It’s been a little while since I’ve written about Blowey Zoe Quinn here onTheRalphRetort.com. My records show it to have last occurred all the way back on November 7th when I talked about the movie that is supposedly going to be made from her book. We’ll see if it ever gets made, but that’s not what I’m here to talk about. You see, Zoe is up to her old virtue signalling tricks once again, and this time, it could be putting people’s health in danger. I realize that’s not all that uncommon for her, given her penchant for putting strange penis in her radioactive cooch, but this time, she’s gone too far.
In case you haven’t seen it already, check out how she flouts her pollution of the national blood supply. What kind of person thinks it’s a good idea to advertise the fact that you lied in order to give blood? First off, you obviously should always tell the truth to the various blood banks regardless, but doesn’t she realize that this could help make impressionable people think it’s ok to lie about anything else as well? People still get sick and catch shit from polluted blood. Yes, it’s better than it has ever been, but that’s because of the screening process. Ya know, the same screening process that Filthy Five Guys Quinn has decided to take a big nasty shit on.
PHOENIX (KSAZ) – A valley woman says the body of a victim found by police on her couch was a “shrine from God.”
The Phoenix Police Department tells Fox 10 that 39-year-old Anitra Braxton has been charged with murder after police found the body of a woman on her couch inside her apartment on December 26.
Police responded to the apartment at 1515 W. Missouri Avenue after receiving reports of a dead African-American woman covered in a towel laying on the sofa. When officers arrived to the apartment, Braxton told police that no one was inside her apartment and that she lived alone.
However, noticed what appeared to be a body laying on the sofa. Braxton was then arrested and taken to police headquarters. Once police obtained a search warrant for the apartment, they found the body of a towel-covered woman on the couch. The victim had sustained a gunshot wound to the head.
While being questioned, Braxton told police the victim on the couch was a “shrine from God” and was actually her own body. She later told police that the victim had been shot in the eye for not believing in God.
Police also learned from Braxton that the body had been inside her apartment for two to three days and based on evidence, police believe the apartment had been cleaned up in the days since.
Braxton has been charged with first-degree murder and police have thus far been unable to identify the victim.
The investigation is ongoing.
Charles Murray (@charlesmurray on Twitter) co-authored with the late Richard Herrnstein one of the most controversial books of the 20th century, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (1994). When it was first published, the harsh criticism from liberals — who claimed the book was practically neo-Nazi propaganda — led me to believe that it really was a bad book.
Liberal propaganda works this way. If enough people tell you they seesmoke (sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.) you tend to assume that there must actually be some kind of hateful fire. So in 1994-95, after reading numerous reviews, articles and op-ed columns condemning The Bell Curve as crypto-racist pseudo-science, I just assumed the critics were correct. It wasn’t until 1996, when I made a dismissive remark about The Bell Curve in an Internet argument, that I found myself challenged: Had I actually read the book? So . . .
Charles Murray’s critics were not merely wrong, they were dishonest (because SJWs Always Lie, as Vox Day has recently explained). The recognition that I had been scammed, hoodwinked and bamboozled by liberal smears of The Bell Curve angered me. The first 125 pages of the book, which have nothing to do with the subject of race, are perhaps the most valuable part of The Bell Curve. Standardized testing and nationwide recruiting by elite universities have resulted in cognitive segregation, the creation of something very much like a caste system. The educational apparatus by which high-IQ children are tracked into “gifted” programs in elementary school and “honors” programs in high school, with the goal of sending every smart kid in the country to an elite university, has the effect of dissolving the social and cultural affinities between the elite caste and the vast majority of Americans. (At age 11, I was placed in an experimental “gifted” program, the first of its kind in our community. I hated it — a ridiculous waste of time, a burdensome “honor” conferring no actual benefit — and rebelled against the system, becoming a teenage hoodlum in middle school.) Once you get past page 125 of The Bell Curve, really, it is an attempt to explain why liberal policies have failed to eliminate socioeconomic disparities between racial and ethnic groups. If you keep in mind that the argument is about the efficacy of public policy — what the government is doing in our name, with our tax dollars — the accusations of “racism” directed at The Bell Curve must be recognized as an attempt to silence a cogent criticism of five decades of blundering, misguided wastefulness. “The Ivy League is decadent and depraved.” But I digress . . .
