With the withdrawal of US and Nato troops in 2014 what is the future for women and girls in Afghanistan.

Even if the Taliban does not gain more control, the present government is not committed to further the rights of females, according to this article below.

Will all the progress regarding female education. etc be dissolved with more Taliban influence?

This article does not paint a very optimistic picture.

http://womennewsnetwork.net/2013/06/03/afghan-men-women-and-girls/

Banjo
I agree the outlook does not look good. It depends on what happens after the withdrawal of troops and another reason why intervention does not always achieve the desired results. Change has to happen from within by the people of Afghanistan. There has to be the will for change. That's the way change works.

Intervention tends to create the opposite effect and the idea that the West is patronising to the rest of the world. Thus when the troops leave my guess it will be business as usual unless the Taliban are summarily booted by the people of Afghanistan. It takes time to change a cultural mindset and deeply entrenched attitudes about women who in some countries have the same status as cattle.

Banjo I share your concern.
But have hope, some of the bravest acts in defense of rights have always come from women.
And many are in Muslim country,s, so fingers crossed.
But while you are unli8kely to find much good in the very left, for that mater me too, in respect of todays so called left.
Once they would be very active in sharing our fears concerns and would act.
Now?
Bloke unless we America or a western world country spills the salt at a Bar B Q ? uninterested!

Pelican,

"That's the way change works."

Well, that's the way change OUGHT to work, but if men perceive that they are doing okay out of a backward and repressive system, why should they engage in change ?

After all, isn't this a sort of alternative definition of 'culture' - that those with power sanction, and shape, how people in a particular society should think and believe ? And usually, aren't these the men ?

So the human rights of women in Afghanistan - and the cultural 'rights' of the men in Afghanistan - stand in direct contradiction to each other.

The dilemma for any genuine feminist is: do I support human rights for women in Afghanistan, or do I support the 'cultural' rights of men in Afghanistan to oppress and suppress 'their' women, in a time-honoured way, no matter how reactionary and backward that may seem to unsophisticated outside observers ?

Hmmmmm, as Rob Sitch would say, that's a difficult one.

Joe

Surely the subject deserves more attention?
Or are folk too involved in things like like exports and save the hairy nosed wombat to want a better life for women?

Belly,
I put up this thread for two reasons. One, I was disappointed when I read the article and I wanted to see if others were interested in the future of these women.

After the thread has been up for 24 hours, it can be said that few are interested.

Secondly, I was somewhat hopeful that others may have information that gives a more optimistic outlook for Afghanistan women. So far this seems unlikely.

One thing beneficial coming from the war is that girls and womens situations have improved somewhat. This has come at great cost to some girls with their deaths and acid attacks simply because they wanted a bit of education.

It will be a crying shame if the few hard won advantages regress to what it was before.

Is there no hope for any improvement?

Banjo, the problems in Afghanistan are because the poor buggers are never allowed to get any rest from the parade of outsiders wanting to blow them up.

That has created a lot of damaged people and a broken society. The way some have responded is to become fiercely protective of what they see as their cultural prerogatives, or to simply react against what they see as a Western attempt to impose their own.

It's everyone who suffers and it won't stop until the invaders stop coming and let everyone relax for a couple of generations.

Yes, Anti....and, strangely enough, Afghanistan is a place that one would be well advised not to invade.

The most recent show of Western force has only managed to cork the bottle of enmities, not to engender anything of lasting value.

Of the myriad invasions of that country, I think only one has been "successful".

So, along with directive of "don't invade Russia in the winter" - we should put, "don't invade Afghanistan".

Antiseptic may be you will fit in at Uni if you can talk such twaddle.

Have you forgotten the Taliban enforcers who went around beating any women that they considered not compliant with their Islamic code?

Don't forget most of the Taliban were home grown.

If there were no foreigners to fight the Afghan tribes fought each other, or among themselves. Fighting is life to most of them.

I must say however, at least they won't suffer the catastrophe that is affirmative action.

The Taliban were invaders too, Hasbeen. Afghanistan's location has meant they have had a vibrant and advanced culture in the areas where the trade routes concentrated, while the hill tribes have maintained a strong defensive stance to keep outsiders from straying and some have taken up the trade of bandit as well.

The response of some of those people to a perception that one of their tribe has been corrupted by outsiders is very strong, whether man or woman. We don't hear about the men, though...

Arf, arf, arf,....Hasbeen.

You might like to reflect on the fact that the Taliban was the direct creation of US support in response to the Russian invasion in the eighties. They were armed by the US in order to counter the Russian incursion back in the days when "public enemy number 1" was communism.

Unfortunaely, the power they derived from US support was turned inwardly for dominance once the Ruskies pulled out.

Of course, now the focus is on errant Islam - and "The War on Terror.

@Poirot (& any other lefty deficient in history)

<< the Taliban was the direct creation of US support in response to the Russian invasion in the eighties>>

NO it wasn't.The Taliban evolved much later.
YES the US used Jihadi groups to needle the Soviets.

BUT, NO, it did NOT create them--nor did it create the Taliban --they are the natural children of Islam.

Such jihadi & fundamentalist groups gravitated to Afghanistan in much the same way as they now do to Syria, or Indonesia , or Southern Thailand --and will perhaps one day soon to a suburb near you.

All right, SPQR...I may have overstated the direct linkage.

Here's an article (yes I know it's from the Guardian, but it's comparing the strategy of the Taliban with the preceding Mujahideen)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/28/afghanistan-mujahideen-taliban

As in the Mujahideen that was supported and armed by the US.

Btw, your comment "..and will perhaps one day soon to a suburb near you." is entirely reminiscent of "Reds under the Bed".

Some things never change : )

Poirot,

Yes in hindsight the US was foolhardy to support the Mujaheddin.But let's not forget on the other side of the ledger the socialists and communists supported Khomeini in Iran. Much to the cost of both themselves (many were later executed) and the rest of the world.

<<Btw, your comment "..and will perhaps one day soon to a suburb near you." is entirely reminiscent of "Reds under the Bed".
Some things never change : >>

No the reds were UNDER the bed.
The fundamentalists are IN bed with the lefties.

But when the fundamentalists get on top they will kick the lefties out of the bed and bring in their four wives.

SPQR,

I suppose it all depends on how far back we go.

Like to 1953, when the CIA overthrew the democratically elected government in Iran and installed the Shah...knock on effect...and at the end, up pops a Khomeini.

Perhaps the West should keep it's nose out of the region.

SPQR, the problem with that theory is that Australia is a wealthy country with a strong legal system and well-developed parliamentary democracy (which obviously isn't perfect, going on recent evidence) and a well-developed integration between social and economic structures. Even fundamentalists get the dole

fundamentalists of any religion rely on being able to offer something better, so they become powerful in societies like the US, where there is deep poverty and social disconnection to cause resentment, or in Afghanistan, where they can offer the help of god in a secular struggle.

The only way fundamentalists can get a hold in a place like Australia is with direct cooperation from government and business, as happened with fundamentalist Feminism, which was able to colonise the media and bureaucracy thanks to the economic policies that encouraged affirmative action as a way to increase consumerism and that allowed a positive feedback of "progressive" Feminist input into policy making and the emergence of a whole new bureaucracy that was exclusively for ensuring policies were sufficiently Feminist.

It's not going to happen with fundamentalist Islamicists, because they've got nothing to offer.

Poirot,
<<...depends on how far back we go.Like to 1953, when the CIA overthrew the democratically elected government in Iran and installed the Shah...knock on effect...and at the end, up pops a Khomeini.>>

Why go back that far?

All that we needed to do was when, that peace loving refugee by the name of Khomeini fled to France seeking asylum and a lifestyle full of Western values --was tell him to piss off.

(I wonder how many Khomeini wannabes Oz is currently rubber stamping?)

<<Perhaps the West should keep it's nose out of the region>>
So when the anti-Gaddafi forces cried "help" you would have told them --Nah! we're staying out of this
When the anti-Assad rebels in Syria ask for aid you'd say --Nah! things will sort themselves out without our intervention :)

Why stop there, SPQR?

Take Iraq, for instance. We damn well gave 'em our help whether they wanted it or not.

Of course, one has to keep in mind that leaders in the region tend to go in and out of fashion as far as the power-brokers in the West are concerned...so Saddam was a good ol' bloke when he was thumping the Iranians and firing a bit of gas in their direction, but not such a boon later on.

Gaddafi was not so hot - then he was welcomed back into the fold - but then he wasn't so hot again

It's hard to keep up sometimes, but we should remember that none of this relies on ethics, it's concerned with international resource and power strategies.

..........

Nice analysis, Anti.

Oy.

Poirot,

I suppose we'll have to re-hash all the myths about 9/11 now :(

The Taliban took over Afghanistan after bloody battles with other crack-pot mujahideen, Abu Sayyaf's and Hekmatyar's thugs. Taliban thugs ruled.

They allowed al Qaida to set up bases in the waste-lands they controlled, in their guise as a 'government'.

Al Qaida blew up the twin towers in the US - is that disputed ? If not, then we have to assume that the US faced the dilemma of either letting al Qaida continue to carry out terrorist (is that too hard on them ?) acts around the world, OR to go in and neutralise al Qaida, and in the process, punish and overthrow the Taliban 'government' for harboring it.

Having chosen the latter option - after all, what else could they really do ? - they were driven, by their own systems and logic, to introduce minimal democratic forms of government and society into Afghanistan, in particular to raise the status of women. Yes ? No ?

Twelve years later, hundreds of thousands of girls and women have ventured outdoors, taken off the burka, and gone to school and uni, and sought employment.

So YOU face a dilemma, Poirot: would you concur with the Taliban returning and driving those women back into their homes, those who survive ? I'm sure that you are genuinely feminist enough to consider the implications of opposing a continued US presence.

Often, maybe always, we have to choose between many, many options, and none of them as pure as the driven snow. For example, I would suggest that the most workable option in Syria is a coalition - yes, a coalition of thugs, terrorists and murderers, anything to avoid a war to the death which will have to take many millions of people until one bunch of reactionaries prevails over the others.

Cheers :)

Joe

Actually I totally agree we, We, the yanks & followers that is, should get the hell out of all the middle east, & Muslim countries.

Firstly there is no reason to have our men as targets for gutless bombers. They have plenty of their own to blow up.

Secondly there is no reason to go in, to control territory, promote democracy, educate girls, etc. We had cruise missiles & now have drones, that punish those we don't like, in safety from afar. What else do we need?

Time we left these fools to destroy each other & themselves, as they want to do.

Perhaps we should throw them a few weapons of mass destruction to hasten the process.

My ex son in law has been to Afghanistan twice. He is sure we are doing a good job & helping greatly. Most of his time was spent building schools & such stuff.

Now the idiot has decided to join the SAS, which is why he is Ex. Pity, they had been sweethearts since grade 11, but a girl can only take so much

Anti,
You raise some issues/points that are not easily addressed in a five minute sit down post but I'll attempt a thumb nail summary.

True, I do not foresee a fundamentalist *takeover* any time in the near future. But they don’t need a majority to intimidate, witness the recent attempt to stop the showing of the anti-Islamic film. And were feminists –the card-carrying variety– ever in the majority?

