As a follow up to my previous post on the worsening position of women in Iraq, I wanted to draw attention to two more recent reports. First, The Washington Times.
“Life has changed for the worse,” said Bushra Mahmoud, 40, a mother of three who was sitting in the waiting area. “There is a creeping zealousness among men and women that is really frightening. You sit on the bus and have abuse heaped on you by the fanatics because you are not wearing the hijab [Islamic head covering]. These things never used to happen.”
Intimidation of women for religious reasons has become more common in the past year, and those who do not cover themselves are often the targets of kidnappers.
Al Jazeera reports on research by human rights NGOs.
Any comment on the fact that it’s written into the Iraqi constitution that a percentage of parliamentary seats are to be reserved for women? I thought you would be swinging from the rafters about that.
For how long are you just going to keep cherry-picking anecdotes that confirm your bias?
I’m sure the idea that some other women are sitting in parliament is a terrific comfort to ordinary women facing the new threat of being kidnapped because “she must be asking for it, look at the hijab she’s not wearing”.
Would you specify what percentage, James? “A percentage” doesn’t mean anything. It could mean 0.1%.
This issue, along with the worsening state of security in Iraq, should be kept in mind when people start talking about invading Iran.
Thanks Kim.
You condemn yourself out of your own mouth, James. Had you followed the link to Al Jazeera,you wouild have read that women make up 60% of the population, even though they are alloted 25% of parliamentary seats. Who’s cherrypicking?
In Iraq, Muslim women are in trouble for not wearing the hijab. In France they get into trouble for wearing it.
We certainly live in troubled times! Why don’t we change the rules of the game, get rid of the stupidity brought by religion, nationalism, capitalism, etc.?
James here’s the whole paragraph from the link:
Suggest you also read on from there and then come back and make a comment.
Sagacious – yeah, and you’d even have a constitution you could sing along to, courtesy of John Lennon.
The Al-Jazeera article does not state the basis upon which the 25% of parliamentary seats are allotted to women. If we assume they are reserved and the elections are otherwise contested on a one-vote-one-value basis, then women’s votes are weighted at 125% to a male vote. Lesley de Voil is assuming that female representation is restricted to 25% which is simply pulling a fact from the air to suit her prejudice.
By the way, how many seats are allocated to women in liberal democracies?
Despite what affirmative action opponents will have you believe, the fact that affirmative action is necessary at all is a sign that things are not equal. The existence of AA does not prove what you think it proves.
Anna, I agree with you about AA. If your comment is directed to me I find it a little cryptic.
It’s slightly off-topic, but there have been stories (anecdotes perhaps?) on the BBC that gay Iraqis are more of a target as well. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4915172.stm
Better a gay Iraqi than a Jamaican: http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/story/0,,1762155,00.html
That article, by the way, contains some dreadful apologetics for what appears to be a sick culture.
We probably ought to give the new Iraqi democracy a few more years to develop before we Aim this level of criticism at the regime change about the seeming lack of women’s rights in parliament, or the religious pressure some may be experiencing. In fact, the point that they have women in parliament at all puts them a few years ahead of the original Aussie-style democracy, and light years ahead of Westminster. I mean, how long was it along the democratic track before women (or the working class) were even allowed to vote in England?
The creeping Sheite/Shariah thrust there was inevitable, and is an inditement on a patriarchal religious system more than of the Coalition’s removal of sadist Hussein, but are these examples reflective of the nation’s possibole desire for a better, more women’s rights-sensative democracy? Are you, in effect saying, “There, we told you so, iff you remove Saddam, women will be worse off, so therefore you should leave him in power’? Surely the liberties a democracy fights for are determined by the people over time through the ballot box. These are early days yet.
This issue, along with the worsening state of security in Iraq, should be kept in mind when people start talking about invading Iran.
Right, because we wouldn’t want to upset the rosy state of affairs for Iranian woman as they are now. Sunshine, lollipops and all that.
I think the US, having seen the trainwreck in Iraq, are aware the logistics of an invasion are out of the question. I haven’t read of any high-ranking US official talking about a full scale invasion.
James:
And it’s not anecdotes – if you look at the second link, it’s research studies by independent NGOs.
FaceLift, I don’t think the big issue is women in parliament. The big issue is women no longer having the right to work because their employers or husbands say so, and women being kidnapped and killed for wearing the wrong attire. You might be happy to give the “new Iraqi democracy” a rew more years, but it’s their situation right now.
No, I’m not saying anything about Saddam.
