I think this is important because the Taliban is not just controlling women, and of course they're not. But also I just want to scream. Why was it fine until now? You didn't care or just outright...
Women have faced an onslaught of increasingly severe limits on their personal freedom and rules about their dress since the Taliban seized power three years ago. But men in urban areas could, for the most part, carry on freely.
The past four weeks, however, have brought significant changes for them, too. New laws promulgated in late August mandate that men wear a fist-long beard, bar them from imitating non-Muslims in appearance or behavior, widely interpreted as a prohibition against jeans, and ban haircuts that are against Islamic law, which essentially means short or Western styles. Men are now also prohibited from looking at women other than their wives or relatives.
For the past three years, Afghan women often felt alone in their anguish. Some grew exasperated by their husbands’ silence or growing support for the Taliban, which tried to win public favor by building roads and repairing tunnels.
Several women said they hope their protests will soon be joined by Afghan men. “Men were silent from day one, which gave the Taliban the courage to keep imposing such rules,” said a 24-year-old female resident in Kabul. “Now, the Taliban is finally losing men’s support,” she said.
I think this is important because the Taliban is not just controlling women, and of course they're not.
But also I just want to scream. Why was it fine until now? You didn't care or just outright agreed with women losing more and more rights and now you're scared? What is this total lack of empathy for the women in your life, in your country?
But a lot of my frustration is also my knowing there's no way for me to do anything. And that so many are suffering and will continue to. Maybe I'm just feeling that the world is particularly hard right now
There are other ways to frame that. One is that is was not fine with Afghan men, but they didn't do anything because they were afraid of the Taliban killing,torturing them or their families for...
But also I just want to scream. Why was it fine until now?
There are other ways to frame that.
One is that is was not fine with Afghan men, but they didn't do anything because they were afraid of the Taliban killing,torturing them or their families for speaking up. It isn't clear if a significant number of Afghan men are viewing these new laws as a last straw. The article could just be framing it that way by interviewing men about the new laws.
Maybe, but specifically men said they should have spoken earlier and others said that former supporters of the Taliban now feel otherwise when the behavior targets them. It may not be a...
Maybe, but specifically men said they should have spoken earlier and others said that former supporters of the Taliban now feel otherwise when the behavior targets them.
It may not be a significant number, but some apparently are feeling regret. Their silence has caused harm. And I think the fear is understandable, and I'd rather they speak now than not ever, but it's still frustrating to watch. Plenty of frustrations in the US too to be clear, but I still want to scream.
These articles are designed to cause you frustration. In an entire country, of course there's going to be someone frustrated by the policy. Someone who's seen the light recently. By interviewing...
These articles are designed to cause you frustration. In an entire country, of course there's going to be someone frustrated by the policy. Someone who's seen the light recently. By interviewing them and writing a story from that angle, all it's done is create a narrative based on a handful of views and then extrapolated it to the country. You could do this on every single injustice. You could interview individuals and find someone who regrets standing up to Germany in WWII.
Don't forget that plenty of men died directly resisting the Taliban. Now that the Taliban have won, what can mere individuals do? Speaking up gets you beat to death.
I know, a good chunk of my frustration is my full inability to do anything either about this or about things here. As I said elsewhere, it's good when people realize that things are bad because it...
Don't forget that plenty of men died directly resisting the Taliban. Now that the Taliban have won, what can mere individuals do? Speaking up gets you beat to death.
I know, a good chunk of my frustration is my full inability to do anything either about this or about things here. As I said elsewhere, it's good when people realize that things are bad because it impacts them or their family now. It's bad it takes that for them to come to the realization. I don't understand not caring about others. I also understand not being able to do anything.
No revolutionary ever loved the bourgeois, but a lot of good things came to their societies as a result of the opposition they posed to monarchy. In similar fashion, no one loves Taliban men, but...
No revolutionary ever loved the bourgeois, but a lot of good things came to their societies as a result of the opposition they posed to monarchy. In similar fashion, no one loves Taliban men, but greater restrictions upon them may lead to a struggle that will eventually bring broader benefits to their society. That is because, much like the bourgeois, they're in a better position to do so.
I'd broaden this to "men of Afghanistan" and counter that plenty of people probably love them. And they profess to love the women in their lives. And yet no empathy to be found, because they...
I'd broaden this to "men of Afghanistan" and counter that plenty of people probably love them. And they profess to love the women in their lives. And yet no empathy to be found, because they weren't women, to paraphrase the poem posted below. Maybe it'll make change but it's sad it couldn't have before now
I think one thing to understand about "loving women" is that when someone is taught that "this is what love is" and that is the way you see relationships practiced all around you, it is meant to...
Exemplary
I think one thing to understand about "loving women" is that when someone is taught that "this is what love is" and that is the way you see relationships practiced all around you, it is meant to be love even if it's oppressive bullshit.
I experienced this firsthand growing up in patriarchal, fundamentalist Christianity. Though I don't have any firsthand experience with Islam or the Taliban, I assume that the playbook is similar because the playbook is very effective.
My experience was that the idea of "male headship" is drilled into everyone as normal and proper. All the emphasis is on "wives submit to your husbands". Nobody ever talks about the very next part, "husbands should love their wives as their own bodies". When I got engaged (at 26), I had a mini-freak out when I realized, "this is real, I'd better buckle down and figure out what it means to be a husband." I spent a lot of time reading that passage and other things, and I was amazed that that the part about loving your wife as your own body was in there. It completely changed my perspective.
I think one of the problems is that by the time I was old enough to reason about it for myself, I had already been taught, "oh, this is what that passage means" and had that reinforced so many times that I would just gloss over the actual words.
The masculine model I grew up with includes a strong paternalistic instinct that is meant to be loving and protective but really just subsumes the female will. This is embodied in things like the song "Cleaning my Gun". As though a woman's agency in choosing someone to have a relationship should come second to what her father or brother wants for her. But reading the top comments on that song is a pretty good microcosm of the ways that this is not just tolerated, but celebrated by both men and women steeped in that culture.
I'm ashamed to say that my father and I did something like that once when my sister brought a boy home in high school. At the time, it felt both like the right thing to do, and also a big joke. We both love my sister and want the best for her, but in that moment, we weren't able to consider her feelings or agency at all.
