Lies, Damned Lies, and UN Meetings

Some years ago the UN representative of the Girl Scouts claimed her human rights had been violated when her picture was taken at a public meeting. The UN has a tendency to make everyone a bit crazy but most especially crusty feminists. Once one of them proclaimed that the UN was a safe space for her until the religious right showed up.

This past week a UN functionary told a roomful of UN delegates, “The sexual behavior of men can be a form of violence against women because it can result in pregnancy.” Presumably well-condomed sex tends not toward violence.

Six thousand radical feminists were accredited to the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) over these past two weeks. From the four-corners of the Earth they came to demand their rights, at least on opening day and then most of them hit the streets for sightseeing and shopping.

The crustiest of them did not wander from UN property but stayed and brayed, quite often at the Holy See and the “Unholy Alliance” of governments who resisted the unattractive turn of their aging ideologies.

The purpose of the meeting is to write a document that is later “ratified” by the UN General Assembly. The documents are non-binding aspirational documents that have no force in law but are used as cudgels against recalcitrant states.

The amount of money spent on such conferences is astronomical, more than six thousand airfares, and roughly 60,000 hotel nights over a two-week meeting at New York rates and you are talking about real money, upwards of $15 million, and this does not include what governments spent to send delegates from the capitols. And it’s really wasted money, too. At the same meeting last year, so profound were the differences, they didn’t even produce a document. As of this writing they may not produce on this year either.

The Commission this year is supposed to produce a document on violence against women but how do you produce one that makes any kind of real-world sense when participants from the UN believe coitus that results in pregnancy is a form of violence against women?

The radicals are being led by the United States and the European Union. They want language in the document about comprehensive sexuality education. Note that word “sexuality.” It’s not about sex; it’s about sexuality. This is far beyond the gynecological drawing you got in that little blue book in the seventh grade.

The radicals have taken to the press to complain that the Holy See, Iran and Russia are blocking progress.  These are the bogeymen repeated endlessly in the global media. The New York Times editorialized a few days ago that it is well known that the Holy See and Iran want to control women. Reuters reported yesterday morning, “An ‘unholy alliance’ of Iran, Russia, the Vatican and others is threatening to derail a U.N. declaration urging an end to violence against women and girls by objecting to language on sexual, reproductive and gay rights.”

Read these reports backwards and you can see what’s really going on. The document is under stress and may never be released because the US and the EU are insisting on ideas and language that many delegations find objectionable and if they would only produce a less radical document, there would be happy agreement all around. The draft documents under considerations are not written by the Unholy Alliance. The UN bureaucracy in cahoots with the US and the EU writes them. All the Unholy Alliance can do is react.

Certainly conservative governments can try to amend the radicalism out or try to assuage the damage. The African Group has been trying to get sovereignty language into the document, which means they are able to resist western lawyers waiving the document like a cudgel against their traditional beliefs.

Conservative governments had the temerity to introduce language directly from the Universal Declaration of Human rights about “life, liberty and security of persons.” The US and the EU are blocking it.

Crazy statistics are repeated endlessly at this meeting and then spit out as if by rote by the leftwing press. One of the crustiest feminists is Adrienne Germaine, a member of the official US delegation and President Emeritus of the International Women’s Health Coalition who repeated the ancient and discredited claim that more women suffer from domestic violence than who die from cancer, war, and malaria combined. The global media dutifully lapped this with nary a whiff of skepticism or research even.

Possibly the worst claim made by the US/EU is that the Unholy Alliance wants to hide behind traditional religious beliefs to protect wife beaters.

Most UN documents take into account the religious beliefs and customs of the countries called upon the implement the document’s aspirations. That is, after all, one of the tenets of multiculturalism, except when it isn’t, except when the gender ideology comes into play. The Unholy Alliance and their allies around the world want the document to be implemented taking these things into consideration. To the radicals, this can only mean men are encouraged to beat their wives with the Bible or the Koran or the Book of Mormon.

One woman told Reuters if the CSW fails once more to produce a document that will be the end of the CSW.  Well there is no chance of that.

There is a UN Charter Body called the Trusteeship Council, which was formed to help trust territories come to independence after the Second World War. The final trust territory to gain independence was tiny Palau in 1994. The Trusteeship Council continued to meet for many years and even now they are searching for a new mandate. No way UN bodies ever go out of business.

