Dangerous United Nations Women’s Treaty Looms on Horizon

The New American ^ | 22 November 2010 | Selwyn Duke

[Paladins Prayer]

While Americans are thinking about turkey and the TSA (and turkeys in the TSA), as is often the case, the most destructive governmental shenanigans are occurring behind the scenes. On Thursday, November 18, the Senate held hearings on the UN’s Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), a treaty that could be used to justify sweeping social engineering across the nation.

While the CEDAW was adopted way back in 1979, the Senate has thus far refused to ratify it. But with the Obama administration at the helm, and some lame-duck Democrats in office, plus the fashionable promise of “eliminating all forms of discrimination” and the fact that virtually all other nations have already ratified the treaty, it may be an easier sell this time around. As always, however, being discriminating as a buyer is a good thing, and what lies beneath CEDAW’s packaging isn’t so attractive.

The problem with the treaty, writes Christina Hoff Sommers at National Review, is that “its key provisions are 1970s egalitarian feminism preserved in diplomatic amber.” Most alarming is how it defines discrimination: as “any distinction” based on sex. This reflects the 1970s “gender-neutrality” misconception that the sexes are the same except for superficial physical differences, an always laughable notion. Yet today the treaty is out of step not just with common sense but even the psychological establishment, as 1990s research into brain structure and intrauterine development showed conclusively that the sexes are inherently different, from the womb to the tomb.

[Paladins Prayer]

Hardly anyone has talked about this. But I wouldn't be surprised if the lame duck schmucks sign on to it.

[Brett66]

It sounds like the old ERA, except on an international level.

[Renderofveils]

“eliminating all forms of discrimination” and the fact that virtually all other nations have already ratified the treaty...

And stonings, throwing acid on young women, and female castrations have been virtually eliminated. Oh. Um, nevermind. I thought this was about ALL women.

[exDemMom]

Even if this were ratified, it seems like new schemes to control every aspect of our lives are multiplying so fast, that it’s just one more outrage added to a sea of outrages. At some point in the zeal to impose totalitarianism, the control freaks won’t be able to keep up with all the different ways they want to run our lives; it’s not like we’re cooperating willingly, as Obamacare and now the TSA debacle have shown.

This is not good for the rule of law. In their private lives, people will ignore such ridiculous mandates—if this treaty is ratified, is anyone honestly going to buy feminine pads for their 13 year old son, on the basis that he’s not really different than their 14 year old daughter? So an atmosphere of ignoring the law is being cultivated here.

Meanwhile, in the schools, expect new manifestations of political correctness, because that’s where the left concentrates its social engineering efforts. Heck, it’s not like actual education is worth anything.

[circlecity]

CEDAW declares that abortion is an absolute right for all women in the world. Thus, if America signs on we will be obligated to pay for abortions world wide.

[algernonpj]

It sounds like the old ERA, except on an international level.

Worse.

"Under CEDAW, even private behavior — such as how couples divide household and child-care chores — is subject to government oversight and modification. The U.N. monitoring committee routinely censures countries like Denmark, Norway, and Iceland for failing to prevent women from taking primary care of children, a practice it deems “discriminatory.”"

• It seeks to achieve not equality of opportunity but equality of outcome.

• To groups such as “NOW, the Feminist Majority Foundation, and the National Women’s Law Center … the treaty is a license to sue, re-educate, and re-socialize their fellow citizens — opportunities that have eluded them under the U.S. Constitution,” writes Sommers.

• The treaty may threaten U.S. sovereignty since the nation may be obliged to abide by it.