But many, many more men die through acts of violence than women, by a factor of well over ten to one. Yes, stoning and other capital and corporal are barbaric and should be outlawed. Not because they happen to be directed at one gender rather than another, but because they are directed against fellow human beings. Let's not play favourites in deciding who 'deserves' to be protected from ideologically-motivated atrocities. EVERY human being deserves it.

That should be 'capital and corporal punishments', of course.

Wow Jocelynne, that’s quite a rant and I share your furious indignation with the appalling crimes against women, and indeed the history of their subjection by men under Man’s law. But I demur from your conclusion as it applies in the modern democratic West.
The first half of your harangue is designed to shame Men, indiscriminately, while the second half abjures men alone to take responsibility and to act to secure safety and equality for females.
In a democracy, women alone have the numbers and the power to initiate any reform they like, if they acted as one, but that’s about as plausible men acting as one, or indeed as plausible as your contention that men alone bare responsibility.
The truth is that woman, as a class, is complicit in its own subjection—it may me that women are innately passive, and not merely conditioned—and it’s just as much women you should be appealing to, to address the wrongs that still obtain, domestically and civilly, as well as internationally through bodies like the UN.
You can’t blame everything on men, and you can’t expect men alone to fix it; that’s the kind of “passive feminism” you’ve defended previously. Are women to just sit back and wait for justice to be delivered up? For men to realise the errors of their ways; essentially that women are saints and men are of the devil?
You should be working on a way to motivate men “and” women; if men have to learn to be more passive, women have to learn to be more aggressive, or at least pro-active; not merely for women, but in pursuit of justice. In that case you need to reflect on the part women play in the “dynamics” of domestic and civil violence; there’s more to it than “nagging”.
Finally, civilised men are just as appalled as women by violence meted out to women in the name of “justice” in some countries, and I think it’s a low blow trying to implicate all men in that, or indeed modern men in the dark history of patriarchy hitherto.

For as long as one woman is at risk of death at the hands of a legal system devised and enforced by men, then [those men who devised and enforced the system] are responsible, [as are any women who devised and enforced the system].

There. That's better.

I blame women.

Not all women. Just most women throughout most of history.

Never has a man given birth to a male child – only women have produced babies who grow up to be men.

So ultimately it is all their fault.

There. That's even better.

yes very barbaric just like abortion.

I'm shocked that anyone could describe the article by Dr Jocelynne A. Scutt, Barrister and Human Rights Lawyer, as a "rant". It is a carefully worded article which methodically lays out and includes all instances of brutality against women - committed by men - and this justifies it being called a rant? Presumably the writer - obviously male - is also a highly eminent and qualified individual with multiple degrees who is informed and up to the minute about such events worldwide, thus entitling him to make such facetious comments.

Instead of continuing in such vein, let me just add that I fully endorse all comments made by the Hon Jocelynne Scutt, and am glad that someone has taken the time to fully document man's atrocities to women - worldwide and throughout history. I am so tired of reading about women deformed by acid, and killed by stoning, and raped, and sexually abused, and dominated in every possible way by males - the stronger sex - the one which is meant to be protecting the weaker sex. When god made women smaller and weaker than men, surely he meant for them to protect them, not take advantage of their smaller weaker size?

Guys guys guys, before you rush back defensively, please stop to think about it and ask yourselves, are you actually doing anything at all to join women in the fight to stop all indiscriminate killing of women? If not, why not? It's TIME!

Of course there is a lot of truth in what Dr Scutt writes. And since the position and treatment of women in Afghanistan seems to be the most urgent and salient at this time, the most pressing concern should be the protection and advancement of women in Afghanistan. And to a very large extent - since they have the power and the force - the work should primarily be done by men.

But it won't be done by Afghan men, it has to be admitted: those who benefit from the injustices of particular cultural practices are hardly likely to want to change the situation. So who is it up to ?

As it happens, there is an army in Afghanistan, and one of its roles is in fighting for the rights of women there. So, despite what wonderful people like Malalai Joya may assert, it is vital that that army stays in Afghanistan until the defeat of the reactionaries and until - paternalism notwithstanding - outdated cultural practices are smashed.

Afghan women are as entitled to the full rights of human beings as their sisters in Leichhardt or Carlton. Who is fighting for those rights if not the Coalition forces in Afghanistan ? Who is fighting for an Afghanistan in which a young woman cannot be machine-gunned, in the back, by some gutless wonder, with impunity ?

