Iraqi Women

[AshRyan]

There is a story on MSNBC today about the current situation of Iraqi women. (You can view it here.) Here's how I responded to it on my blog:

A while back I noted that our campus was holding Islam Awareness Week, which included a panel discussion about "Revealing the Truth about Women in Islam." The idea is that Islamic women are not oppressed by their religion, but rather empowered by it. Personally, I find this attempt by the left to reconcile two of their great dogmas, feminism and multiculturalism, absolutely hysterical--because they so obviously can't be reconciled.

Anyway, today on MSNBC there is a story about the hardships Iraqi women are currently facing. Apparently, if they dare venture outside in tight pants, without a head covering, or without a male family member, many Muslim men feel justified in kidnapping and raping them. To make matters worse, the woman's family typically seems to agree, putting her to death for bringing shame to their family (as if she were the criminal, and not the victim).

Naturally, MSNBC tries to put an anti-American spin on the story, insinuating that it is our fault for not providing enough security. To hear them tell it, Saddam Hussein was the liberator of Iraqi women, the only thing protecting them from having their rights constantly violated. (Heh.) But the real cause of the problem is Islam's doctrines that a woman is not an end in herself, but rather exists only to serve the needs of men; and that a man is a helpless puppet who can't be held responsible for his own actions if he sees too much of a woman's body.

Of course, not all Muslim women face such a situation. But it is the kind of situation that Islamic doctrine leads to if practiced consistently. To the extent that Muslim women in the United States are empowered rather than oppressed, it is because of the individual rights they are guaranteed as citizens of this country--not because of their religion, but rather in spite of it.

Comments?

[Capitalism Forever]

The idea is that Islamic women are not oppressed by their religion, but rather empowered by it.

[...]

To hear them tell it, Saddam Hussein was the liberator of Iraqi women, the only thing protecting them from having their rights constantly violated. (Heh.)

Hmm, so does Islam empower women, or did Saddam liberate women from the shackles of Islam? The nice thing about irrational people is their unbounded willingness to refute themselves.

[AshRyan]

Hmm, so does Islam empower women, or did Saddam liberate women from the shackles of Islam? The nice thing about irrational people is their unbounded willingness to refute themselves. 

Just to be clear, those two ideas come from different sources--the first, from campus lectures on women in Islam; the second from the MSNBC story linked to above. So that particular point isn't necessarily an instance of them contradicting themselves, since the MSNBC story never does claim or strongly imply that Islam empowers women, and the campus lectures to my knowledge did not imply that Saddam was a liberator of Iraqi women.

[Capitalism Forever]

I know, I just found it a rather remarkable juxtaposition of statements by people who are trying to make the same point.

[AshRyan]

Indeed.

[Guest Ginzershop]

"Naturally, MSNBC tries to put an anti-American spin on the story, insinuating that it is our fault for not providing enough security"Ash

Ash... since the United States Military is the De Facto Government There.. (As well as the legal government) and since the objectivist position is that governments exist solely to protect individual rights, and since we have removed the government which formerly acted as protector for these women, how is it NOT our fault?

"But the real cause of the problem is Islam's doctrines that a woman is not an end in herself," Ash

are you going to quote the Koran?? If you do, be sure to qualify it by noting that not all Muslims are literalists (though they all believe it is God's word, they do not all believe that God's word must be interpreted literally) A survey? a cleric with some amount of authority? are you going to be more specific about which sect?

[DavidV]

FYI, I blogged about a "Women in Islam" talk on my site a while back.

[AshRyan]

"Naturally, MSNBC tries to put an anti-American spin on the story, insinuating that it is our fault for not providing enough security"Ash

Ash...  since the United States Military is the De Facto Government There.. (As well as the legal government) and since the objectivist position is that governments exist solely to protect individual rights,  and since we have removed the government which formerly acted as protector for these women, how is it NOT our fault?

These criticisms all drop the context of my entire post. Yes, the U.S. Military should try to provide as much security as it can while we are there...but that is not its primary goal. And while governments properly exist only to protect individual rights, that means neither that a government can or will be 100% successful in so doing, nor that the criminal who initiates force is absolved of responsibility if the government didn't stop him. So it is NOT our *fault* that Islamic men are getting rape-happy on their more-liberated female counterparts. To the extent that we can prevent it or punish those responsible, we should, and probably do. But it is hard to fight when we do not really have a proper government set up there (just a military presence), and when it is so widespread thanks to the bad ideas of the perpetrators (and the culture generally). And of course, even if Iraq's situation still isn't great, they still have more rights than when Saddam was in power. So you can hardly criticize our removal of Saddam on the grounds that we aren't fully securing all rights in Iraq if you keep the full context in mind.

