Maybe you're feeling apathetic toward the plight of the world's women, or perhaps you're suffering from an acute case of Feminist Outrage Fatigue™. Well, you will be slapped right out of that stupor by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's speech Friday commemorating the 15th anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD). She dished out familiar rhetoric — like her famous line, “women's rights are human rights” — but also dropped some cold, hard facts on our privileged first-world asses.
In a depressing nutshell: “One woman dies every minute of every day in pregnancy or childbirth” and, “for every woman who dies, another 20 suffer from injury, infection or disease every minute.” Add to that the fact that “20 million unsafe abortions” occur every year, millions of women die annually from preventable sexually transmitted diseases and millions of lives are destroyed by fistula, which is often “the result of pregnancies that occur when a girl is too young.” And then there's this whopping statistic, which even Clinton had to repeat for emphasis and clarity: “Seventy million — that's sev-en-ty million — women and girls worldwide have been subjected to female genital cutting,” which can lead to life-threatening infections and complications while giving birth.
That isn't to say that we haven't made any progress in the past 15 years, because we have. Contraceptive use, access to neonatal care, childhood survival rates and the number of girls enrolled in schools worldwide have all increased — but, she said, “vast inequities remain.” For this reason, she announced that the United States has renewed the commitment it made at the first-ever ICPD. “Investing in the potential of women and girls is the smartest investment we can make,” she said. “It is connected to any problem on anyone's mind in the world today.”
Clinton gets outrage fatigue, she understands better than most anyone that “sometimes it can seem a little bit hard to take,” but she pleaded: “Please stay with us and let's try to create institutional and structural change that does not get swept away when the political winds change.” Stay tuned for an update with a video of the speech as soon as it's available.
17 Responses to “Women’s Rights and Afghanistan”
Published January 11, 2010 @ 03:16PM PT
Thursday, I pointed out that police in D.C., which has the highest rate of HIV/AIDS in the country, are reported to use possession of condoms as evidence of sex work. (Yeah, they can clearly afford to discourage safe sex techniques.) Turns out, the nation's capital isn't the only one.
After being tipped off by a commenter that San Francisco police use an unspecified number of rubbers as evidence of sex work, I investigated further and was shocked to discover that safe-sex devices have been used as evidence in my own hometown, New York — which is particularly ridiculous given that New York City has been distributing free condoms to combat STDs since 1971. Some businesses are even afraid to offer the city's snazzy free condoms because they can also be used as evidence of “maintaining a premises for prostitution.”
(Hello, readers: do you know of any other places where condoms are misused as evidence of sex work?)
Knowing that planning ahead for a night out could be used as evidence against you is enough to make anyone uncomfortable, but most people needn't worry about getting randomly arrested for condoms. The major problem is the impact of discouraging sex workers — which do include men, though women are the majority — from using protection. (Although the Urban Justice Center states that many transgender women, even those who aren't sex workers, fear carrying condoms because they are frequently profiled by police.)
San Francisco police defend the practice by claiming that “a pocket full of condoms alone is not a basis for arrest.” Guess what: condoms shouldn't factor at all into potential arrest for sex work. It's a health disaster.
The mere possibility that condoms could be used against them in a court of law deters sex workers from protecting themselves, putting their own lives in danger and contributing to the spread of STDs — furthering epidemic rates of HIV/AIDS. With enforcement practices like this one, it's no wonder a UCSF study found that only half of sex workers use condoms with first-time clients, and fewer with repeat customers.
In D.C., San Francisco, and New York, the use of condoms as evidence is not specified under law as either acceptable or unacceptable, so the practice has been left to the discretion of cops and prosecutors.
However, the harmful health repercussions of this practice have long been apparent. Back in the 90s, a San Francisco Task Force on Prostitution recommended, in no uncertain terms, that condoms stop being confiscated or used as evidence for prosecution. And in New York, a bill has been introduced (repeatedly … and let die, repeatedly) in the state legislature banning this improper use of condoms as evidence. This time, it's supported by a campaign by the Sex Workers Project, which has seen momentum starting to build.
It's time to stop throwing up dangerous obstructions to practicing safe sex, and start protecting the health of both sex workers and the public. Please sign the petition telling the mayors of D.C., New York, and San Francisco to issue a statement that fighting STDs, especially HIV/AIDS, is their top priority — and that nobody should be afraid carry condoms, because it won't be used against them as evidence of sex work.
Mathew Payne
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:42 am
Before 9/11 there used to be petitions circulated which chastised the Taliban for their oppression of women. I always thought these were the definition of narcissistic stupidity, as obviously the Taliban didn’t care in the slightest about western email chains. However I will say this for the petitions – they weren’t going to cost billions of dollars or get hundreds of U.S. service people killed, and they had about an equal chance of success as our current policy efforts.
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:50 am
We should put some kind of testosterone blocker in the water supply. That kind of society selects for types that are antithetical to civilization as we know it. Deprive them of their guns–it is seemingly all that most of their men understand.
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:54 am
In anticipation of the inevitable comments from the usual suspects: Ann Friedman clearly hates women, as do Matt and jimBOB. The only gender-equitable thing for the United States to do is to commit to spend an indefinite amount of time and money killing as many Afghans as is necessary to elevate Afghanistan to Danish levels of gender equality.
ADDENDUM: Darn, Mimikatz beat me to it when the board ate my first post.
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:13 pm
The fundamental problem with our Afghanistan strategy is that our presence there is not supported by any compelling or even articulable rationale. There is no achievable objective other than the true one, which is simply to protect Obama’s political flank, both by avoiding blame in the event of another terrorist attack, and by placating the military/national security apparatus.. (extra period to get around “duplicate” message)
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:16 pm
#4 posted after eight attempts.
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Afghanistan needs Albanian-style social revolution, but Albania no longer has the know-how. I would consider making Afghanistan part of our negotiations with North Korea. Give the NoKo’s free reign to make Afghanistan a socialist state, complete with a share of the drug trafficking revenues during the transition (apparently the NoKo’s have experience in this area), in exchange for giving up their nuclear program. Afghanistan is perhaps the only country that would be improved by a massively repressive project of wholesale social upheaval.
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Bush and his wife were lying when they said they cared about Afghan women. Obama is not even claiming that anymore (he used some new and old lies in his West Point speech, but not that one). Yet there are still people ready to believe anything in order to support the occupation of a foreign country.
War is good, especially for the brown people getting bombed. It is the white man’s burden.
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:04 pm
checkinout,
“Preventing al Qaeda from having access to a friendly government” is both a compelling and easily-articulated interest.
If you want to argue that this goal isn’t achievable, beneficial, or worth the cost, have at it, but there’s no great mystery about why we invaded Afghanistan after 9/11, and why we don’t want that country’s political situation to return to the status quo ante.
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Prediction: why oh why will be unable to put together an argument, and also unable to prevent himself from trying, and write something vacuous involving the term “brown people.”
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Is there no way we could keep Karzai in power in Kabul without military engagements all over Afghanistan? Is there no way to ensure that a successor government would not be friendly to al Qaeda?
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:35 pm
I’m hardly thrilled with the empower-the-Taliban strategy. But even this strategy is different from a sheer takeover, which would give their zealotry free rein and remove all meaningful checks on it. (Peter Bergen said on Fresh Air Dec. 3 that the Taliban would take over easily in the event of NATO withdrawal.) The Afghan people appear to agree that there’s a difference between negotiation, however egregious, and Taliban rule; according to a January 2009 poll by ABC News, BBC, and ARD, 58 percent regard the Taliban as the single biggest threat facing the country. I doubt negotiation is their main concern. The long-term prospects for women’s rights are not as inherently dire as Matthew’s pessimistic take would suggest, either. According to the same poll, “inety-two percent support girls’ schools and 91 percent favor women voting-–near-unanimous majorities. Fewer but still most support women working outside the home, 77 percent; or holding government office, 69 percent.” (Percentages are lower in Pashtun regions. Still, the overall numbers are striking.) Source: http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1083a1Afghanistan2009.pdf.
