Women Voting In Iraq
Michelle Malkin wonders if American feminists will "be celebrating these amazing images and this historic day? The silence is deafening."
The amazing images and historic day are about the fact that anyone in Iraq can vote in an election with actual choice. Not that women in Iraq can vote. Women in Iraq could vote, to the degree anyone in Iraq could vote, under Saddam Hussein. By no means was it all fuzzy bunnies and flowers for women in Iraq under Hussein. There was absolutely abuse. But the implication that Iraq was akin to Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan in its treatment of women is off-base. Women could go to school, hold jobs outside the home, drive, walk around without male escort, and wear secular clothing under Saddam Hussein. Things they still cannot do in Saudi Arabia. It was much more impressive when women in Afghanistan regained the right to vote after the overthrow of the Taliban. Note the word "regained". Prior to the Taliban, Afghan women did have the right to vote in that Muslim country.
Furthermore, Iraq is hardly the first Muslim country in which women have the right to vote. Jordanian women can vote. Egyptian women can vote. Turkish women and Pakistani women can vote. Pakistan even had a female Prime Minister. Benazir Bhutto, anyone? For what it's worth (and it ain't worth much these days), even Iranian women can vote. Shall I continue? Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Malaysia, etc.. Women in Lebanon can vote, although with restrictions that are not placed on men (namely proof of education). Women can vote in most Muslim countries. The only two Muslim countries I'm aware of in which women can't vote are Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Actually, Kuwaiti women can vote in municipal elections, but not in the parliamentary elections (not that that's good enough).
Women voting in Muslim countries is not some strange, unheard of concept that needs celebration by feminists. People voting in countries that were formerly dictatorships, however, is something that deserves celebration by everyone.
Comments
It's a good point. The more virulent strains of Islam (think Wahhabi) relegate women to the proverbial back of the bus, and it may be that some of the conservative emphasis on women voting here is an effort to remind people of this fact - or an effort to tweak capital-F Feminists, a large number of whom are registered Democrats.
The important thing about this election, though, is exactly as you said: not that women are voting, but that Iraqis are voting for a slate of actual candidates for once.
Posted by: CGHill | January 30, 2005 09:14 PM
Perhaps, yet the capital-F Feminists are more aware than most Americans of how abysmally women are treated in Muslim countries, even those where they can vote. For example, Jordan, which is one of the more moderate (and Westernized) Muslim countries, is still plagued with "honor killings". Contrary to popular belief, for years before most Americans gave it much thought, the major feminist organizations in this country were working to help women in Muslim countries, both by petitioning our government to provide aid and working with women's groups in those countries. However, I'll grant you that it's become one of those "things that have been said so often they are assumed to be true without argument" that American feminists don't care about the treatment of women in Muslim countries. On that basis, it probably is an attempt to tweak.
Having said that, I have seen more than one remark around the right side of the blogosphere that women in Iraq were basically treated as poorly as women in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. After Saddam was ousted, I recall seeing a few posts to the effect that Iraqi women no longer had to hide behind burqas, could now go to school, get jobs, etc., all by those ignorant of the fact that Iraqi women under Hussein didn't have to wear burqas, did go to school, hold down jobs, etc. However, I will give Michelle Malkin the benefit of the doubt that she was not one of the people who made that mistake, unless I'm shown something she wrote to the contrary. And, again, this is not to say that women had it swell in Iraq. Just not as bad as in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia.
Posted by: Lesley | January 30, 2005 10:25 PM
She's just giving her audience what they want to hear.
I know from hanging with a few feminists that they were trying to raise awareness of the conditions of women under the Taliban long before it was ever discovered by most Americans. You might give Malkin the benefit of the doubt, but I don't feel like the ommission of the facts on her part was quite so accidental. She knows what her partisans want to hear and she provides it for them.
Thanks for your reponse to this.
Posted by: bruce | January 31, 2005 03:17 PM
Well, I was giving her the benefit of the doubt on knowing that women in Iraq under Saddam didn't have to wear burqas, did go to school, hold down jobs, etc. I'm assuming she actually knew that.
Posted by: Lesley | January 31, 2005 08:42 PM
Great point.
It's true that that the women of Iraq are running a unique risk. If the administrations policies result in Wahabism they will be in far worse shape than they were under Saddam. What they are betting on (those who support the ouster of Saddam) is that the democratization will effect their sisters in Saudi Arabia, etc. in a positive way. I believe it will, but if I'm wrong I won't have to wear a chador.
Posted by: Sluggo | February 1, 2005 03:15 PM