There is no such thing as a right to use force and killing and invasion and occupation so as to threaten people into complying with the opinions of western feminists, a philosophy that rights are whatever the state says they are, and that women are entitled to sexist legal privileges on a double standard and falsely called "rights".

Jardine,

Women everywhere should have the same rights before the law as men. Get over it. 'Culture' is, after all, nothing much more than the tatty cloak of custom concealing power. Who has power in most 'cultures', i.e. societies ? Men, isn't that so ? And 'culture' sanctions that power ? Then a pox on culture.

You may suggest that 'culture' is relative. But women are not 'relative', they are real entities - a woman in Australia, a woman in Afghanistan, a woman anywhere, should have similar rights before the law as men in Australia, Afghanistan or anywhere. People are absolute, not relative. They are not theoretical concepts, they exist in real life, not just in anthropological texts, and they are entitled to similar rights to anyone else who exists 'in real life'.

Conservatives such as yourself may not see it that way - 'whatever is, or has been, should continue to be. If men have ruled in Afghanistan from time immemorial, they should keep ruling'. No, no, a thousand times no: you may not understand the concept of equal rights for all, regardless of gender or ethnicity or religion or class, but sooner or later, that principle will prevail, against all the reactionary forces that can be mustered by the 'useful idiots' of anthropology.

Joe

' Who has power in most 'cultures', i.e. societies ? Men, isn't that so ? And 'culture' sanctions that power ? Then a pox on culture. '

Yes Loudmouth however power itself is not evil it is how it is used. Feminist have been just as evil if not worse when considering the limited opportunities they have had. The killing of millions of unborn is one such example. The last Government stacked with Emily's listers showed that woman are just as up to and beyond corruption as any others even if they were young and naive. From ignoring cancer centres so as to pork barrow electorates, to setting up slush funds, to pushing perverse lifestyles the list goes on.

Interesting those who scream of invasion are now the ones insisting on the West helping. No amount of hypocrisy.

Loudmouth

In case you haven't noticed, feminism isn't about women having 'the same rights before law' as men; it's about sexist double standards favouring women. It's you who need to get over your brainwashing.

There is no such thing as a "right" to use aggressive force or threats to get what you want; and any attempt to do so creates greater inequality, not less.

You may suggest that 'culture' is relative. But men are not 'relative', they are real entities - a man in Australia, a man in Afghanistan, a man anywhere, should have similar rights before the law as women in Australia, Afghanistan or anywhere. People are absolute, not relative. They are not theoretical concepts, they exist in real life, not just in anthropological texts, and they are entitled to similar rights to anyone else who exists 'in real life'.

"Conservatives such as yourself may not see it that way - 'whatever is, or has been, should continue to be. If men have ruled in Afghanistan from time immemorial, they should keep ruling'. No, no, a thousand times no: you may not understand the concept of equal rights for all, regardless of gender or ethnicity or religion or class, but sooner or later, that principle will prevail, against all the reactionary forces that can be mustered by the 'useful idiots' of anthropology."

You're talking to yourself. It's not me whose saying that gender is a social construct - it's you, you fool.

You do not have an absolute right to force people to obey your sexual opinions.

JKJ
what exactly are you objecting to? The article doesn't advocate violence or coercion, only that women have the same rights as men and a seat at the table in deciding their country's future.

While the central argument of the article – that women need more a place at the negotiating table – is irrefutable, it ain't gonna happen.

JKJ is right - painfully so. Invading countries to give women rights is as ridiculous as it is hypocritical. (And let's face it. The Pentagon players who declared war on Afghanistan in 2001 didn't give a flying rubber duck about the rights of women anywhere.)

This stupid faux-feminism warmongering is back to front. In the 70s, Afghanistan was a troubled but well functioning society which, if left alone, would have evolved into a modern sovereign state - with the usual developments in education, per capita incomes, human rights and the status of women – that all peaceful countries build for themselves when left alone.

But that wasn't to be. The reason? It had a leftie government and was too close to Russia. So Washington went into panic-overload, as it always does if it smells a whiff of socialism within 30,000 miles of the White House, and started courting and training the usual Washington-friendly fanatics and psychopaths it gets on so well with.

Thirty years of macho superpower meddling and macho theocratic warfare later, Afghan women have completely lost the battle for even the most fundamental of rights being at all possible for them in any kind of post-occupation future – as have the women of Iraq and Libya, and soon Syria. They are living on borrowed time.

