|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The Customer Can Have Any Color He Wants So Long As It's Black". -- Henry Ford
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
McElroy seems to be missing a crucial point. Isn't pushing "democracy" on every country (as the UN and USA are wont to do), regardless of whether or not that country's cultural/social systems can sustain it doing the same thing she is decrying?
Who are we to say democracy is the best system for everyone. And if it is not, and if we are basically engineering a new interim goverment for a country such as Afghanistan, we can effectively "push" any system we want including (as we ARE doing) setting up those in power who we feel will best serve our interests as well as theirs. For example, we are arbitrarily saying the Taliban (which you cannot say didn't have a measure of support by the people) is excluded. And we are basically designing the "ethnic"(read politically alliagiance to the WEST) makeup of the government.
If we "push" certain people to the top of leadership and basically set them up on office (there has been no voting for Afghan leaders by the people of Afghanistan) then why is it we are limited to only placing men as leaders? As long as there is an artificial process of setting up a government there, we can set any arbitrary standard we wish. And make no mistake, we ARE doing just that. If the US and the UN (representing other Western countries) decides it is our best interest or in Afghanistans best interest to have x number of women leaders, how is this any different than deciding there will be x number of Pashtun leaders (which the qualify by demographic makeup of the country). If you can justify that by demographics, then you can justify placing women in power by demographics. It has nothing even remotely to do with "democracy" as McElroy suggests (and again, she simply "assumes" democracy it the system that will emerge, or we'll force it to emerge).
It is naive to think that in a "country" such as Afghanistan, with its history of civil warfare and strife, can produce overnight the institutions we take for granted here, such as voting which will support a democracy. In fact it is naive and arrogant to assume "democracy" as we see it can work everyplace on the globe and be sort of painted onto existing cultures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually the best system of government is a monarchy but the problem is you need a compassionate, intelligent, future conscious person incharge. This is an ideal but impossible on any longterm status in a longterm government.
I think her arguement is the same as yours just from a different angle.
I think her basic arguement is that the form of "democracy" we have in America doesn't suit the gender feminists and they are trying to set up a political system they view as ideal instead of the one that would best fit into the beliefs and history of the country.
The whole idea is that women need obvious political representation in every country. The problems with this are several fold. First it assumes men can not look out for the interests of women fairly. It also assumes that women have no input since they have no physical representation in the government. (I argue this one all the time and I usually just ask if any woman who is married in the class thinks she has no say and what happens if she isn't heard in the relationship. usually gets at least a chuckle and nods of their head until they admit women do get their points across even if its not seen publically. I know my wife does.)
I think her basic idea is that forcing a artifical balance of people in a democracy is just feminist politics. They might as well ask for equal representation based on age, race, religion or any other group that has been "discriminated" against.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday December 12, @02:52PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne:
You make some good points, and I agree that "democracy" isn't necessarily best , and in any case, might not be appropriate for different societies at various stages in their history. Nonetheless, I think what the US is doing is perfectly justifiable for two reasons:
A. As we were attacked, our government has the obligation to protect us. Part of that responsibility is making sure the new government in Afghanistan is , if not friendly to us, at least unfriendly to terrorist groups.
B. Human rights. Whilst I don't believe that non-citizens are entitled to the protections of the US Constitution, there are International agreements that have been reached. Also, what was being done to Afghan women was only one step short of genocide ( only women with a male partner or relative where being allowed to live and it was nearly impossible to legally obtain medical care of humanitarian aid such as food-- so women were freaking starving in the streets, not allowed to get aid). Because of this, I was in favor of war with Afghanistan 2 years ago, when I first started to hear about it.
As you can guess, I am not a cultural relativist. You have to draw the line somewhere, and I place it just below genocide.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whilst I don't believe that non-citizens are entitled to the protections of the US Constitution, there are International agreements that have been reached.
When you consider that the Constitution is built upon the rights documented by Jefferson et al in The Declaration of Independence (the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), then the rights laid out in our Constitution *do* apply to all people. Of course, we cannot (and should not) force other countries to adopt our policies, but look at it from a law and order perspective. If an alien on American soil commits a crime, I believe he or she is usually granted due process and the other rights afforded one accused in this country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday December 12, @03:23PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you Nightmist, but I'll have to respectfully disagree.
Yes, Jefforson et.al believed that all men were created equal, with certain rights that were considered by most of the Founders to have been granted by God.
