President Obama delivered a speech at Cairo University in Egypt today, titled “A New Beginning.” I watched the speech on television this morning. In addressing U.S. relations with the Muslim world, he took some time to talk about women’s rights:
The sixth issue that I want to address is women’s rights.
I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.
Now let me be clear: issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.
Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.
I appreciate the admission that the struggle for women’s equality is not one that’s taking place “over there,” but everywhere. BUT, we cannot continue to sell out basic human rights so as not to offend religious extremists. I would like for Obama to proclaim government-sanctioned Religious Law completely unacceptable, and issue an ultimatum to completely withdraw support of religious fundamentalist governments.
Whenever former President Bush would call the Saudis “important friends,” or smile widely in photographs with members of the Saudi royal family, I’d grit my teeth and wonder, How is this Kingdom our friend?! When will this charade end!? I feel the same way looking at pictures from Obama’s visit to Saudi Arabia this week. Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy with no elected officials other than the municipal ones that the government allowed in 2005. The Saudi people don’t have any political recourse. We have covered their crimes against humanity before. Just last week, they publicly executed and crucified a man. There are plenty of atrocities happening all over the world, and that will not change until the rule of law established in these nations. That goal should be the focus of our relations with these countries.
We’re selling out every time we treat women’s rights as if it’s a special interest and not a basic human right. And by “we” I’m not pigeonholing Obama, just making a general statement about how it’s easy to shunt off women’s rights to the side when you pretend they’re not half of the entire fucking population of ANY country in ANY culture.
“I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles.”
Maybe I’m just tired, but I don’t get what he means by that. I mean, I get that women can choose to stay at home and taken care of the kids and all of that, but in this country, so can men! So, honestly, seriously, can anyone tell me what that means? I for reals don’t get it.
@kmars I think you can read it both ways, which might be why they said it. At first, I see it as saying that women don’t necessary consider equality with men as goal (I’m having trouble framing that right, but I don’t think men have high enough standards and being on their level wouldn’t be enough for me). Also, I think the remark folds in the more “traditional” women who do not have careers outside the home who would also like to be treated equally as men. But that was just my take.
I was happiest at the inclusion of education as a key component to advancing women’s rights. Especially in developing countries. I spend a good amount of time on this issue with my job at a non-profit, and the amazingly positive ripple effects of getting girls in a classroom would blow your mind.
I just finished reading Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and her outspoken condemnation of Islam’s treatment of women has forced her to work for a conservative think tank, because liberals in the West are often too damned afraid to appear racist for criticizing the treatment of women in places like the Middle East. In her book, Hirsi Ali says that it’s unfair and really racist for relativists to excuse the violence and inequality as just a “cultural” or “religious” issue that should not be judged, as if brown people do not deserve freedom and equality just as much as the rest of the world. Either we just give up and accept the fact that Muslims and their countries are in serious trouble due to religious law taking hold, and that we can’t expect better from them, or we call them out publicly on the bullshit. I’m glad Obama touched on the subject, but of course I wish that it would be the MAIN focus of our foreign policy. I am a starry-eyed idealist like that.
I think this is a pretty strong statement, from Obama. International relations aren’t easy or simple, so yeah, I would also like him to denounce support for religious fundamental governments, but I get why he can’t, without great risk and consequence. I think it’s a step toward showing disagreement with countries like Saudia Arabia, who definitely do not support education or choice for women.
“I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles.”
What I hear is Obama saying that women who embrace the idea of staying home with their children are just as valuble as women who embrace other paths. A common criticism of feminism is that it means women HAVE to be “just like men” and go out and work and never spend time with their kids. Since this isn’t what feminism actually advocates, I like that Obama says what he respects is a woman’s CHOICE. Choosing to be a SAHM, for example, is completely different from being a SAHM because you’re forced to be one. Combined with his strong support for women’s education, I’m pretty much behind him.
I thought it was a strong statement as well, Margosita. I thought his entire speech was good. It’s a hard balancing act he has to play with certain countries.
I think this is a good statement. He is acknowledging that what women in different cultures consider their priorities in terms of equality and liberation may differ from the priorities of the US, and he understands that. He wants to say that feminism/women’s rights is not a Western imperialist notion, and that gender equality does not know national and cultural boundaries.
As for Ayaan Hirsi Ali, she is a conservative in her own right, she wasn’t “forced” to work at AEI. She is more like an old school, 19th century Classical Liberal thinker than a contemporary US conservative but she definitely has serious baggage about Islam and takes her experience of Somalia to stand in for all women living in Islamic countries, which I think is really unfair of her. There are plenty of womens rights orgs in “Muslim countries” and also in the Netherlands that she could have worked at.
Ok, fine, maybe “forced” was not the right term, but I don’t that warrants discrediting all of what she says. She is the victim of a pretty horrendous upbringing, so I don’t begrudge her strong feelings on Islam. The point about liberals hiding behind too much cultural relativism still stands. I just think that the organizations that are already working to improve conditions in Muslim countries need more outspoken support and funding from our government leaders and the mainstream media.
NPR pointed out this morning (don’t remember who; I was navigating traffic on 66) that the lack of female education in the Middle East is misdiagnosed as originating solely from the family/community level when a significant part of the problem is due to supply-side employment shortages for women, which in turn reduce incentives for schooling. In other words, employers won’t hire women, so why go to school? I was hoping somebody with more expertise would mind corroborating/debunking this; or, if s/he also heard this story, could tell me if I need to work on my multitask listening.
CBB, I think it really depends on the context but yeah that is certainly true in a lot of places. In other places women have more employment opportunities but it tends to be domestic work, not skilled labor. You are also talking about countries where many many men are unemployed so it’s difficult to argue in favor of making the workforce larger. However I think Obama was talking about countries that have legal, not economic or even local-cultural, barriers to girls going to school, like in Afghanistan. I’m not entirely sure why he connected it to the Islam thing because there are a lot of Muslim countries where women get great educations. I guess the whole concept of “muslim countries” as an audience was a little strange to me, I feel like countries that are majority muslim have a wide variety of problems affecting women that are not necessarily in common with each other.
Sorry HistoricUpstart, I am just not a Hirsi Ali fan. I appreciate what she has been through but it doesn’t make me think any more highly of her ideas. I disagree that moral/cultural relativism is the main reason for insufficient support for womens movements in repressive countries, but I do acknowledge that she is very smart and has personally been through a ton of shit. I’m just saying the situation in Somalia is about much much more than Islam and I don’t think her arguments contain sufficient nuance. However I do respect her as a thinker and activist though we don’t agree.
Saudia Arabia law requires that each female, regardless of age, be assigned a male guardian – be it a father, a husband, or even a son – who must give permission for their charges to do everything from travel abroad to study or seek medical care. This effectively deprives women of their most basic rights and makes their participation in public life far more difficult.
Any democratic country who considers this country a friend and ally is turning a blind eye to systematic human rights abuse.
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42074
I don’t really see how the US issuing ultimatums to other governments is productive in any way shape or form. Excising the US’s influence on a country (which is a highly questionable influence internationally) is not going to “teach” other nations or encourage them to come groveling back to us. The power relationship implied in the ability to condone and condemn with some sort of tangible effect is also highly insulting. This is a complex social and cultural situation and as was pointed out in this blog a few weeks ago about FGM, you can’t march in with your own culturally conditioned values and declare yourself there to rescue the victims. As several commenters before me have pointed out, I think Obama made a wise move in leaning more heavily on this issue without using language or rhetoric that would completely alienate his audience (which, let’s be clear, is not us, it’s the Arab world).
On the issue of education, I lived in the UAE for seven years and found that, among upper and middles class Arab women, at least, extremely high value placed on education up to and including university education. Most of those women who had MBAs and other degrees ultimately ended up staying at home and raising children. Making education available is not the end of the solution nor is it as simple as education being valued or not or available or not.
