Home > Issues > International Organisations > State of the World’s Children 2006

The Black Ribbon Campaign

Empowering Men:

fighting feminist lies


State of the World’s Children 2006 (Gender)

International Pro-Male Association 2007

Home Page Articles about Issues 1000 links
alt.mens-rights FAQ Sex, Lies & Feminism Quotations
Male-Friendly Lawyers, Psychologists & Paralegals Email us ! Site-map


This is one of five letters written by the (now disbanded) International Pro-Male Association to international organisations. None of these letters was replied to or even acknowledged.

13 February 2007

Executive Director
3 United Nations Plaza
New York, New York 10017

Dear Ann M. Veneman,

Subject : State of the World’s Children 2006 (Gender)

A critique of the report

The gross anti-male sexism and incompetence that we have come to expect from United Nations agencies is manifest in Chapter 2 of your report on the State of the World’s Children 2006 (http://www.unicef.org/sowc06/pdfs/sowc06_chap2.pdf ). The misguided application of affirmative action (positive discrimination) is a form of corruption, resulting in incompetent women using their new-found power to build on and compound the anti-male discrimination which got them into power in the first place.

It is clear that UNICEF is not a professional or competent organisation. In a professional and competent organisation, issues would be approached and investigated with an open mind. By contrast, it is obvious that the authors of Chapter 2 had their conclusion (that girls are disadvantaged compared to boys) formulated well in advance of any preparatory work that they undertook. Indeed, feminism is all about assuming that women are disadvantaged in all possible ways, and then spending vast amounts of other people’s money building up evidence for this predetermined conclusion.

For example, your table Why children in the least developed countries risk missing out, on page 4, includes the following eight categories:

  1. Survival

  2. Nutrition

  3. Immunization

  4. Health care


  6. Education and gender parity

  7. Demographics

  8. Women

Right at the outset, it is grossly sexist, discriminatory, female supremacist and callous to exclude the category Men from this table. You obviously consider that men have no significant problems – but you have no reason to know this, because you have quite clearly not investigated men’s needs, issues and problems. We in the International Pro-Male Assocation are able to assume this with confidence, because it is a universal trait of feminism to base its claims of female disadvantage on a process which crucially depends on totally ignoring the needs, issues and problems of men.

Having ignored the category Men, you then proceed to include Gender (which is a misnomer for Sex) only when it is guaranteed to contribute to the predetermined image of girls and women as being relatively disadvantaged, compared to boys and men. Under the heading Education and gender parity, you include statistics broken down by sex, but you do not include breakdowns by sex under the other headings, such as Survival, and Demographics, where it is clear that boys and men would have shown up as disadvantaged relative to girls and women. Indeed, choosing the title Education and gender parity indicates a determination to find something to complain about in that area, whereas you could just as appropriately used headings such as Survival and gender parity and Demographics and gender parity.

In short, Chapter 2 of your report on the State of the World’s Children 2006 is largely a work of fiction, and the root cause of the exclusion of boys and men from the relative privilege enjoyed by girls and women is the determination of feminists in organisations such as UNICEF to use their power in a way that systematically ignores the needs, issues and problems of boys and men.

Our suggestions for change

Some method has to be found of eliminating this obviously endemic sexism and discriminatory bias against males that emanates from UNICEF. One method would be to dismiss any UNICEF worker who has/has had affiliations with feminist pressure-groups or has studied Women’s Studies at university. Another method would be to employ a substantial number of men with impeccable Men’s Rights credentials, in order to provide some ideological balance within UNICEF. It is doubtful that carrying out such changes only amongst headquarters staff would be sufficient: feminists are typically passionate about their anti-male beliefs, and leaving rank-and-file workers untouched by such a reform would merely set the scene for internal conflict within UNICEF between headquarters staff and other staff.

Yours faithfully,

Peter Zohrab
Secretary, IPMA


See also:




Peter Douglas Zohrab

Latest Update

25 April 2022