In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

No School for Girls in Afghanistan

But, but, but, I thought we won in Afghanistan! Remember? We went in and we liberated all those burqa-wearing women, because feminist goals are laudable when we can use them as an excuse to bomb the hell out of countries we dislike. We liberated them, didn’t we?

Well, not exactly. And now that we’re waist-deep in our little Iraqi quagmire, the rights of women in Afghanistan aren’t exactly priority numero uno.

Summer vacation has only begun, but as far as 12-year-old Nooria is concerned, the best thing is knowing she has a school to go back to in the fall. She couldn’t be sure the place would stay open four months ago, after the Taliban tried to burn it down. Late one February night, more than a dozen masked gunmen burst into the 10-room girls’ school in Nooria’s village, Mandrawar, about 100 miles east of Kabul. They tied up and beat the night watchman, soaked the principal’s office and the library with gasoline, set it on fire and escaped into the darkness. The townspeople, who doused the blaze before it could spread, later found written messages from the gunmen promising to cut off the nose and ears of any teacher or student who dared to return.


Many of the students and teachers were brave enough to return despite the threats.

Nooria, who dreams of becoming a teacher herself, expressed her determination to finish school. “I’m not afraid of getting my nose and ears cut off,” she said, all dressed up in a long purple dress and headscarf. “I want to keep studying.”

Schoolgirls need that kind of courage in Afghanistan. Unable to win on the battlefield, the Taliban are trying to discredit the Kabul government by blocking its efforts to raise Afghanistan out of its long dark age. They particularly want to undo one of the biggest changes of the past four years: the resumption of education for girls, which the Taliban outlawed soon after taking power in 1996. “The extremists want to show the people that the government and the international community cannot keep their promises,” says Ahmad Nader Nadery of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC). Today the Ministry of Education says the country has 1,350 girls’ schools, along with 2,900 other institutions that hold split sessions, with girls-only classes in the afternoon. (Coeducation is still forbidden.) More than a third of Afghanistan’s 5 million schoolchildren are now girls, compared with practically none in early 1992. In the last six months, however, Taliban attacks and threats of attacks have disrupted or shut down more than 300 of those schools.

That’s great progess, but now that Afghanistan is generally off the radar screen, there’s a major backlash from conversative forces in that country. And the regression could very well be ignored.

The girls’ school in Haider Khani village, just up the main road from Mandrawar, has suffered a sharp drop in attendance since January, when masked gunmen forced their way in and torched the place. Before the attack, up to 80 percent of the families in Haider Khani were sending their daughters to school, according to the principal, Fazal Rabi. An American military Provincial Reconstruction Team quickly repaired the damage and reopened the school. Even so, the principal reckons that only 40 percent of the village’s preteen girls came back, and only 10 percent of the teenagers. Parents dread what might happen on the walk to school. Teachers get scared, too. Since the Mandrawar attack, Nooria’s teacher, Farida, has traveled to and from school every day wearing a burqa and escorted by a male relative. “Otherwise I fear my nose and hair will be cut off,” she told NEWSWEEK.

Two steps forward, one step back.


45 thoughts on No School for Girls in Afghanistan

  1. I think that’s another consequence of the ADD-headline culture we have in the “developed” world.
    they said it was about freedom,mostly women freedom,we all saw the burkas on tv,the executions of what we supossed were women under those big banners of opression at the soccer stadium.
    and we (the people) believed it.why not? it made us feel good. it gived us a sense of purpose (even though we didn’t had to do anything,just take the credit ).we were saving the world.
    and we only had to keep paying attention.just making sure that women were really better off.there has been people on the ground,making sure word was out that we were not improving their situation.but i guess american idol also needs our attention…
    maybe we just need a promise.we don’t need it to become real anymore.if we can believe we are doing good in the world,maybe facts don’t have the right to screw the party…

    and that’s the saddest part of it all.we live in la-la land and that’s ok with us…

  2. Well. Glad the women have discovered difficulties for women in Afghanistan.

    Late to the party is better than never, I guess.

  3. Hey, feminists aren’t supposed to care about women in Afghanistan, because if you didn’t support Bush and the war in Iraq then you don’t care about women in Iraq or Afghanistan, remember?

