I have received 2 emails from a relative that I really want to dispute but I dont know where to find reputable sources. Can you help? The emails in question follow (in Italicized text)
2) Women's Rights issue - what resource(s) can I cite to counter/dispute this?
Subject: War for women's rights
I watched the Olympics on Saturday night. At the one hour and thirty minute mark they did an editorial. It pointed out some very interesting facts about the Olympics and women¹s rights.
In 1896 there were no women athletes in any delegation from any country. In 1900 there were 15 women athletes (1.5%) the competed in Tennis and Golf. In 1996 there were 29 Nations that had no women athletes.
In 2004 there are only five nations that had no women athletes, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Arab and Muslim nations. In 2004 an Afghan woman carried the national flag of Afghanistan in the opening ceremony. In 2004 a Pakistani woman swam in competition at the Athens Olympics.
In 2004 an Iraqi woman ran in the early heats of the 100 meters. She was three seconds behind the field. Where she placed was not important. Where any of these Arab women placed was not important. What was important is that their countries allowed these women to participate on the world stage for the first time in History.
If the Taliban were still in power in Afghanistan, would this Afghan woman been allowed to carry the flag of her nation?
If Pakistan had not aided the United States would the Pakistani woman have competed in the Athens games? If Sadam was still in power in Iraq would the Iraqi woman sprinter been allowed to compete? Would she have dared compete and not place with Sadam¹s son running the Iraqi Olympic team?
I think not. The observation and question I would have to ask is, ³had the United States under the leadership of President Bush not decided to answer the world wide threat in what is called the war on terror, would these changes have happened on their own?² I think not.
To support the War on Terror is to support the War for Women¹s Rights worldwide. Just think about that. There are still nations and relig ions in the world that need to recognize the rights of women.
What are we talking about, here? The email talks about the difference between 1900, 1996, and 2004. Then it talks about how Afganistan, Pakistan, and Iraq sent women this year. What do these things have to do with each other? Surely, George Bush isn't taking credit for something that happended in 1900? The conflation on the two ideas is typical republican sneakiness. The only substance seems to be the contention that Pakistan, Afganistan, and Iraq are behaving differently than have in the past. "Would these changes have happended on their own?" The email asks wistfully? What changes? The increase in the number of women participating in the games? The behavior of Iraq, Pakistan, and Afganistan? The answer, of course, is "no" changes don't usually "happen on their own," whatever that means, but they were already happening long before GWB became president.
Participation by women in the olympic games has risen graudally and steadily since 1900, but it really started to shoot up after the 1992 olympics (see IOC charts). I think there are three reasons.
The number of events open to women increases every year.
In 1995, the IOC changed its charter to make encourgaing participation by women a priority. At the same time, it formed an advisory board for women's issues.
More importantly, since 1992 a Paris-based lobbying group has been pressuring the IOC to increase participation by women and to exclude from competition countries that discriminate against women.
I know this doesn't really answer the unanswerable questions posed by the email (although atleast one of the questions is moot - the IOC did not recognize the Taliban as the government of Afganistan so they could not have sent a team), but we'll never know the answers, will we? It's pretty clear that women weren't treated well in Afganistan under the Taliban and Iraq under Hussein and that they aren't treated well now by our friends in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. Do we have to invade those countries next, or might we be better off letting the IOC and lobbying groups do it the blood-shed free way?