In this case, (although I never thought I would write this) the progressives are the US and its allies. So whose side are you on ?

Joe Lane

Look Sabra:

…All men are not evil of course. Take myself for example; in stoic refusal to be swayed by the rudeness of women in the modern world, I had a breakthrough only yesterday. In my usual compliance to the long lost art of manners, I stood aside (again) as a token of respect to women, at the top of a busy set of public stairs, to give-way to a young lady coming up from the street. I was shocked and amazed as she acknowledged my personal effort and compliance to an age-old norm of respect offered by a man towards the gentle-sex under such circumstances.

…It’s obvious to men, (as we move around in public), women generally fail to recognise these tokens of respect, made obvious by the likes of myself: How disappointing!

Two points - the NYP Women's Council tells us that women in the most traditionally minded Aboriginal communities in Australia are 60 times more likely to die from domestic violence than the national average. I have seen horrific violence against women in the last thirty years and have buried several loved ones who died this way. My wife's life has been directly threatened by Aboriginal men. And yet Australian feminists have to direct their concerns to the MIddle East to seek justice for women. What's wrong with starting with your own backyard.
I have a daughter and was very concerned about her rights being respected by the institutions she was involved with. She's doing really well at this point in her life. She has three sons. I am far more worried now about their rights as boys in the schools they attend than I was about my daughter at their age. It's time we got away from this idiotic blame game and started real problem solving without the shallow ideology. Siblinghood is Powerful. I'm a white man. I'm not copping the blame for other people's racism and the murderous behaviour of some Aboriginal men and I'm sure as hell not copping the blame for what the Afghans are up to. When are these people going to get it. We're already on your side you don't have to keep lecturing us on what a bunch of bastards we are. We care, we act, we teach, we suffer for our loved ones. We're not monsters. We know how to love. Let's get on with the real work.

That's exactly right Joe,
White Western Women and their Third World acolytes can rant about Human rights and pass all the resolutions all they want but the only thing that can bring it to fruition is if their White men go and kill a bunch of Brown men then stand over the rest of them so that they behave themselves...at least behave themselves while the Bushmasters are on the streets and the Drones are in the air, what happens when they withdraw is a foregone conclusion.

Might I also point out that as harsh as married life can be for women in the third world the lot of a widow is in many cases a fate worse than death.
While the Feminists beat the war drums and zero the cruise missiles on Iran and Syria they might want to consider that they are merely playing god on the basis of a choice between the lesser of two evils, as it is widows and orphans in those countries are still taken care of, when the state is destroyed and the militias and gangsters take over...well, god help them because the author and her friends are far, far away.

I agree with much of the essay but the thesis is incorrect:

"Yet in so many countries, women's lives and bodily integrity are at risk, because man-made laws classify women as responsible for the crimes committed against them."

In fact women have violence perpetuated against them because they are not seen to have the same status as men; in fact in many cultures women have no status at all.

So it is not so much a case of women being responsible for the violence against them but rather the violence against women is not regarded as being violence; it is not regarded as violence because the men who perpetuate the violence are merely exercising their rights to do so.

The basis for men having this attitude that women are chattels with either inferior or no rights is in the cultural values. Grossly tribalised societies typically have this attitude with Islam being the dominant and most aggressive example.

These tribalised societies have no due process and no equality at law; the law is based on the hierarchy of power and men are at the pinnacle.

Until that tribalised, hierarchal structure is removed, and it can only be removed by removing the religious and tribal values, women will be treated in accordance with their position in such societies.

Applied patriarchal politics in ALL times and places has always been to rape women especially captives, outsiders, or those that transgess or challenge the patriarchal control system.
The "Old" Testament is full of such injunctions.
Meanwhile I quite like the cartoon by Leunig in todays Age comparing barbaric and "cilvilized" forms of justice/punishment/retribution/execution.

