Evacuation form Afghanistan- women?

[Aprilinspringtimeshower]

So saw this article and the accompanying photo www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/17/afghanistan-striking-image-appears-to-show-640-people-fleeing-kabul-in-packed-us-military-plane?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

This is what concerns me- where are the women? The overwhelming majority of people on that plane are men, adult males. There are a few women and some children.
Yet it is the women who are in greatest danger. Young girls, older women. Single women who won’t be able to support themselves once stopped from going outside unaccompanied, professional women who will be banned from working .

Everyone said that the war was about women’s right and way of life. And that what is happening now is a danger to the rights and well-being of women.

Surely it is women who are the ones that need to get out of the country safely and be offered asylum- so where are they? Why wasn’t that plane full of mostly women or even equal amounts of women and the men that accompany them.

I don’t hear the government saying anything to target protection and refuge for women specifically. And to young girls and women who are in real danger

AIBU that it is always the men that get the preference, and that really no one cares enough to actually provide proper protection to the women and girls ..it’s just all sound bites and noble words

@Queenelsarules

Not on the basis of their sex they don't, which doesn't make it not awful, but a man is not at risk solely by virtue of being a man, a man has not had his humanity taken from him and been made the property of a male relative, the situation for women in Arlfghanistan is dire. Not only women who aided the military, not only women who object to the regime, not only women who resist the regime, all women by virtue of their sex, regardless of job, or status, by virtue of their biological sex their autonomy has been stolen from them. The oppression of women by this regime is systemic and total. This is distinct to how men are treated by this regime and it is disingenuous at the very least to claim otherwise.

Nobody has claimed otherwise. Thé question is not who has it worse. Thé question is should women be prioritised for rescue over men? The answer (in the absence of context) is no. What you’re saying is that men should be left to die over women since they can’t take everybody. Luck and eligibility are (under these conditions) the only way to decide that are ‘fair’

are any of those men talking about their maids or cleaners? Did they even know they had them? Did they even see the women who worked for it with them?

Most seem to have been low level soldiers trying to train the ANA so no. I'm sure if there are highers up floating about, they might have had maids - if I find them, I'll let you know. But there seems to be no doubt amongst the soldiers that the interpreters they knew would have been killed very quickly (or possibly slowly but they're certainly dead).

Personally I can't get worked up about American collaborators fleeing certain death. Them remaining in the country would only endanger their wives and children. And I can't imagine that they could easily get their wives and children on the flight with them, not when so many others who worked with the military need to go too.

They aren’t just preventing girls going to school

They are going into towns demanding names of all unmarried girls and women over 12 to take as sex slaves. I’m sure their forced “husbands” will be ever so kind to them

Exactly. So sick of the ignorant fools on these threads.

[quote FemmePerdue]@Normaigai women are actively making that decision to give up their spaces for men and boys because they see death as worse than rape.
And using the phrase "because of her sex" hides the fact that it is her sex which has made her relationship with the westerners invisible - if she is one of the women in imminent danger.
It seems what women consider a normal risk calculation becomes uncomfortable if the sexes are reversed?[/quote]
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that we know that women in the situations you've described have gained visas and not used them so men can get to safety first?

Or that these women aren't considered worthy of visas so won't be on those planes anyway?

The second seems more likely to me. I'd hope too that women's role would be considered less important even by their oppressors, leaving them a bit safer.

"Today 20:39 TractorAndHeadphones

LifesNotEnidBlyton

You are wrong. That isn't what has happened. My comment wasn't about British vs Afghan men.it was factual and followed with my thoughts. This has been gone over again and again. As for people disagreeing with me that has been gone over too. There was no need for everyone who disagreed to individually comment back to me when it is a group talk with more people who posted in line with me and when I have already said we can agree to disagree. So by continuing to comment individually it shows people only want to have an argument and gang up instead of contributing to the group talking about it without commenting to only one person in a comment.

