Recently, a conservative blogger was speaking about the horrible violence against women in some places - he was speaking specifically of Islamic violence against women, but it goes much further than just that - and of the practice of "honor killings," the killing of women (sometimes men, but not as often) for "violating" traditional conservative ethical codes. For instance, for "daring" speak out about a rape or for trying to marry out of one's social caste or for intercourse outside of marriage. This blogger said...
I find it incredibly telling how silent those who renounce the “Republican war on women” are when it comes to the atrocities committed against women all over the world who are subjected to Islamic justice. The fact is that women in Muslim countries are barely one step above chattel, but not a word from people who claim to be championing women’s rights.
I am posting my response here because he may or may not post it on his blog...
Amnesty International has come out against honor killings and violence against women, wherever it happens.
So has Human Rights Watch.
So have Unitarian Peacemakers
So has Jim Wallis and his band of progressives at Sojourners.
So have the Mennonites at Third Way Cafe.
So have the Christian Peacemaker Teams
So has OxFam
I certainly agree with you and all these more progressive groups that more needs to be heard about and done to stop honor killings. But I don't think you can blame the progressives who work hardest at peacemaking/justice issues. They remain on the forefront of this fight.
We need to see more editorials like this one from the New York Times and more stories on the topic, like these at CNN.
May it be so.
41 comments:
How hard can they be working if no change has taken place?
But more to the point, the issue is that the "WOW" is total liberal BS and if they were truly concerned about women's rights, they'd be MORE vocal abut islamic barbarism, instead of pretending that right-wingers don't care about women or are trying to make their lives harder.
Marshall, what is it you think that conservative organizations/individuals are doing to stop violence against women? What is it that you personally are doing?
Amnesty International and HRW have a history of speaking up for oppressed people and working to affect peaceful change by increasing knowledge of the problem for decades now. Where are the conservative groups doing something about violence against women?
This is what I was objecting to: The suggestion that so called liberals were doing nothing when, in fact, so-called liberal groups are practically the ONLY ones doing anything to raise awareness of the problems of violence against women.
People like Marshall dont know what HRW, Amnesty Intl, ect.. are about. He just thinks these groups stand in the way of getting the super secret info out of prisoners.
"The suggestion that so called liberals were doing nothing when, in fact, so-called liberal groups are practically the ONLY ones doing anything to raise awareness of the problems of violence against women."
About sums it up.
I hope conservatives keep thinking WOW is BS. Obamas lead can only get bigger.
Conservatives have a difficult time standing up for any minority, that includes women.
Here are a few:
Concerned Women for America.
The Salvation Army, which is in more countries than any group other than the Catholic Church. While not a political group, they take conservative views on many Biblical topics that have become political.
General conservative groups falsely labelled "Anti-Islamic in the headline.
Violence against women and honor killings don't appear to be a left/right issue. If you look, both sides are doing things about it. However, you don't really answer the guy's question, the way I understand. He said (with emphasis by me):
"I find it incredibly telling how silent those who renounce the “Republican war on women” are when it comes to the atrocities committed against women all over the world who are subjected to Islamic justice."
There are people all over the news railing against what they see as a war on women by Republicans. What I'm guessing the other fellow is saying is that the same folks who have somehow found an inalienable right to contraception and abortion, and find all sorts of opportunities to say so on national TV, themselves say nothing (or so little as to be indistinguishable from nothing) about women subjected to honor killings. He's not saying that no one on the Left is dealing with it. He's saying that those who have created the "war on women" talking point seem to care about birth control but not about murder.
And, as noted above, when conservatives do get vocal about honor killings, they are dismissed by the media as anti-Islamic. So it's no wonder that most folks, including yourself, don't know about it.
BTW, Doug, I guess to be fair, if you wrote this comment, "He's saying that those who have created the "war on women" talking point seem to care about birth control but not about murder."
As satire, I take it back. As a satirical comment exposing the very thing it supposedly condemns, it's OK.
But you forgot to bring the funny, so it fails by Poe's Law, I'm afraid. It simply looks too much like you meant it seriously (I know, how could anyone write that sentence *seriously*? Of course not, unless you're indeed just a robot who scans blogs to copy/paste talking points vs. talking points.)
So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you might be human, just not very good at relaying sarcasm in print.
