A World War Against Our Women

[Alle-ubaahne]

It was the global war on Weapons of Mass Destruction. Then, it become the global war on those Muslims against the western interests. Now, they are saying its the global war on the emancipation of Muslim women!

 

This neo-mixture of liberal-conservatist paused me to think deeply for the innocence of our veiled women in the west, when he revealed his deep-seated animosity towards the veil and its signifance in the following:

I've witnessed far more instances of the mistreatment of women than I care to recall, but the one that always leaps to mind is local and superficially benign: In the southern heat of a Washington summer, it's common to see a male Middle Eastern tourist comfortably dressed in a polo shirt and shorts trailed by a staggering woman wrapped from head to toe in flapping black robes, eyes peering out through a mask. It offends me to meet that image in my country.

Can you think about as a Muslim that performing a religious duty in west is going to be tantamount to public obsenity, or crime if Americans become fully absorbed with the malicious remarks of the auther. I wouldn't not feel bothered if the author would wrote such on somewhere over the internet, but unfortunately its printed on one of the extensively read papers in America.

 

Global war on women

The U.S.-led campaign on terror is also a battle for women's freedom: the Islamic veil vs. the woman's business suit. In fact, the great success of the Western woman is a formidable threat to Islamist extremists.

 

By Ralph Peters

 

The greatest social revolution in history is underway all around us: The emancipation of women. Advanced in our own society, elsewhere the battle for women's rights lies at the heart of colossal struggles over the future of great religions and civilizations.

 

The Washington establishment would shrink from any such claim, but the Global War on Terror is a fight over the social, economic and cultural roles of women. The core issues for the terrorists are the interpretation of God's will and the continued oppression of women. Nothing so threatens Islamic extremists as the freedom Western women enjoy.

 

The sudden transition of women from men's property to men's partners in our own country unleashed dazzling creative energies. In the historical blink of an eye, we doubled our effective human capital — and made our society immeasurably more humane. Our half-century of stunning economic growth has many roots, but none goes deeper than the expansion of opportunities for women.

 

But such unprecedented freedom threatens traditional societies. Behavior patterns that prevailed for millennia are suddenly in doubt. Relationships that granted males the power of life and death over female relatives have disappeared from successful cultures. Defensively, the failing cultures left behind cling harder than ever to the old ways amid the tumult of global change.

 

The true symbols of the War on Terror are the Islamic veil and the two-piece woman's business suit.

 

The math is basic. No civilization that excludes half its population from full participation in society and the economy can compete with the United States and its key allies. Yet Middle Eastern societies, especially, have dug in their heels to resist change. Some, such as Turkey, Pakistan and Iran, have tumbled backward.

 

Islamist terrorists have formed the last, great boy's club, meeting in caves and warning girls to stay out — or, in the case of the 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta, demanding that women be kept from his grave to avoid polluting it. Their vision offers women fewer rights by far than those enjoyed by the wives of the prophet Mohammed. They are women-hating sadists for whom faith is an excuse. Their fears are primal.

 

The good news is that the forces of oppression can make plenty of tactical mischief but can't achieve strategic success. No society in which women are veiled and sequestered can achieve the dynamism and force of one in which women are senators, judges, CEOs, doctors and military pilots. Freedom will win, if not swiftly.

 

The bad news is that this is a truly global struggle involving not only Islamist thugs terrified by female sexuality, but also reactionary forces in our own society. The Global War Against Women is still being waged on the home front, too.

 

Without questioning the integrity of those who believe that life begins at conception, the struggle to overturn Roe v. Wade can also be viewed as an attempt to turn back the clock on women's freedom. Opposing such a reversal isn't a matter of thinking abortion admirable, but of accepting the magnificent revolutionary principle that no man has a right to tell any woman what she can or cannot do with her body.

 

Attempts to interfere with another citizen's liberty are worthy of Osama bin Laden, not of Americans.

 

Likewise, the ideologically driven reluctance of the Food and Drug Administration to approve the “morning-after pill†for general use is a vestige of patriarchal tyranny that would please Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq. Longing to restore the tyrannical pattern that governed social relations down the ages, our extremists demand that women's options be restricted, that their bodies be treated as chattels of the state.

 

Nor should we be surprised that women stand among those who would deny rights to other women. Their counterparts are the African crones who demand that young girls undergo genital mutilation just as they did, or the women of the Middle East who insist that wearing a chador protects them. They are the champions of the small morality of rules over the greater morality of freedom.

 

The greatest moral advance has been the attainment of basic human rights by women. It's also the most threatening development to those daunted by change, who cling to a mythologized past and fear the future — whether in a Saudi-funded madrassa or protesting outside a U.S. Planned Parenthood clinic. Around the world, troubled souls continue to insist that women are the source of sin and must be kept in line for their own good. Theirs is a prescription for suffering, dreariness and stagnation.