Austin Ruse


Austin Ruse is president of C-FAM (Center for Family & Human Rights), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute. He is the author of Fake Science: Exposing the Left’s Skewed Statistics, Fuzzy Facts, and Dodgy Data published by Regnery. He is also the author of the new book Little Suffering Souls: Children Whose Short Lives Point Us to Christ published by Tan Books. The views expressed here are solely his own.

  • Phil

    The CSW’s draft document is a pretty tame affair, positing simply that violence against women is caused by unequal relations with men, and proposing that political, health, and cultural iniatives be taken to address the problem. Watever may have been discussed while drafting the document, there’s nothing about the inherent violence of coitus in there. Neithere are there statistics about the prevalence of violence about women.

    • Austin Ruse

      Phil, If the document is such a “tame affair” then why did delegates stay up until teh wee hours last night and still not reach an agreement. Why are they still negotiating as I write this. And why, if it is so “tame”, might there not be a document at all?

      • Phil

        No statement produced by a large body of participants gets passed without a great deal of debate – especially if it is the product of many diverse ideologies, as you’ve shown. I agree that the radical theories you’ve highlighted are silly, but the fact that they were suggested for inclusion shouldn’t be held against the draft itself. We don’t call the Nicene Creed invalid simply because Arianism was debated at the Council.

        • Tony

          Mr. Ruse spends most of his time slogging it out with these daft people at the UN. I suggest that he knows more about the intentions of the drafters than anybody who visits this site can possibly know.

        • Austin Ruse

          The negotiation ended with no agreement ! So tame! There was a document but a non negotiated one imposed by the chairman. Yes, tame!

    • Jonathan

      No, no, no, Phil, you’ve gone off and actually read the draft and now you’re trying to confuse this argument with facts. You’re supposed to sneer and jeer, make a few cracks about “feminazis” and women shopping and braying, scratch your belly and belch, and then go home and belt the old wife until she brings you a beer. Get with the program, man.

  • Tony

    Violence against women is caused by sin — and by the fact, obvious to everybody, that men are bigger than women. When one considers that last fact, the striking thing is not that some bad men beat up women, but that not all bad men do, and that most fair-to-middling men don’t. What the feminists imply, then, is abundantly untrue; men do not direct their violence primarily against women. Men themselves are more often the victims of violence perpetrated by other men. What does protect women? Marriage does; fidelity within marriage does; and chivalry does. None of those things has a darned thing to do with political equality.

    • Jonathan

      So men being victims of violence by other men somehow mitigates violence against women? I don’t think so. Marriage protects women from violence??? What??? Never heard of a woman abused by her husband? Chivalry’s good. Perhaps we could start by showing women a little respect on this board? The mean-spirited characterization of any woman with the brains to have an opinion of her own is not chivalrous. It’s cowardly and spineless. You don’t have an argument, so you get verbally abusive. How far away are some of you from crossing the line into physical abuse, I wonder?

      Political equality for women can, does, and has meant that women have the power to improve their lives and to protect themselves from male violence. Before women had the vote, do you really think their “inalienable rights” were protected? Back in the days when men could beat their wives as long as the stick was no more than a certain diameter? Testosterone, male entitlement, and a greater statistical inclination toward sociopathy in men than in women — not masculine size and “strength” — leads to abusive behavior by men.

      • Austin Ruse

        This is the kind of silly boilerplate, dime store feminism, that sullied the UN debate about serious issues. The left just cannot help themselves. It’s unfortunate.

