The world focused on the Northern areas of Pakistan to capture or kill the al-Qaeda or Taliban operatives. But the harsh reality is that even if these operatives are eliminated, there are other outfits in the rest of the southern part of Pakistan that have the same aims, will and training as that of al-Qaeda or Taliban.

After 2001 Pakistanis were spoon fed the propaganda that the violence in Pakistan is due to America’s presence in Afghanistan. As a result, many hate the U.S. intervention and see Islamists as the defenders of Pakistani sovereignty. Those who support the Islamists for their religious beliefs are relatively few in number, but they are better organized. The arrests of extremists depends on the willingness of Pakistan’s secret agencies and/or the influence of the Saudi government.

The dual policy of keeping the U.S. happy while supporting the terrorist outfits was charted out by the then-President of Pakistan Gen. Pervez Musharraf. He half-heartedly banned some 23 organizations but failed — deliberately — to bring their sponsors to justice.

The story of Southern part of Pakistan is much scarier than the Northern part. Just as the ten-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks approached, those “banned” outfits were on the rise, exploiting the anti-Americanism in the country and misusing the name of religion.

Jaish-e-Muhammad, the group blamed for an attack on the Indian parliament, is the second largest jihadi group in Southern Punjab. It carries out regular public gatherings and has strong influence in the U.K., Europe, Dubai, Saudi Arabia and even in the U.S. Libya’s Moammar Gaddafi was their financial patron-in-chief at one point. Another major financer is Saudi Arabia.

JeM changed its name a few times because of the “ban.” It went from Khudam-al-Islam to Al Rehmat Trust International to Usman Trust. Currently it is operating under the banner of Al Shafi Islamic Medical. Its publications were never out of print.

The failed Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad, spent much of his time at a JeM madrassa in Karachi. He was transported to the North later by Laskhar-e-Jhangvi for further training.

LeJ’s parent organization — Sipah Sahaba Pakistan — changed its name from Millat-e-Islamia to International Quran Movement to Ehle Sunnat wa Jamaat. Its propaganda organ publications were available to the masses outside mosques and various market places.

The LeJ formed and operated its new wing, also known as Lashkar e Jhangvi al Almi (LeJ International). With its headquarters in Pakistan, it covers Europe and the U.K. The LeJ is organized into small cells of around eight cadres each, who operate independently of the others.

LeJ leader Malik Ishaq told an Urdu newspaper about his involvement in the killings of 102 people. He was allowed a stipend and provided a mobile phone in jail. Ishaq was released this year after the courts found no evidence against him.

Gen. Musharraf’s government carried out just one operation against the Islamic fundamentalists, under pressure from the Chinese government, when he ordered the Red Mosque Siege. Pakistani intelligence officials said they found letters from Osama bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, to the leaders of the mosque, directing them to conduct an armed revolt. One of the leaders was released by the courts later.

The LeJ, JeM and Harkat ul Jihad-e-Islami (HuJI) formed a common front called Lashkar-e-Umer with countrywide branches for close cooperation and pooled resources. These groups still support each other in one form or another.

The Karachi-based Al Rasheed Trust, was “banned” and listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department on September 22, 2001. The group is still operating and its chief was one of the few who had direct access to bin Laden.

Similarly, another group, the Falah-e-Isnaniyat Foundation (FIF) is linked with Lashkar and Jamat-al-Dawa and protected by the security establishment. These groups are also supported and funded by the Saudis.

The freehand operations of these groups have radicalized Pakistani society. Anti-Americanism spreads while Arabization has taken hold.

There are more and more mosques in each city, many run by such outfits. In some places three separate mosques of different sects are built next to each other. The sermons delivered there go unchecked and ultimately fuel the hatred and twisted ideology of dividing Muslims and bringing ‘sharia’ of their liking to the world. Public Billboards promoting jihad and hatred of America are everywhere cloaked as appeals for “charity.”

Pakistan’s internal crises include a deep cynicism that has seeped into every nook and cranny of everyday life. Politically, the army continues to run the popular narrative. Socially, if liberals talk about rapprochement with India, they’re accused of being controlled by RAW, the C.I.A. or the Zionists — or all three. The radical view that it’s acceptable to kill Shi’a, Ahmadis, Hindus and Christians and destroy their places of worship is widespread.

Because of this chaos, ordinary Pakistanis who want to travel, work and study abroad are finding it harder to do so. In the eyes of many immigration officials around the world, to be Pakistani is synonymous with being a criminal.

It’s been said many times that 9/11 changed the world. After the attacks, Afghanistan and Pakistan felt the heat.

Ten years later, the diseases that had been contained in Pakistan metastasize more rapidly than ever. Pakistan’s militants, all of them, are a threat to international peace. If the West’s strategy for combating radicalism continues on its present parochial course, the world will feel the heat.

Here is the story, as detailed in Saunders’ piece, In This Brave New World, Girls Disappear:

The world is becoming unbalanced. In pockets across the globe, women are giving birth to too many boys. In China, the sex ratio is 121 boys to 100 girls. In India, it’s 112 to 100. Sex selection also is a force in the Balkans, Armenia and Georgia. In her eye-opening book, “Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men,” journalist Mara Hvistendahl estimates that ultrasound and abortion have “claimed over 160 million potential women and girls – in Asia alone.” That’s more than the entire female population of the United States.

If you think that scarcity makes women more valuable, you are right – but that does not mean females benefit. As “surplus men” have trouble finding mates, young girls are forced into prostitution. Others are forced into arranged marriages. On Taiwan’s eBay, Hvistendahl finds three Vietnamese women for sale for $5,400.

Those women who do well economically in the new order sadly are more likely to abort daughters in favor of sons.

Is this not disconcerting? Not only are girls being aborted in greater numbers by choice, but the decreased numbers of girls does not translate to girls being treated better. Not even close, unfortunately. Most disturbing is that women are buying into this mindset, and how that is made manifest.

Saunders points out, though, that this isn’t just bad for women:

The results are equally bleak for men. Many boys grow up knowing they are unlikely to marry and start a family. In two years, 1 in 10 Chinese men will lack a female counterpart. The Chinese have a term – fenquing for “angry youth” – to describe the legions of young men likely to grow old alone. They find release in places like the Rising Sun Anger Release Bar, “where for the price of a few drinks, customers can pummel one of the bar’s hired hands.” In that equation, both men are losers.

In three decades, Vietnam – a poor country that provides brides and kidnapped prostitutes to affluent overly male nations – will have 4.3 million surplus men.

Holy cow. The difference the shortage of women will make in such a brief period of time is astonishing.

Saunders touches on the path of good intentions, whose result seem to fulfill the old adage paves the path to hell:

Hvistendahl finds no shortage of villains in this story. There’s China’s one-child policy, which resulted in untold forced abortions. Western governments and charities threw money at family-planning efforts to stem population growth in Asia, with little concern to the methods – forced sterilizations and abortions – employed. Then there are the willing participants – doctors, nurses and parents – who choose to engage in female feticide. French demographer Christophe Guilmoto recalls an Indian woman who was livid because she had aborted a boy after a doctor misdiagnosed the gender of her fetus.

I was struck at the distortion of good intentions. Family planning does promote prosperity, while overpopulation is unhealthy and destabilizing. Researchers develop technologies to help families. But in a world where technology moves faster than ethical thinking, giving would-be parents the gender they prefer is good business. So you get fertility clinics like the Los Angeles outfit that advertises, “Be certain your next child will be the gender you’re hoping for.”

Of course, sex-selection abortions happen in America, often among immigrant families. Hvistendahl reports that 35 percent of Asian American pregnancies result in abortion. [snip]

Oh, yes – definitely “good intentions” paved the way to this hell, which affects girls on a massive scale. And the numbers are just staggering.

Saunders concludes with the following:

[snip] Canadian sociologist Sharada Srinivasan has another suggestion. As she told Hvistendahl, at some point, feminists have to define sex selection as a human rights abuse. That would be a good start. (Click here to read the rest.)

Yes, it would be a good place to start – it is a human rights abuse, and the sooner we start dealing with it as such, the better.

I will leave you as Saunders did in her piece, with the following quotes. These should get your blood a-pumping: Thoughts On Parenthood

“You can choose whether to be a parent, but once you choose to be a parent, you cannot choose whether it’s a boy or girl, black or white, tall or short.”

- Delhi gynecologist Puneet Bedi

“Better 500 rupees now than 500,000 later.”

- Mumbai ultrasound ad

“Less than $5 invested in population control is worth $100 invested in economic growth.”