I don’t see affluence as necessarily an antidote to fundamentalism .Many of the most narrow minded fundamentalists, and terrorists have been have been quite well off both in terms of wealth & status—and after all Osama wasn’t a poor man by any stretch.

Australia even with all its current affluence and democratic institutions is producing more than its fair share of fundamentalists. They leave our shores to fight jihads in Afghanistan, the horn of Africa , Lebanon, Syria etc. then return to their insular Oz suburban communities. In the past via a process of osmosis communities blended. Now with, the proliferation of satellite TV, religious school etc some communities exist as islands.

If when you return to university (you haven't told us which one?)if you get a chance, drop into a whiteness studies lecture or tute. Feminism is just the pointy edged of the wedge. The same cast and crew that were instrumental in implanting what you call fundamentalist feminism are also pushing a similar agenda with race.And just as males were the hate objects of feminists, whites (those of Euro descent & their culture) are the objects of hate in the new crusade.

Banjo I had not intended to miss use your thread.
The constant story,s about women actively changing things their make me feel good.
And, no way around it, womens involvement in so many causes but far less in this one surprises and disappoints me.
No woman, in any country, should live like some in this and other country,s do.

SPQR, "And just as males were the hate objects of feminists, whites (those of Euro descent & their culture) are the objects of hate in the new crusade."

Because there are government-funded, make that taxpayer-funded, careers in it and it is much easier than engineering.

Belly,
You did not mislead the thread, I appreciate your input. Looks like another issue we agree on.

I do not mind the thread going off subject as there seems little interest in the matter and I did mainly want to see what interest there was. Am learning from the later posters.

I fail to comprehend how women and girls can be treated that way. How can anyone pour acid over a girl for the crime of wanting to go to school?

SPQR, feminists took it upon themselves to promise a better deal for women. They were so successful because in appealing to women, they got the benefit of women's influence on women - "happy wife, happy life".

They used an appeal to envy, which is a strong social motivator that is a common cause of social upheaval on all levels due to the resentment it generates and is especially powerful in women. They were very clever about it, because they managed to make it a general envy of gender roles, which they conflated with financial success and they made it into a deliberate male policy of oppression, not just a social structure that made life better. They used women's experience of having to ask their husband for money to generate more resentment and said they were being controlled. They primed women to be resentful of men generally and with special reason to be resentful of their husbands, which was reinforced every Thursday arvo when he explained that she'd have to try to make do with less housekeeping because the car needed repair. So when they had a row, she didn't need much excuse to shoot through.

And so it went, for nearly 50 years, with the legislative changes to Family Law introduced by Gough Whitlam (inspired by his feminist wife, Margaret) and Bob Hawke (who wanted to get feminists on-side) facilitating it.

Islamicists can get influence only within small parts of their own community. Even the majority of Muslims are just too comfortable to bother and the cops are not going to be as lenient on them as they were on placard waving feminist agitators.

Hi Banjo,

Thank you for putting up this thread, it's very timely.

As to your question: "How can anyone pour acid over a girl for the crime of wanting to go to school?"

one could respond, "what sort of 'culture' can justify pouring acid over a girl for wanting to go to school ?"

Shouldn't this strengthen the resolve of the coalition to stay the course, to defend the girls and women there for as long as it takes ?

Best wishes,

Joe

Banjo,

You are not expecting feminists to criticise Islam I hope.

As far as Western feminists go, they have sorted the veil as a matter of choice. Now it is back to the real priority stuff, how to get a leg up for positions on company boards (senior roles in the public agencies are already chockers with Grrrls of Emily's List), and shouldn't the work supplied freeby car be an Audi, now that Beamers are 'out'. But what colour?

The military mission into Afghanistan could have been done and dusted quickly. Any remaining threads would have been fixed over time by the large money on senior heads. However the feminists 'Feminist Majority' (remember the male and female celebrity feminists?) who suceeded in diverting the mission to 'liberating women' in lieu of its original goal have as usual returned to their whacky Left leanings.

As well, Western feminists must look to what is good for their careers - endless dissatisfaction and protest. They WERE forced to wear bras remember? How is that different from burqas, pray tell? Anyhow, burqas are choice and liberating somehow, but bras are neither. Besides, isn't it the fault of white middle class men? Kill them! More jobs on company Boards that way too.

Problem solved.

Any remaining *threads* would have been fixed over time by the large money on senior heads.

Should be threats.

Goodness, my editing sucks. Apparently white men can't multitask either.

Joe,
Yeah you could easily add the cultural aspect as well. I expect the acid trick comes from SE Asia as it seems to be the treatment handed out by a rejected lover there and kerosene burning for an unsatisfactory wife. I am trying to find figures for FGM in Afghanistan as well, poor girls suffer everything else.

Judging by the disinterest here, I expect the Yanks do not think furthering the rights of the females is worth staying there.

OTB,
I was not expecting anything, I wanted to see what interest there was and hoping someone would be the bearer of more optimistic news. I would like the girls to maintain the gains made, at least.

Loudmouth - Ther are so many more absurdities that can go with part of your statement "what sort of 'culture' can justify"

what sort of 'culture' can justify stoning a 13 yo girl because 3 adult heroes raped her and she went to the police. There culture says she should not have said anything.

what sort of 'culture' can justify locking up a female who was raped by 4 workmates went to the police she got locked up for 6 months because she did not have 4 adult males as witnesses that the event happened.

what sort of 'culture' can justify or would allow a 12 yo to marry a 60 + yo man.

what sort of 'culture' can justify the male members of the family escaping so called danger coming to Australia and leaving the female members of the family behind with the danger that was so bad they had to leave. (see economic invaders)

Don't be so silly onthebeach, editing is woman's work. You're not expected to do it.

Thanks Banjo, we all understand not every protest group is worth support.
Well I think most of us do.
For some time I have taken part in an on line group *change* but selectively.
To just tick sign is both unwise and blind.
I have been over whelmed with silly stuff, we have here to.
I think the form of protest is a great tool, but not the only one.
The thing is, we in our comfortable western homes would be just plain horrified if we truly knew the fate of women in that and other country,s.
And that we should be, that it is our duty to care.
Yet we protest about things that are marginal at best.
IF some one started a world wide campaign , one calling for human rights for women in these country,s, if only.
I would expect millions of votes, and maybe trade embargo s.
Am I however asking too much? some say yes.

Belly and others
What we think of the culture of other countries is our business, but what they do with it is theirs. It's just cultural elitism to compare our high energy, low entropy social structure to theirs and find their low energy, high entropy one wanting in our terms.

The simple fact is that the social structures of Islamic society are very, very strong and regular, like crystals. Ours is also strong, but it is like a clay, with lots of flat plates that are able to move over each other with little friction and are themselves readily broken up and reformed, but hold together quite strongly if not disturbed. Not even adding enormous amounts of social energy in the form of war or oil has done much more than make their structures grow within the same framework, with some local disruption to structure that quickly reassembles itself into the same form or breaks the whole thing into a social dust that blows around and forms temporary loose structures but with each little crystalline social structure within it still as tightly bound to itself as the original.

The only way to turn a crystal into a clay is to grind it very finely and cycle it through periodic cycles of oxidation followed by wetting. In social terms that would mean breaking the Islamic faith's hold on the social structure by a long period of alternating cycles of strong outside influence followed by lengthy periods of social prosperity, while supplying them with the philosophical tools to rearrange themselves into groups that have strong links and stable, flat social arrangements internally (classes, professional colleges, religions, etc) with loose bonds between them that are formed by the interaction of individuals between the social groups.
Clays take thousands of years to form from crystals and I'm not sure that a Western-style state could be formed from an Islamic one much faster. We had to have the dark ages to make ours.

OK, Antiseptic is going to make a great academic, as I found his last post incomprehensible, but I take it he is saying leave the muslim countries to their own devises. Looks like Hasbeen would agree with that.

So Joe, do we leave them all and not interfere? If so why are we encouraging them to bring their culture here and other western countries?

For the last 40 years or so we have been saying 'come here and enrich our society and we will accommodate your culture'. If you want to force marriage on young girls, oppress your women and cut pieces off little girls genitals, that is OK, we will just turn a blind eye.

Looks to me that Islam is a violent culture, with killing and maiming the only way they know, but as long as they keep that to their own countries it is OK by me. What the hell, 20000 terrorist attacks since 9/11, mostly in muslim countries, just leave us out of it.

Lol, sorry Banjo.

Crystals are very strongly ordered structures, with little room for individual particles to do other than stay in their place and no way for them to move to another part of the structure except very slowly by diffusion. The bonds between individuals are based on their place in the structure.

I think that's a pretty good description of Islamic societies.

When they grow larger, like the Arab states, they grow like crystal does, with the basic structure forming the frame and the large structure looking the same as the small one. When they are broken up, each small social group retains the structure, but it's no longer bound to others, so it's like a dust.

We have a structure in which peer relationships are the strongest social bonds for most of us and the social structure allows us to have weaker interactions between groups, like a clay. We're malleable, they're rigid.

I think South East Asia Islamic states are in a sort of transition state, because of their constant exposure to outside influence and the natural barriers to imposing total Islamic dominance. They're like a decomposed granite that has clay between crystals.

I forgot to mention that some crystals respond to being put under strain by emitting energy. The jihadis are the energy emitted by an Islamic crystalline structure when it is under strain by interaction with other societies.

I think the analogy is pretty strong.

It seems to me that trying to understand societies in terms of individual motivations is like trying to understand a material's bulk properties in terms of how an individual atom within it behaves. The individuals develop motivations based on the social structure they inhabit, just as an atom's behaviour is based on the stucture that contains it.

The properties of the material come from the way the atoms are arranged within it, just as the properties of a society depend on the way it is arranged. Any group of people could form any kind of society, of which there are only a few forms, but the specific form of that society will be a response to the conditions in which it forms.

Thanks, Phillip, that's the sort of thing I was getting at.

Banjo,

No, now that the US and others are in Afghanistan battling with the Taliban and, unavoidably, boosting the rights of women and thereby directly confronting the injustices built into Afghan culture, what might happen to those women if the Coalition pulls out ? No, I think that once they have started, they have to stay the course and protect - and boost even further - the rights of women.

Antiseptic,

Every metaphor has its limits, I suppose, some more than others. With respect, your comparison of cultural practices with the growth of crystals, or the structure of clay particles, doesn't say much worthwhile.

Cultural practices, at least from a Marxist perspective, are not 'natural' processes, but the products of differential power relations within a society, which in turn are derived largely from an economic base. Hence, most peasant societies have similar attitudes to the rights of women, and the need for male power centring on their property rights: for that reason alone, it could be a very long struggle in Afghanistan to protect the rights of women, with rural society there dominated by the conservative reactionaries, and a vibrant urban economy and culture being the main hope for women and their liberation.

Or has that become a term to be shunned ? US bad, therefore Taliban sort-of-good ? Therefore Afghan women's rights and their liberation - at least in Afghanistan, but not in Balmain or Carlton - sort-of-bad ?

Sorry, I can't keep up with the Left these days :(

Cheers,

Joe

Joe, I say that human social organisation is every bit as "natural" as chemistry. The particular form it takes depends on the conditions it forms under, with some individual usually forming a nucleus around which the rest condense and form bonds that create the structure, each trying to fit in and balance the social forces they experience.

