Good work, Ms. Author! You are doing the dirty work of the upper class!

Just keep doing the work of the rich and the corporations by helping to make Identity politics -- not populist economics -- the focus of the American political debate. Someday the rich will repay you for your work--you will have a high status job with a secretary and a view office.

Remember, women -- it's not the rich or the corporations that are the bad guys--it's MEN! THey are KILLING YOU AND BEATING YOU!

And for you men--remember that it's not the rich or the corporations that are the bad guys--it's WOMEN! They are taking your jobs via affirmative action and your taxes via welfare.

And for you racial minorities--remember that it's not the rich or the corporations that are the bad guys--it's WHITE FOLKS! THey are discriminating against you. THAT'S why you aint rich!

And for you whites--remember that it's not the rich or the corporations that are the bad guys--it's WOMEN AND MINORITIES! That's why you aint rich!

....and by the way, pay no attention to the rich person and corporations behind the curtain counting their loot.....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you.

This article does nothing to further dialogue on a very important issue--domestic violence. Even the use of the term "femicide" just emphasizes the desire to drive home the gender divide, as though men murdering women is somehow "worse" than men murdering men. Feminism has its place, and women are still disenfranchised in the workplace and positions of power, but when recent studies show that school-age boys are now the disenfranchised, and when the ratio of incarceration in prisons is heavily weighted toward higher numbers of male inmates, perhaps we should pay as much attention to our boys as to our girls.

After all, it seems to me that one of the best ways to decrease domestic violence is to educate boys in a manner that debunks the myth of masculinity and teaches them to be emotive, empathic individuals, rather than ignoring them as we have done in recent years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

are idiots. All these things are linked, patriarchy, capitalism, racism, etc. They weave together to make a blanket that smothers us all. You, with your narrow perception of things and the inability to recognize this are the ones who further the problem. Every one of the threads in this oppressive blanket must be dealt with--individually and as a whole. Get a clue. Why do you feel so threatened? Why do you think this is splitting? The world is not color-blind, non-mysogonistic, or very tolerant, so why pretend that the only thing preventing this is a bunch of rich dicks (yeah, dicks, no women up there). I don't get your complete stupidity in this. High rates of femicide are important, as they point to greater trends in how women are viewed. This needs to be addressed as a single issue and as a part of the whole. What's the point of fighting for equality if its only going to apply to 50% of the population? Doesn't make sense does it? No, didn't thnk so. Corporations do a lot of evil, yes, but they are also tools of a larger system of oppression. You haven't even begun to pull back the curtains. Morons.

Robba29

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For the love of peace and harmony, do some reading on the subject that is FACT related.

(You'll have to paste this address back together. You can do it!)

http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/

lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When the State takes an interest: in New York or the Republic of Cuba, for example, death of women at the hands of their male intimates declines.

When the State has other things on it's mind: say Louisiana or the Republic of South Africa, the rate of femicide is much greater.

The economic system doesn't seem to matter much: capitalism, communism, agrarian tribalism ... the more men are left to their own devices -- the more often women are bludgeoned, strangled, drowned or shot.

Of course, if INeffective violence against men by women, is compared to lethal violence against women by men, (and the outcome of the attack not considered important , as in the Florida study) -- then it can be shown that men and women are equally violent towards each other ... there is no problem -- and we don't need to enforce any damn orders of protection at all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unfortunately it seems that man throughout history make terrible leaders in any venue. And they usually are better in societies dominated by matriarchal figures rather than trying to rule. Men have some sort of disposition to be aggressive. And sadly, they are pushing that aggressive stance now in women. Our icons in society for women are all tough tomb raider types. I knew a young woman from Truk Island. She said if one man was known to harm a woman the whole Island ganged up on that one person. Maybe people just do better in smaller societies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am not suggesting that "if INeffective violence against men by women, is compared to lethal violence against women by men, (and the outcome of the attack not considered important , as in the Florida study) -- then it can be shown that men and women are equally violent towards each other ... there is no problem -- and we don't need to enforce any damn orders of protection at all. "

That is idiotic.

What needs airing is the simple fact that women report they INITIATE violence more often than men do. This, to me, means that many women have a problem that need addressing beyond organized high-pitched yelling at men. In the school yard boys learn that they get hit back when they become violent. It would seem that many women need to learn the same lesson at an early age. Others need to acknowledge the need for such instruction for both genders. “Don’t hit!” should be the rule for both sexes.

Why is anyone surprised that men react to being struck by hitting back? There are, after all, so few true Christians among us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"a rate of 2.83 women killed per 100,000" is reported as the HIGHEST rate in the United States. Lamentable as it surely is, it is NOT an epidemic, and is NOT the greatest danger women face by a long shot. What is the AVERAGE rate for the entire country? (Anybody know?) It must be LOWER than 2.83 per 100,000 (0.00283%), right?

I have to ask. Are you in the streets protesting the death and maiming of thousands of young men, women and children, American, Iraqi, and others, in the current obscenity? Are you raising hell about young women being led to smoke cigarettes, a power that kills more women than men do. Cigarettes killed about 69,000 women last year.

Many women are loudly exercised about the violence of men against women, and it must be stopped, but why is this your issue? You accuse men of hating women. Think about it, what enlists you in this cause with such a numerically small motivation?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A question that seems not addressed here is thast the states involved tend to have high homocide rates to start with.

That is, if I have a relatively high homocide rate in Alaska, it stands to reason that given a smaller population the numbers will spike when more people are killed, even if that number is small.

For instance, in Alaska, if 10 women are killed that's a rate of 10/700,000 or 1/70,000 -- just about 1.4 per 100,000.

If the next year 12 women are killed it would look pretty awful-- your "femicide" rate jumps 20% and you get a number of 1.7 per 100,000

I noticed that the biggest numbers on the linked reports were all in places with relatively small populations, is all.

Also, there was no indication of the overall homocide rate--are women a higher percentage of victims in any of those areas than men? Or is it relatively constant across the board?

This is not to diminish the importance of the argument made about domestic violence, but I want to get the numbers straight and know just what it is they show us. If they show us a high homocide rate generally, then we have a bigger problem than just domestic violence, no? And one might be linked to the other.

Alaska is an interesting case as well becuase the proportion of men to women has historically been a bit high, and even now is a percentage point or two above the national average, which is actially a lot when you realize that women make up a slight majority as people get into adulthood (the reverse is true at birth) as they tend to outlive men.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Even the use of the term "femicide" just emphasizes the desire to drive home the gender divide, as though men murdering women is somehow "worse" than men murdering men. Feminism has its place, and women are still disenfranchised in the workplace and positions of power..."

I don't know how you can state the first and follow it by the other without realizing the flaw in your thinking. Yes, it is worse when men kill women than when men kill men because "women are disnfranchised in the wrokplace and positions of power." When those who have the power and the money kill those who are denied power and the same earnings potential, whether it's men killing women or white supremists lynching black people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]