Afghanistan's success hinges on success for its citizens - all citizens. That is the rationale behind directing foreign aid toward women, as suggested by the July 18 announcement
from the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) on a new $200 million program.
Yet there's a catch to the Promoting
Gender Equality in National Priority Programs: "The five-year plan, called
Promote, is expected to increase economic, social, and political participation
of women between the ages of 18 and 30 through education, job training, microfinance and credit for female
entrepreneurs, and training for policymaking."
The purpose of an age limit for the USAID
program is unclear and could contribute to uneven development in a country
where resentment already runs high.
Meanwhile, US laws
protect USAID employees and contract employees from age or gender
discrimination, as outlined in Promote's request for proposals. Likewise, assessment criteria for funding programs, such
as those of the United Nations, often encourage
inclusiveness. Despite laws and protections,
discrimination, particularly age discrimination, can go unchecked and
unreported even in the United States because of lack of awareness about laws or embarrassment.
Age discrimination is linked with gender
discrimination, suggests the UN Women Coordination Division in its report Between
Gender and Aging:
"Inequalities in income, education, and
employment across the life cycle expose many women to poverty in old age,"
the executive summary notes. "As the status of women in many societies is
linked to having a husband, widows are particularly vulnerable to poverty."
The UN report goes on to report that "older women have not benefited
equally from the progress that has made in tackling violence and abuse, often
failing to be accounted for in both gender and ageing research and
policies" – and suggests that "concerns over the situation of older
women have largely been ignored."
To counter the challenges for older women, the
UN Women Coordination Division recommends a lifelong approach to education,
support for empowerment and priority for "the needs of rural older women
in public policy."
The design of USAID's Promote program focused on
young, urban women counters these recommendations from the UN Women
Coordination Division and could add to Afghan divisions. Granted, 68 percent of
the Afghan population is under the age of 25, yet 77 percent live in rural
areas. The 365-page
request for proposals from USAID vaguely
connects youth with education by explaining that the Promote program will
"invest in opportunities that enable educated women (i.e, women between 18
and 30 years of age who have at least a secondary education) to enter and
advance into decision-making positions in Afghanistan's public, private and
civil society sectors."
The request stresses an expectation that
selected participants will "work towards ensuring the welfare, rights and
opportunities for all Afghan women." To its credit, the USAID
request for proposals suggests a program risk is failure to garner support of
male family and community members and it seeks to ensure that "skills and
knowledge imparted to beneficiary organizations and their staff are sustained
and replicated/ disseminated to others."
That is not enough. USAID coordinators should
know that many applicants already self-select in not pursuing jobs and other
opportunities. Coordinators could have emphasized diversity, eliminating age,
gender and urban requirements – and ensured welfare, rights and opportunities
for all Afghans. The criteria could have been left at attainment of a
secondary education – thus targeting men and women of all ages who support fair
policies and women’s rights.
Donors should be commended for targeting
vulnerable groups that have been historically neglected, yet program exclusions
should be crafted with great care based on sound research and good
reasons. World Bank
research in Afghanistan suggests that development
programs mandating female participation can increase mobility and income for
women, but may “not change female roles in family decision-making or attitudes
toward the general role of women in society.” And a
study cited in the USAID request for proposals notes
that “the Afghan culture places a considerable emphasis on respecting elders
because of their knowledge, wisdom, and experience, which explains why older
transformational leaders are usually more successful in influencing the Afghan
population.”
Expanding the pool of applications can add to an
organization’s workload and costs, yet exclusion without good reason can
neglect individuals of great talent, including the Afghan men who support
women's rights and are also essential for the national stability. To
ensure social cohesion, USAID should revise the conditions and open the program
to more applicants.
Photo of entrepreneur at women's bazaar, arranged to allow women to sell handicrafts to NATO troops, courtesy of Maj. Meritt Phillips, US Army, and Wikimedia Commons. The woman's age is unknown, but if she's under 30 she's out of luck for the new USAID program.
Monday, August 5
Tuesday, July 30
Authenticity
Another controversy has emerged over authenticity and which writers have the proper background to write and speak out on certain topics.
Critics, including Daniel Politi of Slate, are blasting an interviewer who questioned scholar Reza Aslan about why, as a Muslim, he set out to write a book about Jesus. Critics on the opposite side have suggested that Aslan and some interviewers were devious in hiding his faith. Aslan responded firmly and masterfully on that point and others: He mentions his Muslim faith on page 2 of the book, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, and he is an academic and historian. Being a practicing Muslim and historian are not exclusive.
