Pashtun woman, a challenge to the conscience of the Humanity and human rights groups.

[kakargirl]

roshina i dont represent your pahktun khwa women many are free iv seen and very much liberated even when they newly come from pakistan, i only represent my own caste and family women and strict qandarian helmand women , there isnt one divorce to this day nor is there a unhappy woman that wants to runaway , nor has woman a been beaten black or blue or burnt, i speak for my type of family from kandahar and helmand i dont speak for others if they are in bad conditions then they should be free, as for our women they are tough and run the house like a military base the men are even careful , our new generation girls are studying not because of anyone else but because there fathers want them to so the change came with in the family we didnt need the out side to do that, sharam haya that only my own type of women would understand we are much stricter than your women we have separate rooms for men guests entrance ect , we go to all girls schools we dont go out too much when we dont need to our familys system our dress code is very strict i guess we are conservative with very old veiws old fashioned so sorry i got on your nerves il stop posting where theres so many liberated feminist im not one and nor do i intend to become one so sorry for repeating my self like a parrot our familys are too complicated for you to understand sorry if you took this list and said what you said to me to kandahrian strict family believe me they will call you a panjabian and throw you out of the village and this will be the women who do this not the men and if i did the same so would i be called that get thrown out as these people have a system that works for them when it stops who knows they might change but so far im happy with our values my last post wont be posting on these topics no more .

[BarakzaiAbdali]

God this is tiring, you people have a lot of spunk. I am not as young as I used to be. Its time to sleep, so forgive a delayed response.

[kakargirl]

God this is tiring, you people have a lot of spunk. I am not as young as I used to be. Its time to sleep, so forgive a delayed response.

sorry wrora my last post on here .

[BarakzaiAbdali]

roshina i dont represent your pahktun khwa women many are free iv seen and very much leberated even when they newly come from pakistan, i only represent my own caste and family women , there isnt one divorce to this day nor is there a unhappy woman that wants to runaway , nor has woman been beaten black or blue or burnt, i speak for my type of family fro kandahar and helmand i dont speak for others if they are in bad conditions then they should be free, as for our women they are tough and run the house, our new gernation girls are studying not because of anyone else but because there fathers want them to so the change came with in the family we didnt need the out side to do that, sharam haya that only my own type of woman would understand we are much stricter than your women we have separate rooms for men guests entrance ect , we dont go to all girls schools we dont go out too much when we dont need to our familys are very different to yours only another strict kandaharian family would know basically from same lineage too ,and since its getting on your nerves il stop posting where theres so many liberated feminist im not one and nor do i intend to one so sorry for repeating my self like a parrot our familys are too complicated for you to understand sorry.

I do not think its too complicated at all. Its reverse discrimination that has made folks come out of the wood work. Rather, my theory on it is that if you had posted saying: "Look I am a Pashtun girl that loves to smoke a good joint now and then, and the only good Pashtun women is one that is brave enough to get a tattoo of Lindsey Lohan... because in my opinion I can do anything a guy can and the God that will judge me will see that I save children from a burning house in my spare time. Oh and by the way, Virginia Slims are my preferred tobacco..." you would have gotten a series of "you go girls" and thank yous and lols. I mean I have seen similar posts by females and barely a peep is raised. For some reason, when you post as a female, and you tout conservative values the responses are pretty brutal. I mean compare how long Unknownprince has been posting his views and articles. It was only recently that someone, after about a 1000 posts, has avidly argued with him. Its very interesting that women want other women to to be free to speak and to vocalize, but when they do, the responses tend to be crushing if they go against the developing stats quo.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

sorry wrora my last post on here .

i was joking, it was a complement to youth.

[faye]

but i am 62, hope you were referring to me too.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

but i am 62, hope you were referring to me too.

Well, you have enough fire that I would have placed you at 31, so you are certainly included.

[kakargirl]

i was joking, it was a complement to youth.

wrora your youthful your self but you work long hours at the hospital your job isnt easy wrora you look after alot of sick people who are close to death i respect you too much so i knew it was a joke.

