http://www.sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/publications/commentary/red_pepper_inequality_kills.pdf

all the best…

there is a much simpler explanation to the decline in women’s murder rate: a decline in ALL murder rates, men and women alike.

MrZ, with all due respect, did you even read the linked article? The article makes it clear that both murder rates of men and the overall murder rate has been increasing, not declining:

Last year Home Office statistics recorded 833 murders in England and Wales, compared with just 565 a decade ago.

As far as I can tell from the article (and we’ll know more when the study itself is published and available), it’s specifically the murder of women by men that has been declining. Clearly, your alternative explanation holds no water.

Regarding Japan, I don’t think that’s a meaningful argument, because there are so many confounding factors that you’re ignoring. The murder rate in the US is ridiculously high compared to all other countries; I could just as easily say “Sweden has a much lower murder rate, and is much more feminist than the US, therefore misogyny causes murder.” That’s obviously not a reasonable conclusion to draw from such simplistic data; but your conclusion drawn from Japan’s low murder rate is just as unreasonable and simplistic.

Nor is it clear that Japan’s rape prevalence is all that low; more than one study has suggested that Japan’s official rape statistics severely undercount the incidence of actual rape. What you’re saying is proof that misogyny has nothing to do with rape prevalence, may just be proof that in a more misogynistic culture, women are much less likely to report rape to the authorities.

I would venture say that in strict Muslim countries the murder rate is relatively low, even though they are highly patriarchal and misogynistic.

I wouldn’t know - and even if you were correct, that doesn’t logically establish that misogyny has “nothing to do” with the rate of murdering women, only that it’s not the one and only factor. Again, international comparisons that don’t control for any confounding factors at all are meaningless.

If this study has merit, it might bolster the anyway-agreed-upon Equity Feminism, but hardly the controversial Gender Feminism.

The Gender/Equity feminism dichotomy is not one I take seriously; it is incompatable with any serious intellectual analysis.

Furthermore, there is little correlation between women’s murder rate and misogynism. In Japan for instance, a country far more patriarchal and misogynistic than the US, women’s murder and rape rates are far lower than in the US. This is true regarding many countries. I would venture say that in strict Muslim countries the murder rate is relatively low, even though they are highly patriarchal and misogynistic. The simple explanation is that in those countries, for many different reasons, violence in general is lower than in the US, so violence against women is lower too. It has nothing to do with misogynism or feminism.

Besides, the anti-Feminists do not object to Equity Feminism (the notion that men and women ought to be equal) - few today would object to women being equal to men! - but object to Gender (aka Radical) Feminism (the notion that the definitions of gender, particularly the male gender, ought to be redefined and molded anew via coercive legal measures and irrespective of scientific data). The vast majority of Americans, and I suspect Brits too, are uncomfortable with the ideas and methods of the latter. So before we use this study to bolster “Feminism” in general, we ought to be careful to note which brand of Feminism are we talking about: Equity Feminism or Gender/Radical Feminism? If this study has merit, it might bolster the anyway-agreed-upon Equity Feminism, but hardly the controversial Gender Feminism.

and honestly, if you look back on the history of the church, there has been a far greater deal of violence, cruelty and truly unecessary and bizarre restraints placed on males within the western church, particularly during the medieval period. that’s not to say women haven’t been targeted, but if we were being honest, we’d have to admit that most religions demand far more from their male members.

I’m constantly amazed when people try this.

I think we’re just disagreeing which sex is the whipping boy of Christian sexism.

BTW, even if virgin/whore is a common meme in christian society… if it doesn’t translate into actual punishment for sexual transgressions then how is it anything more then a catty insult leveled at women (often by other women)?

Just like cinaedus was a catty insult among male Roman citizens.

Now a more pertinent question would be, have Christians historically punished female fornicators more then male?

The answer is, no. In fact the opposite might entertained since male fornicators could be punished by being forced to pay money to the woman they took “advantage” of.

As for being unable to condense a historical argument into convienent “four legs good, two legs better” sound bite… my appologies but where I come from contentions need to be supported with fact, and fact does need a bit more space to elucidate.

Historically Christianity was unique as it held men to the same sexual standards as women. Adultery was a sin, regardless if it the adulterer was male or female. That was a radical notion for it’s time and was probably one of the many reasons Roman Matrons embraced it. (Romen Matrons were the avenue by which Christianity grew to pre-eminence in Roman society, btw.) St. Augustine surmonized on this very topic; he essentially told off the men of his congregration for being weaker then the women because of their adulterous behavior.

Christianity also enabled women to embrace a chaste life undefined by men’s sexuality via service to the Church. Prior to Christianity a Roman woman was either a wife or a prostitute, she had no other function but to serve men’s sexual and reproductive aims.

Now when Christianity became main-stream and Christian societies took over the task of enforcing law… men and women’s adultery were punished differently. Because they were viewed, economically but not spiritually or morally, *as* different. Without a wife’s fidelity, a man can’t be assured that his economic investment is going to his own children. The same can’t be said in terms of a husband’s fidelity. But still, a woman’s infidelity was only seen as more severe then a man’s in *economic* terms, and legal punishments reflected that, requireing economic restitution not additional spiritual or moral punishments. Men’s infidelity was still spiritually and morally wrong, even if it’s economic impact on a wife was negligable.

And then there is the issue of same-sex sexual transgressions. Throughout Christian history, it has waged a deadly war against men’s same-sex transgressions while, at the same time, ignoring women’s. That fact alone supports the contention that, historically, Christians punished men far more frequently and severely for sexual transgressions then it has for women.

Go google double standard and virgin/whore. Then try and convince me you’ve been living under a damn rock your whole life.

Add that to the fact that all Christian societies see a gradual but definite generational improvement in women’s position and only Christian societies give birth to feminism, seems like Christianity might have some woman-centric tendancies.

Wow. That’s one of the most obtuse things I’ve ever seen, and that is a hotly-contested title.

it would seem then that some feminists have more in common with the christian right than they think.

Aside from both being woman-centric?

because every woman is not a feminist

And as I said, feminism is not required for a battered woman to gain entry into a shelter. I know you have a hard time believing this, Jake, but that’s actually what this thread was supposed to be about: Battered women.

you seem to be making a lot of assumptions without any evidence.

[snicker] I guess you’d know all about that, wouldn’t you, Jakey ? Well, now that it’s been well established that this thread belongs to SYG trolls, and that actual feminists don’t belong in it, I guess I’m all done here. You two enjoy yourselves.