Gay Patriot Header Image

Interesting Fact About Iraqi Parliament

Did you know….

Women comprise 25% of the Iraqi Parliament, which is the highest proportion in the Arab world and one of the largest percentages worldwide.

I bet you didn’t!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)



  1. No, we did. Every news item on the Iraqi elections seemed to mention the fact that the U.S. placed an affirmative action requirement for women within the election process.

    Comment by Matt — September 6, 2006 @ 7:32 am - September 6, 2006

  2. Funny, Matt –I didn’t know it was that high.

    Funny also how you almost begrudge the fact the liberal MSM has reported that… or is it that you’re mad the American govt had foresight to press for equality for women in this arab country trying to put on the robes of Democracy?

    Either way, your comments sound like sour grapes.

    Me, I’m happy at least one modern Arab country has women in its legislature. Hell, that Iraqi number is higher than our US Congress… even if you count Sen Stabenow five times –as her size would merit.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 6, 2006 @ 9:44 am - September 6, 2006

  3. #1 sounds like the kind of man who, when the Japanese had drafted their 1947 constitution, would have not given women the vote. Typical liberal hypocrite…

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — September 6, 2006 @ 3:08 pm - September 6, 2006

  4. Re: Iraq, this is enjoyable and well worth reading:

    It’s the White House’s reply to Harry Reid’s letter of a few days ago, attacking America’s Iraq policy. It may serve as a usual summary of our Iraq policy and the current “state of the game”.

    Comment by Calarato — September 6, 2006 @ 4:08 pm - September 6, 2006

  5. Sorry, “useful summary”… not “usual”! 🙂 (flying-fingers syndrome)

    Comment by Calarato — September 6, 2006 @ 4:10 pm - September 6, 2006

  6. And it also shows that Harry Reid is a typical lying Democrat, who demands an immediate withdrawal based on a fixed timetable with no reference whatsoever to realities on the ground.

    My favorite line, though, is where Bolten points out subtly that Reid’s demand that the US engage in “counterterrorism activities” is at odds with the claims of Reid and congressional Demopuppets that Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 6, 2006 @ 4:22 pm - September 6, 2006

  7. And what’s the precentage of women in the US House and Senate? Anyone, anyone? if we put the same affirmative action requirements in our process, then you bet conservatives would be screaming about quotas.

    Comment by Kevin — September 6, 2006 @ 4:44 pm - September 6, 2006

  8. Kevin, what a funny comment! ALL of the implications to be drawn work against your politics.

    First: Yes, Iraq has more female Federal legislators than the U.S. Obvious conclusion to be drawn: the new Iraq is good, especially viewed from a feminist or left-liberal standpoint. If al Qaeda in Iraq are allowed to win – say, oh, if the U.S. cuts and runs – the percentage of female legislators will go to 0%.

    Second: the new Iraqi Constitution truly is a creation of the Iraqi people, and no mere Bushco puppet… because the quota (if any) for female legislators, and many other provisions beside, sure as hell were NOT written by the Bush Administration.

    LOL 🙂

    Comment by Calarato — September 6, 2006 @ 5:49 pm - September 6, 2006

  9. (or alternatively: If a quota was established or insisted on by the Bush Administration… then the Bush Administration can’t be all bad, now can it? 😉 )

    Comment by Calarato — September 6, 2006 @ 5:56 pm - September 6, 2006

  10. Well, I must admit I never thought this posting would result in liberals running AWAY from their quotas!

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — September 6, 2006 @ 8:40 pm - September 6, 2006

  11. It would be perhaps more meaningful if they were legislators elected through voter enlightenment and legislative-merit, rather than via statutory set-asides and quotas. But they are there, and perhaps in the long-run if will make some difference….although so far I don’t see much “protection” of women’s rights being enforced or enacted…espacially since many of the women legislators are apparently supporting the oppressive policies of their respective political parties. It’s happening now in Afghanistan and Shi’ite Iraq.

    If the symbol of Iraqi sufferage is a pale hand extending from an all-encompassing burka supporting a legistaion closing schools dedicated to young girls’ and women’s education….where’s the victory?

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — September 6, 2006 @ 9:13 pm - September 6, 2006

  12. Screw a queer: VOTE SANTORUM!!!!

    Comment by sean — September 6, 2006 @ 10:28 pm - September 6, 2006

  13. #1. Matt, who knew that one could divine so much from so few words in your comment? Sour grapes, misogynist, etc. It seemed to me that you were simply stating that this was news in the MSM, which good Americans don’t really read or watch because the MSM hates freedom. So thanks for letting us know that it was in the MSM.

    I’m checking Ms. magazine now.

    Comment by sean — September 6, 2006 @ 10:31 pm - September 6, 2006

  14. #5. I’m with Freud on this one–there are no mistakes. “Usual” sounds about right.

    Comment by sean — September 6, 2006 @ 10:32 pm - September 6, 2006

  15. Might as well give Iraq a better constitution than we have. we seem to be using ours less and less.

    8: I seriouly doubt any constituion was put together solely by the people of a country while battles were still raging and a foriegn army (friendly or not) occupied their soil.

    So, if you think these affirmative action quotas in the Iraqi constitution are so great, when will be implrmenting them here?

    Comment by Kevin — September 6, 2006 @ 11:25 pm - September 6, 2006

  16. All I want to know from our friends on the Left is, is the percentage of women in the Iraqi Parliament good or bad?

    Comment by BoBo — September 6, 2006 @ 11:43 pm - September 6, 2006

  17. I did know that. It’s a requirement in the law.

    I think it was on the Iraq the Model blog, I read an account of a radio call in show in Iraq or Saudi and a Saudi woman called in and said how she disagreed with having women in government (or even voting, if I recall correctly) and an Iraqi male replied (I can’t remember if it was just someone who heard about this or if it was someone who called the radio show) that Iraqi women were obviously much smarter than Saudi women who couldn’t be trusted to decide on the colors for their servant’s costumes. It was funny because it seemed so typically human… sort of like Minnesotans ragging on Iowa. It didn’t require that the man defending Iraqi women was any less a chauvinist, just that he was saying that *his* country, including the women, were obviously much better than Saudi.

    During the one bit of Iraqi parliament I saw video of a woman member made a suggestion that was completely ignored by everyone until a man made the same suggestion. Typical. Frustrating. But everyone knew she’d said it first.

    There’s a long way to go, obviously, but it’s not as though Iraq (and Iran too, for that matter) doesn’t have a good number of women professionals, doctors and scientists. It’s not that big of a stretch to have some of them serve in government. And even if a 25% quota was our idea, the Iraqi’s did agree to it. It may have been part of one of the national votes.

    Comment by Synova — September 7, 2006 @ 12:29 am - September 7, 2006

  18. And earlier this year women in Kuwait got the vote.

    Comment by Synova — September 7, 2006 @ 12:31 am - September 7, 2006

  19. #16 BoBo — September 6, 2006 @ 11:43 pm – September 6, 2006

    All I want to know from our friends on the Left is, is the percentage of women in the Iraqi Parliament good or bad?

    I can’t speak for your friends on the Left, but, as far as I’m concerned the percentage of women in the Iraqi Parliament is pretty much irrelevant.

    Just as irrelevant as the fact–reported a couple of days ago by NDXXX–that Kuwait just elected its first woman to parliament. (A mere fifteen years after the US and others delivered the Kuwait fiefdom back to Kuwait, Inc., the royal family headquartered in London.)

    Why pretty much irrelevant? Because there have been women who, not ownly had been elected to parliament in the region, but who had been also elected to head of government in the region. I’ll merely point out Benazir Bhutto, head of government in Pakistan–before the government was overthrown by the military, which eventually brought the US ally Musharaff to power. And Indira Ghandi–no relation to Mahatma, but who was a relation to Nehru–who was assassinated.

    And don’t forget Golda Meir.

    Comment by raj — September 7, 2006 @ 1:01 am - September 7, 2006

  20. Well, all, we should tune our minds and incline our ears toward the raj/Ian/blah… because when the sockpuppet speaks about “irrelevant” it’s speaking as an expert on uttering irrelevancies.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 7, 2006 @ 8:51 am - September 7, 2006

  21. I wish there were 65 Rick Santorums in the Senate.

    Comment by V the K — September 7, 2006 @ 9:22 am - September 7, 2006

  22. Umm, you are going to be so busted by sean-of-the-lower-case-clan. 65 evil Santorums. sean is going to be so mad at you VdaK.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 7, 2006 @ 4:56 pm - September 7, 2006

  23. I only said it to make him foam at the mouth. I wouldn’t really want 65 Rick Santorums in the Senate.

    I’d actually want 66 for a veto proof majority.

    And 33 John Kyl’s (whom I regard as my real senator since neither the dingbat nor the socialist coot Maryland currently sends to the senate actually represent me).

    And 1 Ted Kennedy. Just for the laughs.

    Comment by V the K — September 7, 2006 @ 6:16 pm - September 7, 2006

  24. with the government holed up in the fortress known as the green zone, it really doesn’t matter the percentage of female/male. what really matters is the fragility of the iraqi government and the increasing likelihood of its ultimate failure.

    Comment by rightiswrong — September 7, 2006 @ 9:17 pm - September 7, 2006

  25. #24 And this is why we don’t listen to you or anyone else who spouts the same silly defeatist mantra.

    If the concept of success has never been a possibility what logical reason can anyone have to pay any attention to claims that something has changed? Huh? None. How can the chance of ultimate failure be *increasing* when ultimate failure has been planned for from the very beginning? It’s nothing but silly idiocy. The failure has been planned for, expected, and predicted from DAY ONE. Evidence would thus suggest that the prediction of “ultimate failure” is entirely disconnected from any actual situation or events.