Correction: In my previous comment, I meant to say 'that AFGHAN women need more of a place at the negotiating table'.

Jardine,

As you say, " .... a man in Australia, a man in Afghanistan, a man anywhere, should have similar rights before the law as women in Australia, Afghanistan or anywhere."

Of course. And vice versa. And don't put words where I didn't write them: I wrote, "People are absolute, not relative. They are not theoretical concepts, they exist in real life, not just in anthropological texts, and they are entitled to similar rights to anyone else who exists 'in real life'."

Nothing much relative there, mate :)

And yes, gender IS a social - and cultural, and political - construct, a reality of societies. It's a reality that has to critiqued continually. I thought that was a principle of feminism ?

But I suppose you know better.

KIllarney,

As you write: " .... I meant to say 'that AFGHAN women need more of a place at the negotiating table'."

Yes, indeed. And what place do you think they could take under your mates, the Taliban ?

Joe

Nobody should have any rights.

Rather, our freedom should not be robbed to begin with.

If that was the case, then we wouldn't need to receive back any rights as small change.

I did support the war in Afghanistan for the sake of freeing the women there and the musicians too. I may have been naive, but at least some of those freedoms were restored as a result. Not enough, but some at least.

Joe

'And what place do you think they could take under your mates, the Taliban ?'

None, whatsoever. That was the underlying point of my previous comment.

Because of the 'failed-state' mess made of Afghanistan by superpower meddling, the best that Afghan women could possibly hope for now is for the occupation to continue ad infinitum - a sad and sorry state of affairs. Even then, it's only a tiny minority of women, and only in Kabul, who are free to live lives not confined to the purdah and burqa.

The occupation is merely playing the role of the Little Dutch Boy. Because of all kinds of global financial and political reasons, the US can't keep it up for too much longer.

Possibly, after many post-occupation decades, the Taliban might evolve to a more moderate position on most things - but only if the superpowers stay out of their domestic affairs, and the likelihood of that happening is just about zero. The warlords, however, will never capitulate on anything, unless bribed.

The whole picture is very bleak. The only lesson to be learned is for the West - especially the Left - to stop being hoodwinked by Western lies and propaganda into invading, occupying and sanctioning countries in the name of human rights and women's rights and all this stupid R2P business.

The propagandists have gotten away with it on Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now Syria - only to send women's rights in those countries plummeting back to the middle ages.

Killarney,

"Possibly, after many post-occupation decades, the Taliban might evolve to a more moderate position on most things" ....

Are you half-witted or what ? Are you serious or are you having a lend of us ? The Taliban - moderate ?

And after ...... how many decades ? Women will have to wait .... how long ?

Bugger it, let the Yanks stay as long as they like, if it means that some women can go to school, or can work, or can just lift their heads up, like they used to do under the old monarchy, BEFORE the Taliban. Shove your 'moderate Taliban'. What the hell planet are you on ?

Joe

Joe

Oh, dear! So many insults … and only 250 words to reply.

Well, here goes …

Remember the Mujahadeen, the Taliban’s pre-incarnation? Those plucky little anti-Soviet darlings smiling at us from the back of their Toyota pickups, with their AK47s (or whatever) and cute little hats?

The fact that the US was funding, arming and training a bunch of theocratic dudely fanatics who didn’t believe women should go to school was of no consequence. All that mattered was that Afghanistan must never become socialist.

And it was the left-wing government of the 70s (not the medieval monarchy) that instituted the many reforms which, among other major social advances, gave women equal status to men and allowed the national literacy rate to climb above 2%.

And as for continuing the war/occupation to keep women out of burqas (hypothetically speaking of course) look at it this way … The cost of the war and occupation so far has been $1.6 trillion – approximately $120 billion per year (plus ongoing interest on loans to finance the war).

If the US were to withdraw from Afghanistan and save the US Treasury $120 billion per year, why not repatriate to the US those women and their families who do not wish to live under the Taliban? Even if hundreds of thousands of women took up the offer, this would still represent only a tiny fraction of the cost of continuing the war/occupation for another 10, 20 or 50 years.

Killarney,

You've got 350.

