Yesterday afternoon, Jake Tapper of ABC News put White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on the spot about what it means to discuss women's rights as well as human rights:

TAPPER: And if I may, just one more. In his March — in his March speech President Obama mentioned that if the Taliban returns to controlling Afghanistan it would be bad for human rights. And he specifically singled out women and girls. He did not mention human rights in Afghanistan. He talked about human rights more broadly, but last night he didn't mentioned human rights in Afghanistan and he definitely didn't mention specifically women and girls.

GIBBS: Well, I believe in — I believe in the context of the three pillars that he saw, mentioning the basic recognition of human rights in Afghanistan is obviously important to what is happening there.

TAPPER: But he didn't mention women and girls, and is that...

GIBBS: Again, I think the umbrella of basic human rights was — was the same thing.

TAPPER: So even though he mentioned it in March and he didn't mention it last night, we're not supposed to read anything into that at all?

GIBBS: I wouldn't. I mean, I have not looked exactly at the word phrasing of each speech, but the umbrella of basic — recognizing the basic human rights of everybody in Afghanistan would include that, yes.

Gibbs' argument that women's rights are human rights is a good one, and one often used by feminists. However, its been shown before that if the rights of women are not specifically addressed,they can easily fall to the wayside. As Gayle Tzemach Lemmon explains in the Daily Beast, while war is hell for all involved, everyone in Afghanistan is not suffering equally:

A recent U.N. report said the country suffers from "a deeply entrenched culture of impunity" in which perpetrators of violence seldom face punishment and victims "risk further violence in the course of seeking justice."

But some women's rights groups, including Women for Afghan Women, the organization that oversees the shelter where Naseema lives, greeted President Obama's speech Tuesday night-and his vow to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan-with a modicum of hope, and a call for a long-term American commitment to the country.

"Without security, the Taliban will engulf the country and return women to the hell of rape, domestic captivity, denial of education and health care-to the erasure of their very humanity," the group's leaders said in a statement. [...]

Wenny Kusuma, who heads the United Nations Development Fund for Women in Afghanistan, calls violence against women the most urgent and immediate issue facing the nation's females-and one that has yet to be taken seriously by the Afghan government or its international backers. "Until politicians and the international community stop offering lip service to the rights of women and begin backing their words with some seriousness, [the violence] will continue to get worse," Kusuma says.

Over at Politico, Ben Smith talks to Ellie Smeal of the Feminist Majority Foundation, who could not believe such a critical security issue was left out:

"It is so naïve just to think [the Taliban] are just going to stay [in Afghanistan]," she said. "They have international backing, they have international funding, and they intend to take on all modern values and ways of life," she said. "They're establishing a totalitarian dictatorship that they want to spread."

Smeal also argued that Obama's policy would be an easier sell if he focused on Taliban human rights abuses.

"People don't like what they did to women," she said of the Taliban. "If the whole picture was revealed the American public would be more supportive."

Admirers of the White House approach, however, argue that America's Afghan allies also have horrendous human rights records, and that President Obama doesn't actually want to drum up support for engagement in a country he intends to leave.

Glenn Greenwald also thinks that Obama made the right choice in not emphasizing the rights of women:

While Obama's speech last night largely comported to what his aides spent days anonymously previewing, there was one (pleasantly) unexpected aspect: he commendably dispensed with the propagandistic pretext that we are fighting in Afghanistan in order to deliver freedom and democracy to that country and to improve the plight of Afghan women. Many Democrats (the self-proclaimed "liberal hawks") love to support American wars on the self-righteous ground that we're going to drop enough Freedom Bombs to liberate millions and invade other countries in order to re-make other peoples' cultures for their own good. In order to maximize support for his escalation, Obama — like Bush so often did — could easily have relied on that appeal to our national narcissism and exploited justifiable disgust for the Taliban in order to manipulate "liberal hawks" into supporting this war on human rights grounds. During the build-up to the speech, it was predicted by several influential Obama advisers that he would do exactly that. Indeed, when announcing his prior Afghanistan escalation in March, Obama played up the humanitarian rationale for this war.

But there was almost none of that in last night's speech. As Ben Smith correctly notes, Obama did not even mention — let alone hype — the issue of women's rights in Afghanistan. There were no grandiose claims that the justness of the war derives from our desire to defeat evil, tyrannical extremists and replace them with more humane and democratic leaders. To the contrary, he was commendably blunt that our true goal is not to improve the lives of Afghan citizens but rather: "Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda." There were no promises to guarantee freedom and human rights to the Afghan people. To the contrary, he explicitly rejected a mission of broad nation-building "because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost and what we need to achieve to secure our interests"; he said he "refuse[d] to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests"; and even vowed to incorporate the convertible factions of the Taliban into the government.

Not only did he refrain from those manipulative appeals, he made explicitly clear that we are in Afghanistan to serve our own interests (as he perceives them), not to build a better nation for Afghans. Nation-building, he said, goes "beyond ... what we need to achieve to secure our interests" and "go beyond our responsibility." We're there to serve our interests and do nothing else. That should throw cold water on all on the preening fantasies of all but the blindest and most naive "liberal war supporters" that we're there to help the Afghan people.

Matt Yglesias cautiously agrees with the sentiments expressed by Greenwald but points out that the situation isn't clear cut, and while the Administration may have impure motives, it would be best to listen to women on the ground :

Well, look, it's hard to see how supporting a government with Karzai's record could support a substantial gain for women's rights until you consider that the most plausible alternative is . . . the Taliban. It's like how Ben Nelson is more progressive than Mike Johanns. "Better than the Taliban" is a low bar to cross and, consequently, the coalition we're backing in Afghanistan crosses it*. If you read what groups like the Feminist Majority Foundation or the Funders Network for Afghan Women or Human Rights Watch are saying, none of them are cheerleading for Obama's policies, but none of them are calling for the withdrawal of international military forces either. Instead, they're generally calling for a more ambitious approach.

Can Obama balance our national security initiatives with the realities of fighting an unpopular war? Perhaps. But there will be no easy answers.

Today's Qs for O's WH – 12/2/2009 [ABC News]
What the Surge Means for Women [The Daily Beast]
Feminists 'disappointed' by Afghanistan speech [Politico]
The commendably missing element from Obama's speech [Salon]
The Surge and Afghan Women [Think Progress]

You see, in Palin's eyes, anyone who supports a woman's right to choose apparently might have "the mind-set" that allows them to pull the plug on Grandma or force women to terminate pregnancies if the baby is not, in Palin's words "normal or perfect." It is, of course, another attempt on Palin's behalf to scare the shit out of people with her "death panel" nonsense, and her attempt to step it up a notch by tying in her stance on abortion rights (or, rather, lack thereof) just makes things more repulsive. "In order to save government money, government health care has to be rationed," Palin told the crowd, "[so] than this elderly person that perhaps could be seen as costing taxpayers to pay for a non-productive life? Do you think our elderly will be first in line for limited health care?"

Palin also took the time to drop this laughable statement: "It is so bogus that society is sending a message right now and has been for probably the last 40 years that a woman isn't strong enough or smart enough to be able to pursue an education, a career and her rights and still let her baby live." You know what else is bogus? That Sarah Palin continues to position herself as a savior of women's rights when her entire platform essentially rests on taking them away.

Palin Rallies Thousands Of Abortion Supporters [Politico]

• And to make it even better, his tagline is "What? I like variety," which is an odd choice for the man notorious for sticking to his "type." Related: Hugh is finally getting a divorce. • The Australian government has announced plans to widen protection for women fleeing their home countries out of fear for possible genital mutilation and honor killings. Women at risk will now be covered by the "Refugees Convention." • Four women from Wisconsin have been charged with being party to felony false imprisonment after they held a 37-year-old man captive and super-glued his penis to his stomach as a twisted punishment for his philandering ways. The woman who did the gluing, Therese Ziemann, is also charged with misdemeanor fourth-degree sexual assault. • An increase in availability of sex-determination and sex-selection technology has lead to a huge disparity between the number of male and female babies born in Vietnam (112.1 male babies per 100 female babies). The U.N. says they fear the widening gap may lead to a greater demand for sex work, and increased gender-based violence. • Iranian video artist Shirin Neshat has premiered her first feature film about women's rights in 1953 Iran, titled "Women Without Men" at the Venice film festival. Neshat says that much of the material she explores in the film can be applied to the situation today in Iran. • Michelle Obama has given her support to a request from the Freshfarm Markets to close a section of Vermont Avenue for a weekly farmers' market. If the request goes through, the busy street would be blocked off every Thursday between 1 p.m. and 8 p.m. • 16-year-old Jessica Watson had hoped to become the youngest person to sail around the world, but just days before she was about to sail, she crashed her boat, the Pink Lady, into a 63,000-ton cargo carrier of the coast of Australia. • Lynndie England is suing writer Gary S. Winkler for seizing control of her biography, which she had hoped would help salvage her image. The book, Tortured: Lynndie England, Abu Ghraib and the Photographs That Shocked the World, is apparently not selling very well. "Nobody's getting rich here. I'm in the hole," said Winkler. • A Portuguese judge has banned further sales of a book written by a former policeman on the grounds that it hampers the search for Madeleine McCann. The book in question claims that McCann, who has been missing since May 2007, is dead. • In attempts to change his reputation as a "closed, brutal dictator," Iranian President Mahoud Ahmadinejad has already appointed one woman to his cabinet and is pushing for a second. However, women's rights activists recognize that the women appointed will probably not further their cause. "These women that Mr. Ahmadinejad selected are anti-woman," said Aida Qajar. • Attorneys for NFL player Ben Roethlisberger have rejected a "bizarre" offer to settle a lawsuit accusing Roethlisberger of rape. The so-called "bizarre" deal asks that the quarterback admit he raped Andrea McNulty and donate $100,000 to a women's advocacy group. Roethlisberger's lawyers claim her proposal "insults women who have legitimately suffered from sexual misconduct." Say what? • A panel of medical experts have voted to approve HPV vaccine Cervarix. The FDA will review the application and make a decision by September 29th. • According to a recent survey, one in every 33 women who regularly attend religious services has been the target of sexual advances by religious leader. • The Australian government said Wednesday that they are willing to allow women to serve in frontline combat units. American women are currently barred from combat roles. However, according to this article (and photograph) Australian women already serve on the frontline. • A British coroner failed to determine whether the LighterLife diet contributed to the death of 34-year-old bride-to-be Samantha Clowe. • IAAF spokesman Nick Davies said on Tuesday that even if Caster Semenya's gender tests show that she has had an "unfair advantage" due to a medical condition, she will most likely get to keep her gold medal. "This is not a doping case at present so it shouldn't be considered as one where you have a retroactive stripping of results," he explained. •

But before I dive into Clinton, here is a rundown of what's been happening to women around the globe.

The Guardian reports that young women in the rural areas of Uganda are completely removed from financial matters, as their families immediately take their earnings and they are prohibited from forming any sort of relationship with money. In addition to the obvious issues of not being able to form money management skills, the girls are forced to fight for even the most basic necessities - even maxi pads. A lack of proper sanitary tools causes girls to miss up to five days of school a month, and has even farther reaching effects than absenteeism:

Girls at Katine primary school say their lack of money is a constant source of worry for them.

"Sanitary towels cost more than UShs 5,000 ($2.50) per pack and every year you need new books and new uniforms to come to school. I also want new underwear," says Helen Ekoth, a 14-year-old primary school student.

Ekoth says she asks her mother for money, but the family doesn't have enough to spare.

"There are some girls who go to boys for small things like soap or sanitary towels, but my mother tells me never to do this. Some girls get pregnant because the boys have given them things and then they can't sit their exams."

In Uganda 31% of girls get pregnant in their teens, the highest rate in sub-Saharan Africa. According to Plan International nearly 40% of these pregnancies are unwanted or unplanned.

The girls are trading sex for soap.

In Pakistan's Swat Valley, young girls are also fighting for their right to go to school, but have a different enemy they are warring against. In an exclusive for the Women's Media Center, Shazia Z. Rafi compares the girls to the Little Rock 9, noting that both are epic battles for equality in education:

In January this year feminists around the world sounded alarms as the Taliban overran the Swat valley, a middle class tourist haven, blew up 200 girls schools, threatened any teachers or girls who dared attend schools, beheaded detractors, and enforced their version of Islamic law on men and women. "The Taliban have been growing for a decade, with either neglect or encouragement by various governments, ending with this shameful Nizam-e-Adl in 2009," accuses Afzal Khan Lala, referring to the law's enactment. Khan Lala, who lost two grandsons to fighting the Taliban, was the sole holdout among senior politicians from Swat. [...]

The war in Swat is still smoldering; only 10 percent of the students have attended the first week of school; majority of schools are still closed or to be rebuilt. Much of the Taliban leadership remains at large, although clearly identifiable as they are giving media interviews by mobile phone. The Pakistan government must use superior force and technology to find them, jam their websites and their terrorizing FM radios and then sustain the political will to arrest and prosecute the Taliban under the Pakistan penal code. The United States must help Pakistan financially and technologically in this operation.

As the Obama Administration and the donor Friends of Pakistan group meet on August 25, 2009 in Turkey to review Pakistan's aid package-including support for the Malakand/Swat division-the key benchmarks of progress are not the numbers of Taliban dead but the numbers of girls, and boys, returning to schools. The Pakistan state must provide visible and sustained security to Swat's school children-they are Pakistan's Little Rock Nine.

Over in Afghanistan, women are finding that the strong rallying cry of women's rights used as one of the reasons to go to war post-9/11 was actually just a piece of rhetoric used by the Bush Administration to drum up support. It has been seven years, and Rachel Reid of the Human Rights Watch notes that women are once again being legislated into second-class status:

[E]ducational gains plummet when girls hit secondary school, with just 4 percent of female students reaching 10th grade. Violence against women is endemic; women in public life are regularly threatened, and several have been assassinated.

Things got much worse recently when President Hamid Karzai officially promulgated legislation that would make the Taliban proud. Unfortunately, this is part of a pattern: As Karzai's government has grown weaker he has increasingly turned to some of society's most conservative elements for support.

The Shia Personal Status Law, the most egregious of a series of deals to appease fundamentalist religious leaders and former warlords, contains many provisions that are offensive to women. Custody rights are granted exclusively to fathers and grandfathers. A woman can leave the house without her husband's permission only if she has "reasonable legal reasons," which are unspecified. Yet the law does stipulate financial compensation to be paid by a man who rapes a child or a mentally ill woman, for her loss of virginity, while omitting any reference to a criminal punishment.

In Thailand, women are suffering at the brutal intersection of international capitalism, labor rights, and feminism. Tippimol Kiatwateerattana's innocently named article "Bra Story" actually paints a tale of horror and sacrifice for the women laboring in garment shops in Thailand:

"Too tight will not be beautiful, too loose is also not good. [The bra] must be well-balanced," Yeung told us briefly as she does not normally talk much. Her friend had to interrupt. "Difficult or not you can see from her fingers that are now in such a crooked shape. It took her a long time before she went to see the doctor".

The one who has just been teased confessed that she was scared that she might have to undergo surgery on her fingers. She was not scared because of pain but that somebody might steal her position while she recovered.

[...]

In a year, these three senior women hardly took any days off. Surin used the words "even when you are sick, you must drag yourself to work". For the best employee award, Thanyanun said that there was one time she woke up late and missed the bus from where she lived in faraway Rangsit. She had to take a taxi to Bangphli. "It cost more than my wages but I still had to come", she said.

Do you still wonder why these three women are so diligent? Why do they love their jobs this much? If a worker has taken no sick leave or any other kind of leave and never reported late for work, they can earn 1,200 baht or receive a yearly pension of around 450 baht. The amount is not actually worthwhile but it is a result of the time coupon system of work that the factory practices. [...]

The time coupon system basically means the worker's wage is paid according to the wholesale price of a finished product. Each assigned task will come with fixed amount of time its completion. "For example, if we are tasked to stick on 20 bows with a 20 minute coupon, that means we have to get it done within 20 minutes. Each day, we have to do the task at this rate for up to the 480 minutes they assign. If we cannot match the given amount of time, we will only get the minimum rate (355 baht per day). But if we can, they will count the excess time at 1.03 baht per minute," explained Boonrod Saiwong, Secretary-General of Triumph International Labour Union.

Workers who cannot finish the tasks within the fixed time get told off by the supervisor. At the same time, colleagues who are involved in the process will automatically put pressure on them too as the output of each worker also affect their work.

"So there is no surprise if you see some employees cry while sewing," said Thanyanun.

And in the Congo, one of the most widespread crimes of war is still occurring on a regular basis:

The conflict in eastern Congo is a toxic mix of jostling militias, ethnic tensions, greed for resource wealth, a tragic colonial history, a predatory army and opportunistic neighbors. Rape is commonly used as a weapon in this war. Although reliable statistics are difficult to come by, it's estimated that close to 200,000 women have been raped since the conflict began 13 years ago.

In a recent surge in violence, an estimated 3,500 women and girls have been raped since the beginning of the year. Men and boys also are increasingly victims of sexual assault.

In the mix of this outward misogyny, Hillary Clinton has decided to make a stand for the rights of women around the globe. News reports note with some surprise:

When Clinton ignored security advice and flew to Goma, in the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo, her focus on the region's rape crisis resonated with some of the continent's most powerless people: women.

It wasn't just that she was the first top-level American official to go to the epicenter of one of the world's deadliest wars, nor even the U.S. aid money she promised. It was her reaction to victims' stories of rape — and the hope that she might do something about it.

Today's Washington Post article on her journey further elaborates, saying:

It is striking how much time Clinton dedicates to women's events on her trips, even ones that receive little public attention. In South Africa, a clearly delighted Clinton spent 90 minutes at the housing project, twice as long as she met with South Africa's president. "It feeds my heart," she explained. "Which is really critical to me personally since a lot of what I do as secretary of state is very formalistic. It's meetings with other officials."

However, the tone of quite a few of these articles puts me off. As I read about Clinton's achievements overseas - her frequent mentioning of women's issues in her speeches, the increased application of aid to women in war-torn countries, her lobbying powerful friends to lend their clout to these causes, the rearranging of diplomatic priorities - I also note quite a few digs being published about Clinton's capacity to affect change.

