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?

Maybe I'm cynical, but the war was also about oil and drugs. Money and power. Probably politics, too. Obviously other things, and some genuinely good. But I sincerely doubt it was purely about helping them have a fair democracy and women's rights. That's a fairytale view, imo. And war is a business, make no mistake; some people profit with money and power, the people suffering be damned.

Also, democracy, capitalism and the like cannot claim to be so pure and almighty either. This is where people lose patience with the arrogance.

Also, it's not just nonWestern cultures/peoples who have committed atrocities to their own people. White cultures and Western cultures have done it just as much. Isn't a race or culture thing; it's a human thing, sadly, to want to oppress, abuse, torture, lord power over people, etc. And the West can't claim to be holier-than-thou, either, even in modern times, even if our problems are not as bad as some cultures, the West is a laughing stock for claiming to be the complete moral high horse.

yes ALL peoples should be free of torture, abuse, etc. No people, country, political ideology has figured out how, to my knowledge. All ideas seem to have failed in many respects on this, probably cuz it always devolves into corruption and abuse.

And I do think the world is getting fed up with the West as world police, especially usa and britain. Especially when both have massive problems of their own.

Not sure of a solution. I wouldn't begin to know. There are many complexities.

I get what she’s saying about parachuting in international initiatives to support women without properly including the voices and organisations on the ground in that process - that should have been done and it was probably harmful if it wasn’t. But I think it’s demonstrably untrue to say that Afghan women didn’t want libration - look at how many women flocked into education and work and started to dress in a much more relaxed way. And of course it obviously absolute nonsense to suggest that feminism was anything other than a tiny additional justification for an invasion which was about all sorts of geopolitical things, or that it has anything to do with the fact that the invasion failed.

I haven't digested all of the above but I totally agree that the 'dark ages' is now a disputed historical term. There were elements of Roman-inspired Christianity that were 'dark' and repressed at the time but there was the flourishing of other cultures across Europe. There is a definite 'Western' and 'Christian' bent to the term 'dark ages'.

Maybe I'm cynical, but the war was also about oil and drugs. Money and power. Probably politics, too. Obviously other things, and some genuinely good. But I sincerely doubt it was purely about helping them have a fair democracy and women's rights. That's a fairytale view, imo. And war is a business, make no mistake; some people profit with money and power, the people suffering be damned

Absolutely. The 'save the women' trope was laid out at the time but it was really about revenge for Sept 11, drugs and particularly oil. Yes, women did get benefits but as we said at the time if there was no oil they'd have been allowed to rot.

I think discussion on how there was a lot of public support - particularly in the US for the conflict outside of the administration - is an important part of recognizing how the fuck-ups in all this were rooted in the many interests and power groups involved. I think that's better than the recent dance particularly in social media around which President is most responsible as if 1-2 people can be responsible for it all, but focusing entirely on feminists I think is just looking for another scapegoat for a very complex issue. Why the author chose feminists rather than discussing Hollywood/US media's involvement when that's the starting point, only thry can say.

What makes you think those who succeed us won't be looking back at you with scorn?

I don't see how others looking me at scorn means I can't have an opinion. I mean, to some, my existence is something to look at in scorn - I've been told that since I was small, doesn't mean I have to base my life on the fact some hate I exist or that those who follow me may hate me if I am even remembered at all, which seems unlikely.

The Human Rights charter is practically meaningless when you consider the foundation of your moral compass is routed in whim.

No, the charter is meaningless because there is no enforcement or consequences for those in power that break it. Any charter or law or rule that has no enforcement is just a wish. They aren't magic powered by morals, they're just words unless they're backed by action that even those in power are bound to. That is continuously not the case and so, no one cares about using it as platitudes against others.

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.

The West is not a homogenous mass and becoming secular does not mean atheist (and atheist doesn't mean meaningless or random or a moral code bound by aesthetic), secular just means not bound by religious rule.

Not all secular philosophies, atheist or agnostic, are Western -- there is actually a long history in many philosophical traditions around the world. The oldest agnostic & atheist traditions that there is still record of both come from what we would now call India.

There are agnostic philosophies around the world, but the 'father of Western agonistics' and the one who coined the term as it is used now, Thomas Henry Huxley, was very strong in the concept that a claim of knowledge should be backed by rigorous evidence not whims or desires and that claims about the nature of divinity - any of them - have many risks, including that those who control the 'will' of any of it can change things as they desire. We can look at any religious tradition and see changes in the 'aesthetic' of ethics through the various branches and how they've all changed with time. Secular philosophies are not alone in that issue, all of them change with time - religious and secular. That some claim an ancient tradition doesn't mean that it hasn't changed with certain people's whims. The Taliban's teachings are actually entirely modern, the group isn't that old and it's based on the desires of those in power - using a Koran and other Muslim texts as part of backing doesn't change that anymore than American Evangelical prosperity teaching is a modern concept using old texts as part of gaining credibility. Lots of things use old stuff to gain credibility, it's a common marketing tactic -- doesn't actually make it so though.

