PDA

View Full Version : American Women, remember this when you vote!


Sam L
Oct 16th, 2004, 12:49 AM
Your government just refused to sign a statement endorsing a U.N. plan adopted 10 years ago to ensure every woman's right to education and health care. This administration really makes me sick. You should read it and spread it to other message boards you post on to inform women there too. And make a wise decision when voting.

Eighty-Five Nations Back Population Agenda
Wednesday October 13, 2004 11:31 PM



By EDITH M. LEDERER

Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Eighty-five heads of state and government have signed a statement endorsing a U.N. plan adopted 10 years ago to ensure every woman's right to education, health care, and to make choices about childbearing. President Bush's administration refused to sign because the statement mentions ``sexual rights.''

A decade after the landmark International Conference on Population and Development, the statement signed by more than 250 global leaders in all fields was handed Wednesday to Deputy Secretary-General Louise Frechette by media mogul Ted Turner, who founded and funds the United Nations Foundations.

Frechette called it ``a brilliant idea'' that will renew the commitment of governments and leaders to achieve the goals that 179 nations agreed to in Cairo.

The United States was a strong supporter of the Cairo plan of action. Former Colorado senator Tim Wirth, who was a key player in drafting the 20-year Cairo blueprint as a top official on the U.S. delegation, helped spearhead the global statement in his current job as president of the U.N. Foundation.

The statement notes that in 1994 ``the world's governments and civil society committed to an action plan to ensure universal access to reproductive health information and services, uphold fundamental human rights including sexual and reproductive rights, alleviate poverty, secure gender equality, and protect the environment.''

While progress has been made, the statement says the world is facing an exponential increase in HIV/AIDS, a growing gap between rich and poor, persistently high death rates related to pregnancy and childbirth, and inadequate access to family planning services. It calls on the international community to fund and implement the goals of the conference, known as the ICPD.

Wirth noted that 134 million couples who want family planning services don't have access to them and there is an average of just three condoms per year available to men in sub-Saharan Africa - ``a very, very significant shortfall.''

The statement was signed by leaders of 85 nations including the entire European Union, China, Japan, Indonesia, Pakistan and more than a dozen African countries as well as 22 former world leaders, notably U.S. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

The Bush administration responded only on Tuesday to organizers who had asked for the president's support.

In a letter to organizers of the statement, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kelly Ryan reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to ``the goals and objectives'' of the Cairo conference and ``to the empowerment of women and the need to promote women's fullest enjoyment of universal human rights.''

``The United States is unable, however, to endorse the `world leaders' statement on supporting the ICPD,'' Ryan said. ``The statement includes the concept of `sexual rights,' a term that has no agreed definition in the international community, goes beyond what was agreed to at Cairo.

Sexual rights were specifically mentioned a year later, however, in the platform of action adopted by over 180 countries including the United States at the 1995 U.N. women's conference in Beijing.

That platform, which the United States also took a leading role in drafting, states: ``The human rights of women include their right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence.''

Bush has blocked $34 million in congressionally approved annual assistance to the United Nations Population Fund, alleging that the U.N. agency helped China manage programs that involved forced abortions, a charge it calls baseless. Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4548998,00.html

Pureracket
Oct 16th, 2004, 12:50 AM
:sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad:

AjdeNate!
Oct 16th, 2004, 12:50 AM
So not surprised by that. Saddened, but not surprised. Beedy-eyes needs to give it up and go home.

Barrie_Dude
Oct 16th, 2004, 01:37 AM
Actually, women in America are far, far better off in the USA and Canada than in most of the world, especially the middle esat and Africa. Whether or not Bush signs on will make little difference to women in North America. There is, however, officially a great deal of work that the USA is doing abraod endorsing "Human Rights" and this includes the rights of women. Women in Afghanastan are far better off now than b4 the States came along for instance.

Crazy Canuck
Oct 16th, 2004, 01:39 AM
Whether or not Bush signs on will make little difference to women in North America.

You know, I'm not sure that's really the point. Or that it's entirely true.

