Typical gaslighting of feminists: 'You are responsible for the invasion of Afghanistan!'

[Aparallaxia]

www.thenation.com/article/world/white-feminists-wanted-to-invade/

This to me sounds like a right-winger just wanted to find something else to blame feminists for. Bush, Cheney and their gang didn't need another justification for the invasion of Afghanistan. It was the invasion of Iraq that they needed to justify, in 2003. These particular 'white feminists' may have been rich and privileged, but millions of other women in the US fully supported bringing Afghan women out of the dark ages. If the US messed up the reform of the country, how is that our fault?

Well obviously, first rule of misogyny innit?

@Aparallaxia

www.thenation.com/article/world/white-feminists-wanted-to-invade/

This to me sounds like a right-winger just wanted to find something else to blame feminists for. Bush, Cheney and their gang didn't need another justification for the invasion of Afghanistan. It was the invasion of Iraq that they needed to justify, in 2003. These particular 'white feminists' may have been rich and privileged, but millions of other women in the US fully supported bringing Afghan women out of the dark ages. If the US messed up the reform of the country, how is that our fault?

"Dark ages". Do white people always feel the need to slant other communities and assert their racial and ideological dogmatisms onto the rest of the world because they need civilising without even an attempt to understand the polical, cultural, ideological and historical context of the respective peoples and communities ? Although the assertion made for 9/11 might be somewhat questionable, you may nonetheless want to educate yourself by reading www.dukeupress.edu/in-the-name-of-womens-rights

Given how Afghan women are now publicly reacting to the prospect of being ruled by the Taliban, I'd say they would agree to calling their plight being driven back to the Dark Ages.

To clarify, and as we are in the business of educating one another: "The Dark Ages" is an out-dated historiographic description of a period of Western European history that turns out was anything but. It is now used metaphorically to describe any political situation in which people are have to live in chaotic, unsafe, and lawless conditions with no opportunities for political representation, education or improvement of their economic status—which may be extremely precarious—because whatever machinery of government there is is unable or unwilling to protect them.

Afghan women certainly had and have their own feminist ideas about what they wanted their condition to look like, shaped very often by their faith, and they were largely ignored by the foreign men who took over their country. But I think they would agree that being consigned to rule by the Taliban was nothing like what they regard as "feminist".

"Dark ages". Do white people always feel the need to slant other communities and assert their racial and ideological dogmatisms onto the rest of the world because they need civilising without even an attempt to understand the polical, cultural, ideological and historical context of the respective peoples and communities ?
Aaah! Dear old cultural relativism. Just out of interest, how would you explain FGM? And no, I'm nut saying that FGM is a purely islamic 'tradition' before we go down that black hole.

When women are making 50% of the decisions with regards to politics and foreign policy. Then we can talk about how responsible feminists are, not before.

I am confused as to how they made a war declared by Osama Bin Laden in 1996 against the US followed by several terrorist attacks culminating in the 2001 9/11 attacks could ever be blamed on white women in the US. They didn’t ring him up in Afghanistan and taunt him with their loose and free ways.....
All the US did was wait 5 years and multiple attacks later before retaliating....

Afghan women certainly had and have their own feminist ideas about what they wanted their condition to look like, shaped very often by their faith, and they were largely ignored by the foreign men who took over their country.

This isn’t quite true. During the US occupation they went from 0% MPs in their Parliament to 25%. Massive increase in only 20years/single generation. The same in most professions because an entire generation of girls actually were educated in primary schools through university.....all that will end now.

In this case, where Afghan women have spoken openly of their fear of the return of the taliban and the loss of the last 20 years progress in women's rights, I think I'll educate myself on this by listening to them rather than to someone focusing on France, Italy and the Netherlands.

@Aparallaxia

Given how Afghan women are now publicly reacting to the prospect of being ruled by the Taliban, I'd say they would agree to calling their plight being driven back to the Dark Ages.

To clarify, and as we are in the business of educating one another: "The Dark Ages" is an out-dated historiographic description of a period of Western European history that turns out was anything but. It is now used metaphorically to describe any political situation in which people are have to live in chaotic, unsafe, and lawless conditions with no opportunities for political representation, education or improvement of their economic status—which may be extremely precarious—because whatever machinery of government there is is unable or unwilling to protect them.

