Masoma* is a manager at a women-led organization in central Afghanistan that, with the support of UN Women, provides primary healthcare, mental health counselling, psychosocial support, and livelihood training for up to 400 women each week. (*Name changed to protect her identity.) As a result of aid cuts in 2025, the organization was forced to reduce staff in 2025 and Masoma worries that further cuts will impact the women who rely on the organization’s services.
Photo: UN Women/Sayed Habib Bidell

The State of Afghan Women

A humanitarian disaster five years after the U.S. exit.

9

Comments

NYT (“Afghan Women Erased From Public Life in Five Years of Taliban Rule“):

The Taliban regained control of Afghanistan five years ago this week, returning to power after two decades and restoring an Islamic government that had severely restricted women’s rights.

In those few years, women and girls have been systematically erased from most public life, experts say. And, some add, the limitations imposed on half the population could hobble Afghanistan far into the future.

The harsh restrictions on women and girls are a return to conditions that prevailed the previous time the Taliban controlled Afghanistan, in the late 1990s. More than 160 decrees have been issued targeting women and girls, barring them from secondary and higher education and restricting their employment, movement, dress, speech and decision-making.

“No other country in modern times has dismantled the rights of half its population through law, policy and practice to the same extent,” the United Nations agency on women said on Wednesday. “At the same time, overlapping humanitarian and economic crises and deepening poverty are also having a disproportionate impact on women and girls.”

The official restrictions have reinforced social pressures, and many women say their communities increasingly press them to conform, a new U.N. Women report found, based on recent surveys. “Half a decade of escalating restrictions has narrowed where Afghan women can go, what they can do and how they can live,” it said. “The results are alarming.”

[…]

The report highlights the isolation many Afghan women now experience as a result of the restrictions. A vast majority of the women surveyed — 90 percent — said they must have a male family member’s permission to leave the house. And more than half said they went out only once or twice a month. Among male survey respondents, more than 95 percent reported leaving their homes daily.

Women and girls’ adherence to the new Taliban rules is increasingly reinforced by people around them, like relatives and neighbors. The U.N. report noted that nearly 40 percent of women surveyed this year said they felt more pressure than before to tailor their behavior for fear that those they know will report them for inappropriate dress, speech or actions.

“The Taliban have extended state control deep into the private sphere by transforming patriarchal norms into legal obligations and conscripting families into the enforcement of their ideology,” Belquis Ahmadi, a human rights lawyer and expert on Afghanistan, formerly at the United States Institute of Peace, wrote in a recent report on Taliban rule.

Human rights experts say that the crisis for women in Afghanistan has reached a critical point.

Afghanistan is the only country in the world to formally prohibit access to education for girls and women beyond the primary level. The longer women and girls are excluded from schools, institutions and public life, the more entrenched the restrictive system becomes, the further behind they fall and the fewer models there are, making their ability to recover ever less likely, jeopardizing the country’s long-term prospects.

“As a new generation of girls grows without an education, their future becomes increasingly dark,” UNESCO wrote in a statement this week, calling for the full restoration of the right to education for Afghan girls and women.

While our war in Afghanistan was initially motivated by killing or capturing those responsible for the 9/11 attacks and ousting the regime that harbored them, our aims soon broadened to establishing a modern, democratic state that respected human rights. A lot of effort, in particular, was aimed at improving the lives of women and girls.

Those goals proved too ambitious, if not foolhardy. Imposing an alien way of life is challenging under any circumstances, and Afghanistan may well have been the hardest possible case. Accusations of strategic drift and unclear goals are certainly fair.

Still, the Pottery Barn Rule attributed to the late General Colin Powell applied. Having toppled the Taliban government, the emerging norms of jus post bellum obligated us to make some reasonable effort to re-establish political order. And the extant treatment of women and girls in the country violated the most fundamental human rights law, shocking the conscience.

Alas, here we are. Twenty years of conflict, some $2.3 trillion spent, nearly 4500 Americans killed, and the situation no better than before. Indeed, it’s arguably worse, since they enjoyed basic human rights for years and have had them taken away.

,

9 responses to “The State of Afghan Women”

  1. A society can be changed through regime change when it is organized on a strict hierarchy with a long history of rule of laws and norms. Think Germany and Japan. Basically, you can decapitate the leadership and replace it, then gradually make changes through the legal system.

    Afghanistan was the exact opposite of that, with a thousand petty tribal leaders and no real laws.

    It is a perfect libertarian experiment, in a way.

    3
    1. @MarkedMan I’ve been saying for years that a big part of the problem is that we’ve organized the whole international system around nation-states, a Western creation going back to 1648. Afghanistan, Pakistan, and many other places are states in name only, with the central government controlling the capital and little else.

      1
      1. I can’t say that that description applies to Pakistan.

        1. @Assad K Pakistan’s government is certainly more effective than Afghanistan’s. But the combination of the military’s odd role (and the even odder relationship between the military proper and the ISI) and provincial autonomy has led to very loose central control.

      2. Even in Europe, nation states were frequently notable by their absence for much of the time from 1648 until 1918.

        The main assumption post-1648 was that the states all had both effective internal control and effective absence of external superior authority.

        By and large that remains an effective rule-of-thumb. There are exceptions, such as Sudan and the other Sahel states, Somalia, Congo, Yemen, Burma.
        But they are exceptions, not the rule, even in the post-imperial “global South”.

  2. Charley in Cleveland Avatar
    Charley in Cleveland

    America refused to learn the lesson that both the Brits and the Russians put on display when they tried to change the political (and social) order in Afghanistan. It’s better to know something about the people you want to conquer BEFORE you invade and occupy.

    1
    1. In fact the British were never so ambitious as to attempt to conquer Afghanistan, let alone change the social order.
      The Afghan expeditions were aimed at overawing the monarchs in Kabul to exclude Russian influence.
      And an understanding that if the Pushtun raided the Punjab, the Raj would raid them right back.

      Even in India, the British tended to leave society to sort itself out, so long as taxes were paid and laws obeyed.
      The exceptions being particularly objectionable activities, such as suttee (widow burning), thugee, and the slave trade.

  3. Where has human freedom gone, long time passing?
    Where has human freedom gone, long time ago?
    Gone for civil war, everyone
    Oh when will we ever learn? Oh when we we ever learn.

    We failed to learned the lesson of Viet Nam and Afghanistan when we invaded Iran with no long term solution (such as Germany, Japan, and Korea). The civil war factions in Viet Nam, Afghanistan, and Iran all had one thing in common: They hated the US more than they hated each other.

    Yes, we lost blood and treasure in these conflicts that can never be reclaimed, but the blame ultimately belongs to the people of those countries who either cannot gain a democratic coalition or are afraid to fight for civil liberty, not the US. Unless we wanted to be in Afghanistan for in indeterminate date, we had to pull the plug sometime. And the Viet Nam debacle after we left was just as bad, or worse, than the Afghanistan exit. And both exits saved a generation of young people from fighting a war in a foreign land for people who despised them.

    Another instance of civil war is the Bosnian War. The NATO involvement, in comparison, was relatively successful. But how I remember the Republicans blaming Clinton for make the US the world’s policeman.

    The Republicans led the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, which subsequently destabilized Syria. They didn’t mind being the world’s policeman then…or now.

    1
    1. Unless we wanted to be in Afghanistan for in indeterminate date, we had to pull the plug sometime.

      Or in the alternative, not gone in the first place. TTBTICR, no one invited us to help them “free” the nation from Taliban rule.