Barrie_Dude
Oct 16th, 2004, 01:45 AM
You know, I'm not sure that's really the point. Or that it's entirely true.Well, it may make a difference in what women think of Bush, tis true, but the UN resolution will have no impact on the lives of American women. In fact, most UN resolutions are basically toothless pieces of crap that have no bearing on the world as a whole anyway.

Volcana
Oct 16th, 2004, 03:13 AM
'Sexual rights' for women means they get to say no. Bush would never, ever endorse that.

decemberlove
Oct 16th, 2004, 03:55 AM
Actually, women in America are far, far better off in the USA and Canada than in most of the world, especially the middle esat and Africa. Whether or not Bush signs on will make little difference to women in North America. There is, however, officially a great deal of work that the USA is doing abraod endorsing "Human Rights" and this includes the rights of women. Women in Afghanastan are far better off now than b4 the States came along for instance.
this might shock you, but some women do care about women outside their lil bubble.

yeah, too bad the usa doesn't seem to be concerned with the rights of women in iraq.

Mariangelina
Oct 16th, 2004, 11:07 AM
Of course the quality of life of a woman in America is usually far better than that of one in Pakistan and Indonesia, but it's really rather shameful that a country where honour killings still happen and the government usually turns a blind eye, where women don't live as long as men, and where female government employees must cover their heads to come to work signed the thing and the US didn't.

And the thing certainly didn't say "the right to have random abortions whenever one feels like it." "Sexual and reproductive rights" could be interpreted to mean use of birth control, the right to not get raped, the right to choose who to marry, the freedom to have sex without being prosecuted.

But the sheer, blind, society-disintegrating horror of condoms, abortion, and women controlling their own sexuality stopped Georgie in his tracks.

cheesestix
Oct 16th, 2004, 02:01 PM
this might shock you, but some women do care about women outside their lil bubble.

yeah, too bad the usa doesn't seem to be concerned with the rights of women in iraq.

If Kerry (or Gore) were prez, then women in Afghanistan and Iraq would still have no freedom.

Sam L
Oct 16th, 2004, 03:35 PM
If Kerry (or Gore) were prez, then women in Afghanistan and Iraq would still have no freedom.
Yes but that was only because they happen to live in countries with oil and terrorists. God forbid, if they were from some little African country with (no oil and no terrorists) but with a ruthless dictator, they still wouldn't have 'freedom' now. :rolleyes: In other words, you know as well as, I and everyone else here knows, that Bush is NOT in love with Afghan and Iraqi women - their freedom is just icing on the cake, it's not the cake itself. You know it!

Infiniti2001
Oct 16th, 2004, 03:37 PM
If Kerry (or Gore) were prez, then women in Afghanistan and Iraq would still have no freedom.


What freedom??:shrug:
Did you watch Oprah when her show was dedicated to 30 year old woman around the globe?? There was this Iraqi woman reporter telling the plight of Women in general in Iraq under this US occupation. Thet are NOW worse off than when Saddam was in power. Many are now forced to carry guns to protect themselves, because of the high rate of rape on a daily basis---and that was just unheard of during Saddam's reign. (At least men were respectful of woman back then). Paralyzed by fear, they stay indoors unless it's absolutely necessary Almost all of the them are addicted to valium which cost next to nothing . They use it to numb their pain-- and to top it off, there's actually no help to fight the addiction.(The reporter herself is addicted to valium and carries a gun).

I recently met a dude who came back from Iraq and let me tell you, he so wants to tell America that things in Iraq are NOT as rosy as the pic this administration paints. He says the soldiers are constanly questioning why the fuck they are over there. They hate to see women and children suffering and dying on a daily basis. Water and electricity are being rationed --- thousands are packing up and leaving Iraq-- do we see or hear this on the news?? NO FUCKING WAY. :rolleyes:


P.S. when Senator Clinton came back and reported the plight of the women a few months back some called her a liar -- now we've heard it from an Iraqi woman .

