women in afghanistan face continuing human rights crisis

from Silence meets despair of Afghan women:

Afghanistan’s women are no longer in vogue.

It was only a few years ago that Laura Bush, who normally shied from causes that could be considered controversial, took up their banner. “The brutal oppression of women is a central goal of the terrorists,” the first lady said in a radio address shortly after President Bush launched the U.S-led invasion to overthrow the Taliban following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. “The plight of women and children in Afghanistan is a matter of deliberate human cruelty, carried out by those who seek to intimidate and control.”

That was then. This is now: Afghan President Hamid Karzai has just signed a law that forces women to obey their husbands” sexual demands, keeps women from leaving the house—even for work or school—without a husband’s permission, automatically grants child custody rights to fathers and grandfathers before mothers, and favors men in inheritance disputes and other legal matters. In short, the law again consigns Afghan women to lives of brutal repression.

“This is really, really dangerous for everybody in Afghanistan,” Soraya Sobhrang of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission said in a telephone interview from Kabul. Noting that violence against women already is rampant, Sobhrang said the new law effectively “legalizes all violence against women in Afghanistan.”

The legislation zoomed through Afghanistan’s parliament quickly.

Karzai, who faces elections in August, signed it in an apparent effort to placate conservative religious factions. The United Nations Development Fund for Women says it is still analyzing a final version of the legislation, but is “seriously concerned” about its impact. It appears to contradict both the Afghan constitution, which guarantees equal rights for men and women, and international conventions on human rights.

The U.S. State Department has had no immediate comment.

Afghanistan’s women are, apparently, the latest casualty of the Obama administration’s tilt toward realpolitik: ignore human rights violations—whether they’re in China, Russia or in the quiet misery of an Afghan villager’s home—in pursuit of larger foreign policy goals.

This contradiction between political rhetoric and policy reality has often been the American way. But now we have Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state. When she was first lady, she championed the rights of women oppressed by the Taliban long before most Americans had ever heard of that radical regime. Clinton took the helm of the State Department vowing to elevate the cause of human and economic rights for women and girls—a pledge she made again in The Hague this week at the end of a major conference on Afghanistan that was aimed at securing greater international cooperation on the desperate and disparate crises there.

“My message is very clear. Women’s rights are a central part of American foreign policy in the Obama administration; they are not marginal, they are not an add-on or an afterthought,” Clinton said in response to a general question about the situation confronting women in Afghan society.

“You cannot expect a country to develop if half its population (is) underfed, undereducated, under cared for, oppressed, and left on the sidelines.”

The secretary was not asked specifically about the new law. Among other provisions, it guarantees that married men can have sex once every four nights and wives must submit. In effect, it legalizes marital rape.

Sobhrang worries there may be worse to come. “They are talking about child marriage,” she says.

Without pressure from foreign powers who hold so much sway in Afghanistan, there was little even women in the country’s parliament could do. Sobhrang faults those who were quiet in the face of the clear effort by a religious faction that is said to hold the balance of power in Karzai’s re-election bid to reimpose medieval mores on a country that is in many ways a ward of the contemporary international community.

The ugly truth in Afghanistan is that it has long been sliding back into the violent chaos that is friendly political ground for the Taliban and other extremist groups. Women have, as usual, been among the chief victims.

There is indeed a lengthy and urgent to-do list for the Obama administration, which says it is determined to abandon a failing course.

But that does not mean the United States should again fail Afghanistan’s women.

To consign them to what Laura Bush correctly called “deliberate human cruelty” is cruelty itself.

the uglier truth is that the situation in afghanistan has never really improved for women:

The war in Afghanistan has removed the Taliban, which so far does appear to be an improvement for women in certain limited parts of the country. In other areas, the incidence of rape and forced marriage is on the rise again, and most women continue to wear the burqa out of fear for their safety. The level of everyday violence in Afghanistan is something we would find it hard to imagine. “War on terrorism” has removed the Taliban, but it has not removed religious fundamentalism which is the main cause of all our miseries. It will require a very different approach indeed for those evils to be eliminated, which is RAWA’s point. And in fact, by reinstalling the warlords in power in Afghanistan, the US is ultimately replacing one fundamentalist regime with another.

Karzai has gathered all criminals around him and even some top Taliban leaders like Mullah Ghaus, Hakim Mujahid (Taliban spokesperson who was on a US tour only months before 9/11), Wakil Ahmad Motawakal (Taliban Foreign Minister), Mullah Zaheef (Taliban Ambassador in Pakistan), Mullah Hotaki, Mullah Arsala etc. have been forgiven by Mr. Karzai and allowed to open their office in Kabul. Instead of appearing in the court of justice for their crimes, in the name of “moderated Taliban” these criminal and misogynist elements are coming in political scene once again because the US policy in Afghanistan requires such deals with them. This is indeed an unforgivable and treasonable deal against our nation and especially our ill-fated women.

It is due to such dealings of Karzai government and his US masters with terrorist warlords that Taliban-like decrees are still in place on our unfortunate women. It was on April 23, 2005 that Amina, a 29 year-old woman was publicly stoned to death on the basis of a district court’s decision in northern province of Badakhshan who was accused of committing adultery.

Whenever there are fundamentalists, there will be hostility against women and RAWA’s struggle for women’s rights will not be over. Beside the fundamentalists’ crimes against women, old traditions also regard women as second sex and they are suppressed, so RAWA’s mission for women’s rights is far from over and we have to work hard for women’s rights in Afghanistan. We need the solidarity and support of all people around the world. —statement from the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan ‘On the Situation of Afghan Women’

canada has threatened to withdraw troops from afghanistan in response to the new legislation.  the us has praised karzai for promising to review the new laws.  but, as one afghan journalist states, “the new legislation will affect women of the Shia minority – about 5 per cent of the population. The majority of all Afghan women are in fact hostage to far more draconian practices, enshrined in customs and traditions that date back to pre-sharia days – and are in some cases contradictory to Islam.”  see: Sharia law is not the real problem for Afghan women

you can help.

