The Reuters piece on violence to children referred to legalized violence and violence generally and "all violence." So that's not it. Violence against males is both accepted and promoted in this culture at least. It is quite common to overlook serious violence against males in favor of less serious violence against females. This is just another example.

Thanks for noting the error -- we'll correct the post.

I feel like I'm writing something like this every time she posts!

The toxoplasma antibodies were found in samples from the MOTHERS, not the babies. Those carrying the antibodies were more likely to DELIVER boys, not be boys. These antibodies, present in most women with longtime exposure to cats (i.e., most cat owners), PREVENT infection in the baby. They do not indicate infection in the baby.

It seems like a small quibble, but it needlessly alarms readers to hear inaccuracies about newborns carrying "infections"--especially when toxoplasmosis can cause horrific birth defects and intrauterine death.

T. gondii...

Probably better associated with schizophrenia.

Wolbachia was the parasite assocated (in the mouse, I think)with promoting male offspring.

{unless T.gondii and Wolbachia are related)

Are you kidding? Taking a child who is not an orphan (all reports say that his father and at least one grandparent alive) out of his birth culture doesn't have a downside? If Madonna really wanted to help this child, she should give his father the means to raise the child, not whisk him away to the other side of the world to be her latest project or accessory.

I admire celebrities who want to help raise awareness of terrible situations in other parts of the world, but there's a way to do it that doesn't treat children like props, or contribute to cultural imperialism.

Okay, I admit, I just skimmed the Reuters piece.

But as I understand it, the article was about *legalized* violence against children. FGM (and male circumcision, if we want to consider that a corollary) and the other issues mentioned in that piece are legal in large swathes of the world, not that they should be.

On the other hand, I'm not aware of any nations with functioning governments in which it is encouraged or even accepted to dragoon children of any gender into forced military service. When that happens - and don't get me wrong, it is an outrage against humanity - it is extralegal, in the sense that nations with child soldiers are usually embroiled in nasty civil wars or otherwise incapable of enforcing their laws. And I believe the U.N. and many nonprofits and many MSM articles have all addressed that issue, and it is universally condemned.

It's the sex factor. That's also why you see lots of articles about sexual slavery but few about slave labor. Titillation sells newspapers.

on violence against children says a lot about clitoral "mutilation" but not a word about the thousands of boys killed in forced (and illegal) military service around the globe. Could it be that Reauters feels that relatively slight (though still important) injuries to girls are more important than the deaths of boys?