Misguided feminism is not good for marriage.
We recently celebrated our wedding anniversary which falls on "Australia Day".
Our newly married young niece asked me in wonder: how is it to be married for all this time? We won't get there,- we marry later in life these days.
That is true,- but is that the only reason?
Most of our friends (at least those who have survived), are still married to their original partners after half a century and more of marriage. In one case, after 66 years,- they were teenagers when they tied the knot!How many marriages last past the first 20 years, let alone longer these days?
We then had a heated discussion among us 'oldies',- who was better off,- those of us who did not expect our husbands to do all the things that modern young men do for their babies and families,- or today's families which seem to break up at an alarming rate?
The "LIFE" supplement of this week's Sunday Age had an article about "the marriage mystique" which described a new book by a writer who claimed that feminism is good for marriage. She asked, "who would want to go back to the old-style marriages",- i.e. where the women knew their place,- in the home and nothing else? She stated that feminism is good for marriage because it is based on equality and shared responsibilities.
I wrote in reply:
There is no “marriage mystique” (THE AGE,Sunday Life, 30/1/11). The institution of marriage,- good, bad and indifferent has been around forever.
I was a ‘women’s libber’ as a youthful wife, then a young working mother, a feminist activist and leader. Looking at the younger generation of married couples today, I can foresee whose marriages will last the distance of my generation and whose will not.
It is not about feminism but about the ‘me’ generation. It is about self-centredness not feminism on some young women’s part on the one hand, while on the other their young men are attempting to fulfil the ‘new-age’ man’s expectations as father and partner while pursuing full-time occupations to the level of exhaustion.
True feminism dictates that marriage should be about a relationship-based union between equals who work out how to manage their life together, not only about who has to help whom and do what when.
Home and family is our most important of institutions and it should not fail us,- for the sake of the welfare of our future generations. It has to be managed to the best advantage for all within it. If only the Government would recognise it like any business, then the working marriage-partners could manage to employ home help and enjoy best-practice family relationships,- with the required help as a tax deductible entity. Then the parents could give to each other and to their children quality time, even if not always quantity time,- without the guilt complex.
What I now see among my peer group who like me, are celebrating half a century and more of happy life partnerships, is that some are exhausted caring for the grandkids while their kids are exhausted and stressed parents,- who sadly, too often seem eventually to just walk away from their family responsibilities,- to obtain a bit of ‘freedom before it’s too late’ they say!
I call many of today’s young-marrieds not bad people, just bad managers of their family lives! The government could do more for the institution of “home and family” to help them out,- not only build more day-care centres but more assistance for ‘helpers in the home’ to ease the stress on everyone,- young and old.
How did we manage then?
Firstly, when new babies entered the family, we did not wake up our husbands to feed them because they needed to get up early to go to work.We who stayed home in the early days with a new baby,organized ourselves to take a nap during the day.
(Some grandmothers I knew even paid for a mothercraft nurse for a few weeks to help their daughters with their first babies!)
Eventually, I found part time work and employed a baby-sitter for a few hours,- more to give myself a break from domesticity than for the money, as there was none left over for me.
Later, I returned to my career and could earn enough for better home help. This person was my housekeeper,- not just a baby-sitter. She cleaned the house, picked up the children from the nearby school, fed them so that by the time we came home from work, my husband and I could spend some quality time with the children before putting them to bed. I always prepared our food the night before so that my housekeeper could put it in the oven if necessary and have it ready for us when we got home.She came in the afternoons for a few hours 2-3 times a week, other times we had rosters with friends and sometimes my mother.
My mother and father were our back-up helpers,- they were the grandkids' spoilers!
They could assist us a little financially when we were in trouble,- as most young people can be,- but I never expected them to take over the responsibilities I see grandparents taking on nowadays.
Eventually, I had to retire from full-time work as it became too demanding in my profession and I felt young teenagers needed parents more to supervise their activities.When they were old enough to be independent, then I undertook a full-time workload again,- in another field.
Throughout,my husband like most of his contemporaries was a terrific father and companion for his growing children. Both of us understood the limits of our ability to manage our work-life responsibilities and paid for whatever home-help we needed to ease our burden in the home.
What I always resented was the fact that none of the expenses incurred in making our home and family life more bearable, were included as tax-deductable items from my income. Only when I was a full-time "housekeeper", could the man-of-the-house deduct something from his income. This is the anomaly which was never corrected. The home-help was paid in cash which she never had to declare,- so much so that eventually she could afford investment properties,- while most of my salary went to her.
Did I want to be a "housewife"? No,- I was trained to be more than that and I wanted to use my qualifications as far as I could,- but eventually I had to give up because to me, my family's welfare came first. It was my decision,- nobody forced me to do anything,- it was my choice when I did what, for whom and how.
