Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Afghan Women Can't Go a Long Way, Baby (Without a Male Chaperone)
So saith Afghan parliamentarian Al-Hajj Abdul Jabbar Shalgarai, appalled that fellow parliamentarians of the female persuasion were also on a trip to London trying to gin up aid for their country--unchaperoned! From the Christian Science Monitor report:
Under sharia, the notion of mahram-e sharaii, or male chaperones, allows for women to travel for more than three days if they are accompanied with a male relative. Because mahram-e sharaii has not been introduced as a bill, it is impossible to know just how much parliamentarian support it has. But with an estimated 50 percent of the lower house claiming past experience as fighters in the anti-Soviet jihad, and current affiliation with Islamist parties, it's clear that conservative interpretations of Islamic life have a strong political hold.
.....
Zeefunun Safi, another parliamentarian, agrees. "If my husband accepts me, and lets me travel and be a member of parliament, then who are you not to accept me?"Yet she acknowledges that some women parliamentarians may end up supporting mahram-e sharaii, if it ever is introduced as a bill. "There are lots of women in Parliament against this, but they have to support it, because people will say, 'You are not our representative, get out of Parliament.' "
The Constitution of Afghanistan does not explicitly mention Sharia, but does say "no law shall contravene the tenets and provisions of the holy religion of Islam in Afghanistan." Does this mean that no individual shall be permitted to contravene those tenets? Seems not, as it does provide that non-Moslems shall be able to practice their religion. Still, as Ms. Safi noted above, Afghanistan's seems like the kind of representative democracy in which restrictions on women's rights might be more than welcome.
[Link via Rational Review.]
brian423|2.16.06 @ 3:10PM|#
We need Francine Smith to strip down to a bikini and sing a song about how it sucks to be a woman in Afghanistan.
|2.16.06 @ 3:10PM|#
"And outraged post from Jennifer in 5... 4... 3... 2..."
funny, that's just what i came here expecting to find.
|2.16.06 @ 3:22PM|#
In all seriousness, I wish these medieval dumbasses would learn the difference between what is allowed and what is required. Even if you are not required to have a male chaperone whenever you go out, you're still welcome to take a man along with you whenever you leave the house. Just like laws allowing women to dress in a Western style don't mean you can't still wear tents in public if you want.
|2.16.06 @ 3:48PM|#
This would be bad enough on its own, but we should remember that this particular government was created by our own, and that at least one of the reasons given for overthrowing the Taliban was to improve the lot of Afghan women. Just bloody great.
MP|2.16.06 @ 3:49PM|#
For what it's worth, I am also outraged.
I'm like WAY more outraged then like you are. Like totally.
|2.16.06 @ 3:51PM|#
For what it's worth, I am also outraged.
Me too.
Yet another example of why democracy is not to be confused with
freedom.
|2.16.06 @ 3:56PM|#
This would be bad enough on its own, but we should remember
that this particular government was created by our own, and that at
least one of the reasons given for overthrowing the Taliban was to
improve the lot of Afghan women. Just bloody great.
At least Afghan women aren't any worse off than they were
before we arrived. Iraqi women are.
|2.16.06 @ 3:59PM|#
At least Afghan women aren't any worse off than they were before
we arrived. Iraqi women are.
True, and deeply depressing. For what it's worth, count me as
outraged on both counts.
|2.16.06 @ 4:02PM|#
True, Jennifer. And although I share the required outrage at
hearing this, I am somewhat encouraged by the fact that there are
women in parliament. The fact that women can be elected and make
laws make the chaperone rule a bit ludicrous, and I would hope that
will become increasingly clear to Afghanis.
Baby steps!
|2.16.06 @ 4:04PM|#
Sad. Outraged. Before the Russians, urban Afghan women were quite western in their freedoms, though the women in the provinces were not. I hate that we're going backward, not forward. What can we do to help?
|2.16.06 @ 4:28PM|#
Yet she acknowledges that some women parliamentarians may
end up supporting mahram-e sharaii, if it ever is introduced as a
bill.
There's a thing about addiction recovery, where a junky won't get
better no matter how much help you provide, until they help
themselves.
Stories like this make me think of their country as the junky who's
not quite ready to clean up his act, but who says they want to get
clean.
I believe these women when they say they don't want to support it,
but they feel they have to as representatives, but what can we as a
country do to help them if they are not able and/or ready to help
themselves?
Or, to put it another way, I share the outrage, with a side of
helplessness.
|2.16.06 @ 4:29PM|#
Relax. You may have skimmed this part in your haste to be
outraged and pessimistic:
Because mahram-e sharaii has not been introduced as a bill, it
is impossible to know just how much parliamentarian support it
has.
|2.16.06 @ 4:35PM|#
Where is the difference between style and culture?
From pictures I've seen most women wore hats with veils as well as
gloves almost everywhere outside in the 40s and 50s. I've heard
often enough from my mom that married women were not hired or
encouraged to work, and unmarried women had a limited set of
wiorking options. Our culture seems to ahve evolved away from most
of those practices in the past 50 years.
Should we allow other cultures time to evolve as well? What happens
if they do not evolve within 50 years?
|2.16.06 @ 4:40PM|#
So, what if Jack Abramoff invites female Afghan parliamentarians on a junket? Is he required to invite their male chaperones as well?
|2.16.06 @ 4:53PM|#
Just like laws allowing women to dress in a Western style
don't mean you can't still wear tents in public if you
want.
There's the rub! If you give people a choice, some people might
choose wrong! And then think of what happens when some of the women
choose wrong, without consequences? Other women will be emboldened
to try the wrong choice and see if they like it. Soon a majority of
these women will choose to not wear tents -- Oh the horror!
|2.16.06 @ 5:01PM|#
From pictures I've seen most women wore hats with veils as
well as gloves almost everywhere outside in the 40s and 50s. I've
heard often enough from my mom that married women were not hired or
encouraged to work, and unmarried women had a limited set of
wiorking options. Our culture seems to ahve evolved away from most
of those practices in the past 50 years.
Even so, women who didn't wear a hat or gloves didn't have acid
thrown in their faces. More importantly (and this is what truly
bothers me about burkas and abayas, despite the fact that my own
mode of dress is usually very conservative by American standards),
at no point in American history were women required to wear
clothing which completely wiped out their individuality. Put ten
women in hats and gloves, and you can still tell them all apart.
Put ten women in burkas and their individuality is gone.
As for waiting for other aspects of the culture to evolve, I think
American women in the 50s had a huge advantage over Afghan women
now. First of all, at no point in American history were women
denied as much freedom as Afghan women are now, and secondly,
during World War Two many women did, in fact, work outside the home
to take the place of men at war. This "planted seeds," shall we
say, which have not been planted in Afghanistan.
And finally, there is a huge difference between "women are
discouraged from working outside the home" and "women are forbidden
to leave the home under any circumstances whatsoever."
|2.16.06 @ 5:09PM|#
Alternate plan for transforming the world:
Instead of pursuing regime change on our own, I suggest that we
simply give every woman in the Middle East and Central Asia a
handgun and a lot of ammo. Let nature take its course.
I actually felt that way even back when I considered myself a
lefty. My colleagues thought I was crazy.
MP|2.16.06 @ 5:17PM|#
Instead of pursuing regime change on our own, I suggest that
we simply give every woman in the Middle East and Central Asia a
handgun and a lot of ammo. Let nature take its course.
I've always believed that doing the same to every African (male or
female) is the best way to solve their kleptocracy issue.
And to every Chinese citizen to solve their repression issue.
And to every North Korean citizen to solve their repression
issue.
And to...
|2.16.06 @ 5:18PM|#
Did anyone else read "Florence of Arabia?" Christopher Buckley
recommends women's liberation as the route to peace in the Middle
East. I highly recommend, and wish more members of our
administration read it.
50's clothing: Jennifer nailed the point, but I'd like to add that
I think the Dior New Look was as beautiful as women's clothing can
get. See Grace Kelly in "Rear Window" wearing Edith Head versions
of that style. WOW. I've searched 20 years for a version of that
green and white suit. Nothing like the bedsheets imposed in
Afghanistan, and I promise not to stray from the thread
anymore.
|2.16.06 @ 5:21PM|#
Hmm ... lock away exactly half of the country's brain trust. I guess they aren't in any hurry to move out of the Iron Age.
R C Dean|2.16.06 @ 5:37PM|#
At least Afghan women aren't any worse off than they were
before we arrived. Iraqi women are.
Linky?
