PDA

View Full Version : Global war on women



pinkeye
09-27-2005, 10:39 AM
Global war on women

By Ralph PetersTue Sep 27, 6:45 AM ET

The greatest social revolution in history is underway all around us: The emancipation of women. Advanced in our own society, elsewhere the battle for women's rights lies at the heart of colossal struggles over the future of great religions and civilizations.

The Washington establishment would shrink from any such claim, but the Global War on Terror is a fight over the social, economic and cultural roles of women. The core issues for the terrorists are the interpretation of God's will and the continued oppression of women. Nothing so threatens Islamic extremists as the freedom Western women enjoy.

Equal partners

The sudden transition of women from men's property to men's partners in our own country unleashed dazzling creative energies. In the historical blink of an eye, we doubled our effective human capital - and made our society immeasurably more humane. Our half-century of stunning economic growth has many roots, but none goes deeper than the expansion of opportunities for women.

But such unprecedented freedom threatens traditional societies. Behavior patterns that prevailed for millennia are suddenly in doubt. Relationships that granted males the power of life and death over female relatives have disappeared from successful cultures. Defensively, the failing cultures left behind cling harder than ever to the old ways amid the tumult of global change.

The true symbols of the War on Terror are the Islamic veil and the two-piece woman's business suit.

The math is basic. No civilization that excludes half its population from full participation in society and the economy can compete with the United States and its key allies. Yet Middle Eastern societies, especially, have dug in their heels to resist change. Some, such as Turkey, Pakistan and Iran, have tumbled backward.

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.

The good news is that the forces of oppression can make plenty of tactical mischief but can't achieve strategic success. No society in which women are veiled and sequestered can achieve the dynamism and force of one in which women are senators, judges, CEOs, doctors and military pilots. Freedom will win, if not swiftly.

The bad news is that this is a truly global struggle involving not only Islamist thugs terrified by female ******ity, 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.

Attempts to interfere with another citizen's liberty are worthy of Osama bin Laden, not of Americans.

Likewise, the ideologically driven reluctance of the Food and Drug Administration to approve the "morning-after pill" for general use is a vestige of patriarchal tyranny that would please Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq. Longing to restore the tyrannical pattern that governed social relations down the ages, our extremists demand that women's options be restricted, that their bodies be treated as chattels of the state.

Women deny rights

Nor should we be surprised that women stand among those who would deny rights to other women. Their counterparts are the African crones who demand that young girls undergo genital mutilation just as they did, or the women of the Middle East who insist that wearing a chador protects them. They are the champions of the small morality of rules over the greater morality of freedom.

The greatest moral advance has been the attainment of basic human rights by women. It's also the most threatening development to those daunted by change, who cling to a mythologized past and fear the future - whether in a Saudi-funded madrassa or protesting outside a U.S. Planned Parenthood clinic. Around the world, troubled souls continue to insist that women are the source of sin and must be kept in line for their own good. Theirs is a prescription for suffering, dreariness and stagnation.

In traveling the globe, I've witnessed far more instances of the mistreatment of women than I care to recall, but the one that always leaps to mind is local and superficially benign: In the southern heat of a Washington summer, it's common to see a male Middle Eastern tourist comfortably dressed in a polo shirt and shorts trailed by a staggering woman wrapped from head to toe in flapping black robes, eyes peering out through a mask. It offends me to meet that image in my country - or anywhere.

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.

Ralph Peters is the author of New Glory, Expanding America's Global Supremacy, and a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

miguelencanarias
09-27-2005, 12:07 PM
I agree with what has been said in this article, but I am aware that it is going to get some heavy flak from the conservatives in this forum (a majority, much to my dismay) and the occasional Christian taliban with a 700 club overdose.

b.scheller
09-27-2005, 12:23 PM
I'm just waiting for some nimrod, to state this article is fascist, because the author here is stating that equal rights are universal. :cantbeli:

Women's rights, just like Human rights, are universal. Although they are ambigious in nature, the ones stated by the United Nations, are a guide, for which states should follow. It doesn't matter, what culture or religion you come from and practice. No matter, what culture you live in, are we not endowed to have rights? Are we not all equal? Their is no such thing, as universal human rights, should only exist within Western Society. That's utter bogus, how are these human rights, a western ideal?