53 years on, we are still together and I am grateful to be spared to still enjoy our life together.But we still pursue individual interests,- "we married for better or worse, but never for lunch"! My advice to most young people,_ it's a 50:50 chance in the choice for a partner,- 50% in the person and 50% in the training,- of each other!
MM
Monday, January 31, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
NCJWA has done it again! OAM recipients 2011.
 |
 |
| Digital ecard customized with Smilebox |
After more than 8 decades of service to the Australian community for women and all faith groups, the Honours Secretariat recognises our hard working members' contributions to society!
MM
Sunday, January 16, 2011
JEWISH WOMEN’S HUMAN RIGHTS: International Newsletter
INTERNATIONAL JEWISH WOMEN’S HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
NEWSLETTER NO. 1, 1998
Has anything changed since then?
Welcome to the first newsletter of the International Jewish Women’s Human Rights Watch. In the last decade, there has been increased awareness of human rights violations in every country. Evidence shows that women, particularly, have been denied their basic human rights. Often, the denial of women’s human rights is based on religious law. The declaration that “ women’s rights are human rights” which was made so eloquently at the UN Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995, should now include the recognition that Jewish women’s rights are human rights. As has been well documented, Jewish women are discriminated against in marriage and divorce under Jewish law. While ancient Jewish Law was designed to protect and support Jewish women, today that same law is being used as a tool to deny her rights to equality in marriage, divorce and the founding of a family. The Jewish community readily admits that the shameful situation of the agunah, a woman chained to an unwanted or non-existent marriage who cannot be released without her husband’s consent, is unjust. It is common knowledge that some Jewish husbands withhold their consent to a religious divorce or get, in order to extort exorbitant sums of money from their wives as the “price” for the get. Nonetheless, the Jewish community, despite a high level of educational attainment, financial success, organizational skills and traditional commitment to social justice, has been unable or unwilling to find solutions to the painful problem of the agunah.
The International Jewish Women’s Human Rights Watch intends to document the human rights violations of women in Jewish communities all over the world. Thanks to the vision and generosity of the International Council of Jewish Women, we will be establishing a central data base which will include cases of women who have been denied the right to marry and to found a family from every Jewish community. In this first newsletter you will become acquainted with the anguish of Jewish women in the US. England and Israel. These are actual cases with names changed to protect the privacy of the women. Each story cries out for action. Each case is a violation of a Jewish woman’s human rights. As the nations of the world celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the ratifying of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Jewish Women’s Human Rights Watch intends to gather information, research and publicize the infringement of Jewish women’s rights. It is our hope that our efforts will bring about the necessary changes that will eliminate such human rights violations in the Jewish community. The time has come for all Jews to act on the biblical injunction:”JUSTICE, JUSTICE YOU SHALL PURSUE”.
AN ENGLISH WOMAN WAITS 20 YEARS FOR FREEDOM
In 1956, at the age of eighteen, Deborah married Michael in London. From the beginning, it was clear that they came from different backgrounds. Deborah was raised as a traditional Jew, observing mitzvoth while Michael came from a totally non religious family. Born in Holland, he had never had a Bar Mitzvah. In fact, Deborah’s father strongly recommended that Michael study Judaism for a year before the wedding. Michael accepted the suggestion.
The marriage had many problems, but Deborah kept the family intact for the sake of their three children. Finally, in 1975, she could no longer tolerate the suffering, and asked for a divorce. The couple obtained a civil divorce in December, 1975.
However, when Deborah and Michael appeared in the London Bet Din for the get, Michael behaved in a most bizarre manner. He appeared to be severely emotionally disturbed. After the third hearing in the Bet Din, one of the religious court judges known as a “dayan” told Deborah’s family that they should accept the fact that Michael would never give Deborah a get. Claiming that he wanted Deborah as his wife, Michael harassed Deborah’s family on a regular basis with abusive letters and phone calls.
Michael gave up his business and was unemployed for a period of time. Meanwhile, Deborah returned to work in order to support herself and help the children. An attractive woman in her late thirties, Deborah met a wonderful man who wanted to marry her. But without a get, Deborah could not have a relationship with him as she was still considered to be Michael’s wife under Jewish Law. Since both she and her prospective husband were Orthodox, they could not marry so long as Deborah did not have a get.
The years went by as Deborah found herself trapped in a non-existent marriage, unable to be released because Michael refused to give her a get. Rabbis, lawyers, psychologists and family members tried to convince Michael that the marriage was over and Deborah had no intention of returning to him. The Chief Rabbi of England was aware of Deborah’s plight and attempted to intervene. All to no avail. Without Michael’s consent, Deborah could not exercise her right to remarry.
Suddenly, one morning in February, 1995, Deborah received a telephone call from the Bet Din in London. She was told to come to the Bet Din immediately as Michael had agreed to give her a get. Deborah raced home from work, changed her clothes and drove to the Bet Din. After 20 years of waiting, she finally received her get.
