In the comments of Pseudo-Adrienne’s post yesterday, Asher of Dreams into Lightning posted some quotes from other blogs about the situation for women in Iraq, which I liked so much that I’m totally swiping it and posting here.
A couple of recent items:
In spite of the heat and the dust that’s covering Baghdad for the 2nd day, more than a hundred Iraqi women representing NGOs and active groups gathered to declare their demands in equality and a civil family and personal affairs law.
The women set a large tent in Al-Firdows square which witnessed the fall of Saddam in April 2003. Under this icon of freedom the women held their signs and demands high.
I met some of the activists who talked enthusiastically about plans for more protests and conventions to show their disapproval of the constitution’s draft because they’re afraid that religion might hijack the constitution and deprive them of their rights.
I’ve also noticed that signs that required two to hold were held by a male and a female in a sign of equality; I liked the idea! …
Full post, with pictures, at the link.
The Iraq Constitution is in the process of being written. Several drafts have been sent to the public for input in preparation for the referendum on August 15, 2005. As the negotiations continue, questions about the base of law and the role of Islam and Shari’ah continue to be points of contention. Many women in Iraq will be affected if Shari’ah is adopted as the sole source of law or if it is adopted as a major source of law and its implementation is left up to the different regions of Iraq.
Some regions are effectively controlled by major religious parties, both Sunni and Shia, which advocate traditional and restricted roles for women. The laws that would be enacted under Shari’ah would impact women negatively including such issues as custody of children (usually given to the men regardless of the reason for divorce or separation), divorce (which gives women limited if no rights in divorce, regardless of the condition of their union and allow men free reign to divorce at will for little if any reason and can impact her and her children’s financial situation), inheritance (depending on whose version of Shari’ah, widows could be left with less than 50% of their husbands property and wealth, regardless of the number of children she has to support while the remaining inheritance would be given to his brothers, father, uncles and cousins; for women already living in poverty, this could be devastating), and voting rights and representation within the government.
These are but a few of the issues facing women in the new Iraq. Other issues include laws to protect women from abuse, honor killings and unfair and inhumane punishment for the crime of “adultery” which includes pre-marital sex and rape. …
Follow Kat’s links to the American Islamic Congress and Women’s Alliance for a Democratic Iraq.
Plus, this post on how people can help, from Dreams Into Lightning. I’ve changed it a little, though, so blame the content on me, not on DIL:
1) Write your senator and representative asking them to support these organizations with additional funds or statements of support for women’s rights. (If you are not in the United States, please feel free to write your parliament member or other government representatives to give support to these organizations.)
2) Donate funds directly to any of the women’s organization’s listed below.
The Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq
Women’s Alliance for a Democratic Iraq3) If you work for a company or are a member of an organization, particularly any organizations for women within your country or region, ask them to provide assistance, either financially, materially (ie, donating time, media assistance, printing, supplies, etc) or politically.
Some may be concerned that this assistance will come too late. It is never too late. Changes to the constitution are being made as you read this and will be made up to the last moment before the referendum. Even after the constitution is written and the referendum passed, women’s rights in Iraq will still be an issue and these women will need our support.
(The original post on DIL also suggested donating money to the Independent Women’s Forum, an anti-feminist, pro-Republican think tank with no special Iraq expertise, and some other organizations that weren’t as appalling as the IWF but also didn’t seem very focused on women in Iraq. I deleted those links and stuck in a link to OWFI instead.)
In spite of the heat and the dust that’s covering Baghdad for the 2nd day, more than a hundred Iraqi women representing NGOs and active groups gathered to declare their demands in equality and a civil family and personal affairs law.
Good for them, and God bless them.
I don’t have to make a big argument out of the simple fact: you and are I both glad that the next sentence of this story isn’t “the women were all then taken away and beaten with rubber hoses, and a few were killed”.
That marks a fundamental change in these women’s political rights. From not having any access to the right of protest and to present demands, to having a pretty good shot at it.
I wonder what answer we’d get if we asked one of those women freely assembling “how much of your right to do what you’re doing right now would you trade for a significant reduction in [all the terrible things that you can name about the plight of women in Iraq]”
To suggest that the right to protest is, somehow, the only right which matters is naive. It matters not one whit if there is no-one prepared to listen.
