Embedded Files
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman%27s_Christian_Temperance_Union
The Woman's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) was the first mass organization among women devoted to social reform with a program that "linked the religious and the secular through concerted and far-reaching reform strategies based on appliedChristianity."[1]
The WCTU was originally organized on December 23, 1873, in Hillsboro, Ohio, and officially declared at a national convention in Cleveland, Ohio in 1874.[2]
Francis Willard
In 1874 Willard was elected the new secretary of the WCTU. Five years later, in 1879, she became its president. Willard also started her own organization, called the World's Women Christian Temperance Union, in 1883.[18]
After becoming WCTU president, Willard broadened the views of the group by including woman's rights reforms, abstinence, and education. As its president for 19 years, she focused on moral reform of prostitutes and prison reform as well as woman's suffrage. With the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920, Willard's predictions that women voters "would come into government and purify it, into politics and cleanse the Stygian pool" could be tested.[19]
Current issues for the WCTU include alcohol, which the organization considers to be North America's number one drug problem, as well as illegal drugs, abortion[37] and gay marriage.[38]
The WCTU has warned against the dangers of tobacco since 1875. They continue to this day in their fight against those substances they see as harmful to society.
The WCTU strongly supports banning same-sex marriage, which it sees as a negative influence on families.
Today Sheppard's name is bandied about with very little regard or understanding about her convictions or societal attitudes of over 100 years ago. The "Bring Back Kate" campaign of 2014 is a classic example.
This unfortunate and misguided campaign tried shamelessly to manipulate public opinion with a year 10 students take on Social studies type of strategy.
Kate Sheppard would probably have been even far more horrified at the Gay Marriage Bill that recently passed, rather then be upset, "turning in her grave" as the authors assume based on their narrow and revisionist understanding of the history of the WCTU and Sheppard herself.
She would have viewed DV purely as an Alcohol based issue.
Just as Owen Glenn's commission again concluded 130 years later, rather than taking the modern view of ownership of ones own actions and cognitively working to correct these, opposed to the 1870's continuing the nonsense of blaming something else such as Tobacco or Alcohol.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/63244084/Booze-cause-of-family-violence-inquiry
WCTU cartoon against Brewers of the early 1900's era.
Its probably quite right that before the 2014 election the NZ Parliament rejected a "crystal" Statue of Kate Sheppard however.
http://www.3news.co.nz/politics/paliament-rejects-kate-sheppard-statue-2014091417#axzz3YGK7svMf
The overtones were of Kristall Nacht in Germany, to mobilise public opinion, the Media Call it Crystallizing the issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht
Its a modern technique to try and mobilise public opinion before highlighting the "need" to enact some form of Intervention or Law change. The current Anti Smoking campaign is of First wave feminist origins and has been a rediscovered Feminist fundamentalist attitude dressed up with the health issues but is still a human rights issue. Feminist Politics usually aligns with collectivist left wing politics and its no surprise this initiate came from the left.
Its also no surprise however that due to the anti same sex marriage stance of early Feminism that Gay Marriage was supported by and passed by right leaning governments in NZ, free of the influences of fundamentalist feminist constituents and focused on human rights issues.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8574658/Gay-speech-wins-MP-famous-fans
The passion over "DV" in New Zealand is still akin to the suffragists antics to attract attention before obtaining the vote. The rhetoric about DV is in effect just an echo of the the anti Drinking stance and likewise is just another Ambulance at the Bottom of a Cliff policy rather than carefully though out and scientifically based social policy.
Almost at the same time and almost at the same place
In early January 1876 Russell met independent Adventist preachers Nelson H. Barbourand John H. Paton, publishers of the Herald of the Morning, who convinced him that Christ had returned invisibly in 1874.[13][d][16][e] Russell provided financial backing for Barbour and became co-editor of Barbour's magazine, Herald of the Morning; the pair jointly issued Three Worlds and the Harvest of This World (1877), written mostly by Barbour.[f][19] Various concepts in the book are still taught by the Bible Student movement and Jehovah's Witnesses, including a 2520-year period termed "the Gentile Times" predicted to end in 1914.
In 1881, Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society was formed as an unincorporated administrative agency for the purpose of disseminating tracts, papers, doctrinal treatises and Bibles, with Russell as secretary and William Henry Conley as president.[29]Three years later, on December 15, 1884, Russell became president of the society when it was legally incorporated inPennsylvania.[31]
I.B.S.A. International Bible Students Association
Charles Taze Russell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Taze_Russell
After C.T. Russell died in 1916 Judge J.F. Rutherford took over, by all accounts a drunkard Redneck S.O.B., and he relied heavily on his Legal council Hayden C Covington to extricate himself and his followers from many and various clashes of belief and secular law. None so dramatic as the Saluting the Flag case of the Gobitas children that occurred during World War 2.
Covington, Rutherford and Knorr, the following leader after C.T. Russell's death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minersville_School_District_v._Gobitis
The initial decision by the local courts was to find against the freedom of these children to choose not to salute the flag.
It was overturned after Covington argued the points of human rights to the Supreme Court in 1943.
A villain of that era
In the 1940s, Jehovah's Witnesses weren't just unpopular and marginalized. They were seen as criminal and a threat to democracy. It was blasphemous enough that they preached there was no hell or trinity and went knocking on doors to say so. But they also refused to salute the flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance.
Lillian Gobitas was among thousands of Jehovah's Witness children expelled from public school for not saluting the flag. Her case (Minersville School District v. Gobitis) went to the Supreme Court and a fundamental question was asked: Should a free society force its citizens to engage in patriotic ritual? In 1940, the court said yes. National unity was at stake.
But Jehovah's Witnesses wouldn't comply, saying the flag salute is an idolatrous act of worship of a man-made symbol, which is forbidden by God. In response, mobs attacked Jehovah's Witnesses in 44 states, burned their houses of worship and beat them. First lady Eleanor Roosevelt spoke out against the violence. At the height ofWorld War II, when the U.S. was fighting nationalism in Germany, where Jehovah's Witnesses were being sent to concentration camps for refusing to do the Nazi salute, the Supreme Court revisited the case (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette). A stunning reversal was announced June 14, 1943 — Flag Day.
In 2010, the value Judge Walker saw in the Jehovah's Witness case was how Justice Robert Jackson in 1943 addressed the "tyranny of the majority," a problem that's been around since at least 1835 when Alexis de Tocqueville first wrote the phrase in his book, Democracy in America.
This principle of Human rights coming ahead of populist votes has been the basis for a large number of human rights cases in the US.
Hayden Covington became a 'Rock Star" attorney for Civil rights cases, for example defending Mohammad Ali's new Muslim belief not to be conscripted into the army.
The victory for the Flag case of the Gobitas Children has become case law precedent for Human rights in the USA and has been used to stop opposition to the amendments proposed to reject Gay marriage.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-08-06-engardio05_ST_N.htm ** wait a minute, its from a large repository.
How Jehovah's Witnesses helped kill Prop 8
Vaughn Walker, the federal judge who struck down Prop 8 this week, boldly said it "was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples." He also minced no words with the electorate: "That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant."
This is where Jehovah's Witnesses come in. On Page 116 of Judge Walker's ruling, he cites a 1943 Supreme Court case where the high court did a rare reversal of itself, acknowledging a mistake it made in a Jehovah's Witness case three years earlier. What happened between 1940 and 1943 to Jehovah's Witnesses gave Judge Walker in 2010 his most potent precedent to show that voter will does not trump the protection of minority rights.
The purpose of this comparison
Many Women's organisations claim to have been at the forefront of human rights but in sad reality, they have only focused on the rights of half the population.
Organisations like the JW's unintentionally in the pursuit of their beliefs have set far more human rights precedence and achieved far more than the purpose designed Women's rights groups.
Both groups enjoy continued manifestations in contemporary society and adherents of each seem to display a Zealous Religious ferver towards their "beliefs". After all they are both products of a revivalist "Bible Belt" Christian ferver of the mid 1800's America.
Causal research in DV perpetration.
These current major explanatory theoretical views of DV can be broadly categorized as feminist/sociocultural, social learning theory-based intergenerational transmission, and psychological (Corvo & Johnson, 2007).
Feminist/Sociocultural View Although the batterer treatment standards of most states are premised upon DV being the product of patriarchy, the central causal construct in the feminist/sociocultural theory, there is little consistent empirical evidence in support of this view.
Briefly, the patriarchy-as-cause view asserts that DV is solely a product of the socially sanctioned domination and control of women by men (Corvo & Johnson, 2003). Empirical studies examining the influence of patriarchal gender role socialization or gender-based power inequities on DV behavior have demonstrated neither strong nor linear correlations (Dutton, 1994; Sugarman & Frankel, 1996; Yick, 2000). The effect size of variables generated by this theory is often weak when compared to those generated by other theoretical perspectives (e.g., Corvo & Johnson, 2007).
In fact, numerous studies contradict this perspective: Less than 10% of all couples are male dominant (Coleman & Straus, 1985); women are more likely to use severe violence against nonviolent men (Stets & Straus, 1992); men in North America do not endorse violence against their wives as acceptable (Dutton, 1994; Simon, Anderson, Crosby, Shelley, & Sacks, 2001); and abusiveness is higher in lesbian relationships than in heterosexual relationships (Lie, Schilit, Bush, Montague, & Reyes, 1991). Finally, Archer's (2000) meta-analysis, with a combined A^ of 60,000, found women, especially younger women, to be more domestically violent than men.
.....
The current best evidence clearly does not support investing substantial public funds in the continuation, let alone the mandating, of the standard DV program model. In the face of overwhelming countervailing evidence, why does this model persist? There is no scientific reason why causal explanations of DV and the principles of perpetrator treatment should exist outside the biopsychosocial framework used to understand and address contemporary mental health and social problems. In some sense, then, the political issues in the policy framework "trump" the science to a greater degree perhaps than in most other social problems.
For the readers consideration;
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/domestic-violence/news/article.cfm?c_id=178&objectid=11385415
If the current model of DV with Male Perpetrators was true, why does current independent research find a multitude of variant factors ?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11452090
Google Sites
Report abuse