MacDworkinism and VAWA: The Fraud of the Millennia (Part 1: Genesis)

July 20, 2005

In the January 24, 2000, issue of the U. S. News, on p. 12, a syndicated columnist John Leo wrote:

“The Violence Against Women Act slipped into law in 1994 without most members of Congress quite knowing what they were passing. We have Andrea Dworkin's word on this. Dworkin is surely a contender for the North American title of most overwrought, man-hating feminist. She told the New Republic at the time that the only possible explanation for the bill's popularity in the Senate was the 'senators don't understand the meaning of the legislation that they pass.'”

Andrea Dworkin should know. She must be credited with laying the “cultural” foundation, and Catharine A. Mackinnon – the legal foundation for this unconstitutional, anti-American, sexist legislation, based on and perpetuating a massive social fraud, creating a multi-billion dollar cash cow for special interests with the world’s most hateful, destructive agenda claiming human victims in the millions yearly, agenda which has no precedent in the 5000 years of civilization, while it is lauded as the cat’s miau of progressivism.

One possibility is that Senators never read VAWA: when gender-feminists hand-crafted a book to throw at men, they made a huge book – way over 300 pages as introduced, which all but guaranteed that no Congressman would ever read or understand it before voting on it. After all, most people of good will imagine that feminism is a benign movement concerned with equal rights for women and the removal of any remnants of discrimination or prejudice. The dictionary definition of “feminism” is a “belief in equal rights for women” and in this sense all of us, living in the shadow of the greatness of The Bill of Rights, can be rightfully called “feminists.” This is where our assumption is completely wrong. Little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and that’s exactly how the men-hating gender-feminists, those “who stole feminism” – as Christina Hoff Sommers called them – steal votes and fool the masses.

The defining premise of the contemporary feminist theory is that we live in “a male-dominated culture,” and the feminist agenda as well as the goal of the feminist jurisprudence is not equal treatment of all “persons” but redistribution of power and assets from the “oppressor class” (men) to the “oppressed class” (women) and stripping men of their rights, so as to “equalize” the “power disparity” they claim exist. Even “equity feminism” which seeks to be distinguished as egalitarian is an irreconcilable paradox, an oxymoron: it is impossible to be egalitarian or profess fighting for equality when presenting a view of the world solely from the women’s perspective.

Feminist jurisprudence has all but destroyed the principles of equality in Bill of Rights and the due process of law as set forth in the 14 th and 5 th Amendments to the Constitution. With many generations of lawyers coming off the conveyor lines of law schools, feminist jurisprudence is no longer some novel theoretical concept taught in Yale or Harvard circa 1960’s; it took a firm hold in the English-speaking countries and has become the predominant legal practice in which judicial notions of impartiality, individual rights, equal treatment for all, and objective standards of proof were discarded by design, in favor of group rights and special interests of the self avowed underdogs.

The basic feminist premise is that jurisprudence must be asymmetrical, adopting the perspective of the “less powerful group” with the specific goal of sharing the power in the society “equitably” between various groups. As the fabulous fraud of social justice is welcomed… we have to say goodbye to equal justice. Hence, the whole body of knowledge was developed in the fine art of spreading misandry and propaganda of “victimization of women.” And that’s the crux of the issue. The societal pressure on men in our culture has been always to keep a stiff upper lip, never complain, should feel ashamed if victimized by a female partner or wife, and sweep abuse of men under the carpet. This mindset would not let men ‘compete’ with women for the status of societal “victims,” men are conditioned to be responsible, so they automatically lose. Henceforth, the devilish design of the “violence against women” laws.

Gladden Schrock, in The Tyranny of the Underdog, gave this characterization of contemporary gender-feminism:

“The prejudicial, man-hating cant of militant 'gender' (victimal) Feminists has foolishly served only to reinforce a counter-sexist prejudice that holds ALL women to be likewise self-serving, manipulative, irrational, unfair... now organized into a kind of monolithic Collective Shrew, throwing a massive slo-mo cultural tantrum among us. It is the classic tactic of infantile Passive Control, a strategy vehemently protested against by Equity Feminists, who are none of that...

"What we are seeing in this headless misandry is a grand display of the Tyranny of the Underdog: 'I am a wretchedly longstanding victim; therefore I own no burden of adult accountability, nor need to honor any restraint against my words and actions. In fact, all efforts to restrain me are only further proof of my oppressed condition.'

"It is the most perfect trump-card against accountable living ever devised."

