« Hitting Where It Hurts | Main | Points of Contention »
August 21, 2005
Women Fall Through the Cracks in Iraq
By Pepper
Now that I'm seeing more and more conversation about withdrawal and withdrawal-lite, I want one thing to happen before the United States goes anywhere. I want women to have rights in Iraq, or at the very least for the constitution to be secular, but it looks like our administration is more than willing to throw that away in favor of having their constitution gift-wrapped and topped with a red ribbon.
Yesterday, the Washington Post reported dismaying news that women's rights will be sacrificed in favor of polishing off the constitution:
U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad spent Saturday shuttling among Iraqi political leaders ... Kurds also contend that provisions in the draft would allow Islamic clerics to serve on the high court, which would interpret the constitution. That would potentially subject marriage, divorce, inheritance and other civil matters to religious law and could harm women's rights, according to the Kurdish negotiators and some women's groups.
Khalilzad supported those provisions and urged other groups to accept them, according to Kurds involved in the talks.
The good news is that, according to today's NYT report from Dexter Filkins, "A tentative agreement that would have given Islam an expanded role in the state and in family disputes appeared to unravel." Good. Let it unravel.
The bad news: Our ambassador, the one representing the United States in these delicate negotiations is endorsing this position. Who is allowing him to toss aside women's rights in favor of a quick resolution? And who is allowing him to mix church and state?
I blame Condoleezza Rice. The State Department is in charge of diplomatic relations, and our ambassador's top supervisor is letting him make these negotiations. A woman who has benefited from the struggle for women's rights is tossing those rights aside as if Iraqi women are unworthy of the rights she enjoys.
Last night, Shakespeare's Sister spread the word that Islam might have a stronger role in the constitution than previously thought. She writes, "When all other rationales for this war were proved devoid of substance, the Right yammered about a humanitarian intervention—and so did the hawkish Left. The last time I checked, women were humans, too, and they ought not to be left with less freedom than they had before we got there."
I feel betrayed by all the women in the George W. Bush administration who have smugly stood aside and let this happen. I have felt betrayed by many of the women who have been rewarded by the administration, as they give up our rights, knowing full well that their own lives won't change. They are, as I called them in Shakespeare's Sister's comment thread, shameful sell-outs.
August 21, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/19450/3037302
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Women Fall Through the Cracks in Iraq:
Comments
Reuel Marc Gerecht was spitting out more anti-woman BS on "Press The Meat" today. It's really sickening to think that this is what 1800 Americans died for.
I think it's important to remember that in the year 1900, for example, in the United States, it was a democracy then. In 1900, women did not have the right to vote. If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled. I mean, women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy. was his money quote.
Posted by: fiat lux | Aug 21, 2005 6:10:03 PM
"I want one thing to happen before the United States goes anywhere. I want women to have rights in Iraq"
And what are you (US Left) willing to do to make it happen and preserve those rights?
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Aug 21, 2005 6:37:24 PM
An Iraqi constitution that enshrines Islamic/Sharia law and fails to protect minority and women's rights is not worth more additional US military personnel's lives.
Without such rights, I don't care if Iraq disintegrates and becomes a failed state - even though I do generally think a major effort to prevent that is necessary. Another Iran called Iraq is not worth it however.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Aug 21, 2005 7:20:23 PM
I feel betrayed by the American left that didn't want to liberate those women in the first place. talk about your shameful sell-outs.
Posted by: GrantR | Aug 21, 2005 8:15:48 PM
Grant, I feel betrayed by all Americans who don't want to liberate the Sudanese, the North Koreans, the ... you get my point, right?
But let's not focus on the past and focus on the constitution this very second. The United States has a position of influence among those drafting the constitution. That's a fact, and that has nothing to do with Right or Left. Shouldn't they be trying to use that influence to improve conditions for the Iraqis right now? After all, they are the people we tried to liberate.
And, are you surprised that our secular nation, which was founded on the separation of church and state, was actually pushing for a resolution that allowed for a strongly Islamic consitution? That has nothing to do with Right or Left.
Posted by: Pepper | Aug 21, 2005 10:06:12 PM
But, but, wait...I thought we were liberating Iraq to free women from the horrible repression they suffered under an islamic theocracy. Or weapons of mass destruction. Or weapons of mass destruction they were hiding under their burkas. Or something.
Terribly shocking that the Bush government would misrepresent the status of women in order to drum up support for its still undefined mission in Iraq, and then support steps that will leave women in a worse off position than they were before. Just terribly, terribly...aw hell, I can't even muster up sarcastic outrage anymore.
Posted by: theorajones | Aug 21, 2005 10:52:19 PM
"I want one thing to happen before the United States goes anywhere. I want women to have rights in Iraq"
Where's Marcotte when you need a raving lunatic? Didn't she just brag about going out to Crawford to support those who are demanding that we pull out now??
Posted by: Fred Jones | Aug 21, 2005 11:28:32 PM
Gee, Freddy-boy, the first accurate thing you've written about Amandas' actions/writings since Ezra started this blog.
Back on your meds these days, are you?
Posted by: The Dark Avenger | Aug 21, 2005 11:45:00 PM
"Where's Marcotte when you need a raving lunatic?"
Why do you need Marcotte when I am around? Marcotte is smart enough to know she is no practical position to ask for women's rights in Iraq while simultaneously asking for withdrawal. She can blame Bush, a job useful for the rest of you, one I approve of, and a role not being taken by most of the Dem leadership.
