That feels like saying "yeah, but unions existed in 1920, so I don't think I agree that unions were able to win any labor rights." The poster is proposing a process that will initiate gains in womens rights that can't be as easily reversed as gains from an external military imposition, not automatic guarantee of immediate equality.
unions are involved with actively fighting for workers' rights so I don't really think that's a fair comparison. A more apt comparison would be saying a labor shortage will result in increased workers' rights. The labor shortage in and of itself is not what will give the workers permanent gains, but it puts the workers and unions on the footing necessary to force those concessions from the capitalists.
Similar here, the process the poster is describing will only result in more women in the workforce, but not in and of itself result in "women's liberation" in Afghanistan - that involves a political struggle.
The point of women joining the workforce is so they can then withhold their labor. This is what I understood to be the point of the Chinese comments. Just because they didn't explicitly spell it out doesn't mean that's not what they had in mind. But the basic message is correct. Women have to be part of the workforce in order to even have political leverage.
although I disagree that that is what the Chinese comments have in mind. Although, granted, I can't actually read Chinese, so I need to go off of what the English translation says. But the English translation seems naive and passive, as if all women's liberation requires is for women to be a part of the workforce. While it's likely just an offhand comment, language like "There's really no need to worry...", "All it takes...", "They'll soon realize...", "no one can stop..." does not make me think they had some deeper idea that they didn't spell out but that they have a simplified idea about how political change occurs and the necessity of political struggle. The "basic message" you note is nowhere present in what's written, it's just your own takeaway because you understand political struggle. But in terms of what's actually written there's no language in there that hints at something deeper. Maybe the Chinese is different.
That feels like saying "yeah, but unions existed in 1920, so I don't think I agree that unions were able to win any labor rights." The poster is proposing a process that will initiate gains in womens rights that can't be as easily reversed as gains from an external military imposition, not automatic guarantee of immediate equality.
unions are involved with actively fighting for workers' rights so I don't really think that's a fair comparison. A more apt comparison would be saying a labor shortage will result in increased workers' rights. The labor shortage in and of itself is not what will give the workers permanent gains, but it puts the workers and unions on the footing necessary to force those concessions from the capitalists.
Similar here, the process the poster is describing will only result in more women in the workforce, but not in and of itself result in "women's liberation" in Afghanistan - that involves a political struggle.
The point of women joining the workforce is so they can then withhold their labor. This is what I understood to be the point of the Chinese comments. Just because they didn't explicitly spell it out doesn't mean that's not what they had in mind. But the basic message is correct. Women have to be part of the workforce in order to even have political leverage.
that's what I'm arguing.
although I disagree that that is what the Chinese comments have in mind. Although, granted, I can't actually read Chinese, so I need to go off of what the English translation says. But the English translation seems naive and passive, as if all women's liberation requires is for women to be a part of the workforce. While it's likely just an offhand comment, language like "There's really no need to worry...", "All it takes...", "They'll soon realize...", "no one can stop..." does not make me think they had some deeper idea that they didn't spell out but that they have a simplified idea about how political change occurs and the necessity of political struggle. The "basic message" you note is nowhere present in what's written, it's just your own takeaway because you understand political struggle. But in terms of what's actually written there's no language in there that hints at something deeper. Maybe the Chinese is different.