Sabra,
There was nothing ‘facetious’, or indeed unreasonable, about my use of the word ‘rant’, and I stand by it. I’m not an eminent person and I’m not impressed my eminence, quite the reverse, but I do have a few letters after my name, a wife and three daughters (and three sons) and some experience of life; which doesn't include assault of any kind against woman or child. Yet I'm one of the reviled male gender.
It’s just a shame you got stuck on ‘rant’ and didn’t go on to consider the other things I said, which were sympathetic and constructive.
I agree, somewhat, with your comments about the weaker and stronger sex, noblesse oblige and all that—though let’s leave God out of it; God reigns supreme in Moslem countries and it’s not helping women there—but it’s hardly relevant in terms of modern democracies where, as Jay says above, it’s just as likely to give offence. Indeed the quaint deference of the stronger to the weaker sex was based on the ‘institution’ of women’s all-round feebleness; I don’t think we want to return women to that status?
Nor need women seek the protection of men. Modern democracy and the rule of law empower women to stand up to men. So why don’t they? In my experience too many women encourage male chauvinism, both in their intimate relations and as an institution. Women are just as responsible for the prevailing power structures as men.
Jocelynne Scutt is just being divisive and getting decent men’s backs up. She should be appealing to women, at least in democratic countries.
Believe it or not it’s by and large women, more than men, who need to rethink their domestic, social and civil responsibilities. Freedom from patriarchy and male oppression demands self-reliance, not male forbearance and patronage—that’s the perennial problem! Women have to step out of man’ shadows

>>When laws end with the ending of women's lives, responsible people – women and men – know that those laws must be ended.<<

Well I'm convinced: when they stone women in Nigeria it is a moral travesty but when the U.S. wrongfully executes innocents and imbeciles that's okay because most USAdians that receive the death penalty are men. And wrongful execution is only really a moral evil when it's women who are being wrongfully executed.

Some of you might think that position is overtly sexist and morally dubious. But you're not Human Rights Lawyers with lots of letters after your name so it seems you're wrong on that one.

Cheers,

Tony

It's not either/or, Tony , it's ALL wrong - the shooting of women in the back and throwing acid over schoolgirls in Afghanistan, the execution of innocent men in the US, the butchering of villagers in eastern Syria, etc., etc. There is a lot of evil in the world and we can't really pick and choose nor set one crime aside in preference to another. It's not a competition.

And as long as nobody seems to be standing up for women in Afghanistan, then our soldiers and the others of the coalition must do it. Would the left here do it, or would that breach some sacred 'cultural' preserve of Afghan men, since all cultures are equal ? I don't dare ask the question. Oops, I just did. Are Afghan men standing up and fighting for the rights of their fellow-citizens who happen to be women ? Doesn't look like it.

Ergo, the Coalition. For as long as it takes. Let the Carlton professional petty-bourgeoisie fulminate about that over their lattes.

Joe,
the cultural left is an easy target, isn't it?
I can assure the cultural left doesn't defend the barbarism that occurs around the world in the name of cultural integrity.
Perhaps you should ask yourself how old Britain might have reacted if an enlightened other had lectured its barbarous customs and threatened to intervene? Or how The US would react 'today' if some foreign entity started fulminating against it and threatening intervention? You might also muse on our own verities now, and how some of them might be viewed in the future.
But even supposing we chose to intervene around the world on behalf of women, and I don't mean via the UN; how would we go about it? Who do we rescue first; the women and children of Africa, North Korea, the Middle East, China?
To suggest that leftist pc is or might stand in the way of justice for women is despicable. To suggest there's anything we can realistically do, beyond diplomacy and sanctions and invoking international law, is disingenuous.
That's why I focused on Western democratic feminism above. The plight of women and innocents in those other situations is another matter. I wish we could just rescue them. But all we can do is apply whatever pressure we can short of invading foreign sovereignty. Which means, alas, that a great deal more suffering will occur before things maybe get better. In the meantime, the West should inspect its own ethical credentials.

Sabra

'When god made women smaller and weaker than men, surely he meant for them to protect them, not take advantage of their smaller weaker size? '

So true.

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with the Author and her article! [Let he who is without sin, be the one to cast the first stone!]
Talk about blaming the victims! Real men just don't do that! Grow up!
Forced marriages, child brides, and rape in marriage, all completely unacceptable!
And yes, the power of one!
When we speak with just one voice, be we Jew, Gentile or Muslim, we humans, will get this stone age barbarity stopped.
There is simply no way to justify it, or indeed, allow a completely untested single male accuser, to be the absolute arbiter, of this final inhuman injustice.
Nor can any human being, make a case or justification for throwing acid in a woman's face, or beating her within an inch of her life.
[If thy hand offends thee, cut it off!]
However, we can make a very valid cogent case for legal, medically assisted/supervised abortion; and or, castration.
When the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest, or if the act of giving birth, puts the woman's very life at real risk.
They are half of the world's population, and deserve the same God given rights as men; or the self appointed spokespersons; or the blatant lairs, who purport to personally speak for God!?
Rhrosty.

And as Robert Zimmerman famously wrote and sang - everybody must get stoned!

Male privilege is fear driven. If a nation is surrounded by a score of military bases brisling with armaments, men will rule women. Same goes for the nation doing the surrounding, men rule women. The greater the fear the harsher the rule. Fear will quickly dissipate when UN Women gains legislative authority.

John Lennon was right, give peace a chance.

The article reminded me of those racist arguments of the 19th century. Whites examining blacks by taking a few examples of barbarism here and there then extrapolating from those few examples to a general principle. Inductive reasoning it's called in academic circles, or, racist stereotyping in Humanities circles. Here, we have the same reasoning used. Take a handful of barbaric acts committed by men, then extrapolate from the particular to the universal. Ordinarily today this would be called sexism, but because the author is a feminist, they pass it off as 'truth.'

The actual problem here is not men, but Islam. A point that was not mentioned by Scutt, or, surprisingly, any of the comments (so far). Islam has always been a patriarchal culture. Liberal democracies, however, do not exhibit a patriarchal culture. They are predicated on negative freedom - the freedom from constraint - therefore, people are free to leave any abusive relationship or organization any time without the threat of violence. So to juxtapose the men of Islam and the men of a liberal democracy is incorrect.

"A point that was not mentioned by Scutt, or, surprisingly, any of the comments (so far). Islam has always been a patriarchal culture."

That's not true; I'll always blame Islam; outside the false crisis of AGW, Islam is the dominant problem in the world today.

It amazes me that feminists like this author while always ready to critique the ostensible sexism of Western culture tread very lightly, or not at all when dealing the infinitely greater and barbaric sexism of Islam.

Are they cowards or what? It is almost worth doing a post on this issue because Islam gets a free ride, at least in Western cultures.

Frankly, I am disgusted that this article from 2007 has been re-posted in some kind of xenophobic Western attempt to slander IRAN yet again. It is merely one of many smears on a (non-white) regime in a region where Australia has no business + panders to the supremacist agenda of the USA + NATO to continue to wedge the neighbors of RUSSIA + CHINA ...even to the point of starting WW3, uhh!

Lets not kid ourselves that this is anything else than an attack today on an ally of SYRIA ...which NATO + the West is obsessed about destroying through an illegitimate insurgency + illusorily 'validated' by the hysterical Western media. If Onlineopinion really wanted a relevant article to womens' rights + Muslim issues, they should have posted the story about polygamy + the Preston mosque instead.

That IS a local issue right here in Melbourne ...but they obviously have no genuine concern whatsoever about the rights of MUSLIM WOMEN in white settler society Australia [see 'Preston Mosque in strife over telling wives to share their husbands with other women' - http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/preston-mosque-in-strife-over-telling-wives-to-share-their-husbands-with-other-women/story-e6frf7kx-1226422997012 ].

To quote Joumah El Matrah, executive director for Australian Muslim Women's Centre for Human Rights - "We are deeply concerned by the advice provided by Preston Mosque; it reflects a poor understanding of marital discord in Muslim families..."

On the contrary Douglas Chalmers, the article highlights how stupid is the USA for pumping up the fear.

Regarding the idea of few wars and Peace on Earth in the Global Village.

Until they right the abuses against women and young girls around the world they will not get the peace on Earth that they say they want.

Why? Because the abuses of women on a mass scale is the the main driving factor behind:-
The overpopulation(7 billion),causing poverty,

Extinction of tigers, elephants and other animals

The mass refugee problems around the world as people fight over control of land and resources.

The said Global warming and certainly all kinds of pollutions

The abject misery of mothers with too many children to nuture and feed
without much to give them. The awful physical problems of women with their bodies and bladders ruptured by too many child births. The miserable, physically unwell mothers trying to care for an overwhelming number of young children who must also suffer from their mothers misery and inability to be happy.

The buying and selling of girls as young as 7 and 9 into brothels. Mostly done by deals with men by other men. They wouldn't think
about actually contributing the money they spend in these places to a fund for the girls and boys so they could have a happier life.

In fact just about every concerning problem on earth.

