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

Male refugees & migrants have long been cast as a vector of political violence & a threat to western liberalism to justify both invading their countries and denying them safety / refuge when the inevitable happens. We are now witnessing this in acute action.

@LadyGnome

DH was a refugee when I met him (20+ years ago) i.e. had been granted asylum and was a stateless person. He was the only member of his family who got out when there was a civil war in his country. Did any of his family resent it - no. He was the one at highest risk because of his political involvement and profession at the time. That didn't mean the rest of his family weren't at risk but simply that they weren't at heightened risk. He may have put the family at risk if he had stayed with them because he would have drawn the attention the military who were trying to supress dissent. Fortunately, his country has moved on and is less dangerous now so he has been able to visit his family - nobody has ever questioned the fact he left - the people living in the situation understood why.

I really don't think we can judge from the outside.

p.s. DH is Muslim from a majority Muslim country and his values and attitudes aren't materially different from mine so I think we can avoid the generalisations about certain types of refugees.

Refugees are generally well-educated and ‘Westernised’ because they a)have the money to escape and b) are the ones allowed to stay because of ‘high risk’, e.g political involvement. The grounds to claim asylum are strict and simply ‘fleeing a war-torn country’ isn’t grounds for approval. Religious dogma is a tool to subjugate the poor. It isn’t followed by the rich elite.

If your a girl /woman raised in a man's world where men's allow you to have someone freedom but where you are separated from men at every turn and made to live life in a different lane then maybe you would be thrilled your brother got out because you feel he's more important?

Pauliaa I agree.

I also agree that any one who has a death sentence on them needs help now. Of course they do.

Anyone who helped the military etc should be got out.

It doesn't have to be an either or situation. I just hope however that some pressue is brought to bear on a male dominated society that the west would like to save women and children before males who don't have links to West or immediately will be killed because as Paulaa said, being forcibly married, locked inside your house, beaten, kicked spat at and forced to have children for the rest of your life is a worse fate than being forced to grow a beard and whatever else they make then do.

@Wheretoeattweenandteen

April at most other huge migrations have had plenty of women along as well. Of course they have.

Isn't it rather sexist to assume women can't flee?

But confusing because people flee from terror, but some people claim women are too weak to also flee the terror but they are strong enough to stay and face the terror that men flee from?

Doesn't make any sense.

Why would it be sexist? It's always going to be harder for a woman and kids than for a single man, especially given how a lone woman might be treated

Tractor
Being well educated is one of things that made DH and some of his friends a target. They were seen by the regime as more of a threat - probably more likely to ask awkward questions - organise etc. He didn't have a lot of money but he was in his 20's and fit so could get out.
I think you are right that a generalised threat isn't enough - you have to be at risk as an individual to claim asylum.

@Slipperfairy

I guess it's weighing up the risks and self preservation too. Man stays= no real value to new regime;probably going to be killed. Woman and girls stay= they have some value- even if abhorrent. Less likely to actually be killed.

Man runs- might actually make it. Easier to find somewhere to stay.
Whole family run- hard to do. Hard to find somewhere to stay. Women and girls still face that of rape etc.

If dh were likely to be killed, then he'd have to go.

Very true

If my brother's name was on a list, specifically my brother not just all men his age, and he was in immediate risk of torture and death I would be delighted to see him escape.

@LadyGnome well quite. The average Afgan woman wouldnt be granted asylum under our current rules. The way it works is, person under direct, personal threat eg interpreter gets out, gets granted asylum and can then ask for family to join them.

@Saidtoomuch

What happened in this case? Did their sisters join them? If so, how old are they now and can the girls speak English well now, are they in education or work here? *@powershowerforanhour* I don't know him well and it was a few years ago, but yes, they are very "western" and very well educated, quite sucessful I believe. I did omit an important fact in trying to be evasive, so as not to be recognised, but his brother actually died during the journey. The then boy and his travelling companions buried him at the roadside.

Reality is messy, and people are driven by fear and hope, not guarantees.

The Afghan refugee I know, same story. Escaped with other young males. Was eventually able to bring some women from his family to join him here. Half the men died on route.

Torque wench,

It's am aghast at that article.

I am staggered, its awful, absolutely awful.

@Wheretoeattweenandteen do you disagree with the author?

