A day to celebrate

August 26th, 2008 at 09:32am reckless G 277

On Aug. 26, 1920, the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, guaranteeing women the right to vote, was declared in effect.

My husband and I had an argument just this morning concerning whether activism really works to effect change and whether it really even matters. As an activist myself, I’m personally invested in the belief that it does work and it does matter. My husband is of the opposite opinion. In these all too frequent arguments (usually spurred by the publication of one of my letters to the editor) I often cite the women’s suffrage movement along with the civil rights movement as examples of how grassroots activism leads to changes in social attitudes and government policy.

Did the suffrage movement change anything for me personally? Hell yes! It wasn’t just the right to vote that was at issue. It was the attitude that women are inferior when it comes to brainpower and reasoning ability. The argument against giving women the vote was that because they weren’t smart enough to understand the issues, their participation in elections would produce unwanted results. That attitude had to change before the amendment could even be considered. After a long painful battle by many determined female as well as male activists, the attitude did change, and because women’s opinions are now taken as seriously as men’s, I am able to write letters to the editor, blog, and have political conversations with men on an absolutely equal and earnest level. That is significant to my ability to agitate for the causes I believe in. Thank you Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton et al!

One of the areas of agreement between my husband and I on this topic is that often the activists don’t live to see the change they spent their whole adult lives trying to promote. The women who started the suffrage movement died before the 19^th amendment was created. The torch passed from their generation to the next before their goal was accomplished. And the subsequent journey from obtaining the right to vote to equality in the workplace spanned through several more generations. Likewise desegregation, which didn’t immediately produce equality between the races, thus resulting in the later civil rights movement.

My husband says I won’t live to see a Palestinian state created and he’s probably right, but much to his annoyance, that possibility won’t stop me from being part of the movement to make it happen. I don’t mind being a small cog in a very large machine. The machine works because of the combination of cogs, gears, bearings, couplings, grease, etc. I might wear out before the machine reaches its destination, but there will be someone else younger, stronger and smarter to replace me. And that’s just fine with me, because it’s the goal that matters, not the glory.

Entry Filed under: Politics, Women, United Post

17 Comments Add your own

1. Mitch Mulhall | August 27th, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Great post, as usual.

[women's opinions are now taken as seriously as men's]

And well they should be. Although the right to vote was a condition had existed for 16 years on the day my mother was born, I nevertheless join you in your end-zone dance over this achievement.

That said, to me, one of the most troubling aspects of your activism is that you carry a torch for a people who do not extend to women anything like this status--this inalienable right (equality, not voting)--you care enough to write about. Your position on a Palestinian State would make so much more sense to me if you could draw a concrete connection between a Palestinian State and the liberation of women in Middle Eastern culture... but you never go there.

I have my own theories about why such concerns are not paramount in your activism, but my theories amount to little more than speculation. Still, whenever we discuss these subjects, my thoughts almost always lead to this question...

Cheers,
2. reckless G | August 27th, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Mitch,

Thanks for the compliment and the comment. I’ll be happy to address your concern about women’s rights in the Middle East. Most Americans such as yourself are under the mistaken impression that all Muslim women in the Middle East are oppressed. This is simply untrue. Especially in the two countries I have been championing for the last six years.

First Iraq; when I was getting ready for my visit in January 2002, everyone kept telling me I was crazy because I was going to have to wear a burka and I would be treated with disdain because I am a woman. In Saddam’s secular society, Muslim women had more rights than in any other ME country with the possible exception of Jordan and Palestine. They were highly educated, held important jobs in science, industry and government, drove cars, wore modern Western style clothing and were not required to wear headscarves. In fact, because Saddam wanted his country to be viewed as modern and secular, he discouraged the headscarf almost to the point of banning it. This actually created a backlash where Iraqi women wore the headscarf in defiance of Saddam’s wishes. While I was in Iraq I wore a headscarf only when visiting mosques and was treated with the utmost respect by Iraqi men everywhere I went. The women I spoke to were very content with their status in society. And they certainly do have the right to vote.

Now Palestine; same thing. Women are not required to wear headscarves, they are educated, have careers, drive cars, and on the whole experience no more oppression than their Jewish counterparts in Israel. Palestinian women have the right to vote and to run for office. In fact; “the Palestinian elections that delivered a victory to Hamas, also resulted in a record number of women being elected to the Palestinian Legislative Council. Thirteen women were elected under the new quota system, which was introduced in 2005 to ensure that women make up 20% of the PLC.”

Jordan is another example. I spent a few days there before going into Iraq. I rarely saw a headscarf and most of the women wore modern clothes, even jeans and t-shirts. I photographed a store by the name of “Unisex” where young men and women shopped for Western style clothes. Keep in mind that the majority population of Jordan is Palestinian.

Because the American media has focused so much on the plight of women in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, most Americans believe that this is the experience of all Muslim women in the Middle East. Iraq, Palestine and Jordan are notable exceptions which explains why the topic of women’s rights never comes up in my posts or letters.

In the broader scope, it’s my belief that women’s rights cannot be gained at the point of foreign guns nor foreign policies. It is up to the people of each nation to secure their own rights just as we did in this country. Cultural changes take time. It took 70 years for women to get the right to vote in America. The Middle East was only recently a tribal society with ancient gender roles. To expect that they are going to suddenly cast off those roles at our behest is unrealistic.

Additionally, it’s a mistake for Americans to judge Muslim society by Western standards. Muslim women don’t wear the headscarf because they are forced to by men. They wear it willingly as a sign of their submission to their faith and because they actually BELIEVE in modesty. To condemn Muslim culture because of the way some of the women choose to dress would be like condemning the Amish for the same reason.

I hope that puts your mind to rest concerning my lack of focus on women’s rights in Palestine. The whole of Palestinian society is experiencing severe oppression, which is due not to Muslim restrictions, but to the occupation of their land by Israel. Once they are free and allowed to form a sovereign nation, the world will be able to see that they are a shining example of women’s rights in the Middle East.

[Editor's note: video embed repaired by Post Staff.]
3. reckless G | August 27th, 2008 at 1:22 pm

OK that video embed didn't work, so here's the link.

Note the Palestinian Queen Latifah.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIo6lyP9tTE
4. Mitch Mulhall | August 27th, 2008 at 9:17 pm

G,

Your examples of progressive Middle Eastern states and your impressions of the Middle East during your extensive travels notwithstanding, I consider the legality of women voters a concrete indication of the extent to which a state socially and culturally values sexual equality, and I’ll be the first to admit that the wisdom of my adherence to this metric is debatable.

There are six states THAT I KNOW OF in this world where women are not allowed to vote. All but one is in the Middle East.

In two of these states, Brunei and the United Arab Emirates, women can't vote because the respective countries lack an electoral system. The UAE is expected to extend the right to vote to all citizens by 2010. Presumably the UAE’s vote will be extended to women. I'm not familiar with Brunei's plans, if any, to implement an electoral system (that doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist).

In Bhutan and Lebanon suffrage is partial: women are technically allowed to vote, but in practice, women have a limited voice. In Lebanon, women must have proof of an education, while men need no proof of education whatsoever. (It's worth noting the U.S. employed a similar tactic prior to the passage of the 19th Amendment.) In Bhutan, votes are doled out on a per-household basis. Due to cultural and religious traditional values, the family Patriarch normally casts his house’s vote.

There are two states in which women's suffrage has not yet been achieved. In Saudi Arabia, women's rights are severely restricted. Elections were held in Saudi Arabia in 2005 for the first time in sixty years, but Islamic law prohibited Saudi women from voting.

The only other state I know of that prohibits women from voting is Vatican City, and there, the problem is three-fold: 1) the only votes held are Papal conclaves, 2) only Cardinals can vote in Papal conclaves, and 3) there are no female Cardinals that we know of...

