[an error occurred while processing this directive]
RADAR Alert: Fresh Ammo for Shock and Awe
posted by Matt on 04:08 PM July 21st, 2005
RADAR Project Pressure continues to mount to reform VAWA, a law that discriminates against men and shreds their civil liberties. In recent weeks a number of Op-Ed columns have targeted VAWA. On Tuesday, well-known writer Phyllis Schlafly published a bell-ringer column that called VAWA an example of "anti-marriage and anti-male ideology" and called for persons to "stop the act from spending any more taxpayers' money to promote family dissolution and fatherless children."

Her full column is reprinted below.

Click "Read more..." for more.


Fresh Ammo for Shock and Awe

WE NEED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE MOMENT.

RADAR is calling on all readers to disseminate this column far and wide. TODAY, please forward Mrs. Schlafly's column to the following:

1. Your Representative and two Senators in Washington DC (fax, letter, or e-mail is OK - whatever is easiest for you)
2. The Editor(s) of your local newspaper(s)
3. One or more listservs or on-line discussion groups that you participate in.

Remember that to the media, what's news today is history tomorrow, so please take action TODAY. And always be polite in your dealings.


Time to Dispose of Radical Feminist Pork
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=8134
Phyllis Schlafly
July 19, 2005

If Republicans are looking for a way to return to their principles of limited government and reduced federal spending, a good place to start would be rejection of the coming reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act sponsored by Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del. It's a mystery why Republicans continue to put a billion dollars a year of taxpayers' money into the hands of radical feminists who use it to preach their anti-marriage and anti-male ideology, promote divorce, corrupt the family court system, and engage in liberal political advocacy.

Accountability is supposed to be the watchword of the Bush administration, but there's been no accountability or oversight for the act's spending of many billions of dollars. There is no evidence that the Violence Against Women Act has benefited anyone except the radical feminists on its payroll.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, which is gearing up for a battle royal over the Supreme Court vacancy, has scheduled a hearing on the act for mid-July. It's apparently designed as a be-nice-to-Biden-before-the court-fight event, since no critic has been invited to speak.

Let's have a reality check. The Violence Against Women Act's gender-specific title is pejorative: it's based on the false, unscientific, unjust and blatantly offensive premise that men are innately violent and abusive toward women, making all women victims of men.

The president of Harvard University was publicly pilloried for months earlier this year for implying innate differences between men and women. But the act is spending a billion dollars a year to inculcate that very notion in the minds of men and women who are having marital difficulties, as well as police, prosecutors, psychologists and family court judges.

Feminists staged tantrums at the suggestion of innate math-aptitude differences between men and women, but the whole premise of the Violence Against Women Act is that men have an innate propensity to violence against women. It's not because some are bad individuals or drunks or psychologically troubled, but because men want to keep women subservient in an oppressive patriarchal society.

The Violence Against Women Act was passed using such bogus statistics as "a woman is beaten every 15 seconds" and "80 percent of fathers who seek custody of their children fit the profile of a batterer." Remember the Super Bowl hoax, the ridiculous claim that "the biggest day of the year for violence against women" is Super Bowl Sunday? It's an assertion conclusively refuted by Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers' research.

The Violence Against Women Act comes out of Andrea Dworkin's tirades of hate such as, "Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman." The act comes out of Gloria Steinem's nonsense, such as "the patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself."

Here is some mischief in act-funded activities that should be investigated in the coming Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

The act refuses to provide any help whatsoever for male victims of domestic violence. Let's hear from professor Martin Fiebert of California State University at Long Beach who compiled a bibliography of 170 scholarly investigations, 134 empirical studies and 36 analyses, which demonstrate that women are almost as physically abusive toward their partners as men.

The act encourages women to make false allegations, and then petition for full child custody and a denial of all fathers' rights to see their own children.

The act promotes the unrestrained use of restraining orders, which family courts issue on the woman's say-so. This powerful weapon (according to the Illinois Bar Journal) is "part of the gamesmanship of divorce" and virtually guarantees that fathers are expelled from the lives of their own children.

A woman seeking help from an act-funded center is not offered any options except to leave her husband, divorce him, accuse him of being a criminal and have her sons targeted as suspects in future crimes. The Violence Against Women Act ideology rejects joint counseling, reconciliation and saving marriages.

The act denies that alcohol and illegal drugs are a cause of domestic violence, a peculiar assumption contrary to all human experience. In fact, most domestic violence incidents involve those components.