Let's give peace a chance! Noble sentiments and possible! But only for people who have taken up permanent residence in dream castles in the clouds.
What would have been John Lennon's fate, if he lived in Herr Hitler's time, and sang his song for him? Or Pol Pot or Idi Amin?
There are psychopaths who crave power the way an addict craves heroin or nicotine.
Power can be the most addictive seductive mistress of all!
Moreover, the more power they wield the more they crave or want, and by any and all means! Its a drug they can never ever get enough of!
Those that can will try to buy it; or failing that, butcher billions to get it, if that is what it takes?
Trying to appease them is simply taken as a sign of weakness, allowing them to demand more and more concessions.
We always always reach a point as decent caring human beings, where we have to stand up on our hind legs and say enough is enough, enough already.
We always reach a point when we know engaging in a righteous war will cost less lives and human misery than the current status quo.
Almost every allied soldier realised they were indeed fighting a righteous war against a mad as a cut snake, dictator, when they liberated the Nazi death camps, and or, saw the truly terrible emaciation of the pitiful few survivors!
From that moment on those eyewitnesses that were firing deliberately high, lowered their weapons and started to make their shots count?
There can be no case mounted for tolerating terrible stone age injustice.
Give peace a chance?
Sure and we will surely get it if we but eliminate these identified practises; and or, all those who practice them.
Stand up and say no more, even if that means yet another righteous war?
Every woman is somebody's Mother , Sister, Daughter, Cousin, Aunt or Soul-mate Sweetheart!
Could anyone who thinks of himself as a man, or a fair dinkum human being, sit still while his Mother, Daughter or Sister was stoned to death.
Rhrosty.

What an odd species we are.

Our intelligence is in almost perfect proportion to our penchant to engage in savagery toward our fellow man. Which other species treats its own kind with such exquisite brutishness and cruelty?

Poirot I'm no expert but I've got the impression that inter group conflicts are hardly in other species which live in groups. Within groups individuals can be chased out and left isolated if they are perceived as a threat to those with power. Brutal treatment of others is not something we have a monopoly on although some are masters.

Onto the topic (sort of).
It always amazes me that the gender warriors who want to make it all mens fault totally ignore who's being doing most of the early childhood care for most of history. Its pretty clear that the foundations for what can be nurtured rather than inherited are mostly laid in early childhood so that early childhood care must play a big role in the shape of society over time.

The blame game does not really work, we are all influenced by the values of what we grow up with whilst having responsibility for our own choices. A societies values can't absolve or place sole responsibility on the stoner for their actions while ignoring the actions of the person who instilled those values into the growing child in the first place.

We need to break some cycles and the gender blame game won't do it, all that amounts to is an attempt to dehumanise males rather than solve the problem.

R0bert

"Which other species treats its own kind with such exquisite brutishness and cruelty?"

Lions, ants, gorillas, whales, preying mantis's, wolves etc ad nauseum.

A revealing comment frenchie, apart from its mind-numbing, namby pamby, wistful political correctness. It reflects the Walt Disney view of nature as being nice and kind and frolicsome unlike the just beastly behaviour of humans.

Nature is a bitch; a relentless, merciless, pus-filled, gore splattered, murderous, mindless, process. But what we have today is a witless [no I take that back, you said something witty on the Prometheus thread], rose-coloured perspective of nature primarily promulgated by those who live in humanity's great cities where the horrors of nature are kept at bay.

The idiocy, the sheer cognitive dissonance of this "isn't nature marvellous" view informs AGW and all the boofhead attendant fads and fancies which the Greens promote as the recipe to a better life.

It's just implacably stupid and as wasteful and destructive as murdering women in atavistic cultures like Islam

Gee Cohenite, why don't you tell us what you really think.
I agree with you at least about nature and it made me think of this classic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPriOQkKd6k
I think the Christians were guilty of romanticising nature long before Greenies.
I have no such fanciful notions, yet that we are effecting the the planet's biosphere--and making life even harder--seems undeniable to me.

cohenite,

I "know" nature is cruel in its indifference....but human's are "calculatingly" cruel and barbaric by design when it suits them.

That's the difference.....

(pompous oaf!)

Hi Robert,
<The blame game does not really work, we are all influenced by the values of what we grow up with whilst having responsibility for our own choices. A societies values can't absolve or place sole responsibility on the stoner for their actions while ignoring the actions of the person who instilled those values into the growing child in the first place.>

This is certainly true, there are mothers who are cruel, or just plain afraid to stand against what they have always been told
is true by the surrounding culture.
But the women in these male dominated societies cannot escape the male dominance in the home or in society and children learn more by what they observe than what they are told. For example a parent who smokes but tells the child not to as it is harmful, is very likely to end up with a child who smokes. In this society boys see men as dominant no matter what they may be told.

