General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrump: Half the world's population (women) do not matter to international security
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/01/04/do-women-matter-to-international-security-trump-just-changed-the-u-s-governments-answer-to-that-question/While there are several notable changes from those released by previous administrations, one of the most striking is the sharp turn away from recent policies backed by a significant amount of research that treat the well-being of women around the globe as critical to peace and prosperity.
A short history of the U.S. governments position on women, peace and security
President Ronald Reagan released the first NSS in 1987, mentioning women only in passing as members of the U.S. military. But in 1994, President Bill Clintons NSS began referring to womens status as critical to global stability, for the first time. The Clinton administration took the position that advancing American interests and ideals depends on integrating womens and girls concerns into the foreign policy agenda. This point of view was both a product and a driver of the times. Hillary Clintons proclamation at the 1995 Beijing Conference on Women that womens rights are human rights helped bring gender into the mainstream security and foreign policy discussion but it wasnt the first time that the administration had advanced that notion.
Bill Clintons first NSS emphasized family planning, reproductive health care, maternal and child health, education and improvements in the status of women, arguing that giving women control over their bodies and future would result in more stable countries and contribute to global security. And it declared that multilateral conferences and institutions were critical in reaching these goals.
President George W. Bush dropped the focus on womens issues as part of national security. In 2006, Bushs NSS stated simply, No nation can be free if half its population is oppressed and denied fundamental rights. We affirm the inherent dignity and worth of women, and support vigorously their full participation in all aspects of society. While the president kept the Office of Womens Issues and then-first lady Laura Bush launched a womens rights campaign in Afghanistan after the U.S. invasion, the effort to incorporate women into the national security architecture stalled.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)positively correlate with women's empowerment and involvement in decision making. Gender equality results in greater general prosperity and health, and less war.
Trump correlates 100% with just plain being wrong about everything. And the knuckledraggers nudging him into this position on something he cares nothing about and knows less are nearly as bad.
modrepub
(3,504 posts)Long time ago one of my profs in college made this point: In countries where women are given equal rights the birth rate drops. Given a choice, women will choose their own way to happiness, which doesn't always translate to having lots of kids. Based on the last string of Presidents, I'd say one party seems to have significant problems allowing women to choose what they want to do with their lives.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,920 posts)We keep on hearing about men who think women shouldn't have the right to vote.
My answer is to take away the right to vote from men for as long as women didn't have it (1789-1920). 131 years. They can resume voting in 2149 or so.
And while we're at it, let every single new appointment to the Supreme Court be a woman, and then have only women on the SC for as long as there were only men. We can consider nominating men to the court in around somewhere after 2209.
ariadne0614
(1,744 posts)B Stieg
(2,410 posts)And "turnabout is fair play"!
AllyCat
(16,248 posts)And if the black guy wanted it, he is changing it
Progressive dog
(6,923 posts)are moving away from democracy and equal rights towards his vision of American greatness.
A white nationalist psychopath is a misogynist.