It had to happen, and now it has – a female academic has finally decided to do literally what her kind have been doing symbolically for decades by shooting up a university.

Amy Bishop turned up at a faculty meeting at the University of Alabama this past Friday, pulled out a 9mm handgun and killed everyone she could get her deranged mitts on. Three people were slain, three were wounded, and if the Alabama authorities fail to notice the murderous neurologist’s gazongas, she may get a one way ticket to a nice cozy hole in the ground courtesy of the Alabama penal system.

Speculation is rife that the shooting was motivated by Bishop having been denied tenure last year, but given that this is the same Amy Bishop who shot her brother dead back in the eighties , and that in the early nineties she was a suspect in a letter bomb plot against a man she had a professional clash with, what we may have here is yet another Natural Born GynoBeast just looking for an excuse to let her inner woman out of the patriarchal cage.

In the 1986 killing of her brother, which took place in her home state of Massachusetts, Bishop was in the process of being booked when the police chief at the time had the process stopped and ordered his subordinates to free her into the custody of her mommy, who purely by coincidence just happened to be a public official who had frequent dealings with the police force! Equally coincidental is the disappearance of the case file on the 1986 incident! Damn them space aliens – anally probing kidnappees and mutilating cattle isn’t enough, now they’re stealing police records as well!

As our trigger-happy moral superior was led away after her latest escapade, she was heard to blither…

“It didn’t happen. There’s no way. They’re still alive.”

Ah, so that’s going to be her defense – she thought the gun was loaded with blanks!

More here.

In this disgusting little document from the UN’s  Division for the Advancement of Women , a disgusting little woman called Elaine Enarson gives us all a peek into why things like the UN’s relief programs in Haiti are geared towards helping women. Gone are the claims that the gals are given precedence because that way everyone gets a share, and in their place stands the ugly truth – and as we all suspected, it is indeed  about a feminist agenda.

In a summary of the week’s events for a 2001 meeting of “experts” on “Environmental management and the mitigation of natural disasters: a gender perspective” Enarson tells us that…

“Participants this week were guardedly optimistic (at best!) about the potential for significantly disrupting and transforming gender relations following natural disasters.”

Amazing –  this is about natural disasters, yet the emphasis seems to be not on rebuilding the affected communities but rather on affecting some kind of feminist revolution!

Enarson then outlines successful examples of this strategy, including this one from India…

“Disasters can be great liberators!! (Yeah, shame about all the dead people though ) While witnessing a very vocal meeting of rural women in village Srirampur, Orissa, about a year and a half after the cyclone of 1999, I was informed by the NGO there (Church’s Auxiliary for Social Action) that before the cyclone, women would rarely come out and interact on social issues, let alone interact with outsiders. This changed after the cyclone, because relief packages of most NGOs, and even the government, were targeted at, or through, women. That phase really empowered them, made them amenable to interacting on social issues, and also increased their self-esteem and their status within their families and society!“

And even though Enarson and friends do give us some caveats as regards the woman-focused approach, said warnings focus not on men starving in the streets, but rather on pointing out that  La Revolucion may entail some negatives for the Important Sex, as in the case of  Nicaraguan men being put to work building houses which were then given over to the women! Not only that, but the men were paid for their work with food aid (wonder if the women had to work for theirs? Let’s guess,) but the “payment” was given to the women! Ain’t that great? You sweat all day in the sun building a new house, then not only do they give the house to the wife, they also give her your paycheck! Apparently, as long as leeches like the UN are around, a man doesn’t even have to get a divorce to lose his house! Much to the surprise of our feminist Maos, many of the men reacted by leaving their small communities for fairer conditions in the big cities – gee, those selfish male bastards…

Oh, and here’s an unexpected bit of info…

“As I began a project rebuilding houses for families affected by Hurricane Mitch I worked primarily with women. . . I had spoken to the American Red Cross and Save the Children USA, who had told me that they were putting their houses in the name of the women. They were also, like WFP, giving food assistance directly to women. . . “

So I guess it isn’t just the UN, it’s a bunch of other bastards as well! And that’s just the ones she tells us about, I wonder how many other supposed charities are just fronts for feminist activism?