Likewise a woman who was raised by Catholics can write about a Muslim woman in rural Afghanistan.
Demanding that authors segregate their writing toward their own countries, their own beliefs, their own politics or experiences - denying human capability for research, analysis, and imagination in making connections - is an insidious form of censorship and control.
The most pointed analysis can come from commenters, and one, fingersfly, responded to the Erik Wemple blog in The Washington Post:
Aslan is seen as a threat because he writes about "Jesus the man" and points out the contradictions between him and the "Jesus of myth" created by the Roman Church. Jesus the man and his socialist message would not serve the masters' agenda so they co-opted and changed him from socialist revolutionary to peaceful obey-er of all things secular. Religions are invisible chains to enslave believers into living lives in fear .... It's a hideously twisted way to control people, but sadly it works.
Writing is judgment, from the very moment one picks up a pen and selects a topic. And yes, authors can and should write about other countries and time periods.
Aslan can't complain though. Controversy helps a book, and this morning his book ranks first on Amazon.
Critics, including Daniel Politi of Slate, are blasting an interviewer who questioned scholar Reza Aslan about why, as a Muslim, he set out to write a book about Jesus. Critics on the opposite side have suggested that Aslan and some interviewers were devious in hiding his faith. Aslan responded firmly and masterfully on that point and others: He mentions his Muslim faith on page 2 of the book, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, and he is an academic and historian. Being a practicing Muslim and historian are not exclusive.
Likewise a woman who was raised by Catholics can write about a Muslim woman in rural Afghanistan.
Demanding that authors segregate their writing toward their own countries, their own beliefs, their own politics or experiences - denying human capability for research, analysis, and imagination in making connections - is an insidious form of censorship and control.
The most pointed analysis can come from commenters, and one, fingersfly, responded to the Erik Wemple blog in The Washington Post:
Aslan is seen as a threat because he writes about "Jesus the man" and points out the contradictions between him and the "Jesus of myth" created by the Roman Church. Jesus the man and his socialist message would not serve the masters' agenda so they co-opted and changed him from socialist revolutionary to peaceful obey-er of all things secular. Religions are invisible chains to enslave believers into living lives in fear .... It's a hideously twisted way to control people, but sadly it works.
Writing is judgment, from the very moment one picks up a pen and selects a topic. And yes, authors can and should write about other countries and time periods.
Aslan can't complain though. Controversy helps a book, and this morning his book ranks first on Amazon.
Labels:
censorship,
control,
religion
Thursday, July 11
Need to share
In war, what you don't know can hurt you.
Yet "The US military has blocked access to the Guardian’s website for troops in the Middle East and south Asia, after disclosures about widespread US surveillance," reports the Guardian. The message that comes up instead of the newspaper suggests that the newspaper's recent reports on US National Security Agency surveillance activities include classified information, some of which may be inaccurate, and the block could assist troops from inadvertently releasing classified information.
But the troops on the front lines should probably not be censored. Richard A. Best, Jr., analyzed "Intelligence Information: Need-to-Know vs. Need-to-Share" for the Congressional Research Service in June 2011:
"It is possible to limit dissemination of especially sensitive information, whether it is sensitive because of the nature of its contents or because it was acquired from an especially sensitive It is also possible to prevent the downloading and reproduction of large masses of information. It is possible to trace the identities of those who had access to particular pieces of information. Ultimately, however, security depends on the loyalty of cleared officials at all levels."
Readers around the globe are poring over the Guardian reports about the US surveillance, especially since the president suggested that privacy protections may not apply to non-citizens. The latest NSA statement reframes that sentiment more elegantly: "Not all countries have equivalent oversight requirements to protect civil liberties and privacy." Of course, the blocks on the Guardian are not thorough, with other news outlets repeating the reports. NSA secrets have been exposed, and US troops have as much right as anyone else to debate the merits of these programs.
Best went on to conclude: "For the U.S. Intelligence Community, the policy decision of whether the emphasis should be on“need-to-know” or the “need-to-share” can be viewed as a false choice. Information must always be shared with those with a genuine need to know even if this potential universe is a large one....Intelligence efforts are never risk-free.... Government officials must also accept the enduring reality of a media culture that is prepared to publish official secrets and considers such disclosure a patriotic contribution to democratic discourse. That individual civil servants or service members can be very harshly punished for their role in releasing information while editors and reporters are honored and celebrated seems to some as paradoxical."
Censorship puts a spotlight on the withheld information. "Even though people may want to withhold information, they will give us more information than what they realize," explains Mark McClish, retired deputy US marshal.
Philosophers have long debated if withholding information is lying, and Thomas L. Carson has suggested "withholding information can constitute deception if there is a clear expectation, promise, and/or professional obligation that such information will be provided."So, no, there is no clear expectation that the US would provide its troops with access to surveillance secrets or articles in the Guardian. Most members of the US service would not have heard of the Guardian, based in Great Britain, if not for news about the block.
Troops overseas must prepare for encounters with would-be terrorists and that entails understanding what an enemy combatant might know and how he or she might use the new reports to their advantage, possibly a sudden avoidance of Skype. Of course, federal employees, and probably members of the US armed service, too, in the course of their duties can request special authorization to visit blocked sites.
The Army Ranger Handbook ends with Standing Orders for Roger's Rangers, guidelines created in 1757 by Robert Rogers during the French and Indian War. Number four notes: "tell the truth about what you see and what you do. There is a[n] Army depending on us for correct information."
So much trust, loyalty, democracy and more rely on correct information.
Note: A main character in Fear of Beauty relies for guidance on a 1992 copy of the Ranger Handbook as much as an Afghan counterpart relies on the Koran.
Illustration of Robert Rogers, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
Yet "The US military has blocked access to the Guardian’s website for troops in the Middle East and south Asia, after disclosures about widespread US surveillance," reports the Guardian. The message that comes up instead of the newspaper suggests that the newspaper's recent reports on US National Security Agency surveillance activities include classified information, some of which may be inaccurate, and the block could assist troops from inadvertently releasing classified information.
But the troops on the front lines should probably not be censored. Richard A. Best, Jr., analyzed "Intelligence Information: Need-to-Know vs. Need-to-Share" for the Congressional Research Service in June 2011:
"It is possible to limit dissemination of especially sensitive information, whether it is sensitive because of the nature of its contents or because it was acquired from an especially sensitive It is also possible to prevent the downloading and reproduction of large masses of information. It is possible to trace the identities of those who had access to particular pieces of information. Ultimately, however, security depends on the loyalty of cleared officials at all levels."
Readers around the globe are poring over the Guardian reports about the US surveillance, especially since the president suggested that privacy protections may not apply to non-citizens. The latest NSA statement reframes that sentiment more elegantly: "Not all countries have equivalent oversight requirements to protect civil liberties and privacy." Of course, the blocks on the Guardian are not thorough, with other news outlets repeating the reports. NSA secrets have been exposed, and US troops have as much right as anyone else to debate the merits of these programs.
Best went on to conclude: "For the U.S. Intelligence Community, the policy decision of whether the emphasis should be on“need-to-know” or the “need-to-share” can be viewed as a false choice. Information must always be shared with those with a genuine need to know even if this potential universe is a large one....Intelligence efforts are never risk-free.... Government officials must also accept the enduring reality of a media culture that is prepared to publish official secrets and considers such disclosure a patriotic contribution to democratic discourse. That individual civil servants or service members can be very harshly punished for their role in releasing information while editors and reporters are honored and celebrated seems to some as paradoxical."
Censorship puts a spotlight on the withheld information. "Even though people may want to withhold information, they will give us more information than what they realize," explains Mark McClish, retired deputy US marshal.
Philosophers have long debated if withholding information is lying, and Thomas L. Carson has suggested "withholding information can constitute deception if there is a clear expectation, promise, and/or professional obligation that such information will be provided."So, no, there is no clear expectation that the US would provide its troops with access to surveillance secrets or articles in the Guardian. Most members of the US service would not have heard of the Guardian, based in Great Britain, if not for news about the block.
Troops overseas must prepare for encounters with would-be terrorists and that entails understanding what an enemy combatant might know and how he or she might use the new reports to their advantage, possibly a sudden avoidance of Skype. Of course, federal employees, and probably members of the US armed service, too, in the course of their duties can request special authorization to visit blocked sites.
The Army Ranger Handbook ends with Standing Orders for Roger's Rangers, guidelines created in 1757 by Robert Rogers during the French and Indian War. Number four notes: "tell the truth about what you see and what you do. There is a[n] Army depending on us for correct information."
So much trust, loyalty, democracy and more rely on correct information.
Note: A main character in Fear of Beauty relies for guidance on a 1992 copy of the Ranger Handbook as much as an Afghan counterpart relies on the Koran.
