"Certain prejudices against women have nothing to do with Islam," he said Friday, several days after lifting the ban [on women's attending sporting events]. The speech seemed to present him for the first time as a supporter of expanded rights for women. "Unfortunately, whenever there is talk of social corruption, fingers are pointed at women. Shouldn't men be blamed for the problems, too?"That's quite a concession, that men might actually share some of the blame for social problems.
Why the feminist turn for Ahmadinejad? According to the article, it's a play for votes, albeit a risky one.
Posts
56 comments:
Why the feminist turn for Ahmadinejad? According to the article, it's a play for votes, albeit a risky one.
His wife made him do it.
Ann Althouse asked: "Why the feminist turn for Ahmadinejad?"
Perhaps it's his subtle way of reminding the world that he has hostages. Lots and lots of hostages.
"Please overlook our development of nuclear weapons and the talk of wiping all those countries off the map, I think you should be able to go to sporting events." I know that's on the top of the wish list.
What do you all think: Is Ahmadinejad a "true believer" or an opportunist? (Not that they are mutually exclusive, of course!) What is the best backgrounder you have read on him?
I am still trying to decide if the Iranian president is in league with evil, a clever rhetoritician, or both.
I mean if you are busy telling people that you will knock Israel off the map and eat all their children, and that you will topple America (and take all their hot chicks, and eat their obese little children), well, you end up sounding really hardcore, like "YEA! YOU ROCK Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ,ALLAH BE PRAISED". Meanwhile, while looking all hard and down with Allah, and being on all the top Mullah party lists, you then have the flexibility to do just pure crazy stuff, like expanding women's rights.
I like this Iranian president, what with his casual jackets and over the top pronouncements. He seems too smart to actually believe what comes out of his own mouth.
I am still trying to decide if the American president is in league with evil, a clever rhetoritician, or just an incompetent, corrupt, dolt.
I mean if you are busy telling people that you will knock Iraq and Iran and North Korea off the map and eat all their children, and that you will topple Iraq (and take all their oil, and give them a United States leaning democracy), well, you end up sounding really hardcore, like "YEA! YOU ROCK Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ,JEBUS BE PRAISED". Meanwhile, while looking all hard and down with JEBUS, and being on all the top Mullah party lists, you then have the flexibility to do just pure crazy stuff, like gutting civil rights, and giving the social security surplus that the 40somethings have paid for to your rich buddies.
I like this Iranian president, what with his casual jackets and over the top pronouncements. He seems too smart to actually believe what comes out of his own mouth.
But the American President? That's one crazy f*cking idiot. Dangerous and criminal. A Gangsta President.
Not only does this seem like a diversion (Eyes over here everybody! Please pay no attention to the nuclear development and murderous threats!) but it seems so silly.
Can you think of any right that the average woman would want less than the right to attend sporting events? How about the right not to die at your family's whim? How about the right to a simple education? And on and on.
This is Iran Jennifer and not Iraq, please check your hatred of brown people, and get the right memes.
It also helps everyone if you read the article before commenting:
Women had been demanding the right to attend games for more than a decade...
and http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Asia-and-Oceania/Iran-EDUCATION.html
Literacy training has been a prime concern in Iran. For the year 2000, adult illiteracy rates were estimated at 23.1% (males, 16.3%; females, 30.0%). A literacy corps was established in 1963 to send educated conscripts to villages. During its first 10 years, the corps helped 2.2 million urban children and 600,000 adults become literate. In 1997, there were 9,238,393 pupils enrolled in 63,101 primary schools, with 298,755 teachers. The student-toteacher ratio stood at 31 to 1. In that same year, secondary schools had 8,776,792 students and 280,309 teachers. The pupil-teacher ratio at the primary level was 26 to 1 in 1999. In the same year, 83% of primary-school-age children were enrolled in school. As of 1999, public expenditure on education was estimated at 4.6% of GDP.
Education is virtually free in Iran at all levels, from elementary school through university. At university level, however, every student is required to commit to serve the government for a number of years equivalent to those spent at the university. During the early 1970s, efforts were made to improve the educational system by updating school curricula, introducing modern textbooks, and training more efficient teachers.
and from the liberally biased CIA:
Literacy:
Definition Field Listing
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 79.4%
male: 85.6%
female: 73% (2003 est.)