In my analyses, the function of Middle Eastern social, cultural, and religious values stand in square opposition to sexual equality.

You assert that sexual equality is a good thing, and on balance, I think on this we agree… I suppose I erred in thinking you would consider sexual equality, as defined by the mental acumen of women and men, an immutable truth…

Cheers,
5. reckless G | August 27th, 2008 at 10:33 pm

I admit that some Middle Eastern countries record on women’s rights is atrocious. But you specifically called me on my activism on behalf of Palestinians and presumably Iraqis. It isn’t as if I’m defending the Taliban or Egypt or Saudi Arabia. The countries and cultures I am sympathetic to are the ones that exhibit the most gender equality.

[There are six states THAT I KNOW OF in this world where women are not allowed to vote. All but one is in the Middle East.]

So out of 21 Arab states (22 if you count Palestine), five don’t allow women to vote. Then by your own criteria of gender equality, the Middle East doesn’t appear to be as universally barbarian as you make it out to be.

[In my analyses, the function of Middle Eastern social, cultural, and religious values stands in square opposition to sexual equality]

You mean just like American social, cultural, and religious values did a mere 88 years ago? Perhaps less than that if you consider that until the fifties women were expected to stay home and raise kids, skirts weren’t allowed to go above the knee until the sixties, and we are JUST NOW considering a woman a serious candidate for president. Puhleeez! Just because the entire world doesn’t embrace the exact same social values at the exact same time, you claim cultural superiority? How very ethnocentric.

As I said before, if women are dissatisfied with inequality in their society, it’s up to them to change it. Or do you think that some knight in shining armor should sweep into the Middle East and rescue all of those poor damsels from their religious mores?

[I suppose I erred in thinking you would consider sexual equality, as defined by the mental acumen of women and men, an immutable truth…]

It is an immutable truth, but that doesn’t mean it will be universally embraced and integrated into every social, cultural, and religious system. Besides, there is more to women’s rights than voting. I don’t hear you criticizing Catholics for the gender inequality practiced in their religion where women don’t even get to have a choice in reproduction. I don’t hear you bemoaning certain African culture’s treatment of women as property. You don’t seem bothered by the Asian sex slave business. You selectively condemn Islamic and Middle Eastern culture even though I’ve given you several good examples of exceptions to your generalization. Why?
6. Mitch Mulhall | August 28th, 2008 at 7:26 am

G,

How disappointing. I ask you how you make room for sexual inequality in the ME in your activism, and you pin a scarlet letter of intolerance on me. How magnanimous of you.

So far I've framed this "conversation" in terms of suffrage. There are a number of directions it could have gone from here, but I'm quite satisfied it's gone far enough.

Cheers,
7. reckless G | August 31st, 2008 at 9:56 pm

Mitch,

How disappointing indeed. I'm sorry if I fail to see the connection you are trying to make between my advocating an end to Israeli occupation in Palestine and equality for women. From my point of view it just seems you are trying to find one more reason to dismiss my activism as irrelevant and nonsensical.

You said; “Your position on a Palestinian State would make so much more sense to me if you could draw a concrete connection between a Palestinian State and the liberation of women in Middle Eastern culture... but you never go there.” So I gave you a connection; Palestinian women have much more equality than most other ME states, and if a sovereign Palestinian state were created, it would provide along with Jordan, an example of a gender democratic system in the ME. You say you have framed this “conversation” in terms of suffrage, and I provided you the information that Palestinian women vote and get elected. Instead of acknowledging that as far as suffrage is concerned, gender equality exists among the people I advocate for, you focus on my lack of magnanimity toward your narrow view of ME culture and values.

The fact that you just ASSUME all ME countries oppress their women and that you never appear to consider that some Muslim women prefer the system as it is (much like Amish or Hassidic women) is what gave rise to the accusation of what you term intolerance, but what I prefer to call ethnocentrism.

