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.