Erica Jong tears into First Lady Laura Bush and her Middle East visit at The Huffington Post. It's pretty scathing on its own, so I don't feel the need to add on:
Now that Laura Bush is back from the Middle East and can take off her black scarf, it's time to ask why she is promoting freedom for women in the Middle East when the rights of American women are being systemically eroded by her husband's initiatives. Is it the same reason why her husband promotes democracy abroad while the Patriot Act and the suspension of the Geneva Convention dilute democracy at home? Is wearing the headscarf the last refuge of a desperate housewife? Of course women in the Middle East need the vote, an end to domestic violence and free access to contraception. But so do we. Odd that it is always easier to proselytize for feminism abroad while ignoring deteriorating womens' rights at home.
Read the rest here.
1 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Erica Jong calls out Laura.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/1930
No matter what you think of my poorly-constructed title, this isn't political porn. Erica Jong rips into Laura Bush's recent trip to the Middle East on the campaign for women's rights at the HuffBlog. Now that Laura Bush is back from the Middle East ... Read More
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
I think Jong actually went too easy on Laura Bush. It's not just about "applying her skills" at home... it's about the whole insincerity of her "advocating" women's rights in the Middle East while we are still killing, raping, and torturing over there.
How is Laura Bush responsible for US policy? Has she been made President or something?
I challenge your whole concept that the Bush administration has rolled back womens rights. Is there one person on this blog who can give a personal(specific) example of a right they had and used during the Clinton administration, that they are no longer free to exercise under the Bush administration?
Just one. A legitimate right. One.
Speech?
Religion?
Equality in the eyes of the law?
By comparison, MILLIONS of women are in the process of getting their basic human rights in the middle east.
I never saw Erica Yong protesting the Taliban.
tfreridge, buddy, i suggest you educate yourself and check out a couple of reports that are ALL ABOUT the rollbacks to women's rights in bush's first term alone...
Beijing Betrayed http://www.wedo.org/files/gmr2005.html
MISSING: Information about Women's Lives
http://www.ncrw.org/misinfo/report.htm#report
Slip-Sliding Away: The Erosion of Hard-Won Gains for Women Under the Bush Administration
http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/AdminRecordOnWomen2004.pdf
Bush's Other War
http://www.iwhc.org/resources/bushsotherwar/index.cfm
There is also a great book called "The W Effect: Bush's War on Women" that came out in 2004
Also, as much as I sometimes question the Feminist Majority's tactics, THEY were protesting the Taliban while Bush & co. were inviting their spokespeople to Texas. Just FYI.
Nice question, TF. I notice that it wasn't women's lives in general but only our rights that are at stake--if Bush made it impossible for women to get a job, for instance, while still maintaining the legal fiction we have a "right" to that job, we haven't lost anything, have we?
I read the overview of the WEDO report Beijing Betrayed. I disagreed with the fundemental assumptions from almost the very begining. While I do believe that women are more victimized by poverty than men, I don't believe the WEDO evaluation of the root causes to be correct. They place the blame on the organiziations that are their to help them rather on the corrupt government of the poverty stricken nation. In almost every third world case, and some second, the standard of living is a direct result of the rule of law and of the lack therof. It is also closely connected with individual propety ownership. The Bush administration is working to fix this issue one country at a time.
Also, I believe I asked for specific example. All the theoretical arguments are just that, theoretical. Have you been denied any job because you're a woman, Amanda?
I read the Bushsotherwar\domestic on IWHC and its seemed to me that it was all about two things. Federal subsidies of state Medicaid funds and abortion. Roe Vs. Wade has already ruled that a women doesn't have an "absolute right" to an abortion. So that point is moot. If the legistlation stands up to the standards or if fetal rights are found to be legaly stronger than they are, it is not an "erosion of rights" but a "clarification of law". As for the federal subsidies that seems politically motivated to me, as it's easier to get money from the fed level for controversial programs that to go directly to the states where you have to prove that it is actually necessary.
But once again, I ask, have you been denied any reproductive health care specifically since bush became president?
"How is Laura Bush responsible for US policy? Has she been made President or something?"
Good point. Because *only* the President is at all responsible for US policy. Not, of course, anyone else in his administration. And of course being First Lady thing has no sway at all, making it all the more puzzling that Laura Bush would go campaigning for anything and that anyone would pay attention to her.
And not, of course, people who fund US foreign policy like US taxpayers. We should never criticize someone who is NOT the president for anything, calling on them to use their position as influential persons (like, say being married to the Commaner-in-Chief), or responsible beings (like us US taxpayers) to appeal to their consciences and actually reflect on how our own policies hurt people. We should absolutely not do that. Instead we should fill our minds and newspapers with empty hypocritical rhetoric about women's rights.
The self-delusion is intoxicating.
"The Bush administration is working to fix this issue one country at a time."
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!! yeah, he's fixin' 'em all right!