Now we're ready for some serious, issues-oriented campaigning.
As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Biden soon will be proposing a treaty that would place all U.S. domestic policy under the scrutiny of a United Nations oversight committee.
The treaty goes by the innocent-sounding name, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women – CEDAW for short -- and presents itself as an international "bill of rights" for women. Who could possibly be against that?
A report from the International Women's Rights Action Watch revealed far more than it intended: "the CEDAW Convention [emphasizes that] the measure of a state's action to secure the human rights of women and men needs to ensure equality of results [these three words in bold] . . . Thus, the state is obligated to show results, not just stop at frameworks of equality that are strong on paper."
In other words, complementary and mutually-respectful roles of men and women would be phased out in favor of the gender-less society. Scary, but that's what they really want.
But there's a sticking point to this utopian design. Motherhood has a funny way of discouraging women from putting in 60-hour work weeks, doing long-haul truck runs, and trying to scale the corporate ladder.
Feminists understand that, so their solution is to break up marriages (all the harder for women to get pregnant). And at the sign of the first playful tug, CEDAW advocates would cart the woman off to her neighborhood abortionist.
Promoting abortions may seem easy, but breaking up the family, the foundational unit of society, is not. So feminists have seized on the issue of "domestic violence" – and that's where I-VAWA comes in.
I-VAWA stands for the International Violence Against Women Act. By now you have probably guessed that Senator Joe Biden is planning to introduce this bill, as well. And who in their right mind could oppose a bill with that name?
Experience shows that domestic violence programs have a lot more to do with breaking up families than curbing partner abuse.
According to the latest report from the Department of Justice, only 2% of domestic violence incidents involve married couples in an intact relationship. But to weaken the bonds of holy matrimony, the Purveyors of Pink Paranoia must convince women that their husbands are actually closet batterers.
Case in point is Claudia Garcia-Moreno, director of the WHO Multi-Country Study on Women's Health, who made this startling claim: "We found that women's greatest risk of violence is from a partner."
Not so fast, Ms. Garcia-Moreno -- time to bring in the Truth Squad.
According to the landmark World Health Organization's Report on Violence and Health, half a million women die each year from intentional violence. But when you work through the numbers, only about 13% of those deaths involved homicides committed by husbands or boyfriends.
So right there Garcia-Moreno is way off the mark. But the WHO logic gets even more loony.
Because you have to realize that the WHO defines "violence" far more broadly than you or I could ever imagine. The WHO claims with a straight face that violence includes "those acts that result from a power relationship" that includes all types of "psychological abuse."
And we know those all-powerful patriarchs constantly lord it over their downtrodden wives and girlfriends. Which basically means all male-female relationships are abusive.
So if your wife got inspired to do a little Janet Jackson number during Sunday's Super Bowl and, heaven forbid you told her to lay off -- fella, you just committed domestic violence!
Once women begin to view everything through the prism of gender, power, and abuse, it's no surprise that they look to the Nanny State as a substitute husband.