I don't get the dismissal of morals as based on belief, feeling or 'whim' (not the same thing actually but never mind that) and the assertion that this makes them meaningless. This was said in relation to FGM. As far as I understand it the practice of FGM is based on a moral code that believes women should not feel sexual pleasure, and this moral code is of longstanding culturally. But it's still also just based on a belief or feeling that female sexual pleasure is wrong or dangerous. Just because it's of cultural longstanding doesn't make it right or any more valid.
People used to sacrifice other people to assuage the gods. This is pretty much universally understood as morally wrong by the human race now, so morals obviously can and do change. Why should that make them meaningless?
Any 'cultural' practice that directly causes unnecessary pain, and lifelong medical issues, if not death, is wrong and anyone who argues otherwise needs to take a long hard look at themselves.

@BiBabbles

I think discussion on how there was a lot of public support - particularly in the US for the conflict outside of the administration - is an important part of recognizing how the fuck-ups in all this were rooted in the many interests and power groups involved. I think that's better than the recent dance particularly in social media around which President is most responsible as if 1-2 people can be responsible for it all, but focusing entirely on feminists I think is just looking for another scapegoat for a very complex issue. Why the author chose feminists rather than discussing Hollywood/US media's involvement when that's the starting point, only thry can say.

What makes you think those who succeed us won't be looking back at you with scorn?

I don't see how others looking me at scorn means I can't have an opinion. I mean, to some, my existence is something to look at in scorn - I've been told that since I was small, doesn't mean I have to base my life on the fact some hate I exist or that those who follow me may hate me if I am even remembered at all, which seems unlikely.

The Human Rights charter is practically meaningless when you consider the foundation of your moral compass is routed in whim.

No, the charter is meaningless because there is no enforcement or consequences for those in power that break it. Any charter or law or rule that has no enforcement is just a wish. They aren't magic powered by morals, they're just words unless they're backed by action that even those in power are bound to. That is continuously not the case and so, no one cares about using it as platitudes against others.

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.

The West is not a homogenous mass and becoming secular does not mean atheist (and atheist doesn't mean meaningless or random or a moral code bound by aesthetic), secular just means not bound by religious rule.

Not all secular philosophies, atheist or agnostic, are Western -- there is actually a long history in many philosophical traditions around the world. The oldest agnostic & atheist traditions that there is still record of both come from what we would now call India.

There are agnostic philosophies around the world, but the 'father of Western agonistics' and the one who coined the term as it is used now, Thomas Henry Huxley, was very strong in the concept that a claim of knowledge should be backed by rigorous evidence not whims or desires and that claims about the nature of divinity - any of them - have many risks, including that those who control the 'will' of any of it can change things as they desire. We can look at any religious tradition and see changes in the 'aesthetic' of ethics through the various branches and how they've all changed with time. Secular philosophies are not alone in that issue, all of them change with time - religious and secular. That some claim an ancient tradition doesn't mean that it hasn't changed with certain people's whims. The Taliban's teachings are actually entirely modern, the group isn't that old and it's based on the desires of those in power - using a Koran and other Muslim texts as part of backing doesn't change that anymore than American Evangelical prosperity teaching is a modern concept using old texts as part of gaining credibility. Lots of things use old stuff to gain credibility, it's a common marketing tactic -- doesn't actually make it so though.

@BiBabbles

I don't see how others looking me at scorn means I can't have an opinion. I mean, to some, my existence is something to look at in scorn - I've been told that since I was small, doesn't mean I have to base my life on the fact some hate I exist or that those who follow me may hate me if I am even remembered at all, which seems unlikely.
Huh ? My response was to cultural relativism. The claimant was anti-relativist and I simply pointed out that although she is scornful towards other cultures, the principles of her own society are culturally relative and changing all the time. So she is victim to the very thing she claims to be against.

