Women's Rights in Afghanistan
- Thread starter K-man
- Start date
Aye, I nearly linked that article in myself, K-Man. A very sad state of affairs indeed.
Maybe whilst the coalition still has enough force on the ground we should offer the chance to all Afghani women to leave that blighted country and go to places where their gender is treated more on a par with the men-folk? See how well things go for the religious fundamentalists then!
Maybe whilst the coalition still has enough force on the ground we should offer the chance to all Afghani women to leave that blighted country and go to places where their gender is treated more on a par with the men-folk? See how well things go for the religious fundamentalists then!
OP
- Thread Starter
- #3
Maybe if they're into home schooling they could go to the US. <sick joke> :asian:
Last edited:
Well, whilst I do agree that trying to overturn a culturally entrenched 'tradition' is not an overnight task and that, for many things, it is presumptuous of 'us' to think that 'they' are in the wrong because they don't do things the way we do, there are some things that should not be borne.
Doing something about such things is going to be like turning a supertanker with a rowing boat but that does not mean that efforts should not be made. In the end tho', meaningful change has to come from the inside, for it is really 'peer pressure' in it's many forms that enforces behaviours (both good and bad).
Doing something about such things is going to be like turning a supertanker with a rowing boat but that does not mean that efforts should not be made. In the end tho', meaningful change has to come from the inside, for it is really 'peer pressure' in it's many forms that enforces behaviours (both good and bad).
OP
- Thread Starter
- #6
When you have people saying that if you agree to rights for women you cannot be following Islam I feel you might not even have the row boat. I don't even know where you would begin to try to introduce change. Even if you use the traditional Western rationale of 'education', Islamic teaching tells the males they have the right to do what they chose to women and 90% of the women don't have access to education.
lol
I realize you are being sarcastic but it's a good point to leg off of. I don't believe there are things that must simply be tolerated. The treatment of women under sharia is equivalent to hate crimes in my mind. If it weren't for the worlds dependence on oil producing Muslim nations, I suspect the UN and various other world organizations would be far more aggressive than the current passive state of affairs. I fear that the treatment of women in these countries is being purchased wholesale along with the oil commodity.
It doesn't hurt that the muslim mean who believe this are also anti-western, in Particular, they hate the United States, so that makes them sympathetic to the very media types who would be hitting this story a lot harder if say, they were christian men doing this to women...
Hm. My mom said some psychology big wig said much of the woes we have in the world stems from a deep seated hatred of women. And such articles make me want to believe it.
But don't kid yourself, the West is every bit as patriachial as the Middle East. well meaning development projects have wreaked havoc on local infrastructure and the social fabrics when groups came in to 'teach' a village men to farm, neglecting that the women were the traditional farmers. The good fields were then taken over by the men, playing with tractors, leaving the women with the bad fields and hoes to feed their families.
But it's probably a moot point to argue it. It took the UN years to step in on the Balcan...too bad for all the Moslim women being raped...no oil, no intervention.
How long did it take the West to progress on this issue? How perfect are things here now? This sucks and we should pressure them on it but we can't be surprised that they aren't applying to be the 51st state just yet.
Look no further than the principled stand (HAHAHA) our SMART DIPLOMACY©State Department takes on sexism:
Public domain, thus not excerpted
QUESTION: Jen, can I change the subject? It would seem that in Iran the Guardians Council, which is vetting the candidates for the upcoming elections next month, have decided and have ruled that women cannot contest, they cannot stand as candidates. I wondered what the United States reaction is to that, considering that 50 person of the population in Iran is women – are women. MS. PSAKI: Well, we don’t take positions on any candidates, as you know, and we hope that the upcoming elections will be free, fair, and transparent and will represent the will of the Iranian people. So we wouldn’t weight into decisions made by the government. Of course, broadly, we hope that women around the world participate in politics and elected office, but beyond that I don’t think I have anything specific for you.
QUESTION: Taking the word “fair” – if you’re being fair, it would seem to exclude 50 percent of the population from an election, would already mean that it is not a fair election.
MS. PSAKI: Well, we don’t weigh in on to the candidates and the candidates that are chosen through the process in Iran. Of course, of course, broadly speaking we do want women to participate in elections around the world and rise up in elected office.
QUESTION: Just not in Iran?
MS. PSAKI: I’m not suggesting that, Arshad. I’m just suggesting that we leave it to the process that happens in Iran for them to pick their candidates.
QUESTION: But I mean why – it seems astounding that this Department – I mean, what if they decided to exclude, as this country once did, not merely women but black people? Would that be acceptable to you? That’s just their choice; they do it any way they want and you’re not going to stand up for democratic rights?
MS. PSAKI: I think we pretty broadly stand up for democratic rights from this building.
QUESTION: Just not for Iranian women, apparently.
MS. PSAKI: That’s not at all what I was conveying. I think there are two separate issues here. Of course, we want women to participate in processes around the world, whether that is participating in voting or being elected to office. Of course. More specifically, in terms of how candidates are selected, we don’t weigh in on specific candidates, of course, as the Government of Iran is picking them. But broadly, yes, we would like women to be participating at every level.
