The mayor of Kabul will remain in power under the Taliban, he told RT, explaining how the Islamic fundamentalist group was able to so easily retake the country and what will now happen to the country's women.
It is the logical conclusion of the strategy you propose, imho.
“Before there can be emancipation, they need peace.”
See:
Taliban are at an asymmetrical warfare against women. Women can either fight for emaciation or surrender. Taking an opposing position towards an enemy that targets you by asymmetrical warfare is contrary to peace. You suggest that peace must come before emaciation.
That can only mean, women should surrender to the Taliban.
What about “you can fight for emancipation during a war” do you not understand?
Your are taking those words out of context, because you actually argue for true emancipation you need peace first, and that is nothing but “women rights after the revolution”.
Emancipation is not a mystical end goal, it is a process that takes place whenever someone fights for emancipation. So yes, real emancipation does happen within war too.
How do you believe emancipation within revolutionary situations are going to happen?
Definitely not by peace and somewhen after the revolution but by building solidarity and power.
Why do you always assume some hidden anti-emancipatory agenda?
I don’t. It’s not hidden. It’s just that you seem to not understand the implications of:
Before there can be emancipation, they need peace.
By your logic emancipation happens now under the Taliban too, because somewhere someone is probably still fighting for it under Taliban rule.
This is misleading. If Taliban forces women to obey to sharia law based on Taliban definition, but women stand up and manage to build enough power to emancipate themselves from that rule, yes of course that is emaciation. But that emancipation did not occur because of the Taliban, but because of those that organized resistance against their hegemony.
It is the logical conclusion of the strategy you propose, imho.
See: Taliban are at an asymmetrical warfare against women. Women can either fight for emaciation or surrender. Taking an opposing position towards an enemy that targets you by asymmetrical warfare is contrary to peace. You suggest that peace must come before emaciation. That can only mean, women should surrender to the Taliban.
If you mean something else, please explain.
deleted by creator
Every women that picked up a gun to defend themselves and to defend their sisters is a counter argument to your “women rights after the revolution”
deleted by creator
Your are taking those words out of context, because you actually argue for true emancipation you need peace first, and that is nothing but “women rights after the revolution”.
Emancipation is not a mystical end goal, it is a process that takes place whenever someone fights for emancipation. So yes, real emancipation does happen within war too.
How do you believe emancipation within revolutionary situations are going to happen? Definitely not by peace and somewhen after the revolution but by building solidarity and power.
I don’t. It’s not hidden. It’s just that you seem to not understand the implications of:
deleted by creator
This is misleading. If Taliban forces women to obey to sharia law based on Taliban definition, but women stand up and manage to build enough power to emancipate themselves from that rule, yes of course that is emaciation. But that emancipation did not occur because of the Taliban, but because of those that organized resistance against their hegemony.
And you are dismissing the power of women liberation by arguing:
And yes, this is anti-participatory rhetoric.