|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by housewife_activism on Tuesday November 27, @11:06PM EST (#1)
(User #375 Info)
|
|
|
|
|
...uh, isn't the quality of life in Afghanistan just miserable across the board? That's what I've heard, anyway. It seems to me that most women in Afghanistan are probably more concerned about finding food, shelter, and other basic human neccesities than whether or not they have to wear veils and the fact that they're not allowed to pursue an education.
Furthermore, can ANYONE pursue an education in Afghanistan? In the documentary I saw, the school was basically one room with no paper, no books and no desks. I doubt there are many schools in the whole country; even schools as sparsely equipped as the ones I saw are probably rare. It is horrible that women can be executed for not wearing their veils and for other minor offenses, but it seems a picayune gripe amongst all the other human rights violations. I guess I'm being redundant here, but it bears repeating.
I guess people have a problem with the principals of the Taliban leadership, and Laura Bush needs something to do aside from keeping her daughters out of the bars. But what the fuck is the point of decrying these offenses against women when the whole country is in shambles and we're already going after the Taliban anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear housewife,
You're absolutely right that the quality of life in Afghanistan is grotesquely horrible for everyone. And, yes, it _is_ ludicrous that so much energy is expended "decrying these offenses against women when the whole country is in shambles."
Unfortunately, for many people it's not so obvious.
I commend you for being able to see it, especially in the face of the one-sided coverage that's given to the issue here in the West.
It's that blatantly one-sided coverage -- the apparent belief that women being forced to wear veils is somehow more heinous a crime than the thousands of men and boys who are tortured and murdered -- and what that says about our society's attitude towards men, that we're attempting to bring to light.
Ragtime.
Goebbels law: -- the principle that if the media prints only one side of a question, the public will accept it and will not consider any alternative opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone have facts and figures on Afghanistan’s population? I saw Gloria Steinem on TV and I’m sure she mentioned that women are a majority in that country. That really shocked me!!! (Can't help a little sarcasm)
It says a lot that she can go unchallenged using that fact to argue that women are oppressed (she was saying that women are not represented even though they are a majority of the population). No one asked why there are so few men (or rather so few live ones). Reliable figures, if they exist, on the population of males vs females, mortality rates, life expectancy, number of each sex killed in war, etc. might help in challenging this one-sided argument. I’ve yet to see these figures anywhere. Maybe CNN will do a special on it (still more sarcasm).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Life in Afghanistan under the Taliban is certainly miserable, but there are a few distinctions in favor of men that must be noted.
Men in Afghanistan can see a doctor if they are unwell. Women can not be seen by a male, and as women are not allowed to work, health care for women is pretty much nil.
Men can work to support themselves or their family. Women can't. In fact a growing number of widows are forced to starve, beg, or prostitute themselves.
Men can go out in public by themselves and uncovered. Women must be with a close male relative and covered head-to-toe.
Boys can go to school. Girls can't.
Forcing young boys and men to fight and be killed for the Taliban military and beating and imprisoning them for not having beards the right length is certainly atrocious, I'll definitely not argue that it isn't. But, their options are a little more varied than that of women. Let's not let the unfairness of radical American feminism blind us to the fact that in countries like Afghanistan and to governments like the Taliban, women are no more than chattel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forcing young boys and men to fight and be killed for the Taliban military and beating and imprisoning them for not having beards the right length is certainly atrocious, I'll definitely not argue that it isn't. But, their options are a little more varied than that of women. Let's not let the unfairness of radical American feminism blind us to the fact that in countries like Afghanistan and to governments like the Taliban, women are no more than chattel.
Not be playing "who is the bigger victim" here, but do you really believe that boys and men who are murdered by the Taliban is somehow a better situation for them than girls not being allowed to go to school?????
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are taking my comment out of context, don't you think? A boy who is able to go to school or a man who has the option of working is going to fare a lot better than a woman who can be beaten or killed outright for just leaving the house unescorted. When the ablebodied men and boys are murdered, it is the women and children and the old and disabled men AND women who are left to suffer and starve and eat grass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are taking my comment out of context, don't you think?
Not at all. The short of your opinion seems to be that the men's movement should be focusing on Afghanistan's atrocities against women and not men. I maintain that men being murdered and conscripted is just as bad as girls not being allowed to go to school. "Who is the bigger victim?" gets neither us nor equality feminism anywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“When the ablebodied men and boys are murdered, it is the women and children and the old and disabled men AND women who are left to suffer and starve and eat grass”.
This comment reminds me of one made by then 1st lady Hillary Clinton:
“Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat”.
At the time I asked: Does that mean that men are the primary victims of breast cancer?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You insist on taking my remark out of context. Education is very important but women who appear in public unchaperoned (by a MALE relative) and uncovered have been murdered as well. The women are kept subservient to the men, which means that when, as you maintain, the men are murdered their women face slow starvation and death. It is a grim situation for all parties, male or female, certainly. However, I think in that situation I would rather be a man - allowed to go out in public, to get medical attention, and to handle a weapon, to protect myself and my family, to make what limited decisions I can for my family; than a woman who must hide from the world, submit, and/or starve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually men do get breast cancer. Look it up. There is a misconception that they do not, which means that the cancer can spread pretty well before they even realize they have it.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