Young boys at a certain age must identify with the men in their culture to become men or they will quickly be ostracized from the male culture if they show any sign of a different attitude to women than the male culture in that society as a whole .

It happens in our society too, this crossing over to the manhood club and culture, which constantly says to young men,
"you played like a girl or a pussy." It seems as though it is a rite of passage for men to have to reject the feminine side to step
Into the male world.
No matter what influence the mother might try to have on her son growing up he has to fit in
With the dominant male culture or face violence and ostracism himself.
Therefore it is the mindset of the men who make the rules and enforce them in these more oppressive societies that has to be gradually and
constantly challenged.
Another part of admittance to the male club
is pushing down your emotions, which doesn't help them to empathize with female issues.

I would have thought the blame lies squarely with an imbalance of power between women and men, rather than with either women or men per se, an imbalance currently being corrected globally with the enabling of autonomous women’s legislative authority through access, opportunity, quotas, women’s caucuses and bicameral parliamentary reform.

Cherful,
Why does it have to be challenged?
What difference does it make to the lives of Australian women if women in Afghanistan are mere chattels?
Afghans, Africans and all the other "patriarchies" contribute precisely nothing to White Western life nor do they ever seek to interfere in our lives.
Why not just leave them be?
There is no such thing as "Human rights", it's an anachronistic Western philosophical construct, which defies both scientific quantification and simple logic.

For Arabic speakers in AUZ (no Eng subs yet) - an interview with a Russian woman journalist living in Syria for the past 11 years, has been to Homs last week and in studio talking about Turkey sponsored FSA terrorists of all nationalities, geo-political importance of the war on Syria and what is the bigger plan... https://www.facebook.com/Amazing.Syria

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqhW2dC2tKU
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i07F6Q5Gm1k

[Deleted for abuse.]

Douglas Chalmers,
re the links- are those clips from an Arab garage sale ?

"There is no such thing as "Human rights", it's an anachronistic Western philosophical construct, which defies both scientific quantification and simple logic"

And there resides the vomitous garbage of the relativists and post-modernists. This is both a denial of individuality and a carte blanche for any despot to enslave people; because human rights are not universal, or do not even exist.

You want quantification try this:

"Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation: conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

And this:

http://www.ohchr.org/en/udhr/pages/introduction.aspx

At the risk of getting banned I would have to say that is the most idiotic thing I have read here; and the competition is fierce.

"Pompous oaf!"

Do better frenchie

cohenite,

I have to agree that "pompous oaf" doesn't even scrape the surface....let's face it, such arrogance displayed by an amateur on the subject of AGW is really something to behold. As a scientist you make a great lawyer.

I'm well aware of nature's mercilessness and ferocity. I think you willfully misconstrued my comment which goes to heart of the inherent aptitude of an intelligent and ideological species to employ those gifts to serve its baser instincts.

almost perfect proportion to our penchant to engage in savagery toward our fellow man.
Poirot,
Yes and you'd be extremely surprised as to what hideous behaviour you would be capable of when the conditions are right. Many dreadful things are done in the heat of the moment & most people are capable of self-control but some aren't. Much of the less self-controlled are actually exploiting the incompetence of modern Law.
I witnessed a chap being slapped about in a country where Law still means Law for stealing a mobile phone & got 3 months jail. In Queensland the mongrel who broke into my place & robbed me to the tune of 33 Grand its still walking around & has committed several more break-ins since.
Yes stoning is inhumane but it is no more inhumane then letting crims roam free with impunity. Or females of questionable morale getting away with inciting violence between men.

Poirot writes

'I "know" nature is cruel in its indifference....but human's are "calculatingly" cruel and barbaric by design when it suits them. '
Funny when I mention the adamic or eve nature I get blasted for being negative, judgemental etc etc. Oh well wonders never cease! My observation is consistently confirmed by humans who are 'cruel and barbaric by design when it suits them. ' Of course feminist are exceptions.

"I'm well aware of nature's mercilessness and ferocity. I think you willfully misconstrued my comment which goes to heart of the inherent aptitude of an intelligent and ideological species to employ those gifts to serve its baser instincts"

Tedious as it is, it bears repeating.

