Women’s rights are going backward, in the United States and in Afghanistan.
Susannah George writes in The Washington Post that the Taliban have ordered women to wear clothing that completely covers their face and body. Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court plans to prevent women from exercising control over their own bodies, the first time in the nation’s history that the High Court has removed a right from anyone. Zealots, zealots, everywhere.
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Muslim women in Afghanistan must cover from head to toe in public, according to a Taliban ruling announced Saturday, its latest move to constrain the lives of women since taking control of the country last year.
“This is not a restriction on women but an order of the Quran,” said Akif Muhajir, a spokesman for the Ministry of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, referring to the Taliban’s strict interpretation of Islamic law. “It is the order of Allah and the prophet Muhammad.”
The Taliban’s treatment of women has been a key point of contention as the group has pushed for formal international recognition and increased aid money to address the country’s spiraling economic crisis. When asked for greater engagement with the Taliban, the international community has repeatedly requested a demonstration of greater respect for women’s rights, among other things.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I think there is only one way to get rid of the Taliban and other extremists that refuse to allow people to live their lives without rigid moral codes, and it is the same thing humans do to rabid animals.
Extremists as bad as the Taliban cannot be reasoned with and they will never stop being a danger to the safety and wellbeing of others that do not do exactly as they expect.
Afghanistan is a hopeless lost case. If any change is to happen, it must come from the Afghan people not imposed from the outside by the US, Russia or any other country. The Taliban appear to fear and hate women and do not even regard women as fellow human beings. The Taliban are fanatics, there’s no reasoning with such people.
Strongly believe there is a lot of fear in these actions against women. Why fear? Because women can achieve higher than men in more and more areas. A shameful turn of events that requires a concerted effort to educate our children to be better than to accept reality from a
Male view only. Let’s be strong and canny then.
I keep wondering, why do the Taliban hate women? Why do they subject them to humiliating dress? They have mothers and sisters. Why so much contempt?
Liberalism never happened there.
By our definition, anyway.
Why? Real simple. Religious faith beliefs. . . the scourge of mankind, oh and womankind and itkind and whatever other kind of kind there is.
Diane– I would assume because Afghanistan is a country which is extremely isolated, geographically speaking. Many would-be conquerors have attempted to breach those mountainous walls and failed miserably.
The Taliban doesn’t seem to square with Afghani history: they were a key hub of trade along the Silk Road, with paths radially to Egypt, India and China. For centuries they were a nexus of cultural development. But the Silk Road ceased functioning in the 1500’s with the advance of naval technology. It became much easier to circumvent the overland routes via ship. Perhaps that’s when Afghani culture ceased to advance.
The rise of radical fundamentalist Islamic movements was not until the ‘60’s [with Afghanistan following Pakistan’s lead]. So what happened between the 1500’s and the 1960’s? On the large scale, and starting way before the 1500’s, there were takeovers by various empires including Greece, India [Mauryans], Arab Muslims, Mongols, and British [Victorian era]. Plus civil wars, in between unifying Afghan rulers in 17th-18thC’s, then batted back & forth between British and Russian Empires in the 19thC, until independence in early 20thC – until that leader’s death in early ‘70’s, since which a series of coups, revolutions, invasions, insurgencies, and civil wars. As noted, the rise of radical fundamentalist movements started in the ‘60’s, punctuated by additional takeover/ occupation attempts by Soviet Union and US.
Seen in historical context, the woman-hating Taliban is just one of many “anti-woman” [i.e., Medieval/ Renaissance Muslim ideology] groups competing for dominance in Afghanistan for over a half-century. Perhaps this can be seen as a backlash against post-1500 invaders, all of whom were looking to use them as a means to enrich themselves at Afghani expense—a once very wealthy and cultured center of trade, with centuries of early Muslim traditions.
Paula, I agree.
Weak men feel threatened by the idea of being forced to compete on a level playing field for the first time.
Imagine God’s disdain at being used as a excuse for bigotry. But then, the odds that conservative men and women actually have religious faith is low.