The act uses a definition of domestic violence that blurs the difference between violent action and run-of-the-mill marital tiffs and arguments. Definitions of abuse can even include minor insults and refusing to help with child care or housework.

The act funds the re-education of judges and all law enforcement personnel to teach them feminist stereotypes about male abusers and female victims, how to game the system to empower women, and how to ride roughshod over the constitutional rights of men.

The act forces Soviet-style psychological re-education on men. The accused men are not given treatment for real problems, but are assigned to classes where feminists teach shame and guilt because of a vast male conspiracy to subjugate women.

The Violence Against Women Act-funded centers engage in political advocacy for feminist legislation such as the "must-arrest" laws even if there is no sign of violence and even if the woman doesn't want the man arrested, and political advocacy against non-feminist legislation such as shared parental rights.

It's time to stop the act from spending any more taxpayers' money to promote family dissolution and fatherless children.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date of RADAR Release: July 20, 2005

To track the current status of VAWA, go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and enter the bill number: Senate bill S. 1197; House of Representatives bill H.R. 2876.

To receive RADAR Alerts, press releases, and other special announcements, sign up for the RADAR E-lert. You can sign up for the E-lert on the RADAR home page at http://www.mediaradar.org/. Your e-mail address will be kept confidential, and will not be shared with any outside organization. It's fast, easy, and keeps you in the loop.

Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting (RADAR) is a coalition of men and women working to assure media balance and accuracy in coverage of the domestic violence issue.

VAWA Hearing 7.19.05 Testimony Transcripts on Web | Tell Congress to Amend or Reject VAWA!  >

  
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Did this early this morning 7-21-05 (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 06:34 PM July 21st, 2005 EST (#1)
Ok, I emailed the L.A. Times and the L.A. Daily News and I've already Faxed my Reps in Washington, whose Fax lines won't pick up before 9 A.M. there time.

I'm waiting for the West Coast Offices to open so I can Fax them here. I have 6 enevelopes addressed to send snail mail to all of my 3 Reps addresses.

Curiously, Boxer doesn't have a Fax line in DC, but she has lines at all her area offices in CA.

Great idea (Score:1)
by Hunchback on 09:35 PM July 21st, 2005 EST (#2)
I e-mailed the NY Post yesterday (7/20), urging them to pick up the article.

Will e-mail my reps tomorrow. No need to alert my senators, however. Our senior senator is Chuck (Fathers' Rights over my dead body) Schumer, and my junior senator is Hitlary Clinton.

Not So Fast! The Hildabeast May Be With Us! (Score:2)
by Luek on 10:01 PM July 21st, 2005 EST (#3)
my junior senator is Hitlary Clinton

Wait! Don't give up on the Hildabeast too soon!

She is running for President in '08 and will do anything to get elected. If she knows that there is a Men's Rights Movement she will pander to it.
She is even sounding like a hard shell conservative on some issues.


Re:Not So Fast! The Hildabeast May Be With Us! (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 10:09 PM July 21st, 2005 EST (#4)
It's also good to keep a file of the letters they send you. I used to get upset if I got a negative one, now as one person said, "I try to make some hay." If a politician is fool enough to go on the record in opposition against our growing men's issues movement, we should at least publicize that as publically as we can in their local district, forward to Glenn Sacks, etc. Keep the pressure on them I say, all of them. One of these days I'd like to politically target one of these male disrespecting bozos (with the power of the growing male vote) and knock them out of office. If we get just a little bit larger we are going to rattle some big cages.

Ray
Re:Not So Fast! The Hildabeast May Be With Us! (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 11:16 PM July 21st, 2005 EST (#5)
"Hildabeast"! LOL!

Well all I can say is, if the Hildabeast were to get in front of an audience and proclaim all the issues MRAs hold dear as important and worthy, I'd applaud what she said and not hesitate to vote against her. Why? Because I 110% guarantee that she'd be lying like the proverbial rug. Ms. H. is a feminist through and through with all that entails. She ain't a-changin' and even if she did, I wouldn't believe it. Her bed is made to sleep in for the rest of her political days.

