A November 11th Washington Times article “Abused wives in India pin hope on anti-violence law” resulted in a number of letters to the editor of the Times, claiming that the article is biased. The Times article blithely repeated an eye-popping claim that “A 2005 U.N. Population Fund report found that 70 percent of married women in India were victims of beatings or rape”, without even questioning it.
On November 17th, the Times published three identical letters to the editor, but prefaced them with this highly unusual editorial set-up:
[Editor's note: All of the letters below use the same phrasing to try to make a case that women aren't the only victims of domestic abuse. But the writers detract from the issue. First of all, the article was not biased against men; it set out to report on the new laws in India and it did precisely that. Moreover, writers' arguments would likely be taken more seriously if they were to dispense with the deceit. We asked each of the writers if they had personally written the letter and each said yes. Obviously, that is not the case. Domestic abuse, whether at the hands of a man or a woman, is a serious offense. Relegating such an issue to chain letters and false claims hurts victims of both genders. We stand by our news story.]
Anyone who has been in politics knows that “form” emails on issues of import are frequently originated by organizations who know the ropes, and lots of little guys send them everywhere. And, what Lilliputian would not like to see his or her name in the Washington Times?
The Problem of Feminism in Media, Government, and Politics
Now we get to the heart of the subject raised in the letters the Washington Times glossed over. The “form” letter was originated by RADAR, a highly credible organization comprised of scientists, lawyers, and scholars in an alert titled Fake Statistics Used to Claim that Wife-Beating is Men’s “Birthright”.
In its alert, RADAR did the research the Times failed to do. RADAR discovered that the U.N Population Fund’s claim that “70 percent of married women in India were victims of beatings or rape” is founded on surveys by women’s advocates that are neither consistent nor scientific. Let me demonstrate the feminist rumor mill in action right before your very eyes.
The study “Profiling Domestic Violence: A Multicountry Study”, by Kishor and Johnson, is heavily cited as the basis for positions adopted within the UNPF report. To my knowledge, the Kishor study has not been subjected to peer review. Nonetheless, the convenient parts were extracted for the purposes of the UNPF report.
Here is the first tip-off that the Kishor “study” is a misrepresentation of science: Real studies are publicly published for peer review, and not used for anything until review is complete and scientists substantively agree the report is solid.
The second tip-off: The Kishor and Johnson study is not a study. It is a collection of “surveys”, as evidenced by statements in the UNFP reports. There are major differences between studies and surveys. If the authors had intended to be scientifically honest, the paper would have been titled “Profiling Domestic Violence: A Multicountry Survey”.
The third tip-off: The Kishor study was published by Macro International, Inc. ORC Macro is an opinion research corporation, not a scientific research organization.
The Fourth tip-off: world feminists base their claim that “70 percent of married women in India were victims of beatings or rape” on the following illustration from the UNPF report:
What is wrong with this chart? The title of the graphic reads “Women Who Believe Wife Beating is Justified for at Least One Reason”. But vertical axis of the graphic reads “Percent of ever-married [sic] women ages 15-49 who have ever experienced domestic violence”. There is no way to determine what, if anything, this chart is supposed to show. “Rape” is not even mentioned (as claimed in the UNPF report). A 7th grade student would get an “F” for turning in a classroom assignment like this.
The final tip-off (and the clincher): The UNPF Fact Sheet contains the following graphic extracted from the same Kishor and Johnson “study”. There is a problem here: the authors claim here that only 19% of Indian women are subjected to domestic violence, disagreeing tremendously with the meaninless 70% figure claimed in the chart above:
No more discussion is needed about the UNPF report. Kishor and Johnson are throwing ping pong balls at the wall, hoping that one of them will stick. This is yet another classic example of the feminist rumor mill in action.
The one thing we can believe about the UNPF report is that it is simply incredible. It is indeed terrifying that the U.N is about to embark on the feminist plan for world conquest based on nothing more than wildly inconsistent informal surveys done by women’s advocates (if they were even done at all).
To make sure there are no misunderstandings on the facts of international domestic violence, RADAR cited a reputable international study on the matter by the reputable Dr. Murray Straus, titled “Dominance and Symmetry in Partner Violence by Male and Female University Students in 32 Nations”. His study proves that international domestic violence is essentially evenly distributed, and calls for substantially different approaches to domestic violence intervention than what is being forced on the world today by power-crazed feminists.
Feminism is an Issue of National Security
Those who do not wish to see India become yet another terrorist state need to focus immediately on stopping what feminists are doing in the United Nations. Indians I am in communication with see their new domestic violence law as a “cultural invasion by western feminists”. They know it is phony, and intended to destroy marriage and Indian society by empowering foreign radicals to take over the country and dictate from a pink pedestal of feminist dictatorship. Indians are both terrified and furious. They know this invasion is predominantly coming from America.