You ask me how to make room for sexual inequality in the Middle East in my activism, and I tell you there is no room for it because sexual inequality does not play into my quest for human equality in the ME, or for the purpose of ending an unjust occupation and obtaining greater security for the U.S.

If my answers don’t satisfy you why don't YOU tell me how I can make room for the issue of sexual inequality in my activism. Tell me how you see sexual equality as integral to ending the Israeli occupation of Palestine, or the U.S. occupation of Iraq. If I’m missing something, please enlighten me.
8. Mitch Mulhall | September 1st, 2008 at 8:24 pm

G,

You opened this blog with the words, "On Aug. 26, 1920, the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, guaranteeing women the right to vote, was declared in effect." From there, you go on to celebrate the achievement that is the women's vote in America.

I do not assert that overcoming Middle Eastern sexual inequality will solve the conflict between Israel and Palestine, and it's a cheap to suggest I do. Rather, I wonder simply how your professed value of the female vote in the U.S. comports with the state of women in the Middle East.

In truth, you answered this question quite to my satisfaction when you wrote, "if women are dissatisfied with inequality in their society, it’s up to them to change it." To me, that frames your opinion of the universality of women's suffrage, the object of this celebratory blog, quite clearly. You've got yours (by virtue of prices you never had to pay). If Middle Eastern women want anything like the same thing, they'll have to fight for it.

Nice.

Cheers,
9. reckless G | September 2nd, 2008 at 6:15 am

Mitch,

You impugn my activism because it doesn’t include women’s rights and you impugn my celebration of women’s rights in America because I didn’t fight for them myself and I’m not involved in the struggle on behalf of ME women.

Nice.

Like I said, I don’t believe that rights within a society should be fought for by those of another society. Civil rights can’t be gained by a blunt blow to the head from a foreign object, it must be taken step by step by the very people who stand to gain from the acquisition. I leave Middle Eastern women’s activism to people like Hirsi Ali and others who know what they are talking about from their own experience and who personally stand to gain from the reformation. Their voices are much more powerful than mine.

What I find interesting is how you turned this post into a discussion of the Middle East. That’s usually my bag. After all of this time and having gotten to know me better through several lunch dates, you still display an aversion to my activism for the liberation of Palestine, and use any opportunity on the blog to undermine and discredit my cause. I just don’t get it. It’s almost like some kind of personal vendetta. What is bothering you really?
10. Mitch Mulhall | September 2nd, 2008 at 8:21 pm

G,

I don't impugn your activism. Rather, I wonder how it comports with your celebration of women's suffrage, and the changes it portends for the future.

This is not a baseless question, no matter what kind of psychological heat lamp you shine on my motives. I have no compunction whatsoever to undermine your cause, nor do I carry some kind of grudge against you. Instead, I rather hoped this question would foster some thoughtful discussion. A few comments ago, I was satisfied this would not happen.

For the record, I wonder how an American women who rightly holds up suffrage as a major gain in the existence of women in this country can look upon nations and cultures that largely, if not completely, deny such rights to women not to impugn your activism, but to make it stronger.

Cheers,
11. Mitch Mulhall | September 2nd, 2008 at 11:31 pm
12. reckless G | September 3rd, 2008 at 8:08 am

Mitch,

I guess I should feel flattered that you think so highly of me as to expect that I am capable of not only championing the rights of the Palestinian and Iraqi people, but also take up the cause of Middle Eastern women’s rights. Sorry to disappoint you, I just don’t have enough energy or sufficient compulsion to become a suffragette.

Remember, I only became an activist out of concern that the United States was being attacked due to its dubious involvement in the Middle East. Otherwise, the plight of the Palestinians never would’ve shown up on my radar, and if it did, without 9/11 I probably would not have cared.

I don’t consider myself an activist for the rights of all humans, or for peace and justice in general, which is why I never focus on Darfur or Tibet. I have enough on my plate trying to make Americans aware of the policies that incite anger and terrorism against us. To become sidetracked into trying to influence Middle Eastern social customs toward more freedom for women would only complicate an already complex task.

