Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/31/iraq.women/index.html

What a shame..we are totally losing this war

"Regardless of the votes their candidates receive, parties are required to give every third seat to a woman, according to a report this week from the International Crisis Group."

Wow, as if Iraq didn't need something else running it into the ground.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"Regardless of the votes their candidates receive, parties are required to give every third seat to a woman, according to a report this week from the International Crisis Group."

Wow, as if Iraq didn't need something else running it into the ground. I do agree, sucky law.

Not quite grasping the concept of democracy with that are they?

Neither is getting a black man to become president or prime minister just to be politically correct.

At least they had the choice who to vote for...forcing every third seat to go to a woman is not democratic....expecially if someone else got more votes than them.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Neither is getting a black man to become president or prime minister just to be politically correct. Yeah, that would be bad, don't think that happened anywhere recently though.

I think you guys are missing the point of forcing this on them.

However, I do see how this, to the definition and even down to the moral interpretation of a democratic electorate, is not pure democracy.


But do you guys see why something like this might actually be a better form of democratic republic? In such a heavily patriarchal society, fairly representing the population is likely to NOT occur for women.

I say, "You go girl!" and f*ck those a**hole male chauvinists. Have any of you had the chance to become cultured with any Arab culture? What about conservative Muslim's from the Arab world? Their culture is different. Of course, you guys can argue that who ever they elect is who they wanted and they shouldn't have a candidate shoved down their throat like that. I agree, only in definition. Yeah, that's right, we have a black president because we were forced to go to the same schools as each other, etc.

That's right, shut the f*ck up.

Originally posted by KidRock
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/31/iraq.women/index.html

What a shame..we are totally losing this war
Thank you America for bringing democracy to the Iraqis peoples.

Originally posted by backdoorman
Thank you America for bringing democracy to the Iraqis peoples.

We are terrible, we should have never done this. These people get the right to vote for their leader? We are losing this war completely.

they would be much happier getting gassed and murdered by a dictator.

Originally posted by KidRock
We are terrible, we should have never done this. These people get the right to vote for their leader? We are losing this war completely.

they would be much happier getting gassed and murdered by a dictator.

As long as 1/3rd of that leader is female ermm

Originally posted by dadudemon
But do you guys see why something like this might actually be a better form of democratic republic?

Yes but only because I don't see fascism as automatically evil.

If they want to play democracy there shouldn't be a policy to explicitly ignore people's votes (the electoral college in the US at least takes them into account). In fact this will probably set women back a few steps in Iraq because the ones that get into office this way probably won't be very good and will almost certainly be reviled by the people that were actually voted for as well as the people who's votes were rendered totally and arbitrarily meaningless.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If they want to play democracy there shouldn't be a policy to explicitly ignore people's votes (the electoral college in the US at least takes them into account). In fact this will probably set women back a few steps in Iraq because the ones that get into office this way probably won't be very good and will almost certainly be reviled by the people that were actually voted for as well as the people who's votes were rendered totally and arbitrarily meaningless.

Wow. You have no faith in Iraqi women.


They can't be THAT bad, can they? lol

Originally posted by dadudemon

But do you guys see why something like this might actually be a better form of democratic republic?

No

Originally posted by dadudemon

Yeah, that's right, we have a black president because we were forced to go to the same schools as each other, etc.


May be true. Does not relate to this though. It's one thing to stop government discrimination, it's another to sponsor it (as they do by this law).


A quick overview actually tells me that creating government discrimination is actually almost the opposite of abolishing it hmm

Originally posted by dadudemon
Wow. You have no faith in Iraqi women.


They can't be THAT bad, can they? lol

You're picking one point out of several reasons I gave that this is a terrible idea. And yes, they can be that bad, some of them will be that bad and because of this law it will be blamed on them being women rather than any actual flaws.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No

Not my fault you lack the ability to explore multiple perspectives.



Originally posted by Bardock42
May be true. Does not relate to this though. It's one thing to stop government discrimination, it's another to sponsor it (as they do by this law).

Are you aware of the intentions of such a policy?


Originally posted by Bardock42
A quick overview actually tells me that creating government discrimination is actually almost the opposite of abolishing it hmm

AHA! So this is where you're logic is flawed.

Here's a simple scenario for you. Common treatment of women sucks. Women lack a voice in government. Society and government are run by men. Therefore, women don't get a voice in government and society remains stagnant...even when pro-women men try to speak up because society "feels" more "comfortable" in the static.

Radical change comes to the land and government. Loud and clear, part of that change is echoed many times of the female oppression. Sensing that in a world overwhelmingly dominated by men, women still do not stand a chance at getting elected to office or even improving their hierarchical position, a way is paved for women to be forcefully elevated in status, if only in name. Sounds vaguely familiar to forcing whites and blacks to go to government run schools, doesn't it? Sounds similar to affirmative action, doesn't it?


Now, this is just one perspective into Arab women's plight. There are many such as "This is a pollution of what democracy really should be."


Great. Democracy would work wonderfully among a group of perfectly altruistic and intelligent/educated people, wouldn't it?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not my fault you lack the ability to explore multiple perspectives.

It wouldn't be. Though I do have the ability to explore multiple perspectives, but that doesn't mean that I think this form of "democracy" is better...



