The unofficial Taliban restriction has forced women into desperate and absurd situations as they seek medical help, according to interviews given to the Guardian and Zan Times
All their neighbors have the same religion, why are they different?
The obvious difference between Afghanistan and their neighbors is they were invaded and occupied. It isn’t an “excuse” but simply an explanation. Reactionary policy like this is a reaction to imperialism; without invasion and prior meddling the Taliban wouldn’t have the political support to implement a policy this backwards.
This won’t last in the long run, a policy like this will collapse their country. Either their population will start to crater as half their population is unable to go to the doctor, or women and the people who love them will start picking up guns. Reactionaries can’t actually reproduce society, it’s always a circular firing squad with them.
Most of their neighbors who are ruled by religious fanatics are the same…the Saudis we are allies with and they’re bad with women’s rights as well. What’s your excuse there? We’ve never bombed them.
Stop defending religious extremist with “well they have been bombed”…most countries on the planet have been invaded or bombed or been at war at one point or another.
Ukraine is actively being invaded and they don’t seem to be taking women back to the stone age.
That’s rather a limited consideration of all the factors.
Universally, the more rural places are, the more religious conservative they are. The poorer a place is the more strongly religious people are. The more chaotic the situation is, the more strongly people turn to religion (or other existential anchors). This is true even in developed countries. Cities are liberal/blue, and rural areas are conservative/red.
Yeah, we shouldn’t be blind to the harm imperialism and colonialism has done (and continues to do in places like Syria) to the world… I just don’t think that’s always the only reason for everything, though it certainly is a major reason for a lot of things.
Everything comes down to the material conditions. It’s not all imperialism specifically, development in rural areas is simply difficult in general, but the only way to sustain a backwards reactionary force like the Taliban is through intentional impoverishment.
Without that, I suspect Afghanistan might look more like Iran. Perhaps still conservative, not backwards.
Afghanistan is made up of a bunch of tribes. Most who live there don’t see the country of Afghanistan as a whole. The reason the Taliban has such a hold is because of this division and because of how religious the population there is.
All their neighbors have the same religion, why are they different?
The obvious difference between Afghanistan and their neighbors is they were invaded and occupied. It isn’t an “excuse” but simply an explanation. Reactionary policy like this is a reaction to imperialism; without invasion and prior meddling the Taliban wouldn’t have the political support to implement a policy this backwards.
This won’t last in the long run, a policy like this will collapse their country. Either their population will start to crater as half their population is unable to go to the doctor, or women and the people who love them will start picking up guns. Reactionaries can’t actually reproduce society, it’s always a circular firing squad with them.
Most of their neighbors who are ruled by religious fanatics are the same…the Saudis we are allies with and they’re bad with women’s rights as well. What’s your excuse there? We’ve never bombed them.
Stop defending religious extremist with “well they have been bombed”…most countries on the planet have been invaded or bombed or been at war at one point or another.
Ukraine is actively being invaded and they don’t seem to be taking women back to the stone age.
Just stop with the excuses.
The US props them up!
That’s rather a limited consideration of all the factors.
Universally, the more rural places are, the more religious conservative they are. The poorer a place is the more strongly religious people are. The more chaotic the situation is, the more strongly people turn to religion (or other existential anchors). This is true even in developed countries. Cities are liberal/blue, and rural areas are conservative/red.
Do you think places are poor by accident?
In the case of Afghanistan this, too, is imperialism. Underdevelopment is a policy decision, and they know whose fault it is.
Yeah, we shouldn’t be blind to the harm imperialism and colonialism has done (and continues to do in places like Syria) to the world… I just don’t think that’s always the only reason for everything, though it certainly is a major reason for a lot of things.
Everything comes down to the material conditions. It’s not all imperialism specifically, development in rural areas is simply difficult in general, but the only way to sustain a backwards reactionary force like the Taliban is through intentional impoverishment.
Without that, I suspect Afghanistan might look more like Iran. Perhaps still conservative, not backwards.
Afghanistan is made up of a bunch of tribes. Most who live there don’t see the country of Afghanistan as a whole. The reason the Taliban has such a hold is because of this division and because of how religious the population there is.
That’s not that different from any other nation in their early development. The point of the nation is to unite tribes into a single nationality.
Good luck with that in a place that has entire groups that don’t recognize the country at all.
Uniting disparate groups is one of the main functions of religion, monotheism especially.