Ann Coulter raises an interesting observation: "Where are the Feminists on the War In Iraq and Afghanistan?" Both wars freed millions of women from oppressive regimes yet not a peep of support of any kind from the Feminist camps, almost a complete denial of the millions of women freed from bondage. Coulter states, "America has just gone to war against a regime for which rape – not date rape, or pseudo-rape, or virtual rape, but real rape – was part of the official policy, and they're (Kerry et al.) against regime-change." Exactly! The Bush Administration works to free women from bondange and the feminist camp and womens rights groups completely ignore the effort! More on this story: http://www.anncoulter.com IntheNet
it might be a decent point were it not coated with lies from the shrill shill - - nobody is against ridding the world of rape rooms - yet, i can't help but wonder where ms. coulter or mr. net were on the issue before... nowhere, i'm guessing
They've got real jobs they have to work at everyday, kids to take care of before and after work, and husbands to cook for and sexually satisfy every evening. They're pretty damn busy...and lovin' it.
ITN has a point. I hear women are now allowed to expose the back of their hands and part of their face while they are in the fields picking poppys. First, ITN, I would point out that the vast majority of us supported the war in Afghanistan, and even criticize our own government for doing a half-assed job. Perhaps if we would have done a full-assed job, women would now be enjoying greater freedom (oh, and maybe ObL would be in a US Army video being deloused, but that isn't as important to the great women's rights champion Ann Coulter). Second, I may be a bit naive on this, but Iraq was one of the more secular Arab states where women enjoyed much more freedom than in, oh, I don't know . . . maybe Kuwait or Saudi Arabia? True, Saddam's thugs were responsible for a ton of atrocities including rape, and it is ONE good result if that has been lessened, but you need a little refresher course in a phrase that contains "ends, means and justify." It would be ironic if more radical shiites gain major control in their new "democracy" leading to less rights for women.
Ann Coulter is an idiot. Women in Iraq indeed had far more freedom than women in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Sadly, by invading the country and making room for fundamentalist muslim types to gain power, we've probably made the situation much worse for them. I hope I'm wrong.
life, food, clothing and shelter all take precedence over liberty. Unfortunately, too many women, men and children in Iraq now no longer have the "luxury" of decent access to their necesities.
For the record, I've posted a number of times regarding the situation of women in Afghanistan. I think I have some feminist cred, as I work at a human rights organization that actively promotes women's issues (Global Exchange) and I am a member of the Domestic Violence Council of Santa Clara county. If ITN does not read my posts, so be it. We should all post what we think are the stupidest, or most dangerous, statement by Coulter. She did advocate the assassination of Clinton, in the event the impeachment failed. Who's next?
I'll go. On September 12 2001, she wrote regarding Muslims: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Why does she hate religious freedom?
This may surprise some on this board, but I am not a big Ann Coulter fan. Her extreme rhetoric shadows some valid points she makes. That having been said, the original question is an insightful one. Why hasn't there been more cred for the fact that women recently voted in Afganistan for the first time? That girls can now go to school past the age of 12, etc? Yes, Iraq was a more secular nation than Afganistan, but women were similarly held back there as well. That is just the cultural difference between two dramatically different cultures. But still, the feminist groups have been just as silent now as when Clinton was embarrassing his wife, daughter and the nation with his adulterous behaviour in the White House. To wit; they overlooked it entirely. Could there possibly be a double standard at work???
Who are "the feminists," exactly? No reification. No straw men (er, women). If you're going to accuse "the feminists" of being indifferent to the suffering of women in Afghanistan, then please, by all means, name names. A month before 9-11, CNN aired a 1-hour documentary in prime time about the condition of women in Afghanistan. The movie itself wasn't fantastic, but the images it presented were shocking and very moving, and it shed light on a region of the the world that, up until that point, was known for blowing up statues of Buddha, once fighting the Soviets, and absolutely nothing else. CNN is crap, but FOX News almost certainly never aired something about this, lest it interrupt their comprehensive coverage of shark attacks. I mention this only because the angle of the piece was women's rights. When no one else in the world cared about the plight of these women, some feminists did. And one of them--the director of the movie--went to considerable personal risk to expose it to the indifference of the rest of the nation. (That is, until 9-11.) When you find a single god damn phrase written by that shrill moron, Ann Coulter, about Afghanistan that predates 9-11, please, by all means, post it. The fact is that Ann Coulter knew nothing and cared nothing about that part of the world until it became a bat she could wield against the "liberals" and "feminists," whoever they are. Call it a hunch, but I bet you can find rants about "animal rights activists" and the shark attacks, though.
