In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Spreading “freedom” abroad — for men, that is

Jill

Gotta love it when the U.S. exports “freedom”:

A working draft of Iraq’s new constitution would cede a strong role to Islamic law and could sharply curb women’s rights, particularly in personal matters like divorce and family inheritance.

The document’s writers are also debating whether to drop or phase out a measure enshrined in the interim constitution, co-written last year by the Americans, requiring that women make up at least a quarter of the parliament.

The draft of a chapter of the new constitution obtained by The New York Times on Tuesday guarantees equal rights for women as long as those rights do not “violate Shariah,” or Koranic law.

Is anyone surprised?

58 thoughts on Spreading “freedom” abroad — for men, that is

  3. No i am not surprised at all. But the dum F’s could not see that from their rose colored view from the white house.

    I read about it in a French paper. Oh know, did I read a French paper. What would Bushie think about that. Looney libertarian anarchist!

  4. It’s pretty sickening to know that after the Constitution becomes law, women will have less rights than they did under Saddam Hussein. But shhh, don’t tell the American people. We are liberating the Iraqis one man at a time…

  5. women will have less rights than they did under Saddam Hussein.

    This is tripe. No one had any rights under Saddam, not even Ba’ath party members. He could have anyone thrown in jail or tortured at any time, for any reason. There were no guarentees.

    Maybe you can provide us with a few examples of rights women enjoyed under Saddam?

  6. I am referring to the fact that Iraq was a secular state under Saddam. Simply, there was no Sharia Law. I’m not saying people were more free under Saddam.

    I was under the impression that the United States invaded Iraq to bring freeedom, liberty and democracy. Imposing theocratic law in the new Iraq Constitution doesn’t sound like we’re living up to those promises. Then again, the Iraqis can do what they want, as you said: “Don’t think the backwards Iraqis have it in them to respect women’s rights?”

  7. Much of the left over here seem to be supporting moves to enshrine Islamic principles into law in Iraq; the SWP are warning that we mustn’t make women’s or gay rights “shibboleths” for the movement, risking siding with the occupation over the “insurgents” (read: political Islamists who true socialist ought to be against just as much as they are against US/UK imperialism.

    It’s so disillusioning.

  8. Agitprop, how in the world do you square:

    I’m not saying people were more free under Saddam.

    With your statment of not twenty minutes earlier of:

    It’s pretty sickening to know that after the Constitution becomes law, women will have less rights than they did under Saddam Hussein.

    (emphasis mine) Mmmm…I love the smell of waffle in the morning. You really give yourself away when you write:

    I am referring to the fact that Iraq was a secular state under Saddam. Simply, there was no Sharia Law.

    Oh, I get it. The big deal isn’t that Saddam’s Iraq was a totalitarian hellhole where children where imprisoned for the thought-crimes of their parents and women could be pulled off the street and raped at will…as long as it was all secular. Phew, I’m sure the Kurds and Marsh Arabs would be relieved to know that their wanton destruction wasn’t rooted in anything (ick!) religious.

    And as to whether we’re “imposing theocratic law”, we are not “imposing” anything. We are doing exactly what Bush promised we would do, which is take Saddam out of power and free the Iraqi people to come up with their own form of self-government.

  11. And critical reading is your friend:

    The Iraqi Provisional Constitution (drafted in 1970) formally guaranteed equal rights to women and other laws specifically ensured their right to vote, attend school, run for political office, and own property.

    This, of course, is nonsense. Regardless of what the provisional constitution guarenteed, the fact of that matter is that no one had any rights in Iraq under Saddam. So, they had the right to vote in sham elections, the right to attend school to be indoctrinated in the Ba’ath ideology, the right to pander to Saddam and his cronies in the hopes of winning a rigged political election, and to own property that could at any time be seized by the state. Whoop-tee-doo.

    Until the 1990s, Iraqi women played an active role in the political and economic development of Iraq.

    This is probably true. Some women held office in Iraq, and helped shaped the policy that Saddam used to govern/terrorize the Iraqis. And, of course, other women influenced the political development of Iraq by being raped by the secret police, and having their violation taped and used as blackmail against their families.

    The primary legal underpinning of women’s equality is contained in the Iraqi Provisional Constitution, which was drafted by the Ba’ath party in 1970. Article 19 declares all citizens equal before the law regardless of sex, blood, language, social origin, or religion.