As to her running in '08, that'd be the last nail in the Demos' coffin. Ask the folks in upstate NY about what having her as a senator is like-- nothing but constant decline in jobs and living standards (Kodak for example just announced yet another 10,000 worker layoff plan). She cares not a whit about "the common people" of upstate NY. Her terrible record of failing to show any leadership at all for New York State will be paraded out in any campaign and she knows it. Thus I rather doubt she will run for prez in '08 and if she did, she would fail so bad, even I'd feel sorry for her (and that's gotta be pretty bad!). Compared with GW's Spanish-fluent brother, the gov. of FL, who has dealt with one disaster after another in his state, someone like the Hildabeast doesn't stand a chance. I am not saying I like or don't like JEB Bush. Frankly I know little about him. But I do know how the American people think: they will see how Ms. H has dropped the ball utterly for her constituents and how JEB has not. That's all they'll need to see.
Of Course She Would Be Lying Like A Rug! (Score:2)
by Luek on 11:31 PM July 21st, 2005 EST (#6)
But I do know how the American people think: they will see how Ms. H has dropped the ball utterly for her constituents and how JEB has not. That's all they'll need to see.

Unfortunately, the Hildabeast is now running for reelection as Senator from NY and the polls show her way ahead of any opposition.

And as for how the American (electorate) people think, the American electorate put her sorry lying scumbag of a husband into the highest elected office in the land TWICE! with comfortable margins of victory! So she has more than a chance there!

Of course she is a worst liar than Billy is and a rabid fem to boot but she probably would show faux support for any Men's Rights initiative like opposing VAWA if she thought it would make her image more palatable.

Re:Of Course She Would Be Lying Like A Rug! (Score:1)
by Denis on 08:24 AM July 22nd, 2005 EST (#9)
I'm reading Joe Kleins book, 'The Truth About Hillary'. I recommend it to everyone.

Hillary is not just a feminist, she is a gender feminist. She is a believer in separatism. She is the worst type of feminist.

Briefly, Hillary's liberal views began during childhood from the teachings in her Methodist Church in Illinois. When attending Wellesley (aka 'Lesbi") College her liberal views became much more extreme and hardened. She befriended many lesbians and bi-sexual women (who later left their eventual husbands to live in a lesbian relationship). These women had a huge influence on Hillary. One became a very close friend who remains that way to this day. This friend had promoted the idea of using lesbianism and separatism from heterosexual men as a strategy for promoting women's rights. Hillary, from her own statements has bought into this strategy. Klein does not state that Hillary is a lesbian in his book, but it is well documented and researched in regards to her comments and views. People will have to draw their own conclusions as to whether Hillary is in fact a lesbian or just has close friendships with some who have influenced her greatly.

Her relationship with Bill from the start had little in the way of a sexual component. When dating Hillary early on, Bill had numerous sexual encounters with other women. Hillary was always aware of these as Bill made no secret of them.

As a gender feminist President Hillary Clinton will be a major threat to heterosexual men. Her means justify her aims. Shamelessly lying about anything and everything is one of her means of getting in. Much of the media is on her side.

Guys, giving women the vote was a big mistake. It has resulted in a huge growth in government, and a 100 year plan to take power from men. It has largely worked according to plan. Ironically, the women have the support of many powerful men. They have not only worked the politicians and political system, they have worked all the cultural institutions.

The fact that we are basically in the 9th inning, and we are still trying to get an increase in men's awareness, much less actual involvement and activism, is distressing to me.

A marriage strike is a powerful weapon, perhaps the only strong card we hold. But eventually men are going to see the net closing in around them in terms of their postion (or lack thereof) in society, and I am concerned that by then we will have even less influence on the political process.

I don't think feminism will so much as win, as much as I believe it will wreck all of society's important institutions without any hope of turning it around. We will all be much worse off then.
Denis
Re:Of Course She Would Be Lying Like A Rug! (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 10:29 AM July 22nd, 2005 EST (#10)
"Guys, giving women the vote was a big mistake."

Stop it. Stop making statements like this and gift-wrapping ammunition to our opponents who will jump on statements like this and gleefully use them against us. The problem here is misandry, not feminism or women's suffrage. Get as mad as you like at Hillary, but don't place dynamite under our wagon by making statements such as the one above.

Boy Genteel
Re:Of Course She Would Be Lying Like A Rug! (Score:1)
by Denis on 11:12 AM July 22nd, 2005 EST (#11)
oh please. saying it was a mistake is not the same as advocating repeal. Politicians play to the female vote more than the male vote. as a consequence more, much more tax money is spent on women...taxes as a result have gone way up. Men are primarily taxpayers...women overwhelmingly tax consumers....there is advocacy at every level of government favoring women, at the expense of men. forget about fairness, forget about equality. the timelines of the growth of government and the expansion of a matriarchal culture follow the timeslines of the womans vote and the civil rights act...these are facts. It is in the context of a broader post with where this country has been heading and where it's final destination will be with a President Hillary.

