Ontopic Afghani Policewomen

ZRH

(retired?) Google-F.U.
Mar 5, 2005
26,474
1,937
673
<3
Marklar
₥20,400
The image of Afghan women wearing police and army uniforms is meant to inspire pride and hope for a future where the rights of women will be protected in Afghanistan.

So why would female police officers in the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif be ashamed to admit they wear the badge?

"Except my very close family members, no one really knows that I am a police officer," said one woman at a NATO training session.

The woman, who asked not to give her name, says she tells most of her family that she works with a foreign aid organization. That's because the rumors about sexual abuse in Mazar-e-Sharif's police force are so widespread that many of these women are ashamed to say they're cops.

Profound Inequality

Protection of women's rights in Afghanistan remains a focal point for the West — and American officials regularly tout the fact that the Afghan security forces now include hundreds of women. In northern Afghanistan alone, about 300 women are serving in the police force.

But in a culture that is not fully comfortable with women working outside the home, these women face significant risks. An NPR investigation in the city discovered disturbing allegations of systematic sexual coercion and even rape of female police officers by their male colleagues.

The women at the recent training session at a huge base outside Mazar-e-Sharif hardly looked like victims as they assembled and loaded assault rifles. But none dared to give their names as they alluded to what is an open secret in the city.

"Some women are being promoted only if they agree to give sexual favors," said one female officer.

Most of the female police have many children, and most are poor. Though they say they'd like to serve their country, just as many say they joined the police because the pay — about $300 a month — is better than working as a maid or a teacher. The threat of job loss is a powerful one.

None of the policewomen on the training course — which consisted of a mix of men and women — would admit to being victims of sexual coercion.

Shocking Stories Of Rape

But privately, several told of terrifying experiences. The women agreed to speak on the condition that their names be withheld, and the only place they felt safe enough to talk with a reporter was in a car moving around the city.

"It's a fact. Women in the police are being used for sex and as prostitutes," said Ann — not her real name — who is in her mid-30s.

"It's happened to me. Male cops ask for sex openly because they think women join the police just to work as prostitutes," she said.

In Afghanistan, even in modern cities like Mazar-e-Sharif or Kabul, the capital, a wide array of supposedly "immoral" conduct can get a woman called a prostitute. Anything from wearing the wrong clothes to sitting in the front seat of a car, or simply working outside the home can cause dangerous rumors.

The law reflects that. With sexual assault, the woman is as often sent to jail as the man, the assumption being that any woman who puts herself in a situation to be vulnerable to rape must be immoral.

That seems to apply even to police officers: Women interviewed for this story said that if cases of rape are exposed, the woman always gets the blame.

Ann says that's why she never reported the worst attack.

She says on one occasion her house was invaded by a group of men who stayed all night, raping her in front of her small children. Ann, who is married, recognized some of them as police. She didn't report the incident for fear of public disgrace, and because she believes the police chief already knew.

A second woman in her mid-30s, Jane — also not her real name — says she was also raped by her superiors on the force after the threat of losing her job — the only income supporting her several children.
Afghan female cadets attend their graduation ceremony at the Military Training Center in Kabul, the Afghan capital, May 19. Some women say they joined the security forces in order to serve their country, but many say it's because the pay is better than working as a maid or teacher.

Afghan female cadets attend their graduation ceremony at the Military Training Center in Kabul, the Afghan capital, May 19. Some women say they joined the security forces in order to serve their country, but many say it's because the pay is better than working as a maid or teacher.

"Put it this way: If there is a young woman, and she wants to remain in her post, she accepts being used this way," said Jane.

A Type Of Sexual 'Trafficking'

The women say abuse is widespread across Mazar-e-Sharif's police force and that female officers are practically "trafficked" when they are transferred from one district to another. Pay and promotion depend on sexual favors. Ann says she would never encourage a woman to join the police.

"I have daughters of my own, and I would never ever want them to join the police force," she said.

Another woman, in her late-30s, arrived for an interview hiding her police uniform under her burqa. She says that after almost 10 years on the force, police officers stopped demanding sex from her but forced her to procure prostitutes.

"Anywhere you ask for a job in the police force, they either ask you to give yourself or bring them girls," she said. She named several policewomen who act as madams for cops in the city.

Official Denial


Afghan officials in Mazar-e-Sharif and Kabul denied all the charges made in this story.

"The women police are working closely alongside their Afghan brothers. I totally reject any report that they are being abused by their male counterparts," said Sadiq Sadiqi, the spokesman for the Afghan Interior Ministry.

But advocates in Kabul say the problem is not limited to Mazar-e-Sharif.

"We've received many reports of abuse of Afghan women police in many parts of the country," said Georgette Gagnon, director of human rights for the U.N. mission in Afghanistan. "We are very concerned."

Gagnon says the U.N. is currently trying to gauge how widespread the problem is — especially as the international community draws down and starts handing over control to Afghan forces.

"Violence against women in Afghanistan is at very high levels. One of the solutions put forward is for more females to join the police force to address this issue," she said. "It will be very difficult to take this seriously when females join and are themselves abused by other officers within the force."​

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/08/148041305/for-afghan-policewomen-sex-abuse-is-a-job-hazard

Is unfortunate that even after 10 years of occupation they still haven't learned fuck all about not being backward.
 
Yay for pushing Western social norms onto other cultures. I can't imagine why anyone would want to kill Americans for destroying their way of life.
 
Actually Afghanistan used to be rather progressive in regards to gender equality. Education for women and ban on forced marriage etc.

Pic from the 1950s
1950s_Afghanistan_-_Public_transport_in_Kabul.jpg
It wasn't until the Taliban came to power that the current problems really started. They are Wahhabi views on women exported from Pakistan that have their source in Saudi Arabia.

ETA: Of course there isn't much to argue about here so it probably won't get many responses because it's interesting but no one is particularly emotionally invested. Contrast this to the LRA and Invisible children thing though. Afghanistan used to be a reasonably 'normal' central asian country. Throw in some tribal warfare, militant Islam, and *poof* massive human rights issues that 10 years of direct military intervention cannot solve. Would going into Africa and pulling out one well publicized bad guy really change anything? Sierra Leone and Liberia had/have similar issues, the Ugandan Army is just as bad as Kony etc.

I'm not anti-war, or anti interventionist, but we need to commit fully to these projects or not get involved in them at all. Most Americans don't even care/know that there is still a full on war going on in Afghanistan. We keep (and will continue) pulling back from being effective because it's not 'culturally sensitive.' Half assing it by providing weapons and training without any sort of education or ethics is a recipe for future problems.
 
Last edited:
But why does the fact that it used to be progressive matter? The society changed, as all do. It certainly doesn't mean that we should force it back, simply because we think its better.
 
But why does the fact that it used to be progressive matter? The society changed, as all do. It certainly doesn't mean that we should force it back, simply because we think its better.

I can't tell which of you is being reflexively contrarian. Maybe both...

A more progressive society IS better because it allows more individual liberty. The people offended by progressive societies do not complain, as they claim, because they are being robbed of their liberty. They complain because they can no longer rob others of their liberty.
 
But why does the fact that it used to be progressive matter? The society changed, as all do. It certainly doesn't mean that we should force it back, simply because we think its better.

It's not that it changed its how the change happened and the result of the change. It's the standard human rights issue. If there wasn't such abuse etc then we wouldn't care.
 
Some people don't want freedom. They want a government to do everything for them so they don't have to make choices out do anything themselves, they just want to be bossed around in a group while claiming to be individuals.


Kind of like democrats.
 
Some people don't want freedom. They want a government to do everything for them so they don't have to make choices out do anything themselves, they just want to be bossed around in a group while claiming to be individuals.


Kind of like democrats.

who was it that brought us the patriot act? oh, right
 
Yup. Which was a typical knee jerk reaction by the government in response to an attack.

One obama should have nixed along with homeland security, but he has supported it at times.
 
Yup. Which was a typical knee jerk reaction by the government in response to an attack.

One obama should have nixed along with homeland security, but he has supported it at times.

there's nothing typical about it. it was a deliberate move by the party of insidious villains to rob the people of more and more of their freedoms.
 