As the saying goes; “Lord, give me the strength to change what I can, the ability to accept what I cannot change and the wisdom to understand the difference.” I believe I have that wisdom.

Now Mitch, you perpetually call my activism into question, make sarcastic comments about the perceived incongruities of my opinions and purposefully post videos that show Islam in a bad light. It certainly appears that you are trying to provoke me to defend a position that you find inherently indefensible. Yet when I call you on it, you deny there is any motive behind these actions other than to make my activism stronger. Come on!

What was the purpose of posting that last video if not to prove that my defense of the rights of Muslims is not only unfounded but contemptible? As usual your entire line of questioning is pointedly aimed at proving just how despicable and unworthy the people of the Middle East are of my choice to, as you put it; “carry a torch for.” You can deny your annoyance at my activism on behalf of Muslim people all you want, but your words and actions prove otherwise.

And finally, you claim to be seeking to foster thoughtful discussion, yet I give you an extensive explanation of my experience in Iraq and Jordan, my opinion of women’s rights and roles in various ME nations, and what role those of other nations should or shouldn’t play in a ME suffrage movement, and you say no thoughtful discussion has happened, nor would it. You have apparently formed an unfavorable judgment of my position and pronounced that no further meaningful discussion on the subject is necessary or even possible. I honestly don’t understand what you were expecting of me that I didn’t deliver and frankly I’m insulted that you would take that position with me.
13. Mitch Mulhall | September 3rd, 2008 at 8:41 pm

G-

[You have apparently formed an unfavorable judgment of my position and pronounced that no further meaningful discussion on the subject is necessary or even possible. I honestly don’t understand what you were expecting of me that I didn’t deliver and frankly I’m insulted that you would take that position with me.]

Your conclusion belies my continued willingness to engage you in discourse despite your insulting rhetoric. My hope is that your words were sufficiently punitive. Rest assured, they hit their mark.

I understand your position that you can't toil under every cause. You've taken up the mantle of the Palestinians, and this is a noble undertaking. I get that.

All I'm saying is, it's not that simple.

Solve the Palestinian conflict, and all the magical tumblers will not fall into place, and there will not be peace in the ME, and whatever we've done to piss off Jihadists will not have been neutralized. And it wasn't because of George Bush, it wasn't because of "Big Oil," and it wasn't because of "Dick Cheney," "Halliburton," or "Fox News." As far as I'm concerned, all this crap is dancing around a May Pole while a serious shite storm brews...

But that's just my opinion.

Cheers,
14. reckless G | September 4th, 2008 at 7:14 am

[Solve the Palestinian conflict, and all the magical tumblers will not fall into place, and there will not be peace in the ME, and whatever we've done to piss off Jihadists will not have been neutralized.]

I have never claimed it will. As I’ve said many times before in answer to this same comment of yours, ending the occupation of Palestine is but one step in the process of restoring justice to U.S. foreign policy. There are many other steps to take to neutralize terrorism. I just don’t believe that blasting our way around the ME trying to hunt down and kill every terrorist is as effective as diplomatically and politically addressing the grievances of those trying to exact revenge for the wrongs that the U.S. has done to their people for the last sixty years. Islamic terrorism against the U.S. didn’t suddenly arise out of nowhere, there is a cause and effect. We can deal with the effect from now until the cows come home, but until we deal with the cause, nothing will change.

I get from your line of questioning that you believe that Islam itself is solely to blame for terrorism and that if there were a reformation, terrorism would end. I think this is what you have been trying to get me to acknowledge; that if Islam was reformed resulting in ME Muslim women being given their rights, then the problems in the ME would lessen. That may be partially so. There is a radical faction of Islam that oppresses women and engages in Jihadist ventures. But I am mainly concerned with the injustice of the occupation as a rallying cry for the Jihadists. I would like to see this weapon removed from their arsenal. But remember; it’s not the final solution, just ONE SMALL STEP.

