world

In U.S. and abroad, new focus on anti-women violence

23 Comments
By DAVID CRARY

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

23 Comments
Login to comment

Why not just focus on violence in general? Is one type worse than the other?

5 ( +8 / -3 )

What is the common denominator? Islam and their beliefs.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Why not just focus on violence in general? Is one type worse than the other?

But the prime recipient and victims of violence are females, and mostly because of sexual need of men , or because they are burden for them, in one way or another, sexual thirst of men is what result in majority of killings in the world. To fight this problem , first is needed education on that every life should be respected as same as your own life, and no more "my wishes are highest priority " , because , men wishes are those who led in making them commit crimes, and not to forget, lost of murders in US are also committed over the women because of same thing, people rape someone, and to avoid trials, they kill their victims to cover track , and so , again because of sexual thirst, people do killing .

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

But the prime recipient and victims of violence are females

I doubt that. Yes, mostly men are perpetrators of physical violence, but also mostly men are victims of other men. Of course when sexual assault comes into the equation mostly females are affected. But that's why sexual assault and violent crime are different criminal categories.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

'What is the common denominator? Islam and their beliefs.'

It isn't just Islam. India has an atrocious record of crimes against women carried out by non-Muslims. The genital mutilation of young girls, a disgraceful violation, is carried out by non-Muslims. I'm certainly not defending Islam or any other religion ( they all despise women ) but the reason why men very often treat women disgracefully in Islamic societies is that they believe and follow the nonsense in their books more closely than most followers of other religions.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Violence against women?

Excuse me, but who fights the wars again?

I think they should go for a more positive appeal here. Instead demanding less violence, how about demanding more respect? Then they should also accept that respect is a two way street and analyze what things women do that show no respect for men.

Mind you though that the extreme cases mentioned were purely men disrespecting women, but mutual disrespect surely played a role.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

"They all despise women"

And some of them despise women a lot more than others. And one certain one is ruled by small groups of highly reactionary old men, and has never experienced reform or enlightenment in the last 1,500 years.

Unless the creed or ideology is attacked head-on, the problem won't go away.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

There is no argument that violence against women must be fought, whether in the courts, the classrooms, the streets or the home, and wherever it occurs, be it in ignorant Pakistani villages, vicious India slums or in the amoral American military killing machine.

Saying this i was displeased with the general "feminist" response the murders by Eliot Roger. While his hatred for women and his female victims was emphasized his murder of men was virtually overlooked. Did not those males' lives count? Do not their families have as much right to grieve and feel outraged as the families of the females.

The "feminists" I am referring to also overlooked an important fact. While Roger was certainly a misogynist, who tried to push some women from a balcony before his rampage, he also hated men, whom he saw as rivals for the women he could not have. In one of his blogs he imagined a world where all the men were killed off except himself, giving him exclusive access to all the beautiful women. He hated Black men and Asian men and looked down on all men who were not white. In a blog he complained that women preferred "brutes" to himself. Three of the men he murdered were Asian and one was Hispanic.

He also hated attractive couples. I assault one with a Starbucks coffee and others with orange juice.

Whatever else we don't know about Roger, we know that he suffered from sexual frustration and this made his bitter and violent. I agree with anyone who dismisses this as an isolated case. There are lots of people like him and the trouble is that they have easy access to guns in the United States because of organizations like the NRA.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I'm with burning bush and Kabukilover on this one; it should simply be a rise against violence in general, not solely violence against women. The incidents involving women over the past little while and, as was pointed out, since forever, definitely need to be fought, and nations like India or those that stone women to death need to change their way of thinking, but that doesn't change the fact that violence does not see gender, and visits both. So kudos to these women for standing up, but please stand up for us all.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

There are lots of people like him and the trouble is that they have easy access to guns in the United States because of organizations like the NRA.

You were doing so good right up until that last sentence. In reality, California's gun purchase restrictions for mental health patients goes beyond the federal government's requirements. In fact, California has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country, earning them an A- rating by the Brady Campaign (which really does want to ban and confiscate all guns). And they still didn't stop that nutcase.

