If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   All the countries that have signed onto the women's rights treaty that Hillary Clinton is promoting, step right up. Uhhh, not so fast there USA   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 577
    More: Interesting, Hillary Rodham Clinton, United States, Catherine Ashton, UN resolutions, UN Convention, abortion law, United States rankings, treaty  
•       •       •

2233 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Sep 2011 at 7:20 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



577 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-09-20 11:55:38 PM
Who are they kidding?

As long as Republicans have anything to do with it, the only rights women will be allowed on paper are the right to get in the kitchen, the right to cook dinner, and the right to shut their pretty little mouths when men are talking.

If the war on a woman's right to choose whether to keep a fetus or abort, and just how far the republicans are willing to go to make sure they don't have that choice, or a safe place to go to get the procedure done isn't enough evidence of what they think of women, I don't see what more they can do to prove just how much they hate women.
 
2011-09-21 12:22:31 AM
As a result, previous versions of the treaty that have reached the Senate floor -- including one as recently as 2002 -- have included special riders that exempted abortion laws, and a handful of other provisions, from the treaty.

Passing a U.N. treaty that includes special exemptions would be an insult to the international community, not to mention it would sap the measure of its fundamental strength, Benshoof said.

"If we have a CEDAW that is like the last one, we don't need it," Benshoof said. "It does not send a signal to women of the world that America signs a treaty without intention of ever implementing it. It would be like signing a treaty against torture and putting in a clause excluding waterboarding."


So not giving mothers the right to kill their children is basically the same as waterboarding. This is how abortion advocates actually think.
 
2011-09-21 12:27:40 AM

Bevets: As a result, previous versions of the treaty that have reached the Senate floor -- including one as recently as 2002 -- have included special riders that exempted abortion laws, and a handful of other provisions, from the treaty.

Passing a U.N. treaty that includes special exemptions would be an insult to the international community, not to mention it would sap the measure of its fundamental strength, Benshoof said.

"If we have a CEDAW that is like the last one, we don't need it," Benshoof said. "It does not send a signal to women of the world that America signs a treaty without intention of ever implementing it. It would be like signing a treaty against torture and putting in a clause excluding waterboarding."

So not giving mothers the right to kill their children is basically the same as waterboarding. This is how abortion advocates actually think.


Actually you don't get a soul unless you're born to a Mormon family, so who cares if abortions are legal?
 
2011-09-21 12:41:41 AM
i.huffpost.com

Jesus, did she eat Monica Lewinsky or something?
 
2011-09-21 12:47:28 AM

ArkAngel: [i.huffpost.com image 570x238]

Jesus, did she eat Monica Lewinsky or something?


...I would have paid to see video of that back in 1998.
 
2011-09-21 01:08:27 AM

Bevets: children


www.agileproductdesign.com
 
2011-09-21 01:08:32 AM

Bevets: So not giving mothers the right to kill their children is basically the same as waterboarding.


ummm....no. Not even close to what he was saying. here, try this one...

"It would be like signing a treaty against religious persecution and putting in a clause excluding baptists."
 
2011-09-21 01:14:54 AM
So, it's kind of like when the U.S. lectures to other countries about human rights while Guantanamo is still open.

America- STFU and GBTW.
 
2011-09-21 01:28:04 AM
Ah the ol' "Do as we say, not as we do" gambit.
 
2011-09-21 01:29:41 AM

FirstNationalBastard: Who are they kidding?

As long as Republicans have anything to do with it, the only rights women will be allowed on paper are the right to get in the kitchen, the right to cook dinner, and the right to shut their pretty little mouths when men are talking.

If the war on a woman's right to choose whether to keep a fetus or abort, and just how far the republicans are willing to go to make sure they don't have that choice, or a safe place to go to get the procedure done isn't enough evidence of what they think of women, I don't see what more they can do to prove just how much they hate women.


Considering the UN committee overseeing the treaty opposes Mothers Day, I'd say it's overbroad. Our laws already cover it, anyways.
 
2011-09-21 01:36:44 AM
 
2011-09-21 01:56:51 AM

log_jammin: ArkAngel: Considering the UN committee overseeing the treaty opposes Mothers Day,


"Lastly, CEDAW does not seek to abolish Mother's Day and the Committee has never criticized Mother's Day. However, the Committee did criticize Belarus in 1998 for manipulating Mother's Day by using it to encourage "traditional" roles for women in an effort to restrict women's right to employment." (new window)


While I'm not sure the UN's own website is an unbiased source, this thing matters little. But shouldn't a country be allowed to support a traditional nuclear family?

The bigger question is what signing this treaty will accomplish.
 
2011-09-21 02:02:24 AM

ArkAngel: While I'm not sure the UN's own website is an unbiased source


I'd say it's the very best source. unless you're claiming the are "secretly" opposed to mothers day.

