There's no fun in fundamentalism
Maclean's Jonathon Gatehouse has a frightening piece on earlier drafts of that controversial law that Afghan President Hamid Kharzai wants to impose on on Shia women to score political points.
Gatehouse reports that, as first drawn up, that law would have
Turns out a Canadian human rights group intervened, along with local activists.
Which would mean no school, no work, no political participation, not even getting together with other women to compare notes on their lives.
This has led my friend Sooey to make one of her more astute -- and typically acrid -- observations. (I added the links here.)
I'm curious why there's so much outrage in the New Conservative ranks about Karzai's cave-in (haha - unintentional pun!) to the whoevers of the Islamic militants in Afghanistan re wives having to sexually submit to their husbands. I mean, that's long been a hobby horse of R.E.A.L. Women (which has nothing to do with women and everything to do with Conservatism, of course).
And New Republican, David Frum's, wife, Danielle Crittenden, made a name for herself telling society that women should have to sexually submit to their husbands. This is the sort of society many New Conservatives have long sought for Canadian women. So I find it a bit disingenuous that New Conservatives are flapping their arms about the same devolution of women's rights they've espoused here, happening in Afghanistan.
The difference is the wording.
If the Christian right are all about making baby after baby, one can assume that involves a lot of sex that the nursing wives and mothers may not be up for. We don't call that rape because it happens here, in North America.
But really, what's the difference between husbands having the right to force their wives to have sex, and women being told that God wants them to have sex even if they don't want it?