Poirot, I did not misconsture your comments; I don't have to, they speak for themselves, your position is plain. I say to you, is not man the only animal who can overcome his base instincts and generate a morality which protects, sustains and encourages the weak, infirm and disadvantaged who would otherwise be culled by nature?

You are a typical AGW believer; your glass is 1/2 empty and all you can see is humanity's bad qualities, not our capacity for good and potential to do more.

What a bleak little man you are and what a shame your world-view so perniciously permeates policy throughout the world today.

Go and take some happy pills!

cohenite,

What a silly comment. Of course I can see the good side of humanity. You put it very well, "....the only animal who can overcome his base instincts and generate morality which protects, sustains and encourages the weak, infirm and disadvantaged who would otherwise be culled by nature."

But "moralities' can also serve as avenues for humanity to express base instincts - like stoning, for instance.

Like I said, what an odd species.

"...all you can see is humanity's bad qualities...."

Nope, I see both sides.

(Do you really think I'm a guy?)

"Do you really think I'm a guy?"

A guy very much in touch with his feminine side. But then Poirot, while a male character was written by a woman.

But "moralities' can also serve as avenues for humanity to express base instincts - like stoning, for instance.
Poirot,
Yes, and maggotting within the Public Service for example & discriminating against victims as in Australian Law & protecting & rewarding criminals. Or giving yourself $1000/week pay rise if you happen to be in federal government whilst your pensioners are living in misery. Oh yes, very basic instincts all.

Ms Scutt,

What a nasty and treacherous piece of evil you write. Seething with accusation, spite and hatred of all things men. It's not an appeal by a damsel in distress. Nope, it's a name, blame and shame attack. It's a summing up by the prosecution of the guilt of all men as a class in accordance with loony Marxist feminist dogma, ingested and regurgitated, using the very same methods of those you condemn. The methods of ideological divisive manipulation.

"For as long as one woman is at risk of death at the hands of a legal system devised and enforced by men, then men are responsible," you write.

No I'm not Ms Scutt! You can go take your guilt trip and stick it! I'm not responsible for anything simply on the basis of being a man. Your statement presents a delusion of an irrational bigot.

I am not individually responsible for the reprehensible violence that fills the world every day. Shocked, annoyed, frustrated, angry perhaps, but not responsible. I don't do these things and I don't endorse or condone them. It's a violent world. Live with it. Improve peaceful and harmonious relations within your own sphere with the individuals around you, including men. Set an example, set the standard. That's what you and everybody can do about it.

Drumming up divisive hatred in sexist class warfare is not how you improve the world. It simply exacerbates the problem. Crazy ideologies with lack of respect for individual people, espoused here by yourself, are the very cause of exactly what you complain about.

I will not be taking up arms to fight your ideological war for you. I will not go on some dutiful crusade for all womankind on the battlefield or anywhere else, driven by a stick of some irrational decree of guilt and prejudiced sentence of blame and shame, just for being a man.

You can go do your own bidding.

And don't go sending me any of those white feathers either - I'd simply be tickled pink.

Good luck Ms Scutt.

PS - cohenite, like your stuff.

cohenite,

So you do think I'm a man - "very much in touch with his feminine side".

That's a bit of a lark, actually.

Or conversely, I might be woman who's very much in touch with her masculine side.....fascinating really.

individual,

I'm having difficulty equating any of your examples with the brutality involved in stoning a person to death.

Poirot,
Could you equate the drug problem with stoning ?

voxUnius, if you were to present your opinion in a court of law the judge would be obliged by convention to instruct the jury your testimony was a load of bollocks, your opinion unworthy of even the slightest consideration, simple because you lack the honesty and common decency to address Dr Scutt by her correct title, a character flaw common amongst miscreants in the justice system.

.....in a court of law the judge would be obliged by convention to instruct the jury.....
whistler,
If only the Judges would feel so obliged when victims are being discriminated against.

Poirot, maybe you're twins, a boy and a girl.

You say:

"I'm having difficulty equating any of your examples with the brutality involved in stoning a person to death."

Right, back to topic. Islam is not only barbaric in its attitudes towards not only women, but anyone who is not a muslim and indeed male muslims who are low on the pecking order and who are regarded as merely cannon-fodder.

It is a vile influence on humanity. Ms Scutt should concentrate her comments and direct her vitriol to it. In that respect I find it ironic that while she is prepared to spread the blame for Islam's atrocities against women to all males, muslim or not, one of the most common defences put up for Islam from Ms Scutt's side of the fence is that not all muslims are bad, primitive and active exponents of an ideology which is anathema to individual rights based democracies.

