|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 03:59 PM March 1st, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
She also comments: "Since 1990, women and children constitute most of the deaths in war zones. Boys were brutalized and forced to become soldiers, while too many women and girls were too ashamed to complain," she said.
After mentioning the fact that boys were being pressed into military service she ignores it completely and talks about girls being ashamed to complain... about what? About that fact?
She is a classic feminist: men/boys have no interests worth defending, while women/gilrs do, at all times and for any reasons. "All for woman." She has no business being in the UN in any capacity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:15 PM March 1st, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Don't they mean civilian deaths? And if so, why are the men-forced-to-fight somehow less innocent, or less worthy of mention, than the civilian women?
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Gregory on 11:46 PM March 1st, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
"Since 1990, women and children constitute most of the deaths in war zones."
I don't believe that to be true, and I'd ask her to provide documentation for that claim. Based on what I've read, whether it's the Balkans, Afghanistan, Rwanda, or Sudan, it's mostly males (adults and children) who are killed, tortured and maimed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by ArtflDgr on 11:26 AM March 2nd, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
the stat IS about civilian deaths...
its actually a very stupid stat.. given that the men are conscripted they are not their to get killed... and so women and children would be the only soft targets around.
they ignore that conscripted troops are also victims (because they are male? maybe, or maybe because they get paid to be victims). a posse commitatus is not the same as a standing army.
then when reading this it really dawned on me about the boys and such. we have a real case for a world creating schizo boys... why? here is what i noticed...
In the feminist camps children are somewhat genderless (bear with me a moment).. of course they arent genderless if there is a specific point to be made, but in general they are referred to as "the children". what you have then is a boy being raised with many of the privilidges that women retain through adulthood. but at some sudden arbitrary time they are now no longer PART of that family, they are the outside oppressive male.. talk about schizo...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Gregory on 03:23 PM March 2nd, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Even if you look solely at civilian deaths in the violence that took place in Rwanda and the Balkans during the 1990s, the people most likely to be murdered in ethnic cleansing were males. I believe this is documented in a book titled "Gendercide and Genocide" by Adam Jones. And I don't doubt that the same situation occurred in the violence in Indonesia, Sudan, Afghanistan and other trouble spots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by LSBeene on 05:49 PM March 1st, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
It truly makes me want to projectile vomit when I hear about how screwed up UNICEF has become under Belamy's feminist utopian rule.
Women (ummm, they're not children, are they?) and "girl children" are the emphasis.
Boys (ummm, they are children, aren't they?) are just an "also mention".
What is WRONG with this woman. Where is her greater nurturing instinct?! Does she have boys? Imagine if she does what kind of self-image these boys are growing up with hearing "mom" talk like this.
Honestly, I just don't get how you can be in charge of a CHILDREN's organization and be so callous.
Steven
Guerrilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mens_issues on 08:33 PM March 1st, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Remember the war between Iran and Iraq in the 1980s? I recall reading that Iran drafted young boys into this futile war which killed about a million people (mostly males). Apparently the Ayatollah Khomeini issued charms for these boys to wear around their neck saying something like "I guarantee entry to paradise if you die fighting for Iran."
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:49 PM March 1st, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
A quick visit to the UNICEF web site produced this bio of Ms. Bellamy.
Notice how there's absolutely no mention that she's a rabid feminist... or of UNICEF's actual agenda...
This is a well-practiced feminist tactic .... camouflage the actual agenda with lies by omission.
(Site text follows) --
"Executive Director of the United Nations Children's Fund since 1995, Carol Bellamy is a respected voice in the international community.
Now completing her tenth year at the helm of UNICEF, Ms. Bellamy has focused the world's leading children's organization on five major priorities: immunizing every child; getting all girls and boys into school, and getting all schools to offer quality basic education; reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS and its impact on young people; fighting for the protection of children from violence and exploitation; and introducing early childhood programs in every country.