Aside about progress away from Christianity
Around that same time I was getting engaged, I had a colleague in grad school my same age and from a similar background who, when he and his wife argued, would point to his wedding ring and say, "see this? this says you have to obey me." That felt like something I would not do even then, but now it's beyond disgusting.
In all this deconstruction, one of the things I've come to realize is that for every "me", who realized that even the Bible says something different than what we were always taught, there are plenty of people who revel in that power and authority and never engage with it critically.
My issue is that often Christians won't stand up to this harm, even when they see and acknowledge that it is harmful, because doing so is an attack on their own in group, and the group identity matters more than the suffering. I just have trouble making time for that kind of thing anymore.
Just to be clear, none of this makes it okay. I'm not trying to defend it, but to illustrate the mechanisms that make it seem okay from the inside. It took me years to unwind this for myself, and in many ways, I think I'll never be finished.
As for the "fuck around and find out" part, privilege is a hell of a drug and a hell of set of blinders, which is why the strategy to divide a group into privileged and non-privileged is so effective as a means of gaining control. By the time someone finds themselves on the other side, they have been isolated from the power group, who have trouble hearing and seeing the problems for the same reasons as always.
I don't know why suddenly something is a wakeup call, and then you suddenly hear things people have been saying to you in a completely different light. But that's the way it was for me. It's this weird state of being bombarded by these small realizations, and once you "get it", you can't believe you were missing it all these years. Maybe learning what is effective in popping the bubble is the key to undoing some of this stuff.
Yeah I do understand this, and thank you for sharing your experience. I'm just so frustrated by the mindset you describe, even knowing it's literally shackling people. And I know that people can...
Yeah I do understand this, and thank you for sharing your experience. I'm just so frustrated by the mindset you describe, even knowing it's literally shackling people. And I know that people can learn and change but I want to shake them out of it. I know that won't work, and I can't, but I want to.
It's a good thing when conservatives come around on being homophobic because their kid is gay. It's bad it took them having a gay kid to have empathy. And that dissonance is just always there and somewhere between frustrating and infuriating.
You are welcome! I get your frustration, and share it. Sometimes I wish I could just burn it all down and start fresh, hence my username. But the reality is that I want to live in a less violent...
You are welcome! I get your frustration, and share it. Sometimes I wish I could just burn it all down and start fresh, hence my username. But the reality is that I want to live in a less violent world, and I don't think the moral position I want to take would survive the kind of violence that was necessary to do that in practice. So I content myself with trying to make things better in my immediate vicinity.
If you're curious about that topic, I found How Minds Change: The Surprising Science of Belief, Opinion, and Persuasion by David McRaney to be a fascinating exploration on the topic. He interviews...
Maybe learning what is effective in popping the bubble is the key to undoing some of this stuff.
If you're curious about that topic, I found How Minds Change: The Surprising Science of Belief, Opinion, and Persuasion by David McRaney to be a fascinating exploration on the topic. He interviews both psychologists as well as people who have escaped cults or conspiracy theory groups. Your personal experience sounds a lot like what he describes in the book—a sort of epiphany that leads you to wonder how you ever through otherwise.
Thank you, that's true. But I think it's easy to blur the line (especially online) between explaining something so people can build bridges and explaining something as a way to justify the...
Thank you, that's true. But I think it's easy to blur the line (especially online) between explaining something so people can build bridges and explaining something as a way to justify the behavior. I try to make it clear that I want the former and not the latter.
Yes. I meant to refer to a historical force or movement. Of course, there are men of great virtue in any society, that try to do as best as they can under the circumstances in which they were born.
Yes. I meant to refer to a historical force or movement. Of course, there are men of great virtue in any society, that try to do as best as they can under the circumstances in which they were born.
I don't mean this to sound as bad as it probably will. But having some experience in the matter, I don't think most afghan men would use the word love to refer to their wives or female relatives....
And they profess to love the women in their lives.
I don't mean this to sound as bad as it probably will. But having some experience in the matter, I don't think most afghan men would use the word love to refer to their wives or female relatives. I'm not saying it never happens, but generally speaking the best you're going to get is a sort of benevolent pater familias sort of controlling paternalism.
It is my understanding that accelerationists believe that it is moral to cause suffering now for long-term goals. I am merely stating that this particular issue may bring benefits on a historical...
It is my understanding that accelerationists believe that it is moral to cause suffering now for long-term goals. I am merely stating that this particular issue may bring benefits on a historical time-frame. But I am perfectly aware that I might be wrong in my speculation. Which is why I would never invite, celebrate, or collaborate for any such events to occur.
I am merely speculating on a possible silver lining on a historical time-frame. And I only feel safe to do so because I assume that my words have little effect on the Taliban regime. If I suspected that the Taliban leadership was full of Tildes users, I don't think would say anything on this matter.
I think "Hopefully now that oppression is more broadly felt we can work together against religious fascism." is a little different from accelerationism. The Afghani men were fucking around while...
I think "Hopefully now that oppression is more broadly felt we can work together against religious fascism." is a little different from accelerationism. The Afghani men were fucking around while the women were getting the screws of oppression turned on them, and now the "finding out" time is already here.
The comment reads more as an observation that things are accelerating than accelerationism. It's the difference between pointing out a car is speeding up vs. saying we should step on the gas.
The comment reads more as an observation that things are accelerating than accelerationism. It's the difference between pointing out a car is speeding up vs. saying we should step on the gas.
This is a tough one to sus out. I certainly feel that way, but i am in middle age without any externally identifiable success, wrapped in continuing conflict with my kids’ mom (divorced), and my...
Maybe I'm just feeling that the world is particularly hard right now
This is a tough one to sus out. I certainly feel that way, but i am in middle age without any externally identifiable success, wrapped in continuing conflict with my kids’ mom (divorced), and my kid has severe mental and emotional health challenges and I can’t find any meaningful help (everyone just wants to send her into the arms of the tti, nevermind a complete lack of success this far). But it also seems everythinh right now is conflict and pain.
I'm dealing with a lot of personal and professional stress, and it seems we'll all keep killing each other over the stupidest things, and that we cannot find a way to care about others unless...
I'm dealing with a lot of personal and professional stress, and it seems we'll all keep killing each other over the stupidest things, and that we cannot find a way to care about others unless there's anything in it for "me".
