http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8926876/On yesterday's Meet the Press David Gregory said that the New York Times was reporting that American ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad had backed language
that would have given clerics sole authority in settling marriage and family disputes. That gave rise to concerns that women's rights, as they are annunciated in Iraq's existing laws, could be curtailed.
When he asked Reuel Marc Gerecht of the American Enterprise Institute about these rumors Mr. Gerecht responded: "It certainly seems clear that in protecting the political rights, there's no discussion of women not having the right to vote. I think it's important to remember that in the year 1900, for example, in the United States, it was a democracy then. In 1900, women did not have the right to vote. If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled. "
I suspect that this is the new administration line. But Iraq women are not like US women in 1900. They are not struggling for political and social equality. Iraq women have had political and social equality for many years. I was reminded of a recent article in the Los Angeles Times that uses an old photograph to make this point.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-women7aug07,0,3687581.story?coll=la-home-headlines
"The yellowing photo shows a woman in a knee-length, sleeveless dress. Her short hair blows in the breeze. She wears glamorous dark glasses against the summer glare. The time is the early 1960s. She could be in John F. Kennedy's America, but she's in Iraq, at a time when it was ruled by one in a string of military strongmen."
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(145 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