As to the ballot box, people seem to sort their problems out by shooting each other or blowing each other up in Iraq at the moment. And the women’s activists are in danger of being killed. That’s hardly freedom of association or speech in a practical sense, which are preconditions for fighting for change.
Sorry, Gilbert – I was addressing James.
“Despite what affirmative action opponents will have you believe, the fact that affirmative action is necessary at all is a sign that things are not equal.”
To which the clerics respond, well if wise feminists think men and women were supposed to be equal why aren’t they?
The hope of instituting a secular democracy in Iraq is not just to have a democracy for it’s own sake, right? It’s to actually help people — people meaning men and women — achieve some useful things. Like freedom from being killed because they break religious dictates.
You’ve put your finger on it, Kate.
This is one of the key contradictions in all this. Democracy as such says nothing about the protection of human rights. That’s where secular liberalism comes in. If you’re going to spread “freedom and democracy” you need to understand that both have to be put in place.
So how do you put that into place in a nation dominated by Islam? And what’s the difference in control and exercise of liberties between the present situation and the previous regime in that context? And how do you broing about change when there are militants ready to defenmd their systems against secular liberalism at any cost.
FaceLift, it was a secular country until the US came along and because of errors during the occupation period, ceded power to the Islamists. It’s very clear that large numbers of women – and Jews and Christians who are being murdered and oppressed – would have done much better if the constitution had contained real protections against Islamist intimidation of those who choose to conduct their lives as they wish without harming others.
Facelift, if I knew the answer to those questions I’d be on the phone to the PM RIGHT NOW telling him to get onto Bush and Rummy et al with my fabbo solution to that and all the other problems in the world.
It looks more like they actually voted power to the Islamists. I think the word ’secular’ is misleading in the case of Saddam’ regime, isn’t it? Surely, being controlled by a tyrant and subject to his will (I think he demonstrated that he he considered himself godlike by displaaying his image everywhere) can’t be compared to government which upholds separation between religion and state.
FaceLift, the point is why the Islamists were voted into power.
The reason is that the secular parties were discredited by being seen as too close to the Americans, and the Americans had fostered both sectarianism and the rise of the Shi’ite parties through their actions and inactions.
The Constitution was supposed to protect women and minorities – but it was heavily modified and the Americans acquiesced in this.
I’m surprised you’re not more concerned by the constant attacks on Christians and Jews (Synagogues and churches and businesses bombed, people kidnapped, non Islamic women wearing the hijab for fear of being attacked).
Al Jazeera is a questionable source at the best of times; the issue is not that womens rights were better or worse under Saddam but whether women now have the right to demand change and now have the means to do it.
http://www.metimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20060424-055844-2750r
Kim,
‘I’m surprised you’re not more concerned by the constant attacks on Christians and Jews’
Well, yes, it is a rather Islamic thing to do in the Middle east and North Africa, isn’t it? Christians and Jews are persecuted in most Islamic nations in some way, even supposedly moderate Islamic states, and, actually, behind the scenes we are very actively supporting Christians, and, as far as possible, by association, Jews in nations where they are persecuted, and, yes, I am concerned.
The thing is that i support the move towards a democratic Iraq, and understaad the terrible difficulties poeple, especially women, face, but as long as the West maintains a strong voice and presence of somke kind it may be possible to help Iraq become a democracy which develops a more secular outlook.
‘the Americans acquiesced in this’,
I don’t think the Americans could intervene once the democratic process had begun, do you, otherwise they would have been accusede of interfering in what they were calling a new sovereign state.
They were actively involved in the writing of the Constitution, FaceLift, and the fact that it took two months to form a government was mainly because the US effectively vetoed Allawi’s return.
The persecution of Christians and Jews is a relatively new phenomenon and has a lot more to do with Al-Qaeda than anything else. But the sharpening of divisions into the West vs. Islam doesn’t help matters.
rog, I agree that it’s great that women have a right to demand change but they shouldn’t face attacks or assassination if they do.
In the vs department, it’s more militant Islam vs the Rest, and you’re right, this doesn’t help matters. Iraq is a most useful militant focal point and training ground right now, but if it wasn’t Iraq it would be somewhere else, like maybe Hamas led Palestine. it won’t go away just because the US slip out of Iraq some day.
But, don’t get me wrong, here, because I hope you continue to shout loud and strong for women’s rights in Iraq and all Islamic nations.
It was my impression, as Mark said, that Iraq was very much a secular state under Saddam. Here’s a couple of quotes from an article by Saul Landau in October 2002:
Of course she realises that loving Saddam is mandatory if you want to stay alive. But other than that she seems a girl with options. I wonder what she’s doing now.
rog, is it just me but I thought that the article you linked to in the Middle East Times confirmed the one in Al Jazeera. Women wouldn’t be demanding positions key if there was no problem.