ArkAngel: But shouldn't a country be allowed to support a traditional nuclear family?


of course. not really sure what that has to do with anything though. restricting women's right to employment is not supporting a traditional nuclear family.

ArkAngel: The bigger question is what signing this treaty will accomplish.


the best question is, what would it hurt?
 
2011-09-21 04:06:29 AM

FirstNationalBastard: Who are they kidding?

As long as Republicans have anything to do with it, the only rights women will be allowed on paper are the right to get in the kitchen, the right to cook dinner, and the right to shut their pretty little mouths when men are talking.

If the war on a woman's right to choose whether to keep a fetus or abort, and just how far the republicans are willing to go to make sure they don't have that choice, or a safe place to go to get the procedure done isn't enough evidence of what they think of women, I don't see what more they can do to prove just how much they hate women.



FTA: In a recent Newsweek list of the best countries in the world for women, the United States ranked eighth overal

Yup, without this treaty, women are just treated like shiat in this country. I mean, just the other day, I beat my wife because she had the nerve to get out of the kitchen.

And, back in 2009, when they had a damn near filibuster proof majority in the Senate, I didn't see the Democratic party or President Obama (back when he was riding his 60%+ popularity wave) try to get this thing ratified either. I guess they hate women too, huh?
 
2011-09-21 04:22:17 AM

devildog123: And, back in 2009, when they had a damn near filibuster proof majority in the Senate, I didn't see the Democratic party or President Obama (back when he was riding his 60%+ popularity wave) try to get this thing ratified either. I guess they hate women too, huh?


actively opposing =/= too busy trying to fix a financial crisis in the midst of republicans obstructing absolutely every bill being proposed
 
2011-09-21 04:28:10 AM

log_jammin: devildog123: And, back in 2009, when they had a damn near filibuster proof majority in the Senate, I didn't see the Democratic party or President Obama (back when he was riding his 60%+ popularity wave) try to get this thing ratified either. I guess they hate women too, huh?

actively opposing =/= too busy trying to fix a financial crisis in the midst of republicans obstructing absolutely every bill being proposed


And in the midst of an economic meltdown, Republicans have still found a way to make sure abortion clinics get shut down. (new window)
 
2011-09-21 04:29:53 AM

FirstNationalBastard: And in the midst of an economic meltdown, Republicans have still found a way to make sure abortion clinics get shut down. (new window)


yes but i'm sure that will create jobs...or something...
 
2011-09-21 04:38:03 AM

log_jammin: devildog123: And, back in 2009, when they had a damn near filibuster proof majority in the Senate, I didn't see the Democratic party or President Obama (back when he was riding his 60%+ popularity wave) try to get this thing ratified either. I guess they hate women too, huh?

actively opposing =/= too busy trying to fix a financial crisis in the midst of republicans obstructing absolutely every bill being proposed


Well, they also had quite a large majority in 1980 when Jimmy Carter signed it, and he didn't bring it to the Senate either. Blaming the Republicans is a strawman argument if I've ever heard one. Sorry, as near as I can tell, no one in power in this country, Republican or Democrat has given a damn about this treaty since Carter signed it.
 
2011-09-21 04:56:37 AM

devildog123: and he didn't bring it to the Senate either.


*blink*

He didn't "bring it to the Senate"? ok.....

devildog123: . Blaming the Republicans is a strawman argument


what part of "actively oppose" do you not understand?

devildog123: Sorry, as near as I can tell, no one in power in this country, Republican or Democrat has given a damn about this treaty since Carter signed it.


It's been released from committee for a vote several times. wanna guess what group always blocks it?
 
2011-09-21 05:07:01 AM
 
2011-09-21 06:16:16 AM

ArkAngel: traditional nuclear family


Something that's existed but a few generations is hardly very traditional.
 
2011-09-21 07:05:24 AM
Que the usual crowd crying about sharia law coming out against this.
 
2011-09-21 07:22:51 AM

ArkAngel: But shouldn't a country be allowed to support a traditional nuclear family?


What does that have to do with abortion?
 
2011-09-21 07:36:28 AM

log_jammin: Some ascribe the U.S. failure to ratify the treaty to one man: the late Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina. To Helms, CEDAW was a terrible treaty "negotiated by radical feminists with the intent of enshrining their radical anti-family agenda into international law." As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1995 to 2001, Helms refused even to hold hearings on the matter. I (new window)


Besides that specific argument, there are also a lot of Republicans (an increasing number, I would say) that subscribe to the John Bolton-school of sovereignty-fetishism. i.e. those that oppose treaties because they somehow involve throwing away the 'sovereignty' of the United States. That Helms -> Bolton axis has a lot of leverage with the main Republican candidates at present through Heritage and other think tanks where they are drawing their advisors. The liberal internationalist Republican seems to have died out completely... even Richard Lugar is facing a tough challenge.

/speaking of which, when did Bolton drop out of the race?
 
2011-09-21 07:37:28 AM

Bevets: As a result, previous versions of the treaty that have reached the Senate floor -- including one as recently as 2002 -- have included special riders that exempted abortion laws, and a handful of other provisions, from the treaty.

Passing a U.N. treaty that includes special exemptions would be an insult to the international community, not to mention it would sap the measure of its fundamental strength, Benshoof said.

"If we have a CEDAW that is like the last one, we don't need it," Benshoof said. "It does not send a signal to women of the world that America signs a treaty without intention of ever implementing it. It would be like signing a treaty against torture and putting in a clause excluding waterboarding."

So not giving mothers the right to kill their children is basically the same as waterboarding. This is how abortion advocates actually think.


Most Farkers graze on a range of subjects.

You only appear in one. I wonder, who submits/greenlights/ tolerates your demonstrably bullshiat responses after all this time?
 
2011-09-21 07:38:35 AM
Bevets:

So not giving mothers the right to kill their children is basically the same as waterboarding. This is how abortion advocates actually think.

log_jammin:

ummm....no. Not even close to what he was saying. here, try this one...

"It would be like signing a treaty against religious persecution and putting in a clause excluding baptists."


There were several comparisons he could have made. He chose waterboarding.
 
2011-09-21 07:40:20 AM
Credit is given for not sending me down a rabbit hole via one of your infamously fact-challenged links. You seem to have formed your own sentences this time.

Congrats on expressing your own thought, however disagreeable to me it might be. Seriously, I'm actually congratulating you.
 
2011-09-21 07:43:42 AM

Bevets: There were several comparisons he could have made. He chose waterboarding.


so you don';t understand how analogies work. got it.
 
2011-09-21 07:44:46 AM

Seth'n'Spectrum: that subscribe to the John Bolton-school of sovereignty-fetishism. i.e. those that oppose treaties because they somehow involve throwing away the 'sovereignty' of the United States.


yeah. there's some UN gun/weapon treaty that they are saying exactly that about.
 
2011-09-21 07:52:07 AM

ArkAngel: Jesus, did she eat Monica Lewinsky or something?


Thus proving that a woman is only as valuable as her appearance makes her. Way to prove the point, douchebag.
 
2011-09-21 07:52:41 AM
Yes, the fundies really know how to prove our points. They oppose the Women's rights treaty, and they've, for two decades, blocked the US ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The US and Somalia are the only countries in the world not to ratify that one. Good company we keep.
Why are the rightists and Christofascists against the Convention on the Rights of the Child? Because it forbids executing kids or sentencing them to life. Oh, and it dares suggest that children should have religious freedom.
 
2011-09-21 07:54:45 AM
First the UN came for our farms, and I was silent because I'm not a farmer.
Then the UN came for our guns, and I was silent becuase my hands are neither cold nor dead.
Now the UN has come for our women and I can be silent no longer.
 
2011-09-21 07:55:26 AM
Well, maybe the senate just hasn't had time to vote on it. They've had a lot on their plate these past few months, and...

TFA: But while CEDAW has been in the hands of the Senate for more than 30 years -- ever since President Jimmy Carter signed it in 1980 -- it has never so much as gotten a vote in the full chamber.

...nevermind. WTF, senate?
 
2011-09-21 07:58:17 AM

FirstNationalBastard: Who are they kidding?

As long as Republicans have anything to do with it, the only rights women will be allowed on paper are the right to get in the kitchen, the right to cook dinner, and the right to shut their pretty little mouths when men are talking.


FTA: But while CEDAW has been in the hands of the Senate for more than 30 years -- ever since President Jimmy Carter signed it in 1980 -- it has never so much as gotten a vote in the full chamber.

You can apologize now.

You were just the first in a series of stupid tirades against Republicans and/or other political groups you have a personal issues with that cloud your ability to form logical conclusions about anything. Over the last 30 years the Democrats haven't even tried to get this through even when they controlled the senate completely, and no, it's not because they were concerned about Republican opposition to it, so come up with a better explanation next time.
 
2011-09-21 08:04:43 AM

Bevets: log_jammin:

ummm....no. Not even close to what he was saying. here, try this one...

"It would be like signing a treaty against religious persecution and putting in a clause excluding baptists."

There were several comparisons he could have made. He chose waterboarding


There were several things you could have attempted to do. You chose derail the conservation.
 
2011-09-21 08:05:01 AM

ArkAngel: But shouldn't a country be allowed to support a traditional nuclear family?


The Nuclear Family has only been popular since the early 1900s and is largely an economic disaster for the poor and middle classes.

If anything is a "Traditional Family" it would be multi-generational households.
 
