Hillary Clinton Criticizes Islamic Treatment of Women

In a series of remarks, Secretary of State Clinton has directed international attention to the treatment of women in several different Islamic countries. Despite the great hopes directed toward the 'Arab Spring' movement, it has become clear that the new regimes, which are replacing old dictators, may in some cases be no better, and even possibly worse, in their treatment of women. The organization known as 'The Muslim Brotherhood' - which has had direct influence on Egyptian policy, and indirect influence also, through its political arm known as 'The Freedom and Justice Party' - has stated that it "rejects the candidacy of women or Copts for Egypt's presidency" and other elected offices. But the Muslim Brotherhood is not content with merely removing women's opportunities for political involvement; it is intent on removing many civil rights. Secretary Clinton noted that

recent events in Egypt have been particularly shocking. Women are being beaten and humiliated in the same streets where they risked their lives for the revolution only a few short months ago. And this is part of a deeply troubling pattern. Egyptian women have been largely shut out of decision-making in the transition by both the military authorities and the major political parties. At the same time, they have been specifically targeted both by security forces and by extremists.

Clinton mentioned specific examples of women being harassed, beaten, and assaulted. She called upon the nations of the world to put pressure on Egypt and other Islamic states to give women full involvement in the political process:

Marchers celebrating International Women’s Day were harassed and abused. Women protesters have been rounded up and subjected to horrific abuse. Journalists have been sexually assaulted. And now, women are being attacked, stripped, and beaten in the streets. This systematic degradation of Egyptian women dishonors the revolution, disgraces the state and its uniform, and is not worthy of a great people. As some Egyptian politicians and commentators have themselves noted, a new democracy cannot be built on the persecution of women, nor can any stable society. Whether it’s ending conflict, managing a transition, or rebuilding a country, the world cannot afford to continue ignoring half the population.

Clinton notes that even inside Egypt, that groups like the Copts are voicing opposition to this poor treatment of women. There is perhaps a chance for building a coalition - the Copts in Egypt and the concerned nations of Western Civilization - to support women's rights in Egypt. If traction can be developed on this issue there, then it, like the Arab Spring, might spread to other Islamic nations. Specifically commenting on the enforcement of certain aspects of Islamic law, Clinton said that

Beating women is not cultural, it's criminal and it needs to be addressed and treated as such.

Clinton was speaking partly in regard to what international newspapers are now calling "the girl in the blue bra," an Egyptian woman who was brutally beaten and dragged through the streets by Muslim men. The U.S. government sends billions of dollars to Egypt every year; Clinton has proposed that Egypt must improve its treatment of women and Copts in order to receive further funding.

Rome: Good or Bad?

Although we would like to know if Romans are good guys or bad guys, the question is sadly too simplistic. The answer is 'yes' - they are both. The Romans who gleefully tortured, imprisoned, and murdered hundreds of thousands of Christians are the same Romans who developed participatory government well beyond anything the Greeks had instituted. The Romans who allowed insanely egotistical emperors to corrupt government beyond recognition were the same Romans who first clearly expressed the definitive notions of justice as Natural Law. They are the good guys, and they are the bad guys.

Beyond this, there are a number of distinctions to be made: there is the Roman Monarchy, the Roman Republic, and the Roman Empire. The empire is further divided into a western half and an eastern half. A different type of distinction can be made between the government and society of Rome proper, contrasted with the outlying territories, provinces, and colonies. A third set of distinctions would revolve around social, economic, and political classes. Generalization about Romans as 'good guys' or 'bad guys' are in danger of being oversimplified and hence wrong. Professor Anthony Esolen explains:

In some ways ancient Rome, especially during the centuries of the Republic, was as politically incorrect a place as you can imagine. Our feminists, who consistently uphold the demands of a minority of well-heeled women against the common good, the family, and every freedom recognized our Bill of Rights, would hate the patriarchy of ancient Rome, and not the least because that patriarchy worked. Nowadays, gripped in our great national passion of envy, we demand all sorts of equality: economic, social, and political. We'll destroy the family to attain this equality, and never mind the prisons that result. The Romans instead first sought the good of the family and the city. For the most part, they found that good not in leveling distinctions but in revering them.

To be sure, Professor Esolen's presentation is a bit fiery, but let's focus on Rome instead of his passing comments about modern American society. On the one hand, Esolen makes a good point, namely that the social and governmental structures of the Republic worked: they endured nearly five hundred years, and managed to do so with a reasonable facsimile of justice. Rather than naively chasing after the idealistic notion of pure justice and total freedom, the Romans pragmatically realized that a society which is 'mostly' just is capable of surviving much longer than a utopian attempt to attain perfect equality. Sometimes is it necessary to take a chunk out of the individual's liberty in order to keep society as a whole, or social structures like the family, intact. Keeping society intact, in turn, is what prevents government from having an excuse to overpower society and thus taking a much bigger chunk out of individual liberty.

On the other hand, Professor Esolen's view of the Republican Romans might be just a bit too rosy. Were they so altruistic that they thought first of family and city? Maybe some were. Others were simply calculating their own best interests, and realized that the survival of family and city were the necessary preconditions for a chance at a reasonable amount of personal freedom.