  4. I thought we weren’t allowed to care about women in Afghanistan because we haven’t achieved perfect equality here in the USA, and focussing on the problems of women in other parts of the world was cultural imperialism?

  5. *snarl*

    Seriously wanting to learn the language, obtain a Zorro-like costume, a mask and a nakinata (or a nice pair of swords), head over there and vigilante these creeps into the ground.

    That, and compose a nice return message for the Taliban, full of statements of fact about how education for girls is a wonderful thing because it’s supremely important for women’s equality (which of course needs no explanation of why it’s a good thing; it’s obvious to anyone who isn’t a degenerate pig), which won’t convince anyone but will make them furious to no end over my arrogance.

    Apologies to D*wn Ed*n for stealing her idea, of course.

  6. Richard.

    I only let your post through the moderation queue to respond to your tired old trope that feminists are “late to the party” on Afghanistan.

    Not hardly.

    You will note, Richard, that the press release linked above, announcing that Mavis Leno will be taking over as chair of the Feminist Majority Foundation’s Campaign to Stop Gender Apartheid in Afghanistan, is dated 1998.

    1998, Richard. And this was an ongoing project when Ms. Leno was named chair. Where were the conservatives back then, Richard?

    If anyone’s “late to the party,” Richard, it’s the drooling idiots who only noticed that women were being oppressed in Afghanistan after 9/11 and took up the mantle of liberating Afghan women from the Taliban, so long as it could be done at gunpoint.

    When the hard work of raising awareness and education and support for women living under the Taliban had to be done without the assistance of armed forces and bombs, Richard, just where the fuck were you?

  7. Zuzu. I was fighting cultural relativism. I was prepared, correctly, as it turned out, for the women who were talking about Afghanistan, to drop the subject like a hot rock when a republican president actually did something about it. Now, now that it’s possible to blame a republican president, you’re back.

    Clear enough?

    Or would you like more detail?

    I watched the feminists and the cultural relativists doing a strange dance, when things like FGM became known. It was a really strange dance since, for the most part, it was the same people.

    “Do we complain about FGM? Or would that be culturally imperialistic? What day is it, odd or even?”

  8. Oh, yeah. I see, accidentally or not, a kind of judo move here.

    Either the democracy thing works because the cultures in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere are reasonable congenial, or it doesn’t.

    If it does, good, we win. If it doesn’t because the places are crawling with subhuman creeps, then maybe the administration and the conservatives are right and this is really a clash of cultures which most people, including the folks on this board, would prefer not to lose.

    It does take some serious clue-batting to make a point in some venues. So we take away the excuses: Democracy. Freedom. Financial aid. And we still get this crap? Lesson learned, here.

  9. Sorry, Richard. Not gonna buy it.

    Where is this dropping like a rock? Where is this failure to do anything about FGM?

    I’ll give you one more chance to respond. I’ve already told you not to troll, since you got yourself banned at Pandagon. And you’ve been reliably hitting all the little trolly talking points since then.

  10. Oh, there’s another problem: feminists are, by and large, pacificts. So getting them to support a war is difficult, especially since in this case, it isn’t going to work.

    Education will liberate the people, not death.

  11. Zuzu. The point is not what you say. The point is what people see you doing. If people see one thing, your saying something else is meaningless. Even if the messenger gets banned.

    Pandagon was a hoot. The slightest disagreement is met with spluttering obscenities, deliberate misrepresentations of what I said, and insults. You will note that most of my posts were devoted to correcting the deliberate misrepresentations of what I said, which, of course, made people madder.

    Anyway, ref Afghanistan: I am old enough, sixty-one, to remember when FGM became, tentatively, publicly known. As I had studied anthropology and so forth, it wasn’t new to me and others with the same background. But it became more, and more publicly known. And, while it was eventually decried in general, no societies which practiced it were named. The problem was to not be judgmental, a habit of mind picked up through years of being culturally relativistic. As it happens, the neato authentic culturally relativistic practices everybody was so proud to not judge all had a uniting factor. Victims. Invisible victims, since acknowledging victims meant a kind of problem not judging the practice that made them victims.

    One of the shields the societies in question had was that they were usually on the other side of the Cold War, or at least so-called non-aligned. That meant perfect immunity from lefty criticism. FGM, or slavery, or other horrors not withstanding.

    Parenthetically, I don’t say this because I think you don’t know it. I say it because you think I don’t know it.