Quotes from conservatives in the Post article help to cast doubts about what can actually be accomplished - and if the US should be focusing on the rights of women:

"It's great she's mentioning the issue," said Brett Schaefer, an Africa scholar at the Heritage Foundation. "As to whether her bringing it up will substantially improve the situation or treatment of women in Africa, frankly I doubt it."

Lawrence Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, said that Clinton has to tread carefully in socially conservative regions, particularly those where the U.S. military is at war. "You might be right, in the narrow sense of women in that country or region need to be empowered, but you're saying something inimical to other U.S. interests," he said.

Right, because we can talk about women's rights when it's convenient to promote a war, but need to abandon it as an actual strategy.

It is also implied that adopting the fight for gender equality was really Hillary's way to get back at Washington:

Clinton's interest in global women's issues is deeply personal, a mission she adopted as first lady after the stinging defeat of her health-care reform effort in 1994. For months, she kept a low profile. Then, in September 1995, she addressed the U.N. women's conference in Beijing, strongly denouncing abuses of women's rights. Delegates jumped to their feet in applause.

And seemingly every article about her visit to the African continent has to include a paragraph like this:

Despite Clinton's efforts to spotlight women's issues, it was her own angry response to what she perceived as a sexist question at a town hall meeting in Congo that dominated American television coverage of her Africa trip. A student had asked for former president Bill Clinton's opinion on a local political issue — "through the mouth of Mrs. Clinton." Snapped Hillary Clinton: "My husband is not the secretary of state. I am."

Honestly, it feels like they are trying to undermine her efforts.

And it isn't just conservatives trivializing Clinton's efforts and accomplishments. As we wrote earlier, Tina Brown and Joe Scarborough seem to think Hillary should bow to their edicts on how to dress and behave before they will consider taking a serious look at what she is working on. And incessant focus on her physical appearance to the detriment of her message is a dilemma that Clinton knows all too well.

Sadly, it appears that to many that the idea of a politician caring about women's rights for more than political points is a joke, that a woman in a position of power cannot create change unless she is perfectly coiffed, and that some things (like military might) are worth more of a focus than others (ending a war through the populace).

To co-opt an old saying, women around the globe should be seen, but their issues should not be heard.

Why Girls Are Economically Challenged [Guardian]
Pakistan's Little Rock Nine [WMC]
For Afghan Women, Rights Again At Risk [Washington Post]
Bra Story [Prachatai]
Hillary Clinton's Stop In Congo Strikes A Chord In Africa [LA Times]
Clinton Puts Spotlight On Women's Issues [Washington Post]

Earlier: Tina Brown-Style "Tide Of Trivialization" Threatens To Swamp Clinton Trip
What's More Important: Rape In Congo Or Hillary's Bad Hair Day?

"In India, China and sub-Saharan Africa, millions upon millions of women are missing. They are not lost, but dead: victims of violence, discrimination and neglect," writes Nicole Baute, who spends the rest of the article exploring the various causes behind the "missing women" phenomenon.

Female infanticide in countries like China has widely been considered one of the causes behind the gender discrepancies in population growth. However, Baute points out a study by Siwan Anderson and Debraj Ray that shows that while infanticide is certainly an issue, the majority of "excess female deaths" comes much later in life. As Anderson notes: "Previously, people had thought that they (the missing women) were all at the very early stages of life, prenatal or just after, so before four years old. But what we found is that the majority are actually later."

Those "later" deaths can be attributed to a number of factors: poor access to health care for women, high suicide rates, HIV and AIDS, and dowry-related murders (which, Burke notes, are marked as "injuries.") Women are treated as second-class citizens whose worth often has a monetary price, and when that price gets too high, they are quickly disposed of. "If you're interested in gender discrimination," Anderson says, "it's really one of the starkest measures of discrimination, because it's women who should be alive, but aren't."

How Did 100,000,000 Women Disappear? [Toronto Star]

It wasn't that long ago that Obama's Secretary of State-to-be, Hillary Clinton, was saying how this Administration was going to be different when it comes to how we treat women's issues in the pantheon of foreign policy. In her confirmation hearing, Clinton told Senator Barbara Boxer:

And I want to pledge to you that as secretary of state I view these issues as central to our foreign policy, not as adjunct or auxiliary or in any way lesser than all of the other issues that we have to confront. [emphasis added]

In an article I wrote for the Spring issue of Ms., I explored the idea — first popularized by First Lady Hillary Clinton, that women's rights are human rights and that this Administration would treat the that way.

