Last week was "women's week" in the presidential debate, and the candidates fought over the girls in their stump speeches and at every stop afterwards. But Monday's face-off moves on to foreign policy, so the women in the binders and the equal pay issue will likely be tossed in the paper shredder along with last week's talking points. Foreign policy is "men's territory," meaning the talk will turn to terrorists, who-knew-what-when, and the ever-popular nukes 'n sabers. But should it?
Women ought to be front and center in any foreign policy debate. The plight of women in Afghanistan was one of the main justifications "W" gave for going to war in the first place. And after we demolished Iraq, much was made of the fact that women have equal rights with men in the new constitution (a perk U.S. women have yet to achieve). But the women in Afghanistan have gone backward in the last few years, and women all over the Middle East are suffering under Islamic fundamentalism. Even our nominal "ally," Pakistan, can't seem to locate the men who attempted to murder 15-year-old Malala Yousufzai for daring to say girls should be educated.
No society is safe as long as its women are not safe. No society can thrive, and no democracy can take hold when roughly 50 percent of its population is imprisoned under burqas and behind closed doors. Yet we tolerate and enable national leaders like President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, who signed a law that legalized marital rape, forbade women to leave the house without permission and condoned the withholding of food from wives who refuse sex.
Here are a few more eye-opening facts:
Clinton has without doubt been a strong advocate for the women in Afghanistan, but it's not up to the Secretary of State, whoever she might be. We were all reminded in last week's debate where the buck stops. The guy at the top has to take leadership. Are either of the candidates ready to do that on the female issues in foreign policy?
Americans (including this one) are sick about the pointless war in Iraq that cost $4 trillion and 162,00 lives , and sick of the war in Afghanistan. We can't stay forever, and we can't completely dislodge the Taliban. But we can put some conditions on the corrupt government that looks the other way or pleads impotence against the Taliban abuse and murder of women and girls. The $16 billion in economic aid pledged by the U.S. and other allies can't come with no strings attached on the issues of women's safety, girls' education and money for women to thrive economically through the small business enterprises that could thrive with increased security, freedom to travel and the right engage in everyday commerce.
But will any of this matter to the boys on the stage on Monday, the moderator included? Will the word "woman" cross their lips at all except for "men and women in uniform?"
Don't bet on it. Women are so last week.
Follow Martha Burk on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MarthaBurk
Adam Pourahmadi: Ahead of Debate, Nuclear Diplomacy With Iran Can Only Help Obama
Rep. Dennis Kucinich: Regarding Tonight's Debate
Richard (RJ) Eskow: Welcome to the RomneyZone: Foreign Policy's Economic Home Front
Name ONE right that American men have that American women do not.
One?
And the "right" to sign up for selective service or else lose federal aid eligibility does not count...
Millions men and boys get slaughtered in country after country. Millions of men and boys starve in country after country. Millions of men and boys don't go to school in country after country and the western world yawns.
The western media paints a picture of muslim women being trapped in burkas. If you actually talked to any muslim women the majority of them are horrified that western women strut about like animals in heat.
We have the highest crime rate, divorce rate, suicide rate, ect. We are the dregs, the very bottom of the moral barrel. We have no right to dictate to anyone about morality.
I kid, but while we, as women, have gained many rights we never had, we're in danger of losing our reproductive rights. those are definitely in danger. and while the details are in debate, I believe that we still suffer from income inequality.
but losing rights and gaining rights are two different things, true. completely different issues.
1. As president what will you do to ensure the safety of women and their families in war-torn countries?
2. What do you plan on doing to ensure that the United States ratifies and conforms to CEDAW, CRC, and CRPD to ensure that the rights women, children, and people with disabilities are upheld both here in the US and around the world?
If only modern feminists weren't so busy standing outside of golf courses...maybe those girls could be helped...
Three of the last four Secretaries of State have been women, and among the most militaristic individuals to hold that position. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/militarization-of-the-mot_b_1512297.html
Burk also says: "The plight of women in Afghanistan was one of the main justifications "W" gave for going to war in the first place." There is a great deal of commentary about Afghanistan being the first "feminist war" and certainly Hillary Rodham Clinton's leadership in advocacy for the futile, deadly escalation in that war ("the surge") seems consistent with that view.
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/ben-goddard/63135-bob-and-hillarys-escalation
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/12/05/why-feminists-love-the-surge.html?cid=hp:originalslist1
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dan-ehrlich/afghanistan-feminist-war-the-first-fem_b_1349217.html
Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State had been given great credit for advocating and orchestrating intense use of military force to produce violent regime change in Libya, and installing a "rebel-led" government there, UNTIL we saw unmistakable evidence that that nation has fallen into anarchy and become a magnet and haven for terrorists targeting Americans. Mrs. Clinton and her department have a direct responsibility for "ensuring the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries ..."http://www.state.gov/secretary/115194.htm”
The AARP is a much smaller chunk of the electorate, but they vote. Their voice is heard, because politicians that ignore them get punished for their hubris. They vote and it makes all the difference in their political power.
Women need to vote and they need to punish those politicians that ignore, belittle or forget them. Because politicians are able to get away with turning their backs on the needs and issues that women find important, they will continue doing that. When politicians begin to lose elections because of their opposition to women's issues, then you will have their attention.
The 19th Amendment gave you all the weapons you need to make your power felt, use it.
Have a great day!
Honestly, if they can't be bothered why should I be?