      • Tony

        Jonathan: In order:
        1. If women are not going to become anchoresses, they are going to be living with men or near men. The choices are to live alone, to shack up, or to marry. You may now go to the Department of Justice’s tabulations on women as the victims of felony crimes, and determine the conditional probability that a woman in each of those three groups will become such a victim. You will find that women who are married and never divorced are not only safer than the other women, they are safer — less likely to be victims of a violent crime — than are any group of men.
        2. Stuff the ad hominem innuendo. THAT is cowardly.
        3. The business about the stick is a silly myth dreamed up by feminists, with no basis in reality.
        4. The size and strength and, yes, the natural aggressiveness of men all provide opportunity for violence. And yet, by far, most of the violence that men commit is perpetrated against other men. That doesn’t make that violence a good thing. Did I say that? It does suggest that there is no special animus in men against women, and that, if anything, men mostly refrain from acting upon violent impulses against women, just as they and grown women mostly refrain from violence against children and the elderly.
        5. The feminists, by decrying marriage and cheering cohabitation and living alone — women need men, they have long said, as a fish needs a bicycle — are responsible for a heck of a lot of the worsening of the problem during my lifetime.
        6. I was taught that a decent man never lifts his hand in anger against a woman, period. To do so is base. I was taught too that sometimes a decent man MUST lift his hand in anger against another man, to protect women and children; and, in that situation, to fail to do so is base. It’s the feminists who have been trying to teach boys for the last forty years that that’s all nonsense.
        7. Since it is a FACT, easily discoverable, that men are the more likely victims in the USA of every single violent crime except for rape, the only reason why we should care in particular about violence against women is that there is something especially base and vile about that violence — which makes sense only if women are seen as what they are, the bearers of life, who are markedly lighter than men are, and smaller, and far less muscular. You can teach a boy to protect girls and women. But the feminists don’t want me to do that.

        • Women Everywhere

          “The feminists” is a meaningless term, as are your resulting conclusions. There are many different types of feminist and a broad spectrum of feminist views. It makes no sense to stereotype in this way, although I should give you some credit for avoiding the more ignorant ad hominems (like “feminazi” or suggesting that women go to these summits only to shop (???).)

          I’m glad to hear that you were taught not to hit women, but what comfort is that supposed to offer to the many women who are abused by men? It’s a non sequitur How does it help a woman trapped in a nightmare marriage (a significant percentage of female murder victims are killed by their own husbands) to know that married women are statistically safer than those who are unmarried? Not at all. If your suggestion is that woman should marry in order to keep safe from abusive men, that would be another non sequitur. The threat of violence should not be relevant in making that sort of choice.

          The economic vulnerability of women in the past has often led to women being utterly powerless in abusive situations. I have friends who have been raped and assaulted by their husbands. Unlike their counterparts of a few generations back, I am happy to say that they were able to leave. In the bad old days, the police would often decline to get involved in a “domestic dispute” or abuse situation. Now there are protocols that they have to follow. I remember my own mother opining that a friend of hers, whose husband gave her a black eye “must have asked for it.” Those attitudes are (mostly) dead now. We have the right and the duty to protect ourselves and our sisters through enacting legislation, creating safe houses, and raising awareness. How could anyone object to those goals?

          I am grateful there are many, many good men who are man enough to support women’s right to safety and to help address the problems of violence against women.

          • Taylor

            “I am grateful there are many, many good men who are man enough to support women’s right to safety and to help address the problems of violence against women.”

          • Tony

            Sorry, Women Everywhere, but you are wrong. You have traded one thing that was bad and rare, for another thing that is worse and more common. Please check the homicide statistics.
            Look — women and men do have to live with one another. The feminists have never come to terms with that. They have, all of them, defined the good of women apart from the good of men, the good of children, and the common good. No Christian can do that; no one who values marriage and community life can do that. That is a radical individualism just as poisonous as the economic kind; and when Christopher Lasch (a liberal) called the feminists out on it, they never forgave him.
            Marriage does protect women, for some pretty obvious reasons. Cohabitation is dangerous, for equally obvious reasons. And it is dangerous for a woman to live alone. I can wish all day long that it weren’t, but I can’t wipe every villain from the face of the earth, and no political theory can change that.

      • Women Everywhere

        Thank you, Jonathan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Taylor

        Jonathan, I thank you too! It’s always nice to see a man take a stand against gender violence, instead of using such discussions as another excuse to degrade women.

        The U.S. Catholic bishops’ pastoral statement on Domestic Violence Against Women is brief but good: . A quote: “Many abusive men hold a view of women as inferior. Their conversation and language reveal their attitude towards a woman’s place in society. Many believe that men are meant to dominate and control women.”

      • StNikao

        God intended men to be protectors, priests, preachers, providers and pray-ers for their wives and families – not predators and abusers of women.

    • musicacre

      What I find amazing is that even when the parade of women against violence against women contingent marches and gives speeches where we live, they don’t demand that felons who have attacked women get harsh sentences. In fact there is a complete silence on jail terms and getting tough on crime against women. Why do they not care about ALL women?? Like women in the womb? Are they so neanderthal they haven’t yet figured out that when a woman is pregnant she is carrying a human being that also needs protection?