Sam L
Oct 16th, 2004, 03:47 PM
What freedom??:shrug:
Did you watch Oprah when her show was dedicated to 30 year old woman around the globe?? There was this Iraqi woman reporter telling the plight of Women in general in Iraq under this US occupation. Thet are NOW worse off than when Saddam was in power. Many are now forced to carry guns to protect themselves, because of the high rate of rape on a daily basis---and that was just unheard of during Saddam's reign. (At least men were respectful of woman back then). Paralyzed by fear, they stay indoors unless it's absolutely necessary Almost all of the them are addicted to valium which cost next to nothing . They use it to numb their pain-- and to top it off, there's actually no help to fight the addiction.(The reporter herself is addicted to valium and carries a gun).

I recently met a dude who came back from Iraq and let me tell you, he so wants to tell America that things in Iraq are NOT as rosy as the pic this administration paints. He says the soldiers are constanly questioning why the fuck they are over there. They hate to see women and children suffering and dying on a daily basis. Water and electricity are being rationed --- thousands are packing up and leaving Iraq-- do we see or hear this on the news?? NO FUCKING WAY. :rolleyes:


P.S. when Senator Clinton came back and reported the plight of the women a few months back some called her a liar -- now we've heard it from an Iraqi woman .
They won't listen. They're so deluded.

Also, the point of this thread is that the Bush Administration is trying to deny the rights of women everywhere. I hope you all can see that.

I mean isn't it basic human rights for everyone to have access to "sexual rights"? Bush is trying to deny that to women - EVERYWHERE.

The reason why I addressed it to American women was obviously because they're the only ones who can vote him in or out.

SJW
Oct 16th, 2004, 08:20 PM
Women in Afghanastan are far better off now than b4 the States came along for instance.

you should watch "lifting the veil". your sentence is what the western media WANT you to think, try saying that to the many women who continue to be raped and abused every single day.

SJW
Oct 16th, 2004, 08:23 PM
What freedom??:shrug:
Did you watch Oprah when her show was dedicated to 30 year old woman around the globe?? There was this Iraqi woman reporter telling the plight of Women in general in Iraq under this US occupation. Thet are NOW worse off than when Saddam was in power. Many are now forced to carry guns to protect themselves, because of the high rate of rape on a daily basis---and that was just unheard of during Saddam's reign. (At least men were respectful of woman back then). Paralyzed by fear, they stay indoors unless it's absolutely necessary Almost all of the them are addicted to valium which cost next to nothing . They use it to numb their pain-- and to top it off, there's actually no help to fight the addiction.(The reporter herself is addicted to valium and carries a gun).

I recently met a dude who came back from Iraq and let me tell you, he so wants to tell America that things in Iraq are NOT as rosy as the pic this administration paints. He says the soldiers are constanly questioning why the fuck they are over there. They hate to see women and children suffering and dying on a daily basis. Water and electricity are being rationed --- thousands are packing up and leaving Iraq-- do we see or hear this on the news?? NO FUCKING WAY. :rolleyes:


P.S. when Senator Clinton came back and reported the plight of the women a few months back some called her a liar -- now we've heard it from an Iraqi woman .

same in Afghanistan. at least everyone used to be scared of the Taliban in fear of execution or losing limbs. now that fear is gone, there's anarchy in some places...soldiers are raping the young women and terrorising villages, yet unless you were INTERESTED in finding out what was really going on, you'd be led to believe that everything is picture perfect (ala barrie_dude)

Volcana
Oct 16th, 2004, 08:26 PM
And the thing certainly didn't say "the right to have random abortions whenever one feels like it." "Sexual and reproductive rights" could be interpreted to mean use of birth control, the right to not get raped, the right to choose who to marry, the freedom to have sex without being prosecuted.

But the sheer, blind, society-disintegrating horror of condoms, abortion, and women controlling their own sexuality stopped Georgie in his tracks.Just a note, abortion is specifically covered under reproductive rights. Bush's objection is specific to sexual rights. If their objection is about abortion, they aren't admitting it.

If Kerry (or Gore) were prez, then women in Afghanistan and Iraq would still have no freedom.a) You don't know that. b) Afghanistan and Iraq are VASTLY different situations.

