I wonder if not having to wear a burka can be considered a human right. In any case, as was repeatedly stated here and elsewhere, burka's were the normal attire of countryside women in large parts of Afghanistan, especially Pashtunistan. Women wore it before the Soviet invasion, during and after, but it was not legally prescribed. Taliban enforced it on all women, but now they have gone, this doesn't have to mean all women would nor should take them off, and the fact women are still wearing them has no connection to the possible remaining influence of the taliban. I have no doubt those people, who think they do Afghani women a favor by trying to 'liberate' them from the outside mean well. But some disasters are wrought by the well meaning. No doubt the communist regime meant to do well for the equality of male and female by abolishing the dowry practice; only it wasn't accepted by the majority of the population that just wasn't ready for it, it was considered an attack on their culture, tradition and religion and it directly led to the anti-Soviet uprising and the real start of the war. So maybe some things need time. If you want to force them, they boomerang back and have the opposite effect, as the taliban repression could never have happened without the communist meddling in the first place. I hope this opinion doesn't make me a bad human rights activist?
Jan Matthieu -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Namens Christoph Reuss Verzonden: donderdag 15 augustus 2002 16:14 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: RE: Sociology/Victimology 101 (was Re: Women love the burka!) Lawry de Bivort wrote: > You reveak your ignorance, Chris: not permitted to talk to a burka'ed > woman? This shows how little you know... Are you saying that sources like the following are wrong ? http://www.purpleberets.org/international_gender_apartheid.html "Afghan women ... * Are forbidden to ... talk or shake hands with men outside their families. ... * Are forbidden to laugh or talk loudly. (No stranger should hear a woman's voice.)" > As I said, if anyone wants any advice on > how to do this, I would provide it. Why don't you simply provide it, instead of spouting empty polemics and playing childish games of "I know but I don't tell you". Simply say what you know, and try to reduce your polemics-to-facts ratio. > What hubris to assert that you, the great Chris, merely need to make > up your mind to know everything, and that the poor fools whose > experience you seek to interpret or explain are too ignorant to be > even worth-while asking! It is not so much your ignorance I find > appalling, Chris, but your steadfast determination to learn nothing. Worse than empty polemics, you have to resort to misrepresenting my case, in order to make your alleged point. Actually, I did NOT suggest that the 'objects' of social studies shouldn't be asked. What I suggested was to take backgrounds and victimological knowledge into account when assessing their replies. Your replies to my suggestion show _your_ "determination to learn nothing". Worse, by choosing to remain ignorant about the backgrounds (and even attacking those who reveal these backgrounds), you end up being accomplice to the oppressors of Muslim women. Chris (a "white western male" who thinks that human rights should apply to non-white non-western females too)
