PDA

View Full Version : Law will let Afghan husbands starve wives who withhold sex


Lara's home
17-08-09, 21:10
An Afghan law which legalised rape has been sent back to parliament with a clause letting husbands starve their wives if they refuse to have sex.

President Hamid Karzai ordered a review of the legislation after The Independent revealed that it negated the need for consent within marriage.

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/law-will-let-afghan-husbands-starve-wives-who-withhold-sex-1740229.html

Goose
17-08-09, 21:11
Im not sure this is going to be a good subject right now!

Before anyone blames the west, there culture cant be messed with, it was part of communism's down fall there, so were not going to make the same mistakes.

Tombraiderx08
17-08-09, 21:11
wtf... thats ridiculous!!!

EmeraldFields
17-08-09, 21:12
Another thread! I can't wait to see how this one turns out!:cln:

TombRaiderLover
17-08-09, 21:12
Oh my God, that's totally stupid! :eek:

adventurerLara
17-08-09, 21:13
They're way behind the times. :hea:

Catapharact
17-08-09, 21:14
Did ANYONE even read the headlines?! The law had been sent BACK! Meaning its a GOOD thing? For the love of God PLEASE read the article!

Goose
17-08-09, 21:17
Did ANYONE even read the headlines?! The law had been sent BACK! Meaning its a GOOD thing? For the love of God PLEASE read the article!

The Law allowed rape at first, was sent back, they got rid of the rape bit, but let husbands starve women until they gave it up.

Thats the complaint.

Cochrane
17-08-09, 21:18
I like the idea of withdrawing western troops if the law gets passed. Formally, it's the ultimate non-interference. Practically, it is quite obvious coercion. I guess the problem is that everyone knows we won't withdraw our troops over such a "trivial" question, though.

Goose: But do we know that this is really "their culture"? Afghanistan is compromised of a lot of different nationalities, cultures and people. I get the impression that in many unstable middle-eastern areas, extremists get far more influence than appropriate, simply because they are the ones the governments fear most, so they try to appease them.

SamReeves
17-08-09, 21:18
Hmm, where's Douglas MaCarthur when you need him? We turned Japan around, why not Afghanistan?

takamotosan
17-08-09, 21:19
Did ANYONE even read the headlines?! The law had been sent BACK! Meaning its a GOOD thing? For the love of God PLEASE read the article!

The fact that this law is even floating around legislation in the first place is a problem.
It's ****ing disgusting.

NemesisX13X
17-08-09, 21:20
Gee, life sucks, doesnt it?

Catapharact
17-08-09, 21:20
The Law allowed rape at first, was sent back, they got rid of the rape bit, but let husbands starve women until they gave it up.

Thats the complaint.

The given clause is remedial but still can be debated upon which leaves room for diagreement and then possibly rejection. The good point is that its under review, which would mean that people can see just how stupid it really is.

I distinctly remember posting a prior version of this article in MGC and we had a wonderful discussion on it.

And people complain as to why GC is criticized by me.

Love2Raid
17-08-09, 21:22
Uhmmm, this is an ancient law and some people (stupid pigs :mad:) want it back, definitely not all people. It's not like this is common practice in Afghanistan and it never will be.

Too bad women still don't have much rights over there since the Taliban took over. I hope that will change. I am curious how the elections will turn out.

Nerd For Life
17-08-09, 21:23
I read the title as 'Lara will let Afghan husbands starve wives who withhold sex'.

TombRaiderLover
17-08-09, 21:23
And people complain as to why GC is criticized by me.

Then don't bother posting in GC if you feel the need to criticise it so much.

Catracoth
17-08-09, 21:25
*face-palm*

Catapharact
17-08-09, 21:25
Then don't bother posting in GC if you feel the need to criticise it so much.

Because I am consider myself a blind optimist sometimes who by chance stumbles upon an individual in this given forum (several individuals actually) who have something intelligent to say for a change.

They alone make this place worth visiting.

Nerd For Life
17-08-09, 21:27
Ahh, here we go... where's the popcorn eating smilie? We need that sometimes!

TombRaiderLover
17-08-09, 21:30
Because I am consider myself a blind optimist sometimes who by chance stumbles upon an individual in this given forum (several individuals actually) who have something intelligent to say for a change.

They alone make this place worth visiting.

Fair enough. But surely MGC has many more posts by these individuals who have "something intelligent to say for a change?"

Catapharact
17-08-09, 21:30
Ahh, here we go... where's the popcorn eating smilie? We need that sometimes!

Sit around; The show will is gonna get really interesting ;).

Seriously we have two wonderful articles going here with a lot of discussion potential. A few people decided to post something constructive and to the point of the given articles. Then all of a sudden, they are both gonna turn into oneliner Spam.

And soon... POOF! Two closed threads. These articles are worth the discussion to be wasted like this.

Mad Tony
17-08-09, 21:32
Does it actually state in the Qu'ran that men are allowed to starve their wives if they refuse to have sex with them?

EmeraldFields
17-08-09, 21:33
And soon... POOF! Two closed threads. These articles are worth the discussion to be wasted like this.

One down, one more to go!:mis:

Catapharact
17-08-09, 21:34
Does it actually state in the Qu'ran that men are allowed to starve their wives if they refuse to have sex with them?

HA! If anything, a man who under Islam can be legally called a husband has the premiere responsibility of providing everything and anything his wife needs. That is THE FIRST responsibility! If he cannot do so then the wife has every right to clean his clocks and divorce him.

Chocola teapot
17-08-09, 21:35
Okay, strange law!

Mad Tony
17-08-09, 21:35
HA! If anything, a man who under Islam can be legally called a husband has the premiere responsibility of providing everything and anything his wife needs. That is THE FIRST responsibility! If he cannot do so then the wife has every right to clean his clocks and divorce him.Then surely people will see through the Taliban sooner or later?

Nerd For Life
17-08-09, 21:37
Sit around; The show will is gonna get really interesting ;).

Seriously we have two wonderful articles going here with a lot of discussion potential. A few people decided to post something constructive and to the point of the given articles. Then all of a sudden, they are both gonna turn into oneliner Spam.

And soon... POOF! Two closed threads. These articles are worth the discussion to be wasted like this.

As long as it doesn't get closed too soon! It keeps me entertained. :D

Catapharact
17-08-09, 21:39
Then surely people will see through the Taliban sooner or later?

That is if the given population had the chance to get the required education to read and interpert the Qurran for themselves. The Taliban have committed several cardinal sins under Islam including withholding the right to education from women and children.

The tribal leaders need a well placed blow to the face IMO.

Goose
17-08-09, 21:39
Goose: But do we know that this is really "their culture"? Afghanistan is compromised of a lot of different nationalities, cultures and people. I get the impression that in many unstable middle-eastern areas, extremists get far more influence than appropriate, simply because they are the ones the governments fear most, so they try to appease them.

No we dont, but when communism won in 1979, the first thing they did was take land away from the rich, and give it to the poor, give women the right to wear anything, teach women to read and write, freedom of religion, government built accomodation and numerous other things that afghans decided was to ungodly. Alot of Afghans believed Allah made them poor and the godless heathens from the East were damning them.

We wont make the same mistake, so its pretty much avoid messing with there stuff, except opium farming, and irrigation.

Heckler
17-08-09, 21:41
Urgh....I see another fight coming....
Dont you people have something less "I need attention so lets post random stuff about other people's suffering" to do?

amiro1989
17-08-09, 21:44
Oh great. Borat would have been happy if this was allowed in Kazakhstan few years ago.

Love2Raid
17-08-09, 21:45
I just read a few of the comments in the link. Why don't people see that it's just a few pervs who want this? Sadly, a bunch of those pervs have something to say in the parliament, so they can't just be ignored. I think it's very weak of Karzai to even consider it. He could have shown he was a strong and wise president with respect to the human (and in this case women) rights by throwing it straight to the garbage bin. But no he didn't, because that would lead to trouble. It's weakness I tell you. This 'review' is not enough, it should have never been considered.

I have heard about this months ago actually, and it disappointed me a lot.

Catapharact
17-08-09, 21:51
I think it's very weak of Karzai to even consider it. He could have shown he was a strong and wise president with respect to the human (and in this women) rights by throwing it straight to the garbage bin.

