http://www.aei.org/article/100695
What do you think?
Mind boggling quote:
Feminist Berkeley law professor Nancy K. D. Lemon's "Domestic Violence Law is organized as a conventional law-school casebook--a collection of judicial opinions, statutes, and articles selected, edited, and commented upon by the author. The first selection, written by Cheryl Ward Smith (no institutional affiliation is given), offers students a historical perspective on domestic-violence law. According to Ward:
"The history of women's abuse began over 2,700 years ago in the year 753 BC. It was during the reign of Romulus of Rome that wife abuse was accepted and condoned under the Laws of Chastisement. . . . The laws permitted a man to beat his wife with a rod or switch so long as its circumference was no greater than the girth of the base of the man's right thumb. The law became commonly know as 'The Rule of Thumb.' These laws established a tradition which was perpetuated in English Common Law in most of Europe."
Where to begin? How about with the fact that Romulus of Rome never existed. He is a figure in Roman mythology--the son of Mars, nursed by a wolf. Problem 2: The phrase "rule of thumb" did not originate with any law about wife beating, nor has anyone ever been able to locate any such law. It is now widely regarded as a myth, even among feminist professors.
A few pages later, in a selection by Joan Zorza, a domestic-violence expert, students read, "The March of Dimes found that women battered during pregnancy have more than twice the rate of miscarriages and give birth to more babies with more defects than women who may suffer from any immunizable illness or disease." Not true. When I recently read Zorza's assertion to Richard P. Leavitt, director of science information at the March of Dimes, he replied, "That is a total error on the part of the author. There was no such study." The myth started in the early 1990s, he explained, and resurfaces every few years.
Zorza also informs readers that "between 20 and 35 percent of women seeking medical care in emergency rooms in America are there because of domestic violence." Studies by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Bureau of Justice Statistics, an agency of the U.S. Department of Justice, indicate that the figure is closer to 1 percent.
Few students would guess that the Lemon book is anything less than reliable. The University of California at Berkeley's online faculty profile of Lemon hails it as the "premiere" text of the genre. It is part of a leading casebook series, published by Thomson/West, whose board of academic advisers, prominently listed next to the title page, includes many eminent law professors.
I mentioned these problems in my message to Lemon. She replied:
"I have looked into your assertions and requested documentation from Joan Zorza regarding the March of Dimes study and the statistics on battered women in emergency rooms. She provided both of these promptly."
If that's the case, Zorza and Lemon might share their documentation with Leavitt, of the March of Dimes, who is emphatic that it does not exist. They might also contact the Centers for Disease Control statistician Janey Hsiao, who wrote to me that "among ED [Emergency Department] visits made by females, the percent of having physical abuse by spouse or partner is 0.02 percent in 2003 and 0.01 percent in 2005."
Here is what Lemon says about Cheryl Ward Smith's essay on Romulus and the rule of thumb:
"I made a few minor editorial changes in the Smith piece so that it is more accurate. However, overall it appeared to be correct."
A few minor editorial changes? Students deserve better. So do women victimized by violence.
Feminist misinformation is pervasive. In their eye-opening book, Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies (Lexington Books, 2003), the professors Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge describe the "sea of propaganda" that overwhelms the contemporary feminist classroom. The formidable Christine Rosen (formerly Stolba), in her 2002 report on the five leading women's-studies textbooks, found them rife with falsehoods, half-truths, and "deliberately misleading sisterly sophistries." Are there serious scholars in women's studies? Yes, of course. Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, an anthropologist at the University of California at Davis; Janet Zollinger Giele, a sociologist at Brandeis; and Anne Mellor, a literary scholar at UCLA, to name just three, are models of academic excellence and integrity. But they are the exception. Lemon's book typifies the departmental mind-set."Is the "Rule of Thumb" just more Ms Information?
The "rule of thumb" is only one of many feminist myths which no one seems to want to call them on.
For example, we still hear that more women are abused on Super Bowl Sunday then any other day of the year. Is it fact....far from it. It was pulled out the air by a feminist to prove their agenda.
More women go to the ER then for rapes, muggings AND auto accidents combined.....well forget that one too....it is another myth by the domestic violence industry.
95% of all abuse victims are women and their abusers are men. Well not according to every unbiased research research we can find and yes, it is another myth to keep the typical women's shelter well funded. In reality I could prove a Big Mac is the best hamburger IF I polled Ronald McDonald.
There are many more of these myths but I think you get the picture now.Is the "Rule of Thumb" just more Ms Information?
Feminism would crumble if it had to stick to facts.
I have always believed the "rule of thumb" to be rubbish.
Brilliant research.Is the "Rule of Thumb" just more Ms Information?
I saw a question on this subject about a year ago. A feminist said the rule of thumb proved that women have historically been brutalised by men. I checked it out and presented a link showing that the origin of the 'rule of thumb' had nothing to do with wife battery. I even quoted from it, but two feminists on the thread plus the one who asked the question moved between completely ignoring these facts, and totally denying - without basis - their truth. We exchanged a few comments e.g. Me: 'Why can't you accept that you got it wrong?' before my answer was reported and deleted.
I have learned that this is typical of feminists - no regard for the truth if it gets in the way of their particular view of reality. How these idiots ever got taken seriously - let alone hold professorships - really is a mystery to me.
Edit
It is a mockery of education that these feminist 'scholars' are allowed to indoctrinate young people's minds with half-baked BS, and get paid fat wages into the bargain. Really, this situation is a total disgrace and would not be allowed to happen in any other area of academia. These idiots shouldn't be allowed run a kindergarden, let alone departments in world-class universities. Incredible...
I like how none of our feminist freedom fighters had the spine to answer this one. Their absence speaks volumes. You shoud re-ask this question when the forum is rank with them.
No comments:
Post a Comment