« | »

Older Iraqi Women Can’t Find Husbands

From a tear-soaked Associated Press:

Female, single, over 30: Iraqis count cost of war

By Hamza Hendawi [sic], Associated Press Writer Mon Sep 6, 2010

BAGHDAD – …. The war has had any number of hidden costs for Iraqis. One that few outside Iraq might notice or even consider a significant problem: More women are finding themselves over 30 and single after seven years of bloody turmoil that made marriage more difficult, killing many young men and blowing apart social networks.

In Iraq’s conservative society, women are expected to be married in their teens or early 20s. Women who cross the 30-year threshold and are single face powerful social stigmas and live under heavy limitations.

Generally, they must continue living with their parents or other family. If they are not wealthy, educated or employed, they are often reduced by relatives to servitude — cleaning, washing, cooking and watching over small children.

Work opportunities are limited. At jobs or in public, unmarried women are sometimes seen as vulnerable, without the protection of a husband. Some almost never leave their houses…

Being female, single and over 30 was already common because of Iraq’s decades of conflict, including the bloody Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. But their number is believed to have significantly grown since 2003…

Also, suicide bombings, sectarian slayings, death squads and gunbattles disrupted social networks for marriage. People feared leaving their homes, so young people had little chance to meet potential spouses…

Maybe the Iraqis will eventually realize that teaching their young men (and women) to blow up themselves and others is not good for their society.

And a few more American women might have husbands, too.

Still, if the Iraqis haven’t learned after six hundred years of this insanity, they probably never will.

This article was posted by Steve on Monday, September 6th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

34 Responses to “Older Iraqi Women Can’t Find Husbands”

  1. platypus says:

    Well, maybe the troop pullout is a good thing because our soldiers will have to be replaced with private workers. The Iraqi females will be naturally attracted to the available American males and American males being what they are, well …

    So romance is in the air but it won’t be the clannish arranged romances of the past.

  2. U NO HOO says:

    How many soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan have come home with war brides?

  3. proreason says:

    well well

    Someone who proudly calls himself a doctor.

    So, “the Americans blew up and killed about a million people”.

    And what sir is your evidence for that? No need to respond with lunatic websites. The question is rhetorical. No evidence for the ludicrous assertion exists, other than the discreditted, made up evidence that was created in the UK around 2004.

    “no good reason” Another looney claim. As any “doctor” knows, the entire civilized world was in favor of the invasion. Sadaam was a far worse menace to his own people and to humanity than anyone on earth at the time.

    Today the Iraqis are whining because we are pulling out. They wish we would stay. Why is that, do you think? (again, rhetorical)

    You post is so ridiculous, I believe you probably are a phd. Nobody else, besides drooling basement dwellers dripping with anger at their own failures is so stupid.

    • Liberals Make Great Speedbumps says:

      I personally don’t know. Why don’t you ask Britain, France, Germany or Russia who also believed they existed? Maybe they can help you out troll.

    • Liberals Make Great Speedbumps says:

      Willy let me guess, you were part of Valerie Plames super, super secret cloak and dagger insertion force, right? Operation Vanity Fair perhaps?

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Therefore you know your “facts” from firsthand experience, then?

    • Liberals Make Great Speedbumps says:

      “Yes as a matter of fact I do have my facts from the inside, not through your low grade media filters.”

      Well that settles that then, I guess! What a friggin’ tool.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      I have traveled the world, my friend. Seen despotism first hand. Worked one-on-one with many a foreign national. I do get out, contrary to your insult. I have no “circle of sycophants” but have come to my conclusions independently. I squelched the alphabet media years ago after noting that when they talked about something I know about, they got it all wrong. I therefore concluded that they pay similar lack of diligence to all their “investigations”. They are there to entertain and the vast majority in their employ are about emotions rather than facts.

      Whenever I read anything, regardless of it’s alleged credibility I always consider the source. I have given you equal consideration in that regard. However, it comes to light that I think you’re full of it.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Why do you True Believers and Professional Leftists always have ties or birth-names to European Aristocracy and Occultist figures, Count St. Germain? And why is it especially you guys that like to parrot the secret Neo-kkkonspiracy narrative?

      Clearly you’re not the publisher of newscorp.com, a media company whose first advertisement when I went there was for their foremost Right-wing Fascist show, “Glee”

      Your fathead ego probably has you thinking that you’re both witty and effectively upsetting us wingnuts. We’re kinda just laughing at you for wasting your time to post here. No I’m not trying to impugn your right to free speech. Just saying that if you’re bored, I hear on HuffPoo that Farmville and a joint is a great time-waster.