The particular form is dependent on the individual or small group that provides the seed and growth is dependent on the amount of energy in the environment, as well as the density of the population in its immediate environment.

I think it does tell us a lot about the likely behaviour of a society, because we already know a lot about material properties.

The socio-economic factors depend on the structure, not the other way around and the structure defines how individuals interact, as well as how the society as a whole interacts with the rest of the world. The structure only changes when there is a change of the conditions that it is a response to and individuals rearrange their interactions in response to the changes in social force that occur due to the change in conditions. The change in conditions is caused by energy availability or population density, or the introduction of a new population with some different properties that causes existing structures to change to absorb them.

It's pretty robust, I think. If true, it means that we can build a society in the same way we grow crystals to suit our purposes.

Joe,
I would like to see the gains the girls made continue also, but the Yanks have said they will pull out next year. They have knocked hell out of the Taliban and killed Bin Laden, and along the way some womens rights have been improved. But the cost of continuing the troops there is high. Sure they can continue to knock off the Taliban/AQ bigwigs with drones but ground troops are still needed to clean up.

The Taliban still have some influence though, as our diggers can attest to, so will the Afghan forces be enough to maintain the Status Quo or will the Taliban regain more influence. The Afghan government doesn't appear to keen to improve womens rights.

As I said in the first post, it would be a crying shame if the womens rights went backward.

Any ideas as to how the gains can be assured

Antiseptic,

Well no - metaphors have limits when you are trying to compare something with societies, some much more than others. And it can be pointless, even dangerous, to stretch them too far.

After all, are you suggesting that if we immersed people in pure water, in time they would dissolve ? Or if you stand each of us in some sort of solution, we'll grow bigger, but in different ways ? Are some societies prone to form crystals like salt, or more like calcite ? Or copper sulphate, to draw on my limited memories of secondary school chemistry ? Meaning what in a social context ?

And what can you predict about societies from your model ? Are you suggesting that societies are 'natural', given, and therefore no society should - or can - be changed ? A rather conservative approach, one would think.

Needs work, Antiseptic :)

Best wishes,

Joe

Banjo, it's a waste of time. The West can throw whatever it likes at Afghanistan but it's no better than pushing dust around to keep the floor clean. As soon as you stop the dust settles back down and all is as before, but you're tired from all the work.

Regrettably there is no money in "the rights of women" it is and was and always will be about big business, oil and America protecting there puppet ruler.

Joe, each society has its own properties and structures that emerge from the properties of the cultural and environmental factors that form them, just as halite has different properties to calcite.

The culture is what determines the actual structure and it is very dependent on the initial seed around which it forms, as well as the underlying properties of the population that is the "solution" from which it forms, just as a crystal is dependent on the properties of the solution that produce it.

What can I predict? I can predict that Western efforts to break Islamic cultural hegemony will be futile. I can predict that Islamic states which have a lot of interaction with other cultures will gradually assimilate them and that the structures of both societies will change to gradually become more western, with a transition phase that looks like Indonesia.

I can predict that as Western states become more culturally diverse they will fragment into interspersed layers which have very little interaction with each other. I can predict that as the amount of energy available to the west decreases, the cultural influence will weaken and the layers that make up society will become more separated and that these will create space for individual freedom (anarchy, if you like) that will produce the seeds of new cultures. I know that as population declines the structure of society will erode, just as a crystal in solution will erode if the concentration drops.

That's just off the top of my head based on an understanding of basic clay mineralogy. There is a lot more that could be said, but that's not bad. Real understanding would require a knowledge of the actual kinetics of social interactions and how the cultural influences and emerges from them. Sorry, but that might have to wait for a few years. As you say, it needs work, but it looks promising.

What can you predict from your model? Is it complete?

Joe (Loudmouth)

You asked "do I support human rights for women in Afghanistan, or do I support the 'cultural' rights of men in Afghanistan to oppress and suppress 'their' women, in a time-honoured way, no matter how reactionary and backward that may seem to unsophisticated outside observers?"

When we start asking if it is right to support the oppression of a group of people we are asking the wrong question. The best societies from an individual's point of view, are those where people have the power to make choices and have freedom of movement and association.

For those who feel they will experience a loss of power over, in this case, women is like saying that a slave has to respect the right of their masters and become a willing partner in their oppression.

My main point is that Islam, like Christianity will evolve and these societies will develop and change to see women as equal and worthy human beings. Sometimes I think that when these matters are pushed by outsiders it sets back the clock because then events become a matter of pride and sovereignty rather than about human rights

Hi Antiseptic,

I suspect that you are aware of the limitations of your metaphor - stretching it too far really does take you down unwelcome pathways. There's nothing 'natural' about culture - in fact, culture is usually defined explicitly in opposition to nature.

I fervently hope that your 'layered society' model does not come about - threats of it seem to be wracking European societies at the moment, in Britain, Sweden, France, and partly as the stresses and strains of flagging economies drive people out of work, and certain groups feel particularly aggrieved at that - but I can't see European societies putting up with that for too much longer.

The rule of law, one law for all, equality of men and women, and other principles will probably have to be made more explicit, that's true, but I can't see any European country giving way to Shari'a, for example, not even for sectional interests.

European governments may be smug about their coherence and sovereignty, but I don't think the populations there will tolerate the fragmentation of their countries. It could get quite messy.

Hi Pelican,

So how has the 'evolution of Muslim society' gone so far, over the last 1400 years ? The Book is fixed, it's seen as the unchangeable Word of Allah, so how can such systems evolve ? Is there any sign of it happening yet ?

Maybe, as conservative ideas and practices continually come up against more progressive images and practices in the media, greater numbers of Muslims will break away and - at the risk of their execution and murder - cast off their religion altogether, to form a growing secular, democratic population. But they will certainly not have it easy - witness Syria.

So abandonment, rather than evolution, Pelican :)

Cheers,

Joe

Joe
There has already been improvements for women in many Islamic countries and in parts of Asia. Countries like Malaysia, Burma, Turkey, India where there are still problems but quality of life for women has improved. In India women and men are mobilising on the issue of rape. People are saying we are fed up with this monstrous and oppressive attitude toward women.

Even in Iran women are making small statements in relation to dress codes and there are small inroads such as the woman in Saudi Arabia who drove a car. Yes there is still a way to go.

Christianity went from oppressing, killing and pillaging to a more civilised dogma. Islam will eventually do the same. The question is what is the best method?

Intervention may or may not be the answer depending on a number of factors. War and killing innocent civilians is not the way to endear a nation to a 'civilised' way of life.

Sorry anti but it is my view what happens to any one in any country that disturbs us is fair game.
And very much every ones business.
Humanity is increasingly being drawn towards being one,we will not see it but it will come.
And even if as a result of a war we may emerge better for it.
Lets turn it on its head, given the chance to see how our women live would Afghanistan,s women want to come here?

Pelican,

<<There has already been improvements for women in many Islamic countries and in parts of Asia>>
Turkey is in reverse
Egypt,under the Muslim brotherhood, is in reverse
Iran (there latest edict is to outlaw dogs in public) is in reverse
Syria, no matter who wins, is likely to shift into reverse gear.

The most identifiable trend hasn’t been the liberalization of/in Islamic countries, but the Islamization of suburbs/district’s in Western cities such as Paris, Sydney, Amsterdam etc!

Joe, would you care to point out limitations? I'm finding it hard. It scales well.

As for the layering, that's already happening, as is the formation of new cultural seeds. The genesis of feminism was in 1930s US, when Betty Friedan was a young Jewish girl mixing with Marxists within a community isolated from the broader one. "she later wrote how she felt isolated from the community at times, and felt her "passion against injustice...originated from my feelings of the injustice of anti-Semitism"".

It was when another crack between layers opened up in the 1960s, with lots of free social energy to fuel interactions and lots of people free to move around as they pleased, outside of their peer groups that the seed started to attract others and a new culture emerged. We've seen what happened.

As for Europe, there are going to be upheavals everywhere. What "European societies" can do about it is limited, because there will be new cultural forces coalescing around seeds in many places that will keep growing and driving the layers further apart. A clay-like structure is malleable when the water of culture is enough to keep it plastic, but if that has been driven off by the heat released in social reactions like disorder then it is stiff and friable and can be broken up by the new structures growing in the cracks between layers.

Imposing order again means finding a way to mix the new structures with the old, or to dissolve them by removing them from the population that they are crystalising from.

It's happening here, too. The structure of the Labour movement is dissolving as the solution of workers that feed it is weakened and it is assimilating new structures as those workers that are left are mixed with new types, especially women professionals. The cracks between the layers are full of potential new cultural seeds.

I must try to work out some equations.

Antiseptic,

Worthwhile moving on to the social change models that take into account the complex human and natural factors affecting social change.

Some reading in sociology to go with the psychology you are interested in. Audio books available. Good stuff while trucking. Enjoy.

Politics and history too, that wouldn't go amiss, Antiseptic :)

Hi Pelican,

"Islam will eventually do the same."

But when ? How long already ? And I were a woman in those countries, I'd be despairing right now. When ? How much longer should they have to live under such conditions ?

Back to topic - the Taliban brought it on themselves when they harbored al Qa'ida. The Yanks couldn't do otherwise than open doors for the women of Afghanistan and, right or wrong, I hope they stay and kick @rse until women are in a much stronger position. Until the culture of the country, and its social and political structure, has been transformed into something a little more civilized.

And, if the Yanks do leave, how many women can we take in ?

Joe

Loudmouth,

It's interesting to look at the situation involving Afghanistan and the expansion of educational opportunities for girls and women...after the Yanks moved in. In a difficult situation, headway has been made. whether the course can be maintained after the pull-out is the question.

I'm also interested in the changes made in Iraq courtesy of the Yanks "kicking @rse" on the subject of education. It seems that, with the exception of the years spanning the Iran/Iraq war, Iraq maintained very good educational standards - until the sanctions - and until the invasion.

So while the "Yanks" have been buusy attempting to improve opportunities for women in Afghanistan with varying degrees of success, in the case of Iraq they have acted to the detriment of girl's and women's education.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Iraq

The first paragraph says it all:

"UNESCO reports that prior to the first Gulf War in 1991 Iraq had one of the best educational performances in the region Primary School Gross Enrollment was 100% and literacy levels were high. Since that time education has suffered as a result of war, sanctions and instability."

Apparently much of the foreign aid that Afghanistan
receives goes to the military and issues such as
women's rights and education is not given any support.

According to the following link Australia should
make advancement of women's and girls' rights a key
component of its aid program for Afghanistan.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1752286/What-future-for-Afghan-girls-and-women

Hi Poirot,

As usual, I agree with you fully on Iraq - since there was no connection between al Qaida and Saddam Hussein, between Islamist terrorism and Arab-nationalism, thuggery as it may have been, there was no reason - at that time - for the US to invade Iraq. Perhaps in 1991 ;)

While we are waving red herrings at each other, one could also point out that, before the overthrow of the US-backed Shah of Iran, women's rights and education was going gang-busters :) So, I take it, you would have supported the Shah over the Ayatollahs ? I certainly would have.

Back to Afghanistan and the predicament of women there - I'm glad that you are supporting the efforts of the Americans there to break down reactionary cultural barriers to the participation of women there in their society. We've got a hell of a long way to go, but we have to take progress wherever we can find it, I guess.

