Women's Rights

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2001
Women's Rights
11
Tue, 09-17-2013 - 12:51pm

Shocking:

Outrage over death of Yemeni child bride, 8, on wedding night
By Mohammed Ghobari and Claire Davenport, Reuters
September 17, 2013, 9:38 am
NBCNews.com
 

SANAA, Yemen -- Yemeni authorities are investigating the death of an eight-year-old girl from internal bleeding on her wedding night and will prosecute those responsible, the government said on Friday, a case that has rekindled international outrage over child brides.

Yemeni rights campaigner Arwa Othman said earlier this week that the girl, identified as Rawan, died after intercourse that ruptured her uterus following her wedding to a man five times her age. Residents in the town of Meedi in Hajjah province in northwestern Yemen confirmed the incident.

Othman said no action had been taken against the man.

"The government (of Yemen) is dealing seriously with this issue and it will investigate it and those responsible will be brought to justice," Rajeh Badi, an aide to Prime Minister Mohammed Salem Basindwa, told Reuters.

European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton urged the Sanaa authorities on Friday to investigate the case "without delay and to prosecute all those responsible for this crime".

In a statement, she said the Arabian Peninsula country should reinstate a law setting a minimum age for marriage.

Many poor families in Yemen marry off young daughters to save on the costs of bringing up a child and earn extra money from the dowry given to a girl.

According to the United Nations around half of Yemen's 24 million people lack sufficient food and access to safe water.

Under international norms such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, every person regardless of their age must give their consent before they can be married.

Human Rights Watch previously urged Yemen's government to ban marriages of girls under the age of 18. It said nearly 14 percent of Yemeni girls were married before the age of 15 and 52 percent before the age of 18. HRW said many Yemeni child brides-to-be are kept from school when they reach puberty.

The European Union spends some $79.85 million a year on aid to Yemen.

Related:

 

Copyright 2013 Thomson Reuters.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Thu, 09-26-2013 - 2:29pm

I always thought that the best way to counter the rights issue was to treat both sides equally.  For instance, if a woman cannot make the choice to terminate a pregnancy, then the man who impregnated her must never be allowed to have intercourse with her or any other woman unless it is for the specific purpose of conception and tthat purpose must be consensual with the woman.  No male sex for the sake of pleasure.  Let's see if the gander likes the sauce with which the goose is too often served. Given the number of prescriptions for "performance enhancing" drugs like Viagra and Cialis, or the testosterone gels, I suspect there would be a massive outcry against such a proposal.

One problem... that is not "treating both sides equally."  Treating both sides equally with your "no male sex for the sake of pleasure" criterion would be to prohibit women from having sex for the sake of pleasure as well.  Sales of vibrators and pulsating shower jets will plummet.  Equality regarding abortion would be to give men the same right to abort a baby as the woman has... and also to make the man be as personally and financially responsible as the woman in raising the child.

In India, women are gradually make headway.  Again, it wasn't long ago that suttee and purdah were accepted.  There was a case of suttee in 1987.  http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/575795/suttee  Recently the U.N. sponsored a study on rape which made internet news:  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/09/130914-rape-asia-pacific-un-men-violence-women/  The idea of "sexual entitlement" seems to underlie high rape figures in certain countries. According to the study's author, gang rapes are often associated with poverty.

This appears to be an issue of crime, not a culturall perception of "entitlement."

In any event, too often a woman's own rights are secondary, if they exist at all.  Like you, I see no distinction in claiming a difference between "culture" and "women's rights".

Unless you're referring to our Founding Fathers perception of "unalienable rights"... i.e. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... the "rights" you speak of are not inherent rights but rights granted by the government, and so can be taken away by the government.  But it is interesting to see the hypocrisy of a woman claiming the "right" to kill her child for the sake of her own convenience, while at the same moment denying that child the most basic of rights... the "right to life."