We read articles like by apologists for Stalin, Brian, from passengers on the many ships of fools that toured the USSR.
Rob, what your ex-Maoist guilt has to do with Iraq’s secularism I’ll never know. It isn’t an apologia to point out that women in Saddam’s Iraq had more freedom, opportunity and security than they do in fucked up mullah-run mess it has become.
Only if they toed the Ba’athist line, Leinad. If they didn’t, or their menfolk didn’t, they’d likely find out just how far the regime respected the intellectual and sexual rights of Iraqi women. The woman quoted by Brian was no doubt very well aware of that fact.
Rob, as night follows day I knew someone would denigrate the author (Saul Landau) for his perspective. I am making no comment on his article.
But I trust him enough to report what he saw and even though he was on a guided tour I don’t think the women he saw and talked to were paid actors.
I just wonder whether he or anyone could report the same now and if not, why not.
That’s true, but it applied to anyone who Saddam didn’t like, male or female, wether they’d done anything or not. This isn’t the point. Now, women can get the same treatment for being Sunni or Shia, for not wearing a hijab or for having a picnic. Women aren’t able to hold down jobs, go to university or leave the house without running the risk of getting beaten or worse by religious fanatics. Wether or not you supported the invasion, this is a mess of the Coalitions making and a disaster for secular, progressive Iraq.
Brian, they didn’t need to be. Of course this woman was aware she was talking to a reporter and that her remarks would be reported in the international media. If you were she, what would you have said, knowing you and your family would be held — and made — accountable, and in the most horrific way imaginable?
Leinad: Iraq is simply reverting to type, as the Balkans and the former USSR did when decades of tyrannical rule were uncapped. The latter was the only thing that kept the lid on. Why the masterminds at the Pentagon never worked out that the current state of play was at least a distinct possibility is a mystery to me.
Rob, that isn’t really true. For a long time Iraq was a very prosperous, developed sophisticated country, with a high standard of living and much more liberal civil code than many of its neighbours. It is the Iraqi’s misfortune that their country was drawn up by foreign architects and had the misfortune to lie on a crucial geopolitical axis (and the worlds second largest known petroleum reserve).
Without wanting to sound as if I think they’re in any way OK, you’d have to admit that these kind of actions are not uncommon in other nations with an Islamic population, or even India with a bevy of vyinng tradition-based religions. It’s part of the religious pressure applied by traditionalists. In fact, the same pressure, in a different way, even exists in Victoria through the religious vilification act, whihc has already been used to defend Islamic tradition. It goes with the territory.
I agree Iraq was an artificial construct. Like many national entities left behind by their colonial ‘masters’, it was a state before it became a nation. Most countires grew out of bloody struggles over borders and ethnic identities, eventually forging themselves as natons, then emerging as recongiseable states. Artifical boundaries can simulate genuine nationhood, but usually only under autocratic or tyrannical rulers. When such are removed, the disparate elements of the ’state’, long suppressed by its government, fight out the battles that would normally have preceded self-constitution as nations.
This is what is happening in Iraq. In Iraq’s case, the most likely outcome is fragmentation along sectarian/ethnic bases: Sunni, Shia, Kurd. It’s what, arguably, would have happened anyway had the region not been colonised and subject to arbitrary national-geographic delineation.
This process has been obseved before, before in the Balkans and the former USSR, though there the colonial masters were of a different kind.
What Leinad said.
And thanks for the link, Brian. It’s a pity many people these days can’t read anything that disagrees with their ingrained ideology without either falling into denial or disparaging the motives of the author.
FaceLift, I’m sorry, but that’s a ridiculous analogy. The Religious Vilification Act in Victoria (which I disagree with) doesn’t lead to women being kidnapped, prevented from working, being afraid to go out in public without a male, or being killed.
Get a grip.
Perhaps life was grand under Saddam for women of Sunni persuasion.
The fact that 20% of the female population could go about daily life without a hajib, must have been quite a consolation for this 14 year old girl as she was being raped by Uday Hussein -
http://www.mafhoum.com/press5/147P57.htm
Female solidarity forever.
Last October another bride, 18, was dragged, resisting, into a guardhouse on one of Uday’s properties, according to a maid who worked there. The maid says she saw a guard rip off the woman’s white wedding dress and lock her, crying, in a bathroom. After Uday arrived, the maid heard screaming. Later she was called to clean up. The body of the woman was carried out in a military blanket, she said. There were acid burns on her left shoulder and the left side of her face. The maid found bloodstains on Uday’s mattress and clumps of black hair and peeled flesh in the bedroom. A guard told her, “Don’t say anything about what you see, or you and your family will be finished.”
Life certainly sounds like it used to be a lot better
Get a grip, James.
I suppose the US is damned for all eternity because Teddy Kennedy’s nephew raped a woman.
Kim examines mirror, has revelation
Just to clarify: You’re comparing a one-off rape by Teddy Kennedy’s nephew, who was brought to justice and is now in jail to the constant raping that Uday Hussein undertook with no fear what so ever?
And last time I check Michael Skakel wasn’t next in line to rule the US.
Just fucking pathetic.
From Amnesty International:
http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2001.nsf/webmepcountries/IRAQ
Extrajudicial executions
In October dozens of women accused of prostitution were beheaded without any judicial process in Baghdad and other cities. Men suspected of procurement were also beheaded. The killings were reportedly carried out in the presence of representatives of the Ba’ath Party and the Iraqi Women’s General Union. Members of Feda’iyye Saddam, a militia created in 1994 by ‘Uday Saddam Hussain, used swords to execute the victims in front of their homes. Some victims were reportedly killed for political reasons.
Dr Najat Mohammad Haydar, an obstetrician in Baghdad, was beheaded in October after being accused of prostitution. However, she was reportedly arrested before the introduction of the policy to behead prostitutes and was said to have been critical of corruption within the health services.
In October several women were beheaded in Mosul in northern Iraq. They included Fatima ‘Abdallah ‘Abd al-Rahman, Shadya Shaker Mahmoud and Iman Qassem Ahmad.
It’d be nice to have a head on which a hijab could be placed.
Rob said:
I couldn’t agree more, Rob. Saddam’s eyes were everywhere and if you showed less than full-on support your fate could be dire and terminal. It’s not so much what she said, it’s that she presented as a woman who had choices in how she lived her life, earned her living and dressed. It seems probable that those choices are now more constrained.
James, being abusive about other people’s positions does not good conversation make, but I guess that’s not why you’re here. Uday was certainly a nasty piece of work, but throwing his example in is not all that helpful because it says little about the common experience of women in Iraq, just those who were unfortunate enough to be caught in his zone.
Kim’s post is an addendum to her earlier one. I notice that many of the commenters on this thread didn’t comment there. I’d recommend to anyone who hasn’t read it to go back and do so. It would be especially instructive to follow the link to Lesley Abdela’s article Iraq’s war on women and to this Amnesty International Report.
If one has to make a generalisation I would agree with Kim in her comment of 18 April, 10.33 pm
It seems to me that after Saddam came to power in 1979 things got worse for women. After 1991 they were different, no better, probably worse.
After 2003 you can make up your own mind, but it seems that women are staying at home more for safety reasons and they are by no means safe there. Now threats come not only from the regime but just about everywhere. So their opportunities to participate in education, the professions, the workforce and how they dress do seem to be more constrained.
There may be gains. For example Amnesty says that there are now more jobs for women in security. But on balance the gains hardly seem to compensate. At the same time I haven’t heard anyone say that they wish Saddam was back.
No, Brian, because we don’t!
And thanks for reposting the links, Brian.
Those rapists that are not on the payroll? The rapists that were on a salary to rape women for Saddam. Are you taking into account this when you claim that things have gotten worse for women. How about those women who were restrained just out of reach of their baby. So they could watch the baby die of thirst without being able to do anything about it.
What about Saddam’s terrorists up in Kurdistan. That ones who would throw acid on the face of women not wearing their head-gear. You taking into account that?
I heard an interview where a 19 year old girl had started her own business. Employing great numbers of people older then her. That you now have some sort of property rights in Iraq? That not play into the dignity and status of women in the absolute sense?
Since its no longer a socialist country they are no longer slaves. Does that not enhance the status of women somewhat? Not being a slave? I think it does.
The removal of the Saddam diety? Isn’t it more dignified not to have a diety of flesh and blood who keeps you in a state of total terror in the here and now?
What about the fact that Uday is cold and stiff. Surely this is a good think for women in Iraq. Who he would rape and murder out of sheer caprice.
Everything is being put through the leftist journalist filter. Don’t believe all the impressions.
Though the anti-war movement (not all of them but the mainstream leftist anti-war movement) was morally deficient in most areas of the debate, the part where they were comparatively more ethically retarded was in the feminist department. The opposition to destroying the Taliban and knocking out Saddam coming from feminists was a leap into sheer lunacy. Proof that there is something seriously wrong with the spoilt white chicks that make up feminisms ranks.