I’m going to try a different question to replace Robert’s final paragraph. I dare him to say to the women of Iraq – preferably to their faces, “Suppose we take away your right to education, to work, to your own choice on whether to marry and whom to marry, to protection from violence within the home and to fair treatment in the courts but we waste a few dozen more lives in protecting your right to stand here and protest – will that be enough?”
I know only a handful of Iraqi women but I suspect the answer would be no.
The PR for this stunt was all about bring in democracy to the peole of Iraq, not about bringing proto-democracy to 40% of the adult population but none of its benefits to either women or children.
To suggest, even by implication, that whatever the women of Iraq end up with it will be definition be better than what went before – and in every respect – is the politics of the madhouse, of the playroom or of far too many educated Americans with their heads in buckets of sand.
Amp, thanks for the link! And for the record, I don’t endorse IWF – that link was provided by Kat in her original post at The Middle Ground.
Also, thanks for the info on OWFI.
I’m going to repeat a post here I put elsewhere on a previous thread (whose central thesis had nothing to do with women’s rights in Iraq):
Frankly, I think that imposition of sharia in Iraq will be a two-fold disaster. First, because of the effect it will have on the women living there. And that deserves to stand alone, because of the horrific effect that has on those women.
But there’s another effect of sharia that will destablize Iraq. By restricting the roles of 1/2 the population (or 2/3, if a statistic quoted elsewhere is to be believed) it will greatly reduce the ability of Iraq’s economy to compete in the world marketplace and will thus keep the country depressed and dependent. That in turn will make it a breeding ground for extremism of whatever stripe (but likely with at least a facade of Islam). Of course, the response of those extremists is that countries ruled under sharia will be able to compete when they achieve their aim of imposing sharia across the entire planet.
And should Iraq not impose sharia and adopt at least a semblance of democracy, I think it’s likely that they will end up with a successful economy, especially given their relatively secular recent history and the level their economy had reached until Saddam Hussein decided that he’d let people starve and the civil infrastructure crumble in favor of building up palaces and military capabilities. A secular democracy with a successful economy in the Middle East is a disaster for the rulers of Syria, Iran, and even Saudi Arabia, so they have little incentive to prevent anyone in their own countries from trying to destabilize Iraq.
And now I’ll do the same with another post I did, because it’s much more relevant here than where I posted it initially. I hope this isn’t too self-indulgent ….
Protests like this are a necessary start. But changing attitudes that have 1000’s of years of history isn’t something that’s going to happen overnight. As maureen writes, “[protest] matters not one whit if there is no-one prepared to listen.” As the very existence of a draft for the Iraqi Constitution that would put sharia as the source of all legislation implies, opposition to this is strong. If you want rapid change in these things, expect resistance.
In fact, expect armed resistance. Expect that volunteers and contractors that spread Western influence by building girls’ schools or putting up electrical works that will enable access to the Internet or anything else not found in the Qu’ran will be assaulted and killed. Expect that women who are bold enough to vote or to work outside the home or wear something other than a black tent in public will be occasionally dragged through the streets or dismembered or burned to death. Expect that many people in a society that has for millenia been dominated by despots and tyrants will need convincing that freedom is preferable to peace.
If you want freedom for women in Iraq, great. A worthy and necessary goal. But don’t expect that it’ll happen because the population acts on a revelation that of course this is the superior course. Don’t expect that it’ll happen solely because the right to protest exists. Expect that it’ll have to be fought for.
RonF, everyone does expect that women’s freedoms will have to be fought for. I can’t imagine that anyone expects that in many areas, any woman trying to get an education isn’t taking her own life into her hands.
However, I think that the attitudes towards women are not as entrenched as you are assuming. Women in Iraq before were educated, held jobs, and did not necessarily have to cover themselves.
I thank you very much for posting a link here and bringing attention to this issue.
As I tried to point out to several people, it is not only Sunni fundamentalists that we need to worry about, but Shia as well. That is, after all, the ruling majority of Iran and I can say without a doubt that is a disaster in women’s rights, if not human rights all together. Thus, I find the Iraqi Shia Islamists to be an egregious outcropping of this whole affair.
