WHO Study: Forty Percent of Murdered Women Killed By Their Partners – US News and World Report

WHO Study: Forty Percent of Murdered Women Killed By Their Partners – US News and World Report.

By ELIZABETH FLOCK

About 40 percent of women killed worldwide are done so by a partner, according to the World Health Organization’s first global review of violence against women.

The problem isn’t nearly as bad for men, who are six times less likely to be murdered by a partner than women, according to the review.

Heidi Stockl, a lecturer at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who led the organization’s research, said in a released statement that the results show women are “disproportionately vulnerable” to violence and murder by an intimate partner, and that they have been “for far too long.”

[PHOTOS: Obama Signs Violence Against Women Act]

Advocacy groups like the National Network to End Domestic Violence have long been sounding the alarm on the outsized problem for women. Cindy Southworth, a spokeswoman for the group says WHO’s numbers aren’t surprising.

“Women have less power in most societies. And violence against women generally is about misusing power against another person,” she says. “So most violence against women is by those who know her well and are supposed to love her.”

Kiersten Stewart, director of policy at Futures Without Violence, similarly cited the power dynamic between women and men.

“The use of violence is the enforcement mechanism of power and control. And homicide is the extreme expression of that,” she said.

But others worry the WHO study will minimize the fact that men suffer from domestic violence as well. Christina Sommers, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and author of “The War Against Boys,” cautions that the WHO study shouldn’t be used to “implicate the average man” for these crimes.

“Men commit all crimes more than women. Overall, men are more aggressive and more violent,” Sommers said. “However, the vast majority of men are not violent criminals. There is a small subset.”

But the problem may be about to get worse, at least in terms of treatment. According to the National Network to End Domestic Violence, more than 10,000 calls placed to domestic violence shelters last year asking for a bed or counselor were turned away due to a lack of resources. With sequestration due to slash federal funding streams to these shelters, the number of calls could increase.

“We’re looking at these staggering numbers of domestic violence, and then these resources are just drying up,” Southworth said.

What’s difference between welcoming and affirming homosexuals?

What’s difference between welcoming and affirming homosexuals?.