    So, where were you on the invasion of Afghanistan? Or did you have some other technique of stopping the Taliban and their murderous sympathizers from their grotesque oppressions?

  12. I was about to dig through the Feministe archives to find examples of Lauren et al talking about the plight of Afghani women (along with other victims of fundamentalism outside the U.S.) prior to today when i realized something: it’s not our job to do your research for you, Richard. If you haven’t been paying attention these last few years, and you can’t be bothered to go back and see that, yes, feminists have constantly been talking about Afghani women before and during the U.S.’s military campaign, it’s not our job to hold your hand until you are somehow satisfied, nor do we have to treat your ignorance with anything other than the contempt it deserves.

  13. Richard, you’re conflating two separate issues.

    One is FGM. Which is not what the post is about. Unless you somehow think that the teacher’s fear that she will have her nose and hair cut off if she does not travel wearing a burqa and with a male relative is some kind of euphemism for FGM.

    The other is Afghan girls being threatened for going to school because the Taliban is regaining strength and influence. If you actually had followed what was going on with the Taliban prior to 9/11, you’d know that they practiced strict gender apartheid. Girls were not permitted to go to school, and women were not allowed to work. Moreover, many women and girls died because male doctors were not allowed to touch their female patients. Feminist groups were and are consistently critical of this.

    As for what could be accomplished without an invasion, why don’t you google that?

    Where was I on the invasion of Afghanistan? All for it. They were hiding Osama bin Laden, after all. Remember him?

    Too damn bad the administration couldn’t just finish the job in Afghanistan and had to go to Iraq to create a magnet for terrorists and set women’s rights back hundreds of years. Women in Baghdad used to wear Western clothing, work and have educations. Now they are taking the veil just for the sake of their own safety as the fundamentalists are taking over.

  14. Richard, I’m sure that, somewhere, there are some women wearing a ribbon against FGM. That must count for something.

  15. Afghanistan is becoming more conservative again and people seem surprised. That would be hysterically funny if it were not so sad that the Bush administration thought it could go into these countries, kick ass, and everything would be perfect.

    These people are wrapped into their own mythology and superstition in such a way that bombing them for one hundred years will not change them; it will take many years of cultural modification before they will be able to handle democracy and equality.

  16. Richard snipes:

    Well. Glad the women have discovered difficulties for women in Afghanistan. Late to the party is better than never, I guess.

    so i guess you were a big supporter of RAWA, yes? they started the “party” back in 1977 after all…

    So, where were you on the invasion of Afghanistan? Or did you have some other technique of stopping the Taliban and their murderous sympathizers from their grotesque oppressions?

    because the invasion “technique” has worked out so very well, right? what’s so great in Afghanistan right now is that the folks finally have a CHOICE of murderous sympathies/grotesque oppressions: the new-&-improved U.S. style (now with extra bombings!), or old-school Taliban style (which, admittedly, still has that lingering aftertaste of CIA funding, but whatever…)

  17. hmm, the quote link didn’t work – so, once again:

    Richard snipes:

    Well. Glad the women have discovered difficulties for women in Afghanistan. Late to the party is better than never, I guess.

    so i guess you were a big supporter of RAWA, yes? they started the “party” back in 1977 after all…

    So, where were you on the invasion of Afghanistan? Or did you have some other technique of stopping the Taliban and their murderous sympathizers from their grotesque oppressions?

    because the invasion “technique” has worked out so very well, right? what’s so great in Afghanistan right now is that the folks finally have a CHOICE of murderous sympathies/grotesque oppressions: the new-&-improved U.S. style (now with extra bombings!), or old-school Taliban style (which, admittedly, still has that lingering aftertaste of CIA funding, but whatever…)

  18. So, where were you on the invasion of Afghanistan? Or did you have some other technique of stopping the Taliban and their murderous sympathizers from their grotesque oppressions?

    I was entirely opposed to the invasion and bombing of Afghanistan (although not to the getting rid of the Taliban) for many reasons… killing the people of Afghanistan as a sort of revenge for acts perpetrated by one group was not just; the accused perpetrators had plenty of time to move out of the area and go elsewhere; the Taliban was in power as a sort of corrective to the horrific times of the rule by warlords, yet it was these same warlords who we were allying with in the invasion; I don’t (and didn’t) trust the Bush admin to tie their shoes right, let alone have a comprehensive after plan for a place that has defeated invaders time after time. And other reason… little I’ve seen since has caused me to change my mind on opposition to the invasion.