Women in Afghanistan are generally a good bit better off now in the parts of the country that aren't still run by the Taliban or their cronies. (No, the Tablian ISN'T gone.) mind you, the place is chaos, and crime is rampnat. But legally, women are allowed to vote, run for office, hold jobs and go to school, all things most women were denied under the Taliban. It isn't equal rights,and it isn't country-wide, but it IS freedom. American Blacks' struggle against slavery didn't end til the mid 1870's. (The amendment ws passed in 1867, if memory served, but enforcement was spotty.) It was another NINETY YEARS before Blacks LEGALLY gained equal rights. And again, enforcement of the law is spotty. Just look at the current voter suppression.

Women in Iraq are WORSE off than before invaded. Hussein was ruthless, but he was also a secularist. Women were allowed to work, hold office, go to school, and Islamic law held no sway. Since the invasion, ISlamic law is taking hold inthe parts of the country we don't control, which is most of it. Women are staying home for fear of rape or kidnapping. They're being denied schooling in some parts of the country. Here's a link to description, in case anyone reading our little debate is interested.

http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=6061

Sam L
Oct 16th, 2004, 11:36 PM
Just a note, abortion is specifically covered under reproductive rights. Bush's objection is specific to sexual rights. If their objection is about abortion, they aren't admitting it.

a) You don't know that. b) Afghanistan and Iraq are VASTLY different situations.

Women in Afghanistan are generally a good bit better off now in the parts of the country that aren't still run by the Taliban or their cronies. (No, the Tablian ISN'T gone.) mind you, the place is chaos, and crime is rampnat. But legally, women are allowed to vote, run for office, hold jobs and go to school, all things most women were denied under the Taliban. It isn't equal rights,and it isn't country-wide, but it IS freedom. American Blacks' struggle against slavery didn't end til the mid 1870's. (The amendment ws passed in 1867, if memory served, but enforcement was spotty.) It was another NINETY YEARS before Blacks LEGALLY gained equal rights. And again, enforcement of the law is spotty. Just look at the current voter suppression.

Women in Iraq are WORSE off than before invaded. Hussein was ruthless, but he was also a secularist. Women were allowed to work, hold office, go to school, and Islamic law held no sway. Since the invasion, ISlamic law is taking hold inthe parts of the country we don't control, which is most of it. Women are staying home for fear of rape or kidnapping. They're being denied schooling in some parts of the country. Here's a link to description, in case anyone reading our little debate is interested.

http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=6061 I thought abortion was 'sexual rights' and they do object to it. All you need to do is look at their policies. They've also pretty much destroyed the UN family planning Unit which would tell you that they're opposed to it.

Mariangelina
Oct 17th, 2004, 01:21 AM
Abortion could be interpreted as part of either. A woman's right to make that choice is also about her control over her own sexuality and body.

Bush's religious beliefs clearly conflict with a lot of stuff many would consider basic human rights, but he has to learn his country is not a theocracy. Separating church and state is hardly a newfangled idea.

Wigglytuff
Oct 17th, 2004, 03:41 AM
If Kerry (or Gore) were prez, then women in Afghanistan and Iraq would still have no freedom.

ok, and how does that explain why bush didnt sign this for AMERICAN women?

god, are you like obessed with spining everything into the war in iraq?

Wigglytuff
Oct 17th, 2004, 03:51 AM
Actually, women in America are far, far better off in the USA and Canada than in most of the world, especially the middle esat and Africa. Whether or not Bush signs on will make little difference to women in North America. There is, however, officially a great deal of work that the USA is doing abraod endorsing "Human Rights" and this includes the rights of women. Women in Afghanastan are far better off now than b4 the States came along for instance.

thats simply not true.

women in America
-make money less then women in Europe,
-have the WORST health care of women in any industrial nation
-are %25 to 33% likely to be raped before they die, thats 1 in 4 or 1 in 3 depending on who you believe. (thats more likely than breast cancer and aids COMBINED)
-have the shortest maternity leave on women in any industrial nation, (1-3months compared with 1-3 YEARS as is the standard in Europe)
-are more likely to be killed by their lovers or husbands than women in Europe, Canada or Japan
-are more likely to be killed by their lovers or husbands than by anyone else.
and so on and so on.

