It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Which countries other than Afghanistan treat women terribly?

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Remember this? Some of the links from the links I provide show where women are not treated well...basically most places to one degree or another. We might get a shorter list if we tried to define where they were treated well?

US: Ratify Women’s Rights Treaty


"Women's rights - the right to be free from domestic and sexual violence, the right to equal treatment in education, employment, and access to health care - are not back-burner issues," said Meghan Rhoad, women's rights researcher at Human Rights Watch. "But for 30 years the major international treaty on women's rights has been treated like one."

Since Carter signed the treaty, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has twice voted favorably on the treaty, but a lack of political will has kept the treaty from reaching the Senate floor.

The Senate has made few moves to ratify international treaties in recent years. As a result, ratification of CEDAW will require strong and consistent leadership from the Obama administration and Senate leaders, Human Rights Watch said.


In 30 years, the Senate hasn't moved on this? Why not? Because we might be bound by this treaty, despite various reservations, understandings, and declarations that would protect the U.S. from unintended consequences:


The Clinton administration, for example, proposed nine RUDs—
including one that the United States “does not accept any obligation under the Convention to regulate [the] private conduct [of American citizens]6 except as mandated by the Constitution and U.S. law” and another that we do not accept an obligation “to put women in all combat positions.”23

It also rejected treaty provisions that mandate paid maternity leave,
comparable worth policies, and the like. To further protect American
autonomy, the administration added, “No new laws would be created as a result of CEDAW.” As the Amnesty International fact sheet says, “Such language upholds U.S. sovereignty and grants no enforcement authority to the United Nations.” So, it seems, the critics are wrong. With the help of RUDs, we can show our support for women’s rights abroad while protecting American sovereignty and liberties at home. Advantage CEDAW.

(Source)


More on CEDAW.

[edit on 8/2/2010 by ~Lucidity]




posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diplomat
I have noticed that the mainstream media's current war propaganda is basically that we are occupying Afghanistan because we are helping to liberate the women of that country.

This might have a tiny bit to do with it, but we all understand the bigger picture concerning the wars in the middle east.

So my question to our international community here is: Which OTHER countries also treat their women terribly?

I would like to see which countries are named, if any.


The United States of America, amongst others, including New Zealand.
How about the objectification of women into objects of sexual desire above all else? take a look at how many pornographic magazines, books, films, booths etc out there that make it possible to act out your every desire with a willing participant.
Take a look at how we expect our women to conform by forcing them to apply chemicals all over their faces as some form of social convention, as well as lipstick developed to make their mouth lips appear engorged and ripe like vaginal labia on heat...take a look at the wage gap between men and women.

Yes, sure, most women in Western Society aren't stoned for being raped, but they are still treated abysmally.

Here in New Zealand, if the All blacks (our National rugby Team) lose, then incidents of domestic violence go through the roof.

I could go on....but you get the gist. It ain't all roses here!



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diplomat
reply to post by muftanan
 


I didn't ask "Where are women treated perfectly?"

I asked, "Where other than Afghanistan are women treated TERRIBLY?"


OMG, diplomat, I have had days like this on ATS, you can't win for losing.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Diplomat
 



This is a thread on ATS, that you stated with a title that talks about the treatment of women in the world, no?

Then you have jumped to that is why we should be fighting in Afghanistan, and how no women in the world could possibly be treated worse, NO?

Where exactly are you going with this one, Mr. Sacramento, presuiming to know how all women, all over the world are treated?

No, it is not the role of American troops to dictate on matters of domestic abuse, or to tell people who have religious dogma on the treatment of women how to do otherwise.

That is not the role of any soldier, in this war.

If you think otherwise, you are sadly mistaken. We are losing enough of them without them telling the Afghan government, or husbands, how to treat their wives!



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
The reason I posted the bit about the us army and rape in page one was to illustrate what the OP is trying to say.
I was raised by a single soldier (at one time) father so we learned to do ever thing cleaning cooking etc
When they say "I'm off like a Jewish foreskin" they ain't kidding except that here the catholics genitally mutilate the boys.

Due to a rather large kidney stone the lady doctor has put me into the nine lb baby club

But Diplomat is right...when one lie collapses they just come out with another one.

