The Taliban have taken multiple steps to walk back women's rights including forbidding education for girls beyond grade six and banning women from universities.

Summary

The Taliban have banned windows in homes that allow views of areas where Afghan women might be seen, citing concerns over “obscene acts.”

This new decree mandates blocking or obstructing such windows in existing and new buildings, continuing the group’s systemic repression of women since regaining control of Afghanistan in August 2021.

The Taliban’s policies have included bans on women’s education, public appearances, and voices.

Critics, including the U.N., warn these actions dangerously erode human rights, while activists call out global inaction over the ongoing oppression.

  • Tin@lemmy.worldEnglish
    10·
    2 days ago

    When do we get to the part of the episode where James T Kirk, prime directive be damned, finds the meglomaniacal computer controlling these men, and blows it up?

  • Resol van Lemmy@lemmy.worldEnglish
    11·
    2 days ago

    And just when I thought the Taliban’s laws against women were too extreme already, they decide to do this. They quite literally can stoop way lower than I thought.

    I feel so bad. Thanks for ruining my first day of 2025, Taliban.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        1·
        12 hours ago

        TBF they like that guy too. And the second guy didn’t suggest this - it’s all them and their weird homoerotic incel energy.

    • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.mlEnglish
      113·
      2 days ago

      Gun control is sexist. Women deserve the ability to defend themselves from those larger and stronger then them.

      • Zozano@aussie.zoneEnglish
        4·
        2 days ago

        Women needing to be safe isn’t an argument for increasing the availability of guns, it’s an argument for improving safety for women.

        If the objective is to protect women, allowing guns to circulate within the civilian population is counterproductive.

        On top of that, gun control is inherently not sexist because it doesn’t discriminate between gender.

  • Log in | Sign up@lemmy.worldEnglish
    174·
    2 days ago

    Today, Pakistan, tomorrow, USA. You might be sceptical today, but if you think it really couldn’t happen in America, you haven’t been paying nearly enough attention.

    • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.mlEnglish
      713·
      2 days ago

      A authoritarian theocracy seizing control of the government? Sounds serious!

      So when will democrats drop gun control considering this existential threat to the nation state?

      SocialistRA.org

      • Naloxone@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        2 days ago

        Comrade, I too am a member, but the way you shifted topics here is too abrupt to provide meaningful discourse. I like to lean into the “we keep us safe” slogan.

        And to the doubters: yes, target practice, firearm safety training, and mutual aid support DOES make a difference in keeping communities strong, resilient, and safe. No one in the SRA is advocating for active resistance with force to anything or anyone.

      • Log in | Sign up@lemmy.worldEnglish
        6·
        2 days ago

        Wild topic change there!

        So when will democrats drop gun control

        Nearly every legislative session, iirc. More permanently, probably when school shootings stop for good.

  • weeeeum@lemmy.worldEnglish
    661·
    3 days ago

    Damn for a country that hates gay people, they REALLY hate looking at women.

    • palordrolap@fedia.io
      26·
      3 days ago

      No, it’s more like each extremist Muslim doesn’t want any other man looking at any of his women, because he knows what he’d be unable to stop himself from doing if he saw someone else’s woman and assumes every other man is like that.

      And that line of thinking breeds generations of men who rather than might think that way, actually do think that way, making the rule even more necessary.

      It’s also a lot easier for a man to punish or beat a woman than it is another man, and it’s that line of thinking which turns women into property rather than people. And property can be treated however you like.

  • JovialMicrobial@lemm.eeEnglish
    41·
    3 days ago

    Aside from the obvious egregious human rights violations here, there’s going to be a lot of health repercussions for this.

    Not getting enough, or any sunlight can cause vitamin d deficiency which can cause a whole host of problems. Including if a woman breastfeeds without getting enough vitamin d her baby will also be deficient. Get ready for a bunch of children who are going to be at a high risk for developing rickets.

    I guess that’s the price they’re willing to pay to oppress women?

    • NutWrench@lemmy.mlEnglish
      11·
      3 days ago

      It’s either that or they justify these repressive laws by saying men are lustful beasts who can never be trusted to contain their impulses. (And therefore those laws are for their “protection.”)

      This is an attitude shared by all of the “girls have cooties” religions.