Thank you, Poirot.

Cheers :)

Joe

Hi Lexi,

Last I heard, the US was financing the schooling of hundreds of thousands of girls, among other financial support mechanisms, uni scholarships, women's programs in training and employment, etc. Where do you get your figures from ?

And all of it would be for nothing if the Taliban ever return to power.

Sometimes, in a particular situation, none of the options available are squeaky-clean perfect, immaculate, without blemish. But I would far rather the US stay and build up the influence and power of Afghanistan's women than to leave the place to a bunch of troglodytes and mullahs. I frankly don't give a toss for male-dominated power systems, in the guise of 'culture', anywhere. Away with all rubbish like that.

Love,

Joe

OTB, to be honest I'm interested mostly in the sociological impacts of social psychological interactions. An understanding of what makes the bulk responses happen, if you like.

I'm hoping to do some sociology units focussing on modelling. It seems to me that while understanding individual motivations is important, the system is ultimately understandable in terms of its bulk properties, which I've analogised to thermodynamic variables, although I'm sure that like mechanics, a greater understanding will lead to more complex models and that integrating the individual interactions into a complete model will be very complex. Dynamical systems analytical approaches are the big thing in the field at the moment.

Joe, history is certainly important to know, but politics emerges from the culture and the social order. I'm not sure if I need to know more than I do, because it's a derivative rather than primary property.

Poirot, that's instructive. As I've suggested several times previously, the feminist model requires a high level of social order and a large amount of energy to make it possible. When the business of survival is more important than how people feel, then it makes sense to have a traditional set of gender roles.

I do hope that our politicians don't allow feminist agitators to make them hang on to the support structures and subsidies as our economy runs down. It would be madness.

It's also instructive that the Western effort in Iraq was such a failure in so many ways. While the imposition of a foreign structure through force might work for a while, as soon as the force is lifted the local influences and cultural structures reassert themselves, especially in a reasonably homogeneous population.

Lexi, in my view that would be the worst possible thing to do. It's simply going to be viewed as trying to steal their women, which their social arrangement has evolved to prevent. It won't lead to a better place, just more instability and more dead women.

Activists aren't good advisers.

Antiseptic,

Fascinating.

While out in the real world, in Afghanistan, young girls are daily dodging the acid attacks and women are being blown up for daring to try to participate in the running of their country, and out in the villages they are being stoned for being raped, somebody goes all academic and compares them to clay and crystals and relates the forces at work violently against them to fluid mechanics.

Perhaps there is an academic career for you, after all, Antiseptic, keep at it. But there is just a touch there of, at least, Asperger's, that amazing unfeelingness for other human beings - and I apologise to all those Asperger's sufferers on this thread.

Joe

Perhaps you shouldn't be quite so precious, Joe, there's more than one way to look at things.

After all it's the Asperger-type mind that usually makes the breakthroughs that elude the ever so empathetic (not) minds of the general population. That's why it took someone like Einstein to realise that the bloke falling out of the window through the air was the one whose body was "not" feeling the effect of gravity, while all the people watching him fall, were....General Relativity.

Don't you ever take an utra-macro view of the whole kit and kaboodle of humanity on earth?

We're a clever and widespread organism who builds it's own caves - even highrise one's. We mix stuff and pour stuff and that stuff hardens into stuff we can live in and stuff we can roll over the countryside in wide bands. We can then get inside other stuff that's poured and molded and hardened into capsules and roll ourselves over the black hardened bands that roll over the countryside to go places. and when we've gone to places, we get to come back...off course, there's so much more to humanity, but if one's species was being observed from afar?.....well you get my drift.

While your here, I'll just mention the wonderful empathy that must take place in those rooms where men get to play video games with people's lives in Pakistan...talk about unfeelingness. Real people reduced to targets, over 3,000 dead for 47 high profile targets.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2013/04/01/infographic-tool-offers-detailed-look-deaths-by-u-s-drone-attacks/

Strange old species, us humans.....

Joe, perhaps I am somewhere on the Aspergers spectrum. You're not the first one to take offence at a perception of me as lacking empathy and to try to offend by using an accusation of Aspergers.

From where sit, I think you can see that the suggestions I have made are of some validity and you don't like the implications, based on your perception of yourself as a good person who has great concern for the welfare of others. The implication is that your goodness might be misdirected and cause bad outcomes, so you choose to try to shoot the messenger instead because you don't like the message.

The thing is that a real understanding of how to manipulate the physical world was derived from a realisation that while individual atoms behave in an unpredictable way, a collection of atoms will have a set of properties that can be measured and used to predict the overall outcome for the whole system. We don't need to know what happens to every atom of petrol in an engine to know that we need to have the right air-fuel mixture for the engine to run properly or to predict how much power it will produce at a given speed.

It is the focus on irrelevant detail rather than the overall outcomes which has meant social interventions have so often failed to do as promised. You have mentioned the Aboriginal industry before and that's a perfect example.

Wouldn't you rather have a genuine understanding of how to make the things you regard as "good" actually lead to good things, or do you simply want to make yourself feel good for having good intent?

Hi Poirot,

Well, none of us feel that we live in the 'far away' or that we are embedded in the long-term flow of history - magisterially floating above the fray - we all think we live in the here and the now. I hope I never take the ultra-macro viewpoint ever again.

Hi antiseptic,

Neither do we, each of us, live and feel our individual atoms consciously, or relate to each other on that level.

We are individual humans, with our own assemblages of infinite numbers of atoms, but within a world of seven or more billion individuals. Normally, none of us consciously operates at the atomic level, and nor do we operate at the 'ultra-macro' level. We operate as individuals, relating to other individuals in greater or fewer numbers, sharing their pains and pleasures, regardless of our atomic structure or our micro-place in the vast cosmos - in the manageable here and now.

I didn't mean to try to offend you, Antiseptic, but i was reminded of the vogue for something called 'sociobiology' back about thirty five or forty years ago, which compared humans to flies and bacteria and fruit and chooks - all very entertaining, but not to be taken seriously. Your socio-pedology, if we are meant to take it seriously, falls into a similar category of armchair musings. All you need is to find a French philosopher who concurs with you.

Joe

Hi Joe
'But when ? How long already ? And I were a woman in those countries, I'd be despairing right now. When ? How much longer should they have to live under such conditions?'

They shouldn't have to live under those conditions at all. My argument is not to foster those conditions but to ask the best way to change those conditions. War and intervention by the West are not always the best option and in fact can lead to a hardening of those aspects of the culture that we would find oppressive.

Hi Pelican,

And in an imperfect world, perhaps "War and intervention by the West" may well be "the best option", now that they have started all sorts of democratising processes, at least in terms of women's rights and opportunities.

Unless you can propose a "better option" ?

Good luck,

Joe

I doubt the Afghanistan government is changing it's stance on the states of women. I believe it is only going along with the appearance of change because it is dictated by the US, with out whom they are out of power. This is obviously the case with the treatment of prisoners, & many other western demands.

As soon as the yanks go, expect a full return to business as usual, in the Afghan tradition. I expect many Afghan women are right now setting them selves up for serious trouble by adopting the western style currently on offer, courtesy of the US presence. The current government is still tribal Muslim, & a few years of western indoctrination will slip away very quickly.

Rather than any change in Muslim cultures, I expect we will see a steady erosion of women's rights & influence in western culture. If the failure of women in political leadership continues, & our culture becomes more influenced by the increasing Muslim population, we will see a steady change in rolls to something from the past. How far we go back will depend on how much we allow the politically correct attitude to take over our sense of self preservation.

Womens libbers should start taking action damn soon, or face major loss of status.

France understands this, & is taking steps to ban the burqa, & even the head scarves in schools. It is time we followed such sensible practice.

I can not believe the controversy about Muslim women drivers refusing to show their faces to police. It is unbelievable that any one with their vision so compromised as by wearing the burqa is allowed to drive a car, endangering all other road users. We obviously need our heads examined.

Joe, society is to us as we are to our atoms. They interact, each in their own way, and form compounds under the influence of the other atoms and atomic structures around them. Those structures are in turn the result of larger structures influence and the whole lot come together to form very complex structures which interact to form us.

It would be pointless trying to derive a model of how we work if the only thing you considered was the effect on atoms in our spleen. Yes, those things are important to know, but they don't tell anything about how the whole kit and kaboodle will behave.

A narrow focus on one group or one outcome is never going to lead to good results overall. Especially when we already know that the rest of the culture is evolved specifically to keep outsiders from doing just what you want to do.

A lot more thought and a lot less emotion is required. Feeling good about being good without having any idea about what being good meant is what made those bush communities so dysfunctional.

So it's just a metaphor, an analogy, Antiseptic ?

Quite an interesting observation, really.

Okay, now we can move on.

Joe

Yes Joe, it's an analogy. By using analogies we can compare situations that we encounter with things we already understand.

By rushing headlong, with no attempt to understand we can only make anything worse.

I've already suggested that trying to push a rigid society into some other form is going to cause more harm to the very people you claim to want to help. The atrocities have been a response to being pushed.

What is the most stupid aspect of all this is that educating the men is never mentioned, just as it's never mentioned here. The ideology is that if women are put in charge the men will go along, but that isn't what the evidence shows and in a place like Afghanistan the men don't get depressed and top themselves, they get angry and kill the women.

Stupid one-eyed do-goodery is never a way to approach solving a complex problem.

Yes, Antiseptic - Afghanistan is a small country, a long way away, with which we have little to do. So why should we care about it, or its women ?

Joe

No Joe, Afghanistan has people, some of whom are not women and some of whom are women who are perfectly happy with their lot.

Why should we only care about the ones who are not and ignore the wishes of everybody else, especially when the ones who are not have been only made that way because of outsiders?

Afghan society has been around for a long time. What makes you so arrogantly sure you know so much better about how it should work than they do?

Hi Antiseptic,

Now we're getting somewhere :) By the way, you think of yourself as, generally, being on the Left, don't you ?

So some women are 'perfectly happy with their lot' ? I suppose, when it's all said an done, that's been the case throughout history, that somewhere, some women have always been 'perfectly happy with their lot'.

Well, I'm glad that's sorted. Poirot and Lexi and C. Steele can rest assured now that their sisters in Afghanistan are 'perfectly happy with their lot'.

'Move along, people. Nothing to see here.'

Thank you, Antiseptic, you've made it clear where the Left stands these days. Culture - male domination, but so tastefully 'traditional' - trumps rights, I've got it.

I'll just crawl back to my 'human rights' cave.

Cheers,

Joe

Yes Joe, I'm sure there are some women who are perfectly content in their role and there are probably some men that are not perfectly comfortable in theirs. That's life, really. We fit in as best we can.

But trying to impose a structure that doesn't suit on that mass of independently strong and insular subunits is not going to happen.

It will only lead to people being killed and maimed and a stronger, nastier form of fundamentalism.

They have to be allowed to catch up with the west in their own time, as has happened in Pakistan and Kurdistan and all the other places in that part of the world. Pushing isn't going to work and there are lots of mujahideen in the other Islamic states to help.

Joe,
Antiseptic shows the typical lefty about putting culture before everything. So the women are happy with their lot, like getting an acid bath, sounds good! If the wives in SE Asia don't shape up they get burnt with kero, guess that makes them happy? Years ago a British general in India stopped the practice of burning wives on the husbands funeral pire, simply by hanging a few that did it after he warned them. That stopped a cultural tradition. So sometimes force does work.

