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
Fascinating analysis of the trendiness of baby names.
Since the 1960s, the endings of names rise and fall together, especially for boys. The fates of Mason, Jackson, Grayson, etc are all linked.
What names sound good to parents depends on subtle signals they’re not aware of.
This is associated with the decline of traditional names. The lesson here is people really feel the need to conform on a very deep subconscious level! If they don’t conform to tradition, they’ll look for arbitrary signs of trendiness.
But you don’t want to conform too much. So names that are too common get scratched off the list, while you need to pick a name for a boy or girl that sounds right in the current year.
Why not beginnings of names then? Makes the choice too conscious?
Time Magazine in 1958: Blacks are 10% of the population in 1,551 cities but commit 60% of violent crime. Northern mayors consider this their biggest problem and are afraid to talk about it. Black leaders blame racist law enforcement.
Black problems didn’t start with LBJ.
Time in 1958: NAACP tries to get people not to talk about black crime. Many whites are uncomfortable about the subject, and newspapers go out of their way not to mention a crime suspect’s race.
Time: Many blame poverty, but poor immigrants don’t commit crime like blacks do.
Change a few words around and this whole thing could’ve been written today. The media wouldn’t publish it of course but nothing has changed in 66 years!
Since October 7, many of us have been asking how we can be better allies to Israel.
I explain that what Israel needs is not better PR, or "hasbara," but pushback on narratives that are hostile to civilization itself, which Israel represents. richardhanania.com/p/article-in-t…
Israel doesn't have an "optics" problem because the rest of the world hated Israel before this war, and one can see this in the obsessive focus on its flaws compared to everything else in global politics. The problem is with Israel's existence.
There are three pillars of anti-Israel hate
1) Anti-western sentiment 2) Third worldism 3) Classic antisemitism
Unfortunately for Israel, it's the one place where all these ideological orientations converge.
John Spencer, expert in urban warfare, explains to Sam Harris what was unique about the October 7 footage. First, Hamas members were absolutely euophoric as they were going off to rape and murder. As someone who has led men into battle, he tells us that “this is not normal”.
Most striking was the reaction to the sound of a young boy moaning to death. In a normal battlefield situation, even when there is an enemy combatant, there is usually an instinct to render aid. Here, a boy’s eyes were gone, his father just killed, and the Hamas fighter nonchalantly goes and grabs a beverage from the refrigerator.
This war has clarified so much for me. I keep talking about why Hamas is worse than Nazis, and the moral culpability of Palestinian civilians. People don’t like these opinions. They still remain true. If you have a position on this conflict other than “Israel keeps going until Hamas is destroyed” you have failed one of the great moral tests of our time.
Sam Harris on the overwhelming sadistic joy regular Palestinians felt at seeing Jewish mothers clutching their babies, and defiling the bodies of dead girls.
We simply refuse to face the truth about this culture.
Harris points out the obvious truth that there would be no appetite to parade Palestinian women around Tel Aviv.
Spencer: “Militaries are reflections of their societies.”
Few things about all this are more outrageous than people treating these two sides as morally equal.
First, to give one example of how states differ in policy, here's tax burden by state. It varies from less than 5% to 15.9% in New York. They also vary in regulation, minimum wage, strength of civil rights, unions, etc. Here's one map of economic freedom.
You might be suspicious that all these indexes are released by conservative orgs. But nothing stops liberals from coming up with their own rankings and showing how awesome Democrat states are doing. Except the facts. One side is probably doing all the measuring for a reason.