December 23rd, 2009 at 2:59 pm
After 7 years of Bush’s dithering, the military situation has really gone to hell. At least for right now, the outcome of us leaving a power vacuum would be a Taliban takeover.
Hence, the strategy of dealing a blow to knock them back, and working to get the central government into some kind of respectable shape. This is only viable as a short-term strategy, however – which is why it was so important as part of our war strategy for Obama to make clear that we’re going to start leaving in a year or two.
I don’t think people get that last part. That part was not just an admission that we can only do so much and won’t hang around forever if there’s no progress to be made. It’s also a political reality of its on, that can change the political realities with Afghanistan. Look what happened when we signed the SOFA in Iraq, made withdrawal our official policy, and set a timeline. The various insurgencies calmed down, political deals became much more doable, and the central government became much more credible in the eyes of its people.
December 23rd, 2009 at 4:34 pm
I think it is a very good idea to consider the opinions and analysis of the local groups who are supporting the cause that outsiders claim to support.
They are locals and understand the situation better. We are not and we do not.
The group with preeminent authority in this area is RAWA. They say get the combat troops out as soon as possible. I do not necessarily agree with them. But I think it is important to understand what they are saying.
Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA)
http://www.rawa.org/index.php
But maybe we should not listen. Seems quaint now, but I remember when they were called suspect radicals and commies, and crazy by Very Serious People in the US.
December 23rd, 2009 at 4:59 pm
(Note: I’m not quite sure I’d say Afghans are “brown people,” or at least a majority of them. It doesn’t or shouldn’t matter, of course (except in weighing the relative risks of skin cancer and vitamin D3 deficiency), but as a matter of biological fact, they just don’t seem to have, on average, that much melanin. I’m just sayin’…)
I think that the basic issue is that the U.S. military and the Karzai government are basically indifferent to the rights of women (and of about 95% of men too). They’re content to let prevailing norms about gender relations continue to prevail. The Taliban, on the other hand, isn’t content to leave badly enough alone, but wants to challenge prevailing norms from a more-sexist viewpoint. On the narrow question of women’s rights, one needn’t ascribe any benevolent motives to the Afghan government or the US military to acknowledge the malevolent motives of the core of the Taliban — although one might plausibly make the case that if the Karzai government is fundamentally so fractious and corrupt that it is doomed to failure followed by Taliban takeover, a swift and decisive Taliban victory might be better for Afghan women than a protracted civil war which leads to lots of people getting shot. That doesn’t strike me as too plausible, though, since the Taliban never could decisively defeat the Northern Alliance even when no one was really trying to help them.
December 23rd, 2009 at 8:13 pm
And why is that, exactly? I’ve found that groups with the term “Revolutionary” in the United States tend have virtually no following among the population, and revolutionary Marxists don’t exactly seem to have the Afghan masses in their corner, either.
December 24th, 2009 at 2:31 am
Note with regard to comment #14: The claim I make that Afghan women likely benefit from U.S. assistance to the Karzai government should not be taken as a per se endorsement of the Obama administration’s policy in Afghanistan. If the actual motive of our foreign policy were to help women, we could help a lot more women improve their lives a lot more for a lot fewer resources than by waging war in Afghanistan, with a lot fewer adverse effects.
December 24th, 2009 at 6:53 am
(Peter Bergen said on Fresh Air Dec. 3 that the Taliban would take over easily in the event of NATO withdrawal.)
It depends what you mean by ‘take over’. The southern Pashtun belt? Yes. Kabul? Not likely. The northern provinces next to the Stans? With one exception, no way.
The group with preeminent authority in this area is RAWA.
The group with the preeminent authority in this area is the Ministry of Women Affairs and the various members of the Wolesi Jirga (parliment) – one of member of the latter is quite emphatic about ISAF withdrawal but she’s the exception.
Rawa is an old Marxist group – not that there’s anything wrong with that per se; there’s a lot of former communists in the current government – but the only thing declaring that they are the voice of women in Afghanistan is their own declarations.