kes
Oct 17th, 2004, 07:30 AM
thats simply not true.

women in America
-make money less then women in Europe,
-have the WORST health care of women in any industrial nation
-are %25 to 33% likely to be raped before they die, thats 1 in 4 or 1 in 3 depending on who you believe. (thats more likely than breast cancer and aids COMBINED)
-have the shortest maternity leave on women in any industrial nation, (1-3months compared with 1-3 YEARS as is the standard in Europe)
-are more likely to be killed by their lovers or husbands than women in Europe, Canada or Japan
-are more likely to be killed by their lovers or husbands than by anyone else.
and so on and so on.
sad, but probably true!! :mad: :sad: :sad:

Thankyou, Sam L - :wavey: :bounce: :bounce:
for posting this thread!!!

hingis-seles
Oct 17th, 2004, 07:50 AM
Of course the quality of life of a woman in America is usually far better than that of one in Pakistan and Indonesia, but it's really rather shameful that a country where honour killings still happen and the government usually turns a blind eye, where women don't live as long as men, and where female government employees must cover their heads to come to work signed the thing and the US didn't.
Hi! :wavey:

I'm a Pakistani. I'd just like to clarify one thing in your post. Not all female government employees "must cover their heads". Lots of Pakistani women cover their heads, but it is a choice they make. It is something very personal and no one can force you to do it (although, sadly, in many families young girls are forced by the parents). Honour Killings disgust me beyong belief. Perhaps, what's saddest of all is that they are legal.

Great thread, Sam L.

Barrie_Dude
Oct 17th, 2004, 07:57 AM
you should watch "lifting the veil". your sentence is what the western media WANT you to think, try saying that to the many women who continue to be raped and abused every single day.There are those that endure that and it is wrong. But as a whole woman are better off in Afganastan than b4 and women in America are far better off than in much of the world.

Barrie_Dude
Oct 17th, 2004, 08:01 AM
this might shock you, but some women do care about women outside their lil bubble.

yeah, too bad the usa doesn't seem to be concerned with the rights of women in iraq.You are mis reading what I am saying. Of course women are concerned aboy women elsewhere. My point is that whether or not Bush signs on with this resoulution will make little difference to the plight of women anywhere. And the States does a great deal to encourage and promote womens rights but it is under the guise of Human Rights

Barrie_Dude
Oct 17th, 2004, 08:05 AM
thats simply not true.

women in America
-make money less then women in Europe,
-have the WORST health care of women in any industrial nation
-are %25 to 33% likely to be raped before they die, thats 1 in 4 or 1 in 3 depending on who you believe. (thats more likely than breast cancer and aids COMBINED)
-have the shortest maternity leave on women in any industrial nation, (1-3months compared with 1-3 YEARS as is the standard in Europe)
-are more likely to be killed by their lovers or husbands than women in Europe, Canada or Japan
-are more likely to be killed by their lovers or husbands than by anyone else.
and so on and so on.Okay, so women in America have it sooooooo bad! That is a crock of shit! Women in the middle east abd afica are far worse off. The problem here is that American women are so used to playing the victim that they have no conceot of how good they have it. In fact, for the most part, women in North America are far better off than men because the system and the media are so far skewered in the womans favor.

Wigglytuff
Oct 17th, 2004, 08:37 AM
Okay, so women in America have it sooooooo bad! That is a crock of shit! Women in the middle east abd afica are far worse off. The problem here is that American women are so used to playing the victim that they have no conceot of how good they have it. In fact, for the most part, women in North America are far better off than men because the system and the media are so far skewered in the womans favor.

look mister simplistic, just because american women dont have to wear a veil or get stoned, that doesnt mean that ameica is the best place to be a woman its not.

what the fuck are you saying? are you saying that women in america who get killed by thier husbands are "playing the victim" are you saying that little girls who get raped are "playing the victim"?

do you think that having a 1 in 3 chance of being raped means that its better to be a woman in america? (men have a 1 in 13, or 1 in 12 chance of being raped)

that women are better off because the make what 70something cents on the dollar FOR THE SAME job as men? its that why women are better off then men??