For Hillary Clinton, the opportunity to make women's issues central to foreign policy is a mission come true. Back in 1995, she gave a famous speech at the U.N. Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, where she said, "If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, let it be that human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights, once and for all."

It seems, however, that it might take just a little longer to have that dream realized.

In his speech yesterday, which touched on everything from the Israel-Palestinian conflict, to the United States' conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, to religious freedom and democracy promotion, Obama did take a moment to touch on women's issues — as pretty much completely separate from all those other issues.

The sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights.

I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now let me be clear: issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity - men and women - to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.

Hmm. Let's see how this differs from the Bush Administration. Micro-finance? Been there. Literacy and education expansion? Done that. Dissing the French ban on hijabs in public schools? What year is this again?

Somehow, between all his speech writers, foreign policy wonks and consultations with the State Department, there managed to be no mention of the horrors that women and girls face every day in some countries in the region — be it child marriage or FGM or lack of basic freedoms of movement and association — or the role that those issues play in democracy promotion, economic development, prosperity or religious freedom. And it's not like they don't know how to write a speech like that — because, again, they did it for Hillary Clinton's confirmation hearing.

Our foreign policy must reflect our deep commitment to help millions of oppressed people around the world. And of particular concern to me is the plight of women and girls, who comprise the majority of the world's unhealthy, unschooled, unfed, and unpaid. If half the world's population remains vulnerable to economic, political, legal and social marginalization, our hope of advancing democracy and prosperity is in serious jeopardy. The United States must be an unequivocal and unwavering voice in support of women's rights in every country on every continent.

An unequivocal and unwavering voice, that is, from the safety and isolation of Washington when fewer people are listening.

President Obama Addresses Muslim World In Cairo [Washington Post]

Related: A New State of Mind [Ms.]

Related reading: Obama Befriends The Hijab [Salon]
Let Women Wear the Hijab: The Emptiness of Obama's Cairo Speech [UN Dispatch]
Obama On Women's Rights in Cairo [The American Prospect]
Obama, Gender & the Muslim World [The Kitchen Table via Feministing]
Liz Cheney: Speech 'Missed Some Fundamental Points' [Morning Joe]
Throwing Women Under The Bus [The Economist]
A Muslim Woman's Perspective on Obama's Speech [double X]

Earlier: Hillary Clinton Talked The (Girl) Talk At Senate Confirmation

Below is a video (apologies for the poor quality) of Tigresse Flow performing their hit "Maghribiya" (Moroccan Woman). The group members, Miss ND, Soltana and Miss Wiba, didn't always plan to go into music, and only started rapping after a fruitless job search. They got their big break in 2008 when they received several awards, one at the Mawazine music festival in Rabat and another at a rap gathering "Ouf de Bled." Their prize for winning the Mawazine music festival included funding for their first album and video.

Although the number of pop concerts and music festivals are said to be steadily growing in Morocco, they are not universally welcomed. Moroccan Islamist politicians have claimed that the concerts encourage immoral behavior, including heavy drinking and promiscuity.

The ladies of Tigresse Flow, however, do not swear or rap about their sexual exploits. Their songs do not even have what Reuters terms the "bling attitude" common to American rappers. Instead, they address violence, unemployment, poverty, and women's rights. "Most of our fans are women and they are who we're aiming at," said Miss MD. "We rap about the problems of our generation — unemployment, violence — but also about joy and all the good times we've had together."

Female Rappers Push Limits In Conservative Morocco [Reuters]

The law would legalize marital rape; require women to seek their husband's permission to leave the house; additionally mean that women obtain their husband's permission to see a doctor, go to school or work; and eliminate the child custody rights of women in the event of divorce or widowhood. No, for real. This is what the government we've installed is about to do to half its citizens. Our government — which is happily handing out Viagra in tribal areas to ensure the military and intelligence cooperation of impotent warlords — is backing the President of a country who is putting into effect a new law which legislates away what few rights those warlords' wives have. I guess somebody in the embassy forgot to read Hillary Clinton's confirmation hearing testimony in which she promised to elevate the status of women's rights in foregin policy.

And why do you think our puppet government is perfect happy to legislate away the hard-fought rights of half its citizens — rights, by the way, that the U.S. actually sort of fought for on their behalf? To increase Karzai's chance of winning re-election in a country that is sick of his increasingly corrupt and ineffective government. There's a reason they call the guy the Mayor of Kabul.

After seven years leading Afghanistan, Karzai is increasingly unpopular at home and abroad and the presidential election in August is expected to be extremely closely fought. A western diplomat said the law represented a "big tick in the box" for the powerful council of Shia clerics.

Leaders of the Hazara minority, which is regarded as the most important bloc of swing voters in the election, also demanded the new law.

Ustad Mohammad Akbari, an MP and the leader of a Hazara political party, said the president had supported the law in order to curry favour among the Hazaras.

And if that's not fun enough, check out how well the Islamic supporters of the law can parrot the talking points of American conservatives when it comes to women and "innate" differences.

But [Akbari] said the law actually protected women's rights.

"Men and women have equal rights under Islam but there are differences in the way men and women are created. Men are stronger and women are a little bit weaker; even in the west you do not see women working as firefighters."

By the way, Akbari says that women can refuse sex with their husbands if they are sick or have a "reasonable" excuse — not that they could, like, prosecute that or anything — and they would totally be allowed to leave the house without permission in an emergency. There's, naturally, nothing in the law that defines a reasonable excuse or an emergency, but I'm assuming that will be for the husband or male authorities to determine.

Of course, Afghanistan's Western allies (ie., the U.S. and its allies) have been suspiciously quiet about this heinous new law, being as Karzai's people have convinced us that it's the only way he can win the election.

"It is going to be tricky to change because it gets us into territory of being accused of not respecting Afghan culture, which is always difficult," a western diplomat in Kabul admitted.

Soraya Sobhrang, the head of women's affairs at the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, said western silence had been "disastrous for women's rights in Afghanistan".

"What the international community has done is really shameful. If they had got more involved in the process when it was discussed in parliament we could have stopped it. Because of the election I am not sure we can change it now. It's too late for that."

Some diplomats are claiming that we'll, like, totes object when the law is final.

Some female Parliamentarians are trying to see the silver lining in the big black cloud of this law, at least until their husbands rescind their permission to work.

Some female politicians have taken a more pragmatic stance, saying their fight in parliament's lower house succeeded in improving the law, including raising the original proposed marriage age of girls from nine to 16 and removing completely provisions for temporary marriages.

"It's not really 100% perfect, but compared to the earlier drafts it's a huge improvement," said Shukria Barakzai, an MP.

Well, hey, no more child brides! I'm sure that will be prosecuted with the same alacrity that women are prosecuted for leaving the house or working without the permission of their husbands.

'Worse than the Taliban' - New Law Rolls Back Rights For Afghan Women [The Guardian]

Earlier: Viagra: The Gift That Keeps On Giving, Even In Afghanistan
Hillary Clinton Talked The (Girl) Talk At Senate Confirmation

The first study, on mental health, reveals the effect violence has had on the Iraqi people. On Saturday, the Iraqi government and the World Health Organization released a survey of 4,332 adult Iraqis which found that 17 percent suffered from mental disorders, such as depression, phobias, post-traumatic stress disorder, and anxiety, according to The New York Times. Women were particularly affected, with 19 percent of women reporting mental health problems compared to 14 percent of men. A higher proportion of women suffering from severe depression, phobias, and anxiety - and 70 percent of men and women with mental health issues - reported contemplating suicide.

Another study, conducted by Oxfam and Al-Amal Association, an Iraqi women's organization, conducted interviews with 1,700 women and reports (unsurprisingly) that over the past two years their condition has worsened. The BBC reports that a third of the women surveyed had three hours or less of electricity per day, 25 percent had no daily access to drinking water, and 45 percent said their income was worse in 2008 than in previous years. Almost half said their access to health care had worsened in the past two years, 20 percent are victims of domestic violence, and more than 30 percent had family members die violently. As the Oxfam report puts it: "Iraqi women are suffering a silent emergency', trapped in a downward spiral of poverty, desperation and personal insecurity despite an overall decrease in violence in the country."

The survey also reports that there are an estimated 740,000 widows in Iraq, and three quarters do not receive pensions. These women have great difficulty providing for their children and extended family and are often beaten by family members. Women's rights campaigner Hana Adwar tells the BBC it's hard to convince the widows that they deserve better. "The majority feel that this is the will of God, they have to obey the right of their families," she said.

On Saturday, Time also reported that women's rights in Iraq have actually regressed since the fall of Saddam Hussein and sex trafficking is now rampant in the country. Women's rights advocates in the country estimate that tens of thousands of Iraqi women and children have been sold into sex slavery since 2003. Trafficking takes place within the country and internationally, mostly to Syria, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates. Women can easily be taken across the border with forged passports or by being forced to marry and then divorced and put to work when they reach their destination.

Even more disturbingly, it's often impoverished mothers who sell their daughters into slavery. Girls as young as 11 and 12 are sold for anywhere from $2,000 to $30,000. "The buying and selling of girls in Iraq, it's like the trade in cattle," says Hinda, an undercover human rights activist. "I've seen mothers haggle with agents over the price of their daughters."