Up until the 1970s, minorities in the United States were mistreated. In Canada, Chinese people could not vote. So, does this mean that universal human rights should only exist within the Western World, because they're a creation of the West?

That's just stupid, cultures and religions in this world, are based off, on patriarchal ideals. Thus, they restrict women, their rights and freedoms, while they profit men. Does this not mean, that these patriarchal societies are sexist? Or is this, a typical Western point of view? I can't believe, anyone can rightfully justify, actions of a culture that abuses its own members, just because it's not taboo. It doesn't matter whether that culture imposes restrictions on females, and they follow them. They are neither fair nor just.

Hullebullen
09-27-2005, 12:38 PM
But to look at things from another perspective, the average western woman "produces" like what, 1.2 kids on average, and third world woman, 5-6, more?

At this rate we're going to have to use the Bomb because we will be to old and grey to go on deployments. If we can still remember where we put those darn launch codes, that is. But if we do, whose gonna change our diapers?

DOOMSDAYDEXTER
09-28-2005, 07:45 AM
Killing in the name of Femi-Nazi's?

"In the historical blink of an eye, we doubled our effective human capital"

WRONG.

"Women's work" had no economic value before universal sufferage? I imagine women may have contributed the odd thing to the workplace over the years.

Although it still doesn't have social/economic parity today brothers and sisters.

Try telling the average Afgani woman that she is better off today than under the talibs. ***/Violence crimes against women way UP, my brothers and sisters. So too in Iraq.

It's funny, in the build up to the war in Iraq the Guardian newspaper (U.K./leftish/pro Blair ) ran an article about how Saddam was really bad to his women - "if you ladies have any doubts about us needing to invade, we know your not big fans of war and all, well just read this and see, he's a ****** predator, etc....."

No **** Sherlock.

DOOMSDAYDEXTER
09-28-2005, 07:49 AM
Sorry off topic

I wouldn't worry about the population issue too much. We can already see the big die offs happening with HIV/TB/Malaria etc. There is plenty more where they came from.

2Sheds_Jackson
09-28-2005, 10:04 AM
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.

Attempts to interfere with another citizen's liberty are worthy of Osama bin Laden, not of Americans.

Ah and here we have the "heart" of the article. I was beginning to think that the author was actually writing about something worthwhile until I came across this asinine passage. I thought to myself "wow this is nice, a jackass from USA Today actually writing something that supports the WoT, praises our efforts, recognizes that there is a cultural struggle going on...." and then he intellectually shat himself. Oh well. But he gets an "A" for creativity.

Besides being factually incorrect, it is just plain silly. Men (and other women) tell women what they "can or cannot do with" their bodies every day. Society is very specific about what you can or can't do, take, or insert.

It's just that abortion is sacred ground. The left have tied their dinghy to it & if that stake is pulled up, the little boat full of face painted tree huggers will simply drift off into the sunset. And it will be fun to watch it happen, as they helplessly drift off, their anti-war signs waving frantically in the dwindling sunlight, singing "we shall overcome" as intently as they can manage, arms flailing, they reach out for something to hold on to, -anything- a social issue, maybe the WoT , perhaps a girl that Kennedy splashed into the sea who's floating by, anything at all...

Paracaidista
09-28-2005, 10:40 AM
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.

Attempts to interfere with another citizen's liberty are worthy of Osama bin Laden, not of Americans.

Ah and here we have the "heart" of the article. I was beginning to think that the author was actually writing about something worthwhile until I came across this asinine passage. I thought to myself "wow this is nice, a jackass from USA Today actually writing something that supports the WoT, praises our efforts, recognizes that there is a cultural struggle going on...." and then he intellectually shat himself. Oh well. But he gets an "A" for creativity.