Just as the "feminist" response only paid attention to the murdered women and ignored the murdered men, you also only recognized the gun(s) used by the nutcase and ignored the fact that he used other weapons for most of his murders. A hammer, a knife, a machete, and a car. Do those weapons not count?

Also, did you know the nutcase was half-Chinese? And that the NRA actually opposes dangerously crazy people having access to guns?

You see, if our mental health care system were properly reformed, that nutcase would have been in a secure facility and incapable of killing anyone. Eight people would be alive today, if you count him. But if he were roaming as free as he was and only had his access to guns restricted, he still would have killed at least three people. Why none of the reactionary hoplophobes on JT can grasp that is beyond me. I posted this on another thread, and nobody offered a counter argument or even admitted that they hadn't considered those facts. They just "voted down" my post.

Getting back to the main topic, it's good to see that some of these groups are (finally) looking beyond the U.S. and taking their message into countries that still practice 4th-century violence against women. While they're at it, perhaps they will discover and address the violence that also takes place against young boys in those countries. In America, women in most states have the option of using weapons (yes, such as guns) to defend themselves against stronger, violent men. The NRA even provides training for women to protect themselves from such violence, just as they provided arms and trained blacks so they could defend themselves against violent racists such as the KKK (See: The late Senator Robert Byrd, D-W.Virginia). But women in many other countries don't legally have access to any weapons that could even the odds against violent men. There, the only option is to change the men, and that will take some time.

There is a campaign in the U.S. to reduce the type of rapes and sexual assaults that occur on college campuses. These include date rapes, taking advantage of drunk/unconscious women, spiking drinks, etc. I think the campaign used the slogan "don't be that guy", and it was surprisingly effective. Apparently, the guys who would have otherwise committed these acts had to be told that society frowned on such behavior. It's time that message reached the dark corners of our world.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Let me tell you, this character would not be allowed to own a gun in Japan. California's gun control laws are obviously not tough enough.

Yes, the guy also used a knife, hammer and machete to kill his roommates. Except for machetes, we cannot live without knives and hammers. We can live without guns. I don't need and gun to cut my food or hammer in a nail.

It is pure good luck that that guy was inept as a drive-by shooter. He did not have a mother who took him to shooting ranges.

I doubt that even an extreme nut case would support nut cases owning guns. But the fact is that the NRA has been dead set against practically all gun control measures. They have also blocked research on gun violence.

I live in Japan where there is no 2nd Amendment and no NRA. Here gun ownership rules are super strict. We have our inescapable knives and hammers, and sometimes they are used to murder people. We also have cars that sometimes turn into weapons. But mass gun murder is an extreme rarity here. I cannot recall when there was one, or if there was one. In fact mass murder is fairly uncommon here, unlike the US. It is simply easier to kill people with guns.

We have our nut cases here too. If ever I have to out run one I will be happy he does not have a gun.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Sorry, but that photograph is uber weird.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The difference between violence men do to other men , and men do to the females is that majority of man killing females is the result of sexual thirst ,while their brain is under influence of sexual hormones . Men think differently while under influence of sexual hormones making them to do things that , in normal circumstances , and without the influence of sexual hormones, would not do. I think we all , who are men , know that very well, you can denie it, but the reality is like that . And also, another problem is that after rape is done,, mens brain after sex is totally free of sexual hormones, and thats when men brain is the most dangerous one, he then care just for him self , and has no feelings for anyone , thats something that majority of females dont know , men before and after sex are often two different persons . Thats why murders are happening so often after rape , mens cold and emotionless brain is then at height . And for husband killing their wife, is the result of wife loosing sexual apeal to the husband, and husband often feel the burden of having someone who they dont see attractive anymore , thats another problem with men, no mater how handsome wife or female they got , sex appeal will drop .

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Jimizo:

" I'm certainly not defending Islam or any other religion ( they all despise women ) "

No, they don´t "all despise women". If you think otherwise, tell us how Jains, Sikhs, Buddhisty, or Bahais "despise women".

In case of islam, the second class treatment and abuse of women is codified in Shariah law, and you see the results of that in the current cases in Nigeria and Pakistan.