    Unless you’re a Kurd. Or a Marsh Arab. Or a Shi’ite. Or a Jew. Or a political opponent of Saddam’s. Or related in any way to any of the above.

    And the article you cite itself admits that women’s situations in Iraq have gotten substantially worse since Gulf War I:

    The most significant political factor was Saddam Hussein’s decision to embrace Islamic and tribal traditions as a political tool in order to consolidate power.

    You know, it’s fine to be anti-war. But just because you’re against the war doesn’t mean you have to argue Iraq was a swell place to live before we invaded.

  12. Sorry, I guess that was too nuanced for you. I forgot that America is black and white.

    Oh, come on. Does this really pass for debate anywhere? Unless you mean “nuanced” as a synonym for “poorly thought out.”

  13. I know what you mean, Shankar. But I’d say there’s little doubt that the relative condition of women in Iraq (compared, if you like, with their relative condition before Gulf War I) will (insofar as civil and political and perhaps educational rights are concerned) deteriorate if Shariah Law is given sway.

    I am reminded of the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan; some feminists left that country then, others stayed, but with foreboding.

    While a step forward for “women” i.e. some women is not necessarily a step forward for a nation or a society, yet, how a nation or society treats “its” women (and its poor, its ethnic minorities, its religious minorities, its dissenters, half of whom, note, will be women) is a measure of its civilisation (for want of a better word).

    Don’t (you) think the backwards Iraqis have it in them to respect women’s rights?

    I think it is not that simple. Before the rise of fundamentalism in the Arab world and in non-Arab Muslim countries, many men from those nations (including many Muslims) respected women’s rights in a “Western”-type way. (I am talking of men I knew.) And that is still so. But Shariah law not subordinated to civil law has proved inimical to many women, as they have made plain.

  14. I’d say there’s some doubt about that, actually. At the most basic level, the lots of Kurdish and Shi’ite women will improve simply because they’re not being murdered by the truckload.

    Now, putting that aside, yes, if Sharia is given sway, the situation of women in Iraq will likely not improve. But that’s not what’s being suggested here. This draft chapter of the constitution suggests women be judged by the law followed by themselves and their families. Not ideal, certainly, but better than (for example) Saudi Arabia’s blanket application of Sharia, and better than Saddam’s mass killings and rape rooms.

  15. No one’s surprised because our government does not care about women. It’s not at all counterintuitive that they would get in bed with misogynists in the name of political stability.

    I’m not really sure I understand your point, Shankar. Why should women be grateful that they’ve been allowed to trade in a brutal dictator for permanent second-class citizenship? Why should we be happy for them? Sure, it’s better to have a government with an official policy of ignoring violence against women than a government with an official policy of committing it, but it’s not acceptable.

    While women, like all Iraqis, had no rights under Saddam, women as a class were not denied the rights given to men. That’s the difference: autocracy vs. apartheid.
    This made a difference in the lives of Iraqi women: they were more educated and more independent; they had more daily, provisional autonomy than they probably will under the new Iraqi constitution.

    And if you want to make comments about the prevalence of rape under the old regime, maybe you should look at related Shariah-based legislation a little more closely first.

  16. At the most basic level, the lots of Kurdish and Shi’ite women will improve simply because they’re not being murdered by the truckload.

    I accept that — I mean, I hope so.

    This draft chapter of the constitution suggests women be judged by the law followed by themselves and their families. Not ideal, certainly, but better than (for example) Saudi Arabia’s blanket application of Sharia, and better than Saddam’s mass killings and rape rooms.

    But still a step back from what the women known to oppose this draft (I’m sorry, I haven’t had time to check the women’s opposition to this yet, I’ve been out all day) had hoped for and I imagine from what many of them hoped they were voting for, and for some, it could be, a massive step back.

    I know Shariah law varies — perhaps I should say, its application varies — the worst case is, well, very bad indeed.

  17. Sure, it’s better to have a government with an official policy of ignoring violence against women than a government with an official policy of committing it, but it’s not acceptable.

    Well, we certainly agree about this. NB, I never argued that such a government was desirable. Merely that it was more desirable than the one Saddam ran.