2011-09-21 08:05:37 AM
Although Clinton did not mention America's conspicuous absence from the CEDAW list of signatories, both she and President Obama have repeatedly stated they would like to see the treaty ratified in the Senate. But while CEDAW has been in the hands of the Senate for more than 30 years -- ever since President Jimmy Carter signed it in 1980 -- it has never so much as gotten a vote in the full chamber.

Yep, that's farking embarrassing... It would be great if the US could move at least into the 20th century on these issues, never mind the 21st century, but when one political party is actively trying to put us back into the 19th century, I don't see that happening anytime soon...
 
2011-09-21 08:05:46 AM
Saudi Arabia signed the treaty 11 years ago. Women are doing wonderfully there now, I think all nuanced and thoughtful people will agree.

Either that or treaties like this are a load of feel-good bullshiat with about as much real-world heft as a wet sheet of one-ply toilet paper.
 
2011-09-21 08:07:28 AM

dahmers love zombie: Yes, the fundies really know how to prove our points. They oppose the Women's rights treaty, and they've, for two decades, blocked the US ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The US and Somalia are the only countries in the world not to ratify that one. Good company we keep.
Why are the rightists and Christofascists against the Convention on the Rights of the Child? Because it forbids executing kids or sentencing them to life. Oh, and it dares suggest that children should have religious freedom.


As for the Women's rights treaty, while I agree that abortions should be allowed, but a treaty is no way to ensure that and will only fan the flames of the people who think the UN is taking over.

As for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, that says signatories must move quickly to eliminate corporal punishment.
 
2011-09-21 08:10:13 AM
UN treaties, and Resolutions were meant to be broken.

Isn't that right Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Egypt, Libya, Yugoslavia, Germany, United States?
 
2011-09-21 08:10:43 AM

Gulper Eel: Saudi Arabia signed the treaty 11 years ago. Women are doing wonderfully there now, I think all nuanced and thoughtful people will agree.

Either that or treaties like this are a load of feel-good bullshiat with about as much real-world heft as a wet sheet of one-ply toilet paper.


Ding, Ding, Ding!!!
 
2011-09-21 08:12:21 AM

Without Fail: ArkAngel: Jesus, did she eat Monica Lewinsky or something?

Thus proving that a woman is only as valuable as her appearance makes her. Way to prove the point, douchebag.


To be fair we could probably get more cash for her if she jogged or something.
 
2011-09-21 08:12:48 AM

Gulper Eel: Saudi Arabia signed the treaty 11 years ago. Women are doing wonderfully there now, I think all nuanced and thoughtful people will agree.

Either that or treaties like this are a load of feel-good bullshiat with about as much real-world heft as a wet sheet of one-ply toilet paper.



Actually women are doing a lot better there, whether it's the ending of male guardianship or forced marriages. And you might consider for just a tiny moment how long it took women in this country to narrow the gap of equality.
 
2011-09-21 08:13:19 AM

log_jammin:
ArkAngel: The bigger question is what signing this treaty will accomplish.

the best question is, what would it hurt?


Not much, except further knock down the credibility of the UN and the idea of "global governance". Like previous UN declarations, certain countries sign them then ignore them. Take the UN declaration of human rights - how many nations still have blasphemy/apostate laws?
 
2011-09-21 08:15:10 AM
Hmm, more biatching from the left about the US not signing a treaty specifically designed to harass the American right and not actually accomplish anything productive. Must be a day ending in y.
 
2011-09-21 08:16:57 AM
Republicans are evil, hateful morons, so I wouldn't look for this to pass the Senate any time soon.
 
2011-09-21 08:19:47 AM
I prefer "Original Thoughts" Bevets to "Quotebot" Bevets
 
2011-09-21 08:22:54 AM

FuturePastNow: Republicans are evil, hateful morons, so I wouldn't look for this to pass the Senate any time soon.


Senate has been sitting on it for 30 years.

Trying to pin this on republicans, when dems have done nothing with it shows your dishonesty or ignorance.
 
2011-09-21 08:24:30 AM

DarnoKonrad: Gulper Eel: Saudi Arabia signed the treaty 11 years ago. Women are doing wonderfully there now, I think all nuanced and thoughtful people will agree.

Either that or treaties like this are a load of feel-good bullshiat with about as much real-world heft as a wet sheet of one-ply toilet paper.


Actually women are doing a lot better there, whether it's the ending of male guardianship or forced marriages. And you might consider for just a tiny moment how long it took women in this country to narrow the gap of equality.


How long it took? Or how long it's taking? (new window)
 
2011-09-21 08:30:21 AM

beta_plus: Hmm, more biatching from the left about the US not signing a treaty specifically designed to harass the American right and not actually accomplish anything productive. Must be a day ending in y.


Women having rights "harasses" the American right? Good to know.
 
Displayed 50 of 577 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report