HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
> Rape and Violence Against Women Have Always Been Terrorism: > Are We So Keen To Go to War for All Women? > > A CALL ON FEMINISTS TO PROTEST THE WAR AGAINST AFGHANISTAN > Part I > > Nikki Craft > November 8, 2001 > > Stop the presses, the feminist revolution is finally happening! Some liberal > and moderate American feminists are actually > calling for war to end women's oppression. In light of the crimes committed > against Afghan women by the Taliban, they > say, decisive military action is the only recourse. Some are even chiding > their more radical sisters (those, say, who are > participating in peace marches and anti-militarism protests) for their lack > of enthusiasm. > > The newly militant liberal feminists say that under the circumstances, the > radical feminists have misplaced their > loyalty--their "pacifism" is incomprehensible and indefensible. It almost > looks as if the radicals and the moderates have > switched places: all of a sudden it's the mainstream feminists who are ready > to defend women's lives, rights, and dignity > with armed force. > > Some feminist leaders are offering very public > support for the U.S. government invasion of > Afghanistan. On C-Span, I recently saw Feminist > Majority president Ellie Smeal testify before > Congress about the oppression of women in > Afghanistan. She spoke eloquently of the need for > women to have a role in the reconstructed post-war > government. Mavis Leno, another Feminist Majority > representative, reiterates that the Taliban must be > "collapsed," that women must have a place at the > table to form the new government. Neither of these > women calls for an end to the U.S. bombing of > Afghanistan. Nor in any of their frequent TV > appearances have I heard either one even > acknowledge that their government is terrorizing > and dropping bombs on the heads of the same women > they care so much about.1 Nor have I heard either > one acknowledge the brutal rape and other > terrorism against women practiced by the warlords > in the Northern Alliance, the faction the US is > currently backing. > > Look who all else is talking about women's rights > now! Newt Gingrich, a self-proclaimed "hawk," says > that to win the military war, first the U.S. must win > the "moral arguments"; among other things, he says, > we must show that "we are against the side who > would oppress women." 2 On the Fox evening news, > Haron Amin, a spokesman for the Northern Alliance, > accused the Taliban of practicing "misogyny," > "gender apartheid," and the "feminization of > poverty." The next day, a Fox talking head threw his > arms up right in the middle of a broadcast and cried > out in frustration, "Don't you see what they are doing > to women?!" Later the same commentators, so > concerned about women being excluded in > Afghanistan, defended the overall invisibility of > women in most discussions about the war; that it's > only rich, white all male generals and militarists > being showcased by the U.S. media. With the > exception of token Condoleezza Rice, our > government's recent global round-table meetings > look as segregated at the Taliban's. > > Then there�s George W. Bush's expressed concern. I > never even knew his limited vocabulary included > the word "oppression" until he used it several times > last week when talking about the "evil-doers" > oppressing women. But I don't trust him to have any > real compassion for, or comprehension of, women's > oppression in Afghanistan--or anywhere. When Bush said women in this country > shouldn�t have to be afraid he was > speaking against racism, against harassment of Muslim women. But when he > added that women shouldn�t be afraid to be > under the veil in this country, it sent a shudder down my spine. Among the > millions of propaganda flyers the US is > scattering over Afghanistan there is one that shows the Taliban hitting a > woman with a stick. It reads, "Do you want your > [emphasis mine] women to live this way?" > > All this government and media hand-waving about 'women in Afghanistan' is a > day late and a dollar short after such a > conspicuous, and lengthy, lack of concern; the Taliban has been murdering, > imprisoning and dispossessing, > disenfranchising and dehumanizing Afghan women for almost a decade. It's > also manipulatively, transparently selective: > we're all upset about the oppression of women by the Taliban "bad guys," but > similar restrictions and abuses are fine when > it's the Saudi "good guys" who are doing it. In the propaganda carnival > surrounding Mr. Bush's war, women are being used > for a specific agenda, not defended in their own right and for their own > sake. > > Show me how bombing Afghanistan has thus far improved, or is likely to > improve, the material conditions of life for any > Afghan woman. Show me how Bush's closing of the country's borders helps > women--it keeps them trapped in Afghanistan > between American bombs and two armies of male thugs. Show me how the US, > with its fundamentalist and patriarchal > allies, is challenging "fundamentalism" in this campaign---particularly, how > are we challenging the oldest > fundamentalism of all? > > Systematic male privilege is the first fundamentalism. Has anyone wondered > where the women fire fighters and cops were > in all that "brotherhood" in the aftermath of 9.11? Why were, according to > the Red Cross, eighty percent of those killed in > the World Trade Center men? Didn't Cantor Fitzgerald, and the other > corporations in the upper echelons of those buildings, > hire very many women? It's not just the burqa and the Taliban that can make > women invisible. > > The ill-treatment of women occurs not only in "radical Islamist" countries, > but in most countries on Earth. Women are > statistically about 50 percent of the world population, but they work 2/3 of > all the world's working hours, receiving only > 1/10 of world income, and owning less than one percent of all world > property. When was the last time any US politician > made changing these conditions a top national priority? Are we sending in > the Marines to enforce land reform? To protect > women's right to unionize? To bust the traffickers who betray refugee > women's hopes of a better life, steal their passports, > reduce them to indentured sexual servants? > > Filipina and Bangladeshi migrant laborers work as "maids" under conditions > described as "modern-day slavery" in Kuwait, > Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Lebanon and worldwide, 3 but we never hear about them > on Fox news. The World Health Organization > estimates 200,000 to 400,000 women die worldwide every year from illegal, > incompetently-performed abortions. The women > in Nigeria who are stoned to death in the streets weren�t mentioned by the > press, or anyone else, during the recent visit > there by George W. Bush. Female infanticide, rigorously suppressed by Mao's > regime, has made a comeback in China. We > don't notice U.S. politicians getting all bent out of shape about it. > > Millions of women in Africa are infected with AIDS, not because they are > promiscuous or careless, but because their > husbands or boyfriends are promiscuous and refuse to use condoms, or because > they are raped by male acquaintances or > strangers who are infected. There are insurance companies in South Africa > which sell "rape insurance" because the > incidence of rape is so high. Rape in an AIDS-infected country is not just > about pain and humiliation--it can be a death > sentence. But we don't hear U.S. politicians railing about this, or > demanding that South African women have > representation in government. > > Many women come to the U.S., the "land of freedom," only to be used as > indentured, captive labor in sweatshops no > different from the ones they worked in back home. You can find captive women > in the U.S.--women afraid of a husband's > fist or of the sweatshop boss, women who have to ask permission to go to the > bathroom, who are threatened with violence > if they complain about health hazards in their workplace, who can't get > their passports back from the thugs who run the > operation. > > Even women born here might merit our attention. Our tens of thousands of > prostituted women and girls -- in Des Moines > IA, Los Angeles CA, Portland OR, Your Town USA--beaten and threatened by > their pimps, abused by their "customers," what > about them? Their deaths go uninvestigated, their lives undocumented--when > did the US government last get all > concerned about these oppressed and endangered women? In NYC, the cops > traditionally don't even start to investigate > until numerous prostitutes are killed in one month. We apply a different > standard to ourselves and our allies, and not just > the brute squad that calls itself the Northern Alliance. Women are not > allowed to drive cars in Saudi Arabia, but we don't > hear men lamenting about this discrimination on the news every night. > > In 1987 the Turkish government enacted its so-called "Anti-Terror Laws." > Amnesty International informs us that under > these laws, women prisoners and detainees in Turkey have been subjected to > genital electroshock, "virginity testing," rape > (including rape with objects), and other forms of torture and sexual assault > while in official custody. Now that Turkey is > "with us" against the Taliban--are we likely to hear criticism of these > atrocities against women any time soon? Don't hold > your breath. > > Bearing all this in mind, can anyone really believe the U.S. is invading and > bombing yet another country, threatening > millions of refugees with starvation and who knowns what else, 4 just > because Afghan women are being subjected to > patriarchal persecution and violence? > > When our boys drop airline meals5 into mine fields, or intentionally target > Red Cross hospitals, is it all in the service of > our grand humanitarian mission to liberate the women of Afghanistan? To free > the women of Afghanistan from those > stifling garments so frighteningly similar to body bags? Of course it isn't. > > Our national leaders, the ones aching to be the policemen of the world and > most recently the great protectors of > womankind, won�t be the ones to liberate the women of Afghanistan. They > aren't the "good guys." In war (and peace) these > gentlemen will rape and plunder women as their war booty, strip them in > "gentlemen�s clubs," and buy and sell them in > prostitution. A goodly number of them beat their girlfriends and wives. They > write sexist, misogynist messages on the > heads of their bombs. Eight percent of female