Why Aren't The Feminists Supporting This War?
Mark Steyn notes
:In other words, isn't the war on terror the real "women's issue"? As Ahmad al-Baqer, an MP from one of the more progressive Muslim nations (Kuwait), breezily put it, nixing a proposal to give broads the right to vote, "God said in the holy Koran that men are better than women. Why can't we settle for that?" Why indeed? From the Associated Press:
"Multan, Pakistan -- Nazir Ahmed appears calm and unrepentant as he recounts how he slit the throats of his three young daughters and their 25-year-old stepsister to salvage his family's 'honor' . . ."
Alas for Mr. Ahmed's daughters, that's all a long way away for Susan Sarandon, Gloria Steinem and the other sisters whose contribution to the liberation of Afghanistan was to oppose it. But the "honour killings" are getting closer. In London last summer, the police announced they were re-opening investigations into 120 deaths among British Muslim girls that they'd hitherto declined to look at too closely on grounds of "cultural sensitivity." There's a small flurry -- enough almost to form a new category for the Governor-General's Awards -- in books itemizing the violence to women, gay men and other approved groups in the new EUtopia: Claire Berlinski's Menace In Europe and Bruce Bawer's While Europe Slept are a staggering accumulation of riveting vignettes, like the non-Muslim girls in les banlieues of France opting to wear veils and other Islamic coverings to lessen the likelihood of being abused and assaulted in the streets.
Actually it's not too hard to figure out why the feminists oppose the war. They were an offshoot of the radical antiwar movement in the 1960s, and have become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democrats. It's only if you buy the myth that they support "women" that their opposition to Iraq and Afghanistan seems to make no sense.