Blogged, Current Events, Politics, Comments (0)
Tagged as: women,politics,news,afghanistan April 09, 2009 @ 02:39 pm

~women are heroes~

seen recently at contexts.org:

in brazil:

visit women are heroes to see more of the artist’s work.

absolutely ~beautiful~.

Blogged, Just for Fun, arts&crafts, Comments (0)
Tagged as: art,women March 23, 2009 @ 04:13 pm

rick perry, dan patrick, and frank corte: pls stay outta my vagina, kthx.

from texas politics:

Gov. Rick Perry told lawmakers that he supports legislation by Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, and Rep. Frank Corte, R-San Antonio, requiring “those wanting to terminate a pregancy to review their ultrasound before proceeding.”

“As we consider the growing threats to our nation’s unborn, I believe it’s time to add another layer of protection for the most vulnerable Texans,” he said.

as usual, they worry more about the unborn than they do the birthed.  if they actually cared about *people*, they’d implement a plan that made sense:

1) raise awareness through more education (planned pregnancies are best),
2) support birth control (in ALL of it’s forms, abstinence AND other means - birth control should be affordable, accessible, and available to all),
3) social networks to assist when there has been an unnplanned pregnancy, whether the woman chooses abortion, adoption, or to keep the baby, and
4) above all, compassion and understanding (cuz really… calling someone the child of satan because they don’t agree that abortion is murder is NOT getting your message heard nor is telling someone to go get raped so they understand why abortion is acceptable).  (see: now for something less controversial: abortion)

THAT is the number one way to cut the number of abortions. 

instead, texas has led the nation in abstinence education while our teens were more apt to have sex, not use condoms, and led the nation in teen pregnancies.  (see: texas leads the nation in losing)

never forget, this is a calculated maneuver by those on the right to chip away at roe v wade.  we’ve seen it time and time again.  from rewriting the definition of conception to the pill kills campaign.  (see: menstruation… or god’s dirty little abortion secret )

it’s easy, folks.  unless you’re invited, stay out of another woman’s vagina, kthx.

to split yourself in two is just the most radical thing you can do, so girl if that shit ain’t up to you, then you simply are not free, cause from the sunlight on my hair to which eggs i grow to term to the expression that i wear, all i really own is me

i mean to split yourself in two is just the most radical thing you can do.  goddess forbid that little adam should grow so jealous of eve and, in the face of the great farce of the nuclear age, Feminism ain’t about equality, it’s about reprieve

Blogged, Texas, Current Events, Politics, Comments (0)
Tagged as: women,texas,politics,culture,news,danpatrick,abortion January 27, 2009 @ 03:20 pm

sarah palin runs for vp, sets women’s movement back 5 decades

At least three times last night, Sarah Palin, the adorable, preposterous vice-presidential candidate, winked at the audience. Had a male candidate with a similar reputation for attractive vapidity made such a brazen attempt to flirt his way into the good graces of the voting public, it would have universally noted, discussed and mocked. Palin, however, has single-handedly so lowered the standards both for female candidates and American political discourse that, with her newfound ability to speak in more-or-less full sentences, she is now deemed to have performed acceptably last night.

continue reading: flirting her way to victory

i have stated before and i’ll state again, sarah palin’s being chosen as a vice-presidential candidate underlines the sexism inherent among the republican party.  the unmitigated ~gall~ to run someone such as palin.  this is the best choice the republicans could come up with for vice president?  this is their brightest, most articulate, most knowledgeable person?  someone who winks and flirts and babbles nonsense? 

it negates the hard work women have done in order to be able to achieve the ability to run for vice president.  she has set the bar so low that it’s not whether or not she can speak intelligently but whether she can speak at all.

and men eat it up.

These numbers pretty much speak for themselves, but men have a favorable imperssion of Palin by a 35-point margin, whereas women have a favorable impression of her by an 18-point margin. Conversely, by a 23-point margin, women do not think Palin is ready to be President, whereas Palin lost this question among men by a considerably smaller 6-point magrin. - fivethirtyeight.com

as one person put it, “WAKE UP GUYS!!  you don’t get to have sex with her if she wins!”  yet so far, every male that i know (but one) has told me that palin is “hot” or she’s “cute” or she seems “sweet” or “fun” or, HAHA, “interesting”.  why, they all just wanna love her all up!  gosh darnit, give that lil girl a big hug!  ~pardon me, while i hurl~  some of these same men are ones who have told me that “palin isn’t qualified” to be vice-president, that she “lacks any ~semblance~ of intelligence”, and that “they are ~appalled~ that she could be the nominee”.  but.  “isn’t she cute?”

the only thing missing from last night’s debate and her performance was palin’s handlers smacking her on the ass after the debate and telling her “now be a good little girl and go get us some coffee, the men have serious issues to discuss.”

Blogged, Politics, election2008, Comments (4)
Tagged as: women,politics,elections2008,mccain October 03, 2008 @ 02:00 pm

menstruation, or “god’s dirty little abortion secret”?

the department of health and human services has proposed regulations that would redefine abortion, as follows:

any of the various procedures - including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action - that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.

the issue here is “at conception” vs “implantation”.  “implantation” is the definition used by the american medical association and the american college of obstetricians and gynecologists.

so what does this mean? 

Continue Reading...

Blogged, WTF, Politics, Comments (1)
Tagged as: women,politics,wtf,culture,news,abortion July 21, 2008 @ 07:14 am