New report from the US gov on gender equality in Afghanistan. What are we still doing in Afghanistan, you ask? US has spent $787 million on gender programs, not including gender included in other programs. Hope to challenge stereotypes and patriarchy 1/n usip.org/sites/default/…
Report begins with a map, gives you lay of the land, so you know all the provinces you have to control in order to overthrow the patriarchy. 2/n
"There is no Dari or Pashto word for the terms 'gender' and 'gender equality.'...Afghans often simply use the English word without any translation."
Obviously, the US will need to help change the language, maybe introduce new pronouns to accomplish its mission. 3/n
US working to "bring about changes in attitudes, behaviors, roles and responsibilities at home, in the workplace, and in the community." Are Pashto men doing enough housework? How could American forces leave without knowing for sure? 4/n
US places itself in a long historical tradition of fighting for feminism in Afghanistan. The Soviets tried it, which led to rebellions and violent resistance. US hopes to take Afghanistan back to the good old days of Soviet occupation. 5/n
US in Afghanistan has adopted a policy of "gender mainstreaming, in which the design and implementation of development programs are required to be sensitive to gender norms and disparities." Imagine this in previous wars, FDR thinking about the disparate impact of D-Day. 6/n
US created quotas for women in parliament. Now, they find "pervasive sexual harassment against female candidates, where male election staff and other stakeholders ask female candidates for sexual favors in return for support." 7/n
"Women parliamentarians have limited connection with their constituencies, and some have never even been to the provinces they represent." US worried that women parliamentarians vote on ethnic or tribal basis, American soldiers must build female solidarity to win war. 8/n
US interviews Afghan parliamentarians on gender relations. Hears complaints that women are not given as much time to speak in meetings. Ministers stand up to greet men, but not women. Again, this is a report by the American government on a war it's been fighting for 20 years. 9/n
Number of women voters has been going down across the course of the war, both in total and as a percentage of the vote. 10/n
US forces rural Afghans to have gender balanced councils to get money for infrastructure projects. Still, "men regularly interfere in women’s meaningful participation by blocking information, controlling project funds, and ignoring their input." 11/n
Some US programs involve enlisting Afghan men in the the cause. They gave "trainings to 1,105 Afghan men in which they could discuss their own gender roles and examine male attitudes that are harmful to women." One initiative is called the "National Masculinity Alliance." 12/n
To integrate women into the Afghan army, the US sent "gender advisers," built :women’s training centers and schools, housing, child care centers, gyms, dining facilities, and bathrooms." 13/n
US mission to integrate women into the Afghan military hindered by lack of sexual harassment policy in the ministry of defense or ministry of interior.
US set goal of 10% women in army, only reached 1%. 14/n
US report mentions that the Taliban has never sent a woman to the peace negotiations. When a woman from the Afghan gov delegation recommended the Taliban send a woman to one of the negotiations, "they laughed immediately." 15/n
A leader of a feminist organization gushes about how when she met the Taliban she was teasing them and they "behaved so nicely." 16/n
The issue of women has become the fundamental disagreement to ending the war. So much so that “Whenever you talk about women’s rights, you get tagged as a person who is against the peace process." Report warns this is a troubling narrative that must not take hold. 17/n
Flashback to the Afghan papers. USAID official talks about how US made gender central to their policy and it caused the people to revolt. 18/n
Paul Ehrlich has passed away, and I wanted to see whether he was as bad as his quotes and short clips suggest. Surely, there might be some nuance or careful thought in his worldview. Nobody is that purely evil.
So I picked up The Population Bomb and started reading.
It turns out, he's even worse than you think!
I’m putting together a thread below.
Quotes taken out of context don't get at the degree to which he is consistently evil and misanthropic. He had an entire system that he pursued in which human life was constantly denigrated and devalued, with an eye toward elimination. You’re left wondering what you’re even reducing human population for, since every form of life seems to be not worth living.
Some people are racist and just hate poor and brown people. Some hate the rich. Paul Ehrlich doesn't discriminate. He wants you not to exist if he can get away with it. But if he can't stop you from living, he wants you to have a much worse quality of life.
Ehrlich has a plan for both advanced and poor countries. He has blueprints for entire regions of the globe.
Humans do not have agency in Ehrlich’s world. They’re simple consumers of resources, with no ability to create, better their circumstances, or exert individual agency to make the world a better place, except to the extent that they ensure fellow humans no longer exist.
You might find all of this depressing. But I’ve found reading Ehrlich invigorating. It is a reminder of how much evil there is in the world. Recall that Ehrlich was not some guy in his room putting out diatribes. He was a professor at Stanford, a highly decorated scientist, and one of the most prominent public intellectuals of his generation. While reading Ehrlich today, know that he has intellectual descendants in the form of degrowthers and other environmental extremists, along with anti-capitalists who don’t understand the basis of prosperity and prioritize redistributing wealth over all else.
First of all, the cover. Children are starving as you're reading this. Even worse, more are being born! The existence of more humans is supposed to hit you harder than starvation. I like the title of the earlier book. "The End of Affluence." Another brilliant prediction.
Here's the entire prologue where his famous predictions are made about mass starvation. It's only two pages, you can read the whole thing. He uses the prologue to make predictions that would soon be discredited and call for coercion, and denounces treating "the symptoms of the cancer of population growth." Ehrlich doesn't want to hear about how you might have a plan to improve people's lives. You're just treating symptoms! He starts with a demand that fewer humans is the only option worth considering.
US isn't a free market paradise compared to Europe. But labor law stands out. California has high taxes and other left-wing policies. But Silicon Valley would be impossible in Europe. You can trace the exact ways in which its business model based on innovation is illegal.
American companies often have to make large severance payments to fired workers. In much of Europe, these are mandated by law and much larger. And large German companies can't even choose who to lay off. They must factor in tenure and things like family obligations.
This guy was sued by his own firm for falsely inflating his role as “Head of Macro,” misusing confidential information to promote his own fund, breaching debt obligations, and defaming the firm to investors.
Yes, it's unsurprising that Trump brought him into the party.
He eventually admitted sharing confidential information and paid the costs of the lawsuit.
He called himself "Head of Macro," a position that didn't exist. The company says he was hired as a Research Analyst and then fired for poor performance. Fishback has now reinvented himself as a MAGA influencer.
There's a human preference for light skin. It shows up almost everywhere and predates colonialism. Indians and blacks are the darkest groups Americans are exposed to or interact with in any significant degree.
But blacks, in addition to the historical guilt, have traits many Americans like. They're good at sports, good with women, and charming enough to be actors and entertainers.
US-India relationship is being harmed because Pakistan is more willing to kiss up to Trump, and Modi has too much pride to nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize when he didn’t do anything.
Mr. Trump contends that he used trade as leverage to get the two sides to stop fighting. After these enticements and warnings, he said, “all of a sudden they said, ‘I think we will stop’” the fighting.