Women's rights- "NOT human rights?"

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

oliveu2cm

Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Messages
8,334
Location
Live from Boston
Source
(emphasis is mine)

On Women's Rights, Iran Becomes a 'Friend'
Marie Cocco

April 29, 2003

Americans are scared of the ayatollahs of Iran.

They pushed out our shah and took our hostages and now want to export their brand of fundamentalism to Iraq. Even Donald Rumsfeld is spooked. The defense secretary warns Iran against meddling in Iraq.

To all appearances, Iran remains an adversary, a charter member of the axis of evil. That is, if you believe what you see. What you don't see is that at the United Nations, Iran is one of our new best friends, at least when it comes to women's rights.

The United States sided repeatedly with Iran and other repressive regimes at the annual session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women last month. The commission's agenda was to address women and technology, and violence against women.

The first topic wasn't controversial. The second was.

The American delegation joined with Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, Libya and others in efforts to delete a phrase - included in previously agreed-upon UN statements dating back a decade - that calls on countries to condemn violence against women and "refrain from invoking any custom, tradition or religious consideration" to avoid the obligation to stop the violence.

It joined objections to a passage about women in armed conflict, aligning itself with fundamentalist regimes in trying to change a reference to "forced pregnancy" - listed along with murder, rape, systematic rape and sexual slavery as by-products of war and societies emerging from conflict. The term "forced pregnancy" is seen by some anti-abortion groups as a pretext for promoting abortion.

"I don't think we're aligning ourselves with countries who have bad records on human rights," said Ellen Sauerbrey, a former Republican candidate for Maryland governor and President George W. Bush's chief representative to the commission.

The State Department's 2002 human rights report says that in Iran, "abuse in the family was a private matter and was seldom discussed publicly." Rape is illegal, but with the law rarely enforced, it is "a widespread problem." Also, the testimony of a woman in a court proceeding is worth half that of a man's. And, the State Department reports, "The 'blood money' paid to the family of a female crime victim is half the sum paid for a man."

Anyway, Sauerbrey said, the positions she took were part of an effort to achieve consensus in a forum where all participants must agree on a final document. In fact, the controversy over halting violence against women disrupted the proceedings and no final statement was issued - for the first time ever. It so happens that the changes pushed by the ayatollahs dovetailed with attempts by American social and religious conservatives who were appointed by the White House as representatives to the UN commission.

"For too long, the feminists have been pushing a radical, special-interest agenda under the erroneous mantra made rhetorical cliche by Hillary Clinton: 'Women's rights are human rights,'" writes Janice Crouse, an official of the conservative group Concerned Women for America and a member of the U.S. delegation. :shocked:

Concerned Women for America, in comments about the commission session on its Web site, said it objected to language on preventing "custom, tradition or religious consideration" as excuses for violence against women. "It starkly projects custom, tradition and religion as as negative influences," the group said.

The organization, along with the National Right to Life Committee, also objected to use of the term "forced pregnancy" in the section on the abuse of women in armed conflict.

"It so happens there are times when there are issues where social conservatives, whether they be Muslim or Christian, find common ground," Sauerbrey said in explaining the groups' influence.

The alliance isn't new - it took root when the Bush administration took over. But it is often unseen. The United States has frequently sided at the UN with countries such as Algeria, Libya, Sudan, Iran and Iraq - when it was still controlled by Sad - dam Hussein - in battles over language involving women and children's rights.

So, to figure out why our adversaries are sometimes allies, here is a good rule of thumb. They are members of the axis of evil when they endanger our geopolitical interests. But not when they endanger women's lives.
Copyright ? 2003, Newsday, Inc.



------
this is so appalling in this day and age. for the leaders of a powerful nation to continuously be having agendas that will limit and physically hurt women is SICKENING. :scream:

It makes what my friend and I were talking about once almost seem as if it COULD happen-
we were speaking about the person Bush wants to head the FDA- that "doctor" who doesn't believe in perscribing birth control to unmarried women, and I told my friend how (if that happened) we'd be reverted 50 years with all the women pregnant, home and in the kitchen. and my friend laughed and said, and then we'd be forced to wear head-to-toe clothing and not allowed to go out without a man.. and then we'll be calling Iraq to come help free us!

