Women's rights- "NOT human rights?" - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-01-2003, 10:07 AM   #1
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 01:59 AM
Women's rights- "NOT human rights?"

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.

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.

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!

__________________

__________________
oliveu2cm is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 10:24 AM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 12:59 AM


"Concerned" women for America whatever
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 11:00 AM   #3
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:59 AM
The U.S. and Islamic countries have too much in common--which is probably why they hate each other.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 12:15 PM   #4
ONE<br>love, blood, life
 
hippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Lookin' for the face I had before the world was made
Posts: 12,144
Local Time: 01:59 AM
Re: Women's rights- "NOT human rights?"

Quote:
Originally posted by oliveu2cm
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.
I agree. This IS sickening. I don't even know what to say.
__________________
Write for Interference!
Email or PM me (kim@interference.com) if you're interested.
hippy is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 03:26 PM   #5
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 12:59 AM
Re: Re: Women's rights- "NOT human rights?"

Quote:
Originally posted by hippy


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


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.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 04:00 PM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 01:59 AM
Re: Re: Re: Women's rights- "NOT human rights?"

Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine




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.

such a disgrace.
__________________
oliveu2cm is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 06:20 PM   #7
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 09:59 PM
Re: Re: Women's rights- "NOT human rights?"

Quote:
Originally posted by hippy


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.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 06:49 PM   #8
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 12:59 AM
Re: Re: Re: Women's rights- "NOT human rights?"

Quote:
Originally posted by martha


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.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 07:19 PM   #9
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 06:59 AM
thanks for posting this oliveu2cm, it's this double-faced attitude i disslike about the current US government.
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 05-01-2003, 09:13 PM   #10
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 05:59 AM
Re: Re: Re: Women's rights- "NOT human rights?"

Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine




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.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 02:32 AM   #11
ONE<br>love, blood, life
 
hippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Lookin' for the face I had before the world was made
Posts: 12,144
Local Time: 01:59 AM
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.
__________________
Write for Interference!
Email or PM me (kim@interference.com) if you're interested.
hippy is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 09:18 AM   #12
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 09:59 PM
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.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 09:28 AM   #13
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:59 AM
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 is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 11:12 AM   #14
ONE<br>love, blood, life
 
hippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Lookin' for the face I had before the world was made
Posts: 12,144
Local Time: 01:59 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
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.
__________________
Write for Interference!
Email or PM me (kim@interference.com) if you're interested.
hippy is offline  
Old 05-02-2003, 11:14 AM   #15
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 12:59 AM
sad. very sad.
__________________

__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com