"Global War On Women "

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,244
Location
Edge's beanie closet
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20050927/oplede27.art.htm

"Islamist terrorists have formed the last, great boy's club, meeting in caves and warning girls to stay out — or, in the case of the 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta, demanding that women be kept from his grave to avoid polluting it. Their vision offers women fewer rights by far than those enjoyed by the wives of the prophet Mohammed. They are women-hating sadists for whom faith is an excuse. Their fears are primal."


"We do not think of our troops abroad as fighting for women's rights. But they are. This is the titanic struggle of our time, the liberation of fully half of humanity. Islamist terror is only one aspect of it. But we can be certain of two things: In the end, freedom will win. And no society that torments women will succeed in the 21st century . "
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
We do not think of our troops abroad as fighting for women's rights. But they are.
:rolleyes: Right, that's why we overthrew the most progressive regime in the Arab world where women's rights were concerned, while the least progressive one remains our closest ally in the region. And since the proposed new Iraqi constitution will most likely grant Iraq's various ethnoreligious groups far more autonomy at the regional level--not to mention its designation of "sharia" as a "main source" of law--women's rights watchdogs following this situation have, in fact, generally been very far from enthusiastic.

Also...not that this pertains to our troops...but in some regions like Chechnya and, to a lesser extent, Palestine, quite a few suicide bombers have been women. It would be interesting (though I suppose impossible) to know what their response to this might have been. That blood is thicker than ink, perhaps?

But we can be certain of two things: In the end, freedom will win. And no society that torments women will succeed in the 21st century.
I'll stand by my hard-earned skepticism, thanks, Mr. Peters.

Yeeesh, this guy's prose is so purple Prince could paint with it, or am I just having a bad day?

The bad news is that this is a truly global struggle involving not only Islamist thugs terrified by female sexuality, but also reactionary forces in our own society. The Global War Against Women is still being waged on the home front, too.

Without questioning the integrity of those who believe that life begins at conception, the struggle to overturn Roe v. Wade can also be viewed as an attempt to turn back the clock on women's freedom. Opposing such a reversal isn't a matter of thinking abortion admirable, but of accepting the magnificent revolutionary principle that no man has a right to tell any woman what she can or cannot do with her body.
Well, I do like this part...but I bet Laura Bush stopped reading when she got to it.


Irvine511 said:
vagina dentata.

:happy: Yes, it's always funny until someone loses...ah, never mind.
 
Last edited:
yolland said:

:rolleyes: Right, that's why we overthrew the most progressive regime in the Arab world where women's rights were concerned


I'm sure being subject to torture and rape that's sanctioned by the secret police and government makes it oh so progressive on women's rights.
 
You missed my point by a mile, but never mind...I knew when I wrote that that someone would be sure to twist it out of context.
 
Sonoftelepunk said:
I'm sure being subject to torture and rape that's sanctioned by the secret police and government makes it oh so progressive on women's rights.

Do you have evidence to back this up, or are you merely regurgitating popular stereotypes? Because if you looked beyond this as a matter of "good versus evil," you would realize that Saddam Hussein belonged to a class of secular Arab dictators from the late 1960s, which included Libya, Egypt, Syria, and Iraq. Qadhafi belongs to this class of dictator, and the U.S. and the rest of the world are eager to pounce on his country's oil now that he's officially renounced WMDs.

So, frankly, it isn't about human rights and it isn't about democracy, but that's besides the point. While this class of dictator would clearly do anything to remain in power, anywhere from killing to torturing dissidents to sucking up to global superpowers, one of the things they were also noted for was their secular attitude towards women's rights and their downright rejection of Islamic law. When Libya's puppet parliament passed a sweeping law to limit the rights of women to keep it in line with the Koran, Qadhafi literally ripped the bill in half in front of them.

In terms of Iraq for women, Saddam Hussein was not a saint by any stretch of the imagination, but for women, he was the only thing preventing Muslim clerics from prescribing Sharia law and punishments on them. And now their worst fears are happening: they have a "democratic" government wishing to prescribe Islamic law, more or less, and for women who do not want to stay at home, shit out a litter of babies, and run around in burqas, there's nobody to protect their right to ignore popular interpretation of the Koran.

Here's a good link on the subject, if you even bother to read it:

http://hrw.org/backgrounder/wrd/iraq-women.htm

Melon
 
Last edited:
BonoVoxSupastar said:
How could you hate women?:confused:


Wow...... I feel bad for men like that.
I mean, really.

