A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
August 31, 2006Comments
A question to be asked by those who have the opportunity (and inclination) to talk to those on the moderate to far left: Do you believe that women's rights are important? All women, not just those like you (i.e. the ones you know, or those of European ancestry, or those in developed countries, or whatever)? If so -- and I expect that the answer will usually be a vehement YES! -- what is your opinion of women's rights in the Middle East? NOTE: this question is entirely independent of what they think of American foreign policy. Just what do they think of how women are treated there? Assuming that they get that far, what actions are considered appropriate to secure those rights? What should be done to change the cultures in the Middle east? Note that "nothing" or "we have no right to change other cultures" reduces to "some women's rights are simply not that important." Note also that those in power there are quite happy with the current situation. So change will not just happen; some kind of coercion will be requried. So what kind of coercion do they accept, in order to secure the rights of those women? And what reason do they have to believe that it will work? What should the American government be doing, if anything, in this area? Again, this is not a trick question to get them to support current policies; it's a sincere inquiry about what policy should be. I'd be fascinated to hear the answers. Posted by: wj at August 31, 2006 07:16 PMAnd I was going to sneak in another time-warped open thread.... Posted by: Tully at August 31, 2006 07:47 PMI amazed that no one has posted regarding the Plame affair/Armitage revelation. So the Special Prosecutor knew who the primary leaker was from the "get go". I guess it could have been worse. We could have had Ken Starr run the show and still be "deep into it". Posted by: c3 at August 31, 2006 07:54 PMC3, re: Plame. LMAOROFLPMP. Told ya so. Do not hold your breath waiting for the impeach-now crowd to notice that the anti-Bush anit-Iraq Powell gang at State was responsible all the time. Posted by: Tully at August 31, 2006 09:39 PMTully; Nope, I'll stick to acronyms. :-) This weekend is bird-shooting and rocket-launching. Posts and pics may follow at Stubborn Facts, if'n I get the time. Posted by: Tully at August 31, 2006 11:15 PMOh, I forgot this After Rumsfeld and Bush made such a point about confronting the Evil Axis, I am as surprised as Defense Tech is. What the hell? Please tell me there are sharp minds at the wheel. Posted by: Maxtrue at August 31, 2006 11:56 PMwj, as to your question re: women's rights in the middle east, my opinion is that the whole subject is rather murky. I'd say this is true in any deeply religious community. I also suspect that "women's rights" can vary greatly depending on who you ask and how urban the setting is in which the question is asked. Also, define "rights" for any given group or community. Should women be considered property, treated like any man would treat any other animal possession? Considering the care with which some men treat prized animals, that might not be such a bad thing... (Yeah, heresy.) Women in the west would consider that anethema. Many women in the east probably still consider that an accepted and acceptable way of life. If you stop and think about it, in most societies women are treated as no better or no less a person than any man in that society -- what varies is the particular role of women in that society. And the roles can vary greatly depending on the type of society. My response to the shrillness of such groups as NOW in their demand to be treated (as I see it) like men, I say I'm NOT a man and don't want to be treated like one! And if I choose a societal role that would be considered "a woman's place" with the negative connotations they place on such a role, that's none of their business and does nothing to lessen my value as a person or to society. Posted by: Heather at September 1, 2006 08:25 AMHeather, thanks for the response. I agree that treating women as a prized possession might arguably not be entirely bad. The difficulty is: what about those men in the society who do otherwise? Some cultures have social (or other) sanctions against that kind of behavior; others, including most of the Middle East, do not. Likewise, "a woman's place" can be defined in more than one way and still IMHO be acceptable. As with many other topics, there are fanatics on various sides who will accept only one definition: their own. But their's are not the only possible views. I confess that much of my question (and I am trying it out on a couple of my more left-leaning friends) is intended to get those who have reflexively opposed American foreign policy across the board to stop and think about what they would like to see instead. My suspicion (still to be confirmed) is that they will end up rather close to the general opinion here: the execution of the current administration may leave a lot to be desired, but some kind of steps ought to be taken to bring the societies in the Middle East forward to at least the 19th century. WJ, Heather, Who knows, a group of women may guide one day our remote controlled air force on joysticks. While men and woman are different, they certainly should be equal under the law and should enjoy the same opportunities. If hormone balance determines certain abilities of men and women, hormone supplements may change this (C3?). In fact, women enjoy the potential of two states: Amazonian (elevated androgens) and Baby makers (elevated estrogens). Men have only one state. You wouldn’t want to mess with a Cro-Magnon mother. For the Left (or the Far Right) to ignore the oppression of women is sad. Women must speak up and NOW is not the only voice for protesting even the lack of human rights for a large percentage of women worldwide. Annan called the oppression of women in Muslim countries the single greatest detriment for economic development. But then after three years, Russia and China still prevent action in the Sudan where women and men alike are slaughtered. In Iran, they beat women protestors. In China, they torture women and men alike as part of their criminal justice system. In some Muslim countries woman are killed for adultery or sex out of wedlock. Red candidates in Blue states should point this out. Lieberman has and so has McCain. Oh Hillary…….. WJ. My response to the shrillness of such groups as NOW in their demand to be treated (as I see it) like men, I say I'm NOT a man and don't want to be treated like one! And if I choose a societal role that would be considered "a woman's place" with the negative connotations they place on such a role, that's none of their business and does nothing to lessen my value as a person or to society. Heather, I am very happy whenever a woman is able to freely choose such as path as yours. or to freely choice another, if lawful and undertaken subsequent to careful personal reflection. That's what it's about for me, choice. I'm not on board for dictating the appropriate personal path