China’s gonna be a phenomenal world leader.

  • hexaflexagonbear [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • rootsbreadandmakka [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      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.

      • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.