It’s a function of the Abrahamic religions to denigrate, denounce women-to place them under men’s thumb. The god(s) of those religions demand it. Read the Bible and/or Koran, you’ll see what I mean.
Thanks for your comment, Duane.The more indoctrinated women are, the harder it is for them to vote in their best interests.
“Because women can achieve higher than men in more and more areas.”
I don’t understand what you mean by that rather broad statement. Please elaborate.
And I know that we can’t edit a post once posted so, also, what does “Let’s be strong and canny them” mean?
Duane,
I interpreted canny as recognition that women in authoritarian households can’t be overt without punishment.
An Ohio poll worker described to me a husband who demanded he go into the voting booth with his wife.
I feel defeated by the whole idea of patriarchy that conditioned me to accept the orthodoxy of male privilege. I didn’t think of it as repressive, just the way things were meant to be. My role in life was to be defined by my reproductive capacity or, at the very least, my ability to care for the basic needs of others: the spinster aunt/daughter role. I embraced the role of wife and mother. Enough change had come that I pursued my own interests within the needs of my family, and just the economics of today has encouraged more women to take some ownership of their own lives. Many never had any choice in the matter but were mostly relegated to low wage positions. You worked to survive. I was more privileged, but it has still been a decades long process for me to claim equality with men in spirit if not in reality. Fortunately, although I was trapped by my own beliefs about myself for so long, I made sure my sons and daughter did not view the world through that same warped lens. It is so disheartening to see the attempt by the Supreme Court to roll back the clock to a time when so many were considered to be lesser beings. ( I am not just talking about women either.) Every woman subjected to the rule of the Taliban who defies their current dress code mandates gets a high five from me.
I appreciate these personal thoughts.
I doubt many young women will be willing to conform to the regressive role the GOP would like to assign them. Today more than half of those in medical school are women. Even at Wharton for the first time more than half the class are women. Yet, women still perform the majority of childcare and household duties in the home. Limiting women’s access to birth control is going to interfere with young women’s aspirations and plans mostly in red states. Ambitious young women will likely head North and West. I agree the whole situation is disheartening. It’s one step forward and two steps back.
Wow, Speduktr. Thank you for sharing your journey!
sped
You are to be commended on your strength in the struggle. You had the right to have better and you deserved better. I hope others read what you wrote. Your comment has powerful messages we can learn from. Your sons and daughter should have the opportunity to read the comment. We assume our children know more about us than they do.
This is such an interesting post, speduktr, thanks for this.
I was very fortunate to be raised in a family where both father and grandfather bucked that tradition. Neither was perfect, they were in fact very flawed, and periodically used rage/ verbal abuse to take back domination over their wives (if only temporarily). But both were outliers: men from working-class families who married college-educated women a notch above them SES-wise. Both had been raised by strong women,and believed in their heart of hearts that individuals should make their own decisions—and ‘individuals’ included women and children. Despite all the domestic brouhahas and difficulties created by such mismatched matches, the kids came out all right, and paid the lesson forward.
Both my grandmothers were college educated. My mother started college at a junior college and went on to a four year school, but was married before she finished. (Her father determined her major and changed it at least once.) All three women were stay at home wives and mothers. All three were intelligent, capable individuals but, like most of us, defined by their society. I don’t remember either of my grandfathers being overbearing with my grandmothers although there was a bit of Victorian papa in them. My dad was mellow (most of the time except when my mother told him mellow just didn’t meet the situation). He felt very strongly that women should be educated as did my mother and even paid for my Masters degree. It was not an oppressive “learn/know your place” kind of upbringing. It was accepted that my father was the breadwinner and my mom was the home front. That’s just the way it was and what I internalized as the way it was supposed to be. Interestingly, two of my mom’s closest friends were working women. One inherited a secretarial school when her husband died and ran it successfully for many years before switching careers when her second husband died. The other lost her husband to a car accident and had two young boys to raise. It was basically a different mind set. You worked because you had to. That didn’t mean you might not get some satisfaction from it, but if life had been different, they both probably would have been home.
