quote:

---

WASHINGTON -- The State Department has awarded an explicitly anti-feminist U.S. group part of a $10 million grant to train Iraqi women in political participation and democracy.
snip
The organization was founded in 1991 by a number of prominent right-wing Republican women to act as a counterpoint to what they called the “radical feminism” of the National Organization for Women (NOW), a grassroots group with about 500,000 subscribing members nationwide.

Among the founders were Lynne Cheney, the spouse of Vice President Dick Cheney and former chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities; Labor Secretary Elaine Chao; Kate O’Beirne, Washington editor of the right-wing “National Review” and a former senior vice president at the Heritage Foundation; and Midge Decter, the former co-chair with Donald Rumsfeld of the Committee for the Free World and one of the founders of neo-conservatism along with her spouse, former “Commentary” editor, Norman Podhoretz.

Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky, who announced the grant at a press briefing last week, has also served on IWF’s board of advisers.

“Talk about an inside deal, the IWF represents a small group of right-wing wheeler-dealers inside the (Washington) beltway,” said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation.

---

• more profiteering by friends of the White House
• having Republicans train women in the art of democracy makes no sense when they've proven that they don't support democracy.

[ 07 October 2004: Message edited by: Scott Piatkowski ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cynicalico:
[QB]Just because they are anti-NOW, and against 'radical' feminism (whatever they mean by that), doesn't mean they are against ALL streams of feminism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike Keenan:
Maybe not, but the fact that they're right wing Republicans and are being paid by the US State Department certainly suggests that they are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ruby Tuesday:

The phrase "radical feminism" actually does have a specific meaning, and NOW ain't it. One can be a radical feminist and belong to NOW for pragmatic reasons. But NOW is a liberal feminist organization, not a radical one.

Of course, to many ultra right wing types, any serious feminism is "radical." But that's a bit like saying that anybody who leans to the left is a communist. Which has also been known to happen in U.S. political discourse.

---

Well, there are a few things about NOW that can make even a fairly moderate person uncomfortable. However, not every 'serious' feminism is that of the left-wing variety. For example, there's also the 'libertarian' or 'individualist' feminism (www.ifeminist.com)

And since we are so sensitive to wanting to keep women and girls in the situations they now find themselves I think we should also adopt a motion to send our pedophiles over to Pitcairn Island.

After all it would be in keeping with their current situation also.

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3594237

[ 07 October 2004: Message edited by: Debra ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hailey:
I would imagine that the organization that is being funded is more representative of the traditional values cherished by the islamic faith.

---

quote:

---

I would imagine that the organization that is being funded is more representative of the traditional values cherished by the islamic faith. I would think it would be more culturally sensitive to use service providers that more closely mirrored the religious and cultural values of the group. Using pro-feminist resources would appear to be a gesture to westernize persons values and promote the same style of thinking that has been adopted in the west about male and female roles.

---

1) I won't support honour killings but in many situations they are about choices. They should be illegal and we should support the adoption of different values but we do not have the right to go and impose our will on another country.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hailey:
I won't support honour killings but in many situations they are about choices.

---

Iraq is in many ways a socially and culturally advanced culture; there are many highly educated and well trained women in Iraq; they should be directing any programs to involve women in democratic politics and programs. We should follow, not attempt to lead.

quote:

---

To me, the obvious answer for Western women who want to help in Iraq is to find Iraqi women and women's groups who are already at work organizing locally, and then support them.

---

I can well believe that these things have happened, James. It has been a while since I checked the RAWA site, but given the amazing role they played in Afghanistan while the Taliban were still in power, it has been shocking how disregarded they have been by the Karzai government since the American invasion. And, of course, for women in much of the Afghanistan countryside, very little has changed.

quote:

---

I won't support honour killings but in many situations they are about choices.

---

A woman who is raped in the Sunni triange in Iraq is now almost certain to be murdered by her family, as is anyone who tries to assist her. Where the hell is the "choice" there ? Women who choose to work outside the home risk the same fate. "Choice" ?, "Desrving of respect" ? Sorry Hailey, you've lost me in your "inclusiveness" !

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hailey:
I would imagine that the organization that is being funded is more representative of the traditional values cherished by the islamic faith.

---

I suspect you know very little of Iraq. Before the invasion it was quite secular and its population very literate and well educated.

Read a few posts at the blog of this young woman who lives in Baghdad. Start with the one called Liar, Liar which is about George Bush. Then try to explain to me what Lynne Cheney has to teach her.

[ 07 October 2004: Message edited by: pogge ]

The link is here.

[ 07 October 2004: Message edited by: BLAKE 3:16 ]

quote:

---

Even persons who support honour killings would not necessarily agree with that.

---

quote:

---

even persons who would support honour killings would not necessarily believe that a rape victim should be the target of such an act of violence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hailey:
Scout even persons who would support honour killings would not necessarily believe that a rape victim should be the target of such an act of violence. They would restrict that violent response to women who engaged in consensual sexual activity that was outside of the familial, social, cultural, and religious norms.