In fact the reverse is true; the fact that there are no doubt good and peaceful muslims does not detract from the fact that all practitioners of Islam must share in the blame for its oppressive attributes. However, in Western society where affirmative and proactive policies give women equality with men and where individual rights and responsibilities are enshrined not all men are to blame for firstly Islam's misogyny or for particular instances of misogyny in the West.

This is a crucial distinction and Ms Scutt shows no capacity for understanding it.

The slippery slope to stoning begins with cohenite calling Dr Scutt Ms.

A fatuous and inflammatory comment, whistler.

Not my ticket Poirot, I'm with the freedom riders.

I think that the slope to stoning (or its equivalent) lies in the doctors attacks on men far more than in the use of a title.

The doctor denigrates men as a gender quite consistently and tries to hold individual men responsible for the actions of other men in situations where there is no-valid linkage.

Perhaps an editorial oversight but the article isn't published with Dr at the front of the authors name so Whistlers objections seem somewhat out of place.

R0bert

The slippery slope to stoning begins with cohenite calling Dr Scutt Ms.
whistler,
Why, is she a Mrs ?

Perhaps we can get back to the topic :)

Jon J.'s comments, right at the beginning, that ".... many, many more men die through acts of violence than women, by a factor of well over ten to one....." needs to be held up to the light: presumably, he means through warfare, but he ignores the terrible fact that, every year, mainly in the developing world, perhaps millions of women die in childbirth, and many thousands more die from beatings, being burnt to death (India/Pakistan) raped and murdered in wars, etc.

His factor of "ten to one" perhaps needs to be backed up with some basic evidence.

Here in Australia, in the NT, almost all women murdered are Aboriginal, around a dozen each year, 'little women' [I look forward to the outraged leftist TV documentary by that name] usually beaten to death over many hours by their beloveds, the easy targets of weak b@stards. Aboriginal women die in childbirth at a much greater rate than non-Aboriginal mothers.

Yes, many Aboriginal men die violently too, but perhaps not by a factor of "ten to one". In custody, as we know, Aboriginal people are proportionally no more likely to die than non-Aboriginal prisoners, but outside of custody, out in the wonderfully supportive 'community', suicide rates for Aboriginal people, tragedies of desperation, are five and ten times the non-Aboriginal rate, including for women.

Yes, there certainly is an urgent need to protect Aboriginal women from rapists and thugs and weak tyrds, before the 'community' completely dissolves.

Joe

Stoning is one of the most barbaric of tortures man can inflict on fellow man & woman. I shudder to think how many women have been the victims of this heinous practice at the behest of dictators' wives'.

That is another issue which Ms[?] Scutt ignores; the God's Police and Damned Whore's Syndrome. It is well known that members of oppressed groups can be at the forefront of oppression of the group they are members, surrepstitiously or not, of.

Ms Scutt's thesis needs a lot of work, apart from the salient point of Islam and stoning.

Hi Cohenite,

Yes, you may be right: "It is well known that members of oppressed groups can be at the forefront of oppression of the group they are members, surreptitiously or not, of."

Oy. I'm not sure how one can be surreptitiously oppressed, but we'll let that one go through to the keeper. The point is that surely women, in oppressed groups, are almost always far more likely to be at the "forefront of oppression" than their menfolk, isn't that so ?

Whether it happens to be Sudanese women in their half-million-population refugee camps (Note: to SHY), or Afghan women, or Aboriginal women, or even Carlton Greenie professional women, they are more likely to be sold off, raped, murdered, set on fire, die in childbirth, beaten, or in the case of the Carlton set, insulted in some small way, than men - isn't that so ?

Shalom,

Joe

So "oppression" of women is the natural state of affairs and "emancipation" of women is a Western deception driven by the Capitalist's desire to profit from all work done in society, not just that performed by males.
Western women still do nearly all the unpaid work in the community, as well as holding down jobs (overwhelmingly as wage slaves) and driving the demand for labour saving household items, leisure, fitness and beauty products.
The motivation behind "rights" movements is always profit, women's rights should really be called the women's Industry, it's still a hegemonic capitalist system and the only way to challenge it would be via the deflationary effect of a mass exodus of women from paid work, hit em in the pocketbook as they say.