Afghan women certainly had and have their own feminist ideas about what they wanted their condition to look like, shaped very often by their faith, and they were largely ignored by the foreign men who took over their country. But I think they would agree that being consigned to rule by the Taliban was nothing like what they regard as "feminist".

How is a historical description of a historical event out dated ? And compared to the civilisations of the time, the Europeans were very much regressive undoubtedly.

Now, words do carry connotations - are you suggesting when the very same people calling them from the dark ages then go on to describe them as "backwards" and from the "7th century" are also doing that from an ahistorical context ? I think it's pretty clear what the connotations are, what they are implying, and it still carries through today.

Now, moving onto Afghanistan, this is the problem isn't it. No historical understand, no cultural understanding, no understanding of religion, no understanding of the dynamics or the differences in the various regions - watches a few BBC videos, keeps tabs over some twitter feeds and now a self declared expert.

Let me give you some food for thought:

1. Why do you think the Taliban managed to take over the entire country in light speed if most people were against them ? Surely, if they were THAT bad everyone would be fighting them. Do bare in mind this is the most humiliating situation the US/UK have ever endured, it is x100 that of Saigon.
2. How do you distinguish between tribal and cosmopolitan mindsets ?
3. How do you account for the fact that the very people protecting "women's rights" and "education" were allowing the very civilised government they instated to systematically rape 1000s of young boys on their very own US/UK bases ? All troopers were ordered not to get involved, so throughout the nights you would be hearing young boys screaming to the tops of their lungs with no one to avail them.
4. The main argument against the Taliban is anti-education. What they fail to realise is in the 90s during the civil war boys and girls were being abducted and killed/raped. To protect them they stopped all children from going to school. But of course no western media will enlighten you about that.

There is a lot more nuance going on here. Trust me, you ARE being played. That's not to absolve the Taliban, but this situation is far more complicated than the white washing of the west. You'd think europeans would have figured this out by now, apparently not, too dogmatic and "We need to save the world!!".

@Myothercarisalsoshit

"Dark ages". Do white people always feel the need to slant other communities and assert their racial and ideological dogmatisms onto the rest of the world because they need civilising without even an attempt to understand the polical, cultural, ideological and historical context of the respective peoples and communities ? Aaah! Dear old cultural relativism. Just out of interest, how would you explain FGM? And no, I'm nut saying that FGM is a purely islamic 'tradition' before we go down that black hole.

Then by your own admission, Muslims should force sharia law down the throats of the English since they regard it superior to the western way of living. Now what, another war ? you down ? What are you btw since we are talking morals. Are you an objectivist or absolutist ? and are you atheist ? This will determine how this discussion progresses. No point talking FGM if we can't establish the basic precepts of your morality.

@idk11 do you have any proof for your assertions above such as troopers not protecting young boys and them screaming at the top of their lungs?

[quote Tuscancat]@idk11 do you have any proof for your assertions above such as troopers not protecting young boys and them screaming at the top of their lungs?[/quote]
Its very common knowledge amongst soldiers actually, but no one wants to talk about it because the government are our "allies". Check out this article: www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html

Then by your own admission, Muslims should force sharia law down the throats of the English since they regard it superior to the western way of living. Now what, another war ? you down ?
What are you btw since we are talking morals. Are you an objectivist or absolutist ? and are you atheist ? This will determine how this discussion progresses. No point talking FGM if we can't establish the basic precepts of your morality.
My 'morality' tells me that it's fucking abhorrent for little girls to be held down, screaming, whilst their genitals are removed or mutilated, in order for their sexual organs to be deemed acceptable and for them to be seen as marriageable.

@Myothercarisalsoshit

*Then by your own admission, Muslims should force sharia law down the throats of the English since they regard it superior to the western way of living. Now what, another war ? you down ? What are you btw since we are talking morals. Are you an objectivist or absolutist ? and are you atheist ? This will determine how this discussion progresses. No point talking FGM if we can't establish the basic precepts of your morality.* My 'morality' tells me that it's fucking abhorrent for little girls to be held down, screaming, whilst their genitals are removed or mutilated, in order for their sexual organs to be deemed acceptable and for them to be seen as marriageable.

So your morality is based on whim. If you "feel" like it's wrong, then what's stopping them from "feeling" like it is right?