A grandmother now, Deborah is bitter and angry. She feels that she was cheated out of her chance for marital happiness with a second husband and a new family. Still an observant woman, Deborah believes that she was punished for being Orthodox. If observance of Jewish law and tradition had not been so important to her, she could have remarried in a civil ceremony without the get. Deborah is angry with a system that permits a man to have so much power over his wife that he can deny her the freedom and right to marry for 20 years. Vindictive men like Michael, although not Orthodox themselves, find that they can use Jewish law as a tool to vent their frustration and disappointment. While Deborah and Michael lived together as husband and wife for 19 years until the civil divorce, Michael wielded his power over Deborah for an additional 20 years- - - successfully preventing her from marrying the man of her choice.
A YOUNG WIDOW IS DENIED THE RIGHT TO MARRY
Yvette traveled to Paris last year to receive her freedom. Although the flight was only 5 hours, the right she sought- - freedom to marry - - - has been a process that took almost six years! Yvette’s story is an Israeli Jewish woman’s nightmare, but it could happen to any Jewish woman today.
In February of 1991, Yvette, her husband and young daughter were involved in an automobile accident. The child was killed immediately. Despite the best of medical attention, the husband died several hours later. The 30 year old mother survived serious injuries and mourned her terrible loss.
At the end of the mourning period, as Yvette began to slowly recuperate and attempt to build a new life, she discovered that Jewish Law prevented her from
remarrying until her late husband’s surviving brother, who lived in Paris, performed “Halitza”. According to the Torah, a childless widow was automatically betrothed to her brother-in-law in what was known as “Levirate marriage” (Deuteronomy 25:5 - 6). She was supposed to bear a child by the brother-in-law who would carry the name of the deceased husband, “And it shall be that the firstborn that she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother that is dead, that his name not be blotted out of Israel”.
This ancient law was modified in cases where the brother- in-law refused to perform his duty. In those cases the brother-in-law could perform the ceremony of “Halitza” in which he released the childless widow to marry another man. In the post-Talmudic period there was a dispute over whether Halitza was preferred over Levirate marriage, with Ashkenazi communities preferring Halitza while the Jews of Spain and North Africa as well as Yemen, Babylonia and Persia gave priority to Levirate marriage. In 1950, the Chief Rabbinate of Israel issued a takkanah (legislative amendment) which completely prohibited the practice of Levirate marriage in Israel while making Halitza obligatory, thus insuring that the law of the Torah would be uniform for all of the communities in Israel. Halitza thus became the only way to free the childless widow to remarry. The Halitza ceremony could take place in any Rabbinical Court in Israel or in a Rabbinical Court abroad which was recognized by the Israeli Rabbinical establishment.
Cases of childless widows occur in every Jewish community. Disease, accidents, war, terrorist attacks and criminal activity can and do take the lives of Jewish husbands. Each case of a childless Jewish widow requires Halitza and each case has its own special brand of pain and suffering. Yvette’s case, however, is unique in that she and her husband had produced a child and only by a cruel quirk of fate, the child died a few hours before Yvette’s husband died. Since there were no surviving children at the time of his death, she was a childless widow. Had the husband died before the child, the need for Halitza would not have arisen.
Jewish law required Yvette to now ask her Parisian brother-in-law to release her by granting Halitza. As has happened in most cases requiring Halitza, Yvette’s brother-in-law (encouraged by his parents who were, of course, the parents of the deceased husband) suddenly saw an opportunity to make a “profit”. He agreed to grant Halitza, but only if the” price was right.” Some might see the brother-in-law’s position as extortion. Yvette’s brother-in-law demanded only $70,000! Since Yvette did not have a sum so large, the brother-in-law and his parents suggested she sell her apartment so that she could pay the price of her freedom to marry. Yvette negotiated for her right to remarry, begging and borrowing money from friends and family to pay off her brother-in-law.
Despite the payments, he remained adamant, refusing Halitza.
An attractive young woman, Yvette has had many opportunities to remarry during the last 6 years. However, so long as the Parisian brother-in-law refused to perform Halitza, she was unable to marry as she was technically married to her brother-in-law.
Yvette asked the Rabbinical Court to order her brother-in-law to grant Halitza, and if he refused, to require him to pay her maintenance in the sum of $1,000 a month. The Court agreed and ordered maintenance retroactive to the date of the husband’s death.
Despite the court order, the brother-in-law held his ground. He refused to perform Halitza and he refused to pay the maintenance, the cumulative arrearage amounting to $60,000 as of last year.
An appeal was made to the Chief Rabbis of France and Paris as well as leaders of the Jewish Community. Israeli religious court judges (Dayanim) and the Director of the Rabbinical Courts used their contacts within the French religious establishment to bring pressure on the brother-in-law.
Finally, after almost six years of waiting and an additional last minute pay-off of several thousand dollars, Yvette was granted the freedom to remarry. Now, in her late thirties, she hopes at last to build a new life and a new family. Sadly, the last six years have taken their toll, emotionally and physically. Dating is not so easy for a woman who has suffered for so long. Furthermore, Yvette’s biological time clock has continued ticking during this long waiting period. Statistically, the chances of her marrying and starting a new family at this age are not encouraging.
NEWSLETTER NO. 1, 1998
Has anything changed since then?
Welcome to the first newsletter of the International Jewish Women’s Human Rights Watch. In the last decade, there has been increased awareness of human rights violations in every country. Evidence shows that women, particularly, have been denied their basic human rights. Often, the denial of women’s human rights is based on religious law. The declaration that “ women’s rights are human rights” which was made so eloquently at the UN Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995, should now include the recognition that Jewish women’s rights are human rights. As has been well documented, Jewish women are discriminated against in marriage and divorce under Jewish law. While ancient Jewish Law was designed to protect and support Jewish women, today that same law is being used as a tool to deny her rights to equality in marriage, divorce and the founding of a family. The Jewish community readily admits that the shameful situation of the agunah, a woman chained to an unwanted or non-existent marriage who cannot be released without her husband’s consent, is unjust. It is common knowledge that some Jewish husbands withhold their consent to a religious divorce or get, in order to extort exorbitant sums of money from their wives as the “price” for the get. Nonetheless, the Jewish community, despite a high level of educational attainment, financial success, organizational skills and traditional commitment to social justice, has been unable or unwilling to find solutions to the painful problem of the agunah.
The International Jewish Women’s Human Rights Watch intends to document the human rights violations of women in Jewish communities all over the world. Thanks to the vision and generosity of the International Council of Jewish Women, we will be establishing a central data base which will include cases of women who have been denied the right to marry and to found a family from every Jewish community. In this first newsletter you will become acquainted with the anguish of Jewish women in the US. England and Israel. These are actual cases with names changed to protect the privacy of the women. Each story cries out for action. Each case is a violation of a Jewish woman’s human rights. As the nations of the world celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the ratifying of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Jewish Women’s Human Rights Watch intends to gather information, research and publicize the infringement of Jewish women’s rights. It is our hope that our efforts will bring about the necessary changes that will eliminate such human rights violations in the Jewish community. The time has come for all Jews to act on the biblical injunction:”JUSTICE, JUSTICE YOU SHALL PURSUE”.
AN ENGLISH WOMAN WAITS 20 YEARS FOR FREEDOM
In 1956, at the age of eighteen, Deborah married Michael in London. From the beginning, it was clear that they came from different backgrounds. Deborah was raised as a traditional Jew, observing mitzvoth while Michael came from a totally non religious family. Born in Holland, he had never had a Bar Mitzvah. In fact, Deborah’s father strongly recommended that Michael study Judaism for a year before the wedding. Michael accepted the suggestion.
The marriage had many problems, but Deborah kept the family intact for the sake of their three children. Finally, in 1975, she could no longer tolerate the suffering, and asked for a divorce. The couple obtained a civil divorce in December, 1975.
However, when Deborah and Michael appeared in the London Bet Din for the get, Michael behaved in a most bizarre manner. He appeared to be severely emotionally disturbed. After the third hearing in the Bet Din, one of the religious court judges known as a “dayan” told Deborah’s family that they should accept the fact that Michael would never give Deborah a get. Claiming that he wanted Deborah as his wife, Michael harassed Deborah’s family on a regular basis with abusive letters and phone calls.
Michael gave up his business and was unemployed for a period of time. Meanwhile, Deborah returned to work in order to support herself and help the children. An attractive woman in her late thirties, Deborah met a wonderful man who wanted to marry her. But without a get, Deborah could not have a relationship with him as she was still considered to be Michael’s wife under Jewish Law. Since both she and her prospective husband were Orthodox, they could not marry so long as Deborah did not have a get.
The years went by as Deborah found herself trapped in a non-existent marriage, unable to be released because Michael refused to give her a get. Rabbis, lawyers, psychologists and family members tried to convince Michael that the marriage was over and Deborah had no intention of returning to him. The Chief Rabbi of England was aware of Deborah’s plight and attempted to intervene. All to no avail. Without Michael’s consent, Deborah could not exercise her right to remarry.
Suddenly, one morning in February, 1995, Deborah received a telephone call from the Bet Din in London. She was told to come to the Bet Din immediately as Michael had agreed to give her a get. Deborah raced home from work, changed her clothes and drove to the Bet Din. After 20 years of waiting, she finally received her get.
A grandmother now, Deborah is bitter and angry. She feels that she was cheated out of her chance for marital happiness with a second husband and a new family. Still an observant woman, Deborah believes that she was punished for being Orthodox. If observance of Jewish law and tradition had not been so important to her, she could have remarried in a civil ceremony without the get. Deborah is angry with a system that permits a man to have so much power over his wife that he can deny her the freedom and right to marry for 20 years. Vindictive men like Michael, although not Orthodox themselves, find that they can use Jewish law as a tool to vent their frustration and disappointment. While Deborah and Michael lived together as husband and wife for 19 years until the civil divorce, Michael wielded his power over Deborah for an additional 20 years- - - successfully preventing her from marrying the man of her choice.
A YOUNG WIDOW IS DENIED THE RIGHT TO MARRY
Yvette traveled to Paris last year to receive her freedom. Although the flight was only 5 hours, the right she sought- - freedom to marry - - - has been a process that took almost six years! Yvette’s story is an Israeli Jewish woman’s nightmare, but it could happen to any Jewish woman today.
In February of 1991, Yvette, her husband and young daughter were involved in an automobile accident. The child was killed immediately. Despite the best of medical attention, the husband died several hours later. The 30 year old mother survived serious injuries and mourned her terrible loss.
At the end of the mourning period, as Yvette began to slowly recuperate and attempt to build a new life, she discovered that Jewish Law prevented her from
remarrying until her late husband’s surviving brother, who lived in Paris, performed “Halitza”. According to the Torah, a childless widow was automatically betrothed to her brother-in-law in what was known as “Levirate marriage” (Deuteronomy 25:5 - 6). She was supposed to bear a child by the brother-in-law who would carry the name of the deceased husband, “And it shall be that the firstborn that she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother that is dead, that his name not be blotted out of Israel”.
This ancient law was modified in cases where the brother- in-law refused to perform his duty. In those cases the brother-in-law could perform the ceremony of “Halitza” in which he released the childless widow to marry another man. In the post-Talmudic period there was a dispute over whether Halitza was preferred over Levirate marriage, with Ashkenazi communities preferring Halitza while the Jews of Spain and North Africa as well as Yemen, Babylonia and Persia gave priority to Levirate marriage. In 1950, the Chief Rabbinate of Israel issued a takkanah (legislative amendment) which completely prohibited the practice of Levirate marriage in Israel while making Halitza obligatory, thus insuring that the law of the Torah would be uniform for all of the communities in Israel. Halitza thus became the only way to free the childless widow to remarry. The Halitza ceremony could take place in any Rabbinical Court in Israel or in a Rabbinical Court abroad which was recognized by the Israeli Rabbinical establishment.
Cases of childless widows occur in every Jewish community. Disease, accidents, war, terrorist attacks and criminal activity can and do take the lives of Jewish husbands. Each case of a childless Jewish widow requires Halitza and each case has its own special brand of pain and suffering. Yvette’s case, however, is unique in that she and her husband had produced a child and only by a cruel quirk of fate, the child died a few hours before Yvette’s husband died. Since there were no surviving children at the time of his death, she was a childless widow. Had the husband died before the child, the need for Halitza would not have arisen.
Jewish law required Yvette to now ask her Parisian brother-in-law to release her by granting Halitza. As has happened in most cases requiring Halitza, Yvette’s brother-in-law (encouraged by his parents who were, of course, the parents of the deceased husband) suddenly saw an opportunity to make a “profit”. He agreed to grant Halitza, but only if the” price was right.” Some might see the brother-in-law’s position as extortion. Yvette’s brother-in-law demanded only $70,000! Since Yvette did not have a sum so large, the brother-in-law and his parents suggested she sell her apartment so that she could pay the price of her freedom to marry. Yvette negotiated for her right to remarry, begging and borrowing money from friends and family to pay off her brother-in-law.
Despite the payments, he remained adamant, refusing Halitza.
An attractive young woman, Yvette has had many opportunities to remarry during the last 6 years. However, so long as the Parisian brother-in-law refused to perform Halitza, she was unable to marry as she was technically married to her brother-in-law.
Yvette asked the Rabbinical Court to order her brother-in-law to grant Halitza, and if he refused, to require him to pay her maintenance in the sum of $1,000 a month. The Court agreed and ordered maintenance retroactive to the date of the husband’s death.
Despite the court order, the brother-in-law held his ground. He refused to perform Halitza and he refused to pay the maintenance, the cumulative arrearage amounting to $60,000 as of last year.
An appeal was made to the Chief Rabbis of France and Paris as well as leaders of the Jewish Community. Israeli religious court judges (Dayanim) and the Director of the Rabbinical Courts used their contacts within the French religious establishment to bring pressure on the brother-in-law.
Finally, after almost six years of waiting and an additional last minute pay-off of several thousand dollars, Yvette was granted the freedom to remarry. Now, in her late thirties, she hopes at last to build a new life and a new family. Sadly, the last six years have taken their toll, emotionally and physically. Dating is not so easy for a woman who has suffered for so long. Furthermore, Yvette’s biological time clock has continued ticking during this long waiting period. Statistically, the chances of her marrying and starting a new family at this age are not encouraging.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Protection for Afghan women a crucial role (THE AGE)
Author: SARAH SMILES PERSINGER
Date: 08/01/2011
Publication: The Age
Section: Insight
Page: 17
THREE years ago, I visited a hospital in southern Afghanistan renovated by Australian Defence Force engineers. A young, goofy digger showed me proudly around the rebuilt facility, pointing to a muddy yard where quarantined cholera patients once perished in tents.
Despite the revamp, however, the hospital lacked basic supplies, even baby formula. Worse still, there were only a handful of female medics a huge obstacle to fighting shocking rates of maternal mortality in the area. In conservative Oruzgan province, where gender segregation is the norm, many Pashtun families refuse help from male doctors, even if their women are dying in childbirth.
Today, there is a successful midwifery training program in the same hospital in Tarin Kowt. Young girls from the region are learning skills that are saving lives.
The hospital's rebirth and its impact on women is one of the few bright spots in Australia's involvement in Afghanistan. As coalition forces leave the country in coming years, these gains must be preserved. Australia should make supporting women particularly in the areas of health and education a priority of its post-2014 role in the country.
Since the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001, the plight of Afghan women and girls has in many ways been emblematic of the conflict. While the Bush administration used the claim of "liberating" Afghan women to justify the war, the Taliban have equated women's progress to the corruption of Islamic values by the West.
Caught in the crossfire, Afghan women and girls have nonetheless fought for a new role in public life in the face of rising violence and threats from insurgents. Today, there are 7.3 million Afghan children in school 37 per cent of them girls compared with zero girls in 2002. Hundreds of midwives have been trained in a bid to tackle maternal mortality. Women also enjoy a 25 per cent quota of reserved seats in the parliament.
As the Karzai government pursues a peace deal with the same tyrannical Taliban leaders that banned female education, the need to build on these small successes has never been more critical.
Defence Minister Stephen Smith has said that Australia will play a role in Afghanistan beyond 2014, when NATO's mandate looks set to expire. Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd says Australia will support development there into the next decade.
Australia should follow the lead of Canada, which is considering numerous measures to help women when its combat troops withdraw next year. These include pushing for women to be represented in any peace talks with the Taliban, expanding literacy programs for girls and providing Afghan security forces with gender-sensitised training.
Aid workers will argue that empowering women is critical to good governance, fighting poverty and creating a healthy, stable society. All of these things are desperately needed in Afghanistan.
As troops are withdrawn in the coming years, the danger exists that humanitarian funding will dry up, given that aid has followed the fighting. Matching troop withdrawals with long-term aid commitments is vital. AusAID would do well to sponsor midwife training programs in the rural south, where the maternal mortality rate is among the highest in the world.
As the Afghan government reaches out to the Taliban a move that many Afghan women fear will endanger their progress there is also a need to support Afghan women in public life. Australia could provide training and exchanges for Afghan women parliamentarians, lawyers, bureaucrats and police. Canberra could also privately insist that any visiting Afghan delegations include women.
Australia should also consider granting asylum to women who face ongoing death threats because of their perceived association with Western interests. Any future asylum program for Afghans much like that established for Iraqis when Australian troops withdrew from Iraq should consider giving priority to vulnerable women.
While Australian troops have by no means won the battle for "hearts and minds" in Afghanistan, their intervention has brought some small improvements on the ground. These should not be squandered as the war comes to an end. Afghan women and girls must not be forgotten.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Smiles Persinger is a research associate at the University of Notre Dame's Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies and a former Age journalist. She recently co-authored the report Afghan Women Speak: Enhancing Security and Human Rights in Afghanistan.
Date: 08/01/2011
Publication: The Age
Section: Insight
Page: 17
THREE years ago, I visited a hospital in southern Afghanistan renovated by Australian Defence Force engineers. A young, goofy digger showed me proudly around the rebuilt facility, pointing to a muddy yard where quarantined cholera patients once perished in tents.
Despite the revamp, however, the hospital lacked basic supplies, even baby formula. Worse still, there were only a handful of female medics a huge obstacle to fighting shocking rates of maternal mortality in the area. In conservative Oruzgan province, where gender segregation is the norm, many Pashtun families refuse help from male doctors, even if their women are dying in childbirth.
Today, there is a successful midwifery training program in the same hospital in Tarin Kowt. Young girls from the region are learning skills that are saving lives.
The hospital's rebirth and its impact on women is one of the few bright spots in Australia's involvement in Afghanistan. As coalition forces leave the country in coming years, these gains must be preserved. Australia should make supporting women particularly in the areas of health and education a priority of its post-2014 role in the country.
