å May 2017

The United States feminist organization discourse on humanitarian and human rights in Taliban clearly secured women’s safety. At the same time, the U.S. encompassed an oil deal with the Taliban. Obviously, the political relations between the two countries unveiled a significant emergence toward obtaining power. Both the U.S and the Taliban complicity concealed a relationship. This brings to my mind, suspicion. The development of a major capitalist project. The two countries were arranging a relationship that would have had a long history of interaction. An oil pipeline in Taliban. The shock to the conscience is in one setting the U.S. is approaching the Taliban with a negotiated deal yet on another setting the U.S. is systematically struggling for human rights and dignity for woman. What hypocrisy! The feminist organizations continuously advocated to protect the women. They fought vehemently for human rights for women. They persistently advocated for women’s freedom. This support for women occurred in multiple fashions. In accordance to Lila Abu-Lughod in Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? “She stated, [although we struggled for women to thrive and live decently] we must accept the possibility of difference…Taliban women might want different things than what we might want for them”. In other words, the U.S cannot always expect to shape the ideas of oppressed women. We cannot totally disrupt a culture and moral principle because the Western organizations considered themselves rescuers. America cannot ideally reshape Taliban women’s identity in exchange for a women’s freedom. The U.S closely linked Taliban women’s independence to stripping away the Burgas. They portrayed the unveiling of women as symbolic to autonomy. They described the Taliban culture as an alien culture.  The U.S deemed themselves as the savior for Taliban women. Their discourse was extremely bias. Now I do not critique the feminist campaigns that was truly instrumental in bringing awareness to the suffering of Taliban women. Although some organizations successfully empowered many Taliban women they were unsuccessful in transforming all women through their intellectual dialogue.  I find it questionable any women would have separated from their culture and moral principles. The deep-rooted interrelationship among Taliban women, men, family and religion not to mention culture and moral principle was interlaced. The U.S. attitude and behavior echoed a broader message. The created a reshaping in 11the women’s values. For instance, to remove the Burgas from Taliban women was symbolic in removing any memory of their past. Also, the Burgas represented importance in a women’s life. The disruption in the Taliban’s cultural and moral principle was troublesome. So, America’s intrusion in Taliban life quickly proved an inception of colonization which was not what Taliban women desired.

Reading Lila Abu-Lughod’s essay, “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others”, I was immediately reminded of both Grewel and Brown’s work that we’ve previously studied in class. Grewel because she speaks to feminists of the developed world looking at those in developing countries in need of saving (effectively pushing the notion of victimhood on the women) and Brown as she outlines how humanitarian issues can be used to further imperialist (and capitalist) agendas.

Abu-Lughod notes that by focusing on cultural differences, particularly as it relates to women (like the veil), allows us to avoid discussions on the political and historical reasons that may have led to extremism and terrorism. It also works to further a concept of ‘otherness’, rather than allowing us to find a common thread that unites us as human beings.

Abu-Lughod focuses on a speech made by Laura Bush while she was first lady, and while the Bush administration was invading Afghanistan in response to the September 11^th attacks. Bush’s speech worked to further the cultural divide mentioned above, focusing on nail polish and clothing (although to be fair, also employment and education) rather than extreme poverty and malnutrition. Abu-Lughod notes that Bush’s speech was reminiscent of colonial excuses for imposing rule, with colonial powers using cultural differences that were deemed barbaric (and in some cases may well have been…however the solution was not rule by a foreign power) as excuse for rule, to save the women from the men in the countries being colonized. Specifically referring to the calls to liberate Egyptian women from the veil, Abu-Lughod noted that the calls for liberating women had nothing to do with their political access, only their clothing (never mind that women’s access in the UK was also limited). It is important to note that Bush also conflated the ‘war on terrorism’ as a fight for human rights, women’s rights in particular. Abu-Lughod refers to the above as ‘colonial feminism’.

Also noteworthy is that while the veil is a symbol of repression in western states, that is not necessarily the case. As Abu-Lughod notes, members of a community dress in a way to adhere to the standards and morals within that community, using Hasid woman and even proper wedding attire as examples. Furthermore, veiling should not be confused with a lack of agency. We must not equate the wearing of a veil as suppression as many women freely chose to wear a form of the veil in an effort to honor their religion and their community morals. The definition of freedom should include the option of wearing a veil without being looked at as oppressed (one of the many reasons that France’s ban of the veil is problematic). We must not also reduce Muslim women, or any women for that matter, to their clothing.

Abu-Lughod is careful to say that the above does not mean she supports oppressive regimes like the Taliban. However, she is stressing that we cannot confuse true feminist human rights work with the ‘colonial feminism’ of administrations the George W Bush’s.