Originally posted by dadudemon
Are you aware of the intentions of such a policy?

Yes.

Originally posted by dadudemon
AHA! So this is where you're logic is flawed.

I generally don't take the opinions of people that say silly things like that very seriously, but I guess I will see where you are going.

I jest of course, on both parts, but really, it should be "your".

Originally posted by dadudemon
Here's a simple scenario for you. Common treatment of women sucks. Women lack a voice in government. Society and government are run by men. Therefore, women don't get a voice in government and society remains stagnant...even when pro-women men try to speak up because society "feels" more "comfortable" in the static.

Radical change comes to the land and government. Loud and clear, part of that change is echoed many times of the female oppression. Sensing that in a world overwhelmingly dominated by men, women still do not stand a chance at getting elected to office or even improving their hierarchical position, a way is paved for women to be forcefully elevated in status, if only in name. Sounds vaguely familiar to forcing whites and blacks to go to government run schools, doesn't it? Sounds similar to affirmative action, doesn't it?

No, it still does not. It's a different approach, with, presumably similar goals. Still has to be judged by its own merit.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Now, this is just one perspective into Arab women's plight. There are many such as "This is a pollution of what democracy really should be."


Great. Democracy would work wonderfully among a group of perfectly altruistic and intelligent/educated people, wouldn't it?

I guess. Personally not a big fan of the dictatorship by the majority anyways.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You're picking one point out of several reasons I gave that this is a terrible idea. And yes, they can be that bad, some of them will be that bad and because of this law it will be blamed on them being women rather than any actual flaws.

You're being much too serious about my comment. Did my post need another smilie or another "lol"? I don't know what I could have done to make it less serious.




But if you want to take it this direction, no matter WHAT happens, they WILL be reviled. Anytime there is change, groaning, disdain, and other bullshit like it will be had. America still has some resistance racial residue from times past. I suspect that that same type of "residue" will remain in a more active voice far longer than it did here in America.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It wouldn't be. Though I do have the ability to explore multiple perspectives, but that doesn't mean that I think this form of "democracy" is better...


You certainly have not shown a very thorough understanding of this policy's existence, now have you? Behold, the reason for my comment. (Which, obviously was jest. Surely you're not THAT much of a dumbass?)



Originally posted by Bardock42
I generally don't take the opinions of people that say silly things like that very seriously, but I guess I will see where you are going.

I jest of course, on both parts, but really, it should be "your".

Ahhh. One of "those." Says the person who couldn't spell "exaggeration" correctly after many correct uses. For shame. For shame. At least I can blame mine on retardation.



Originally posted by Bardock42
No, it still does not. It's a different approach, with, presumably similar goals. Still has to be judged by its own merit.


Seriously, you truly lack the ability of insight. I take back what I said earlier about it being jest. You really do lack the ability to think from multiple perspectives. You're just as much of a closed minded conservative as the Arabs, aren't you?



Originally posted by Bardock42
I guess. Personally not a big fan of the dictatorship by the majority anyways.

I seriously did not know that about you.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I guess. Personally not a big fan of the dictatorship by the majority anyways.

It tends to have a couple of advantages over dictatorship by the few. Mainly that those idiots get exactly what they deserve.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You certainly have not shown a very thorough understanding of this policy's existence, now have you? Behold, the reason for my comment. (Which, obviously was jest. Surely you're not THAT much of a dumbass?)





Ahhh. One of "those." Says the person who couldn't spell "exaggeration" correctly after many correct uses. For shame. For shame. At least I can blame mine on retardation.






Seriously, you truly lack the ability of insight. I take back what I said earlier about it being jest. You really do lack the ability to think from multiple perspectives. You're just as much of a closed minded conservative as the Arabs, aren't you?





I seriously did not know that about you. Well, since there's nothing "on topic" in this anymore, I guess we move on, as I am not into that whole insulting people thing that much nowadays.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It tends to have a couple of advantages over dictatorship by the few. Mainly that those idiots get exactly what they deserve.

Touche





Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, since there's nothing "on topic" in this anymore, I guess we move on, as I am not into that whole insulting people thing that much nowadays.

Note to GDF readers:

Bards and I worked it out via IM. It turns out that we are not that far off in our perspectives. It's just that he doesn't particular care for forcing a specific form leadership on the people, even if it is for the greater good. This stems from his anarchist ideals. I feel that it is all but impossible (highly highly improbable) that legitimate change can occur in favor of Iraqi females without some "affirmative action" type of laws. I am just more tolerable of where this "affirmative action" has its "influence."

Originally posted by KidRock
We are terrible, we should have never done this. These people get the right to vote for their leader? We are losing this war completely.

they would be much happier getting gassed and murdered by a dictator.
Yes, they may have semi-democratic elections now but then again, they did have like a million more people pre-2003... It all depends on what your priorities are.

Originally posted by backdoorman
Yes, they may have semi-democratic elections now but then again, they did have like a million more people pre-2003... It all depends on what your priorities are.

I guess. Either you can live in fear and have your kids live in fear. Or you might die and know your kids, or grandkids or the future of the country will be able to live in peace and prosper.