Unfortunately he legally can't. Every given bill has to follow upon a legal process of being amended in parliment if there is considerable backing for it and in this case, the tribal gimps do want it to pass. So legally he can't stop it from going onto parliment unless it somehow violates the country's charter (which I don't think it has.)

pneboy
17-08-09, 21:54
why oh why cant we get that law here

takamotosan
17-08-09, 21:55
Unfortunately he legally can't. Every given bill has to follow upon a legal process of being amended in parliment if there is considerable backing for it and in this case, the tribal gimps do want it to pass. So legally he can't stop it from going onto parliment unless it somehow violates the country's charter (which I don't think it has.)

It hasn't? That's sad.

adventurerLara
17-08-09, 21:57
It's times like these I feel really blessed to live in my part of the world.

Heckler
17-08-09, 21:59
It's times like these I feel really blessed to live in my part of the world.

Its times like these I wished I lived in your part of the world...Weve got some pretty weird crap going on here too....I.E...If you fancy a wife, you can buy her with a cow...

Love2Raid
17-08-09, 22:01
Unfortunately he legally can't. Every given bill has to follow upon a legal process of being amended in parliment if there is considerable backing for it and in this case, the tribal gimps do want it to pass. So legally he can't stop it from going onto parliment unless it somehow violates the country's charter (which I don't think it has.)

That's bad. So he is indeed just a 'puppet' after all.

Cochrane
17-08-09, 22:30
Fair enough. But surely MGC has many more posts by these individuals who have "something intelligent to say for a change?"
You'd be surprised, and I don't mean that in a positive way.

That's bad. So he is indeed just a 'puppet' after all.
That may be an exaggeration. Depending on the system, a democratic government is always a "puppet" to the people who elected it and the parliament, whose precise job is to control the government. In most countries, the government has rather few powers to stop a law that parliament wants passed, unless it violates the constitution. The US is the exception here.

VictorXD
17-08-09, 22:30
It's times like these I feel really blessed to live in my part of the world.

I wanted to live in your part of the world:(I'm so bored in here:/

Encore
17-08-09, 22:34
That may be an exaggeration. Depending on the system, a democratic government is always a "puppet" to the people who elected it and the parliament, whose precise job is to control the government. In most countries, the government has rather few powers to stop a law that parliament wants passed, unless it violates the constitution. The US is the exception here.

That's the theory, but in practice, the party system kinda contradicts it. If the government is from the same party in majority on the parliament..

TRhalloween
17-08-09, 22:35
why oh why cant we get that law here

Eww.

VictorXD
17-08-09, 22:45
Eww.

I completaly agree. Rape is something extremely awful:(

thecentaur
17-08-09, 23:49
We're clearly not a role model of democracy, or of anything that's good and fair, which is why other countries shouldn't look up to us. But for the love of God, when will anyone in the Middle East end their corruptness? :hea: People deserve rights, but in this case, Afghanistan is playing the thought that women's rights is a privilege, something that someone can earn. But damn it are they that behind the times back in the Middle Ages where binding women on wooden posts, setting them on fire, was legal?

thumbs down

Uzi master
18-08-09, 00:12
I read the title as 'Lara will let Afghan husbands starve wives who withhold sex'.

now you just got me thinking about lara running around the middle east shooting corrupt officials. but this is just horrible, if I lived there I'd well I don't know but I'd do something. maybe I'd get hundreds of women on a jumbo jet to Canada, well that wouldn't work would it.

Johnnay
18-08-09, 02:40
Hmm, where's Douglas MaCarthur when you need him? We turned Japan around, why not Afghanistan?

errrrr
obviously because of religion i suppose

Chocola teapot
18-08-09, 02:44
Why cant people starve others for withholding lol? I hate it when People dont lol.
Okay, On a serious note, This Is awful! Unecceptable!

aileenwuornos
18-08-09, 02:49
And people think we don't need feminism anymore.
Rape culture in action.
Much, too, angry, honey.

Catapharact
18-08-09, 02:51
And people think we don't need feminism anymore.
Rape culture in action.
Much, too, angry, honey.

Please don't make me begin with the problems concerning the extreme side of feminisim. The thought process on that end is truly despicable.

scremanie
18-08-09, 02:53
Disgusting!

Mad Tony
18-08-09, 09:04
And people think we don't need feminism anymore.
Rape culture in action.
Much, too, angry, honey.We don't need feminism, we just need common sense.

Drone
18-08-09, 09:12
I don't know what laws they have there but what idiot will do it to his wife? get a life :rolleyes:

Cochrane
18-08-09, 09:13
Please don't make me begin with the problems concerning the extreme side of feminisim. The thought process on that end is truly despicable.

I don't think it's about the extreme end of feminism here. This law, if it gets passed with these provisions, is rather just an example showing that the movement for equal rights for women has not yet succeeded.

Goose
18-08-09, 09:45
Why do people care? People hate these sorts of stories, but they want western influence in the region to be zero? Honestly, demand we convert all people to democracy by force, or let them abuse themselves.

You cant have it both ways.

Cochrane
18-08-09, 13:14
Why do people care? People hate these sorts of stories, but they want western influence in the region to be zero? Honestly, demand we convert all people to democracy by force, or let them abuse themselves.

You cant have it both ways.

The current international mission in Afghanistan hasn't been sufficiently successful, and letting our soldiers return seems better than the continuing what is not working. That does not mean, however, that we shouldn't be active for human rights there.

stereopathic
18-08-09, 14:20
The current international mission in Afghanistan hasn't been sufficiently successful, and letting our soldiers return seems better than the continuing what is not working. That does not mean, however, that we shouldn't be active for human rights there.

i just don't think the taliban can be persuaded to treat women better. or the rest of the population for that matter. there are some very rare cases where force is the best answer and i believe dealing with the taliban is one of these rare occasions.

as far as american forces, we've altered our strategy drastically and departed from the methods that have failed in afghanistan so many times. recently we've seen much more success in the region, especially in the "hearts & minds" category.

i really wish force wasn't necessary (and of course i'd be foolish to think that a struggle for human rights is the only reason our military is involved there) but the taliban is not the type of organization that would succumb to political pressure from western powers.

it's not just that women don't have basic rights there. the taliban don't even offer them basic needs like proper medical care. they've beaten young girls for attending class. women aren't even allowed to laugh under their "law."

but what could possibly shake things up would be more pressure from the muslim world. i know that the real practicioners of islam frown on fundamentalists like the taliban and even see them as violators of islamic law, much as how many american christians see western fundamentalists as violators of christian law. perhaps if more of their brothers objected to their ways, force wouldn't be necessary.

sadly, in this case i feel it is.

EgyptianSoul
18-08-09, 14:27
Edit: Taking back my words.

Wish women had equal rights everywhere. This is kinda saddening.

Legends
18-08-09, 14:34
Most of the people of the Middle East are complete morons with no side-vision what so ever. They live in their own little Allah-beating-wife world. I don't mean to offend anyone, but I am so sick of these annoying religions who allergy excuses what they do with their ridicules "laws".

Catapharact
18-08-09, 14:34
But, there are many women who willingly marry muslim men and convert to islam.

There is a unified group of women in my country who have done so and are proud of their newfound religion and way of life.

Because it ISN'T bad! What the Taliban are doing is blatently un-Islamic!

The repect for women is actually greater then that of men in Islam since they are mothers and birth givers. Islam was the first religion amoung the Ibrahamic religions, gives women the right to start a business, own property, and divorse and marry the husbands of their choosing at their own will. Heck Muslim women accompanied men to battles as comrades and fought by our side.

This display of disrespect by the Taliban is inexcusable.

EDIT:

Most of the people of the Middle East are complete morons with no side-vision what so ever. They live in their own little Allah-beating-wife world. I don't mean to offend anyone, but I am so sick of these annoying religions who allergy excuses what they do with their ridicules "laws".

How about be a little less ignorant and read up on a religion by yourself before making such idiotic assumptions.

And since when did Afghanistan become part of the Middle East? That should prove right there as to how much you need to read up and update on your geography.

EgyptianSoul
18-08-09, 14:39
Because it ISN'T bad! What the Taliban are doing is blatently un-Islamic!