  • MRzeppa

    Violence against women is brought about by contraception and abortion. The use of these say that women are to be used. So it is no wonder that the true purpose of womanhood is cast aside and they become objects. So respect is lost and violence ensues.

  • TheodoreSeeber

    I really don’t understand this fear of pregnancy some older feminists have. It seems to be utterly irrational. Forget domestic violence against women, forget the now common story of the spurned man in the midst of a divorce killing his own children and his ex and then himself. The real danger is pregnancy?

    • Alecto

      The fear isn’t pregnancy, it’s that the man will leave. How many times have I heard the story of the woman who becomes pregnant to “trap” a man? Yes, that happens now. It’s difficult to believe that is possible in 2013? Government and these NGOs have certainly made it easier to abandon one’s responsibilities. The fear of abandonment is valid as we’ve made it all too easy to accomplish guilt-free. We have to regain our sense of duty to others, our pride in family and perspective on life which is warped beyond reckoning.

  • 1Indioviejo1

    Islam, the greatest oppressor of women is not denounced by the feme-Nazis. Obviously, it is a cowardly and hypocritical stance by women’s organizations. Instead they find it easier to find publicity in the MSM for their constantly disparaging attacks against the Church. In light of this, I believe they should be confronted constantly with their own cowardice, which renders them ineffectual to their purpose.

    • Taylor

      Actually there’s a vast body of feminist scholarship about violence against women in Islamic societies. Read Isobel Coleman or Margot Badran, unless of course you don’t want to let reality get in the way of your favorite prejudices.

      • StNikao

        All the evidence of misogyny, even in the core texts of Islam, that the UN studiously ignores while stupidly promoting and protecting Islamism.

  • elarga

    While agreeing that the CSW and its ideas are deeply flawed, let’s also acknowledge the fact that violence against women, particularly when perpetrated by husbands, for a long time was not taken seriously enough by authorities either in this country or elsewhere, and is still probably given a pass in Muslim countries, particularly. Things have changed for the better, and mainly (we have to acknowledge) because of the feminist movement, despite its many flaws. In the 1950s, my mother’s sister was stabbed to death (in a northeastern state) by her husband in a fit of jealousy, within sight or sound of their five young children, all of whom became the wards of my parents. The husband was sentenced to 2 years of easy time, in what was then called a “prison farm.” When he got out, he threatened his next wife with the same fate. In any case, I doubt that this crime would be punished so lightly today. But in those days, that was the norm; nobody questioned it. My mother, a secretary, was expected to put up with the grabby hands and nasty comments of her executive boss — something else that was considered “normal.” Women were largely seen as toys for men. We should be grateful those days are pretty much over, even as we correct the absurdities now emanating from the feminist movement.

    • Austin Ruse

      Too bad these worthy and legitimate goals are being undermined by crazy ideas that will only scuttle the document. Many good ideas at the UN are ruined by overreaching radicals.

    • Tony

      Oh, but those days are not over. Please to note the violence of the world of mass cohabitation and serial sexual liaisons. I thank the feminists for reintroducing into our culture, such as it is, the law of the jungle — by denigrating marriage. It is a slander to say that “women were largely seen as toys for men.” Where do you get that from — other than from feminists? Did women themselves, before the day before yesterday, describe themselves in those terms? No, they didn’t — because the idea that until the day before yesterday men were foul nasty brutes who treated women like dirt is a slander to both the men and the women, turning the latter into silly chumps. Your story suggests that men who murdered women used to be let off with light sentences; the facts are otherwise — many such men (if there was, let us suppose, premeditation) would be executed.
      Listen — there are a lot of ways that human beings have for making one another’s lives miserable. Men have their ways, women have their ways. Your mother’s boss was a lout — may I ask why your father did not ask him to step outside?

      • Women Everywhere

        “Your mother’s boss was a lout — may I ask why your father did not ask him to step outside?”

        Maybe she was young and single at the time? Or perhaps she was afraid her husband might have been hurt or killed by the bully? Was she fair game, or at least defenseless, if she didn’t have a male protector? Or, if she did have one, would she be fair game if her male protector was unable to prevail in unarmed combat against her abuser? Vigilante justice of the type you’re suggesting is always inadequate because it doesn’t address the underlying problem. If Jerry Sandusky, in the process of “grooming” a particular little boy, learned that the child had a large and protective older brother, he’d simply move on to a more vulnerable victim. Abusers are very, very skilled at doing that. They have a natural radar. That is why the category of crime as a whole needs to be addressed and in multi-faceted ways. Abuse is too serious a problem to deserve otherwise.