I don’t feel like I was cheated. That was not my intention in sharing. I think I am just really recognizing how much all of us are shaped by our experiences, how we interpret and internalize them, and what choices we make because of them. In the scheme of things, I have really been quite lucky, but I sure don’t want to turn back the clock. I have three sons who are married to independent women who wouldn’t know how to be subservient. The same goes for my (married) daughter; I want my grandchildren to grow up in a world where their gender doesn’t restrict their choices. Their parents are good models.
Another great post, speduktr, and thanks for clarifying your experience and what you took from it.
Attorney General Todd Rokita [R-IN] leads new multistate action defending unborn children
Attorney General Rokita proclaims Texas Heartbeat Law is a model for other states
Attorney General Todd Rokita is leading an 18-state coalition fighting the Biden administration’s latest efforts to derail a Texas law that prohibits abortion when doctors can detect a fetal heartbeat.
“We will continue to protect the lives of the unborn and the health of women, especially against those who believe the individual states are incapable of passing our own laws to do so,” Attorney General Rokita said.
Attorney General Rokita led an 18-state amicus brief filed Monday in the Fifth District U.S. Court of Appeals.
“For months I have praised this law as a pro-life model for use in other states. I have led previous multistate actions supporting Texas paving the way so that other states—including Indiana—could adopt such a law,” said Attorney General Rokita. “Oklahoma, for example, recently enacted its own law modeled after the Texas Heartbeat Law.”
Among other things, Attorney General Rokita’s brief argues that U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland cannot sue a state anytime he deems a state law to be unconstitutional — especially when no state official plays a role in enforcing the law.
“A.G. Todd Rokita (Catholic) leading 16 state coalition defending the right of Roncalli H.S. (Catholic) to uphold church teachings in same sex marriage” (1-19-2022).
Indiana is a Catholic theocracy. Until the Catholic Church pays a price in substantial loss of members, each of its legislative wins will embolden further repression and loss of freedom from religion for all Americans.
Taliban Orders Head-to-Toe Covering for Women:
Attorney General Todd Rokita [R-IN] leads new multistate action defending unborn children
Attorney General Rokita proclaims Texas Heartbeat Law is a model for other states
Attorney General Todd Rokita is leading an 18-state coalition fighting the Biden administration’s latest efforts to derail a Texas law that prohibits abortion when doctors can detect a fetal heartbeat.
“We will continue to protect the lives of the unborn and the health of women, especially against those who believe the individual states are incapable of passing our own laws to do so,” Attorney General Rokita said.
Attorney General Rokita led an 18-state amicus brief filed Monday in the Fifth District U.S. Court of Appeals.
“For months I have praised this law as a pro-life model for use in other states. I have led previous multistate actions supporting Texas paving the way so that other states—including Indiana—could adopt such a law,” said Attorney General Rokita. “Oklahoma, for example, recently enacted its own law modeled after the Texas Heartbeat Law.”
Among other things, Attorney General Rokita’s brief argues that U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland cannot sue a state anytime he deems a state law to be unconstitutional — especially when no state official plays a role in enforcing the law.
Is anyone surprised?
Actually, I think some are. I read something suggesting that the young Taliban were not really so intent on a return to the 1990s. I obviously do not know, but the situation looks quite bleak.
Like Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, the Taliban lied. They haven’t changed. The women now covering themselves had 20 years of freedom. I know we can’t help them. It’s still heartbreaking.
When America becomes a fascist country, I promise you that the folks who have been and continue to demonize the Democrats will all claim they are “surprised”.
They are already saying they are surprised that their vote specifically to prevent a Democrat from filling an open Supreme Court seat and to prevent a Democrat from filling future Supreme Court seats would empower the Supreme Court to become even more far right.
Maybe they are lying and having an America run by a Taliban-type oligarchy was always the outcome they wanted. The only truth that can’t be disputed is that they were handed a chance to change the Supreme Court from right to left, and their choice was to keep it right wing. Their attempts to justify that vote because they got something else they wanted that they felt was far more important than a far right Supreme Court never stands up to scrutiny. They got nothing good for progressives and a lot that is very good for the right wing.