In regards to the IWF, as I explained on Asher’s blog, I linked to these people because they were the only ones that seemed to be interested in supporting these women’s rights, whatever their politics. I did not see NOW or any other liberal or feminist groups sponsoring them to the National Press Club on CSPAN (where I caught this right after the ITM post) or to meet with legislaters or the UN. Had there been a liberal or national/international feminist group, I would have linked to them as well.
In this battle, I’ll take all comers to the party and I imagine that the Iraqi women would be happy to do so as well, if only some others would step forward.
However, I thank you for finding the other link and I will add that to the group on the blog along with a hat tip to you.
Everyone is welcome to this fight.
And just so you understand, it is likely I will get complaints for linking to that site you posted since one of their statements declares “US state terrorism” as one of the “poles” that women are caught between.
You know I find that humorous since these women wouldn’t have the right to freely organize in such a manner if Saddam was still in power.
However, I am a believer in all sides of the group coming together and swallowing a few pieces of pride to get the job done. So a link is up without even a small “I don’t agree with the views of this site” note next to it. I figure people can decide one way or the other which group they will support.
You’re being used. This is the Potemkin Village trick.
The IWF link should have been a dead giveaway that the people writing about this episode don’t really care about the rights of women. The articles abusing Cindy Sheehan should have been a stronger clue.
Easy to overlook, but most telling of all, is that this demonstration happened in al-Firdos Square, “which witnessed the fall of Saddam in April 2003.” That referred to the tearing down of the statue of Saddam Hussein — which was a planned media event, performed by US soldiers, with barely a hundred Iraqis in attendance, basically amounting to Ahmad Chalabi and his flunkies.
I strongly suspect that this demonstration was just a few supporters of the US occupation, encouraged by the occupation, with the intent to send the message that continued occupation is neccessary to keep the barbarians under control. That’s certainly the reading intended by the rightwing pro-war websites that have been linked to in this post.
Yeah, what could be more feminist, patriotic and empowering than sneering at a woman who her kid in this asinine war ? [rolleyes] But no matter, I’m sure the IWF tea party set has at least as many friends and relatives serving overseas as do the stellar patriots in the House and Senate. [snicker] Maybe we should start a petition calling on them all to volunteer for active duty, post haste. I’m sure Wendy McElroy, et al, are anxious to serve the cause of women’s freedom in any way they can, and it’s simply never occurred to them that duty in Iraq would be the best way to do that.
http://www.gsfp.org/
Gack. Should be “…who LOST her kid…” Sorry. :o
acallidryas writes:
“RonF, everyone does expect that women’s freedoms will have to be fought for.”
I would hope so. But I’m not so sure that everyone expects that automatic weapons and bombs will need to be used in that fight. Some of the opponents of women’s rights in Iraq can be defeated at the ballot box. Other opponents will fight with terrorism, and will continue to fight until they are killed.
acallidryas also writes:
“However, I think that the attitudes towards women are not as entrenched as you are assuming. Women in Iraq before were educated, held jobs, and did not necessarily have to cover themselves. ”
All true. But the U.S. is not the only country in the world with a Blue State/Red State political pattern. There are areas of Iraq (Baghdad, for example) that were much more secular than other areas. Rural areas tended to be much more “traditional”, areas where women were more likely to not have educational opportunities and to have their social and professional roles limited.
But even so, as you state, Iraq has been more Western-oriented and much more secular than, say, Saudi Arabia. So there’s a good foundation for hope there. But there are men with guns who are trying to change that. Unless armed Iraqi forces get sufficient members, training, material and morale, the proponents of a 7th century A.D. civilization may prevail, at least for a time (as happened in Afghanistan).
As an aside, talk of Red State/Blue State politics reminds me of the map on the U.S.A. Today site that broke the 2004 election down into Blue County/Red County. It gives a much better picture of the geographic basis (and thus the demographic one) of the voting bases for the two major parties.
The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq have one common goal; get rid of the U.S. and take power. After that, though, their interests diverge. The Islamic extremists want to put the whole country under sharia. The Baathists more likely want to plunge the country into civil war, at which point they can split off the Sunni triangle as a separate country with themselves in charge. I don’t think the Baathists are particularly interested in sharia.
