UNICEF Pushes an Anti-Child Agenda

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

I
well recall that night as a seventh grader, I decided to forgo the
usual Halloween festivities. Instead, I went door-to-door toting
a small cardboard box, collecting spare change for UNICEF. I knew
the money was going for a good cause – to help disadvantaged
children around the world.

As
early as 1980, UNICEF director Jim Grant championed simple yet effective
programs to promote child welfare. These strategies included immunizations,
promotion of breastfeeding, and training birth attendants. Grant's
initiative has been credited with saving the lives of over 25 million
children.

But
in 1995, Grant tragically died, and radical feminist Carol Bellamy
took over. UNICEF was due for an ideological overhaul.

According
to a recent report
from the International Organizations Research Group
, radical
feminists began to argue that female autonomy and empowerment is
what really matters. As Mary Racelis, former UNICEF senior policy
advisor put it, these activists believed that the organization needed
"to focus on a woman's own priorities…rather than decide
for her that her children must come first."

Note
the false dichotomy in that statement. Apparently, feminists believed
that parenthood was incompatible with personal fulfillment.

There
is no evidence that sending mom off to work in a factory is good
for junior. In fact, research shows the opposite, that
children who spend time in day care centers are more likely to be
aggressive and disobedient
.

Some
UNICEF officials resisted this reconfiguration of family roles.
But feminists countered with a blitzkrieg of sexist allegations,
calling UNICEF a "male-dominated organization" that perpetuated
"male-defined stereotypes."

Even
breastfeeding came under fire. Feminists took issue with the UNICEF
breastfeeding campaign, denouncing the effort because it portrayed
women "as the human equivalent of milking cows."

Before
long, the name-calling and bovine hysteria-mongering took over.

Once
the new gender ideology became entrenched, Bellamy made Girls' Education
her number one priority. The 1998 UNICEF report Progress of Nations
gives this flimsy ideological justification: "Education can
also provide vocational skills, potentially increasing her economic
power, thus freeing her from dependence on her husband, father,
or brother."

Now,
UNICEF officials talk about the global "crisis" facing
girls' education. But throughout Latin America and the Caribbean,
boys lag behind girls in school enrollments. Apparently
this gender gap has escaped the attention of UNICEF officials
.

While
boys are merely neglected by current UNICEF programs, girls are
being subjected to an aggressive campaign to inculcate them with
radical feminist ideology.

According
to the IORG report,
UNICEF has set out to convince girls that being the primary caregiver
for children represents gender discrimination.

And
under the cover of stopping AIDS, UNICEF provides financial support
to organizations that promote sexual experimentation by teenage
girls. For example, one
UNICEF-supported website
asks this titillating question: "Hey,
you know that tingly feeling that makes you think of sex after you've
seen someone cute?"

Who
in their right mind believes that kind of message promotes abstinence
and sexual monogamy?

So
Carol Bellamy has not merely reshuffled UNICEF's priorities.

Rather,
Bellamy has put in place an anti-child agenda that:

  1. Promotes
    a redefinition of the family that is no longer child-centered,
  2. Advocates
    the neglect of the educational needs of boys, and
  3. Indoctrinates
    girls into radical feminist ideology.

So
this Fall, when trick-or-treaters come knocking at your door, ask
yourself this question: Why is the United States government bankrolling
UNICEF's anti-child agenda to the tune of $216 million?

August
18, 2003

Carey
Roberts [send him mail]
is a researcher and consultant who tracks gender bias in the mainstream
media.


        
        

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare
  • LRC Blog

  • LRC Podcasts