Originally posted by jaden101
Her political beliefs were to increase the role of women in politics and in life in general in Pakistan...So they're related.
Originally posted by backdoorman
I don't think Benazir Bhutto's death had very much to do with her policies on women. Besides, her accomplishments on those issues leave very much to be desired (and very much to be expected from a woman).
If that's true, that would explain why I didn't know very much about her Pro-women policies getting her killed. I can't recall any media claiming she was killed partially due to her pro-female policies.
Also, could someone explain to me the cognative deficiency, relative the males, that females lack that make them obviously the lesser gender of our species'? I'd really like to know. (Yes, I'm being facetious.)
Originally posted by dadudemon
If that's true, that would explain why I didn't know very much about her Pro-women policies getting her killed. I can't recall any media claiming she was killed partially due to her pro-female policies.
in afghanistan, teachers are killed and school girls have acid thrown at them.
If Bhutto was in favor of educating girls, it is likely that was at least something those who killed her didn't like that. This is a place where saying women should have basic rights is being "pro-woman"
Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, could someone explain to me the cognative deficiency, relative the males, that females lack that make them obviously the lesser gender of our species'? I'd really like to know. (Yes, I'm being facetious.)
they reproduce and apparently capitalism makes us want to control them much like the bourgeois control the means of production instead of the proletariat.
Originally posted by inimalist
in afghanistan, teachers are killed and school girls have acid thrown at them.If Bhutto was in favor of educating girls, it is likely that was at least something those who killed her didn't like that. This is a place where saying women should have basic rights is being "pro-woman"
Originally posted by inimalist
in afghanistan, teachers are killed and school girls have acid thrown at them.If Bhutto was in favor of educating girls, it is likely that was at least something those who killed her didn't like that. This is a place where saying women should have basic rights is being "pro-woman"
Indeed, I've "heard' (read) about the acid thing and education. However, I still haven't seen anything about her death being related to "pro-women". I thought it was poltical/religious...exluding gender.
Originally posted by inimalist
they reproduce and apparently capitalism makes us want to control them much like the bourgeois control the means of production instead of the proletariat.
LOL. Crotch throttles, so to speak.
Originally posted by backdoorman
Though it's not absolutely clear who it was that killed her, it seems to be the consensus that it was members of a Pakistani organization with Taliban and Al-Qaeda ties. And the animosity between the Pakistani government and those groups do not culminate in women's rights. If you ask me, their main drive was anti-government sentiments and the fact that they saw her as a corrupt puppet of the West.
She was no more a puppet of the west than the government before and after her and they haven't had assassination attempts.
So it has very much to do with her both being a woman and her policies for women...not solely that...but including it.
Originally posted by jaden101
So it has very much to do with her both being a woman and her policies for women...not solely that...but including it.
I'd say this sums up what I was saying
No Jihadi group or individual is going to have to think hard to come up with reasons to be against Bhutto. There is almost no chance they would have supported her stance on the education of girls, and for people in this part of the world, the stance of women in society and in kin groups is of the highest importance.
She was no more a puppet of the west than the government before and after her and they haven't had assassination attempts.So it has very much to do with her both being a woman and her policies for women...not solely that...but including it.
Originally posted by backdoorman
From what I understand her image was considerably seen as more pro-West than say, that of her father's or other past prime ministers. But assassination attempts are not something so very rare reserved for the wickedest of all - women.
Musharraf was also the subject to attempted murders. Those Islamic fundamentalism groups are practically at war with the government. You can keep saying it was about her being a she, and her supposed extremely pro-women politics, but it just doesn't seem to be the case given what is known about the suspects.
The idea that the sole reason Bhutto was killed was because of her gender or policies regarding women is a straw-man.
Gender roles and patriarchy are of intense importance to people living in South Asia (not to just generalize). I don't think anyone is saying she wouldn't have been assassinated either way (though Jaden makes a good point about Musharaf not being assassinated), just that her policies regarding women and her gender weren't helping the way these extremists would have viewed her.
Throughout india, it is not uncommon for women to face persecution for simply attempting to gain power or not be subordinate to partiarchical bonds. This is a very important part of the culture, especially to old male patriarchs. Yes, the tribal leaders in NW Pakistan, SE Afghanistan would be against the Pakistani gvt anyways. That the figurehead of that government was a woman would not make them any happier, and that she was trying to break down their patriarchal structure to society would certainly challenge them.
Originally posted by inimalist
The idea that the sole reason Bhutto was killed was because of her gender or policies regarding women is a straw-man.Gender roles and patriarchy are of intense importance to people living in South Asia (not to just generalize). I don't think anyone is saying she wouldn't have been assassinated either way (though Jaden makes a good point about Musharaf not being assassinated), just that her policies regarding women and her gender weren't helping the way these extremists would have viewed her.
Throughout india, it is not uncommon for women to face persecution for simply attempting to gain power or not be subordinate to partiarchical bonds. This is a very important part of the culture, especially to old male patriarchs. Yes, the tribal leaders in NW Pakistan, SE Afghanistan would be against the Pakistani gvt anyways. That the figurehead of that government was a woman would not make them any happier, and that she was trying to break down their patriarchal structure to society would certainly challenge them.
given the nature of these things, I'd imagine one would be hard pressed to nail down very many things which everyone would agree was an absolute motivating factor of her assassination, with the exception of the fact that she opposed implementing Sharia law.