No, the charter is meaningless because there is no enforcement or consequences for those in power that break it. Any charter or law or rule that has no enforcement is just a wish. They aren't magic powered by morals, they're just words unless they're backed by action that even those in power are bound to. That is continuously not the case and so, no one cares about using it as platitudes against others.
You're missing the point. If you are atheist/agnostic you have no moral claim. If you are a philosophical naturalist (i.e. one that believes everything can be explained through natural laws which is most atheists today) the only claim you have is survival and evolution.
Truth is not intrinsic and serves no purpose other than to further survival. You might say what's wrong with that ? Well, if survival, and propagation of genes and furthering the human race is the basal mechanism of man, then raping a million women is good because it furthers that cause. This brutality is the case for the natural world, why should we humans then be an exception to the rule ? Within such a framework, you can justify anything and so human rights becomes a meaningless social construct. Everything becomes a social construct, and it can therefore be torn down.

When you feel pain, it's not "pain" it's just chemical reactions in your brain. You are only matter, nothing more, nothing less - everything is explained mechanistically. This follows then, that killing a man and breaking a stone are exactly the same thing i.e. a re-arrangement of matter.

So if you are an atheist then existence and creation is by default meaningless. There is no order to it, no conscious mind behind it, it is the consequence of random events and we are random byproducts of a unguided random set of evolutionary events. Now, if existence is meaningless, then it follows that everything we construct is by default also meaningless, including human rights.
You could choose to play by the rule book but I am under no obligation to do so because it all amounts to nothing in the end anyway.
Now, if you argue that there is meaning in existence, then you are implying that there is a conscious mind or some type of intuition behind it, thereby asserting that you are no longer an atheist but a believer in some higher power.

The West is not a homogenous mass and becoming secular does not mean atheist (and atheist doesn't mean meaningless or random or a moral code bound by aesthetic), secular just means not bound by religious rule.
Well, we will have to define what we mean by the West and then what we mean by homogeneous. I define the West as lands either majorly occupied by or colonised by people of European decent. If by homogeneous we mean ideas, then the West is mostly consistent across the board i.e. the nation state, secularism, reformation, Enlightenment values, democracy and so on.
Now, secularism is an idea born out of the reformation but as of the 20th century it has evolved into a type of ideology/belief system underpinned by a religious fervor - you only need to look at lacite and the imposition of "secular values" on religious minorities to realise that it is no longer about neutrality by the imposition of a godless (atheistic) moral code on everyone, even other religious communities, forcing them to violate and even blaspheme against their own sacrosanct beliefs.

There are agnostic philosophies around the world, but the 'father of Western agonistics' and the one who coined the term as it is used now, Thomas Henry Huxley, was very strong in the concept that a claim of knowledge should be backed by rigorous evidence not whims or desires and that claims about the nature of divinity - any of them - have many risks, including that those who control the 'will' of any of it can change things as they desire. We can look at any religious tradition and see changes in the 'aesthetic' of ethics through the various branches and how they've all changed with time. Secular philosophies are not alone in that issue, all of them change with time - religious and secular. That some claim an ancient tradition doesn't mean that it hasn't changed with certain people's whims. The Taliban's teachings are actually entirely modern, the group isn't that old and it's based on the desires of those in power - using a Koran and other Muslim texts as part of backing doesn't change that anymore than American Evangelical prosperity teaching is a modern concept using old texts as part of gaining credibility. Lots of things use old stuff to gain credibility, it's a common marketing tactic -- doesn't actually make it so though.

The flaw in Huxley's argument is that science and reason based thinking is also built upon axioms (unprovable beliefs). Belief, faith, whim, desire is not something limited to religion, it is part of the human experience and every human is victim to them, from the most gracious of believers to the most staunch atheist so that is a moot issue.

Also, you seem to have missed the point here, this has nothing to do with power, or control. The issue here isn't the expression of morality, but more fundamental than that - namely, is morality routed in a higher being or is it a byproduct of an evolutionary mechanism. If the former, then the morality has room to be objective because it is routed in something that transcends the human. If the latter, then the foundational assumption of morality is routed in nothing and because existence is meaningless then all moral aspirations are routed in a meaningless soup - and that is a very dangerous conclusion because now anything and everything goes.

@BewareTheBeardedDragon

I don't get the dismissal of morals as based on belief, feeling or 'whim' (not the same thing actually but never mind that) and the assertion that this makes them meaningless. This was said in relation to FGM. As far as I understand it the practice of FGM is based on a moral code that believes women should not feel sexual pleasure, and this moral code is of longstanding culturally. But it's still also just based on a belief or feeling that female sexual pleasure is wrong or dangerous. Just because it's of cultural longstanding doesn't make it right or any more valid. People used to sacrifice other people to assuage the gods. This is pretty much universally understood as morally wrong by the human race now, so morals obviously can and do change. Why should that make them meaningless? Any 'cultural' practice that directly causes unnecessary pain, and lifelong medical issues, if not death, is wrong and anyone who argues otherwise needs to take a long hard look at themselves.

