"Many of these "sex-specific violations are sexual and reproductive" including rape, sexual murder, battery, 'honor killings,' suttee, dowry burnings, Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), prostitution, forced abortion, sterilization and motherhood and sexual violence of any kind."

So now motherhood is a sex-specific violation?

By the way, where do forced labour and forced payments come in your catalogue of violations of human rights?

The author likes to use the words "men" and "women" a lot.

Perhaps the author could give a definition of who is male and who is female, so everyone knows exactly who the author is talking about.

peter,

You should have read enough of these 'women's issues' posts now to realise that these sort of women suffer from a narcissism disorder.

I remember reading hprror stories from the Balkan's war where men and boys were reportedly hanged upside down by their feet, castrated and had their testicles shoved down their throats so that they died by either bleeding to death or choking on their own testicles. I also seem to remember something in the media about 5000 men and boys being executed.

But of course none of these stories mattter because they are males and in the narcissistic world of feminists only females are considered fully 'human' and the suffering of males just doesn't matter.

Instead, we hear more whining about a man's world. Ms Goldstone should get out a bit more; maybe she would realise we have a female PM, and G-G and until recently we had a female premier and still have a female G-G here in NSW.

These women are just never happy. It was a mistake for men to think that women are as fair minded as us.

Thank You for this thread. I've just read an interesting article by the Human Rights Watch that covers abuses in countries like -
Sierra Leone, Kosovo, The Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan, Rwanda, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Moldova, Nigeria and son on.
You've raised an interesting question regarding International Law and Human Rights violations. Is the problem too politically "sensitive,"
I wonder?

Anyway, here's the link if anyone's interested:

http://www.hrw.org/en/category/topic/women

The article is under the heading:

Women's Rights Division.

I struggled with this, much seemed to be focussed on acts's committed in other part's of the world. There appeared to be a belief that women suffering the same fate as men had a different right violated.

There is the usual clarity about rape in marriage but no mention of other ways people try an control someone elses sexuality - is threatening someone to say yes really any worse than threatening them to say no?

I do agree that much of the legislation was framed by men, I'd agree that there could be scope for improvements. What I don't agree with is the obsession on gender or what seems to be the suggestion that women's suffering is somehow more important than men's. I don't agree with what seems to be an desire to reinforce gender divisions rather than lessen them.

R0bert

Some of the above comments are really out of order. Women and men can be violated in similar ways as the author clearly demonstrates.

The author is not inviting men be violated in the same way or arguing that human rights abuses against men is not equally abhorrent, just that women's experiences are different depending on the cultural context.

Sheesh...you really have to wonder about the mentality of some posters. Does your hatred really run that deep? It is not whining to campaign for better conditions for women in those countries where women have little influence, where human rights are constantly abused and where many in those countries think it is perfectly reasonable.

pelican "Women and men can be violated in similar ways as the author clearly demonstrates." - one of the things I struugled with is that she seems to be suggesting that it's different rights being violated when men and women end up in the same mass grave. If it's about cultural context then international law and definitions of human rights (which I gathered was a big part of her point) is going to be very hard to frame.

I got the impression that she wanted to focus on differences, did you get a different impression?

R0bert

Pelican it appears to me that many of those posts you didn't approve of were like a mirror. They reflected what they found coming from the article.

What's that old thing about reaping what you sow? Does appear to apply here.

RObert and Pelly,

Did you read the link I gave? I mentioned all those various countries where the culture is male-dominated, women subservient. I think the author of this thread is talking not about women from the gender perspective so much as women in those particular cultures which the world ignores. They're cultures where democratic ideals don't apply.
Where female circumcision, brutal beatings are commonplace. Where forced marriages are a given. If you've read the book, "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali you'd understand where this thread is coming from.
And like Ali - the author of this thread has worked in these areas and she too refuses to be silenced. This is not a gender issue.

I agree Lexi, in that the ideas presented in this article highlight the plight of a very much degraded female population in some of these countries.
It is only asking that women be treated as fairly as the men in those countries, not that they be treated better.
Equality and human rights in countries like those mentioned, means a whole lot more than in countries like Australia, Britain or America.

I feel incredibly angry at the way these poor woman, girls and female babies are treated in some places in the world.
The practice of infanticide of females is particularly abhorrent to me. The act of actually killing many female babies simply because they are female!

And then, when all the lucky boys grow up and try to find a wife, and have trouble, then the practice of kidnapping women from other countries increases.

I strongly believe that unless ALL citizens of a country are given equal rights to property, driving, voting, dressing as they please, having as many children as they please (or none at all), access to abortion and contraception, divorce, freedom of speech, and freedom to travel, to mention just a few, then that country should have sanctions against them.

Lexi I'd not read it but have now.

I do think that there is plenty of evidence in some cultures of atrocious horrifying treatment of people, I agree that there are some practices which seem to single out females (honor killings, FMG and others) but maybe I've got so jaded by the lies and spin used within our culture that I find myself wondering what the rest of the picture is when I read pieces like that.

eg "barely disguise their true meaning: that women's lives matter less than men's" - so what's the premature death rates like for the genders in those parts of the world?