        • Tony

          Women everywhere: There is no way in hell that any man would have gotten away with that, with my mother. It is not vigilantism. My father would have had a talk with him, and that would have been that. A woman may be pestered in Italy, and she may have her purse snatched, but she is safe in her person, because a man who attacks a woman knows that he has to deal with her brothers or her cousins or her father. LAW is a blunt instrument, and when we’re dealing with something like this, it is of far less use than was the old proscription: you are a MAN, and a man does not strike a woman, for any reason, period.

          • elarga

            You don’t seem to be grasping an elementary point here: What we are saying is that a cultural change is necessary — a change in values — because to depend on a woman’s “cousins, brothers” etc. to take acts of revenge will never force men to stop thinking of women as their toys. It will only discourage them from abusing women who have cousins and brothers. Anyway, how many of those famous cousins and brothers are abusing other women when they think they can get away with it? Plenty, I bet and that’s because they didn’t care about the abuse — only that it the victim was a relative. Notice that the value change in question DID occur in the USA, and it was not because the abusers were getting beaten up by the victim’s brothers but because of reasoned arguments.

      • Alecto

        To paraphrase Jeanne Kirkpatrick, it’s the “Blame Women First” crew. If the culture is going to hell in a handbasket, you can be certain both genders are to blame. You disappoint me, Tony, by taking a defensive posture and consistently portraying men as victims. Men are not, were not and never will be victims of anything except their own excesses. That women are able to work unmolested in occupations previously closed to them is due to the work of feminists or the women’s movement or whatever name we’re giving it this year. I can attest to this personally having been groped, grabbed, chased, propositioned, etc… and that fairly recently.

        You have written perspicaciously on the excesses of unions. It’s clear that like unions, feminists have leapt into absurdity. Disagreements with the current crop of feminists does not mitigate valid achievements such as ensuring equal protection. It isn’t the nature of men which has changed, it’s the willingness of the law and those who administer it to put up with the excesses of men which has changed society.

  • Tony

    Easy to find on line: a study by psychologist T. K. Shackleford, analyzing the data from several hundred thousand homicides in the US, and tens of thousands of homicides in Canada, to the effect that cohabitation increases a woman’s chances of being murdered by her “partner” by a factor of nine — she is nine times more likely to be murdered by the live-in than by a real husband. This is not attributable to youth, either, since her chances of being murdered rise with the difference in age between her and the cohabiting man.
    People — under the veneer of the sexual revolution lies the law of the jungle. Feminists have largely championed that revolution.
    Also — feminists cry out against the “male” medical profession for not caring sufficiently about women’s health. That has been a disgusting slander against said profession, at least in this country and in these last hundred years. But it is feminists who have been burying the deleterious effects of that class one carcinogen, artificial estrogen; as it has been the feminists who have been burying the deleterious effects of induced abortion. Since breast cancer is a common disease, even a smallish increase in likelihood translates into thousands of unnecessary deaths — and the increase is not small.
    Also — the reason why people of my parent’s generation did not allow girls to play contact sports with boys was not that the particular girls in question might get hurt. It was that they knew that boys must be trained early to keep their hands off girls — to spare them any gesture of violence. But the feminists have been responsible for undoing that bit of common sense, too.
    I am a logical fellow. You can tell me that I mustn’t raise my hand in anger against a woman, because she is a woman, and that makes perfect sense to me. But you can’t tell me that on Monday, and then on Tuesday send women into combat, and then on Wednesday tell me that my sex is especially to blame for violence against women, when on Thursday I learn that in fact my sex still aims most of its violence against men, not against women.

    • Alecto

      Americans cherish independence and believe that dependence breeds victimization. Whatever else feminism promulgates, it makes clear that women ought not to be victims by allowing themselves to become dependent on a man (but apparently it’s OK to be dependent on government which is a perversion of this most American value – I have no explanation or defense for that bizarre attitude). I believe the strange logic of women in combat is a twisted outgrowth of this notion of independence. It seems your complaint is as much with American attitudes as superimposed feminist attitudes. I speculate that feminism, at least the radical feminism you revile, has taken root because of our natural beliefs and teachings. That should not be interpreted as a belief that the majority of women buy into some bizarre concept of life without men.