And my very next sentence after the one you quoted is relevant to evaluating my argument, so dropping it is fallacious on your part. As a reminder, it reads: "To hear them tell it, Saddam Hussein was the liberator of Iraqi women, the only thing protecting them from having their rights constantly violated."

"But the real cause of the problem is Islam's doctrines that a woman is not an end in herself," Ash

are you going to quote the Koran?? If you do, be sure to qualify it by noting that not all Muslims are literalists (though they all believe it is God's word, they do not all believe that God's word must be interpreted literally)  A survey? a cleric with some amount of authority?  are you going to be more specific about which sect?

Again, this drops the full context of both the discussion and of the relevant facts of reality. Not all Christians are literalists either, but just because they don't espouse nonsense about creation in seven days doesn't mean that they don't spread the same dangerous ideas regarding altruism as a moral ideal, etc. In fact, I think the literalists are less dangerous, because fewer people take them seriously. Now, I will be the first to admit that I am not an expert on Islamic theology, but I would imagine that there is an analogous situation there. So all this crap about not quoting passages from the Koran, and not properly qualifying them if I did, and surveys and sects etc., is completely irrelevant.

Again, you ignored later relevant points of my original post, such as: "Of course, not all Muslim women face such a situation. But it is the kind of situation that Islamic doctrine leads to if practiced consistently. To the extent that Muslim women in the United States are empowered rather than oppressed, it is because of the individual rights they are guaranteed as citizens of this country--not because of their religion, but rather in spite of it."

(And David, I'm not sure if your comment was directed to me, but I was already aware of your post on the issue and I think actually linked to it in this post on my website.)

[Guest ginzershop]

" Yes, the U.S. Military should try to provide as much security as it can while we are there...but that is not its primary goal"

What is its primary goal at this stage in the game?

" And while governments properly exist only to protect individual rights, that means neither that a government can or will be 100% successful in so doing"

What does this statement prove?

"nor that the criminal who initiates force is absolved of responsibility if the government didn't stop him"

of course not...sorry if I somehow gave that impression.

"To the extent that we can prevent it or punish those responsible, we should, and probably do"

Do we??? How long has PNAC been pushing for this war??? We know that Rummy was told to draw up war plans in the Fall of 2001. Could they have moved troops from Germany or South Korea??? Could they be speeding up the Iraqi Army??? Could they be teaching more Arabic to our troops?

"you can hardly criticize our removal of Saddam on the grounds that we aren't fully securing all rights in Iraq if you keep the full context in mind."

I never critisized the removal of Saddam.

"And my very next sentence after the one you quoted is relevant to evaluating my argument, so dropping it is fallacious on your part. As a reminder, it reads: "To hear them tell it, Saddam Hussein was the liberator of Iraqi women, the only thing protecting them from having their rights constantly violated.""

as it pertains to the particular rights in question, they appear to be correct.

"Now, I will be the first to admit that I am not an expert on Islamic theology, but I would imagine that there is an analogous situation there."

If you are an objectivist, stop imaginining and start researching and posting evidence to support your arguments in this particular realm.

[AshRyan]

" Yes, the U.S. Military should try to provide as much security as it can while we are there...but that is not its primary goal"

What is its primary goal at this stage in the game?

That is a topic for a separate thread.

"  And while governments properly exist only to protect individual rights, that means neither that a government can or will be 100% successful in so doing"

What does this statement prove?

Nothing, in and of itself. But again, you seem to be dropping the full context of the statements preceding and following it. This is part of the argument that the ultimate responsibility for a crime lies with the criminal who committed it, not with the government that didn't prevent it (and it has other implications as well). Government is only responsible insofar as it could have prevented it (since "ought" implies "can"), and the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that it could have done so in a particular case--particularly keeping in mind the relevant context that government cannot prevent or retaliate against every criminal act (that would require omniscience/omnipotence on its part) and that this is even harder in a wartime military occupation as opposed to a normal civil government.

"To the extent that we can prevent it or punish those responsible, we should, and probably do"

Do we??? How long has PNAC been pushing for this war??? We know that Rummy was told to draw up war plans in the Fall of 2001. Could they have moved troops from Germany or South Korea??? Could they be speeding up the Iraqi Army??? Could they be teaching more Arabic to our troops?

It's not very clear to me at this point how all this relates to the issue.

"you can hardly criticize our removal of Saddam on the grounds that we aren't fully securing all rights in Iraq if you keep the full context in mind."

I never critisized the removal of Saddam.