We must realize that feminists are terrorists too. You cannot see their guns or bombs. Feminists use the invisible weapons of sexism, fear, misinformation, hate, and allegory to achieve the same level of control of entire societies. This has been accomplished in most western societies. Feminists now wish to take control of the United Nations.
Feminism is exactly what Muslim radicals oppose. Mark my words: if India becomes radicalized against America, we will not be able to say that we did not ask for it. Let us do the right thing and shut down the export of radical feminism now, while we still have a chance.
Let the American people not get caught again between these two very radical and dangerous factions. Before we can expect to see declines in Muslim radicalism, we must first reign in American feminist terrorists who have made us the most deeply hated country in the Muslim world. A lively national debate about this should commence immediately. Our future national security depends decisively on it.
We must realize that feminism is a political problem. Virtually every feminist “study” ever done has been thoroughly debunked, but not until after great damage was done in politics and law. For many years, the feminist game has been to lay out false science faster than politicians and scientists can figure out they have been had. Politicians must stop playing sucker to this classic feminist trick. The only way to handle this problem is for politicians and policy makers to ignore feminists and send them packing faster than they can walk in the door.
This is an international fiasco which, if unchecked, will drag American into untold wars against a growing number of countries who hate our guts.
I fully realize that my identification of feminism as being a terrorist movement, and how it is a major driver of anti-American Muslim radicalism, is way ahead of conventional wisdom. Folks, whether you like it or not, the evidence points to this conclusion. Reigning in radical feminism is just as much a national security issue as is stopping would-be bombers from entering our borders. This does not include the tremendous benefits to the American economy and the taxpayers that will result from reform of federal policies presently destroying marriage while doing nothing to help it.
My message to President Bush: We did not allow Russian Prime Minister Molotov dictate the shape of the United Nations when it was founded (you can listen to an mp3 of my grandfather, Dr. Roland G. Usher reporting about Molotov from San Francisco during the founding of the U.N.) . We cannot allow American Marxist-socialists to do it now and end up with much of the world in full revolt. We could not bear the cost of securing every square inch of America, and the rest of the world too. It is therefore, in our national interest, to have Ambassador Bolton block the acceptance of the U.N. Secretary-General’s report on Domestic Violence.
Where feminist take-over of the U.N. is clearly an issue of national security, you might wish to send a copy of this article to the Washington Times. The email address for the International editor is djones@washingtontimes.com. You might want to copy Mr. Francis Coombs, Managing Editor, at fcoombs@washingtontimes.com.
[Note to readers: This article was modified on Sunday, Nov. 19th, to include new information relevant to the story, and to correct errors in the first version published on Saturday, Nov. 18.]
——————————————————–
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
amfortas said,
November 18, 2006 at 7:33 pm
DadWithGirls said,
His current essay got me wondering why it’s likely that men would march en masse in Washington D.C. if their right to bear arms was revoked; yet – men are silent in the face of VAWA’s effective repeal of their right to live without fear of feminism.
Let’s consider a trivial example –
It’s very difficult to legally take away a man’s guns. Second Amendment rights are still respected.
But VAWA has taken away every man’s individual agency and declared him a permanent suspect-of-a-gender-crime — merely by defining him to be a perpetrator of oppression, guilty upon birth by virtue of his chromosomes.
First Amendment rights no longer matter. Speech by a man (”an angry tone…”) or even non-speech (silence - i.e. “ignoring her needs…”) can be invoked as domestic violence under VAWA.
Any woman can speed-dial 911 and destroy any man’s livelihood — banish him from his home, deprive him of contact with his children, slander his professional reputation; then file for a “no-fault divorce,” and harvest more than 50% of all marital assets.
This profitable connection between the DV Industry and Mr. Usher’s promotion of marriage is precisely why he and I sometimes disagree, and it also represents one crossroads where MRA’s must choose.
Mr. Usher expresses his view that marriage is a salvation of some kind which, if more widely adopted, somehow benefits society.
I view the current version of marriage as a very foolish non-contract with no benefits whatsoever for any man.
If a man does not benefit from marriage, then how can it be promoted as good for “society?”
November 18, 2006 at 8:08 pm
mazza said,
You are right, the men and older folks are angry. The women think they have been given freedom. Most of the complaints come back to “it’s getting too much like the USA”.
November 19, 2006 at 7:22 am
roger said,
The press then reports these unclaimed and unverified “studies” as truth and a huge level of momentum is achieved for “their cause”.
It is lies and it is fraud, and a large portion of USA social policy and legislation is based upon these lies.
How can this be allowed ??
And why were we not allowed to vote on some of these proposals??
November 19, 2006 at 9:37 am
DcFather said,
November 19, 2006 at 10:47 am
David R. Usher said,
Feminists regard marriage as a “trap”. This goes well beyond changing the matchmaker system, which in India was a way of assuring a young man and women married someone worth marrying.
“Freedom” does not legitimately include social entitlements to have random children out of wedlock, or to seize family or business assets whenever someone merely utters the word “abuse”.
Legitimate freedoms maintain social stability while permitting progress within a socially-productive construct. To the extent that feminism has invented “freedoms” based on thinking based in Marxism and Stalinism that do not legitimately exist, it is to be held responsible for the problems we see today.
November 19, 2006 at 11:50 am
DadWithGirls said,
“Legitimate freedoms?”
Could I politely invite you to inventory all your preceived ILLEGITIMATE freedoms?
Hopefully a brief list?
November 19, 2006 at 2:01 pm
Roger Knight said,
Illegitimate freedoms: to hold another as a slave or peon, to break up a marriage and family without having to prove any wrongdoing on the part of the partner, to seize the partner’s property without proof of wrongdoing or breach of contract, to claim “abuse” without having to actually prove it, to obtain a restraining order against partner without proving any actual abuse, only that you are “afraid of him”, etc.
It appears that these “reforms” are actually unpopular in India. As India is a demoracy, then perhaps they ought to use that other American idea, throw the bums out in the next election. The new bums might throw out these new divorce and family law reforms.
November 19, 2006 at 8:42 pm
DrDamage said,
Any freedom which requires the coercion of another person to enjoy. I can carry a gun without any other persons help, but if I want to feel safe in knowing that only government agents are permitted to bear arms, this requires other people be compelled to not bear arms. I require their help in order to feel safe, therefore feeling safe in this fashion is an illegitimate right.
OK, if that seems like it came out of the blue, it’s because that ones an example of a right that someone threw at me last time I had a non internet discussion of the right to keep and bear arms. the person I was speaking to wanted to feel safe and couldn’t feel safe unless the right to keep and bear arms didn’t exist except for government agents such as police and soldiers.
Rights are actions that citizens are can undertake without the interference of the state. Anything more, and people suddenly start having the right to feel certain ways. These feeling rights are typically cited in order to override legitimate rights. Another problem with making rights more than actions the government is not permitted to prevent is that suddenly individuals find themselves co-opted into facilitating another persons rights whether they want to or not.
The difference between legitimate rights and illegitimate rights is that illegitimate rights require coercion in order for the bearer of the right to exercise it.
The list of legitimate rights supplied by Roger Knight require no coercion of other people in order to exercise these rights
Similarly, the list of Illegitimate rights supplied by RK all require that other people be coerced in order for those rights to be exercised.
I thought about making a blog of this at my blog (http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/drdamage) but the core idea came from one a post in vox populi whose author I cannot remember (props, whoever you are) so I’m not going to present it as my own.
November 20, 2006 at 3:17 am
Roger Knight said,
DadWithGirls, thank you for your polite request for an inventory of illegitimate freedoms. As you requested, I kept the list brief.
DrDamage’s explanation of the basic difference between legitimate and illegitimate freedoms or rights is accurate, complete, and as simple, short, and easy to understand as an elegant mathematical proof.
Bravo!
November 20, 2006 at 3:34 am
snootfish said,
This is true for a number of reasons in addition to the one mentioned in the article.
Our young men have been raised mostly by women. They generally do not have the skills and inner strength necessary for a strong military
They have little to no motivation to fight. Why fight for a culture that screws you?
Our economy suffers as we become an entitlement culture (primarily women are the ones “entitled”).
Our economy suffers as we have legions of men destroyed to one extent or another by feminism everything from demoralized to financially emasculated. Many men go “underground.”
The list of course could continue.
November 20, 2006 at 3:52 am
conservativation said,
Listening to a Christian broadcast yesterday a woman was making the point that we need to love those difficult people who are in our cirle of family and friends, not avoid them….good advice, but she kept saying “he” when refering to the bad person, I let that go, then she said, “Likely you are thinking, how many wives has he abused or divorced, how many kids are left fatherless and hungry by him, but still we need to love him” I wrote a comment on her web site (she is the host) and I sent an email…no answer yet. Evangelical feminism is even more insidious than the secular firebrand type, because it speaks softly, surrounds itself w/ scripture, and drops in a few platitudes about how to be a “good Christian woman”, all the while divorcing or controlling every man they encounter.
