Destroy VAWA!!

[FEMINAZIHATEMARTYR]

We must all contact congress to repeal VAWA!!! Its up for renewel on June 12 so lets do what we can to deafeat it.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Roberts/carey59.htm

UN-CONSTITUTIONAL VAWA LAW HELPED BY A PROPAGANDA PLOY

By Carey Roberts
April 13, 2005
NewsWithViews.com

What do you get when you mix equal parts of gender myth, a casual disregard of Constitutional protections, and old fashioned political pork? VAWA – the Violence Against Women Act -- that’s what.

For the past decade, Americans have been subjected to the relentless message, There’s no excuse for domestic violence against a woman.

OK, but what about Piper Rountree who was convicted six weeks ago for the ambush-slaying of her former husband, University of Richmond professor Frederic Jablin? Are cases of female-on-male violence so rare as to be an amusing oddity in the newspaper obituary columns?

Here’s the shocker: Women are just as likely as men to commit domestic violence against their intimate partners.

Chances are you’ve been heard the Urban Legend that follows the predictable line, male = abuser, female = victim. So I’m going to repeat my statement, this time with emphasis: Research shows that women are equally likely to commit partner aggression against their boyfriends, husbands, and ex-husbands.

We’re not talking about a handful of studies. Over 100 research reports have shown this to be true -- you can see for yourself by visiting this website: www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Here’s how attorney Linda Kelly recently put it: “men and women commit violence at similar rates.” [pdf File]

Psychologist John Archer reached an even stronger conclusion in his article in the Psychological Bulletin: “Women were slightly more likely than men to use one or more acts of physical aggression.”

It’s not a casual toss of a pillow or a playful jab at the chops. According to Dr. Archer, 38% of all persons who suffer domestic violence injuries are male.

So why don’t we read about these cases of female-on-male violence more often in the newspapers? Because men are far less likely to report the incident to the police – nine times less likely, according to one landmark study. [www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-22.htm#pgfId-1378765]

To understand the DV urban legend, we need to go back to 1991, when senator Joe Biden of Delaware introduced VAWA for the first time. [pdf File] But many in Congress were opposed to Biden’s bill because it ignored key provisions of the United States Constitution.

First, the proposed law flaunted the intent of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteen Amendment. Knowing that men are equally likely to be victims of domestic violence, how could anyone in good conscience propose a law that would confer greater protections and services, but only for women?

Second, Biden’s proposed bill violated the principle of federalism enshrined in the Tenth Amendment, and thus infringed on state sovereignty.

Not surprisingly, Biden’s bill was soon relegated to the legislative deep-freeze. That didn’t please the rad-fems. So someone came up with the idea of a publicity stunt.

In January 1993, a daring group of women called a press conference in Pasadena, California. Sheila Kuhn of the California Women’s Law Center made the statement that would provide the boost the feminists were desperately looking for: Super Bowl Sunday was the “biggest day of the year for violence against women.”

That stunning claim quickly appeared on Good Morning America, in the Boston Globe, and elsewhere. The Oakland Tribune would report the Super Bowl causes men to “explode like mad linemen, leaving girlfriends, wives, and children beaten.”

How’s that for dispassionate news reporting?

Some remained unconvinced, however, including reporter Ken Ringle of the Washington Post. In his article “Debunking the 'Day of Dread' for Women,” Ringle showed the feminist claim was a preposterous fraud. [Read] But Ringle’s expose’ came too late -- the genie was out of the bottle.

The Super Bowl Hoax, as it was later dubbed, no doubt will become a classic in the propaganda textbooks. And it clearly did succeed in triggering a surge of letters and phone calls to Congress. The following year the Violence Against Women Act was signed into law by President Clinton.

Less than five months from now on September 30, VAWA is set to expire. That means the Sisterhood’s billion-dollar-a-year gravy-train will dry up. Renewal legislation has not yet been introduced, apparently because the Republican majority hasn’t warmed up to the idea of dishing out mega-bucks to the GOP’s avowed political foes.



As the clock ticks down to September 30, the rad-fems are beginning to panic. Armageddon-Day strategy memos are circulating on the Internet. Decisive action soon will be needed to galvanize public support.

Get ready for a reprise of the Super Bowl Hoax.

[woof]

FEMINAZIHATEMARTYR, the propaganda war has already started to get this bill renewed.