And just in case you were wondering what kind of  people the UN considers experts on who should live or die, it’s quite a diverse group, consisting as it does almost exclusively of  left-leaning feminist women…

So there you have it. No more pretense about helping the women to help everyone else, Enarson’s summary makes it clear that a huge part of all this is not about helping people in need but rather about further feathering the female nest worldwide. It amazes me that an Assistant Professor should be stupid enough to actually admit these things on the Internet, but that’s affirmative action for you!

The rest of the filthy thing is here.

The bastards at the United Nations World Food Programme are  openly acknowledging that  in the devastated Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince,  their relief workers are  handing out food to women, and only women !

These champions of the needy are seeing to it that only members of the Sacred Sex  are being given the coupons that allow them to collect a 55 pound (25 kilogram) bag of rice, the implied excuse being, as it often is with anti-male initiatives, that it’s all about the kiddies!

UN Muppet Markus Prior  told CNN that…

“Our long experience in food distribution tells us that by delivering food into the hands of women, it is more likely to be redistributed equitably among the household — including the men,”

So supposedly, giving women the rice will see to it that everyone in the family gets a fair share, because as we all know women are pure and loving creatures who are incapable of things like selfishness or greed! This excuse is not only immoral in that it ignores many of the needy, but is also logically untenable  – if concern for the families was the true motive, the United Nations World Food Programme would put the word out that, man or woman, if you bring some kiddies with you and they aren’t looking up at you as if they’re thinking “Who the hell is this fucker?” then we give you the bag of rice!  In truth,  even that would be grossly callous, after all there are plenty of single people in Haiti, not to mention parents who have lost all their children, but at least it would be a gender-neutral callousness, which probably explains why it isn’t happening.

Unless these UN clowns are as stupid as they are corrupt, I can only assume that this is yet another excuse for the UN to help only the Important Sex, after all these are the misandrist bastards who set up UNIFEM but no male equivalent, and who have feminist nutters like Nicole Kidman telling  Republican baby-kissers that Hollywood encourages violence against women, so what else can we expect?

More on this U.N sanctioned act of hatred here.

The guy in the photo is Rico Dibrivell, who was pulled out of the rubble 14 days after the earthquake – now all he has to do is not starve to death.

SAMHSA, which is an agency of the U.S Department of Health and Human Services, has come up with a report that confirms what many in the MRM have long been arguing – the little girlies are  becoming increasingly violent.

According to the National Survey on Drug Use & Health…

Almost 19% of adolescent females got into a serious fight in the year previous to taking part on the research…

About 14 percent of girls took part in acts of group-against-group violence (that one surprised even me)…

Almost 6% of girls attacked someone with “the intent to seriously hurt them”…

and almost 27% of the girlies have committed at least one of these offences in the 12 months leading up to the survey.

Those figures are in themselves rather damming, but even more telling is that even though the figures for violence amongst boys are worse, they are so only by a relatively small margin…

Rounding the figures up or down to the nearest whole number, they boil down to this …

Serious fights, 19 % of girls, 25% of boys.

Group violence, 14 % of girls, 17 % of boys

Intent to cause serious harm, 6% of girls, 9% of boys

Engaging in at least one of these, 27% of girls, 34 % of boys.

The most significant difference here is in the intent to cause damage, with twice as many boys as girls. But hey, boys don’t get twice as many encouragements to be violent as girls do, they get a dozen times more; the girls get Buffy and Xena, the boys get everything else, not to mention that the boys get more opposite sex approval for being violent than the girls do.

Even though the report doesn’t mention figures from that long ago, these numbers are a very significant increase on what we saw in the eighties amongst girls, and the only thing I can think of that has changed since then is the portrayal of female violence as being cool – very few parents are telling their kids, regardless of sex, to be violent, and female DNA hasn’t changed in just one generation!

The media has a huge impact on people, especially the young and stupid, and here in Aus we have an example of this  that you guys in America don’t – we have wiggers without having the n***ers! I kid you not, there are thousands of kids in western Sydney dressing and talking like black Americans, without having ever lived amongst them! In the US this phenomenon is often speciously explained as the result of everyday contact with black people, but over here it’s all the media baby, no two ways about it – ain’t none of these kids spent a few weeks living in South Central!

Report here