Neither of these aims, by the way, serve their neighbors. Iran rather likes having Iraq in turmoil, since as long as that continues the U.S. isn’t focusing on them, and they don’t have to worry about Iraq turning into a dominant local power. And Iran, Turkey, and Russia (to start) want no part of Iraq splitting into pieces, as one of those pieces would be a nascent Kurdistan, with oil, an educated populace, and the military experience to start a guerilla war that would try to split off and absorb the Kurdish majorities that are adjacent to the areas they have that border the Iraq Kurd areas.
So they want the U.S. to neither succeed nor fail.
And just so you understand, it is likely I will get complaints for linking to that site you posted since one of their statements declares “US state terrorism” as one of the “poles” that women are caught between. … You know I find that humorous since these women wouldn’t have the right to freely organize in such a manner if Saddam was still in power.
you know what i find humorous? folks talking about how many more “rights” women have in Iraq under the US than under Saddam without talking about how many more DEAD women there are in Iraq. yeah, that’s a real knee-slapper. but then i get the giggles whenever anyone starts pontificating about just how great military occupation is.
you know what else was funny (not funny ha-ha, but funny dumb-as-fuck)? the steaming pile of arrogant jingoistic crap that is Mamamontezz’s reply to Cindy Sheehan that i accidentally stumbled into when i wandered over to Dreams Into Lightning. wish i had gotten a warning for that one. i would’ve busted out my hip-waders & pepto-bismol.
you know what i find humorous? folks talking about how many more “rights” women have in Iraq under the US than under Saddam without talking about how many more DEAD women there are in Iraq.
Rights come at a cost.
You and I have a right to make jackasses of ourselves with public speech on Internet boards, without worrying about the government kicking in our door and dragging us off to the gulag.
People died so that we would have that right. More will die in the future.
Nothing worthwhile is free.
That’s great, Robert. How wonderful that you’re willing to sacrifice Iraqi women in order to liberate Iraqi oil women.
And let’s not mention how the US military has a habit of firing on peaceful demonstrators.
gee Robert, do you think you could pack more empty cliches into so few sentences? no, i didn’t think so either.
“rights” don’t “cost” anything. moreover, there are many many many worthwhile things that are very free. i know it’s really hard to try & think of things without resorting to the metaphorical delusions of capitalism but i think if you give it try you might find it interesting. have fun!
(by the way, for this bit of worthwhile advice you owe me $5.00)
“rights” don’t “cost” anything. moreover, there are many many many worthwhile things that are very free.
Name one.
“rights” don’t “cost” anything. moreover, there are many many many worthwhile things that are very free.
Name one.
Heh, you’ve got the god of war on your side now, Robert, aren’t you honored?
A parent’s love towards a child (and vice versa) is very worthwhile, and very free. Sunshine is free, and very worthwhile. Come on, be optimistic…
Here is my counterchallenge: Name one American freedom that has been preserved by the invasion of Iraq.
The freedom to stick your head in the sand and pretend that we’re not going to run out of oil soon?
A parent’s love towards a child (and vice versa) is very worthwhile, and very free.
The love a parent bears toward a child comes with a crushing cost in responsibility, duty, and obligation.
Sunshine is free, and very worthwhile.
Sunshine provides many benefits, including the formation of vitamin D. It’s good for your mood, too. And it causes cancer.
What else ya got? TANSTAFL, kids, TANSTAFL. Everything costs.
Come on, be optimistic…
An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist fears that this may in fact be true. ;)
Here is my counterchallenge: Name one American freedom that has been preserved by the invasion of Iraq.
Too vague – I could assert anything, and you could reasonably counterargue “nuh unh!” Too much unknowable contingency in there, too; maybe World War I saved democracy. Prove it didn’t; prove it did; ya can’t.
“Sand” wasn’t the word that came to mind for me, BritGirl.
Lol. But don’t forget, now you can stick your head in Iraqi sand too. Just pray there isn’t a mine where you’re sticking your head. There you go – freedom!
I weary of Iraqi sand. Take me to Tehran. :/
Jam said:
“rights” don’t “cost” anything.
I am sorry, but I don’t understand this statement. I thought about it and I can’t think of any “right” I am lucky enough to have that hasn’t come at a cost. Every right I enjoy today was paid for in some fashion by the effort of others before me. People who fought and died in wars, people who suffered and struggled to effect change. In the abstract, the idea of “rights” might not have a cost. But making those rights a reality, something one has the ability to use and exercise does come at a cost.
