Amidst Haiti Disaster, Women’s Groups Seek to Deny Relief to Men

Such reasoning is barbaric.

Endless reasons for treating men and women differently when it's to the woman's advantage. Then screaming sexism if those same reasons are used to justify anything that doesn't provide feminist-prescribed "freedom and equality for women".

From a privilege and protection perspective, the very concept of equality of the sexes has been beaten into its grave. Anyone not practicing an adequate degree of chivalry is a misogynist.

Nauseating hypocrisy.

This feminist thinking is the guiding force behind all U.S. foreign relief and State Department policy-especially in regard to Afghanistan.

These same women & children have brothers, sons, fathers, and husbands. I'm sure they want the same level of care for all their loved ones. Also, keeping men healthy is a necessity considering they'll be the ones to rebuild Haiti via construction.

The writer of this blog is putting an opinionated spin on the situation that is not the accurate intent of these charitable organizations (no government money).

NOWHERE in the articles referred to did I read that they are suggesting that women deserve "more aid". NOWHERE did I read any reasons why "men should be left to die in the streets".

These are organizations that specialize in women's care and they are VULUNTEERING to help out in the way that they are specialized in.

I see this similar to a doctor that specializes testicular cancer that volunteers in poor countries. You would never suggest that he is "excluding" women or that he feels men need more care, or that he is leaving women to "die in the streets" from cancer while he gives men preferred treatment. No- you would just say this is a doctor doing what he can to help.

In this emergency situation I have heard that distribution of supplies and communication is the hardest hurdle of the relief effort. From a efficiency standpoint it makes sense to separate patients for a lot of different reasons. (broken bones in one camp, internal injuries in another, etc.)

It makes sense to me that they would put OB/GYN doctors at one camp and direct pregnant women to go there. And If the 'Kotex' corperation wanted to send female hygiene products to help with the relief effort and set up a designated spot to distribute them, that would be a helpful act.

All charitable organizations have a special interest and they have every right to be that way, they are not deliberately "excluding" anyone. Children's charities are not "anti-adult".

It is really nothing new. A natural disaster hits an area, world wide organizations move in coddling the women, and training them. Leave the men to fend for themselves for the most part, and they will gravitate towards the women eventually. Psychology as usual, control as usual, the only difference today is that more people realize what is being done to them.

David A. DeLong

It's simple: They will use any convoluted reasoning or excuse to promote women and discriminate against men. No different than white supremacism or rampant nationalism (NAZIs).

True. But they are clearly not pro-adult either.

The same thing is happening here as has happened with schools becoming "pro-girl but not anti-boy". In such cases as these, the spin such advocates put on this fails to acknowledge a zero-sum game dynamic is indeed at work here. A limited amt. of benefits and resources exist to some end. By being pro one class of things or people you are implicitly, intended or not, anti some other. It makes no difference to the person or interests who/which has/have been shorted the same access to resources or opportunities that the intention to do harm was not present in the process; the result is the same.

Short version: When was the last time you hard about disaster relief focusing on the needs of men, but gee, not to say we won 't also try to help women when we come across them? Answer: Never.

Stick with MANN, Kris, we'll eventually get you there. :)

Following is a sampling of some of the coded messages packed into just the last two paragraphs of this little article. We've seen these in one form or another many, many times. Remember, repetition sells.

"unique challenges for women and girls" (men don't have unique challenges)

"They are "at increased risk of gender-based violence, especially domestic violence and rape" (it's the universal excuse)

"due to their increased dependence on men for protection and support" (translation: we need subsidies for women)

"there will also be scores of "newly disabled, widowed or homeless women" in need of help" (no men are in need of help)

"focusing on women during the recovery process is hopefully a means of helping all of Haiti's survivors" (no comment necessary)

BTW Kris, the article quotes UNICEF who has a powerful influence on UN policy (and are philosophically consistent with MADRE). They are not just a handful of volunteers "doing what they can".

The difference with schools is that they are ran by the government and are using public money to benefit females.

As far as charities go, I don't see anything wrong with having special interest. It is the nature of all charities.

I am focusing on the part about the special health care services to women. I am sure that many women were in the middle of pregnancy, birth or postpartum when the disaster hit. Child birth is part of female biology, nothing we can do about that, and unlike other gender specific medical needs, it is imminent and cannot be postponed as the life of a child is at stake. I am sure some men were in the middle of prostate care/surgery, testicular cancer treatments or other medical needs that only pertain to men when the disaster hit, but we are talking about a significant difference in the number of women vs men in need of gender specific care.

If a group of prostate/urologist doctors went over there and set up camp to treat all the men that were in the middle of such treatment, I would not care. And I would not suggest that they were "denying" females.

If these charities are denying services that would equally benefit men and would be easy to include both genders, then you have my complete support.

But for charities to offer female services (like child delivery, postpartum care) and services that don't even pertain to men, I do not have a problem with it, and I would not describe them as "leaving men to die on the streets" (that is a pretty harsh statement).

"I am focusing on the part about the special health care services to women. I am sure that many women were in the middle of pregnancy, birth or postpartum when the disaster hit. Child birth is part of female biology, nothing we can do about that, and unlike other gender specific medical needs, it is imminent and cannot be postponed as the life of a child is at stake."

