US will not let Iraqi women go.

Just to keep us updated. This is a terrible situation.
via Reuters.

and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

8 Comments

  1. Zaij
    Posted February 1, 2006 at 7:48 am | Permalink

    So is this terrible because they’re women, or because it happened to people? Because if it’s terrible because it happened to people, it doesn’t belong on this site. If it’s terrible because it happened to women, then it’s sexist.

  2. C-Bird
    Posted February 1, 2006 at 9:23 am | Permalink

    Uhhh… So when women are suspected insurgents they kidnap their husbands as “bait?” No..don’t think so, Zaij.
    That is how it’s sexist. These women are being treated as their husbands’ property and not as human beings.

  3. countryKyle
    Posted February 1, 2006 at 9:44 am | Permalink

    Of course its a terrible situation, its a hostage crisis in a time of war. Outside of the sex of the hostage, I dont understand how this situation correlates with any type of womens rights issue. Is this situation any different than that of Nick Berg, William Bradley, Eugene Armstrong, Jack Hensley, Ronald Schulz or Margaret Hassan? I think its obvious that the U.S has adopted a “non-negotiation” policy with hostage takers in Iraq. Despite the sex, nationality, wealth, or employment of any hostage the U.S has maintained this policy. Why should the U.S, knowing the possible devastating effects of hostage negotiation, change its poicy for Carroll?

  4. Posted February 1, 2006 at 10:50 am | Permalink

    Clearly Zaij has not yet absorbed the fact that women ARE people…..

  5. Posted February 1, 2006 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

    CountryKyle-
    I see what you are saying. The point I am trying to make is that when it is women in a hostage situation it tends to be a symbolic gesture since (the assumption is) women are, you know, vulnerable objects and oftentimes seen as a type of property that must be protected with a specific type of *we must take care of our women* vigilence.

  6. Zaij
    Posted February 1, 2006 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

    txfeminist, I was asking whether this was terrible because it happened to a human, or because it was happening to a woman specifically. How about reading into what I say instead of making stupid comments like that.

  7. countryKyle
    Posted February 1, 2006 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

    Samhita -
    Thanks for the clarification. However, I respectfully disagree. When compared to past hostage circumstances, the Carroll situation fails to distinguish itself. Whether it’s the way hostages are treated by their captors, the manner the media reports the situation, or the method in which the U.S responds; hostage situations in Iraq appear to be incredibly analogous, regardless of the sex of the victim. I don’t see how this can support the premise that said situation exemplifies a “symbolic gesture” that women are “vulnerable objects”. I would submit that all hostage situations would reveal a general gesture of the vulnerability of HOSTAGES in general, NOT to that of women specifically.
    Again, thanks for the response and lets hope Carroll arrives home safely.

  8. Life
    Posted December 12, 2009 at 8:39 pm | Permalink

    The basis of planning for the Closing Ceremony fell into the same broad categories as for the Opening Ceremony—the March, the Music of bands and choirs, the Ceremonial and the Flame—but in every case having less detail and requiring far less rehearsal. There was, in fact, no rehearsal except for the music and for extinguishing the flame. Timing presented some difficulty. As the Closing Ceremony was scheduled to take place immediately after the football final, it was not possible to lay down firm timings because of the likelihood of a draw at the end of the normal term for the match—it might have been necessary to play “extra time”.
    A week before the ceremony firm timing was requested, particularly for the broadcasting and telephoning for which fixed times had to be booked in advance. Times could be given only approximately, with a warning that they might be subject to delay up to, say, half an hour.
    This delay, had it occurred, would have presented difficulties in timing world broadcasts and in filing despatches to catch newspaper editions.
    Thought had to be given to the note on which the ceremony was to close. The fact that the choir was to sing was defined, but nothing had been decided about the choral item until a few months before the Games, when the suggestion was made by Sir Bernard Heinze, conductor of choir and band, that Waltzing Matilda, which has become something of an Australian national song, should be adapted and rendered by the choir as a Song of Farewell as the Londonderry Air had been in 1948. William Tainsh, an Australian poet, was accordingly invited to write appropriate words to the air of Waltzing Matilda to be sung during the march out to the accompaniment of music by the Royal Australian Air Force band. This he did and the verses were adopted.

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

164 queries. 0.386 seconds