---

It seems to me that honour killing is not about morality. It is about control, that the men of the family control the women; so a woman who goes out and has a job is too independent; a woman who marries someone her family has not chosen is too independent. As for a rape victim, another man has exerted control over her, therefore her male relatives must kill her to re-establish their own control.

Basically women are not real people to these men, they are things that serve the family honour. Possibly the men also consider themselves to be things that serve the family honour, so they kill even knowing they will be punished for it.

[ 08 October 2004: Message edited by: Contrarian ]

quote:

---

Scout even persons who would support honour killings would not necessarily believe that a rape victim should be the target of such an act of violence. They would restrict that violent response to women who engaged in consensual sexual activity that was outside of the familial, social, cultural, and religious norms.

---

So if a woman chooses to have sex with someone before marriage, honour killing is okay -- she, in fact, asked for it?

[ 14 October 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Oh, I don't know. There are Republican feminists.

---

I would like some proof that it is about let'say male control and a women's punishment. Other than that it is judgement based upon one's own bias or precepts of what the reason for such actions could be.

One should keep in mind that Iraq has a long history of feminist activism. It was the first Arab country to have a female government minister in 1959 (she lives now in London). Maybe they would like to teach her something about democracy?

I am sure that she, along with scores of Iraqi women, would appreciate the American process of enlightenment that was inaugurated with annulling the family law that she drafted, and was issued by the government in 1959 (a secular law to apply to all women irrespective of religion or sect). After all, this law is definitely not compatible with democracy. God forbid that polygamy was banned, and that women had the right to divorce their husbands, and that they obtained custody of their children, and that they were not allowed to get married before 18 (not sure). Instead, one of the first decrees of the governing council in 2003 was to revoke this law, and to reassign the legal procedures of family affairs to the religious figures.

feh.

[ 14 October 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
I didn't know that, liminal. That's awful; in fact, it is criminal.

---

The dearth of links is frustrating (not dearth as much as redundance, especially if you google "iraqi family law" or "iraqi personal status law")

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1151087,00.html

quote:

---

Iraqi family law is the most progressive in the Middle East. Divorce cases are heard only in the civil courts (effectively outlawing the "repudiation" religious divorce); polygamy is outlawed unless the first wife welcomes it (and very few do); and women divorcees have an equal right to custody of their children.
The "liberators" of Iraq can take no credit for this. The secular family code was introduced in 1959. Saddam Hussein weakened its inheritance provisions but left it mostly unchanged. Now it is under threat from the US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council. IGC resolution 137 will, if implemented, eliminate the idea of civil marriage and place several aspects of family law - including divorce and inheritance rights - directly under the control of religious authorities.

---

http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-6600.html

http://www.madre.org/art_iraq_resolution137.html

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/675/re6.htm

http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=39153&SelectRegion=Iraq_Crisis&Select Country=IRAQ

[ 16 October 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]

quote:

---

1959-60 Minister of Municipalities Dr Naziha al-Dulaimi
1960 Minister of State without Portfolio
She was the only member from the Communist Party in 'Abd al-Karim Qasim's government after the over-trough of the monarchy in 1958

---

By pointing out that honour killings of rape victims are criminal you are saying that other kinds of honour killings are okay?

meanwhile, in related news, Hailey spends so much of her time pointing out that removal of unsentient cells is a heinous form of murder.

This schizophrenic split is common to so many pro-lifers who support the death penalty but oppose abortion.

quote:

---

You might think, but that's simply not the case. In other areas of the world, women who've been raped aren't murdered, but they're shunned by their family and considered 'unmarriageable'... sort of a non-person, albeit breathing.

---

There are communities that treat rape victims like that. I can't endorse or support that - it's evil.

quote:

---

So if a woman chooses to have sex with someone before marriage, honour killing is okay -- she, in fact, asked for it?Don't go volunteering at any women's shelters in the near future, Hailey

---

Honour killing is never okay. Ever. Under no circumstances. I would have a special level of sympathy for a rape victim which you may or may not think is right but that doesn't mean that I don't feel badly for anyone who falls victim to this cultural practice.

Don't volunteer at a shelter for women? I actually do a lot of volunteering including for all-female settings and persons in difficult situations. They have not, as yet, included a women's shelter. I don't see that in my future. I'm surprised you'd actually tell me I couldn't go there to volunteer though. If you don't think I'm good enough that's cool, can you pay my taxes too? A portion of that goes to them I'm sure and you wouldn't want them to take any of my soiled money I'm sure.

quote:

---

Really Hailey, say it ain't so!
By pointing out that honour killings of rape victims are criminal you are saying that other kinds of honour killings are okay?....Hailey spends so much of her time pointing out that removal of unsentient cells is a heinous form of murder.This schizophrenic split is common to so many pro-lifers who support the death penalty but oppose abortion.So let's hear it: is "every life sacred" or not?

---

My only point Socrates was that a person making a consenting decision has the option fo mapping out the pros and cons, reducing their risk of being caught, evaluating the whole thing from start to finish....a rape victim has no rights. She has no such choice. Rape, to me, has always stood out as one of the most horrific crimes and I have a special passion about that whole topic. That doesn't mean to say that women who chose to commit adultery or chose to have premarital sex should be killed. It's simply wrong.