      • Ruth

        Independence is highly overrated. Truth is, we are all dependent on something or someone and we don’t like it. We ‘kick against the goad’. Our need is to find out where our dependence lies.

        Men and women are different and have different needs and responsibilities. Some people are trying to pretend that we can all be the same and that confuses everything.

        • Alecto

          Independence or interdependence? Equality I’m convinced is an illusion, I’m looking for equanimity. LOL.

          • Ruth

            We all could do with more equanimity, but as for equality being an illusion, it depends on what you mean by ‘equality’. The truth is that we _are_ all equal in dignity, but it’s equally true that we don’t all understand the meaning of that, so we argue. You hit the nail with ‘interdependence’. That is exactly what we need to see. Are you familiar with the poem “No Man Is An Island” by John Donne? It says it all so well. It’s an ideal, and we’re not there, but just because we’re not there yet is no reason to give up on the journey.

    • Ruth

      Thank you, Tony, for your great answers. Keep on writing because eventually the truth will set us free. MRzeppa, thank you, too, for your great post. I would like to add pornography and divorce to the list of things that objectify women.

      elarga, I’m sorry about your aunt, but such things are the exception rather than the rule, or no one would ever get married. As it is, society still admires couples who have arrived at their 50th or greater wedding anniversaries, and view them as ideals. I am a victim of divorce, as are my mother and daughter. I use the word ‘victim’ advisedly because I see it as a disaster in my life, and something to caution my grandchildren against. We need to face our mistakes squarely and try to rectify them rather than to try justifying them by trying to regularize them. As a society we must try to support marriage and help anyone in trouble.

      There’s nothing new under the sun, and though society has determined that permament marriage is the ideal for ordering itself, concupiscence still exists and there will be crime, but we deal with those who commit the crimes. It’s wrong try to change society to accommodate perversion.

  • Tony

    Feminist scholarship is, alas, thoroughly suspect. I can’t believe them, because they’ve been caught in so many frauds already; they may be right about Islamic societies for all I know, but they have been lying in the West ever since the abortion debates of the sixties.
    Here is the thing. These feminists are using the issue of violence to promote a feminist political agenda — and I do not believe they care a rat’s tail about violence, IF they had to choose between a jungle and acknowledging that men and women have different duties toward one another. The crime statistics here in the US are quite clear. Despite abundant opportunity and occasion, men do not single women out for violence. They actually, sexists that they are, single women out for protection — despite the cries of feminists on odd-numbered days that they don’t do that, and on even-numbered days that they shouldn’t do that.
    Another thing: feminists don’t want to acknowledge it, but studies in the US show that half of all domestic violence is initiated by the woman. Why? Simple — she can get away with it. Now, I’m not inveighing against women here, and I’m not excusing any man who raises his hand against a woman, EVEN IF she has struck him first. But those are the inconvenient facts.
    Bursts of violence — we are not talking about premeditated acts — have nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with personal grudges, indignation, desire for revenge, frustration, fear, and so forth. What keeps men from striking women is not some distant-from-the-scene abstract political theory about equality, but the long-ingrained teaching that a man does not strike a woman, for any reason, period; call it part of the natural law. Men hold no such universal prohibition against striking another man. It is base and cowardly for a man to strike a woman, period. It is SOMETIMES base and cowardly — not often, but sometimes, yes — for a man NOT to strike another man or to tackle him or to attempt to disable or restrain him.
    You want violence against women? Continue to denigrate marriage. Continue to preach, as the feminists do, that boys do not need fathers to teach them to be gentlemen. Continue to push for women in combat. Continue to push for the sexual jungle — and then pretend that the rules of the jungle can be waived just for you, and just for your particular worry. It cannot happen.

  • Scott Waddell

    Where you say, “The radicals are being led by the United States and the European Union.They want language in the document about comprehensive sexuality education. Note that word “sexuality.” It’s not about sex; it’s about sexuality.” Do you have a source on this? Sex education always had a twinge of propaganda about it, and a shift to “sexuality” would indicate that they are dropping the charade that it’s just a factual discussion about health and the plumbing so to speak, but is in fact full ideological indoctrination into the philosophy of one’s absolute right to satisfaction of the immediate needs of the groin.