This crap about wanting to control the discussion and the content is rediculous and I for one won't play by these rules. The reasonong behind it not only weak, but wrong.

Our opponents gleefully lie, just like HC herself all the time already. These is no give and take discourse going on. This is a war. There are no rules. You are supremely naive to think that if we play nice then they will not come after us with ammunition. They are already coming after us. Visit some of the feminist boards. I have. Lots of them. I have never seen so much irrational extremist and vile hatred of men in general in all my life until I visited these sites.

These hateful women have imaginative minds and will do anything to broaden the population of men-hating women. They aren't in need of ammunition you believe I am handing over.

It just goes to show how far and how deep political correctness reaches. We have men so afraid of what the otherside will think of us that we are suppose to always look over our shoulder. What a joke. The other side has put no such limitations on their behavior.

If it's the politicians you are talking about well...they only respond to power. That means votes. That means numbers. If they respond that: they have read all the great articles about men's rights on MND, AngryHarry, Mensactivism, Glenn Sacks, and others, and they agree...but this post by a guy named Denis changes the whole picture...well that politician needs to be told that he/she is targeted for defeat in the next election. I for one will not grant myself that much influence.

I wrote a lot,. and you emphasize your interpretation on one valid point worthy of dicsussion, and say I should be silenced on this. You remind me of Stalinist Gender Feminists.

I post on many boards...and I don't see all that much extremist talk...and I as previously stated on other posts that I don't think it has negative affects. These are a very small percentage of all the opinions being expressed in blogs, columns and so on.

This is the first place I've been to where telling others what not to say is common. I am outspoken, direct, confrontational, and that is what I see with other men in this movement, on other sites.

I am quite certain my style is incompatible with this one.

Denis
Re:Of Course She Would Be Lying Like A Rug! (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 12:21 PM July 22nd, 2005 EST (#12)
"Guys, giving women the vote was a big mistake."
 
That a ridiculous statement, and indefensible. In my opinion there are many menas well as women who vote and/or speak irresponsibly in regards to issues affecting men, but I will never, never make such an innane statement as to lump all people of a certain gender into a group for condemnation. That's bigotry and what we are adamantly opposed

I espouse that people of a certain ideology like gender feminism (comprised of women and men) contain many borderlines, bigots and insane types, who preach a PC hatred and intolerance of men as a group, and are therefore dangerous to all in society.

Totalitarianism, bigotry and hate are commonly found on gender feminist sites and I for one do not want in any way to copy or embrace the hatred and insanity found there.

Gender feminism is the modern day model of hate, intolerance and persecution insitgating and fueling the present pogrom against all men. They are the enemy.

Ray
Re:Of Course She Would Be Lying Like A Rug! (Score:1)
by Denis on 01:11 PM July 22nd, 2005 EST (#14)
Neither ridiculous nor indefensible. It's called 'cause and effect'. saying I am "condemning a group"..(do show me where)...further muddies whatever this discourse can be called.

I spelled out a timeline of events: this boys and girls is known as "A Cause".

A set of events runs parallel to this Cause from start to finish: this boys and girls is called "An Effect".

I am suggesting that there is a connection here.

Other than telling me to shut up, or saying I'm a bigot (I'm assuming you are calling me that)....do point out the error of my thinking. You say there is no connection? Fine.

Prove me wrong. I am throwing out a challenge to anyone with the intellectual horsepower to do so.

You don't like the cause and effect argument?

No problem.

Let's keep the discussion intelligent. I'm a big boy and if you can intellectually convince me how my Cause & Effect argument falls apart do tell. Hell, I know my own thinking will change if your argument is more valid than mine.

I certainly can handle that. I just can't handle being told to shut up. I handle less being lableled in a way that is intellectually dishonest.

If I want abuse I will go to the feminist sites. I'm here expecting a more thoughtful and reasoned discussion.

My argument holds:

Since the woman's vote (Cause) there has been a huge growth in government and regulation and preferences favoring women over men (Effect).

Politicians respond to women more favorably to men. I'd guess 'the vote' has something to do with that.