"Marshall, what is it you think that conservative organizations/individuals are doing to stop violence against women? What is it that you personally are doing?"
Conservative orgs and individuals have done at least as much as anyone you've cited. I would ask just where have they stopped violence against women? Where have they actually been able to change a culture that had tolerated honor killings and genital mutilation? Are these things now outlawed in any of those countries?
But conservatives support concealed carry laws and encourage women to take their training courses so as to be able to defend themselves. I've personally taught women self-defense techniques and encourage them to master those techniques to the best of their ability. I, like most conservatives, seek any manner of binding acknowledgement of the sanctity of human life from conception which would protect millions of unborn, most of whom are likely female. Conservatives have been more willing and ready to oust dictators who maintain rape rooms. AND, unlike relativists, we encourage strongly (don't want to split an infinitive here) muslims to purge their holy books of inhuman teachings, particularly regarding the treatment of women. What more than talk has you and your lefty groups done?
Marshall, the point was that progressive types are NOT silent on these issues, indeed, they are the primary voices you hear speaking out against "honor killings."
That you all may support some small scale efforts here in the US to help individual women be more prepared to fight off an attack does nothing to suggest that you all are doing anything about stopping "honor killings."
And that you are willing to wage war (which appears to be your other "large scale" suggestion) on guilty nations suggests only that you have learned absolutely nothing from the Bush years about the futility of "war-as-solution."
There are dozens of nations/regions where "honor killings" happen, are you suggesting we wage war against each of these nations?
They were and are happening again in Afghanistan and we've already tried the war-as-solution there. It didn't take.
If you're going to support counter-productive measures, at least have the decency to learn from them when they are absolute failures.
And again, we can see who is the true believer in supersized bloated gov't (if it takes trillions of dollars tens of thousands of lives and a dozen years to invade and "conquer" two nations, how large a gov't are you willing to support to invade a dozen or more?)
The AI, HRW approach is the more rational approach of raising awareness and seeking to apply pressure to such nations. It's not a perfect solution, but there are no perfect solutions and they're doing something to make a difference. They (these so-called "liberal" groups) are the ones that are actually stepping up and doing something productive.
As to specifics, these groups are raising awareness, but they're also providing training, job opportunities, educational opportunities, skill training, medical assistance, legal assistance and changing minds about what is and isn't acceptable.
If you're unaware of the many positive changes being done by the groups I mention above and more like them, read up on them.
Or at the least, don't fight them and denigrate their efforts. If you do that, then not only are you conservative types NOT doing anything to help, you're actually getting in the way of stopping violence against women.
As the saying goes: If you aren't going to help, at the least get out of the way so those willing to help can do so.
Alan said...
Doug: "He's saying that those who have created the "war on women" talking point seem to care about birth control but not about murder."
Aaaaaaaaand it takes 4 comments, but already Doug, who up until now I had suspected was not actually human, has now failed the Turing test. New record?
Doug, from now on let Siri write your comments, she's more imaginative, creative, and more likely to pass as human.
"themselves say nothing (or so little as to be indistinguishable from nothing"
Actually Doug, I can't help but notice that, though you talk about others, no where in your comment do YOU specifically denounce honor killings, nor do you suggest abortion is wrong.
Doug, why do you support honor killings of innocent babies? Why have you been silent on the issue of honor killing abortions? What do you have to hide?!
=====
Dan: All of which was what I consider a legitimate response to Doug's points. Right on. However, Alan, I am removing the last little personal dig. Please make these sorts of points without the name-calling.
Doug, why do you support honor killings of innocent babies? Why have you been silent on the issue of honor killing abortions? What do you have to hide?!
When you can't respond to the question, turn the question on its head, even if it doesn't make sense to do so. Great job.
Dan, the question you were asked was about people already vocal about a supposed "war on women". They are already talking about defending women. So this has nothing to do with silence on some pet issue of mine. This has to do with priorities on their part, on a subject they are already talking about. There is a "war on women", but it's not being waged by the straw men they're building. Rather, there's an elephant in the room that they won't bring up, because it makes their political point look petty in comparison.
The original question was, why do people, who get national media attention and speak of a war on women with regards to contraception, not speak of the actual war on women going on in Islam.