It is anti's attitude that is the cause of the problem runner talks about re the abuse of aboriginal women and kids, on his thread.

Hasbeen, we can only hope Afghan troops are sufficient to hold the influence of the Taliban and that if the Yanks keep giving money to the Government, they may have some say in the treatment of the girls there.

Banjo, how many women have been killed since the US started the whole "empowering women" thing?

How many were killed in the same period before that?

Take your time...

Antiseptic - Add this to you question, how many women and girls were raped and some killed by American soldiers. LOTS

Antiseptic,

But ... isn't that part of the American culture ? Don't we have to let them 'evolve', to give them time to gradually change their practices and bring them more into line with religions of peace like Islam ?

After all, it's not appropriate for people in one culture to try to understand and criticise other cultures, including the Americans'. That's just the way they are - and probably plenty of women in the US are perfectly happy with their lot. So who are we to make any comments ?

Yeah, right.

Joe

Joe, sarcasm isn't an argument. In my view, your suggested course of action is going to lead to worse outcomes and your wish to make yourself feel good for being a "good" person with "good" intent is leading you in a bad direction.

Now. I've already told you why I think that and it has nothing to do with anything your attempt at sarcasm might be aimed at.

Perhaps a bit more thinking and a bit less of the chest-beating?

If you really want the women of Afghanistan to be better off, you need to come up with a way to make Afghan societies better off.

Any ideas?

Anti,

I see you've noted Joe's penchant for sarcasm.

I used to wonder if he was capable of anything but sarcasm, as it seemed to account for about ninety percent of his response.

Let's throw out a challenge and see if he's capable of refuting another position without recourse to sarcasm.

I wonder if he can do it?

Antiseptic,

At the risk of breaking Poirot's sarcasmeter, no matter what I say, in response to your rather bald demand that

'If you really want the women of Afghanistan to be better off, you need to come up with a way to make Afghan societies better off',

no, I don't. If the liberation of Afghan women makes Afghan men somewhat unhappier, I don't give a toss. If it doesn't make Afghan society better off for the women there to have more rights - the sort of rights we take for granted, Poirot - then to hell with Afghan society. It's not worth p!ssing on.

In other words, if somehow improving the rights of Afghan women is in some way NOT likely to make Afghan society better off; if in some way keeping Afghan women in submission, in purdah, somehow is beneficial for Afghan society, then what the hell is it ? What is it worth ?

Mao said once that women hold up half the sky. (Sometimes I think he got that half-right.) So are you suggesting that Afghan women should keep doing that, while their men can sit around in coffee-shops smoking their hookahs or whatever, discussing the fine points of their backward bullsh!t, comparing donkeys, feeling their balls, and being so superior ?

No. To hell with that.

And I suppose you even have the cheek to think you are in some way Left ? How low the Left has fallen then.

Not one word of the above was meant in sarcasm, by the way. More like white-hot anger.

Joe

I'm not suggesting anything, Joe, you're the one with all the solutions.

From where I sit, the Afghan culture is the Afghan's. Their history is theirs, their country is theirs and what they do with all of that is their decision to make.

You're terribly concerned about one aspect of that, but you refuse to even acknowldge it is a part of an interconnected set of relationships that at its heart is about allowing people to live in an environment where they are constantly under threat. Both men and women, but you want to ignore the men and a large portion of the women. How do you reckon that will work out Joe?

The feminist revolution had been a dismal failure in the West, Joe, so what makes you think it will work in a society that is much more rigid about gender roles? What makes you think a narrow bigotry such as you espouse is going to make fiercely independent tribal groups do anythng but demonstrate they can't be pushed around? what makes you think that the women in those groups think any differently about that than the men do?

Of course, nothing does, you just get a kick out of telling yourself you "care" and working yourself into a frenzy over things that are none of your business. Mrs Grundy wasn't always a woman.

My politics aren't the issue, that's just another of the simplistic polarisations you prefer over thinking about a subject.

Seriously, Joe, there has to be more to you than what's on display here, surely?

Yes, Joe,

I'm a little confused too.

You say that you agree with me on what the West has done to Iraq.

That they decided to invade to foist "democracy" and "freedom" on that country (which is code for control of resources, under the guise of altruism). Unfortunately, in Iraq's case, instead of liberating anyone, all the West managed to do was knock them for a six back into an undeveloped era - that happens when you bomb the infrastructure out of existence.

Tell me how the West's invasion of Afghanistan was any different in it's intention. Tell me how the West's intervention in Afghanistan is going to leave any long term or tangible improvement in any Afghan's lives.

Can you also tell me why the West isn't beating its chest about all the other societies where men go out and hunt, protect the tribe, and spend the rest of their time scratching themselves while the women do the lion's share of everything else. Grab an anthropologist and check out all the societies on all of the continents - and you'll find women doing what they've done for thousands of years and men doing the same...cooperating for the survival of their tribe in the way that they know how.

If you're going to pop into somewhere like Afghanistan and say "This isn't the way you do it. Look at us in the West. We'll show you how it's done."...then you have to be prepared to take along with you a whole Western infrastructure and give it to them as well....even then, things won't change because you say it should.

What we usually do is bomb the sh!t out of the infrastructure, give them locals advice, shake out heads in admonition, lord it over them for a while - then bugger off back to our holier than thou homeland.

Do you really believe a society can change just like that because we decree it so?

Just remembered an instance, while we're talking about Western intervention in "underdeveloped" societies, which is instructive.

An Australian mining company went into PNG to work near the Ok Tedi River. what they managed to do was silt up the river that the native population depended on for their survival - something they'd been doing for eons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ok_Tedi_environmental_disaster

My point here is that the locals were supposed to be gratified that the company built them a school and a hospital....all the while totally destroying their means of support and their autonomy.

Another group of indigenous people had survived for eons on the Mekong, a most bountiful river. Their government decide to dam their part, thereby removing the local's means of support and autonomy. This dam was to provide electricity, 90 percent of which was to be funnelled to a neighbouring country.

So those locals who lived a bountiful life on the river, were all moved into purpose-built dwellings, given electricity and TV, with the opportunity to spend their days in factories.

This is progress, apparently.

Iraq. Afghanistan.

Oh I see, the Wolfowitz Defence.

Well, I suppose, Poirot, the easy answer is

(1) that Saddam hadn't launched any terrorist attacks on the US, or allowed any attacks on the US to be supervised from Iraq, so

(2) the US had no reason to attack Iraq at that time.

Are you still with me ? There was ample reason to get stuck into one, but not the other.

I wonder how much simpler I can make it.

No, sorry, that's about it.

Oops, I should have headed this post:

Warning - Sarcasm Alert !

Cheers :)

Joe

P.S. Are you two serious about 'women who are perfectly happy with their lot' ? You're not just trying to pull my wick ? So does this 'perfectly happy about their lot' apply to, say, African slaves in the US 200 years ago (or in Muslim Mauretania today) ?

So there's never been any real reason to get interested in the liberation of people from any sort of oppression - it's all 'natural', 'cultural', and anyway it's not really any of our business ? And slave-owners can be really nice, hospitable people, just as mullahs and imams are so dignified, so knowledgeable, with such neat beards. It's not our place to unnecessarily disrupt their lives.

Okay, got it.

That's an odd example to use, Joe.

Those African slaves were in America because "civilised" white men, not content with colonising other countries, decided it was an even better idea to to pinch a whole lot a dark-skinned humans to use as slaves.

You won't relieve people of oppression by parking a foreign military complex among them, one that is populated by artless boys from the back-blocks of the US.

Regarding your observation that "There was ample reason to get stuck into one...." Note that the Saudis, who seem to have a similar opinion on women's autonomy, and who were conspicuous for their involvement in 9/11, seem to have just carried on regardless.

But they're a rich country - and if there's one thing the yanks require when they go in to "stand up for other people's rights' it's that the country they're invading should be practically defenceless. (It took 'em a while to achieve that in Iraq before they actually decided to unleash "shock and awe")...something they had no worries about in Afghanistan.

Poirot,

Iraq. Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia. Different countries, different situations. But nice try :)

I'll attempt to make it more easy for you:

(a) Nasty Al Qa'ida bomb buildings in Tanzania, Kenya, etc., etc. Then they bomb buildings in New York and fly plane into Pentagon - 3,500 people killed, including Muslims.

(b) Nasty Taliban in Afghanistan harbor al Qa'ida.

(c) Iraq not harbor a' Qa'ida.

(d) Saudi Arabia not harbor al Qa'ida.

(e) US not right to attack Iraq.

(f) US not right to attack Saudi Arabia.

At least, not for that reason.

(g) US within its rights to attack Afghanistan under the Taliban, harborers of al Qa'ida. Principle of 'hot pursuit' involved. Regrettable, but legal.

(h) Iraq not Afghanistan.

(i) Not legal to invade Iraq. Wolfowitz wrong. Neo-cons wrong. Iraq not involved in anti-US terrorism. Anti-Israel and anti-Iran terrorism, maybe, but not anti-US.

I hope that clarifies matters for you, Poirot, in simple enough terms even for neo-cons.

Cheers :)

Joe

Joe, you've moved a long way from "Afghan women need our help because Afghan men hate Afghan women" "Did everyone notice how caring I am?"
to your present rant, which has nothing to do with the topic, which you may have noticed is about the future of women in Afghanistan.

Presumably that means you've got nothing more to say about that topic?

No solutions to making the place a better place to live? No predictions for the next few generations? No answers to the problem of turning a group of fiercely independent enclaves into a coherent Western democratic whole?

But you've got that ol'"white hot anger" thing all worked out, eh?

Good for you.

Sorry, Antiseptic, I was waiting for you to write something sensible. Fat chance, I suppose.

When you assert that "Afghan women need our help because Afghan men hate Afghan women", I can't say that I would see the issue in that rather crude way. But if that is the only way you can frame the issue, that really is your problem.

To reiterate:

* al-Qaida organised the destruction of the twin towers etc. from safe havens in Afghanistan;

Yes ? No ?

* the US had the right under international law to invade Afghanistan, bomb the daylights out of the Taliban and overthrow that regime, in order to neutralise the influence of al-Qaida;

* having done so, if somewhat imperfectly, they found themselves obliged to defend the rights of Afghan women to lift their heads - sorry about that - and to do things like go to school, take jobs, go outside the house, not to have to wear the burqa, etc. Terrible, I know, so anti-cultural, but there you go. US b@stards.

Equal rights may upset reactionaries around the world, and their fellow-travellers - in time, you and they may be proven right there - but right or wrong, the US and others find themselves having to defend human rights in unlikely places.

Yes, yes, this is appalling - cultures are good, and need to be left alone, as well as male dominance - and women, after all, should know their place, where many have been perfectly happy for thousands of years. Who are we to talk about 'rights' - such a bourgeois concept, only appropriate for soy-latte-sippers in Carlton and Leichhardt. Who are we to impose our modern values on people with thousands of years of rigidly unchanging, backward culture ?

Honestly, sarcasm aside, I really don't give a fat rat's about culture if its maintenance requires the oppression or submission or enslavement of anybody, let along half the bloody population.

Down with culture !