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Thu, 09-26-2013 - 2:00pm

Women in Delhi are rushing to apply for gun licenses in the aftermath of the gang rape and murder of a 23-year-old medical student who died in hospital last weekend, but most will be left defenseless as a result of India’s strict gun control laws.


Almost all of the women who apply for a gun in the interests of self-defense following the gang rape will see their applications rejected and will continue to be at the mercy of sexual predators with no means of protection, once again re-affirming the fact that gun control laws create more victims while aiding violent criminals who are free to target the innocent knowing they will face little or no resistance.

This would be exactly the same situation in New York... and Chicago... and any of the other "gun-free" zones imposed on the populous by  "progressives."

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Thu, 09-26-2013 - 1:57pm

Laws reflect the culture in which they are made and enforced.  Culture is influenced by laws.  I don't believe you can separate the two or excuse the inexcusable either way!

"Inexcusable" is obviously a matter of perception.  Some people see spanking children as inexcusable while many others do not, and certainly history support the latter.  With regard to culture vs civil rights, one can also look at the issue of gay marriage.  As a largely Judeo-Christian "culture," gay marriage has been an anathema, which is probably why it has been struck down almost every time it has been put to a vote, but in other cases, courts, with no consideration for "culture" have seen it as a "rights issue" and have imposed laws that are, in effect, counter-culture.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Tue, 09-24-2013 - 12:21pm

To Lanie1999:  If women are treated as second class citizens or chattel, they will not be seen as having rights to determine their own courses of action.  What you and I call violence or rape is viewed as being within acceptable norms by some people. 

I always thought that the best way to counter the rights issue was to treat both sides equally.  For instance, if a woman cannot make the choice to terminate a pregnancy, then the man who impregnated her must never be allowed to have intercourse with her or any other woman unless it is for the specific purpose of conception and tthat purpose must be consensual with the woman.  No male sex for the sake of pleasure.  Let's see if the gander likes the sauce with which the goose is too often served. Given the number of prescriptions for "performance enhancing" drugs like Viagra and Cialis, or the testosterone gels, I suspect there would be a massive outcry against such a proposal. 

In India, women are gradually make headway.  Again, it wasn't long ago that suttee and purdah were accepted.  There was a case of suttee in 1987.  http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/575795/suttee  Recently the U.N. sponsored a study on rape which made internet news:  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/09/130914-rape-asia-pacific-un-men-violence-women/  The idea of "sexual entitlement" seems to underlie high rape figures in certain countries. According to the study's author, gang rapes are often associated with poverty.  

In any event, too often a woman's own rights are secondary, if they exist at all.  Like you, I see no distinction in claiming a difference between "culture" and "women's rights".

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2001
Tue, 09-24-2013 - 9:01am

Violence against the vulnerable is not acceptable, period.

Indian Women Turn to Guns After Gang Rape Outcry

Posted By yihan On January 2, 2013 @ 5:45 am In Featured Stories,Tile,World News | Comments Disabled

But country’s draconian gun control laws leave them defenseless

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
January 2, 2013

Women in Delhi are rushing to apply for gun licenses in the aftermath of the gang rape and murder of a 23-year-old medical student who died in hospital last weekend, but most will be left defenseless as a result of India’s strict gun control laws.

The story again illustrates how draconian gun control policies only serve to disarm victims while emboldening criminals.

On December 16, a couple boarded a bus in the Munirka area of Delhi on their way to Dwarka in the south-west of the city. The woman, who remains unnamed, was subjected to a brutal gang rape that lasted almost an hour before she and her companion were beaten with iron bars then thrown out of the bus into the street. The woman died from her injuries at a Singapore hospital last weekend. Six men were arrested for the murder and could face the death penalty.

The incident generated massive public outcry against the treatment of women in India and a call for tougher anti-violence laws. Figures show that a woman is raped in Delhi every 14 hours and rape cases have doubled in India since 1998. Government efforts to step up police patrols have failed to reduce the rate of violent crime targeting women.

After the story prompted global condemnation, women across Delhi responded by flooding the city’s licensing department with calls demanding to know how they could obtain firearms for self-defense.