The repect for women is actually greater then that of men in Islam since they are mothers and birth givers. Islam was the first religion amoung the Ibrahamic religions, gives women the right to start a business, own property, and divorse and marry the husbands of their choosing at their own will. Heck Muslim women accompanied men to battles as comrades and fought by our side.

This display of disrespect by the Taliban is inexcusable.

Thank you for clearing that up for me. :)

Mad Tony
18-08-09, 14:39
How about be a little less ignorant and read up on a religion by yourself before making such idiotic assumptions.

And since when did Afganistan become part of the Middle East? That should prove right there as to how much you need to read up and update on your geography.http://thefurtiveglance.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/rim-shot-johnny-utah.jpg

Seriously though, it is not the religions themselves that are the cause of these sorts of things. Religion is merely the excuse extremists use to justify their actions.

Catapharact
18-08-09, 14:49
Seriously though, it is not the religions themselves that are the cause of these sorts of things. Religion is merely the excuse extremists use to justify there actions.

And that is the same argument I have heard from people who have told me on and on about how the extreme side of Atheism does not apply to Atheism as a whole. Yet when you hear responses like these, you start wondering as to just how many hypocrites are there in this given forum.

Goose
18-08-09, 14:52
The current international mission in Afghanistan hasn't been sufficiently successful, and letting our soldiers return seems better than the continuing what is not working. That does not mean, however, that we shouldn't be active for human rights there.

Its impossible, you either support the violence of action, or accept that it happens there and ignore it.

iamlaracroft
18-08-09, 14:58
"extreme atheism"? :vlol:
oh brother.

"Watch out! He's an extremist!"

"Extremist what??"

"Extreme Atheist!!! OoooOoh!! You know what that means!"
:rolleyes:

Catapharact
18-08-09, 14:59
Its impossible, you either support the violence of action, or accept that it happens there and ignore it.

I agree with stereo on this though and that IMO more of the heavy hitting Middle Eastern nations need to lend economic and security-based support interms of stabilizing the region and paving a ground for forigen investors to start setting up shop there. IMO, NATO have done their required Job well. All they need to do in finish up in the region with their mission against the Taliban.

This little snippit clearly shows my vision:

Can Saudi Arabia help broker peace in Afghanistan?

Saudi Arabia is one of America's Middle Eastern allies, so the idea of them helping to stabilize Afghanistan makes a lot of sense.

The Associate Press is reporting that Taliban and Afghan leaders have met in Saudi Arabia, with the goal of resolving conflict:


While al-Qaida leader Osama bin-Laden, a Saudi, has frequently railed against the U.S.-allied kingdom, his sympathizers among the Afghan Taliban have been muted in their criticism.

Could this be an avenue that could lead to peace in Afghanistan? Could we eventually see Saudi troops on the ground as peace keepers?

EDIT:

"extreme atheism"? :vlol:
oh brother.

"Watch out! He's an extremist!"

"Extremist what??"

"Extreme Atheist!!! OoooOoh!! You know what that means!"
:rolleyes:

Apparently you don't know much Nietzscheism do you ;). Look it up.

Goose
18-08-09, 15:01
I agree with stereo on this though and that IMO more of the heavy hitting Middle Eastern nations need to lend economic and security-based support interms of stabilizing the region and paving a ground for forigen investors to start setting up shop there.

What can they do? Where im a based we have Saudi and UAE army/air force guys, who are going on to serve in Afghanistan, they've been there for ages. Arab or Caucasian these Taliban wont let up there offensives.

Catapharact
18-08-09, 15:05
What can they do? Where im a based we have Saudi and UAE army/air force guys, who are going on to serve in Afghanistan, they've been there for ages. Arab or Caucasian these Taliban wont let up there offensives.

Well the population is "swayed" by the goofy little Taliban since they are under the impression that the Taliban are the "legitimate" voice of Islam in the region. I am sure they will see things differently when soldiers from the center of the Islamic world show them a different view on things. Plus, it will strengthen support for NATO in the region.

It will force the Taliban to come out of their holes.

Goose
18-08-09, 15:07
It will force the Taliban to come out of their holes.

We needed that a year or so ago, we're going into there holes now, current operations are in there actual home towns they've held since the invasion, this is why fighting is so fierce, they aren't prepared to leave.

Catapharact
18-08-09, 15:11
We needed that a year or so ago, we're going into there holes now, current operations are in there actual home towns they've held since the invasion, this is why fighting is so fierce, they aren't prepared to leave.

Well its gonna have to come down to a special forces raid within the small districts and with the right backing and support (hopefully this wouldn't turn into another "Blackhawk Down" event like in Somalia) a combined assault can shatter their support. Plus with SA or UAE peacekeepers running patrol within these towns, one can breathe a bit easy when it comes to problems with internal corruption in the Afghani police force.

stereopathic
18-08-09, 15:22
honestly, i'd rather see the leaders of the muslim world provide more aid for the people rather than military support. the people of Afghanistan have been stuck in the middle of innumerable power struggles for as long as i've been alive. when the taliban seemed like the best option for peace, the people supported them (until they began to realize what that peace cost them). what they need is an assurance of a lasting peace. i'm no diplomat and have no idea how to go about doing this, but it seems to be a possible solution.

clearly, there's no way the west can reach a compromise with the taliban; there will never be any agreement of peace. and unfortunately, the presence of western troops play right into the taliban's view of a holy war, even if that's not how our troops see it.

if force was the only option for the troops of UAE, SA, etc, at least the holy war aspect of the current fight would be removed, undermining a lot of the fanaticism that drives the taliban to fight.

miss.haggard
18-08-09, 15:27
I say, who are we to judge? It seems mean, and it would never happen in the USA, and I of course dont condone it ... But, if thats what they believe, thats what they believe. To each his own. We will all get judgement one day.

Dark Lugia 2
18-08-09, 15:30
I'm so suprised at how many people think Islam supprots such laws, and terrorists. :| Its disgusting. You'd expect that people on forums would atleast get their facts right before posting.

Goose
18-08-09, 15:33
when the taliban seemed like the best option for peace, the people supported them (until they began to realize what that peace cost them).

The best thing to happen to that country, other then us, was communism, that country could have been alot more prosperous if it hadnt fought it. There were people who wanted it there, infact the majority, before russia got involved, the communist party within afghanistan won the government thanks to the needs of the majority.

Its local tribes who have religious leaders who are not seperate from all other affairs of those tribes.

In the West we can have revolutions, one's that over throw Kings or parliaments, but get god involved and its a different matter.

stereopathic
18-08-09, 15:53
The best thing to happen to that country, other then us, was communism, that country could have been alot more prosperous if it hadnt fought it. There were people who wanted it there, infact the majority, before russia got involved, the communist party within afghanistan won the government thanks to the needs of the majority.

Its local tribes who have religious leaders who are not seperate from all other affairs of those tribes.

In the West we can have revolutions, one's that over throw Kings or parliaments, but get god involved and its a different matter.

i would think that many Afghanis would say that their most prosperous times were pre-soviet invasion, when they were a monarchy. especially the members of the middle/upper classes. the poor tribals have always had it bad there. but that was a time not unlike japan's awakening to the world outside of it and saw the country embrace many western ways. it's the best the urban women had it for sure.

robm_2007
18-08-09, 15:56
well, is it illegal there for women to buy their own food?

this is just ****ing stupid.

Catapharact
18-08-09, 15:58
i would think that many Afghanis would say that their most prosperous times were pre-soviet invasion, when they were a monarchy. especially the members of the middle/upper classes. the poor tribals have always had it bad there. but that was a time not unlike japan's awakening to the world outside of it and saw the country embrace many western ways. it's the best the urban women had it for sure.

IMO Monarchcy in an important element of reason within many of the given governing bodies within the Afgan and Middle Eastern region. The only time where I can wag my finger at a monarch for going overboard would be the Shah of Iran's attempt at total secular domination and that promted that incited a revolution.

IMO Monarchs keep the hardliners at their place and most of them have quite liberal views on things. Ironically enough, its the Monarchs in SA that forced many of the archaic tribal laws to be looked at and removed.

Legends
18-08-09, 16:00
How about be a little less ignorant and read up on a religion by yourself before making such idiotic assumptions.