I agreed with a lot of point's, people should not be raped, forced to marry against their will, killed for violating others sexual taboo's, beaten, any reproductive gender selection (Suzie it's not just the killing, it's developing technologies which can or will make it possible to choose the gender of a child), etc.

The author seems to be phrasing the whole thing in terms of a gender issue.

I think the focus on making it women's human rights rather than human rights is a dangerous and probably counter-productive approach. That approach makes it easy to start ignoring the others problems as their problems, rather than human problems.

Suzie's last paragraph is one I can identify with, whilst I remain undecided about how sanctions function I do agree strongly with the goals expressed.

R0bert

Great article! It brings a very interesting discussion on gender and rights and it made me particularly interested in the topic about the Refugee's Convention and its lack of reference regarding gender as ground for persecution.

Have you written any other article that discusses the Refugee's Convention and its lack of gender reference in details? I would like to read more about that!

Dear Suze,

Thanks so much - I'm glad that someone else saw what this author is trying to say.

RObert,

You thinking like a Western man - which is perfectly understandable.
But we're dealing with an entirely different world here - a world
that for most of us - we can't even begin to comprehend.

Lexi I'd noticed that, I've tried to comprehend what the author is saying and acknowledge that I don't think I'm getting it. There are still bit's that I do get and bit's I don't.

I've tried to keep my comments relevant to stuff that I think should hold regardless of those constraints.

R0bert

Luciana,
I think I know what you are getting at, and I think I know what the author is getting at.

I think what the author is suggesting (or wants), is that women should be given special privileges.

But in the case of refuges, men could simply say that they were female, and then get special privileges.

Indeed some years ago, the only people left in detention centres in Australia were men, and all the women were taken out. So it would have been worthwhile for the men to say that they were women, and then get released.

The author would have to be feminist influenced by quoting people such as Andrea Dworkin, but typically fails to mention one good think about men.

I don’t think Andrea Dworkin did either.

Such as the number of men who risked their lives ,or lost their lives trying to end the atrocities in places such as Bosnia.

The words bigotry and feminism are interchangeable.

I'm going to look up countries which are female dominated from politics to business, from religion to education to see how differently men are treated there.

I'll let y'all know what I discover.... when I discover such countries.

;P

Dear RObert,

Fair enough.

Ammonite,

"female dominated from politics to business"

Have you ever wondered why?

If women were more inclined to politics and business, they should have floated to the surface a long time ago, and now would dominate everything from politics to business.

The focus now, is why do women continuously highlight anything bad men do, but never praise anything good men do.

Is this because of their education?

No of course not.

It couldn't be because of their education.

The author needs to employ an editor as he waffles on and on making it most confusing. Surely he could come straight to the point and say directly what it is he is getting at.

Many of the crimes he mentions as being specific to women ar cultural and I wish him luck in changing long held cultures. Making them unlawful internationally will not stop the occurance.

Take FGM for example, it is a violation of human rights but try changing the culture that permits it. It also is the women of that culture that actually carry out the mutilation of the little girls.

How does one overcome that? Education has not worked.

Dear Banjo,

I believe that the author of this article is a woman.
She's a human right lawyer who's trying to bring about
change. We can only wish her success in her endeavours.
She's worked in these countries - and has seen first-hand
the atrocities she's writing about. If you don't shine
the spotlight on these things they won't change.

Lexi,
It matters not what gender the author is. The article goes all over the place, with no clear outcome or objective. Just what is it the author wants? Readers of the thread are guessing.

International recognition of cultural acts against women is not going to help those affected. Here we do not even have any idea how many forced marriages there are. Our efforts would do better if we concentrated on upholding the current laws, and females would be better off too. Waste of time making up new laws that will never be upheld.

If we cannot uphold the laws here, what hope for the females in the Middle East or Africa.

I now see the author is studying for a Masters in Journalism. She should do a course in communication firstly. I doubt she would get a pass in primary school essay composition.

There is nothing new in using the imagery of violence against women and children

<“Playing on the allegorical representation of Liberty as a woman, Allied artists repeatedly depicted a female Belgium stripped to the waist, bound and violated . . .” (Gullace, Sexual Violence 16). It was this kind of propagandized imagery that stimulated and popularized the war effort. Many of the very same negative characterizations (of men) which had been waged in the “sex war” by the suffragists were now employed to depict the “Teuton barbarian” in the fight against German aggression. The oppressors of both British women (in the fight for equality) and Belgium (in the fight for liberation) were characterized in a sexually aggressive manner. It was this kind of war propaganda, combined with an already fully mobilized feminine consciousness>
http://itech.fgcu.edu/&/issues/vol1/issue1/feather.htm

The author uses the same tactics, as those used early last century.

Women and children as horrible victims of ugly brutal men.

It must be rough when you're so bad at holding down a job, you have to change countries every year or two.

On the subject, of course not. What fool could ever believe women are human?