Even so, the Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution. The Constitution is the legal document that spells out the social contract between the US and its citizens. Just like Roman citizenship, US citizenship ceases to have any meaning or value whatsoever if one may acquire all its benefits, but none of its responsibilities merely by breathing air.
This goes back to some more misunderstandings that are commonly held these days. One is International Law. To the extent that IL is enforced, it is only by way of military or economic power. Power which is exercised by a nation-state or a coalition of nation-states.
IL has the language of "rights" but the very concept of a "right" is different. According to IL, rights are privilages that are granted to people by Governments. Rights are preferrably granted via democratic votes , and they can be taken away in the same manner. They are NOT inalianable. This is in opposition to the very foundations of our system of government, and one reason that many are very suspicious of beautifully printed U.N. documents with nice-sounding names.
Whatever rights foreigners may have in their own countries, we are only bound by our international agreements. Remember, they owe us or our Constitution no allegiance. It would be national suicide to think we owe any to them.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday December 12, @03:26PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
*kicking self for mis-spelling "Jefferson"*
Btw Nightmist: I owe you an email. I haven't forgotten :)
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*kicking self for mis-spelling "Jefferson"*
Heh. I only beat up on folks who beat up on me first AND misspell in the process. ;)
Thomas Jefferson also happens to be one of my all-time favorite political figures of American history.
I do see your points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday December 12, @03:58PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Thought my first comments didn't post, and had to redo the whole essay from memory . So now you get to read my twice.
*banging head on keyboard*
Remo the Embarrassed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday December 12, @03:52PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you Nightmist, but I'll have to respectfully disagree.
It is true that our Founders , for the most part, believed that all men had God-given inalienable rights at birth. However, the Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution. The Constitution is the legal document that spells out the social contract between the US gov't and its citizens. Like Roman citizenship, US citizenship ceases to have any meaning if one can acquire all of the rights and none of the responsibilities merely because one breathes air. Non-citizens have not pledged any allegiance to our Constitution, and because of that, we owe them only "human rights" ,not U.S. rights.
To explain farther, I'll talk about International Law, which I will abbrieviate as IL. IL has a concept of a "right". However, it is a different conception then the one the U.S. Constititution is based on. In brief, in IL a "right" is a privilage that is granted to a citizen of a country by the Government of that country. Or even granted to a citizen of the world, by some future world-government.
What's the difference? Simple: privilages can be taken away and granted by the Government at its discretion. Preferrably democratically, but not necessarily so. The U.S. government exists to protect our rights, and can only infringe them in times of war, or change them with a Constitutional Convention. The rest of the world is NOT set up this way, and unpopular "rights" are often taken or voted away at the drop of a hat.
Its this philosophical difference between the U.S. and the entire rest of the world, that is the reason that so many of us look with suspicion at beautifully printed U.N. documents with wonderful sounding names. And it is why, 200 somethng years after we were founded, the rest of the world still doesn't "get it".
I think it is quite obvious that it would be national suicide to apply all of our rights to people who don't even owe our government or Constitution any allegiance.
Remo
P.S. I haven't forgotten that I owe you a letter, and should be sending it soon :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This op ed piece was posted above but my comments pertaining to it seem to fit better here to contradict what Ms. McElroy has written.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/11/opinion/11KRIS.h tml?searchpv=nytToday
The writer makes some exellent points about the hypocrisy of those who say we shouldn't "force" our Western values on a society vis a vis women, all the while pushing Western standards of democracy and jurisprudence on them in setting up the interim Government.
"Encouraging more opportunity for Afghan women is not cultural imperialism, any more than are our efforts to bring Afghanistan a central bank, modern roads or free elections. These are all simply elements of nation- building.
In addition, it seems to me there is hypocrisy in those on the one hand stating that women shouldn't have equal representation in government based on demographics, all the while openly advocating equitable representation based on tribal/racial demographis, religious allegiance or any other numerical criteria for arbitrarily hoisting people into leadership.
We've heard ad naseum the refrain that the Northern Alliance shouldn't run the government because they constitute a small numerical minority ethincally/linguistically. By this same logic, shouldn't women be included in the government based on numerical quotas?
Where are all the anti-quota Conservatives now that we are playing a little nation building? Well, I do believe they are calling for racial/ethnic quotas! (But, God forbid, not gender ones).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Encouraging more opportunity for Afghan women is not cultural imperialism, any more than are our efforts to bring Afghanistan a central bank, modern roads or free elections. These are all simply elements of nation- building.
