Monday, August 22, 2005

and again, women's rights in iraq

According to Reuel Marc Gerecht, former Middle Eastern specialist with the CIA, on Meet the Press yesterday, the 21st, women's rights don't really matter anyway:
It certainly seems clear that in protecting the political rights, there's no discussion of women not having the right to vote. I think it's important to remember that in the year 1900, for example, in the United States, it was a democracy then. In 1900, women did not have the right to vote. If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled. I mean, women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy. We hope they're there. I think they will be there. But I think we need to put this into perspective.

Wait, wait.
You mean, women don't have to have rights in order for it to be considered a democracy?
Silly me, I thought democracy meant this:
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

But I guess is just plain wrong.

I mean, including women as part of that group we call "people"? That would be like assuming women had as much personhood as men. And that would be just plain silly.
And women as "individual[s] within a community"? Like, giving them as much importance as the male individuals of a community? *gasp* No way!

Women aren't people. Women are second-rate versions of the real "person" - aka men. As long as men have basic democratic rights, that's all that matters. Women come second. Maybe. If they come at all.

No comments: