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

Tag: Barack Obama

Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize

Like everyone else, I was hit with the news this morning that Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize. And, like seemingly everyone else, my first reaction was “Really? Already? But why?”

Luckily for me, just as I began to ask that question, I came across this article from the AP, which debunks several Nobel Peace Prize related myths. Of most significance is the last:

_ Myth: The prize is awarded to recognize efforts for peace, human rights and democracy only after they have proven successful.

More often, the prize is awarded to encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments.

Assuming the AP is correct, suddenly (at least to me), this whole thing makes a lot more sense.

Now, I’m not saying that closes all opportunity for criticism of the decision, by any means. Please, criticize away — there’s definitely room for it! But it makes sense to do it from a fully informed perspective. A lot of the criticism I’ve seen appears to be working off of a mistaken assumption — one which I myself thought was correct — so it certainly seems relevant to clear things up. I, for one, am glad to see that someone did.

Popular conservative website says a military coup would “resolve the Obama problem”

He’s careful to say he’s not advocating a military coup, he’s just saying…

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the Obama problem. Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic.

America isn’t the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn’t mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it.

Thanks to Mind for the link.

“You don’t have to tell me about ‘the parts’… just tell me to wait”

No, that’s not Leslee Unruh or the National Abstinence Education Association.

It’s the Obama Administration.

Here’s the new tv ad from 4parents.gov, run by the US Dept. of Health and Human Services:

So, let’s see, you’ve been in office 8 months now, right Barack? And this is what we’re still peddling?

It gets worse at their website. Here’s what they have to say about marriage:

This Web site talks a lot about marriage, and that waiting until marriage is a sensible choice for your son or daughter to make when it comes to sex. But what’s so valuable about marriage? Why is marriage any different, or any better than other family situations?

First of all, let’s be clear on one important point. In general, children – and adults – do better in homes headed by a married mother and father.

****

What are the benefits married people enjoy?

  • Live longer.
  • Have better physical and emotional health.
  • Are happier.
  • Earn more.
  • Enjoy better sex lives.

That’s right, folks. Tell your kids they better get hitched to their heterosexual partner, or else you’ll never have great sex and you’ll die young, poor and unhappy. And whatever you do, don’t talk about “the parts”…

Your tax dollars (still) at work…

(crossposted from Amplify)

Shall we tint our Twitter avatars? No? Carry on…

As many of you are no doubt aware, Manuel Zelaya, the democratically elected president of Honduras, was ousted in an illegal military coup last June.   Obama originally issued a condemnation of the army, who stormed the presidential palace and removed and forcibly deported Zelaya while he was still in his pajamas.

Obama’s extremely reasonable response was nice, at least compared to Bush’s endorsement of  (and connections to) the short-lived 2002 illegal removal of democratically elected leftist president Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.  Zelaya and Chavez are political allies.   The US has a long history of undermining and actively supporting the overthrow of leftish governments in Latin America (This isn’t the greatest or most comprehensive overview, but it’s a start.)  So I was really disappointed when Obama backed down from having a position beyond that this is None of Our Business:

“The same critics who say that the United States has not intervened enough in Honduras are the same people who say that we’re always intervening and the Yankees need to get out of Latin America. You can’t have it both ways…”

Because funding mass murders and installing puppet dictators is really equatable with supporting actual democratic process and providing humanitarian aid.

Amnesty International recently released a report warning of a post-coup humanitarian crisis in Honduras.  Mass demonstrations have been underway, met with arbitrary arrests and brutality.  Calls for aid have been largely ignored, at least here in the US.

I would be especially, especially interested to hear from Feministe readers in other parts of the world.  How is the media covering the coup?  How is your government and population responding?  Here, it’s not even a story anymore.

Hey, remember the worldwide Twitterevolution after the elections in Iran? People in the US were all over that.  I saw so many tweets from people who had turned their avatars green praising the brave souls in the streets of Tehran.  Hell, I made my avatar green.  I changed my location to Tehran.  I had my doubts about what all this did for the courageous in the streets, but if in any tiny way it showed support, I wanted to show support.

But the whole thing left a gross taste in my mouth.  Much as I supported the people of Iran fighting for their rights to self-determination, over here in the US all the support felt like it was coming less from the grassroots up than from the government/corporate media power structure on down.  It is in the interest of US foreign policy to undermine Ahmadinejad however possible.  The feel good story of normal people like you and me banding together across the globe via Twitter, the little company that could, to Twitterize the popular revolution?  PR gold.
Earlier this summer the US Congress even passed a resolution condemning the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the crackdown on peaceful protestors. One thing that bugged me then was the complete hypocrisy of the US government, which has in recent history shown no such love or respect for demonstrators on their own soil, including those specifically demanding free and fair elections.  I don’t want to equate the bloody repression of protesters in Iran to that facing  those in the US protesting the 2000 and 2004 stolen elections or anything, but the US government hardly has a history of glorifying their own citizens when they fight for democracy at home, let alone any consistent support for those fighting for their rights across the globe. It is clear that all the love the US government feels for Iranian protesters is primarily motivated by political opportunism.

This is not to in anyway undermine the demonstrators in Iran, who have my love and support.  But it is to point out that I think Honduran demonstrators are equally deserving.  And there are obvious reasons why they’re not getting it.

Where were women in Obama’s Cairo speech?

