The Javelineer

The UN sets up women-only food lines in Haiti. Unbelievable.

Back in Haiti, people have started receiving coupons entitling each family to 55lbs of rice. The first distributions begin today, with only women allowed to collect rations. The World Food Programme said it would work to ensure men in need are not excluded. It aims to reach more than two million people in the next two weeks. So far, it has dealt with about 600,000 people, supplying more than 16m meals.

Let’s put these two phrases together: “only women [are] allowed to collect rations [... we] work to ensure men in need are not excluded.”

You can’t make this stuff up. They are trying to ensure men are included — by excluding them!

Aside from it’s obvious stupidity, the policy is particularly unfair. Haitian men do most of the dangerous rescue work. Men rescue women and children,  and those same men are denied food. It is the most blatant and deadly form of man-hatred I’ve ever encountered.

Look at the faces of hungry Haitian men, some exhausted from rescue work, denied food.

Are your fists balled into white-knuckled fists?

Here is a list of aid organizations that feed women and starve men. These estrogen-soaked organizations need to be taught a manly lesson. Uncurl your fists and start typing.

UNICEF, World Food Programme, Samaritan’s Purse, Catholic Relief Services, CARE, World Vision, ACTED, Save The Children, GOAL, and ADRA.

Our education system is in denial. mainly because most teachers are women, and women are in denial. Schools favor girls at the expense of boys. At university, the discrimination against men is staggering.

Boys get better grades at single-sex schools than when they’re in mixed-gender schools, where girls consistently outperform them, a recent New Zealand study shows [...]

For students attending single-sex secondary schools, there was a slight tendency for males to outperform females.

This is consistent with a slightly higher average IQ among men. Continuing,

For students attending co-educational schools, however, there was a clear tendency for girls to outperform boys, a pattern that continued when students were followed up to the age of 25.

When it’s only boys, the teachers get more out of the boys than out of the girls. When teachers instruct both girls and boys, the boys suffer and the girls benefit. Teachers are short-changing boys.

It’s part of the “you go girl” culture which turns impudence and insult into a feminine virtue. It is a kind of photo negative of polite society, where civility is weakness, and where trashing men is “liberation” instead of stupidity.

“I was in a class of nine- and 10-year-olds, girls and boys, and this young woman was telling these kids that the reason for wars was the innately violent nature of men.

“You could see the little girls, fat with complacency and conceit while the little boys sat there crumpled, apologising for their existence, thinking this was going to be the pattern of their lives.”

Lessing said the teacher tried to “catch my eye, thinking I would approve of this rubbish”.

She added: “This kind of thing is happening in schools all over the place and no one says a thing.

“It has become a kind of religion that you can’t criticise because then you become a traitor to the great cause, which I am not.

“It is time we began to ask who are these women who continually rubbish men. The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests.

“Men seem to be so cowed that they can’t fight back, and it is time they did.”

Indeed. We should start by eliminating unearned rewards given to girls in schools.

Christopher Hitchens thinks there’s something good about Leon Trotsky and Trotskyism. Why does Trotsky matter? Robert Service explains,

He’s one of the half dozen outstanding Marxist revolutionaries. He helps to make the October Revolution that brings the communists to power in 1917. He’s a leader of the Red Army that fights the civil war, and he’s the intellectual architect of a lot of aspects of Communism that get laid down in the 1920s and still have an impact in the 40s, 50s 60s to the present day.

Video here.

On balance, I think Trostsky was a very bad man, because he advocated very bad politics. Why should you care about Trotsky? After Trotsky’s assassination in Mexico, his followers, the Trotskyites, became the vanguard of Cultural Marxism. This virulent form of communism is the origin of political correctness, and it is the predominate politics advocated on American college campuses.

Cultural Marxism is still a threat. Linda Kimball explains the history and aims of cultural marxists.

Separately, two Marxist theorists-Antonio Gramsci of Italy and Georg Lukacs of Hungary-concluded that the Christianized West was the obstacle standing in the way of a communist new world order.  The West would have to be conquered first.

