In a long-awaited decision, President Bush finally named tough-talking
John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. And not a day too
soon, as the U.N. General Assembly is set to reconvene in September.
The problems at the United Nations are legion: the Oil-for-Food scandal,
the sexual escapades of the U.N. peacekeepers, the laughingstock that
the Human Rights Commission has become, the U.N.'s utter failure to stem
the AIDS epidemic, and many others.
But there's another scandal that people are trying to keep under wraps
-- the fact that dozens of agencies and offices sprinkled throughout the
vast U.N. bureaucracy have become base camps for ideological feminism.
Feminists view every human issue through the lens of gender and power.
So whatever the problem -- poverty, disease, or a shortage of parking
spaces - the standard refrain of the Sisterhood is "Down with the
patriarchy!"
At the U.N., benign male-bashing has become distant memory. What now
passes as normal feminist discourse at the United Nations ranges from
outright gender prejudice to high-octane bigotry that resembles an
Andrea Dworkin rant.
The bias begins at the top. At a 2003 International Women's Day
observance, Louise Frechette issued
this
categorical imperative: "all
our work for development
-- from agriculture to health....must focus on the needs and priorities
of women." But not
men or children?
Ms. Frechette, by the way, is Deputy Secretary-General of the United
Nations and reports directly to Kofi Annan.
Carol Bellamy, former UNICEF director, once made a similar plea for
Africa: "Women are the lifeline of these southern African communities.
They put the food on the table, and they're the ones that keep families
going during such crises." As a consequence, according to the
UNICEF
press release, "Women and children must be at the center of response to
Southern Africa's humanitarian crisis."
Last December the UNAIDS published its report, Women and AIDS. It is not
possible to describe the gender vilification that oozes from this
document, but suffice it say that it reads like a master's thesis from a
Women's Studies program.
The U.N. refugee program issued the following plea on
its website: "The
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees...One million women and
children...homeless, hungry, helpless...Their only help is you."
Does that mean men are never homeless, hungry, and helpless? Or that
their plight simply deserves less sympathy?
When it comes to domestic violence, the U.N. subjects men to the most
pernicious stereotypes. It has been shown that
women are fully the equal
of men when it comes to partner aggression.
But the WHO report Violence and
Health dismisses
that fact with this disingenuous remark: "Where
violence by women occurs, it is more likely to be in the form of
self-defense."
More disturbing is the casual way that the U.N. regards the lives of
men.
In years past, the rallying cry for the World Health Organization was
"Health for All." But now, the WHO's goals have become
somewhat more
modest: "Make Every Mother and Child Count."
Should we now conclude the lives of men no longer count?
One WHO report offers
this
explanation why women outlive men in
countries around world: "as many societies have undergone economic and
industrial development, a variety of social and cultural factors have
combined to allow women's inherent biological advantage to emerge."
"Inherent biological advantage"? I thought a certain European war taught
us a lesson about the evil that lurks when persons make claims about
persons' inborn genetic advantages.
In 2000 the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution Number 1325 which
makes the claim,
never supported by hard numbers, that, "civilians,
particularly women and children, account for the vast majority of those
adversely affected by armed conflict."
Apparently the Security Council had forgotten about places like
Srebrenica, Afghanistan, Rwanda, Cambodia, and elsewhere where
millions
of innocent civilian men were specifically targeted for elimination.
The UNESCO
Universal
Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights advocates
that quality health care and essential medicines be provided "especially
for the health of women."
So why not quality health care and essential medicines for men?
Ignoring the life-and-death needs of men, categorically blaming males
for the woes of women, and claiming women are a biologically-superior
species - these are the hallmarks of a morally-bankrupt organization
that is destined to go the way of the League of Nations.