Peter Daou has a great piece up at UN Dispatch about Obama’s speech in Cairo, and the emptiness of his rhetoric surrounding women’s rights. Obama is certainly not in an enviable situation: The previous administration paid lipservice to women’s rights as an excuse to invade entire nations, and framed gender equality as a Western invention that we were going to bring to the backwards, barbaric Middle East by force. As a result, American talk of feminism is understandably met with skepticism and even hostility, and local women’s rights movements in places like Afghanistan, Iran and Egypt have experienced profound setbacks, as men in power are increasingly able to argue that feminism is a colonialist import and a tool of destruction. So I can’t blame Obama for not hammering the gender equality point, and I’m a big believer in providing quiet support for local women’s movements instead of “offering” equality at the barrel of a gun.

But all that said, Peter is right to point out that human rights (and women’s rights) shouldn’t be ignored just because the previous administration used them as weapons of war (and because the previous administration was remarkably hypocritical in their total disregard for human and women’s rights at home). Peter writes:

Take the issue of women’s rights, addressed in Obama’s Cairo speech with the most tepid language:

“The U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.”

“I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.”

“Now let me be clear: issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.”

“Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.”

Is that a joke?

With women being stoned, raped, abused, battered, mutilated, and slaughtered on a daily basis across the globe, violence that is so often perpetrated in the name of religion, the most our president can speak about is protecting their right to wear the hijab? I would have been much more heartened if the preponderance of the speech had been about how in the 21st century, we CANNOT tolerate the pervasive abuse of our mothers and sisters and daughters.

I return to the example of Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow:

“13-year old Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow was stoned to death in Somalia by insurgents because she was raped. Reports indicate that was raped by three men while traveling by foot to visit her grandmother in conflict capital, Mogadishu. When she went to the authorities to report the crime, they accused her of adultery and sentenced her to death. Aisha was forced into a hole in a stadium of 1,000 onlookers as 50 men buried her up to the neck and cast stones at her until she died. When some of the people at the stadium tried to save her, militia opened fire on the crowd, killing a boy who was a bystander.

A witness who spoke to the BBC’s Today programme said she had been crying and had to be forced into a hole before the stoning, reported to have taken place in a football stadium. … She said: ‘I’m not going, I’m not going. Don’t kill me, don’t kill me.’ “A few minutes later more than 50 men tried to stone her.” The witness said people crowding round to see the execution said it was “awful”.”

Enough with the perpetual campaign. True justice, true peace, these are earned through courageous decisions and bold actions. Real truth to power.

If we are to fix America’s image in the world and if we are to heal the planet’s myriad ills, it will not be done through contrite kumbaya speeches about how we are all one world and how we should all coexist peacefully, no matter whether the remarks are delivered in Cleveland or Cairo. It will be done by leading through example, by righting the many wrongs here at home, by seeking justice and fairness for all, by doing what is right, not saying what sounds pleasing to the media elite and the pliable punditocracy.

Exactly. It’s time for Obama to start setting an example on human rights issues.

So this is what “common ground” looks like?

I know a lot of pro-choice advocates dislike Obama’s “common ground” rhetoric, but I’ve actually thought it was quite strategically smart. After all, the “common ground” position is abortion reduction through contraception, poverty alleviation, and increased gender equality — the pro-choice position, in a nutshell. It is irritating to see that position re-packaged and sold as new, but if it works, I’m fine with it. It also puts anti-choicers on the defensive, and it makes them explain why they’re opposed to all the things that have been proven to decrease the abortion rate. The anti-choice position is centered solely and wholely on making abortion illegal; they have no other tenable plan for making abortion less common. So I like the “common ground” argument, because it puts them in a position of refusing all common-sense solutions.

But if this is what “common ground” looks like, count me out.

President Obama has appointed Alexia Kelley, executive director of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (CACG), to head the Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships at the Department of Health and Human Services. Kelley is a leading proponent of “common ground” abortion reduction — only CACG’s common ground is at odds with that of Obama. While the administration favors reducing the need for abortion by reducing unintended pregnancies, Kelley has made clear that she seeks instead to reduce access to abortion. That is an extremely disturbing development, especially coming this week in the wake of George Tiller’s assassination.

Kelley and CACG have made clear they are committed to Catholic doctrine on abortion and birth control. CACG has supported the Pregnant Women’s Support Act, aimed at stigmatizing abortion and making it less accessible. In discussing legislation on reducing the need for abortion, Kelley has written that various pieces of legislation concerned with women’s health “are not all perfect; some include contraception — which the Church opposes.” Never mind that more than 90 percent of American Catholics use it anyway.

As Catholics for Choice points out in its press release criticizing the pick, “the Department of Health and Human Services is responsible for providing and expanding access to key sexual and reproductive health services. As such, we need those working in HHS to rely on evidence-based methods to reduce the need for abortion. We need them to believe in men’s and women’s capacity to make moral decisions about their own lives. Unfortunately, as seen from her work at CACG, Ms. Kelley does not fit the bill.”

In a 2008 press teleconference co-sponsored by CACG and Sojourners, Kelley stated that she supported state-imposed restrictions on abortion, such as waiting periods and informed consent. In her 2008 book, A Nation for All, co-written with Chris Korzen, Kelley wrote, “Each abortion constitutes a direct attack on human life, and so we have a special moral obligation to end or reduce the practice of abortion to the greatest extent possible.”

I’ll echo Sarah’s question: Why do we need religious groups involved in health care policy?

Catholics for Choice has even more background. I’m glad that Ms. Kelley supports anti-poverty measures, but without support for basics like contraception, it doesn’t seem like there’s much common ground to be had.