    While women, like all Iraqis, had no rights under Saddam, women as a class were not denied the rights given to men.

    While this is probably true on paper, according to the written laws of Saddam’s Iraq, it’s not really accurate in truth. Pre-war Iraq wasn’t an egalitarian autocracy–not everyone was oppressed the same, and women were abused in horrible ways that men were simply not. Saddam’s government exploited cultural morays surrounding gender to terrorize the Iraqi people.

    Plus, you’re talking about this as if it’s already happened. The Iraqi constitution has yet to be drafted, and the interim constitution does in fact guarentee equal rights to women.

  19. Actually, I am suprised–suprised that the requirement that 25% of the parliment be women made it into a constitution drafted under the auspices of the US. The US Congress sure isn’t 25% women.

  20. “At the most basic level, the lots of Kurdish and Shi’ite women will improve simply because they’re not being murdered by the truckload.”

    Except that they are, probably more often than under Hussein, at least in the last few years of his regime. See http://www.iraqbodycount.net or Roberts et al., for further details. Hussein was bad, but the new government could be even worse (as, for example, the Shah of Iran was bad, but Khomeni’s government even worse.)

  21. maybe women have more rights now in Iraq. maybe they don’t. i’m not sure how all y’all are so damn sure of your assessments given the amount of mis- & dis-information this conflict has created. i mean, hell, there are still people coming up with & arguing over new information & interpretations of what life was like in Nazi Germany & that was over 60 years ago! you really think we have a clear picture of “real life” in Iraq over here in the States?

    having said that, i’m going to go out on a limb & say that life under Saddam was pretty damn awful. and life under the occupation? also pretty damn awful. armchair philosophizing about whether one is marginally better than the other reeks of the worst firstworld privilege.

    in any case, one thing we can say Iraq has more of these days: alot more DEAD women.

  22. jam: I agree, but the question is what, if anything, can be done? Doing nothing in the face of a Saddam Hussein seems unpalatable. But the invasion has, at the least, not helped a lot and may have worsened life for women (and men) in Iraq. I may be being over-optimistic, but I hope that if we really look at the situation, whether it is better or worse, look at what was done and not done, maybe we can come up with a way to intervene in countries where the human rights situation is bad that would actually be helpful.

  23. >>maybe women have more rights now in Iraq. maybe they don’t. i’m not sure how all y’all are so damn sure of your assessments given the amount of mis- & dis-information this conflict has created. >>

    The rights laid out in a constitution can certainly be used to indicate a baseline of what rights are lacking, even if they might not give a completely accurate picture of what rights are reliably enforced. And if the constitution of x country explicitly states that women’s rights are not equal to those of men, then we can safely assume that women’s rights are not equally supported or protected in x country.

    And, yeah, smoke and mirrors. But less outrage doesn’t follow from obfuscation on the part of Iraq’s architects.

  24. What’s our role here? What was the point of this war? It seems to me that if we’re involved in setting up a new, presumably democratic government, we shouldn’t support a giant step backwards in terms of civil rights.

    I don’t care if women were more or less free under Saddam than they are now–I care that we work towards making their lives even better. Curbing women’s rights is pretty much the opposite of that goal.

  25. Hey Shankar, what’s up. I’m glad you don’t think women, and people generally, aren’t getting killed by the truckload in Iraq. That probably makes your political life a lot less complicated.

    http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php

    As would the idea that a tyrant starts bad, stays bad, and that the years at the end of his reign look exactly like the ones at the beginning.

    http://www.womenwarpeace.org/iraq/iraq.htm

    But what is being surprisingly underaddressed is that the undermining of Iraq women isn’t just Saddam – or, more importantly, that Saddam was willing to throw their gains out in order to curry favor with the men of Iraq.

    It’s preposterous to even talk about how horrible Saddam was to women when said horribleness was actively supported by so many men in his country. Setting the Kurds aside as a truly feminist death toll, Arab women continue to suffer from the deep proscriptions and prejudices against them across the Arab world. Of course it would be more difficult for the US to shove a more gender-balanced government model down their throats – as one responder pointed out, we ourselves don’t bother with one – because on top of the ancient and Arab-society-wide disdain for women, the liberal movement of Iraqi politics was spearheaded by the Ba’athist party: the party Saddam came from, and one now totally discredited.