[faye]

wow....

Well, you have enough fire that I would have placed you at 31, so you are certainly included.

[ScimitarXEdge]

[/COLOR][/FONT][/B]a) that is your opinion. b) it has nothing to do with what i said.

the women assigning themselves to others as slaves comment was in response to kakargirl definition of what proper pashtun 'principles' are. that women are to stay home and raise children and men go out and earn the money...not a woman's choice of dressing up in a particular manner or choosing to be a housewife.[/COLOR]


why does it always have to come down to this?? whenever whatever regarding a muslim woman's rights are mentioned, this point is raised. how many generations of muslim or afghan women does our society need to confirm it's remainder?? why us?? instead of expecting us to sacrifice when and how we want to get married, why don't you guys try finding some other solution to that problem??? besides, there are numerous other factors to that issue . if anything, our population could use some controlling..



the reason as to why so many women are burned alive in countries like afghanistan, pakistan and india is very obvious. when 5-8 other members of a family is emotionally, financially and mentally depending on one person (the man of the family) obviously they become more than just a burden. if their rights were of any use, they wouldn't be getting barbecued as often as they do. a woman's right is a woman's right. it should be the same everywhere. so if i am comparing one to the other, it's because i want to point out their faults. apples are apples and oranges, oranges but handled carelessly both end up rotten and rotten fruit is of no use to anyone.

The thing that most people misunderstand or are either completely unaware or are oblivious to because of habituation and conditioning is that modern constructs of occupation and social behavior are surrogate and manufactured activities or deviated forms of essential human functions.

To put it simply; they're fabrications which people have grasped to because of the artificial environments we are either compelled to live in or have imposed on us by policies and institutions making them our realities.

In that context there are really no choice or rights in respects to fundamental human welfare is concerned. The real slavery here is not women being expected to raise children or bear children; but women and men for that matter being warped by an unnatural environment/circumstance to abandon their natural calling.

Women raised children and men went out and acquired resources to support them because that is the natural order which ensued for human beings over hundreds and thousands of years of evolution. There is no trap or "imprisonment" in this, it's what's apart of our dispositions, unless of course there's some other entity which interferes and diverts it such as contemporary society.

What's compromising rights is not the expectation to fulfill a clearly Natural, Intrinsic role as demonstrated by Nature's faculties; it's those things which for whatever reason or method urges or requires one to have to forgo, divert or reject those faculties. There is no "why us?" or "why them" or "why not you?" here.

This isn't to suggest that women are incapable of any other feature or cannot contribute in social life or societal affairs except as mothers/wives; of course they can and should. But when one must "forgo" something that is Naturally meant for you or delay it on account of of some delusion then that suggests a dysfunction not human liberty. And that's really the underpinning issue here; women and men are being duped into thinking such exploitation is liberation. Rights are based on priorities, without them there are no rights.

The Malali Anas and Nazo Anas of Pashtoon society were noted for their bravery outside of the dispositions Nature has given women; but they never disregarded those things either, that's what made them revered. Otherwise they'd just be sloughed off and forgotten.

[ScimitarXEdge]

I still find it amusing that folks who have barely any intimate connections with the women about whom they are talking are deciding whether others are happy or not. Like, seriously?

Oh, and SXEdge wrora, actually, nothing in my earlier post suggested anything about feminism; neither did anything in it claim that you, a man, cannot have an opinion on women's issues. Why are some of us so quick to make assumptions and don't know how to read deeply enough to entertain an intellectual discussion? Everything I said in that post holds true right now as well, and I still stand by it: It's historically ALWAYS been men who decided which "rights" women can and should have, what they can and should do, what they can't and shouldn't do, what theyir capabilities and inabilities are, and, hell, even whether they are full human like men! I point this out in a poem called "Freedom from the Forbidden" -- in addition to many other things like this. And it all has always held true, no matter where women are.