 

In traveling the globe, I've witnessed far more instances of the mistreatment of women than I care to recall, but the one that always leaps to mind is local and superficially benign: In the southern heat of a Washington summer, it's common to see a male Middle Eastern tourist comfortably dressed in a polo shirt and shorts trailed by a staggering woman wrapped from head to toe in flapping black robes, eyes peering out through a mask. It offends me to meet that image in my country — or anywhere.

 

We do not think of our troops abroad as fighting for women's rights. But they are. This is the titanic struggle of our time, the liberation of fully half of humanity. Islamist terror is only one aspect of it. But we can be certain of two things: In the end, freedom will win. And no society that torments women will succeed in the 21st century.

 

 

Ralph Peters is the author of New Glory, Expanding America's Global Supremacy, and a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

 

[Castro]

The misinformed and racist rant of Ralph Peters is nothing to dismiss. He is targeting those who have little or no knowledge of Islam and feeding into their prejudices. However, we've all seen that one woman accompanied by a man wearing a t-shirt while she is covered from head to toe in sweltering heat. The author purposely, and mistakingly, blames that on Islam. It ties in really well with his war on terrorism (and profiteering) theme. Subjugate women then you're an evil that must be destroyed. While you have oil, that is. Islam forces no one to endure hardship and the author clearly does not know that or chooses to ignore it.

 

The freedoms women in the west "enjoy" are often symbolic and on the surface. The author assumes that social harmony and gender equality are the norm here and that there are no problems what so ever. Scratch a little deeper and you will find that this is only myth. A fraud perpetrated on the rest of the world which is labelled backward and oppressive. The truth is neither here or there. The west has much to be proud of when it comes to progressive and powerful women movements. It does not, however, fly above other cultures high enough to claim any kind of superiority. It has its own backwardness, unfairness and oppression of women.

 

Muslims face wars on many fronts but few are more damaging than a Ralph Peters who beats the drums of war while hiding behind the veil of gender equality. His ilk need to be engaged then exposed for what they are. War mongering elitists who neither care about women in Islam nor the "liberated" ones in the west.

[Alle-ubaahne]

Castro,

 

You are absulately right on that. The reality in the American's political system and grass-root social movements veers towards the right, who advocate for a broad American involvement in the world of oil enriched countries. But the trend of their movements now is leading to something other than economic pursuit, which is an ideological doctrine that domestically seeks a unified America in order to confront the international elements that question the America's intentions and activities.

[Khayr]

SALAMZ,

 

Originally posted by Castro:

Muslims face wars on many fronts but few are more damaging than a Ralph Peters who beats the drums of war while hiding behind the veil of gender equality. His ilk need to be engaged then exposed for what they are. War mongering elitists who neither care about women in Islam nor the "liberated" ones in the west.

Castro, this is were they are really giving us a

 

'BEAT DOWN' and you just can't WIN in the long run

 

b/c they are appealling to people's EGOSSSSS,

 

their SELF-DESIRES to believe that they

 

 

'CONTROL THEIR DESTINY',

 

'CONTROL THEIR FREEDOM'

 

'BE ALL THEY CAN BE'.

 

 

 

Muslim sisters are an easy prey to these messages

 

and really take a hold to them and even argue with

 

non muslims to tell them that ISLAM gives them

 

these liberal demoractic rights

 

This is why I dislike images of Burqaa, Hijab

 

wearing muslims lining up for blocks all cause

 

they believe in these western ideals.

 

anyways gotta run....

 

Fi Amanillah

[Viking]

Ralph Peters is the author of New Glory, Expanding America's Global Supremacy, and a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

I guess he forgot to mention that his country destroyed a secular country with the highest literacy rates (for both genders) in the Middle East, destroyed their well advanced infrastructure and condemned them to life without peace and security, clean water, electricity and above all a functionning govt.

 

Supporters of American hegemony apply various tactics, this is just one of their weaker arguments.

[Strawberry_Xu]

Some, such as

Turkey

, Pakistan and Iran, have tumbled backward.

Gosh, and here I thought Turkey in a moment of frenzied EU-bandwagon jumping, decided to ban headscarves for their civil servants and students.

 

 

You know, he does have a point. As long women cannot participate in the running of public life, these countries will never be able to compete with developed countries. Give the women freedom and you automatically have a more tolerant society. His petty observations however, are irrelevant but unfortunately expected from drones like him.

 

The problem of western 'intellectuals' is that they patronise the muslim woman just as much as muslim leaders do. Both think the woman cannot think for herself, both want to dictate what she wears, how she behaves and both are quite adamant that she may never be given a choice.

 

Maybe it's because that's the one thing that could truly liberate a woman: the ability to make choices that neither liberals nor conservaties can predict. Most likely, the average woman would go for the option that seems the infuriate people on both sides of the fence: moderation.

 

In Rudy's thread about Saudization of Somaliland, the article he posted referred to religious leaders reducing women to nothing more than sex objects and thus something to be ashamed of. These people use one aspect of feminity to define a woman while dismissing everything else. You'd expect a woman's soul, her deen, her personality, her intelligence to count for more than her sexuality.