How about being less of a hypocrite and actually focus on what's really going on? You can't do that, can you because the whole Islam religion is just a big ****ing charade that keeps you from seeing straight. You wouldn't know any better. God, knows you've proved that several times.

stereopathic
18-08-09, 16:01
well, is it illegal there for women to buy their own food?

this is just ****ing stupid.

the law there can be much different than what men allow. for instance, they're allowed to vote, but male protesters sometimes intimidate them away from ballot boxes. they're allowed to laugh in public but a man will silence them if they laugh too much. they're allowed to drive, but...you get the idea.

Catapharact
18-08-09, 16:05
How about being less of a hypocrite and actually focus on what's really going on? You can't do that, can you because the whole Islam religion is just a big ****ing charade that keeps you from seeing straight. You wouldn't know any better. God, knows you've proved that several times.


Says the person who doesn't knows the difference between Middle East and the central Asian region ;). You have yet to prove that you even have the slightest idea as to what is happening in the region and what the actual teachings of a given religion is as opposed to what you think it teaches.

So until you can provide anything other then then your blatent ignorant remark, I'll just stuff your post right in the trash heap filled with other ignorant and gimped up remarks.

stereopathic
18-08-09, 16:17
IMO Monarchcy in an important element of reason within many of the given governing bodies within the Afgan and Middle Eastern region. The only time where I can wag my finger at a monarch for going overboard would be the Shah of Iran's attempt at total secular domination and that promted that incited a revolution.

IMO Monarchs keep the hardliners at their place and most of them have quite liberal views on things. Ironically enough, its the Monarchs in SA that forced many of the archaic tribal laws to be looked at and removed.

i think all forms of government have some positive aspects and monarchy is no exception. i know a lot of americans feel that it's our country's duty to convert everyone to democracy, but i've never really understood that point of view. there's also a ton of concern over the proliferation of communism in south america, and we're trained from birth to fear it.

frankly, i think how a country governs itself is its own business. as long as they're not violating human rights in the process, i see no harm in monarchy, communism, or whatever.

i see communism improving the overall quality of life in countries like venezuela, and i also see how democracy didn't seem to help eastern europe. similarly, monarchy has a lot of positive qualities that can make the country better for its citizenry. sure there's always the obvious potential for abuse of power, but that happens here in america as well. it's just not as overt.

robm_2007
18-08-09, 16:19
the law there can be much different than what men allow. for instance, they're allowed to vote, but male protesters sometimes intimidate them away from ballot boxes. they're allowed to laugh in public but a man will silence them if they laugh too much. they're allowed to drive, but...you get the idea.

i would assume that women do the grocery shoppping, unless they grow/raise all their own food. they cant make it illegal for a woman to eat? unless its the husband that chooses when the wife eats.

stereopathic
18-08-09, 16:26
i would assume that women do the grocery shoppping, unless they grow/raise all their own food. they cant make it illegal for a woman to eat? unless its the husband that chooses when the wife eats.

women can do grocery shopping now, afaik. women are still the primary housekeepers and are expected to have anything in the house that the man may need. under taliban rule, they were not allowed to be seen in public unless escorted by a male (husband or family member only). that included the grocery shopping.

but i don't want to make blanket statements either. there are women activists, soldiers, & doctors in Afghanistan. not every man treats his wife like an animal, but women's rights are few and it's still a very touchy subject there.

it's much worse in rural areas than in Kabul for instance.

Goose
18-08-09, 16:28
women can do grocery shopping now, afaik. women are still the primary housekeepers and are expected to have anything in the house that the man may need. under taliban rule, they were not allowed to be seen in public unless escorted by a male (husband or family member only). that included the grocery shopping.


Rurual areas, women are usually out all the time, infact, women are the back bone interms of farming. There usually stronger then the males who seem to spend there time socializing and smoking. Same as Iraq, i remember soldiers saying, when talking about the two invasions, that if they had been going against the women of those countries, it would have been a hell of a fight!

stereopathic
18-08-09, 16:32
Rurual areas, women are usually out all the time, infact, women are the back bone interms of farming. There usually stronger then the males who seem to spend there time socializing and smoking. Same as Iraq, i remember soldiers saying, when talking about the two invasions, that if they had been going against the women of those countries, it would have been a hell of a fight!

:D i wouldn't wanna go up against them for sure.

i know they do a lot of the work and whatnot in rural areas, but i remember reading that they weren't allowed to be educated, or even just learn to read. it sounds like they're more like a beast of burden than a companion.

Ward Dragon
18-08-09, 16:33
Obligatory general warning: no personal insults or bashing of any particular religions.

i know a lot of americans feel that it's our country's duty to convert everyone to democracy, but i've never really understood that point of view.

Personally I think a benevolent monarchy is the best form of government (democracy only works for so long before people realize that the majority can vote away the rights of the minority). However, the main problem with a monarchy is how to replace the monarch because sooner or later a jerk will get in and then things rapidly go downhill. At least with a democracy, it should theoretically have some checks and balances to postpone the inevitable long enough for a better person to be voted into power. Theoretically.

Anyway, my point is that democracy only works as long as the people want it to work. If we go and force other countries to have a democracy and they don't want one, they'll just vote some dictator into power and then they're back to where they were in the first place. Instead we should be focusing on upholding human rights. If other countries will come to the point of view where they respect and enforce some general universal rules about human rights, then it doesn't matter what form of government they use to do it.

As for the specific potential law in the first post, my general view is to live and let live, but I have absolutely no problem judging human rights violations as being wrong. I don't care if it's another country or another culture, such things are wrong and I cannot accept them. If I understand the situation correctly, there's still a chance for this law to be rejected so I hope that happens and it does not go into effect.

SamReeves
18-08-09, 16:34
Why do people care? People hate these sorts of stories, but they want western influence in the region to be zero? Honestly, demand we convert all people to democracy by force, or let them abuse themselves.

You cant have it both ways.

LMAO! That is the classic liberal response to terrorism. We want to fight them, but then not interfere with their high culture of hate.

Most of the people of the Middle East are complete morons with no side-vision what so ever. They live in their own little Allah-beating-wife world. I don't mean to offend anyone, but I am so sick of these annoying religions who allergy excuses what they do with their ridicules "laws".

I agree. It's been proven to be a culture of hate, a culture that regards women in the lowest of standards, and has no peaceful intentions that I can see. All I see is a barbaric culture that based on a "religion."

stereopathic
18-08-09, 16:45
to be fair, the Middle East is a big place and contains a number of cultures. some places, like Yemen, need to get punched in the face for how they treat women, but others treat women quite well. most countries in the region could stand some significant improvement, however.

people often do the same with Africa; they just lump it all together like it's one country. heck, Texas and Louisiana have some significant cultural differences and we're neighboring states in the same country. Africa and the Middle East are quite diverse in terms of ethnicities, beliefs, geography and culture.

but that's really neither here nor there. Afghanistan's an Asian country. :D

Legends
18-08-09, 16:49
Says the person who doesn't knows the difference between Middle East and the central Asian region ;). You have yet to prove that you even have the slightest idea as to what is happening in the region and what the actual teachings of a given religion is as opposed to what you think it teaches.

So until you can provide anything other then then your blatent ignorant remark, I'll just stuff your post right in the trash heap filled with other ignorant and gimped up remarks.

Do you really need a higher justification to acquit yourself of the lowest low?

jackles
18-08-09, 16:55
Culture....is a interesting thing. I know women over here who have moved in with their husbands families by chance both these women are very unhappy but as it is their culture they have to sit it out until hey can get a place of their own. Now....why not just move out? Most people over here would, but they feel that they have to do it the right way because their families on both sides would be upset if they didn't.

Now think of a culture which is essentally patriarchal and how much harder it is to break out from the cultural norms. If people feel unhappy doing it in the west then it is going to be much harder without a supportive society.

It is not just about changing laws but about getting a society to think in a different way and these things take time. In this country (uk) the role of women has changed massively in forty years but we are not comparing like with like here.

