita in 2012 and GG in 2014. Anita claimed after GG started that she got harassment. Not much else. No proof from her part obviously. And may I remind you Anita was spewing unproven claims and not taking any criticism?? So she should be free from all criticism because feminism?

There are very few anti feminists. Most are actually anti radical feminists. When you go around saying there is a cis white hetronormative patriarchal superstructure and don't provide proof or address criticism, expect people to go against your theories.

The book never stood a chance. It couldn't say no. It was acted upon, objectified even.

What get's to me about western (feminist) patriarchal "theory" is that even past feminist "victories" have been considered part of it, like the mindset that in a divorce it's assumed that the children should go with the mother (at least here in the US )

I think its a side effect of seeing everything in terms of groups and in terms of oppressor vs oppressed. But yeah; they'll say women wouldn't have had voting rights without feminism but when people like Christina Hoff Sommers uses the same brand of feminism, its not feminist.

So, for those who want to have a change of paradigm and no longer talk about why transgenders are dellusional without proof to prove the contrary, let me give you a new topic.

Let's talk about cultural marxism's favorite "religion of peace" and how it fucked up many things.

https://youtu.be/t_Qpy0mXg8Y

Actually, there is proof to the contrary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_transsexualism&oldid=704608260

It's also worth noting that, before your post, the topic had already shifted to feminism.