- President Lyndon B. Johnson, in a 1965 speech in San Francisco

It’s an open secret that hundreds of Saudi families and nationals were flown out of the States during the days after the attacks. The exodus was organized by Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to the U.S., Prince Bandar bin Sulan bin Abdul Aziz, also known as “Bandar Bush” due to his closeness to the Bush family. The ambassador expedited the departures of two families: The Saudi royals and the bin Ladens. But not even the notoriously charming prince could adequately explain why or how 15 out of the 19 hijackers came from a country the U.S. had always claimed as a close ally.

It should, then, be safe to call the Saudi-U.S. relationship a “secret” marriage. Not many Americans know how strong or weak this marriage is, mostly because the Saudis spent billions — and more billions — to spruce up their image or stay hidden from the general public.

The Saudis’ initial attempts at post-9/11 damage control backfired — badly. Exhibit A: Prince Alwaleed bin Talal’s public show of contributing $10 million to New York for disaster relief. Unfortunately for the Kingdom, the prince had the poor judgment to use the opportunity to lecture the U.S. about its foreign policy at the same time. Then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani made it clear that New York had no need for his money.

Realizing that their image needed bolstering, the Saudis did what troubled totalitarian regimes the world over do: They hired a PR firm and a gang of high-powered Washington lobbyists. The PR blitz was a flop.

But this did not stop the Saudis, and now, in an ironic twist, the prince is the second-largest shareholder in Rupert Murdoch’s News Corps, the parent company of Fox News Channel, a notorious source of anti-Muslim rhetoric.

The Kingdom’s ongoing image woes have long been exacerbated by reports of a barbaric judicial system, beheadings, the second class citizen status of women and the complete absence of human rights and religious freedom. The flow of Saudi petrodollars into the coffers of terrorist groups around the world has been reported on, analyzed and criticized for years, to little effect.

It is no secret either that Saudis have also been instrumental in bankrolling and backing discrimination and violence against the Shias, as described by Khaled Ahmed in his book Sectarian War: Pakistan’s Sunni-Shia Violence and Its Links to the Middle East:

According to Barnett Rubin, in 1989, the Afghan mujahideen government-in-exile came into being in Peshawar after the Soviet retreat from Afghanistan. At the behest of Saudi Arabia, the exiled Shia mujahideen of Iran were not included in this government. The Saudis paid over $26 million a week to the 519-member session of the mujahideen shura (council) as a bribe for it. Each member of the shura received $25,000 for the deal which was facilitated, according to Rubin, by the ISI Chief Hamid Gul.

But as the world is watching the developments in the war on terror, the Saudis are out to burnish their image as humanitarians. They know that the someone somewhere might mention the fact that Afghanistan was the training ground and Pakistan was the facilitator, but the majority of the hijackers were the nationals of the Kingdom. Over the last ten years, the situation is Pakistan and Afghanistan has gone from bad to worse, while a major player of this ‘great game’ has kept itself at a distance with its petrodollars.

Given the Saudis’ penchant for funding and exporting extremism and meddling throughout the Muslim world, how would you react if you heard a Saudi prince had bankrolled an expensive research project to create a genetically modified strain of corn that could eliminate world hunger?

The prince does this not for financial gain, but as a gesture of goodwill. The prince also speaks perfect English, appreciates female arm candy and is a target for Islamic extremists at home.

Apparently, the Saudis have found a way to uplift their image.

This prince is a hero, not in a real life of course — but in a Hollywood movie, Unknown. As America prepares to mark the ten year anniversary of 9/11, this pop culture moment is nothing short of extraordinary. The Saudis have achieved a PR coup: Positive product placement. The Kingdom is re-branding.

There’s nothing particularly original about the plot, which consists of a series of predictable spy scenarios — a foreign city, inclement weather, amnesia, car chases, the Cold War, evil multinationals. It’s been done a million times.

But what is totally unexpected is the depiction of a Saudi royal as a generous benefactor, a plot point that is so rare it captures the attention. Even more remarkable is that there have been no debates, no protests, no boycotts, no outrage. The movie came and went without a peep.

Even more intriguing: The film Unknown is based on the novel Out of My Head by Didier van Cauwelaert. There is no benevolent Saudi prince in the original version of the story. So how did this plot twist come about?

Since no one in the press or the world of politics seems to care, it may be a while before we find out.

To celebrate Women in Sports, especially with the Women’s World Cup (soccer) coming up this summer, Secretary Clinton delivered the following remarks:

Now you know, I am a HUGE soccer fan. And I was able to attend the semifinals in DC of the World Cup of which Sec. Clinton spoke. In fact, President Clinton was at the stadium at the same time I was, watching the match. There was even a flyover with fighter jets – cool! Oh, and the US obviously won, since they went on to win the World Cup in the dramatic fashion Sec. Clinton mentioned.

This is a great time, this celebration. But wow, do we still have a long way to go.

While Secretary Clinton is reflecting on Women and Sports, a “Gay Girl in Damascus” was allegedly kidnapped in Syria. In Egypt, another woman journalist was almost killed in Tahrir Square last week, saved by a police officer, who was then beaten himself for rescuing her.

A Libyan student in Australia received only THREE YEARS in jail for sexually assaulting four women, and two girls, one of whom was only 13. Why? Well, you know, it is a whole cultural thing. The way these women dress, oh, my, it just upset him SO much, and made him excited, all at the same time. So he did what any man would do – he attacked them. Oh, wait – most men do NOT do that:

Libyan Almahde Ahmad Atagore, 28, was sentenced to three years behind bars yesterday for sexual assaulting a number of young women in Melbourne in August and September last year, the Herald Sun reports.

Atagore was shocked by the cultural differences and felt isolated and depressed, particularly as he did not have a mosque nearby, said County Court Judge Margaret Rizkalla.

He told a psychiatrist he did not like how Australian women dressed, leaving him angry but also aroused. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Women, and girls, participating in sports is important, there is no doubt about it. And it is very cool that the US does sports exchanges with other countries. The benefits to girls and women who participate in sports are numerous, with higher self esteem and better overall health at the fore.

But it is not enough when men still think they can overpower women, see women purely as sexual objects, or violate them in a sexual manner as a show of power (though it really highlights the man’s weakness, IMHO). It is not enough when they are seeing a very different message coming from the media, and from our political parties. When the Democratic elite are still supporting a complete sleazebag like Anthony Weiner, what kind of message does THAT send to our young women and girls? When judges in countries like Australia grant a short amount of jail time for a man who assaulted several women, and two girls, as a nod to his neanderthalic view of women based on his religion, how do the girls and women in Australia feel? What is the message being sent to them?

I am glad we still have Title IX in this country, and am happy to celebrate its 40th anniversary. Our girls and women deserve it. But all girls and women, here and around the world, deserve to be treated better than we are. We deserve to not have some slimeball US Representative texting a college woman with a photo of his private parts. We deserve for men to serve the time for the crimes committed against us, not some slap on the wrist. We deserve to be able to do our jobs without threat of DEATH because gangs of men descend upon us.

We deserve better. We deserve better from men, we deserve better from the women who support these sleazeballs, we deserve better from our elected officials.

To follow up on Sec. Clinton’s suggestion, and while I can still post videos from YouTube (our illustrious US Senators are threatening to make it a felony to embed videos), I want to honor the US Women’s Soccer Team. Below is look back at the ’99 World Cup win, and the iconic moment of Brandi Chastain scoring the winning goal for the US Women over China for the Gold:

May the US Women play hard, play clean, have no injuries, and bring back the Gold from Germany.

This is disturbing on so many levels, not the least of which how women continue to be treated. At first there were denials that any such thing had occurred:

A senior Egyptian general admits that “virginity checks” were performed on women arrested at a demonstration this spring, the first such admission after previous denials by military authorities.

The allegations arose in an Amnesty International report, published weeks after the March 9 protest. It claimed female demonstrators were beaten, given electric shocks, strip-searched, threatened with prostitution charges and forced to submit to virginity checks.

At that time, Maj. Amr Imam said 17 women had been arrested but denied allegations of torture or “virginity tests.”

And now, there is the justification for these, um, “tests” by the military:

But now a senior general who asked not to be identified said the virginity tests were conducted and defended the practice.

“The girls who were detained were not like your daughter or mine,” the general said. “These were girls who had camped out in tents with male protesters in Tahrir Square, and we found in the tents Molotov cocktails and (drugs).”

The general said the virginity checks were done so that the women wouldn’t later claim they had been raped by Egyptian authorities.

“We didn’t want them to say we had sexually assaulted or raped them, so we wanted to prove that they weren’t virgins in the first place,” the general said. “None of them were (virgins).”

This demonstration occurred nearly a month after Egypt’s longtime President Hosni Mubarak stepped down amid a wave of popular and mostly peaceful unrest aimed at his ouster and the institution of democratic reforms.

Afterward, Egypt’s military — which had largely stayed on the sidelines of the revolution — officially took control of the nation’s political apparatus as well, until an agreed-upon constitution and elections. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Wow. I scarcely know what to say about that admission. It is despicable, deplorable, and horrifying.

Of course, women were not the only ones tortured, as the video below makes clear:

As horrible as the treatment sustained by some of these male protesters is, and it is, it does not compare to the torture, and threat of MORE torture, the women endured. The threat of electrocution or surrender to “virginity tests” is not much of an option, is it?

And here is where the “I told you so” part comes in. Many of the Lefty stripe were celebrating turning over Egypt to the military. Picture Alfred E. Newman when you read this: “What could go wrong?”

Plenty. Not only are they teaming up with the Muslim Brotherhood (told you so about that, too), but women continue to bear the brunt of the anti-woman structure there. Can you imagine any woman in the United States, or Europe, being forced to decide between Electrocution and a Virginity Test? Hell to the no. And it is not okay that our Egyptian Sisters are being forced to do so at the hands of the military.

The rights, and dignity, of women are being subjugated in Egypt. Amnesty International is all over this, thank heavens (I am a card carrying, regular contributor to AI). But between the Muslim Brotherhood and the military, I continue to fear for the safety of women in Egypt.

And I still want to know why Obama wants to send them so damn much money given these human rights abuses, and the strong role of the Muslim Brotherhood. Again, I must ask – where is the hue and cry? So far, the silence is deafening…

Ahem. I wish I could tell you that this is just some “Onion” type parody, but it is, in fact, true. Yes, Manal Al-Sherif, was detained by the religious police because she got into the driver’s seat:

Authorities detained a Saudi woman on Saturday after she launched a campaign against the driving ban for women in the ultraconservative kingdom and posted a video of herself behind the wheel on Facebook and YouTube to encourage others to copy her.

Manal al-Sharif and a group of other women started a Facebook page called “Teach me how to drive so I can protect myself,” which urges authorities to lift the driving ban. She went on a test drive in the eastern city of Khobar and later posted a video of the experience.

“This is a volunteer campaign to help the girls of this country” learn to drive, al-Sherif says in the video. “At least for times of emergency, God forbid. What if whoever is driving them gets a heart attack?”

Human rights activist Walid Abou el-Kheir said al-Sherif was detained by the country’s religious police, who are charged with ensuring the kingdom’s rigid interpretation of Islamic teachings are observed. [snip]

Al-Sherif has a point – at the very least, women should know the basics of driving a car for emergencies, but also because, well, it’s assholic for them to be barred from something so many of us take completely for granted. Especially since the only reason they are barred from driving is their gender.

But wait – there is more:

Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world to ban women – both Saudi and foreign – from driving (emphasis mine). The prohibition forces families to hire live-in drivers, and those who cannot afford the $300 to $400 a month for a driver must rely on male relatives to drive them to work, school, shopping or the doctor.

Women are also barred from voting, except for chamber of commerce elections in two cities in recent years, and no woman can sit on the kingdom’s Cabinet. Women also cannot travel without permission from a male guardian and shouldn’t mingle with males who are not their husbands or brothers.

[...]

Dressed in a headscarf and the all-encompassing black abaya all women must wear in public, al-Sharif said not all Saudi women are “queens” who can afford to hire a driver. She extolled the virtues of driving for women, saying it can save lives, and time, as well as a woman’s dignity. Al-Sharif said she learned how to drive at the age of 30 in New Hampshire.

[...]

“We want to live as complete citizens, without the humiliation that we are subjected to every day because we are tied to a driver,” the Facebook message reads. “We are not here to break the law or demonstrate or challenge the authorities, we are here to claim one of our simplest rights.” (Click here to read the rest.)

Well, golly gee – that’s just a little demanding, isn’t it? Wanting to live as “complete citizens” in their own country? Pushy, pushy, pushy…

All snark aside, isn’t it just remarkable that in the 21st century, one of our allies treats women as subhuman based on religious practices? We engage with Saudi Arabia on a regular basis (they have oil, you know). Hell, our president bowed down to their king (!) as if he was one of his subjects. (There is more we are doing for them, too, about which you likely have not heard about in terms of the US crafting a “private security force.” My friend, Diamond Tiger, has the story at her blog, Logistics Monster. Check it out.)

And yet, women there do not have the most basic of rights, ones we take for granted every single day. How would we fare if women in this country had to have a driver, or take a taxi, to work, to school to pick up the kids, to go grocery shopping, to do ANYTHING?? Never mind should an emergency arise. I reckon the women in Saudi Arabia are just SOL.

But, hey, they are our allies, religious police notwithstanding. Heaven forfend we expect better from them in their treatment of half the population. Don’t want to upset them, after all. That would be politically and culturally insensitive of us. I mean, we’re just talking about women, right? Right?

I don’t know if the action al-Sharif and the other women there will be successful or not, but I sure hope so. I wouldn’t expect a whole lotta help from the US on this – it isn’t like we have been adamant that women have more rights there anyway. Oh, we acknowledge there are problems, but when our president bows to their king, I just wouldn’t hold my breath if I was them. Would you?

Again? So it would seem. This time, it is in Palestine by Hamas Security officers. But I bet you haven’t heard a word about it, have you? Had it not been for Phyllis Chesler, I wouldn’t have known, either.

In Chesler’s excellent post, “Arab Spring: Male-on-Female Atrocities In Gaza Disappeared By The Western Media,” she details what eight, that is 8, women journalists endured while trying to cover – get this – a Unity rally (more on that below).

Ironic, ain’t it?

Anyway, one would have thought after what happened to Lara Logan, and a number of other women journalists in Egypt recently, that maybe, just maybe, the MSM would be better about covering these sorts of attacks. And one would be wrong:

Last month, at least eight Muslim Palestinian female journalists were physically beaten with clubs, iron chairs, and fists, stabbed, and tortured with electric shocks by male Hamas security forces in the Gaza strip. Their cell phones, laptops, documents, and cameras were confiscated. They were also arrested. Some were forced to sign a document “pledging to refrain from covering such events again.”

The “events” were a series of pro-unity rallies organized by Palestinian youth on Facebook (!) which demanded an end to the dispute between Islamist Hamas and a presumably more moderate Fatah.

So much for the Arab “spring,” and the purposefully misguided Western (and these heroically naïve youthful demonstrators’) belief that the increasingly well organized Islamist Middle East will really rise up on behalf of human rights and women’s rights—without which there can be no democracy.[snip]

This whole “Spring” concept is just ridiculous on the face of it, as Larry Johnson wrote about so poignantly in, “Arab Spring Or Middle East Firestorm?” so no reason for me to reinvent that wheel. Suffice it to say, it is a whopper of a misnomer for what is going on in the Middle East.

Back to Chesler’s point:

The mainstream media did not cover this male-on-female atrocity in Gaza. In the English-speaking world, only a handful of journalists, including two Israelis, one writing in the Jerusalem Post, one writing at Big Peace, covered it. A few smaller newspapers in America and an English-language Egyptian paper did so as well.

To be fair, Reuters had an article (UK edition) which featured their own agency in Gaza having being attacked by “armed men.” Later on, we learn that these “armed men” were Hamas officials. And near the end of the piece, we also learn that Hamas also beat “photographers and camera men.” They do not mention female journalists, nor do they give us their names.

Slate also had an article about how Fatah is undermining Islamism on the West Bank. Parenthetically, later on, they mention that Hamas raided the offices of Reuters and destroyed equipment. They do not mention the attack on the Palestinian women journalists.

[...]

One of the recently beaten, tortured, and arrested Palestinian female journalists, Asma Al-Ghoul, is someone whom I first interviewed in 2009. Al-Ghoul is a secular feminist and a journalist who has written brave articles about honor killings on the West Bank and in Gaza. She asked me to edit and publish some of her work and I proudly did so. Al-Ghoul has been harassed and arrested by Hamas before. Why? Ostensibly because she dared to laugh, wear jeans on the beach, and entered the sea, fully clothed, to swim. These were her crimes—plus the fact that she was a single woman (divorced, actually), out in public, not wearing hijab, and relaxing on the beach with—unbelievably—male friends. [snip] (Click here to read the rest of this piece.)