Since the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001, the plight of Afghan women and girls has in many ways been emblematic of the conflict. While the Bush administration used the claim of "liberating" Afghan women to justify the war, the Taliban have equated women's progress to the corruption of Islamic values by the West.
Caught in the crossfire, Afghan women and girls have nonetheless fought for a new role in public life in the face of rising violence and threats from insurgents. Today, there are 7.3 million Afghan children in school 37 per cent of them girls compared with zero girls in 2002. Hundreds of midwives have been trained in a bid to tackle maternal mortality. Women also enjoy a 25 per cent quota of reserved seats in the parliament.
As the Karzai government pursues a peace deal with the same tyrannical Taliban leaders that banned female education, the need to build on these small successes has never been more critical.
Defence Minister Stephen Smith has said that Australia will play a role in Afghanistan beyond 2014, when NATO's mandate looks set to expire. Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd says Australia will support development there into the next decade.
Australia should follow the lead of Canada, which is considering numerous measures to help women when its combat troops withdraw next year. These include pushing for women to be represented in any peace talks with the Taliban, expanding literacy programs for girls and providing Afghan security forces with gender-sensitised training.
Aid workers will argue that empowering women is critical to good governance, fighting poverty and creating a healthy, stable society. All of these things are desperately needed in Afghanistan.
As troops are withdrawn in the coming years, the danger exists that humanitarian funding will dry up, given that aid has followed the fighting. Matching troop withdrawals with long-term aid commitments is vital. AusAID would do well to sponsor midwife training programs in the rural south, where the maternal mortality rate is among the highest in the world.
As the Afghan government reaches out to the Taliban a move that many Afghan women fear will endanger their progress there is also a need to support Afghan women in public life. Australia could provide training and exchanges for Afghan women parliamentarians, lawyers, bureaucrats and police. Canberra could also privately insist that any visiting Afghan delegations include women.
Australia should also consider granting asylum to women who face ongoing death threats because of their perceived association with Western interests. Any future asylum program for Afghans much like that established for Iraqis when Australian troops withdrew from Iraq should consider giving priority to vulnerable women.
While Australian troops have by no means won the battle for "hearts and minds" in Afghanistan, their intervention has brought some small improvements on the ground. These should not be squandered as the war comes to an end. Afghan women and girls must not be forgotten.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Smiles Persinger is a research associate at the University of Notre Dame's Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies and a former Age journalist. She recently co-authored the report Afghan Women Speak: Enhancing Security and Human Rights in Afghanistan.
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
A NEW DARK AGE? Or the death throes of Islamism!
Don't blame the West
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/blame+West/4050815/story.html
The 'root causes' of Islamist terrorism do not lie in poverty or western imperialism, but an age old conflict between reason and revelation
So writes Robert Sibley, in Ottawa Citizen January 3, 2011
He concludes:
The challenge for Islamists, obviously, is whether they can achieve that transformation better through demographic domination over the next few decades or through violence.
The challenge for Westerners, perhaps not so obviously, is whether they will awaken in time from their multicultural slumbers to protect their cultural heritage and avoid, possibly, a new dark age.
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/blame+West/4050815/story.html#ixzz1A94WKLN5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is just part of a topic for debate.
Blair and Hitchens debate religion - BBC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoSoCGu4Rqs&feature=player_embedded
It was a New Year debate in Canada which can be seen with other topics on http://www.intelligencesquared.com/home
There are about 8 U-tube parts to it to see it in full, but the last one featured the questions from the audience and the very last question from a female student was: “if you were in the other’s shoes, what would you agree on?”
Tony Blair answered that he agrees that the challenge for all religions is the need to look at the interpretations of their scriptures, not to try and live according to that time centuries ago when they were written, but bring them into the modern era when e.g. the equality of women is the accepted norm!
Hitchens on the other hand agreed that if there were no religions in the world, human beings would still not behave in a utopian way, (he blames most conflicts in the world to be due to ‘religion’,- the organized variety!) given the frailties of homo-sapiens,- while there are human spiritual needs to e.g. ‘thank God’ if something good happens and when we have ‘God-given’ talents like musical ones, which cannot be explained through science alone.
Both agreed that there is good and bad in organised religion, due to ‘exclusivity’ about ‘our God’ being better than anyone else’s. This is why Tony Blair’s Foundation tries to build bridges across all faiths.
IMHO,- Israel, being a country which has to cater to all its citizens, is the ideal incubator for producing the changes both within traditional Judaism and across the other faiths, particularly in the areas of gender equality for a start.
Secularly they are already doing so,- see the Katsav indictment
http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/01/03/2742387/katsav-rape-conviction-hailed-as-watershed-moment
I believe that we are seeing the death throes of die-hard Islamism,- and of all fundamentalist religions,- succumbing by the middle of this century!