Under Ms. Bellamy's leadership UNICEF has become a champion of global investment in children, arguing that efforts to reduce poverty and build a more secure world can only be successful if they ensure that children have an opportunity to grow to adulthood in health, peace and dignity. She has challenged leaders from all walks of life to recognize their moral, social, and economic responsibility to invest in children - and to shift national resources accordingly. She encouraged the General Assembly to allow children to take part in the UN Special Session on Children in May 2002, and hundreds did, meeting directly with Heads of State to discuss the issues affecting their lives. The ground-breaking summit adopted new global goals for children and provided world leaders with ideas and inspiration for achieving them. (A complete overview is available at www.unicef.org/specialsession.)
Ms. Bellamy has visited more than 100 countries, advocating for children and women with heads of state, cultural icons, corporate leaders, rebel commanders, and many others.
Trained in corporate law and finance and deeply committed to global peace and development, Ms. Bellamy has brought a compassionate yet pragmatic ethic to improving the lives of children. Her first two years at UNICEF were devoted to streamlining operations, cutting costs, and giving UNICEF's 160 country offices more flexibility to respond to local needs. She also focused UNICEF on helping countries improve their data gathering so that global goals set for children in 1990 could be monitored effectively. The results of that successful effort can be found in UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's 2001 report, "We The Children," perhaps the most comprehensive picture of the global child ever assembled.
Prior to joining UNICEF, Ms. Bellamy was Director of the United States Peace Corps. Having served as a Peace Corps volunteer in Guatemala from 1963 to 1965, she was the first former volunteer to run the organization, which works in more than 90 countries.
Ms. Bellamy has had a distinguished career in the private sector. She was a Managing Director of Bear Stearns & Co. from 1990 to 1993, and a Principal at Morgan Stanley and Co. from 1986 to 1990. Between 1968 and 1971 she was an associate at Cravath, Swaine and Moore.
Ms. Bellamy also spent 13 years as an elected public official, including five years in the New York State Senate (1973-1977). In 1978, she became the first woman to be elected President of the New York City Council, a position she held until 1985.
Ms. Bellamy earned her law degree from New York University in 1968. She is a former Fellow of the Institute of Politics at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, and an honorary member of Phi Alpha Alpha, the U.S. National Honor Society for Accomplishment and Scholarship in Public Affairs and Administration. Ms. Bellamy graduated from Gettysburg College in 1963. She was born and raised in the New York area. She is a Mets fan."
http://www.unicef.org/people/people_10838.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:08 PM March 1st, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
No mention of a husband or children. Is this because they don't mean anything to her? Maybe she's a lesbian and doesn't want to mention her girlfriend?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Kyo on 03:13 AM March 2nd, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
She was born and raised in the New York area. She is a Mets fan."
And here I am wearing a John Franco jersey. Maybe I should remove it!
Seriously, though, why does Ms. Bellamy feel the need to word her desire as "getting all girls and boys into school" (about 1/4 of the way down)? Isn't "getting all children into school" more concise and accurate? If I were an editor, I'd ask why she doesn't phrase it this way. Or is getting girls into school the real goal, with boys tacked on as an afterthought?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Greystoke on 06:14 AM March 2nd, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
... that most people ARE women or children. It always strikes me as odd when some airhead journalist complains that most of the people in some refugee camp are women or children. Most of the people in my home town are women or children, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:09 AM March 2nd, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose it's a statistic game. Most people are men or children, too. If you had the percentage of men with the percentage of children, it's bound to be more than the percentage of women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Greystoke on 04:51 AM March 3rd, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
That's exactly what it is. You take half of humanity, and add some of the other half, you end up with a majority. What irks me is that this "mostly women and children" thing is thrown around as if it meant something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:34 PM March 3rd, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Let's start a game:
"The number of women and lepers with leprosy is large."
"The number of women and blind people with visual impairment is significant."
"The number of women and dead people who are dead is great. Save women from dying!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by ArtflDgr on 12:14 PM March 2nd, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Since 1990, women and children constitute most of the deaths in war zones. Boys were brutalized and forced to become soldiers, while too many women and girls were too ashamed to complain, she said.
The article is rife with stuff, but it was this sentence that caught me for more reasons than it seemed to catch everyone else here… most focused on the first part. Which may be true if we are referring to civilians in countries with conscripted troops no one else left at home to kill except women, children, elderly – but given that many accept up to 65 and as young as 12 for troops, what’s left is overwhelmingly female.