Change has to come from within

Cochrane
18-08-09, 17:14
i just don't think the taliban can be persuaded to treat women better. or the rest of the population for that matter. there are some very rare cases where force is the best answer and i believe dealing with the taliban is one of these rare occasions.

as far as american forces, we've altered our strategy drastically and departed from the methods that have failed in afghanistan so many times. recently we've seen much more success in the region, especially in the "hearts & minds" category.

i really wish force wasn't necessary (and of course i'd be foolish to think that a struggle for human rights is the only reason our military is involved there) but the taliban is not the type of organization that would succumb to political pressure from western powers.

it's not just that women don't have basic rights there. the taliban don't even offer them basic needs like proper medical care. they've beaten young girls for attending class. women aren't even allowed to laugh under their "law."

but what could possibly shake things up would be more pressure from the muslim world. i know that the real practicioners of islam frown on fundamentalists like the taliban and even see them as violators of islamic law, much as how many american christians see western fundamentalists as violators of christian law. perhaps if more of their brothers objected to their ways, force wouldn't be necessary.

sadly, in this case i feel it is.
Is it really just "us vs. the Taliban"? I think there are a multitude of different groups, some of which are fundamentalist, who we need to care about. Keep in mind that the topic here is a law that is to be passed by parliament, something where the Taliban, as declared enemies of the new government, are not represented.

Pressure from the muslim world seems like a good idea, but I get the impression that many parts of the muslim world currently fear alienating their own fundamentalist groups with such acts.

Its impossible, you either support the violence of action, or accept that it happens there and ignore it.

That's extremely pessimistic. There have to be other ways. The idea of using more troops from the muslim world, for example, seems like it could work (although for example Saudi Arabia is not exactly a shining light when it comes to women's rights).

Forwen
18-08-09, 17:22
i see communism improving the overall quality of life in countries like venezuela, and i also see how democracy didn't seem to help eastern europe.

Who?

Goose
18-08-09, 17:37
That's extremely pessimistic. There have to be other ways. The idea of using more troops from the muslim world, for example, seems like it could work (although for example Saudi Arabia is not exactly a shining light when it comes to women's rights).

The UAE has been there for a while with the UK, people there put more faith in the US and UK then anyone else.

When Sierra Leone couldnt handle its insurgents they demanded help, not from African countries, but directly from the UK, they didnt want africans to help, they wanted the British to help, because if its got to be done, they want a seemingly all powerful force to do it.

IceColdLaraCroft
18-08-09, 17:43
Democracy doesn't work everywhere.

Women need a place in society. It's been proven that when you educated girls society improves and given women a place in government also helps your country.

Indiana Croft
18-08-09, 17:46
Nice policy.


Put out and Dig in, Say no and meals go.


The world is just a lovely place.

Mad Tony
18-08-09, 17:46
Democracy doesn't work everywhere.

Women need a place in society. It's been proven that when you educated girls society improves and given women a place in government also helps your country.Yeah but it shouldn't be required by law to have women (or men for that matter) in the government, they should be elected. I know this is kind of off-topic but it reminds me of what the Labour party here in the UK have been doing in certain constituencies. They make up all-women shortlists for their parliamentary candiate so that more women will be elected into parliament. Needless to say this is ridiculous and discriminatory. Parliamentary candidates should be chosen based on their ability to govern the country and represent the people in their constituency, not on their gender, race or religion.

stereopathic
18-08-09, 17:53
Who?

after the fall of communism, several of the former eastern bloc countries got much worse before they got better. hungary especially. much of russia is still no better off and albania and moldova are still suffering without soviet subsidies. of course there's success stories like the baltic states who have truly bloomed so forgive me if i used too broad of a brush with my statement. usually i consciously try to avoid that.

Goose
18-08-09, 17:55
after the fall of communism, several of the former eastern bloc countries got much worse before they got better. hungary especially. much of russia is still no better off and albania and moldova are still suffering without soviet subsidies. of course there's success stories like the baltic states who have truly bloomed so forgive me if i used too broad of a brush with my statement. usually i consciously try to avoid that.

Remember everything East of Germany was communist, the majority are far better off.

Cochrane
18-08-09, 17:59
The UAE has been there for a while with the UK, people there put more faith in the US and UK then anyone else.

When Sierra Leone couldnt handle its insurgents they demanded help, not from African countries, but directly from the UK, they didnt want africans to help, they wanted the British to help, because if its got to be done, they want a seemingly all powerful force to do it.
There is a difference between military fighting and reforming the country. Military, I'd always place my faith in the US, simply because they have so much resources. However, to get the people to actually change their ways, they may not be the very best.

Goose
18-08-09, 18:02
There is a difference between military fighting and reforming the country. Military, I'd always place my faith in the US, simply because they have so much resources. However, to get the people to actually change their ways, they may not be the very best.

Were not getting people to change at all, as this proves. Its not our job to change people, its our job to get a democratically elected government that brings stability to the region.

stereopathic
18-08-09, 18:03
Remember everything East of Germany was communist, the majority are far better off.

no no, you're right. the majority are doing quite well these days.

Goose
18-08-09, 18:03
no no, you're right. the majority are doing quite well these days.

But then again, Russian provinces are the size of countries.....

stereopathic
18-08-09, 18:25
There is a difference between military fighting and reforming the country. Military, I'd always place my faith in the US, simply because they have so much resources. However, to get the people to actually change their ways, they may not be the very best.

what the majority of Afghanis desire most is simply peace. our old strategy of removing the taliban from cities and villages was actually causing more turmoil as the taliban moved back in after our forces left. so now we stay and offer security, keeping the taliban out and reducing the number of conflicts.

and as they tend to set up shop in populated areas, we now send in troops to face them, instead of airstrikes that may result in collateral damage. we're risking more troop deaths, but trying desperately to reduce civilian deaths.

i think the real danger now surrounds the upcoming elections. the taliban are amping up their efforts to sow chaos and intimidate the people out of voting. for them, the elections could legitimize the winner. civilian deaths are up in the last three months, a result of an increased number of mortar strikes, car bombs and IEDs. election day, this thursday, will be worth watching.

Catapharact
18-08-09, 20:43
people often do the same with Africa; they just lump it all together like it's one country. heck, Texas and Louisiana have some significant cultural differences and we're neighboring states in the same country. Africa and the Middle East are quite diverse in terms of ethnicities, beliefs, geography and culture.

but that's really neither here nor there. Afghanistan's an Asian country. :D

Exactly and the you hear whining little cries from hypocrites demanding that people take their POV seriously since they aren't "associated" with the stereotypical status quo so to speak.Yet they don't have a leg to stand on when you question the logic of their own arguments. And they call other "elitists..."

Sad isn't it? Such is the thought process of a dimwit.

Love2Raid
18-08-09, 21:03
Most of the people of the Middle East are complete morons with no side-vision what so ever. They live in their own little Allah-beating-wife world. I don't mean to offend anyone, but I am so sick of these annoying religions who allergy excuses what they do with their ridicules "laws".

Excuse me?

They would be weak morons if they didn't give a damn about their country and surrendered to anyone who invaded it. Instead, the Afghan people have always fought for their independency. Things went wrong when those who fought against the Sovjets, got mixed up with extremists from other countries and eventually took control over the country as a extremist, terrorizing group, the Taliban. Most people never agreed with their views, many have fled the country. Fellow-muslims.
Even under these hard conditions they still want to make a difference and vote, but the suicide attacks of today have proven it's still dangerous to have a saying. Most people do want to be free and dress the way they want and believe whatever they want, like it was years ago when the King Zahir Shah ruled. Those who don't want freedom try to keep the majority of the people (also muslims) away from every form of it, including voting. Those attackers are the real morons. They killed themselves. Suicide is actually a sin in Islam. So how are they true muslims?

Come on, it's obvious they're using religion, something that makes a population equal and is valued by all of them (most), as an excuse, a tool for their terrorist acts. They want power, and are willing to use all means to get it. They really aren't that interested in the religion itself.

To think such a thing is pretty narrowminded, in my opinion.

Edit: Oh, and Afghanistan isn't really part of the Middle East I think, not that it matters much though.

Cochrane
18-08-09, 21:15
For what it's worth, Afghanistan is part of what germans call "Mittlerer Osten" and spanish call "el Oriente Medio" (according to Wikipedia on that last one), which is, literally translated, "middle east". The area known as "Middle East" in english actually translates to "Naher Osten", "near east", in german. Of course, lots of newspapers have trouble making that distinction when translating english texts…

Love2Raid
18-08-09, 21:17
Ah I see. Oh well, like I said doesn't matter much. :)

Catapharact
18-08-09, 21:22
For what it's worth, Afghanistan is part of what germans call "Mittlerer Osten" and spanish call "el Oriente Medio" (according to Wikipedia on that last one), which is, literally translated, "middle east". The area known as "Middle East" in english actually translates to "Naher Osten", "near east", in german. Of course, lots of newspapers have trouble making that distinction when translating english texts…

I wonder if Legends even knows about the association between UK version of Middle East and the traditional version of Middle East. However, when the newspaper say Middle East, they mean the traditional associated version:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/GreaterMiddleEast3.png

Mad Tony
18-08-09, 21:26
Lol, how can Algeria and Morocco be class as the Middle East?