Joe

The thing is Joe that the people who want the culture to remain as is really do have the power to make it happen, even when the force of the US is there.

How long do you think it will take before there is wholesale massacre in Aghanistan after the US/UN has had enough?

My Dad's favourite saying was "If wishes were horses then beggars would ride." and wishing the Afghani fiefdoms into a cohesive Westernised whole just ain't gonna make it so and more than it did for the beggars.

Let the Western influence permeate by osmosis and contact with the West. Make it a profitable thing to do. The people will take it up over time if they want to and there will be minimal disruption. By all means work to keep the taliban out. By all means spread influence through trade. But don't go too far in trying to push the structures around or there'll be a backlash.

Hi Antiseptic,

Perhaps you're right, that the notions of equality of men and women and the rule of law are as you suggest, strictly for Westerners only, not for lesser beings, although I can't see it that way, I'm sorry.

But being on the Left, whether I like it not, I just can't come at the uncritical worship of "the people who want the culture to remain as is". When I was younger and knew everything, I considered such an attitude contemptible, merely a defence of reaction and conservatism.

But thanks to your wisdom, now I know better, that the Left should defend reactionaries wherever they find them as long as they are anti-US. I have to admit that it's been a difficult lesson to lean.

But thank you for putting me on the 'right' path.

Joe

PS. But I really can't come at it, sarcasm aside. What's the point of having any concern for oppressed people anywhere if, for example, we have to defend crap like the Taliban ? In the name of 'culture' ?

I wonder if anthropology is the ultimate, reactionary 'science', a body of bullsh!t that always defends the status quo, just to earn its bread and butter. Just asking.

Joe, Joe, Joe. So much passive-aggression.

To "win" the argument, all you have to do is show me why I'm wrong. Show me that the US presence has lead to ewer women being killed than were killed before the US invasion. show me that the Afghan tribes will willingly accept women being educated to a higher standard than men, or at least will not react by killing every such woman they can find. Show me that the women and men of Afghanistan who are happy in their traditional lifestyle are going to be better off if some women in Kabul are fmeinists. Show me that a feminist model has been successful in raising the societal happiness anywhere it has been tried, then show me how it will do so in Afghanistan.

Because having little snarky, sarcy snipes is only showing me that you're prone to having a sulk when things don't go your way.

You seem convinced I'm completely wrong, so go to it. I'm all ears.

Joe, that was unfair, I apologise.

The thing is I understand what you're saying perfectly well and I agree with the sentiments, but I've simply become fed up with emotionality informing policy to the detriment of all.

An essential aspect of wisdom is the ability to judge how best to act, in light of all the factors. I'm simply pointing out that in some cases that means choosing not to act at all.

Thank you, Antiseptic.

When you write,

" .... all you have to do is show me why I'm wrong. Show me that the US presence has lead to ewer women being killed than were killed before the US invasion. show me that the Afghan tribes will willingly accept women being educated to a higher standard than men, or at least will not react by killing every such woman they can find."

I don't HAVE to do anything of the sort. I'm assuming that - as women lift their heads - they will certainly be risking their lives MORE than before, given such a reactionary society.

But I can't help comparing their situation to that of the slaves in the Satanic US, 150 and more years ago - should they have risked fleeing north via the Underground, or should they have remained in the south, 'perfectly happy with their lot ?'

Perhaps there is still the remnant of Marxist revolution in me that I have a belief that, in order to be liberated, or gain standard human rights, however you may like to pitch it, people may have to risk their lives. I just hope that the US and other Western powers in Afghanistan don't simply pack up and desert the women of that culturally-blighted country.

So where will the Left stand, given its infinite variety, once the Coalition forces leave Afghanistan ? Alongside the reactionaries - or will they take to the streets, put away their 'gay marriage now!' and 'stop cattle exports now!' banners and paint new ones in support of those millions of women who dare to stand up ?

Your choice. Our choice. Everybody's choice, if we dare to suggest we care.

Joe

Loudmouth,

I take your point about the slaves.

Yet, I'm reminded of a piece by William Cobbett in Rural Rides, where he chastises the establishment (In Britain) for going about slapping itself on the back for rejecting slavery while at the same time continuing with its practice of working women and children in stiflingly hot factories and mills for 14 hours a day - and sending them home to rat-infested, un-drained hovels, with scant nutrition to depend upon - for a pittance.

He was flabbergasted that in a time where slavery of dark-skinned people was recognised as wrong, that under the regime of virtual slavery, poor under-represented British people were subject to that sort of treatment.

It was only when a few influential people of the upper echelons came on board and government decided to seek out reports on working conditions and the deplorable state of the towns that things slowly began to change.

And this was in a wealthy country which at the time was a dominant power in the world.

So a big part of change is shared equally between "will" and "means".

I'm surmising that Afghanistan may not have enough of either.

I'm sure that the US will simply pack up and leave, but I'm also pretty sure that Afghanistan is already significantly changed and that the change will continue of its own accord, although it may be many years before a genuinely egalitarian ethos pervades the place.

The thing is that the whole society has to do better, because even a queen on a dungheap is still walking in sh!t, while the lowest peasant on a nice shagpile is arguably better off. It's also important to remember that these people are families and friends to each other and presumably they care for each other, although their culture is very unforgiving of any perception of betrayal or lack of commitment to the common cause, which once again, stands to reason in the historical context, however it may look like an anachronism today.

What will fix Afghanistan is the development of its extensive mineral resources. When it is profitable to do as the developers want done, it will happen. As long as the price hasn't been negotiated and agreed, no amount of shoving people around will do much except cause them to push back.

I think the US slaves are a different kettle of fish completely, although there were certainly some who were well-entrenched and comfortable in their roles. the main difference is that the slaves existed to be exploited, while I would be very surprised if women from traditional tribes in Afghanistan saw anything other than a protectiveness and concern for their welfare in their men for the most part. Of course, some of the protectiveness might be religious, but have a look at the US. The tradeoff in such a harsh environment is that the women have certain clearly defined roles and so do the men and everyone gets on as long as they know what their role is and stick to it.

Not a whole lot different to a military unit, which is what many of these small tribes are, effectively.

Yes, Poirot, it was not a matter of either-or - either put up with de fact slavery in the mines and factories OR support African slavery in the Americas - both were evil, both had to be fought, the goals of liberation for both workers in Britain AND slaves in the Americas were compatible with each other.

And for all its imperfections, what helped all that along ? The cumbersome beast called the Enlightenment, the push by philosophers and political scientists and many others for expanded rights for ordinary people, including workers and slaves. And eventually women.

As someone writes in today's Letters o the editor in The Australian, the tragedy for Islam is that it has never even moved towards Enlightenment ideas, since to do so would be seen as flouting the will of Allah, whose perfect Book has already been written, of which the Koran is a perfect copy, and therefore never to be modified.

Ergo, whatever the Koran says about women's rights, stays. Ergo, it is right and proper to throw acid in the faces of young girls and to set them on fire. It is only right and proper to blow up marketplaces and schools, in such a righteous cause.

No, I think you are right: Afghanistan - by itself - may not have the 'will' or 'means' to begin the long process of promoting ideas of justice and equality and even of right and wrong, since power is all.

For that reason, I fervently hope that the Coalition can delay its departure as long as possible: once they have started something, they can't just p!ss off and leave the women to their ghastly fate.

And surely, all you Left-male-chauvinists out there, ask yourself: aren't Afghan women as entitled as you or your mothers or sisters to full, productive lives, free of fear and harassment ?

Thanks again, Poirot.

Joe

G'day Antiseptic,

Your appalling statement, that

" .... the main difference is that the slaves existed to be exploited, while I would be very surprised if women from traditional tribes in Afghanistan saw anything other than a protectiveness and concern for their welfare in their men for the most part.... "

overlooks the obvious - that women in peasant societies, particularly backward and reactionary ones backed by a backward religious rationale, are nothing BUT exploited - for their bodies (to produce the next generation of males for 'their' menfolk), for their labor in the fields, and labor in the households.

You seem to have some strange notion that Afghan women are somehow cossetted in their homes, looked after tenderly by their men, sheltered and protected like delicate flowers. Maybe I'm over-interpreting your remark, but for God's sake, try to get real.

Women in such societies are traded between families, as useful and productive chattels. If they step out of line, it means disgrace for their original families, who may kill them to protect their honor.

Any children their 'vessels' may produce belong to the father (which is why, in such peasant societies, to protect the certainty of paternity, she must be closed up in her husband's household), and the woman can be expelled from the house, on her own, once she has weaned the baby, i.e. once she has fulfilled her function.

She inherits half of what her brother inherits, in societies based on property. She can be raped, then stoned for it.

And her word is worth a fraction of a man's in court. A bit like slaves in the US, actually: viz. the Jed Scott case (I think, 1837?).

[TBC]

[contd.]

Women in such societies are as human and as entitled to a good life as you and me, or any of our mothers and sisters and daughters. But I wonder, if women in such societies knew what was coming from when they were born, they wouldn't utterly despair. In peasant China, so they say, a baby boy is laid on a pillow, but a baby girl is laid on the stone floor. So it starts early.

In Afghanistan, the US and others are the agents of progressive change, class change - they are the Left to the Taliban's Right. Long may they stay there.

Joe

Loudmouth,

Er...it was the Enlightenment that heralded the new industrial age.

It took quite a while for those who ruled the roost to address the cruelties inflicted by post-Enlightenment industrialisation.

And these were particular cruelties pertaining to industrialisation, whereby the poorest of the population, having been driven from the countryside by the overtaking of cottage industries, were treated abominably by the new entrepreneurial class. Enlightenment thinking had long bolted from the gates while this treatment was still abounding.

So women and children were particularly badly affected by this treatment, as were families in general....and it was only the dire conditions of their existence, which, if they'd continued, would have eventually led to a crisis in productivity, that slowly led to the Factory Acts.

That's right, Poirot - perhaps you would agree with me when I called it

"The cumbersome beast called the Enlightenment, the push by philosophers and political scientists and many others for expanded rights for ordinary people, including workers and slaves. And eventually women."

You also might find this brilliant article instructive:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/10/10/1215627109.full.pdf

As that article showed so conclusively, life expectancy has been rising at a 'stunningly linear rate' of about three months for every year, since 1847, in industrialised countries such as Britain: from a base 42 years or so, in hunter-gatherer societies, to 47 in Neolithic and peasant societies, to 85 or whatever it may be these days, in 'advanced' societies.

Nothing's perfect: every technology which may benefit humans may be misused to destroy them as well. I suppose this is what makes religions and Utopian ideologies so attractive - they can falsely promise perfection, 'if only the odd 'dissident' is 'removed or subtracted' ... ' Or beheaded.

So, in a sense, Engels' portrait of the working-class in England in 1844 was a portrait of a society at the END of its messy birth, just on the cusp of major changes in human rights, life-expectancy, industrial law - and all indirectly arising from the new philosophers of the Enlightenment, from Locke and Hume to Marx.

Imperfect, groping toward the light, one might say. But a damn sight better than whatever came before. Isn't that so, Poirot ?

Joe

Yes, the rise in life expectancy is interesting at the time.

I'm wondering how they tallied it statistically, being as many many deaths came in infancy - being from a live birth both before and after industrialisation.

