Man Kills Daughter, Wants Son : Women's Rights Groups Silent

If you have been reading this site for a while, you probably know I am not a fan of the Women’s rights movement here in the United States. I target specifically the movement here because it seems like the National Organization for Women and other similar groups have lost their way. Don’t get me wrong: I support women having the same rights as men. However, I think NOW tends to forget why they are around in the first place. I found a good example of this today. Check out the following article from Fox News:

WINTER HAVEN, Fla. — A Polk County man is facing a first-degree murder charge in the death of his baby daughter.

According to a Polk County Sheriff's Office report, Marcos Gomez-Romero told investigators he beat Ariana Rodriguez Romero to death because he wanted a son, not a daughter.

Investigators say he told them the beatings had gone on for months.

Romero is charged with first-degree murder and aggravated child abuse. His daughter died Christmas morning.

I saw this and was outraged. This article was on the Fox News front page. At the same time, I made a bet with myself that this article wasn’t even on the radar for the women’s rights groups. So, I did a quick google search and found myself on the NOW website. Here is a quick rundown of articles on NOW listed as “Hot Topics” as of the writing of this post:

The first is a notice that the National NOW Family Law Advisory Committee has been compiling information for women that face divorce or child custody suits. Important, but really a hot topic?

Next is an article entitled “Engaging Women Project Effectively Makes Connections between Voter Participation and Policy Change”. Um, you think?

The third “hot topic” from NOW: Hilary Clinton is the first women to win the New Hampshire Primary.

I have a wife and a daughter I love very much. Because of that, I am very frustrated when I see these supposed women’s rights groups sound more like political action committees and less like real Women’s rights groups. If I can get outraged and appalled by this article, an organization claiming to want equal rights for women should recognize that a man killing his daughter because he wants a son is a problem. And if they can't, then I can recognize a problem with the women's rights movement.

The Dutch to Debate Free Speech

Is free speech worth protecting? What if free speech is used to criticize Islam? Newspapers have wavered back and forth on this issue in the past. Some newspapers believe it is worth protecting. Others have decided to censor themselves in order to avoid offending believers of the “Religion of Peace”. This week the Dutch government will debate if a prominent citizen of its country should be protected after criticizing Islam (and after the Dutch Government promised to protect her) or if it would be more convenient for the government to simply leave her to her own devices.

The issue is whether or not Ayaan Hirsi Ali deserves to have government provided security. Ms. Ali has been in hiding since the 2004 murder of filmmaker Theo Van Gough. Mr. Van Gough was killed because he had produced an 11 minute film critical of how women are treated in Islam. Ms. Ali wrote the script for that movie. A man stepped from the shadows and attacked Van Gough on his way to work one morning. Van Gough’s attacker shot him and almost cut his head off before stabbing a five page letter to his chest addressed to Hirsi Ali. She has been in protective custody since that time. The man who killed Van Gough was acting on a fatwa that had been issued against Van Gough. Many Muslims also want Ali killed for her part in the making of the film.

If you aren’t familiar with Ms. Ali, I have a short review of her latest book, Infidel. In her book, Ms. Ali describes what life was like growing up as a Muslim in Africa and the Middle East. After suffering an assortment of abuses (including female genital mutilation) she fled to the Netherlands and adopted that country as her new home. Hirsi Ali became a critic of Islam and how women are treated in its name. She has stated she no longer believes in God. This alone earns a death sentence under Islamic law. However, she has taken great pains to shine a light on the injustices done to women in the name of Islam. That has earned her a life of bodyguards and 24 hour a day protection. Protection that was promised to her when government officials asked her to enter politics.

However, some in the Netherlands still believe that fanatical Muslims can be appeased. These individuals believe that if they withdraw their protection of Hirsi Ali, then maybe fanatical Muslims will leave their nation alone. There are people in the Netherlands and Europe who have clamored to have her protection removed. There are also those who have tried to get to her before, and those who hope someone gets her. Her critics say she is too critical of Islam. If she has to have 24 hour a day protection, I would ask if she is being as critical as she could be. Some have said she has brought these troubles on herself. Individuals such as Ms. Ali should be able to say what they wish in a Western nation without fear of being stabbed in the streets.