Gramsci posited that because Christianity had been dominant in the West for over 2000 years, not only was it fused with Western civilization, but it had corrupted the workers class.  The West would have to be de-Christianized, said Gramsci, by means of a “long march through the culture.”  Additionally, a new proletariat must be created.  In his “Prison Notebooks,” he suggested that the new proletariat be comprised of many criminals, women, and racial minorities.

The new battleground, reasoned Gramsci, must become the culture, starting with the traditional family and completely engulfing churches, schools, media, entertainment, civic organizations, literature, science, and history.  All of these things must be radically transformed and the social and cultural order gradually turned upside-down with the new proletariat placed in power at the top.

Cultural marxists aim at nothing less than total destruction of traditional Western culture. Feminism, an illogical and evil philosophy, has been one of the most successful cultural marxist movements. Feminists have convinced most people that Western civilization has been and is preoccupied with oppressing women. That is completely and totally false. But this is prerequisite belief for feminists to destroy the most successful social arrangement in human history: the traditional nuclear family.

Saul Alinsky was a prominent cultural marxist and former Trotskyite. He organized the Chicago political machine. He is an intellectual hero to Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama. Alinsky dedicated his book, Rules for Radicals, to Satan as the first Marxist revolutionary. Alinsky, Cloward and Piven, and other cultural marxists advocate a strategy to destroy Capitalism and individual liberty.

This strategy has already wreaked havoc.

Rathke acknowledges his support for the Cloward-Piven Strategy, an approach to radical social and political change articulated by Marxist university professors Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven in a 1966 Nation article, “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty.” The two academics called for “a massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls” in an effort to overwhelm the system. [Italics in original.]

The strategy helped to bankrupt New York City in 1975. Years later, the Big Apple’s mayor, Rudy Giuliani, denounced the academic activists by name.

The push for government control of insurance is undoubtedly the latest attempt to “overwhelm the system.” This precipitates another crisis a few years later. As Obama’s advisor Rahm Emanuel has said, “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Saul Alinsky couldn’t have said it better.

As you can see, Trotsky’s influence was wide, deep, and long-lasting. But it wasn’t good. Neither are his followers.

The ever interesting Christina Hoff Sommers writes in the The Weekly Standard,

A “man-cession.” That’s what some economists are starting to call it. Of the 5.7 million jobs Americans lost between December 2007 and May 2009, nearly 80 percent had been held by men. Mark Perry, an economist at the University of Michigan, characterizes the recession as a “downturn” for women but a “catastrophe” for men [...]

The National Organization for Women (NOW), the Feminist Majority, the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, and the National Women’s Law Center soon joined the battle against the supposedly sexist bailout of men’s jobs. At the suggestion of a staffer to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, NOW president Kim Gandy canvassed for a female equivalent of the “testosterone-laden ’shovel-ready’” terminology. (“Apron-ready” was broached but rejected.) Christina Romer, the highly regarded economist President Obama chose to chair his Council of Economic Advisers, would later say of her entrance on the political stage, “The very first email I got . . . was from a women’s group saying ‘We don’t want this stimulus package to just create jobs for burly men.’”

No matter that those burly men were the ones who had lost most of the jobs [...]

A Washington feminist establishment that celebrates the “happily-ever-after” story of its victory over burly men cannot represent the views and interests of many women. Those men are fathers, sons, brothers, husbands, and friends; if they are in serious trouble, so are the women who care about them and in many cases depend on them. But NOW and its sister organizations see the world differently. They see the workplace as a battlefront in a zero-sum struggle between men and women, where it is their job to side with women. Unless the Obama administration and Congress find the temerity to distance themselves from the new feminist lobby, the “man-cession” will deepen and further mischief will ensue.

If ever you thought that feminists were for equal rights, you must surely be disabused of it now.

Feminism is the ideology of female supremacy and female entitlement. Politically, it’s a powerful lobby to transfer wealth and rights from men to women, and to transfer duties and debts from women to men.

Rubbish.

(h/t Amy Alkon)