You answered with a non sequitur. None of those groups you noted are out there renouncing Republicans over contraception, at least not on TV. Most of them are non-political groups, so the fact that you list them shows that you didn't get the point of the question.
I responded to just clarify what I believe the original questioner asked.
Alan snarked, asking why I have been silent on a particular issue, also missing the point of the original question.
You said "right on".
You guys still don't get it. If one goes on and on about a perceived slight of women, how can that person also ignore the killing of women. This is not "pick a subject and ask you why you're silent on it". They picked the subject themselves when they alleged a war on women. The question is one of sincerity; if you really care about women, as much as you say you do, why do you harp about contraception and not murder?
The common denominator in almost every thread here that I participate in is, you utterly misunderstand the question/issue. I thought a restatement of the original question would be helpful. All it apparently did was cause you to entrench yourselves in your misunderstanding. Do you even really want to understand the question?
This comment has been removed by the author.
This is easily the most amused I’ve been in weeks.
First, let me start by saying that I personally do not in any way support any of the following. Honor killings, FGM, sex slavery, refusal to allow women to vote or drive, forced marriage or any other option that might get thrown out. I strongly denounce all of them.
Second, having read the three posts and comments occasioned by those posts, allow me to state the obvious. There are persons and groups on both sides of the American political spectrum who are working to halt these types of abuses of women. For anyone to suggest otherwise is just silly.
Third, it seems that the point of the original post was NOT that the left is doing nothing about the abuses of women, but that certain factions have attempted to create some sort of moral equivalency between access to birth control or abortion or whether Anne Romney has ever “held a real job” and actual real abuses of women.
It seems like maybe the reasonable approach would be to dial back the “war on women” rhetoric, or at least address some much bigger issues that easy and inexpensive access to contraceptives/abortion. It does seem to me that there is a tendency of those on the left to be hesitant in condemning these types of things when they are performed in a “religious” context. Call it a desire to not be “Islamophobic” or some such foolishness.
Any it’s enjoyable to watch every one revert to type, the comment thread at Geoffrey’s is especially enlightening and uplifting.
Anyway, I hope you all have a great time with this.
This comment has been removed by the author.
OMG, that's the nicest thing Alan's ever said about me.
Of course it may be the only not negative thing he's ever said about me.
J/K ;)
Alan:
Again, your point is that if someone hasn't come out against something, you must be in favor of it.
No, that is wrong. I specifically said that is not my point, before restating my point, twice. There have been so many times on this blog where I copied and pasted my point from previous comments, and the third time I said the exact same thing you guys finally figured out what I was saying. Just read my comments 2 or 3 times to save us all this misunderstanding, please.
I said specifically, "This is not 'pick a subject and ask you why you're silent on it'." I also said that they picked the subject; the war on women. Supposedly, contraception is, to them, a huge deal regarding this war. They have been all over the media for months about it. Honor killings, I believe, are an actual huge deal regarding this war. Nothing from those same pundits on that.
If you don't think that honor killings represent a segment of the war on women, then I can see how that might appear as an out-of-the-blue position to ask about. But I, for one (and apparently Dan as well), believe it is a part of it. Do these commentators think it is? If not, I think they need a worldview adjustment. If they do think it's a part, why all the harping on about contraception and stay-at-home moms, when this other front in the war is so much more heinous?
I haven't written a blog post or blog comment about murder, so I must be in favor of it. That is BS Doug.
I heartily agree, which is why I didn't say that specifically or imply it.
The fact that I even have to point out that's BS, the fact that you don't even recognize that it is BS, is yet another measure of where you're really at and how your devotion to spitting out talking points has taken over any evidence of actual, you know... THINKING on your part.
The fact that you even have to point out that's BS is yet another measure of your lack of reading comprehension and how your devotion to spitting out vitriol and snark has taken over any evidence of actual, you know... THINKING on your part.
"But I, for one (and apparently Dan as well), believe it is a part of it."
uh. yeah. That's the problem. You think that because you automatically assume that if someone doesn't say they're against honor killings, they must be for them.
Because why would you assume otherwise? Assuming a liberal is a reasonable person, not a bloodthirsty maniac would totally wreck your worldview -- speaking of worldview adjustments.
"If they do think it's a part, why all the harping on about contraception and stay-at-home moms, when this other front in the war is so much more heinous?"