June 21, 2013 By Kimberly Knight 10 Comments
In the wake of all the flap about the, rather specious, albeit on the surface, good and hopeful news from the now defunct Exodus International, a friend who is on this journey with us, asked me to explain the difference between welcoming and affirming. He honestly and openly is concerned about those who are drawing a line in the sand and doesn’t entirely get what the big deal is. Here are my thoughts on that very sticky wicket.
See, I grew up at southern supper tables where, in one moment I might hear an elder say something to the effect of, “I don’t hate black people, I have even invited one to my own dining room table!” uttered just hours before or after a couple of N-word jokes or other dehumanizing banter was sloshed around like a stinking pot of rancid collard greens. I have seen with my own eyes the difference between welcoming and affirming. Hell, the church I grew up in on Confederate Ave. (in downtown Atlanta of course) “welcomed” the custodian to keep our Sunday School classrooms all nice and tidy and even eat a bit of food on Wednesday nights (well, after we were all done) but had a real hard time affirming this gentle, old black man as a member when he came seeking God amongst our pasty white faces.
So to be honest, I am just a little flummoxed myself that the difference between welcoming and affirming is so hard to understand. Maybe it goes back to one question before we can move forward: can people in loving, respectful relationship have differences of opinion? As I have said many times, sure, we can be great friends (hell, even partners) and have differences of opinion about all sorts of ideas and issues, tastes and preferences. We simply can not have a difference of opinion about my full humanity before God. We can not simply have difference of opinion about whether or not my marriage to my wife is real. We can not simply agree to disagree whether or not I am my stepchild’s other mamma – these are not about simple differences of opinion, these are not theoretical issues for me, this is my very life we are talking about.
But back to the question at hand. What is the difference between welcoming and affirming?
Welcoming but not affirming feels like a lot like a cunningly set trap. “Welcoming but not affirming” tells me that it is cool to come to church and that you might not be outwardly mean to me but that you are still praying for me to change into someone contrary to who God created me to be in order to get into your idea of heaven.”Welcoming but not affirming” leaves room for people to to tell me that my “lifestyle” is contrary to the will of God (do they mean this lifestyle? – or maybe this one?), to pray that my marriage will be broken, that my children will be subjected to a broken home and for me to live into a falsehood that in fact would be exchanging my natural passions for unnatural ones. “Welcoming but not affirming” leaves dangerous room for people to abuse my children with notions that their mamma’s marriage is not real. It leaves room for saccharin-sweet folks to look my babies in the eyes and tell them to be praying real hard or their mammas to change so we don’t all go to hell… For this mamma, a’int none of that gonna fly no matter how we play our pretty marbles of semantics.
The difference between being welcoming and affirming is all about whether or one can regard me as a fully human or not. The difference is between whether or not those who merely “welcome” can go so far as to acknowledge that I am a child of God created equal to them, capable of living into my Christian faith as a lesbian with a wife and family. If someone were to invite me to a church that is “welcoming but not affirming” I simply could not worship alongside people who can only “welcome” me and not affirm my full personhood, can not truly affirm my love for my wife or affirm the reality of my shared parenthood with her. If someone truly believes I have no access to heaven, or that my wife and children are not fully worthy of the sacraments of the church (or that the sacraments are going to magically “cure” us) as long as we are living as we have been created to live then they are relegating us to a second class personhood that is not ok with me and never a place I would bring my family to worship because I would not be free to worship with my whole self. I would never consider subjecting myself to that level of degradation.
I do not want or need a person or church to magnanimously grant me their shallow welcome. Thankfully I am surrounded by Christians and a whole host of other loving, compassionate folks – family, friends, church and wider community – who already affirm what I know in my heart of hearts (through my own personal, tangible experience of God’s presence) to be real and true. I am living into God’s will for my life as faithfully and fitfully as this world and mortal coil will allow.
What’s the difference between welcoming and affirming? Equality.
– See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kimberlyknight/2013/06/whats-difference-between-welcoming-and-affirming-homosexuals/#sthash.ZkB9PCm0.dpuf

Multnomah County GOP will raffle second assault rifle after tickets for first one sell out | OregonLive.com

Multnomah County GOP will raffle second assault rifle after tickets for first one sell out | OregonLive.com.

tickets for first one sell out
Print By Jeff Mapes, The Oregonian
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on June 20, 2013 at 3:37 PM

The Multnomah County Republican Party’s gun-themed drawing has been so successful that the group announced Thursday that it will raffle off a second firearm — either an AR-15 valued at $1,199 or, if the winner wants, a sidearm of equal or lesser value.

12932273-largeHere’s a depiction of the raffle ticket being sold by the Multnomah County Republican Party.

The raffle had attracted criticism from some gun-control advocates who argued that it was tasteless, particularly coming on the six-month anniversary of the Newtown and Clackamas mall shootings involving the same kind of firearm.
County GOP chairman Jeff Reynolds has noted that the raffle involved a legal product and in a Facebook post Thursday, he exulted about the drawing’s popularity:

“We have been blown away by the response throughout Portland and the entire state that our first fundraiser generated. We sold the maximum number of tickets available – all 500 – in less than two weeks. We went from being wondering if we’d be in the black to being able to generate a significant source of revenue to fund our party operations.”

G(irls)20: Why Women Avoid STEM Careers

G(irls)20: Why Women Avoid STEM Careers.

By Elaine Kunda, Founder, By Wallace Inc., Advisor to G(irls)20 Summit & Women of Influence, McMaster Alumni Association Board of Directors

I’m not sure if I’m a product of my environment or not. I excelled in math early on in life; in fact, at age 4, I would relentlessly follow my mother around the house requesting that she write out pages and pages of addition and subtraction questions for me to do.

I also remember quite vividly asking my JR Kindergarten teacher (her name I don’t remember), to do the same during playtime, and being openly offended when she used illustrations of apples beside the numbers. “I can add 5+7 in my head, Miss Whatever Your Name Was. I do not need apples to count!”

