Feminists across the world flocked to the streets this past Saturday to celebrate International Women's Day. It was basically an excuse for a protest, and their fists collectively rose to the sky against a potential war in Iraq. But there were many women prohibited from participating in such a day, particularly those in Iraq.
IWD is celebrated by the United Nations. The U.N. Charter proclaims gender equality as a fundamental right yet does not hold its members to such a standard. Evidently, basic human rights may make for a nice discussion, but violations are not cause for real intervention.
Of course, we all know that the U.N. Human Rights Commission, chaired by a Libyan representative, will surely notify us if there is any real violation.
Despite such obvious obstacles for women, feminists claim that there has been great progress in women's rights in the last 10 years. Where? In China, where women are sterilized by force? In Africa, where female genital mutilation is still rampant? In Saudi Arabia, where women are killed for violating family honor?
Yet, there is a lack of outcry from the most ardent self-proclaimed feminists for these repulsive examples of female oppression. Kay Hymowitz, a contributing columnist to the Wall Street Journal, calls these women "Gender Feminists." They don't care about "the plight of Muslim women because it would threaten their preoccupation with pointing out male wickedness closer to home."
The feminist answer to the Iraqi problem is encapsulated in this year's theme: "Women Say No to War: Invest in Caring, Not Killing." Rather than fighting for women's rights, these protesters want to give Saddam a nurturing hug.
To call attention to the plight of the truly oppressed, feminists in the United States would run the risk of trivializing their problems here at home, and they wouldn't want to do that. Kim Grandy, president of the National Organization of Women, tried to divert attention away from Saddam, asking "where are these brave opponents of tyranny when the threat is here at home?"
But these problems in the United States are not even close to those in Iraq, and to say that the real problems are here at home just shows how out of touch these feminists are.
Feminists have even alluded that Iraqi women may enjoy their lifestyle. The "Not In Our Name" statement, signed by feminists like Gloria Steinem and Alice Walker, states: "We believe that peoples and nations have the right to determine their own destiny, free from military coercion by great powers."
This statement is offered in contrast to their earlier support of the "Declaration of the Essential Rights of Afghan Women," which clearly indicated that oppressive regimes harm women unjustly. It reads: "The Afghan women reject the false assertions of the Taliban militias that these rights are in contradiction with the religion, culture and traditions of Afghan society and nation."
In Afghanistan, women walk the streets unencumbered by the burqa. Universities are opening this month, and women are allowed to enroll. New businesses open everyday, such as bookstores filled with materials banned and hidden during Taliban rule. Music once again plays at weddings.
But no credit is given to President Bush and the current Republican administration. While NOW utterly failed its mission to "eliminate sexism and end all oppression," Bush triumphed. His decisive actions achieved far more than any feminist diatribe could.
Perhaps if feminists forgot their partisan agendas domestically, they would remember their lost sisters across the world. Maybe then their perspective on Iraq would change, and they would unite in a fight for true women's rights.
Shanna Bowman is an industrial engineering senior. Reach her at snb@asu.edu.