It is true that abuse of women also happens in Hindu parts of India, but I have to see a justification for that in Hindu law (does such a thing even exist?) Hindus certainly do not try to bring this with them when emigrate to other countries.

So please stop trying to whitewash Shariah by relativising it.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Let me tell you, this character would not be allowed to own a gun in Japan.

What is your point? I wouldn't be allowed to own a gun in Japan either. Neither would you. Nor would the woman who is being stalked by a weirdo, the woman being threatened or beaten by the husband she is divorcing, or the random woman who is about to be raped. Like the women in Chicago, they have to wait on the police, who only show up afterwards to file the report and notify the surviving family members.

And that's the problem with how you view guns, Kabukilover: You completely fail to recognize their value as a defensive weapon. Thousands of people in America use guns in self-defense every day. Many of them are women. I've used a gun in self-defense against a man who could have killed me with the strap he had around my neck. The only reason he didn't is because he suddenly realized he was about to be shot. So you see, some people actually cannot live - literally - without guns.

Something else you fail to recognize is that Japan is very different culturally from most other countries. In Japan, I don't worry about being jumped from behind by some junkie who is bigger and stronger than me. Thanks to being a set of islands with a long history of restricting access, Japan's drug culture is very different from a land-locked nation which shares a porous border with a third-world country that is essentially run by drug cartels. For example, does Japan have MS-13 gang members? No? Do tell.

Also, what are the two main religions - however loosely practiced - in Japan? How do those religions treat women? What are the main religions of the countries these anti-violence groups are (finally) focusing on? What is their history towards women? For example, do women in Japan worry about being stoned to death for any reason whatsoever? No? Gee, how about that.

In America, it's not the 2nd Amendment that "gives" people access to guns. The 2nd Amendment merely recognizes that people have a creator-granted right to defend themselves. It's a basic human right, same as providing food for yourself or your family. To say that good people shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves is to say that their predators - whether they be junkies, rapists, or tyrannical governments - have more right to take what they want from the innocent, than the innocent have to defend themselves against aggressors.

I live in Japan where

You live in an insular bubble. I know. I visit it every year. The people in these other countries don't have the luxury of insulating themselves from harsher realities. But don't act sanctimonious while denying the innocent people in America the right to defend themselves, just because you don't have the courage to keep nutcases like Rodgers from roaming the streets. Focus on the real causes of violence, and then guns will be non-issue not only for you, but for many millions more. But if you only focus on guns, as I pointed out earlier, the violence will still be a problem. And it will be the innocent who suffer.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

@Burning BushJUN. 01, 2014 - 07:19AM JST Why not just focus on violence in general? Is one type worse than the other?

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Are there women performing similar violence/murder on men? Please write precedence of such actions women did on men.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Why not just focus on violence in general? Is one type worse than the other?

Because caring for all people equally does not divide people so as to furthers the cause of Leftist ideology. For every cause there must always be a group of victims that can be pitted against others (usually conservative white men) in order to further the Lefts goal of fundamentally changing society.

The vast majority of the violence against women in the world today occurs in third world nations, and primarily in Muslim nations. Yet the Left doesn't want to focus on that because it divides their coalition of the aggrieved. One need look no further than the uproar at a prominent Liberal university in the US that withdrew honoring a Muslim black women Ayaan Hirsi Ali who has been fighting against the barbaric treatment of women under Shiria law. It astounds human dignity the hatred and vitriol directed at this brave women who has literally risked her life in the fight against the really brutal treatment of women in many countries around the world.

No, instead of taking actions against the worst offenders, we instead get the now ubiquitous 'Slut Walk'. Disrespecting Ali and participating in idiotic 'Slut Walks' can only serve to bolster the destructive mindset of those that support the oppression of women via Shiria or other third world orthodoxies.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

One need look no further than the uproar at a prominent Liberal university in the US that withdrew honoring a Muslim black women Ayaan Hirsi Ali who has been fighting against the barbaric treatment of women under Shiria law.

One need look no further than the dishonest and/or ignorant portrayal of this event by right-wingers.

