Taliban should be as equally hated by women as Rush.

[wivabef]

Maybe I'm too close to this, but I hear a lot more moaning about Rush Limbaugh from some feminist organizations than I do about the Taliban!

Please read this.

And check out this.

I don't really care to entertain anymore theories about how these hoodlum men could be even considered "holy warriors". This is one "culture" that should cease to exist.

[drmomentum[$]]

If the Taliban had a radio show here, or had some other forum where they were regularly airing their views, I'm pretty sure they'd get more attention than Rush.

-JP

[roymeo]

And my first reaction was "No, everyone, women, men, children, farm animals, should hate the band Rush more than anything."


Ok, I've deleted this sentence about 5 times already. I'm trying to find a way to say "If you haven't heard about what's going on in Afghanistan until recently, you might consider reviewing your media outlets for news and information" in a way that isn't obnoxious or offensive.

Sort like asking in 1998 "Have you heard of the band Marilyn Manson?", at least if you read the New Yorker, Harpers, The Atlantic Monthly, Utne Reader, Aperature, The New Yark Review of Books, (well, I've been trimming down...for a while there i was subscribed to 20 magazines.)
or listen to just about any NPR or even talk radio (at least in the
atlanta area).

I only gandered a peek at the articles. A summary of what I know already: You want to go to the doctor? Better not be female, because only male doctors are allowed and they can't look at men. Ease up a little from that, and women still can't go to the doctor without a male relative te escourt them to the doctor's office. Your men work? Then you don't need a doctor. Male-folk died? You don't need a doctor, ladies.

Show some ankle in public?

You'll be stoned. And we're not talking the kind that turns a lecture into an auditory sculpture, we're talking the kind that Monty Python spoofed in The Life of Brian, but for real.


That's why I've wondered whether we're doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. (the reasons are far enough into it that it really doesn't matter so much anymore, but I still think our initial bombing reasons were pretty indeterminate).


So, in order to come off as less of a jerk, I will say (and mean) that the links are helpful, now that I peruse them a little more. Thanks.

roymeo
(I will literally give $50 to the first anyone who can tell me who the opening sentence is major reference to, another $25 if they can provide the source material to me)
(edited to say "the first" just in case 20 people mob me and want my money.)

[theeye]

Originally posted by wivabef
Maybe I'm too close to this, but I hear a lot more moaning about Rush Limbaugh from some feminist organizations than I do about the Taliban!

It sounds like (a) you don't read Ms. Magazine and (b) you aren't particularly hooked into feminist organizations.

Ms. has been aggressively reporting about the situation in Afghanistan for years. I've been receiving urgent emails from feminist organizations about the Taliban situation for years.

Rush is a sideshow.

[wivabef]

I've also been hooked into RAWA for years -- I find their situation the most dire -- and I know it is almost like I'm a big nag about it, but whenever I hear some women's organization making stupid comments about Rush (whom I don't like) and Republicans and big business (like women aren't republican and in big business), I just think to myself -- "My, what wasted energy. And how fortunate our lives in this continent must be to be able to waste energy chasing after a harmless man who doesn't effect legislation or public policy whatsoever.

So, don't worry, Roymeo -- I'm not duh, clueless -- but if only RAWA's site would pop up more often whenever the Taliban and the "we must respect their culture" threads pop up, I think fewer people would have a problem with, in my opinion, a much belated endeavor. Perhaps more shocking to all is that this endeavor's main objective IS NOT to rescue the women and children from this disgusting regime.

[jnbmoore]

Hollywood as used Tailban too -- I've only seen Seventh Heaven about three times -- each time I watched it was the episode about the Tailban (mom kept imagining life for her girls under that rule)

[jnbmoore]

Originally posted by wivabef
Perhaps more shocking to all is that this endeavor's main objective IS NOT to rescue the women and children from this disgusting regime.

Remember the Prime Directive from Star Trek??? (Boy I feel like a couch potato with all these tv references) The United States can not engage in military actions to interfer with the internal workings of a country.

