> At 04:49 PM 11/30/01 -0500, Seth Ackerman wrote:
> >I get the sense there are layers of sarcasm I might be missing here,
> >but...the story about the would-be sodomizers is in Ahmed Rashid's book
> >Taliban. The NA's bloody history is common knowledge, Amnesty
> >International wrote about it.
>
> i'm familiar. i was specifically asking about why history would determine
> the future unless you had a reason outside history/the social to explain
> their cultural practices.
>
> we've been discussing how absolutely imperative it is that we recognize
> that, with regard to US feminisms focus on the wretched veil, the
discourse
> is one in which the role of the US in creating the conditions under which
> afghanistan women live is erased. as spivak argues, focusing on the horrid
> practices of third worlders is a political football for Western
> intellectuals/activists.
>
> now, whether or not you've adequately foregrounded your recognition of the
> US role in this situation doesn't matter to me here. indeed, i know
better.
> even so, that you've redeemed yourself in this regard makes the criticism
> no less valid. the discourse _uses_ barbarianism of third worlders to
score
> points on your opponent in a debate: a political football.
>
> none of this means that we can't make judgments on regimes as worse or
> better than another, that we must slip into cultural relatvism.
>
> i suppose it wouldn't irritate so badly if i genuinely felt like men on
> this list really cared about women's oppression in general, if i such
> concern for these issues right here in our own backyard. but i truly see
> very little understanding.
>
> for instance, rape occurs in the US. we have research that shows that an
a
> good percentage of 12-14 year old boys think that if you take a girl to
> dinner she should put out and if she doesn't you're entitled to get some
> any way. and, not surprisingly, this list allowed someone to complain,
> without comment, that he was cranky because he girlfriend was "slow".
>
> excuse me? is there some sort of gauage in which one is "slow" or "fast"
or
> "just right" goldilocks? and, one can legitimate one's crankiness because
> you're not getting sex. i mean, i heard that one when i was fourteen. we
> called it blue balls. the message is clear to a young woman: feel sorry
> for him or be afraid of his wrath or just plain crankiness or put out so
> one can just avoid the battle, whether or not one actually desired to have
> sex.
>
> so, when Left men start working on these issues in their back yard, i'll
> start seeing the discourse deployed about the barbarian, raping Northern
> Alliance as truly sincere.
Huh. You cover a lot of ground here.
If I could indulge in a little empiricism for a second, I would point out that the story about the warlords' near-rape was apocryphal. It was invented by Afghans - not by western male leftists - to lament the brutal character of Northern Alliance rule. I'm not sure what your purpose is here - is it to stop people from talking about rape in Afghanistan because that might be "using Third World barbarism to score points"?
You fear that Left men aren't being sincere when they talk about rape in Afghanistan, since we have our own rape problem in the USA. But this discussion is taking place as our own Air Force is deciding the political future of Afghanistan. If our government's actions produce more rape in Afghanistan, then that's *our* problem too, no? Morally speaking, at least. I would even say we have a responsibility to talk about it. Why should we drop the subject?
Also, I missed it when the guy said he was cranky because he wasn't getting laid. People shouldn't be so cranky, really.
Seth