It was the second sentence that got me. All kinds of things welled up in me. I especially wondered if she ever saw history films of troop conscriptions… the women DO complain, and sometimes get killed or a gun butt for a reply. The feminists have finally painted the floor enough to know that their machinations are coming around to bite them and make them less effective.
What I mean here is that womens studies have re-written history to herstory. In that much of the constructs are deconstructed and whats left is a model that has removed the forces that created the model, and replaced those forces with rhetoric.
So now a leader of a huge non profit organization actually thinks that womens power comes from nagging and complaining!!!!
Put another way… the funniest part is thinking that a woman complaining to a soldier conscripting her husband and sons would actually have an effect!!!!!
“We are willing/told/forced to come to your home, or street, or path, armed to the teeth to force a bunch of men to come and fight with weapons we will give them.”
“oh. Wait… a woman doesn’t think its right. She needs her husband home to help with the dishes… and the conscription trucks dumps its passengers, says their sorry, and lets the men go home”
The woman (and other women) don’t listen to themselves with any depth.
Here is the punchline!!!!
feminists forget that without a fully formed patriarchial police system supported by a government protecting freedoms their complaints would mean DIDDLY!!!!!!!!!!
This is the real reason emancipation could not occur two hundred years and more ago…
All this shows a consistent lack of understanding in how the real world works, and by the real world I mean the whole thing with its reality of no rules. In a well structured bubble we call society things are different in the fish bowl (there is always the keeper of the city in the bottle). However when you are talking about the world a whole all those agreements that keep us cohesive have no place other than politeness. We act civilly as nations because its in our interest to and the alternative is quite painful.
Wars don’t happen because men are acting like children. Wars happen because the force that keeps us civil most of the time is not strong enough to keep us civil all of the time. There is too much at stake. A zero sum game. (women seem to excel at games where its not zero sum, where a continued relationship is valued. In war, I kill you, end of relationship, no reason to play it close.)
What women like this forget is that outside a nation there is no daddy government or police to cry to. There is no higher force to appeal to. Ethics, morals, compassion, etc, don’t mean sh*t when you are dead!!!! Which is why they have little place in war, a situation where the winner gets to do what they want literally (and to the extreme if they so choose – care to ride my new train to the far suburbs my comrade? One should not hold ones breathe for the world to force combatants to be nice).
ArtflDgr
People say “war is hell” as if they are saying something clever by stating the obvious. The quote was not about how horrible war is and that it should be stopped (intelligent people who have any experience with toughs know that war is inevitable – whether external or internal – its what happens when two sides won't back down because they would rather not exist than give in).
It was a quote that was to express that war is what it is and you cant expect anything else. This becomes evident when the WHOLE quote is said…
“War is hell, and I intend to make it so!” – William Tecumseh Sherman
And if war is what it is and you can’t expect anything else, and you start one with me, then I will make it what it is!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dan the man on 06:19 AM March 4th, 2005 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carol Bellamy comments: "Since 1990, women and children constitute most of the deaths in war zones. Boys were brutalized and forced to become soldiers, while too many women and girls were too ashamed to complain," she said.
The usual claim is that women and children constitute most of the victims in war zones. I have seen this for quite a few years now. I have tried to track down this claim and the closest I could get was a study which found that the large majority (I believe it was about 80%) of people living in refugee camps were women and children. No explanation of what happened to all the missing men was given. I suppose that they could all be vacationing on the French Riviera, but check out www.gendercide.org for a more likely explanation.
Anyway, if one takes the view that everyone in a war zone is victimized in some way (which I believe to be true) then the statement that "women and children constitute most of the victims in war zones" is true. Of course, one could just as well say that "men and children constitute most of the victims in war zones." Why one would want to make either of these statements, and why one of them is commonly stated while the other never is says a lot about the place of gender in the world today.
Now we have the majority of victims inflated to the majority of deaths. Expect to see it quoted this way from now on, despite the fact that there is no evidence to support it, and plenty of evidence to show that men make up the large majority of deaths in war, as they always have.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
