[Gray Ghost]

Sunnykerr, I'm an entertainer first, serious person second.

[Avatar]

Maybe you should try the other way around sometimes - you might find that's more conductive to a healthy debate. Just a thought.

That's a very sombering story you posted, Sunny. Violence against women is obviously a major problem, not only in Colombia, but around the world. I'm not sure, however, if having medical professional being required to report it would be the best idea. The men in these cases have so much power over the women - if you required the medical professionals to report it to the police if they suspect abuse, I wonder how many battered women would come to the hospital to get help.

[sunnykerr]

Sunnykerr, I'm an entertainer first, serious person second.

Then perhaps you should stick to lighter topics.

Or, as Dan suggests, try to give the serious topics their just due by treating them seriously.

That's a very sombering story you posted, Sunny. Violence against women is obviously a major problem, not only in Colombia, but around the world. I'm not sure, however, if having medical professional being required to report it would be the best idea. The men in these cases have so much power over the women - if you required the medical professionals to report it to the police if they suspect abuse, I wonder how many battered women would come to the hospital to get help.

No, obviously, the point wasn't to depict Colombia as the only place in the world where violence against women is a problem. It's just the article I came across. And, obviously, it seems to be happening in Colombia, too.

And I do believe it's the law in Canada and the United States that doctors have to report those instances where they suspect abuse. It hasn't stopped women from going there.

The real issue isn't so much whether doctors ought to be compelled to report abuse. I believe they should and we can certainly discuss whether that violates the patient's right to privacy. Because that is a real issue and I'm not trying to minimize that.

But I think that, right now, the law is simply not there to make that law-enforcement involvement a really significant thing. That's the problem. The penalties for spousal abuse are too low. Heck, I'm not even sure the abuser has to remain in jail while he's on trial. So that there's a very significant physical threat to any woman who reports the abuse, whether she does it herself or her doctor does it for her.

So there are inadequate laws to keep the victim safe. On top of that, there is a need to address the psychological, financial and emotional dependency of the victim on her abuser. There are a plethora of issues to address here.

[Barstool Prophet]

If these stats are ever going to improve their needs to be a harsher penalty and a much better or even a new program put in place for anger management, victim services and other psychiatric interventions.

This issue is often laughed off, but worldwide the statistics are disgustingly high. The damage it causes women and children is unspeakable.

[sunnykerr]

I would be satisfied with law enforcement worldwide viewing spousal abuse as a crime.

I mean, it'd be nice if it came with proper intervention, counselling and, if need be, harsher penalties.

But, for me, the problem right now isn't so much the lack of harsh penalties as the fact it's still not always seen as a crime. Too many parts of this world still look at domestic abuse as a husband's due right.

[Cristofle]

This also applies to abuse of children, namely for this thread sexual abuse of girls- fathers who sexually abuse their daughters will almost never be punished for it. What a stranger would go to jail for, a father MIGHT be reduced to supervised visitation. Girls almost might as well be their father's property. And going back to the marriage issue, spousal rape is almost never taken seriously- it's like a woman doesn't have a right to say no if the man she's saying no to is her husband.

[sunnykerr]

Exactly.

The laws of the world have to start reflecting the inherent equality of all peoples. That a woman is no man's property, whether we're talking her husband or her birth family. That children are also worth protecting and defending.

The Quebec society for the protection of youth (DPJ) issued a public formal apology earlier this week in light of the Shafia trial concluding.

In case anyone's confused as to what I'm talking about: Three Shafia teenage girls, ages 13 to 17 or 18, as well as their father's first wife (it was a polygamous marriage, so she may have been their mother, but I'm not sure) were murdered by their father, his second wife and their brother, along with that first wife. Four women murdered because... well it's an honour killing, but there's no honour in killing, so whatever.

The point is, the three girls had called into the DPJ on more than one occasion and obviously the DPJ failed to intervene and now they're dead. And everyone's talking about it this week here. Because the DPJ acted the way it did by fear of overeaching in a cultural situation it did not understand. Obviously, it failed those girls. And that's what it admited in that statement.

So the question for them is how to move forward now. How they re-examine how they do things.

Even in Canada, we're still not doing enough to protect our girls and women. Imagine those other places in this world where women and children have no political or legal status...

[Barstool Prophet]

The world needs an ideology overall for sure. There needs to be international protection. Mind you I have no idea about how we would go about doing so.

[Avatar]

Everyone made the points better than I could, so I'll just say I agree. Meanwhile, some progress in Pakistan:

Senate passes 'The National Commission on Status of Women Bill, 2012' The Upper House of Parliament on Thursday unanimously passed 'The National Commission on the Status of Women Bill, 2012', tasked to promote of social, economic, political and legal rights of women as enshrined in the constitution. Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar, adviser to prime minister on Human Rights moved the bill, whereas a large number of jubilant women rights activists belonging to different walks of life, witnessed its passage from the visitors' gallery. The parliamentarians belonging to religious political parties like Jamat-e-Islami (JI) and Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazal (JUI-F) were a bit hesitant at first, seeking some amendments but finally succumbed to the pressure of majority, especially women, who were hell-bent to get it through. According to the bill, the commission will be administratively and financially independent with powers of a civil court compared to some previous toothless predecessors and with a key role of parliament in its constitution. Its preamble cited the main objectives of what the government called the fulfilment of one of its promises for the emancipation of Pakistani women as "promotion of social, economic, political and legal rights of women" as provided in the Constitution and "in accordance with international declarations, conventions, treaties, conventions and agreements relating to women, including the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women". More: Senate passes 'The National Commission on Status of Women Bill, 2012' | Business Recorder

[sunnykerr]

That is most definitely a move in the right direction, as evidenced by the reaction of the women who witnessed it.

Now, let us see how this is implemented and carried through before we rejoice too much. It certainly seems very promising and I do fundamentally believe that the history of the world is one in which people gain their proper rights more and more... but it can take a while sometimes.

[Avatar]

Oh, no doubt. But even a long journey starts with a small step. We can only hope that this is it.

[sunnykerr]

I just realized how freaking negative and depressing my last post was.

I swear, I was actually trying to make the point that, although progress may be slow, this is obviously a sign that there is a lot of hope to be felt here.

That got lost in translation, doesn't it?

[Avatar]

A little bit.

[sunnykerr]

Looks like things may be improving in India as well, perhaps:

‘Eighty percent women don’t ask for divorce as they have nowhere to go’ The Planning Commission’s working group on Women’s Agency and Empowerment has proposed Right to Marital Property Act. The proposed right aims to give separated/ divorced women equal share in the property. The onus of proving husband’s income, as per the proposal, lies on the husband rather than on the wife as it happens in the current scheme of things. Further, the right applies to all the communities. Senior advocate Kirti Singh was part of the team which drafted the right. Singh talks to Firstpost about the need of such legislation and the issues of divorced and separated women. What is the objective of the right to marital property? There are two major proposals in this right. One, it gives equal right to women in marital property. This includes movable and immovable property acquired by both the spouses during the subsistence of marriage. The proposal recognises that a woman has an equal share in these assets whether she is contributing to the family, financially or not. The second proposal is to strengthen the Maintenance Act. On divorce or separation, woman needs maintenance depending on what she is earning, the earning of the husband, children and the kind of life they have been living. At present, if a separated woman suffers from lack of capacity to earn. She is never at the same position as her husband is. She needs financial support for herself and the children. The proposed law also says that the onus of verifying the husband’s income should be on the husband and not on the wife. What about poor families or households in which there are not many assets or property to divide? For families living below the poverty line, the state should ensure that social security laws exist by which such women are compensated. The state should do the recovery on behalf of separated women. Else, there should be a fund from which such women get monetary assistance. What difference will this law make to the current scheme of things? Currently, the rights of divorced and separated women are limited. This is primarily because of two causes — women have no place to go once they are separated/ divorced and the maintenance laws are extremely weak. We practice separation of property regime. This means that if the property is in the name of the woman it will belong to her, otherwise it will not. When they get separated they hardly have anything in their name. How serious is the problem? I contributed to a study on the condition of divorced/ separated women for the Economic Research Foundation. Delhi. The study reflects the dismal economic condition of divorced women. We found that in more than 80 per cent of the cases, women don’t ask for divorce as there will be a complete plunge in their lifestyle. Those who get divorced, live with their mothers or siblings. They hardly become independent. What is the scenario in other countries? In other countries the contributions of a housewife are considered. Whether a woman is financially contributing or not, the law allots her at least half of the assets which were bought by the couple during marriage. In Europe, there is communion of property law in which the wife becomes a co-owner right from the beginning of the marriage. Other countries have laws which say that though the woman is a co-owner, separation becomes a trigger. During separation, the value of assets is ascertained and it is equally divided between the two. If the proposal becomes legislation, will it supersede laws governing various communities such as the Muslim personal law or Hindu Marriage Act? All these laws are silent on this issue. So, there is no question of any clash or overlap. What happens next in terms of implementation? We have made this proposal for the 12th five year plan. We expect the Planning Commission to forward the same to the government so that it becomes a law.