Hunipop of course its sexist why is the woman alone,

Her family should all be with her!
Going as... A family.

Tractor and headphones can I ask why you have @ me? It's usually when someone has not been on the thread or their post is lost in a fast moving thread.

It feels aggressive because I'm posting and I'm right here.

Have you read it?

Male refugees & migrants have long been cast as a vector of political violence & a threat to western liberalism to justify both invading their countries and denying them safety / refuge*

When has the potential for violence of male refugees and migrants been used as an excuse to invade their countries of origin?

@Wheretoeattweenandteen

Hunipop of course its sexist why is the woman alone,

Her family should all be with her!
Going as... A family.

But what is sexist? How, who?

Society? Yes, that's why women aren't able to travel alone/safely. I don't get the sexist argument. Is the point that the men fleeing are sexist for leaving their families?

Hardly an easy choice to make. Not possible to drag the whole family. They live it everyday, they know better than us

Common sense dictates you prioritise those at immediate threat of death if they stay - those who were interpreters for instance or even those who worked for The British Council. Any connection to working the the British or US government put a death sentence on their head.

@StoneofDestiny

Common sense dictates you prioritise those at immediate threat of death if they stay - those who were interpreters for instance or even those who worked for The British Council. Any connection to working the the British or US government put a death sentence on their head.

Yep, but probably torture as well. It's may well be more than just a bullet to the head, especially if they find out that you specifically helped the military

@Wheretoeattweenandteen

Tractor and headphones can I ask why you have @ me? It's usually when someone has not been on the thread or their post is lost in a fast moving thread.

It feels aggressive because I'm posting and I'm right here.

Have you read it?

Is it? I only use it when I can’t quote - and the thread isn’t exactly slow I’m presuming you’re referring to the Yvonne Ridly article (there have been a few by this point but I think that’s the one)

The same thing happens with tons of people who leave their country for asylum. It is quite the look into the way these men think of you ask me. That they will leave their wives and children to face whatever they have left behind and come here themselves. Because if Britain became somewhere we needed to leave for asylum elsewhere tommorow I do not believe that most men would leave their families, most men I know would actually send their wives and children before themselves and wouldn't think to leave them.

At the end of the day the British and US military have a moral duty to help the people (mainly men I imagine) who helped them and are now in danger. They can't evacuate the whole country so they start with the people who are at high risk and who they have an obligation to help.

Why does everything have to be made out to be sexism?

Also I saw a report on Sky and it seemed like a lot of the planes with mainly men weren't actually Afghans, they were other countries evacuating their embassy staff and nationals, I think the plane they showed was Indian nationals being evacuated. So again if the military, business and embassy people are mainly men, highly likely I would have thought, then that is who will be on the planes.

No tractor it's not that article.

Ancient gran, sexism because we are dealing with a country that is.....

Sexist?

Do you think women hold equal rights in Afghanistan?

@LifesNotEnidBlyton

The same thing happens with tons of people who leave their country for asylum. It is quite the look into the way these men think of you ask me. That they will leave their wives and children to face whatever they have left behind and come here themselves. Because if Britain became somewhere we needed to leave for asylum elsewhere tommorow I do not believe that most men would leave their families, most men I know would actually send their wives and children before themselves and wouldn't think to leave them.

Really? My husband is a retired senior police officer, he went on a War Duties course. Cold war times and officers being trained about what to do when the invasion happened. They were told they would all report to nearest police station, they would live there or could be moved elsewhere but they would be fed and given somewhere to sleep and would be in a protected building with firearms.

My husband asked about his wife and children and was told it was his duty to report, we would have to fend for ourselves. He said he thought officers would be more committed if their families were also cared for. He was told he was a disgrace and a coward and should be ashed of himself. Not just by course leaders but by his colleagues on the course. All male officers, it was before the womens service merged in the mid 70s.

So no I don't think British men would necessarily be an different, my husband was a lone voice wanting his wife and children to be safe. Some men would and some men wouldn't, here, Afghanistan or elsewhere.

@Wheretoeattweenandteen

Ancient gran, sexism because we are dealing with a country that is.....

Sexist?

Do you think women hold equal rights in Afghanistan?

We are talking about who was being evacuated on the planes. It might have been sexist that women weren't interpreters but the military have a moral duty to those men because of what they did not because of their sex.