Feminists and Iran
Katherine Jean-Lopez writes:
Here's a snippet from a speech [Rick Santorum] gave on the Senate floor this morning about Iran, where he highlighted (in this section) one of the real outrages to women's rights in the world today...of the kind that so-called women's rights groups can't spend all that much time on because they are too busy whining about, say, Rick Santorum:
The snipped concerns the deplorable situation of women's rights in Iran. Since K-Lo's a conservative, there's no need for her to check her facts. See American feminists complaining about Iran here, here and here (at the bottom). Obviously, US-based feminist groups dedicate the bulk of their energy to American policy issues because those are the ones they have the greatest ability to impact. The state of women's rights in Iran isn't, at the end of the day, going to hinge on what Americans say or do about it, whereas the state of women's rights in America will hinge on what Americans do about it.
Meanwhile, the GOP is so committed to this issue that it regularly teams up with Saudi Arabia and Iran to oppose international agreements on the status of women. Bonus fact -- when I was in college I took a women's studies class taught by an Iranian, professor Afsaneh Najmabadi, who was not unconcerned with this topic though also not possessed of political views National Review would find congenial.
Mr. Santorum is not noted for his depth of thought. Unfortunately, much of what goes on on the Senate floor is staged for the CSPAN cameras. He was merely delivering a (free) campaign speech to the haters of womens lib. It is most doubtful that Mr. Santorum holds the cause of Iranian women close to his heart.
March 2, 2006 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
It also, of course, sounds awfully reminiscent of the run-ups to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
March 2, 2006 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it is an obligation falling on feminists to support the invasion or bombing of Islamic countries.
March 2, 2006 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
How much effort does K-Lo engage in to condemn allies of hers in the pro-life and conservative Christian communities who have retrograde views of women? And I don't mean people who condemn what they see as the excesses of feminism; I mean unreconstructed patriarchists who believe in such things as that women should not work, they should submit to the will of their husbands, it should be almost impossible to get a divorce, sexual harassment laws should be repealed, etc.
K-Lo's post has such an obviously instrumental agenda-- drumming a conflict with Iran-- that it scarcely deserves comment.
March 2, 2006 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the best part is that K-Lo's snippy response to Matt shows pretty clearly that she didn't even bother to read Matt's whole post, which just isn't that long. On top of everything else, she's just lazy.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/06_02_26_corner-archive.asp#091461
March 2, 2006 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink