Women in Iraq and Elsewhere

Apologies to Whirled View, but this post deserves to be quoted in full. PLS writes:

George W. Bush says that women’s rights are protected in the current draft of the Iraq constitution.

Iraqi women insist that they are losing rights under this document. And eleven U.S. Senators who are also women are worried, too.

Who’s telling it like it is here? Do you trust the testimony of worried Iraqi women or the airy speechifying of an American President who has lied again and again about the Iraq fiasco?

Let’s continue with this questionnaire:

Who’s denying financial support for reproductive health care around the world, thus causing the death of thousands of women and babies?

The George W. Bush administration.

Who thinks little girls who’ve been raped or subject to incest should become mothers?

The George W. Bush administration.

Who wants to curtail Title IX and return to the days when girls’ sports could be systematically underfunded in order to support bloated football teams?

The George W. Bush administration.

Who nominates a Supreme Court candidate who gleefully finds arguments against enforcing laws mandating equal pay for women?

The George W. Bush administration.

Why do women vote for George W. Bush?

Beats me.

Yes. And thank you.


Similar Posts (automatically generated):

5 comments for “Women in Iraq and Elsewhere

  1. August 24, 2005 at 9:59 pm

    I’m a woman that voted for Bush. Here are your answers:

    Who’s denying financial support for reproductive health care around the world, thus causing the death of thousands of women and babies?

    Why is it our responsibility to pay for this? We pay for a million other things for countries all over the world. Maybe they can handle this one thing all on their own.

    Who thinks little girls who’ve been raped or subject to incest should become mothers?

    If you’re pro-life, and believe that life begins at conception, what difference does it make how the baby is conceived? It’s still a life. It’s actually very hypocritical of pro-lifers to make this exception. It’s either a life or it isn’t. If it is, the circumstances of conception don’t matter. And, I’ve always wondered, why add ‘incest’ to the ‘rape’ exception? If it’s rape by a family member then just call it rape and if it’s consensual sex between family members, then why should they be included in the abortion exception? Is it just to make the circumstances sound horrible enough to invoke pity?

    Who wants to curtail Title IX and return to the days when girls’ sports could be systematically underfunded in order to support bloated football teams?

    Forcing schools to support womens’ teams equally to mens’ is absurd. It’s a fact that men play sports more than women. Men are actually getting the short end of this stick because schools have to pay for womens’ sports programs that have barely any participation.

    Who nominates a Supreme Court candidate who gleefully finds arguments against enforcing laws mandating equal pay for women?

    Key word is ‘mandating’. I hate that liberals treat women like we’re fucking retards. We don’t need a law for every little thing. We’ve been in the workplace for awhile now.

    Why do women vote for George W. Bush?

    Because some of us are smart.

  2. August 24, 2005 at 11:32 pm

    Forcing schools to support womens’ teams equally to mens’ is absurd. It’s a fact that men play sports more than women. Men are actually getting the short end of this stick because schools have to pay for womens’ sports programs that have barely any participation.

    Women will continue to play sports less if they have less support than men. Any one who suggests the men who previously got the whole stick are getting the short end of the stick now is just trying to stick it to women. Women would thus be stuck back where they were before Titel IX, in the stands or cheering on the sidelines. Yay, men, yay. Women have been on the field awhile now Women don’t need one of their own treating them like they are retards.

  3. August 25, 2005 at 1:24 am

    Forcing schools to spend the same amount of money on womens’ and mens’ sports when there’s clearly an imbalance of interest is dumb. Schools should be able to figure out for themselves how much to spend on things. Why should the government dictate that? And, when women are interested in sports, teams seem to spring up around that interest.

  4. pls
    August 25, 2005 at 5:35 pm

    I forgot to say thanks to Lauren for picking up this post. We at Worldview are avid readers of Feministe, too.

  5. Ralph
    August 25, 2005 at 5:58 pm

    Title IX doesn’t force schools to spend the same amount of money. It requires that the same number of opportunities be offered. 50 football scholarships, 50 women’s scholarships.

    Clearly, your argument that women don’t need pay equity, means that women are about 33% less valuable than men, because they get paid 67%. By this argument, if I kill a woman I should get 67% of the sentence I would get for killing a man.

    And the reason anti-choicers draw a hypocritical distinction in cases of rape or incest is that 95% of Americans will not agree that the government should force a rape victim to have a child she doesn’t want.

Comments are closed.