Look, that's all fine and good for Afghanistan. But if you want to make this point for Iraq, you have to realize that few people talk up the advantages of easily harvestable 5 foot mushrooms in Chernobyl.
No. Feminine issues are better as a long-term by-product of the Afghan invasion. Much work to be done. However, the Bushies did not invade Afghanistan or Iraq to "unshackle" the females from their bondage. That was never a motivation, justification, or post-invasion policy of either military action. Feminists have been generally supportive of those by-products. Coulter conveniently ignores this, as does ITN and others.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to bojendyk again. Ditto all of this. Frankly, I haven't heard anything from the "feminists" in some time. Perhaps they are saying things, but not getting any press, or perhaps no one has asked them appropriate questions. I refuse to give Ms. Coulter any hits, so perhaps she discusses her attempts to contact NOW and their refusal to acknowledge reforms in Afghanistan, but I doubt it. This whole discussion represents a wider problem. Why is it assumed that us "liberals" can't recognize any progress if "conservatives" have a finger in it? Here, there and everywhere, I have backed President Bush on our Afghan policy with the exception of arguing that we did not do enough post-Taliban fall to get bin Laden and to secure the country. I firmly believe that it is more or less the City State of Kabul, and then a bunch of war lord controlled areas. Not a horrible set up when you consider where they were two years ago, but not exactly stable. To the extent that women there now have increased rights and can go to school and hold down jobs, I am proud of what America has done there, even if these are just bi-products of our objective to bring 9/11 perps to justice. I only wish we weren't diverted, and that we could have done more. Apparently, I am not the only one who thinks so: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0410210317oct21,1,3603252.column In Nov. 21, 2001, with the war in Afghanistan reaching a critical stage and American forces apparently closing in on Osama bin Laden, Gen. Tommy Franks got a request from his superiors that did not fill him with joy. Despite the other demands on his time, they wanted him to get to work on an-other task: planning a war in Iraq. Franks, then the head of the U.S. Central Command, reacted as though he'd been asked to wear a pink tutu. As Bob Woodward recounts in his book, "Plan of Attack," the general was "incredulous. They were in the midst of one war, Afghanistan, and now they wanted detailed planning for another, Iraq? `[Expletive], what the [expletive] are they talking about?'" Franks bellowed. The request came just about a week before bin Laden reportedly made his escape from the mountains of Tora Bora, in eastern Afghanistan. Yet Franks, who was infuriated back then, is now supporting President Bush's re-election and solemnly insists that "neither attention nor manpower was diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq." Sure. Running a war in Afghanistan is a part-time job. And I'm Hilary Duff. Franks' claims are in keeping with an administration that never admits a mistake. It also converges with the president's efforts to portray our mission in Afghanistan as a shining success that will soon be duplicated in Iraq. But the truth is, plenty of things have gone wrong in Afghanistan. And the modest achievements compiled there will be much harder to attain in Iraq.
Similarly? At least in urban areas, women held high cabinet positions and were well represented in prestige, professional fields. They weren't exactly getting stoned for not covering their face, ya know. No, I'm not advocating we should bring Saddam back, but there is already a move towards religious conservatism in Iraq, and if the fundamentalists end up filling the power vacuum, there is a real danger that women's rights in Iraq can be set back a couple of centuries. That is something feminists should worry about.
Actually, quite a bit was made on NPR about a woman running for President of Afghanistan. I think it's awesome and I hope the trend continues. That said, I was never against the invasion of Afghanistan. It's hard to imagine how we could have made anything worse. Iraq is a different story.
I've been worried about that for a very long time. I'm more concerned about the lack of concern shown by the administration for the (perhaps unintended) consequences of the invasion of Iraq than I am about what feminists are saying. I believe that the Bush administration is overtly hostile to women. I believe that the conservative christian movement is hostile to women. I believe that the Bushies really do not give a flying ******** at a rolling doughnut about the women of Iraq or, for that matter, Afghanistan. Anyway, it should be a human thing, not a female thing.
I didn't see the NPR piece but I respect the bit. My frustration is with the national networks particular, and feminists in general. Where were the Big 3 in all this? Geraldo Rivera did a nice piece on Fox once but nobody else picked it up.