 

I don't see it happening, but what you need is re-education or even a massive shift in the public perception of femininity. They have hidden them in corners for so long, that now they are consumed by thoughts of women and that's why they're so terrified of them. Femininity doesn't not equal sexuality, and therefore should not be hidden. By all means, cover up the sexuality of both men and women if you want, but just as you don't tell a man to hide his masculinity, his face, his intelligence and everything else that marks him as an individual, one shouldn't do the same to a woman.

 

Now for some of you hotheads, don't mistake my words for a tirade against the hijab. I truly think it's a noble thing and a symbol of true emancipation, but I don't believe it's the right of the men to dictate whether a woman wears one or not. And I believe women should understand, that covering up parts of their body doesn't mean that one should cover one's individuality too.

 

Because if you want to hide women away, what's the point of giving them names in the first place.

 

So this article does have a point, even though I don't agree with most of this man's views and I understand the right-wing agenda behind some of his words. We have tons of problems in Muslim countries, and I don't know all the solutions, but I do know that the emancipation of women would go a long way to curing these problems.

[Viking]

Xu,

The author is using this argument only to further his own ideology (American hegemony). There is as much truth in the article as there was to Bush/Blair's tirades about Saddam having WMD's. We all knew that Saddam was a tyrann but the agenda to remove him had less to do with his horrendous human rights record and more to do with the high grade crude oil found in the world's second largest oil reserves.

[Strawberry_Xu]

^^I know that, and I know though we want the same thing, he's no ally of mine. But this article was posted here to discuss I persume, not to denounce. And though I know he has an aggresively right-wing agenda, and his views are just as totalitarian as religious extremist leaders, I can't help but agree with some of his points, which I find more valid a topic of discussion than his predictable resentment towards and ignorance of muslims. It bugs me that the fate of the muslim woman is a topic more widely discussed in the West than in Muslim countries where one would think it mattered the most.

[sheherazade]

Here, catch! An old but clean hijab to wipe away the camel tears, the green(loyalty!) snot and muffle the hypocritical sobs.

 

Xu:

It bugs me that the fate of the muslim woman is a topic more widely discussed in the West than in Muslim countries where one would think it mattered the most.

 

The enemy from without is fair game, the one from within is, is, is us.

[Castro]

^ And just because you're paranoid does not mean they're not out to get you.

[sheherazade]

How do you know that? Are u one of them?

 

gulp

[Legend of Zu]

Originally posted by Viking:

Xu,

The author is using this argument only to further his own ideology (American hegemony). There is as much truth in the article as there was to Bush/Blair's tirades about Saddam having WMD's. We all knew that Saddam was a tyrann but the agenda to remove him had less to do with his horrendous human rights record and more to do with the high grade crude oil found in the world's second largest oil reserves.

Viking,

 

I know many ppl do believe Iraq was invaded becouse of the OIL..but I beg to differ..The Strategy was to instill chaos!!!

Yes, It was all about THE CHAOS...Anarchy...and more Anarchy...

 

Cheers

[Viking]

Legend,

If you look at the history of Iraq, you'd see that chaos helps the enemies of USA. If the fate of the Iraqis was entirely left for them to decide, they would split into three regions and the oil fileds would end up with the Kurds in the north and the Shi'a in the south. Saddam was used by the USA and GB to hold the different people who inhabit Iraq together (forcefully). He then grew a mini brain and became more of a megalomaniac than the Americans liked.

 

There are several reasons why Iraq was invaded and the two major reasons are oil and Israel. There are three nations that somwhat make the Zionists uneasy; Iraq, Syria and Iran. Iraq has been invaded, the Syrians are being set against the Lebanese (the killing of a Rafik Hariri and all the bombings that the Syrians are accused of are actually the works of Mossad and their American counterparts). Since Iran is much more united than Iraq, the nuclear fuel plans they have are being used as an excuse to bring them to the Security Council so that they can be alienated, this might stir up internal problems they hope (this eases tensions in Israel as Iran is seen as a threat).

 

Another reason for the invasion was to demonstrate to the world (esp. China) that USA is not a fading power (there wouldn't be the need for such a demonstration if their power wasn't fading). This invasion and the "War on terror" also work secondarily as a factor to unite the American people and strengthen their 'group feeling'. Oil is not the only factor, but the role of Halliburton, Bechtel et al. show that it was one of the major reasons for the invasion.

[Alle-ubaahne]

I wonder why our home-grown liberals jump out from their caves everytime we try to peel off the camouflage of western deceptions! Oh, they say, that is true, or No, they meant that way, not what you thought it was.... May be our home-grown or western-grown stoogies are the worst than those who truly consider as the enemy of the Ummah. But, one thing I always respect is their foreign-made-views, because that is the only way you can respect them.

[sheherazade]

Originally posted by Alle-ubaahne:

May be our home-grown or western-grown stoogies are the worst than those who truly consider as the enemy of the Ummah.

Emhm, what I said.

 

But, one thing I always respect is their foreign-made-views, because that is the only way you can respect them.

What are u saying other than nothing?