November 20, 2006 at 10:31 am
mruffolo said,
I left Willow Creek Community Church because they supported my wife’s divorce from the family. They did not even attempt to influence her.
http://www.willowcreek.org
A few years ago a Christian based research team showed the divorce rate among born-again Christians across the nation is higher than non-Christians.
http://www.truthcast.com/agape/000630christian_divorce.htm
Ignoring facts to go with what is politically correct is wrong in the long run.
http://www.mediaradar.org/media_fact_sheet.php
At the end of the day if I want to hear man bashing, then I’ll turn my television back on.
November 20, 2006 at 4:30 pm
Steve Farrell said,
There’s a simple solution to all of this, well, at least a partial solution. It was one President Reagan promised to deliver, but failed to. It’s called getting the United States out of the United Nations, and the U.N. out of the United States. Without our cash and moral support, like the League of Nations before it, the U.N. would have no power to pull the world down into a socialist mess.
On the other hand, as to the U.N.’s founding principles, convicted Soviet Agent, Alger Hiss, was the orchestrator of the San Francisco conference and the U.N.’s first Secretary General. You know, the same guy who was whispering in FDR’s ear at Yalta when we gave the Soviet Communist half the world, the world we were defending against Germany and Japan. It all goes down hill from there.
Everything about the Charter is the antithesis of the U.S. Constitution, with only the most superficial resemblances. For a full consideration of just how much this thing was a Communist blueprint from the start, I recommend “The Un-American United Nations,” by yours truly.
http://newsmax.com/commentmax/get.pl?a=2000/9/6/092459
You may, or may not be surprised by what you read.
Best,
Steve
November 20, 2006 at 9:21 pm
Indian_Crusader said,
but Current Dv Act Gives Modern Indian Women ample chance to misuse,as dowry law.
We are Proposing Domestic Harmony Law, Instead Domestic violence Law, Law should be equal to all,both men and women.
We also Propose to amend the word Men to Spouse
As all women are not Victims, they are villains too
And all men are not Villains, they are victims too.
Why Our Government is not making Gender balanced Laws instead making gender biased laws, thier main intention is to make men castrated,ruin marriages and break Families.
Good government always make good Laws,which are fool proof from begining. but our Westernised Indian Government,knowingly making foolish laws, in the name of women Empowering;Even they know other Gender biased laws are widely Misused.
If same trend continued, someday men will take Law in thier hand,when they are denied Justice.
For : MyNation
http://dvact.awardspace.com
November 20, 2006 at 11:49 pm
David R. Usher said,
It is interesting to see the responses of Indians who are fighting feminism for the first time. It seems that men are seeking equality, and expect to be able to amend the law. But women appear to be the ones who really dislike the law and wish to see it removed. Since these two groups want entirely different things, they are both weak and will get nothing.
Men and women in the U.S. have been using similar approaches for a decade, to amend or kill VAWA. We have not been able to budge anybody in Washington. This is because feminism generates a huge amount of slush money, which goes in circles between feminists, lawyers, and politicians. It is my prediction that neither method will work in India, either. These laws are about creating political power for a few, who then trample the rest of the citizenry. This being the case, success cannot be won by merely begging for equality or nicely saying you don’t like it with your hat in hand.
My suggestion to the activists in India: We have to speak to what feminism is really all about, and what VAWA is really all about. It is a hate movement that can only be stopped by identifying it as such, and removing anyone who politically supports it. When feminist laws are removed, only then will it be possible to enact sensible policies that make more sense, such as laws to help a responsible spouse get a spouse abusing drugs or alcohol into treatment.
November 21, 2006 at 1:05 am
amfortas said,
November 21, 2006 at 2:18 am
U.N. Rejects U.N. Secretary-General’s Report on Violence Against Women said,
November 24, 2006 at 1:19 pm
dads&things » Blog Archive » U.N. Rejects Secretary-General’s Report on Violence Against Women said,
November 25, 2006 at 9:42 pm
shatteredmen said,
I did write them as the Director of Shattered Men and was told that the reason they focus on abused women is that only one or two men have every sought help for domestic violence. After I suggested they include an annoncement that men are abused too and that help was avaiable to them to see how many abused men would come out of the woodwork, I believe my address was placed on block. I do have good word that many more men have sought help and have all but been ignored.
I have also been ignored by many other “ministries” that have focused only on abused women.
We can see this misandry in action almost every Father’s day vs Mothers day. On Mothers day we are all but told that mothers can do no wrong and their halos are glowing. On Father’s day, all the evils of the world are placed on men.
