Hats off to Hillary Clinton. Her intelligence, poise and
charisma took center stage at the Fourth World Conference on Women.
It took a lot for Ms. Clinton to even get to Beijing. Personal complaints about her as a woman, wife and mother spread to all American women who stood excitedly behind the efforts taking place at the United Nations conference. It amazes me, and yet it doesn't, that many Americans remain so fearful of women seeking to better the quality of life for their gender.
Harry Wu became the first smokescreen to mask the paranoia
felt by many people, of women seizing too much power. Ms. Clinton
was told in no uncertain terms that it would not be proper for the
first lady to go to China to attend a conference on women, when the
host country so blatantly violates HUMAN rights. Sure, go ahead and
use Hillary as a symbol of our distaste of China's politics, when
as a nation we continue to negotiate and interact with them on
every other level. If we're against China's repressive government,
then we should stop buying their products. But there were those who
felt Ms. Clinton, as the president's wife, should be the public
expression of outrage at the expense of her being able to lend her
powerful presence to a global event for the betterment of women.
The idea of taking a stand for HUMAN rights before Woman rights is an old obstacle. It has historically been a pattern for American women to fight men's battles first. Nineteenth century feminists contributed considerable effort in the abolitionist movement. One woman, Harriet Beecher Stowe, opened the eyes of thousands of Americans to the immorality of owning human beings in her novel, "Uncle Tom's Cabin." Women were also instrumental in gaining the vote for African-American men long before they were able to secure that right for themselves.
That China decided to release Mr. Wu prior to the start of the WCW saved Ms. Clinton from having to contend with self-righteous critics, for I truly believe she would have gone to Beijing anyway. Then she neatly took aim at all countries with oppressive governments and put the focus back on the issue at hand, by asserting that "human rights are women's rights."
With the Wu issue out of the way, conservatives began calling members of America's delegation to the conference leftist and anti- family. Of highest suspect were members of the NGO (non governmental organizations), the activists who were sent thirty miles away to a parallel forum in Huairou. Although tiresome tactics, the words radical, leftist, and anti-family still stir fear in many people. Those words have been thrown at women for hundreds of years as they try to seek quality of life through equality. As soon as they walk out the door to seek a piece of personal and political power they are accused of being anti-family. How can women who are seeking an end to violence against their gender, economic and political security for themselves and their children be anti-family? What does being "anti-family" really mean?
Senate Majority leader Bob Dole, an announced presidential
candidate, publicly denounced the United Nations Conference as
"misguided" and "a genuine waste of taxpayer's money." Why is
taxpayers money wasted when it is spent for the goal of empowering
more than half of our nation's population? Dole also did some
pretty heavy handed name calling to former U.S. Rep. Bella Abzug.
Abzug, by the way, received a United Nations award for activism in
women's rights and war and violence.
Hillary Rodham Clinton went anyway, with her head held high and a fire for the cause of women in her heart. She also had the collective spirit of many American women with her. Once she effectively dealt with the issue of human rights, she clarified the focus of this decades' conference. And that is for women to be able to move beyond the issues of abortion, sexuality and reproduction, which were already agreed to by overwhelming consensus at last year's U.N. Conference on Population in Cairo, to the next phase of empowerment. That phase is economic power. Before Ms. Clinton arrived, the conference appeared to be bogged down in old debate. The Vatican was pulling for more mention of the role of women as wives and mothers. Islamic nations continue to be fearful that if women have access to education, they will choose to live adulterous lives. The Christian right was still fighting over whether women should have the choice for safe and legal abortion.
The suffering of women world-wide will not end until women can enter the world economically, educationally, and with political equality. These are the issues that should be at the heart of this conference, and are the issues Ms. Clinton so boldly put forth. As an American woman, I was proud to have Hillary Clinton represent our nation in this global conference. And, I was encouraged to see that her love for women, children, and family was strong enough to persevere over overt attempts to have her cower at home under the guise of being a 'good' wife and mother.