    I think, Shankar, that the ridiculous ferocity of your defense is classic hasty generalization: the invasion accomplished one good thing (removing a dictator from power), hence everything it accomplishes is good. And yet… Saddam’s regime began to spiral headlong into increasing domestic oppression and violence after the first Gulf War. As we have so often learned, external involvement in Middle East affairs starts many fires for each one that it puts out – doubly so when we attempt to toe a status quo, and in this case when we allowed a violent and aggressive leader to retain his throne after he attacked an ally nation.

    To bring this all to a conclusion: Saddam should have been ousted then, we would have saved ourselves a lot of trouble on the Iraq front. And womens’ right should be moved forward in Iraq now; it will save them a lot of trouble later. Why oust one dictator and leave half the country still facing the threat of oppression? Or do you think that we will at some point come back for them the way we came back for Saddam?

  26. Sunya, you seem to accept claims from sites like Iraq Body Count pretty uncritically. I don’t pretend that this will change anyone’s mind about anything, but suffice it to say that the methodology employed by that site is questionable, to say the least:

    link 1

    link 2

    link 3

  27. Here is the problem: if you want democracy in some of these countries, you are going to have to let people decide what they want for themselves. And you’re not going to get everything YOU want out of this process…or it wouldn’t be democracy. You CAN’T force principles down people’s throats.

    It so happens that most societies, including the ones in the middle east, are to varying degrees patriarchal. You are not going to uproot this by invading. It’s presently doubtful that you are going to be able to install democracy (that almost sounds oxymoronic) in the first place. So botched. But if you do manage to install democracy, you will have to be willing to give a patriarchal society what it wants and that is, surprise, some form of patriarchy…

  28. Mandos, you beat me to it. Democracy is a double-edged sword; simply having democracy doesn’t mean you’ll get the results you want. In fact, you often get the opposite.

  30. Pingback: Rox Populi

  31. So… Jon… has nobody died in Iraq recently, or is it just, you know, a few people, purely incidental, here or there?

    Uh, I’m really not sure how you can infer that this was my point from anything that I’ve posted above. I simply pointed out your uncritical reliance on a site that has had its methodology plausibly critiqued. If you can point out where above I said that Iraq was a utopia, or that the death toll there has been trivial, perhaps you can consider your smugness justified. Otherwise, congratulations…you’ve proved beyond all doubt that you’re more than capable of entering a three-word search string into Google.

  32. Sheesh, don’t any of you people read Riverbend? At least under Saddam they had electricity and water, and could attend weddings and funerals without being shot or bombed!

    http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

    “They are doing that by building the institutions of a free society, a society based on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and equal justice under law.”

    We’re so free, we often find ourselves prisoners of our homes, with roads cut off indefinitely and complete areas made inaccessible. We are so free to assemble that people now fear having gatherings because a large number of friends or family members may attract too much attention and provoke a raid by American or Iraqi forces.

    …

    The cousin, his wife S. and their two daughters have been houseguests these last three days. They drove up to the house a couple of days ago with several bags of laundry. “There hasn’t been water in our area for three days…” The cousins wife huffed as she dragged along a black plastic bag of dirty clothes. “The water came late last night and disappeared three hours later… what about you?” Our water had not been cut off completely, but it came and went during the day.

    Water has been a big problem in many areas all over Baghdad. Houses without electric water pumps don’t always have access to water. Today it was the same situation in most of the areas. They say the water came for a couple of hours and then disappeared again. We’re filling up plastic containers and pots just to be on the safe side. It is not a good idea to be caught without water in the June heat in Iraq.

    ..

    The electrical situation differs from area to area. On some days, the electricity schedule is two hours of electricity, and then four hours of no electricity. On other days, it’s four hours of electricity to four or six hours of no electricity. The problem is that the last couple of weeks, we don’t have electricity in the mornings for some reason. Our local generator is off until almost 11 am, and the house generator allows for ceiling fans (or “pankas”), the refrigerator, television and a few other appliances. Air conditioners cannot be turned on and the heat is oppressive by 8 am these days.

