This passage stuck out to me because it highlights the insidiousness of structural bias in institutions of power. A phrase I've often heard is that "if it's not in writing, then it's not legally binding". I would that this is evident here because if there were to be no explicit mention of women's rights as human rights then in the context of war crimes, gendered violence would just be seen as another footnote or supplemental fact in the history books because what's not illegal could legitimately be argued not enforceable by law. Otherwise, due to lack of gender affirming language, the patriarchy would be maintained.

This passage got my attention because it sheds light on the insidious trap of "not being a priority". Meaning, if you're a female sociologist who does not already have any notoriety within the field, than you're unlikely to have an academic history, which makes you unlikely to have an online presence from a legitimate secondary source in the eyes of wikipedia, which makes you less likely to have a wikipedia page on the site itself. In effect, you cannot win if you have not already won. It's almost like an artificial "catch-22", or "boys club", or digital "glass ceiling" that's intended by wikipedia to keep internet trolls––out thus increasing perceived information reliability––but in the case of female sociologists, it creates the collateral damage that is their erasure.

I found this quote from the reading intriguing because it illustrates how women from different cultures can both show respect to others and have respect for themselves without compromising their freewill and autonomy. It's an example of how cultural imperatives don't transfer well across people from different places with different upbringings. To that extent, I would agree with Abu-Lughod that women don't need saving. Not just because they literally don't need saving from their own culture which they are already accustomed to, but also because we all know that war was never really about the women; it was always about fueling whichever news cycle narrative that would best fund the war-machine military industrial complex. In other words, if the Afgahn women were free tomorrow; the narrative would be "save the kids". If the kids were free tomorrow, the new narrative would be "save the future generations".

I found this quote from the reading intriguing because it illustrates how women from different cultures can both show respect to others and have respect for themselves without compromising their freewill and autonomy. It's an example of how cultural imperatives don't transfer well across people from different places with different upbringings. To that extent, I would agree with Abu-Lughod that women don't need saving. Not just because they literally don't need saving from their own culture which they are already accustomed to, but also because we all know that war was never really about the women; it was always about fueling whichever news cycle narrative that would best fund the war-machine military industrial complex. In other words, if the Afgahn women were free tomorrow; the narrative would be "save the kids". If the kids were free tomorrow, the new narrative would be "save the future generations".

I found this quote from the reading intriguing because it illustrates how women from different cultures can both show respect to others and have respect for themselves without compromising their freewill and autonomy. It's an example of how cultural imperatives don't transfer well across people from different places with different upbringings. To that extent, I would agree with Abu-Lughod that women don't need saving. Not just because they literally don't need saving from their own culture which they are already accustomed to, but also because we all know that war was never really about the women; it was always about fueling whichever news cycle narrative that would best fund the war-machine military industrial complex. In other words, if the Afgahn women were free tomorrow; the narrative would be "save the kids". If the kids were free tomorrow, the new narrative would be "save the future generations".

I found this quote from the reading intriguing because it illustrates how women from different cultures can both show respect to others and have respect for themselves without compromising their freewill and autonomy. It's an example of how cultural imperatives don't transfer well across people from different places with different upbringings. To that extent, I would agree with Abu-Lughod that women don't need saving. Not just because they literally don't need saving from their own culture which they are already accustomed to, but also because we all know that war was never really about the women; it was always about fueling whichever news cycle narrative that would best fund the war-machine military industrial complex. In other words, if the Afgahn women were free tomorrow; the narrative would be "save the kids". If the kids were free tomorrow, the new narrative would be "save the future generations".