Dear Banjo,

With all due respect I have to disagree. We can put up many excuses for inaction. That's the easy way out. And I imagine that the author
is not expecting miracles. However things do get achieved by small steps and above all - by persistence and determination.
Persistence and determination are omnipotent. The slogan "Press On"
has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.

Suzieonline wrote;

<I feel incredibly angry at the way these poor woman, girls and female babies are treated in some places in the world.
The practice of infanticide of females is particularly abhorrent to me. The act of actually killing many female babies simply because they are female!>

This exactly what inflammatory stories do, that is their aim. The aim is to stimulate the limbic system to over ride the much more advanced neurocortex.

For those with limited memory or selective memory, not that long ago, there was mass hysteria over breast implants causing all sorts of disorders in women. There were the usual compelling heartbreaking stories about breast implants causing cancer excetera.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/swell_lawyers/

Well it turns out eventually that breast implants were safe and were not causing disease in women.

Up until this stage the claim makers, and the media had a ball. Since then silence.

In many countries around the world, western countries are painted as being evil and decandent.

So who is right and who is wrong?

I do not beleive that we have the right to impose western cultural ideals onto other cultures, which is much the same as imposing roman catholic or protestant beliefs on other cultures, when there is still much to be improved on in our own culture.

Dear JamesH.,

With all due respect you seem to be somewhat mis-informed on the issue of breast augmentation. The fuss about breast implants was
caused as a result of the findings by the US Food and Drug Aministration that found that there was an association between breast implants and the development of ALCL (Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma)
in some women. As a result - the FDA in the US has approved only 4 breast implants for marketing in the US. All others except for these 4 are considered "investigational devices." Breast implants are still a work in progress and there are strict guidelines that need to be followed - including the ages of women who are suitable for breast
reconstruction.

As for us not imposing our standards onto other cultures - I agree
with you up to a point. However, when atrocities are allowed and committed in the name of "culture," or religion - then I for one could not turn a blind eye. The moral choice is ours to make.

The author of this article is correct in every point she makes.

The mistreatment of women is the big elephant in the room at the United Nations which most of the leaders there do not wish to acknowledge.

It is the big elephant in the room because it causes most of the poverty and misery that drives a lot of the war and conflicts in overpopulated countries. It is the big elephant in the room when they talk about climate change and the environment, these things again directly attributable to the pressures of overpopulation.

If all women in the world were given control over their own reproduction then you can bet your sweet bippy the world populations would reduce by at least a half in the coming generations. A lot of the war and conflict,poverty and environmental pressures would halve as well.

The constant abuse of human rights continues non-stop against women all over the world, all the time, not just in times of genocide, as some male posters here tried to make a case of . Yes men suffer terribly in war, but they don't suffer so much in times of non-war. Women's human rights are violated 365days a year non-stop in many countries all over the world.

Peter Hume
<By the way, where do forced labour and forced payments come in your catalogue of violations of human rights?>

Why don't you mention forced labour with no payment, which women were subjected to in the West less than 100years ago, before they were forced to go to court and argue the case to be allowed contraception which had to be granted by an all male court.

You have a go at looking after 8 to 10or 12children like they did back then and you might understand what real labour was. What it was like to be totally exhausted and worn out all the time. With no payment for the hours they worked, while their husbands had total financial control over them. What you think of as being hard done by now, is nothing compared to what women have endured at the hands of the laws of a male dominated society for thousands of years. So, you are forced to labour and pay for(take some responsibility) for the children you fathered.

Cop it sweet, like women were forced to in this society before they fort for the right to vote (another human right that was denied them)and managed to wrest some of the power away from the males. I'm sorry, but in the light of what women endured and are still forced to endure in a lot of the world today I have absolutely no sympathy for your trifling complaints.

Lexi,
You said "As for us not imposing our standards onto other cultures - I agree
with you up to a point. However, when atrocities are allowed and committed in the name of "culture," or religion - then I for one could not turn a blind eye. The moral choice is ours to make".

You say you could not turn a blind eye, Yet I have not seen you say you will lobby politicians here about the occurance of FGM and forced marriage. These subjects arise on OLO from time to time.

We have a female PM and had a few female state premiers and many female Ministers, so why is it that FGM is on the increase. The reason being that females here turn a blind eye to attrocities carried out in the name of religion or culture.

Frankly I think the continued incidence of FGM in Western societies is an indicment of women in powerfull positions. How about we uphold our laws here before trying to impose our values on other countries.

Just to remind all, there is a report, compiled by the Islamic womens association of Victoria, about some divorced men forcing sex on their former wives by claiming that, under Islam, they are still married.
That report was delivered to the government in 2007, so why has it been pigeon holed and not tabled in Parliament?

We do turn a blind eye.

Dear Banjo,

You shouldn't make assumptions about me. I've been politically involved for many, many years regarding human rights - involved not
only in this country but internationally. Considering my family background and the atrocities committed against them in the previous
Soviet Union from which they fled during the Second World War - my stance is understandable. I've made my moral choice a long time ago.
But Thanks for your concern. It is appreciated.