Originally posted by KidRock
I guess. Either you can live in fear and have your kids live in fear. Or you might die and know your kids, or grandkids or the future of the country will be able to live in peace and prosper.
They still live in fear and probably will have their kids live in fear. And explain to me how to the US involvement in Iraq will secure the nation's future. American troops will be leaving the region soon and it will be up to the Iraqis after that, and it's not like they will have a clean slate on which to work on.

Originally posted by KidRock
I guess. Either you can live in fear and have your kids live in fear. Or you might die and know your kids, or grandkids or the future of the country will be able to live in peace and prosper.

What a happy world the Iraqis have been given. They can either live in fear or they can die. How is that helping again?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What a happy world the Iraqis have been given. They can either live in fear or they can die. How is that helping again?


Do we have numbers here to be able to argue with?

If less Iraqis are dying today than they were pre-invasion...


If more Iraqis are dying today than they were pre-invasion, that only adds fuel to the ever growing anti-Iraqi invasion rhetoric.


Edit-It makes me a bastard to reduce human lives down to mere numbers, I know. But that would help the argument sway one way or another, imo.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Do we have numbers here to be able to argue with?

If less Iraqis are dying today than they were pre-invasion...


If more Iraqis are dying today than they were pre-invasion, that only adds fuel to the ever growing anti-Iraqi invasion rhetoric.


Edit-It makes me a bastard to reduce human lives down to mere numbers, I know. But that would help the argument sway one way or another, imo.

I'm not sure how you'd express numbers of people dying without resorting to numbers at some point. And yes I'm aware of what the numbers would mean in either direction, what I thought was funny was kidrock saying that we've done so much good that Iraqis now get a choice between a life of terror or dying as opposed to the rule of Saddam where they got to die or live in fear.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What a happy world the Iraqis have been given. They can either live in fear or they can die. How is that helping again?

We are all gonna die. Either you can die in fear or you can die knowing your kids wont live under a dictator that will kill them.

Do you even feel the least bit happy that these people have a chance at a brighter future? Or is everything just angry politics?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm not sure how you'd express numbers of people dying without resorting to numbers at some point. And yes I'm aware of what the numbers would mean in either direction, what I thought was funny was kidrock saying that we've done so much good that Iraqis now get a choice between a life of terror or dying as opposed to the rule of Saddam where they got to die or live in fear.


If you're fully aware of what the numbers mean, put up some numbers. There might even bee a "fear" survey done as well. (Such as, the majoriy say that they feel safer, now, than they did pre-Iraq war invasion.)

Originally posted by KidRock
We are all gonna die. Either you can die in fear or you can die knowing your kids wont live under a dictator that will kill them.

Do you even feel the least bit happy that these people have a chance at a brighter future? Or is everything just angry politics?

While I agree with the sentiments, we should never have been there.


We did not have the resources (insert dozens of "we did not have" or "we couldn't/shouldn't/wouldn't" here.) for this in the first place.

If we had the money and didn't have our own domestic problems, I would be much more gung ho about saving the world. Even then, I still don't like interfering with places other than our own Shi'ite. (A virtual pun on a bad word. )

Originally posted by KidRock
We are all gonna die. Either you can die in fear or you can die knowing your kids wont live under a dictator that will kill them.

Do you even feel the least bit happy that these people have a chance at a brighter future? Or is everything just angry politics?

Their future is anything but certain. Just as it wasn't certain before...

Originally posted by jaden101
Not quite grasping the concept of democracy with that are they?

Actually...I kinda think they are.

In the limited democracy that is now run across the world, forcing the system to allow the representation of minorities is kinda democratic...(Are women even a minority?)

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Actually...I kinda think they are.

In the limited democracy that is now run across the world, forcing the system to allow the representation of minorities is kinda democratic...(Are women even a minority?)

It's not actually democratic.

It's not that uncommon though, I guess. Still sucky. Not as sucky as having a dictator, I guess...depending on the dictator.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Actually...I kinda think they are.

In the limited democracy that is now run across the world, forcing the system to allow the representation of minorities is kinda democratic...(Are women even a minority?)

There are many interpretations of minorities. In this situation, the women had a minority voice in politics. Even the new law still leaves them with that.

If you wanted to do a minority as a population, it would be males.

If women are allowed to vote over there and it is genuinely anonymous, then they deserve every last bit of gender oppression they get.




Originally posted by Bardock42
It's not actually democratic.

It's not that uncommon though, I guess. Still sucky. Not as sucky as having a dictator, I guess...depending on the dictator.

Sure, by the definition, it's not democratic. But, as you said, dictatorship by the majority still sucks.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Sure, by the definition, it's not democratic. But, as you said, dictatorship by the majority still sucks.

Unless you're in the majority (which is most people), then it's cool.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Unless you're in the majority (which is most people), then it's cool.

Maybe.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's not actually democratic.

It's not that uncommon though, I guess. Still sucky. Not as sucky as having a dictator, I guess...depending on the dictator.

What is undemocratic about it?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
What is undemocratic about it?

If a choice is forced on a group of voters, it restricts their ability to vote democractically, based on a pure definition of a "democratic voting" system.


To make it easier, You have 16 citizens in your country. There are 3 positions open. Leader, vice-leader, secretary of state. Two candidates run for each office.

If 13 votes are cast for leader choice "a" and only 3 are cast for "b" and "b" is given the office, it is a basic violation of democracy philosphy.

You can continue to use my example to further illustrate your points.

congratulations to those women?

Or are we supposed to think this is some kind of notable milestone in Arab politics or the reconstruction of the Iraqi state?

Originally posted by inimalist
congratulations to those women?

Or are we supposed to think this is some kind of notable milestone in Arab politics or the reconstruction of the Iraqi state?

Yes on all three accounts.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes on all three accounts.

then I'm lost on the second 2

Originally posted by inimalist
then I'm lost on the second 2

K

Originally posted by dadudemon
If you're fully aware of what the numbers mean, put up some numbers. There might even bee a "fear" survey done as well. (Such as, the majoriy say that they feel safer, now, than they did pre-Iraq war invasion.)



/B]

Between the 1st gulf war and the 2nd invasion some 290,000 mainly shi'ites were put to death...this comes from mass graves discovered since.

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html

that was from 1992 to 2003

Iraq body count currently has the death toll from 2003-2009 and 98,000

both sets of figure are disputed both higher and lower by other sources though.

It should be noted on the iraq body count's main page that the most recent death toll for a month is 296...11 of which were killed by allied forces.

In other words Iraqis were killing each other off in much larger numbers long before we got there and they'll be doing it long after we're gone.

I want to know: Why doesn't anyone seem to see anything that's considered to be common sense? I'm a 17 year old kid, and even I see the stupidity in these(and, as said earlier(don't stone me), the presidency). Now why can't the entire world notice it? What is it that's causing Iraq not to understand Democracy?

Originally posted by Toku King
I want to know: Why doesn't anyone seem to see anything that's considered to be common sense? I'm a 17 year old kid, and even I see the stupidity in these(and, as said earlier(don't stone me), the presidency). Now why can't the entire world notice it? What is it that's causing Iraq not to understand Democracy?

How about thousands of years of not having democracy. How do you force policies on a people who's cultural (although not religious as i'm aware of the fact that, by the quran, women should have many more rights than they actually do in Islamic countries) traditions state the exact opposite?

I can see what they're trying to do but forcing such a massive change in a single act is going to cause huge resentment and i can pretty much guarantee that many of the women who are "elected" to parliment seats are killed in assassinations by those who seek to implement Sharia law or simply by men of the opposite side of the sectarian sunni/shia divide.

Originally posted by jaden101
How about thousands of years of not having democracy. How do you force policies on a people who's cultural (although not religious as i'm aware of the fact that, by the quran, women should have many more rights than they actually do in Islamic countries) traditions state the exact opposite?

Indeed, on all accounts.

Originally posted by jaden101
I can see what they're trying to do but forcing such a massive change in a single act is going to cause huge resentment

Indeed. How many African Americans got death or beatings? Change is hard.

Originally posted by jaden101
and i can pretty much guarantee that many of the women who are "elected" to parliment seats are killed in assassinations by those who seek to implement Sharia law or simply by men of the opposite side of the sectarian sunni/shia divide.

There could be a few. Growing pains, really.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If a choice is forced on a group of voters, it restricts their ability to vote democractically, based on a pure definition of a "democratic voting" system.


To make it easier, You have 16 citizens in your country. There are 3 positions open. Leader, vice-leader, secretary of state. Two candidates run for each office.

If 13 votes are cast for leader choice "a" and only 3 are cast for "b" and "b" is given the office, it is a basic violation of democracy philosphy.

You can continue to use my example to further illustrate your points.

Yet...surely curtailing the selective power of Political Parties (oligarchies) is pro-democratic?

Democracy is a balance, it is not just about the right to vote for a candidate but also the right to be fairly represented.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Yet...surely curtailing the selective power of Political Parties (oligarchies) is pro-democratic?

Democracy is a balance, it is not just about the right to vote for a candidate but also the right to be fairly represented.

I fullly agree with your perspective. What you and I are talking about is a deep flaw in this misconceived holy grail of democracy. This is called majoritarianism (it was only a matter of time before I remembered. mwhahahahaaa! evillaugh )

Ideal democracy has to have limitations/constraints/fail safes in place to ensure that maximum liberty and voter power is realized simultaneously. This balance is easier to achieve in tolerant civilizations. What happens, though, when the civilization is so suppressive of a specific people that it is nigh impossible to bring about equality without a paradigm shift? Is that even appropriate? I say it is. Bring on the rapid change and let the casualties of change solidify the resolve of change in the minds of the people.


However, I still don't like how a specific leadership demographic (no matter what the demographic is) is being forced on people. However, it is tolerable considering the reasons.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Ideal democracy has to have limitations/constraints/fail safes in place to ensure that maximum liberty and voter power is realized simultaneously. This balance is easier to achieve in tolerant civilizations. What happens, though, when the civilization is so suppressive of a specific people that it is nigh impossible to bring about equality without a paradigm shift? Is that even appropriate? I say it is. Bring on the rapid change and let the casualties of change solidify the resolve of change in the minds of the people.

Sounds like communism to me.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Sounds like communism to me.

Actually, it is democracy political science 101. I am dead serous.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I fullly agree with your perspective. What you and I are talking about is a deep flaw in this misconceived holy grail of democracy. This is called majoritarianism (it was only a matter of time before I remembered. mwhahahahaaa! evillaugh )

Ideal democracy has to have limitations/constraints/fail safes in place to ensure that maximum liberty and voter power is realized simultaneously. This balance is easier to achieve in tolerant civilizations. What happens, though, when the civilization is so suppressive of a specific people that it is nigh impossible to bring about equality without a paradigm shift? Is that even appropriate? I say it is. Bring on the rapid change and let the casualties of change solidify the resolve of change in the minds of the people.


However, I still don't like how a specific leadership demographic (no matter what the demographic is) is being forced on people. However, it is tolerable considering the reasons.

So effectively the idea is that if they force change to the fullest degree in one fell swoop they will avoid the many many years of turmoil that small and staggered changes always have (see the US civil rights movement). That after a relatively short period of time, the changes will be accepted and the trouble will stop.

The problem still arises in that what if the vast majority of women in Iraq actually want to vote for men...and very few women actually gained enough votes to allow them a mandate for being in office?...they wouldn't be representative of the people who voted.

Originally posted by jaden101
So effectively the idea is that if they force change to the fullest degree in one fell swoop they will avoid the many many years of turmoil that small and staggered changes always have (see the US civil rights movement). That after a relatively short period of time, the changes will be accepted and the trouble will stop.

True.


Originally posted by jaden101
The problem still arises in that what if the vast majority of women in Iraq actually want to vote for men...and very few women actually gained enough votes to allow them a mandate for being in office?...they wouldn't be representative of the people who voted.

I accept you bet and raise you 4000 women running for Iraqi office. Obviously, your point (which is valid) is far and away from being the case. They obviously want change. I mean, how many parlimentary seats are there? Is there anything like that in all of UK or US history?

There's 275 seats in the Iraq council of representatives...so about 91 or them will be women. We'll only know if they want change if and when there is a huge protest about 91 women being given seats over though they never got the most amount of votes but because it was deemed more "representative" of the people then that's what they get.

Originally posted by jaden101
There's 275 seats in the Iraq council of representatives...so about 91 or them will be women. We'll only know if they want change if and when there is a huge protest about 91 women being given seats over though they never got the most amount of votes but because it was deemed more "representative" of the people then that's what they get.

If I can recall, there were even US women against female suffrage in the US women's rights movement. I suspect that there will be a few women who even oppose their standing. However, with so many women stepping up to the plate, this is bound to be very effective. The opposition will be from a small minority. If that many women stepped up, how many women liked the idea but didn't have the courage? How many liked the idea but didn't want to do that for a job? How many Thought it was a great idea, but thought that they wouldn't have a chance with so many trying for it? You could probably think of tons of this. The point is, it's probably got lots of female support. I don't think this will be like the Race rights the US endured. However, it could be worse.

The main problem is that a lot of the people who will be opposed to it will be hard line Sharia law following muslim men...and among them, the kinds of people who would think nothing of walking into the Iraqi council and blowing themselves to pieces, taking many other people with them. You only have to look at Pakistan and Benazir Bhutto to see the effect that even 1 woman in power can have on those who oppose that idea.

Originally posted by jaden101
The main problem is that a lot of the people who will be opposed to it will be hard line Sharia law following muslim men...and among them, the kinds of people who would think nothing of walking into the Iraqi council and blowing themselves to pieces, taking many other people with them. You only have to look at Pakistan and Benazir Bhutto to see the effect that even 1 woman in power can have on those who oppose that idea.

You do have a point. Stupid stupid stupid barbarians. (Stupid stupid stupid invasion, too.)

Was she really killed because she was a women? I thought it was for her political beliefs and associations?

Her political beliefs were to increase the role of women in politics and in life in general in Pakistan...So they're related.

Originally posted by jaden101
Her political beliefs were to increase the role of women in politics and in life in general in Pakistan...So they're related.



I should have paid better attention to that story.



In that case...

Damn, there's no winning for women in Islam*, is there?


*Yes, I know there are sects that allow much more freedom to their women. Give me a break, guys.

It'll be a very VERY long re-education for muslim men to accept women having a higher role in life than they currently have. While i applaud the sentiment behind trying to get a higher proportion of representation for women in the council, i just think that the people who've come up with the idea are pretty far removed from the life of an average muslim woman.

typical politicians really.

Originally posted by jaden101
It'll be a very VERY long re-education for muslim men to accept women having a higher role in life than they currently have. While i applaud the sentiment behind trying to get a higher proportion of representation for women in the council, i just think that the people who've come up with the idea are pretty far removed from the life of an average muslim woman.

typical politicians really.

not to mention that, based on African and Indian models, the best way to get men to respect women is to financially empower women, not make them figureheads in a patriarchal society.

Originally posted by jaden101
Her political beliefs were to increase the role of women in politics and in life in general in Pakistan...So they're related.
I don't think Benazir Bhutto's death had very much to do with her policies on women. Besides, her accomplishments on those issues leave very much to be desired (and very much to be expected from a woman).

Originally posted by backdoorman
I don't think Benazir Bhutto's death had very much to do with her policies on women. Besides, her accomplishments on those issues leave very much to be desired (and very much to be expected from a woman).


If that's true, that would explain why I didn't know very much about her Pro-women policies getting her killed. I can't recall any media claiming she was killed partially due to her pro-female policies.


Also, could someone explain to me the cognative deficiency, relative the males, that females lack that make them obviously the lesser gender of our species'? I'd really like to know. (Yes, I'm being facetious.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
If that's true, that would explain why I didn't know very much about her Pro-women policies getting her killed. I can't recall any media claiming she was killed partially due to her pro-female policies.

in afghanistan, teachers are killed and school girls have acid thrown at them.

If Bhutto was in favor of educating girls, it is likely that was at least something those who killed her didn't like that. This is a place where saying women should have basic rights is being "pro-woman"

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, could someone explain to me the cognative deficiency, relative the males, that females lack that make them obviously the lesser gender of our species'? I'd really like to know. (Yes, I'm being facetious.)

they reproduce and apparently capitalism makes us want to control them much like the bourgeois control the means of production instead of the proletariat.

Originally posted by inimalist
in afghanistan, teachers are killed and school girls have acid thrown at them.

If Bhutto was in favor of educating girls, it is likely that was at least something those who killed her didn't like that. This is a place where saying women should have basic rights is being "pro-woman"

Though it's not absolutely clear who it was that killed her, it seems to be the consensus that it was members of a Pakistani organization with Taliban and Al-Qaeda ties. And the animosity between the Pakistani government and those groups do not culminate in women's rights. If you ask me, their main drive was anti-government sentiments and the fact that they saw her as a corrupt puppet of the West.

Originally posted by inimalist
in afghanistan, teachers are killed and school girls have acid thrown at them.

If Bhutto was in favor of educating girls, it is likely that was at least something those who killed her didn't like that. This is a place where saying women should have basic rights is being "pro-woman"

Indeed, I've "heard' (read) about the acid thing and education. However, I still haven't seen anything about her death being related to "pro-women". I thought it was poltical/religious...exluding gender.



Originally posted by inimalist
they reproduce and apparently capitalism makes us want to control them much like the bourgeois control the means of production instead of the proletariat.

LOL. Crotch throttles, so to speak.

Originally posted by backdoorman
Though it's not absolutely clear who it was that killed her, it seems to be the consensus that it was members of a Pakistani organization with Taliban and Al-Qaeda ties. And the animosity between the Pakistani government and those groups do not culminate in women's rights. If you ask me, their main drive was anti-government sentiments and the fact that they saw her as a corrupt puppet of the West.

She was no more a puppet of the west than the government before and after her and they haven't had assassination attempts.

So it has very much to do with her both being a woman and her policies for women...not solely that...but including it.

Originally posted by jaden101
So it has very much to do with her both being a woman and her policies for women...not solely that...but including it.

I'd say this sums up what I was saying

No Jihadi group or individual is going to have to think hard to come up with reasons to be against Bhutto. There is almost no chance they would have supported her stance on the education of girls, and for people in this part of the world, the stance of women in society and in kin groups is of the highest importance.

From what I understand her image was considerably seen as more pro-West than say, that of her father's or other past prime ministers. But assassination attempts are not something so very rare reserved for the wickedest of all - women.
Musharraf was also the subject to attempted murders. Those Islamic fundamentalism groups are practically at war with the government. You can keep saying it was about her being a she, and her supposed extremely pro-women politics, but it just doesn't seem to be the case given what is known about the suspects.

Originally posted by backdoorman
From what I understand her image was considerably seen as more pro-West than say, that of her father's or other past prime ministers. But assassination attempts are not something so very rare reserved for the wickedest of all - women.
Musharraf was also the subject to attempted murders. Those Islamic fundamentalism groups are practically at war with the government. You can keep saying it was about her being a she, and her supposed extremely pro-women politics, but it just doesn't seem to be the case given what is known about the suspects.

The idea that the sole reason Bhutto was killed was because of her gender or policies regarding women is a straw-man.

Gender roles and patriarchy are of intense importance to people living in South Asia (not to just generalize). I don't think anyone is saying she wouldn't have been assassinated either way (though Jaden makes a good point about Musharaf not being assassinated), just that her policies regarding women and her gender weren't helping the way these extremists would have viewed her.

Throughout india, it is not uncommon for women to face persecution for simply attempting to gain power or not be subordinate to partiarchical bonds. This is a very important part of the culture, especially to old male patriarchs. Yes, the tribal leaders in NW Pakistan, SE Afghanistan would be against the Pakistani gvt anyways. That the figurehead of that government was a woman would not make them any happier, and that she was trying to break down their patriarchal structure to society would certainly challenge them.

Originally posted by inimalist
The idea that the sole reason Bhutto was killed was because of her gender or policies regarding women is a straw-man.

Gender roles and patriarchy are of intense importance to people living in South Asia (not to just generalize). I don't think anyone is saying she wouldn't have been assassinated either way (though Jaden makes a good point about Musharaf not being assassinated), just that her policies regarding women and her gender weren't helping the way these extremists would have viewed her.

