Thursday, June 29, 2006

The End of the Amnesty

I wrote this email to Amnesty International recently.

Dear Amnesty International,
I received a letter from you some days ago asking me why I had cancelled my monthly donation by direct debit, so this email is intended to explain my reasons.

In short, it is because you have decided to target 'Violence Against Women' as one of your major policy objectives. Does this mean that I am therefore in favour of violence against women? No, of course not.

I have always admired the work of AI in regard to victims of political incarceration, torture and execution, and that is why I decided to donate to you.

However, after I signed the form (was this an accident?) your representative explained to me that one of your major current policy objectives was stopping 'Violence Against Women', so I immediately went to the bank and cancelled my direct debit. There were several reasons for this.

Firstly, there is already a plethora of organisations dealing with violence against women, and if I wanted to donate to them, I would.

Yours, on the other hand, is the only one I am aware of which campaigns for political prisoners, focusing specifically on incarceration, torture and execution. By jumping on the fashionable domestic violence bandwagon, I am concerned that your organisation is losing its original focus, and short-changing the many (mainly male) prisoners of conscience around the world who depend on you.

Secondly, the concept of 'Violence Against Women' is an entirely spurious one. A musician friend of mine was recently mugged and beaten, but we do not need to invent a special new category called 'Violence Against Musicians' in order to condemn or explain it.

I put it to you that, statistically, women are much less likely than men to suffer violence. But of course, they do make the most media-friendly victims, don't they?

Men and boys the world over are coerced into taking part in military conflicts against their will, while women are not. This has been so from the earliest times. Consequently, most military casualties are men. Furthermore, most victims of violent crime are men. Most victims of industrial deaths are men. The poorest paid, dirtiest and most dangerous jobs are done by an almost entirely male workforce. Most homeless people are men. Most drug addicts are men. Men are more likely than women to die of all of the major fatal diseases, and consequently have significantly shorter life expectancy. Governments spend far less each year on men's health than they do on women's health. (see Warren Farrell, 'The Myth of Male Power'). The overwhelming majority of political prisioners and torture victims are men. How many women are held in Guantanamo Bay? What proportion of the prisoners held in Abu Ghraib are women? One percent?

Even in the seemingly clear-cut arena of domestic violence, the conventional wisdom is almost entirely wrong. All of the scientific evidence on domestic violence (http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm) shows that domestic violence is heavily correlated with alcohol and drug abuse, and that women are as likely, or more likely, than men to initiate violence, and that such violence is just as common among homosexuals as it is among heterosexuals.

Consequently, I put it to you that the term 'Violence Against Women' is entirely spurious and misleading. 'Violence Against Women', as a kind of global cultural phenomenon arising out of heterosexuality, or something called 'Patriarchy', simply does not exist at all. No more than 'Violence Against Musicians' exists. Violence takes place in all kinds of circumstances, but the categorisation of it in this way is simply a feminist political fiction, and a grossly misleading one at that.

Over the past few years I have noticed a distinct anti-male bias gradually creeping into your campaign work. You campaign against female circumcision, but not male circumcision, even though it is much more common around the world, is a good example. You address none of the clear biases that I have mentioned above.

As long as you continue to act as a mouthpiece for anti-male feminist ideology, I will remain unable to support you. At the current time, mine may be a minority view, but I confidently predict that it will grow in profile and popularity over the next decade. You may find your support base beginning to erode. What donations you do garner will not always be used to campaign against political incarceration, torture and execution. Resources will be increasingly siphoned off to support feminist causes, and it is the prisoners of conscience who are going to lose out.

Regards,

etc.

I am still waiting for a reply, but I'm not holding my breath.

2 comments:

Nilk said...

Heretic, as a card-carrying member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, I agree with just about all of what you are saying.

I refuse to donate to AI because of their blatant biases these days - although I tend to look at it less from a gender perspective than as one of political leaning.

Regarding female circumcision compared to male circumsicion, however, there is a lot more damage done to girls than boys in general during the procedure. Please note that as far as I'm concerned, nobody should be circumsised unless it is due to a)personal choice as a consenting adult for whatever reason or b)strictly unavoidable medical treatment.

Clitoridectomy and infibulation are more serious in the bigger scheme of things than the removal of part of the foreskin (please don't cane me - I can hear see the steam building up from here!), as a symptom of what the feminazis and their enablers are ignoring in their own quest to remove men from the picture.

There are so many areas of our society that need to be addressed NOW! that it can get overwhelming. In my case, I tend to focus on the Religion of *cough* Peace and it's tenets.

The abuse of women (and everyone else, of course), is central to its being. The fact that those totalitarians who label themselves as 'Left-wing', 'progressive', and 'Feminist' have allied themselves with this ideology at the expense of the true victims, ensures that everyone will suffer so much more.

I'm sure I'm waffling now; it is difficult to articulate the frustration I feel at times. Especially towards those so-called "womyn" (aka f*ckwads) who fancy themselves in the vanguard of a bright new tomorrow.

Heretic said...

Dear Nilk/Leeianne,
Thank you for your message, I didn't see it until today. I agree with you that female circumcision has greater negative consequences for the individual than does male, but this should not be a reason to ignore, let alone justify, male circumcision. I share your attitude to Christianity, but I see feminism as a more urgent problem, not least of all because it cripples the left, which should be actively opposing the right instead of wasting its time on some made up nonsense called 'The Patriarchy'.
Regards,
Heretic