On Saturday, the Harvard-educated liberal snob Matthew Yglesias smeared Charles Murray by way of attacking Donald Trump, with the unintended consequence that a quote by Murray was called to my attention and, considering my own interest in radical feminism, I asked Murray via Twitter, “Did you ever tackle the ‘innate differences’ controversy that got Larry Summers fired at Harvard?” He replied with a link to an AEI paper he published in 2005, “The Inequality Taboo”:
The president of Harvard University offered a few mild, speculative, off-the-record remarks about innate differences between men and women in their aptitude for high-level science and mathematics, and was treated by Harvard’s faculty as if he were a crank. The typical news story portrayed the idea of innate sex differences as a renegade position that reputable scholars rejected. . . .
One such premise is that the distribution of innate abilities and propensities is the same across different groups. The statistical tests for uncovering job discrimination assume that men are not innately different from women, blacks from whites, older people from younger people, homosexuals from heterosexuals, Latinos from Anglos, in ways that can legitimately affect employment decisions. . . . Affirmative action in all its forms assumes there are no innate differences between any of the groups it seeks to help and everyone else. The assumption of no innate differences among groups suffuses American social policy. That assumption is wrong.
When the outcomes that these policies are supposed to produce fail to occur, with one group falling short, the fault for the discrepancy has been assigned to society. It continues to be assumed that better programs, better regulations, or the right court decisions can make the differences go away. That assumption is also wrong. . . .
Here we may interrupt to point out that the phrase “innate differences” refers to average differences between groups. Anyone who watches the NBA cannot help but notice that most of the players are black. This doesn’t mean, however, that there are no good white, Asian or Hispanic basketball players. Nor does it mean that all black people are good at basketball. Also, it does not mean that the NBA is engaging in discrimination. Whenever we see any disproportionate outcome that might be explained by average group differences, we must keep in mind that such differences do not tell us anything about any individual‘s potential, abilities or tendencies, and it is generally a mistake, in a free society, to leap to the conclusion that discrimination causes disparities in outcomes. (The Bell Curve carries many such disclaimers, by the way.) Now, we return to Charles Murray’s 2005 article:
The technical literature documenting sex differences and their biological basis grew surreptitiously during feminism’s heyday in the 1970’s and 1980’s. By the 1990’s, it had become so extensive that the bibliography in David Geary’s pioneering Male, Female (1998) ran to 53 pages. Currently, the best short account of the state of knowledge is Steven Pinker’s chapter on gender in The Blank Slate (2002). . . .
Regarding women, men, and babies, the technical literature is as unambiguous as everyday experience would lead one to suppose. As a rule, the experience of parenthood is more profoundly life-altering for women than for men. . . . Among humans, extensive empirical study has demonstrated that women are more attracted to children than are men, respond to them more intensely on an emotional level, and get more and different kinds of satisfactions from nurturing them. Many of these behavioral differences have been linked with biochemical differences between men and women.
Thus, for reasons embedded in the biochemistry and neurophysiology of being female, many women with the cognitive skills for achievement at the highest level also have something else they want to do in life: have a baby. In the arts and sciences, forty is the mean age at which peak accomplishment occurs, preceded by years of intense effort mastering the discipline in question. These areprecisely the years during which most women must bear children if they are to bear them at all.
Among women who have become mothers, the possibilities for high-level accomplishment in the arts and sciences shrink because, for innate reasons, the distractions of parenthood are greater. To put it in a way that most readers with children will recognize, a father can go to work and forget about his children for the whole day. Hardly any mother can do this, no matter how good her day-care arrangement or full-time nanny may be. My point is not that women must choose between a career and children, but thataccomplishment at the extremes commonly comes from a single-minded focus that leaves no room for anything but the task at hand.
You can read the whole thing, to which I wish to add this: It does not matter whether male-female differences, as they relate to parenting, are “innate” or “socially constructed.” Biological realities of pregnancy and nursing mean that women have a greater personal investment in parenthood. Without any resort to Darwinian explanations, there are numerous practical reasons why we should expect mothers to be more nurturing than men. Furthermore, we would also expect mothers to be more nurturing than women who avoid motherhood. Radical feminists scoff at any suggestion that women’s greater tendency toward nurturing is a matter of hard-wired neurological differences. Radical feminists deny that there is any such thing as “human nature” which could explain women’s behavior in terms of a “maternal instinct.” Radical feminists generally eschew motherhood and many of them abhor heterosexuality,per se. Women’s Studies textbooks assert that only social and cultural influences (e.g., “compulsory heterosexuality”) explain why most women desire husbands and babies. Because they have no “maternal instinct” nor any romantic or sexual interest in males, radical feminists seem to assume that other women are under the spell of some sort of patriarchal brainwashing: “Most Women Have to Be Coerced into Heterosexuality.”
