Halting Violence Against Women in India and Elsewhere a Win-Win

Good Initiative with a wrong Objective

I was reading your article and I was glad to see how a human initiative could help bring a change in lives of many humans/ sisters around the world.

However that being said I am little saddenned to read the objective being that of commericial nature.

My only thought is the plight of women or humans in India or any other places in the world can be changed only when the world can from money oriented to humanity oriented.

Don't let them get you down

In my last comment on another article, I questioned whether your concern for women's rights was genuine, or whether you were merely trying to find something to nitpick about Obama.

I apologize. I should have read this article first.

Ignore those who insist that it is wrong to give India aid, whether because of cultural differences or because it may add to our "tax burden." They seem quite heartless. Some things are so clearly wrong that they transcend cultural boundaries. Rape and slavery are two such issues, and we have an obligation to put an end to them any way we can. Keep up the good work, Bonnie.

American Morons!! Mind your business...

You American morons. Can not you even remain in peace?

1,23,000 women are arrested and jailed without evidence or investigation in dowry cases in India in the name of protecting women. That is because of the American funding through USAID.

Do only women face domestic violence?

Do not children, elders or men face domestic violence?

In US, children from broken families have 4 times more chance to commit suicide and 9 times more chance to commit crimes.

Change your own country first.

The rate of murder of women by spouses in US is double than of rate of murder of women by spouses in India. Spend all that money in your own backyard.

We do not need your money in India.

No sale.

Sorry, Ms. Erbe, but you cannot point to a single government program that hasn't increased the tax burden. I'm against this.

Erbe . . .

Are you even a journalist? The premise of most your article is based on a conversation with a person 10 years ago where you take as gospel what the person said and tenuously attempt to extrapolate a weak correlation.

You wrote: "When I asked him why the U.S. firm lost the bid process, he explained that even though the U.S. bid was lower, the Moroccan government (which awarded the contract) received much more aid from France than from the United States, and that cost the U.S. company its victory.

So if we spend money today to protect female victims of violence, this will be remembered by these women and their families. And the reward will come back to us many times over in terms of increasing our share of global trade."

This is completely preposterous. Only a libtard can create this trite rubbish.

You have the temerity to think that "this will be remembered by these women and their families, and the reward will come back to us many times over." What Utopian pipe dream are you ensconsed in? Remember, we are still waiting for the millions Hillary Clinton gave to Africa to support "women's causes". I think it will be a good long time until that continent gets it's collective act together and longer still until they begin to payoff debts. I doubt my great, great, great grandchildren will be alive to see that day.

Understand Erbe, there are similarities that exist among women. It's wrong to assume that all women share the same similarities. The society you speak of is thousands of years older than our own. That society has decided, right or wrong, without your input, what their culture will consist of and what they find acceptable. Who are you? Lady Godiva, "writing" to the rescue inorder to save these poor, unfortunate souls from bad men? You assume to much. You assume that the change you decry is want those women want or desire?

If they did want change, THEY would do something about it . . . THEY would change society and they wouldn't even need you to do it.

I know little about the culture in question, but, unlike you, I, at least, know enough to know what I know. Whereas posts by Ratika Garg and Gracy Patel indicate they likely know much more than either of us.

Erbe is pro liberal before she is pro woman

Just look at her adoration for Ted Kennedy. Ted Kennedy treated women as sex objects his whole life and he killed a woman in the prime of her life and then lied about it. It is also well understood that he took advantage of female subordinates, which we know now as sexual harrassment. Despite his record ERBE and her feminist friends worshipped Kennedy which proves the point that radical liberalism trumps womans rights everytime. So save your tainted ink Erbe, you are not a voice of women's rights you are a hypocrit, plain and simple

Hey Erbe where were you on the Polansky violence/rape of the 13 year old girl

Oh that's right, Polansky is a liberal, hollywood, elitist much like the circle that ERBE runs with and therefore ERBE and her feminist friends give him a pass, despite the fact that he raped and sodomized a 13 year old girl. And people like Erbe wonder why nobody takes her commentary seriously.

take care of US debt first

you have concentrate on debt tht US have right now not peeking into other countries. Do you want other families to get involved in your family matters. Leave our bed room alone. You already broke 40% of Indian families.

Protests all over India against voilence against MEN !!

In October over 40,000 husbands all over Indian subcontinent participated in domestic violence awareness month where they protested against the violence that men have to suffer at the hands of their wives.

Violence against Men – the Untold Truth

In continuation with my article, “Violence against Women – A perception or a Reality” this article covers the topic of Violence against Men extensively as we head into October – The Domestic Violence Awareness Month. As explained in the prequel, there are principally four categories of violence, viz.

1. Female to Male Violence.

2. Female to Female Violence

3. Male to Male Violence

4. Male to Female Violence.

As already explained in the prequel, the society refuses to accept Female to Male violence and considers Male to Male violence as entertainment. And there lies the crux of this article. Because of over-hyped and often unnecessary feminist propaganda about Domestic Violence one always thinks about Violence against Women (VAW) as the only form of prevalent violence; however, that is not the topic of this article.

We can leave that duty safely to the 3300 odd NGOs working for women, the various state and national Commissions for Women, the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development and the 1200 crores of annual budgets allocated to them to create awareness about women victims in the age range of 15 – 49 before their menopause and the 15 laws to protect them.

Here we will talk about the Violence that men face. First of all it is neither funny nor entertaining about the fact that men are victims ofDomestic Violence because only the Wearer knows where the shoe pinches. Because the society treats it either to be funny or entertaining for male victims of domestic violence it becomes double jeopardy for them.

First, in spite of being victims they are projected as false aggressors and made to undergo cruel and unusual legal procedures merely because some woman is shouting. It would be nice to have a cursory glance at “What a DV Arrest looks like?” How here the man is tased by the police officer merely because he has been accused and does not leave him unless he admits to false charges. Numerous such cases have come up where innocent men have been tortured based on assumptions whereas in reality it was found later that the woman was the real abuser and culprit.

Who is the more abusive gender here? And who get tagged as one? Because we are always comfortable viewing women as victims and men as aggressors going by our definition of physical prowess as the parameter to benchmarkDomestic Violence , we allow men to get victimized and leave them unaddressed as well. However, as explained in the prequel, it’s not the physical strength but emotional strength that defines real violence, instigates it and makes it culminate in physical violence at times.

US is trying to destroy Indian family system .

What CNN did not post was that in India more than 56000 husbands kill themselves duw to harassment from their wives . What CNN did not post was that the deaths of these 56000 husbands are brushed under the carpet by the government and are not even properly investigated .

Indian is really a haven for anti men laws and women are virtually not considered to be responsible for anything from Domestic Violence to adultery . The Anti Dowry law and the Indian Domestic violence act are practically offer no legal protection to men ,

The government itself says that 98% of all cases files under the Anti Dowry law and the Domestic violence act are false to begin with and are filed with oblique intentions.

India's major strength has been its family system and the west is now bent upon destroying that . We all know that most of western countries like America and the UK have nothing called the family left in them , thanks to the radical feminism waves that sweeped the countries from the 60's to 90's . The same feminists have now trained their cross hairs on India and are channelling US taxpeysrs money big time to destroy Indian family system so that Indian family also reaches the same state as the US , that is totally destroyed once and for ever .

Indian citizens do not want US meddling into the affairs of Indian affairs , keep your family thoughts to yourself . We do not want to be a country with 50% divorce rates and children who have 3 step fathers and 4 step mothers . KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF INDIA !!