"Just for being female"

The male columnist mourns the fact that a report on violence against women released by the United Nations was greeted with “collective yawn” in mass media.

Why is it? How can liberal media NOT rush into judgement and indict all men on earth guilty of discrimination against women? Is it because there have been too many of this kind of agenda-driven, advocacy researches, with identical conclusions and recommendations (more women in political position is by far the perennial number one in the latter category) that even liberal media is getting tired of this?

Is it because in this chivalrous male columnist`s view, anything less than days of consecutive top-page coverage by all major media outlets on the issue amounts to willful ignorance by male-dominated media? (We already have enough of this kind of advocacy media reporting, don`t we?)

Or is it simply because the article and the UN report itself doesn`t stand close scrutiny?

Maybe all of the above.

The examples cited by the columnist and others mentioned in the report are indeed awful, but do they represent “war against women all over the planet” Here touches of ideological feminism creeps in. A “war against women all over the planet”? That`s a quite a statement to make, isn`t it? In order for an accusation “war against women all over the planet” to hold true, it has to pass many hurdles. First, it has to exist on every part of the world, not just in some limited regions of the world or cultures. Second, these misdeeds need to be carried out with the explicit purpose to execute “war against women all over the planet” Third, the level and pervasiveness of violence and its negative effect are in such proportion that it constitutes a “war”.

The author mentions that in the United States, “homicide was the second leading cause of death for girls 15 to 18” and that “8 percent of all the homicide victims in the study had been killed by an acquaintance or intimate partner” While the statistic looks horrible indeed, until you actually start to use your brain and take into account the fact that women suffer far, far less violence from non-acquaintance / intimate partners than men suffer, thereby proportionally raising the percentage.

What does the author means by “just being female”? Thousands of women are killed in India for unacceptable reasons. OK. But because just being female? Then how about the crime of “just being female” for the rest of 5 billion female in the country? Are they burned? Of course not. However horrible the reasons these women were killed for, you smell the sulfur, or, the smell of militant feminism and professional man-haters when one starts asserting that those women were killed for “just being female”.

If a group of men beat up a man in a bar because the poor bumped into one of the guys` arm and spilled cocktail all over the guy, isn`t he also punished just for being male? Women spilling cocktail on other men will most likely not going to be punished, but be rewarded and wooed. And how about thousands of men, many of them conscripts, who die in war all over the world every year?

The real motive behind this kind of advocacy-study-through-feminists-mouth-piece-UN and chivalrous commentators is obvious. By focusing world`s attention solely on women victims of violence, which is already far fewer than male victims, they want to tilt feminists-owned political landscape even further in favor of women species. They are also sending out a clear message that men do not deserve any attention or resource; only women do.