Your morals are arbitrarily defined and subject to change with the wind. This is the problem with the west isn't it. You talk about cultural relativism not realising that your own principles are relativistic and changing with each decade. What makes you think those who succeed us won't be looking back at you with scorn ?

Post WW2 they are talking about torture being wrong, and when it no longer meets their strategy they violate their own beliefs and do "whatever it takes", whether in Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, Libya, Yemen, Palestine, South America, Gitmo, Bagram and the countless torture chambers in non US/NATO lands.

Also, the point you make is moot. In the 19th century doctors would perform operations on patients without sedation. Is the solution to "stop all operations!!", or to improve the process by providing safe, sterile, clean environments and to sedate the patient before operating.

Although, considering the fact they are doing it in a tent with no anesthetic should probably indicate to you that they probably have other more pressing challenges, like what they are going to eat tomorrow and whether they have enough water. It's probably why they are marrying their girls off so young in the first place.
What's even more ironic is the crippling poverty is a consequence of the western endowed neoliberalistic tyranny whereby big business is used to usurp the wealth and resources of these countries to pretty much benefit the west entirely at their expense - let's not fix the problem at it's root, let's not take responsibility that our civilisations are built on their blood and toil, let's not talk about their crippling poverty because of our failed models, let's just blame the patriarchy and waste money on cheap crap to make ourselves feel better about doing nothing - thereby, perpetuating the very things we as so morally outraged by.

IDK
I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you. You've shown your true colours.

idk11 You raise so many points it's hard to know where to start. But one thing I'd challenge is the assumption that "the west" is monolithic, e.g. 'Post WW2 they are talking about torture being wrong, and when it no longer meets their strategy they violate their own beliefs and do "whatever it takes", whether in Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, Libya, Yemen, Palestine, South America, Gitmo, Bagram and the countless torture chambers in non US/NATO lands.'

The use of torture by the CIA on Islamist prisoners as well as on innocent bystanders, guided—if that's the word—by inept, corrupt, fast-talking con-men who were basically making stuff up as they went along, when it became public knowledge, aroused feelings of horror and deep opposition from millions of people, who were convinced these methods were abhorrent, and useless to boot. Millions loathed Cheney and Bush and their whole gang of incompetents, rogues, liars, and thieves. We tried to show we were opposed, with all means possible.

So do you think we should have staged a revolution? Shot the Cabinet? Installed a new government of—what kind, exactly? This is all fantasy. More or less peaceful protests, lobbying our representatives, voting and encouraging people to vote, educating ourselves and others, donating money to the right causes—that's all we've got. Some people in the US want to go beyond, of course (cf. Jan. 6th), but I think more are against violence of this kind. Many people in "the West" were ashamed of and disgusted by the corruption, incompetence, and failures of the US-led regimes in both Afghanistan and Iraq. But tell us: what were we supposed to do that we didn't do and could have done?

What's even more ironic is the crippling poverty is a consequence of the western endowed neoliberalistic tyranny whereby big business is used to usurp the wealth and resources of these countries to pretty much benefit the west entirely at their expense

Bullshit. It’s these countries rejection of the west. Of capitalism and democracy that is keeping them in poverty. The mere fact that 50% of the population (women) are forbidden from economic activity automatically makes them half as wealthy as any country with women’s rights.

@Aparallaxia

idk11 You raise so many points it's hard to know where to start. But one thing I'd challenge is the assumption that "the west" is monolithic, e.g. 'Post WW2 they are talking about torture being wrong, and when it no longer meets their strategy they violate their own beliefs and do "whatever it takes", whether in Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, Libya, Yemen, Palestine, South America, Gitmo, Bagram and the countless torture chambers in non US/NATO lands.'

The use of torture by the CIA on Islamist prisoners as well as on innocent bystanders, guided—if that's the word—by inept, corrupt, fast-talking con-men who were basically making stuff up as they went along, when it became public knowledge, aroused feelings of horror and deep opposition from millions of people, who were convinced these methods were abhorrent, and useless to boot. Millions loathed Cheney and Bush and their whole gang of incompetents, rogues, liars, and thieves. We tried to show we were opposed, with all means possible.