@JD: My impression is that academia and politicians and local populations are a little schizo about the concept of the “Muslim World”. I remember when, in college, there was the big to-do over Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations paper, and my Islamic Politics prof went apeshit (as she should have), pointing out that the thesis runs roughshod over individual grievances and histories that must be delineated rather than swept up in an overarching, easily digestable neo-crusade narrative. Also, that a worldwide caliphate is a realistic possibility is pretty much just wank material for right wingers and fundie Osamaphiles. But then again, there is intra-religious sympathy between Muslim-heavy populations. The Iraq occupation got Muslim populations pretty riled up. One of the biggest paradoxes in the Arab world, as I understand it, is that Syrians or Iranians or what have you will bemoan the situation in the Holy Land while still treating Palestinian refugees and migrants like dirt.
I think Obama will be fine addressing Muslims on a macro level because he won’t pollute his foreign policy with simple, patronizing ideology like W. did, which means hashing out Egyptian women’s issues separately from Afghani women’s issues. In other words, don’t do this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/28/international/middleeast/28hughes.html
Bears, you make a good point. I thought it was very savvy of Obama to speak to the Israel/Palestine issue because it really does reverberate throughout the world Islamic community, as do our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I understand there to be a kind of pan-Arab identity that animates a lot of terrorist (and non terrorist, obvs) organizations so it is legitimate in a sense, and I think Obama was right to frame it that way. But when we’re talking about human rights, we are talking about state responsibilities, and in a national context the barriers to womens progress are very diverse.
His speech was perfect. Declaring Religious Law completely unacceptable is over the line though. It’s no different than those that belive that Americans should convert to Islam or die. No country should dictate another coutry’s religous laws. That is bullying and that’s how wars get started.
I actually think Obama is making a really crucial point here that fundamentally respects the rights and agency of women of all cultures and faiths. Before you get angry, just hear me out.
I read a really great article last year by Zillah Eisenstein that discussed the role of global feminisms and global misogyny following September 11. There is a tendency in superficial discussions of women’s rights in the Middle East to assume that they are, as Eisenstein says, “burkha-covered creatures in need of saviors.” I definitely don’t think many feminists would say that, but there’s a definite tendency for the media to present a very one-sided, monolithic view of Middle Eastern women, with the idea that there are no feminists in, for example, Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, and that they need Western women’s cultural values instead of their own.
For that reason, I think it’s great to see an acknowledgment of the fact that the hijab and traditional gender roles are not inherently oppressive. The oppression, of course, comes with lack of choice. We can all certainly agree on that I hope. One of the more interesting points that Obama makes though, is that women aren’t particularly free here in the US either. Clearly we are better off than women in Saudi Arabia because we don’t need male escorts, but I think the point is that a lot of Islamic feminists would not be happy with the particular type of constrained choice that we have here, either, so it’s very important to actually listen to what their priorities are.
And honestly, I’m really not a cultural relativist. I just think it’s important to listen to people. In any case, I agree that education is crucial.
To clarify, I thought this speech was very impressive. And I recognize that there’s a difference between what I want to happen and what I understand can happen. Basically I think it’s wrong for us to be an ally to a regime that commits heinous human rights abuses, like Saudi Arabia.
I think the concept of “audience” was very relevant in his point-making. I ask this.
In 1950, did American feminists have to make the statement that it was “ok” for women to choose a “more traditional” role and stay at home? No. They had already been in the home.
When President Obama made the statement “I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles.” he gave a loophole for officials to keep women cloistered away and repressed, but still claim to be forward-thinking and “equal.”
I realize President Obama included “But it should be their choice.” I have two things to say to that. 1. When quoted, that segment will be left out for the quoter’s own purposes. 2. Choice is relative and manipulation and control of women used to thousands of of years of repression won’t be hard.
I like President Obama. But I will believe in the positive affects of his latest speech when I see them.
Ladies, I’ve just about had it with Jezebel. I can’t believe there was no mention of this speech other than a two-line item by Megan in News at 10. THANK YOU FOR HAVING THE SENSE to comment about this. I’m sorry I’m late to the game.
Russ, with all due respect, you’re missing the point.
The US doesn’t have the authority to tell Saudi Arabia what to do, obviously. But we do have a choice in who we call friends. And a nation with HORRIFIC human rights violations should NOT be our friend. We should be offering help to people who want to escape and condemning those who would keep them in oppression.