This morning while listening to Morning Edition on NPR (a routine of mine) I listened to a great segment about women's involvement in the new Middle East.
Hillary Clinton argues in the segment that when women aren't at the table when big decisions, like drafting a new constitution in Egypt, are being made then the country is really turning their backs on haf the population. She added that this movement needs to be intertwined in the democratic movements in the Middle East.
This made me instantly consider a topic that was discussed way back in my high school U.S. History class--how do we go about making change? Do we do it in intervals so that the population has time to adjust, or do we go on radical campaigns while the timing is most opportune?
Would it have been such a terribly radical hardship on the American people if women were given the right to vote when black men were? As crazy as it may sound, what if the 13th, 15th, and 19th Amendments were actually written as just one amendment? You know, in a way that would explicitly state that when you are given equal rights under the law (being identified as a person under the law and not just 3/5 of one, or property of one) the right to vote was actually included in that very same law.
As I look at Egypt and the similar budding democracies in the region, and consequently reflect on our own struggle for independence over 200 years ago, I can't help but think that there's something important about radical change that comes with upheavals. Why can't the fight for democracy and fair government include women? I don't think it would throw the overall goal way off base to include all the people this time around.
Hillary Clinton argues in the segment that when women aren't at the table when big decisions, like drafting a new constitution in Egypt, are being made then the country is really turning their backs on haf the population. She added that this movement needs to be intertwined in the democratic movements in the Middle East.
This made me instantly consider a topic that was discussed way back in my high school U.S. History class--how do we go about making change? Do we do it in intervals so that the population has time to adjust, or do we go on radical campaigns while the timing is most opportune?
Would it have been such a terribly radical hardship on the American people if women were given the right to vote when black men were? As crazy as it may sound, what if the 13th, 15th, and 19th Amendments were actually written as just one amendment? You know, in a way that would explicitly state that when you are given equal rights under the law (being identified as a person under the law and not just 3/5 of one, or property of one) the right to vote was actually included in that very same law.
As I look at Egypt and the similar budding democracies in the region, and consequently reflect on our own struggle for independence over 200 years ago, I can't help but think that there's something important about radical change that comes with upheavals. Why can't the fight for democracy and fair government include women? I don't think it would throw the overall goal way off base to include all the people this time around.
No comments:
Post a Comment