Some people don't want freedom. They want a government to do everything for them so they don't have to make choices out do anything themselves, they just want to be bossed around in a group while claiming to be individuals.


Kind of like democrats.

Congratulations. You used nonsense to derail the conversation. You just may have a bright future doing conservative "journalism."
 
Its the entire fed trying to control the states and everyone in them in a giant power grab. Same type of shit as that law obama passed new years day granting the fed the ability to use the army against its citizens, effectively turning the us into a battle zone. Also giving them the ability to call anyone with two weeks of food stored up as a terrorist and ship them off without a right to a trial.
 
There's no such thing as freedom ffs. I wish people would stop trying to pretend they live in a 'free society'. It's a myth so pretending you're 'more free' than other people is ridiculous. America might think they're 'more free' than a place like Syria, but at least religion has fuck all to do with their politics so their politics is 'freer' because there are (or were should I say) actually secular as opposed to the US which uses 'God' bullshit to defend all manner of things.

The superiority complex of the 'western' world will be its own downfall. Why can't we just accept difference instead of thinking we're morally superior?
 
There's no such thing as freedom ffs. I wish people would stop trying to pretend they live in a 'free society'. It's a myth so pretending you're 'more free' than other people is ridiculous. America might think they're 'more free' than a place like Syria, but at least religion has fuck all to do with their politics so their politics is 'freer' because there are (or were should I say) actually secular as opposed to the US which uses 'God' bullshit to defend all manner of things.

The superiority complex of the 'western' world will be its own downfall. Why can't we just accept difference instead of thinking we're morally superior?
Ummm... Syria has a parallel Sharia court system that applies Hanafi? law. They are allies with the Iranians because the Aliwite sect that makes up the ruling class is an offshoot of Shia (Iran is the only Shia majority country in the Muslim world). On the other side the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood is practically running the show. So yeah, I'm sure religion has 'nothing' to do with their politics.

Lebanon is the only remotely secular country in the ME, and they had a 15 year civil war along religious lines.

Hate to tell you but there aren't actually groups of people in the US going around killing other groups based on religious affiliation. If the US had a universal religious concept it would be money.
 
Last edited:
Ummm... Syria has a parallel Sharia court system that applies Hanafi? law. They are allies with the Iranians because the Aliwite sect that makes up the ruling class is an offshoot of Shia (Iran is the only Shia majority country in the Muslim world). On the other side the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood is practically running the show. So yeah, I'm sure religion has 'nothing' to do with their politics.

Lebanon is the only remotely secular country in the ME, and they had a 15 year civil war along religious lines.

Hate to tell you but there aren't actually groups of people in the US going around killing other groups based on religious affiliation. If the US had a universal religious concept it would be money.

Lol. Words.

Prabir Purkayastha: So, almost 30% of the total number of casualties that have taken place in Syria.

Aijaz Ahmad: Yes, but you'd never know it from the established media. That has been going on from the beginning. And violence has been there from the beginning because the kind of popular uprising you saw in Tunisia, or Egypt, or Yemen, or Bahrain, there were no grounds for that sort of thing in Syria. You could not bring hundreds of thousands of people into the streets, and that's not because the Assad regime is more authoritarian than all those other regimes. . . . Disinformation in the case of Syria is actually in my view even greater than it was in the case of Libya. . . .

There are a number of things going on, on this question of the offering of reforms. Very extensive reforms, by the way, very extensive reforms. The only thing on which they've dug in their heels is the issue of the Muslim Brotherhood, and that is the issue, I'm told, on which the negotiations with Turkey broke down. Turkey wanted 50-60% of the transitional umbrella organization's seats to be allotted to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Syrian regime said: Constitutionally we cannot give a seat to a religious party. So, reforms were rejected out of hand because the objective is regime change.

http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/267205

etc

etc
etc

save your bullshit for someone else.
 
But why does the fact that it used to be progressive matter? The society changed, as all do. It certainly doesn't mean that we should force it back, simply because we think its better.
Natural rights of man. Categorical imperative to act with perfect duty to our own will, etc.