    Afghanistan has gone through periods of enlightenment, with universities, education for all children, women in high level professions such as medicine, conservative Islam as well as more moderate/liberal forms co-existing (even if not too comfortably), as well as through periods of dark ages, the last being the Talibanish types.

    I don’t think Afghanistan or other Muslim countries, especially failed states, are unique in looking to anyone who will bring a sense of law and order to their lives, and being willing (if not completely without choice in the matter) to put up with some personal liberty type losses in the process – whether it’s a strongeman govt, a strict and controlling religious govt, a govt reacting to a terrorist strike, or what.

    There are sometimes too many tangles of what causes a failed state, and who it benefits, to have easy answers on how to fix them, or allow the people to fix themselves, sadly.

  19. One of the shields the societies in question had was that they were usually on the other side of the Cold War, or at least so-called non-aligned. That meant perfect immunity from lefty criticism. FGM, or slavery, or other horrors not withstanding.

    This is the fallacy of the Strawlefty. You may be able to dredge up a few assholes who said something that could be interpreted as what you said — I’ve seen folks defend FGM, for example, on cultural relativism grounds. They are silly people, and in any forum I’ve seen, they are completely isolated and generally shouted down. Feminists, and the left in general, were angry at the Taliban when the US was ignoring it, were all for invading a country that oppressed women and harbored UBL, and were glad when women got to go back to school. That’s consistent. The President, OTOH, railed in the 2000 campaign against nation building and humanitarian intervention, but after Afghanistan, he turned our nation’s dedicated professional warriors to a country that posed no threat and offered no realistic hope of conversion to a peaceful democracy. Now that he’s forgotten Afghanistan, social conditions that feminists have always decried are returning, but our forces are so overcommitted to Iraq that we cannot increase our commitment to Afghanistan.

    Finally, beginning a comment with Zuzu’s name and a period shows a poor command of grammer. A proper noun, alone, does not a sentence make.

  20. Richard, did you ever think that maybe democracy isn’t the flower you make it out to be? Did you stop to think about the world view of America and her interests over her supposed love of people?

    It is much like a bully who befriends the other-types to get the beautiful other-type girl. He isn’t friend or foe to the eye, but to the inside (the know) he is the same beast he always was. America to most of the in-the-know world is that bully. Lots of good things all designed to appear as if freedom is marching with no strings attached, then Iraq gets bombed by PNAC associates and the whole facade comes tumbling down. You do not see it for your head is covered as are (will be it seems) the women’s heads of Afghanistan. You are merely in the wrong country to have your head covered for things you could not possibly understand, yet should at the least try to comprehend while you still have a chance. Uncover your head, Richard.

  21. Wow, Richard, where were YOU in 1998 when I was a teenager trying to get my school’s volunteer organizations and my congressmen interested in what was happening in Afghanistan? Nobody listened then, and nobody listens now, because our society is suffering from major self-absorption and ADD. Nothing I can do short of screaming from the rooftops and getting myself committed.

    As for your subhuman comment, all I can say is wow. As inconvenient as it may seem, all human beings are… *gasp* human beings, no matter how ugly and complicated their surroundings are, and no matter how many horrible acts they’ve committed.

    I want to see TRANSPARENCY and ACCOUNTABILITY in Afghanistan, not bullshit slogans. I want practical help for the likes of Nooria, not a “they’re subhuman anyway” excuse.

  22. i just noticed upon re-reading that Zuzu said:

    Where was I on the invasion of Afghanistan? All for it. They were hiding Osama bin Laden, after all. Remember him?

    really? you were “all for” the invasion of Afghanistan?

  23. jam, in Afghanistan, the Taliban let UBL operate a network dedicated to killing American civilians simply because by voting and paying taxes, he believed we were all complicit. Complicit in what? Interfering in the Wahhabist takeover of the Islamic world. He succeded spectacularly in killing American civilians; here where I live, about three thousand people died horrible deaths, burning, choking or falling. We didn’t invade Afghanistan for revenge, or to raise poll numbers (that was Iraq). We invaded to prevent UBL from having a safe base from which to operate, and we did that. As a fringe benefit, we also removed one of the craziest, most anti-woman fundamentalist regimes in the world. Too bad the corupt and incompetent executive branch then dropped the project to focus on Iraq.

