Hyerdahl wrote:
> MCP wrote:
> >
>
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/mcelroy/2005/mcelroy030305.htm
> >
> > March 3, 2005
> > by Wendy McElroy
>
> [Isn't McElroy that mail-order bride who spouts what her patriarchy
> hubby wants?]

Haven't you accused her of being Dave Sim yet?

> >
> (edit)
>
> >How can a self-respecting woman, let alone a feminist, legitimize
the
> U.N. through her presence? The CSW should be in the forefront of
those
> crying out for justice and U.N. accountability. Instead, the CSW will
> almost certainly
> > call for expanding the U.N.'s power and funding.
>
> [Self respecting women all over the world seem to find legitimate
> interests in UN proposals on the rights of women around the world.]

Self-aggrandizing Western feminists are keenly interested in supporting
any UN proposal that prioritizes their interests.

>
> >Rage will be directed instead at President Bush who has already
> created pre-meeting controversy. On Thursday, the Bush administration
> signaled its refusal to renew an unconditional commitment to the
> Beijing Platform, a declaration of women's rights promoted by the
> Clintons, which many consider
> > to be a radical feminism's global agenda.
> >
> [The idea that women are human and should have equal rights,
including
> SEXUAL RIGHTS is indeed radical to some, Wendy and MCP.

The idea that the US should subporn its national interests in any arena
to a vapid group such as the UN would be enough to cause a refusal to
sign.  Besides, why don't you go ahead and prove that the majority of
signatories intend to honor the document.  Yep, I can see China
prioritizing women's interests.  lol

>  But don't
> worry your pretty little heads about it.  :-)I
> understand that it doesn't look good when the leader of the free
world
> appears to want women to have fewer rights than men.

It looks just fine that the leader of the free world will not sell out
our national interests in some vain effort to appear "multilateral" or
bend to inferior standards.

> This puts Bush in a very tricky position, eh?]

Not at all.  He has a pretty clear mandate to protect our national
interests.

>
> Bush is balking because the declaration is seen to legitimize
abortion
> as a "human right." Given the widespread reports that the U.N. was
> complicit in China's forced abortion policy, the administration's
> caution about how the Platform will be interpreted and implemented is
> justified.
>
> [I never witnessed any "complicity" between China and the UN on
forced
> abortions,

You don't see what you don't look for.

> but perhaps you've been reading some unprovable right wing
> crap again.

Whereas we can *prove* that most left wing positions are crap.  :)

>  And just what is it about the term "sexual rights" that
> bothers you and Bush?  :-)]

What is it about maintaining our national interests that bothers you?
Are you so unsure of your own country that you think every alternative
way of doing things is superior?

> >
> > But if abortion is center stage, a more fundamental question still
> remains: By what moral standard is the U.N. a proper stage on which
to
> negotiate women's rights?
>
> [The UN is the perfect "stage" since it effects countries all over
the
> world.  It's a non-political entity that can support human rights.

HOLY SHIT!!!  In just two short sentences you have demonstrated almost
blinding ignorance of what the UN has become.  Try educating yourself
on the oil for food and rape scandals, and the unending coddling of
dictators (yep, sure do love honoring them human rights).  And how well
did the UN do with the tsunami relief efforts?

> AND, in the end it will highlight America as the ONLY western nation
> that does not support equal rights for women.

American women are among the most privileged and pampered creatures on
the planet.

>  I'm not sure Bush really
> wants that claim to fame.]

I'm sure Bush isn't worried about what a group of gaggling socialists
think, nor should he be.  His job is to protect the national interest,
not turn it over to a vastly inferior governing body.

>
>  How much blood and corruption has to splatter before the
> > U.N.'s moral authority is washed away?
>
> [Is McElroy suggesting that men will spill blood rather than see free
> and equal women.  Yes, that may be so.

The blood would be the genocides and human rights abuses ignored by the
UN, and the corruption would be the oil for food and rape scandals, not
to mention France and Germany helping Hussein through the back doors.

>  But, in the end, having a
> standard that supports free and equal women is the best way to
go...the
> moral high road, eh?

Radical feminists should never talk about morals--they practice them
about as much as Michael Moore exercises and uses good nutrition.

>  It just doesn't look good if the UN only supports
> men's rights.  :-)]

I'm not worried about the UN looking like they support anyone's rights,
except those of their cherished dictators.  The US and other Western
civilizations can function just fine without a UN, and don't appear to
be in any danger of oppressing their people.

>
> (edit of anti-UN diatribe)
>
> >Which returns us to the question, why are feminists pretending that
> the U.N. is a proper stage to discuss women's rights? No
> self-respecting woman would walk through its doors.
>
> [Wendy, like Jesus, feminists would walk thru the doors of the temple
> to both throw out the money changers and implement equal rights for
> women.  Whatever you have against the UN, they are indeed an
> institution that can foster world changes.

The UN needs to stick to minor charitable efforts.  It's been shown
wholly inadequate/incompetent/corrupt for anything else.

> Let's face it dear; it's the only world organization we have to do
so.

The UN needs to be dismantled and rebuilt, and only allow membership to
Western civilizations or to those nations that give their citizens
freedoms comparable to Western civilizations.  Why legitimize
dictatorships by having the least little thing to do with them?

> You just are pissed that Bushies and America are looking pretty
stupid
> right now, as the most anti-woman western nation.]

This sort of falls along the lines of just *who* thinks we look pretty
stupid.    It's kind of like worrying about whether or not the Mafia
don likes the prosecutor.  Besides, having the right people dislike you
is a badge of honor.  :)



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/3/05 12:57:23 PM ---