Kittypower
18-08-09, 21:32
Lol, how can Algeria and Morocco be class as the Middle East?

culturally i guess.

Mad Tony
18-08-09, 22:01
culturally i guess.But Morocco and Algeria have North African culture though.

Cochrane
18-08-09, 22:22
But Morocco and Algeria have North African culture though.

Not exactly. Both have muslim majorities and arabic as primary official language, and are members in various international organizations that focus on arabic and/or islamic countries.

Now, this is not their only cultural influence, that is correct, but it is a very significant part of either country's culture.

xXhayleyroxXx
18-08-09, 22:25
is this real?
its disgusting !

aileenwuornos
19-08-09, 16:19
We don't need feminism, we just need common sense.

How is wanting equality for women NOT common sense?

Ward Dragon
19-08-09, 16:21
How is wanting equality for women NOT common sense?

The term "feminism" is used by so many people to mean so many different things that it has no clear definition anymore. Most of the time when people use the term "feminism" they do not refer to equality for women but rather for a special status with more rights than men. I think that's what Mad Tony was referring to when he said we don't need that.

aileenwuornos
19-08-09, 16:35
The term "feminism" is used by so many people to mean so many different things that it has no clear definition anymore. Most of the time when people use the term "feminism" they do not refer to equality for women but rather for a special status with more rights than men. I think that's what Mad Tony was referring to when he said we don't need that.

Feminism only has one definition as far as I'm aware: The radical notion that women are human beings too.

Can you cite me some examples of feminism wanting "special" rights or status at all?

I don't want special rights or status. I just want all women to be free. I'm pretty sure every feminist would agree with me there too.

Catapharact
19-08-09, 16:57
I think that's what Mad Tony was referring to when he said we don't need that.

Mad Tony:

Its official Tony. You and I are the same person now :p.

Ward Dragon
19-08-09, 17:01
Can you cite me some examples of feminism wanting "special" rights or status at all?

Pretty much everything the National Organization for Women has tried to do in the past few years. I can't take any "feminist" organization seriously that supports a rapist like Bill Clinton.

Mad Tony:

Its official Tony. You and I are the same person now :p.

What? :p

Catapharact
19-08-09, 17:04
What? :p

Nah! Brainfart moment. I thought you quoted that from a response directed to my post. Hey I am replying to five things at once here; Let me off the hook this one time Lol!

Mad Tony
19-08-09, 17:06
The term "feminism" is used by so many people to mean so many different things that it has no clear definition anymore. Most of the time when people use the term "feminism" they do not refer to equality for women but rather for a special status with more rights than men. I think that's what Mad Tony was referring to when he said we don't need that.Spot on. :tmb:

Here's an example from history.

Back in the early 20th century many women here in Britain were demanding the right to vote. There were the Suffragists who were peaceful and used methods such as petitions and leaflets. They also debated with MPs the issue of suffrage for women. The Suffragettes however were a violent splinter group of the Suffragists who often resorted to illegal methods of protest. They bombed letterboxes and assaulted MPs. Nothing more than a gang of rabid women really.

What Afghanistan needs right now are groups like the Suffragists, women who are willing to campaign peacefully for what they believe in. What Afghanistan does not need however are groups like the Suffragettes who cause nothing but violence and chaos. IMO, the Suffragists represented common sense while the Suffragettes represented feminism.

Mad Tony:

Its official Tony. You and I are the same person now :p.Wha? :p

matrix54
19-08-09, 17:14
they know without women, we wouldn't be here :rolleyes:

larafan25
19-08-09, 17:33
W T F

I have no other words....it's just sick.

Cochrane
19-08-09, 18:17
Spot on. :tmb:

Here's an example from history.

Back in the early 20th century many women here in Britain were demanding the right to vote. There were the Suffragists who were peaceful and used methods such as petitions and leaflets. They also debated with MPs the issue of suffrage for women. The Suffragettes however were a violent splinter group of the Suffragists who often resorted to illegal methods of protest. They bombed letterboxes and assaulted MPs. Nothing more than a gang of rabid women really.

What Afghanistan needs right now are groups like the Suffragists, women who are willing to campaign peacefully for what they believe in. What Afghanistan does not need however are groups like the Suffragettes who cause nothing but violence and chaos. IMO, the Suffragists represented common sense while the Suffragettes represented feminism.
I guess you are right (and have voiced similar opinions in the past on the issue of whether the people should be armed to protect themselves from the government), but I do like to play devil's advocate here:

I wonder whether some degree of terrorism may actually help a political cause, if combined with other measures. Solely peaceful protesters have been successful, most notably Ghandi and during the fall of the soviet bloc. However, there are also examples where peaceful protesters were accompanied by violent extremists — people whom the peaceful protesters hate, but still fighting for the same cause. As an example, there is the american civil rights movement, largely known for being peaceful, but at the same time a number of very violent, essentially terrorist, organizations were along for the ride. You mentioned the right to vote for women yourself.

Couldn't it be possible that they, even though they never reached their own drastic goals, helped the peaceful majority along? By being present, they gave a clear "and if you don't…" option to all talks with the government. At the same time, the government could take the moral high ground over the violent ones by making treaties with the moderates.

Of course, the presence of such violent groups certainly did hurt the public image of whatever the movement was, and that may have outweighed any such benefits. Still, is it possible that their presence may have acted as a catalyst, at least at some times? Just asking.

Mad Tony
19-08-09, 18:29
I guess you are right (and have voiced similar opinions in the past on the issue of whether the people should be armed to protect themselves from the government), but I do like to play devil's advocate here:

I wonder whether some degree of terrorism may actually help a political cause, if combined with other measures. Solely peaceful protesters have been successful, most notably Ghandi and during the fall of the soviet bloc. However, there are also examples where peaceful protesters were accompanied by violent extremists — people whom the peaceful protesters hate, but still fighting for the same cause. As an example, there is the american civil rights movement, largely known for being peaceful, but at the same time a number of very violent, essentially terrorist, organizations were along for the ride. You mentioned the right to vote for women yourself.

Couldn't it be possible that they, even though they never reached their own drastic goals, helped the peaceful majority along? By being present, they gave a clear "and if you don't…" option to all talks with the government. At the same time, the government could take the moral high ground over the violent ones by making treaties with the moderates.

Of course, the presence of such violent groups certainly did hurt the public image of whatever the movement was, and that may have outweighed any such benefits. Still, is it possible that their presence may have acted as a catalyst, at least at some times? Just asking.Perhaps, but I think what helped to give women the vote most (at least over here) was WWI. At the beginning of WWI the suffragettes (militant ones) immediately ceased their violent activities while the suffragists (peaceful ones) continued to lobby the government for suffrage for women. During the war there was an ever-growing shortage of men to do the jobs men would normally do in peace time such as factory workers, miners, bus conductors - more and more women were taking up these jobs in place of the men who had been called up to the front. At the end of the war (can't remember when) the government recognized how much the women had done for this country and gave some women the right to vote. It is my opinion that had WWI not occurred, women would have gotten the vote much later than they did. So you see, in the end it was neither the suffragists or the suffragettes who influenced most - it was the war.

As for whether the violent actions of the Suffragettes helped their cause, I'm not so sure. In some cases some people thought that the violence caused by the Suffragettes was a desperate cry for more rights for women and that the Suffragists were not doing enough. Others however felt that the actions of the Suffragettes only hindered the very cause they were fighting for. The Suffragists in particular disliked the Suffragettes because they felt that the Suffragettes only discredited the entire suffrage movement. Some members of the government felt even more determined to not give women the vote as a way of getting revenge for all the disturbances caused by the Suffragettes.

Hope that made sense.

Cochrane
19-08-09, 18:32
Perhaps, but I think what helped to give women the vote most (at least over here) was WWI. At the beginning of WWI the suffragettes (militant ones) immediately ceased their violent activities while the suffragists (peaceful ones) continued to lobby the government for suffrage for women. During the war there was an ever-growing shortage of men to do the jobs men would normally do in peace time such as factory workers, miners, bus conductors - more and more women were taking up these jobs in place of the men who had been called up to the front. At the end of the war (can't remember when) the government recognized how much the women had done for this country and gave some women the right to vote. It is my opinion that had WWI not occurred, women would have gotten the vote much later than they did. So you see, in the end it was neither the suffragists or the suffragettes who influenced most - it was the war.

As for whether the violent actions of the Suffragettes helped their cause, I'm not so sure. In some case some people thought that the violence caused by the Suffragettes was a desperate cry for more rights for women. Others however felt that the actions of the Suffragettes only hindered the very cause they were fighting for.

Hope that made sense.
Yes, it does make sense. From what I know, I get the impression that WWII did even more for women's rights, but the idea that WWI helped certainly makes sense. I'm afraid it's not so easy to trace in Germany, as an entirely new state was created after WWI, which had the right for women to vote right from the beginning.

Mad Tony
19-08-09, 18:35
Yes, it does make sense. From what I know, I get the impression that WWII did even more for women's rights, but the idea that WWI helped certainly makes sense. I'm afraid it's not so easy to trace in Germany, as an entirely new state was created after WWI, which had the right for women to vote right from the beginning.Weren't women's rights reduced under the Nazis? Perhaps that's why in Germany the efforts of women during WWII had more of an effect than it did here. Over here the efforts of women during WWII were just a repeat of WWI, and women already had universal suffrage then I believe.

stereopathic
19-08-09, 19:16
just read this very interesting article on the struggle for rights among Afghanistan's women.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_8204000/8204286.stm

Ward Dragon
19-08-09, 19:40
just read this very interesting article on the struggle for rights among Afghanistan's women.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_8204000/8204286.stm

Wow. That's depressing and hopeful at the same time. I didn't know that it was that common for women to light themselves on fire to escape abusive husbands :eek: But at least there are still courageous people willing to risk their lives and stand up for what's right. Hopefully they will make progress against the Taliban.

jackles
19-08-09, 19:58
MT, You forgot to mention that the suffragettes were imprisoned, and often crudely force fed. Women had their health ruined by their treatment.

Suffragettes (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/suffragettes.htm)

The fight for womens indepence in this country has been going on since 1792 with the publication of the Vindication of the rights of women. Things moved very slowly...when my mum got married in the sixties she gave up work because married women didn't work. Can you imagie such a mindset here today?

Like I have said previously....change has to come from within a society..

Mad Tony
19-08-09, 20:10
MT, You forgot to mention that the suffragettes were imprisoned, and often crudely force fed. Women had their health ruined by their treatment.Good I say. They shouldn't have been so violent in the first place. The suffragists showed that one can campaign for something without being militant and harming people. But yeah, we learnt all about the Cat and Mouse Act and such in school.

Ward Dragon
19-08-09, 20:10
MT, You forgot to mention that the suffragettes were imprisoned, and often crudely force fed. Women had their health ruined by their treatment.

But they refused to eat and were starving to death by their own choice. Should the prisons have let them die?

Mad Tony
19-08-09, 20:11
But they refused to eat and were starving to death by their own choice. Should the prisons have let them die?That's basically what was happening. What the Suffragettes were doing was nothing short of terrorism. When they got locked up for it, they went on hunger strikes.

jackles
19-08-09, 20:17
*sigh*


These women obviously felt stongly about what they were doing. Strongly enough to risk death.


Jenny, force feeding was considered a shocking act in those days, something that was done to mental patients not upper class women. It led to the introduction of the Cat & mouse act where the government allowed them to starve until ill, released them...and later imprisoned them again for the whoe sorry thing to continue.

Why not just give the women the vote in the first place? Because women were second class citizens...ranked along with children.


Oh and until 1882 with the property act..all a wives property belonged to her husband.

IceColdLaraCroft
19-08-09, 20:20
There was one woman on the BBC that was in prison for withholding sex from her husband (71 years old) and she had been married to him when she was 11. He beat her with chains!

Women are seen as property in some parts of the country.

Ward Dragon
19-08-09, 20:22
Jenny, force feeding was considered a shocking act in those days, something that was done to mental patients not upper class women. It led to the introduction of the Cat & mouse act where the government allowed them to starve until ill, released them...and later imprisoned them again for the whoe sorry thing to continue.

That still doesn't answer my question. Should the government have let the women starve to death? Releasing anyone from prison who goes on a hunger strike certainly does not seem like an acceptable measure to take since it puts the public at risk. From your own article, these women were violent extremists who burned down churches and attacked people, so it seems incredibly irresponsible to let them out of prison.

The Suffragettes refused to bow to violence. They burned down churches as the Church of England was against what they wanted; they vandalised Oxford Street, apparently breaking all the windows in this famous street; they chained themselves to Buckingham Palace as the Royal Family were seen to be against women having the right to vote; they hired out boats, sailed up the Thames and shouted abuse through loud hailers at Parliament as it sat; others refused to pay their tax. Politicians were attacked as they went to work. Their homes were fire bombed. Golf courses were vandalised. The first decade of Britain in the C20th was proving to be violent in the extreme.

Suffragettes were quite happy to go to prison. Here they refused to eat and went on a hunger strike. The government was very concerned that they might die in prison thus giving the movement martyrs. Prison governors were ordered to force feed Suffragettes but this caused a public outcry as forced feeding was traditionally used to feed lunatics as opposed to what were mostly educated women.

EgyptianSoul
19-08-09, 20:23
Some men still think women are second class citizens and in marriage they are their husbands property. A thing, a slave. And it sickens me.

Worst of all I see many men openly displaying hate towards women and believing that men are more important than women, even in my own country.

stereopathic
19-08-09, 20:23
they (the suffragettes) were certainly extreme, but one man's terrorist is another man's vigilante. when the government sees you as inferior, won't listen to you speak, won't listen to you scream, what then?

what's that line from Se7en? something like, "you can't just tap people on the shoulder anymore. you have to hit them with a sledgehammer, and then you'll see you've got their strict attention." something like that.

Mad Tony
19-08-09, 20:24
*sigh*


These women obviously felt stongly about what they were doing. Strongly enough to risk death.


Jenny, force feeding was considered a shocking act in those days, something that was done to mental patients not upper class women. It led to the introduction of the Cat & mouse act where the government allowed them to starve until ill, released them...and later imprisoned them again for the whoe sorry thing to continue.

Why not just give the women the vote in the first place? Because women were second class citizens...ranked along with children.


Oh and until 1882 with the property act..all a wives property belonged to her husband.I'm not denying that not giving women the vote was ridiculous and that they should've gotten the vote earlier, but nothing justifies what the Suffragettes did. I'm sorry, but I don't think people should look up to them at all. The Suffragists however were admirable because they used peaceful methods and they were willing to debate with MPs instead of just attacking them.

jackles
19-08-09, 20:28
My argument is that they should have had the vote in the first place. The only weapons that they had in prison was to use their own bodies. The government should have let the vote go through when it was a peaceful organisation. Of course the government was placed in a difficult position. No one is a winner in this 'war'.

Even when the women won the right to vote it was only for women over the age of 30 and it wasn't until 1928 that women achieved the same emancipation as women.

Mad Tony
19-08-09, 20:31
My argument is that they should have had the vote in the first place. The only weapons that they had in prison was to use their own bodies. The government should have let the vote go through when it was a peaceful organisation. Of course the government was placed in a difficult position. No one is a winner in this 'war'.

Even when the women won the right to vote it was only for women over the age of 30 and it wasn't until 1928 that women achieved the same emancipation as women.Of course women should have gotten the vote, but unfortunately at the time they didn't. However, it is not right to combat injustice with mindless violence. MLK and Gandhi are good examples of this.

stereopathic
19-08-09, 20:33
The only weapons that they had in prison was to use their own bodies. The government should have let the vote go through when it was a peaceful organisation. Of course the government was placed in a difficult position. No one is a winner in this 'war'.

the article didn't make it seem like the gov't cared for the health of the women. seemed like they were more concerned with public perception than the well-being of the prisoners. especially with the cat-&-mouse thing. "if they die on the street, it's not our problem."

Ward Dragon
19-08-09, 20:33
I'm not denying that not giving women the vote was ridiculous and that they should've gotten the vote earlier, but nothing justifies what the Suffragettes did. I'm sorry, but I don't think people should look up to them at all. The Suffragists however were admirable because they used peaceful methods and they were willing to debate with MPs instead of just attacking them.

Precisely :tmb: Also according to that Suffragette article, the Suffragettes did more harm than good and even attacked people who supported women's right to vote.

As a result, the Suffragettes became more extreme. The most famous act associated with the Suffragettes was at the June 1913 Derby when Emily Wilding Davison threw herself under the King's horse, Anmer, as it rounded Tattenham Corner. She was killed and the Suffragettes had their first martyr. However, her actions probably did more harm than good to the cause as she was a highly educated woman. Many men asked the simple question - if this is what an educated woman does, what might a lesser educated woman do? How can they possibly be given the right to vote?

It is possible that the Suffragettes would have become more violent. They had, after all, in February 1913 blown up part of David Lloyd George's house - he was probably Britain's most famous politician at this time and he was thought to be a supporter of the right for women to have the vote!

Whenever violence gets involved, it usually escalates and makes things far worse. Violence doesn't make any real positive changes in public perception towards a group, and any "gains" made under threat of violence will only last as long as the violence continues. It's not a good long-term solution. Much better is to win people over through intelligent dialogue and peaceful means of getting the point across. That takes longer to work, but the effects are more permanent :)

jackles
19-08-09, 20:34
I take your point MT about peaceful protest...I just think that there is more than one side to every story..and these women who were educated and had powerful friends must have had something more driving them than ennui.

Love2Raid
19-08-09, 20:37
I am also pro peaceful protest. Violence usually only sets things back and should be saved for extreme circumstances only. I know this is pretty extreme already though..:o

Ward Dragon
19-08-09, 20:42
I am also pro peaceful protest. Violence usually only sets things back and should be saved for extreme circumstances only. I know this is pretty extreme already though..:o

For clarification, I'm against violence as a form of protest. However, if it's a specific case like maybe a man was beating his wife and she killed him in self defense, I'm perfectly fine with that. Although I don't know how rational that would be for Afghanistan women to do since they'd probably get executed without a fair (by US standards) trial.

stereopathic
19-08-09, 20:43
all revolutions start out as polite protests. sometimes violence is necessary.

Love2Raid
19-08-09, 20:45
For clarification, I'm against violence as a form of protest. However, if it's a specific case like maybe a man was beating his wife and she killed him in self defense, I'm perfectly fine with that. Although I don't know how rational that would be for Afghanistan women to do since they'd probably get executed without a fair (by US standards) trial.

I agree 100%. :)

It's more the mass protests with using violence I don't agree with. But the women over there would never do such a thing, hell no. Way too risky.

Ward Dragon
19-08-09, 20:45
all revolutions start out as polite protests. sometimes violence is necessary.

Bear in mind you have to live with the other side afterwards. I think that the whole Reconstruction Era after the Civil War is evidence enough that violence is not the way to fix social problems and usually makes things a hell of a lot worse for decades to come.

stereopathic
19-08-09, 20:58
Bear in mind you have to live with the other side afterwards. I think that the whole Reconstruction Era after the Civil War is evidence enough that violence is not the way to fix social problems and usually makes things a hell of a lot worse for decades to come.

the US itself is born out of revolution. so is Texas. their former governments were tyrannical and exploitative and wouldn't listen to any strongly-worded complaints. when you've exhausted your peaceful options, your only recourse is to fight. the men who started both those countries were both brilliant and reasonable but had nowhere else to turn. regarding the suffragettes, i'm not sure they were out of options and prolly shouldn't have turned to violence (the article isn't detailed enough for me to judge for certain), but, imho, there are cases when you can justifiably take a protest to the battleground.

my thoughts on the reconstruction are too numerous for a thread about Afghanistan. perhaps another time in a more appropriate place.

Mad Tony
19-08-09, 21:00
But ultimately it was the war which brought women suffrage. I think the actions of the Suffragettes only made a lot of politicians even more determined not to give women the vote.

Ward Dragon
19-08-09, 21:05
the US itself is born out of revolution. so is Texas. their former governments were tyrannical and exploitative and wouldn't listen to any strongly-worded complaints.

That underlined part is open to debate considering we're getting taxed far more heavily now than anything the British did to the colonies XD

But anyhow, I guess I should explain in more detail what I meant -- I don't think violent protests are ever justified because they involve indiscriminate acts of violence that harm/kill people randomly. Sometimes violence is necessary for defense. However, it's never necessary to kill innocent people just to send a message.

jackles
19-08-09, 21:13
this (http://www.johndclare.net/Women1_SuffragetteActions_Rosen.htm) is a interesting article, it lists the main actions of the women, so it can clearly be seen how things escalated based on reports at the time.


Now...getting this sort of back on topic....would Afghan women just be imprisoned if they attempted to protest? sometimes the only thing a women has to barter with is her body.

Ward Dragon
19-08-09, 21:18
this (http://www.johndclare.net/Women1_SuffragetteActions_Rosen.htm) is a interesting article, it lists the main actions of the women, so it can clearly be seen how things escalated based on reports at the time.

Ah, interesting. I'll read that now :)

Now...getting this sort of back on topic....would Afghan women just be imprisoned if they attempted to protest? sometimes the only thing a women has to barter with is her body.

If they did the same things as the Suffragettes, they'd probably be executed.

Mad Tony
19-08-09, 21:19
If they did the same thing as the Suffragists they'd probably be executed, unfortunately.

jackles
19-08-09, 21:23
snap! ;)

yes executed, so how on earth can their society change if people connive in keeping the status quo? You see we all know it is wrong but it seems like the options for change are few. We can disapprove all we want but nothing will change unless enough people make it happen.

Ward Dragon
19-08-09, 21:26
snap! ;)

yes executed, so how on earth can their society change if people connive in keeping the status quo? You see we all know it is wrong but it seems like the options for change are few. We can disapprove all we want but nothing will change unless enough people make it happen.

I'm obviously missing the point here. All I got out of that comparison is that the British government was fairly humane and didn't execute terrorists like other countries would have, plus things in Britain were actually pretty good for women compared to how they could have been.

What do you think the women in Afghanistan should do?

jackles
19-08-09, 21:32
Jenny, exactly...in this country they could get away to a degree with what they did...but in their society they cannot. Different cultures. Different times.


I have no answers....I haven't a clue how you can get an society that seems to have arachaic laws to conform to what a 'modern' society sees as acceptable. I feel powerless to do anything except bemoan the fact that it is happening.

stereopathic
19-08-09, 21:32
in Afghanistan, the law is already on their side, it's just no one cares about the law and the government's legitimacy is in doubt. they need to continue to prove their worth to men, learn to read, help other women learn to read, get an education, start their own business so they can control their own fate and work to gradually change perceptions.

edit: i should say the constitution is on their side, which actually grants them equal rights to men. it makes for a very different dynamic than the struggles for equal rights in england and the US.

Ward Dragon
19-08-09, 21:48
Jenny, exactly...in this country they could get away to a degree with what they did...but in their society they cannot. Different cultures. Different times.

Ah, okay, I did understand your point then :)

I think that the fact that the British society would give such lee-way proves that the Suffragette violence was not necessary. The government wasn't horribly repressive and was at least concerned with public opinion and not appearing to be evil. I think that the Suffragists alone would have made more progress if they didn't have to overcome an unwanted association with violent protests because it would have been easier to sway public opinion in their favor, and thus to get the government to give in to public demand and allow women to vote.

I have no answers....I haven't a clue how you can get an society that seems to have arachaic laws to conform to what a 'modern' society sees as acceptable. I feel powerless to do anything except bemoan the fact that it is happening.

Same here. My frame of reference is from a relatively free and law-abiding society, so I have trouble fully grasping the situation in Afghanistan where women are treated so poorly. I have a lot of crazy emotional reactions I could say, but that wouldn't help the situation and my comments probably wouldn't even apply to Afghanistan anyway. I guess it's up to the people in Afghanistan to figure out how to do it since they know exactly what's going on and can more accurately predict what course of action would have the most favorable results.