I really wanted to post this week's NY Times article on a women's protest against the new Afghan law that would force the country's Shiite women to have sex with their husband whether they want to or not (i.e. marital rape), to acquire the permission of their husband in order to go to work or school, and--ironically enough in a "devout" Muslim society--to dress up and use make-up if that is what their husband demands. President Karzai was most likely thinking about his chances for re-election when he signed in the law, and clearly there are plenty of Shiite men who are willing to make a fuss about this sort of thing, if the counter-protest in this article is any indication. Naturally the West has been putting considerable pressure on Karzai to re-consider his move.
And yet, what struck me as particularly interesting in the article was this quote by a local cleric: "We Afghans don't want a bunch of NATO commanders and foreign commanders telling us what to do."
Normally I am willing to blame Western greed, incompetence, and all-around meddling for a vast array of problems in the Middle East. But it took me a while to figure out if I really bought the argument that the law is a reaction to heavy-handed Western interference in the region. I can see how the prolonged presence of Western troops could cause offense, raising feelings of nationalism or, in a country as ethnically diverse as Afghanistan, enflaming religious sentiments. But is that really reason enough to demand that women become this politically, economically, and sexually subservient to men? The real explanation is a bit more complex in my view.
I would hypothesize that patriarchal attitudes and the ill treatment of women is usually tied to the amount of "life control" that a man has in a given society. In Afghanistan, where poverty is rampant and there are few opportunities for advancement into "respectable" professions, it is difficult for a man to occupy a position of power and esteem (40% of the population was unemployed in 2008 according to the CIA Factbook). Furthermore, it is hard for him to feel in control of his own life and property when access to clean water is limited, electricity is on the fritz, violence and corruption are everywhere. This recent Washington Times article argues that since the fall of the Taliban, the rule of law has disintegrated in Afghanistan as warlords take control and police have found it more profitable to shake down innocent citizens than enforce the law. Given this climate of insecurity, the average Afghan man may feel that it is only in his family relations that he can fulfill his urge to be "master" and Western culture and its advocacy of female liberation is, in his mind, an attack on this last vestige of his authority. If Western superpowers are guilty in anything here, it is in impoverishing the Afghan nation through invasion, which has led to destruction of property and life, the disruption of economic and political stability, and the rise of a black market economy that surely encourages steep social hierarchies.
I find this explanation for the divide on women's rights more convincing than any religious justifications that Afghan men might give (when did Allah ever concern himself with make-up? what about the fact that the top Shiite cleric in Afghanistan is opposed to the law?) or any "clash of civilizations" that Western politicians might propose (doesn't the West also have a long history of mistreating women?). I do not think there is a fundamentally unbridgeable cultural or moral gap between the two sides--I think it is merely a reaction to poverty, insecurity, and power imbalances. But if someone disagrees with me, or has other thoughts to add, please do...
