Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of natural fathers in children's lives
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | Share

Fathers for Life Site-Search

Site Map (very large file)
Table of Contents
Children—Our most valued assets?
Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
Child Support
Civil Rights & Social Issues
Family Law
Destruction of Families
Divorce Issues
Domestic Violence
Gay Issues
Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
Help Lines for Men
Law, Justice and The Judiciary
Mail to F4L
Men's Issues
The Politics of "Sex"
Our Most Popular Pages
Email List
References - Bibliography

You are visitor

since June 19, 2001


CEDAW — Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women 

Saturday, March 15, 1997

Comments by Jim Conceison,

Regarding the C.E.D A.W. Treaty,

The CEDAW Treaty now before the lawmakers of New Hampshire (N.H.) may sound well intentioned to the unsuspecting, but you must consider its source.  This treaty is the end product of the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in September, 1995.  The cleverness of its wording belies its intent  which is, in reality, a reckless and dangerous attempt to remake N.H. society to conform to the views of a fominist extremist minority.
    Their creed is based on faulty logic, sophistry, rage, sclf pity, and victimhood.  It is this creed they intend to force upon our citizenry, Whether tbey like it or not, using the U.N. bureaucracy as cover for its implementation.
    Its most egregious violation is that it removes the authority vested in representative government, stealing from our duly elected officials their constitutional right to decide for their constituents sensitive matters of education for our children and unlawfully grants international bureaucrats taxation rights.
    While reading this document, a person must pay close attention to itswording, keeping in mind the differences in definitions between individual and the extremists who crafted it.  Significantly, pursuant to this are the words equality, family and education.  Considering the fact that the most vocal attendants at Beijing was a large lesbian caucus, their idea of equality necessarily includes homosexual marriages.  These groups are vehemently hostile to traditional concepts of family, and their view of education really means indoctrination, such as is illustrated by tbe "Womens Studies" now common nationwide in Universities.
    They now intend to bring this indroctrination to society at large, with the right to rewrite all school textbooks [Part III, Article 10, Paragraph c, (Note 1)].  This is an outrage, and amounts to a demand by extremists and foreign bureaucrats, that N.H. citizens pay for, through higher taxes, the creation of a society that can never exist.
    There are also numerous references to family planning as a right.  This constitutes a right to the most extreme abortion procedures, again paid for by taxpayers, without legislators having any debate, which is exactly its purpose [Article 10, Paragraph h; Article 12, Section 1; Article 14, Section 2, Paragraph b].
    Article 12, Section 1, clearly outlines this right, and even provides clarity for the uninitiated with Section 2, which actually does provides services to pregnant women.
    Article 14 states, in part, that women have a right to enjoy housing, transport and communications.  Does this mean taxpayers will supply houses, automobiles, telephones, and fax machines?  Remember, this is worldwide.
    Part V, article 17, presents how all this will be implemented.   A committee of 23 experts of HIGH MORAL STANDING [remember, these are amoral people] will be elected by secret ballot, who will serve for four years.  However, nine of the 23's term will expire at the end of two years, being replaced by appointed members chosen by the committee chairman.  This will, in effect, purge the committee of any dissention among its ranks, should anyone of conscience object to the more extreme sections of its
    This committee meeting will be convened by the Secretary General of the U.N.
    Article 18 states that reports on the progress of this document will be submitted to the U.N. Secretary General, for his/her approval.     Article 19 states that this committee will have its own rules of procedures, which most assuredly will be kept secret.     Article 20 states that the committee will meet annually for two weeks, at U.N. headquarters or at some 'convenient place as determined bv the committee.'  This means a secret location.
    Any state that has laws more extreme than those proposed in this document is acceptable [Article 23], but any revisions or attempts to restrict or restrain the extremist measures in this treaty 'shall not be permitted.' [Article 28.2]
    Any and all disputes arising between member states that have signed this document will be arbitrated at thc 'lnternational Court of Justice'. [Article 29.1]
    What all of this legalese amounts to is, extremist experts, whose names we don't know, operating under procedures we know nothing about, will meet at a secret location, to issue dictates to all governments, including here in N.H.  All of which is subject to the imperial approval of the new World Emperor, the Secretary General of the U.N.
    This treaty invalidates the U.S. Constitution and N.H.'s governing documents, and effectively destroys representative government.  This treaty is also an illegal usurpation of American souvereignty, whereby Article 1, section 10 , of the U.S. Constitution states in its first seven words: "No State shall enter into any Treaty . . ."
    For a N.H. lawmaker to give their support to this treaty would, I believe, violate their oath of office. Political power in this country is vested in the people, and when we elect our representatives we are only loaning them political power that is rightfully ours.  For these politicians to give away the essence of self governance in an effort to appease radical extremists amounts to political cowardice, and is a betrayal of the people themselves.

My Notes --WHS:

1) In Canada, the rewriting of the text books was done in about 1987.  J. L. Granatstein, a Canadian historian recounts in his book "Who killed Canadian History?" how the Canadian curriculum had been changed by "warmed-over Marxism" in the sheltered environment of our universities, to give little attention to any logical sense of history now.  The revised "history" is currently being presented to our students in disjointed sound bites that show an undue focus on social engineering issues, with extremely little attention on national issues, thereby deliberately obliterating any concept of a national identity, in an effort to promote only what is deemed politically correct: "women's" and racial issues, and the "oppression by men" of racial minorities and women.

On page 61 of his book he states:

    "...women's historians pored through textbooks to determine sex equity content.  One 1987 study reported on the results: "Researchers read each [66] books from cover to cover, noting, by page, references to women and/or girls and to 'women's issues' such as the fight for suffrage, child and infant mortality or prohibition . . . passing references . . . were also noted by page.  We then calculated the extent of sex equitable content using each reference, even those of a single word."  None of the surveyed books met the sex equity policy of the Ontario Ministry of Education, and the researchers concluded that women had been marginalized by historians.  Other provinces conducted similar surveys that produced equivalent results.  No one seemed to care that most of Canada's history had been made by men, however unfair that might have been, and that any overt attempt to write more women into history might distort the past."


UN Follies

NH House, Clinton Contemplate Foolishness

Article in the Manchester, N.H. Union Leader

    Today the New Hampshire House is scheduled to vote on a resolution urging the U.S. Senate to ratify the
U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.  How any Republican could consider voting for such a misguided measure is nearly inexplicable.
    This treaty was concocted by Hillary Clinton and her fellow feminists at a liberal lovefest in Red China, long celebrated as a bulwark of human rights.  Among the forms of mischief too numerous to cite here, the treaty would empower a U.N. commission to monitor equal rights in the United States.  Refusal to put an equal rights amendment in the Constitution, for one, would be a violation.
  Republicans in the House should be urging their fellow Republicans in the Senate to reject this U.N. usurpation of our national sovereignty, not throwing in with radical feminism [*].
  Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton's husband wants the U.S. to pay $1 billion in "back taxes" to the U.N.  Never mind that the bloated, scandal-ridden U.N. refuses to enact meaningful reforms, or that it has repaid the U.S. only $79 million of the $6 billion it owes for our various peacekeeping missions.
                    -Richard Lessner

[* If the term "radical feminism" (a.k.a. Marxist- or socialist-feminism) is somewhat new to you, you need to expand your knowledge.  After all, radical feminism, the currently controlling faction of feminism, governs just about everything that is happening in your life.  See,

Carey Roberts column

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism.

Carey Roberts' best-known work, his exposé on Marxism and radical feminism, is not necessarily easy to find, but this link will help with that. (Some of the URLs for the article series appear to keep changing.  For that reason the identified link leads to an Internet search for the series.  The first or second link in the return list will most likely lead you to the series.)

Make sure that you see also the related Heritage Foundation's Backgrounder:

No. 1407February 5, 2001



Link to:
| Full Text | PDF (338k) |
Note: PDF version contains both the Executive Summary and the Full Text and is optimized for Adobe Acrobat 4.0.

See also:

  •  The CEDAW Threat

by Gail Jarvis

LewRockwell.com, Sep. 6 2006


"And he shall set the sheep on his right hand but the goats on the left. (Matthew 25:33)"

The acronym CEDAW might not be familiar to some of you because media has largely ignored it. However, if CEDAW, a comprehensive United Nations program, is ratified by Congress, it will essentially restructure our way of life. Consequently the media's lack of reports about it is a little strange. On the other hand, as most of those working in the media admit to holding views "to the left of center," they might like to see CEDAW implemented. So maybe they don't want us to know much about it until it's too late to prevent its ratification. After all, media has a history of applying selective and biased reporting in order to frame issues and set the agenda for society.

Full Story

  • U.N. Women's right treaty should be ignored

 John Leo,
Town Hall, June 24, 2002

...CEDAW, the U.N.'s women's rights treaty that has been hanging around since 1979. CEDAW is the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women.

There's a good reason why the Senate has ignored it for a generation: It's an incredibly toxic document, the work of international bureaucrats determined to impose a worldwide makeover of family relations and "gender roles." CEDAW is a blueprint for foisting the West's radical feminism on every nation gullible enough to sign on. (Talk about cultural imperialism.) Some 167 nations have signed the treaty, many with no intention of observing it. But the CEDAW ferociously monitors every nation's compliance. ...

Full story

  • The "Fix" That's Destroying Education In America

Have no illusions that the problems with America's education system are national ones. Once you read Tom DeWeese's article and know who's behind "The Fix", you'll come to the conclusion that you know also why "The Fix" is destroying education in all developed nations.  Furthermore, you will know why the current push for sex-education is such a large part of it.  Full Story

  • How Dramatically Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?

By John R. Lott, Jr., and Larry Kenny, Law School, University of Chicago; John M. Olin Law & Economics Working paper No. 60 2nd Series.

The paper can be downloaded without charge (209 kB PDF file)

The Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection (Abstract)

If you have problems downloading the paper, let me know, and I'll send you a copy.

See Also: Feminism and related issues — Table of Contents, and

Feminism For Male College Students — A Short Guide to the Truth, by Angry Harry (Off-Site)

Last updated:
1999 06 10
2001 01 29 (format changes)
2001 02 19 (added reference to Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #1407)
2001 02 20 (added reference to The "Fix" That's Destroying Education In America)
2002 06 24 (added link to an article by John Leo regarding the demand by radical feminists to have the US Senate ratify CEDAW)
2002 08 15 (added reference to paper discussing the consequences of women's suffrage)
2002 12 22 (format changes)
2006 03 04 (added link to Feminism for Male College Students)