Look – rape is horrible.
But please look at the links about the restrictions on women’s everyday lives now. If you want to get emotive about something, let’s get emotive about that.
Graeme Bird is not meant to be responded to. Only briefly glimpsed through a car window as you drive by at 120 kph with the windows well rolled up. Think Troll Creek.
You are being emotive not me. And your emotionalism is really quite chilling. Since its reminiscient of national socialist 1 @ 2. National socialist 1 baulks at having to murder Jewish children. National Socialist 2 tells him angrily “Don’t be so sentimental”.
The problem is not that the Americans destroyed the socialists. The problem is that the regional war is not won yet. Not only is it not won it is barely being fought.
It is a failure of analysis to view this problem, myopically in terms of Iraq alone. It is not important what Saddam believed in his heart. The fact is he was by his actions no secularist,but a relentless promotor of jihadism.
Our societies are so fragile. And if we here in Australia were to let foreigners aid in the killing, rape kidnapping and or intimidation of women we too would start coming down on our girls and falling into the trap of doing the jihadists work for them. Since as men we are roped into being the unpaid bodyguards of all women. And if a woman is being attacked we would be roped into a fight from which we might die or recieve permanent injury. Or we would stand by and forever carry the shame of having done so.
Given all this if jihadism is not destroyed outright then these quite reasonable fears will be transmuted into irritation of women getting about in ways that might provoke the jihadists. So the possiblility of jihadist action can provoke a reaction out of all proportion to their activity.
Thus our freedom relies on wiping this cancer out in its entirety. Wiping it out and subjecting any regime or terrorist leadership we do not liquidate to great public humiliation.
Nabakov you incorrigible TROLL. If you have nothing worthwhile… no useful information or thought to convey….better you read more and type less. The fact is you NEVER have anything worthwhile to say except for general pro-tax-eater sneering so best you shut up.
The ironing is delicious. Birdy, don’t ever change!
There is no irony. Don’t be an idiot Leinad. I asked you to attempt not to be an idiot earlier…….. (dipshit)
Goddamned, if the above isn’t Birdy again, it’s a pretty good forgery. He’s got the style down pat.
Anna and Co – Perhaps this is not the thread for this question but I’ll ask it anyway.
From a feminist viewpoint, leaving aside the morality of suicide bombings, does the fact that a suicide bomber was pregnant make may any difference or is it to be interpreted as an act of pro-choice?
I’m curious
Sorry if you think I’m being abusive.
The Al Jezeera link provided by Kim in her orginal article is entitled “Iraqi Women much worse off under occupation”.
The opening paragraph of the Al Jazeera report reads:
“Iraqi women were treated far more better during the Saddam Hussein era, and their rights were much more respected, local rights NGOs concluded after an extensive survey in Iraq.”
Thus, one could assueme that the thrust of Kim’s argument is that things were better for women under Saddam. I disagree vigorously. Iraq was a Totalitarian state where rape is used as a tool of intimidation and torture.
Trying to paint a rosy picture of women occupying “high level government positions” is ridiculous. These women would have been minority Sunni’s who’s “high-level positions depended on the subjegation of Iraqis.
I agree that everything is not rosy for women in Iraq at the moment, but there is now a chance that things will improve thanks to the invasion and occupation. Previously the Iraqi’s had Uday and Qusay Hussein to look forward to. My above posts indicate what that future was likely to look like.
Thus, things are better for Iraqi women.
Brilliant, James. Assume Kim’s point then prove her wrong based on those assumptions. Truly stunning work.
Of course, those of us with the capacity to read and comprehend might have understood Kim’s point to be: given how fucked up things were under Saddam, the fact that life is even worse now for many women is incredibly fucked up.
Ivap – I may address your question later, or I may not. This is partly because this isn’t the time or place, and partly because it’s a ridiculous question.
Anna – If you say it is ridiculous, so be it. I am not trying to bait you or dog whistle here. Just thought that it may pose an interesting dillemma if the cause was deemed to be righteous and self-sacrifice was called upon.
Personally speaking I don’t think any cause can be advanced through suicide and I’m not asking you defend it. Just wondering if there are any arguments to be made in that she was acting out her choice.
Fair enough, then, ivap.
Her being pregnant doesn’t add another layer of moral wrongness, in my view. There isn’t a qualitative moral difference because she was pregnant.
If you see the foetus as a person then you might argue that there is a quantitative difference – ie another victim of a suicide bomber.