Why is this abhorrence of men, marriage and motherhood so common among radical feminists? Because they are intellectuals — academics, authors and journalists — and their chosen careers force them into a competition against males that makes it impossible for them to view men as anything other than hostile antagonists. In the ruthless competition for tenure-track professorships, the ambitious female academic has every incentive to avoid the “distractions” of marriage and motherhood.
There is a reason why “lesbianism and feminism have been coterminous,”as Professor Bonnie Zimmerman said, and the disproportionate overrepresentation of lesbians on university faculties is surely not a coincidence. One of the most outspoken critics of Larry Summers in the 2005 “innate differences” controversy was a lesbian professor named Denice Denton, who committed suicide not long after she became chancellor of UC-Santa Cruz. The anti-male/anti heterosexual ideology of feminism (“Fear and Loathing of the Penis”) is pervasive in academia. One consequence is that college-educated women are encouraged to believe that motherhood is a task for which only stupid women are suited. No intelligent woman could possibly find pleasure in caring for small children, according to the anti-natalist fanatics who insist that motherhood is nothing but patriarchal oppression.
“I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding . . . time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness. . . . I don’t want a baby. . . . Nothing will make me want a baby. . . . This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion.”
— Amanda Marcotte, March 2014
Feminism is not only man-hating, but also baby-hating, and insofar as feminism is the official philosophy of women in academia, a major function of our higher education system is to discourage intelligent women from having children. This means that each subsequent generation of American children will have less intelligent mothers, and yet feminists seem unconcerned about the potential consequences of this dysgenic trend. The Census Bureau issued a report in April that demonstrated the scope of this problem:
Not a high school graduate
Lifetime births (average) ….. 2.6
Childless ………………………….. 11.6%
Lifetime births (average) ….. 1.8
Childless ………………………….. 19.9%
As I summarized this data, “High-school dropouts, on average, had 44% more children than women who had college diplomas. Childlessness was 72% more common for college graduates than for high-school dropouts.” What does this mean? The future will be an increasingly stupid place.
An electorate with more stupid voters is good for the Democrat Party, I guess, which may explain why feminists don’t give a damn about the emerging Idiocracy. Anything that helps Democrats is OK with Amanda Marcotte, but this trend that feminists have done so much to encourage should concern all Americans who have children and grandchildren.
Feminism stigmatizes motherhood. Feminists deny that the mother caring for her own children is doing valuable work. Feminism teaches that husband is a synonym for oppressor, and feminists proclaim that not only are fathers unnecessary to the well-being of children, but that fathers — like all other males — are a violent and terrifying menace.
“All women are prisoners and hostages to men’s world. Men’s world is like a vast prison or concentration camp for women. This isn’t a metaphor, it’s reality. Each man is a threat. We can’t escape men.”
— Radical Wind, August 2013
These are the ideas taught by Women’s Studies professors in our universities. Ideas Have Consequences, Richard Weaver observed, and we cannot safely ignore the consequences of feminist ideas.
My stake in America’s future is not merely a matter of rhetoric and ideology, but flesh and blood. “The personal is political,” after all.
The annual “Reviving the Islamic Spirit” (RIS) convention held at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre (December 25-27), is according the organizers “an attempt by the youth to help overcome new challenges of communication and integration.”
Its official Facebook page states the following:
“The convention aims to promote stronger ties within the North American Society through reviving the Islamic tradition of education, tolerance and introspection, and across cultural lines through points of commonality and respect.
“Furthermore, the convention will be a celebration of our identity and Islamic faith. To help attain these ideals, the convention will feature a wide range of voices from various parts of the world.
“The convention showcases Islamic leadership from across the globe sharing a common platform before the widest cross section of our community. This program hopes to empower the youth across North America and inspire a true revival.”
The Toronto State said that the “Toronto convention to focus on true message of Islam.”