And so, I was saying then and I say right now, it's always entertaining when a group of men (at that time, it was only male voices; female voices, as has been the historical deal, were absent at that time) gather to discuss what women's needs are. It's funniest when they use religion to support their stance. They say, "I might not know women too well, but this is what God (or the Prophet) said." LOL It's half funniest when they say, "These are women's natural roles and rights." Um. LOL again!

The reason I remarked as I did is because whether you want to admit it or not This is a classic feminist fallacy which originates from the writings of Emma Goldmann and Simone De Bouvier's "the Second Sex". If you're not familiar with the material, I highly recommend doing so. Some people end up bleeding out certain aspects of their personas inadvertently whether or not that was the intended directive. Furthermore the claim is too superficial in it's scope and understanding, it doesn't base itself on evolution, ecology or any pertinent factor other than history to be taken as solidly meritable. The reason it appears to "hold true" is because humans as a species manifested in the same conditions, hence why we find certain things cross culturally and across vast geographic expanses.

[Alchemist]

Simone De Bouvier was actually anti feminist. Have you read the Second Sex, Scimitar? I really enjoyed it...soo true lol

(emma goldman = jew)

[Alchemist]

From Part II of The Second Sex. Simone de Beauvoir 1949
On the Master-Slave Relation

Certain passages in the argument employed by Hegel in defining the relation of master to slave apply much better to the relation of man to woman. The advantage of the master, he says, comes from his affirmation of Spirit as against Life through the fact that he risks his own life; but in fact the conquered slave has known this same risk. Whereas woman is basically an existent who gives Life and does not risk her life, between her and the male there has been no combat. Hegel’s definition would seem to apply especially well to her. He says: ‘The other consciousness is the dependent consciousness for whom the essential reality is the animal type of life; that is to say, a mode of living bestowed by another entity.’ But this relation is to be distinguished from the relation of subjugation because woman also aspires to and recognizes the values that are concretely attained by the male. He it is who opens up the future to which she also reaches out. In truth women have never set up female values in opposition to male values; it is man who, desirous of maintaining masculine prerogatives, has invented that divergence. Men have presumed to create a feminine domain – the kingdom of life, of immanence – only in order to lock up women therein. But it is regardless of sex that the existent seeks self-justification through transcendence – the very submission of women is proof of that statement. What they demand today is to be recognized as existents by the same right as men and not to subordinate existence to life, the human being to its animality.
An existentialist perspective has enabled us, then, to understand how the biological and economic condition of the primitive horde must have led to male supremacy. The female, to a greater extent than the male, is the prey of the species; and the human race has always sought to escape its specific destiny. The support of life became for man an activity and a project through the invention of the tool; but in maternity woman remained closely bound to her body, like an animal. It is because humanity calls itself in question in the matter of living – that is to say, values the reasons for living above mere life – that, confronting woman, man assumes mastery. Man’s design is not to repeat himself in time: it is to take control of the instant and mould the future. It is male activity that in creating values has made of existence itself a value; this activity has prevailed over the confused forces of life; it has subdued Nature and Woman. We must now see how this situation has been perpetuated and how it has evolved through the ages. What place has humanity made for this portion of itself which, while included within it, is defined as the Other? What rights have been conceded to it? How have men defined it?

isn't that beautiful? (it relates to your debate)

but here is the opening where it is obvious she ain't a feminist...

But first we must ask: what is a woman? ‘Tota mulier in utero’, says one, ‘woman is a womb’. But in speaking of certain women, connoisseurs declare that they are not women, although they are equipped with a uterus like the rest. All agree in recognising the fact that females exist in the human species; today as always they make up about one half of humanity. And yet we are told that femininity is in danger; we are exhorted to be women, remain women, become women. It would appear, then, that every female human being is not necessarily a woman; to be so considered she must share in that mysterious and threatened reality known as femininity. Is this attribute something secreted by the ovaries? Or is it a Platonic essence, a product of the philosophic imagination? Is a rustling petticoat enough to bring it down to earth? Although some women try zealously to incarnate this essence, it is hardly patentable. It is frequently described in vague and dazzling terms that seem to have been borrowed from the vocabulary of the seers, and indeed in the times of St Thomas it was considered an essence as certainly defined as the somniferous virtue of the poppy...