Throughout india, it is not uncommon for women to face persecution for simply attempting to gain power or not be subordinate to partiarchical bonds. This is a very important part of the culture, especially to old male patriarchs. Yes, the tribal leaders in NW Pakistan, SE Afghanistan would be against the Pakistani gvt anyways. That the figurehead of that government was a woman would not make them any happier, and that she was trying to break down their patriarchal structure to society would certainly challenge them.
Well, of course that those responsible for her murder are almost for certain Islamic fundamentalist that have very archaic views on women, I am not denying that. But what I'm saying is that I see no information that suggests Bhutto being a woman was one of the major reasons for her assassination.

given the nature of these things, I'd imagine one would be hard pressed to nail down very many things which everyone would agree was an absolute motivating factor of her assassination, with the exception of the fact that she opposed implementing Sharia law.

Hell, an easy argument for Nationalistic motivations exists, as the tribal regions have for decades been fighting for political autonomy, and the Federal government of Pakistan has used "terrorism" as an excuse to put it troops, if reluctantly, into NW Pakistan.

My thoughts are that her being a woman played some role, just given the culture of South Asian countries.

Originally posted by inimalist
given the nature of these things, I'd imagine one would be hard pressed to nail down very many things which everyone would agree was an absolute motivating factor of her assassination, with the exception of the fact that she opposed implementing Sharia law.

Hell, an easy argument for Nationalistic motivations exists, as the tribal regions have for decades been fighting for political autonomy, and the Federal government of Pakistan has used "terrorism" as an excuse to put it troops, if reluctantly, into NW Pakistan.

My thoughts are that her being a woman played some role, just given the culture of South Asian countries.
Well I guess none of us do for certain. But I think from the evidence we have thus far, nothing especially suggests her gender played a major (if any) role in her assassination/

Originally posted by backdoorman
From what I understand her image was considerably seen as more pro-West than say, that of her father's or other past prime ministers. But assassination attempts are not something so very rare reserved for the wickedest of all - women.
Musharraf was also the subject to attempted murders. Those Islamic fundamentalism groups are practically at war with the government. You can keep saying it was about her being a she, and her supposed extremely pro-women politics, but it just doesn't seem to be the case given what is known about the suspects.

It was only in the last years of her life that she took an anti-taliban stance. Her policies previously were that she thought they were a stabalizing influence in Afghanistan and even provided financial and military support for them.

If you'd actually read what i wrote i never said that it was merely because she was a woman that she was assassinated. I said it was partially that, partially her policies on women and partially her links to the west. You insinuation otherwise is a lie.

You do realize Bhutto governed Pakistan in the early to mid nineties, right? It wasn't just her that though the Taliban might help stabilize Afghanistan, the US and other Western countries thought that as well. And anyway, I don't see what your point is, she might have turned anti-Taliban in the later years of her life but that coincides with her assassination, so what are you saying?


" You only have to look at Pakistan and Benazir Bhutto to see the effect that even 1 woman in power can have on those who oppose that idea." "Her political beliefs were to increase the role of women in politics and in life in general in Pakistan...So they're related."
I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm simply saying that I don't see any reason to believe her gender played a decisive role in her assassination.

Originally posted by backdoorman
You do realize Bhutto governed Pakistan in the early to mid nineties, right? It wasn't just her that though the Taliban might help stabilize Afghanistan, the US and other Western countries thought that as well. And anyway, I don't see what your point is, she might have turned anti-Taliban in the later years of her life but that coincides with her assassination, so what are you saying?


" You only have to look at Pakistan and Benazir Bhutto to see the effect that even 1 woman in power can have on those who oppose that idea." "Her political beliefs were to increase the role of women in politics and in life in general in Pakistan...So they're related."
I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm simply saying that I don't see any reason to believe her gender played a decisive role in her assassination.

1: Obviously i do, otherwise i wouldn't have referrenced it.

2: Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't the case. the Taliban and Al-Qaeda's stance towards women is well known. Her stance on women in the muslim world is well known. Her other policies weren't massively different from her predecessors or since.

here's an article on it.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22995050-7583,00.html

Originally posted by jaden101
2: Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't the case. the Taliban and Al-Qaeda's stance towards women is well known. Her stance on women in the muslim world is well known. Her other policies weren't massively different from her predecessors or since.

here's an article on it.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22995050-7583,00.html

That's the evidence I was looking for. You've convinced me.


However, I still don't remember seeing anything on CNN, Fox, ABC, NBC, or hearing it on NPR that she was assisnated because of her gender and roles she wanted for women.

The only real statement given out by those who claimed her assassination said it was because of pro western policies and her westerization of Pakistan...Which, given that a huge part of that was her policies on women in regards to education and other areas then and given that a big part of that stemmed from her being a woman then it's all related.

Originally posted by jaden101
The only real statement given out by those who claimed her assassination said it was because of pro western policies and her westerization of Pakistan...Which, given that a huge part of that was her policies on women in regards to education and other areas then and given that a big part of that stemmed from her being a woman then it's all related.

So, you're saying


a=b

b=c

a=c

?

I agree. The article, and even references to her book indicate that she was getting heat from her western polices concerning women. Just as you've said, though, it wasn't solely the reason.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So, you're saying


a=b

b=c

a=c

?