According to the 2008 U.S. State Department's Trafficking in Persons Report, the Iraqi government is ignoring the problem. The report says the government "offers no protection services to victims of trafficking, reported no efforts to prevent trafficking in persons and does not acknowledge trafficking to be a problem in the country."

Iraqi Surveys Start to Unveil the Mental Scars of War, Especially Among Women [NY Times]
Iraqi Women "Lack Basic Services [BBC]
Iraq's Unspeakable Crime: Mothers Pimping Daughters [Time]

The global theme for this year's celebration, chosen by the United Nations, is "Women and men united to end violence against women and girls." Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has spoken out for the cause today, releasing a statement that noted that women "still comprise the majority of the world's poor, unfed, and unschooled. Like all people, women deserve to live free from violence and fear. To create peaceful, thriving communities, women must be equal partners Ensuring the rights of women and girls is not only a matter of justice. It is a matter of enhancing global peace, progress, and prosperity for generations to come."

A number of International Women's Day protests and rallies took place around the globe both today and yesterday. Here are a few images:

Beirut, Lebanon.

Mumbai, India.

Warsaw, Poland.

Dhaka, Bangladesh. According to the Associated Press, the banner reads "To end the violence against the women and girl child together."

Bangalore, India.

Athens, Greece.

Beijing, China.

Lahore, Pakistan.

Karachi, Pakistan.

[All images via AP]

Clinton Honors Women's Rights, Calls For Equality [AFP]
[International Women's Day]

"The woman tried to escape when she saw a police car and in the process hit another car, which was slightly damaged," said a police spokesman. The woman, whose name and nationality were not released, was turned over to the Saudi Prosecution and Investigation Commission for investigation. [CNN]

Six years later, a lot has changed. While beating, torture, and trafficking of women is still horrifically common and broadly accepted, women's rights groups have made significant headway, today's New York Times reports.

Mary Akrami, director of the Afghan Women Skills Development Center, founded the first women's shelter in Afghanistan in 2003. Now there are four different organizations running shelters in Afghanistan. While they have helped many women escape abuse, and even death, they are not welcomed by everyone:

Women's shelters have been criticized as a foreign intrusion in Afghan society, where familial and community problems have traditionally been resolved through the mediation of tribal leaders and councils. But women's advocates insist that those outcomes almost always favor the men.

Until the advent of the shelters, a woman in an abusive marriage usually had nowhere to turn. If she tried to seek refuge with her own family, her brothers or father might return her to her husband, to protect the family's honor. Women who eloped might be cast out of the family altogether.

In response to the criticism, women's rights advocates insist that they are trying to preserve the structure of the family by mediation and counseling, not break up marriages. However, they have been known to help clients find new husbands, a fact that surely can't win them any points with the opposition.

But the women who arrive at the shelters are typically in serious need. Having nowhere else to turn, the women's shelter gives them a rare safe haven. And the shelters are full of girls like Mariam, 17, who was sold into marriage at age 11 to a man thirty years her senior to pay for her father's drug debts. After suffering years of abuse, Mariam went to the police, who placed her in a women's shelter. When asked what comes next, she said: "I want my divorce, and then I want to study."

Afghan Women Slowly Gaining Protection [New York Times]

NPR profiles several women, each of whom has made peaceful demands on the Iranian government for the advancement of women's rights. One of the most famous woman profiled is Shirin Ebadi, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. Ebadi is a human rights lawyer, and she has been working to raise awareness about the plight of women in Iran for the past thirty years.

Ebadi believes in peaceful, nonviolent campaigning. In 2006, she worked on the "One Million Signatures Campaign," which aimed to inform women about their rights, and to demand changes to the laws that discriminated against them. When they demonstrated in June 2006, many were arrested. Last Decemeber, Ebadi's office was shut down and her computers seized. This incident, among others, has led the Human Rights Watch to say that they fear for Ebadi's life.

However, this has not deterred Ebadi or the other women fighting for their rights in Iran. In her book Iran Awakening, Ebadi wrote: "It is not religion that binds women, but the selective dictates of those who wish them cloistered. That belief, along with the belief that change in Iran must come peacefully and from within, has underpinned my work." It is clear that none of these women are fighting to overthrow their religion or their past, but rather to carve out a new space for women that is in line with their beliefs and history. Azar Nafisi, author of Reading Lolita in Tehran has also said of the women's movement: "You see what no regime can do is take away from their people the past, the memory of what they had achieved...I think the past is creating the way to the future, and that is why the women are so much at the forefront."

Despite Odds, Women's Movement Persists In Iran [NPR]