CIJnews obtained a textbook called “Islamic Studies” by Husain A. Nuri and Mansur Ahamd (Level 10) that was being sold during RIS conference at one of the Islamic booths. The following are excerpts of the textbook:
“…her [the woman’s] legal liabilities are equal to man’s liabilities. If she commits an offence, her penalty is no less or no more than a man’s penalty i a similar case. For the crime of adultery, her punishment is 100 stripes, the same for a man…”
“The ayah [Quranic verse] instructs men not to marry idolatrous women…
“Islam allows a Muslim man to marry a Jewish or Christian woman…Islam has prohibited Muslim women from marrying non-Muslim men…
“While Islamic ethics advocates strict monogamy, Islam has allowed a Muslim man to marry up to four women. However, a Muslim man can have multiple wives only if is under certain obligations, and provided that he meets certain conditions.
“When Allah intended to create human beings, He mentioned them as khalifah. Evidently, the role of human beings as khalifah requires them to live up to the status of being true representatives of Allah…
“In fact, in the Quran the word khalifah is used in the sense of one who judges or rules in accordance with the command of God. in ayah [Quranic verse] 2:30, the word khalifah is used to mean the children of Adam (A) as well as all of mankind. In ayah 6:165 the word khalifah is applied to include all of mankind…
“In many Islamic writings, the word khalifah is understood as a political system. The title khalifah is used for the leader of the Islamic world. The leader has the right to adopt the divine rules, protect the religion, and rule the Islamic world. Thus all the leaders after Rasul [messanger] Muhammad (S) where political successors to Rasulullah [messenger of Allah] (S), therefore, known as khalifah. A Caliph or Khalifah is recognized as the Amir al-Mu’minin, or the Commander of the Faithful.
“This meaning of the term does not override the original sense applied during the creation of Adam (A). However, our purpose here is to see how the concept of the term applies to all of us and how each of us can be khalifah on earth…
“In the seventh century, Islam provided mankind the ideal code of human rights. These rights conferred honour and dignity to mankind and eliminated oppression, exploitation, intimidation, coercion and injustice. Allah is the ultimate provider of law and He is the source of all human rights. Establishing and upholding human rights is integral to overall Islamic order. Thus, it is obligatory for Muslim government and rulers to implement human rights in true Islamic spirit. Therefore, no ruler, government or king should curtail or violate the human rights conferred by Allah…
“According to many scholars of Islam to establish the institution of khilafa is fard al-ayan. It is a legal obligation that must be performed by each individual Muslim… According to some scholars, to establish the institution of khalifah is fard kifayah, or communal obligation. Although it is a duty for each individual, as long as a sufficient number of community members perform it, the duty is fulfilled.”
Cijnews also obtained an audio cassette in which Imam Hamza Yusuf, who vehemently opposed domestic violence, discuss the rights of men and women and explaining the Quranic verse (chapter 4 – An-Nisa, verse 34):
“Men have authority over women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband’s] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance – [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.” — translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali
Referring to the meaning of the words “trike them” mentioned in this verse, Yusuf relies on the interpretation of Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam. “This idea of striking, the Prophet [Muhammad] clarified that it is a light strike. It is just a way of really saying: listen to me, please, you know, listen to me, and it is a type of discipline…” Yusuf said.
He further explained: “I just wan to end with what [the Muslims scholar] Ibn Ashur says because I really feel that it is so important. He says, after a long extensive investigation of this verse, he says it is prohibited to abandoned a woman or to strike a woman because one thinks she is going to do something wrong. In other words, something has to have happened, it needs to be a gross breach of a marital contract, and this is why a Muslim man have to know the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Really. They have to know them. You are supposed to know them before you get married… So what he says? As for striking, this is a very dangerous matter. he says: and really defining it is very difficult to examine this. And then he says: it is permitted in situations where [moral] corruption [فساد] is clearly manifested. In other words, You’ve got a very dangerous situation. She has gone into an aggressive behaviour. She is really in a state of aggression against her husband… it is only permitted if there is no harm that comes from it. That means that physical violence is prohibited. You cannot harm a person.”
Carmen Rios (@carmenriosss) has described how she “became a women’s studies major and a raging lesbian feminist in college.” She is communications coordinator at the Feminist Majority Foundation. She speaks on behalf of the movement, and Carmen Rios is tired of hearing heterosexual women say the wrong thing:
3 Things ‘We’re Not All Lesbians’ Is
Really Saying (And Why It’s Anti-Feminist)
I came out and of age in the feminist movement, which means that I have done a lot of work alongside straight women – a lot of which has centered around bringing people into the movement, educating folks about what feminism is, dispelling myths about what it isn’t, and doing modern-day consciousness raising to get more people involved on a global level.