  33. Iraq body count’s methodology is indeed questionable. They are using a passive data collection system, a method that is notorious for undercounting. So the 25,000 civilian deaths is probably an undercount, possibly by as much as a factor of 10. The chances that their methodology, which counts only deaths that have been confirmed by two independent sources, resulted in an undercount is highly improbable.

  34. yo, Jonnyboy – you were right to assume that those “plausible critiques” weren’t going to change anyone’s mind. have you checked up on said critiques (far too generous a term, really)? y’know, check up on their claims to see if they were really telling the truth or just spouting off in order to make political book? or did you just uncritically rely on sites that don’t even pretend to have methodologies?

  35. Dianne wrote: I hope that if we really look at the situation, whether it is better or worse, look at what was done and not done, maybe we can come up with a way to intervene in countries where the human rights situation is bad that would actually be helpful.

    that is a nice hope & a nice vision, Dianne, & i truly hope someday it comes to pass. i am, i believe, more pessimistic than you, but i agree wholeheartedly that it would be wonderful to come up with a way of “intervening” that didn’t involve mass slaughter.

    and in that sense i must say that doing nothing in the face of Bush seems quite unpalatable as well. anyone got suggestions on that one?

    and, btw, if you’re also Dianne Pulte who posted above, good point on the IBC methodology (as opposed to the wankers Jonnyboy cited).

  36. How many of you goofy bastards have been to Iraq? This war is something you read about in the newspapers and talk about over the Internet. Why don’t you take a plane to Baghdad and interview 1000 random Iraqis? Spend an hour speaking with the men and women and children over there. Ask them what they think about the post-Saddam Iraq and the subsequent conflict, then fly back home, and we’ll talk.

    I can’t believe you let the New York Times, Katie Couric, and NPR shape your opinions. God, no wonder most of you people are so fucked up.

  37. Pingback: Politblogo

  38. Hey Shankar, what’s up. I’m glad you don’t think women, and people generally, aren’t getting killed by the truckload in Iraq. That probably makes your political life a lot less complicated.

    Gosh, you’re right. It’s so much more complex and nuanced to blindly, unthinkingly accept the numbers offered by Iraqi Body Count, a site whose aim is outspokenly partisan, and whose methodology is, at best, questionable. I’ve seen the light. Thank god for you, madam.

    In all seriousness: It’s fine to disagree. Just don’t try to imply that I’m a simpleton because I don’t accept your casualty numbers. It’s unpleasant; almost as unpleasant as overusing sarcasm (see above).

    And furthermore:

    It’s preposterous to even talk about how horrible Saddam was to women when said horribleness was actively supported by so many men in his country.

    I totally agree. Henceforth, I will employ this argument against anyone who talks about how horrible George W. Bush is. It’s preposterous to talk about how he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade or reform social security, when said horribleness is being actively supported by so many people in this country.

  39. ok Marksman2000, since you obviously don’t get your news from the newspapers and the internet, tell us: how was it in Iraq when you last visited? and what did those 1000 Iraqis tell you? y’know, in the space of an hour… man, you must have gone fast! you there! what’s life like? 2 words or less! hurry up! next!

    & Mr. Gupta? thanks for my first smirk of the day. the air of genteel indignation at “unpleasant” sarcasm is quite amusing coming from you.

  40. Mr. Jam-

    Thanks. I’ll take that as a compliment, because if I didn’t, I don’t know how I’d go on living in the cruel shadow of your disapproval.

  41. How interesting that the two pro-invasion shills will worry all day about the methodology of one body-count-tallying site rather than the human cost of invasion.

    I totally agree. Henceforth, I will employ this argument against anyone who talks about how horrible George W. Bush is. It’s preposterous to talk about how he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade or reform social security, when said horribleness is being actively supported by so many people in this country.

    Was there some contention about this that I didn’t know about, rendering your blindingly obvious statement somehow humorous, ironic, or piquant?

    Also, Dubya:Hussein::Propaganda:Bribery.

  42. shill

    n : a decoy who acts as an enthusiastic customer in order to stimulate the participation of others

    Are you suggesting that I am a decoy who is merely pretending to support the war in Iraq as some sort of propaganda initiative? Maybe that we’re being paid for this? (Ha! I wish!) That my comments here are some sort of byzantine ploy to generate support for the Iraq invasion on, of all places, Feministe.us?