I will in no way try to defend "honor killing" which of course is completely indefensible and a crime against humanity. I will only note that "Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran has condemned the practice as "un-Islamic", though punishment under Iranian law remains lenient.
It like Darfur needs to be stopped and needs the attention of our President and our foreign policy.
I so love SlipperyCheese's ad hominems. It's like an overstuffed executive chair sitting in my craftsman home with its mission furniture.
All this equal rights business in Iran means is more women in the audience when they hang people for being gay.
I like this Iranian president
May those words haunt you for the rest of your time commenting on this blog.
What was our dog in Iraq that a $1B per year no fly zone, and UN Weapons Inspections weren't taking care of?
I agree with you, now that we are bogged down in an Iraqi quagmire that is costing us $10B per week, and have alienated the entire world, and demonstrated our incompetence, it does make it difficult to consider how we could form a coalition to go into Darfur.
But I thought doing something about Darfur was the Decider's demand? " The United States is appalled by the violence in Darfur, Sudan.... The world cannot ignore the suffering of more than one million people. The U.S. will continue to help relieve suffering, as we demand that the Jinjaweed disarm, and that the Government, Jinjaweed, and Darfur rebels end the violence."
dick, this link by actual moderate Matthew Yglesias is for you.
Meantime, I have to go to work.
SlipperyCheese will now resume his duties as the overstuffed chair.
Wasn't this guy one of the leaders of the US embassey takeover in '79? I swore I read that he was.
I recall reading that also, but I thought it referred to the last President, the one who was more moderate.
Google first, then post.
Yes, the current Iranian president was one of those who took over the US Embassy. Apparently, he also advocated taking over the Soviet Embassy as well.
I wonder how the world today would be different if both Embassies had been siezed. That would make a good alternative universe novel.
It's hard to say whether this is an act of progressivism, and if so, what it signififies about Ahmadinejad. Yes, he was a student leader of the 1979 revolution. That doesn't tell me if he's a hard-line Islamist, or a Marxist. The revolution began as a Marxist one, and was quickly taken over by the Islamist faction. What's clear to me is that he, and his compatriots, very much enjoyed the power they had over people's daily lives. Marxist or Islamist, either is intrusive, commanding and micro-oriented in exerting control.
I find this guy capricious, and the more dangerous because of it.
My dearest fellow liberal Elizabeth, of whom my mere existence is an offense to thy fair and pallid manner,
Yes, he was a student leader of the 1979 revolution
Link please.
To SlipperyCheese, where were you this morning? I tumbled out of the mini-cooper, along with 18 other of my fellow moonbats, and there was some idiot throwing footstools and table legs at us. It was quite fun, good thing I had a big red horn with me to alert the fire department.
Ok, well I've done some googling and apparently my memories of even the simplest education withheld from Iranian women are correct but ten years out of date. I'm glad to see that they've moved beyond declaring female education against sharia.
The UN Commission on Human Rights has indicated as recently as a few years ago that the penal codes in Iran still allow for defense of honor killings. And CriticalObserver, you may believe Islamic women gladly endure honor killings for the honor but I find that a little doubtful.
Quxxo, direct your inanity elsewhere. If I hated brown people, why would I care if brown women were killed or treated badly?
Women have been demanding all sorts of rights in Iran for the last decade and more. I continue to believe that entrance to sporting events is not a particularly large concession on the part of the president. Yes its a concession. But if Bush were to do the same thing you would pounce on it as an insignificant gesture that was politically motivated.
I do find myself agreeing with you for the first time ever. The thugs in Darfur need to be stopped. Absolutely.
there's actually some controvery over whether he was one of the hostage-takers. It seems that the final analysis was that he was NOT a hostage taker, but did advocate the storming of both embassies (US + USSR) - as he had previously proudly declared.
he's hard-line but, as far as I can tell, a deep believer in the principles of Islam. which don't actually support all of the prejudices against women that most Islamist countries codify. the 'conservatives' who oppose him are cultural conservatives, which we should be careful to separate from religious textualists. [nowadays, there's a difference between fundamentalists and fundamentals - see: Matthew 19:21-24 vs Bush tax policies)
true belief and opportunism are hard to pin down in the business of politics
For crying out loud, CriticalObserver. You likened honor killings to adultery and then claim I distort facts?
From your own article, it is acknowledged that the women fighting against women's rights were handpicked by men who are vociferously opposed to women's rights. Great source there, big guy.