Someday, (that is, if reasoned debate is shown to be possible here)I will provide some historical background about women and 'the vote'. (hint: Prior to the amending of the Constitution, women in fact did vote. Not as often but they did. The Constitution never expressly forbade women from voting.)

And don't even start with me about saying that I want to take the vote away from women. That is not what I said, and anyone who is reading with a clear head can see that. And if you follow what I'm saying above, even if I was advocating repeal of the amendment, that would not equate to women not being able to vote anyways.)

Takers anyone?


Denis
Re:Of Course She Would Be Lying Like A Rug! (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 10:42 PM July 22nd, 2005 EST (#16)
"Neither ridiculous nor indefensible. It's called 'cause and effect'. saying I am "condemning a group"..(do show me where)...further muddies whatever this discourse can be called."

Right here (your words),
"Guys, giving women the vote was a big mistake."

Ray
Re:Of Course She Would Be Lying Like A Rug! (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 10:52 PM July 22nd, 2005 EST (#17)
Women do not vote as a solid block anymore than men do, therefore the cause and effect theory you espouse has little, or no validity. You should stick to the issues and the groups of people who are backing those issues. Again, gender feminists are comprised of women and men. I suggest you do post on those gender feminist sites to become more thoroughly versed with their agenda. The Independent Women's Forum, and Concerned Women for America are polar opposites of NOW and the feminist majority. Ifeminist is a Libertarian site, run by a Libertarian woman who has posted a lot of good men's issues articles.

Lastly, you should not put words in other people's mouths. No one has called you a bigot. Those are your words. Your hip shooting conclusions show a lack of objectivity.

Ray
Re:Of Course She Would Be Lying Like A Rug! (Score:2)
by Rand T. on 12:45 AM July 23rd, 2005 EST (#18)
Politicians play to the female vote more than the male vote. as a consequence more, much more tax money is spent on women...taxes as a result have gone way up. Men are primarily taxpayers...women overwhelmingly tax consumers....there is advocacy at every level of government favoring women, at the expense of men.

Unfortunately, the advocacy of government favoring women at the expense of men has existed long before women had the right to vote. Father's rights organizations have existed since at least the early 19th century. Men still have power to change things, they're just not using it. One of the main reasons is that women control boys' education and thus raise them to be accomodators of female privileges. In addition, the leftist-liberal controlled media and education system keep men and boys ignorant of their legal status as well as brainwashes them into believing that 'sexual equality' means 'whatever the hell women want at the expense of everyone else'. Were it not for the internet, most of us would still be living in ignorance.
Re:Of Course She Would Be Lying Like A Rug! (Score:1)
by Ragtime on 02:50 PM July 22nd, 2005 EST (#15)
"Guys, giving women the vote was a big mistake."

Don't be a loon, for Pete's sake.

'Equality' means *actually* treating people equally. It's the only way that will work.

I expect to have to teach this to feminists. I really don't want to be teaching it here as well. I figure folks here are going to 'get it.'

Ragtime


The Uppity Wallet

The opinions expressed above are my own, but you're welcome to adopt them.

Hillary Can't Wait till 2008 (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 12:09 AM July 22nd, 2005 EST (#7)
Some people seem to think that Hillary can't wait untll 2008.
I Can't Wait Until 2008
Staring a caricature of Hillary and many other political caricatures.

Ray
Great Article but Needs Mainstream (Score:1)
by TheMadNucleus on 07:46 AM July 22nd, 2005 EST (#8)

I also sent a copy of this article to the editors of Newsday, NY. I will be sending it to other publications today.

But quite honestly the likelihood that a mainstream media outlet pick this article up and print it is slim to none, not that we shouldn't keep trying.

In addition - if it is not picked up by any mainstream media outlets it is almost meaningless and of little use other than to make us few male activists feel good.

Bottom line: keep hammering away - everyone should be sending this article everywhere they can via mail, email and fax.
Emporesses' new clothes... (Score:0)
by Anonymous User on 12:56 PM July 22nd, 2005 EST (#13)
Once again the feminists prove their hypocricy.
They say that they need the VAWA to keep men from opressing women.
Yet the VAWA is designed SPECIFICALY to help women opress men.
There is NO doubt about that. It is there in black and white and is so obvious that even Stevie Wonder could see it.
Feminists have a real nack at denying what is obvious, don't they?
It's sickening. And yet they always get away with it.

  Thundercloud.
  "Hoka hey!"
[an error occurred while processing this directive]