If her functioning as a female is not enough to define woman, if we decline also to explain her through ‘the eternal feminine’, and if nevertheless we admit, provisionally, that women do exist, then we must face the question “what is a woman”?
To state the question is, to me, to suggest, at once, a preliminary answer. The fact that I ask it is in itself significant. A man would never set out to write a book on the peculiar situation of the human male. But if I wish to define myself, I must first of all say: ‘I am a woman’; on this truth must be based all further discussion. A man never begins by presenting himself as an individual of a certain sex; it goes without saying that he is a man. The terms masculine and feminine are used symmetrically only as a matter of form, as on legal papers. In actuality the relation of the two sexes is not quite like that of two electrical poles, for man represents both the positive and the neutral, as is indicated by the common use of man to designate human beings in general; whereas woman represents only the negative, defined by limiting criteria, without reciprocity. In the midst of an abstract discussion it is vexing to hear a man say: ‘You think thus and so because you are a woman’; but I know that my only defence is to reply: ‘I think thus and so because it is true,’ thereby removing my subjective self from the argument. It would be out of the question to reply: ‘And you think the contrary because you are a man’, for it is understood that the fact of being a man is no peculiarity. A man is in the right in being a man; it is the woman who is in the wrong. It amounts to this: just as for the ancients there was an absolute vertical with reference to which the oblique was defined, so there is an absolute human type, the masculine. Woman has ovaries, a uterus: these peculiarities imprison her in her subjectivity, circumscribe her within the limits of her own nature. It is often said that she thinks with her glands. Man superbly ignores the fact that his anatomy also includes glands, such as the testicles, and that they secrete hormones. He thinks of his body as a direct and normal connection with the world, which he believes he apprehends objectively, whereas he regards the body of woman as a hindrance, a prison, weighed down by everything peculiar to it. ‘The female is a female by virtue of a certain lack of qualities,’ said Aristotle; ‘we should regard the female nature as afflicted with a natural defectiveness.’ And St Thomas for his part pronounced woman to be an ‘imperfect man’, an ‘incidental’ being. This is symbolised in Genesis where Eve is depicted as made from what Bossuet called ‘a supernumerary bone’ of Adam.
Thus humanity is male and man defines woman not in herself but as relative to him; she is not regarded as an autonomous being. Michelet writes: ‘Woman, the relative being ...’ And Benda is most positive in his Rapport d’Uriel: ‘The body of man makes sense in itself quite apart from that of woman, whereas the latter seems wanting in significance by itself ... Man can think of himself without woman. She cannot think of herself without man.’ And she is simply what man decrees; thus she is called ‘the sex’, by which is meant that she appears essentially to the male as a sexual being. For him she is sex – absolute sex, no less. She is defined and differentiated with reference to man and not he with reference to her; she is the incidental, the inessential as opposed to the essential. He is the Subject, he is the Absolute – she is the Other.’
The category of the Other is as primordial as consciousness itself. In the most primitive societies, in the most ancient mythologies, one finds the expression of a duality – that of the Self and the Other. This duality was not originally attached to the division of the sexes; it was not dependent upon any empirical facts. It is revealed in such works as that of Granet on Chinese thought and those of Dumézil on the East Indies and Rome. The feminine element was at first no more involved in such pairs as Varuna-Mitra, Uranus-Zeus, Sun-Moon, and Day-Night than it was in the contrasts between Good and Evil, lucky and unlucky auspices, right and left, God and Lucifer. Otherness is a fundamental category of human thought.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/index.htm

[Badlun]

The trap is very simple but very deep rooted. Even in this modern day that women through out the world are being emancipated, the 35 million Pashtun women still face the same situation which the other women folk had about two centuries back.