  24. I see feminist websites talking about the plight of Afghani women all the time, and a large number of them believed that the Afghanistan war was a good idea.

    In fact, a signifigant number of lefties, including me, supported the war in Afghanistan.

    It pisses me off to no end that Bush has managed to botch Afghanistan so badly, despite having the support of a large number of Americans.

  25. Well. Glad the women have discovered difficulties for women in Afghanistan.

    Late to the party is better than never, I guess.

    Well. As long as we’re talking about being late to the party, Bush gave 43 million dollars to the Taliban four months before 9/11. Meanwhile, lots of feminists were working to bring attention to the plight of Afghani women.

    So, you know…you’re full of shit.

  26. Hmm… maybe this is a New York leftie thing, since Zuzu and Thomas seem to be the others who agree, but I supported the invasion of Afghanistan too. I’m just really disappointed in this administration’s inability to finish the job.

  27. wow… i was going to start snarking on Thomas & his Boy Wonder description of Operation Enduring Our Freedom but then Jill threw in her support as well…

    so y’all supported the invasion but you just think it, what? wasn’t done nicely… or something? if they had found & killed/captured OBL, would that make it all better?

    is there some military invasion in history where there hasn’t been civilian casualities that i don’t know about? how exactly was Afghanistan going to be different? how do you justify their deaths? how do you justify even one of their deaths?

    and if you do somehow have a way of doing so, why doesn’t it apply here? why isn’t some other country justified right now in invading the U.S. & killing as many folks as necessary, soldier & civilian alike, until King George is captured? i mean, hell, the entire population of DC is “harboring” him & his cronies right now…

  28. jam, I’m not a pacifist. I recognize that wars and military actions are sometimes just. And I also recognize that there are civilian deaths in any war. To my mind, a limited military action in Afghanistan was just; and given that the troops of many nations that oppose the Iraq war are still in Afghanistan shows that those nations made the same judgment.

    And, why, yes, it would make it better if they’d found/killed/captured OBL. Let me be clear about my objections to the Afghanistan action: not that it was started in the first place, since I agreed that there was an actual, as opposed to a fantastical, causus belli, but that it was abandoned and resources siphoned off in favor of making an unjust war on Iraq. That showed me that the PTB were not serious about the objectives of the Afghanistan war and had turned it into a pretext for the invasion of Iraq.

    and if you do somehow have a way of doing so, why doesn’t it apply here? why isn’t some other country justified right now in invading the U.S. & killing as many folks as necessary, soldier & civilian alike, until King George is captured? i mean, hell, the entire population of DC is “harboring” him & his cronies right now…

    Well, wasn’t that the whole point of 9/11? To exact revenge for American incursion into Saudi Arabia?

  29. i’m not a pacifist myself, zuzu – but that doesn’t mean i support the military actions of a corrupt state (or, indeed, of any state, even the glorious Coalition of the Willing To Follow Orders)

    and i’m surprised you believe there was a causus belli (latin always makes things sound more civilized, don’t it?) for the invasion – so, Bush & his cronies were reliable & truthful up until the invasion & only afterwards became lying powermad warmongers? i find that hard to believe, personally

    Well, wasn’t that the whole point of 9/11? To exact revenge for American incursion into Saudi Arabia?

    yeah, i guess it just sucks to be an Afghan, huh? i guess they all were just in the wrong place at the wrong time…

  30. The same could be said for any civilian population when a war comes through, jam. The fact that civilians were killed during WWII doesn’t make the fight against Hitler any less just, does it?

    and i’m surprised you believe there was a causus belli (latin always makes things sound more civilized, don’t it?) for the invasion – so, Bush & his cronies were reliable & truthful up until the invasion & only afterwards became lying powermad warmongers? i find that hard to believe, personally

    Hindsight is 20/20, innit? Bush and his cronies, as of the time when the Afghan action first started, had not given any indication of what was to come in Iraq. They had given no indication that they would drop the Afghanistan action in favor of the shiny new toy that was Iraq. So dial down the righteous dudgeon, hmm? I’m not exactly a slavish follower of Bush, am I?