Some people believe that things must get much worse before they can get better, so they aren’t troubled by a fascist like Trump. The trouble is the logic never works. Things just get worse, never better. So sane people choose the lesser of two evils, or the good rather than the evil.
Exactly, Diane. It’s like a Marxist view of history.
Well said, NYC PSP, Diane, Flerp. Yes, this is doctrinaire deterministic Marxist dialectical thinking
It’s not Marxist, it’s Hegelian. There’s a difference. A big difference. Marx’s view of dialectic was not synonymous with Hegel’s, yet Marx’s legacy was burdened with it. Virtually all things called “Marxist” are no such thing. The popular view is a series of distortions–Lenin’s, Stalin’s, Mao’s, the right wing’s, etc–that were imposed upon his ideas, not written by him. Marx did not write for posterity but in response to his times, what he saw around him, and solutions to those problems, which he believed would happen after his death. The idea of state control and the other idiocy we are told to associate with “Marxism” have nothing to do with the actual texts written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. People seem to forget, or choose not to be educated, however influential distortions about Marx might be, that none of his ideas or those attributed to him were implemented during his lifetime. This is neither an endorsement or criticism of Marxism. But the way it is being used in this context perpetuates the ignorant stereotypes the words “Marxism” and “communism” and feeds into creating ideological constituencies, not ones who understand that democratic-republics must be constantly nurtured, pragmatic and inclusive.
Whatever you say, Herr Professor!
Shucks, didn’t realize who started this thread. Was more intended for NYCPSP cogent remark. Language, as much or more so than military might, is as essential a took to preserve democracy at there is. If we can’t agree on common meanings of things that drive public debate, then there is no reason to debate. If we dismiss this as unimportant, we become collaborators of democracy’s demise. And this goes back to NYCPSP’s original comment. None of us should be surprised anymore at the consequences our actions and non actions will surely bring. Let the sniveling sarcasm begin!
Greg, I’m over it. I got it out of my system yesterday, I think.
Thank you, FLERP.
And possibly abortion will become illegal…men dictating. I don’t see much difference with the Taliban…
I agree. The men banning abortion are American Taliban.
Yes
Women control their fate at the ballot box. Hopefully women (and men) in red and purple states will vote for representatives who oppose draconian abortion bans.
Here is one problem, though.
Well, FLERP, that’s only seven deep red states where the majority say abortion should be illegal in all cases. Interestingly, Florida supports abortion.
If their vote hasn’t been gerrymandered into insignificance. So how many years will it take before women control enough votes in both state and national elections to make their opinions heard? We haven’t even managed to get an equal rights amendment passed!
I was just looking at voter stats, and women make up more than half of all registered voters in the U.S., and they vote at slightly higher rates than men.
I am a man and I’m pro-choice. My mother is very strongly pro-life. So is one of my sisters.
I understand the optics of the Supreme Court’s composition, but as a matter of democracy, I don’t think this is a matter of men oppressing women. Women have as much if not more voting power than men. And male and female attitudes toward abortion are not significantly different.
THE problem is women who have been and are propagandized by anti-woman Christianity.
Linda, I don’t disagree on this topic.
The only good part of the Florida ban is that abortions are allowed up to 15 weeks which is far better than the ultra-conservative states. At least at that point women know for sure they are pregnant. Today about half of the abortions are via the pill, and something like 70% are done in the first fifteen weeks.
A poll posted here yesterday by FLERP said that most people in Florida support reproductive rights.
I believe Florida’s abortion law is in line with or even more permissive than most of Europe.
The 5 right wing Justices — 2 of whom were appointed under questionable circumstances by a dishonest president who lost the popular vote by a large margin — conspire to strike down a law that says that a woman’s right to an abortion must be legal in SOME cases, but the state has the right to regulate abortion in other cases.
