FEM-THINK AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF MEN
I have never met Ben Stein and harbor no ill-will towards him. But last week the former TV game show host wrote an article that somehow reminded me of the Holocaust deniers.
Referring to the precarious situation in Iraq, Mr. Stein posed this question: are “we already eager to surrender to the man who murdered women and children”? [Read]
Women and children?
If there’s anything we know about Iraq under Saddam Hussein, it’s that men suffered the most horrific cruelties. Remember the stories about Saddam’s infamous meat cutter machine? About alleged Army deserters who had their ears cut off? The children forced into combat? And the 600 civilians gunned down in Basra for not having ID cards? [Read]
The victims were almost all male.
I have to assume Mr. Stein is a reasonably decent fellow. So how did he get lured into this sad example of re-writing history to satisfy the agenda of the politically correct?
The answer can be traced back to Fem-think, which insists that in patriarchal society, women are not only the biggest victims, women are its only victims. Despite the absurdity of that proposition, the gender warriors endlessly advance that idea. Repeat a lie a thousand times, and people begin to believe it.
And now a major human rights organization, Amnesty International, has become beholden to that mindset.
Fem-think at AI goes back 10 years when Amnesty began to release reports that highlighted the human rights violations of women. [Read]
Before long an unmistakable gender bias began to emerge. The 2001 AI report, Afghanistan: Making Human Rights the Agenda makes this statement: “During 2000, at least 15 people were executed in public, including one woman who was stoned to death.”
Why highlight the tragic demise of one woman, and gloss over the deaths of the 14 men?
Kosovo is another example of a recent civil conflict that killed thousands of innocent civilian men. One report from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe documented the widescale abductions, torture, and executions, and noted, “young men were the group that was by far the most targeted in the conflict in Kosovo.” [Read]
But don’t forget, the notion of male victimization is just another example of patriarchal revisionism.
So when the matter of the sex-specific slaughter in Kosovo was raised at a recent meeting of the Canadian section of Amnesty, the issue was met with derision and contempt. And a resolution calling for the group to “condemn all large-scale gender selective human rights violations of men and women” in Kosovo was soundly defeated.
No doubt the correct-thinking AI delegates reasoned, “We certainly can’t approve that, it might distract from the good work we’re doing to highlight the human rights violations of women.”
As human rights activist David Buchanan recently put it, Amnesty International has “flinched from clearly documenting large-scale patterns of male-specific conflict during armed conflict.” [Read]
But Amnesty International is not content to merely ignore widespread violations against men. Or to sanitize reports of sex-specific atrocities. Now it has decided to actively suppress men’s basic human rights.
Female-on-male domestic violence is just as common as the male-initiated variety. [Read] But that didn’t stop AI from unveiling a campaign called Stop the Violence Against Women, its one-sided focus being only on the female sex. Now Amnesty chapters in Sweden and Ireland have published reports on domestic violence that are filled with tiresome feminist slogans about patriarchal oppression.
And if anyone still doesn’t get the message, last Friday Amnesty celebrated its International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, designed to kick-start the perpetually downtrodden into a frenzied “16 days against gender violence.” [Read]
In the United States, AI has gone on record supporting the Violence Against Women Act. The concern with this controversial law is not just that ignores half the domestic violence problem, the real problem is that it tramples on men’s civil rights.
The Violence Against Women Act discourages the provision of treatment services to abused men. The law bribes local law enforcement agencies to implement mandatory arrest policies that are targeted to men. VAWA encourages prosecutors to adopt “no-drop” policies, even if the woman wants to drop the complaint.
VAWA also encourages judges to hand out back-door restraining orders based only on the woman’s say-so. Referring to the widespread abuse of these orders, the Independent Women’s Forum recently expressed the concern that “their issuance and enforcement has troubling implications for civil liberties.” [Read]
as Fem-think spreads and as we slide towards the Feminist World Order,
what will come of the civil rights of men?
© 2005 Carey Roberts - All Rights Reserved
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism. Mr. Roberts’ work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh show.
Besides serving as a regular contributor to NewsWithViews.com, he has published in The Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, RenewAmerica.us, ifeminists.net, Men’s News Daily, eco.freedom.org, The Federal Observer, Opinion Editorials, and The Right Report.
Previously, he served on active duty in the Army, was a professor of psychology, and was a citizen-lobbyist in the US Congress. In his spare time he admires Norman Rockwell paintings, collects antiques, and is an avid soccer fan.
Roberts now works as an independent lecturer, writer, researcher and consultant.
Violence Against Women Act discourages the provision of treatment services
to abused men. The law bribes local law enforcement agencies to implement
mandatory arrest policies that are targeted to men.