Even David Copperfield couldn’t pull off this genetic switcheroo. He would need the help of a few underhanded politicians, a waffling Congress, and the half-dead, but still dangerous, United Nations, the quintessential house of illusions.
So goodbye, David, hello CEDAW. That’s the acronym for the UN’s “Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.” Euphemistically called “The Rip Van Winkle” treaty, CEDAW has been around for some 20 years but has lain dormant for two decades because it was considered too divisive to reach the Senate floor for a vote.
Until now, that is.
Now, with the American public preoccupied with the on-again-off-again Irag attack, the professional politicos are quietly pressing the U.S.Senate for passage of this terrible treaty.
What makes CEDAW so awful?
“It has some serious problems,” says Ken Snyder of the Liberty Committee. “It forces the U.S. to rewrite (our) laws to conform to United Nations social engineering. It undermines U.S. sovereignty. It turns loose on America U.N. inspectors who will ‘judge’ U.S. compliance with the CEDAW edict. And it forces women into front-line combat.”
On the face of it CEDAW appears to be a fairly tame piece of legislation. After all, what reasonably sane American male is in favor of treating women as second class citizens? Or like men, for that matter. But under its linguistic facade, CEDAW is as dangerous to this country as any bad law can get.
Kimberley A. Strassel, editorial page writer for the Wall Street Journal, thinks so too, and she makes no bones about it. “The goal of CEDAW,” says Stassel, “is to ‘modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women with a view to achieving the elimination of all practices which are based on stereotyped roles for men and women.’
“The way we should do this is through nationwide re-education. Or as CEDAW puts it, ‘the revision of textbooks and school programs and the adaptation of teaching methods.”
Translated into Americanese, it is another step in the UN’s unnatural program of turning all human beings into a model of “sameness” with no regard for the individual differences in talents, dispositions, personalities, preferences, desires and, unbelievably, even sex.
CEDAW doesn’t advance women’s rights in any way. It flies in the face of natural order; and in fact, women’s rights.
“True liberty, maintains Stassel, “comes when women are free to choose to go to work or stay home with the kids, celebrate Mother’s Day or not, to be a reasonable and pleasant person, or to be a feminist.
“CEDAW would, instead, force a controversial set of values and causes—enforced day care, abortion, the idea that there are no differences between sexes—-on women everywhere.”
In effect, turning women into men for the dubious sake of One World, one-sex uniformity.
But the CEDAW crowd is getting desperate. The women’s right groups have lost much of their punch. The Equal Rights Amendment died screaming and kicking. And today’s women are so comfortable with their opportunities that, as Stassel puts it, “huge numbers of women are choosing to revel in girliness and mommyhood.”
The bottom line is that CEDAW does nothing to accomplish better lives for women in both rich and poor countries; and worst of all, it would force upon America an aggressive feminist vision that the country has already rejected.
That said, if we remember that the real reason for CEDAW is another devious way the U.N. tries to push global rule on sovereign nations, that’s all we need to know to reject this unworkable, nonsense treaty.
Making this a one-sex world should be God’s option. Not the U.N.’s.
“Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”