I don't have a lot of emotional distance right now. But also I don't really want any. How many times do we revert to oppressing women, and oppressive patriarchies and oppressive governments? And will anything get better? Idk. Like I said, I'm in a mood.
I don't have much hope that this will lead to change anytime soon, at least without decades of struggle for rights. Taliban is the unquestionable dominating armed force in Afghanistan. They have...
I don't have much hope that this will lead to change anytime soon, at least without decades of struggle for rights. Taliban is the unquestionable dominating armed force in Afghanistan. They have proved themselves resilient, while the force put in place by US wasn't powerful enough. I hope I'm wrong, but I can't remember any instance of fundamental Islamists being toppled when they took over a country this strongly (in the last few decades). Yes, ISIS was an awful lot of bastards, but they were never the unquestionable hegemony in the areas they invaded.
In addition, traditional interpretation of Sunni Islam is awful with authoritarianism and human, women, and queer rights in general. This interpretation is partially to blame for "fundamentalist" groups, as it is too lenient and tolerant to them. And I'm not saying it's impossible to change or challenge this in local contexts, but it's proven awfully hard in areas where it's strong. It's especially hard in times of economic and social problems (like in Afghanistan right now), when this interpretation is used by reactionaries to rile people up against scapegoats instead of the real adverseries.
However, take all of this with a grain of salt. I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough about Afghanistan, and I'm commenting based on my knowledge of related topics. I also suspect the change brought about by the US hegemony might have had more unforeseen effects in the population of Afghanistan, which might lead to a faster change.
Edit: Unlike the comment below, this is not a blanket statement made by a foreigner about ME. I actually do live in ME.
The Middle East are culturally medieval and the only thing that will bring them into the 21st century is a massive religious and cultural reformation, which begins with education.
The Middle East are culturally medieval and the only thing that will bring them into the 21st century is a massive religious and cultural reformation, which begins with education.
Referring to them as "culturally medieval" is a little funny, terminology-wise, given that at least a large portion of what we call the medieval period in Europe was a golden age of scientific and...
Referring to them as "culturally medieval" is a little funny, terminology-wise, given that at least a large portion of what we call the medieval period in Europe was a golden age of scientific and cultural progress in the Islamic world, and in many ways less culturally regressive than you'd assume -- for instance, homosexual relationships were generally tolerated in pre-modern Islamic societies and it wasn't until the 19th century that attitudes towards homosexuality became markedly more negative, in part because of European influence in addition to rising fundamentalist movements. I understand that's not what you mean by "culturally medieval" here, but it is extremely important to consider how modern fundamentalist Islam actually is. The fundamentalists that characterize the modern Middle East would be very out of place in the medieval Islamic world. It's also extremely important to realize that European involvement in the Middle East was (and is) a huge part of why fundamentalists have such a strong hold there, both politically and culturally.
While I agree a lot of progress needs to be made in the Middle East, it's something that has to come from the inside, at least to an extent. Attempting to impose Western democracy or progressive ideals through military might is more likely to harm those causes in these countries than anything. It impedes home-grown cultural progress and validates the narratives used against it in those countries. This isn't even particularly hard to observe historically, since Western countries have been empowering violent fundamentalists in the Middle East as part of proxy wars for ages now. The Taliban themselves are a great example of this.
The problem being, they (men) are entirely fine with their barbarism, look how quickly Afghanistan's American made security forces folded to the taliban. There seems to be a lack of any strong...
something that has to come from the inside
The problem being, they (men) are entirely fine with their barbarism, look how quickly Afghanistan's American made security forces folded to the taliban.
There seems to be a lack of any strong leadership figures or resistance from anyone who has compassion and the willingness to join the rest of us in the 21st century. Their religion and culture just doesn’t produce minds capable or willing to do it.
Where are the Middle East’s atheists and moderates who don’t need religion to tell them what is right and wrong, where are the free thinkers who don’t cling to dogma and doctrine blindly.
I am here. I am the person you originally replied to. I am one of those "culturally Medieval" people you were referring to. You just weren't aware that I was from ME because I didn't fit the -very...
Where are the Middle East’s atheists and moderates who don’t need religion to tell them what is right and wrong, where are the free thinkers who don’t cling to dogma and doctrine blindly.
I am here. I am the person you originally replied to. I am one of those "culturally Medieval" people you were referring to. You just weren't aware that I was from ME because I didn't fit the -very negative- stereotype in your head.
Edit: I am an anti-theist, but I would also point out that reducing dogmatism to "religion" and free thinking to "atheism", in a world where it's becoming increasingly apparent that a lot of atheists are very right-wing, conservative, and even fascist, is out of touch with political reality. I would take a theist ally of identity and economic rights in a heartbeat, compared to an alt-right atheist or right-winger "moderate".
Your whole approach is just incredibly othering, and not at all considerate of people like me, who have to live under these conditions.
I’m literally discussing why the countries in that area need massive reform to make things better for people like you. I’m sorry if you thought that wasn’t considerate. I’m begging people like you...
not at all considerate of people like me
I’m literally discussing why the countries in that area need massive reform to make things better for people like you. I’m sorry if you thought that wasn’t considerate. I’m begging people like you to do something about your busted culture and views on women and lgbt. If I’m wrong please tell me but it sure seems like most men in Afghanistan were not bothered about welcoming the Taliban back.
if you’re american, i’m begging you to do the same. please vote smart in november, all across the board, to kick the “american taliban” out of office everywhere.
if you’re american, i’m begging you to do the same. please vote smart in november, all across the board, to kick the “american taliban” out of office everywhere.
And do more, canvas, do phone calls and texts, work for a campaign. We have the right* not to be beaten for our speech and far too many don't use it still. *Some exclusions apply
And do more, canvas, do phone calls and texts, work for a campaign.
We have the right* not to be beaten for our speech and far too many don't use it still.
I think the idea that "their minds are not capable of it" is deeply xenophobic and racist.
There seems to be a lack of any strong leadership figures or resistance from anyone who has compassion and the willingness to join the rest of us in the 21st century. Their religion and culture just doesn’t produce minds capable or willing to do it.
I think the idea that "their minds are not capable of it" is deeply xenophobic and racist.
They literally were not bothered until it affected them. Nothing to do with xenophobia or racism, that is a ridiculous allegation that people are far too flippant with online.
Taliban starts restricting men, too, some regret not speaking up sooner
They literally were not bothered until it affected them. Nothing to do with xenophobia or racism, that is a ridiculous allegation that people are far too flippant with online.
No, I'm not being flippant. I considered my words quite carefully in response to yours. We frankly see many of the same things from Americans, atheist, Christian, or otherwise. I was literally...
No, I'm not being flippant. I considered my words quite carefully in response to yours.
We frankly see many of the same things from Americans, atheist, Christian, or otherwise.
I was literally told to stop worrying about Roe V Wade being overturned by a lefty American dude because I was being irrational. Six months later he was terrified for his daughter.
It's a lack of empathy, it's patriarchy and it's misogyny. But there's nothing about "their" minds that are incapable. Now if you want to say this is a human issue - one where it's so easy to see others as less than ourselves if they're "them" and not "us" I'd agree, and feel you demonstrated it well.
I hate to be flippant, but they were removed by the cia at the behest of corporate and proto neo-cons. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%2527%C3%A9tat
Where are the Middle East’s atheists and moderates who don’t need religion to tell them what is right and wrong, where are the free thinkers who don’t cling to dogma and doctrine blindly.
From my understanding, it doesn't even seem like it is that simple. The "American made security forces" didn't even get a seat at the table when Trump's administration negotiated with the Taliban....
The problem being, they (men) are entirely fine with their barbarism, look how quickly Afghanistan's American made security forces folded to the taliban.
From my understanding, it doesn't even seem like it is that simple. The "American made security forces" didn't even get a seat at the table when Trump's administration negotiated with the Taliban. Of course it would not have mattered to an extent because the US wanted to get out of Afghanistan and that's what sitting at the table was about, and the Afghanistan forces at the time would not have wanted the US to leave because they knew they would not be able to hold against the Taliban without the US. In effect, the US surrendered Afghanistan to the Taliban at that point.
While it is the case that circumstance basically says there weren't enough people there willing to join the "American made security forces", I just don't see it as simple as being "entirely fine with barbarism". There's a lot of room in between being fine with barbarism and risking your life and your body to fight people, even if those people you are fighting could be described as barbarians.
I also don't know if 20 years, which to many of us sounds like a long time, is enough time when looking at it from a different scale. 20 years of US occupation could be argued as a generation of people that grew up without significant Taliban influence, but there were still many other people who grew up prior to that and already had views that shaped how they perceived and did things. I wonder what 40 years would produce, when more of the older generations die off, and there's more like two full generations of people who never lived under significant influence of the Taliban.
I'm not saying the US is necessarily the good one in that scenario (unless of course it actually worked out and everyone's lives ended up being better which we'll never know), nor that the US should be going around occupying in that manner, and I don't negate that another 20 years of that occupation would be costly, but it does make me wonder if we had held on a little longer, would it have made a more lasting impact for the better? It's possible it would have just been throwing good money after bad, but it's also possible it would have changed the numbers where the Taliban wouldn't have had such an overwhelming majority that fighting against them would seem like a losing cause.
It's easy for many of us to sit back and judge people who are in situations where they may have to fight for their lives from the comfort and safety of our homes, but it's a lot harder to imagine throwing your life away to a losing cause. If you're outnumbered 10 to 1 for example, the decision is really not whether you can beat the 10 and get what you want, because that's just not going to happen, but rather whether you can eek out an existence worth living or if you'd rather die taking some of them down with you.
I also say this knowing that occupying land is potentially people from another land risking their lives to protect what isn't even theirs, which there's even less motivation for than people who would risk their own lives to protect their own land. If they can't do it, why should we, right? Plus there's no guarantee when you empower someone that they will end up siding with you later on. I'm not criticizing the US for backing out so much as pondering what it might have looked like if they had stayed, but at the same time I'm not going to be that critical of people who are outnumbered about what options they take when the only options they have suck.
Do you speak Pashto or Dari? Or Arabic? Or one of the other languages spoken in MENA? Have you considered that you may, in fact, not even be looking very hard for the subset of these people who...
Where are the Middle East’s atheists and moderates who don’t need religion to tell them what is right and wrong, where are the free thinkers who don’t cling to dogma and doctrine blindly.
Do you speak Pashto or Dari? Or Arabic? Or one of the other languages spoken in MENA? Have you considered that you may, in fact, not even be looking very hard for the subset of these people who speak English?
Is the part of enforced beards because they're worried about being attracted to other men/AMAB's? What happens to folks that can't grow a beard at all? We see in the west an increasing number of...
Is the part of enforced beards because they're worried about being attracted to other men/AMAB's? What happens to folks that can't grow a beard at all?
We see in the west an increasing number of folks are bicurious, so that I'm sure stands in other countries, and this seems like deep rooted self hatred and internalized homophobia.
That seems like a stretch. For one, plenty of gay people have beards - I'm not sure why a beard would be a tool for not attracting other men? Secondly, the taliban have more direct ways to stop...
That seems like a stretch. For one, plenty of gay people have beards - I'm not sure why a beard would be a tool for not attracting other men? Secondly, the taliban have more direct ways to stop gay people from existing, such as throwing rocks at them until they die.
Occam's razor is that it's about conservatism in general. Being clean shaven was something popular amongst modernizing, or secularizing, Islamic communities, so adhering more closely to the prophet, and tradition, seems like it would be in the Taliban's M.O, a hyper-conservative religious group.
Yeah I don't see any connection to "afraid of being attracted to men" here. Conservative patriarchies control men's behavior and attire - whether through social pressure or physical force, etc....
Yeah I don't see any connection to "afraid of being attracted to men" here. Conservative patriarchies control men's behavior and attire - whether through social pressure or physical force, etc. this just seems to be that.
Especially given that men are the only non family members they're allowed to socialize with. If queerphobia was the root cause, I suspect it'd be different. (Queerphobia is part of all this, as is misogyny, but IMO it's control more than either)
This is an example of what I was referencing https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5193601/Preacher-says-men-without-beards-cause-indecent-thoughts.html
While both Turkey and Afghanistan are majority Sunni, I'm not sure how much theological thought overlaps between the two. Either way, the Daily Mail is very likely to highlight outliers and paint...
While both Turkey and Afghanistan are majority Sunni, I'm not sure how much theological thought overlaps between the two. Either way, the Daily Mail is very likely to highlight outliers and paint Islam in a negative light. Whether that outlier aligns with the particular ideology of the Taliban or not, I can't say. But the prohibition on shaving or trimming beards was in place decades ago, and has been back in place for several years. They're just starting to enforce it in cities with the morality police in a new way. And they haven't indicated that the beard requirement is about impure thoughts that I've seen.
It makes me think more of Iran where policies were nominally in place, enforced more in some places than others, and then ultimately they cracked down with their morality police on women and protestors, etc.
I'd just hesitate to make broad assumptions on the grounds of those a few outliers. I did not post this as an indictment of Islam, but of the use of it as a form of abuse and control. Muslims of all genders are being harmed by the Taliban's actions. And I worry about sweeping statements. (I understand your thoughts were genuine, just that they're not seeming to be anything the Taliban is saying at this point. )
I would hesitate to take the word of this type of religious leader at face-value, personally, and I especially would not take news reported in the daily mail at face-value either.
I would hesitate to take the word of this type of religious leader at face-value, personally, and I especially would not take news reported in the daily mail at face-value either.
The best I could find is that this is a way to imitate and follow their Prophet according to a strict interpretation of the Hadith, which is a collection of sayings and teachings from multiple...
The best I could find is that this is a way to imitate and follow their Prophet according to a strict interpretation of the Hadith, which is a collection of sayings and teachings from multiple authors that forms a recorded oral tradition surrounding Muhammad.
As an aside, I would not have moved this to life.men. I placed it in news as an international news piece. ETA, not sure that humanities fits either, because it's religion? Look I don't understand...
As an aside, I would not have moved this to life.men. I placed it in news as an international news piece.
ETA, not sure that humanities fits either, because it's religion? Look I don't understand the sorting process but I mostly mentioned because I figure more people filter out the gender specific groups.
Humanities seems alright, definitely better than life.men and while it is news, it seems more like something to reflect on rather than just being informed about something happening. Like the news...
Humanities seems alright, definitely better than life.men and while it is news, it seems more like something to reflect on rather than just being informed about something happening. Like the news would be what the Taliban is doing, but how people feel about what the Taliban is doing isn't really the news piece, and that seems to be more the primary focus.
Humanities are academic disciplines that study aspects of human society and culture, including certain fundamental questions asked by humans.
Just the leading line from the Wikipedia page. While I don't think this is academic, it does seem to be about human society and culture for that region. And a lot of the comments and discussion in here are seemingly revolving around that, rather than just reacting to the news of what the Taliban is doing. I think it would have been fine in news but also seems fine in humanities.
Yeah like I said, I was mostly worried about it being filtered by folks that avoid .men (or . women) due to not identifying there. A psych or anthropology or history thing would make sense in...
Yeah like I said, I was mostly worried about it being filtered by folks that avoid .men (or . women) due to not identifying there.
A psych or anthropology or history thing would make sense in humanities to me, but I fully admit to not understanding the sorting
Religious studies programs at universities tend to be in the humanities department, so I think the categorization makes sense. I definitely agree this post wasn't suitable for .men
Religious studies programs at universities tend to be in the humanities department, so I think the categorization makes sense. I definitely agree this post wasn't suitable for .men
yeah I think in any forum like this there'll be stuff where it's ultimately a judgment call, I personally would've expected this one to be in ~news as well but it's one of those situations where I...
yeah I think in any forum like this there'll be stuff where it's ultimately a judgment call, I personally would've expected this one to be in ~news as well but it's one of those situations where I can understand why it'd be in ~humanities
—Martin Niemöller
It's communists first, originally.
But yeah.
I came here to post exactly this.
I think this is important because the Taliban is not just controlling women, and of course they're not.
But also I just want to scream. Why was it fine until now? You didn't care or just outright agreed with women losing more and more rights and now you're scared? What is this total lack of empathy for the women in your life, in your country?
It's just really prime "Leopards would never eat my face" material.
But a lot of my frustration is also my knowing there's no way for me to do anything. And that so many are suffering and will continue to. Maybe I'm just feeling that the world is particularly hard right now
There are other ways to frame that.
One is that is was not fine with Afghan men, but they didn't do anything because they were afraid of the Taliban killing,torturing them or their families for speaking up. It isn't clear if a significant number of Afghan men are viewing these new laws as a last straw. The article could just be framing it that way by interviewing men about the new laws.
Maybe, but specifically men said they should have spoken earlier and others said that former supporters of the Taliban now feel otherwise when the behavior targets them.
It may not be a significant number, but some apparently are feeling regret. Their silence has caused harm. And I think the fear is understandable, and I'd rather they speak now than not ever, but it's still frustrating to watch. Plenty of frustrations in the US too to be clear, but I still want to scream.
These articles are designed to cause you frustration. In an entire country, of course there's going to be someone frustrated by the policy. Someone who's seen the light recently. By interviewing them and writing a story from that angle, all it's done is create a narrative based on a handful of views and then extrapolated it to the country. You could do this on every single injustice. You could interview individuals and find someone who regrets standing up to Germany in WWII.
Don't forget that plenty of men died directly resisting the Taliban. Now that the Taliban have won, what can mere individuals do? Speaking up gets you beat to death.
I know, a good chunk of my frustration is my full inability to do anything either about this or about things here. As I said elsewhere, it's good when people realize that things are bad because it impacts them or their family now. It's bad it takes that for them to come to the realization. I don't understand not caring about others. I also understand not being able to do anything.
No revolutionary ever loved the bourgeois, but a lot of good things came to their societies as a result of the opposition they posed to monarchy. In similar fashion, no one loves Taliban men, but greater restrictions upon them may lead to a struggle that will eventually bring broader benefits to their society. That is because, much like the bourgeois, they're in a better position to do so.
I'd broaden this to "men of Afghanistan" and counter that plenty of people probably love them. And they profess to love the women in their lives. And yet no empathy to be found, because they weren't women, to paraphrase the poem posted below. Maybe it'll make change but it's sad it couldn't have before now
I think one thing to understand about "loving women" is that when someone is taught that "this is what love is" and that is the way you see relationships practiced all around you, it is meant to be love even if it's oppressive bullshit.