An honorary degree was proposed and later withdrawn because, as Brandeis officials were reminded, it would mean endorsing Ms. Ali's body of work and comments. The dishonesty comes in neglecting the fact that on many occasions, Ms. Ali has attacked and defamed the religion of Islam itself -- which crosses the line from a simple "fight against the barbaric treatment of women."

I happened to grow among American Muslims and my personal experiences belie the ignorant bigotry I often see portrayed here. Ms. Ali is a fallible human being, and her comments against an entire religious faith disqualify her from receiving an honorary degree. Brandies welcomes her to their campus to participate in discussions, which should satisfy anyone but the craven who attempt make political hay out of this. Attacking an entire religion is against liberal principles, and I'm glad to see Brandeis standing up for theirs.

The vast majority of the violence against women in the world today occurs in third world nations

There is all too much violence against women closer to home too. What are the statistics of women in the military who have reported being subject to sexual assault? Not a pretty picture.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Attacking an entire religion is against liberal principles, and I'm glad to see Brandeis standing up for theirs.

Ms. Ali is a former Muslim but now an atheist with very legitimate criticisms of her former religion most notably it's horrific treatment of women. She has been very critical of Islam because some very horrific things have been going on in the name of Islam. Are college graduates unable to cope with reality? I'm happy that you grew up with Muslims and no doubt they are good and decent people; but she is not denouncing good and decent people. Do you deny that even now Sharia treats women as more of a possession than a human being?

Oh, and since when is a commencement speech an endorsement on the part of the university? That's just another example of the double speak necessary to justify stifling dissenting opinions by an institution that is supposed to expose young people to differing points of view.

The problem with your statement that 'attacking an entire religion is against liberal principles' is that the statement itself is illiberal. I dare say that if a commencement speaker were an atheist that denounced Christianity or better still Jews would not be attacked in this manner. The sad state of Progressivism is that it can somehow denounce a woman who is an activist for women by the same people who claim to respect women rights. The Muslim religion as practiced by many in the third world (and very few in the West) treats women horribly. If that were not the case I suspect she would still be a Muslim today.

Progressivism has become far and away the most illiberal ideology in the developed world. They cannot tolerate anyone that does not think the way they do. It is the new McCarthyism.

There is all too much violence against women closer to home too. What are the statistics of women in the military who have reported being subject to sexual assault? Not a pretty picture.

Anyone with a ounce of common sense could tell you that throwing so many young men and women together in a high pressure situation would result in an increase in sexual assaults. As the number of women increases in the military the number of sex related crimes increased - that's not rocket science. It's wrong but they are human beings and yes, too many young people are unable to control themselves. I don't think we even try to teach them that anymore - you know with the sexual revolution and all...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

And in many countries in the world, women are encourage to think of men as a wage packet (read "slave").

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Ms. Ali is a former Muslim but now an atheist with very legitimate criticisms of her former religion most notably it's horrific treatment of women.

This is equivalent to saying that every Muslim woman, no matter where she is, is being mistreated by Ms. Ali's "former religion." Such wholesale condemnation is the problem.

..but she is not denouncing good and decent people.

When she denounces an entire faith, she certainly is lumping the good and decent adherents to it along with the bad.

The problem with your statement that 'attacking an entire religion is against liberal principles' is that the statement itself is illiberal. I dare say that if a commencement speaker were an atheist that denounced Christianity or better still Jews would not be attacked in this manner.

First, there was no "attack" on Ms. Ali. She was considered for an honorary degree by Brandeis, then, after a more thorough review of her sayings and writings was conducted, the consideration was withdrawn, and an invitation to speak in another capacity was extended. This sequence of events constitutes an "attack"only in the minds of the craven.

Second, it will be up to you to provide an example of someone who has denounced an entire faith who was afterwards granted an honorary degree by a liberal university. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to provide one.

