This seems harmless at first, but if you read between the lines it's the feminist agenda at work. In a disaster this size, they are giving preference to women (all women, not just mothers) and children, over fathers.
I feel bad for the fathers and single men of the country if they do not get enough aid. This policy makes sense to me though. Children are the most vulnerable and helpless. Women who receive aid, being smaller (on average) are more vulnerable to attacks or theft by gangs (who are mostly made up of men). That's why they need a safe place to receive aid. In third world countries, when materials and food are distributed, it can easily be stolen and used as a leverage to gain power or money by gangs or politcal thugs.
Also, I think "women and children first" resonates with the human psyche. If society is to survive a major disaster, it needs children (who are the future). Children come from women. The two go hand in hand (often quite literally.) :)
Fathers are so important in this world, don't get me wrong. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but women and children first still makes sense to me!
Of course it does, which is why they put it that way. You notice they aren't saying "families first" and mention that there are going to be widowers with children left behind (it's a natural disaster so I'm sure that some women died, as well). And note this part:
Women in general will be in need of "hygiene supplies, continued access to birth control/reproductive health services … [and] supplies for their children and other dependents," added Enarson
I don't know why they would need access to birth control!?!?!?
I must have missed that part.
How about food, water, and first aid supplies. Just about anything else they bring over there will be a waste of cargo space in my opinion...
ll probably both cop criticism over this, but i tend to agree with you.re not.
Some of these people want it both ways: when it suits them, men and women are identical, and when it suits them, they
"......continued access to birth control/reproductive health services."! Sin, sin, and more sin!
That publication must be a radical feminist outlet, though. Those links don`t say much for it. One link refers to Mary Daly. A NYT "article" refers to "Professor Daly", over and over, ad nauseum.
Yeah, it's feminist-controlled media. But very widespread and widely-read, that's why I bothered to link the article. A lot of their stuff tends to sound good at first reading but if you re-read it a few times you begin to understand what they're really getting at.
This part is especially enlightening:
Even beyond the initial emergency response, there lies a long road to recovery that holds other unique challenges for women and girls. They are "at increased risk of gender-based violence, especially domestic violence and rape but also forced marriage at earlier ages" due to their increased dependence on men for protection and support, says Enarson.
They're in it for the long-term. Gender-based violence is a catch-all feminist term for "we hate men and think marriage sucks". And why are they bringing up domestic violence and forced marriage during a national emergency?
Haiti definitely needs this right now. They really need to split up families and distribute birth control pills. These women need choices. We need to be pro-choice. We know that they're desperate and vulnerable now, so let's have at 'em!
You think they'd be ashamed to act like this during a natural disaster, but these people have no shame.
So why are we sending all that aid to Haiti to begin with instead of using it to help the poor here?
The answer is those people are in a dire situation and they need it more. It's the same reason why "women and children" are first. Men are perceived as being strong and capable of looking after themselves, whereas women and children, being weak, need protection.
I don't see what this has to do with feminism. It's the same mentality that has men go off to fight wars while trying to keep the women and the children safe at home.
Did you even read the article? They're not trying to help women and children. They're rushing over to provide abortions and birth control and break up intact families. Don't believe all the PC talk. You think "reproductive health" means hysterectomies? If so, then I'd like you to talk to my special friend, the Easter Bunny.
Another reason to make sure to only donate to CRS, as they're the only ones you can really trust not to do such stuff. Doctors Without Borders, UNICEF (both mentioned in the article), and USAID provide and/or promote abortions.
I was very sad when I learned (several years ago) that Dr Without Borders promotes abortion (morning after pill) in the case of any girl/woman who may have been raped or subject to violence. In the same way I was upset when Amnesty International decided to start supporting abortion.
I’ve heard this phrase on old TV shows from the 30’s. If there was any feminist influence on this, it perhaps came from the feminists of the early 1900’s. These were very different from the feminists of the 1960’s, and today. The feminists of the early 1900’s celebrated their femininity. They did not want to just sit at home while their husbands, fathers, brothers, and sons called all the shots on political issues, and they didn’t think it was ok for men to abuse women- they expected to be treated with the dignity that God gave them by creating woman as a companion- not a slave- to man. Many of these early feminists were faithful, devout Catholics. Women and children tend to be more physically vulnerable, so it is important to get them out of harm’s way as quickly as possible.
Did you even read the original article?