The Status of Women.....

In case you haven't heard, the United Nations has just elected a new country to its commission with the name of this blog.

And the country is Iran, and yes--you read that right.

This is the same country which, not even two weeks ago had a man (who obviously has the IQ of the freezing point on the centrigrade scale) released the statement that scantily clad women cause earthquakes. I remember looking down at my capri pants and polo shirt when it was on the news; since I don't adhere to the dress code of the Iranian government, I'm going to assume that I'm one of those scantily clad women-it's only logical, right? Wow--my attire causes earthquakes, guys!! Someone send Bill the memo--I cause earthquakes, but somehow I can't keep him from falling asleep in his chair six nights out of seven.

I should point out here, first, though: I have never considered myself a feminist--or rather, not a feminist who was designed by Gloria Steinhem, Betty Friedan or the NOW. The NOW and the early feminist movement leaders have always struck me as having nothing more and nothing less than a good solid case of penis envy, and I don't have that.

And my Daddy paid me plenty of attention when I was a child. I never needed anyone to tell me that I was as good as a man.....Daddy did that for me. I don't want to be treated equal to a man--I want to be treated better. Because that's the way it should be, and not because some law or 'panel' decrees it, or because someone has shoved that notion down a man's throat. It should be because: as a woman--yeah, I'm that good. Now, there are those who would argue (Gloria, Betty?) that I was simply born into a generation who is reaping the benefits of what they fought so hard for. The way I see it, though, they have simply fought for women to have the playing field leveled for us--forced everyone to accept women on lower standards than men.

I wouldn't stoop to it. Another thing my Daddy taught me was that unfortunately--it's a man's world. And to get along in a man's world......my sister and I would have to be smarter than the boys, tougher than the boys.......and he made sure we were. We grew up knowing there's no such thing as women's work, and no such thing as men's work--it's all the same, roll your sleeves up and get to it. My sister and I came into adulthood knowing how to cook and clean, how to do the laundry and take care of babies....

We also know how to do the yardwork, change a flat tire, use jumper cables, check the fluids, know our way around the fusebox in the house, and have been shooting guns since we were strong enough to hold and control one. In other words--we were taught how to get by if there wasn't a man around.

The really amazing part of this is-- my father is probably what people like Gloria Steinhem and Betty Friedan fear most: a white man from a small, rural Southern town. And he was also raised from age thirteen by a single mother. In spite of his lacking a father figure from such a young age, it has always amazed me that my Dad is one of a dying breed: a gentleman. He's as manly a man as you'd want to meet, too--and his daughters are not only secure in their womanhood; we revel in it. While Misty and I can both be as sweet and gentle as they come, if you care to cross us, do it at your peril, because we also epitomize the statement that 'Hell has no fury like the scorn of a woman.' We're the only Hell our Mama ever raised--but not our Daddy. We're his bumper crop, and his pride in that is apparent.

Now, I say that I have never considered myself a feminist, and I don't. But...having left my father's house when I was seventeen, I have found that the world (and moreover, most men) are not nearly as cognizant of women's capabilities and accomplishments as he was and is, and the ones who at least pay lip service to it are only out to do one of two things: shut her up, or get into her pants.

It didn't even occur to me to become angry about the 'status of women' when I was in countries like Iran--her neighbors, in fact. One of the first things I was issued when I entered the country of Saudi Arabia was hijab. And I was told to wear it if I went off base. I only did so a couple of times, and not out of any objection to being shrouded up like I was being prepared for burial; or moral outrage at being slowly suffocated simply because I was born with breasts and indoor plumbing. It was just too damned hot.

Nor did it occur to me to become angry after doing a semester long research project on Islam....which included several trips to mosque. This is by no means an attack on the Islam faith, because I know there are women in Islam who genuinely feel that hijab is for the good of women--and good for them. There was the sense of family and community that I haven't had when attending even a Christian church (not knocking Christianity, either.) Organized committees to go into the homes of congregants (not sure if that's what they call it) to take food and provide care to families who had new babies and sick family members.......to actually stay and help care for the other family members. Nadereh--my guide for most of the time I was there--explained to me their view behind women remaining in the back of their mosque: Muslims, when they pray, prostrate themselves on the floor. It is their belief that if women were in front of the men, the men might be distracted from keeping their minds on worship--and the suggestion seemed sensible enough to me at the time--it still does. This is so wrong, but I'm going to ask you to get a mental pictures of men worshipping behind a hundred women who have their foreheads pressed against the floor, knees on the floor and hips (and as such, their backside)--slightly inclined? Have you ever heard the locker room discussions that have come about from visions far less titillating than that? I have.....boys will be boys, after all.

After I read Azir Nafisi's 'Reading Lolita in Tehran' my ire was definitely raised. Before the Ayatollah, under the shah--the veil was optional. Iranian women could choose to wear the symbol of their faith--and that, to most Islam women, is what the veil is. A symbol. But like anything.......be it the veil, or be it arbitrary and stupid laws like we're seeing passed in the United States on a daily basis--when something is imposed on you, when it is enforced.....you begin to lose sight of the meaningfulness and the values that those symbols/principles represent. As such......what those who impose the laws ultimately do is give those who are subject to the laws a disdain and even a hatred for whatever they're legislating. The most immediate example that comes to mind after the veil would be something like the unwritten laws of 'being PC' in America. We are constantly censuring ourselves because, "Uh-oh, if I say that, I'll piss off the __________." (Fill in the blank.) And that doesn't foster an attitude of tolerance. What it fosters is the burden of having to appease everyone. And 'burdens' don't foster a good attitude about ANYTHING. It's counterproductive. The powers who enforce these things are bringing an end (and a very abrupt and disdainful one) to the very thing they think is good enough to enforce.

Which brings us back to--at long last--the status of women. We have laws here in the United States that force companies and institutions to accept women NOT because they're qualified, bright, and just as good as the men......but to fill a quota. If you're a woman and you're reading this, do you think that is going to make the men fall all over themselves in their awe of our accomplishments? Nope.

And the 'women' of our country, the ones who probably immediately come to mind because of their feminist agendas--the Nancy Pelosis, the Hillary Clintons, Janet Napolitanos and Sonia Sotomayors.....where are they? Those women who probably had the first subscriptions to Ms. magazine and probably read Betty Friedan and Germaine Greer? Who probably had a poster of Gloria Steinhem hung in their dorm room at Wellesly? Where are they when an organization like the United Nations (keeping in mind its HQ are in the largest city of the United States) elects a country who not only ignore women AND their status--but who search women on university campuses for cosmetics and arrest them for wearing lip gloss or a mini-skirt?

They're nowhere to be found. They rode their feminist agenda to get them all the way to where they are (in positions of extreme power in what is, for the time being, still the greatest country in the free world, no matter how they might try to compromise that). That says to me their own adherence to feminist principles is nonexistent. They should be screaming from the top of the Capitol building.....threatening to boycott the UN and throw its HQ out of New York if Iran is not removed from this panel immediately. They have yet to utter a word in comment, and it's not likely they will......they will turn a blind eye to the women they at least once said they would fight for the rights of in favor of promoting the only bigger agenda they've ever had: their anti-American one.

The only good thing that could possibly come of allowing Iran to have a say in the status of women is that maybe Nancy, Hillary, Janet, Sonia and Co. might have to slap on a burka.

The men would be thankful for that, anyway.......and so would some of the women. At least we wouldn't have to look at them.