And it’s in those feminist recruitment spaces that I find that many well-intentioned, totally awesome, usually straight colleagues pull out an old and tired line we’re all familiar with: “We’re not all lesbians!”
Unfortunately, many of the myths about feminism that scare people away are more concerned with who feminists are than what we do or believe in.
People are worried we’re all bra-burning, man-hating, witchcraft-practicing lesbians who refuse to shave and don’t give a damn about looking good.
To which I say: So what if we are?
If all feminists were queer women with unshaved legs who embraced their bodies regardless of what they looked like and gathered in the woods to cast spells, I wouldn’t give a damn. Because none of that matters! . . .
Feminism is a movement that’s based in breaking norms.
It’s often perceived as being, first and foremost, about breaking gender norms. . . . Feminism rejects a gender binary that pits women against men, and then renders them subordinate. And feminism rejects the idea that there is any part of our genders or sexualities that should be dictated by other people’s expectations. . . .
No, we’re not all lesbians. But some of us are. That’s one of the things that makes up the fabric of the modern-day feminist movement and shapes its direction. And that’s why proudly telling people “we’re not all lesbians” isn’t okay.
When we apologize for the things that make feminism radical or the aspects of our community and movement that smash normative ideas, we misrepresent what we’re all about.
You can read the rest, but my question is, if feminists are “not all lesbians,” why not? Or, to express the same idea differently: How could a feminist be heterosexual? As Carmen Rios says, feminists are against “gender norms” and believe that the “gender binary . . renders [women] subordinate.” She herself feels complete revulsion toward males. A “raging lesbian feminist” like Carmen Rios would consider it an insult if anyone so much as implied that she might ever be romantically interested in a male. Her feminism is at least logically coherent.
What is mystifying is when Carmen Rios says she has “done a lot of work alongside straight women.” Who are these women? How does feminist heterosexuality happen without reinforcing the “gender binary”? And what about the males who are (allegedly) involved with these (allegedly) heterosexual feminists? Exactly what purpose do these males serve in the lives of feminist women? Because feminism denies that males have any distinct social role or function, it is logically impossible that a feminist would ever actually need a man. Why, then, would a man wish to associate with a woman who considers him useless?
If a woman actually likes men, why is she a feminist? Why does she support a movement that condemns men for their “privilege” and tells women that relationships with males are oppressive?
When we talk about the norm, we’re talking about a series of hurtful and oppressive social structures that maintain imbalances of power.
The norm is patriarchy, white supremacy, classism, heterosexism, cissexism, and a slew of other systems of privilege all wrapped up into one tiny phrase. . . .
It’s societal norms that tell us women should do all they can to please and attract men, and then define themselves in relation to those men. . . .
And it’s societal norms that define queer women — and lesbians in particular — as unattractive, broken people who failed to fit into that rigid set of expectations.
Carmen Rios wrote that, and we can be certain she believes it is acceptable for lesbians to “do all they can to please and attract” women, “and then define themselves in relation to those” women. Feminists enthusiasticallyapprove of lesbian relationships. It is only heterosexual relationships that feminists criticize, denouncing them as expressions of “patriarchy,” “heterosexism” and “systems of privilege.” It is only heterosexual relationships that feminists condemn as “hurtful and oppressive social structures that maintain imbalances of power.”
Feminists do not believe any woman should ever do anything “to please and attract men.” Feminists believe women should “smash normative ideas” by rejecting all “societal norms.” Because feminism is an anti-male movement, it is also necessarily an anti-heterosexual movement.
Carmen Rios understands this, which is why she is correct to say it is“anti-feminist” to say feminists are “not all lesbians.”
And aren’t we all glad she said it?
AJUONG THOK, South Sudan, Dec 28 (UNHCR) – Through the cracked windows of the bus, Amal Bakith’s children watched the unfamiliar landscape roll by. Flat wetlands where cattle grazed and herons stalked swampfish; villages of domed homes with high thatch roofs; distant shady groves of acacia trees.