Out of respect for your willingness to engage me in discourse despite my “insulting rhetoric,” I have done some research into Palestinian women’s rights. Here are some excerpts that explain my position better than I have so far been able to do and show that the best thing that we as Americans can do to enhance the rights and lives of Palestinian women is to bring an end to the occupation…

http://www.washington-report.org/archives/May-June_2007/0705062.html

During the question-and-answer session, many audience members asked how the second intifada and Israel’s annexation wall have reinforced the social constraints placed on women. Pointing out that she conducted her research prior to both developments, Rubenberg expressed the belief that “external factors can only reinforce these problems.” When asked if passing legislation to guarantee women’s rights would help alleviate the situation, Rubenberg replied that “getting a law through the legislature is the last step…the society has to socialize the change first.”
Indeed, Rubenberg concluded, regarding all issues such as power struggles, class differences, status and patriarchy, “change has to come from the ground up.”

http://www.awid.org/eng/Issues-and-Analysis/Library/Does-women-s-rights-activism-lack-lustre-in-Palestine

AWID: In your case study you argue that a rights based approach is not the best way to address the issues Palestinian women face. Why do you think so?

IJ: Organizations that use the rights based approach assume that we are living in an ordinary post colonial society. Therefore it is perceived that the post colonial state should protect or promote certain rights and privileges to realize every person's specific interests. However in actual terms this is not the case. We are still a colonized society and we are still living under a colonized state. We cannot talk only of individual rights and forget national rights; freedom from Israeli occupation. With the NGOization process activism has shifted to individual rights. We have a Palestinian Authority that is drawing plans and trying to implement policies to benefit the people of Palestine, but at the same time we are under occupation which is denying the Palestinian people nationhood. The NGOization process is funded by different international organizations. These organizations seem to equate the Palestinian case with the South African case, as an example. The South African situation is that of a post-apartheid state that has instituted a new system of governance. Our case in Palestine is very different, we are still under occupation. The rights based approach has minimized the push for national rights.

http://www.madre.org/countries/Palestine.html

Israeli-imposed restrictions on Palestinians' freedom of movement, coupled with intermittent military attacks, pose a serious threat to the rights and well-being of Palestinian women and their families, with particular consequences to women's reproductive health.
Effects on Women's Reproductive Health
• Within the first four years of the current intifada, 61 Palestinian women were forced to give birth at Israeli military checkpoints, resulting in the deaths of 20 women and 36 infants.
• During roughly the same period, home deliveries increased from 5.2 percent to over 30 percent. Many women felt compelled to stay at home because of the fear of having to pass through military checkpoints.
• There has been almost a fivefold increase in the number of pregnant women who received no prenatal care due to movement restrictions on women and healthcare providers.
• There has also been a dramatic increase in births that take place in unsafe conditions or are unsupervised by a skilled health worker—all of which has led to drastic increases in the dangers posed to women during pregnancy and childbirth, and creates enormous psychological strain for women.
15. Mitch Mulhall | September 4th, 2008 at 6:39 pm

G,

Well done. Your bullet list at the end of your last comment is, if true, among the most compelling evidence supporting the theme of your original point--that suffrage, and womens' rights generally, are a good thing and should be protected.

You point out movement restrictions imposed by Israelis impede Palestinian womens' rights to the kinds of health and pre-natal care afforded by civilized societies, but you ignore all restrictions brought on by cultural and religious traditions of the Middle East.

You are unfairly quick to yoke me with religious bias against Muslims. Yet you are publicly critical of the God "portrayed either in the Bible, the average Christian church, or the letters to the editor," as demonstrated by your letter to the Editor published in the GSPI earlier this week.

The one premise I do not read in your comments is that Middle Eastern women enjoy anything like the freedoms of American women, which you rightly celebrate. Frankly, I don't think you've ever fully revealed what it is you try to protect. I do know it's neither Judeo nor Christian.