Encouraging more opportunity for Afghan women is not the same thing as saying "there must be this many women participating in your government."
Lorianne, I don't care upon what perceived inequality quotas are based (racial, ethnic, or gender), there's nothing good about them. They *limit* freedom rather than *enhance* it.
Also, encouraging Afghanistan to develop a democratic government *is not* the same thing as creating quotas. Governments based upon representation influenced by the will of the people are a *good thing* and it gives the people of Afghanistan to decide for themselves where *they* want things to go.
Yeah, I'm a bit of an idealist here, but I do think there's a big difference that you (and the author of that column you posted) are missing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist___ I think you misunderstood two separate points I was making.
"Encouraging more opportunity for Afghan women is not the same thing as saying "there must be this many women participating in your government."
Agreed. But saying the governmentn must not include more Northern Alliance types out of proportion to their numerical percentage of the population IS using a quota system. By the same logic you cannot then say that women mustn't be represented by a quota (Note I'm not advocating quotas, I'm merely pointing out a hypocritical thought system).
"Also, encouraging Afghanistan to develop a democratic government *is not* the same thing as creating quotas."
Agreed again. But the government being set up now is NOT being set up in a democratic way. There are no elections. Therefore, to exclude women based on some "cultural imperialism" pretext, while promoting democracy and other Western social/legal/political paradigms is hypocritical.
"Governments based upon representation influenced by the will of the people are a *good thing* and it gives the people of Afghanistan to decide for themselves where *they* want things to go."
Agreed again. But the "will of the people" cannot be legitimately determined while excluding a huge percentage of "the people" from defining what the "will of the people" is.
And IF democracy is set up in that country, and IF it survives, can we really call it democracy if women are not allowed to vote and/or run for office?
Too, it seems to me IF it was the "will of the people" to exclude women, you'd have to have a free democratic vote including all people (men and women) on the question of whether or not women should have full politcal rights. In other words you'd have to allow women to vote on whether or not they want the vote.
Ms. McElroy's piece did not include the Boss Tweed aspect of exluding women from the political process, she only examined it from the perspective of including women by arbitrarily placing women in leadership positions. The later would be a valid criticism in itself, were it not for the fact that we ARE engaged in arbitrarily placing men (based on ethnic/cultural numerical ratios) into leadership positions. This is a hypocritical chasm of logic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And IF democracy is set up in that country, and IF it survives, can we really call it democracy if women are not allowed to vote and/or run for office?
Indeed. I'm certainly not denying that women should be allowed to vote and run for office. I'm simply saying that it should be the *people* of Afghanistan who elect women (and men) into those positions of power.
Whatever our country is doing over there right now regarding Afghanistan's new government, we need to stay out of the business of saying that "this certain person needs to be here and that certain person needs to be there."
Btw, I'm assuming the reason Wendy only examined the issue from the perspective she did is because *that's* the perspective being pushed by gender feminism, and one thing gender feminism *doesn't* advocate is democracy. As has been mentioned on this site before, mainstream/gender feminism is based on the principles of Karl Marx, whom I really wouldn't consider a "will of the people" type of person. :)
Anyway, I encourage you to get Wendy's input on this. I'm really curious about her response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would certainly like Wendy's input I'll try to contact her.
It seems to me we're in a Catch-22 of logic. If promoting democracy is in itself "cultural imperialism", then how can we ask men and women both to determine whether women should be a part of the political leadership?
And if we are not promoting a democracy on the pretext of avoiding "cultural imperialism" ...... then sure, it is valid to accept one group (be it one gender, one race, one religion or one anything else) can simply claim the right to govern the remainder of the people.
It seems to me the decision must be made, democracy or not. If not, and if we accept the concept of "nation building" by the West, and if we accept the quota system for arbitarily placing people in leadership positions (which we ARE currently doing based on ethnic ratios) then it is totally hypocritical NOT to place women arbitrarily in leadership positions (also based on numerical demographic ratios). This is not "cultural imperialism" but rather "demographic imperialism"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This op ed piece was posted above but my comments pertaining to it seem to fit better here to contradict what Ms. McElroy has written.
p.s. I am also curious about how Wendy might respond to this criticism. What if you post your comments and that link to ifeminsts.com's BB and solicit Wendy's rebuttal?
Just a suggestion.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