You cannot possibly believe that the only options are the two extremes you offer - protective paternalism or exploitation of vaginas? Ridiculous!
Link please.
Well jeeze, you link a bazillion times daily, and you can't do a simple googlification of the head honcho of Iran?
Here is one. You can find more here
Yes, he was a student leader of the 1979 revolution
Okay, to clarify for the slow that come from Madison:
please.find.a.link.that.says.he.was.a.student.leader.of.the.1979.revolution.
a.student.leader.of.the.revolution.
a.leader.
a leader.
None of the respectable and recent sources can apparently claim he was a leader, though many suggest that he was either in planning sessions, or visited the embassy, or joined afterwards.
There is some really horrendously ugly claims that he was responsible for the children martyrs that led the fight into the Iraqi. A completely disgusting crime if true.
The timing seems to place him in the right place at the right time. But I couldn't find any links that come close to showing he was a student leader of the revolution in 1979.
So please do supply a link.
critical,
Oh please.
You blithely say "many Islamic women gladly endure paternalism because its flipside is honor," and then suggest that it "may be better than enlightened men who seek to exploit you simply because you have a vagina." --I'm not sure what sort of bizarro alternative this is that you're referring to.
Whether or not honor killings are legal this year(pathetic in itself) is beside the point... if their version of "honor" is one that tells me if behave myself I can go to a soccer game next week, I'm not interested.
The problem with honor killings, as opposed to adultery is that the later requires some sort of intent on the part of the woman. The former though in some cases only requires that the woman be at the wrong place at the wrong time.
One of the weirnesses of Islamic law (practiced, I believe, in Iran) is that the testimony of a woman only counts as half that of a man. This is backed by multiple references in the Koran. The effect is that in a he-says / she-says court case, she always loses, unless she has other corroborating witnesses, preferably male.
So, a guy rapes a woman. She says rape, he says consensual. If it goes to court, he walks, absent more. And then, she is identified as an adulteress (and is sometimes killed as a result to maintain the honor of her family).
CriticalObserver, read your own article. It neither claims this woman was educated in the West nor at Harvard. That appears to be your own addition.
Yes, she claims to have been picked for her brilliance not her towing the line. Of course, she tows the line. But that has nothing, NOTHING to do with her selection as a parliament member. Clearly.
In your own article, other Iraqi women are quoted thus: “It’s weakening our position,” Nada al-Bayiati, of the Women’s Organisation for Freedom in Iraq, said. “How can you argue for women’s rights when the women are undermining you?”
I'm not sure how you've decided that Ms. Bayiati is less qualified than Dr. Ubaedey to determine what "women's rights" are as they apply to Iraqi women.
For myself, someone like Dr. Ubaedey who says “If you say to a man he cannot use force against a woman, you are asking the impossible,” is not a credible source on women's rights. And she was a former pediatrician - let's just hope she didn't spend her time advising parents to beat their children.
CriticalObserver, I am not a feminist. Far from it. Nor am I secular. I'm just not Muslim.
I don't disagree that she fully believes men should beat women. (I, by the way, have no problem with polygamy.)
I also fully assume that people who beat their children feel they have a right to. I assume that people who murder other people for their money or their shoes or what have you feel that they have such a right. Even though darn near every civilized society tells them differently.
It doesn't mean they are right.
You are misrepresenting her view. She did not say "If you say to all men they cannot use force against a woman, you are asking the impossible because some of them will do it anyway."
She said "If you say to a man he cannot use force against a woman, you are asking the impossible" Clearly she is stating that no man could refrain from beating his wife. And the way she states it implies that she believes this is because women deserve it.
Your insistence that she can say no wrong because she is different than us is the true cultural condescension.
Your claim that our "ugly Americanness" is why other countries develop nuclear weaponry is equally idiotic.
I do not subscribe to moral relativism. I can discern right from wrong even when the perpetrator is from another culture.
CriticalObserver, apparently you justify anything and everything as long as it is backed up with sincere belief. I disagree with you too.
We are talking about voluntary Muslims.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight, like Abdul Rahman.
Ahmadinejad is reputed to be a follower of a fundamentalist sect of Shia Islam where they are waiting for the imminent reappearance of the 12th Iman, Muhammad al-Mahdi, who disappeared (went into occlusion) a millenium or so ago. The theory is that he will only reappear at the end of the world (their version of Armageddon), as their Messiah (Mahdi). There is also a question as to whether this sect may also believe that they should hasten Armageddon in order to hasten the return of this 12th Imam.