In any case, I'm not going to deviate this thread too much longer, except to say if you ever get the opportunity, try and find a copy of E. Royston Pike's "Human Documents of the Industrial Revolution in Britain"......truly atrocious conditions all round in the factories, mills, mines and towns - and I note that it took government intervention to address it.

"..... a damn sight better than what came before....."

Well that depends on your point of view and where you were situated in the scheme of things as they unfolded.

I take it for granted that a mother in the late 1700's who'd been uprooted from the cottage industry in which she took part, finding her family stuffed into a crowed tenement in a hastily erected town, with one privvy between twenty families, no running fresh water and living next to a dung heap, while she, her husband and her two stunted pale children are forced to slave away methodically inside an airless factory for 14 hours a day (often locked in), might have thought that perhaps things weren't all that fine and dandy.

As you say, we groped our way.

Joe, your characterisation of the nature of Afghan marital relationships is simply silly.

The women are every bit as much a part of the culture as the men and I'm sure that they take pride in being good citizens by their own lights.

Arranged marriages are a commponplace all over the world and there is considerable evidence that they are generally more successful than the late Western invention of romantic love-based unions. Less emotionality and expectation of fireworks in the relationship = more pragmatism and greater stability.

These are primitive, highly insular groups which have prioritised the needs of the tribe, including absolute loyalty and maintaining reputation with other tribes, beyond the need of individuals. In other words, classic eusociality.

What the inheritance traditions are is irrlevant. What's he or she going to do with their share that doesn't involve the rest of the tribe? Do either of them have an option to nick down to Crown and blow the lot on red?

The children belong to the father because in societies without modern medical care lots of women die in childbirth. Our society used to do the same before the advent of maternity hospitals and obstetric monitoring, not to mention antisepsis and other prophylactic measures.

Her word is counted as less than a man's for a couple of reasons. First, she is less likely to be privy to discussions between men. Second, she is only held to be responsible for things within her sphere, while a man is accountable and responsible for both her conduct and his.

Joe, you seem to think that reiterating the cultural differences will somehow make your case, but they all have reasons for existing, they're not arbitrary even if you don't like the implications. It is pretty likely that a tribe which did not follow the rules would simply not survive, either through direct attack from others, or just because it was left to fend for itself when cooperation based on a sense of being able to rely on each other to do as expected is a paramount requirement in such a harsh environment.

Yes, Poirot, we did indeed. And all of those gains since the 17th century have been so precious, not to be sniffed at.

So how long have some societies got to go, who haven't even begun those processes, in economic development (according the Marx, the prerequisite for so much to follow), in the recognition of human rights, male and female, in the possibilities for the flowering of people's potential, including that of Afghan women ?

Antiseptic,

I think you're having a lend of me, nobody could be so pig-ignorant and so dismissive of the rights of women, surely not someone who thought of themselves at progressive.

So get back to me when you want to get serious :)

Cheers,

Joe

"Progressive"? What's that?

Define it for me.

Antiseptic,

* extension of human rights, specially to women;

* protection of people's rights, especially those of women;

* expansion of opportunities, especially for women;

* I think you get the picture.

And really, the horse has bolted in Afghanistan - unless there are vast massacres of women once the Taliban take power again.

In which case, I would be happy to welcome vast numbers of Afghan refugees to Australia.

Joe

So it's just whatever you say it is, is that the idea?

Sorry mate, but I'm afraid I'm not a progressive by your definition.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that whatever is defined that way, it's entirely dysfunctional and based on a need to please rather than anything more cerebral.

Antipeptic,

You asked me for my view, I gave it. So sue me.

When you write,

" .... I'd go so far as to say that whatever is defined that way, it's entirely dysfunctional and based on a need to please rather than anything more cerebral."

what do you mean ? That human rights for women in Afghanistan is dysfunctional ? To what ? The god of culture ? Islam ?

Yes, it may well be, and fair enough too.

"A need to please". Is that your best shot against Afghan women ?

Joe

I've already pointed out why a blind, stupid drive to impose a recent and doomed to be short-lived vision of human rights on a society which has endured for thousands of years in the harshest of environments, under constant threat of assault from outside is doomed to failure and hence, dysfunctional.

As for definitions, you didn't give me one, you gave a me a short list of things you think indicate your own "goodness". all they really indicate is your denial of reality.

A definition might have been: "a social and political ideology that is based on the primacy of individual feelings and that the State has a role in ensuring that nobody who identifies as progressive should have to experience any bad emotion and that if a bad emotion is claimed to have been experienced, the State must punish the man who is identified as having caused the emotion. A key aspect of progressive ideology is the primacy of women in social, commercial and political activities. It is axiomatic that men are inherently opposed to the primacy of women because they have a sociopathic need to control."

Actually, that's not bad. I might submit it to New Matilda or The Conversation to use as a statement of principle.

Actually, that 'definition' sounds somewhat psychotic, certainly unnecessarily juxtaposing men against women, which I don't think is at all necessary for any genuine 'progress'.

But if that's how sections of the Right is thinking these days, who am I to stop you ?

Joe

It's like trying to hold a conversation with a parrot.

Joe, interesting that you seemed to think Antiseptics definition unnecessarily juxtaposing men against women. From your own earlier list

"extension of human rights, specially to women;

* protection of people's rights, especially those of women;

* expansion of opportunities, especially for women;"

Did you see all those especially statements?

I've lost track to some extent of the arguments you and Anti are making here, from the outside it seems to be slugging away but not hearing what the other is saying. Your earlier post stuck out because it fitted with a discussion on the man therapy thread regarding the message of men being disposable.

Not sure if you meant it that way but it stuck out for the way it put women against men.

R0bert

Robert,

How can a society evolve quickly to bring about equal rights for men and women, when it's always been the men who have all the power ? Partly, at least, by supporting policies and processes which especially boost the opportunities and position of women, from a very low base, eventually to something like 'equality'.

Ergo, 'especially for women'.

Will that cause all sorts of social upheaval ? Bloody oath, I certainly hope so.

Joe

Joe, I recommend you read this. It's by Stephen Buckle, who is Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at ACU.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2013/6/the-blind-spot-in-feminist-political-theory

It's very relevant and pretty much exactly what I've been saying about the way eusocial drives have been distorted. He doesn't use that term, he refers to protection and the way it shapes societies. Have a good look at the bit about how the geography affects the social structures.

I'm fed up with the silly arguments and attempts to pigeonhole, Joe. This post is my last on this subject unless something new comes up.

Joe I think on the Afganistan discussion I'm agreeing with both you and Antiseptic. Thats the quandry.

I don't know how we can bring about changes that don't do more harm than good in those places. I don't think force will do it.

In regard to our own culture where so called progressives seem to tack on the especially women bit a lot your thread on evidence based history reminded me of a lot if what I've found as I've looked at concepts of privilige and power in our culture. There is some evidence there for a particular version of the narative but you have to ignore a lot of other evidence for it to stack up.

R0bert

R0bert, you're agreeing with antiseptic. Joe is bravely prepared to sacrifice as many Afghan women as it takes to make him feel good and feeling good apparently means all the afghan men have to die horrible deaths.

My point is simple: the Afghans are a society, not a slave plantation, which some of the simpler minds here seem to want to imagine. In order for that society to become more liberal, it must become wealthier and encouraged to allow mixing with other cultures rather than following the path that the Saudis have, which is largely due to the domination of the bin Sauds that was fostered by the West (Britain) to make it easier to negotiate over oil and territorial issues.

Over time that will lead to them, of their own free will, coming to a less strict gender-role segregation, but it will probably never lead to the stupid Western gender warrior model which has caused so much trouble for everyone in our country and elsewhere.

The phrase "happy wife - happy life" implies a bi-directional give and take in the relationship that is not there in the feminist model and is certainly not there in the moron child's version of progressivism that Joe gave us earlier.

Antiseptic, I might be missing part of the picture on this. As a bystander I've wondered how far apart you and Joe really are on the issue.

Joe is someone who I've seen enough good stuff from that I'd not lightly dismiss his views. Might not always agree but his views generally seemed to be based on formed opinions and a willinness to think through consequences rather than dogma. Likewise for yourself.

I don't think the west can successfully force beneficial change on their culture but I also don't want that to be an excuse to not find a way of finding help for that mess.

R0bert

R0bert, I used to hold a similar view of Joe, but on this and a few other issues he's simply not thinking.

Any social change in any society has to be driven from within. If it isn't, then no amount of external pressure will make it happen short of complete destruction of the existing society.

If external influences are to have any positive effect it has to be by providing leadership and engaging with the current social structures constructively. Unlike in the West, where we have had a long period of freedom from want, allowing us to indulge in all sorts of feel-good inessentials, the Afghans have always been under threat and have had little time or effort to spare for indulgence.

Make them prosperous and show them they are not in that position and they will change their social arrangement. That was the point of the Buckle article I linked to.

I agree with you on that last point, Antipeptic, that social change has to come from within. I hope you can take your idea a bit further along the lines of your last post.

But it also 'comes' from a bit of pushing from outside, so I'm happy for the Coalition to stay as long as it takes, in order to do both - protect the rights and growing influence of women, AND thereby to bring about social change.

That doesn't have to cost a single life, certainly not those of innocent women and girls. So I don't understand your earlier post.

My point is that there is nothing sacred about 'culture', especially if its continued existence is predicated on the submission and crippling of a section of the population - women in peasant societies, African-Americans in the US slave societies, slave-holding 'culture' if you like.

As for change in Afghanistan: if I read it right, the population - and presumably employment opportunities - of Kabul has risen many times since 2001, to around a million. I'm betting that population in other cities, Kandahar, Mazar i Sharif, Herat, have also risen rapidly, suggesting that urban employment opportunities are booming. And it may be that gradual shift from rural to urban life which will bring many of the social changes that you and I look forward to.

Joe

Joe,

Why do you think that changing from a rural life to an urban life has positive consequences in a third world country?

It's more likely to produce a situation whereby a families are deprived of any autonomy or ability to provide for themselves through subsistence family or crafting.

Often, and this is widespread in Africa, India and South America, people are forced to migrate to urban areas because their native environment has been despoiled by development such as dams, etc. They end up in shanty towns on the outskirts of urban conglomerations with no means to support themselves or grow their own food. The structure of their former communities is destroyed and they are left psychologically wafting around in the breeze.

Guess who endures the greatest hardships in that situation.

Women and their children.

That should be subsistence "farming".

Steps on the road, Poirot. Would those urban populations prefer to go back to the villages ? I don't think so.

Perhaps you're onto something though, that if a hunter-gatherer's children or grandchildren can become accountants or surveyors or mineralogists, they will be deprived of a hunter-gatherer existence.

You win some, you lose some.

Joe

Not in this case, Jot, it's all lose.

But I live in hope, Antipeptic, that progress is, sooner or later, inevitable.

Joe

As do we all, Jot.

The problem is that progress has to be well-defined and the ramifications understood, or it may produce bad outcomes from the best of intentions.

"The problem is that progress has to be well-defined and the ramifications understood...."

Ain't that the truth!

I hope you'll both find time to read Arundhati Roy's article on the big dams of India and the ensuing displacement of people who have been displaced and found themselves existing in "slums on the peripheries of our great cities."