“We have received over 1,200 calls since that day. These include not only the average working woman, but even students who travel long distances to colleges and even their concerned parents. They were eager to find out more on the procedure to acquire arms,” a Delhi police officer told the Times of India.

There have already been 274 applications from women since the incident, but most will be left defenseless as a result of India’s draconian gun control laws. To be granted a gun permit in India, applicants have to prove that their life is in immediate danger.

Typically, less than 10 per cent of women who apply for a gun are granted a license, and the majority of these are under an inheritance clause which allows them to own a firearm if their husband or father had a permit. In 2010 and 2011, over 600 applications for firearms in Delhi were rejected. The licensing system is also discriminatory against women, forcing parents to hand over weapons to their daughters as the only way to ensure self-defense.

When hundreds of concerned women turned up in person at the Delhi licensing office, they were told that the threat of rape and violent crime “could not be reason enough” for them to obtain a firearm, and officials were ordered by their superiors to hand the women a letter assuring them that “their daughters were indeed safe on Delhi’s roads.” How a letter would be any use against a violent rapist was not explained.

Almost all of the women who apply for a gun in the interests of self-defense following the gang rape will see their applications rejected and will continue to be at the mercy of sexual predators with no means of protection, once again re-affirming the fact that gun control laws create more victims while aiding violent criminals who are free to target the innocent knowing they will face little or no resistance.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

Article printed from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/indian-women-turn-to-guns-after-gang-rape-outcry/

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2001
Tue, 09-24-2013 - 8:48am

Laws reflect the culture in which they are made and enforced.  Culture is influenced by laws.  I don't believe you can separate the two or excuse the inexcusable either way!

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Tue, 09-24-2013 - 1:49am

First, I do think it matters if it's simply a rights issue, as the women's vote or civil rights issues in the US, and whether it's something more imbedded in the culture itself.

*** Remember that past when you hear the conservatives in state legislatures do their durndest to restrict women's rights to control their own bodies by making profoundly idiotic comments about rape, working women, and reproductive choices.

The comment concerning "legitimate rape" was basterdized by dishonest liberals.  The Congressman was simply making the distinction between forcible rape and acts like statutory rape.

I don't know what you're referring to concerning "working women."  As far as I know, Republicans support a women's right to work.

And with regard to women's reproductive choices... many conservatives feel that it should not be within a woman's purview to kill her unborn children as a matter of convenience.  It's a matter personal responsibility and a right to life on behalf of the child.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2001
Mon, 09-23-2013 - 4:05pm

Does it really matter whether it is called a "rights" issue or a "cultural" issue - it is sad and depressing and horribly wrong!

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2001
Mon, 09-23-2013 - 4:05pm

Does it really matter whether it is called a "rights" issue or a "cultural" issue - it is sad and depressing and horribly wrong!

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Sat, 09-21-2013 - 12:32pm

Women have few rights in some fundamentalist religions--regardless of whether the fundamentalists are Muslim, Christian or Hindi.  I guess you could call the attitudes "cultural" but that would be an exercise in semantic juggling. 

It wasn't that long ago that women didn't have many rights in these United States.  We couldn't vote and if married, had few property rights:  Coverture was based on the assumption that a family functioned best if the male head of a household controlled all of its assets. As a result, a married woman could not own property independently of her husband unless they had signed a special contract called a marriage settlement.  http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/womens-history/essays/legal-status-women-1776%E2%80%931830  Nor was it that long ago that women had no recourse if raped by their husbands.  In a treatise on capital crime and punishment from around 1670, English judge and lawyer Sir Matthew Hale wrote this little gem: "[T]he husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract." The law had quite a bit of traction. A man could legally rape his wife in North Carolina until 1993.  http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/08/men-defining-rape-history

Remember that past when you hear the conservatives in state legislatures do their durndest to restrict women's rights to control their own bodies by making profoundly idiotic comments about rape, working women, and reproductive choices.

Jabberwocka

Pages