Solveig Singleton

From Indep Women’s Forum–Update on Rights

From Independent Women’s Forum, “Despite praise of a Constitution that protects the rights of Afghan Women, Afghan women continue to suffer abuse from men and society in general.  Halima Karzai, Associate Director of International Policy for the Independent Women’s Forum, has written a powerful piece on the continuing problem of oppression and violence against Afghan women before and after the Taliban.”

Such reports are disturbing at so many levels, one hardly knows where to begin. First there is the comparative lack of attention to this issue by the public, the press, and in the political sphere; this appalling abuse has become background noise to which we are almost accustomed. Second there is the puzzle of how such practices begin and spread and are so hard to root out. One would think that the abuses would be instantly recognizable as morally unthinkable. One would think that they run so counter to ordinary primate biology, in which males and females have somewhat different roles and scuffle but nonetheless remain part of a whole cooperative group, that there would be some natural resistance to them. One would think that local observers would recognize the value of a more inclusive society in which their children would be more quickly lifted out of poverty in an economy enriched by the education and intellectual capital of the whole population. As in apartheid South Africa, exclusion is not only wrong, but it denies the economy entrepreneurs, managers, technologists, teachers, and other seeds of growth. 

Something here has gone sadly wrong. It rather puts concerns about the exact scope of the rights of makers of mashups in a new perspective.

 

 

 

 

May 14, 2008 | Comments |

2 comments posted

  1. Posted by: enigma_foundry - 05/15/2008

    hmmm…Solveig, nearly every country in the Middle East has a poor record of rights for women. And you believe that because the United States invaded Afghanistan, put into place a Constitution that nominally assured the procedural rights of woman, that this would change overnight?

    Perhaps if we had focused a tenth of what we had spent on the invasion of Iraq, and spent it on building Afghani economy, we would not be in the position we are now in. It may already be inevitable that the Taliban will come back, not a pleasant thought.

    Recall also how very recent the West has decided to allow (a very limited) democracy in the Middle East;for example, Mohammad Mosaddeq, elected leader of Iran, overthrown by CIA coup d’etat could have become a source of organic reform within Middle Eastern Society.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossadegh

    The regimes that USA supports in that region ussually are not very progressive re: women’s rights. Saudi Arabia has an abysmal record in particular.

  2. Posted by: enigma_foundry - 05/15/2008

    In 1953, the US engineered a coup in Iran that ousted the government of prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh - an Iranian colossus who happened to live in a frail old man’s body. The Iranian giant’s commitment to social reform was unrivaled in his country’s history, while his towering presence in the international arena as a voice of poor countries presaged the era of giants such as Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah, Indonesia’s Sukarno and the Congo’s Patrice Lumumba.

    During Mossadegh’s time, Iranian peasants were freed from forced labor in their landlords’ estates, factory owners were ordered to pay benefits to sick and injured workers, and unemployment compensation was established. The giant caused 20% of the money landlords received in rent to be placed in a fund to pay for development projects such as pest control, rural housing and public baths.

    The giant supported women’s rights and defended religious freedom and allowed courts and universities to function freely. In addition, the colossus was known even by his enemies as scrupulously honest and impervious to the corruption that pervaded Iranian politics.

    But above all, the giant was independent. Too independent. Mossadegh had thrown out the British, nationalized the Iranian oil industry in order that Iranians might benefit first from their own resources, and was intent on implementing further sweeping social reforms. And so one day in 1953 - when the US still enjoyed the affections of the Iranian people - the US government decided that Mossadegh should not rule for long. And it schemed and schemed and schemed.

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FI15Ak03.html

Subscribe to this entry's comments

Post a comment