The Republicans in power are celebrating that the Supreme Court has ruled that regardless of the circumstances, including that a woman can die, a woman never has any constitutional right over her own body with regards to pregnancy. That decision is up to the government.
With the states’ conservative religious laws and the overturn of Roe v Wade, American women will have fewer reproductive rights than Russian women.
Capitalism ate monarchism — with tea — for breakfast. It dined on fascism for lunch, and communism as an afternoon snack. Capitalism is finishing its day by eating democracy for dinner. Religion is the only thing left right now, so that’s what’s on the table. Capitalism will, however, eat religion for dessert. And when the hour is truly late and the dark is darkest, capitalism will eat itself too.
Magnificently said, Leftcoast!
Sad, but true.
Is that the good news or the bad news?
Ha ha, history drinks half the glass.
The darkest hour is just before dawn. . . .
Technically the darkest hour will be the heat death of the universe. No dawn there!
I doubt that there will be any hours or dawns at that point. . . “We are stardust, we are golden, we are billion year old carbon,
And we got to get ourselves back to the garden.” (JM and CSNY)
I am not sure where I heard or read this information, but a researcher suggested that the growth of irreligion in fundamentalist Islamic communities was remarkably widespread. The reason I think this is notable is that many religionists have pointed out that fundamentalism is the companion to atheism.
Being raised in the Bible Belt, I soon became aware of the phenomenon of seeing a person who was raised to believe in literal interpretation of the Bible go quickly into a defiant rejection of all things in that collection of books altogether. Does one thing lead to another? Are there multitudes of Afghan citizens now being turned from their religion because of the excesses of the Taliban? How long with the “dream be deferred?” Will it “explode?”
“The reason I think this is notable is that many religionists have pointed out that fundamentalism is the companion to atheism.”
And those religionistas are wrong, sadly many times deadly wrong. Atheism is not a faith belief system (as much as those religionistas would like everyone to believe that it is.)
Hmmm, isn’t the US one of the most religious faith believing nations in the world? And isn’t the US one of the most deadliest nations both in terms of internal violence of the populace and external violence causing death and destruction around the world?
The reason many of us who don’t believe in Sky-Daddies, well except the FSM who resides in Russell’s Teapot, is because those Abrahamic faith belief systems are full of contradictions, absurdities and insanities. And for many of us, me by the time I became a teenager-6th grade or so, it didn’t take long to realize that.
Historically, in the US, as in Afghanistan and many other parts of the world, questioning faith beliefs can get one either killed or shunned. It is almost impossible to break away from the faith belief cults when everyone else around you believes that nonsense.
Duane, I definitely have seen the shunning thing, among both Mormon and Jehovah’s Witness acquaintances. It is repulsive and cultish and breaks up families. And thanks for helping me put my finger on that floating bad feeling about “cancel culture,” in the sense of corralling outrage and targeting it at an individual via social media. It’s THAT.
yes, those countries will not be able to hold down, forever, the growth of secularism, just as Japan will eventually have its feminist revolution.
You can’t keep ’em down on the farm after they’ve seen Paree.
Roy, I think there are many different kinds of atheists. But I certainly am well-acquainted with the type you describe. I used to engage in lively debates with a [now-deceased] half-brother who was raised in an off-the-grid rural area in a family where literally-interpreted Biblical Baptism was shoved down the kids’ throats. Our conversations were exactly like those I used to have with some fundamentalist Baptist colleagues in my first teaching job. He would link me to sites where all the participants espoused, as he did, binary thinking that was a mirror image of fundamentalist religion.
Was the ruling written by Mullah Alito?
Akif Muhajir, a spokesman for the Ministry of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, referring to the Taliban’s strict interpretation of Islamic law. “It is the order of Alito and the prophet Muhammad.”
Good one!
Republican media writers (ex. Brett Stephens) and politicians, whether they are “never Trumpers” or not, are lousy human beings. Trump-endorsed, alleged groper of women, Hebster, lost to Pillen in the GOP Nebraska primary for Governor. Pillen targeted two women state senators for election defeat when they supported women’s reproductive rights. At the Journal Star (2-11-2022), “Letter: Pillen Hardly Nebraska Nice”
While I generally concur with Lloyd in the first comment there is another way. And Nancy Reagan said it best “Just Say No!” The women in Afghanistan will have to Just Say No until things change. Yep, the way to a man’s heart is through his penis.