    You know, Hawks as well as Doves are capable of honestly believing the things that they say. It may be difficult to accept, but your ideological opponents also have ideals of their own. It’s pretty sad if you can’t recognize that.

  43. A moment to say that I love seeing Jam and Shankar disagree. You guys are shamelessly sarcastic and it is incredibly funny in print, even if the subject matter is not.

    Back to your regularly scheduled boxing match.

  44. This draft chapter of the constitution suggests women be judged by the law followed by themselves and their families. Not ideal, certainly, but better than (for example) Saudi Arabia’s blanket application of Sharia

    I’ve been mulling this over, and I have to disagree.

    It is true that a woman whose family is more liberal would have more freedom and more rights than a woman whose family is fundamentalist–but those rights would be accorded by her family, not by the government. A woman whose family is fundamentalist would not, I think, have much choice in her venue. If a woman’s family is fundamentalist, her contrary desires would have no weight in their considerations. And what if a woman has no problem with Shariah until she gets raped and decides that she prefers a more sane standard of conviction? Or until she’s being beaten by her husband?

  46. Lauren – Glad to see at least one person finds this as fun as I do. I sincerely hope that “Skankar” was a typo, and not some new unflattering nickname. I’ve got enough of those. 😉

    Piny – “Dupe” at least seems to suggest that you think I honestly believe what I write. So it’s a step in the right direction. Now all you have to do is stop assuming that people who don’t believe what you do have been foolishly tricked into doing so.

    But to address the non-name-calling portion of your point:

    I’ve been mulling this over, and I have to disagree.

    It is true that a woman whose family is more liberal would have more freedom and more rights than a woman whose family is fundamentalist–but those rights would be accorded by her family, not by the government. A woman whose family is fundamentalist would not, I think, have much choice in her venue.

    This is certainly true, and it’s what makes the draft chapter of the constitution that we’re discussing undesireable. But still, under this arrangement, more women would have freedom and rights than under a system that applied Shar’ia to everyone.

  47. This is certainly true, and it’s what makes the draft chapter of the constitution that we’re discussing undesireable. But still, under this arrangement, more women would have freedom and rights than under a system that applied Shar’ia to everyone.

    No, they wouldn’t, and by your own logic: women under this system would have no rights at all.

  48. Unpack, please? How so, and how by my own logic? You said yourself that:

    It is true that a woman whose family is more liberal would have more freedom and more rights than a woman whose family is fundamentalist–but those rights would be accorded by her family, not by the government.

    Obviously, it’s not a model of an egalitarian society to have one’s family deciding whether or not a woman can, say, go outside without a male escort. But under an ironclad Shar’ia state, such a thing would be totally impossable, whereas under a partial system, some women would have that right and some wouldn’t.

  50. My own terminology was lazy, too, then, and I apologize.

    My point is this: if my father gets to determine whether I leave the house, I have no right to leave the house. If my father gets to determine whether I have access to the courts, I have no right to access to the courts. No woman in Iraq has equal rights; all women are marginalized by the introduction of sexist religious law into secular law.

    That is what is so troubling: the constitution effectively makes these women–all Iraqi women–slaves. Sure, some of them may be well-treated slaves, but they won’t be free.

    You can’t say that having a dictator capriciously award freedoms to some upon threat of having them taken away doesn’t count as the right to do things like leave the house, drive a car, get an education, leave a battering husband, and get a divorce–and then say that putting that power in the hands of a tinpot autocrat paterfamilias does count.

  51. Piny-

    My point is this: if my father gets to determine whether I leave the house, I have no right to leave the house. If my father gets to determine whether I have access to the courts, I have no right to access to the courts.

    If this is the way you view rights then consider this: A burgler could come to your home this evening, murder you, and steal all your possessions. Does this mean you have no rights to life or property?

    In a way, we all have some level of power over the rights of the people around us. I could turn to my co-worker right now and punch him in the face, violating his right to… not be punched in the face. Does that mean I’ve taken the right from him? Or does it merely I’m an ass for not respecting that right he had in the first place?

    For my part, I believe that rights are something that you just have. They can’t be taken away from you. They can merely be disrespected or ignored. Rights are things that ought to be respected–It is immoral to steal from someone, violating their right to property, just as it’s immoral for the government to place you under house arrest for no reason, violating your right to liberty.