"And my very next sentence after the one you quoted is relevant to evaluating my argument, so dropping it is fallacious on your part. As a reminder, it reads: "To hear them tell it, Saddam Hussein was the liberator of Iraqi women, the only thing protecting them from having their rights constantly violated.""

as it pertains to the particular rights in question, they appear to be correct.

This is where you lose me completely. You say you don't criticize the removal of Saddam...then what exactly is your point? And after disagreeing with me that you criticize the removal of Saddam on the grounds of the rights of Iraqi citizens, in the very next sentence you state that you believe precisely that Saddam's rule was preferable on those very grounds! Which, by the way, is ridiculously and disgustingly false. You object to the fact that some Iraqi civilian men are raping Iraqi civilian women under U.S. military presence. Not only do I doubt that this didn't also occur before we got there, but there is documented evidence of rape being used as a torture method by the Iraqi government before we arrived!

"Now, I will be the first to admit that I am not an expert on Islamic theology, but I would imagine that there is an analogous situation there."

If you are an objectivist, stop  imaginining and start researching and posting evidence to support your arguments in this particular realm.

One does not need to be an expert on Islamic theology to draw and apply valid generalizations about the nature of religion as such; or to know (and this is the heart of the matter) that people act on their ideas and, in the case of these rapists, on bad ideas which are prevalent and supported by the culture there, which, in turn, is heavily influenced by the Islamic religion. My main point is that these people's beliefs, influenced by the Islamic religion, is the cause of these crimes. If I understand you correctly, you seem to be arguing that the United States is responsible for them, i.e., is in some way their cause! If you disagree with my main point (about the cause of these crimes), then we can continue to discuss that, but please try to stick to that point.

[Guest Ginzershop]

Government is only responsible insofar as it could have prevented it (since "ought" implies "can"), and the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that it could have done so in a particular case--particularly keeping in mind the relevant context that government cannot prevent or retaliate against every criminal act (that would require omniscience/omnipotence on its part) and that this is even harder in a wartime military occupation as opposed to a normal civil government.

Before I decide if its worth the effort to google the numerous things the US could be doing and could have done to strengthen the Security Situation in Baghdad....

I need to know

A) Do you consider yourself well read in Iraq security issues?? (That is can I refer to certain news pieces and consider it in the realm of "general knowledge" or do I need to link everything)

b)Are you completely denying that the United States could be doing more to improve the security situation??? Or are you just denying that it can do more to prevent the increasing number of Rapes?

It's not very clear to me at this point how all this relates to the issue."Ash

all of the issues I mention relate to the issue because they are examples of things that could have been done differently to improve security. (e.g. why do we still have 30,000 troops in germany when we need them so badly in Iraq?)

You say you don't criticize the removal of Saddam...then what exactly is your point?

My point was simply that Saddam appears to have been doing a better job at preventing rape than the CPA.

"And after disagreeing with me that you criticize the removal of Saddam on the grounds of the rights of Iraqi citizens, in the very next sentence you state that you believe precisely that Saddam's rule was preferable on those very grounds! "Ash

I never said anything about it being prefferable... Straw men belong in cornfields, not in political/philisophical debates. Please dont put words into my mouth.

Not only do I doubt that this didn't also occur before we got there

Neither do I the question is did it increase when we arrived?

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2003/s904673.htm

but there is documented evidence of rape being used as a torture method by the Iraqi government before we arrived!

Of course, which is one of the reasons taking him out was a no brainer...

One does not need to be an expert on Islamic theology to draw and apply valid generalizations about the nature of religion...

...culture...which, in turn, is heavily influenced by the Islamic religion. influenced by the Islamic religion, is the cause of these crimes "  Ash

If you were talking about religion in general I might have let that slide but instead you drew deductions about Islam;

"But the real cause of the problem is Islam's doctrines that a woman is not an end in herself"

where/how did you come to that conclusion?

and that a man is a helpless puppet who can't be held responsible for his own actions if he sees too much of a woman's body.

how about that??? Who specifically said that and why do you place value on their argument?

and the fact that you qualified your statement by pointing to American Muslims for instance is no support of the arguments. in fact you only made one more unsupported argument in that area.

But it is the kind of situation that Islamic doctrine leads to if practiced consistently

How do you know that? How specifically did you come to that conclusion??

[RadCap]

"My point was simply that Saddam appears to have been doing a better job at preventing rape than the CPA."

One can only LOL at the inannity of such a statement and the monsterous evasion involved in saying it with ANY sincerity.

No rational discussion is occuring here. Why is it continuing?

[Guest ginzershop]

Redcap

"One can only LOL at the inannity of such a statement and the monsterous evasion involved in saying it with ANY sincerity"

or one could point out the evasion and post evidence to support that claim