Cheers,
16. reckless G | September 4th, 2008 at 8:38 pm

[you ignore all restrictions brought on by cultural and religious traditions of the Middle East.]

Yes, I do. In our society, we have taboos against certain things based on our Judeo-Christian morals. For example, we make our women cover their breasts in public. From the perspective of someone from an aboriginal society in Africa that might be considered oppressive. I certainly wouldn’t appreciate, nor would most American women, being told that we are oppressed and that they have the correct take on women’s rights, so we should listen to them and do as they do (although I doubt many American men would protest the result of that particular movement).

Neither do I believe Western cultures have the moral authority to impose their system on other cultures. Many Muslim women willingly agree to abide by Sharia and don’t want it to change. They feel secure and devout in their beliefs that the Koran is the right way for them. Who are we to tell them otherwise? And then there are ME women who work to reform their culture to achieve a more secular society and political system. The point is that in either case, it’s THEIR choice, not ours.

Here is an excellent article; the best explanation I’ve found of the various attitudes of Palestinian women toward political rights and cultural traditions; it’s well worth reading if you want to gain a better understanding of this issue.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/01/21/islamist_women_redraw_palestinian_debate_on_rights/

(I find an interesting parallel between Palestinian women wanting the right to fight for their homeland and American women’s struggle to achieve equality in the military. Something that until very recently didn’t exist, if it does even now.)

[The one premise I do not read in your comments is that Middle Eastern women enjoy anything like the freedoms of American women, which you rightly celebrate.]

Then you must have missed comment #2 paragraph #3. The right which I celebrate in this post is the right to vote, to be considered intelligent enough to debate the issues and choose a candidate. That right is shared by my Muslim sisters in both Iraq and Palestine where women not only vote, but hold positions in the government. In that respect they enjoy the exact same freedoms as American women.

Perhaps this is where the confusion lies in our discussion. I am talking about sexual equality in a civil rights sense and you are talking about sexual equality in social customs. I make a distinction between civil rights and moral rights. The first is granted by the state, the second determined by “cultural and religious traditions.” I, we, nobody has the moral high ground and should never presume that “they” would be better off if they were more like “us,” as illustrated by my bare-breast analogy and also by the history of those who tried to impose their morality on others; the Christians in Hawaii, the Christians in North America, the Christians in South America, the Christian Crusaders in the Middle East, the Christians…oh well, you get the idea. Which brings us to your next comment;

[Yet you are publicly critical of the God "portrayed either in the Bible, the average Christian church, or the letters to the editor,"]

I’m publicly critical of those who use their interpretation of God to bash us with their superior morality and try to scare us with threats of everlasting damnation unless we fall in line and do it their way. That is no different an attitude than those Jihadists you and Michael are always throwing up as an example of badness in the world.

I know many Christians who have a broader view of God and a more charitable view of non-Christians than the letter writers, so I am not opposed to Christians per se, just the ones who use religion to justify bigotry, war, violence, revenge, and rabid patriotism.

Besides, I figured if the Christians can hog the letters to the editor for months on end, we Taoists should get a turn too.

[Frankly, I don't think you've ever fully revealed what it is you try to protect. I do know it's neither Judeo nor Christian.]

I’m not sure I know what you mean, but I guess you could say I’m an equal opportunity offender. Nothing is sacred to me, because everything is. No one has the answers. No one. We all just find what works for us and for me that’s Taoism. For others it might be Christianity or Judaism or Islam. That’s fine, as long as you don’t try to enforce your beliefs on others or use your beliefs to dominate, control, frighten, or persecute anyone else. Yes, that goes for Muslims too. But so far in this neighborhood, I haven’t found any Muslim letter writers that I can aim my poison pen at.
17. Mitch Mulhall | December 18th, 2008 at 11:58 am

How womens' rights activists are treated in Kirkuk.

Must not confuse suffering with suffrage.

Cheers!