It was a kind of paradise, compared to the Sudanese homeland they left a week earlier, where the fighting meant their mother, a farmer, was unable to grow food to feed them. Previously a bomb dropped from a low-flying aircraft had paralysed their grandfather and driven their father to the frontline to fight back.
“Where we are going, we will have a better life,” said Bakith’s 11-year-old daughter, Fayais. Squeezed beside her on the tattered bus seat, her brother, Damar, six, said simply, “And we can go to school.”
Bakith and her family were among 31 Sudanese refugees on their way to a new settlement in neighbouring South Sudan, the world’s youngest nation that was itself thrown back into conflict two years ago after months of political tensions erupted into violence.
A peace agreement in August 2015 that was supposed to end that fighting has been repeatedly violated, its future now fragile. Nonetheless, the government in Juba has opened its arms to those fleeing four years of conflict in Sudan, its neighbour to the north, setting aside land to settle tens of thousands of refugees.
The violence they are fleeing, between the Sudan government and opposition forces in the Nuba Mountains and South Kordofan regions, usually flares at the end of the year, when the rains end. For people like Bakith, it felt like time was running out to escape before the bombs came again.
“Our houses were destroyed. Our farms were destroyed,” Bakith said in a video interview as the bus headed south away from the borderlands. “We couldn’t plant food for ourselves. We had to hide in caves to avoid the bombings.”
Her valuables had long ago been bartered for food. With her husband away fighting, she had no help raising the children, none of whom had seen the inside of a classroom in years.
Then, a year ago, a bomb dropped from a low-flying aircraft exploded near her home, driving white-hot shrapnel through her elderly father’s body, shattering his pelvis and paralysing him from the chest down.
“We planned since then to leave,” Bakith said. “We decided that I would come with the children. It was hard to leave my father, but I promised him I would go back for him soon.”
The walk to safety took a week. At times, Bakith left her eldest daughter by the road watching her brother, while she walked ahead with the baby and another son. After an hour, she left them in the care of strangers and doubled back to fetch her other children. This went on for two days. “I cried to God to help me with strength,” Bakith says, her eyes downcast.
But eventually they arrived to Yida, a town just over the border in South Sudan, where UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, gathered the family together and transferred them to the bus to Ajuong Thok.
Less than two hours after arriving there, UNHCR and its partners had given Bakith and her family plastic sheeting and poles to build a temporary home, cooking pots and pans, mosquito nets, blankets, sleeping mats, and food.
By the next afternoon, they had their new land, roughly 150 square metres not far from a water point, a stick-and-thatch church, and a sports ground where children chased after a makeshift football. Soon, their new home was built. “They could not believe how big it was, they were very excited,” Bakith said with a wide smile.
Ajuong Thok is today expanding into a large town, with the aid of UNHCR and its partners led by the Danish Refugee Council. Already, 31,000 refugees live here. Another 19,000 more are expected to arrive during 2016, some coming from a large unplanned refugee camp at Yida that is slowly being emptied.
In Ajuong Thok, refugees are housed on large blocks of land with services including water supplies and markets. There are kindergartens, three primary schools, and a secondary school. Food distributions take place monthly.
But resources are stretched. Recently, the World Food Programme had to reduce rations by 30 percent. The rudimentary clinic needs more medicines. Classrooms are already full.
“Now that the rainy season has finished, we are expecting a lot more people to come,” said Rose Mwebi, a UNHCR protection officer in Ajuong Thok. “We are able to give them basic material like shelters and kitchen sets, but it is very limited assistance. We are still in an emergency situation here, and there are very many gaps.”
Bakith was relieved to be safe, but she was quick to point out that things were still difficult. Hajir, her year-old baby daughter, was being treated for malaria. Hamed, her youngest son, showed similar symptoms. All of the children still wore tattered clothes, and their food would have to last almost three weeks until the next distribution. She had no money, and knew next to no-one at the camp.
A short distance away, Ibrahim Ali, one of her neighbours, who arrived to Ajuong Thok two years earlier, sat sharing an evening meal with friends.
“I remember, it is not easy when you first arrive,” he said. “But I would advise her: be patient. There is still hunger, and things are hard, yes. But when I came here I could not read or write, and now I can. In time you will see your children educated, and even yourself.
“At home there is no food and no school, and there is the risk of bombing. If you are patient, you will see this place cannot compare with there, and you will see the benefits of staying.”
Written by Mike Pflanz in Ajuong Thok, South Sudan