(They weren't hunters gatherers, Joe - just ordinary autonomous peasant farmers.....that's "were")

http://www.narmada.org/gcg/gcg.html

I'll just add, Joe, that I'm surmising that those displaced peasants to whom Arundhati Roy refers would "love" to go back to their villages - if they weren't under water.

Sorry, Poirot, you've lost me - what is this thread about again ? Women's rights on Afghanistan ?

As it happens, I'm with Arundhati Roy in her opposition to the dam in question.

Joe

You are disingenuous at times, Joe.

Particularly if someone hits the target with a pertinent point "related" to the subject at hand, even if not necessarily right on it.

When that happens, you pull out the old "let's get back to subject" line.

You made a comment about people being better off in an urban environment - and that people uprooted from a traditional lifestyle would probably not wish to return to their villages. I was merely pointing out that uprooting people and destabilising their traditional lifestyles and replacing it with a bare existence in slums and shanty towns on the outskirts of cities "is not good enough".

Hi Poirot,

To the extent that what you write is relevant, and given the circumstances of that particular case, I agree with you.

Now, back to topic :)

Liberation for Afghan women will be closely related to changes in the Afghan economy, more towards an urban-based and professionally-skilled economy, and away from a backward, women-submissive rural economy. Hallelujah.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Poirot,

I can't do better than Maryam Namazie here:

Siding with the Oppressor: The Pro-Islamist Left

A new report by One Law for All entitled “Siding with the Oppressor:
The Pro-Islamist Left

<http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/siding-with-the-oppressor-the-pro-islamist-left/>

” exposes Stop the War Coalition, Respect Party, Unite Against
Fascism and individuals such as Ken Livingstone and George Galloway
and their agenda and methods.

This section of the Left uses accusations of racism and Islamophobia
and a conflation of Muslim with Islamist in order to defend Islamism
and Islam rather than out of any real concern for prejudice against
Muslims or their rights, particularly since Muslims or those labelled
as such are the first victims of Islamism and on the frontlines of
resisting it.

The report has been written as a companion volume to “Enemies not
Allies: The Far-Right

<http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/new-report-enemies-not-allies-the-far-right/>

Like the far-Right which ‘despises’ multiculturalism yet
benefits from its idea of difference to scapegoat the ‘other’ and
promote its own form of white identity politics, the pro-Islamist Left
also uses multiculturalism to side with the oppressor by viewing the
‘Muslim community’ and ‘Muslim world’ as homogeneous entities
thereby ignoring and silencing dissenters.

This politics of betrayal sides with the Islamic far-Right and the
oppressor. Challenging this perspective is especially important given
its wide acceptance as ‘progressive’ in mainstream society.

Any principled point of view must oppose all forms of fascism,
including Islamic fascism, and instead side with the countless people,
including Muslims, who are fighting and challenging Islamism here in
Europe as well as the Middle East, North Africa and the world."

So which side are you on, Poirot ? Women's rights, or fascism ?

Your choice :)

Joe

Hi Poirot,

Referring to an earlier post:

Perhaps urbanisation and women's rights are loosely correlated ? I wonder, that as reactionary, rural societies break down under the pressures of industrialisation (Marks I, II & III), women especially are closely involved, at first as grossly-exploited factory fodder (I), - but perhaps indirectly, the daughters of that first generation move on and up, with better schooling, into higher positions, and become more assertive (II), - laying the groundwork for a third generation of women who have the freedom to decide that they can be whatever the fcuk they want to be (III).

It seems to have happened pretty effectively for 'Poirot's people'. Or perhaps some women crave to go back to being confined to the kitchen, bedroom and fields ? Poirot ?

No, I didn't think so.

Cheers :)

Joe

Another disingenuous question from Loudmouth - Ho hum.....

The point which both Anti and I have been making on this thread is that it's all very well to have an ideal. However, invading a undeveloped and tribal country which has been formed and its practices upheld for eons, setting up a supposed democracy and wishing it to magically take up modern Western conventions, doesn't necessarily mean that the outcome is going to be the one you desire.

I'm sure it's wonderful to be simplistic and prattle platitudes about doing the right thing by women, but ignoring reality is not necessarily going to translate into monumental change because Westerners feel that it should.

Merely offering you a dose of reality...I'm always fascinated how you try and turn discussion on these issues on a coin...that is Loudmouth is good good person because he wants equality for women vs "anybody who points out reality to him" who by definition must desire inequality and bad outcomes for women.

You're just one of the many on this forum who can't debate fairly without holding yourself up the goody while painting your opponent as the baddie.

No surprise that you're still at it.

Joe,

You automatically assume that people who work in fields, or who live close to the land in general are "unhappy".

Sorry, but I take that to be a Western arrogance.

Yes some of the people who work in fields are unhappy as are many Western people who toil in factories and in other jobs.

Frankly, mate, the West has only been doing this for a few hundred years, and there are myriad ways that people live and work on this planet.

I think you should broaden your perspective - you shouldn't necessarily assume that Western life is the only one which can deliver a sense of well-being, plenty and contentment.

(and I do understand that it's often difficult for a Westerner to look outside the square of his own experience)

Hi Poirot :)

Up until the time of the end of the various Marxist governments from the late seventies to the early nineties, Afghanistan had a fairly vibrant urban society, with full women's participation at its universities, somewhat like Iran's situation. I don't think there has been a thoroughly backward, reactionary society in Afghanistan since the mid-nineteenth century - well, until your friends, the Taliban, took over from their fellow-Islamists, after a series of very bloody civil wars, in 1996. Ah, the good old days of backwardness, you may say, but really that was an illusion. Life had already changed.

Now that Afghanistan is trying to industrialise, to go through the horrors of early nineteenth-century Britain all over again, one way for women to avoid those horrors - perhaps you wouldn't agree- is to get a far better education than their own parents - including their fathers - and take up much more powerful positions, and thereby transform - if you like, Poirot, 'revolutionise' - Afghan society.

I long for the day. But of course, that puts me at odds with my erstwhile Leftist colleagues.

Cheers :)

Joe

Thank you, Poirot, for the tiny, but precious, pearls of your wisdom.

Experience ? Well, I did ten years in factories (Metters, Arnotts, Kodak, Balfours), and another eight or ten in rural work, fruit-picking, pruning, hay-lumping, etc. Actually pretty easy jobs, compared to what women in peasant societies have to do, day after day, until their backs are gone. It's not all skipping gaily to work, singing together all day such charming folk-songs, merrily bringing in the sheeves.

So you've tried it ? Rural work ? Fruit-picking ? Day after day during winter, pruning, fencing ? Crutching sheep ? Such fun ! Lugging containers of water half a mile from the fetid pools ? And all the while, trying to keep your kids occupied. Ah, the good times !

How did you DO it, Poirot ? And still keep a smile on your beautiful face ? [I got that right, didn't I ?]

Cheers :)

Joe

"..well, until your friends, the Taliban, took over..."

Disingenuous prat.

(Anti thought interacting with you was like trying to have a conversation with a parrot. I don't think you're worth having a conversation with at all...a parrot would be a more mature option)

Poirot,

Thank you for your pools of wisdom, shallow and stagnant though they may be.

Now, perhaps we can get back to the issues ? Or don't women's rights mean much to you ?

Oh, of course, you're on the reactionary Left, so the answer is 'No, there are more important things, like culture'.

Cheers :)

Joe

For anyone who's interested.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4771966.html

Also, you may like to look up the work of Dr Vandana Shiva in India.

http://www.navdanya.org/about-us/from-the-founder

Navdanya's mission....pertinent to women in traditional societies the world over.

http://www.navdanya.org/about-us/mission

I'll just add, Joe, that I've come to the conclusion that it's pretty well pointless to try an engage you in a serious sharing of views.

You prance around with your holier-than-thou platitudes regarding women's welfare, but at the first instance that someone makes a pertinent point in opposition to your views, then you get personal.

All of sudden I'm relegated to being "a friend of the Taliban" or someone to whom women's rights, their safety and well-being means nothing - to name merely two instances where your tactic is to unfairly personalise the debate employing through-away insult.

If our debates were boxing matches, then they would see you pulling hair, biting ears and directing many kicks below the belt. Pretty soon people would know that you don't play fair...and they wouldn't bother with you anymore

Navdanya is certainly a worthy cause, no doubt about it.

Poirot, your Unleashed article on the spectrum of feminism around the world inevitably had many good points. I'm a little unsure where a defense of Peter Slipper might fit on that continuum, or a cosy friendship with Kyle Sandilands, or an attack on blue ties, or laws against people - sorry, men - looking at their watches.

Now, back to topic: there is an interesting article in the Australian's Magazine section, a review of a tiny book by Pascal Bruckner, on love and marriage, and how freely-chosen marriage is becoming a touchstone in Arab and other countries, as a counter to arranged marriages and honor killings, especially in countries under the thumb of the religion of peace.

Well worth reading.

Joe

Hi again Poirot,

As a 'prat', I am entitled to make stupid, sweeping statements, I'm sure you would agree: it goes with the territory.

But I do protest that I have ever deliberately insulted you - I've perhaps made negative comments, but I've always tried to make sure they are accurate and fair assessments of you and your philosophy, such as it is.

I hope that we can maintain that level of respect for each other's opinions.

Cheers :)

Joe

"that should be "throw-away".

Yes, I believe I've called you a "prat" on a couple of occasions.

Take that behaviour as a sign of me throwing my arms in the air with exasperation as you stoop to making insulting generalisations about me (of whom you have little real knowledge)....or do you think labbelling me as a friend of the Taliban is accurate? It was a cheap shot. And merely because I see the problem in traditional societies as much more complicated than you and situations whereby we are attempting to impose our way of doing things (us with first-world infrastructure) on those who haven't the societal means or structure to support it.

Btw, Vandana Shiva would have to be one of my top five heroes in this world.....and she's busy fighting off first-world corporations who have clamoured to relieve peasants of their livelihoods, their autonomy and their land and water. She does it quietly and clearly, knowing what has sustained these communities for eons.

I grew up in New Guinea and I saw the destructive effect of too-rapid Westernisation on tribal peoples. Even villages that had been Christianised for 2 or 3 generations and had a mission close, cultures were often simply incompatible as a first approximation and it took a long time for one culture to diffuse into the other.

Asking any society to leap 500 or 1000 years of development in one jump is not going to happen overnight and probably not ever if force is used.

Thank you, Poirot, we both agree that problems in traditional societies are extremely complicated, and that their evolution into modern societies is bound to be long, painful and indeterminate - certainly not pre-ordained.

But I'm relieved that you mention infrastructure - as I understand it, in Afghanistan, i.e. relevant to topic, the Coalition forces have been putting in all manner of infrastructure across the country. Yes, perhaps in anticipation of being able to exploit the oil and gas and minerals, but nevertheless roads where none existed before, electricity, schools and universities, dams, TV and radio stations, agricultural extension work, and so on.

And the longer they stay, the more - one hopes - the Taliban will wither away. Of course, in those circumstances. the Taliban can be expected to ramp up their destruction of infrastructure projects, and schools, and kindergartens, and market-places and other easy targets.

Sorry about labelling you as a 'friend of the Taliban' but if it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck .......

Cheers :)

Joe

"...but if it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck......"

Disingenuous prat.

............

You won't be discussing these subjects with me any more, Joe.

Cheers : )