What Is Her.meneutics?

The Christianity Today women's blog provides news and analysis from the perspective of evangelical women. We cover news stories and books related to international justice and evangelism, pregnancy and sexual ethics, marriage, parenting, and celibacy, pop culture, health and body image, raising girls, and women in the church and parachurch.

Her.meneutics is edited by associate editor Katelyn Beaty and online editor Sarah Pulliam Bailey.

Free Newsletters

books we're reading



« An Argument against 'Settling Down' | Main | Craigslist Gives Up 'Adult Services' in the United States »

September 15, 2010

How the Iraq War Has Affected Women

The country now faces a large population of unmarried women, many of them widows. Are government-doled incentives for marrying widows a good economic strategy?

As the narrative in Iraq shifts from war to establishing a stable government and social structure, new and unexpected details about the cost of war are coming to light. One issue Iraq is struggling with is marriage — or the lack thereof.

iraq%20woman.jpg

The Associated Press reported last week that the number of single Iraqi females over age 30 — who face social stigmas due to their age, usually living under the protection of family — is disproportionately large for the population. A growing unmarried female population is one that could affect the total Iraqi population long-term, potentially negatively impacting the fledgling post-war economy, making it a significant peace-time issue for the vulnerable new democratic government.

Many of the unmarried women are widows. In January 2009, Mazin al-Shihan, head of Baghdad's Displacement Committee, estimated that Iraq’s widow population had reached one million. In addition to the loss of eligible men through violence, intermarriage has become far less acceptable in Iraqi society than it was 10 years ago. U.S. intervention into Saddam Hussein’s regime unexpectedly stirred up strife between Sunni and Shiite Muslim sects. (The majority population of Iraq — between 60 and 65 percent — is Shiite, but Hussein was Sunni and his government was mixed.)

By 2007, mixed-sect families had become a regular target of threats and violence by insurgents. Notes would be slipped under doors warning, "You must leave your home. We give you three days. Or we will kill you." But with both sects banning together against the other, many couples had nowhere to go. Families were torn apart. Few new mixed marriages were happening under those circumstances, and they have become rare.

The Iraqi government and human rights groups have been debating solutions to this growing problem for more than a year. Last year, Al-Shihan and Tariq al-Hashemi, Iraq vice president, both proposed similar government solutions to offer monetary incentives for marriage. "[W]e propose offering 10 million Iraqi dinars [about US$8,500] to men in their late 30s or 40s who can't get married due to soaring prices, if they marry a widow," he said. Al-Hashemi particularly wanted to focus on intermarriage between the sects.

But women’s rights activists are concerned over the long-term dangers that a government-sponsored policy of marriage “bribery” could leave women. Jinan Mubarak has been sounding the alarm over the treatment of Iraqi women for several years, observing the reemergence of religious control over the government following the replacement of Hussein’s largely secular administration. Mubarak, head of the Iraqi Centre for Training and Employing Women in Baghdad, said in 2005 that the withdrawal of U.S. troops could signal a diminishing protection of women’s rights. More recently, she said that while single women are vulnerable in Iraqi society and many widows struggle even to feed their children, marriage might not solve everything. In reality, “the economic crisis is the core cause of all the women's problems in Iraq," she said.

Other women’s rights activists promote what could be considered a more Western solution: vocational training to help women gain a place in society apart from marriage. Hanaa Adwar, head of the Baghdad-based NGO al-Amal, promotes self-reliance over subsidized marriage. “The government should ensure there are adequate social and health programs [for the widows]," she said. The incentives plan diminishes women because “the widow must get married to another man to get the government help,” Adwar said. "Their dignity is violated when they have to stand in long queues to get small sums of government aid which will last for a few days, or when they have to depend solely on their extended families.”

The U.S. government has stepped back to provide Iraqis freedom to make their own choices about governing their country. This debate raises a lot of important questions about how the fledgling (and still floundering, following this year’s controversial election) government will choose to respond to an internal crisis. Should a democratic government mandate an answer, or allow NGOs and activists to shape the solution(s)? The answers to those questions will define the the way Iraqis, especially women, live.

Share |

Comments

When the U.s. steps back or looks the other way, the governments put in Sharia Law for Muslim women, look at Afganistan. The Constitution was voted on yes and than the legislature loaded with men took it upon themselves to put Sharia Law in effect for Muslim women. Why the U.s. can't rebuild governments in these lands that don't know how to govern due to control being under inmans for centuries and Islam I don't know. The U.S. did rebuild governments in Germany and Japan and look at the success there. You have to militarily force a government to be built to enact change and arrest and imprison those who work against the newly established government. World War I taught us that but the U.S. has stopped looking at history and just runs for cover when criminals(inmans) and legislators act like criminals and destroy freedom govern and turn them back into Islam governments. Women don't stand a chance unless the military forces the government to become free.

All I can say is --- we told you so
before the Iraq war started I could see problems for Christians and Missionaries as the Muslim conservatives were freed from the control of Saddam. Widows and women without enough men to marry, men are killed in such high numbers that it unbalances the society. The thousands of permanently maimed who will need health care the rest of their lives. The environmental damage and on and on. We don't consider the full cost before jumping into conflicts. We don't exhaust alternatives.
War is supposed to be the LAST resort for the Just War Theory - and no resort at all for those who take Jesus' command to love our enemies literally (it was in a passage that mentioned interactions with Romans - Matt 5 so it doesn't mean just personal enemies.) When will we return to the original teachings?? true, it might mean martyrdom - that's what the early christians chose instead of joining the military.

US-Neocon-Zionist interventionism in the Middle East has come at an utterly enormous cost to the local people. Google 'April Glaspie Saddam' to discover that the first US attack on Iraq was done under false pretences.
Then there was the exchange on CBS between [Bill Clinton’s inevitably Zionist Secretary of State] Madeleine Albright, who was then the US ambassador to the United Nations, and Lesley Stahl of CBS in a Sixty Minutes interview on 12 May 1996. Albright was maintaining that US-motivated sanctions had yielded important concessions from Saddam Hussein.

Stahl: "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And you know, is the price worth it?"

Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price.. ­ we think the price is worth it."

They read that exchange in the Middle East. It was infamous all over the Arab world.

Clinton bombed Iraq, killing husbands and fathers, to distract attention from his sordid Lewinsky scandal.

Then we have the Bush-Cheney-Wolfowitz-Neocon illegal, shocking and awful, 'Shock and Awe' attack of 2003-2015?, leading to the deaths of an estimated one million Iraqi's and a trillion dollars in costs to US taxpayers, terrible destruction and chaos. Evangelicals supported this crime on the basis of the faulty translation 'Blessed be the (oilistic) Warmakers' and the belief that GW Bush is/was a 'Christian', with no visible Christian presence in his cabinet, which was instead jam-packed with violently racist 'Jews-First' pro-zionists, supporting neo-Nazi type AshkeNazi ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Palestine for the sake of campaign-financing support. Iran is next.. What a smelly business!

Post a comment:





Verification (needed to reduce spam):

tags

May 2012
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31