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 Disgrace.�
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 abuse.� 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 rape.�
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 cosmetic.� 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 be fired 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 western-style predatory welfare state entitling endemic prostitution and single motherhood.
have demanded a full retraction by the Weekly Standard, and requested
they do another piece focusing on the legitimate criticism of the
new domestic violence law in India. You may send your letters to the
editor of the Weekly Standard at email@example.com.
� 2006 David Usher - All
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
David R. Usher is Legislative Analyst for the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition and is a co-founder and past Secretary of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.
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?