This characterization hardly even begins to show the true nature, the far-reaching goals and deep advances of what is known as MacDworkinism, a frothy poisonous cocktail of the feminist Gramsci’ist revolution achieved through a gradual massive mind-programming, and the de-facto usurpation of power through the feminist justice and its justices. Feminist elites in conspiracy with America’s Neo-Marxists are seeking a gradual usurpation of power through cultural and legal changes, and view the courts and college campuses as agents of social change towards the bloodless communist revolution. If history, and the mass murder of tens of millions of their people by the regimes of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Ho Shi Ming, and Pol Pot are any indication, we should know what happens once the power is usurped. MacDworkinism is taught in colleges and universities throughout the land. If you attended Warren Wilson College, you could even sign up for “Oral Herstory,” just one in the huge nomenclature of feminists’ indoctrination courses, at which we will glance later in this text.

Of even greater importance than its legal, is the funding aspect of VAWA, the latest and greatest in feminist jurisprudence. Through VAWA, the Congress funnels a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money each year into the left’s propagandist machine, a network of man-hating gender militants openly dedicated to family destruction, the destruction of the Western Civilization, its cultural and educational heritage, perpetrating and perpetuating massive societal fraud, suborning and committing perjury in courts, and seeing fraud as a woman’s birthright, applying different standards to women’s actions, by design, by law.

VAWA doles out $100,000 grants to gender-feminist ‘sociologists’ and professors dedicated to women’s, lesbian and queer studies to write books in the genre of unabashed misandry and destruction of institutions of the “men-centric” society. VAWA pours money into the Domestic Violence industry and the so called Family Shelters whose advocates from the N.O.W. rank and file coach women in how to profit from mounting false allegations, how to maximize their payoffs by breaking up families while their husbands are still at the peak of their earning capacity. There is but a handful of DV groups that try to appear gender-neutral, but the network mostly consists of sick radicals, such as the Colorado Safe House that funded an “art” display in a local public library with ceramic “cut off” penises hung on a clothes-line, a display titled “Hung Out To Dry.”

Its federal funding mechanism, buried deep in the hundreds of pages of this openly gender-biased law, is the most ingenious part of VAWA. It is a cunningly clever scheme cooked up by the NOW Legal and Educational Defense Fund, whose staff lawyers drafted the bill. DHHS doles out block grants to the states, but it is the “state domestic violence coalitions” comprised of man-hating gender militants and MacDworkinist “fighters for social justice” from the N.O.W. ranks who determine who gets the money. Congressmen could have just plunked the money down to the N.O.W. and be done with it.

A rather revealing story on where the national Domestic Violence movement came from and how it tested the unchartered waters appeared in the in the November 01, 2004 issue of The Oregonian [1], as told by activists Lisa Schroeder and Bonnie Tinker. Said Tinker, the creator of the gay-rights advocacy group, Love Makes a Family:

“In fact, it was a small group of lesbians from Portland who were at the forefront of a national movement to provide safe havens for women… We knew that foundations were not going to fund a house for a bunch of homeless bar dyke.”

“We realized the language that would be understood was the language of battered women… We had a house, but we really didn't know what we were doing,” Tinker said. “We just declared ourselves a social-service agency because we needed an agency” [to receive corporate donations and state grants.]

Soon their self-described commune of “homeless bar dykes” was awash in corporate and state money.

While Katharine Mackinnon’s “ Toward a Feminist Theory of the State,” and “Women’s Lives, Men’s Laws” [3] are the core sources to read if you wish to go to the depth of understanind of the feminist jurisprudence, it is Andrea Dworkin’s prolific writings that are key to understanding the cultural backdrop on which such fascist laws as VAWA could emerge.

Dworkin’s Autobiography, Intercorse, Woman Hating, Pornography: Men Possessing Women, Mercy and many other pieces of her prolific writing [2] reveal grotesquely warped and a deeply disturbed personality, the kind which is both self-loathing, and highly toxic; her pseudo-intellectual discourse glorified by a crowd of dysfunctional sycophants reaching far and wide on the global scale.

Strikingly revealing of her opportunistic self are Dowrkin’s admissions in her autobiography, "I was a motherless child. ..” in reference to her cold and uncaring mother. In the very next paragraph she described her father, “Meanwhile my father worked hard so that I could have a formal education.” How does that jibe with her whining about patriarchal oppression?

There are numerous internal contradictions in her writings, which seemingly make no sense, but they do make perfect sense, which we will explore later.

[1] http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/renee_mitchell/index.ssf?/base/news/109913734049471.xml

[3] See Bibliography and full bio at: http://cgi2.www.law.umich.edu/_FacultyBioPage/facultybiopagenew.asp?ID=219

[2] The full Bibliography with portions of her writing or excerpts from it can be found at:

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/OnlineLibrary.html

Copyright © Eric Ross, Ph.D., 2005.

Eric Ross, Ph.D.