|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Much has been made of the missed opportunities of all these women, but there is another important cost: the missed opportunity for Afghanistan as a whole. ....... David S. Landes, the economic historian at Harvard, argues in his magisterial "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations," "The best clue to a nation's growth and development potential is the status and role of women.""
It seems to me the article is trying to say that everyone, including men, will benefit from a more progressive society, one element of which is the inclusion of women in the political/economic/edcuation opportunities.
Further he makes the point that if we push (gently nudge he says) Western standards of democracy and jurisprudence, it won't just be women who benefit but everyone. I would think the many men who were unfairly imprisoned, tortured and/or had hands and God knows what else cut off would agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday December 13, @03:48PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Don't you get tired of Lorianne always lurking about waiting to give the feminist view. It's like having a direct link to NOW.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, Anonymous - just out of curiosity, what was your conclusion about what the author was trying to say? I drew pretty much the same conclusion about his message that Lorianne did, and I was not trying to see it from a feminist point of view! :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday December 13, @05:25PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Hawth, you're right. I probably read too much into the writer's response. I undoubtably reacted to the "progressive" part of reshaping society, which seems to imply one favoring the feminist agenda. Seems like if we will just fix everything so that the world will be better for women then it will naturally be better for men. But, that doesn't seem to always be the case, or does it? Gender neutral legislation doesn't seem to work out that well (for men) does it? Am I missing something here? Thanks for the reply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seems like if we will just fix everything so that the world will be better for women then it will naturally be better for men.
Well, not quite. The thesis I read into it was that a sure way to maximize the productivity of a culture is to allow the full participation of 100% of its citizenship in all arenas, public and private. The article alludes to how the U.S. started charging ahead once women's education improved. This makes sense, since - as I choose to see it - the intelligence of a population is evenly distributed among both the male and female halves; thus, limiting women's education keeps us from benefitting from half the available intelligence. The same applies for employment skills.
I can see where one would conclude that the proposed policy changes are feminist (or woman-centered), because the article specifically refers only to promoting female participation - however, I'm assuming the reason for that is because women are the ones who are currently not participating. I would presume that, if men were the ones excluded, it would be the exact same story.
Now, maybe I'm giving the author and Lorianne too much of the benefit of the doubt, but in this case, my verdict is that this is simply a call for an end to gender discrimination, and not an implied statement that women are somehow better, smarter and more capable than men, and thus the world will be a better place once women have the freedom to exert their superiority.
(Though I'll admit that the reference to the guy running the raisin factory who plans to fire most of his male employees does give the article an odor of misandry; even though he justifies his intent with presumably empirical evidence that females are more careful workers, it also seems like he's getting a bit "caught up in the moment", as it were.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday December 13, @06:58PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Hawth, your response was far more intelligent and well presented than I deserved. I think it would be better if I remained a silent observer in the future. Again, I appreciate your thoughtful response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anon - Keep speaking up. I can understand your irritation with Lorianne. I find her irritating also. It's good though to be able to take that irritation and put it to work. Just as an oyster uses some irritant to make a pearl we can do likewise. Long ago when men's groups would meet they always had an older woman as a silent and passive participant. When groups of women would meet they would have an older man in the same role. These two served like the dots on the yin/yang symbol. Their presence kept those attending in check in a subtle yet powerful manner.
I'm happy that we are able to welcome all views here. In some ways it helps us to sharpen and focus our own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good analogy. I for one am glad Lorianne is here. It gives me hope that a woman actually takes the time to comment when most just blow men's sites off as sexist rhetoric.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 15, @10:54AM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Frank, I was concerned over the position Lorianne had taken on most issues. At best neutral, while other times there was clearly an intent to counter what seems to me to be the intent of this site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 15, @10:56AM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Oops, I was responding to Tom, disregard Frank please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well I'm not going to claim I don't have any cultural/gender bias. That would be stupid, everyone does. However, I didn't see any misandry from the article. I'll explain why I think so:
The author is making two points. One, that cultures which include the participation of women seem to do better (imperical evidence). Two, that Afghanistan has a lot of cultural hurdles to overcome before that realization could possibly benefit them.
To illustrate that point, the author used quotes from Afghan men, which to us look like blatant attempts to paint Afghan men as bigotted pigs in their opinions of women, but which the author (I think) meant to illustrate the obstacles which lay before any attempt to promote premis No. 1 (that cultures which fully include women have advantages over those which don't).
This was perfectly illustrated by the last quote from the article, which was an exact replica to how American men rationalized confering the vote to women in days of yore.
"[Women should be allowed to vote," he added magnanimously, "and if a woman has no husband, she can decide for herself who to vote for." ]"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I too found the article for gender equality in a way but I had some problems with it as well.
One of the problems I have when people say that anyone, especially women, lack representation in a political system because they are not physically present is misleading. Women often have a great deal of power in every society but it often goes unnoticed or unacknowledged. (This point is better made in the ethnic counseling studies that show to make any long-term change in the family of many "patriarchal" societies they advise talking to the elder women.)
Also the quotes from men in the society show their bias but also that they are forced to follow the society's rules of conduct. I also would like to, for once, hear from women that support the form of government they have. (just to hear from another voice)
Also I think it's dangerous to force a dramatic change in short period of time in a society that has been "functioning" for thousands of years. If you change the rights of one group it will effect the other. To ignore how men are treated in Afghan society is begging for long-term problems.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Also the quotes from men in the society show their bias but also that they are forced to follow the society's rules of conduct."
Abosolutely. And I think the author was sensitive to that and trying to show that with his peer pressure examples. And the fact that "culture" is an intricate interconnected dance. People don't force "culture" one upon the other.
"I also would like to, for once, hear from women that support the form of government they have. (just to hear from another voice)."
I think the author tried to show this as well in two ways. One was that women would run away when he tried to talk with them, which was informative of their views in itself. The other was that when he did talk with one, she voiced the same "party line" that (a man is justified to beat his wife if she doesn't listen to him) which is exactly the same as your point when you said that men are "forced to follow the society's rules of conduct." Women are enmeshed in those same rules.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