Persian Gulf War veterans in > one survey reported being sexually abused > during Desert Shield and Desert Storm. That's how much U.S. soldier-boys > care about women. They beat, rape and sexually > harass even their wives, their lovers, and their sisters in arms; consider > what Afghan women have to look forward to, > under U.S. occupation. Ask the women and girls of Okinawa, if you can't > figure it out for yourself. > > Let's get real here. Women don't matter now any more than they did when the > Northern Alliance was raping them. The > U.S. media paid no attention to the abuse of women then. Along came the > Taliban, our "freedom fighters" against the > Godless Commies, and what they did to women still didn't matter much--except > in the frantic email petitions feminists were > spamming each other with on the Internet. Now the U.S. is buying the rapists > guns, dropping them ammo, feeding them, > training them to be even more effective killers and helping them to regain > control of 'their country'--does anyone > imagine this won't include regaining control of 'their women'? > > The human rights of the women in Afghanistan don't matter any more now than > they did when CNN showed, for the first > time in the beginning of September, the extraordinary documentary "Beneath > the Veil." It appeared briefly and sank > without a trace; only outraged feminists reviewed it, made videotape copies, > and mentioned it in their petitions and letters > to editors. It's one of the most brave and important documentaries I've ever > seen in my life, but it made the very tiniest > splash on the slick surface of U.S. media culture. > > It wasn't until we needed some wartime propaganda that 'Beneath the Veil' > suddenly started being aired multiple times per > day on CNN, over several weekends. All of a sudden, in October, it > re-emerged and it became terribly important that > everyone in America see this essential documentary--if not on CNN, then > excerpted on all their affiliates many times over. > One article referred to it as "heavy rotation". > > Though they may be temporarily first in the soundbites, women are the very > last item on the agenda. If the U.S. could still > 'make the Taliban obey' like a kept woman or an obedient wife, we would > still be funding the Taliban. If the > U.S. could "own" the Taliban, their treatment of women would have remained > irrelevant, as it has been for the > last several years; as it has been for every other dictator, king, shah, > sheik, geek, tyrant or tinhorn terrorist > we�ve ever backed. > > But the Taliban is biting the hand that fed it for so long, and now its > misdeeds are suddenly all > hand-wringingly shocking and dreadful, where before they were mere boyish > pranks or temporary rough > spots in the transition away from Godless Communist rule. In fact, Afghani > women will be fortunate if they > get any say in the new government at all. By the time the war is over and > the Great Powers once again sit > down to impose a government on the defeated party, a focus on women's rights > will no longer be strategically > advantageous to the U.S. > > No nation on earth has ever gone to war for women's rights. We are not > likely to be the first. > > To be continued... > > This article could not have been written without the guidance and editing > assistance of De Clarke and Vicki Behrens. > Special appreciation also to Evelyn Craft, Linnea Smith, Sarah Haggard, > Margaret Gannon, Diane Rosenfel, Tammy Gordon, > Joyce Wu, Amy Winters, Bijan Parsia and Elizabeth Matz. > > Please distribute this article freely to appropriate lists and individuals > including proper credits and the url for this page. > Thank you. > > SIGN OUR ACLU ANTI-WAR RAGE PAGE > > Please visit our sponsor for this > page. > > ACLU ANTI-WAR INDEX > > Please Read: Our "Rage Page Against The War In Afghanistan"! > Please Sign: Our "Rage Page Against The War In Afghanistan"! > > SUBSCRIBE > > Help support this work by donating through Pay Pal! > In cooperation with Monkey Fist Collective. > > If you are interested in being a sponsor of Part II of this article (soon to > be released) please email Nikki Craft. > > Footnotes > > back 1. Tim Wise, an activist and anti-racism educator, points out the > contradiction. He writes: "Not only > does she [Smeal] appear to support the overthrow of the Taliban by the same > U.S. government that funded it > and cared not a whit for the women there until six weeks ago, but she also > seems to trust that patriarchy > can be pounded into rubble by exploding phallic symbols, dropped and fired > by guys whose view of > feminism is probably not much better than Mullah Omar�s. Talk about irony." > Tim Wise, "Who's Being > Naive? War-Time Realism Through the Looking Glass." October 28, 2001. > > back 2 "U.S. Anti-Terrorism Efforts." American Enterprise Institute > Conference. October 29, 2001. C-Span. > > back 3. Kim Ghattas, "Much Needed, Much Abused." > > back 4. Since the press coverage is strictly controlled and censored. > > back 5. Western junk food in yellow packages the same size and shape as > U.S.-made cluster bombs. > > See Also > Feminists Agonize Over War in Afghanistan > > ______________________________ ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9WB2D Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
