Additional Titles










Divorce And Child Support Are Eviscerating Military Recruitment











David R. Usher
November 23, 2006

A November 11th Washington Times article "Abused wives in India pin hope on anti-violence law" resulted in a number of letters to the editor of the Times, claiming that the article is biased. The Times article blithely repeated an eye-popping claim that "A 2005 U.N. Population Fund report found that 70 percent of married women in India were victims of beatings or rape", without even questioning it.

On November 17th, the Times published three identical letters to the editor, but prefaced them with this highly unusual editorial set-up:

[Note: All of the letters below use the same phrasing to try to make a case that women aren't the only victims of domestic abuse. But the writers detract from the issue. First of all, the article was not biased against men; it set out to report on the new laws in India and it did precisely that. Moreover, writers' arguments would likely be taken more seriously if they were to dispense with the deceit. We asked each of the writers if they had personally written the letter and each said yes. Obviously, that is not the case. Domestic abuse, whether at the hands of a man or a woman, is a serious offense. Relegating such an issue to chain letters and false claims hurts victims of both genders. We stand by our news story.]

Anyone who has been in politics knows that "form" emails on issues of import are frequently originated by organizations who know the ropes, and lots of little guys send them everywhere. And, what Lilliputian would not like to see his or her name in the Washington Times?

The Problem of Feminism in Media, Government, and Politics

Now we get to the heart of the subject raised in the letters the Washington Times glossed over. The "form" letter was originated by RADAR, a highly credible organization comprised of scientists, lawyers, and scholars in an alert titled Fake Statistics Used to Claim that Wife-Beating is Men's "Birthright."

In its alert, RADAR did the research the Times failed to do. RADAR discovered that the U.N Population Fund's claim that "70 percent of married women in India were victims of beatings or rape" is founded on surveys by women's advocates that are neither consistent nor scientific. Let me demonstrate the feminist rumor mill in action right before your very eyes.

The study "Profiling Domestic Violence: A Multicountry Study", by Kishor and Johnson, is heavily cited as the basis for positions adopted within the UNPF report. To my knowledge, the Kishor study has not been subjected to peer review. Nonetheless, the convenient parts were extracted for the purposes of the UNPF report.

Here is the first tip-off that the Kishor "study" is a misrepresentation of science: Real studies are publicly published for peer review, and not used for anything until review is complete and scientists substantively agree the report is solid.

The second tip-off: The Kishor and Johnson study is not a study. It is a collection of "surveys," as evidenced by statements in the UNFP reports. There are major differences between studies and surveys. If the authors had intended to be scinetifically honest, the paper would have been titled "Profiling Domestic Violence:

A Multicountry Survey."

The third tip-off: The Kishor study was published by Macro International, Inc. ORC Macro is an opinion research corporation, not a scientific research organization.

The Fourth tip-off: world feminists base their claim that "70 percent of married women in India were victims of beatings or rape" on the following illustration from the UNPF report:

What is wrong with this chart? The title of the graphic reads "Women Who Believe Wife Beating is Justified for at Least One Reason". But vertical axis of the graphic reads "Percent of ever-married [sic] women ages 15-49 who have ever experienced domestic violence". There is no way to determine what, if anything, this chart is supposed to show. "Rape" is not even mentioned (as claimed in the UNPF report). A 7th grade student would get an "F" for turning in a classroom assignment like this.

The final tip-off (and the clincher): The UNPF Fact Sheet contains the following graphic extracted from the same Kishor and Johnson "study". There is a problem here: the authors claim here that only 19% of Indian women are subjected to domestic violence, disagreeing tremendously with the meaninless 70% figure claimed in the chart above:

No more discussion is needed about the UNPF report. Kishor and Johnson are throwing ping pong balls at the wall, hoping that one of them will stick. This is yet another classic example of the feminist rumor mill in action.

The one thing we can believe about the UNPF report is that it is simply incredible. It is indeed terrifying that the U.N is about to embark on the feminist plan for world conquest based on nothing more than wildly inconsistent informal surveys done by women's advocates (if they were even done at all).

To make sure there are no misunderstandings on the facts of international domestic violence, RADAR cited a reputable international study on the matter by the reputable Dr. Murray Straus, titled "Dominance and Symmetry in Partner Violence by Male and Female University Students in 32 Nations." His study proves that international domestic violence is essentially evenly distributed, and calls for substantially different approaches to domestic violence intervention than what is being forced on the world today by power-crazed feminists.

Feminism is an Issue of National Security

Those who do not wish to see India become yet another terrorist state need to focus immediately on stopping what feminists are doing in the United Nations. Indians I am in communication with see their new domestic violence law as a "cultural invasion by western feminists."

They know it is phony, and intended to destroy marriage and Indian society by empowering foreign radicals to take over the country and dictate from a pink pedestal of feminist dictatorship. Indians are both terrified and furious. They know this invasion is predominantly coming from America.

We must realize that feminists are terrorists too. You cannot see their guns or bombs. Feminists use the invisible weapons of sexism, fear, misinformation, hate, and allegory to achieve the same level of control of entire societies. This has been accomplished in most western societies. Feminists now wish to take control of the United Nations.

Feminism is exactly what Muslim radicals oppose. Mark my words: if India becomes radicalized against America, we will not be able to say that we did not ask for it. Let us do the right thing and shut down the export of radical feminism now, while we still have a chance.

Let the American people not get caught again between these two very radical and dangerous factions. Before we can expect to see declines in Muslim radicalism, we must first reign in American feminist terrorists who have made us the most deeply hated country in the Muslim world. A lively national debate about this should commence immediately. Our future national security depends decisively on it.

We must realize that feminism is a political problem. Virtually every feminist "study" ever done has been thoroughly debunked, but not until after great damage was done in politics and law. For many years, the feminist game has been to lay out false science faster than politicians and scientists can figure out they have been had. Politicians must stop playing sucker to this classic feminist trick. The only way to handle this problem is for politicians and policy makers to ignore feminists and send them packing faster than they can walk in the door.

This is an international fiasco which, if unchecked, will drag American into untold wars against a growing number of countries who hate our guts.

I fully realize that my identification of feminism as being a terrorist movement, and how it is a major driver of anti-American Muslim radicalism, is way ahead of conventional wisdom. Folks, whether you like it or not, the evidence points to this conclusion. Reigning in radical feminism is just as much a national security issue as is stopping would-be bombers from entering our borders. This does not include the tremendous benefits to the American economy and the taxpayers that will result from reform of federal policies presently destroying marriage while doing nothing to help it.

My message to President Bush: We did not allow Russian Prime Minister Molotov dictate the shape of the United Nations when it was founded (you can listen to an mp3 of my grandfather, Dr. Roland G. Usher reporting about Molotov from San Francisco during the founding of the U.N.) . We cannot allow American Marxist-socialists to do it now and end up with much of the world in full revolt. We could not bear the cost of securing every square inch of America, and the rest of the world too.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

It is therefore, in our national interest, to have Ambassador Bolton block the acceptance of the U.N. Secretary-General's report on Domestic Violence. Where feminist take-over of the U.N. is clearly an issue of national security, you might wish to send a copy of this article to the Washington Times. The email address for the International editor is You might want to copy Mr. Francis Coombs, Managing Editor, at

� 2006 David Usher - All Rights Reserved

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.












For many years, the feminist game has been to lay out false science faster than politicians and scientists can figure out they have been had. Politicians must stop playing sucker to this classic feminist trick.