Compared to what? Compared to a western country, or compared to the existing conditions where women and daughters are not employed and regarded as property to be sold to feed the remainder of the family during the recent famine?
There are a number of very very good things you achieve by getting them into work. The entire systemic structure shifts and the role of women as property becomes significantly weakened, this opens up elimination of many bad things, and economically empowers working women with the means to start organising that they may not have had previously in their role as property economically dominated by the patriarch stuck at home.
So, I'm going to preface this by saying I know far less about the actual conditions in Afghanistan and the political structure of the Taliban than I should, other than far right wing and fascistic. Embarrassingly so.
If women are considered property under their rule, if there were a massive labor shortage leading to the economic need to employ women in the workforce, would it not be a less extreme change to their status quo to enslave women to work in their factories, paying them nothing, or only paying their male family members (fathers, husbands), than it would be to employ the women, pay them directly, and risk women having some level of agency?
I don't know if Islam has rules surrounding slavery, but it seems that even if it is outlawed in their holy book, if it is, the Taliban is really only using Islam as a cover for extremism. They're not exactly a spiritual movement, they're a a far right political movement using the trappings of religion to get the state they want. And if it isn't outlawed, if it has conditions for the treatment of slaves, the way the Bible does, then that would make it even easier, i would think.
Again, may be talking out of my ass. I don't know much about the actual workings of the Taliban, or the material conditions of women in Afghanistan.
would it not be a less extreme change to their status quo to enslave women to work in their factories, paying them nothing, or only paying their male family members (fathers, husbands), than it would be to employ the women, pay them directly, and risk women having some level of agency?
To the second point, that's basically what happened in the West over the last hundred years. To simplify greatly and only look at 'middle class' White women, they were only able to work until marriage, and then following labour shortages were able to continue working while the husband would still maintain control of finances and women would often find it extremely difficult to open their own seperate bank account or obtain a loan.
As their education and labour power increased, political struggle was more effective until the system we have now (of some patriarchal financial control in some relationships but not codified and not generally supported in public).
Compared to what? Compared to a western country, or compared to the existing conditions where women and daughters are not employed and regarded as property to be sold to feed the remainder of the family during the recent famine?
There are a number of very very good things you achieve by getting them into work. The entire systemic structure shifts and the role of women as property becomes significantly weakened, this opens up elimination of many bad things, and economically empowers working women with the means to start organising that they may not have had previously in their role as property economically dominated by the patriarch stuck at home.
So, I'm going to preface this by saying I know far less about the actual conditions in Afghanistan and the political structure of the Taliban than I should, other than far right wing and fascistic. Embarrassingly so.
If women are considered property under their rule, if there were a massive labor shortage leading to the economic need to employ women in the workforce, would it not be a less extreme change to their status quo to enslave women to work in their factories, paying them nothing, or only paying their male family members (fathers, husbands), than it would be to employ the women, pay them directly, and risk women having some level of agency?
I don't know if Islam has rules surrounding slavery, but it seems that even if it is outlawed in their holy book, if it is, the Taliban is really only using Islam as a cover for extremism. They're not exactly a spiritual movement, they're a a far right political movement using the trappings of religion to get the state they want. And if it isn't outlawed, if it has conditions for the treatment of slaves, the way the Bible does, then that would make it even easier, i would think.
Again, may be talking out of my ass. I don't know much about the actual workings of the Taliban, or the material conditions of women in Afghanistan.
To the second point, that's basically what happened in the West over the last hundred years. To simplify greatly and only look at 'middle class' White women, they were only able to work until marriage, and then following labour shortages were able to continue working while the husband would still maintain control of finances and women would often find it extremely difficult to open their own seperate bank account or obtain a loan.
As their education and labour power increased, political struggle was more effective until the system we have now (of some patriarchal financial control in some relationships but not codified and not generally supported in public).