    • Liberals Make Great Speedbumps says:

      Willy, you forgot to include homophobes in your description of the posters here. I’m starting to believe that you too spend a lot of time in small circles but there happens to be a lot of jerking going on in your circles.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      THERE IT IS! The “R” word. Gee, took all of 10 hours.

      When you’re ready to sit down and hear the real arguments against terrorists and the boy who sits in the president’s chair, then we’ll talk.

      By the way, loved the “you people” part. The reason for no dissenting opinions is that we subscribe to conservatism. We don’t like socialists and marxists and statists and the ruling class, be they republican or democrat. You really need to read here awhile and get exposed to the people and maybe give them the benefit of the doubt. And for the record, I’ve never seen anyone write “the N—- in the whitehouse” as you put it.

      I have read, arrogant, narcissist, selfish, insecure, stupid, socialist/marxist, angry, spoiled, childish, presumptuous, petulant, and many more but never the “N” word. I have found that the vast majority here would never use such a word.

      Your classifying all of us into “you people” …isn’t that what certain whites used to do to blacks?

      heh heh….”you people”……heh heh heh.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      And one more thing:

      “You need to be shaken up”.

      Is that why you’re here? To “shake us up”? Is that what we need? So you’re here to agitate, to annoy, to “stir the pot”?

      Seems to me you’re the one being shaken up.

    • Dupree says:

      I, for one, am thoroughly enjoying watching the regulars here utterly dominate the new troll. Trolls seem to be rarer on this site. Now I see why!

    • untrainable says:

      Dupree, think about it like this. Conservatives (regulars here) are like cats. Liberals (trolls) are like cows.
      Herding cows is only a matter of giving one of them a direction to go in, the rest then follow in lock step right up until the bolt gun readies them to become hamburger. Even after seeing the cow in front of them get bolted!

      Ever try to herd cats? If all the cats are doing the same thing, it certainly isn’t because someone told them to. It’s because they figured out on their own that mice are tasty.

    • confucius says:

      Posting replies gone wonky. See below.

    • confucius says:

      Will St. Germain,

      Perhaps you missed this 2005 Washington Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html

    • mr_bill says:

      Earlier today, I ordered Americas armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraqs nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ; Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. ; Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biologicalweapons. ; I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish. ; Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraqs capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. ; The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago atthe end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire. ; The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is onebig difference He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy,but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. ; The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again….
      -Billy J. Clinton


      Seems BJ Clinton was pretty sure of the threat at the time and the continued existence of the threat of Saddam’s WMDs. Liberals used to loooooove to talk about Gulf War Syndrome being a result of Saddam’s chemical weapons, but since the talking points went out about no WMDs in Iraq, the libs can’t talk about it anymore.

      I’m sure Clinton was just being used as a tool of the Booooooshitler conspiracy to go back to Iraq and steal their oil for the Bilderberg group, Illuminati, Freemasons Guild, and the Tri-Lateral commission, right? If Bush was such an idiot, yet he managed to fool everyone about Saddam’s WMDs, what does that say? Either they actually were there and were moved (likely to Syria), or Boooooosh is the smartest guy in the world to pull off such a huge con.

      My personal opinion is that Iraq was about more than deposing a despotic, genocidal maniac and making sure he no longer had the capability to murder thousands (see Iraq mass graves). It was about creating a new pro-Western, pro-democratic sphere of influence in the Middle-East. Like Iran used to be before Jimmuh Carter was present, yes I meant “present” not “President.”

  4. mr_bill says:

    Those husband-less women could always find a nice harem to join. islam is polygamy-friendly.

  5. beautyofreason says:

    If the law allows up to four wives then the demographics can’t be that grim.

    Of course, some women might have the pesky problem of wanting to be considered human equals, not a trade-up on a first, second, or third spouse.

  6. proreason says:

    Search for wpm? You mean, one of the dozens of reasons to remove the most dangerous dictator on the planet; the guy who was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his own citizens every year; the guy with 17 (or was it 23) UN sanctions against him; the guy that every intellignece agency on the planet said had wmd; the guy from the country that the US Congress approved an invasion for – overwhelmingly; the guy John Kerry agreed was the most dangerous person on the planet.

    How short some memories are.

    But wait a minute, you mean NUCLEAR weapons, don’t you doc?

    Well how would Sadaam have nuclear weapons if he didn’t have nuclear facilities?. Of course there wouldn’t have been any nuclear weapons.

    Something like 50 metric tons of degraded bio and chemical weapons were found. There’s no argument about that, and there is no argument that bio and chemical weapons are wmd. Except, of course, from people who wish he could have dropped some on Israel.

    And what was the count of nuclear scientsts that we captured. Was it 53? You probably know the exact number, doc.

    But you would have prefered that he got nukes, wouldn’t you?

    So you are certainly THRILLED about Iran. That’s your kind of country.

  7. Rusty Shackleford says:

    Will, please tell us where to check our facts. I really am interested.


  8. Well I wouldn’t count John Kerry as my best source for anything. ‘

    I can’t explain to you how to interpret your world, that;’s up to you.

  9. Rusty Shackleford says:

    Respectfully, I didn’t ask for interpretation. I just want to know what you consider good sources.

    Pro mentioned Kerry, not using him as a legitimate source but to provide support for his argument that even the most left of the democrats supported the war in Iraq.

    But again, for evidence or lack thereof of WMD, etc, what do you consider good, reliable sources?

  10. Rusty Shackleford says:

    “If I were to name source “X” you will immediately accuse source “X” of Liberal bias, anti-american bias etc.”

    So, then you agree that the sites you use for reference are left-wing biased. OK, good. Now we’re getting somewhere.

    “So we should just stick to the facts. “

    Agreed. But then, I might need to know where you get your “facts” if I am to debate them. You conveniently skirt and obfuscate with ad-hominem arguments. You want debate? Fine, but cite your sources and then we can get down to business. Otherwise, the cowardly approach based on simple overemotional arguments goes nowhere. By simply implying “Accept my words as fact” gets us nowhere as well.

    “You think the party sets the agenda? You think the President does? “

    I’m wide awake, actually. I have had to deal with bureaucracy for decades. Hate it. But, let me ask you this, who does set the agenda?

    Inasmuch as you can predict the future and what I’m thinking, see if you can guess what I’m thinking now.

    “It was Oil and Saddam wanting to sell it for Euros not dollars.”

    So, Saddam Hussein did none of those “other” things? And I’m acutely aware that he got in place due to maneuvering by Reagan. He then went “off the reservation” and started doing things that were “unexpected”. Though not by me. And they found millions of DOLLARS in Hussein’s secret hiding place, not Euros. He did transport some Euros but he knew US dollars were the universal currency


    “Clinton bombed Iraq almost daily for 8 years….”

    Clinton bombed Iraq for four days in December of 1998. Was there more? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_%28December_1998%29

    “The Neo-con line has been proven to be a load of crap, yet I see people at this site still spouting it.”

    Please, truly. “Stick to the facts” and let us know what you have that refutes all this? Indeed, the subject must have been clearly debated so there must be ample proof.

    So you think that the US went into Iraq, why? Oil? And I’m fully prepared for more of your left-biased opinion. You’re free to express it, of course, no matter how wrong it might be.

    “…whatever silly reasons you’ve been fed by your corporate parrots, again please wake up.”

    Ad hominem

    “That is rather sad and pathetic.”

    Ad hominem–

    “Call me when you wake up. “

    Thanks for telling me to wake up. I would reciprocate by telling you to go back to sleep. You seem to think that the conservative right is a war-mongering crowd. But nobody knows the ugliness of war more than a veteran. Your military experience is what?

    Have a nice rest of the day.

  11. confucius says:

    Nicely done, Rusty.

  12. untrainable says:

    It is amusing that you “proudly call yourself a doctor”. First of all, what does that have to do with anything? Doctor of what exactly? Are we supposed to humble ourselves to your vast knowledge of everything doctorish? Is your assertion that you are a doctor, or just that you proudly call yourself one. I can call myself an astronaut. That doesn’t mean I’m more well informed about the subject at hand than anyone who isn’t an astronaut. It also doesn’t mean they’re going to put me on the next space capable vehicle that goes into orbit. Using that assertion as the opening remark shows only that you think very highly of yourself.

    You insist that we should check the facts, and yet when someone wants to debate your OPINION by checking your facts, you avoid answering the simple request to back up YOUR facts.

    Here’s one I’ll dispute… “Clinton bombed Iraq almost daily for 8 years”. Really? So he bombed Iraq from the first day of his presidency until he was ousted from office? Every day? ALMOST EVERY DAY? Really? Well sir, I defer to your obvious superiority and knowledge of Clinton’s covert operations. That particular secret has been kept from the entire world to this day. Wow. No wonder they hate us.

    Get off your elitist horse, do your homework, and by that I don’t mean to read yet another blog on the Huffington Post or MSNBC. Stop talking down to people and listen once in a while. Doctor, heal thyself.

    On to the subject of this article. If that group of Iraqi women pictured above is a good sampling of the single women who can’t find husbands… maybe the war isn’t the only reason they’re single. Sheesh!