Source

I have no idea what the implementation phase looks like, but I would say this would be a move forward, right? The contributions of the housewife need to be taken into account in divorces. It's a partnership.

[sunnykerr]

US military to ease curbs on women in combat roles The US military has announced plans to ease restrictions on women serving in combat roles. While women will still be barred from infantry, armour and special operations positions, the most dangerous posts, they will be closer to the front lines. But an advocacy group for women in the military said the policy did not go far enough. Women make up about 14% of the US armed forces. The move reflects new realities ushered in by the Iraqi and Afghan wars. Correspondents say that in conditions where battle lines have become increasingly blurred, it has become less and less possible to keep women out of combat conditions. 'Levelling the field' The new policy would open to women about 14,000 new roles - mostly in the Army and Marine Corps - which were previously denied to them. There are few restrictions left on female service members in the Navy and Air Force. Under these changes women would be able to take up posts ranging from tank mechanics to rocket-launcher crew members. But women would still be ineligible for 238,000 jobs - almost one fifth of the armed forces - mainly in special forces and infantry units. The policy, which was initiated by recommendations from Congress' Military Leadership Diversity Commission last year, will take effect after 30 days, unless Congress moves to block it. Traditionally, women have been based in brigades (about 3,500 troops) along with top command and support personnel under the 1994 combat exclusion policy. But the new changes would place women in battalions, groups of about 800 personnel, which would bring women into closer contact with the enemy. "We believe that it's very important to explore ways to offer more opportunities to women in the military," Pentagon Press Secretary George Little told a briefing on Thursday. He added that while the review has been "thorough and extensive", the military will continue to look for ways to expand opportunities for women in the armed forces. The Service Women's Action Network gave the policy a qualified welcome. Its director Anu Bhagwati, a former Marine captain, said: "It's time military leadership establish the same level playing field to qualified women to enter the infantry, special forces and other all-male units." Meanwhile, retired Army Lt Col Robert Maginnis said the report would not necessarily improve national security. "This does not dismiss the sexual tension issues, nor does it dismiss the differences physiologically between men and women in terms of cardiovascular fitness," he told the Associated Press news agency. The Pentagon did not take up other recommendations put forward by the congressional diversity commission, which related to sleeping and privacy arrangements for servicewomen, limits on physically demanding jobs, and restrictions on women joining special forces. There are about 200,000 women on active duty in the US armed forces. Of more than 6,300 troops that died in Iraq and Afghanistan, 144 were women.

Source

I think this is a move in the right direction. Everyone should have the opportunity to apply to the jobs they want.

I know some opponents will point out differences in brute force between men and women, and I'm not really up to arguing that point. But I do think the opportunity should be there and, then, if a woman can't meet the requirements of physical challenges, then she shouldn't be given the job. But the opportunity should still be there.