Posted by figleaf
| Tags:
Fri, 2010-05-28 10:32
Lindsay Beyerstein of Big Think offers the briefest complete response possible to some patriarchal asshat’s attempt to return to pre-20th-Century gender roles.
Reflecting on a BBC report
“The chief rabbi of a West Bank settlement has prohibited women from standing in a local community election.
Rabbi Elyakim Levanon of the Elon Moreh settlement, near Nablus, said women lacked the authority to stand for the post of local secretary.
He wrote in a community newspaper that women must only be heard through their husbands.
Beyerstein asks, simply
WWGMD? Or, what would Golda Meir do?
The aspirations of patriarchy remain alive and well.
Tangentially, following the
Submitted by Laura Fox (not verified) on Fri, 2010-05-28 12:05.Tangentially, following the links to this list of 20th century female heads of state: http://womenshistory.about.com/od/rulers20th/a/women_heads.htm
We can clearly see that America and our allies are on the cutting edge when it comes to equality, far more fair-minded about granting political power to qualified persons of any gender than, say, those backward, benighted Africans or Southeast Asians…
(My country’s “We’re the best!” blinders are a thing to behold…)
[Maybe not that tangential, Laura. :-) One slightly interesting extrapolation from the list might be that countries with a longer history of electoral democracy seem to have a much harder time electing women presidents and prime ministers. I’m guessing it’s got less to do with patriarchal attitudes (since some pretty patriarchal countries were also some of the first to elect women leaders) and more to do with electoral and institutional incumbencies. (For instance in the U.S. Presidents seem to start out mostly as Governors and Senators and since historically most of them have been men the pool of potential women Presidents is constricted. Newer democracies might not have such a backlog. On the other hand how many democracies have asshats like wuzzizname saying “women must only be heard through their husbands?” Oh wait! Thanks. —fl]