You said it yourself, it’s a forum , people can post what they like - except when they reply/quote you, then they’re ‘ganging up’?
The thread’s moved on, everyone’s forgotten you now so you can have your tea in peace 😇"

No you don't seem to understand. What I said was that everyone can post what they want but when there is a group of people saying something and then people start commenting to an individual comment and that commenter asks to agree to disagree but people commenting individually to them then theres no need for it becuase it's just them trying to have an argument. Just like you have done now with your sarcastic reply. All I have done is commented back to people who have put a "quote" to me, and you are wrong that I was the only one still doing so becuase the comment you have put above was in reply to a comment I pit to someone who just a few posts up thread and has said to me but you still, when I hadn't put your username, felt the need to put mine so that's ironic.

Anyway as I've said we can agree to disagree with the people who have commented to me with my posts in their comments. Anyone else who does comment with my posts or who puts my username and I then reply isnt me continuing this. I've already asked that people don't if they don't agree because we can agree to disagree. So if people do then they are continuing it and I'm just being polite by not ignoring a direct comment.

[quote FemmePerdue]@Normaigai women are actively making that decision to give up their spaces for men and boys because they see death as worse than rape.
And using the phrase "because of her sex" hides the fact that it is her sex which has made her relationship with the westerners invisible - if she is one of the women in imminent danger.
It seems what women consider a normal risk calculation becomes uncomfortable if the sexes are reversed?[/quote]
But that's choice isn't it? A man can give up his place, a woman can give up her place. I don't think anyone should be suggesting that a man who decides to take up their place (or force their way on through which isn't going to be an option for the vast majority of women for strength reasons) is doing anything wrong. The reality is that your average Afgan with no international connections isn't hanging around Kabul airport. Everyone there has reason to be afraid. The idea that men on the plane are cowards who don't care about their families is (a) blaming the wrong people, and (b) coming from an assumption that an Afghan man somehow loves his family less than 'other men'. I'm sure there are people on that plane who took up the place without a second thought or a twinge of guilt. There have been lots of reasons to explain why someone might take up their place because it is genuinely the best thing. I'd argue that there are likely to be more of the latter (but ultimately only they know) - there aren't many people who wouldn't have anyone they were leaving behind that they cared about even if it was brother/friend rather than wife and children.

@Normaigai

LifesNotEnidBlyton After my comment. I'm generally brilliant but predicting the future isn't in my skill set.

She also only commented after you commented on her post! If you don't want people to keep arguing with you then stop arguing with them. If you want to keep arguing with people fine, I don't care, but then stop complaining people are unfairly picking on you.

You are again wrong. The only post I had on this thread wasnt to anyone. Not one person, it was just a comment. Since then the only people I have commented to by username are people who have done so to me, so you are wrong with your idea I just should comment to them if I dont want them to to me. Becuase I didnt. I only replied. I have been taught if I am addressed I should answer. So my answer to each person who has has been to ask that we agree to disagree and that they dont keep only addressing me when there is a group chat happening, so those people who do are obviously picking me out, becuase they spoke to me first, just as you did, and all I am doing is replying as is polite and normal.

@TractorAndHeadphones erm no the question is: is the prioritisation of men over women fair?
Your argument being: some men will die, so yes.
I fail to agree with your yes until the suffering of the women at immediate risk of harm is taken into equal account and given the same gravitas as death.

If you can do this then I might agree with your yes. Until then I'm not convinced. I'd tend to think the original unfairness in the system is permeating through the rescue.

It seems like people on here are hoping that maids' names don't make the list so they are safe.

I'll repeat myself, men are the story tellers here. The only names worth putting on those lists are male. The list writers will definitely know which women to target before they go for the indiscriminate debauchery.

Many Afghan men were employed by US and UK military forces in various capacities, for instance as translators, and that puts them at exceptional risk from retaliation by the Taliban. Most of those Afghan allies of the West, were male. We have a moral obligation to get them out safely.

@LifesNotEnidBlyton Your original comment implied that Afghan men were simply abandoning their families and that British men were somehow better as more of them wouldn't do that. The comment was based on pure conjecture. It's not even possible to base it on fact unless the UK somehow goes through a similar situation to what's happening in Afghanistan now. It created a sense of them and us that simply shouldn't exist especially in these horrific circumstances and it needed calling out.

Goodness me @LifesNotEnidBlyton you're starting to make a thread about a humanitarian crisis all about you.

You wanted people to agree to disagree. If your version of that is people disengaging and not tagging one another etc then disengage yourself.