    So, returning to the matter we’re discussing. Under the draft proposal as I understand it, some women will have their rights respected, if they’re members of a liberal family. Others will see their rights trampled, if their families are fervent believers in Shar’ia. However, this is still better than a system where the government mandates that the rights of women ought to never be respected.

  52. If this is the way you view rights then consider this: A burgler could come to your home this evening, murder you, and steal all your possessions. Does this mean you have no rights to life or property?

    For someone who takes umbrage at “dupe,” this is a really stupid analogy.

    No, of course not. Because that burglar would be a criminal, someone who had illegally violated your recognized rights. His transgression would be punishable by law, with all the social condemnation that implies.

    But what if that burglar got to decide, with the full backing of the law, whether those possessions–or your life–remained yours? What if he got to decide merely because he’s your male relative, and the courts had no plans to punish him? Would you then have the right to property or life? Would you have the right to property or life if he decided to leave you alone for a few weeks or months?

    Under this law, a woman who’s family decides she has no rights has no rights. Or, to use your terminology, a woman whose family decides that her rights are not to be recognized has no recognized rights. If the law only recognizes your rights at the behest of your family, the law does not recognize them. You’re a slave with a kind master, not a free person.

  53. Umbrage. Good word.

    But really, no, it’s not a stupid analogy. What does it matter what consequences the burglar faces? The damage is done. Your rights have been violated. The burglar might get away, or not–most do, in fact. Regardless, your rights have already been disrespected. Obviously, if this hypothetical burglar had government sanctioning, such violations of people’s rights would be far more pervasive. But that doesn’t make a qualitative difference in his actions.

    Your argument was that if someone wields power over your rights, you don’t actually have them. Mine is that everyone has power wielded over their rights. The whole point of the society we’ve constructed is to make sure that the people who are protecting our rights are stronger than the people who are trying to violate them, and to make sure those people know what the rights are that they ought to be protecting.

    But what if that burglar got to decide, with the full backing of the law, whether those possessions–or your life–remained yours? What if he got to decide merely because he’s your male relative, and the courts had no plans to punish him? Would you then have the right to property or life? Would you have the right to property or life if he decided to leave you alone for a few weeks or months?

    My answer to all these questions would be yes. That’s what “unalienable” means in the Declaration of Independence. You have them, they’re yours, and a Mullah with a Qua’ran and a fatwah can’t take ’em away.

  54. No, the point of “rights” is that they come from the supremest authority of all: either God, if you get down with God, or from your existence as a human being.

    Rights are special in that they are supra-governmental: rights are something the authorities around you, whatever they are, MUST RESPECT. When we say “all men have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” that means: your access to and enjoyment of those things cannot be abridged by the government that rules you. In theory this means that a right to bear arms is a right to motherfucking bear arms: at no point can the US government say “you are not allowed to own or carry a weapon.” and make it stick. In the US you have a right to not have soldiers quartered in your home against your will, a right to practice the religion of your choice insofar as that practice doesn’t interfere with anyone else’s rights, and a right to a trial by your peers if accused of a crime.

    Things aren’t rights because they can be taken away by an opposition. They aren’t rights because someone really strong protects them: things like that are called privileges and they are not “unalienable”. They aren’t rights because the government gives them to you. Rights are freedoms and privileges we enjoy innately, by right, as citizens of this nation and (according to the UN for many of the more popular ones) by sheer dint of being human, and they CANNOT be taken away from you.

    So you see the problem with women having their “rights” protected by daddy instead of by law: when daddy’s mind changes, daughter’s “rights” change. There is nothing innate about that and nobody, least of all the interim Iraqi government, needs to respect them.

    Read some more about rights!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights

    Shankar, are you a troll? Or do you really not know this stuff?

  55. But really, no, it’s not a stupid analogy. What does it matter what consequences the burglar faces? The damage is done. Your rights have been violated. The burglar might get away, or not–most do, in fact. Regardless, your rights have already been disrespected. Obviously, if this hypothetical burglar had government sanctioning, such violations of people’s rights would be far more pervasive. But that doesn’t make a qualitative difference in his actions.

    They would be universal, not pervasive. And while that may not make a qualitative difference in his actions, it does mean a qualitative difference in the law’s response: social condemnation and the full strength of the law vs. sweet fuck-all. You really see no difference between “crime” and “not a crime”?