If that is so -- we should have started a war with China over the massacure of their citizens, There are slaves in the Sudan who need rescuing. Even our "allies" Saudi Arabia isn't as represive as the Tailaban but they don't allow woman to drive, have to have husband's or male relatives's permission to leave the country, etc. Plus their human right record isn't the greatest -- many contract workers have gotten lashes in the 100's

Since the Taliban ( by harboring and being funded by Bin Laden) interferred with our internal workings (I'd say four planes hijacked and used as bombs are internal workings) that gives us the "green light" to engage in this. Then there is the concern will the next regime treat woman and children better or worse??? who knows

Bridgette
who is running late for school. Today is the day I mix an Israeli couple with my Libyan and Afgani female students........

[kurt_messick]

Actually, I've heard several feminist commentators, on the news and in public events, discussing the events.

What has surprised me is that ordinarily these people would not be very favourably disposed toward military action and foreign intervention.

One commentator on MSNBC a week ago discounted the validity of our actions altogether unless it was specifically intending to free women from the Taliban rule.

[hadassahchana[$]]

I obviiously don't care much for the practices of the TAliban- but I am also nervous about going into a country and telling the people there what kind of government they ought to have. I mean, who helped put the Taliban into power in the first place??

I had a prof in Unviersity who lived with the mujahedeen for 6 months- with the encouragement of the State Dept. When they were fighting the Russians, they wer the good guys. I don't think that the US has the best track record in choosing how other people ought to be governed.

Furthermore, the Taliban does have some popular support, both in Afghanistan and in other countries. Probably mostly from men in that country, but I don't think that going to war against another country based on the treatment of women there is reasonable, unless, as Bridgette has pointed out, we make a quick stop in China on the way home.


Cindy

[erik_kosberg]

Remember the Prime Directive from Star Trek??? (Boy I feel like a couch potato with all these tv references) The United States can not engage in military actions to interfer with the internal workings of a country.

The United States is not bound by Star Fleet regulations.

Regardless of what the U.S. may or may not do under international law, we can and have interfered with the internal workings of many countries — blatantly in Guatemala and Iran in the 1950’s, somewhat more quietly on numerous occasions.

And didn’t Picard mention something about tyrants hiding behind the excuse of “internal affairs”?

[poseidon]

Actually the Star Trek analogy might not be all that bad. But, we do have a habit of busting in on other countries' doings and trying to change their ways of doing things.

Except I think Picard was a weenie of a captain. The only one worse than Picard was Riker, who held the title of Weenie Supreme.

We actually act a lot like Kirk or Archer (from the new series). We're told what to do by our "allies" and/or the UN (who could be compared to Star Fleet) and then we pretty much do what we want anyway.

I want to mention something, though. Saudia Arabia is not an ally of the United States. They do allow us to use Riyad as a military base. However, the Saudis have an amazingly short memory when it comes to good things that we've done for them.

We saved their country from Saddam Hussein in the Persian Gulf War. We didn't just say we would save it -- we did. Saudia Arabia was attacked with SCUDs and was a target of Iraq's expansion plan.

In their appreciation, they tried to dictate terms to us as to who would serve (no women). We told them that they accept the US military or they don't -- it was their choice. They then tried to dictate terms as to what women could wear, do in town, etc. I don't really remember what became of that.

And after we saved their butts, they started constricting the flow of oil to the United States.

Right now, they are doing the same thing. They have threatened us (heard this on the ABC radio news yesterday) reminding us that they supply 20% of the oil to the West and we should listen to what they have to say. Their "reminder" was nothing more than a thinly-veiled threat.

I'm thinking right now that we should be more buddy-buddy with Russia. They have absolutely no shortage of oil right now, and in fact have recently discovered a lot of new reserves. We seem to be in a warming relationship, despite what was originally feared about Putin.

[erik_kosberg]

The only one worse than Picard was Riker, who held the title of Weenie Supreme.

Awww, come on Jeff. That title belongs to Wesley Crusher.

[wivabef]

Originally posted by erik_kosberg
Awww, come on Jeff. That title belongs to Wesley Crusher.

Naw... Deanna "Hooter Woman" Troi gets my vote. I mean, that really was her only purpose, right? A great set of galactic headlights. Didn't ratings go down when they put her in full uniform?

That's an aside.

We help those who hunger. We help those who experience fatal flood waters, fire and wind. We help those who need medicine. So, suddenly we stop short of helping those who need to overcome oppression?

And though I really hate to use the Hitler analogy, it works. If Hitler had only killed all the Jews within German borders, that would have made it okay? Hey, it was part of German culture.

Remember, before the Taliban, this was not the way afghani women and children lived. This didn't happen until 1996 when the Taliban seized control of the country.

And though the woman are not YET dying in nearly the numbers of the Jews during WWII, they are indeed beaten, tortured and executed for dubious "crimes" -- like letting a veil slip, even in sweltering heat. They don't wear stars. They wear burqas.

The prime directive cannot apply unless we are also do away with currency, poverty and all the other things Star Trek Land had overcome. We are obviously not there yet. Plus, as opposed to the newly discovered cultures Jean Luc, Kirk and their like stumbled upon, we already influence their culture (designer jeans and boomboxes are not inherently muslim). Sorry, the prime directive argument just doesn't work.

[erik_kosberg]

What I said in another thread would also apply to this thread:
“I also won’t dismiss a bit of gunboat diplomacy or black ops on occasion as long as it’s used against despots in a more even handed manner than it has been in the past (such as helping to overthrow the Guatemalan and Iranian governments while maintaining a hands-off policy with thugs like Papa Doc or the Greek Colonels).”

[poseidon]

Originally posted by wivabef


Naw... Deanna "Hooter Woman" Troi gets my vote. I mean, that really was her only purpose, right? A great set of galactic headlights. Didn't ratings go down when they put her in full uniform?

No, I think that the ratings continued to climb until the show ended. However, the number of subsequent movies has been disappointing.

And, I found Deanna Troi to be annoying at best. The whole notion of some telepathic headshrinker who had some superior power to the rest of the crew was stupid.

Originally posted by wivabef


We help those who hunger. We help those who experience fatal flood waters, fire and wind. We help those who need medicine. So, suddenly we stop short of helping those who need to overcome oppression?

This I have always found annoying with how some of the world views the United States. We help out anyone and everyone in need -- usually no matter what their politics -- with very few exceptions. We do it both as a nation and as individuals -- and what's going on in Afghanistan is no exception. When disaster hits the United States is first up to bat with money, food and clothing. Yet everyone seems to have such short memories when it comes time to badmouth us and call us selfish, etc. I challenge anyone to compare the generosity of the American government or the American people to any other nation or organization on earth.

Originally posted by wivabef


And though I really hate to use the Hitler analogy, it works. If Hitler had only killed all the Jews within German borders, that would have made it okay? Hey, it was part of German culture.

Remember, before the Taliban, this was not the way afghani women and children lived. This didn't happen until 1996 when the Taliban seized control of the country.

And though the woman are not YET dying in nearly the numbers of the Jews during WWII, they are indeed beaten, tortured and executed for dubious "crimes" -- like letting a veil slip, even in sweltering heat. They don't wear stars. They wear burqas.

No. If Hitler had only killed Jews in Germany it wouldn't have been any better. Genocide is genocide and is wrong in every single case. While it is true that we (the United States) doesn't get involved in every situation of genocide, I think when pressured we do get involved and it just takes the right amount of interest of the American people to put pressure on our elected officials.

The situation with the Taliban disgusts me. They have a perverted view of Islam. I have heard the story of the young woman who tripped and her veil slipped down. She was summarily beaten until near death simply for showing a few inches of skin on her face. For someone to punish another for a simple and obvious accident and not open and active defiance of their law -- or even God's (or Allah, choose your term) law -- is appalling.

I guess if people were given the choice to leave the country or stay and abide by the rules, I could sit here and say, "Hey you chose radical Islam, it's your bed now lay in it." My understanding is that many of these people were forced to practice radical Islam with a gun to their head -- literally. That wasn't right during the Inquisition and it isn't right now.