I hadn't heard that the new state-sponsored rape squads were
exceeding the pace of their Saddamite predecessors. I do seem to
recall a poll saying that a majority of Iraqis thought they were
better off without Hussein.
|2.16.06 @ 5:40PM|#
I do seem to recall a poll saying that a majority of Iraqis
thought they were better off without Hussein.
Linky?
|2.16.06 @ 5:43PM|#
I hadn't heard that the new state-sponsored rape squads were
exceeding the pace of their Saddamite predecessors. I do seem to
recall a poll saying that a majority of Iraqis thought they were
better off without Hussein.
Allow me then to clarify, RC: certain individual Iraqi women are
much better off now than they were under Saddam. Despite these many
notable and important exceptions, the majority of Iraqi women are
finding their individual freedoms more restricted than before, in
that it is no longer safe for women to do "decadent Western things"
like leave the house unaccompanied, associate with men who are not
related to them, or wear decadent Western clothing which negates
the individuality I stressed in my previous post at 5:01.
But I repeat that despite the overall reduction in women's freedom
since our arrival, thanks to us there are a lot of women who are
now much better off than they were before.
|2.16.06 @ 5:48PM|#
I would also like to take this chance to state that at any point
in the past, present or future, when I speak of a generalization
like "Saudi guys do this" or "military guys do that," I am well
aware of the many individuals who defy statistics and act, think
and find themselves in environments different from the norm.
When I say "Americans have to work to make a living," I realize
that there are many Americans who are actually free of this
responsibility.
I also realize that not all black guys dance like this:
(hip, stylish moves), and not all white guys dance like
this: (dorky and wearing golf pants).
|2.16.06 @ 6:18PM|#
Jennifer, in my experience the only white guys under age 60 who
dance in any form other than dorky-in-golf-pants are gay.
Violating my promise to stay on thread: guys who can dance well are
babe magnets. Ballroom or Latin dance classes are excellent places
to meet women, plus you get to learn the tango.
R C Dean|2.16.06 @ 6:19PM|#
Linky?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3515884.stm
Jennifer raises a number of interesting questions:
Where are these religious restrictions on women being enforced now,
where they weren't under Hussein? Have the semi-autonomous Kurds
gone all sharia on us? Have the secular Sunnis? How widespread is
the phenomenon in the Shiite sector?
Who is enforcing these religious restrictions? Are they largely a
matter of a profoundly conservative/backwards "civil" society
(paging gaius marius!) reasserting itself? If so, should the state
interfere with this expression of civil society? Are organs of the
state actually enforcing this neo-sharia?
Once you get a feel for the depth, breadth, and post-Saddam novelty
of this neo-sharia movement in Iraq, how does it compare with the
totalitarian terror of the Saddam regime?
I think we are a long way from being able to conclude that there
has been an overall reduction in women's freedom in Iraq.
|2.16.06 @ 7:48PM|#
Jennifer,
But I repeat that despite the overall reduction in women's
freedom...
Keep spreading this myth and some people might actually believe it.
Whatever secularism that Saddam's regime practiced before the 1990s
was gone by that decade. There was a general retrenchment of
women's rights in Iraq from 1991 onward as Saddam tried to court
the religiously conservative elements of his society and the middle
east in general.
R.C. Dean,
I think we are a long way from being able to conclude that
there has been an overall reduction in women's freedom in
Iraq.
Well, you'll never convince Jennifer of that because she's
unwilling to do any research which goes past her own preconceived
notions.
Karen,
Irshad Mandi sees women's liberation as a key to transforming the
middle east. So does General Abizaid. Of course authors like David
Landes and others were writing about this before
9/11.
|2.16.06 @ 8:22PM|#
Holy christ it looks Jennifer and Karen are turning into some
kind of Hit&Run tag team.
More sports commentary at 11...
|2.16.06 @ 8:46PM|#
Does anyone remember when libertarians were a generally
optimistic bunch?
I do. It was way back when Virginia Postrel ran the show
here.
Nothing personal. Just an observation. Carry on.
|2.16.06 @ 9:10PM|#
Ed,
I believe domestic politics (and the psychological need of some
have the Bush administration fail) has shortcircuited the clear
thinking we would otherwise have on topics like this. One has to
ask, would a woman in Afghanistan survived such a statement as this
(of course note that she wouldn't have been a member of
Afghanistan's Parliament):
Zeefunun Safi, another parliamentarian, agrees. "If my husband
accepts me, and lets me travel and be a member of parliament, then
who are you not to accept me?"
|2.16.06 @ 9:12PM|#
Ed,
In other words, its right and proper to castigate these fucks for
their attitudes, but drawing the conclusion that things are headed
for doom in Afghanistan displays more of a choice about who you
dislike in the Oval Office than it does a real appreciation of the
progress in Afghanistan. Plus, on a more practical note, it doesn't
help Afghan women at all to simply wail in the darkness about how
dark it is.
|2.16.06 @ 9:33PM|#
Hakluyt, thanks for the tip on the authors. I'd read David
Landes "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations," which has a little on
this in it. I'll have to look up the other guys.
On optimism, one of my favorite books is called "The Idea of
Decline in Western History," by Arthur Herman. It's a fascinating
discussion about the philosophy of decline, and, implicitly, how
that idea is flatly contradicted by the available facts. This book
went nowhere when it came out ten years ago, so I take every
remotely relevant chance I can get to plug it.
On this situation, I think that eventually logic and a general
desire on the part of most of the populace to live in something
other than a reprise of the Bronze Age will win out, and they will
accept women's rights. If a belief in fundamental justice won't do
it, then greed for Western goods will. Still, it's depressing in
the short term that the thugs seem to be winning, especially with
our soldiers over there upholding what order there is.
|2.16.06 @ 9:49PM|#
Karen Cox,
Cool. I'll see if I can find a copy at the local used book
store.
Ed,
One has to ask, would a woman in Afghanistan survived such a
statement as this six years ago...
|2.16.06 @ 9:53PM|#
Karen Cox,
Oh, I should say that General Abizaid is the commander of U.S.
military forces in the middle east (CENTCOM is the official acronym
for his title). He's made a number of speeches where he has
forthrightly addressed the female freedom deficit in Islamic
societies.
|2.16.06 @ 10:00PM|#
I have a good friend who practically runs a fan club for Gen.
Abazaid, who, based on Lee's evidence, seems like a genuinely
decent guy and unbelievably knowledgeable about the region. I'm
glad to hear about the speeches on women's rights, though. Not
discussing this is a major failing on Lee's part, which I will
require him to address.
I feel the need to explain why I only use my first name before
about 7:30. My employer is quite cool about Internet surfing, but I
don't want to be the one who inspires a change in that policy.
Thus, only the first name until I get home. Thanks for letting me
share that.
|2.16.06 @ 10:00PM|#
Brian Doherty,
..."no law shall contravene the tenets and provisions of the
holy religion of Islam in Afghanistan."
Well, in an Islamic culture which recognizes that problems in
interpreting and understanding the Qu'ran this may not be that big
of a problem. I myself would perfer them not to have such language
in their constitution, but it seems to me that working to create
liberal interpretations of Islamic law may be a more workable short
term tactic than simply trying to go full throttle secularist. And
this is coming from someone who in general finds religious belief
to be quite irrational.
|2.16.06 @ 10:21PM|#
Hakluyt, I agree with you. That's basically the way things happened here in the West, so it seems reasonable for the rest of the world, too. Besides, the benefits of finding a liberal form of Islam are so enormous it should be pursued as a goal anyway.
Jadagul|2.17.06 @ 12:59AM|#
Karen: guys who can dance well are babe magnets. Ballroom or
Latin dance classes are excellent places to meet women, plus you
get to learn the tango.
You say that, but my teammates, at least, are all taken, largely by
other dancers (so maybe it does work, just had to be before this
year).
And foxtrot is way cooler than tango. At least you weren't
encouraging people to try the damn Rumba, though...
|2.17.06 @ 2:08AM|#
Put ten women in hats and gloves, and you can still tell
them all apart. Put ten women in burkas and their individuality is
gone.
Their individuality is gone, but you can still see the wealth if
you look closely. No, they don't have huge Nike swooshes emblazoned
across the back, but there are subtle indications that some women
spent a shitload of money to purchase that designer tent.
|2.17.06 @ 3:00AM|#
Afghanistan's seems like the kind of representative
democracy in which restrictions on women's rights might be more
than welcome.
We all know that Jennifer is outraged, but who's surprised?
We aren't exporting individual rights, we're exporting democracy.
Democracy, in and of itself, is an assinine concept. What you get
from a democracy are things like the war on drugs (no relation to
making women wear tents).
[OTOH, Muslims may actually be more practical than Westerners -- I
could see certain advantages to an arrangement where I knew that
any women I encountered in the desert would be carrying a tent with
them]
Democracy, by itself, is a sure and certain way to destroy
individual rights in a nation. But our leaders don't say that to
anyone in the ME because.....well, never mind all that.
Our culture seems to ahve evolved away from most of those
practices in the past 50 years.
Mainly because of economic changes. WWII helped, but it also became
increasinly possible for women to go out and support themselves.
Digging ditches and other hard manual labor were no longer the
predominant career choices.
When (if?) a capitalist Industrial Revolution reaches the ME,
women's rights will get real. Even individual rights might start
getting real.
But for now, the only career tracks for Afghan women are growing
poppy seeds and making tents. [ah ha, there is a
relation]
|2.17.06 @ 3:07AM|#
Karen,
"The Idea of Decline in Western History," by Arthur
Herman
Thanks, I'll check it out. But don't let gauis marius read it. I
suspect that if he does, we'll hear this little *pop* and poor
gauis will be no more.
|2.17.06 @ 3:19AM|#
Hak,
"The Idea of Decline in Western History," by Arthur Herman
They've got it used on Amazon.
|2.17.06 @ 4:27AM|#
Come to think of it, those Mulsims really are smarter than we think. Getting a sunburned ass is no fun. You gotta have a tent if you live in the desert.
|2.17.06 @ 7:01AM|#
This would be bad enough on its own, but we should remember
that this particular government was created by our own,
Umm, no. In this aspect at least, the govt of Afghanistan was
created by the Afghani people.
We aren't exporting individual rights, we're exporting
democracy. Democracy, in and of itself, is an assinine concept.
What you get from a democracy are things like the war on drugs (no
relation to making women wear tents).
Well, you know what Winston Churchill said about democracy being
the worst system of govt, except all the others. We basically have
two choices of governance in Iraq and Afghanistan: they can be
ruled by the American govt, or by a homegrown govt. Any homegrown
govt in a society as conservative as Iraq's or Afghanistan's is
going to curtail individual liberties more than our society
does.
Perhaps these societies will grow more free as time progresses, or
perhaps not. One thing we can be certain of, though, is that if we
impose colonial rule on them, they will never grow more
free.
|2.17.06 @ 7:09AM|#
Does anyone remember when libertarians were a generally
optimistic bunch? I do. It was way back when Virginia Postrel ran
the show here.
Yeah, and the economy was way better too. And air travel was a lot
less of a hassle. Who knew that Reason changing editors could have
such an impact on the world? ;-)
amazingdrx|2.17.06 @ 8:17AM|#
"...my own mode of dress is usually very conservative by
American standards"
It's a good thing! Combined with your magnificent brain, dressing
like a floozy would cause riots. Hehey.
amazingdrx|2.17.06 @ 8:29AM|#
"Who knew that Reason changing editors could have such an impact
on the world?"
A neocon takeover will tend to do that to everything. (relax
editors it's a joke)
|2.17.06 @ 9:25AM|#
Well, you know what Winston Churchill said about democracy
being the worst system of govt, except all the others.
I could see a really inspired, strong constitution, applied by a
diminutive government of unelected technocrats working as well or
better than what we've got. Not like most folks vote anyway.
|2.17.06 @ 9:27AM|#
It depends on what type of democracy we're exporting. If we're
exporting the "50.0001% is good enough!" brand then the Afghans
might be in for a short but nasty ride before the thing
collapses.
If we export a system where the government is answerable to the
people, subject to internal checks and balances, and constrained by
enumerated powers and the notion of fundamental rights, then things
might work somewhat better. If they're lucky it will take at least
several decades for the "inter-province commerce clause" to morph
into a blank check.
I don't know that we can really impose the second model without
rigging a Constitutional convention. Which is hardly consistent
with allowing self-rule.
I recall hearing that after WWII the Allied powers imposed certain
conditions on the West German and Japanese Constitutions. IIRC,
bicameralism was one of the conditions. I assume that enumerated
rights were also on the list. Can anybody tell me if that was the
case, or how it was done? Maybe there is a middle road between
rigging a Constitutional Convention and just allowing a mess to
spiral out of control. Or maybe there isn't.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245