By: David Usher
From: News With Views
Via: The Honor Network
Priority News Exchange Program News Item (PNEP)
Judge Robert Dierker’s new book, “The Tyranny of Tolerance: A Sitting Judge Breaks the Code of Silence to Expose the Liberal Judicial Assault,” demonstrates that some judges are waking up to the truth: behind the mysterious veil of feminist humanism hides the most profound contempt for men, marriage, and ultimately the well-being of non-elitist women.
In the past couple of years, feminism has received much long-overdue scrutiny. Kate O’Beirne excoriated radical feminism in her book “Women Who Make the World Worse.” Christina Hoff Sommers made a career trying to repatriate feminism to behave as an egalitarian movement (an impossible task given the meaning of the word). Phyllis Schlafly successfully blocked the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which would have created a two-tier society based on gender. Phyllis continues to be one of the most outspoken and forthright opponents of radical feminism.
Unlike his feminist opponents, whose evasively-encoded messages often take much pondering to approximately decipher, Dierker cut to the chase in Chapter One: “The Cloud Cuckooland of Radical Feminism.”
Dierker proved the thesis of his book is correct even prior to publication. Feminists dominating the St. Louis Post Dispatch attacked him on page one. Missouri Senator Joan Bray (D-St. Louis) filed a complaint with the Missouri Bar even before the book was published. Joan is a classic feminist legislator, and heiress to feminist machines run by former Missouri Representatives Kaye Steinmetz and Sue Shear…
Feminist attacks immediately point back to those who complain the most vociferously. Lynn Ricci, President of the St. Louis Women Lawyers Association gave us an in-home demonstration of how feminists slyly project their behavior on to others to avoid scrutiny. She whined that “he’s [Dierker] cloaking his own personal preferences against women in alleged legal research and a partial examination of the law.”
Ms. Ricci apparently does not understand that opposing a revolting belief system has nothing to do with what one thinks about women.
Since Ms. Ricci pretends that “alleged legal research” and “partial examination of the law” supports her position, let us look at the partiality….
a. The Duke Rape Case never would never have happened if Prosecutor Mike Nifong had not been trained to pursue feminist jurisprudence in law school.
b. Feminist jurisprudence pretends that female allegers are not to be doubted or questioned (one professor I know at Washburn University school of Law will not pass any intern who in any way attempts to ascertain the veracity of allegations made by a self-appointed female victim).
c. The “feminist majority” believes women are always the victims and men are always the oppressors. The alleged perpetrator must somehow be guilty, even if he proves himself innocent. They continue to monkey with evidentiary standards and burdens of proof. Their goal is to establish a legal system where unverifiable allegations alone are considered sufficient for conviction.
d. Discrimination against men in the family and marriage is endemic in literally every A.B.A. publication and law school. Only a corpse or a feminist could not intuitively recognize this truth.
e. Fortunately, radical feminist agenda is finally being rebuffed at the United Nations: The U.N. Secretary General’s Report on Domestic Violence Against Women was unanimously rejected by the Third Committee in November, 2006. It is time we do the same in the United States.
f. Every major study on domestic violence proves that men and women are equal initiators of serious domestic violence.
g. Every major study on marriage demonstrates that the the intact married heterosexual two-parent family produces the best economic and social outcomes for women, children, and men.
h. Every major study on divorce and illegitimacy demonstrates that single mothers have the highest poverty rates, are the most likely to seriously abuse children, and are the least likely to have access to health care.
Judge Dierker is to be greatly commended for his work helping to advance the rule of law and jurisprudence. Pointing out that feminist jurisprudence is radical and damaging to America does not make Judge Dierker the radical. Anyone who files a complaint against him or refuses to have a case heard in his courtroom is an enemy of the very fairness and quality jurisprudence that Judge Dierker strives to achieve.
The Missouri Bar should embrace Dierker’s book. A new Gender and Justice Commission Report should be ordered, but this time the Commission should recommend changes in jurisprudence to weed out the hate and intolerance towards men and marriage on which so many laws and court decisions in Missouri are based.
To read in full or other articles by David: