When did "progressives" become such hypocrites about women???

Something I noticed:

http://rationallia.typepad.com/voiceofreason/

any comments?

the article suggest these people hate women because they want to negotiate with the Taliban?

Would you agree with that?

Hate would be naive. No, they dont hate women. They just exhibit an extreme indifference towards their plight.

and the other organizations we're supporting in Afghanistan.

Doesn't that strike you as hypocritical? Or just naive?

Here's another one, isn't it a bit hypocritical to criticize calls for negotiation with the Taliban, while being unwilling to fight in Afghanistan themselves?

"Here's another one, isn't it a bit hypocritical to criticize calls for negotiation with the Taliban, while being unwilling to fight in Afghanistan themselves?"

no. Who isnt willing to fight there?

And no organization is as bad as the Taliban. The taliban are more ethically abhorrant than nazis. At least nazis got trains to run on time.

And I don't mean for the 82nd chairborne division.

"And no organization is as bad as the Taliban."

You do realize that most of the people we're dealing with in Afghanistan are Taliban, they just switched allegiances? And they've got the same views on women they had before?

But the taliban legislates those views with more ferocity.

It has not improved as much as it could have because the US insists on trying to build these countries straight into democracies and extremely oppressed uneducated people do not vote for full equality. In any case, it has improved slightly. Women can go back to hospitals and schools and the laws about sexual morality are somewhat less strict now. Still, negotiating with the Taliban serves no purpose. They hate the west. They will no matter what and they will harbor Al Quaeda and company. The US left them alone in the early 90s and that lead to 911.

If you led the Taliban and Bush said to you, either allow us to build oil and gas pipelines through your country or we will bomb you into the stone age, wouldn't you attack the United States?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm not planning on enlisting although I am not opposed to it. I may go to Afghanistan to do volunteer work though.

Do you want the US to invade other countries which don't allow abortion?

(Question directed to the Poster who started this thread.)

the description of the bloggerette is pretty accurate.

Very sexy indeed, if (like me) you appreciate the beauty of Indian women.

.

OK - well I already commented on your obvious "hotness" ...

As for the contents of your blog, I was interested to read your thoughts.

Like you, I am not religious. In fact I call myself an atheist.

But I don't have a problem with Christians practising their religion, as long as they respect democracy, obey the law, and don't try and impose their values on non-believers like me.

I also support the NATO forces in Afghanistan and I hope their/our mission is successful.

The 9-11 attacks can be traced back to the fundamentalist Taliban regime in Afghanistan. America and Britain and Holland and Italy are justified in promoting regime change that brings benefits for the people of Afghanistan. Benefits like providing schools for boys AND girls!

Welcome to Democratic Underground! I hope to see more of your posts on this Forum.

she's no lionesspriyanka, but then again what woman is??

calling progressives out on hypocrisy about women? Good one.

I swear these photogenic bimbettes of Wingnutteria are proliferating at a very rapid rate. Somebody should tell this one that Malkin has been doing the same schtick for years now.

where is my hypocrisy? In my blog name? Lol, that makes sense.

Her cherry-picking and false dichotomies are making my head spin. If I'm getting her straight: Progressives want the U.S. to fund abortions everywhere and Bush to say vagina and we're not true feminists because we don't think bombing the shit out of Middle East countries, who happen to treat their women poorly, is a good idea. What. The. Fuck. Ever. :eyes:

" If I'm getting her straight: Progressives want the U.S. to fund abortions everywhere and Bush to say vagina and we're not true feminists because we don't think bombing the shit out of Middle East countries, who happen to treat their women poorly, is a good idea. What. The. Fuck. Ever."

You're not getting it straight. And you havent supplied any argument anyways. What. The. Fuck. Ever is not an arugument of any substance.

Actually a very clever blogger coined a new term to describe the tactic you and your babealicious blogger icon are engaging in. She called it the fallacy of the unfought feminist cause. It goes something like this: Conservative anti-feminist troll chastises feminists for being concerned about their silly Western issues like equal pay, reproductive freedom, sexual harassment, etc., when Other Women In Africa Or Some Exotic Place Are Facing much Worse Problems! And why are we so selfish not to think of them!

It's a tiresome and transparent ploy and it's predicated on 2 false assumptions:

1. That feminist progressives are incapable of multi-tasking and prioritizing. That is, we can't possibly think about more than one thing at a time and be working simultaneously on several issues, large and small.

2. The very racist and patronizing notion that women in the Third World are incapable of forming their own movements and need white women to come in and tell them what to do. There were very active international feminist organizations operating in Afghanistan and other countries LONG before suddenly "feminist" Neo Cons like you and your bloggerette buddy deigned to notice.

As a western woman, I see my role as helping feminists in other parts of the world in any way they ASK of me (money or writing letters, usually) and concentrating my other energies on the culture I know best. It's really not that hard of a concept to grasp if you put your mind to it, kaffiria.

Now run along and get your pat on the ass by Sean Hannity...

"1. That feminist progressives are incapable of multi-tasking and prioritizing. That is, we can't possibly think about more than one thing at a time and be working simultaneously on several issues, large and small.
"

The issue isnt can't. The issue is that some of them refuse to do so in a just manner.

"2. The very racist and patronizing notion that women in the Third World are incapable of forming their own movements and need white women to come in and tell them what to do. There were very active international feminist organizations operating in Afghanistan and other countries LONG before suddenly "feminist" Neo Cons like you and your bloggerette buddy deigned to notice. "

Racist? I promise you that no women of any race can form a movement if they live under taliban rule.

"As a western woman, I see my role as helping feminists in other parts of the world in any way they ASK of me (money or writing letters, usually) and concentrating my other energies on the culture I know best. It's really not that hard of a concept to grasp if you put your mind to it, kaffiria.
"

Well, that news organization highlighted international women's day and touted a bunch of interest in international women's welfare. Pretty hypocritical to smash bush for not funding abortions in Africa and then smash the govt for not negotiating with the Taleban.