Or you could hide the thread if it's upsetting you. It's not all about you and it's in me-railing territory now.

@normaigai I don't believe in calling anyone a coward. I do know some have used that term on here. I haven't.

And the thing with choice is it is influenced by the stories we tell ourselves.
If I believe that death is worse than rape then we have ourselves a no brainer.
If I believe my family will be safeish without me I have a no brainer.
If I believe that a bit of flogging is better than my husband being tortured then again no brainer.
If being flogged but alive is part of being safe then yes I can stay behind.
That the men believe they deserve a place on the planes, that I do not question.
What I do question is why so few women see themselves as worthy of that spot despite what I believe to be more than quite a few being compromised.

[quote FemmePerdue]@TractorAndHeadphones erm no the question is: is the prioritisation of men over women fair?
Your argument being: some men will die, so yes.
I fail to agree with your yes until the suffering of the women at immediate risk of harm is taken into equal account and given the same gravitas as death.

If you can do this then I might agree with your yes. Until then I'm not convinced. I'd tend to think the original unfairness in the system is permeating through the rescue.

It seems like people on here are hoping that maids' names don't make the list so they are safe.

I'll repeat myself, men are the story tellers here. The only names worth putting on those lists are male. The list writers will definitely know which women to target before they go for the indiscriminate debauchery.[/quote]
I do see your point but I think that's the fault of the list makers and it does need to be challenged. To put it in context though, someone posted up thread, that a visa had been denied to a man guarding British Embassy bodyguards because he worked for a contractor, not directly for the Embassy. If there is a group of women who worked directly for the government who have been left off the 'list' then I am completely behind you. Should the cleaners of the embassy (assuming female) get the same priority as the security guards? Absolutely but I haven't seen anything to suggest they haven't. I think that it's is highly unlikely that anyone who worked much further down the chain (for example a cleaner or a driver to a foreigner not in any way contracted to the embassy) are going to get a look in though. I suspect that it's far more likely that 'female' roles wouldn't have been contracted directly though and so objectively women will be disadvantaged, it's just I don't see a good option to fix that at this stage.

I agree women's voices aren't heard but I suspect it wouldn't have made much difference here and that still isn't a reason a man should be blamed for taking up a place.

[quote FemmePerdue]@TractorAndHeadphones erm no the question is: is the prioritisation of men over women fair?
Your argument being: some men will die, so yes.
I fail to agree with your yes until the suffering of the women at immediate risk of harm is taken into equal account and given the same gravitas as death.

If you can do this then I might agree with your yes. Until then I'm not convinced. I'd tend to think the original unfairness in the system is permeating through the rescue.

It seems like people on here are hoping that maids' names don't make the list so they are safe.

I'll repeat myself, men are the story tellers here. The only names worth putting on those lists are male. The list writers will definitely know which women to target before they go for the indiscriminate debauchery.[/quote]
But nobody's prioritising men over women!

1. In the U.S plane : They're prioritising people who worked with the Western military. So whether they're men, women, Martians or giraffes is irrelevant. If as many women worked with the militaries then the plane would be full of them.

The men who got on forced their way in and were not supposed to be there. The pilot took off instead of kicking them out. Nobody prioritised them.

2. At processing centers: Presumably first come first served processing. Those who are eligible will be extradited. Those who are not left. Eligibility again has nothing to do with sex.

So please tell me as of this moment - where have men been prioritised over women solely because they are men?

There's also the case of refugees crossing borders as happened with Syria but that's unrelated as we are specifically discussing Afghanistan.

[quote FemmePerdue]@normaigai I don't believe in calling anyone a coward. I do know some have used that term on here. I haven't.

And the thing with choice is it is influenced by the stories we tell ourselves.
If I believe that death is worse than rape then we have ourselves a no brainer.
If I believe my family will be safeish without me I have a no brainer.
If I believe that a bit of flogging is better than my husband being tortured then again no brainer.
If being flogged but alive is part of being safe then yes I can stay behind.
That the men believe they deserve a place on the planes, that I do not question.
What I do question is why so few women see themselves as worthy of that spot despite what I believe to be more than quite a few being compromised.[/quote]
I think that it is likely women thought of themselves as less worthy and there will be a massive amount of social conditioning going into that decision (and even more so in a society like Afghanistan). Plus a woman would be judged far far harder for leaving her children.