  13. hushpuppy says:

    Just from looking at those pictures I can understand why the need for burkas.

    • hushpuppy says:

      Ah! The old switcheroo – one can always tell a left lunatic in one’s midst when they don’t address the topic at hand but give you the ‘well, what about…’ line.

      And they also believe the worst about Americans, particularly anyone in the military. So I’m supposed to believe everything about that fellow just because it’s printed in the mainstream media? And all without a trial and verdict? please…

      American News media is regarded as a joke anywhere else in the world.

      Exactly. That’s why I get my news from a number of sources, including Fox News (fair and balanced – an unfamiliar concept for you I realize) but certainly not from the alphabet media.

      making crass comments about muslim maniacs
      So what? They are maniacs and take their marching order from that roll of toilet paper known as the koran.

      and that N__ in the whitehouse
      Can you give me the quote by providing an URL?

      softcare racists
      To be a racist, one must use sentences such as: All (racial group) are (descriptive, preferably negative). I haven’t seen that here anywhere, by anyone. Hope you can supply half a dozen at least quotes with URLs. This should be really easy for you.

      He that alleges a thing must therefore also prove it
      Should be a piece of cake for you. Oh! Is ‘cake’ racist? I guess I can’t say chocolate cake. Or vanilla cake. Or lemon cake because humans come in those three colors. How about angel food cake. Nope. No good. No-one knows what angels eat….

      And one last thing: saying that muslims are illogical, violent, satan-worshipping asshats is NOT a racist comment.

      Muslim is not a race.

  14. proreason says:

    The facts are that the invasion of Iraq had overwhelming support, including Democrats in Congress.

    Once the Democrats saw a political opening they could exploit, they attempted to revise history. It used to be that politicians didn’t exploit wars to further their personal power, but the fringe left has taken over the Democrat party and they are completely immoral.

    But you can’t revise documented facts.

    And sad for you doc, you also can’t revise the fact that we won the war, and thanks to Bush, we have now succeeded at the even more difficult task of transitioning the country to it’s own leadership.

    All of that gnaws at leftists, but it’s all indisputably true. Anything that demonstrates that you guys are liars and raving maniacs gnaws at you. So be it.

    And of course, it is also universally known that Sadaam had and used weapons of mass destruction on his own people and during the Iraq Iran wars, and that tons of chemical and biological materials were found in the country after the invasion. The Bush administration didn’t push the point because the looney left would just have screamed nuclear even louder.

    In addition, the invasion was based on many more reasons than wmd. A child can look at a map and see that Iraq is strategically located in the Middle East, and has easy proximity to Israel. Sadaam was pure evil, even when he wasn’t using his wmd against his own people. Iraq had caused two destructive wars already. Iraq had secular and at least partially free governments prior to Sadaam. Iraq had defied the sanctions against it for years. It was an ever-present threat against its neighbors and regional stability. It was using its oil resources to corrupt other countries, and was supporting terrorist organizations. The opportunity to establish a non-theocracy, non-dictatorship in the region was also part of the plan, and so far is working out better than anyone could have anticipated. Because of the invasion, Libya gave up its own wmd program, and the nuclear proliferation from Pakistan was shut down. Anybody who pays any attention at all to world affairs knows all of this.

    The invasion was well justified, and was an enormous success. The future is hard to predict, but not the past. All of the objectives of the invasion have been met.

    So make up whatever fantasies you want, doc, but nobody here is going to believe your lies. We don’t listen to NY Slimes propaganda.

  15. hushpuppy says:

    Well said, Rusty.

    The problem with those on the lunatic left is that no-one can ever have a logical discussion with them: they rely on a few talking points and degenerate into ad hominems and circuitous arguments. They also have their pet phrases like ‘gas guzzling SUVs’ and ‘NeoCons’.

    Speaking of which I have asked in other forums what a NeoCon is and no-one’s been able to come up with the same definition twice. I guess it means what they need it to mean at that moment. (shrug) Trying to have a discussion with people like that and get any kind of logical response is like trying to nail jello to a wall with a toothpick.

    So even though everyone has given the troll reason, logic and studied response, it will never be enough. His mind is closed and he should be pitied more than anything – sorta like the kind of pity you give to Keith Olberman because you know he’s not well….

  16. Dupree says:

    Much love for Rusty!

  17. Liberals Make Great Speedbumps says:

    Oh darn, I missed Willys now deleted witty retort(s). I can only hope that some of his imperious ire was directed at me personally.

    EDIT: What the heck is going on with the posting here?

« Front Page | To Top
« | »