> I am confused. I have seen no evidence of people clamoring to be human shields to protect women’s rights in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

That’s the point. There’s no shortage of women willing to be human shields in other cases. Yet, when it comes to actually protecting women from real abuse, human shields are no where to be found.

Instead, we have “women’s rights” organizations arguing that it’s wrong for outsiders to interfere, citing reasons that they reject in other circumstances.

Why do “women’s rights” organizations treat those women’s rights differently?

“There’s no shortage of mothers wanting to be human shields in other cases, so why is that question relevant here?”

I am confused. I have seen no evidence of people clamoring to be human shields to protect women’s rights in Afghanistan or Pakistan. … maybe in other countries?

These are unpleasant places for a westerner to live. There is a good reason it has been referred to as the diarrhea zone. There are lots of unpleasant diseases and parasites that come with living in these lands. These western women would also be attractive targets for bandits, the Taliban and Al Qaeda even if they were not defending women’s rights.

I agree with you about the barbaric “family decisions”. But it appeared to me that only by being a guest in these lands could they gain some local sympathy, avoid being assaulted for being outsiders and possibly avoid being martyred.

Guns are very common in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are used to defend the local version of family honor, but not ours.

And I think radical feminists have been stung by accusations that they’re missing in action when it comes to the sorts of horrors radical Islam visits on women.

This is just one of what’s probably any number of rationalizations to explain that absence. A Darwinian process of selection will determine which rationalization best defends the indifference of radical feminists to the plight of women in radical Islamic nations and that’s what lefties will go with.

Better a shabby, threadbare excuse then the admission that the vast bulk of radical feminists prefer to put their courage on display where it isn’t likely to be needed.

There’s no shortage of mothers wanting to be human shields in other cases, so why is that question relevant here?

> Interfering with a family decision would not be the behavior of a guest.

Female genital mutilation is a family decision. As is bride-burning.

I note, that this respect for “family decision” doesn’t extend to the US, at least not with respect to abortion.

Is it the skin color, the distance, or the “active” opposition that is actually the relevant difference.

Defensive clothing and armaments are not a defense or even intimidating unless you can demonstrate the abilty to use them effectively.

There is no practical right to education in Afghanistan for anyone. I do not think universal public education exists in Pakistan either.

Do you think a mother’s march of infidel foreigners would deter these men? My limited understanding of the local culture allows the men to kill and steal from those outside of their family and tribe. The only restrictions come from the customs of hospitality, your own ability to protect yourself, the possibility of retaliation or disobeying a tribal or family elder. Interfering with a family decision would not be the behavior of a guest.

Maybe it would be better to send Muslim Clerics to preach women’s rights. I do not know how they would be received.

And I’ve always relished General Napier’s commentary.

Well said, Catherine. In general, feminists don’t care about women. They care about power.