4,000 women run for office in Iraq

Started by backdoorman5 pages

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

Then why bring up her supporting the Taliban?

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.

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.

here's an article on it.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.a...50-7583,00.html


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.

Then why bring up her supporting the Taliban?

That WAS me referrencing that period.

Musharraf did much more for women than Bhutto did.

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

Also you can see that whoever wrote that does not actually cite any sources.

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.

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

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.

except

Paul Berman, author of Terror and Liberalism.

Dutch scholar Ian Buruma.


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.

We're not talking about why she was elected.

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