    So what to do with a fagile new government in these critical years? One side says support them. The other side says pull out and let them decend into hell.

    If you were pointing out fragility in an effort to promote solutions and support and eventual victory it would be different. Chaos and set-back and internal strife are, at the very LEAST what can be logically and rationally expected as the kinks are worked out, even major kinks, and people get used to the idea of democratic participation.

    Sometimes the important things that must be done are hard and unsure and take sustained and repeated effort.

    Iraq is vital in so very many ways. And even if it were not, the people deserve better than to be abandoned by those who have been preaching defeat from day one.

    Comment by Synova — September 8, 2006 @ 12:04 am - September 8, 2006

  26. #19 RajIan you sexist, racist, insensitive, phallocentric bitch!!! Your hateful attack against women only underlines your facist attitudes against all opressed minorities. How long must we endure your Germanic ethnocentric hate speech? And all of this comes from a so called “gay man”. Your post proves beyond any doubt that either you’re a lying troll or a truly self-hating traitor to gays and other heroically struggling groups everywhere!!!!!!

    Comment by BoBo — September 8, 2006 @ 1:18 am - September 8, 2006

  27. #26 BoBo — September 8, 2006 @ 1:18 am – September 8, 2006

    This is a joke, right? Apparently you are too dense to understand that the point that I was making in #19 was that women elected, not only to parliament, but also to heads of government, in countries of the region was not unusual and that it had been going on for decades.

    The problems in the cases that I cited (Pakistan and India) were, that after the women had been elected to heads of government, sometimes they were deposed (Bhutto) or assassinated (Ghandi). That is a matter of public record.

    Now, BoBo, be a good lil bear and go back to fetching picnic baskets in Jellystone Park.

    Comment by raj — September 8, 2006 @ 2:11 am - September 8, 2006

  28. #20 Michigan-Matt — September 7, 2006 @ 8:51 am – September 7, 2006

    This from the fellow who, only a few months ago, hillariously maintained that FDR had exacerbated the damage at Pearl Harbor by intentionally refusing to inform the commanders there of the approaching Japanese fleet.

    Matty, if you don’t have something substantive to say, why do you bother saying anything?

    Comment by raj — September 8, 2006 @ 2:11 am - September 8, 2006

  29. raj, there’s still time for you to atone… ’til then, I’m sorry but you aren’t worthy of debate. Come on, even the kneelers are padded for you. Stay focused, get serious. You can do it.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 8, 2006 @ 8:51 am - September 8, 2006

  30. #25: sorry, but when we were “sold” on the war that we’d be greeted as liberators with flowers thrown at our soldiers, we were led to believe we could make a difference over there. yep, we’ve made a difference all right…the place has descended into utter chaos. electricity, sewer usage, and potable water supplies aren’t even at pre=war levels. we rushed into this immoral war without a plan to have peace or any kind of exit strategy. iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror until we went in and made it so.

    our on-going occupation will continue the country’s descent into hell. we must leave. NOW.

    Comment by rightiswrong — September 8, 2006 @ 9:31 am - September 8, 2006

  31. Dear Wrong, a question for you. Have you ever been in a bar where patrons turn on someone and start a fight –maybe over something said, maybe over a taunt, maybe over past irritations? Have you ever been there when it turns on a fellow gay person?

    Probably not. Gay guys have a sixth sense about staying out of harm’s way… when sober. But when it happens, guess what? You’d be one of the first gay guys out the door if possible or quickly looking for someone to back you up or– better yet– take over the fight you might have started.

    I hope if that ever happens to you, someone doesn’t play “cut & run” like you’d like America to play with Iraq. It’s almost impossible to debate someone like you because you have no sense of honor –personal or patriotic. “Cut and run” is just an elegant evasion for using the right term: coward. Cut and Run never works, Mr Wrong. It emboldens your adversary.

    But from our own country’s history, we’d likely still be sipping tea at 4PM under Brit rule if the French had decided to “cut & run” in the latter part of our War for Independence –like you’d like to do in Iraq. When France entered our war to help us win independence in 1778, they stuck around until late 1783 to see the last of the Loyalists sail out of NYC for British Canada. The French death toll? 3,498 soldiers and sailors… plus an unknown number of sailors killed at sea while under attack by British ships –naval and privateer.

    You write: “we must leave. NOW.” Cowards never make good leaders, Mr Wrong. Remember that truism if you ever need help someday. It’s also why your party will lose in November… in a series of races everyone said you should easily win.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 8, 2006 @ 11:07 am - September 8, 2006

  32. I would love to know where leftiswrong got his/her (mis)information. I would bet it would be the DNC talking points posted on one of those OTHER sites that they frequent.

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — September 8, 2006 @ 12:53 pm - September 8, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.