The same arguments which were used against the feminism, women rights,feminist theory, women's rights,such as in contract, property, and voting, women's rights to bodily integrity and autonomy and reproductive rights, ,workplace rights, including equal pay and opportunities for careers and to start businesses.

I see the same arguments which for the last many years, were posed against liberal feminism, social feminism, radical feminism,womanism,chicana feminism, ecofeminism, profeminism(to which I personally belong informally), and other kinds of feminism and women rights movements.But this is very satisfying that inspite of all these efforts against the women rights, women are now more free, and leadinbg lives with more dignity and liberty.

The trap is that women are meant for the four walls of the house. This is demand of her nature, biology, family, psychology etc.If women has this limited sphere of influence, then she does not need high education, she does not need proessional skills, no need of physical and mental capacity building and thus they may remain uneducated, ignorant because domestic work does not need high education and improved skills.

Thus its a viscious circle. Women work only at home thus no need of advanced education and economic profile while she does not have high education and skills thus she will always remain working as domestic servant. Its a great conspiracy againt women. Hijab, no free mixing of male and female, no jobs for Pashtun women out side their homes, over glorification of marriage, family and children , all force Pashtun women to remain in a limited place.

But the worse cruelty is that Pashtun women even dont have a paradise of their own in their houses. They face vices like domestic violence, gender discrimination, early marriages, forced marriages, arranged marriages etc.

Dire need of the hour is to take remedial measures and to emancipate Pashtun women from this sub human situation which they face for the last many centuries.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

The trap is very simple but very deep rooted. Even in this modern day that women through out the world are being emancipated, the 35 million Pashtun women still face the same situation which the other women folk had about two centuries back.

The same arguments which were used against the feminism, women rights,feminist theory, women's rights,such as in contract, property, and voting, women's rights to bodily integrity and autonomy and reproductive rights, ,workplace rights, including equal pay and opportunities for careers and to start businesses.

I see the same arguments which for the last many years, were posed against liberal feminism, social feminism, radical feminism,womanism,chicana feminism, ecofeminism, profeminism(to which I personally belong informally), and other kinds of feminism and women rights movements.But this is very satisfying that inspite of all these efforts against the women rights, women are now more free, and leadinbg lives with more dignity and liberty.

The trap is that women are meant for the four walls of the house. This is demand of her nature, biology, family, psychology etc.If women has this limited sphere of influence, then she does not need high education, she does not need proessional skills, no need of physical and mental capacity building and thus they may remain uneducated, ignorant because domestic work does not need high education and improved skills.

Thus its a viscious circle. Women work only at home thus no need of advanced education and economic profile while she does not have high education and skills thus she will always remain working as domestic servant. Its a great conspiracy againt women. Hijab, no free mixing of male and female, no jobs for Pashtun women out side their homes, over glorification of marriage, family and children , all force Pashtun women to remain in a limited place.

But the worse cruelty is that Pashtun women even dont have a paradise of their own in their houses. They face vices like domestic violence, gender discrimination, early marriages, forced marriages, arranged marriages etc.

Dire need of the hour is to take remedial measures and to emancipate Pashtun women from this sub human situation which they face for the last many centuries.

Its not so much an issue of any single ism as it is Mostafa Kamalism or interventionalism which leads to incorrigible blow back and misery for all involved. Take for example the blow back Mr. Mobarak is now facing and that who we tacitly supporting via our proxy King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. One might say that Mr. Mobarak and yourself share many views on how to progress Egypt and clamp down on the will of the people. In fact a stated part of his agends is to kill as many Muslim Brotherhood folks as possible while enforcing women's rights. Yet the common chants that CNN appears to be reporting on is that the crowds chant "God is great" indicating that religiosity remains a huge part of Egypts fabric.

Do you wish the same blow back and misery for your own people? Kakargirl likely represents a major contingent of female folk in our Helmand province. Would you enforce secularism and socialism on them against their will? Moreover, how do you morally reconcile this interventionalism when it is the mirror opposite of the Pan Islamist philosophy in terms of imposition of social mores and ideals?