Do you know what a false dichotomy is?
Is it possible that one could be against the Republican Vagina Police because it is something one can vote on, and issue one can actually get out and pound the pavement about and do something about. At the same time, not living in a country with "honor killings", actual ACTION on that issue is probably difficult for most Americans.
Or are you so tied to your talking points, does the ability to be against both, while having different opportunities to be involved in one issue vs. the other not even enter into your talking point infested brain, because your devotion to your overlords has taken over any evidence of, you know ... THINKING on your part.
Because see, I already said I knew your response. And your response was to simply say the same stupid things over again. Again, nothing original.
"If you don't think that honor killings represent a segment of the war on women, then I can see how that might appear as an out-of-the-blue position to ask about. "
If? IF?!? Doug, EVERYONE BELIEVES THAT HONOR KILLINGS REPRESENT A SEGMENT OF THE WAR ON WOMEN.
Because I, for one, can and have already demonstrated human intelligence by not just spewing out talking points, I'll give another example: See, I can harp about homelessness in my community because I can and do feed the hungry right here. I don't just talk about it, I 1) go to the shelter, 2) cook food, 3) serve, 4) give money to buy more food.
Get it?
I am, however, probably less inclined to spend lots of time writing blog posts about the hungry in Yugoslavia, because I don't frickin' live in Yugoslavia. That doesn't mean I don't care about it, but I can DO more about hunger and homelessness here.
Imagine! I'm actually focused on things I can actually do something about! Since I wager all you do is gripe and spit out talking points on blogs, I can see how you might not get that.
How it is possible that such a very simple concept is so utterly beyond your ken can only be explained that you're too busy spitting out talking points. You need a worldview adjustment. Why all the harping about honor killings when I wager you haven't DONE a single damn thing that matters to actually help prevent them yourself??
Instead, it is a talking point you read somewhere.
And now, staying true to form, you're complaining about vitriol and snark, just as I predicted.
You're not even cleverly programmed.
But, if you're too fragile to get past the vitriol or snark on my part, Doug, read Craig's comment. We're saying the exact same thing.
"Any it’s enjoyable to watch every one revert to type"
BTW, I agree with this statement as well...
Dan, jumps when anyone says "Jump"
The conservatives offer talking points.
And I, once again, point out how stupid the game is, pointing out the ridiculous to the deaf and blind.
Craig, Geoffrey and I get it, so at least that's something.
Or as the kids these days might say, "don't hate the player, hate the game."
Unfortunately, you all exemplify something else the kids these days might say, "Haters gonna hate."
Alan:
Doug, EVERYONE BELIEVES THAT HONOR KILLINGS REPRESENT A SEGMENT OF THE WAR ON WOMEN.
The point is, as the original questioner that Dan quoted notes, is that if they do think that, why, when talking about the war on women, do they ignore that segment, but go on and on for months about contraception and stay-at-home moms? I suspect that if they did mention it, then other on the Left might label them, like the Detroit paper did, as Islamophobic. Politically, that's a bad thing for them, so they don't. Which is why I believe that this whole war on women talking point of theirs is indeed mostly political. What they choose to talk about and, just as notable, not talk about within the topic they brought up is telling.
And now, staying true to form, you're complaining about vitriol and snark, just as I predicted.
Heh. "I took a cheap shot at you, and you're complaining about cheap shots, just as I predicted." Yeah, well, congratulation, Nostradomus. But apparently mean spiritedness and insults here pass for arguments, as well as claiming I said one thing when I specifically said the opposite. And all this gets a cheer of "right on" from the host. And you take requests for civil discussion as weakness. I can only ask Dan, as I have before, is if this is the kind of blog he really wants to run. No skin off my nose, but this is a Christian blog. Right? The level of discourse here ought to be somewhat higher.
You have demonstrated quite clearly that, after multiple comments, you either don't know what I'm trying to say, or are deliberately misinterpreting it. Either way, that's why I stop interacting with you now and then. But go ahead and get in the last word and a few digs, because that is what you do best.
"Marshall, the point was that progressive types are NOT silent on these issues, indeed, they are the primary voices you hear speaking out against "honor killings."
That you all may support some small scale efforts here in the US to help individual women be more prepared to fight off an attack does nothing to suggest that you all are doing anything about stopping "honor killings."
Dan,
I responded to the question you asked me, which I also reprinted, having to do with what conservatives are doing to stop violence on women. But I also noted that we are vocalizing opposition to islamic atrocities every bit as much as what you subjectively believe are the primary voices against it. Doug listed a few example and I didn't feel the need to add to it, wrongly anticipating that you would have taken that as refutation enough of your position that only YOUR list was significant.
The real issue, however, IS the crap that is the accusation against conservatives about a war on women as the notion is a blatant falsehood meant to demonize those with a more fact based and compassionate perspective on the subject of abortion and contraception.
heh..
funny thing is.. Conservatives started the WOW. Liberals were just there to capitalize on it. Its called politics.
"blatant falsehood"
ahh.. yes.. this from the person that thinks calling women sluts is okay.
Next time conservatives try to invade women, they might want to speak softly and leave the big stick at home. Perhaps even invite some women to explain your side of things. Idk.. just an idea.
Doug, to address your concern: The concern you raises fails on several points. Alan has covered them (although he has done so in a very snarky and non-Dan-approved manner), but to re-hash:
The quote I offered was immediately followed by...
The left is bending over backwards... in which the implication was that this was a problem with the left in general.
IF it was an attack on the Left in general, it fails because of exactly the reasons I have offered. It is the Left that leads the way in opposition to violence against women and in speaking out against injustices such as "honor killings."
However, even if it was not an attack on the Left in general, but only those who have complained about the GOP "war on women," the complaint still fails for the reasons Alan has cited. Where you say...
I also said that they picked the subject; the war on women. Supposedly, contraception is, to them, a huge deal regarding this war. They have been all over the media for months about it. Honor killings, I believe, are an actual huge deal regarding this war. Nothing from those same pundits on that.
This would only be a legitimate complaint if one has to speak out against EVERY problem before they speak out against even one problem. By this reasoning, conservatives who complain about violence against pre-born children would be hypocrites if they don't complain about other violence against children.
You aren't saying that before a conservative speaks out against what they perceive to be abortion violence against children, that they need to speak out against all other types of violence (war time violence against children, rape of children in Africa, in Haiti, poverty violence against children, starvation violence against children, etc), are you? Because that is your implication.
Where am I mistaken?
Dan:
The quote I offered was immediately followed by...
"The left is bending over backwards..." in which the implication was that this was a problem with the left in general.
Well, I can see why you might think that, but considering that he just said "those who renounce the 'Republican war on women'", and that those who use that terminology are all on the Left, I think you're stretching things a bit to suggest that one phrase now takes the preceding paragraph and makes it apply to everyone on the planet with leftward leanings. Without seeing the rest of that sentence or paragraph, he may be just moving on to another subject, or truly taking about the Left in general.
Butr taking the paragraph you quoted on its own, it says everything it needs to say to make perfectly clear who he's referring to. He's talking specifically about "those who renounce the 'Republican war on women'". Don't try to read into that a different subject than the one he clearly states.
This would only be a legitimate complaint if one has to speak out against EVERY problem before they speak out against even one problem.
The people your questioner talks about have already brought up the problem; the war on women. That is the subject. You and I and Alan clearly agree that the murder of women is a significant portion of this. I would venture to say that killing a woman is the worst thing you can do to her. I would think you guys would agree. If that is the case, then one would think/hope/pray that, in discussing this war on women, murder might get touched on at some point. But those who came up with this campaign slogan "war on women" have started out by dealing with contraception, and they've harped on almost nothing else relating to the war on women. For months. On national media.
Not to mention that, years before they coined the phrase "war on women", they still shied away from pointing a finger at Islam. The Detroit paper headline is the likely cause; telling the truth about Islamic honor killings gets you labeled anti-Islamic by the media. The phrase "Islamic war on women" will never come from their lips, because that would be politically incorrect.
This speak to priorities, not to mention that it suggests that, since the only topics of discussion regarding the war on women have been political ones, this is really just a smoke screen for election year politicing.
To merely say, "It fails" doesn't even begin to acknowledge either of these. Whether you find the question legitimate is one thnig, but to cite groups that aren't harping on the "Republican war on women" is just a non sequitur.