:mad::tsk:
 
Last edited:
The U.S. and Islamic countries have too much in common--which is probably why they hate each other.

Melon
 
Re: Re: Women's rights- "NOT human rights?"

hippy said:


I agree. This IS sickening. I don't even know what to say.

:sad:

I thought we were trying to outlaw crimes against women, such as female circumcision and acid disfigurement. This country is going 50 years backward in the span of two years. It is a disgrace.
 
Re: Re: Re: Women's rights- "NOT human rights?"

Scarletwine said:


:sad:

I thought we were trying to outlaw crimes against women, such as female circumcision and acid disfigurement. This country is going 50 years backward in the span of two years. It is a disgrace.

You're absolutely right.

:tsk: such a disgrace. :sad:
 
Re: Re: Women's rights- "NOT human rights?"

hippy said:


I don't even know what to say.

I do. This kind of shit has been going on for years. Reagan used to call up and congratulate the anti-choice protestors that would march every Roe V. Wade anniversary. That kind of pandering and encouragement is what leads to these kinds of alliances. These conservative men and women are so frightened of women finally having any kind of control over their own bodies, they will ally themselves with those who would sexually disfigure us just to get their own point across. This is what the so-called "pro-life" people don't ever understand; it's about control. If they can control the decisions I make about my sexuality and body, they can control me. I won't be surprised to find some kind of statement in this thread about how "sacred" the life of a fetus is. Fine, go ahead, put a fetus before me, but now you can see where that kind of thinking leads.

I feel strongly about this, and no amount of religious argument or persecution will change my mind. You can see who is on what side of the issue here. I hope the people who voted for Bush are proud.
 
Re: Re: Re: Women's rights- "NOT human rights?"

martha said:


I feel strongly about this, and no amount of religious argument or persecution will change my mind. You can see who is on what side of the issue here. I hope the people who voted for Bush are proud.

Amen Sister

It's definitely about paternal control over women. I don't think abortion is such a great thing. I'd rather see widespread sex education and availability of birth control. However I'm so pro-choice and for women's rights that it influences my entire voting decision making. That's why I'm a monthly contributor to Emily's List.

It doesn't matter if your Christian, Jewish, Muslem or Hindu fundamentalist the major driving force is maintaining control. After all, we truly could maintain the human race with a freezer full. LOL - not that it would be fun.
 
Re: Re: Re: Women's rights- "NOT human rights?"

Scarletwine said:


:sad:

I thought we were trying to outlaw crimes against women, such as female circumcision and acid disfigurement. This country is going 50 years backward in the span of two years. It is a disgrace.

I agree. This sucks.:madspit: :mad: :censored: :censored: :scream: :scream:
 
:up: Well said, martha and Scarletwine


I am continually appalled by the level of animosity women's rights and issues evoke in people.

Even such a simple thing as the ERA ruffled so many feathers in one of my classes that we were asked not to discuss it anymore. When a majority of a class (in fact, everyone BUT me) declares that the Equal Rights Amendment is NOT NECESSARY and is a WASTE OF TIME, then I start to get seriously worried. And this article is just another reason why I will continue to fight for women's issues and why I will NEVER stop being a feminist, bad connotations or not.

I'm tired of people saying that these issues are not important.
 
When ERA was up for ratification back in the days of the dinosaurs (when I was in junior high), and several southern states refused to ratify it (what a surprise there), a boycott of those states was organised. This boycott was quite successful; so successful that the affected states tried to stop it in court! Yes, they wanted to get the courts to order people to have conventions in their states! The court wisely pointed out how lame the states were to be whining about it.


Losers. :tsk:
 
The Equal Rights Amendment is not dead, actually. It still is about 4 states away from ratification, and there are 2 on the brink of ratifying it. A proposed amendment doesn't die; the precedent for that is that the last amendment we passed (Congressional pay raises cannot go into effect mid-term) was actually introduced in 1798. Yes, talk about old.

And, yes, it has everything to do with control and patriarchy. People may think it is an oversimplification, or, actually, deny it. But, at the root, that is precisely what it is about--ensuring that the dominant hegemony and its values are not challenged by subordinate groups.

Melon
 
melon said:
The Equal Rights Amendment is not dead, actually. It still is about 4 states away from ratification, and there are 2 on the brink of ratifying it. A proposed amendment doesn't die; the precedent for that is that the last amendment we passed (Congressional pay raises cannot go into effect mid-term) was actually introduced in 1798. Yes, talk about old.

Oh, I know very well that it's not dead. I was merely saying how disturbing it is that all of the people in my class didn't believe that it was necessary.
 
Re: Re: Re: Women's rights- "NOT human rights?"

martha said:
These conservative men and women are so frightened of women finally having any kind of control over their own bodies, they will ally themselves with those who would sexually disfigure us just to get their own point across. This is what the so-called "pro-life" people don't ever understand; it's about control. If they can control the decisions I make about my sexuality and body, they can control me. I won't be surprised to find some kind of statement in this thread about how "sacred" the life of a fetus is. Fine, go ahead, put a fetus before me, but now you can see where that kind of thinking leads.

I agree, Martha. I was sitting behind an old, beat-up truck today in traffic, and it had over ten pro-life bumper stickers all over the back tail-gate. People don't realize (those who are pro-lifers) that when a woman is severely beaten and raped and she survives it only to find out she's pregnant, she has a very private hell to contend with. It should be up to the woman to decide to keep a fetus that was not made out of love but out of hate and fear and panic and terror. I wouldn't keep it. Because every time I would look at that child, I would be reminded of exactly what had happened to me and I would find it extremely difficult to love that child. I wouldn't want to put the baby up for adoption only for the child to come back, 18 years later, wondering why the flying feck I gave him up in the first place and for him to find out exactly why. That's too much to ask for a woman. When a woman is denied this right to choose, she is doomed. I sincerely hope that we never, ever as a nation decide this fate for women.

Moonie
 
oliveu2cm said:
The term "forced pregnancy" is seen by some anti-abortion groups as a pretext for promoting abortion.


Exactly how does the term "forced pregnancy" (ie pregnancy as a result of rape) promote abortion? That simply doesn't make sense.

"For too long, the feminists have been pushing a radical, special-interest agenda under the erroneous mantra made rhetorical cliche by Hillary Clinton: 'Women's rights are human rights,'" writes Janice Crouse, an official of the conservative group Concerned Women for America and a member of the U.S. delegation.

I love how they turn "feminist" into an insult. :wink: BTW, people object to the idea that women's rights are human rights - does that mean that they don't believe women have any rights? That women's rights are somehow not as important as human rights? That women are inferior human beings?
 
Re: Re: Women's rights- "NOT human rights?"

FizzingWhizzbees said:


Exactly how does the term "forced pregnancy" (ie pregnancy as a result of rape) promote abortion? That simply doesn't make sense.


The term "forced pregnancy" is calling it as it is when you have no alternatives and choices about what happens to your own body, whether by rape or consensual activity. That's what they don't like, I reckon; people might start objecting to forcing women to be pregnant.
 
Martha,
I may be really stupid here, but I don't understand how it would be appropriate to use the term "forced pregnancy" to refer to pregnancy resulting from consensual sex. If a woman has sex she knows that pregnancy is a possible consequence if she doesn't use contraception, so how is a pregnancy resulting from consensual sex a "forced pregnancy"?
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:
Martha,
I may be really stupid here, but I don't understand how it would be appropriate to use the term "forced pregnancy" to refer to pregnancy resulting from consensual sex. If a woman has sex she knows that pregnancy is a possible consequence if she doesn't use contraception, so how is a pregnancy resulting from consensual sex a "forced pregnancy"?

You are NOT stupid.


You could say that if a woman becomes pregnant, and doesn't want to be, yet is forced to remain so due to others having a say in her health care, she has a "forced pregnancy." (Please remember that contraception fails at times!) Some of the people in our government, and the governments of other countries, want to have a say in the choices you and I make about our reproductive lives.

Choucescu (and I know I'm spelling that incorrectly), a dictator of Romania, who was executed by his citizens many years ago, would require women to undergo pregnancy tests every month. He wanted to increase the population of his country, and thought that requiring women to have children was a good idea. There are those in our country who are just inches away from this kind of thinking. And there are those in our own gender who support the idea that others should have a say in what happens to our own bodies.
 
Back
Top Bottom