I experienced this firsthand growing up in patriarchal, fundamentalist Christianity. Though I don't have any firsthand experience with Islam or the Taliban, I assume that the playbook is similar because the playbook is very effective.
My experience was that the idea of "male headship" is drilled into everyone as normal and proper. All the emphasis is on "wives submit to your husbands". Nobody ever talks about the very next part, "husbands should love their wives as their own bodies". When I got engaged (at 26), I had a mini-freak out when I realized, "this is real, I'd better buckle down and figure out what it means to be a husband." I spent a lot of time reading that passage and other things, and I was amazed that that the part about loving your wife as your own body was in there. It completely changed my perspective.
I think one of the problems is that by the time I was old enough to reason about it for myself, I had already been taught, "oh, this is what that passage means" and had that reinforced so many times that I would just gloss over the actual words.
The masculine model I grew up with includes a strong paternalistic instinct that is meant to be loving and protective but really just subsumes the female will. This is embodied in things like the song "Cleaning my Gun". As though a woman's agency in choosing someone to have a relationship should come second to what her father or brother wants for her. But reading the top comments on that song is a pretty good microcosm of the ways that this is not just tolerated, but celebrated by both men and women steeped in that culture.
I'm ashamed to say that my father and I did something like that once when my sister brought a boy home in high school. At the time, it felt both like the right thing to do, and also a big joke. We both love my sister and want the best for her, but in that moment, we weren't able to consider her feelings or agency at all.
Aside about progress away from Christianity
Around that same time I was getting engaged, I had a colleague in grad school my same age and from a similar background who, when he and his wife argued, would point to his wedding ring and say, "see this? this says you have to obey me." That felt like something I would not do even then, but now it's beyond disgusting.
In all this deconstruction, one of the things I've come to realize is that for every "me", who realized that even the Bible says something different than what we were always taught, there are plenty of people who revel in that power and authority and never engage with it critically.
My issue is that often Christians won't stand up to this harm, even when they see and acknowledge that it is harmful, because doing so is an attack on their own in group, and the group identity matters more than the suffering. I just have trouble making time for that kind of thing anymore.
Just to be clear, none of this makes it okay. I'm not trying to defend it, but to illustrate the mechanisms that make it seem okay from the inside. It took me years to unwind this for myself, and in many ways, I think I'll never be finished.
As for the "fuck around and find out" part, privilege is a hell of a drug and a hell of set of blinders, which is why the strategy to divide a group into privileged and non-privileged is so effective as a means of gaining control. By the time someone finds themselves on the other side, they have been isolated from the power group, who have trouble hearing and seeing the problems for the same reasons as always.
I don't know why suddenly something is a wakeup call, and then you suddenly hear things people have been saying to you in a completely different light. But that's the way it was for me. It's this weird state of being bombarded by these small realizations, and once you "get it", you can't believe you were missing it all these years. Maybe learning what is effective in popping the bubble is the key to undoing some of this stuff.
Yeah I do understand this, and thank you for sharing your experience. I'm just so frustrated by the mindset you describe, even knowing it's literally shackling people. And I know that people can learn and change but I want to shake them out of it. I know that won't work, and I can't, but I want to.
It's a good thing when conservatives come around on being homophobic because their kid is gay. It's bad it took them having a gay kid to have empathy. And that dissonance is just always there and somewhere between frustrating and infuriating.
You are welcome! I get your frustration, and share it. Sometimes I wish I could just burn it all down and start fresh, hence my username. But the reality is that I want to live in a less violent world, and I don't think the moral position I want to take would survive the kind of violence that was necessary to do that in practice. So I content myself with trying to make things better in my immediate vicinity.
If you're curious about that topic, I found How Minds Change: The Surprising Science of Belief, Opinion, and Persuasion by David McRaney to be a fascinating exploration on the topic. He interviews both psychologists as well as people who have escaped cults or conspiracy theory groups. Your personal experience sounds a lot like what he describes in the book—a sort of epiphany that leads you to wonder how you ever through otherwise.
Thanks for the recommendation! Our library did not have it on audiobook, but I had a downpour credit that was expiring, so I got it there.
describing something and supporting it or even taking steps to make it happen are two different things.
Thank you, that's true. But I think it's easy to blur the line (especially online) between explaining something so people can build bridges and explaining something as a way to justify the behavior. I try to make it clear that I want the former and not the latter.
Yes. I meant to refer to a historical force or movement. Of course, there are men of great virtue in any society, that try to do as best as they can under the circumstances in which they were born.
I don't mean this to sound as bad as it probably will. But having some experience in the matter, I don't think most afghan men would use the word love to refer to their wives or female relatives. I'm not saying it never happens, but generally speaking the best you're going to get is a sort of benevolent pater familias sort of controlling paternalism.
Isn't that...kinda accelerationist thinking, though?
It is my understanding that accelerationists believe that it is moral to cause suffering now for long-term goals. I am merely stating that this particular issue may bring benefits on a historical time-frame. But I am perfectly aware that I might be wrong in my speculation. Which is why I would never invite, celebrate, or collaborate for any such events to occur.
I am merely speculating on a possible silver lining on a historical time-frame. And I only feel safe to do so because I assume that my words have little effect on the Taliban regime. If I suspected that the Taliban leadership was full of Tildes users, I don't think would say anything on this matter.
I think "Hopefully now that oppression is more broadly felt we can work together against religious fascism." is a little different from accelerationism. The Afghani men were fucking around while the women were getting the screws of oppression turned on them, and now the "finding out" time is already here.
The comment reads more as an observation that things are accelerating than accelerationism. It's the difference between pointing out a car is speeding up vs. saying we should step on the gas.
This is a tough one to sus out. I certainly feel that way, but i am in middle age without any externally identifiable success, wrapped in continuing conflict with my kids’ mom (divorced), and my kid has severe mental and emotional health challenges and I can’t find any meaningful help (everyone just wants to send her into the arms of the tti, nevermind a complete lack of success this far). But it also seems everythinh right now is conflict and pain.
I'm dealing with a lot of personal and professional stress, and it seems we'll all keep killing each other over the stupidest things, and that we cannot find a way to care about others unless there's anything in it for "me".
I don't have a lot of emotional distance right now. But also I don't really want any. How many times do we revert to oppressing women, and oppressive patriarchies and oppressive governments? And will anything get better? Idk. Like I said, I'm in a mood.
I don't have much hope that this will lead to change anytime soon, at least without decades of struggle for rights. Taliban is the unquestionable dominating armed force in Afghanistan. They have proved themselves resilient, while the force put in place by US wasn't powerful enough. I hope I'm wrong, but I can't remember any instance of fundamental Islamists being toppled when they took over a country this strongly (in the last few decades). Yes, ISIS was an awful lot of bastards, but they were never the unquestionable hegemony in the areas they invaded.
In addition, traditional interpretation of Sunni Islam is awful with authoritarianism and human, women, and queer rights in general. This interpretation is partially to blame for "fundamentalist" groups, as it is too lenient and tolerant to them. And I'm not saying it's impossible to change or challenge this in local contexts, but it's proven awfully hard in areas where it's strong. It's especially hard in times of economic and social problems (like in Afghanistan right now), when this interpretation is used by reactionaries to rile people up against scapegoats instead of the real adverseries.
However, take all of this with a grain of salt. I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough about Afghanistan, and I'm commenting based on my knowledge of related topics. I also suspect the change brought about by the US hegemony might have had more unforeseen effects in the population of Afghanistan, which might lead to a faster change.
Edit: Unlike the comment below, this is not a blanket statement made by a foreigner about ME. I actually do live in ME.
The Middle East are culturally medieval and the only thing that will bring them into the 21st century is a massive religious and cultural reformation, which begins with education.
Referring to them as "culturally medieval" is a little funny, terminology-wise, given that at least a large portion of what we call the medieval period in Europe was a golden age of scientific and cultural progress in the Islamic world, and in many ways less culturally regressive than you'd assume -- for instance, homosexual relationships were generally tolerated in pre-modern Islamic societies and it wasn't until the 19th century that attitudes towards homosexuality became markedly more negative, in part because of European influence in addition to rising fundamentalist movements. I understand that's not what you mean by "culturally medieval" here, but it is extremely important to consider how modern fundamentalist Islam actually is. The fundamentalists that characterize the modern Middle East would be very out of place in the medieval Islamic world. It's also extremely important to realize that European involvement in the Middle East was (and is) a huge part of why fundamentalists have such a strong hold there, both politically and culturally.
While I agree a lot of progress needs to be made in the Middle East, it's something that has to come from the inside, at least to an extent. Attempting to impose Western democracy or progressive ideals through military might is more likely to harm those causes in these countries than anything. It impedes home-grown cultural progress and validates the narratives used against it in those countries. This isn't even particularly hard to observe historically, since Western countries have been empowering violent fundamentalists in the Middle East as part of proxy wars for ages now. The Taliban themselves are a great example of this.
The problem being, they (men) are entirely fine with their barbarism, look how quickly Afghanistan's American made security forces folded to the taliban.
There seems to be a lack of any strong leadership figures or resistance from anyone who has compassion and the willingness to join the rest of us in the 21st century. Their religion and culture just doesn’t produce minds capable or willing to do it.
Where are the Middle East’s atheists and moderates who don’t need religion to tell them what is right and wrong, where are the free thinkers who don’t cling to dogma and doctrine blindly.
I am here. I am the person you originally replied to. I am one of those "culturally Medieval" people you were referring to. You just weren't aware that I was from ME because I didn't fit the -very negative- stereotype in your head.
Edit: I am an anti-theist, but I would also point out that reducing dogmatism to "religion" and free thinking to "atheism", in a world where it's becoming increasingly apparent that a lot of atheists are very right-wing, conservative, and even fascist, is out of touch with political reality. I would take a theist ally of identity and economic rights in a heartbeat, compared to an alt-right atheist or right-winger "moderate".
Your whole approach is just incredibly othering, and not at all considerate of people like me, who have to live under these conditions.
I’m literally discussing why the countries in that area need massive reform to make things better for people like you. I’m sorry if you thought that wasn’t considerate. I’m begging people like you to do something about your busted culture and views on women and lgbt. If I’m wrong please tell me but it sure seems like most men in Afghanistan were not bothered about welcoming the Taliban back.
if you’re american, i’m begging you to do the same. please vote smart in november, all across the board, to kick the “american taliban” out of office everywhere.
And do more, canvas, do phone calls and texts, work for a campaign.
We have the right* not to be beaten for our speech and far too many don't use it still.
*Some exclusions apply
I think the idea that "their minds are not capable of it" is deeply xenophobic and racist.
They literally were not bothered until it affected them. Nothing to do with xenophobia or racism, that is a ridiculous allegation that people are far too flippant with online.
No, I'm not being flippant. I considered my words quite carefully in response to yours.
We frankly see many of the same things from Americans, atheist, Christian, or otherwise.
I was literally told to stop worrying about Roe V Wade being overturned by a lefty American dude because I was being irrational. Six months later he was terrified for his daughter.
It's a lack of empathy, it's patriarchy and it's misogyny. But there's nothing about "their" minds that are incapable. Now if you want to say this is a human issue - one where it's so easy to see others as less than ourselves if they're "them" and not "us" I'd agree, and feel you demonstrated it well.
I hate to be flippant, but they were removed by the cia at the behest of corporate and proto neo-cons. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%2527%C3%A9tat
From my understanding, it doesn't even seem like it is that simple. The "American made security forces" didn't even get a seat at the table when Trump's administration negotiated with the Taliban. Of course it would not have mattered to an extent because the US wanted to get out of Afghanistan and that's what sitting at the table was about, and the Afghanistan forces at the time would not have wanted the US to leave because they knew they would not be able to hold against the Taliban without the US. In effect, the US surrendered Afghanistan to the Taliban at that point.
While it is the case that circumstance basically says there weren't enough people there willing to join the "American made security forces", I just don't see it as simple as being "entirely fine with barbarism". There's a lot of room in between being fine with barbarism and risking your life and your body to fight people, even if those people you are fighting could be described as barbarians.
I also don't know if 20 years, which to many of us sounds like a long time, is enough time when looking at it from a different scale. 20 years of US occupation could be argued as a generation of people that grew up without significant Taliban influence, but there were still many other people who grew up prior to that and already had views that shaped how they perceived and did things. I wonder what 40 years would produce, when more of the older generations die off, and there's more like two full generations of people who never lived under significant influence of the Taliban.
I'm not saying the US is necessarily the good one in that scenario (unless of course it actually worked out and everyone's lives ended up being better which we'll never know), nor that the US should be going around occupying in that manner, and I don't negate that another 20 years of that occupation would be costly, but it does make me wonder if we had held on a little longer, would it have made a more lasting impact for the better? It's possible it would have just been throwing good money after bad, but it's also possible it would have changed the numbers where the Taliban wouldn't have had such an overwhelming majority that fighting against them would seem like a losing cause.
It's easy for many of us to sit back and judge people who are in situations where they may have to fight for their lives from the comfort and safety of our homes, but it's a lot harder to imagine throwing your life away to a losing cause. If you're outnumbered 10 to 1 for example, the decision is really not whether you can beat the 10 and get what you want, because that's just not going to happen, but rather whether you can eek out an existence worth living or if you'd rather die taking some of them down with you.
I also say this knowing that occupying land is potentially people from another land risking their lives to protect what isn't even theirs, which there's even less motivation for than people who would risk their own lives to protect their own land. If they can't do it, why should we, right? Plus there's no guarantee when you empower someone that they will end up siding with you later on. I'm not criticizing the US for backing out so much as pondering what it might have looked like if they had stayed, but at the same time I'm not going to be that critical of people who are outnumbered about what options they take when the only options they have suck.
Do you speak Pashto or Dari? Or Arabic? Or one of the other languages spoken in MENA? Have you considered that you may, in fact, not even be looking very hard for the subset of these people who speak English?
Mirror, since the article is still behind a registration wall even though it's a gifted link:
https://archive.is/uCIXJ
Is the part of enforced beards because they're worried about being attracted to other men/AMAB's? What happens to folks that can't grow a beard at all?
We see in the west an increasing number of folks are bicurious, so that I'm sure stands in other countries, and this seems like deep rooted self hatred and internalized homophobia.
That seems like a stretch. For one, plenty of gay people have beards - I'm not sure why a beard would be a tool for not attracting other men? Secondly, the taliban have more direct ways to stop gay people from existing, such as throwing rocks at them until they die.
Occam's razor is that it's about conservatism in general. Being clean shaven was something popular amongst modernizing, or secularizing, Islamic communities, so adhering more closely to the prophet, and tradition, seems like it would be in the Taliban's M.O, a hyper-conservative religious group.
Yeah I don't see any connection to "afraid of being attracted to men" here. Conservative patriarchies control men's behavior and attire - whether through social pressure or physical force, etc. this just seems to be that.
Especially given that men are the only non family members they're allowed to socialize with. If queerphobia was the root cause, I suspect it'd be different. (Queerphobia is part of all this, as is misogyny, but IMO it's control more than either)
Just because a theory conveniently mocks the oppressors does not make it accurate.
I think this is an unrealistic view built only on that mockery.
This is an example of what I was referencing https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5193601/Preacher-says-men-without-beards-cause-indecent-thoughts.html
While both Turkey and Afghanistan are majority Sunni, I'm not sure how much theological thought overlaps between the two. Either way, the Daily Mail is very likely to highlight outliers and paint Islam in a negative light. Whether that outlier aligns with the particular ideology of the Taliban or not, I can't say. But the prohibition on shaving or trimming beards was in place decades ago, and has been back in place for several years. They're just starting to enforce it in cities with the morality police in a new way. And they haven't indicated that the beard requirement is about impure thoughts that I've seen.
It makes me think more of Iran where policies were nominally in place, enforced more in some places than others, and then ultimately they cracked down with their morality police on women and protestors, etc.
I'd just hesitate to make broad assumptions on the grounds of those a few outliers. I did not post this as an indictment of Islam, but of the use of it as a form of abuse and control. Muslims of all genders are being harmed by the Taliban's actions. And I worry about sweeping statements. (I understand your thoughts were genuine, just that they're not seeming to be anything the Taliban is saying at this point. )
I don't think you're particularly familiar with men who have sex with other men if you think they aren't attracted to beards.
Indeed I am, but I'm referencing stuff like this, which I don't know if they're minorities, or one of the main reasons behind the law
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5193601/Preacher-says-men-without-beards-cause-indecent-thoughts.html
I would hesitate to take the word of this type of religious leader at face-value, personally, and I especially would not take news reported in the daily mail at face-value either.
The best I could find is that this is a way to imitate and follow their Prophet according to a strict interpretation of the Hadith, which is a collection of sayings and teachings from multiple authors that forms a recorded oral tradition surrounding Muhammad.
As an aside, I would not have moved this to life.men. I placed it in news as an international news piece.
ETA, not sure that humanities fits either, because it's religion? Look I don't understand the sorting process but I mostly mentioned because I figure more people filter out the gender specific groups.
Humanities seems alright, definitely better than life.men and while it is news, it seems more like something to reflect on rather than just being informed about something happening. Like the news would be what the Taliban is doing, but how people feel about what the Taliban is doing isn't really the news piece, and that seems to be more the primary focus.
Just the leading line from the Wikipedia page. While I don't think this is academic, it does seem to be about human society and culture for that region. And a lot of the comments and discussion in here are seemingly revolving around that, rather than just reacting to the news of what the Taliban is doing. I think it would have been fine in news but also seems fine in humanities.
Yeah like I said, I was mostly worried about it being filtered by folks that avoid .men (or . women) due to not identifying there.
A psych or anthropology or history thing would make sense in humanities to me, but I fully admit to not understanding the sorting
Religious studies programs at universities tend to be in the humanities department, so I think the categorization makes sense. I definitely agree this post wasn't suitable for .men
Eh, I'm not mad about it, but it doesn't make sense to me as it's current events. It's whatever, but I get frustrated at not understanding sometimes
yeah I think in any forum like this there'll be stuff where it's ultimately a judgment call, I personally would've expected this one to be in ~news as well but it's one of those situations where I can understand why it'd be in ~humanities