  • Tony

    More thoughts:
    I propose to keep men from beating up women by teaching boys that it is base and cowardly for men to raise hands in anger against women. The feminists propose to do it by Changing the World, ceding tremendous authority to an international organization, to deal with a problem that is primarily personal and domestic. One must conclude that the real objective is political and not personal or domestic.
    It is said, as if a theorem had just been demonstrated, that men beat up women because they do not consider women to be their equals. But men consider men to be their equals, and men beat one another up all the time. The key there is rivalry — equality, if you will; an equality that poses a threat to the interests of one or the other.
    Chaos and insecurity are also breeding grounds for violence. People are more apt to behave impulsively and irrationally when they sense that they are not in control of the basic needs of daily life. So a married man is far less likely to act violently toward his wife than a cohabiting man is to act violently toward his girlfriend.
    The feminists, defining the good of women apart from the good of men, see antagonism at the base of the relations between the sexes — antagonism, mutual distrust, fear, anger; everything but love. They say that there can only be true love where there is equality such as they define it — politically. I suggest that that is nonsense, and that their true aims are purely political (and totalitarian, ceding all that power to the Authorities), even at the expense of the safety of women.

    • Women Everywhere

      “I propose to keep men from beating up women by teaching boys that it is base and cowardly for men to raise hands in anger against women.”

      Who would disagree? Who would disagree that we should teach our children that it is base and cowardly to shoot up an elementary school or a movie theater? However, this approach alone is obviously entirely inadequate. The reality is that our broken world is filled with broken people who commit horrible, brutal, insane acts and need to be stopped. That’s why we need laws and methods of enforcement (or “the Authorities”.)

      You make many false generalizations about feminists, starting with imagining them all to be some sort of frightening monolithic straw man of your own creation. Similar arguments as yours have been made against all those who have tried to promote and protect the interests of a particular group, from white men with limited political power prior to the American Revolution to abolitionists to civil rights advocates in the sixties. So what if a man is more likely to abuse a woman (or a slave owner to whip a slave or Adam Lanza to shoot up Sandy Hook) when his sense of control is threatened? Who cares what the poor dear feels about control? What matters is that unhealthy desires to control may not be indulged through violence and that we as a society have the authority to back that up.

    • Scott Waddell

      And just for a brief tour of the nutty:

      • “To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” -– Valerie Solanas

      • “I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved
      in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” — Andrea Dworkin

      • “Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation
      by which all men keep all women in a state of fear” — Susan Brownmiller

      • “The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men.” — Sharon Stone

      • “In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape
      because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful
      consent.” — Catherine MacKinnon

      • “The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” — Sally Miller Gearhart

      • “Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” – Catherine Comins

      • “All men are rapists and that’s all they are” — Marilyn French

      • “Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a
      maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release.” —
      Germaine Greer.

  • StNikao

    The UN has degenerated into a will-fully blind apologetic machine for Islamism while ignoring Islam’s human rights violations, genocides, injustice, misogyny, racist hate, horrific persecutions, and over 20,500 murderous jihad attacks since 9/11/01.
    In other words, the UN is now a farce.

  • Pingback: Twelve-Step Pride Elimination Plan - Big Pulpit()

  • andrew767

    No Austin, unlike the CWS which can be terminated and can be given new guidelines, the Trusteeship Council is part of the Charter and can’t be eliminated for GOOD reason.

    The Trusteeship System can and HAS been used for evil purpose, to trade a colony to foreign abuse for benefit of American mining.

    The victim is the nation of West Papua which became a trust territory when the General Assembly made resolution 1752 (XVII) for UN occupation of the colony in 1962. This was done at request of Washington whose business associates wanted to get a cheap mining license by putting Papua into the hands of Indonesia. For fifty years a million people have been tortured, many of them killed, and the rest denied human rights of speech and assembly, or even to rise their own flag the Morning Star.

    But thanks to the UN Charter, all that is needed is for one member of the UN to be honest enough to ask the question, is West Papua a trust territory ? Then the people of Papua will be freed from the torture and America’s mining operation. Like all the rest of the trust territories West Papua is legally entitled to the self-determination that it has been denied under the New York Agreement..