Jump to content

Radical Feminist Comes Out For Bush


Recommended Posts

A Radical Feminist Comes Out for Bush

By Phyllis Chesler

FrontPageMagazine.com | January 9, 2004

American feminists, myself included, were horrified by the excesses of the Taliban, but our campaign against them proved ineffective. It took the American military invasion to rid the country--temporarily--of those thugs. However, American progressives, including many feminists, were the first to condemn the American action. Afghanistan has always been a "wild west" of a country. No one has ever colonized or subdued the warring ethnic factions -- or brought freedom to this impoverished and reactionary country.

A constitution is a fine thing, but without the will to enforce it, the document remains mere words on paper. The 1964 Afghan constitution (which had a King at the head of the government) also granted women "equal rights" and "freedom of the press." Neither of these rights were enforced. Before the communist invasion, middle class, educated women also ran for the Parliament and won seats. Nevertheless, given Afghanistan's extreme Islamist history for the last quarter-century, it's amazing that a new constitution has actually been produced.

But one just has. In December of 2003, a grassroots group of 2000 women from at least ten Afghan provinces met in Kabul to debate and propose changes to the proposed constitution. Working with them was Dr. Massouda Jalal, a woman who is running for the presidency of the country.

This time, the constitution proclaims Afghanistan "an Islamic republic," with an elected President, not a King, at its head. It also states that "followers of other religions are free to perform religious rites," and that "women and men are equal before the law."  This is revolutionary compared to Saudi Arabia and most other Islamic countries. What's absolutely new (and perhaps problematic) is that 25% of all seats in the Lower House of Parliament have been set aside for women. This is a greater representation than we have in most states in America.

Thus, it's all well and good--but perhaps not quite good enough given that approximately 60-65% of the current population in Afghanistan is female.

Still, this is a serious improvement over what existed during the reign of the Taliban. Please realize that none of this would have come about without American military, economic, and educational intervention. American progressives, old-new leftists, Democrats, and feminists should be cheering our government's role in making this happen.

They are not. Here's why: they are constitutionally incapable of saying a kind word about a Republican, religious, capitalist, democratic, albeit imperfect president even--perhaps especially--when he does the right thing...

I had once lived behind high walls in Kabul. I had seen the tyranny of the mullahs, the horrifying poverty, the abject helplessness of the women and servants. I had also encountered truly charming and gentle people who did not believe that change was possible, who could not hold their own against Islamic-led family, clan, and tribal systems. Standing for progress not only meant that they would endanger themselves and their entire families, but also that they would be engaging in profound disloyalty towards all those who had protected and loved them, including their ancestors.

I wish the Afghan people and their new constitution every success. I hope that America is willing to continue to play a significant role in the economic recovery and increasing democratization of that country.

I support president Bush because he is a man of both faith and action who has committed our country's money and troops to a vision of democracy and women's rights in the Islamic world. I share his administration's view that there must be a single standard of universal human rights and not a "politically correct" relativist view in which double and triple standards prevail.

The Bush administration's strong support for Israel signifies that it understands that Israel is both America's strongest ally in the fight against Islamist terrorism and a mirror-western democracy in progress. Perhaps the American president and cabinet also understand that Israel has been unfairly scapegoated for the supposed and all-too-visible crimes of American empire (such as religious tolerance, modernity, individual freedoms, women's rights).

Obviously, President Bush also comprehends something that many western academics and intellectuals absolutely fail to grasp: Israel is the country that immediately offered humanitarian aid to the Iranian earthquake victims despite the fact that Iran is the main funder of anti-Israel terrorism; the Islamic Republic of Iran would rather their own people die than be rescued by Israeli Jews. Israel's level of altruism and compassion must be juxtaposed with Iran's and Islamists' love of death, beginning with the death of their own people.

We must choose between the two. I have. I will vote for a Republican for the first time in my life. I will be voting for George W. Bush in the next election. 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will vote for a Republican for the first time in my life. I will be voting for George W. Bush in the next election.

Don't worry, Phyllis, Dubya is bound to say or do something to make you snap out of your delirium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't worry, Phyllis, Dubya is bound to say or do something to make you snap out of your delirium.

He may, but the odds are higher that Dr. Dean will say 12 things on every issue then change his mind again.

Howard Flip Flop Dean. :jester: :jester: :jester: :no::no::no::roflol::roflol::roflol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...