The AlQueda, Taliban, et al. in Iran, Pakistan, Somalia and everywhere else where they terrorise their fellow Muslims who may be of different Sects, let alone the minority Christians amongst them, I believe are individual males fighting to maintain their power over their own,- community, family, women!
These males are frightened of the individual freedoms prevalent in the West, particularly that of women. Gender equality is foreign to the Islamists,- no matter how much their women leaders may claim to the contrary. The proof lies in the fact that throughout the Arab world and among Islamic nations their archaic laws subjugate women.
That is also the problem for Hamas and Hitzbullah vis-a-vis Israel,- no matter how much they may claim that it is about Palestinian land and rights. The Jews are all too near to them, too much democracy and citizens enjoying too much freedom within sight of their own dominated followers of their fundamentalist brand of Islam.
If only the Islamic women would rise up against their own Islamists, perhaps the type of Islamic ‘take-over the world’ mentality of their males might disappear in time.
I don’t see it as a ‘dark ages’ reappearing,- most Westerners are too educated and aware, even the liberals among us in their ‘multicultural slumber’,- but continuing conflicts in the short term will continue.
The Islamic terrorist monster is fighting in its death-throes!
Humanism will triumph in the end over tribalism!
Happy New Year 2011.
MM
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/blame+West/4050815/story.html
The 'root causes' of Islamist terrorism do not lie in poverty or western imperialism, but an age old conflict between reason and revelation
So writes Robert Sibley, in Ottawa Citizen January 3, 2011
He concludes:
The challenge for Islamists, obviously, is whether they can achieve that transformation better through demographic domination over the next few decades or through violence.
The challenge for Westerners, perhaps not so obviously, is whether they will awaken in time from their multicultural slumbers to protect their cultural heritage and avoid, possibly, a new dark age.
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/blame+West/4050815/story.html#ixzz1A94WKLN5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is just part of a topic for debate.
Blair and Hitchens debate religion - BBC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoSoCGu4Rqs&feature=player_embedded
It was a New Year debate in Canada which can be seen with other topics on http://www.intelligencesquared.com/home
There are about 8 U-tube parts to it to see it in full, but the last one featured the questions from the audience and the very last question from a female student was: “if you were in the other’s shoes, what would you agree on?”
Tony Blair answered that he agrees that the challenge for all religions is the need to look at the interpretations of their scriptures, not to try and live according to that time centuries ago when they were written, but bring them into the modern era when e.g. the equality of women is the accepted norm!
Hitchens on the other hand agreed that if there were no religions in the world, human beings would still not behave in a utopian way, (he blames most conflicts in the world to be due to ‘religion’,- the organized variety!) given the frailties of homo-sapiens,- while there are human spiritual needs to e.g. ‘thank God’ if something good happens and when we have ‘God-given’ talents like musical ones, which cannot be explained through science alone.
Both agreed that there is good and bad in organised religion, due to ‘exclusivity’ about ‘our God’ being better than anyone else’s. This is why Tony Blair’s Foundation tries to build bridges across all faiths.
IMHO,- Israel, being a country which has to cater to all its citizens, is the ideal incubator for producing the changes both within traditional Judaism and across the other faiths, particularly in the areas of gender equality for a start.
Secularly they are already doing so,- see the Katsav indictment
http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/01/03/2742387/katsav-rape-conviction-hailed-as-watershed-moment
I believe that we are seeing the death throes of die-hard Islamism,- and of all fundamentalist religions,- succumbing by the middle of this century!
The AlQueda, Taliban, et al. in Iran, Pakistan, Somalia and everywhere else where they terrorise their fellow Muslims who may be of different Sects, let alone the minority Christians amongst them, I believe are individual males fighting to maintain their power over their own,- community, family, women!
These males are frightened of the individual freedoms prevalent in the West, particularly that of women. Gender equality is foreign to the Islamists,- no matter how much their women leaders may claim to the contrary. The proof lies in the fact that throughout the Arab world and among Islamic nations their archaic laws subjugate women.
That is also the problem for Hamas and Hitzbullah vis-a-vis Israel,- no matter how much they may claim that it is about Palestinian land and rights. The Jews are all too near to them, too much democracy and citizens enjoying too much freedom within sight of their own dominated followers of their fundamentalist brand of Islam.
If only the Islamic women would rise up against their own Islamists, perhaps the type of Islamic ‘take-over the world’ mentality of their males might disappear in time.
I don’t see it as a ‘dark ages’ reappearing,- most Westerners are too educated and aware, even the liberals among us in their ‘multicultural slumber’,- but continuing conflicts in the short term will continue.
The Islamic terrorist monster is fighting in its death-throes!
Humanism will triumph in the end over tribalism!
Happy New Year 2011.
MM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)