Liberal and Loving It

Women’s rights, then civilization

I, and I think most people, have always assumed that advances in civilization have then brought about increases in women’s rights. But what if that has it backwards? What if the real cause & effect is that increases in women’s rights have brought us our increases in civilization.

And by civilization I mean society increasing it’s protection of rights for all through the rule of law, an increasingly productive economy that raises the standard of living for all, and the right of all to live life as they choose.

So back to my point. Women’s rights and increases in civilization have tended to progress together. And in societies that are less civilized today - women also have significantly fewer rights.

The poster child for this is the Arabic world. And not just Saudi Arabia and Iran which are horrible on both counts, but also look at Lebanon and Jordan, two of the more "civilized" countries in the region and both have greater rights for women, both legally and culturally.

But you can see the same dichotomy in North America vs. South America. And in Taiwan where women have come close to achieving equality with men to a degree that may even surpass the U.S.

The same holds for the micro-loan programs in place around the world. These programs have found that they are much more effective when the loans are made to women. These loans lead to new business which in turn lead to a stronger economy and more people entering the middle class – a key cause of increasing civilization.

So what does this mean? Well, if women’s rights is the key to increasing civilization, then we should be concentrating on three things as we try to effect dangerous regimes in other countries (and note that these items do not require an invasion):

1. Women must have the vote. The voting rights act was the single biggest step for the civil rights success in this country. With the vote, as women make their cultural changes, they have the political power to enshrine those changes in law.
2. Provide micro-loans to any woman who qualifies in targeted countries. This will give women economic power and an independent platform to push their views from. And this independence will lead women to start asserting their own views, views that will evolve as their success and independence continues.
3. Provide support for political movements that are liberal and either primarily run by women or at a minimum have women in equal numbers at all levels of the organization.

I think the above three steps would be very effective even if it is civilization and then women’s rights. But if it’s women’s rights that have historically brought about increases in civilization, then the above steps will be tremendously powerful. More powerful than an invasion for a lot less cost and a lot less death & destruction.

Trackbacks: The Political Teen, DailyKos, The Indepundit, Mudville Gazette

Bush says Clinton “served ably”

White House Counselor Dan Bartlett today said "there is a long list of wartime presidents who served ably without military experience."

So who was he referring to. George Washington? Nope, he lead the American army in the revolutionary war.

Andrew Jackson? Sorry, he had a long distinguished military career culminating in the victory over the British in the Battle of New Orleans. And G.W. "spend money like Paris Hilton" Bush should never be compared with President Jackson - the one president to pay off the national debt.

Abraham Lincoln? Nope, wrong again. Lincoln fought in close combat in the Black Hawk war. He also came under fire when visiting the fortifications around Washington when Lee's army approached - making him possible the only person to be in combat as president.

Theodore Roosevelt? He didn't just charge up San Juan Hill in the midst of murderous fire, but also fought in close combat throughout Puerto Rico.

FDR? It's true FDR did not fight. He was secretary of the Navy in WWI and before that the US did not need many troops. But all four of his sons enlisted and served in combat zones where they were decorated for bravery. A father fears more the death of his children than his own so through his children we again say no.

Truman - Captain of artillery in WWI.

Eisenhower - if you don't know, go back to school.

Kennedy - PT Boat in WWII - was sunk by a Japanese destroyer.

Johnston - Enlisted, flew on a WWII bombing mission where they came under attack and some bombers did not return.

Nixon - served in the pacific in WWII.

Ford - Navy in WWII, was in several battles in the pacific.

Carter - graduate of Annapolis, Captain of a nuclear submarine.

Reagan - Regan served in the Army during WWII - in Hollywood (turned down for combat duty because of his astigmatism). So no military experience.

Bush (the competent one) - youngest Naval pilot in WWII.

Clinton - didn't even try. No combat experience.

So, Bartlett said "long list" - well a long list is more than one. So the only logical explanation is that he meant Reagan and Clinton both "served ably without military experience."

Assuming that Dan Bartlett was speaking for President Bush, this means President Bush believes that President Clinton served ably as president. I would like to thank President Bush for recognizing the excellent job President Clinton did running the country.

Trackbacks DailyKos, Mudville Gazette, The Political Teen

The simularity of Jim Crow and Islam

The Jim Crow era always struck me as a mass psychosis. After the Civil War and Reconstruction the South successfully fought to institute a new form of legalized racism in place of slavery. And there was no sense to it. It wasn't just bad for blacks, it was bad for most whites too as it made society more static which kept the poor poor and the middle class not-rich.

Disclaimer - this does not hold for all of the Islamic world. Turkey and Bangladesh both have open forward looking societies. And while Indonesia has many problems, few of them seem to be related to Islam.

Ok, back to the rest of the Islamic world which also appears to be suffering from a similar mass psychosis. It is one that removes women from the public sphere, looks back to their past history, and glorifies "righteous death" of it's young men.

Like Jim Crow, the Islamic world is wanting to go back to a previous time. And they are doing a real effective job of keeping their society in this earlier time. As with Jim Crow, it is effecting this through a combination of laws, religion, and cultural norms enforced by thugs.

Like Jim Crow, this straight-jacket of what is allowed and what is required is bad for most of it's society. Clearly its a bad system for its women. But its also bad for anyone who wants to create something, be it a company that employees people or a movie that entertains, or an approach to life that values others. Because in each case this threatens the existing culture and it is violently stopped.

But in one way Islam is even worse than Jim Crow. The Jim Crow era would torture and kill those who threatened it just as Islam does. But Islam has also created a sub-culture that glorifies the deaths of it's "martyrs." And while it's unclear how many actually approve of the suicide bombings, the culture as a whole at a minimum accepts it and large segments do view those who murder innocent civilians - women and children - as worthy of respect.

A society that glorifies death, that encourages its young men to both kill and die. And finds the murder of innocents, and particularly children, has no future. You can't have a future when you are having some of your children kill other of your children.

Maybe the Neo-Cons have a point

Now, I don't think much of President Bush and the neo-cons. But on one basic argument they may have a very strong point. The Jim Crow culture (more than just the laws, the entire culture) was destroyed from outside. It took the federal government and the populace of the rest of America recoiling in horror at the scenes from the South to mortally wound it (its not totally dead yet).

In Turkey it took a strong military dictatorship to break the culture there and turn it in to a secular culture that looks to the future. While this came from the Turks (and great respect is due to them for making this change themselves), it was imposed from the top and fought by many.

But in the Arabic world this change has yet to appear anywhere. And its not clear that it will ever come from inside. Those in charge in each country keep their power in the status-quo. And the religious leaders by and large also want the status-quo, either for the power and/or because they believe a fundamental lifestyle is the correct way to live.

So maybe the only way to break this culture out of its mass psychosis is from outside. And maybe going in to Iraq to force a change, and to create an example, is arguably the best way to cause this change. It has had an effect in Lebanon already.

I don't think change would come from inside. At least not soon. And change is desperately needed in that part of the world.

Trackbacks DailyKos, The Indepundit, Mudville Gazette