And I'm not referring to the B-52s song - although it's strangely appropriate. Apparently, "social rights" of women aren't essential to democracy, so says a Bush II operative.
I can move beyond the Bush speak. I can even move beyond his vacation from his vacation. What I cannot tolerate is the obvious feeling that democracy is okay for men - but the women will have to wait.
According to Maureen Dowd's column today, a former C.I.A. Middle East specialist, Reuel Marc Gerecht, said U.S. democracy in 1900 didn't let women vote, so if Iraqi democracy resembled that, "we'd all be thrilled ... I mean, women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy."
The rights of one half of a country's population don't count? And who determines what are "social rights" and what are basic rights? What madness this all is.
(Rhetorical quesion alert!) What would happen if the genders were reversed here - would the denial of "men's social rights" be considered immaterial to the "evolution of democracy." Talk amongst yourselves. I know the answer already.
No comments:
Post a Comment