Originally posted by wivabef


The prime directive cannot apply unless we are also do away with currency, poverty and all the other things Star Trek Land had overcome. We are obviously not there yet. Plus, as opposed to the newly discovered cultures Jean Luc, Kirk and their like stumbled upon, we already influence their culture (designer jeans and boomboxes are not inherently muslim). Sorry, the prime directive argument just doesn't work.

I guess it depends on which version of Star Trek you watch. TOS did away with currency and poverty. TNG didn't really deal with it one way or the other. DS9 definitely worked off gold-pressed latinum as the currency of choice (that's one of the beauties of the ST universe -- they have so many inconsistencies that it's entertaining).

And the Prime Directive wasn't set up to simply ignore atrocities.

Jeff
who really isn't the Star Trek geek you'd think despite that I know all the above.

[CeeJay62]

Originally posted by poseidon


I challenge anyone to compare the generosity of the American government or the American people to any other nation or organization on earth.

I agree.

The United States has to walk a very fine line when it becomes involved in the internal politics of other countries. It is almost a no win situation. If we follow the prime directive we are accused of being an uncaring, materialistic culture who only care about our things. If we get involved we are accused of being arrogant Americans with an ethnocentric view of the world, trying to impose our culture and values on everyone else. Then the anti-globalization forces come out and literally throw things at our leaders.

BTW, any Trek series after TNG is unwatchable

[wivabef]

Thank you, Jeff and CeeJay. That is what I was trying to get at, in my very roundabout way. Cultural tolerance is not an excuse to allow human atrocities to continue.

[drmomentum[$]]

Originally posted by wivabef


Naw... Deanna "Hooter Woman" Troi gets my vote. I mean, that really was her only purpose, right? A great set of galactic headlights. Didn't ratings go down when they put her in full uniform?

Galactic headlights? That's funny. A friend and I would often joke about certain Star Trek cast memebers being there to draw in a young male demographic, and their assets were often referred to as "galactic orbs." Yes, we thought we were really clever, considering the word origin of "galaxy."

I believe galakt- is a Greek prefix for milk. The origin of "galaxy" coming from Middle English for the "Milky Way" - our galaxy seen as a visible splash of milk across the night sky from Hera's breast. Lactation, lactose, galactose, galactorrhea, galaxy are all related through milk.

-JP "Werds are fun"

[wivabef]

Now, now, JP -- stop it, or your going to turn this perfectly irrational argument I've started into a breastfeeding debate frenzy!


Elyzabeth
Who is really impressed that her remarkable malapropist skills have been used for good and not evil.


Edited for poor choice of words (okay, I really just changed "has" to "have")

[poseidon]

Originally posted by wivabef
Now, now, JP -- stop it, or your going to turn this perfectly irrational argument I've started into a breastfeeding debate frenzy!


Elyzabeth
Who is really impressed that her remarkable malapropist skills has been used for good and not evil.

UGH!

Can I make a request, please? I'm leaving town on Sunday and I'll be gone and away from a computer until November 2nd.

Please, refrain from the following debates until then:

1. Should a woman breastfeed or give formula?

2. Should a woman breastfeed in public?

3. Are women who breastfeed going to Hell?

4. Are women who don't breastfeed going to Hell?

5. Are women who circumcise their children going to Hell?

6. Are women who don't circumcise their children going to Hell?

7. Is circumcising your child child-abuse?

8. Is breastfeeding your child child-abuse?

9. Is not breastfeeding your child child-abuse?

10. Any other child-rearing discussion that we've rehashed more times than I can bear to count.

If you want to have these discussions, please wait until Sunday. Then, please end them by November 3rd.

Thank you,
Jeff

[drmomentum[$]]

Originally posted by wivabef
Now, now, JP -- stop it, or your going to turn this perfectly irrational argument I've started into a breastfeeding debate frenzy!

Hey I was just pointing out the appropriateness of your "galactic" comment.

-JP "Breast is best"