But that is not what they are talking about, not in toto, anyway. Of course they would include women in that condition, but what they are saying is all else being equal, treat women/children first, then after they are treated, treat men. The typical military protocol for treating wounded is usually the nation's own first, allies second, enemy, last. So you can see how a gender feminist would adopt a similar approach if she views males as "the enemy". In contrast, the typical civilian protocol for EMS is treat the first found injured or sick and then release care only with their permission or if relieved by a person of equal or higher training, or by order of a competent authority. In cases of mass casualties/illness, then and only then use triage, and do so based on injury and likelihood of outcome, not on indelible characteristics like race or gender. That is standard EMS protocol in every country in the world that has an EMS system and it is the gold standard for ethical emergency care established after over 50 years of experience and work.

Look more critically at what these articles that stand to defend this kind of attitude say and how they say it. Health care for women having babies is complex, but so is health care for people needing limbs reattached. (At the moment though, everyone in Haiti regardless of sex needs food, water, shelter, and first aid. Alas I am pretty sure most won't get it even with huge amts. of $$ and attention/effort going their way.) I daresay the MDs going there to deal with people needing limbs reattached also probably know about delivering babies as well as something re neonatal care - becoming a surgeon does require you to go through all the basics first before you get to play with knives. (Humanity somehow got through well over 60,000 yrs. as a species w/out needing MDs with specialized OBGYN training and managed to build itself up to 6 billion strong.) Reattaching limbs however - well, for THAT you need some real specialized training. But as I said above, the focus ought to be on the fact that *everyone* down there, small and large, male and female, need a lot of basic stuff. ('Tis just my cynical/realistic side says it is unlikely nearly as many will be saved as we'd all like to see.)

So to finish... Kris, look at what you are defending here and why the people who are making this case are doing so. It's simply not defensible from any standpoint. This is just not a position you are going to "win" on here. But feel free to try, anyway. :)

Speaking of this lady, anyone who tries to genderize natural disaster is even more of a fruitcake that someone who does so for global warming.

Her page says she's been involved in DV organizations, so don't try to tell me she's not ideologically motivated; and her actions and program follow from there. - so, much of the above argument is moot.

I rest my case.

-ax

"distribution of supplies and communication is the hardest hurdle of the relief effort"

I agree, that's why they need to concentrate special relief effort on men - since they are the ones who drive the routes, lift the bales, and operate the radios.

-ax

is why such a group even exists at all. How many groups are there dedicated to focusing on helping primarily men and boys in such situations? Its the usual crap when it comes to those in need - benevolent men see people in trouble, feminists see only women and their property, ie children. The fact is that decent people would help those most in need, they would not give food to a woman who is kind of hungry rather than a man who is at death's door, and that's what these programs do, they help people based not on actual need but on gender.
----------------------
Rise, Rebel, Resist.

If a religious group started a 'help Christians' group, everyone would be up in arms. (that's just an example).

-ax

Kris said: "If a group of prostate/urologist doctors went over there and set up camp to treat all the men that were in the middle of such treatment, I would not care."

So Kris, what if they focused on people with autism but refused to help females with autism because most autistic people are male? You would have no problem with that?

And what it if it was not just some tiny little charity but something as HUGE as UNICEF, which is tied to the UN? And if you saw a pattern of this over and over with other charities too?

What if you saw a long HISTORY of this same thing happening to women, that is, UNICEF and the UN were constantly discriminating against women? They ignore male victims of DV, emphasize the "feminization of poverty" by looking at "household incomes" but ignoring homeless and incarcerated who are 80-94% male. They want to circumcise African boys to reduce HIV when they would NEVER do that to girls for any reason even the least intrusive form of female circumcision (which is equivalent to male circ - removal of the clitoral hood). The Forced Labour Act of 1930 banned slavery but exempted "able bodied males ages 18-45" (Article 11), and the UN never had a problem with it.

I think you would care. Just my opinion.

And please don't tell me they're not going to deny the aid to males. That's exactly the language in their ads so I have every reason to believe it. If it said "men and their children" there would be good reason to believe they don't give aid to women. In fact years ago someone from UNICEF suggested that aid to Africa only go to women. At that time there was enough internal opposition that it didn't happen. But it shows that it has been a ligering proposal within UNICEF all this time, and it looks like that's exactly what they want to do now.

I am not all that familiar with these charities and what kind of work they do (you guys seem to be alot more familiar with them). I read the article and took it to mean that they are providing services that only pertain to women such as pregnancy, labor and postpartum care and of course it mentioned female hygiene products. (Many labors will be life threatening without modern medicine and sanitary conditions)

In the examples you guys keep providing, you refer to general aid or supplies that would be beneficial to both men and women.

When my example was "prostate care" a condition that only effects men, Marc A. turned it around to "autism" a condition that effects BOTH men and women (although men at a much higher percent, but still both genders).

I do not want to see anyone excluded from receiving care.

I do have a lot more to say on this and Haiti, I will try and do so by tomorrow, but then I will be away at not able to respond for a few days.

But, I will end with what I have ALREADY SAID:

If these charities are denying services that would equally benefit men and would be easy to include both genders, then you have my complete support.

Kris is not gonna be around for a while. Let's make fun of her (he-hee!)

-ax