Domestic Violence Rumor Mill Runs The Weekly Standard
Despite the fact that the United Nations Third Committee did not “acknowledge†the Secretary-General’s study on domestic violence against women [DAW], The Weekly Standard (a Forbes publication run by neo-conservative William Kristol) ran an insidious article about domestic violence in India, titled “Dowry Disgraceâ€.
Forbes supports India’s radical new domestic violence law which is based in part on Forbe’s assertion that “70 percent of Indian women have experienced some form of domestic abuseâ€. This claim is not only wrong: it is also a misquotation of the U.N Secretary General’s Report now-debunked claim that “A 2005 U.N. Population Fund report found that 70 percent of married women in India were victims of beatings or rapeâ€.
I fully debunked this claim in a previous article, Feminist Takeover of the U.N. is an Issue of National Security, exposing it as a fanatical lie.
This raises a question for all publishers: why do they allow feminist staff writers such as Abigail Lavin to make hateful statements about men, and to knowingly lie about statistics in ways that would result in the immediate termination of any other writer? Issues of race and sex are very serious issues requiring a very high level of editorial vetting.
The article raises another over-arching point: Why did Republicans just lose both houses of Congress? I will answer this question with another question: Why would anybody vote for “conservatives” who outdo their radical social counterparts on the far left? Kristol is part of the Conservative cabal who sold out social issues to feminists on K street. This resulted in PROWA, the VAWA reauthorizations, and billions of federal funds given to radical feminists, the majority of which the GAO cannot account for. Voters who expected ‘family values” reforms know Conservatives sold them out, and voted them out on November 7th.
The Standard article is simply another example of media feminists passively reprinting the dirty work of radical feminist field advocates, so as to legitimize their work.
Abigail Lavin did not do her homework. She failed to look for legitimate critics of the new law. In the article, she conveniently quotes far-left feminist “critics” who did not get everything they wanted in the new law: “the law has come under fire from critics who view it as merely cosmeticâ€. Let me remind you, Ms. Lavin, that quoting the most radical feminists does not constitute balanced investigative journalism. If I were your editor, you would have been handed your walking papers by now.
There are many legitimate critics of the new law. RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting) is very interested in this issue. In India, RAKSHAK and 498.org have plenty to say about it. There is no excuse for Lavin not representing the issue fairly.
It is quite clear that western radical feminists have undertaken a very dangerous cultural invasion of India. They differ from Attila the Hun only by the weapons they are use: hate of men and horrendous lies about them. If America does not stop this invasion, which we are funding, it could easily result in yet another country of deeply religious citizens who hate America to the point of taking up terrorist jihad. We must act now to prevent this from happening.
We all agree that dowry killings are wrong. Legislation must address this problem, but not create a radical feminist imperium designed to destroy marriage and turn India into yet another predatory welfare state entitling endemic prostitution and single motherhood.
I have demanded a full retraction by the Weekly Standard, and requested they do another piece focusing on legitimate criticism of the new domestic violence law in India. You may send your letters to the editor of the Weekly Standard at editor@weeklystandard.com.
————————————————-
David R. Usher is Senior Policy Analyst for the True Equality Network, and President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition
————————————————-
Note: Due to harrassment and spamming by feminist operatives, it has become necessary to disable comments in my articles.
————————————————-
12/4/2006: Addenda to Article: I just recieved the following message from RADAR:
“As a result of Usher’s article, the Weekly Standard has already printed a retraction:
This article originally stated that: “Recent studies found that 70 percent of Indian women have experienced some form of domestic abuse.” This statement was based on a 2005 report from the United Nations Population Fund. The U.N. has since questioned the validity of this number, calling the report “misleading.” Since this article was published, the Washington Times has retracted similar statements. [www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/015sjlle.asp?pg=2]
But the Weekly Standard article is still highly biased, one-sided, and unfair. The story contains no mention of physical abuse of men, or of the egregious civil rights abuses under the Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act.
Please tell the editor he needs to do a balanced, follow-up article on DV in India. E-mail William Kristol at: editor@weeklystandard.com“
————————————————-
| More from David R. Usher
Stumble It!
December 3rd, 2006 at 1:58 pm
As much as I wish that the midterm election results could be interpreted as a resounding majority voice for repealing VAWA and reforming our tyrannical Family Courts; actually, the vote according to all pollsters was mostly a referendum on getting out of Iraq.
I doubt that domestic violence, men’s rights, or feminist ambitions to colonize the Third World even registered on the average voter’s mindset.
It will never be possible to get politicians to vote against women’s issues, because they are terrified of the effective feminist lobby that claims to have 500,000 active American women members – an insignificant fraction of the female population.
Though the newly-formed National Family Violence Legislative Resource Center at (www.nfvlrc.org) is forcefully advocating that MRA’s need to hire seasoned D.C. professional lobbyists if they want to have any chance of influencing laws and policies.
(David R. Usher’s brief critique of journalistic practices deserves its own complete essay.)
December 3rd, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Wrong.
If Republicans had made pro-family reforms, millions of men, second wives, and even single mothers would have ignored the war (which directly affects very few of them), and voted their own pocketbooks. Voters are selfish: they will vote their own personal interests if you give them one to vote on. Republicans failed to deliver even one good personal reason for their constituency to vote FOR them.
Republicans lost on very slim margins. It would not have taken much for them to retain their majority. There many men, women, and grassroots activists who got Republicans elected in 1994 that are furious with them. And, the fact that Republicans blame us for their loss makes us even more furious with them, because they did not listen to us or do what they said they would do. They could have easily kept their majority, and even grown it had they kept the voters happy at HOME.
