Women's Social Rights are NOT essential to the development of Democracy

[KoKo]

Said by the "NeoCon" on Meet the Press this morning. He was on opposite Larry Diamond in a discussion about the Iraqi Constitution.

Is this a statement folks here could agree with? Should Women's Social rights in Iraq be left out of the Iraq Constitution just so that a basic document can be cobbled together to get our troops out of their earlier. :shrug:

[Bill McBlueState]

1. ok, so that rules out half the population

Are the "social rights" of the other half of the population important?

If they are... what makes that half of the population so special?

If they aren't... what's the point of having a democracy? Why not just have a theocracy? Oh, wait.

[kahleefornia]

2. Well...

perhaps we can't force every major societal change on them overnight. I mean, I think women's rights are essential to a democracy (being a woman, and all...) but, the US is still grappling with equal rights today (gay marriage, women in the military, racism, etc.)

So - would I like there to be women's social rights in Iraq - yes. Do I think they're going to master it instantly? No.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. What do you mean by societal change?

Women had rights under Saddam (comparatively)

[bettyellen]

6. the societal change where we cobble together a group of people who

will funnel us some cheap oil, while we look the other way as to what's going on in their country. you know, kinda like saudi arabia!
grrrrr.

[Diamonique]

4. I agree...

...with kahleefornia. No they aren't going to master the idea of "democracy" instantly, but I do think that women should at least maintain the rights they had before we invaded. Iraq was essentially a secular country. Saddam wasn't as Islamist extremist. Women could work, get a good education, weren't forced to cover themselves all over when they went outside, etc.

I think now they're trying to throw the women back into total second class citizens. I remember seeing documentaries about how Afghanistan women had to sneak around to be educated, play with makeup, etc. I think that's where they're trying to take Iraq's constitution, and I don't think that's a good thing.

[omega minimo]

15. THE FACT THAT YOU BOTH THINK IT NEEDS "MASTERY"

reveals flawed thinking.

"Master" women's rights :banghead::puke:

[kahleefornia]

29. well obviously a lot of people

haven't been able to! I don't think it's a difficult concept at all, but if everyone understood things the way I do...well, I can only dream :)

[Frances]

7. Women had rights under Saddam that they will probably lose

under Islamic law which is what the U.S. is now pushing in order to get a Constitution. In other words, women didn't have to live inside a tent dress under Saddam but they will if Iraq gets this constitution. Women probably will lose their right to drive cars as well.

Yes, I know someone personally who suffered greatly under Saddam. I would never defend that monster.

On the other hand, I think it's wrong to lie about the situation concerning women.

(Women in Afghanistan had more rights when the country was controlled by the Russians than either before or after the Russians were there. Of course, I cheered for the U.S. in that conflict--the CIA were helping Osama and the Taliban then.)

[SoCalifer]

14. "force?"

I myself don't think we should be forcing anyone, anything. I think we should just leave people alone unless they actually threaten us or do something to us first.

Kahleefornia, I am sure you didn't mean it to sound the way you did - I just thought to point it out..

BTW....Welcome to the DU.. :hi:

[kahleefornia]

28. actually, I did!

I think we're forcing just about everything on Iraq, and I don't think it's good. So I did mean it in a negative way...sort of...just not in a negative way that I agree with. Does that make any sense?? Thanks for the welcome.

[Art_from_Ark]

5. Women's rights were considered important enough to include in Japan's

post-war constitution.

[donsu]

8. witnessing the war against women

did Larry Diamond jump down his throat? did anyone call him on this?

[Donna Zen]

9. Larry Diamond was fine with no women's rights.

The justification was: "Well, we (America) didn't always have the rights we now have...so why should Iraq?"

Well Fuck-A, America once had slavery too. Should Iraq have slavery...is that Okay with AEI. <----AEI=The backwards head people.

[AuntPatsy]

17. Unbelievable..

[FloridaPat]

10. Condi said almost the same thing a couple of months ago - the US

doesn't change culture. We can bring tv's, cell phones, and democracy, but allowing the other half to have rights is not in the cards - at least after the invasions. Sure is a big thing before the invasions.

I didn't realize that about the Japanses consitution. In that case - women should be in the Constitution. That idiot on Bill Maher last night said things were great for the Iraqi women. How do these people stay out of mental hospitals with the unreality they live in.

[librechik]

11. we left em out of our document, why shouldn't they?

what hypocrites we are

[KoKo]

12. Whose freedom is it anyway....Digby has some choice words on this....

Whose Freedom Is It Anyway?

Islam will be "the main source" of Iraq's law and parliament will observe religious principles, negotiators said on Saturday after what some called a major turn in talks on the constitution and a shift in the U.S. position.

Well, we're not really talking about human rights now are we? We're talking about women's rights, which are always negotiable.

And what say you Hitchens, you useful fucking idiot? Americans just "freed" the Iraqis so they could live under Islamic law. That's quite a goddamned achievement. You must be so proud.