The problem is that once you take people’s rights away, whether or not they say “no” is irrelevant because those who have more power due to their place in society can legally take what they want by force.
Being able to say “no” is a privilege.
When Nancy Reagan said “just say no!”, she was referring to a society that was still a democracy and kids really could say no without the state sanctioning someone with more power who decided to force them to take drugs.
It’s one of the reasons I never understood how folks had so little concern for democracy in this country.
So my question is why then do we have muslim woman in the US still walking around with these costumes on? Viewing a muslim woman wearing these costumes reminds me of oppression and its very disturbing
I live in Brooklyn a few blocks from a hub of Arab-Muslim shops. The Muslim women who wear religious garb do voluntarily, or perhaps on order of their husband. No way to force them to change without violating freedom of religion.
My little Arabic student looks stunning in her scarf. She is happy and sweet to everybody. The little protestant girls are always giggling with her and adjusting her scarf for her.
If a male Muslim student was described as “sweet”..
Hey Roy, did you ever think about the fact that your “little arabic student” does not like to wear her scarf? There are many young arabic students who are forced to wear their little scarfs and they hate it..
What should teachers do about Muslim students who wear scarves? Rip them off? Humiliate them? No, leave them be. If that’s what they or their family want, you can’t impose your views on them.
In NYC, many Muslim students attend religious schools. Under the current Supreme Court, anticipate a decision that makes the state pay tuition at all religious schools.
There are also many who wear it proudly.
wear it proudly? The image of the scarf and the midlevel costumes are a symbol of oppression – and who is going to wear it proudly?
In comparison of hardship/sacrifice, where does a man forced to wear a beard to honor his religion, rank?
Progressive millennial and Gen Z men are also required to wear beards, I think
“Most contemporary scholars agree that women’s covering of the face was not mandated by the Quran or by the traditions of Muhammad.”
Most of the Muslim traditions about amply covering women’s “awrah” were commonplace in Medieval and Renaissance Christianity and Judaism as well, as can be observed in artwork of the time—at least as regards headwear, length of hair, length of sleeves/ skirt-hems, unrevealing bodices. [those heaving bare throats/ bosoms seen among Western aristocrats of the 17th-18th centuries, what was that about ?!] Long hair was considered good enough by the late 19thC (tho sleeves/ skirts were still full-length), but bonnets were worn in public. And even when shorter hair became stylish in early 20thC, it was risqué/ avant-garde/ rebellious until the 1930’s– and still, most women covered up in public with bonnets, then eventually smaller hats and scarves right up into the early 1960’s.
Even today, Muslims in Balkan countries (rural/ isolated until more recently)– as well as elderly Catholic women in the rural outposts and small towns of southern Mediterranean countries—can still be seen in modified versions of this garb. Catholic and other denominational nuns wore the full garb right up until the late 1960’s, and many still wear some modified ‘hat-tip’ version today. And we still see a version of this among the women of traditional religious sects such as Amish, Mennonite, and to a degree, conservative and orthodox Jews [we have a group right in our town called ‘The Friends’ whose women wear bandana’d long tresses, plain shirts, long denim skirts…].
The full-bore Muslim women’s coverup is an immediate hark-back to Medieval times. A number of the traditional Muslim countries in the Middle East followed their isolated, ancient ways until the discovery of vast oil fields there in 1938– which wraps Afghanistan in, as the ideal location for pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and the Arabian Sea. It hasn’t even been a century since those antique Muslims were yanked out of the 12thC into the 20thC.
It is interesting to note that radical/ terrorist pushback from fundamentalist Muslims entered our world in 1989, 50 years into that sudden change. We are 50 yrs post-Roe v Wade, the culmination of the social changes that came together here in the late ‘60’s.