So do you think we should have staged a revolution? Shot the Cabinet? Installed a new government of—what kind, exactly? This is all fantasy. More or less peaceful protests, lobbying our representatives, voting and encouraging people to vote, educating ourselves and others, donating money to the right causes—that's all we've got. Some people in the US want to go beyond, of course (cf. Jan. 6th), but I think more are against violence of this kind. Many people in "the West" were ashamed of and disgusted by the corruption, incompetence, and failures of the US-led regimes in both Afghanistan and Iraq. But tell us: what were we supposed to do that we didn't do and could have done?

You've simply reasserted my point. The Human Rights charter is practically meaningless when you consider the foundation of your moral compass is routed in whim. When the wind changes, so does the flavour of morality. This isn't about numbers, this is about an under underlying philosophical assumption and is and will continue to bite the west in the backside for decades to come. Take trump for instance, openly talking about waterboarding - you might contest that, but the fact a leader elected by half the US population is openly taking about torture is simply showing how fickle the secular world view truly is. So morality on whim = what flavour of ice cream would you like to try this month.

This idea is mostly applicable to the west as it has adopted a secular and increasingly atheist worldview, which makes morally even more absurd because the goal of life now is survival and good, bad, right, wrong are only aesthetic and have no intrinsic value because everything is meaningless and randomness is your god.

@PlanDeRaccordement

What's even more ironic is the crippling poverty is a consequence of the western endowed neoliberalistic tyranny whereby big business is used to usurp the wealth and resources of these countries to pretty much benefit the west entirely at their expense

Bullshit. It’s these countries rejection of the west. Of capitalism and democracy that is keeping them in poverty. The mere fact that 50% of the population (women) are forbidden from economic activity automatically makes them half as wealthy as any country with women’s rights.

How does getting women into the workforce remove you from poverty when as a starting point MEN CAN'T FIND ANY WORK EITHER ? You do know what poverty is right ? You can't build jobs when there are none to be had because the west is too busy usurping the wealth of these lands. If you want to learn more about this, read www.amazon.co.uk/Confessions-Economic-Hit-Man-shocking/dp/0091909104?tag=mumsnetforu03-21

What is it with you lot and completely undermining everyone else's experiences, toils, difficulties and then projecting your world view onto them ? As if their plight doesn't exist and they can only view the world through your lenses. Feminism saved you and now this MUST be the case for all nations, lands and communities. We can be bothered to listen, empathise, or understand, just impose impose impose! What are you so insecure about ? Quit this insular world view won't you.

So the black man was impoverished until the white man came along with democracy and capitalism, built on a white standard, a white narrative, a white worldview, and completely undermined the demographics, ethnicities, cultural differences, religions, aspirations and imposes his standard on to him to liberate him, huh ?

The Africans did not only have a very rich history, the also had many riches in general, and had a number of buzzing civilisations, and some of the richest men in history (Mansa Musa for instance) were black Africans. In fact, so rich he would tank entire economies. Let's be frank here, it is only when the Europeans stepped on shore that Africa changed for the worse and continues to do so till today. Their death and poverty is your legacy, not their own.

Ah yes, democrazy REALLY does work doesn't it. When all it's ever doing is being used to undermine other communities and leading to civil wars and genocides. Let's not forget the west imposing dictators and the like for whatever reason. I guess the solution to all of this is, hmm .... let me think, feminism ? Give me a break.

@CrazyNeighbour, pretty much. It's backwards because the west does not approve of it. The implication being that it is inferior and the white man is superior. It's not just limited to the Taliban however, this mindset persists wherever you go. The native american school scandal/genocide in Canada recently is routed in the same mindset
It is routed in a type of racial and ideological supremacy i.e. these people need to be civilised. A bit like the Native American needs to be "civilised" so let's kidnap their kids and forcefully remove all their cultural value and strip them of their identify and raise them to be like us, and not forget, let's kill them in due process because they are worthless in any case.

This to me sounds like a right-winger just wanted to find something else to blame feminists for.

The author is Rafia Zakaria. A feminist activist who wrote Against White Feminism.

@TooBigForMyBoots

This to me sounds like a right-winger just wanted to find something else to blame feminists for.

The author is Rafia Zakaria. A feminist activist who wrote Against White Feminism.

Is Zakaria so dim as to think that women's rights had even a smidgen to do with why Afghanistan was invaded? Really?

It's never been about women. Never has been, never will.

She is far from dim @NeverDropYourMoonCup.

I thought it was about opioids (among other things)