So, you're saying that, because the Yanks, twenty five and thirty years ago, funded all manner of anti-socialist rag-tag groups, some of which later evolved into Islamo-fascist groups, whatever they do now must be condemned ?

So groups which bitterly opposed equal rights for women should now be supported, or at least not condemned, they're not so bad ? After all, they're anti-American ? Is that the way the logic goes ?

Afghanistan belongs to its women, as much as to its men. It's their country. I'd far rather see the Islamo-fascists driven out, perhaps to Saudi Arabia, than innocent women. The war against Islamo-fascism must go on, until victory. You can quote me.

Joe

There is NO war against Islamo-fascism.

Surely the ISIS farce has exposed that particular propaganda hoax by now. Here we have US-Nato fighting WITH ISIS in Syria and AGAINST ISIS in Iraq.

And then there is Libya, where US-Nato fought WITH Al Qaeda - its number one enemy in the war on terror.

And the West's best buddy in the ME (other than Israel) is a country that is so Islamo-fundamentalist, it won't even let women drive or leave the house without their husband's permission.

Confused? You should be.

The only real 'enemies' of the West today are those nations and/or ideologies that choose economic independence and reject global capitalism. What god they worship and how they treat their women is of absolutely no interest to the West, unless it can be used for propaganda purposes.

Killarney,

In what conceivable way is the democratic coalition fighting WITH ISIS in Syria ? By bombing its positions in Kobane ?

The coalition forces have an incredibly difficult and complex task, how to defend Iraq from ISIS, how to limit ISIS in Syria (and leave the fighting to Assad's forces where possible), how to support the Kurds, how to (behind the scenes) co-ordinate with Iran without pissing off the Saudis too much. In all of that, ISIS is the enemy. What on earth makes you think otherwise ?

That 'best buddy' that you talk about: do you mean Saudi Arabia ?

'Best buddy' ? I don't think either the Yanks or the Saudis are stupid enough to believe that (but keep believing it, Killarney): economically (i.e. manipulating the price of oil to undercut the US' booming CSG market), socially and politically, they are very distant 'friends'.

Anything else ?

Joe

Joe

Your 'explanations' about the ever so subtle nuances in why the US-Nato is fighting against ISIS 'here' and with ISIS 'there' are only confusing us all the more.

Maybe it would be more comprehensible for US-Nato to just fight AGAINST ISIS on alternate days of the week, and WITH ISIS every other day.

'i.e. manipulating the price of oil to undercut the US' booming CSG market'

Oh, come on, now. Do you honestly believe that the House of Saud are really standing up to the US? Camels will fly. The whole oil price thing is being orchestrated, with Saudi Arabia and US-Nato in cahoots - the real target being the economic destruction of Russia.

'Anything else?'

No, I don't think so. That'll be all thank you.

No, Killarney, the US-NATO coalition is not fighting with ISIS anywhere, don't twist my words. It's a silly trick which might work with teenagers but OLO is an adult site.

Yes, the Saudis are trying to undercut the US use of natural gas by flooding the market with their oil. Look at the current price of oil, which they can produce at $ 54 a barrel, while other producers are going broke having to sell at the current price.

The economic destruction of Russia ? By the Saudis or by the US ?

Anything else ? Didn't think so.

Joe

Killarney,

This post from Pickering: http://pickeringpost.com/story/the-saudis-well-oiled-chop-chop-square/4208

might be of use to you.

I'm puzzled by your insistence that the Coalition is somehow supporting ISIS in Syria. Are you assuming a simple either/or struggle between Assad and ISIS, with no complications ? No other parties involved, or having a deep interest in how it all turns out ? The Iranians, the Turks, the Saudis, not to mention the pathetically-weak 'democratic' forces against both ISIS and Assad; Hezbollah and the Israelis, Khorasan, al-Nusra and, on some reports, 1500 other groups within Syria ?

Wouldn't it be nice if it was just a matter of A against B ? Oh, for a simple world ! But, Killarney, it is not to be. What we are witnessing is a multitude of groups and countries with their own axes to grind in Syria, sometimes some of them collaborating, most usually fighting viciously against every other.

Hence the Coalition's differe3nt policies towards Syria on the one hand, and Iraq on the other. Hence their tacit co-ordination with Iran against ISIS in Iraq and limited involvement in Syria, except against ISIS and Khorasan, and mostly around Kobane in support of the Kurds.

Complicated world !

Joe