Oh, I should add, not only were these women beaten, and had stun guns used on them, but one was literally stabbed in the back. By a member of the Hamas Security force, that is, as this article highlights, Gaza Cops Use ‘Beatings, Stun Guns’ On Women Reporters.

It is remarkable, isn’t it? That these attacks on women journalists are not being covered by the MSM still? Is it because it doesn’t fit the narrative? So it would seem. What a shame that the small window that opened when Lara Logan was brutally assaulted closed so quickly. That is telling in and of itself about our media, about journalism, and about news in general.

These women in Palestine deserve better. They deserve more. They deserve to not have their stories swept under the proverbial rug by their fellow journalists. Their voices deserve to be heard. Hear them now.

Robert Kennedy announced this tragedy in one of the most eloquent, moving statements I have ever heard from anyone, politician or poet, minister or teacher. Here is his announcement of this event:

I cannot add anything more to Kennedy’s announcement, and his exhortation.

Except to say this, on this day, as we remember Martin Luther King, Jr., his life, his tremendous achievements, and his death, let us remember the purpose of his life, his desire for peace, equality, and love.

In memory of the life and work of Martin Luther King, Jr., I offer this piece:

Yes, it is time, it is time, it is time…

And that would be this Bloomberg article, Saudi Women Inspired by Fall of Mubarak Step Up Equality Demand. Wow, right? Honestly, I did not see this as a potential change, primarily because of the influx of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and the very likely scenario that women who enjoyed more freedoms in Egypt, will soon be losing them (if they haven’t already). Sill, this is exciting:

Activists among Saudi Arabia’s women, who can’t drive or vote and need male approval to work and travel, are turning to the type of online organizing that helped topple Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak to force change in a system they say treats them like children.

The “Baladi” or “My Country” campaign is focused on this year’s municipal elections, only the second nationwide ballot that the absolute monarchy has allowed. The election board yesterday said women will be excluded from the Sept. 22 vote. Another group, the Saudi Women’s Revolution, citing inspiration from the Arab activism that grew into revolts against Mubarak and Tunisia’s Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, is pressing for equal treatment and urging international support.

The wave of anti-regime protests that spread from Tunisia and Egypt into some of Saudi Arabia’s Persian Gulf neighbors, such as Bahrain and Oman, hasn’t translated into mass street demonstrations in the kingdom that holds the world’s biggest oil reserves. Saudi rulers have taken steps to ensure it won’t, pledging almost $100 billion of spending on homes, jobs and benefits. They also deployed thousands of police in Riyadh on March 11, when a protest was planned by Internet organizers — a group that increasingly includes Saudi women.

“Women are raised to fear men and to fear speaking out,” said Mona al-Ahmed, a 25-year-old in the coastal city of Jeddah. She said she joined the Women’s Revolution campaign after her brother refused to let her take her dream job, as a biochemist, because it would involve working in a mixed-gender environment. “I opened my eyes one day and said, ‘This is not the life I want’,” al-Ahmed said in a phone interview.

Well, I suppose that is one way of keeping the people in place, right? Ahem.

But this is telling indeed of how women in Saudi Arabia, our ally, live. We may hear bits and pieces about it, but at this point, it seems we just take for granted women are treated like shit there.

Think I am being hyperbolic? Think again:

[snip] Like other opposition and protest groups in Saudi Arabia, the women’s movement faces a tough task. The kingdom ranked as the least democratic state in the Middle East, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s 2010 Democracy Index.

“Women will not participate in this session,” Abdul- Rahman al-Dahmash, director of the kingdom’s electoral commission, said at a press conference yesterday, referring to the municipal balloting. “There is a plan, though not with a definite time, to put in place a framework so that women can participate in upcoming elections.”

Baladi said on its Facebook page that Saudi women “are like other women in the world who have hopes and ambitions” and must be allowed to vote.

While Saudi Arabia was placed in the top one-third of nations in the United Nations 2010 Human Development Report — higher than European Union member Bulgaria — its score for gender equality was much lower. On that UN measure, which includes assessments of reproductive health and participation in politics and the labor market, the country ranked 128th of 138 nations, below Iran and Pakistan. [snip]

You know it is bad when you rank BELOW Iran and Pakistan on the treatment of women. Seriously. How bad must you be to be WORSE than Iran and Pakistan??

Let’s just pause for a moment and see how women are treated in Iran (I warn you, this is a difficult video to watch, contains violent images):

Women are worth half as much as men. They are culpable at the age of 9 for “crimes,” while boys aren’t until they are 16. Women cannot divorce their husbands. Men can have many wives. And that is but a minute amount of with what these women live.

Well, how about Pakistan, then? This video gives a good overview (again, difficult to watch):

“Considered to be the property of men.” Uh, yeah. Not allowed to leave the house. Infant girls killed. Slave girls trapped from other countries and sold every day. Education morally corrupts girls, thus they should not have it.

And Saudi Arabia is farther down the list than Pakistan in its treatment of women.

I’m sorry, I need a moment to compose myself.

Back to the reality facing women in Saudi Arabia:

[snip] Saudi Arabia enforces the Wahhabi version of Sunni Islam and its clerics say that requires strict segregation of the sexes, including in government offices, workplaces and public spaces such as restaurants. Other areas of discontent highlighted by women writers and activists include family law. A Saudi man can end his marriage by telling his wife, “You are divorced,” while women must go to a court or an authorized cleric to get a dissolution. Custody of children above a certain age is usually granted to the father.

Saudi Arabia is also one of the few countries that has a high rate of executions for women, Amnesty International said in a 2008 report. (Emphasis mine.) Adultery is among the capital offenses.

[...]

Those are among the goals of the Women’s Revolution group, which began as an exchange of Twitter messages among likeminded women, and now has more than 2,000 Facebook supporters. “Women are treated like minors, except if they commit a crime,” the group said in a statement on Facebook. “Then they are equal.”

Alia al-Faqih, 19, said this year’s Arab revolts inspired her to join the group and demand change in her country.

“The protesters in Egypt and Tunisia did something that was almost impossible,” she said in a telephone interview from Jeddah. “If they could bring down two tough presidents, why can’t we demand our rights?”

Why, indeed? Women in Saudia Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and many countries around the world must do just that – demand their rights. Though as noted above, with the increased presence of the Sharia Law-loving Muslim Brotherhood rising up in Egypt, simply getting a change at the top does not mean a change throughout the country. And in the case of Egypt, it is a change for the worse for women.

And speaking of change, there has been some lip service paid to changing the plight of women in Saudi Arabia, but it is largely window dressing:

[snip] Saudi Arabia’s ruler, King Abdullah, who turns 87 this year, has pledged to improve the status of women. He opened the kingdom’s first co-educational university in 2009, appointed its first female deputy minister, Nora bint Abdullah al-Fayez, the same year, and has promised steps to improve access to jobs for women, who make up about 15 percent of the workforce. That would help improve productivity in the kingdom’s oil-dominated economy, say analysts including John Sfakianakis, chief economist at Banque Saudi Fransi.

A change of policy in 2008 allowed women to stay in hotels without male guardians, and an amendment to the Labor Law allowed women to work in all fields “suitable to their nature.” Women can now study law at university, without being allowed to practice as lawyers in courts.

At some companies, such as billionaire investor Prince Alwaleed bin Talal’s Kingdom Holding Co. (KINGDOM), women are permitted to work alongside men. That isn’t typical, though. Most companies that hire women must provide a women-only section that is off- limits to the male staff.

Human Rights Watch concluded in January that “reforms to date have involved largely symbolic steps to improve the visibility of women.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Yes, superficial reforms at best in Saudi Arabia, not the systemic changes in attitude and treatment of women that need to change.

I know I have asked this before, but how, how, in the Twenty-first century, are women around the globe still being treated as less than human, as chattel, as property, as worthless, as animals, as dirt? How do we, as a nation, not demand that the countries with whom we do business treat women as full human beings?

Lest anyone think this is a problem “over there,” I assure you, what happens to women there affects women here. When an 11 year old girl can be gang raped, by adult men, numerous times, right here in Texas, as well as California, we must acknowledge that what happens to women and girls here, in Saudi Arabia, around the world, matters.

It matters a lot. Just after I finished writing this, I received an email from MADRE about the kidnapping and torture of a youth activist in Iraq. This kind of treatment of women is happening day in and day out, sadly.

And so, for those women in Saudi Arabia, may the ripples continue to widen. May they change the way women are treated, at home and abroad, may the treatment of women matter as much as the oil beneath the sands, and may women be treated as fully human around the globe. That is my prayer…

Here’s the thing. There is only one group that is well organized. Any guesses as to who that group would be? If you said “Muslim Brotherhood,” you would be right. This NY Times article, Egyptian Voters Approve Constitutional Changes, highlights the effects of the vote:

Egyptian voters overwhelmingly approved a referendum on constitutional changes on Sunday that will usher in rapid elections, with the results underscoring the strength of established political organizations, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood, and the weakness of emerging liberal groups.

[...]

The military council has been somewhat vague about the next steps. But Maj. Gen. Mamdouh Shaken told Al-Shorouk newspaper in an interview published on Sunday that the generals would issue a constitutional declaration to cover the changes and then set dates for the vote once the results were announced.

The Muslim Brotherhood and remnant elements of the National Democratic Party, which dominated Egyptian politics for decades, were the main supporters of the referendum. They argued the election timetable would insure a swift return to civilian rule.

Members of the liberal wing of Egyptian politics mostly opposed the measure, saying they lacked time to organize into effective political organizations. They said early elections will benefit the Brotherhood and the old ruling party, which they warned would seek to write a constitution that centralizes power much like the old one.

What a double-edged sword this is. On the one hand, it is great that the Egyptian people are so excited about their ability to vote, and feeling that their votes will actually count. I am sure their delight in this event which we take so for granted is palpable. But, when it benefits terrorist-spawning, Sharia-law supporting organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood, it makes it a bitter pill to swallow:

[snip] “It is very, very disappointing,” said Hani Shukrallah, who is active in a new liberal political party and is the editor of Ahram Online, a news Website.

He and many other opponents of the referendum said religious organizations had spread false rumors, suggesting that voting against the referendum would threaten Article 2 of the constitution, which cites Islamic law as the main basis for Egyptian law.

“I saw one sign that said, ‘If you vote no you are a follower of America and Baradei and if you vote yes you are a follower of God,’” he said. “The idea is that Muslims will vote yes and Copts and atheists will vote no.”

Mohamed El Baradei, a former top United Nations nuclear official and Noble Prize winner planning to run for president, opposed the amendments, as did Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League, another potential president candidate. In a vote remarkably free of problems, Mr. Baradei was attacked by a mob when he went to vote, fleeing a shower of rocks and bottles. His supporters said the mob was paid.

There is much more to this article, and I urge you to read the rest. But the disinformation campaign is telling in and of itself. I think that is the kind of thing we can expect to see more of should the Muslim Brotherhood win in the upcoming election. Unfortunately, that seems exceedingly likely.

And that is exceedingly disturbing. As I have stated before, there is a reason why this organization was banned from Egypt for so many years. Egypt, once a more progressive Middle Eastern country, will turn into something a whole lot more regressive under the Muslim Brotherhood. This is sad on so many levels, especially in terms of the treatment of women in a country where women had known some freedoms. Yikes.

Just in case you need a reminder of who the Muslim Brotherhood is, I will leave the last word on them to Niall Ferguson:

The above photograph was taken at the Diller-von Furstenberg 2nd Annual Awards, as Chelsea presented her mother, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, with the first Inspiration Award.

Some of the most poignant moments for me of the 2008 Campaign were to see Chelsea Clinton with her mother. The pride she felt, the love, the connection, was evident by the way Chelsea looked at her mother when she was speaking. This photo reminds me of those days when a woman garnered the most votes of any candidate during a primary ever.

Yes, it brought back some memories, like this one of Chelsea and her mother:

(Joe Raedle-Getty Images)

Ah, yes – those were the days. It seems appropriate during Women’s History Month to remember, to affirm, just how close we came to having a woman president for the first time in this country. And to recognize just how far we have to go to achieve true equality in this country. Sadly, more qualified, accomplished, women still have to take a back seat to younger, unqualified men. It is a sobering thought.

Given that Clinton was just awarded an Inspiration award, what should we make of it when the Secretary Clinton consistently highlights the importance of girls and women to be educated, that the very development of communities, and countries, depend on how women fare. Yet when discussing Afghanistan, women, and USAID, a senior official claims that:“Gender issues are going to have to take a back seat to other priorities. There’s no way we can be successful if we maintain every special interest and pet project. All those pet rocks in our rucksack were taking us down.” (H/t to Yttik.)

“Pet rocks”? That’s how this “senior official,” who would speak only under conditions of anonymity, describes over half the population in relation to a USAID contract in Afghanistan? And on the eve of International Women’s Day, no less?

I hope you appreciate my restraint in not writing what I really think of this man (but you can feel free to add your two cents worth about him).

Allow me to provide some context for his assholic remark, though it may make you even madder. The quote is from a Washington Post article entitled, “In Afghanistan, U.S. Shifts Strategy On Women’s Rights As It Eyes Wider Priorities.” Yes, the headline does provide a bit of a clue as to the intent, but this makes it crystal clear:

When the U.S. Agency for International Development sought bids last March for a $140 million land reform program in Afghanistan, it insisted that the winning contractor meet specific goals to promote women’s rights: The number of deeds granting women title had to increase by 50 percent; there would have to be regular media coverage on women’s land rights; and teaching materials for secondary schools and universities would have to include material on women’s rights.

Before the contract was awarded, USAID overhauled the initiative, stripping out those concrete targets. Now, the contractor only has to perform “a written evaluation of Afghan inheritance laws,” assemble “summaries of input from women’s groups” and draft amendments to the country’s civil code.

The removal of specific women’s rights requirements, which also took place in a $600 million municipal government program awarded last year, reflects a shift in USAID’s approach in Afghanistan. Instead of setting ambitious goals to improve the status of Afghan women, the agency is tilting toward more attainable measures. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Ah, yes, “attainable measures.” Right. Presumably that means turning the other way when girls get acid thrown in their faces by the Taliban. Or when women are killed through “honor” killings. I could go on, but I trust you get the idea.

So a senior official refers to women as “pet rocks” in a discussion of how USAID, which falls under the State Department, has thrown women under the bus in their contract requirements. Wow.

I remember well those days, just three short years ago, when Hillary Clinton was amassing the most votes of anyone ever in the history of the country. I remember well the excitement of women, children, and men alike that this incredible, capable, intelligent, qualified woman had surfaced in a run for the White House. And I remember well how the media, the DNC, and Obama himself, worked to destroy her by any means necessary, including massive misogyny at every turn.

And then she went to work for him.

The issues that affect women and girls has always been of the greatest importance to Hillary Clinton. Or at least they were until she became Secretary of State under the least qualified man ever to sit in the White House, pushed over the far more qualified woman. The issues that always meant so much to her, to us, now take a back seat as “special interests.” Over half the population in the world has been reduced to a “pet rock.” Holy moley.

I have never been inspired by a politician the way I was by Hillary Clinton. I have never donated so much time, money, or energy as I did for Hillary Clinton. Two years ago, I would have said, “hell to the yes” she deserves an Inspiration Award. But when her department fails to do what is right for women in Afghanistan, or Egypt, or Libya, or Iran, or anywhere else in the world, because women are seen as “special projects,” not worthy of full humanity, well, I find that less than inspiring.

Frankly, I find it disturbing. How about you?

On International Women’s Day, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan addressed women in his country:

With every step forward that women in Afghanistan take, violent incidents highlight the fact many still struggle for basic human rights eight years after the ouster of the conservative Taliban regime.

In a speech commemorating International Women’s Day on Sunday, President Hamid Karzai challenged Afghan religious leaders to denounce violence against women and reject traditional practices that treat women as property.

“The forced marriages, the selling of women — these are against Islam,” Karzai told some 600 women gathered in a high school auditorium in the capital, Kabul.

The Taliban government that ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001 forced women to stay at home and banned them from appearing in public without a body-covering burqa.

There have surely been improvements, as the article details (it’s an AP article, and they are very picky about having those reprinted). Thank heavens for that.

But that is not the end of the story. The same day President Karzai was speaking to this group of women, a woman, a widow, set herself on fire to escape the poverty in which she lived, and from which she saw no escape:

The incident occurred in an area where scores of women have killed themselves by self-immolation to escape abuse, forced marriages or other oppressive customs. As a widow, Bibi would have been on the bottom rung of traditional Afghan society — undesirable for marriage and unemployable because of her gender.

Even in the cities, where women have made great strides in employment and recognition, there are signs of backsliding in recent years. Karzai noted in his speech that the number of women working in government ministries has actually dropped to 21 percent from an earlier figure of 32 percent.

A U.N. report this week on human rights in Afghanistan said that “threats and intimidation against women in public life or who work outside the home have seen a dramatic increase.”

Things are getting better in some ways for women, but too much is still the same, or getting worse.

And not just in Afghanistan, unfortunately, but in Iraq in which mothers are selling their daughters into prostitution (H/T to Cheneywatch.com). This TIME article describes the far-reaching extent of this practice, with many of the daughters not yet teenagers, some going to our close friends in the Middle East. For the sake of space, I am not reprinting the whole article here, but I urge you to read it all:

…That underworld is a place where nefarious female pimps hold sway, where impoverished mothers sell their teenage daughters into a sex market that believes females who reach the age of 20 are too old to fetch a good price. The youngest victims, some just 11 and 12, are sold for as much as $30,000, others for as little as $2,000. “The buying and selling of girls in Iraq, it’s like the trade in cattle,” Hinda (an undercover human rights worker) says. “I’ve seen mothers haggle with agents over the price of their daughters.”

The trafficking routes are both local and international, most often to Syria, Jordan and the Gulf (primarily the United Arab Emirates). The victims are trafficked illegally on forged passports, or “legally” through forced marriages. A married female, even one as young as 14, raises few suspicions if she’s travelling with her “husband.” The girls are then divorced upon arrival and put to work. (See Iraq’s return to “normalcy”.)

Nobody knows exactly how many Iraqi women and children have been sold into sexual slavery since the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003, and there are no official numbers because of the shadowy nature of the business. Baghdad-based activists like Hinda and others put the number in the tens of thousands. Still, it remains a hidden crime; one that the 2008 US State Department’s Trafficking in Persons Report says the Iraqi government is not combating. Baghdad, the report says, “offers no protection services to victims of trafficking, reported no efforts to prevent trafficking in persons and does not acknowledge trafficking to be a problem in the country.”

Mere children are being sold into sexual slavery in Iraq, and it has gotten WORSE under our watch. Sadly there is more, horrifying information in this article, but Hinda’s experience is pertinent:

Hinda the activist-investigator also knows what’s its like to be betrayed by family and considered human merchandise. Raped at 16, she was disowned by her family and left homeless. In many parts of the Arab world, the stigma of compromised chastity, even if it was stolen, is such that victims are at best outcasts and at worst killed for “dishonoring” their family or community. Desperate and destitute, Hinda turned to prostitution.

Now 33, she is using her knowledge of the industry to infiltrate trafficking rings across the country. She gathers information about the victims, where they are from, how much they’re sold for and who is buying them. Most often she poses as a buyer for overseas clients, a cover that enables her to snap pictures of victims and claim that they are for her potential customers. She drags out the negotiations for several days, knowing that the victims are usually sold during that period. Playing a disappointed pimp helps keep her cover intact, she says. She can’t rescue the girls, but the hope is that when the government decides to take trafficking seriously, her work and that of others will eventually help prosecute offenders and identify victims. She moves away from each trafficking ring as quickly as she can. To linger would be to invite suspicion.

But these days, she says suspicion is getting harder to avoid. She has been beaten before, by the security guards of pimps who suspect her of encouraging young victims to escape or offering them help. But in the past week she has received several death threats, some so frightening and persistent that she penned a farewell letter to her mother. “I’m scared. I’m scared that I’ll be killed,” she says, wiping away her tears. “But I will not surrender to that fear. If I do it means I’ve given up and I won’t do that. I have to work to stop this.”

So do we. But not just in Iraq, or Afghanistan. We, too, have a government that needs to work to stop this abuse of women. I have written before about domestic violence, and rape, but in more general terms. Today, though, it will be more specific. Today, I speak out for our women in the military. Yes, I said the women in our military. More than 1 in 4 women, officers and enlisted, are either raped or sexually assaulted. More than 25% of our women in uniform are sexually assaulted. And they are assaulted by fellow military personnel (96%). These women are putting their lives on the line for US, and while in the service of our country, over 25% are assaulted in the most horrendous way possible for a woman (at least in my opinion).

The statistics above came from a House panel on Friday, March 7, 2009. Again, thanks to Cheneywatch.com for bringing these to my attention. If you do not have time to watch all 4 of them, please watch the first one:

I am sickened by this, absolutely sickened. But it is cultural, unfortunately, here in the States. Valuing men above women, using women as a means to an end, using women as objects, treating them with callous disregard and with violence.

In our military, where women go to serve their nation, too, too many are being subjected to the most despicable form of violence, taking something by force that can never be returned, and from which most never fully recover. By their contemporaries. With whom they are forced to remain in contact. Can you even begin to imagine the psychological effects this has on them?

We saw the most qualified person, a woman, with the majority of support by members of her party, forced to concede her victory to a lesser qualified, far more inexperienced man. This was able to happen because of the tacit acceptance of rampant sexism and outright misogyny (as a reminder – misogyny means HATRED of women), perpetrated by men in that party and in the media, as well as from the women who wanted, no, craved, men’s approval. It is a matter of degrees, and in this country, we have made it quite clear – even the very best, most qualified women are not as good, not as WORTHY, as the worst of con men with little to offer.

And this has effects on all of us. The lessons it teaches us, our daughters, our nieces, our grandchildren, is that they are less than, they are tools to be used, they are objects. Like Afghanistan and Iraq, while some strides may be made, there is always a price to be paid, and too many women in our country, in our military, are paying that price. That is simply unacceptable, and it must stop. Now.

Since we have been talking about our beloved Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, the one with the 70% approval rating, the one who was just honored as a Global Trailblazer and who received over 2 minutes of a standing ovation (MUST READ post by Ani: Hillary Receives Some Well Deserved Accolades), I wanted to share about another strong woman making a difference on an issue important to me: domestic violence. With Clinton’s commitment to women and children, this is an extension of the love-fest by broadening the circle to include another woman doing the work.

Thursday, I happened to catch Martina McBride, whom I love, talking about her work with teens and the issue of domestic violence. She is involved with an organization entitled, loveisrespect, the mission of which is to educate teens on this issue, an issue that affects 1 out of 4 teens (just like the adult population). This is a part of the Love Is Not Abuse site, sponsored by Liz Claiborne.

In terms of Martina McBride specifically, the site has this:

National Teen Dating Abuse Helpline have partnered in a new program called My Time to Shine, which has been announced in conjunction with the release of her new album, Shine.

As the mother of three daughters, four-time CMA Female Vocalist is passionate about the need to increase awareness for teens and parents about teen dating abuse, and about how to develop healthy relationships. Recent research has shown that one in three girls who have been in a serious relationship say they’ve been concerned about being physically hurt by their partner.

My Time to Shine was developed for Martina’s Shine CD and tour around the concept that the teen years should be a young person’s time to shine—the time in their lives when they discover who they are, what their talents are and how to have healthy relationships.

When the contemporary country singer released Independence Day in 1994*, she never dreamed that the song would resonate so powerfully with victims of family violence. It opened her eyes to the issue and changed her life. On concert tours, Martina began visiting high schools to talk to young women about self worth. Since then, she has been involved in fundraising for several programs that benefit women. My Time to Shine expands her work and is an opportunity for her to include her 14-year-old daughter, Delaney in a cause they can both relate to.

Starting with the morning TV shows this week, Martina will promote both the new CD and the awareness program. In addition Martina will
speak out in public service announcements which will be shown at her concert venues when her tour begins in October. My Time to Shine merchandise will be sold at Martina’s concerts to raise funds to benefit the teen helpline.

For more on the Shine album, visit www.martina-mcbride.com.

Heaven knows, we don’t talk enough about domestic violence in general, much less how it affects our young women. And now there is additional technology to assist those who would abuse our young women – texting, Twittering, facebook, Myspace, you name it. So many new ways to keep up with them, try to isolate them, have ammunition to use against them, and to terrorize them. The statistics on teen girls is sobering:

Nearly three in four tweens (72%) say boyfriend/girlfriend relationships usually begin at age 14 or younger. (Liz Claiborne Inc. study on teen dating abuse conducted by Teenage Research Unlimited, February 2008.)

62% of tweens (age 11-14) who have been in a relationship say they know friends who have been verbally abused (called stupid, worthless, ugly, etc) by a boyfriend/girlfriend. (Liz Claiborne Inc. study on teen dating abuse conducted by Teenage Research Unlimited, February 2008.)

Only half of all tweens (age 11-14) claim to know the warning signs of a bad/hurtful relationship. (Liz Claiborne Inc. study on teen dating abuse conducted by Teenage Research Unlimited, February 2008.)

More than three times as many tweens (20%) as parents (6%) admit that parents know little or nothing about the tweens dating relationships. (Liz Claiborne Inc. study on teen dating abuse conducted by Teenage Research Unlimited, February 2008.)

1 in 3 teenagers report knowing a friend or peer who has been hit, punched, kicked, slapped, choked or physically hurt by their partner. (Liz Claiborne Inc. study on teen dating abuse conducted by Teenage Research Unlimited, February 2005.)

Nearly 1 in 5 teenage girls who have been in a relationship said a boyfriend had threatened violence or self-harm if presented with a break-up. (Liz Claiborne Inc. study on teen dating abuse conducted by Teenage Research Unlimited, February 2005.)

13% of teenage girls who said they have been in a relationship report being physically hurt or hit. (Liz Claiborne Inc. study on teen dating abuse conducted by Teenage Research Unlimited, February 2005.)

1 in 4 teenage girls who have been in relationships reveal they have been pressured to perform oral sex or engage in intercourse. (Liz Claiborne Inc. study on teen dating abuse conducted by Teenage Research Unlimited, February 2005.)

More than 1 in 4 teenage girls in a relationship (26%) report enduring repeated verbal abuse. (Liz Claiborne Inc. study on teen dating abuse conducted by Teenage Research Unlimited, February 2005.)

80% of teens regard verbal abuse as a “serious issue” for their age group. (Liz Claiborne Inc. study on teen dating abuse conducted by Teenage Research Unlimited, February 2005.)

If trapped in an abusive relationship, 73% of teens said they would turn to a friend for help; but only 33% who have been in or known about an abusive relationship said they have told anyone about it. (Liz Claiborne Inc. study on teen dating abuse conducted by Teenage Research Unlimited, February 2005.)

Twenty-four percent of 14 to 17-year-olds know at least one student who has been the victim of dating violence, yet 81% of parents either believe teen dating violence is not an issue or admit they don’t know if it is an issue. (Survey commissioned by the Empower Program, sponsored by Liz Claiborne Inc. and conducted by Knowledge Networks, Social Control, Verbal Abuse, and Violence Among Teenagers, December 2000)

Less than 25% of teens say they have discussed dating violence with their parents. (Liz Claiborne Inc. study of teens 13-17 conducted by Applied Research and Consulting LLC, Spring 2000)

89% of teens between the ages of 13 and 18 say they have been in dating relationships; forty percent of teenage girls age 14 to 17 report knowing someone their age who has been hit or beaten by a boyfriend. (Children Now/Kaiser Permanente poll, December 1995)

Nearly 80% of girls who have been physically abused in their intimate relationships continue to date their abuser. (City of New York, Teen Relationship Abuse Fact Sheet, March 1998)

Of the women between the ages 15-19 murdered each year, 30% are killed by their husband or boyfriend. (City of New York, Teen Relationship Abuse Fact Sheet, March 1998)

Wowie freakin’ zowie. Sobering, indeed. Violence is so prevalent in our society, and the targets are far, far too often women. Systemic cultural violence needs to be addressed in general, but specifically as it relates to women and our teenage daughters, nieces, and grand-daughters.

Liz Claiborne and Martina McBride are doing just that, thank heavens, but we ALL need to be aware of this issue – educate ourselves and the young women in our lives, and work to end violence against women period. The time is now.

*This is “Independence Day,” referenced above:

So, “This one is for the girls”:

First, I should say that before the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan, women actually had a fair number of rights. They had the right to vote about the same time women in the US did. The participated in the legislature, worked as teachers, worked in the government, and generally enjoyed a number of freedoms in side and outside the home.

And then the Taliban came along. Let’s just look at some of the changes instituted by the Taliban in terms of women:

[snip] 1- Complete ban on women’s work outside the home, which also applies to female teachers, engineers and most professionals. Only a few female doctors and nurses are allowed to work in some hospitals in Kabul.

2- Complete ban on women’s activity outside the home unless accompanied by a mahram (close male relative such as a father, brother or husband).

3- Ban on women dealing with male shopkeepers.

4- Ban on women being treated by male doctors.

5- Ban on women studying at schools, universities or any other educational institution. (Taliban have converted girls’ schools into religious seminaries.)

6- Requirement that women wear a long veil (Burqa), which covers them from head to toe.

7- Whipping, beating and verbal abuse of women not clothed in accordance with Taliban rules, or of women unaccompanied by a mahram.

8- Whipping of women in public for having non-covered ankles.

9- Public stoning of women accused of having sex outside marriage. (A number of lovers are stoned to death under this rule).

10- Ban on the use of cosmetics. (Many women with painted nails have had fingers cut off).

11- Ban on women talking or shaking hands with non-mahram males.

12- Ban on women laughing loudly. (No stranger should hear a woman’s voice).

13- Ban on women wearing high heel shoes, which would produce sound while walking. (A man must not hear a woman’s footsteps.)

14- Ban on women riding in a taxi without a mahram.

15- Ban on women’s presence in radio, television or public gatherings of any kind.

16- Ban on women playing sports or entering a sport center or club.

17- Ban on women riding bicycles or motorcycles, even with their mahrams.

18- Ban on women’s wearing brightly colored clothes. In Taliban terms, these are “sexually attracting colors.”

19- Ban on women gathering for festive occasions such as the Eids, or for any recreational purpose.

20- Ban on women washing clothes next to rivers or in a public place.

21- Modification of all place names including the word “women.” For example, “women’s garden” has been renamed “spring garden”.

22- Ban on women appearing on the balconies of their apartments or houses.

23- Compulsory painting of all windows, so women can not be seen from outside their homes.

24- Ban on male tailors taking women’s measurements or sewing women’s clothes.

25- Ban on female public baths.

26- Ban on males and females traveling on the same bus. Public buses have now been designated “males only” (or “females only”).

27- Ban on flared (wide) pant-legs, even under a burqa.

28- Ban on the photographing or filming of women.

29- Ban on women’s pictures printed in newspapers and books, or hung on the walls of houses and shops. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Pretty exhaustive list, right? Wrong. There is more. Much more. To say that women are treated poorly by the Taliban is the understatement of understatements.

So, why the hell am I going on about the Taliban? Because the Obama Administration is making good on a claim Obama made to engage with them. The theory, as I understand it, is to try and get some of them to move away from Al Qaeda. How likely that will be is debatable, but these authorities seem to think it will not work:

[snip] Some Afghan policy specialists are skeptical about whether negotiations would succeed. Peter Bergen, a specialist on Afghanistan and al-Qaida, told a US Institute of Peace seminar in Washington last week that there were a host of problems with such a strategy, not least why the Taliban should enter negotiations “when they think they are winning”.

Audrey Kurth Cronin, a member of the US National War College faculty in Washington, and the author of How Terrorism Ends, said talks with Mullah Omar and the Haqqani network were pointless because there would be no negotiable terms.

She said there could be talks with Hekmatyar, but these would be conducted through back channels, potentially by a third party. Given his support for jihad, she said, “it would be unreasonable to expect the US and the UK to do so”.

Asked how Obama’s Afghan strategy was progressing, a senior former US government official familiar with the latest Pentagon thinking said: “In a word, poorly. We seriously need to be developing a revised plan of action that will allow us a chance to achieve sufficient security in a more sustainable manner.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

So much for not negotiating with terrorists. I guess that is so Twentieth Century.

Indeed, the New Yorker has an article coming out soon about this whole issue, the US. and Taliban talks. This is something that is moving along, even if we haven’t heard much about it:

[snip]When asked for comment on the talks, a White House spokesman said that the remarks that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made last Friday at the Asia Society offered a “thorough representation of the U.S. position.” Clinton had tough words for the Taliban, saying that they were confronted with a choice between political compromise and ostracism as “an enemy of the international community.” She added, “I know that reconciling with an adversary that can be as brutal as the Taliban sounds distasteful, even unimaginable. And diplomacy would be easy if we only had to talk to our friends. But that is not how one makes peace. President Reagan understood that when he sat down with the Soviets. And Richard Holbrooke made this his life’s work. He negotiated face to face with Milosevic and ended a war.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Uh, yeah – “distasteful” is putting it mildly. Because here is the thing that these articles do not discuss – how the US can negotiate with the Taliban not only for its Al Qaeda ways, but the horrific treatment women suffer under their rule. Here is what happens when you “negotiate” with the likes of the Taliban (h/t Breeze. Photo credit: crethiplethi.com):

[snip] On Saturday, Afghan President Hamid Karzai confirmed his government plans to take control of some of Afghanistan’s women shelters.

“Those who are found in violation of the established standards and the rules and regulations will be taken over by the Afghan government,” he said.

Under the plan, a group of Afghan officials will decide who is allowed to seek protection in a shelter.

Human Rights groups worry that Afghan government-run shelters will be disastrous for women and girls fleeing abuse.