Hell, an easy argument for Nationalistic motivations exists, as the tribal regions have for decades been fighting for political autonomy, and the Federal government of Pakistan has used "terrorism" as an excuse to put it troops, if reluctantly, into NW Pakistan.
My thoughts are that her being a woman played some role, just given the culture of South Asian countries.
Originally posted by inimalist
given the nature of these things, I'd imagine one would be hard pressed to nail down very many things which everyone would agree was an absolute motivating factor of her assassination, with the exception of the fact that she opposed implementing Sharia law.Hell, an easy argument for Nationalistic motivations exists, as the tribal regions have for decades been fighting for political autonomy, and the Federal government of Pakistan has used "terrorism" as an excuse to put it troops, if reluctantly, into NW Pakistan.
My thoughts are that her being a woman played some role, just given the culture of South Asian countries.
Originally posted by backdoorman
From what I understand her image was considerably seen as more pro-West than say, that of her father's or other past prime ministers. But assassination attempts are not something so very rare reserved for the wickedest of all - women.
Musharraf was also the subject to attempted murders. Those Islamic fundamentalism groups are practically at war with the government. You can keep saying it was about her being a she, and her supposed extremely pro-women politics, but it just doesn't seem to be the case given what is known about the suspects.
It was only in the last years of her life that she took an anti-taliban stance. Her policies previously were that she thought they were a stabalizing influence in Afghanistan and even provided financial and military support for them.
If you'd actually read what i wrote i never said that it was merely because she was a woman that she was assassinated. I said it was partially that, partially her policies on women and partially her links to the west. You insinuation otherwise is a lie.
It was only in the last years of her life that she took an anti-taliban stance. Her policies previously were that she thought they were a stabalizing influence in Afghanistan and even provided financial and military support for them.
If you'd actually read what i wrote i never said that it was merely because she was a woman that she was assassinated. I said it was partially that, partially her policies on women and partially her links to the west. You insinuation otherwise is a lie.
Originally posted by backdoorman
You do realize Bhutto governed Pakistan in the early to mid nineties, right? It wasn't just her that though the Taliban might help stabilize Afghanistan, the US and other Western countries thought that as well. And anyway, I don't see what your point is, she might have turned anti-Taliban in the later years of her life but that coincides with her assassination, so what are you saying?" You only have to look at Pakistan and Benazir Bhutto to see the effect that even 1 woman in power can have on those who oppose that idea." "Her political beliefs were to increase the role of women in politics and in life in general in Pakistan...So they're related."
I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm simply saying that I don't see any reason to believe her gender played a decisive role in her assassination.
1: Obviously i do, otherwise i wouldn't have referrenced it.
2: Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't the case. the Taliban and Al-Qaeda's stance towards women is well known. Her stance on women in the muslim world is well known. Her other policies weren't massively different from her predecessors or since.
here's an article on it.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22995050-7583,00.html
Originally posted by jaden101
2: Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't the case. the Taliban and Al-Qaeda's stance towards women is well known. Her stance on women in the muslim world is well known. Her other policies weren't massively different from her predecessors or since.here's an article on it.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22995050-7583,00.html
That's the evidence I was looking for. You've convinced me.
However, I still don't remember seeing anything on CNN, Fox, ABC, NBC, or hearing it on NPR that she was assisnated because of her gender and roles she wanted for women.
The only real statement given out by those who claimed her assassination said it was because of pro western policies and her westerization of Pakistan...Which, given that a huge part of that was her policies on women in regards to education and other areas then and given that a big part of that stemmed from her being a woman then it's all related.
Originally posted by jaden101
The only real statement given out by those who claimed her assassination said it was because of pro western policies and her westerization of Pakistan...Which, given that a huge part of that was her policies on women in regards to education and other areas then and given that a big part of that stemmed from her being a woman then it's all related.
So, you're saying
a=b
b=c
a=c
?
I agree. The article, and even references to her book indicate that she was getting heat from her western polices concerning women. Just as you've said, though, it wasn't solely the reason.
Originally posted by dadudemon
So, you're sayinga=b
b=c
a=c
?
I agree. The article, and even references to her book indicate that she was getting heat from her western polices concerning women. Just as you've said, though, it wasn't solely the reason.
That's over simplifying it a bit. I'm saying that if she wasn't a woman she most likely wouldn't have been implementing the policies that her assassins wanted her dead for.
Given that her policies on relations with the west and those on combating the taliban aren't really different from her male counterparts then it leaves her policies on women the major difference.
Originally posted by jaden101
That's over simplifying it a bit.
K
(Where A and B are both negative or both positive)
AB=F
A/B=E
B^2=C
聛茫C=A or -A
Therefore,
F/A=B
C=F
A=B
E=1
And
D= 聛茫-1
AHA!
馃槅
Originally posted by jaden101
I'm saying that if she wasn't a woman she most likely wouldn't have been implementing the policies that her assassins wanted her dead for.Given that her policies on relations with the west and those on combating the taliban aren't really different from her male counterparts then it leaves her policies on women the major difference.
I would really like to see more gender "equality" in the muslim community. (America still isn't righted...however, we are getting closer with that new bill Obama signed.)
Edit- HEY!!!! The squareroot symbol won't work on these boards! 馃槧 馃槧