In Afghanistan, girls are not supposed to obtain an extensive education, be in public without a male chaperone, or work outside the home. This is typically discussed as a burden for girls and women but, as an article in the New York Times sent in by Dmitriy T.M. explains, it can also be a burden on families. Families with sons can send all of their children out in public with the boy as a chaperone. This is useful for the whole family: the girls get more freedom and the parents can send their children on errands, to school, or on social visits without their supervision. Since boys can also work outside the home, boys can be a source in extra income for a family. Families with all girls, then, are not only pitied from a social perspective (because girls are devalued compared to boys), but from a practical perspective (because gendered rules make daily life more difficult).
One solution is to bend the rules. Journalist Jenny Nordberg explains that some families without sons pick a girl-child to be a boy. One day they cut her hair, change her name, and put her in boy clothes. They then send her out into the world as a boy.
Thanks so much to Anon for this! <3
-
melted-cooled liked this
-
shaffnersroundtable reblogged this from lipstick-feminists
-
evangellie liked this
-
chickenbonewatt liked this
-
mysunwolf liked this
-
iuwaehfoaiuwhefoiaulfjqn reblogged this from lipstick-feminists and added:
I mean I understand it’s a role of necessity - but is it really consensual? this just reminds me too much of the...
-
how-to-kiss-distinctly-american liked this
-
masochistmimes liked this
-
scourgehealer liked this
-
normandykewell liked this
-
loroedio liked this
-
k1t-t3n reblogged this from lipstick-feminists
-
upshot liked this
-
landlessness liked this
-
itallianstallion liked this
-
lipstick-feminists posted this