And they wonder why fewer men are attending church
Director Shattered Men
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/shattterdmen
November 27, 2006 at 10:06 am
shatteredmen said,
Sir, I assure you this is MY own letter but even if it was not, would it negate what was being said?
As the director of Shattered Men, I have seen misandry in action not only in our laws, but in the media’s coverage of domestic violence. Much unbiased research shows that the abuse rate is essentially equal between men and women yet we only hear one side of this story. Even the Department of Justice reveals almost 40% of the abuse victims are men but there are no resources for them.
Sir, I do urge you to do some research yourself…some investigative reporting on the Violence Against Women Act and see where it came from, how it ha always been misrepresented and how it is hurting far more women then it is helping.
In closing, I ask, would you support a Racial issues law with only the KKK having input on it and making sure no one from the NAACP had any input? This sir is what the VAWA has done to men. Many women are harmed when a man is tired of being battered and hits back.
Shattered Men does help both men and women. We do care about ALL our people…do YOU?
November 27, 2006 at 11:02 am
Domestic Violence Rumor Mill Runs The Weekly Standard said,
December 3, 2006 at 11:52 am
Save Indian Family Foundation » Washington Times acknowledges the mistake in reporting on Indian DV Statistics Data!! said,
December 4, 2006 at 12:43 pm
Krishna said,
It is important that more voices are raised to highlight the essentially fascist nature of these laws in India. On a mere oral allegation of a woman, entire family of the man is arrested. The law stipulates that no bail be granted. It becomes the responsibility of the accused to prove his/her innocence at a horrendous cost to livelihood, peace and tranquility of the whole family. The cases drag on for years in the corrupt legal/law enforcement environments. Many elders unable to bear the shame end up taking their lives.
This is unheard of in any civilized society. Thanks for bringing it to attention of freedom loving citizens of the great USA.
Regards.
Kris
December 4, 2006 at 10:20 pm
Indian_Crusader said,
When, We, From Save Indian Society, showed then Real Satistics, it came down to 44%, As per Times Of India Report.
44 per cent women abused
Now you know the Truth.
Crime / Harassment is there in Every society of World. As per i know As an Indian, Most of the Indian Women are Control Freak. They not only want to control thier men and thier Children(boys) too; They Blackmail them emmotionally.
Its inside Info.
For:MyNation
http://dvact.awardspace.com
December 11, 2006 at 10:21 pm
16 Days of Activism: Rutgers Sponsors Global Feminist Terrorism said,
December 13, 2006 at 11:00 pm
swarup1973 said,
Few days Back one of SIF member told me Swarup , “ Till date Indina Women had been protected by their Near and Dear ones. Now after this AK47 ( Domestic Violence Act ) , they will be protected by so called Protection Officer , Lawyers, Police , Judges..etc”
But She also asked me, “ Who will Protect Indian Women from those so called Protection Officers, Lawyers, Police , Judges ..etc”
“Following Shraddha’s complaint, her husband Kachhru Vitthal Pingale
(26), mother-in-law Godabai (55), step mother-in-law Sarubai (50),
brother-in-law Vishwas ( 26) and sister -in-law Nisha (18) were arrested and two relatives, Sadanand alias Sadashiv Sukhdev Thorat (33) and his wife Vidya (28), booked by the police.”
In a single day , Ms. Renuka Choudhary’s “Diwali Gift ( DV Act) , ensure Four Women behind the bar without any investigation , who is right and who is wrong.
Another SIF Member Sachit explained: “If we go through the definition of the law and the explanations by all Women activist , this LAW to Protect the Women , DV Act is applicable ONLY AGAINST MEN, BUT
HERE THE FOUR WOMEN TOO ARE ARRESTED!!!!!!” - NO DOWRY DEMAND ALLEGED.
“Nangre-Patil said it was “pure” case of domestic violence and there was no demand for dowry from the in-laws. Hence the suspects had been booked and arrested under the Domestic Violence Act.”
I conclude: Clearly proven that this “Domestic Violence Act” is AGAINST WOMEN.
This is nothing but :
Cheating and fooling the Indian Women for Vote bank!!!
More at :
http://www.indiatalking.com/blog/swarup/4468/
December 14, 2006 at 7:16 am
The Tyranny of Tolerance: Judge Robert Dierker Exposes Inequality of Women’s Jurisprudence said,
January 1, 2007 at 9:06 pm
More reality check behind the Female Foeticide in India « Fighting Legal Terrorism on Me said,
June 29, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Open letter to the officials of the UN (UNICEF and UNIFEM) « Fighting Legal Terrorism on Me said,
June 29, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Open letter to the officials of UN, UNIFEM and UNICEF « Fight for justice said,
June 30, 2008 at 10:28 am