I think you are missing the point. If you say I feel this is right, why must I oblige ? Ultimately, it's your word against mine. How do we measure the value of truth in these statements if we both define truth differently ?

FGM is practised because they believe that untamed expression of sexuality is dangerous to society. You believe that untamed expression of sexuality is good. Who is right, and who is wrong and by which standard do we measure this if neither side agrees ?

What you realise with FGM, is it's not routed in morality per say, but an idea - the idea that sexuality can be destructive if let loose uncontrollably. If you look at the pornification of society, the infidelities, lying, cheating, they are ultimately routed in a perversion of sex i.e. lust - a perversion that is ever so pervasive within the western social landscape. So it seems if we adopt a rational position that they have a greater understanding over this issue than the West.

Now, if someone is senselessly killing, maybe both parties can come to an agreement and put an end to it but unlike murder, many things are not so clear including the expression of sexuality which is very novel in the Western discourse. The rest of the world has not had a rigid, prudish Victorian approach to sexuality, and so to impose "The Handmaid's Tale" narrative is somewhat insincere and demonstrates a lack of nuance within the cultural and historical landscape.

I get what she’s saying about parachuting in international initiatives to support women without properly including the voices and organisations on the ground in that process...

There is a wider point about listening to the women in a society and accepting that they (not "white feminists") know what is best for them. Critcising deeply held beliefs and calling their way of life, barbaric etc. does not support women.

To paraphrase Marcus Aurelius “waste
no more time arguing what a good man is, be one”.

The trajectory of Afghanistan is backsliding into brutality and oppression, we should have stayed involved for at least a few generations until more
girls were educated and women had reproductive rights.

Thing is empirically outfitting a society with reproductive rights for women and equal access to education for girls produces many manifest benefits to any society that adopts them. Reduction in poverty, lessens the effects of extremism, either political or religious. It’s a
net benefit anywhere it’s applied.

The abolition of slavery came about by Wilberforce and the Quakers articulating the case and campaigning for it. If people want to accuse me of cultural superiority I’m fine with that accusation if it means less suffering. Following the end of slavery there were many liberated slaves who articulated a remorse that the only life they knew had vanished.

Thing is the people of Afghanistan are gonna be brutalised and repressed and their liberties taken away regardless. Us staying in (or indeed going back), would have at least afforded the outcome where they could be free in the future.

Wilberforce convinced wealthy, powerful men like himself that slaves were actually people and had the law changed. There is no equivalence with feminism.

Women in the rest of the world are not slaves. They are active, participants in their community. They love and are loved by their families. They have their own opinions, beliefs, culture, knowledge and voices. They know what they need to improve their lives and the best thing other feminists can do is listen to them and provide them with material support. What they don't need is "white feminism", denigrating their lives patronising them and charging in to liberate them.

Feminism doesn't trickle down. It will not be achieved with the passing of a law (although laws help). It is a grassroots movement for the improvement of womens lives.

@Dervel

To paraphrase Marcus Aurelius “waste no more time arguing what a good man is, be one”.

The trajectory of Afghanistan is backsliding into brutality and oppression, we should have stayed involved for at least a few generations until more
girls were educated and women had reproductive rights.

Thing is empirically outfitting a society with reproductive rights for women and equal access to education for girls produces many manifest benefits to any society that adopts them. Reduction in poverty, lessens the effects of extremism, either political or religious. It’s a
net benefit anywhere it’s applied.

The abolition of slavery came about by Wilberforce and the Quakers articulating the case and campaigning for it. If people want to accuse me of cultural superiority I’m fine with that accusation if it means less suffering. Following the end of slavery there were many liberated slaves who articulated a remorse that the only life they knew had vanished.

Thing is the people of Afghanistan are gonna be brutalised and repressed and their liberties taken away regardless. Us staying in (or indeed going back), would have at least afforded the outcome where they could be free in the future.

Are you following the discussion or simply stomping your feet ? God, does anyone listen here ? Do you even see the absurdity of your proposal ? You are a moral absolutist acting as if your morals are set in stone, and yet they are routed in relative ever changing principles. So what happens in 20 years when your moral compass decides to reverse course ? another war to civilise the world ? and how do you assert the truth of your morality when it is effectively based on a democratic consensus ?

You talk of suffering and are willing to kill moving onto 2 million people to assert your allegedly superior morality and ideology - How exactly is this more "humane" ? I guess a dead Afghan girl is more preferable to one in a burqa eh ? and then you have the audacity to talk about brutality, even though you lot ultimately created this mess in the first place. Sometimes it's better to realise you don't have what it takes, that you are the problem, step back and let others take over.

