Got this as part of a comment on yesterday’s post about the Iraqi government ordering policewomen to turn in their weapons (No guns for girls…go cook or something):
Trying to force them to completely accept western society’s mores will do nothing but foster resentment and resistance.
Right. Oppressing women fosters only peace and respect.
We’re not talking about a gross injustice here…this is nothing more than enforcing a standard that, up until very recent history, was the accepted norm throughout the world.
Right. Like no votes for women. In fact, only landowners get to vote. Blacks are considered subhuman animals. People rule because of which family they’re born into. All standards that were all accepted up until very recent history.
How about if black police officers in white-dominated areas of US cities were told to turn in their weapons? That would be enforcing standards that were accepted until relatively recently. Does anyone think it’s a good idea? Or, rather, does anyone who thinks it is a good idea get taken seriously by civilized people?
The standard in most of the world has been to treat women as second-class citizens with limited rights. In parts of the ME (and elsewhere) women aren’t even second-class and sometimes not even really counted as citizens.
I’m not banging the drum for women doing everything as well as a man can do it. That’s obviously not the case. And we need to be careful about places where women, due to physical differences and/or limitations, might be a liability to those around her or to the mission.
However, if you read the article I linked, women are very necessary for a number of things, including searching other women. Men can’t do it because we are NOT “trying to force them to completely accept western society’s mores.” Men can rarely do it in this country, even. So the bad guys use female suicide bombers sometimes.
And then there’s
Another U.S. advisor noted that forcing out female officers will hamper investigation of crimes such as rape, which stigmatizes women in Iraq, because few victims feel comfortable reporting it to policemen.
So this goes a lot deeper than merely limiting women to desk jobs in the Iraqi security forces. Those women are denied an opportunity that they want, as evidenced by the number of applicants when the program was first opened up to women, and the rest of Iraq’s women are potentially denied safety and justice.
In that sense, I guess, “this is nothing more than enforcing a standard that, up until very recent history, was the accepted norm throughout the world.” A pathetic standard.
Finally, by forcing them to turn in their weapons, these women are being denied their own safety. You may not have noticed it, but Iraq is a dangerous place. The police, in particular, are frequent targets. Not only does attacking and disrupting the local and national police forces aid the terrorists and insurgents, but it also makes life a lot easier for the thugs, gangs, and petty criminals that are trying to make ends meet. Lines of potential recruits at police stations are common targets, and many police officers still hide their identity for the protection of themselves and their families.
Incidentally, the article also notes that men with desk jobs with the police are allowed to keep their weapons.
Taking away the sidearms of female police officers is, in fact, a “gross injustice.”
And why aren’t womens’ rights groups up in arms about this? Did someone take away their guns, too?
UPDATE: I meant to mention that one woman with a handgun in Colorado kept a bad day from getting a whole lot worse. In a church, of all places.