“I don’t trust many of the people in this government to decide who should be allowed into a shelter and who should be ejected from a shelter,” said Rachel Reid of Human Rights Watch. “Often people in government have the same conservative attitudes that these girls and women are fleeing.”

According to the United Nations and Human Rights Watch, most Afghan women and girls face severe domestic violence – and many are forced into marriage well below the legal age, some as young as 8 years old. [snip}

And what does this have to do with the Taliban? This takeover of women's shelters is a (misguided) attempt by Karzai to "woo" the Taliban.

But wait, there's more:

[snip] “This regulation comes at a time when the president is trying to position himself as someone the Taliban can do business with,” said Reid. “He is reaching out and calling them [the Taliban] his brothers. He isn’t very interested in protecting his sisters, his wives, his daughters at the moment. But they desperately need his protection.”

Women’s rights activists fear this is just the first step in a much larger plan to welcome the Taliban back into political life.

“I really see that in the future they will target other women’s programs and women’s NGOs just to appease the Taliban,” said Manizha Naderi, the head of Women for Afghan Women, a group that runs shelters across Afghanistan.

On Thursday, the U.S. State Department issued a public statement saying that it was “concerned” by the takeover. Privately, American and western diplomats are furious. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

This is what happens when one tries to negotiate with this kind of organization, which is why they US deciding to engage with the Taliban is problematic. Why State personnel should be “concerned” about this takeover is indicative of the short-sightedness of this enterprise. What, did they think the Taliban would just embrace Obama’s Hopey Changyness and forfeit their belief system, including how they treat women? Please. Karzai is making this concession now, to take over the shelters, based on a less than credible rationale, to appease the Taliban. But what would the US do to appease them, and get them to come to the table?

I think this old proverb sums this whole situation up: when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. Karzai, the US, or anyone else who negotiates with the Taliban are going to be tarnished in one way or another. Sometimes things that are “unimaginable” should remain so, and not made a reality. Like negotiating with the Taliban. Just a thought.

But first, an update on what Lara Logan, CBS foreign correspondent, endured at the hands of the 200 strong gang of men who attacked her. Let me tell you this is not for the faint of heart. From the Daily Mail:

[snip] The 39-year-old foreign correspondent for CBS News show 60 Minutes was separated from her film crew in Cairo on February 11 and surrounded by as many as 200 men in Tahrir Square at the height of the anti-Mubarak demonstrations.

According to one source, reported in The Sunday Times newspaper, sensitive parts of her body were covered in red marks that were originally thought to have been bite marks.

After further examination they were revealed to be from aggressive pinching.

It has also been revealed that she was stripped, punched and slapped by the crowd, which was labelling her a spy and chanting ‘Israeli’ and ‘Jew’ as they beat her.

And medical sources have revealed that marks on her body were consistent with being whipped and beaten with the makeshift poles that were used to fly flags during the demonstration.

An unnamed friend of the reporter told The Sunday Times: ‘Lara is getting better daily. The psychological trauma is as bad as, if not worse than, the physical injuries. She might talk about it at sometime in the future, but not now.’ [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Yes, I imagine it will be some time before she talks about this, and frankly, if she chooses never to talk about this in public, I would support her completely.

As noted, though, she is not the only one who has endured some form of sexual assault while in Egypt. While the other reports have not been as extreme as Logan’s, that they are so common is disturbing. Angella Johnson writes about her experience in this piece, “I Was A Mob Sex Attack Victim In Tahrir Square… Just Like Lara Logan”:

I was especially horrified to read of CBS journalist Lara Logan’s sex ordeal as she reported on Egyptians celebrating the toppling of President Hosni Mubarak – because I too was a victim.

I was a few hundred yards away in Cairo’s Tahrir Square last Friday, unaware that Lara – whom I had worked with at GMTV – was then desperately fighting off a mob of 200 rabid men in a sustained sex assault.

Now I can say what I have only told a few friends since my return: That I too was subjected to several sexual harassment attacks at the scene.

Although they cannot be compared to the trauma Lara suffered, they were deeply upsetting.

Regardless of the severity of the assaults, that these women, both journalists and citizens, have experienced these kinds of things so regularly is disconcerting, to say the least. But especially that so few media outlets reported this as a part of the story of the recent protests.

Back to Ms. Johnson:

The first happened soon after my arrival in the square with photographer Philip Ide.

At first it had seemed just the merest accidental brush of a hand on my bottom but within seconds I felt another, less hesitant stroke.

I ignored it and kept moving, firmly gripping Phil’s shirt so we would not be separated in the surge of bodies.

The hand behind me thrust forward again, this time boldly grasping a fair amount of jeans-clad flesh.

I turned round sharply and glared at a young man who stood out in a crisp bright purple shirt but studiously avoided looking at me. He was no more than about 19.

I suspected he was the culprit and in any other situation would have confronted him angrily.

But in the mass of excitable men, their passions inflamed by hectoring chants and revolutionary songs blaring through speakers, I knew it could have resulted in an angry escalation.

And that is just it. Any woman who has ever had someone touch them inappropriately has to gauge the situation and see if it is better to let it go than to speak up for herself. Just a sad reality with which women have to live:

[snip] Then, using the jostling of the crowd, he lunged forward clumsily and thrust his pelvis into my behind, while holding on to my shoulder with his right hand and attempting to encircle my waist with his left.

I reacted instinctively, surprising him with a sharp elbow to his torso and was rewarded with a muffled grunt.

Then I grabbed Phil, explained what had happened and asked him to walk behind me for the rest of the way. Purple shirt soon gave up the chase.

At this stage I didn’t feel particularly threatened or scared. Having travelled the world extensively for work and pleasure, I have been in more frightening situations.

With hindsight, I realise I was also lulled into a false sense of security – as no doubt Lara was – because the crowd largely comprised happy, smiling people.

Even when several youths brushed against me in an intimidating way, some muttering suggestively in Arabic, I felt more annoyance than fear.

[...]

When I got caught in the middle of one particularly boisterous group, they mobbed me and several attempted to grope and fondle my body.

For a moment I was nervous – I could see Phil’s head but several bodies were between us – then I got angry and pushed back. Luckily, I managed to wriggle my way out of their grasps. [snip]

Ms. Johnson was lucky indeed to be able to escape the grasp of these men, to put it mildly. And thank heavens she did. But there is more to this:

[snip] It never occurred to me to complain to my bosses. I have never wanted to give male colleagues any reason to treat me differently.

But what happened to Lara has given women like me a chance to tell our story, like the time in South Africa when I fled a Zulu after he pushed his hand down my blouse.

Or the occasion in Qatar when I fought off a sheikh in full traditional dress trying to force his way into my hotel room.

I have had my breasts grabbed in Turkey, been chased by a gang of men while walking down the street in Morocco and generally treated like a piece of meat on a previous visit to Egypt.

That was why I arrived in Tahrir Square armoured in jeans, a baggy, long sleeve top and with my hair covered with a knitted hat.

No doubt, as a woman friend has said to me: ‘In their minds, you and Lara were just two “infidel whores”, the kind of sexually-liberated women they see in films and videos, or the ones who visit on holiday, get drunk and have liaisons with local men.’

There are those who believe women like Lara should not cover stories where they could find themselves in danger.

Some British and U.S. male commentators have suggested that in some way she was responsible for the attack because she’s petite and attractive.(Emphasis mine.)

Others have suggested she has ‘form’ for dressing provocatively.

I find such comment offensive. No one ever says a male journalist asked for it if he gets beaten up. And I could not have covered up more – apart from wearing a burka.
(Click here to read the rest.)

This is upsetting in many regards, that these kinds of assaults happen routinely to women is bad enough. But when they are BLAMED for them for essentially just BEING, as opposed to holding the perpetrators accountable, is adding insult to injury. It is NOT Logan’s fault she was attacked by 200 rabid men. It is THEIR callous disregard for women that is to blame.

This is not new. This has been going on against women journalists in that area of the world for some time. It begs the question, though, why has our media chosen to ignore these attacks? Because it would affect their narrative?

This is a bigger picture problem. The treatment of women, whether abroad or at home, must be taken seriously. No more blaming the victim, or justifying the assaults. It is wrong, it is a violation of not just women’s rights, but human rights, and it must be treated as such. I am glad Secretary Clinton has weighed in on Lara Logan’s attackers, but that is just the beginning.

Perhaps it is time the United States started to play hardball with those countries that treat women so disparately. Maybe when we have an administration for whom that is important, we will. Clearly, that time is not now. And that is just wrong.