Third and last, and this is where the hypocrisy of the right-wingers is revealed: Let's change the roles for a moment and suppose that a Palestinian woman who had been mistreated by Israelis had been considered for an honorary degree, and then some remarks came to light of her denouncing the entire Jewish faith, and the honor was withdrawn as it was with Ms. Ali. Would the right-wingers come out in defense of the Palestinian woman as they are with Ms. Ali? We all know that they would certainly not -- which shows that they have no inherent integrity or principles whatsoever. With them, everything reduces to scoring cheap political points.

Anyone with a ounce of common sense could tell you that throwing so many young men and women together in a high pressure situation would result in an increase in sexual assaults.

It is no secret that a majority in the military are conservative, or at least tend to vote more along those lines. If separated by gender, I would venture to say that what liberalism there is exists more among the women than among the men. And so what we have here is a conservative essentially making excuses for sexual predators found to be among a group of predominantly conservative men.

It's wrong but they are human beings and yes, too many young people are unable to control themselves. I don't think we even try to teach them that anymore - you know with the sexual revolution and all...

And yet, conservatives will speak out of the other sides of their mouths about "personal responsibility." And so we are witness to one conservative looking to cast responsibility on "the sexual revolution" for the actions of a predominantly conservative bunch of men. (Many military men come from the South and rural areas -- which also lean strongly conservative.) But I want to know just where in this "sexual revolution" -- which you make it appear that conservative parents have somehow surrendered to -- it was taught that it was OK for men to sexually assault women?

If there's one thread that ties all the above together -- whether it's an extreme form of Islam; or various sects of Judeo-Christianity which compel women to (similarly) be silent, cover up, and be subservient to men; or in endemic assaults under strict military regimentation -- we will find the conservative mindset at work.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@yabits

This is equivalent to saying that every Muslim woman, no matter where she is, is being mistreated by Ms. Ali's "former religion." Such wholesale condemnation is the problem.

Only in an absolutists mind is Ali's criticism of Islam a condemnation of all Muslims individuals. I presume she has relatives and friends that are Muslim. One can condemn the extremists in an organization without condemning all others. I do not think that a case can be made that Ali condemns those Muslim women that are the victims of Sharia law.

First, there was no "attack" on Ms. Ali

You are quibbling over semantics. It is my opinion that those who did not want to hear her views are attacking her views by demanding that she not be allowed to speak. If you don't agree - that's cool.

Second, it will be up to you to provide an example of someone who has denounced an entire faith who was afterwards granted an honorary degree by a liberal university.

No not really. However a commencement speaker isn't as significant as the professors that skew way far to the Left at the Ives and even at most state universities.

Let's change the roles for a moment and suppose that a Palestinian woman who had been mistreated by Israelis had been considered for an honorary degree, and then some remarks came to light of her denouncing the entire Jewish faith, and the honor was withdrawn as it was with Ms. Ali.

It might shock you to hear that I agree with you on this. Let's face it both sides are so polarized there is no agreement anymore. That's why free speech and tolerance of other views are more important than ever. And that's what makes the dominance of political correctness in colleges and the media so destructive.

If there's one thread that ties all the above together -- whether it's an extreme form of Islam; or various sects of Judeo-Christianity which compel women to (similarly) be silent, cover up, and be subservient to men; or in endemic assaults under strict military regimentation -- we will find the conservative mindset at work.

Yet it is Ali that opposes this authoritarian mindset and the Left can't bear to hear her point of view. Now that's hypocrisy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, the guy also used a knife, hammer and machete to kill his roommates. Except for machetes, we cannot live without knives and hammers. We can live without guns. I don't need and gun to cut my food or hammer in a nail.

To be fair though that isn't a true statement. You can live without metal knives, you can use plastic knives to cut your food and what ever food you can't cut with a plastic knife you can eat whole, not all at once of course, and what ever you can't eat whole you can live the rest of your life not eating that food again and still be healthy. If we really need to have metal knives you can just make it so that only licensed butchers and restaurant chefs and food processing companies have access to metal knives. If you need a piece of food to be cut you can go down to your butcher and have them cut it for you. Private citizens don't need hammers, you can make it where only licensed union construction workers/laborers have access to hammers. You need something to be hammered in? Call them up and schedule an appointment to have them come over and do it for you.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites