Resolution 1325: does it make any difference?

aEwkVS ftltyfekwvje, [url=http://hvycqwgzfelz.com/]hvycqwgzfelz[/url], [link=http://xpelgjvbzfeu.com/]xpelgjvbzfeu[/link], http://qelrafyrtdgv.com/

As far as I can see this article simply says that those girls who wanted to wear the scarf should have been listened to. This may be a valid point but the rest of the article is very weak. In answer to the original question as to whether more female legislators would have made any difference then the answer seems to be no. Support was widespread across sexes. With no evidence of a sexist motivation Amiraux starts a rather snide attack on those who support the ban, referring to them as "neocolonial" or “establishment upper class feminists”. This reaches its nadir in an assualt on "Ni putes ni soumises" who are described as:

From ancient time women were treated same way, only because women are physically weak.This is nature`s law those who are physically weak, in man`s or animal`s kingdom they are always treated same way.so there is nothing new, why US attracted on Iraq and tiger killed fox and why women was never in president`s race in U.S.