Most leaders and the press view violence against women and children as just "a women's issue" or "a children's issue" - in their minds, a secondary issue. But it's not only that millions of women and children are victims of violence in their homes every year; the fact is that intimate violence provides a basic model for using force to impose one's will on others.

When children either experience or observe violence against their mothers in their homes, they learn that it's ok, even "moral," to use violence to impose one's will on others. This is why throughout history, the most violently despotic and warlike societies have been those where violence, or the threat of violence, is used to maintain domination of parent over child and man over woman.

It was a tragedy that I couldn't attend BlogHer. The conference took place a 40 minute drive away (San Jose), and I knew some people who were going. Unfortunately, I don't drive, and I just can't afford the transportation and hotel costs right now. I had thus reconciled myself to the fact BlogHer was out of my reach, and I planned to spend the weekend twiddling with Breakingranks.net and catching up on Jamal Dajani's Middle East Intelligence Report.

Over the last several months, I have been following a number of articles and threads regarding basic civility (or perhaps I should say lack thereof) as regards blogging.  The Mena Trott, Ben Metcalfe dust-up at Les Blogs last December is a prime example.  Ad hominem attacks seem to be de rigueur, these days.  Any and all petty grievances get aired without the slightest thought to consequence, indeed; without any thought at all.  The rhetoric, in general, has recently ratcheted up to alarming proportions.  Threats of actual violence are becoming more common, usually by those ill-equipped to compete with an increasingly informed public.  I have also noted a propensity toward racial and sexual bias.  These posters seem to target the easily identifiable - with women the primary target.  

Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters is writing an interesting ten part series on how Governor Schwarzenegger managed to fall from being the conquering action hero of the recall election in 2003 to the goat of his own special election in 2005. The whole series is current available through this link.

Today's installment was called "Schwarzenegger's clashes with women haunted his ballot drive." According to Walters,

Arnold Schwarzenegger has a problem with women, and it has been a major factor in derailing his governorship.

No doubt about it; the Governor holds women in contempt and we sense it.

Yesterday, we talked about the sanctity of human life. Today, Armando talked about the Alito nomination and his rabid advocacy of abolishing Roe during the Reagan years. That diary sparked a heated debate over the merits of overturning Roe.

It would seem that my adoption of the sanctity of human life would dovetail with the anti-abortion position. But that is not the case. It is a fact of life that we as a society value the woman over the fetus. Even the right-wing fundamentalists would do so. They would not advocate the death penalty for a woman who ended her pregnancy, even though they normally support the death penalty for murder. If you really think that the fetus is valued the same as a woman, then, by logical extension, you must advocate the death penalty or life imprisonment for a woman who ends her pregnancy. If you don't, then you are not really pro-life and are being morally inconsistent.