How about you Condi? Are you proud of what you've done? You just "freed" 13 million women into second class citizenship -- probably into hell. Tough luck ladies. Don't worry, though, your granddaughters might get their rights back in their lifetimes. You can't stop progress, you know.

And what about you, George you misbegotten cretin. Is this what you were talking about in all these windy speeches about freedom being the gift of the almighty and all that other flatulent twaddle you peddle to the silly rubes who confuse leadership with frat boy swagger? Did you free the Iraqis so they could live under Ayatollahs?

more at..........
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com /

[mntleo2]

13. Women's Social Rights Are Left Out Of OUR Constitution

I think it is time for women from both countries to stand up together and talk about that. Until we ALL band together, we will not be considered... especially by a bunch of greedy people who think all government should be "for the corporation and by the corporation"

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

[omega minimo]

16. It's time for a global women's party of peace and freedom

:bounce:

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

18. Women's social rights are at the *core* of any democratic society

Only when women are able to control their educations, their career choices, their marriages and so on are they able e.g. to control population growth, to contribute to the economy and also to offer their voices on major matters of domestic and foreign policy. Iraq is not a democracy if half its population (or less I guess-- the Kurds and ironically the Sunni Arabs seem to be opting out of the Shari'a plan) is brutally suppressed by a fundamental national law.

[kodi]

19. bush sent america to war so iraqis could live under 12th century freedoms?

we have now done to iraqi women what even saddam hussein did not do.

[Coexist]

20. I can't even begin to respond to this...

that should tell you where I stand.

[liberaliraqvet26]

21. so much for the "FREEDOM"...

what do y'all think the next reason for going to war will be?

probably back to 9-11 again

[Totally Committed]

22. If we are honest with ourselves, we will see this very attitude mirrored

right here in our own country. I don't see women's rights being discussed, fought for, or even demanded by many -- even those on the Left.

Other countries do just fine with Women leaders. This country, even today, talks about it "not being time" for a woman to run if we want to win. (And, they are right, because most people will not vote for a woman as Commander-in-Chief) Some say it is because our Muslim allies will not accept a female POTUS that no female candidate is put forward. Most Muslim men will not even shake the hand of a female, they say. Can you imagine their countries having to "honor" a female POTUS when she visits their country, they say. How many of their soldiers would refuse to salute a female leader?, they ask. And, we seem content to allow that to be acceptable behavior. But, I see the male politicos hiding behind this. If Muslims refused to honor, say, Texans, and would not shake Bush's hand, my guess is they would find themselves on the business end of loss of their allied status and the foreign aid bonanza that goes along with it. But, I digress...

This country has a miserable record of standing up for any and all but the Old White Boy establishment. And, our own Party, while the best, is still light-years behind where it should be in demanding rights not only for women, but for people of color, the poor, Gays and Lesbians, and children.

If this is a true Democracy, then all citizens would be seen as equally respected, equally educated, equally paid, and equally covered by the Constitution of the United States. Until we all live in dignity, none of us live in dignity.

We have no right to live in our glass houses whilst lobbing stones at those in Iraq for not providing women with the rights and dignity they deserve under the laws of a "democratic" society.

[Lindacooks]

23. That IS the Neocon stance, after all.

These right wing fucks don't want women to have any power at all, beginning with no power over their own bodies. So he's certainly telling the truth from his point of view, circa the 19th century.

[dsc]

24. You actually ask two different questions here

One is should women's rights be insisted upon in the Constitution given that we are using our soldiers to secure it. That would be a yes.

The second is should we have troops there to support it. That would be a no. So I guess I am saying we should have left regardless of what the Constitution of Iraq said or didn't say.

[KT2000]

25. Women's rights are human rights

since when is a woman's rights a "social" right. What are men's social rights?
In medical research the ways in which women differ from men is considered an abberation and possible contaminant to a study. To consider women's rights as social rights is saying the same thing.

Boy, just let these people have the mike and they will eventually spill the beans as to what they are all about.

[KoKo]

26. You are the FIRST PERSON to say that...and thank you for saying it.

I'm kind of surprised that folks want to let "human rights for all" go by the "wayside." In Other Words....Female Rights are expendable...if we can get a "viable" Bush Run Constitution.

I feel very angry that Women don't matter anymore. We are "expendable" if "International Politics in America" become more important than "Individual Dignity."

:-(

[Neshanic]

27. Did anyone think with half a brain think that this would not happen?

Of course they did, and they told the Magical Monkey King and his court. He dismissed them and made sure his flight suit made his manhood more prominent.

He broke it and he now he owns it. It's the Republican war. Now it's the republican solution. I am sure public hanging of homosexuals was given up weeks ago in negotiating who plans the the state dinners. Now the big give; telling women that they have no rights.

They will not make the deadline.

The world must think we have all lost our minds.

[agincourt]

30. That's like saying counting votes accurately,

is not essential to a democracy. I suppose banning Gulags are not essential to the development of Democracy as well.

[cindyw]

31. Sure, while there at it why not legalize slavery there too.

I mean we survived as a Democracy with it for many years.

:sarcasm: