November 15, 2007

Seen on BBC International News this morning:
So called 'honor killings' are rising alarmingly in Iraq. The most common reason seems to be 'improper dress' as the bodies are often found covered by an abaya or some other form of traditional dress.

The police are not acting-- reportedly because they're afraid to intervene.
I question this evaluation, though. In a culture where killing of women is perceived as accepted practice, I wonder how much incentive the police have even if they are not intimidated.

Interestingly, when the anchor interviewed the reporter in Iraq, she blamed the American occupation and predicted that such killings might decrease if the US forces would leave--thus lowering the tensions in Iraq.
The Constitution that was up for adoption in Iraq [I don't know if it passed or not] was protested by The National Organization for Women because, although it asserts equal rights for women in one section, it contradicts itself and leaves room for denying those same rights, as well.
The US, hungry for a PR win, pressured Iraq to accept this constitution although women's rights were bargained away.


Mary Ellen said...

Although I think our military should leave Iraq immediately, I'm not sure what the Americans being there have to do with the honor killings.

Of course, Bush and his Republican thugs will insist that the Iraqi's are better off without Saddam Hussein, and as bad as the guy was, he kept the theocracy at check. Women seem to have lost most of their rights now that Bush has "given them their freedom". Heckuva job, eh? Laura Bush should be proud.

two crows said...

hi, ME--
I agree -- I don't see what our being there has to do with the honor killings. it may have been just another case of Bush-bashing or America-bashing on the reporter's part. we _are_ after all, a convenient target under the circumstances.

and, again, tho I hate to say it, the fact remains -- the majority of people probably _were_ better off under Hussein than they are now. women almost certainly were.

LET'S TALK said...

I will agree with you both. I have a feeling, that even though Sadamm was an evil man and all the people caught the end of his anger.

Women were probably better off to some degree.

I just cannot seem to get over, anything Bush is involved with turns to death, debt and just disaster.

Mary Ellen said...

Two Crows- When I heard daddy Bush defending his son last week and he said something about those who criticize his son forget about the evil Sadaam Hussein and how much better off the Iraqi's are now. I wanted to choke. They just don't get it. Iraq is worse off with George Bush and America is worse off with George Bush and the world is worse off with George Bush. Clueless, the Bush family is just clueless.

pekka said...

Good morning!

Why is it that the more "religious" country is the more repressive it is toward women? Might it be that the most religious hierarchies are extremely top-heavy with males (the ruling class) and some of them don't even consider women as persons? It's definitely not a well kept secret that the Middle East is not in the vanguard of the womens' liberation movement but before we get too exited about "our" achievements in this field, our record is still far from perfect...or even good. Just a generation ago, our attitudes were awfully close to those displayed in the ME, minus wide spread honor killings. Gender issues should not be issues any more.

proudprogressive said...

from what i gather, pre shock and awe Iraq - women were totally without a doubt better off. NO QUESTION about it. In the chaos , extremists sects have gone a no brainer. And it keeps me up at night. Honor Killings what could possibly be more barbaric ? very few things

two crows said...

yeah, LT--
'death, debt and disaster' about sums it up.

hi, ME--
yeah, Daddy is rationalizing sonny's shortcomings yet again. only this time he can't clean up his messes for him -- so he blames us for seeing them.

the fact remains, the US has NEVER invaded another country in order to help its citizens. if our country doesn't stand to benefit, we'll allow all manner of atrocities to happen to other people.

hi, Pekka--
I have a theory about that:
I think the men in fundamentalist regimes can't handle their own sexuality-- they perceive it as evil. so, they project the 'evil' onto women, repress them and blame them for the repression.
it's all a form of a mass paranoia -- and it's been going on for thousands of years.

hi, proudprogressive--
yeah, pure barbarism. just like extremism in any form from the KKK to Nazism to the current middle eastern practices.

pekka said...

I agree with you, two crows, but I would like to add that there is also a devils bargain of some sorts involved here. To get half the population to follow the hair-brained ideas of theirs, the promise for the men to be above the women by some extremist religious leaders is very attractive and easily saleable to masses of poorly educated and super ignorant male populations. "No matter how bad my life is, it's thousand times better than any of the women folk".

two crows said...

hi, Pekka--
true. but it's not 'theirs' alone.
it has been going on for at least 5000 years and not only men have followed it.

historically, women have been the majority throughout history [generally, 53% of each generation as opposed to 47% male except in cultures that have actually killed female offspring at birth (Greeks, Romans and others in ancient times -- and today, girl fetuses are aborted more often than males in India, etc.)]
yet, historically, women have also bought into the brainwashing that men are smarter, less demanding, more cultured, more deserving, that women are evil, etc, etc. even down to the absurd belief that men are better drivers-- although statistics have consistently shown otherwise.

what I don't understand is: why women have colluded in the belief system-- but history shows that we have.

go figure.

pekka said...

Two crows, I would like to have the last word but damn it, you wrapped it up pretty good! It's just a mere minutes ago when I was watching an excellent reporting from Kyrgyzstan in BBC. There is apparently a strong radical women's movement to achieve caliphate with all the trappings, including the sharia-laws. To an ignoramus such as myself, it sounds like the gals are feverishly sawing off the proverbial branch they are sitting on. Go figure indeed.

an average patriot said...

Hi two crows!
They don't want Democracy Bush does. It will not work there petiod. They want their Muslim Laws and will clandestinely forcefully anforce them and we will not stop it.
Despite what they say to keep us there it will get a lot worse before it embroills the entire middle east then this will really get going. They have been finding mass graves too what a surprise. Geesh what do they expect!

two crows said...

I hadn't heard that was happening in Kyrgyzstan.
it puts me in mind of what happened here in the '70's when the ERA was up for ratification when Phyllis Schafly worked so hard [and so successfully] to see that it never happened.
what's so threatening about being treated as an equal?

hi AAP--
I'd heard about the mass graves. and people simply disappearing [into the mass graves, one would suspect].
our troops can't stop an entire nation from marching into the abyss. but, they CAN have nightmares when they get home because they can't stop it.
we need to GET THEM HOME!

TomCat said...

TC, the Constitution did pass, and it contained equal rights for women, as Bush loudly proclaimed. What he failed to mention is that those equal rights are subject to sharia, which takes precedence.