By 8th grade, I became a proud member of my middle school math “team” (yes my teammates were mostly boys). Unfortunately that’s where my math career came to an abrupt end. Was it boys, sports, peer pressure or my lack of exposure or encouragment that turned me off math in 9th grade? I’m pretty sure, it wasn’t aptitude, because to this day I am quite astute with numbers, despite having an Arts degree. I liked numbers, a lot. I still like numbers. They tell a story. They don’t lie.

It’s not that I regret the choices (and mistakes) that I have made in my life, it’s more that I seek the truth, the correct answer. I know my story is not unique (except perhaps my disdain for apple illustrations) and I feel it important to figure out the answer to the regularly asked question, “why aren’t more girls enrolled in S.T.E.M (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) programs and jobs”?

Fortuitously, my involvement with the G(irls)20 Summit and McMaster University Alumni Board provided me the opportunity to ask this very question and seek some answers.

So I, along with couple of awesome women from the Mac Engineering Department and a film crew, set out on the campus to speak with female faculty members and students. We wanted our summit delegates, who would soon be meeting in Russia, to be equipped with answers, solid information and ideas when making suggestions to G20 leaders on economic reform for women.

Well, the mini documentary turned out quite well (you can watch it here) and we learned a couple of key insights that I will summarize for you. Women, do excel in engineering programs when they are in them, they often avoid it because of lack of exposure and understanding of what engineering is (it’s not only about hard hats and building bridges) and if women don’t start focusing on STEM education and careers the current gender gap will persist, as STEM jobs are the fastest growing sector in North America.

There are many gender challenges that we face on this planet, centuries of tradition and religious beliefs prove to make biases, and repression, difficult to change. But, getting more women to like numbers, science and engineering, really is an imaginable shift, and one that can be accomplished in short order. Girls can code, they can add without apple illustrations and they can change the world, one invention at a time. Let’s remember to tell them that.

100s of Pro-Choice Texans Took Over a B.S. Abortion Hearing Last Night

100s of Pro-Choice Texans Took Over a B.S. Abortion Hearing Last Night.

By KATIE J.M. BAKER

Hundreds of Texans protesting a massive anti-abortion bill that would ban abortion after 20 weeks and shutter all but five abortion clinics in the state refused to leave yesterday’s House Committee hearing until 3:40 a.m. this morning, despite the chairman’s pathetic protests that their testimony was “repetitive.” The nearly 800 opponents successfully delayed the vote.

The bill, HB60, was added into the House’s special session calendar at the last second by Rick Perry, who is technically Governor but might as well be called Man Who Does Basically Nothing But Devise Ways to Fuck Over Women (and Occasionally Champions for Christmas).

Planned Parenthood, Texas NARAL and the Texas Democratic Party asked people to come out to help stall the omnibus bill so that Senate Democrats could stage an official filibuster in the Senate when the session ends on Tuesday night. Hundreds of protesters launched a “citizen filibuster,” and it was awesome — you can read testimony and tweets from some of the people who were there.

The hearing started at around 4:45 p.m. and continued without a break until midnight, when House State Affairs Committee chairman Rep. Byron Cook said he was bored (and, of course, didn’t want to stall the vote any further).

“The testimony has been impassioned, but it has become repetitive, so I am going to only allow another hour of testimony on this bill,” he said, according to the AP.

The 200 women in the hearing room and 100+ waiting outside were all, hell no, and took over the hearing while he “retreated into a back room” like the weasel he is. #HB60 started trending worldwide on Twitter. Supporters sent pizza and drinks. The hearing finally closed at 3:40 a.m. after NO VOTING and more than 10 hours of testimony from women like Michelle Benavides, who has bi-polar disorder and once had an abortion because she couldn’t have a baby without going off her medication.

“I don’t feel any regret and I don’t feel guilt,” she told the AP. “The fact that this bill makes no provisions for mental health is wrong. … Mental illness kills pregnant women when they commit suicide.”