This phraseology, "war on women", is of their own making. If those on the Left who wish to use that phrase really mean it, if they really care about women in general, then restricting it to just what they see as Republican evils while shying away from true evils from Islam shows it to be just a political thing. The original question made this direct, specific comparison; they point fingers at Repubicans, endlessly, loudly, for the entire world to see, while Islam is killing women and they have no time at all for that.
Doug, I think you're truly missing the point.
I repeat: By this reasoning, conservatives who complain about violence against pre-born children would be hypocrites if they don't complain about other violence against children.
Where am I mistaken?
I repeat: By this reasoning, conservatives who complain about violence against pre-born children would be hypocrites if they don't complain about other violence against children.
OK, let's take this. I said that Islam is killing women, and that's the worst you can do to them. Instead, pundits and politicos go on about contraception, lumping that into the "war on women". They give all the press to birth control pills, and nothing about murder. Murder, I would add, that is socially acceptable in some Islamic cultures.
By "violence against pre-born children", I take it you're referring to abortion. Abortion has become, in my estimation, a socially acceptable form of murder in our Western culture. Violence against already-born children, is not socially acceptable in our culture, is punishable by law, and battered women and children can find refuge at their nearest Salvation Army.
The battered children have people that speak for them, on both sides of the aisle. The millions killed by abortion are not quite that lucky. Those who speak for them must be willing to get branded "misogynists" and get scorned by the media. The need to speak for them is greater, not the least because they are being killed.
The poor law college students who can't afford birth control pills have a President, most of Congress, the national media, and NOW to speak for them, not to mention bloggers who like the way "Repubican war on women" sounds. Those killed by Sharia law are not quite that lucky. Those who speak for them must be willing to get branded "anti-Islamic" and get scorned by the media if they get too loud about it.
The Right is putting its biggest efforts where the need for justice is greatest. The Left is putting its biggest efforts where the need for votes is greatest. As I said, and as the original questioner implied, this is, in part, an issue of priorities. Anti-abortion activists have their priorities correct, in my estimation. "War on women" pundits have them entirely upside down.
Conservative do complain about other violence against children, but law enforcement and charitable organizations are already dealing with this problem. There is progress ongoing. Abortion, in spite of some recent declines, still kills a million a year. Priorities. That's the main thing here.
Again, I think you're just missing the point.
Interesting that Doug doesn't complain about Craig missing the point, when Craig and I are making the same point.
Just more proof that Doug is just a tool of politics and is only interested in painting "liberals" as bloodthirsty, but not his perceived political allies.
I find this statement curious:
"It is the Left that leads the way in opposition to violence against women and in speaking out against injustices such as "honor killings."
How have you measured this to justify making this statement? How have you gone about comparing, not only who concentrates their efforts on this issue, but which ones have actually produced measurable and lasting results? I'm sure I've asked for some examples. Are you preparing something to present some?
And you keep insisting that Doug is missing the point, but he seems to be addressing the point quite well from a variety of angles. Perhaps the point you thought you made isn't as clear as you'd like it to be. If it is being missed, a restatement might be in order.
At this point I'm not sure what the point of THIS post is. It appears to be a knee jerk reaction saying something like "We on the left have bigger penises than those on the right, because we care more about XYZ."
Which brings us back to silliness.
Again it is quite obvious to anyone that actual violence against women is NOT a partisan issue, so why would one continue to insist that it is. It also seems obvious that to draw an equivalence between things which actually cause actual harm to women and those who's biggest (first world) problem is their sex drive outpaces their contraception/abortion budget is ludicrous.
This assertion that the left is the ONLY ones doing things is unsupported and yet continues to get thrown out in some sort of strange size measuring contest.
Again, it's amusing to watch, but really what's the point.
My point was NOT that the Left is the only ones doing something about violence. My point is it is ridiculous to suggest that they're not doing anything when the major groups that watch out for violence against women on a global level are the more progressive ones.
My secondary point would be that pointing to a group that says "here is a great problem - X - for women" and saying, "These people aren't saying anything about problem Y for women, therefore, you can't take them seriously," is a goofy argument.
Hope that's clearer.
Marshall...
How have you measured this to justify making this statement?
No, it's just a ball park guess of mine based on the reality that I know of no rightwing watch dog groups that watch out for oppressive activity for women. They may exist, I just don't know of them. Can you think of any?
I know that there are some anti-Muslim groups out there that "embrace" pointing out oppression towards women to further their anti-Muslim agenda (they may even "embrace" pointing out oppression towards "the gays" for their agenda), but I don't know of any groups doing so just for the sake of justice.
Hopefully they exist somewhere.
Craig, please accept a long-distance hug/high-five for this: "At this point I'm not sure what the point of THIS post is. It appears to be a knee jerk reaction saying something like "We on the left have bigger penises than those on the right, because we care more about XYZ."
Which brings us back to silliness."
And may I add a LOL to "pre-born" as a word in the English language.
Since one is "born" when one has finally and fully left the body of its biological mother, the term "pre-born" is an appropriate one for those yet allowed to reach this point. It reflects the equality of those before and after that point that acknowledges the "personhood" of all pre-born in a way that other terms, such as "fetus" does not. Indeed, if there is anything laughable about a term, it would be the need for a word like "personhood" to argue for the lives of those pre-born people.
Dan,
A "ballpark guess"? Hardly a basis upon which to make the statement. How much research have you put in to discover which conservative groups are doing as much or more than those you've listed. And again, "speaking out" is worthless if it does nothing to persuade those guilty of the oppressing women, so I am not impressed by anyone who is merely "speaking out".
And getting back to "silliness" missed by the very silly GKS, the term "War on Women" used by the silly leftists to demonize Republicans is at the heart of this discussion. Support for abortion on demand is a far greater "WoW" than efforts to limit or eliminate access to abortion. Abortion has been shown to be detrimental to the physical and mental health of women who have them. Abortion destroys the lives of millions of unborn females. The Pill has been linked to health issues suffered by women who use it. But somehow, those who wish to do away with these practices are considered being against women? Talk about silliness!
It would be similar to the southern states wishing to re-institute slavery and any opposition to that being viewed as a "war on the south". Opposing the behavior of enslaving another is not, in and of itself, a "war" on those who wish to institute the policy.
There is simply nothing from the Republican side that in any way justifies the belief that they are perpetuating any form of war on women.
Marshall, I went down a list of things that progressive groups do to free women from oppression and it's all a helluva lot more than teaching a dozen ladies karate.
THIS is my point (one of them): the denigration of the many strong efforts by so many progressives to ease suffering globally by folk who do little or nothing is just embarrassing to your team, Marshall.
Never have so few done so much to help so many only to be belittled and demonized by those who do so little for so few.
"My point was NOT that the Left is the only ones doing something about violence."
So when you said , "when, in fact, so-called liberal groups are practically the ONLY ones doing anything to raise awareness of the problems of violence against women." and "indeed, they are the primary voices you hear speaking out against "honor killings." and "It is the Left that leads the way in opposition to violence against women and in speaking out against injustices such as "honor killings.". Your point was (presumably) that the left is doing so much more than the right on theses issues that in essence the right does nothing in comparison.
"My point is it is ridiculous to suggest that they're not doing anything..."
If this is your point, that's great. The problem is NO ONE is suggesting that the left is not doing anything. Maybe it would be more effective if your points countered actual arguments your opponents were putting forth.
"...when the major groups that watch out for violence against women on a global level are the more progressive ones..."
This is another one of the statements you make that you hope folks will accept at face value. I know I'd like some support for this. There are a number of churches, mission organizations and NGO's that are working on these issues who would certainly not be classified as progressive. Again, some support for your claim would be helpful.
Oh, and before you jump on me for asking, remember I'm the one who is suggesting that these issues are beyond partisan and that folks from all political persuasions are active in these efforts.
Maybe you should re read the post that sparked all this and see if maybe you haven't missed his point.
Craig...
So when you said , "when, in fact, so-called liberal groups are practically the ONLY ones doing anything to raise awareness of the problems of violence against women." and "indeed, they are the primary voices you hear speaking out against "honor killings." and "It is the Left that leads the way in opposition to violence against women and in speaking out against injustices such as "honor killings.". Your point was (presumably) that the left is doing so much more than the right on theses issues that in essence the right does nothing in comparison.
You see my words, you quoted them.
