Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

CousinIT

(9,245 posts)
Sat Jan 6, 2018, 05:26 AM Jan 2018

Trump: Half the world's population (women) do not matter to international security

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/01/04/do-women-matter-to-international-security-trump-just-changed-the-u-s-governments-answer-to-that-question/

Does the status of women elsewhere in the world matter to U.S. national security? On Dec. 19, President Trump released his answer in the latest National Security Strategy (NSS), one of his first opportunities to outline what an “America First” foreign policy will look like.

While there are several notable changes from those released by previous administrations, one of the most striking is the sharp turn away from recent policies — backed by a significant amount of research — that treat the well-being of women around the globe as critical to peace and prosperity.

A short history of the U.S. government’s position on women, peace and security

President Ronald Reagan released the first NSS in 1987, mentioning women only in passing as members of the U.S. military. But in 1994, President Bill Clinton’s NSS began referring to women’s status as critical to global stability, for the first time. The Clinton administration took the position that advancing American interests and ideals depends on integrating women’s and girls’ concerns into the foreign policy agenda. This point of view was both a product and a driver of the times. Hillary Clinton’s proclamation at the 1995 Beijing Conference on Women that “women’s rights are human rights” helped bring gender into the mainstream security and foreign policy discussion — but it wasn’t the first time that the administration had advanced that notion.

Bill Clinton’s first NSS emphasized family planning, reproductive health care, maternal and child health, education and improvements in the status of women, arguing that giving women control over their bodies and future would result in more stable countries and contribute to global security. And it declared that multilateral conferences and institutions were critical in reaching these goals.

President George W. Bush dropped the focus on women’s issues as part of national security. In 2006, Bush’s NSS stated simply, “No nation can be free if half its population is oppressed and denied fundamental rights. We affirm the inherent dignity and worth of women, and support vigorously their full participation in all aspects of society.” While the president kept the Office of Women’s Issues and then-first lady Laura Bush launched a women’s rights campaign in Afghanistan after the U.S. invasion, the effort to incorporate women into the national security architecture stalled.


7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Trump: Half the world's population (women) do not matter to international security (Original Post) CousinIT Jan 2018 OP
There is overwhelming evidence that peace and stability strongly Hortensis Jan 2018 #1
Gender Equality modrepub Jan 2018 #5
Far too many men think women don't count. PoindexterOglethorpe Jan 2018 #2
+++++++ n/t ariadne0614 Jan 2018 #3
Brilliant! B Stieg Jan 2018 #4
This is how 45 and his minions see the world AllyCat Jan 2018 #6
Trump and his GOP enablers Progressive dog Jan 2018 #7

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
1. There is overwhelming evidence that peace and stability strongly
Sat Jan 6, 2018, 05:53 AM
Jan 2018

positively correlate with women's empowerment and involvement in decision making. Gender equality results in greater general prosperity and health, and less war.

Trump correlates 100% with just plain being wrong about everything. And the knuckledraggers nudging him into this position on something he cares nothing about and knows less are nearly as bad.

modrepub

(3,495 posts)
5. Gender Equality
Sat Jan 6, 2018, 07:55 AM
Jan 2018

Long time ago one of my profs in college made this point: In countries where women are given equal rights the birth rate drops. Given a choice, women will choose their own way to happiness, which doesn't always translate to having lots of kids. Based on the last string of Presidents, I'd say one party seems to have significant problems allowing women to choose what they want to do with their lives.

PoindexterOglethorpe

(25,858 posts)
2. Far too many men think women don't count.
Sat Jan 6, 2018, 06:23 AM
Jan 2018

We keep on hearing about men who think women shouldn't have the right to vote.

My answer is to take away the right to vote from men for as long as women didn't have it (1789-1920). 131 years. They can resume voting in 2149 or so.

And while we're at it, let every single new appointment to the Supreme Court be a woman, and then have only women on the SC for as long as there were only men. We can consider nominating men to the court in around somewhere after 2209.

Progressive dog

(6,904 posts)
7. Trump and his GOP enablers
Sat Jan 6, 2018, 10:03 AM
Jan 2018

are moving away from democracy and equal rights towards his vision of American greatness.
A white nationalist psychopath is a misogynist.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Trump: Half the world's p...