Besides being factually incorrect, it is just plain silly. Men (and other women) tell women what they "can or cannot do with" their bodies every day. Society is very specific about what you can or can't do, take, or insert.

It's just that abortion is sacred ground. The left have tied their dinghy to it & if that stake is pulled up, the little boat full of face painted tree huggers will simply drift off into the sunset. And it will be fun to watch it happen, as they helplessly drift off, their anti-war signs waving frantically in the dwindling sunlight, singing "we shall overcome" as intently as they can manage, arms flailing, they reach out for something to hold on to, -anything- a social issue, maybe the WoT , perhaps a girl that Kennedy splashed into the sea who's floating by, anything at all...

x2

I insist, abortion is a matter of two lives being decided by only one. The bold statement is true but it does not apply to abortion, specially if one believes that life starts at conception, not at birth.

2Sheds_Jackson
09-28-2005, 11:36 AM
I insist, abortion is a matter of two lives being decided by only one. The bold statement is true but it does not apply to abortion, specially if one believes that life starts at conception, not at birth.

Well, I would point out that it's actually three lives being decided by one. The father in question is given no rights in the process, only obligations. Since the woman has 100% of the prerogative, it would seem that she should then have 100% of the responsibility, no? Can you name any other instance in our society when one person is able to obligate another to a lifetime of servitude with such impunity?

DOOMSDAYDEXTER
09-28-2005, 11:53 AM
Interesting choice of words 2Sheds...Obligate....Seems that most men would vote with their feet on this issue if given the choice between a lifetime of servitude and freedom.

2Sheds_Jackson
09-28-2005, 01:25 PM
Interesting choice of words 2Sheds...Obligate....Seems that most men would vote with their feet on this issue if given the choice between a lifetime of servitude and freedom.

Heh, yeah well quite a few do - they're called deadbeat dads, and the government will come in, confiscate their wages, and eventually throw them in jail. All this based upon the choices of the woman. Now I am not defending these men who choose to not pay for their children, I am merely pointing out that there is a huge inequity here - if the concept of "choice" is so important, why are men given none?

Why are men required to provide support and nurture children, to sacrifice for them, to devote their lives, their money to them, and women can simply choose not to? Why is a man who chooses to go his own way a complete bastard and worthy of jail, and a woman is empowered and modern?

If it were really choice that was the root issue - if choice and freedom were what were truly important, then logically these men would also be given the choice. The woman could choose to have the child, the man would choose not to pay for it, right? Everybody gets what they want, and everybody is free & enjoying their own lives and personal space.

DOOMSDAYDEXTER
09-28-2005, 01:58 PM
Just remember to leave your socks on.

hughdotoh
09-28-2005, 09:47 PM
Having read through the article, I'm getting the impression that "liberated" Western women are the real baby-killers of our "enlightened" society.

Flagg
09-28-2005, 10:14 PM
Not what I thought this topic would be about.

I recall reading somewere that between China and India there may be as many as 100 million FEWER women on the planet than there should be, demographically speaking largely due to sociatel and state influence regarding gender based abortions .......since having girls is a strain on third world family budgets and having boys is the third world equivalent of a 401K retirement plan. :|

2Sheds_Jackson
09-28-2005, 11:22 PM
Not what I thought this topic would be about.

I recall reading somewere that between China and India there may be as many as 100 million FEWER women on the planet than there should be, demographically speaking largely due to sociatel and state influence regarding gender based abortions .......since having girls is a strain on third world family budgets and having boys is the third world equivalent of a 401K retirement plan. :|

I remember reading somewhere that "aborting" female babies was/is not always done before their birth. :( One wonders how there can be any social order at all, any value for human life when things like that go on.

Paracaidista
09-28-2005, 11:44 PM
Not what I thought this topic would be about.

I recall reading somewere that between China and India there may be as many as 100 million FEWER women on the planet than there should be, demographically speaking largely due to sociatel and state influence regarding gender based abortions .......since having girls is a strain on third world family budgets and having boys is the third world equivalent of a 401K retirement plan. :|

I remember reading somewhere that "aborting" female babies was/is not always done before their birth. :( One wonders how there can be any social order at all, any value for human life when things like that go on.

And I read somewhere that the explanation for those 50 million (not 100) FEWER women was something more down to science. Yes, the missing women were aborted, but those were 'natural' abortions. They discovered just recently that Hepatitis A female old carriers have a higher chance to have an early miscarriage (often unnoticed) if the fetus is female. Then some scientist correlated the incidence of Hepatitis A on the mothers and the population groups, and given the large number of people over (over 2 Billion) there with the high incidence of Hepatitis, well, they found that large part of the missing women (50 million) were in fact probably never born.

DOOMSDAYDEXTER
09-29-2005, 07:36 AM
no afraid this is junk science. Abortion & infanticide of girl babies is practised more or less openly in India at least despite legislation introduced to forbid it. Most cities have an amazing quantity of ultrasound facilities if you compare basic healthcare infrastructure...

Paracaidista
09-29-2005, 09:05 AM
no afraid this is junk science. Abortion & infanticide of girl babies is practised more or less openly in India at least despite legislation introduced to forbid it. Most cities have an amazing quantity of ultrasound facilities if you compare basic healthcare infrastructure...

No it's not. The source of the article I read was very reputable. Obviously there is a problem with female infanticide in those countries, but even the wildest estimates couldn't give the 50-100 million abortions figure. That is, no matter what, nature will force its way to keep both genders more or less equal in number.

Here is the paper (http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~eoster/hepb.pdf) where they stated it. And a simple google search shows even more (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=hepatitis+abortion+china+india+missing+women&meta=).

(note it was Hepatitis B and 100 million women, so I stand corrected from my previous post, I wrote it from memory)

DOOMSDAYDEXTER
09-29-2005, 11:03 AM
"I find that hepatitis B can explain 75% of the missing women in China, but less than 20% in India," - E. Oster.

Paper you sourced. One PhD thesis kiddio. Interesting read though admittedly.

Regards

Paracaidista
09-29-2005, 12:00 PM
"I find that hepatitis B can explain 75% of the missing women in China, but less than 20% in India," - E. Oster.

Paper you sourced. One PhD thesis kiddio. Interesting read though admittedly.

Regards



Yes, as the paper concludes "While there can be no doubt that gender bias plays a significant role in this gender imbalance, the results here suggest that diferences in biology may play a role as well."

She explained it for China. For India, the lack of some data may score some percentage points up in her study but not all. Nevertheless, still a hot topic from both cultural and medical point of view.

2Sheds_Jackson
09-29-2005, 06:23 PM
"I find that hepatitis B can explain 75% of the missing women in China, but less than 20% in India," - E. Oster.

Paper you sourced. One PhD thesis kiddio. Interesting read though admittedly.

Regards



Yes, as the paper concludes "While there can be no doubt that gender bias plays a significant role in this gender imbalance, the results here suggest that diferences in biology may play a role as well."

She explained it for China. For India, the lack of some data may score some percentage points up in her study but not all. Nevertheless, still a hot topic from both cultural and medical point of view.

Oh come now gentlemen, why quibble about a few million girls who are butchered due to their gender here and there? It's not the general concept of murdering children that's important here, but rather that we determine what the exact number is, in millions.

:cantbeli:

panzerjager
09-29-2005, 06:51 PM
It's just that abortion is sacred ground. The left have tied their dinghy to it & if that stake is pulled up, the little boat full of face painted tree huggers will simply drift off into the sunset. And it will be fun to watch it happen, as they helplessly drift off, their anti-war signs waving frantically in the dwindling sunlight, singing "we shall overcome" as intently as they can manage, arms flailing, they reach out for something to hold on to, -anything- a social issue, maybe the WoT , perhaps a girl that Kennedy splashed into the sea who's floating by, anything at all...

That sir, is comedy gold! Thank you very much!