There were many things driving voter rejection of Republicans. Family values was a substantial part of this rejection. It is a shame that pollsters did not ask about it (you cannot report what you do not ask). Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot or a bought-and-paid-for neocon.
Last, if MRA’s had any money after being stripped of home, family, and income, I’m sure they would be donating to the National Family Violence Legislative Resource Center. Since you have volunteered, where is your donation?
December 3rd, 2006 at 7:24 pm
The Big Lie has become the most potent weapon of destruction, nationally and internationally. We dare not use the nuclear bomb, especially on our owm people, but anyone can join with the Princess of Lies.
Truth tried hard.
Was Tried. Hard.
Derided, Derrida-ed,
denied existence;
perjured,
Falsely accused,
she struggled
as she was garrotted.
Died hard.
December 4th, 2006 at 12:22 am
Wow!
An MND poster has cited — Jacques Derrida!
(July 15, 1930 – October 8, 2004) he was an Algerian-born French philosopher, known as the founder of deconstruction.
(JD) — “the entire history of the concept of structure, before the rupture of which we are speaking, must be thought of as a series of substitutions of centre for centre, as a linked chain of determinations of the centre. Successively, and in a regulated fashion, the centre receives different forms or names. The history of metaphysics, like the history of the West, is the history of these metaphors and metonymies. Its matrix (…) is the determination of Being as presence in all senses of this word. It could be shown that all the names related to fundamentals, to principles, or to the centre have always designated an invariable presence – eidos, archÄ“, telos, energeia, ousia (essence, existence, substance, subject) alÄ“theia, transcendentality, consciousness, God, man, and so forth.”
Man, this MND site is getting deep! Who is next? Lacan? Nietzsche? Jung? Dr. Laura?
Postmodernists are now flocking to this URL.
Plug you ears, cover your eyes, shut your mouth….
December 4th, 2006 at 12:52 am
Wow!
An MND poster (amfortas)has cited — Jacques Derrida!
(July 15, 1930 – October 8, 2004) he was an Algerian-born French philosopher, known as the founder of deconstruction.
(JD) — “the entire history of the concept of structure, before the rupture of which we are speaking, must be thought of as a series of substitutions of centre for centre, as a linked chain of determinations of the centre. Successively, and in a regulated fashion, the centre receives different forms or names. The history of metaphysics, like the history of the West, is the history of these metaphors and metonymies. Its matrix (…) is the determination of Being as presence in all senses of this word. It could be shown that all the names related to fundamentals, to principles, or to the centre have always designated an invariable presence – eidos, archÄ“, telos, energeia, ousia (essence, existence, substance, subject) alÄ“theia, transcendentality, consciousness, God, man, and so forth.â€
Man, this MND site is getting deep! Who is next? Lacan? Nietzsche? Jung? Dr. Laura?
Postmodernists are now flocking to this URL.
I hope Mike LaSalle is ready for the onslaught…
December 4th, 2006 at 1:27 am
DadWithGirls,
I am the father of two alienated /sad young girls that I cannot access, because of a feminist influenced judicary . I don’t understand your silly rants, but I do know what it’s like to lose your dignity and soul to radical feminist idealism. My girls will be 12 and 14 in a couple weeks, and I will spend my sixth birthday and Christmas heartbroken without them . Cut the crap and give your daughters a hug from me, and help balance the situation as the feminazi’s have destroyed the role of dad . To say anything else is utter crap ,please keep it simple as kids don’t understand the substained attack from the radical feminist wing !!!!
December 4th, 2006 at 1:34 am
I don’t cite Derrida, DWG. I indict. I put him along with others who have murdered Truth. You cite – and what a job on intelligibility he does there!
December 4th, 2006 at 1:52 am
To: editor@weeklystandard.com
Dear Editor,
Good evening.
I observe that feminist Abigail Lavin authored “Dowry Disgrace†with unsupported statistics, and with an unbalanced opinion.
This gives the The Weekly Standard lower credibility. And I do not want that.
I want The Weekly Standards staff to print the truth supported by facts with balance.
Sincerely,
Mark Ruffolo, MS, MBA
December 4th, 2006 at 7:26 am
Nice one Mark. You inspired me to write as well.
Dear Sir,
Modern communication has enabled the unprecedented spread of reputation, even unto the distant shores of Australia. Your newspaper’s reputation, however, has taken a substantial king–hit since you allowed Abigail Lavin to author misandric drivel in your pages.
Unsupported by facts, mendacity to the fore, her completely unprofessional hate-opinion-piece simply repeats lies purporting to show men to be brutes but which have been dismissed by all authorities. Lavin plagiarised her falsehoods and opinion from a report to the United Nations, a body which has refused to adopt the report due the drivel contained in it. Rarely does the UN simply ‘note’ a report. 30,000 emails were received by Ambassador Bolton condemning the report.
Does your newspaper get such a response?
I hope your authority can be brought to bear and she is fired. Your reputation cannot take another hit as she has given. Let us all pray she does not take up surgery.
(Mt real name went here)
BA, BA(Hons) MSc (Psychol)
December 4th, 2006 at 7:57 am
Gottah love the fair and impartial press….
A man states FACTS about the differences between men and women and the press calls for his head and he looses his presidential seat in a college.
A woman spews absolute garbage, cites inacurate statistics, and blatently lies and she get an “above-the-fold” and nare an eyelash is batted.
Nice!
TMOTS