    Mine is that everyone has power wielded over their rights. The whole point of the society we’ve constructed is to make sure that the people who are protecting our rights are stronger than the people who are trying to violate them, and to make sure those people know what the rights are that they ought to be protecting.

    Mm-hm. And the government has abrogated its protective responsibility with respect to these women. They have no protection against violation of their rights.

    Everything Sunya said.

    Exactly! Thanks, Sunya.

    Your rights are inalienable; recognition of those rights depends on your government. If your government does not recognize your rights as inalienable rights, but as provisional agency and safety to be taken away at the whim of a relative, your government does not recognize your rights. You’re lucky enough to be a slave with a kind master. The government does not care if he sells you to someone cruel, or if he decides to be cruel himself.

    And to get back to my original point:

    If you don’t have recognized rights merely because your capricious, murderous dictator has not decided to imprison, murder, rape, or beat you…then you don’t have recognized rights merely because your male relatives have decided not to do or allow any of these things.

    See? No assurance of protection. No promise of retributive justice. No inalienable freedoms.

    No rights under the law.

    Let me rephrase this passage so that it’s more in line with your chosen terms:

    But what if that burglar got to decide, with the full backing of the law, whether those possessions–or your life–remained yours? What if he got to decide merely because he’s your male relative, and the courts had no plans to punish him? Would you then have the recognized right to property or life? Would you have the recognized right to property or life if he decided to leave you alone for a few weeks or months?

    Or would the law have taken that from you?

  56. Sunya wrote:

    They aren’t rights because the government gives them to you. Rights are freedoms and privileges we enjoy innately, by right, as citizens of this nation and (according to the UN for many of the more popular ones) by sheer dint of being human, and they CANNOT be taken away from you.

    I wrote:

    That’s what “unalienable” means in the Declaration of Independence. You have them, they’re yours, and a Mullah with a Qua’ran and a fatwah can’t take ‘em away.

    I’m so glad we agree, Sunya. Now stop calling me a troll, please. 🙂

    Piny-

    Mm-hm. And the government has abrogated its protective responsibility with respect to these women. They have no protection against violation of their rights.

    Right. It has foisted off this responsibility to others, namely, the families of the women of Iraq. Some will take this responsibility seriously. Some won’t. My argument, which you have yet to address, is that this is still better than a government whose practiced policy is to violate those rights in every case.

  57. Jam:

    Where in my post did I express any opinions about Iraq?

    The difference between someone like me and an idiot like you is that I don’t pretend to act as if I know what’s going on over there. If I take any information as fact it’s from a solider who returned from duty in Iraq, or from someone who use to live over there.

    The lamestream media does not slant my opinion of these matters. As you Lefties found out quite recently, Dan Blather and his buddies are completely full of shit. Like I said, catch a plane to Iraq, spend 1000 hours with 1000 Iraqis, and then we’ll talk.

  58. Marksman2000! buddy! sweetcakes! i nearly missed this. that would’ve been sad 🙁

    Where in my post did I express any opinions about Iraq?

    you mean coherently? i confess i wasn’t really paying attention. i was distracted by my fantasy involving Katie Couric after hours in the NPR offices! rowr!

    Like I said, catch a plane to Iraq, spend 1000 hours with 1000 Iraqis, and then we’ll talk.

    & you call other people “goofy bastards”? so, in order to be granted the dubious honor of talking with you (on someone else’s blog) i have to “catch a plane” to Iraq, right? and spend an hour… oh, wait! now it’s 1000 hours?? changing the rules midstream, eh?

    but let’s ignore that. are you going pay my way? if so, i’m there!
    if not, well… i mean, don’t get me wrong or anything. i’m sure risking my life, stressing the fuck out of every family member & friend i have & putting myself in the hole for at least a few grand is no doubt absoloodlydoodly worth just the chance to get to talk to you (on someone else’s blog). no doubt.

    but really, if you’re not putting up then i’m afraid i can’t really take you seriously. if i did, i’d have to take all the other keyboardcommandos issuing bravado challenges they themselves would never dream of doing (or making good on) seriously as well. and that would be goofy!

    xxoo

Comments are currently closed.