But since I was calling, on MY and Tacitus, in the spring of 2003 for 50 million men to occupy the Middle East, smart and sane left my room long ago. I just wanted to get something useful done, do something I wouldn't be ashamed of, as long as we were going anyway.
In my role as Marcotte's proxy, after donning the appropriate Kilgore uniform, I am quite capable of saying that if this was an ethnic or religious minority the world would find this intolerable. But since it is only women and girls, only 60% of the nation's population, this patriarchal enslavement is admirable as an expression of local culture, tradition, and religious values. Insert cusswords for true mimicry.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Aug 22, 2005 5:05:15 AM
Marcotte is smart enough to know she is no practical position to ask for women's rights in Iraq while simultaneously asking for withdrawal.
Bob, you are correct in that pony has but one trick and when confronted with the reality that the rest of the left is saying about how an immediate pullout would affect the women there, all you hear is crickets chirping. It is an indefensible position for Mandy-Pandy. Perhaps she could throw in a couple of "Fuck this", "Fuck that" or even maybe a "Fuck you" and everyone will forget facts and give kudos, instead, for being passionate. After all, isn't that what's important?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Aug 22, 2005 8:09:44 AM
I'll throw in a fuck you in Amanda's absence. And will someone please explain to me when "civil rights" morphed into "social rights?" The term "social rights" makes it sound like we're talking about what you get to wear to the cotillion. But that's the point, isn't it? To make it sound like we're really only arguing about petty things.
Posted by: nolo | Aug 22, 2005 10:21:22 AM
Digby had a great post on this. These are the paragraphs that caught my attention and made me realize that beyond my interest as a female and human being - why this is so important on a practical level .....
I got an e-mail from someone I respect asking me why I made such a big deal out of women's rights being denied when there are so many other freedoms at stake. It's a legitimate question I suppose, but I think the question answers itself. The fact is that under Saddam, in their everyday lives, one half of the population had more real, tangible freedom than they have now and that they will have under some form of Shar'ia. The sheer numbers of people whose freedom are affected make it the most glaring and tragic symbol of our failed "noble cause."
Iraqi women have enjoyed secular, western-style equality for more than 40 years. Most females have no memory of living any other way. In order to meet an arbitrary deadline for domestic political reasons, we have capitulated to theocrats on the single most important constitutional issue facing the average Iraqi woman --- which means that we have now officially failed more than half of the Iraqis we supposedly came to help. We have "liberated" millions of people from rights they have had all their lives.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/
Posted by: ET | Aug 22, 2005 11:50:10 AM
And what are you (US Left) willing to do to make it happen and preserve those rights?
Write my congressmen saying as such. (Although, I'm quite certain they are already on my side.) Help elect more representatives who are on my side through various means (money, letter writing, etc.)
I feel betrayed by the American left that didn't want to liberate those women in the first place.
And the American right does? Talking the talk is important, but if there is no follow through from the leaders of the right who happen to be in charge right now, then they are no different.
Posted by: Adrock | Aug 22, 2005 12:26:29 PM
Wolcott's got a good post on this as well. Aside from quoting digby (woo!!), Wolcott also makes the very critical point that, for invasion supporters, women's rights have never been anything other than a convenient excuse.
Posted by: nolo | Aug 22, 2005 3:56:54 PM
I'll throw in a fuck you in Amanda's absence.
Reminds me of the old man that said that he and his wife only have had oral sex in the last few years of their marriage. She stands at one end of the hall and screams "Fuck you!" and he stands at the other end and yells "Oh yeah? Well, Fuck you, too!!"
Posted by: Fred Jones | Aug 22, 2005 4:00:54 PM
I think this thread has gotten confusing. For the record:
I am not a friend or ally of Fred Jones.
I consider myself more of an ally of Marcotte than an enemy, agreeing with much of her feminist agenda and sub-visceral loathing of Bush and his associates. We apparently disagree on the War in Iraq, which is no small disagreement. I don't know, or much care, what she thinks of me.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Aug 22, 2005 6:22:22 PM
Well, Bob. She probably thinks you're a twit, or more likely, a liberal turncoat. It's obvious that she's right on the war and you are wrong. If you were right, your side would have Joan Baez singing protest songs out of the sixties you your buddies instead of the other way around, now wouldn't they?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Aug 22, 2005 11:03:18 PM
"If you were right, your side would have Joan Baez singing protest songs out of the sixties you your buddies instead of the other way around, now wouldn't they?"
I gave it three reads, and still could make no sense of this. Sorry.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Aug 22, 2005 11:36:41 PM
I gave it three reads, and still could make no sense of this.
That figures.....
Posted by: Fred Jones | Aug 23, 2005 9:03:21 AM
Betrayed by the American Left? What American Left??!! We've got the Right, the Far Right, the Near Right, the Barely Right -- there ain't no left out there, people.
I keep laughing to not cry over the supposed "liberal bias" in the media. To these people, the CONSTITUTION is liberal!
Wake up!
Posted by: InsaneDisabled | Aug 24, 2005 9:44:55 PM
Um, I think I can defend Amanda by saying she has pointed out the hypocrisy in Bush's "spreading freedom" debate.
Here's my take: We went to Iraq for the wrong reasons, and the president lied about why we went. We're there now. To have them make a Constitution that denies a majority of Iraqis rights (50% female, aprox, plus the non-Islamic Iraqis) and declare that "Democracy has been spread" is a lie anad reflects the US as someone who does not give a shit.
Posted by: Antigone | Sep 15, 2005 9:04:46 PM