I mean this genuinely. Is there a story which suggests that a lot of women have given up places or is it that your view is they haven't been pushing as hard for them as the men because they think they don't deserve them?

[quote Burnt0utMum]@LifesNotEnidBlyton Your original comment implied that Afghan men were simply abandoning their families and that British men were somehow better as more of them wouldn't do that. The comment was based on pure conjecture. It's not even possible to base it on fact unless the UK somehow goes through a similar situation to what's happening in Afghanistan now. It created a sense of them and us that simply shouldn't exist especially in these horrific circumstances and it needed calling out.[/quote]
The comment, as I have explained again and again, was just a simplified way of putting my thoughts. You took it another way than it was. You are saying what my comment was but say implied and it only implied it to you and a few people who commented back. It isnt your job to "call people out", and more so when you dont actually know more about what the person thinks and are wrong.

Everyone said that the war was about women’s right and way of life

No, they did not . That's not what the war was about so please don't spread fake news. It absolutely beggars belief that America's reason for going to war there 20 years ago has been so swiftly forgotten.

All the wars in Afghanistan have been about territory, politics, power; invaders pursuing revenge, control, territorial and military agendas.

Britain has been to war four times in Afghanistan. Never about women. USSR spent 10 years at war with Afghanistan (1979-89) , not about women , and USA 20 years not about women.

You can easily google Afghanistans bloody history.

You see this discussion is interesting unlike and argument on who should shut up first. Should the 'list makers' have an obligation to recognize that if there are women and men who both qualify, the woman may/will be less likely to come forwards because they think they're less worthy. And is so, is processing first come first serve acceptable or is it inherently sexist. And if inherently sexist (which I suspect it probably is), is it the type of sexism that is acceptable in the rushed circumstances or is it only acceptable because women are excepted to accept sexism. If for some reason, it was all women applying on first come first serve, are we sure the planes would be filled with women.

Lots of typos. I suspect you get my point.

Although I don't want to detract from how horrific this is for everyone involved.

There are stories of and from women out there as well. There is an article about female soldiers in Afganistan and the fear of payback, in my native newspapers. It's really sad. Incredibly brave

@manhattenrain

The children and women should have been the priority as they are the ones in greatest of danger. 💔

You seriously expect Afghani men to stand to one side for women? It won't happen, the Taliban may be the extremists but within the culture women are less than second class citizens.

@youvegottenminuteslynn

Goodness me *@LifesNotEnidBlyton* you're starting to make a thread about a humanitarian crisis all about you.

You wanted people to agree to disagree. If your version of that is people disengaging and not tagging one another etc then disengage yourself.

Or you could hide the thread if it's upsetting you. It's not all about you and it's in me-railing territory now.

What a sarcastic and ignorant comment. One commented I posted just one small comment on a thread to share my thoughts, and then I left the thread. Since then I have had comment after comment individually to me, and as i have been taught it is polite to answer when addressed i answered and said we could agree to disagree so the thread wasnt derailed or turned into an argument. Again and again I tried this as the comments continued to address only me. Nowhere have I posted a comment individually to anyone who did not do so to me first, and you might think that I should just ignore people talking to me but when all I've done is commented normally and they have continued the argument after I have tried to deescalate I've a right to stand up to them, and people like you are the ones making it about themselves, and then you have the audacity to say that I should be th one to just ignore bullying and not asking why they have kept talking only to me so you are wrong and obviously not to good with irony of your ignorance.

Well speaking as a parent(mother) I’d stay and be bloody executed and let my daughter go than leave her at the mercy of the taliban. At least she’d have a chance at life.

@SchrodingersImmigrant

There are stories of and from women out there as well. There is an article about female soldiers in Afganistan and the fear of payback, in my native newspapers. It's really sad. Incredibly brave

Did you see Rangina Hamid's interview? I watched it live and it was heartbreaking. So brave.

You seriously expect Afghani men to stand to one side for women? It won't happen, the Taliban may be the extremists but within the culture women are less than second class citizens.

If you know so much, at least get the terminology correct. "Afghani" is a unit of currency. "Afghan" denotes nationality. It's a common mistake but one worth getting right when making such sweeping generalisations