are women better then men because american women have the worst health coverage than anywhere in europe or japan or canada?

is that why women are better off?

do you think women are "playing the role of a victim" because only 2% of rapists serve any time in jail at all and most for under a year? does that mean that women are "playing the role of a victim"?


i mean with a 33% chance of being raped, i really dont understand why women in america dont just shut up and be glad america is soo perfect.
:rolleyes:
-----------

enough of your make believe i want REAL SOLID numbers and facts that prove that women are better treated then men in america, not no fucking stories that cant be backup, i give you hard facts and i demand the same. dammit

CooCooCachoo
Oct 17th, 2004, 09:21 AM
:cuckoo: Weird American government

Pureracket
Oct 17th, 2004, 12:34 PM
Okay, so women in America have it sooooooo bad! That is a crock of shit! Women in the middle east abd afica are far worse off. The problem here is that American women are so used to playing the victim that they have no conceot of how good they have it. In fact, for the most part, women in North America are far better off than men because the system and the media are so far skewered in the womans favor.Ok, this is post is just plain scary. :eek:

Barrie_Dude
Oct 17th, 2004, 02:07 PM
look mister simplistic, just because american women dont have to wear a veil or get stoned, that doesnt mean that ameica is the best place to be a woman its not.

what the fuck are you saying? are you saying that women in america who get killed by thier husbands are "playing the victim" are you saying that little girls who get raped are "playing the victim"?

do you think that having a 1 in 3 chance of being raped means that its better to be a woman in america? (men have a 1 in 13, or 1 in 12 chance of being raped)

that women are better off because the make what 70something cents on the dollar FOR THE SAME job as men? its that why women are better off then men??

are women better then men because american women have the worst health coverage than anywhere in europe or japan or canada?

is that why women are better off?

do you think women are "playing the role of a victim" because only 2% of rapists serve any time in jail at all and most for under a year? does that mean that women are "playing the role of a victim"?


i mean with a 33% chance of being raped, i really dont understand why women in america dont just shut up and be glad america is soo perfect.
:rolleyes:
-----------

enough of your make believe i want REAL SOLID numbers and facts that prove that women are better treated then men in america, not no fucking stories that cant be backup, i give you hard facts and i demand the same. dammitObviously you have no concept of what I am speaking of. I will say this once again, Women in America are alot better off than their counterparts in other parts of the world. Do they have it as bad as women in the middle East or some 3rd world country in Africa? No way!
In as far as health care is concerned, the health care system in America is among the best in the world. In fact, the Canadian goverment has often sent people to the USA for health care. So that wipes out anything you claim about the Canadian system being better.
In as far as women being raped or beaten, yes this happens and it is wrong. But I hardly believe that it is one in 3!!!
But, all in all, life is hard for alot of people and, if you are going to sit and play the victim, you will get walked all over. I did it for awhile and I know of what I speak. There are some harsh realities out there and I know an awful lot of people that play the victim rather then take any responsibility for their lives. If you believe that life in America is so very much worse for women that it is for men than you are sadly mistaken. It is time to grow up!

turt
Oct 17th, 2004, 03:46 PM
Obviously you have no concept of what I am speaking of. I will say this once again, Women in America are alot better off than their counterparts in other parts of the world. Do they have it as bad as women in the middle East or some 3rd world country in Africa? No way!Why the hell would you want to compare the situation in the US to the situation in these countries? :confused:
Of course the situation is worse in 3rd world countries, but it's bad for men too in these countries!

The thing is, apparently the USA are the worst place to live for women if you look at the "industrialized countries"...

SJW
Oct 17th, 2004, 03:56 PM
the USA are the worst place to live for women if you look at the "industrialized countries"...

bingo.

Barrie_Dude
Oct 17th, 2004, 04:53 PM
Why the hell would you want to compare the situation in the US to the situation in these countries? :confused:
Of course the situation is worse in 3rd world countries, but it's bad for men too in these countries!

The thing is, apparently the USA are the worst place to live for women if you look at the "industrialized countries"...According to whom?