EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Women of US, Arab Spring Share Uncertain Rights
Women trying to secure a foothold for their rights in countries whose governments were upended during the so-called Arab Spring have a lot more in common with American women than one might at first presume.
Recently, a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee heard testimony on the aftermath of the Arab Spring on women's rights in those countries and found the situation looks more like winter than spring.
Melanne Verveer, ambassador-at-large for global women's issues, said Tunisia is the country most likely to maintain fairness — or something like it — for women. Tunisia has a long history supporting women's parity, having included women's rights in its constitution. In its first election since the revolution, women won close to a quarter of the seats in Parliament. A mere 16 percent of women hold seats in our own Congress.
Egypt is a different situation entirely. Verveer told the subcommittee that no women were included on the committee that drafted Egypt's transitional constitutional declaration, and that only one female serves in the transitional cabinet. I cannot see Egypt's women securing their fair share of political power or human rights under either a military or Islamic regime.
Meanwhile, American women last week were spared a severe setback when Mississippi voters rejected a fetal "personhood" law. The so-called "personhood movement" has gained a foothold in various state legislatures across the country. Nowhere is it stronger than in America's Bible belt, where lawmakers and voters are fond of imposing their dubious religious morality on all residents, whether everyone agrees with them or not.
I hate to say this because I know it will raise hackles, but this behavior strikes me as being more similar than not to how the Taliban ruled Afghanistan. ...
Pro-abortion rights groups say anti-abortion rights groups won't stop with "personhood" measures. If and when they establish that a two-cell zygote has the same rights as the fully formed female carrying it, they will use their new legal powers to ban birth control as well.
Certain forms of it, such as the so-called morning-after pill, act after conception has occurred, but before the zygote implants itself in the uterus. That is the medical (not religious) definition of when pregnancy and, therefore, life begins.
The best way I can divine to get anti-abortion rights groups to put their money where their mouths are is to require every American to state on her/his tax return whether she/he supports abortion rights or not. Those who do not should pay an additional tax to support all the unwanted children they force poor women to carry to term. That tab would be pretty hefty, I'm sure, although politically such a test would be a nonstarter.
Legal experts say personhood is unconstitutional and is likely to be struck down by the courts, so perhaps the personhood movement is a nonstarter, too.
Which brings us back to women's rights at home versus those elsewhere around the world and specifically in Arab countries. Anytime church holds sway over state, women's rights are among the first things to go.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
15 Comments so far
Show AllI'm a bit surprised to see women's rights so quickly reduced to pro-and anti- abortion terms. Surely "Anti-abortion rights" must be an oxymoron.
I see it as being a battle over control: if the government can legislate what you do with your womb, what stops them from legislating what you do with your heart, your hands, your face?
Religious fundamentalism is always about strict control over the lives of those on whom the particular religious beliefs are being forced.
Male-dominated religious fundamentalism has always regarded women as mere accessories, as in; "an object or device not essential in itself but adding to the beauty, convenience, or effectiveness of something else".
We've got a lot more to change than just abortion rights.
Indeed. It appears even the fight for women's rights reduces women to a uterus. Those who hold the power are doing their damnedest to hold on to it.
divide and conquer
that's what identity politics does
How difficult is it to fight for Human Rights for all, not just some,
I see you're sticking up for the poor, oppressed White Male again. Inequality is bad for everyone. Men also do better - they're healthier, happier, and live longer in societies where women have more voice and access.
men don;t want their sisters , wives and daughters to suffer
and has anyone on CD ever discussed the fact that men are impacted by anti-abortion laws too
A man may not want a child for any number of reasons and are forced if termination of pregnancy is made illegal or unavailable, along with women, to care for them
Children are impacted when mothers can't limit family size.
Women's rights isn't about women, it's about everyone.
Women's rights isn't about women, it's about everyone.
That's it exactly!
Pretty much all politics is "identity politics".
Two, the right of women to control their own bodies is "divide and conquer"?
I don't think there's any question--when it comes to women's rights, especially those centered on reproduction-that there's much difference between the Taliban and the American Taliban. This is one reason why Chris Hedges' book, "American Fascists" is an important, possibly prescient read.
And if you want to tax the anti-abortion crowd for the unwanted babies, the next step would be to double-tax them for the WARS they so vehemently support, added to the state-sanctioned killing of not always guilty prisoners. Can anyone conceive of a group whose hypocrisy is more blatant?
WE (all taxpayers) already pay for "unwanted" children. The statement " .. person-hood is unconstitutional..) shows me just how far our moral compass has spun out of control. To propose that all pro-life Christians are warmongering, blood thirsty bigots is inane and speaks from a heart of short of charity and long on irrational bias. Wars are not fought for women' s rights..never have been; but rather for greed, power lust, and revenge which, as I recall, are all deadly sins. Placing the blame of the world's evils on some antiquated, quaint, and non-existent Roman god defies both reason and common sense. I enjoy this forum for it's diversity and open-mindedness, yet, abhor it's vulgarity and ignorance...aahhh the Madonna/Whore! Let us discourse in...
Peace
You ought to do something to demand that the UN articulated, sanctioned, recommended Declaration of Human rights be implemented in the US. Apparently it's the only Western democracy (sic) that refuses to do so. You people are being ripped off in so many ways. Can you, can the Occupy "movement" fight on so many fronts?
Well let's see, in Islam wife beating is prescribed for a wife for any reason or or no reason when the husband sees fit; a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man's; rape must be witnessed by four men to get a conviction for a rapist; a woman may be stoned to death for adultery if she is seen speaking to a male non-family member; she can be divorced upon a whim by any Muslim husband,(all he must say is I divorce you three times before the witness of an other Muslim man); a Muslim woman may have to endure two or three more wives in her house and/or temporary wives,(prostitutes, who can be married and divorced within an hour), She can be divorced, sent back to he family, who will have to pay back her dowry, and face a honer killing; the list goes on and on. Honestly I can't see a parallel with an American woman- the typical myopic view of an uber-liberal who only sees the rights of women in the limited field of the availability of abortion. Maybe this upper middle class twit should visit an Islamic country for a year or so, or marry a Muslim and learn how ignorant she is.
@DF
The more time I spend in the Middle East, the more I find myself defending Islam and, more importantly, the human beings who live here and happen to be Muslim. Defending it against harsh judgements by friends back home. Many expats here say the same thing. Words like yours, attitudes like yours, about a world religion no less, do no justice to the real people that live here. They too face each day, and they too have every right to life and their way of living it. Ignorant and hurtful, and ultimately bigoted, generalisations like yours about Islam demonstrate a mind that believes the media saturation about Muslims - a weak mind, an impressionable mind. All generalisations are crass and ultimately hurt the speaker. It is so easy to focus narrowly in on ancient instructions in for example the Qu'ran, or the Bible, that have been manipulated and perverted by those seeking not a connection with their definition of the great spirit, but power. To accuse any one religion, especially Islam, of being somehow inhumane or anti-equality, is to completely miss the point that their purity of ideal is often tainted by the afore-mentioned power-mongers. What you are criticising is a political, social structure, if indeed your argument that Arab women have, or even would, surrender vital human rights to their menfolk, is valid. And I dispute that assumption. Oops, I am going to generalise here, but the women I interact with in Oman are proud, clever and strong, and they refuse to fetter themselves in chains of sexuality like we do with our women folk in the West. Their words. Yours is the terrible Liberal assumption that you somehow know better than a culture that predates America's by several thousand years. It is disrespectful, ignorant and really got on my tits. As you have probably noticed. I apologise for strong language, but like I say, I am getting fed up constantly defending your country's new "Enemy in our Mids"t.