RADAR ALERT: Intensive Global Efforts Bring Two Victories in One Week!

Submitted by Matt on Tue, 2006-12-05 01:55

This past week our hard work was rewarded with two victories. And both of them stemmed from flawed reports from the United Nations.

  1. UN Study on Violence Against Women

    The first report was the UN secretary-general's Study on Violence Against Women. The document amounted to an ideological denunciation of the "patriarchy" and recommended that every country around the world enact VAWA-like laws: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/vaw. Columnist Wendy McElroy described the report as "embarrassingly inaccurate, ideological, and biased against men." (http://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.55)

    What happened next was nothing short of miraculous.

    RADAR drafted a resolution calling on the UN Third Committee to only
    "note," not "welcome" the report. The resolution was sent around the world, and within a few short weeks 118 organizations in 14 countries had endorsed it: http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/UN-ViolenceReport-Resolution.pdf

    Alerts were issued and over a one-month period, an estimated 30,000 e-mails were sent to US ambassador John Bolton. The delegations from other countries were deluged with messages, as well.

    When the dust had cleared, the Third Committee decided to "note," not "welcome" the secretary-general's report!

    A change of a single word may seem insignificant, but it basically means that the Committee gave the Secretary General's report a failing grade.

    Please send Ambassador Bolton short "thank you" for voting to only "note" the flawed secretary-general's report at usa-at-un.int.

  2. Washington Times Article on Abused Wives in India

    The second report came from a chart developed by the UN Population Fund. Whoever made the chart committed statistical malpractice, because it simply makes no sense. (http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/11/19/feminist-takeover-of-the-un-is-an-issue-of-national-security)

    But that flawed chart gave rise to this statement that appeared in a
    front-page article in the Washington Times: "A 2005 U.N. Population Fund report found that 70 percent of married women in India were victims of beatings or rape." (http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20061113-120817-8603r.htm)

    The statement was defamatory and beyond belief.

    RADAR issued two Alerts, and the complaints POURED in. Messages came from the United States, Canada, India, and elsewhere.

    So this past Tuesday, TWT finally ran the following retraction:

    "Using a chart published in a 2005 U.N. Population Fund report – which the UN agency now says was misleading – a London Daily Telegraph article published in Nov. 13 editions of The Washington Times incorrectly stated the frequencies of wife abuse in India. The agency says that it does not have sufficient data to provide such a figure and that the chart was intended to show that 70 percent of Indian women who were abused by their husbands think such abuse is justified in at least some circumstances." (http://washingtontimes.com/corrections/20061128-102228-2806r.htm)

These are major victories. Kudos for the messages you sent to the United Nations that would have otherwise treated half-truths and innuendo about violence against women as absolute truth. And kudos to all who complained to the Washington Times for publishing its inflammatory propaganda.

This Alert is sent in the spirit of appreciation and thanks for a job well done. This is an example of how a cooperative effort involving over 100 organizations in 14 countries around the world can truly make a difference.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Date of RADAR Release: December 4, 2006

R.A.D.A.R. – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to assure that the problem of domestic violence is treated in a balanced and effective manner. http://www.mediaradar.org/.

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

THAT's RADAR in action. You still gonna complain??
-axo

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by axolotl on Tue, 2006-12-05 02:20

McElroy wrote:
"The [faulted report] includes economic and psychological violence, such as 'humiliating or embarrassing [a woman]'"

Okay let's think logically. The way I see it is, women have been humiliating and embarassing men PUBLICLY, for example in the media, for years. Now, according to the above, if a man embarasses his wife, he is guilty of domestic violence. But doesn't that mean that some idiot, say Maureen Dowd, should be arrested for what SHE does? After all, the same man who committed the domestic violence, would have been arrested if he had instead committed physical violence against a stranger or group of strangers..and the report is equating psychological violence with physical violence.

In brief, if you are going to make humiliating someone a crime, you have to carry that to it's logical end.

-Axolotl

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by axolotl on Tue, 2006-12-05 03:57

I protested at the Government Center today for about 4 hours, and for some reason this sign just reminded me of all the good, hard work RADAR has been doing.

Photo 1

Photo 2

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by MR on Tue, 2006-12-05 03:02

Yay, good news! *Cheers and dances around*

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Canistor on Tue, 2006-12-05 06:37

Congrats to RADAR!

Now if I could just find any link on RADAR's web site that would let me know who (whom?) I am congratulating...

Why no "WHO WE ARE" link?

No easy way to contact the principal organizers?

No attributions for words written?

I like authors and organizations that make their membership roster known and transparent.

I am skeptical of anonymous acronymns.

Data, man.

Factual data is the only thing that stands between a man and jail!

(In this FemAmerica.)

Again, with pity for my own repetitiveness --
WHO constitutes RADAR?

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Roy on Wed, 2006-12-06 03:27

Roy:

I found this on RADAR's home page;

http://www.mediaradar.org/

Media Inquiries:
Mark Rosenthal at info@mediaradar.org
or 781-956-1034

Do a Google on that name and RADAR for further info.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by MR on Wed, 2006-12-06 13:40

I recall reading a piece by David R. Usher stating that RADAR is composed of researchers, scholars, and men's advocates.

There appears to be no membership roster, or affiliates' acknowledgment on RADAR's site.

Is RADAR just one guy?

If so, he deserves considerable credit, because he's doing very worthwhile advocacy as a solo gig.

RADAR represents itself as a mass organization.

(Didn't RADAR say they had lobbyists in D.C. working to reform VAWA? Who are they?)

Who are the masses?

(BTW, I have e-mailed my pol-reps in response to RADAR's "alerts." I have never received any reply at any time from any of my democratically elected servants of the people. But, they all voted FOR VAWA.)

I know I can support RADAR by sending a Pay-Pal donation, but I would like to know WHO I am sending my money to.

I would apply the same skepticism about supporting an Islamic orphan's agency...

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Roy on Thu, 2006-12-07 00:39

Roy:

I certainly understand, but am not at liberty to reveal anymore of what I know. I basically know who's who there, because of my involvement with one of the groups that RADAR has worked with, NCFM. Yes the group is associated with a number of people (and growing every day). They are on the up and up, professional people and the like. I don't know their reasons for so much anonymity, but don't want to violate it, if that's their wish.

Maybe they're afraid the gender feminist will be nasty towards them if their identities are found out.

They are not public figures like journalist, or attorneys so maybe they are just more private people, or maybe they don't want their employers to know. I know from personal experience that working for a politically correct organization can be problematic for an MRA.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by MR on Thu, 2006-12-07 06:57