For the child, too? Besides, I hope for future’s sake (not that I’m any close to having children[or knowing whether I want to be married and/or have children], or getting married) that the “crushing” part isn’t true. From what I’ve seen, for many parents this responsibility, duty and obligation is not only a fair tradeoff, but is actually very rewarding in itself.
Color me pessimist. And a sci-fi addict.
Sort of true, but I think the relation between the two is incredibly scetchy. (Iraq, freedoms)
You’ll have to ask the US military to do that, or actually, just vote Republican. Or vote Democrat if you want to bury your head in the sand in smarter, more effective way (they’ll probably lend you a shovel, courtesy of the U.S government).
Hey, what do you mean you don’t like the choices?
“I weary of Iraqi sand. Take me to Tehran. :/ ”
I thought we were going to Damascus next.
You America-haters are no fun anymore. I’m taking my SUV and my autographed picture of Al From and going home.
Tuomas said: Here is my counterchallenge: Name one American freedom that has been preserved by the invasion of Iraq.
Robert answers: Too vague – I could assert anything, and you could reasonably counterargue “nuh unh!” Too much unknowable contingency in there, too; maybe World War I saved democracy. Prove it didn’t; prove it did; ya can’t.
ahh… so we have to play your game but you won’t play the same? i could name some of the many things that are worthwhile & free & all you’re going to do is sit there spewing ridiculous acronyms? please…
anyways, you still haven’t paid me the $5.00 you owe me. :P
“rights” don’t “cost” anything. moreover, there are many many many worthwhile things that are very free.Rights may not cost anything, but the ability to exercise them without penalty has cost many men and women their lives. Free speech, free exercise of religion, the right to vote regardless of gender, belief or race, the right to own property and the fruit of one’s own labor without interference from the government – all these are rights that have been paid for in blood.In fact, these rights are still threatened in many cases, although in the U.S. at this point in time there’s reasonable expectation that one can overcome interference with these rights using the legal system, instead of via armed conflict. Such is not the case in many other lands.
so we have to play your game but you won’t play the same? i could name some of the many things that are worthwhile & free
OK, go ahead. Name one.
& all you’re going to do is sit there spewing ridiculous acronyms?
No, I’m going to methodically dismantle your argument.
anyways, you still haven’t paid me the $5.00 you owe me. :P
Only worthwhile things, remember? You’re asking for economic compensation, but your words have not established any value in the market.
Hi,
I am responding to this way after it was posted and apologize for not seeing it before my response to today’s posting on Iraq by Pseudo Adrienne. Actually those remarks I made there would be better here.
About what I said about Western privileged responses to women’s issues in other countries about which Westerners don’t necessarily have a deep understanding, two of the comments here kind of underscore what I mean:
“You know I find that humorous since these women wouldn’t have the right to freely organize in such a manner if Saddam was still in power. ”
Actually, women in Saddam’s Iraq had a much greater level of civil rights than women in most other countries in the Middle East have ever had. Those rights are now going to be taken away by the new religiously-based government. That is why they are organizing freely in the first place. Please don’t try to inform me what a horrible brute he was, I know. But if we limit ourselves to a discrete issue here, which is women’s protection under the law, then Saddam’s brutal but secular regime offered them more protection and more full citizenship than any other Arab country I can think of (perhaps Tunisia could give it a run for its money). As far as having human rights to protest, etc., no, no Iraqi citizen had any of those, man or woman. But women had more access to work, education and protection under the judiciary than other Arab countries. That may all change now depending on how these things are defined by the new leadership.
“Protests like this are a necessary start. But changing attitudes that have 1000’s of years of history isn’t something that’s going to happen overnight. ”
Which attitudes in Iraq vis-a-vis women have 1000’s of years of history? As I said before anti-women legislation in Iraq is new. Sharia law is a new thing in Iraq. What do you know about Iraq’s long, long history and how women were treated in it, to say statements like this? What do you know about what women’s rights were under the caliphate or what women’s lives were like then and how it would contrast to what European women’s lives were like?
Anyhow, sorry again that I did not notice this a long time ago. I do not have time to read this blog every day but I do come here regularly, being interested in the issues and also from Oregon originally and homesick.