Many on the left in our country wish our laws were as liberal as those in the Netherlands. The Dutch government is trying to hide it’s cowardice behind the financial cost imposed on them by protecting Ali. I find it hard to believe that the cost to protect her is more expensive than the cost free speech and open debate will suffer in the West if some harm should come to her because the Dutch government is worried about offending some of the people within their country. The Dutch are often shown as the model of a free, liberal, Western Government. They now have the opportunity to show they know how to do the right thing when a courageous womans life may will hang in the balance.

Feminism vs. Muslim Women?

I have often wondered why some of the most vocal critics of America’s involvement in Iraq are some of those who would have the most to loose under Sharia law. Where would the ACLU, Moveon.org, and assorted gay rights groups be if they were forced to live under Sharia Law. I don’t understand why some of these groups don’t make a common cause with those fighting for the same rights in Iraq and the Middle East.

For example, under Muslim law, women have very few rights. While most citizens in the Middle East have very little influence over their government, many women are in even worse shape. How often have we seen articles in the news about honor killings? How many female genital mutilations are performed in the Middle East without the consent of the girl being exposed to this barbaric practice? How many girls are sentenced to prison because they were raped?

I recently read an article in the Weekly Standard from May of 2007 by Christina Hoff Sommers that ask some of these same questions. She asks why there aren’t more demonstrations here in the United States to help women in Muslim countries. Ms. Sommers points out, “[d]uring the 1980’s, there were massive demonstrations on American campuses against racial apartheid in South Africa. There is no remotely comparable movement on today’s campuses against the gender apartheid prevalent in large parts of the world.” Ms. Sommers argues that while the, “…condition of Muslim women may be the most pressing women’s issue of our age...” too many feminist groups today are focused on attacking the United States and not on examining the condition of women outside of the U.S.

I did a random sampling of feminist groups in the United States to see if Ms. Sommers was being fair in her characterization of these groups. Very few of the websites I visited talked at all about women outside the United States. In a domestic violence study on the Center for the Advancement of Women, the group mentions talking to what it considers a diverse group: non-minority, African-American, Asian, Latina, adult and teenage women. Since the study does bring up religion, I was surprised there was no mention of Muslim women.

A more prominent group, The National Organization for Women (NOW), list as their top priorities: Abortion Rights / Reproductive Issues, Violence against Women, Constitutional Equality, Promoting Diversity / Ending Racism, Lesbian Rights, and Economic Justice. “Global Feminism” appears as bullet point five under “Other Important Issues”. You will be happy to know that at number four in this same category is “Fighting the Right”. Under “Global Feminism” the most recent article is dated October of 2006. I did a quick search on Google for “honor killings” and found articles on CNN, The Christian Science Monitor, and other sources much more recent than that.

However, not being active in any of these organizations, maybe I was missing something. Going back to the homepage for NOW, I looked to see what the most pressing issues facing today’s women are. The first article was “Breaking News: Cleavage on Display”. This insightful bit of reporting was referring to Hilary Clinton’s “brazen step” to wear a low neckline. Here is the link to the story if you think I am making this up. And this was the headline as of the writing of this article.

There are feminist movements active in the Middle East. Occasionally American feminist will try to help these movements only to be attacked by organizations such as NOW. In her article, Ms. Sommers points out that these movements are gaining some momentum, and that they don’t like what they see in their American counterparts. A 1998 book quoted in the article said that some Iraqi women’s advocates don’t like what they see as trying to divide men from women, and separating women from their family.

In her article, Mrs. Sommers points out, “A reviewer of Irshad Manji’s manifesto celebrating Islamic feminism aptly remarked, ‘This could be Osama bin Laden’s worst nightmare.’ Ipso facto, it should be our fondest dream.” American Feminist should take a step back from the political parties and look at their own ideals. If women’s issues, and especially all women’s issues, are what their organizations are about, how can they not support an effort to provide women in the Middle East with a stable democracy to live in? Are feminist in these groups so against the Republican party and George Bush that they would want the women of the Middle East to live in conditions they would never, ever, dream of here in the U.S.?

To drive the point home, the cover of The Weekly Standard with Ms. Sommers article shows three women who are coverd except for their face and their hands. The center woman has some hair showing on the top of her head. The caption for this cover is "Government agents in Tehran warn a woman about her clothing and hair during a crackdown to enforce the regime's dress code, April 22, 2007." Is this really the environment that NOW wants women living in?