EschatonIf We Cared About The Women And Children Of The World: It would be far better to spend $100 billion per year granting them political asylum and paying for their transport and relocation to the US than invading their countries and caressing them with our freedom bombs.
Or you could come up thousands of other ways to spend $100 billion all of which would be almost infinitely better than invading their countries and caressing them with our freedom bombs if we cared about the women and children of the world.
So when an asshole like Rick Stengel suggests we must stay in Afghanistan otherwise more girls will be mutilated even though we’re currently in Afghanistan and poor girls are still being tragically mutilated, I don’t think that’s the real reason he thinks we should be there.
Sacrificing Women for Peace / What’s Shocking?: The Cover of TIME Magazine
Yes, of course, sacrifices will have to be made. By whom? Women’s rights = “some concessions”? Being realistic means that we should we realistically get over the fact that women’s rights in Afghanistan are expendable if the issue of their rights gets in the way of us getting out of there?
Now, I am not advocating that we stay in Afghanistan forever. I’m not even saying that we should stay in Afghanistan through the end of the year. But I am advocating that whatever deal gets struck to bring this fucked up war to an end, I hope that women are part of that conversation and actually have a voice backed up by some sort of protection. I doubt it, though. I am (sadly) rather confident that they will be sacrificed, that “peace” will be trafficked through them instead of for them. There’s a long history of that all over the world.