  31. The same could be said for any civilian population when a war comes through, jam.

    but wars don’t just come through, do they? they’re not tornados or hurricanes – they’re planned & executed by men in power who rarely, if ever, suffer its devastating effects – which is why i’m surprised that any feminist would support a state-sponsored war or “military action”, especially one led by the U.S., given it’s history

    The fact that civilians were killed during WWII doesn’t make the fight against Hitler any less just, does it?

    uh-oh, look out, it’s Hitler! nobody argues with Hitler! but, um, yes actually – to my mind the unbelievable savagery of the Dresden bombings, to take just one example, does make the “Good War” less just

    Hindsight is 20/20, innit? Bush and his cronies, as of the time when the Afghan action first started, had not given any indication of what was to come in Iraq. They had given no indication that they would drop the Afghanistan action in favor of the shiny new toy that was Iraq.

    it isn’t hindsight, it’s history – this isn’t the first time the U.S. has engaged in such imperial shenanigans, not to mention it’s first involvement in Afghanistan, or Iraq – & while Georgie Porgie is a little green around the ears, many of his cronies have been around since Reagan – hell, Cheney started his powergrabbing back with ol’ Tricky Dick – they’re not trustworthy men & they never have been

    So dial down the righteous dudgeon, hmm? I’m not exactly a slavish follower of Bush, am I?

    i never called you one – again, i’m surprised that any feminist, let alone two of the editors of one of the best feminist blogs around, supported the invasion of another country by a corrupt patriarchal state – apologies that my confusion comes across so dudgeonly

  32. Oh, don’t pull the “I’m surprised any feminist” thing out, jam.

    They’re all corrupt patriarchal states, if you hadn’t noticed. And the one that was invaded was supporting the guy who’d just attacked the one who did the invading. I hardly call responding to an attack on our soil “imperial shenanigans.” You, apparently, disagree, and you’re attempting to use shaming tactics (“I can’t believe any feminist would support this!”) to — what, exactly? Get us to come around to your position? Feel really really bad that we’re not conforming to your expectations? Abandon independent thought and analysis?

    So stick a sock in the faux outrage, mmkay?

  33. Wow, were you living in the same country as me, jam, right after 9/11? As a Quaker, I felt I was part of a vanishingly small group of people who didn’t support the war with Afghanistan – and that’s because I actually am a pacifist. Nearly everyone else, right, left, center, feminist, or patriarch, wanted that war.

    Iraq was another story.

    Bush & his cronies were reliable & truthful up until the invasion

    FWIW, as best I remember it, my pragmatic judgment at the time was that Blair was truthfully and competently setting forth the case for invasion, that Bush was in over his head, that we could win in Afghanistan, but at greater cost and with more ground troops than people thought, and that no one would be dumb enough to go start a war in another country before we were done with the one in Afghanistan. And that about all we Quakers would be able to do about the impending war in Afghanistan would be to give relief.

    In hindsight, I was partly right and partly wrong in my pragmatic assessment.

  34. wow.

    i’m sorry you think that my believing war to be antithetical to feminist ideals is just a matter of faux outrage…

    why shouldn’t i be surprised? is feminism known for it’s support for war, or the actions of militaristic states? and specifically for Afghanistan, the feminist groups i followed & read, such as Women for Afghan Women, and RAWA, both condemned the invasion – so, yes, i’m surprised that other feminists endorsed and supported it – it is really the first time i’ve come across it (or at least come across it & really been struck by it)

    And the one that was invaded was supporting the guy who’d just attacked the one who did the invading.

    the people of Afghanistan were not supporting OBL, the Taliban was – why should they have to suffer for a U.S. imposed dictatorship’s actions?

    i would like you to come around to a more anti-war position, frankly – i wish more people would – and yes, my expectations of feminists is that they fight for the rights of women – i don’t see how the invasion of Afghanistan, or any war/invasion for that matter, accomplished anything material in this regard – whether you feel good or bad about your initial support for that particular military action isn’t really at issue, is it?

    and, sigh… i never asked you to abandon independent thought & analysis – but i’m not sure how to ask what i’m asking more nicely: what is the feminist argument &/or justification for civilian casualties in a war?