There is a rumor that when Ahmadinejad was mayor of Tehron, he renamed and refurbished a street for the imminent coming of the Mahdi.
Think of it this way. Most Shia believe in the 12th Iman and his ultimate coming. But this guy belongs to a sect that believes that the recoming is imminent, and that he should hasten it through Armageddon. This is like the difference between Christians who believe in the 2nd Coming of Christ, and those who are making plans for it happening in the next year or so.
I think if the countries we are talking about were truly "functional democratic states" where freedom of religion was fully accorded, you might have a point.
I also think pretending that all women living under theocratic Muslim governments are operating with a full range of options is beyond reasonable.
Iranian women do have the right to go to school, vote, drive a car and have some civil rights in matters like divorce, inheritance, etc. This puts them way ahead of their sisters in places like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, etc.
As far as the nuclear ambitions, all I have to say about that is if the President of a country that could wipe you off the map called you a member of the 'axis of evil,' and then conquered the country next door to you that he described the same way, then you'd be working as hard as you could on developing a nuke too.
Point of fact: no nuclear armed country has ever been invaded by another country. That even include Israel, which fought four wars against foreign countries in it's first 25 years, but since developing nukes in the late 1970's, has not even fought one.
Iran is developing nukes. Because they do work-- as a deterrent.
no nuclear armed country has ever been invaded by another country.
Falkland Islands
Jennifer,
forget it. Critical Observer is basically arguing that you are disrespecting these women by wanting better lives and more rights for them than the ones she insists they willingly settle for. whatever.
Knoxgirl: Yes, I'm beginning to understand the earlier poster's comment on another thread about the dangers of wrestling in the mud with a pig.
The porcine kind, not the chauvinist kind, mind you.
The porcine kind, not the chauvinist kind, mind you.
Ha ha! Something I love about non-gendered pseudonyms is that no one can tell for sure what your gender, color, religion, species is.
It helps buttress the claim that arguments should be based on their content, and anonymity helps in that endeavor.
Who are you referring to as a chauvinist?
Or like slavery, universal suffrage, right to privacy....
Who are you referring to as a chauvinist?
Nobody at all. That's why I clarified.
The saying, I believe, refers to getting down to the same level as someone who prefers slinging mud.
Not referring to your opponent as a pig.
It is tragic when one must resort to ad hominems.
How on earth is that an ad hominem attack?
You have consistently resorted to twisting my words around rather than responding to the substance of my argument.
Seems rather like wallowing around in the muck than debating.
For crying out loud, CriticalObserver. My comment reflected solely on your "debating".
You know, insisting I claimed this woman "hates women" and is "uncivilized" and that my disagreement with her point of view amounts to "cultural condescension".
Regardless. You say ad hominem, I say calling it like it is.
CriticalObserver, I was referring to what we regard as rights now in our culture that were not regarded as rights in 1776.
I absolutely have no idea what the Koran states, and I have found your comments very interesting.
It's really easy - he knows that the easiest way to enlist the sympathies of the media and the Left is to pay lip services to these issues.
And from reading a random sampling of these comments, it seems to be working.
Steve Donohue:
no nuclear armed country has ever been invaded by another country.
Falkland Islands
3:08 PM, May 01, 2006
True, I'd forgotten about that one. Although the Argentines could be reasonably confident that the British weren't going respond by lobbing a couple of nukes into Buenos Aires. Had they actually invaded the British mainland that would be a different scenario.
It still makes a lot of sense from the Iranian point of view to develop a nuclear deterrent because then they can feel reasonably confident that the U.S. or anyone else won't be able to conquer them simply because of the threat that when faced with imminent defeat they could use nukes to blow up entire armies of invaders (and there would not even have to be a delivery mechanism, just leave on a countdown in some abandoned basement in a town or building that the army is heading towards and let it blow up on its own).
So I still believe nukes are a pretty good deterrent against an invasion. Also keep in mind that North Korea was a member of the 'axis of evil' but has nukes, so the U.S. won't touch them, but Iraq did not and was conquered. That distinction has not been lost on Iran.