He's missing out on a lot.

:|

As nbc said, a superior being. Imagine never being able to enjoy life alongside of women...


:yikes: :crazy: :faint: :shocked: :sick: :down: :(
that would be horrible.


=====


I wonder if that explains rape... that sort of... hate involved, I guess... hmm......
 
Last edited:
Your quote made me think about what it would be like to live life hating women.


I didn't mean to imply that you hate women or anything like that.

I do not feel bad for "you", the post isn't about you...

unless you're a... well..... one of those people mentioned in the article, or similar, etc.



hmm......
I guess I should have started with "wow, I can't imagine men living their life hating women" or something like that. IT wasn't exactly "from point a to point b", so to say. I guess I left out a dot to connect, lol

sorry about that :D
 
Last edited:
Boston Globe editorial
A fund for families

October 17, 2005

FOR FOUR straight years, President Bush has refused to release $34 million that Congress approves annually for the United Nations Population Fund, which supports the UN's reproductive health work in the world's poorest countries. Instead, ordinary Americans have donated $2.7 million to a grass-roots effort called the 34 Million Friends campaign. The idea is for 34 million individuals to donate a dollar each to save the lives and health of women and children overseas. The donations are a direct rebuke to Bush's policies that would shame a more responsible administration.

The money is needed to fully engage the promise of equality for women in the developing world. The UN program funds efforts to educate adolescents in Africa on the importance of HIV testing; help girls in Nicaragua attend secondary school; and train birth attendants in Afghanistan, a country with one of the world's highest maternal death rates. The canard that the fund is used for abortions or coercive family planning in China was thoroughly debunked by Bush's own State Department, which sent a fact-finding team to evaluate the UN's programs in 2002.

The Bush administration apparently thinks blocking the funds is an easy way to assuage ideological groups whose real problem is with family planning policies that promote the empowerment of women. But failing to invest in smaller, healthier families is shortsighted in the extreme. Every dollar spent yields incalculable dividends not just in freedom from hunger and want but in the sustainable use of natural resources and even in political stability and reduced world conflict.

Last week the Population Fund, known as UNFPA, released its annual world population report. It links sustainable development to the Millennium Goals reaffirmed by world leaders, including Bush, at a UN summit in New York in September. The report argues what should be obvious: In a world with 3 billion females, the goals of eradicating extreme poverty, reducing child mortality, and reversing the global AIDS epidemic cannot be met unless women's access to education, economic opportunity, and reproductive health are also met. As UNFPA's director, Thoraya Obaid, said in a phone interview: ''To make poverty history, you have to make gender discrimination history as well."

Obaid says the 34 Million Friends donations are now being spent on a campaign to help women with obstetric fistula, a debilitating side effect of unsafe childbirth that is easily repaired but a taboo subject in many traditional societies. These donors are true citizens of the world. But there is no substitute for sustained government support from a rich country with a claim to world leadership. Global disease, poverty, and hunger cannot be cured by volunteers alone
 
Why aren't some beliefs universal? We look at these faraway places or cultures very different to ours, but it happens within our own communities as well.

Why isn't equality and equal rights a given? What makes some people so fucking indifferent?

Nevermind.
 
If you give someone equal rights, it makes it clear you're not superior. Every social class wants to make sure someone is beneath them. It make them feel better.
 
I know what you're saying, but I have a convoluted bunch of thoughts which are probably best left, lol. Plus I'm in a bad mood. :up:
Ugh, people shit me. Not you of course, mate!
 
It's surprising that those who deny people rights are shocked when sometimes they just take them.

I get as pissed as you do. But am still bleeding from biting my tongue.:wink:
 
The true symbol of the War on Terror is the Islamic veil vs. the Women's Business suit?

Please.

The Hijab has nothing to do with the War on Terror or the degradation of women. When the Hijab was instituted, it was done to give women a sense of entitlement and empowerment, because before Islam was born in Arabia, women were abused and treated like sex slaves.

In normal Muslim families, in the west and in eastern countries not run by extremists (the most "Muslim" countries in the world are Pakistan, and Indonesia, and both have secular governments), women aren't oppressed. They aren't told to sit home all day. They aren't told not to have careers. They aren't forced to wear a Hijab.

In my own family, one of my sister-in-laws wears a Hijab only when she goes to college; the other one wears it all the time-- and she's a criminal lawyer, so she wears the hat of both the business suit and the Hijab.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom