(Click on the logo to return to the main blog.)

Speaking of Forcing Change Too Quickly
03/10/2003

Sheila Lennon blogs about reports that an American woman will act as provisional administrator of the central region of Iraq. She also notes the following suggestion from Salam on Where Is Raed with which I entirely agree:

General reactions? You can imagine the fear of castration the Iraqi males are going thru at the moment, don't expect this to be swallowed very easily, and to divert this unease they would just say something along the lines: "she doesn't look very pretty does she?." One person who doesn't actually work here but was dragged by a colleague to see the picture said: "you know it is their intention to destroy the pride of the muslim man." Tread carefully is what I say; change shouldn't be plunked on people's heads like this, especially when there already is an atmosphere of mistrust and unfriendliness.

Ms. Lennon, who is very liberal, offered only an ambiguous, "Whew." Although I am far from a cultural relativist, I think this is an area in which differences in culture must be given sufficient respect to be considered in our approach to changing the region. If Salam is correct in his assessment of likely Iraqi reaction, then American progressives will have to bite their lip and accept the conservative aesthetic of gradual progress.

Posted by Justin Katz @ 12:17 PM EST

17 comments

Biggest reason for Bodine not to be involved is competence, or lack thereof. She was Yemen ambassador at time of Cole blast. She blocked FBI investigation because she was miffed by FBI personnel not "respecting" her absolute authority over their activities. Someone this prickly on protocol cannot be trusted to keep their eye on the ball. Bag her.

Billy Hank @ 03/10/2003 01:54 PM EST

If the Iraqi men get shirty, their wives will straighten them out.
Which is to say, hasn't anybody looked at this issue from the point of view of the Iraqi women?
Dumb, rhetorical question.
Of course nobody has.
Even from our enlightened country.
Cultural relativism rules. It trumps everything, including freedom and justice.
Just as long as the oppressors are not American, anything goes. All in the name of cultural relativism.
Old story of The Raj. An Indian was telling an Englishman about how, in their culture, a widow is burned on her late hubby's pyre. The Englishman replied that, in his culture, they hanged chaps who did that.
Pick the one you like.
Anyway, that nobody has thought of consulting the Iraqi women's views on this tells us a good deal.

Richard Aubrey @ 03/10/2003 02:05 PM EST

I think Rudy Giuliani would be a great pick.

Politca Obscura @ 03/10/2003 02:09 PM EST

Richard:

The reason we care about what the men think is that in their culture, men get away with beating and sometimes killing their wives regularly.

That needs to be changed, but change from that state is gradual - if you try to impower the women, the men will simply beat them down.

The point is that it takes time.

Deoxy @ 03/10/2003 02:25 PM EST

Don't forget Iraqi women are also going to need some time to adjust. But I've heard they can be much more "liberated" than women in many other Arab countries, at least in the cities. No social system could survive for long if a good number of the women were not supporting it. To say otherwise insults women's strength and common sense.

Robert Speirs @ 03/10/2003 02:33 PM EST

Deoxy,

True, change takes time. And an example.

Ribonu @ 03/10/2003 02:35 PM EST

Mr. Aubrey,

I think your somewhat simplistic suggestion speaks to exactly the problem with the all-or-nothing, right-away progressive mentality.

Clearly, any abuse and subjugation of women must end as soon as the United States takes control. However, on a matter that makes no practical difference from our end, it simply doesn't make sense to throw additional potentially inflammatory circumstances into what promises to be a particularly tense situation.

Certainly, as Ribonu points out, there would be benefits to placing a woman in that leadership position, but they are not overriding benefits. Rather, they are things to be considered in context of the negative reactions that the decision might bring about (which is why I wrote "if Salam is correct.") Furthermore, if Mr. Hank is right about Bodine's temperament, we might have reason to worry what example our representative sets.

All in all, the question is not unlike that surrounding whether the United States ought to take temporary control at all.

Justin Katz @ 03/10/2003 02:51 PM EST

George Bush will not pick a high profile Republican like Rudy Giuliani. He'll pick someone knowing that he/she might be assassinated.

Misc @ 03/10/2003 03:01 PM EST

I recall sending a gentleman named Goldberg to the UN when it was even fuller of anti-Semitic cannibal republics than it is now.
No complaints that we had to wait until the aforesaid cannibal republics were ready for such a thing.
And, hell, the Iraqi men know that two of the three most important advisers Bush has on the subject of what happens to Iraq are black and one is a woman. A black woman had their fate in her hands. After that, they aren't likely to be more offended.
Working backward, would it be necessary to ensure that we don't offend repressive and backward cultures by choosing the wrong types for our own government?
Why doesn't it follow, at least in the foreign policy and national security arenas?
The sooner the Iraqi men get the message they have no choice, the sooner the more reasonable of them will decide to get aboard.
Giving them hope that it won't actually be that bad might act on them as it has on Saddaam.

Richard Aubrey @ 03/10/2003 03:07 PM EST

Reminds me of the comments made by a British Colonial Administrator in India during the 19th century. When lectured on respecting India’s “immemorial custom” such as Suttee (burning widows on husband’s funeral pyre) George Napier replied. “My nation also has a custom. When men burn women alive, we hang them. Let us all act according to national custom!”

Customs and traditions that encourages subjugation of more than half the world population is probably in need of reform.

Jim @ 03/10/2003 03:35 PM EST

Jim,

You point to an important issue. The current activities of the United States are toward multiple goals, including cultural change, but also including the broad efforts to destroy terrorism and that which contributes to it. As part of the entire process, we must consider that there are other regimes that must be toppled or reformed, many of them less secular than Iraq. This is part of the reason for our intention not to be seen as an imperialist power (particularly important in light of your reference to India and the Brit's appeal to the new "national custom").

As gratifying as it might be to declare, "this is the way it's gonna be; deal with it," it isn't prudent, nor is it the best strategy to bring about the very thing that the impulse desires. As I wrote in a comment above, of course, we should not accept continued subjugation of women in Iraq. However, there is a long, long range of action and compromise between that and considering gender bias when deciding whom to appoint to act as temporary leader.

Justin Katz @ 03/10/2003 03:49 PM EST

I figure it's what my wife refers to as a teachable moment.
When things are in flux and people are not all that secure, they lack the security necessary to defy a powerful adversary. There will be too much other stuff to worry about.
When they have enough time and energy to worry about the gender of the viceroy--or whatever--, they'll be used to it. Or maybe her term will be over and a guy is in and they'll discover they missed it so badly they forgot to be outraged.
I think this sort of thing happened in Denmark recently. A North African immigrant (of twelve years) raped a Downs Syndrome woman.
He was acquitted on account of the judge thought the culture from which he came didn't know not to do that sort of thing.
Me, I figure hanging the son of a bitch from some important public building might be a good start at an attitude change.
But no. The North African community in Denmark just got told it has carte blanche, at least as regards defenseless Downs Syndrome women.
I don't see the difference just because the sons-of-bitches happen to be in some other country--loosely defined.

Richard Aubrey @ 03/10/2003 04:17 PM EST

It's not a question of "cultural relativism" to want to effect change in the most effective way possible. We can acknowledge that an aspect of their culture is shit without having to change it immediately.

This is different from the defeat of Japan and Germany. We aren't destroying the will of Iraqi people to the point where they internalize our view and believe themselves to have sinned. We are siding with the Iraqi people to destroy the Ba'athists, and that means we don't have as much leeway in telling them what to do. You can respect people without respecting all of their culture.

I agree that change is needed in Arab views towards women if they are to democractize. But it's got to happen in a reasonable manner, we're dropping bombs, they're not going to spread reason and federalism and enlightenment rationality, they're only going to allow the Iraqis to be democratic to the maximum extent of their culture.

It is incredibly difficult to change peoples' cultures in your favor. It is very easy to get people to hate you. If we had invaded Iran and reinstated the Shah, and were able to keep him in power until today, the Iranians would probably hate us vehemently. But by letting the Ayatollahs take over, and letting them trample the Iranian people for decades, a substantial portion of the Iranians have come to hate the Ayatollahs and are much more receptive to a pro-America pro-freedom message.

Michael Levy @ 03/10/2003 04:52 PM EST

Ok, comparing burning a widow on a pyre and not having a female administrator is a bit of a stretch, doncha think? Why add insult (at least to them) to injury? We need to slowly reform their women's rights issue. Though on the plus side, they're not nearly as backwards in this sense as Saudi Arabia.

Mostafa Sabet @ 03/10/2003 08:40 PM EST

Add insult to whose injury?
You, and everybody else, are speaking as if the only folks who count are the men.
It appears that, in Afghanistan, when a surprise raid shows up, the female US soldiers drop their fatigues down to their sports bras, ruck back up, and then go to search the women. That keeps the goathumpers who get all annoyed when US men search women from being able to say that men were searching women. Hard to argue with mammary glands, I guess.
How's that for cultural sensitivity? Personally, if it were my sister or daughter doing that, I'd consider it somewhat excessive sensitivity.
You know that old saying, "Deal with it!"? Why should it be only us?
Maybe the Iraqis can deal with being civilized.
In the meantime, we won't be adding insult to the women's injuries.
As if that matters to the cultural relativists.
For the record, I don't respect people who willingly follow shit cultures.
Anybody willing to retrospectively respect American slaveholders just because that was their culture?
I didn't hear anybody. Should I turn up my hearing aid?
You know what links every culture given a break by the multicultis?
Victims.
You can look it up.

Richard Aubrey @ 03/10/2003 09:57 PM EST

Mr. Aubrey:

"The sooner the Iraqi men get the message they have no choice, the sooner the more reasonable of them will decide to get aboard."

The Iraqi men WILL have a choice. Every terrorist organization in the region will be recruiting, and pushing bombs and guns like free cocaine -- good for everything that pisses you off. Allied troops and your "reasonable Iraqis" will be right there in the middle of the Middle East, counting on the good will of a lot of maybe not-so-reasonable Iraqi men.

Iraqi men will have a lot more choices once the US troops decamp. It's possible, with good treatment, a solid foundation in democracy, and a respectful push in the right direction, that the Iraqi's will get there on their own, just as the US and a lot of other countries did. But it is almost certain that if you force it down their throats with threats and insults, they'll puke it up at the first opportunity and do their damndest to destroy everything you want to achieve.

Just because people tend to be contrary when insulted and bullied, Mr. Aubrey, and because that's how they CAN deal with it, if they decide to.

Tom Hoyt @ 03/11/2003 09:17 AM EST

MacArthur forced women's rights, and trade unions, down Japanese throats and nobody worried about insulting them.
As I say, excessive tenderness toward other cultures is always, not sometimes, always associated with large numbers of victims.
Given the history of the regiion, were the Iraqis of a mind to get involved in violence, they wouldn't be where they are today.

Richard Aubrey @ 03/11/2003 10:12 AM EST