An interesting conumdrum. We believe in TJ's philosophy that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". And to us, in a Judeo-Christian society, their defintion is self evident, and by our current understanding, violated in strickly Islamic society, esp. when it comes to women.
But then, if the "Creator" is Allah, and his will has been written down in the Koran, etc., you might come to a different conclusion about fundamental rights. If the Koran calls for women having half the worth of men, then so be it, that is His divine will.
This is going to keep coming up and coming up in the coming years. We are already seeing it in Europe, where Moslems are insisting that Europeans put aside their long held concepts of liberty and human rights for their Muslim citizens, and, instead allow them to govern themselves under Sharia law.
But many of the differences are such that Sharia is not acceptable in western liberal societies. For example, we just aren't going to let citizens in our country (or Europeans in theirs) be treated as half citizens just because they happen to have twice the X chromosones. And we aren't about to allow stoning of homosexual males, even if one of them is Moslem.
At one time, I don't think that it would have been all that bad to trust Moslems to treat their Christian and Jewish citizens as almost equal. But today, many Moslem countries have lost whatever tolerance they once had for other religions, which leaves Moslems living in Judeao-Christian countries.
For us, the solution is not all that hard though. If you accept that not all cultures are equivalent, and believe that our definition of liberty is superior, then you are fairly immune to the call to allow Moslems to practice Sharia law here. It is only if you accept the notion that all cultures are equivalent, that you get into this problem.
p.s. What is that wheelchair by the word verification? The link is invalid, and I can't see that sitting in a wheelchair would keep someone from blogging.
OPPOSING PSA:
Thanks for defending/explaining yourself, Critical Observer. I think you contributed to the discussion.
I agree with the general concept of autonomy. All cultures are not equal, but we have to accept that and use persuasion to work through our differences. Good intentions don't always mean good results.
Doesn't mean we bury our heads, just that we acknowledge it won't be possible to militarily intervene across the globe.
A good craftsman has many tools in the toolbox, and knows how and when to use them. Same with a good police officer.
Bruce Hayden:
It is supposed to be a link by which you can listen rather than read the word (I guess if you are a legally blind blogger.) But frankly that would be insulting in itself, thinking that the wheelchair has anything to do with visual impairment.
Eli: That was my first thought, too. I'm assuming the link is for people who've complained about the difficulty of reading the verification word. But why would they be associated with a wheelchair? Odd.
"We are already seeing it in Europe, where Moslems are insisting that Europeans put aside their long held concepts of liberty and human rights for their Muslim citizens, and, instead allow them to govern themselves under Sharia law."
In 1991 the province of Ontario had authorized the use of sharia law in civil arbitrations, if both parties consented. Just recently, Sept 2005, Ontario
rejected Sharia law.
I am surprised how little discussion there is about its possibility in the US.
I am surprised how little discussion there is about its possibility in the US.
I wouldn’t lose any sleep over the thought of Shari law becoming established in the United States. Republicans (rightfully) are already skeptical of allowing foreign law (aside from treaties cases and limited cases of English common law for early constitutional interpretation) and Democrats realize that it would be suicidal.
I do not think one can call sharia law evil without listening in good faith to and reflecting upon, e.g., sincere arguments made by Muslim women who find it liberating.
What about the women who live in Iran who don't find sharia law "liberating?"
I imagine that if you looked hard enough back in 1850, you could have found an African-American slave in the American South who said that he liked being owned by his white master.
I imagine that if you looked hard enough in 1943, you could have found a Jew in a concentration camp who said that he enjoys living in the concentration camp.
Even if we were naive enough to believe that the slave and the Jew were speaking freely, instead of simply saying what their captors wanted them to say, isn't is plausible that there would be other slaves and Jews who would think, even if they couldn't safely express, that they hated living under slavery or in a concentration camp?
That's why the question should be posed directly: Do the human rights available to Iranian women offend one's sense of liberty and justice.
It is evasion to say, "Well, yes. If that's what they want?"
If women are voluntarily killed in honor killings then I suppose Iran has its own bizarre version of assisted suicide. But that's not what we are talking about, is it?
"Morality is not based on fact."
If morality is defined as conforming to a standard of what is right and good then must it not be based on fact when that standard is violated?
So there is no good or bad, right or wrong, there just is.....
Standards of good, bad, right, wrong evolved through emotionalism, need to survive and cooperate, the position of the stars, pain, etc.
Post a Comment