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.