The Correlation Between Women's Rights and Social Health
Deepali asked, "Why was the response to the Taliban's misogynist rule in the 1990s so slow to come by? Why has sex selection been allowed to take the proportions it has in India before anyone realizes that it is the symptom of a much larger problem? Why should a 16-year old German Afghan girl be yet another victim of an 'honor killing' (in Germany and not in Afghanistan) despite prior knowledge of her severe beatings at the hands of the family?"
I think the answer is depressingly obvious -- because these all seemed like "just" women's issues, and it is quite hard to get powerful forces exercised unless they think there is something beyond mere women at stake.
One can despair about this -- and at times I do -- but there are also ways to work with it. Because, of course, there is even more at stake. The Taliban was perhaps the starkest example -- societies that treat women barbarously pose a danger to the wider world, and, at the same time, the abuse of women creates dangerous societies. When Lawrence Summers was at the World Bank, he argued that there was no investment developing countries could make that paid greater dividends than the education of girls. This was not because Summers is a great feminist (though I actually think he gets a bit of a bad rap), but because decades of economic and social science research shows the profound correlation between women's rights and social health. Where women have some degree of autonomy over their bodies and their destinies, they have smaller, healthier, better-educated families; where they don't, families are more likely to be large, plagued by illness and bereft of opportunity. And so there's a really strong case to be made for promoting women's rights on public health, environmental and national security grounds.
Yet we are very, very far from anything like a worldwide consensus on women's equality, despite the kind of technocratic language that often surrounds "women's empowerment" programs. It's actually a pretty threatening proposition to a lot of people. That's why I believe people who care about women's rights need allies who have other priorities, and why I think it makes sense to advocate for them from both a moral, human rights perspective and from a strategic, realpolitik one.





















You really can't think of any other reason why Americans might not be compelled to act on anecdotal stories from half way around the world? Really, is there any question for which you don't answer mysoginy?
oy vei. here comes the loaded affirmations couched in hokey rhetoric.
Ugh. Well, at least the headline says correlation and not causation.
The Taliban is an example of a totalitarian fundamentalist militarized society, which came to power in reaction to the failure of state and subsequent chaos, combined with a highly armed and illiterate agrarian populace, after an imperial proxy war between the US and USSR. The key words relevant to being a danger are totalitarian and militant. Also, the Taliban don't just repress women, they repress everyone. Fashion, hairstyle, and overall lifestyle is dictated to everyone, men and women. Even listening to music is prohibited.
There are plenty of fundamentalist religious movements that are not militant, not totalitarian, and not especially dangerous.
There are also examples of liberal secular societies which became totalitarian and militarized against real or perceived enemies during times of instability after wars. Take the rise of Nazis in Germany after WWI due to the failure of the state and hyperinflation for example.
btw, an interesting quality of militant totalitarians is their paranoid tendency to seek out a scapegoat, or boggy man, to blame for all problems. It makes it easier to held people towards militancy when there's one answer, the enemy, for all problems. Unfortunately, some people really are that simple.
May 7, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
kozmik writes: "an interesting quality of militant totalitarians is their paranoid tendency to seek out a scapegoat, or boggy man, to blame for all problems. It makes it easier to held people towards militancy when there's one answer, the enemy, for all problems. Unfortunately, some people really are that simple."
you're a smart militant totalitarian, Kozmik, but you happen to scapegoat feminists who understand (as you seem congenitally inclined not to) that how women are treated is exactly the criterion that determines how goes the world. all your other details are just...details. sure, there are lots of factors to consider, but it's obvious either you've long ago lost sight of the forest for the countless trees you can bring into your monologues, or you have no desire to see the forest.
and I'm guessing your mother dropped you on your head, which would explain your vigorous hardheadness and possibly your inability to cross-process the most crucial piece of information.
May 8, 2009 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
"how women are treated is exactly the criterion that determines how goes the world. "
A lot of things have a high correlation with how the world goes.
May 11, 2009 3:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Kozmik,
Nitpick, cherry pick, slice and dice all you want, but you're missing the larger point. The point is, agreed upon by many, that investing in "equality" issues for women around the world will have a huge payoff.
How about this for rhetoric:
"There are plenty of fundamentalist religious movements that are not militant, not totalitarian, and not especially dangerous."
I would have to say I could write a book challenging that claim of yours.
Dude, your own misogyny is showing.
May 8, 2009 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
eggsactly!
May 8, 2009 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cherry picking? I'm quoting from her post which is right at the top of the page and context for all! Really, the Goldberg defenders are pretty lame.
No, the point expressed by Goldberg is not simply pre-equality. Goldberg also does complex issues a disservice by blaming them on her favorite boggy man, misogyny, and generally failing to understand how these issues arose in reality.
You need to look up fundamentalism. It doesn't mean militant as you seem to think.
And I have to say that post is typical of Feminist supporters: unintelligent and uninformed.
May 11, 2009 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink