I see that, as a good Darlak, you have been thoroughly briefed.
[SIZE=-1]Trudy W. Schuett is an Arizona-based online                   veteran with 10 years in cyberspace; an author and                   multiblogger.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]I’ve followed the issue of Climategate with                   great interest, as it has seemed that the issue has                   mirrored events in the field of domestic violence                   and partner abuse. Abusegate also occurred due to                   money, political power, and careers at stake.
                                     Where Abusegate is concerned, however, there is                   one more element – the life or death of                   feminism, and its determination to liberate women                   from the so-called “oppression” of                   marriage and family. The story of Abusegate is as                   much about the attempt by feminists to obscure                   their real intentions as it is about feminist                   attempts to conceal the reality of partner abuse,                   in order to claim the issue as their own, and                   possibly the only issue available at the time to                   keep this essentially destructive philosophy                   alive.
                                      As Joanne Nova, 
[1]                   Australian science writer has said, “Science                   has come full-circle, taking a page from the                   medieval Church by using fear and persecution to                   silence skeptics. The oppressed have become the                   oppressors. Given that most professional scientific                   bodies and peer-reviewed journals have been active                   accomplices in this scandal, one wonders how many                   other so called scientific consensuses have been                   similarly engineered and waiting for their own                   ClimateGates before truth is known.”
                                      That quote is important because it addresses the                   politicization of science and research. Dean Esmay,                   the owner of Dean’s World, 
[2]                    where I blog occasionally as part of a group,                   has often commented that politics and science                   don’t mix. While I haven’t been in the                   field of research myself, it’s fairly                   well-known that going after grants and funding has                   become a difficult process, often fraught with                   politics and cronyism.
                                      What feminism is supposed to be about is the                   definition provided by Merriam-Webster.
                                      1 : the theory of the political, economic, and                   social equality of the sexes
                                      2 : organized activity on behalf of women's                   rights and interests. This is a current popular                   definition, however, and has little to do with the                   goals of feminism, which has its roots not only in                   Marxist ideals, but also in anti-male hatred and a                   desire for power and control over society where it                   is most beneficial to feminists themselves.                   According to 
[3] Erin                   Pizzey: “There never was a feminist movement.                   A bunch of disenchanted women refused to support                   their left wing men who were fighting capitalism.                   They changed the goal posts and said capitalism was                   no longer the battle ground it was now 'Patriarchy'                   and declared war on all men and the                   family.”
                                      In the 1970s, and into the 1980s, feminism was                   still an emerging movement. Except for the halls of                   academia, which began to offer “women’s                   studies” courses, and a few academicians                   pushing “feminist law,” and                   “feminist psychology,” the general public                   had little interest in a movement that was so                   clearly designed to create antipathy between not                   only the sexes, but between career women and those                   choosing more-traditional paths for themselves.
                                      It was about the same time that the issue of                   partner abuse began to emerge as an issue on the                   public radar. In 1971, Erin Pizzey founded the                   first shelter for abused women in the UK. There                   were also a few shelters for women developing                   independently in various places in the US.
                                      This did not escape the attention of the zealots                   of the feminist faith and other opportunistic                   women. Surely there was profit and power to be                   gained in promoting this cause.
                                      According to the 
[4]                   Herstory of domestic violence, “In the 1970s                   ‘We will not be beaten’ becomes the                   mantra of women across the country organizing to                   end domestic violence. A grassroots organizing                   effort begins, transforming public consciousness                   and women's lives. The common belief within the                   movement is that women face brutality from their                   husbands and indifference from social                   institutions.”
A theory regarding abuse was formulated, relying                   almost entirely on feminist supposition and the                   input from self-identified abused women. There has                   never been any kind of formal research or                   investigation of the feminist theory of abuse; it                   has simply been presented as a fait accompli and                   seldom, if ever, questioned. A look through the                   “Herstory,” (on the Minnesota Center                   Against Violence and Abuse website, funded by your                   tax dollars) reveals a stunning lack of mention of                   research of any kind behind the feminist concept of                   domestic violence.
                                      Del Martin 
[5] a                   lesbian activist, wrote one of the earliest works                   on the issue in 1976. She says, “At the outset                   I was told I had to produce extensive and                   verifiable statistics on the incidence of violence                   against women…I concluded that incidence and                   incidents of violence in the home reached into the                   millions. My editor deleted my estimate on the                   grounds that I couldn’t prove it. Since then,                   academia has confirmed my virtual estimate and                   admitted that lacking uniformity in the way data                   are accumulated makes it impossible to provide                   actual statistics.”
Lenore Walker 
[6]                   author of "The Battered Woman" “When I first                   began my study of the psychological impact of                   domestic violence on the battered woman, it was the                   mid 1970s and the feminist movement had a negative                   reaction to anything that came with a clinical                   psychology label…”
                                      Ellen Pence Duluth 
[7]                   Domestic Abuse Intervention Project “Many                   things that we did were new and groundbreaking. We                   introduced the power and control wheel and its                   accompanying theoretical framework, which tried to                   shift away from seeing violence against women as                   the problem of a few psychologically distorted men                   and lots of bad marriages, by linking men’s                   violence toward their partners to other forms of                   domination—class, race, gender, and                   colonization. We built on the work of previous                   projects that held individual agencies responsible                   to protect women and proposed a fairly bold notion                   of linking agencies together and forming a                   community-based advocacy program.”
                                      This is probably the most astonishing fact of                   Abusegate: While Climategate has at least some                   basis in research and scientific theory, there is                   none whatsoever behind the myriad programs and laws                   established since the 1970s by the so-called,                   “Battered Women’s Movement.” Even                   the term itself was created for its impact by                   feminists whose goals had very little to do with                   providing aid for women.
                                      As radical activist Susan Schecter 
[8]                   said, "I believe it is most urgent for this                   movement's future to declare that violence against                   women is a political problem, a question of power                   and domination, and not an individual,                   pathological, or deviant one. Continuing to make                   violence against women public is itself a crucial                   continuing task. We also must become a movement led                   by battered women, women of color, and working                   class women. We must develop a progressive agenda,                   a long range vision of what kind of society is                   needed so that violence against women would not                   exist, and to ally with groups sharing a vision of                   a just society" This statement appears on the main                   page of the website for the West Virginia Coalition                   Against Domestic Violence, 
[9]                   also funded by your tax dollars.
                                      Since the early days of the Battered                   Women’s Movement, nearly everything that has                   come after has been based on feminist principles                   devised out of thin air. Even today, in the US                   there is no standard definition of what domestic                   violence is or is not. Yet thousands of men are                   incarcerated, families destroyed, and women and                   children thrown into a permanent condition of life                   in turmoil because of nothing but the aberrant                   personal beliefs of a few women a generation                   ago.
While the feminists of the 20th Century are                   dying off or retiring, their ugly legacy of                   opportunism remains. Legions of divorce lawyers,                   shelter advocates, and organizations providing                   feminist education all benefit from the                   multi-billion dollar industry that now forms the                   basis of society’s approach to partner                   abuse.
The real tragedy of Abusegate is that victims of                   genuine partner abuse are still left without hope                   and support. They have been doubly victimized by a                   society that has been too willing to accept answers                   without first considering the problem.
[/SIZE]
http://www.federalobserver.com/2010/01/24/schuett-abusegate-a-generation-deceived/