Let the hyperbole begin, men are compared to 911 terrorist in this article. How low can you go ?............ they scrape the bottom of the barrel with this one as far as I am concerned.




http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=16874&repository=0001_article

Feminist decries war on women

By Ronald Chan
Staff Writer
Friday, April 15, 2005
last updated April 15, 2005 3:20 AM

Incidents similar to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks are occurring every day in the United States and around the world, but few people are doing anything about it. This was the overarching message presented by leading feminist Catharine MacKinnon during a provocative lecture yesterday that underscored the parallels between the ongoing war on terror and what she sees as a war on women.

"A kind of war is being fought, but there is no name for this war in which men are the aggressors and women the victims," she said. MacKinnon, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, is one of the most widely cited legal scholars in the English language.

Just like terrorist attacks, acts of violence against women are carefully planned, targeted at civilians and driven by ideology. Gang rape, pornography and other acts that humiliate and repress women are methodically organized; the targeted victims are essentially all civilians; and the misogynist attitude is as ideological as Islamic fundamentalism, MacKinnon contended.

"The number of people who died at [the terrorists'] hands is the same as the number of women who die at men's hands-every year," she said. "9/11 happens in this very country every year."

More importantly, MacKinnon argued, public responses to the two types of war differ radically. Wars and disputes among nation-states have generated international discussions and conventions. But men's war against women has not even brought about an ad-hoc tribunal.

"Aggression against women isn't called the violation of peace, as aggression against nation-states is called," she said. "There's no Geneva Convention for this war, and the domestic criminal laws are so under-enforced that they can be considered not there."

MacKinnon also challenged the audience to reflect on the parallels between the military conflict in Iraq and the hostilities between the sexes.

"The major rationale for the war in Iraq is the preemption of threats posed by Saddam Hussein's regime -- because we're scared of you, we can kill you," she said. "Imagine what it would be like if women did the same to men one day."

MacKinnon acknowledged that her speech was intended to provoke thought, debate and a fresh way of viewing women's subordination. She stressed, however, that the war on women is by no means a metaphor.

"International law today doesn't capture the reality that half of society is attacking the other half," she said. "This is a real war that has gone on for millennia."

An audience member expressed concern during the question-and-answer session that MacKinnon's ideas are too confrontational to effectively bridge the divide between the two sexes. But MacKinnon assured that shedding light on the violence perpetrated against women is necessary to make gender equality possible.

"If we're worried that we'll be knocked down as soon as we stand up, then we'll always be crawling on the floor," she responded.

The outspoken MacKinnon, who taught at Stanford's Law School in the 1980s, has proven to be as much a lightning rod as she is a magnet of admirers. She has long championed the prohibition of pornography, asserting that producing and viewing pornography degrade women and should be considered a violation of their civil rights.

In introducing MacKinnon, former Law School Dean Kathleen Sullivan applauded MacKinnon's scholarly contribution to the women's liberation movement. Sullivan referred to the French feminist Simone de Beauvoir -- whose book "The Second Sex" offered groundbreaking critique of the social structure that oppressed women -- in describing MacKinnon's influence on the contemporary study of feminism.

"There are many other prominent feminist theorists in our times, but none of their philosophy is as sweeping and profound as MacKinnon's," Sullivan said.

Carol Li, a second-year law student who had studied under MacKinnon at the University of Chicago where MacKinnon served as a visiting professor, praised her as an iconic figure in feminist legal theory.

"Her speech was very loaded and thought-provoking," Li said following the lecture, which was sponsored by the Women of Stanford Law, a student group, and the Institute for Research on Women and Gender. "MacKinnon doesn't attack things just on the surface; she goes incisively into the culture and politics. I think she offers a powerful voice to the women who've been subordinated in society."

MacKinnon, 58, received her bachelor's degree from Smith College and her law degree from Yale Law School. She also holds a doctorate in political science from Yale University. She is holding a book-signing event today in room 180 of the Law School at 12:30 p.m.

[dr e]

Is MacKinnon talking about the 9-11 attacks on men?  Since men comprised over 75% of the victims of 9-11 I guess we can just say it was an attack on men.  Women otoh comprise a smaller percentage of the victims of domestic violence but this doesn't keep MacKinnon from her onesided emotional circus.

She gets the downhill benifit of chivalry and the stoicism of men as huge aides in her brainwashing propaganda.

BTW the Washington Post started on this a couple of months back with their "pregnant women shoud live in fear" series.

If the media won't print the truth, put up billboards!  LOL