QUESTION: Including in Iran?
MS. PSAKI: Including around the world.
QUESTION: But – no but --
QUESTION: This is not a process. This is a clear case of gender discrimination, no? Isn’t that a difference between a vetting procedure and just saying, “All women no”? I mean, you’ve got to take a stand on something like that.
MS. PSAKI: Again, Brad, I think I made pretty clear – I don’t know that I have much more to add – that of course we have long supported women being elected to office in the United States and around the world and participating in the process. We want this to be free and fair. There’s a lot of ways to, of course, define that. But again, we don’t select or play a role in selecting who the candidates are. We can take a look through the process, and happy to comment once it’s completed.
How friggin brave...
Public domain, thus not excerpted
QUESTION: Jen, can I change the subject? It would seem that in Iran the Guardians Council, which is vetting the candidates for the upcoming elections next month, have decided and have ruled that women cannot contest, they cannot stand as candidates. I wondered what the United States reaction is to that, considering that 50 person of the population in Iran is women – are women. MS. PSAKI: Well, we don’t take positions on any candidates, as you know, and we hope that the upcoming elections will be free, fair, and transparent and will represent the will of the Iranian people. So we wouldn’t weight into decisions made by the government. Of course, broadly, we hope that women around the world participate in politics and elected office, but beyond that I don’t think I have anything specific for you.
QUESTION: Taking the word “fair” – if you’re being fair, it would seem to exclude 50 percent of the population from an election, would already mean that it is not a fair election.
MS. PSAKI: Well, we don’t weigh in on to the candidates and the candidates that are chosen through the process in Iran. Of course, of course, broadly speaking we do want women to participate in elections around the world and rise up in elected office.
QUESTION: Just not in Iran?
MS. PSAKI: I’m not suggesting that, Arshad. I’m just suggesting that we leave it to the process that happens in Iran for them to pick their candidates.
QUESTION: But I mean why – it seems astounding that this Department – I mean, what if they decided to exclude, as this country once did, not merely women but black people? Would that be acceptable to you? That’s just their choice; they do it any way they want and you’re not going to stand up for democratic rights?
MS. PSAKI: I think we pretty broadly stand up for democratic rights from this building.
QUESTION: Just not for Iranian women, apparently.
MS. PSAKI: That’s not at all what I was conveying. I think there are two separate issues here. Of course, we want women to participate in processes around the world, whether that is participating in voting or being elected to office. Of course. More specifically, in terms of how candidates are selected, we don’t weigh in on specific candidates, of course, as the Government of Iran is picking them. But broadly, yes, we would like women to be participating at every level.
QUESTION: Including in Iran?
MS. PSAKI: Including around the world.
QUESTION: But – no but --
QUESTION: This is not a process. This is a clear case of gender discrimination, no? Isn’t that a difference between a vetting procedure and just saying, “All women no”? I mean, you’ve got to take a stand on something like that.
MS. PSAKI: Again, Brad, I think I made pretty clear – I don’t know that I have much more to add – that of course we have long supported women being elected to office in the United States and around the world and participating in the process. We want this to be free and fair. There’s a lot of ways to, of course, define that. But again, we don’t select or play a role in selecting who the candidates are. We can take a look through the process, and happy to comment once it’s completed.
How friggin brave...
OP
- Thread Starter
- #14
I just skimmed the whole press conference. A classic case of using a lot of words to say absolutely nothing. She must be training to be a politician! :asian:
It's easier to reason with someone if you aren't pointing guns at them.
Imagine how much farther these medieval places would be if the West stopped encouraging extremism, peacefully traded, and let ideas flower in the minds of human beings.
Imagine how much farther these medieval places would be if the West stopped encouraging extremism, peacefully traded, and let ideas flower in the minds of human beings.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #16
I'm not quite sure that reasoning has any place under Islamic law, and I'm to be convinced that they need any encouragement when it comes to extremism. Prior to Islam the Middle East was the cradle of civilisation. I think you might find, up until about 600AD, they were the most advanced civilisation on Earth. Then came the Islamic conquest. Imagine how much further these countries would be if they allowed their people to have their own ideas! :asian:
You can go a long way with a smile, you can go a lot farther with a smile and a gun
Al Capone
On the contrary, there have been huge advances in Muslim society since real medieval times. The violence that we see now is a fleeting nightmare that once was.
That said, it could be a lot better.
To sum it up, here is a thought that comes from European Elightenment thinkers, "Poor people can afford extremism."
What they are really saying is that economic opportunity and wealth creates a more liberal religious environment because substantial investments need to be made in the social order. And this is why violence is so destructive. If the social order constantly topples, there is no reason to adopt a beleif system that would support it.
Imagine how far the Middle East would have been without Colonialism?
An interesting article from the BBC about how religions that do not change with the times tend to be broken by them:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22250412
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22250412
What Colonialism in the Middle East are you talking about, Maka? There really wasn't much to speak of other than the past couple of hundred years:
http://ocw.nd.edu/arabic-and-middle...ligion-history-and-culture/lectures/lecture-4
http://ocw.nd.edu/arabic-and-middle...ligion-history-and-culture/lectures/lecture-4