    not to come around to my position, not to feel really really bad, not to abandon thought & analysis – simply, how it is just &/or right from a feminist perspective that Afghan people had to die so we could try & kill/capture OBL for an attack on “our soil”?

    i’m really wondering. if this is getting off-topic or anything & you’d prefer we carry this on maybe via email, that’s fine. but i’m genuinely & sincerely curious. or if you’re really annoyed with me, maybe someone else could post a link to some feminist resources concerning justification for war, or maybe some good essays? (although nothing please, from the iFeminist wackjob crew – i already know they supported the invasion)

  35. Lynn, i’m not a pacifist, but i don’t support state-sponsored wars &/or invasions – and i rarely if ever take politicians words at face value, simply because the overwhelming majority of them have been shown time & time again to be pursuing nefarious &/or self-serving goals

    i admire Quakers for their steadfast opposition to war – i remember going to protests against the Afghanistan invasion & seeing alot of Quaker activism & support

  36. i would like you to come around to a more anti-war position, frankly

    And snotting at me is the way to do it?

  37. zuzu says:

    And snotting at me is the way to do it?

    my apologies for the snot & dudgeon.

    can we begin again?

  38. So, when you say you’re not a pacifist, you mean that you’re OK with individual force in certain situations, but not with state force? Just curious as to what your position is.

    Yeah, I don’t remember RAWA supporting the war. After all, they knew they had no guarantee that the damage would all fall on the Taliban, and not on them.

  39. Lynn asks:

    So, when you say you’re not a pacifist, you mean that you’re OK with individual force in certain situations, but not with state force? Just curious as to what your position is.

    yah, pretty much. i would be happy to speak more on it but i’m about to take off to a nice little piece of woods so i won’t be online again until late Sunday…

    catch you then.

  40. ok, i’m back – & y’know? being out in the woods really helped me put some things in perspective…

    zuzu: go right ahead believing whatever the hell it is you believe. i’m pretty much a snarky kinda bear & if sarcasm is so taboo here that it precludes you responding with any kind of substance to my questions, then so be it. if you truly believe that civilian casualties are justified as long as there’s ye olde causus belli then, truthfully, i don’t know what i could say that would convince you otherwise, especially given your “how dare you question me!” attitude. and hell, i’ve never been that good at convincing anyone of anything. lastly, apologies for approaching a site named “feministe” with any expectations concerning feminism at all. it was silly of me.

    lynn: keep up the good work. i’ll be sure to check out your site sometime soon. someday i hope more folk share your convictions. obviously i won’t be the one to get more folk thinking this way, given my thorny hide, but i hope it nonetheless, faux outrage & all… 😉

    now back to your regularly scheduled broadcast…

  41. So first this:

    ok, i’m back – & y’know? being out in the woods really helped me put some things in perspective…

    And then this:

    zuzu: go right ahead believing whatever the hell it is you believe. i’m pretty much a snarky kinda bear & if sarcasm is so taboo here that it precludes you responding with any kind of substance to my questions, then so be it. if you truly believe that civilian casualties are justified as long as there’s ye olde causus belli then, truthfully, i don’t know what i could say that would convince you otherwise, especially given your “how dare you question me!” attitude. and hell, i’ve never been that good at convincing anyone of anything. lastly, apologies for approaching a site named “feministe” with any expectations concerning feminism at all. it was silly of me.

    I think you need a few more days outside. “How dare you question me?” …Yeah. It’s a good thing I approved this comment with a quickness, or you’d probably be making passive-aggressive jabs at our unwillingness to publish dissenting comments.

  42. Oh, sorry, was I supposed to have spent my weekend in a private and ultimately futile email correspondence with you?

    You never did answer me when I asked you what the hell you expected from me. But apparently, I was supposed to agree with you unconditionally and uncomplainingly lest I incur the label unfeminist from the likes of you.

    Here’s a thought: try making actual arguments if you want someone to engage with you, rather than clutching your pearls that a feminist might support military action from time to time. Or that a feminist might think differently than you do about something.

    But do flounce on out of here thinking that you just delivered the definitive smackdown — lastly, apologies for approaching a site named “feministe” with any expectations concerning feminism at all. it was silly of me. Bra. Va. You’re only the eleventy-fifth person to throw that little suction-cup dart thinking you’re delivering a lethal blow.

Comments are currently closed.