for people beyond very broad strokes. (Like, say, don't murder, don't enslave or unreasonably dominate others, and so on, to,name a couple of the least controversial general consensus guidelines.) I don't really know enough about NOW to believe that they have entirely given themselves over to narrow prescriptions about what constitutes a worthwhile life for women. If they have, it's a sad thing. As I've recently taken to saying, I find myself to be something of a true believer in democracy. As such, I find that I'm willing to broadly outline some of the things that I think men and women all deserve, and to oppose the denial of such things by other cultures. I think men and women in all cultures deserve the right to educate themselves and to follow where their mind goes in deciding for themselves what path their lifes aught to take. FWIW, such an education has in past times been roughly known as a liberal arts education, but I hesitate to call it that for fear that some people will assume that means the freedom to study noam chomsky and the requirement that one become indoctrinated in leftist cant. It doesn't. The presumption of a basic liberal arts education is simply that one is usually well served by broadly exploring the successes and failures of humans' highest aspirations in order to decide for themselves what path their lifes aught to take. Obviously, there's plenty of room for debate about the actual execution in currently available liberal arts education, but I don't think there's all that much worth arguing about when it comes to the aspirations beind the plan to let people consider broadly what others have done and tried in the past and then use this as one basis for freely choosing their life's path. Islamic fundamentalists are only one group that disagrees with such a sentiment, and maintains that any such exploration must be done under the direct and overweening supervision of a coucil of wise elders who know better than the individual and retain the power to proscribe a whole host of what they believe to be poor decisions. Ultimately, it's a question of the distinction between a mentor and a master. Posted by: bk at September 1, 2006 12:05 PMThe reason for the split on the Left should be obvious: Since the U.S. is in the hands of the Right they favor a hands-off policy because, "it's their country, and we have no business there." But if the U.S. was in the hands of the Democrats such intervention would be benevolent. By the way, women, "speaking up," is important, but the way it is done is vital. THIS country is FULL of spineless men because of the Feminist movement. Mutual respect is the key, and I think we must return to chivalry. Let's face it, men will always be stronger than women (physically), but as many women know this is not always the case in other respects. This means that if there are to be women's rights they can only be enforced on men, by OTHER men. BUT, women CAN be very influential in this regard. Again respect is the answer, and not just for the man, but for themselves. I must say, however, that I don't particularly care for the racial component of your question. Perhaps after, what, four years (?) of the Iraq War perhaps some on the Left can grasp why global interventionism is NOT a good idea. Unfortunately, we now have TWO parties that have no problem messing in the business of other people. Are women's rights important in Iraq? In Afghanistan? In Iran?? I suggest that is more a question for the women in those countries. Only THEY can answer it. Posted by: Cavalier829 at September 1, 2006 12:29 PMAs an added comment, I would offer that it seems to me that in Islamic society the men seem to act like little boys and no one ever thinks to call them on it. Posted by: Cavalier829 at September 1, 2006 12:36 PMConsidering the care with which some men treat prized animals, that might not be such a bad thing... (Yeah, heresy.) Women in the west would consider that anethema. Many women in the east probably still consider that an accepted and acceptable way of life.I would encourage anyone and everyone to see the movie Osama(no not that Osama) to see a view of extremist Islam and its treatment of women. (Let me emphasize EXTREMIST Islam.) Posted by: c3 at September 1, 2006 03:11 PM [Aside to whoever is currently the webmaster: Is there any way to make the comment section remember personal info like it used to? I'm getting tired of constantly having to re-enter my name, etc.] Cav, I agree with you that the Feminist Movement has created a bunch of spineless men. Fortunately, not all of them are like that! I also firmly believe that the key is not so much total equality (too hard to define) but mutual respect by both genders for each other and the choices made by either gender -- whether the choices are traditional or non-traditional to their gender. Maxtrue, I was being sarcastic with that heresy remark. Brian, I was speaking in a general sense, but I do agree with your sentiment. I was raised in a fairly fundamentalist Christian family where the husband/father was considered the head of the household and primary decision-maker and bread-winner. The wife/mother was considered the "heart" of the household and her normal "place" would be in the home maintaining it and nurturing and raising the children. However, you could say that "real life" intervened making it necessary for my mother to work full-time. My parents adjusted rather well, I thought. My mother was a registered nurse and my sisters and I grew up realizing we didn't necessarily need to be "stay-at-home" to be successful wives/mothers. My dad didn't mind providing the nurturing when it was needed. I'm not saying it was all sweetness and light and sunshine and roses. But regardless of religious upbringing and traditional beliefs, I always felt we weren't forced to accept particular "roles" for ourselves. One of my sisters WAS, in fact, a stay-at-home mom who home-schooled her children all the way through high school. My other sister never had children and today is a successful minister in the Pacific Northwest. I am somewhere in between. My point, I guess, is that our household was pre-Feminist movement, so I never really understood the militancy of the movement. I just never felt the need to be a part of it because I was already comfortable with the idea of being or doing anything I wanted. Perhaps in that respect I was very fortunate, I don't know. Of course, this has nothing to do with the state of women in other countries, but I'm with Cav there as well - that is for the women of those countries to do something about if that's what they want... Posted by: Heather at September 1, 2006 09:38 PM |
Archives
July 2008
June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
July 4: Gasbag Edition
Independent Open Thread: Whatcha Doing This Weekend? Long Tail Controversy and Explanations Canadian Human Rights Commission No, Slavery Wasn't Competive With Free Labor Back online Irish Blogger Charged For Blogging Friday open thread Headline: Obama and Clinton Together in Unity There Is No EPA Document, There Is No EPA Document
|