Understand this: When I say that liberal groups are "practically the only ones" doing something, I'm not saying they are the only ones. When I say that they are the "primary voices," I don't mean that they are the only voices. When I say the left "leads the way" I don't mean that they are the only ones doing anything, but that they do tend to lead the way.
You tell me, Craig: Where are the conservative Amnesty Internationals? The rightwing Human Rights Watch? Are they on a similar scale, or much smaller?
Yes, yes, there are conservative missionary groups out there that do some things to help oppressed women, just as there are progressive missionary groups. I'm just saying the big leadership in this area is mostly done by progressive groups, as far as I know. They aren't the only ones, but as far as I can see, they are the ones who are most visible and on a larger scale.
I would be careful giving an ideological label to Amnesty International. From their mission statement: "Our vision is of a world in which every person – regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity – enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and other internationally recognized human rights standards. The UDHR states that the "the recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights" of all people is "the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." They mobilized for dissidents behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War just as hard and as loud as for victims of right-wing dictatorships. Indeed, I refused to join AI back in my college days because they refused to push for the release of Nelson Mandela, on the flimsy notion that, by refusing to renounce violence as a means toward achieving the declared end of ending apartheid in South Africa, he was not "a prisoner of conscience" therefore not deserving of AI's assistance.
Like many other NGO's who work for human rights, calling them "liberal" or "progressive" or even "conservative" not only does violence to the language but obscures the important, non-ideological, work all such organizations perform.
Which, I would add, is kind of Craig's point.
I agree, Geoffrey, that groups like AI are not strictly speaking liberal or progressive. BUT, many conservatives often like to paint them as such and do so with a sneer.
Am I mistaken?
Because someone says something, without reason or evidence, is no reason to say the opposite. Just because people smear, say, the ACLU as "liberal" doesn't mean it is. Same with AI, MSF (Medicin Sans Frontiers), or many other groups I could mention. They are certainly not partisan, nor ideological even in the commonsense understanding of the term. They are groups that work toward certain, stated goals that, by and large, cross typical ideological barriers.
Some folks don't like them, either for some particular position they may advocate, or because someone else they like doesn't like them. So, they get smeared. It's easy enough to look up AI or MSF or some other group and discover who they are, what they do, and why they do it. Rely on facts, discard the nonsense. If people moan about it, neither you nor I are responsible for them being too simple or lazy to check things out for themselves.
Dan,
Perhaps you should either put away your penis, or provide some support for your claims that "liberal" groups are far and away doing more than non-liberal groups. GKS makes a good point by stating that the groups you mention are nnot political (certainly in the American oplitical context of these posts/comments), and that people from all sides of the political spectrum support either these groups as a whole or at least certain initiatives of these groups.
Your continued insistence that the left is far and away the leader on these issues is just evidence that you have missed my point entirely.
I am quite sure that I could (as Doug has done) find a significant number of groups that you would consider conservative that are involved in these issues. The problem is then I would have missed my own point and joined you in your penis measuring contest.
Please, re read carefully, the post that started all of this so you understand the actual point being made.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"Marshall, I went down a list of things that progressive groups do to free women from oppression and it's all a helluva lot more than teaching a dozen ladies karate."
I clicked on most of your links and have not seen any indication that they have done a damned thing that has resulted in honor killings and similar atrocities being forsaken by anybody. I've seen "recommendations" which are completely useless until some population adopts them as a new way of life. Where has that happened? Perhaps your links are not as clear in presenting that info as they are presenting "recommendations".
Meanwhile, the women I've helped train, as well as women who have taken up other forms of self-defense measures, such as firearms training through the NRA and others who offer such programs, have led to thousands, if not millions, of women who are now able to protect themselves against threats to their persons. It's what's known as "tangible results" that go much farther in the life saving department than any set of "recommendations" or "speaking out".
Perhaps one of these links of yours indicates conversions away from the religion that perpetuates these horrors against women. THAT would be a tangible result as someone who rejects islam for Christianity would no longer oppress the women in their lives. Maybe you have something along these lines, perhaps.
You think military action has done nothing, but for every Taliban member, or other extremist islamic radical killed in battle, there is one less asshole oppressing his wife and/or daughter and/or sister. More women saved.
So I answered your question. Now YOU answer it. What is it that you personally are doing to stop violence against women?
Post a Comment