I don't get your point. Are you saying progressives and feminists should be all rah-rah about refusal to negotiate and military aggression? Because war ALWAYS makes life better for women, right?

I still don't see the comparison between Bush and funding reproductive health measures (of which abortion is a very small part BTW) and negotiating with the Taliban. Apples and oranges. And now that I realize that you are the blogger to which you link, I'll just tell you that if you think that hitching yourself to the Neo Cons and repeating their propaganda is a good idea and helpful to women, you are mistaken. Look at the women in Iraq and ask yourself if they are doing better now under the new Islamist rule. Weren't we supposed to be liberating them by invading? Are the women in Afghanistan much better off since we invaded if at all?

And as another poster pointed out, you look pretty young and healthy. When are YOU going to enlist?

"I still don't see the comparison between Bush and funding reproductive health measures (of which abortion is a very small part BTW) and negotiating with the Taliban. Apples and oranges. And now that I realize that you are the blogger to which you link, I'll just tell you that if you think that hitching yourself to the Neo Cons and repeating their propaganda is a good idea and helpful to women, you are mistaken. Look at the women in Iraq and ask yourself if they are doing better now under the new Islamist rule. Weren't we supposed to be liberating them by invading? Are the women in Afghanistan much better off since we invaded if at all?"

Comparing Iraq to Afghanistan makes no sense. Iraq was ruled under a secular dictator under Saddam. Afghanistan was ruled by the world's most Islamist regime that really should have been removed with military force before 911 ever happened. The UN supposedly has an international law that prohibits genocide and the like- it's just not enforced very often. The women in afghanistan are indeed better off now and will continue to improve if the US does not negotiate with the Taliban under this false idea that there is a meaningful difference between the taliban and Al Quaeda or that there is such a thing as a moderate taliban. There is not.

Where you go astray is in thinking that the neo-cons are going to solve it. Sorry, but you picked the wrong bunch to pin your hopes on.

Progressives opposed to war in Afghanistan are a very small minority within the progressive camp.

Conservatives who don't give a shit about the women of Afghanistan are a very large majority within the conservative camp.

Fact: before 9/11 several international groups tried pressuring the United States and other countries of the world to intervene in Afghanistan.

Fact: 100% of those organizations were progressive, not conservative, organizations.


You also complain on your blog about some people attacking the Christian Right more than they attack the Islamic Right since the Islamic Right is far worse than the Christian Right. You are doing the same thing here, attacking progressives for sometimes disagreeing with you while ignoring the conservatives who always disagree with you.

were you being so disingenuous--as though this were somebody else's blog that you just happened to run across?

nice try.

We arent allowed to link to our webpages? I dont know how I implied that this wasnt my website.

is YOUR website. and some of the responses indicated that the posters did not realize it was YOUR website.

whatever your purpose is here, at least be honest and upfront about it.

your website, even though it would be normal to say that it is your website if you make a post that refers to your own website.

A size 0 with natural D-cups!

And to think I almost doubted your credibility.

Which leads me to believe she also fancies herself a Libertarian.

did not come from her website.

Please tell me she isn't THAT shallow.

I think she'll be most welcome here at DU and will get plenty of hits for her website from DUers.

I better put this :sarcasm: up so she gets it!

I wanted to scroll down to see what "Interests" she listed. Strangely I found none! Can one truly be interesting if one has no interests of their own?

She doesn't tell the truth about what's in the article or what progressives stand for.

that they were all written by different people with I presume different agendas and different concerns at the moment they wrote those articles.

My point being that the feminist movement is NOT monolithic. The writer seems to suggest that because different people (all-be-it on the same website) come to different conclusions and write about a variety of subjects with, I presume, the intent of advancing an idea and having it discussed then the movement is somehow hypocritical. An entire movement is becoming or is hypocritical because people disagree, interesting notion.

I'd suggest that this implies a certain kind of mental gymnastics common for those used to dealing in group think. Dare I even suggest that conservatives tend to think in this way?

Loooooooong before 9/11 several international organizations in this country were pushing for intervention in Afghanistan. Each and every one of those organizations would be classified as progressive. And the United States probably would probably have listened to us if the Conservative Rightists in this country hadn't been more interested in gaining personally power via Bill Clinton's penis.


That being said, pacifists are also welcome in the Democratic Party. They don't set the agenda (far from it; Iraq is the first major US war NOT started by a Democrat). But we do not mistake their unwillingness to fight someone for support of that someone. Conservatives do. Which is why you see pacifists in the Progressive camp, and not in the Conservative one.

On your blog you state that you, "have two major concerns for society that take precedence over other social interests". The pacifist also has one major concern that takes precedence over all others. Their one major concern is to oppose war. Many pacifists do not believe any war is just. Others, who do believe there is such a thing as a just war, are sometimes too zealous to see the justification when it first arises (e.g. the Taliban).

But they still represent a very small minority within the Progressive community.

It seems so obvious yet it's easily forgotten, especially now. I know I would have supported an intervention against the Taliban in the late '90s, even if it required military strikes. I believed, and I still do, that severe violations of human rights warrant such action and the Taliban definitely fits that bill.

But call me a pacifist now because I don't trust those evil greedy bloodsucking incompetent neo-con bastards to be dog catchers, much less anything more demanding. Everything they do makes things WORSE for women, not better. I say we get them out of power as soon as humanly possible and THEN deal with the Taliban and all the other issues.

Tell ya what .... while I read that RW blog, let me show you what's in my Amway sample case.

Okay?

Deal?

Flamebait that has produced flames.

mvd
DU Moderator