And what is it with the hyperbole ? Is all morality black and white ? there is no grey area ? Is anyone who thinks trans women shouldn't be allowed to mingle in women only areas equivalent to a murderer ? Slavery and womens rights are a false equivalence.

Also, considering western feminist liberation is routed in a capitalist paradigm, and capitalism is playing a major role in climate change, it can be argued that the current conception of capitalism and by extension, womens rights are unethical and immoral. Now what ?

And what ever happened to intersectionality ?

Why are slavery and women’s rights a false equivalence? @idk11 The status of women under the Taliban and in many countries is similar to slaves. In fact if you look at women’s rights through the ages slavery would be a good equivalence in many cases. Forced marriage with dowries paid, legalised rape within marriage, unable to hold property, unable to move around freely. I’m sure some women love their husbands

Posted too soon.
But it doesn’t make it less like slavery. Moral relativism can get lost, I’m with Dervel on this one.

You can argue that we shouldn’t have gone into Afghanistan year ago, maybe not. I agree it isn’t the West’s job to impose values on the rest of the world. But once we were there we should have stayed it was a terrible betrayal of those women and girls to leave in the way we did.
Also moral relativism or not liberal democracy is so far the only system that has produced sustained improvement in living conditions and anything approaching freedom for the majority of the population. I’m not saying we should impose our values all over the world but we should certainly advocate for them. China and Russia do not share our values. You think if they become the preeminent powers things will be better for oppressed people? If Black Lives Matter we should advocate as hard as we can for Western values because maybe I’m too cynical here but I suspect China becoming the preeminent power in Africa will not be great for the lives of black people there. The lack of a free press to hold them to account means they will exploit people with impunity for economic gain. But never mind as long as the woke left can talk about how terrible the West is…

FGM is practised because they believe that untamed expression of sexuality is dangerous to society. You believe that untamed expression of sexuality is good. Who is right, and who is wrong and by which standard do we measure this if neither side agrees ?

Jesus fucking Christ.

I was raised in the UK, so one of the guiding moral principles I was given was that a proportionate means should be used to justify a legitimate aim.

Curbing sexuality by chopping off and sewing up the genitals of children doesn't meet that test.

I'm interested to hear arguments for lopping off bits of children with rusty razor blades (or even clean scalpels) in order to solve a perceived possible ill in society.

If Black Lives Matter we should advocate as hard as we can for Western values because maybe I’m too cynical here but I suspect China becoming the preeminent power in Africa will not be great for the lives of black people there.

Western values devastated the continent of Africa.

Blimey IDK11!

@Kotatsu, research shows that, if practicing communities themselves decide to abandon FGM, the practice can be eliminated very rapidly. Grassroots change works better than imposition.

This thread !

Men do not go to war for women. They go for power and revenge. The feminist narrative is just a ruse used to position the west to curry favour with the masses.

Bottom line is the west has built a successful civilisation. But it’s over. China is organising itself long term for world domination and it will succeed. A civilisation needs to be brutal and disciplined if it is to survive: hence why Britain was so ‘great’ during its empire. Neither of these things are popular in the west today in fact anything that has ever contributed to the material comforts and perceived freedoms we enjoy today is considered repellant.

The irony is we are how we are in the west thanks only to the fact that we were once as bloody minded as our enemies are today. It got us this far. Now we are here, we sit sanctimoniously on our greedy bottoms pontificating to the rest of the world about what is and what is not right, whilst at the same time berating and silently despising the system that got us here. All the while the rest of the world is doing its best to catch up and overtake. We will rest on our laurels or regress thanks to the dumbing down of intellectualism and common values and China will gain ground. It’s not nice but it’s inevitable.

research shows that, if practicing communities themselves decide to abandon FGM, the practice can be eliminated very rapidly. Grassroots change works better than imposition.

Well absolutely, no argument there - but IDK seemed to be suggesting that as a non-religious westerner, my objection to FGM was a whim and subject to change, which was what I was saying was entirely incorrect. I have a sound moral basis for not wanting to mutilate children's reproductive organs - especially given the completely un-proven (well beyond if you're dead or it's painful, funnily enough you probably don't want sex) justification is to curb adult behaviour!

I was not challenging you @Kotatsu. I can see how passionately you feel about abolishing FGM. I feel the same and one of the better things we can do to reach that aim is listen to women, trust them to know what's needed and support them to improve their lives. That is feminism to me and it works.

Lobbying governments to pass laws is not as effective. Talk is cheap. A law is worth nothing if it isnt enforced. And where the law is enforced, women are the criminals.

Moral relativism can get lost...
Moral absolutism is illiberal, can be dangerous and is not always useful from a feminist perspective @Hotcoffee10.