Remember in Iraq where the women had the best situation in the middle east?
After the No WMDs the US said that among otherthings, they were there because of the way Saddam treated the women...then the provisional government took away the rights they did have...

and gave BP the oilwells



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Diplomat
 


We went to eradicate al-Qaeda, but they quickly left and setup camp in a number of other countries, notably Pakistan. We met stiff resistance from the Taliban, a force we cannot reckon with and will most likely do a deal with. We have killed thousands of innocent lives and need a reason to continue the Afghan offensive. The disgusting treatment of women could well be spun as the new motivator in Afghanistan. The Afghan government don't want a Taliban power-sharing deal, but could well use the mistreatment of women as a reason to keep NATO forces in the country.

I have read a lot of those Wikileak reports and the way the Taliban treat women and children is beyond belief. If we see a surge in reports concerning what would happen if the Taliban were left in governance, then you might question what government is spinning the media.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


Thank you for supplying this information.

It in no way applies to Afghanistan, though, but a great load of information to read!



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Blanca Rose
 

Actually, a lot of the documentation does call out Afghanistan, particularly on the human rights site. If you do want information on the women in Afghanistan in particular, both I and LadySkadi posted some links in her thread here.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Postulating on this for a moment, the human rights abuse committed by the Taliban in Afghanistan is a far more credible reason to eradicate them. At least we could leave with the justification of achieving something as opposed to the fallacy of fighting terrorism. As soon as NATO entered Afghanistan, al-Qaeda setup shop elsewhere and have done pretty well ever since. Remember, the blood of the innocent has been shed in the name of fighting terrorism and this war has done the opposite by feeding the fundamentalists with ever more reasons to hate and attack the West.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by LarryLove
Postulating on this for a moment, the human rights abuse committed by the Taliban in Afghanistan is a far more credible reason to eradicate them. At least we could leave with the justification of achieving something as opposed to the fallacy of fighting terrorism. As soon as NATO entered Afghanistan, al-Qaeda setup shop elsewhere and have done pretty well ever since. Remember, the blood of the innocent has been shed in the name of fighting terrorism and this war has done the opposite by feeding the fundamentalists with ever more reasons to hate and attack the West.


I agree. If the TRUE reason for invading Afghanistan actually had to do with helping their women, then I could at least somewhat support it.

But since the war is nothing more than a regional takeover and all about certain resources, I simply cannot support it at all.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   
What is wrong with many of the comments here mentioning America?

There aren't laws by the American government suppressing women's rights.

There ARE countries where women are NOT equal in the law.

For example, in Iran, it is the law for women to veil their hair. It is the law.

In Saudi Arabia there are many other laws, based on strict Islamic law, that highly restrict women. I wouldn't even know where to begin.

World-wide women have restricted rights culturally or religiously based, but not usually governmental. In any case, women are nearly equal to men in America, compared to the world as a whole.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Diplomat
 


Genius, did you not read the 1st 2 words I wrote? To reiterate, women are treated terribly EVERYWHERE!

You can't generalize an entire nation. There are too many factors determining how different women are treated within an area. These factors include class, family, wealth, ethnicity, cultural traditions, societal roles, personal values, and much more. Some lucky women in every part of the world are treated nicely, but for the most part, women are dominated by men, other women, and simply the circumstances thrust upon them.

Sure, in Afghanistan and some other Middle Eastern countries, some are treated harshly, as second class citizens. But in some of those same countries, some live lavishly, don't have to work, and are influential members of society. Here in the West, some women are battered and feel they're valued only for their looks. However, other women are very independent and become successful in their careers. It all depends--some women are treated fairly, others poorly--every country has its problems regarding women's role.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by bettermakings
 




There ARE countries where women are NOT equal in the law.


Some claim in Western law men are not equal to women, infact they claim men are lower in status than women.

All of these issues exist because people are deluded in to believing the majority should make the law. Or law makers should make laws etc.

That is absolutely idiotic, and against freedom and choice which Western brag so much about.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 01:02 AM
link   
My tupence worth is, that regardless of the country, culture or religion, women should not endure violence, abuse or humiliation in any shape or form. Western countries are just as guilty as those aforementioned. Women should have the right to walk the streets freely and without fear of intimidation.

Look at the human trafficing that occurs in Europe. Women are abducted or duped into prostitution or worse and are under threat of death should they try to escape. Husbands verbally and physically abuse their wives behind closed doors (marriage is a partnership, not the signing of a slavery contract). Women get a raw deal all over the globe.

In my opinion, women should be treated with the utmost respect. They bring us all into the world, protect and nuture us in our early years, clean up the cuts and scrapes we get as children and look after the house whilst we are away doing "mens stuff".

Incidently, how many wounded men on the battlefield call for their father?

Finally, to you Blanca Rose. I was sadened to hear of your treatment and sincerely hope life improves for you soon.



[edit on 3/8/2010 by TheLoneArcher]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blanca Rose
and how no women in the world could possibly be treated worse, NO?


Holy Bunny Boilers, Batman.

I'd run if I were you Diplomat. I hear the sound of metal scraping metal...

What a scary ... turn of events...



[edit on 3/8/2010 by badw0lf]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diplomat
How is this getting so off-topic?

This thread is not about the injustices and inequalities still taking place in America or the "west."

This thread is to prove a point: THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH "HELPING WOMEN," because obviously there are other countries in the world where women are treated just as terribly, BUT WE ARE NOT INVADING THEM. We will not invade those other countries, because the middle east occupations have nothing to do with helping women.


The whole premise of your thread is odd. I've never seen freeing of women from abuse being presented as the reason we are there? What are you basing that on?

We are in Afghanistan because it was a sanctuary for Terrorist and in particular Al Qaeda the source of the attack on 9/11. Afghanistan is not even a country and has not been for some time. It was a land area ran by whoever there at the moment had the most guns and power. It was lorded over by War Lords, the drug trade, the Taliban (which is a group that badly abuses women) and Terrorists. No stable central government, just one giant playground for evil people.

We are there to take out the bad guys and free the innocent people there by helping them form a stable central government. We may fail, but I certainly hope not.

I think your motive is showing because the fact you asked what you did, which you clearly already knew the answer to, means your motive was not the question you asked.

As to your question, Google Amnesty International.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diplomat


I agree. If the TRUE reason for invading Afghanistan actually had to do with helping their women, then I could at least somewhat support it.

But since the war is nothing more than a regional takeover and all about certain resources, I simply cannot support it at all.


Again, where are you coming up with that idea. Links? Are you not simply inventing it out of thin air. It's sometimes mentioned in relation to Afghanistan how horribly the Taliban treats women, but as the reason we went there; that simply is not true.

Are you inventing this just as another way to say your against the war or because you think it will get your post attention; as it has?

The war is not a regional takeover in the sense you mean it. All wars are a regional takeover while the war is happening. It was an attempt to take out the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack. It may have been mishandled but you cant suddenly rewrite history to make a political point like you are doing. Well I guess you can, the Progressives have done that for over 100 years with some success.

Is this how the rewriting of the history of this time begins to be rewritten to serve the needs of unscrupulous individuals to serve their political ideologies?



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki
The United States of America, amongst others, including New Zealand.
How about the objectification of women into objects of sexual desire above all else? take a look at how many pornographic magazines, books, films, booths etc out there that make it possible to act out your every desire with a willing participant.


The women in these magazines choose to be in these magazines. If Western society prohibitted them to be in them then there would cries of foul and that their rights are being infringed upon.

You're forgetting that the women are responsible for the worlds oldest profession thus FORCING men to go find a job to pay for the proffesions' services.


Take a look at how we expect our women to conform by forcing them to apply chemicals all over their faces as some form of social convention, as well as lipstick developed to make their mouth lips appear engorged and ripe like vaginal labia on heat...take a look at the wage gap between men and women.


Women around here CHOOSE to put on these chemicals because they have it their minds that they're not beautiful without them. Many men, including me, don't find a "made-up" woman as attractive as a "plain" one. Besides, if a women is not capable of carrying on a decent conversation without having to resort to an "it's al about me" attitude, then I don't have any desire to be around this type person.


Yes, sure, most women in Western Society aren't stoned for being raped, but they are still treated abysmally.


I don't know where you live but around here, men and women respect each other and to be more accrate, if any man should show any disrespect to a women, they would get their butts stomped by the men that know these women that's been shown disrespect. We don't believe in that kind of thing around here.

Getting back to the topic of the thread, many underdeveloped, as well as developing countries, deniy there women even basic rights. Saudi Arabia won't even let their women drive. Marriage is pre-arranged in India.

If by any chance you think women are being ill-treated in the US or New Zealand then you may want to go elsewhere.



[edit on 3/8/10 by Intelearthling]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Diplomat
 
You mean to tell me, that there are places where the women don't treat us men like crap? Reversed tables? Sign me up...








 
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join