I agree. The article, and even references to her book indicate that she was getting heat from her western polices concerning women. Just as you've said, though, it wasn't solely the reason.


That's over simplifying it a bit. I'm saying that if she wasn't a woman she most likely wouldn't have been implementing the policies that her assassins wanted her dead for.

Given that her policies on relations with the west and those on combating the taliban aren't really different from her male counterparts then it leaves her policies on women the major difference.

Then why bring up her supporting the Taliban?


You imply her policies on women were massively different than that of other prime ministers'. They weren't, Bhutto was a demagogue before anything else, she talked the talk when it suited her but you need but look at her actual policies (not just her breasts and then automatically assume she is a ferocious feminist) and see that she wasn't even half the radical you make her out to be. Musharraf did much more for women than Bhutto did.
The Taliban are patriarchal etc. , yes. But Bhutto was in many Pakistani eyes a corrupt figure that served the West's interest before all. Which is why, most likely, she was killed. That she was a woman probably added to the warped image they had of her, but it simply wasn't a decisive factor (in all likelihood, because in truth, we don't even know who killed her for certain).
I say it again, Musharraf was also the subject of assassination attempts, and by groups similar to those suspected of carrying out the Bhutto murder.


Well if it was published by a little known website...
Also you can see that whoever wrote that does not actually cite any sources. There aren't. Why? No evidence has been presented that suggests Bhutto's gender played a big role in her murderers' decision.

Originally posted by backdoorman
Well if it was published by a little known website...
Also you can see that whoever wrote that does not actually cite any sources. There aren't. Why? No evidence has been presented that suggests Bhutto's gender played a big role in her murderers' decision.

But what about her own admission in her book?

I asked a prof of mine about this, seeing as she was from Sri Lanka and knows the culture more.

Her reaction was that she felt that gender played little if any role, simply because to her, Bhutto did very little for women's rights in the first place. We talked about it for a bit, and maybe things had changed with her return to power after Musharraf, but she didn't seem to think that Bhutto was as forward thinking with regards to women as the west wanted to make her seem.

I'm no expert on it, but ya, the impression I got was that Bhutto was elected as part of a political dynasty rather than for her progressive gender politics. I think a lot of, at least my own, misconceptions come from how she is portrayed in Western media outlets.

That WAS me referrencing that period.



Only because he wasn't killed before implementing policies. bhutto had planned for women's police stations, courts and banks and had planned to repeal laws that discriminate against women



except

Paul Berman, author of Terror and Liberalism.

Dutch scholar Ian Buruma.

Originally posted by inimalist
I asked a prof of mine about this, seeing as she was from Sri Lanka and knows the culture more.

Her reaction was that she felt that gender played little if any role, simply because to her, Bhutto did very little for women's rights in the first place. We talked about it for a bit, and maybe things had changed with her return to power after Musharraf, but she didn't seem to think that Bhutto was as forward thinking with regards to women as the west wanted to make her seem.

I'm no expert on it, but ya, the impression I got was that Bhutto was elected as part of a political dynasty rather than for her progressive gender politics. I think a lot of, at least my own, misconceptions come from how she is portrayed in Western media outlets.

We're not talking about why she was elected.

...


Bhutto was killed long after she served two terms as prime minister, and in the period of those two terms she did not accomplish as much as Musharraf did in terms of women's rights.


I was talking about sources on the whole "she was killed mainly cause she was a woman, or at least in big part because of it" you ****ing, ****ing idiot.


Neither was he, good we are all on the same page.

Originally posted by jaden101
We're not talking about why she was elected.

we sort of are. It may be only Western conceptions that have Bhutto's gender playing any role at all in her leadership and assassination.

ie, she wasn't elected for her gender or gender issues and she was not a major force for change regarding women's rights.

I wouldn't try to extrapolate what I wrote to make any conclusions I didn't. The point was about the Western media portrayal of Bhutto, especially when she came back from exile to lead Pakistan.

Its really a shame, The biggest economy is also not able to pull out !!!

There is no "female oppression". Beneath men's heels is just where God (in the deist sense, as I am not a member of any organized religion) put them.

Originally posted by inimalist
we sort of are. It may be only Western conceptions that have Bhutto's gender playing any role at all in her leadership and assassination.

ie, she wasn't elected for her gender or gender issues and she was not a major force for change regarding women's rights.

I wouldn't try to extrapolate what I wrote to make any conclusions I didn't. The point was about the Western media portrayal of Bhutto, especially when she came back from exile to lead Pakistan.

She can't really be judged as not doing anything after coming back from exile though. It's the equivalent of Obama being assassinated tomorrow and then history judging him by saying he did nothing to stop the global recession. If someone didn't have the chance to implement policies because they were killed you can't really say they didn't do anything as a criticism.

Originally posted by jaden101
She can't really be judged as not doing anything after coming back from exile though. It's the equivalent of Obama being assassinated tomorrow and then history judging him by saying he did nothing to stop the global recession. If someone didn't have the chance to implement policies because they were killed you can't really say they didn't do anything as a criticism.

True

I was talking about her time in power before her exile mostly. point taken though