Illustration of Robert Rogers, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
Labels:
censorship,
intelligence,
military
Monday, July 1
The Iris Farm
Every farm has a certain time of year when it offers pure delight. And early June is that time for the Iris Farm in Michigan.The farm small, at six acres, was once a cherry farm, but the soil, weather and birds pose constant challenges for fruit farmers in in northern Michigan. "Seventeen years ago, this fifth generation Leelanau farmer decided to no
longer fight against the elements, and instead choose to embrace the
offerings of his land," reports the Leelanau.com Blog about the farming family of William Black. "The family noticed that the iris plants blooming
around the farm thrived."
Smart farmers don't fight nature, and instead they study and appreciate its many whims. Today, the farm has more than 700 hybrids of Iris and several hundred of day lilies. The farm doesn't seem to have a website. Teh family doesn't do much advertising, but the two brothers are obviously delighted by the attention their new crop attracts. Passersby on Route M-72 recognize something special and slam on the brakes.
The genus Iris has about 250 species - and the name comes from the Greek word for rainbow.
So of course, I strolled along the rows of colorful irises, searching for Iris afghanica or some variation, but of course, those are not well suited for Michigan weather. "Iris afghanica is a striking species," report Malin Rivers and Richard Wilford, science editors of Kew Royal Botanic Gardens. "The slender, bluish-green leaves can be up to 30 cm long, though are often shorter, and the outer ones are sickle-shaped.... At higher altitudes the plants are more strongly coloured and only about 10 cm tall. At lower altitudes the flowers are larger and more softly coloured, and the plants can reach 25 or 30 cm tall."
The plant was noticed by an iris collector in 1964 and named in 1972.And it grows among boulders and on steep rocky slopes at altitudes from 1,500 to 3,300 meters - and likely might be found in the mountains overlooking the imaginary village of Laashekoh in the novel Fear of Beauty.
Iris afghanica has been cultivated, Kew reports, but is rare. It thrives in hot dry summers and freezing winters - with little rain and the Kew species is in Kew House. Kew Gardens in London has 300 acres of wonder and is a UNESCO World Heritage Site - with shopping is available online.
So, Iris Farm has no Iris afghanica, but some other purple varieties will soon join my garden and offer memories well into the future, and I look forward to returning to Traverse City later this summer and retrieving my rhizomes.
Photos of the Iris Farm, courtesy of Douglas Olsen. Thumbnail photo of Iris afghanica, courtesy of Kew Gardens and Richard Wilford.
Smart farmers don't fight nature, and instead they study and appreciate its many whims. Today, the farm has more than 700 hybrids of Iris and several hundred of day lilies. The farm doesn't seem to have a website. Teh family doesn't do much advertising, but the two brothers are obviously delighted by the attention their new crop attracts. Passersby on Route M-72 recognize something special and slam on the brakes.
The genus Iris has about 250 species - and the name comes from the Greek word for rainbow.
So of course, I strolled along the rows of colorful irises, searching for Iris afghanica or some variation, but of course, those are not well suited for Michigan weather. "Iris afghanica is a striking species," report Malin Rivers and Richard Wilford, science editors of Kew Royal Botanic Gardens. "The slender, bluish-green leaves can be up to 30 cm long, though are often shorter, and the outer ones are sickle-shaped.... At higher altitudes the plants are more strongly coloured and only about 10 cm tall. At lower altitudes the flowers are larger and more softly coloured, and the plants can reach 25 or 30 cm tall."
The plant was noticed by an iris collector in 1964 and named in 1972.And it grows among boulders and on steep rocky slopes at altitudes from 1,500 to 3,300 meters - and likely might be found in the mountains overlooking the imaginary village of Laashekoh in the novel Fear of Beauty.
Iris afghanica has been cultivated, Kew reports, but is rare. It thrives in hot dry summers and freezing winters - with little rain and the Kew species is in Kew House. Kew Gardens in London has 300 acres of wonder and is a UNESCO World Heritage Site - with shopping is available online.
So, Iris Farm has no Iris afghanica, but some other purple varieties will soon join my garden and offer memories well into the future, and I look forward to returning to Traverse City later this summer and retrieving my rhizomes.
Photos of the Iris Farm, courtesy of Douglas Olsen. Thumbnail photo of Iris afghanica, courtesy of Kew Gardens and Richard Wilford.
Labels:
Afghanistan,
farming,
Iris,
Iris farm
Thursday, June 27
Empty promises
Negotiating with the Taliban is likely a futile endeavor - unless they are prepared to ensure equal rights for Afghanistan's women. They must be required to "frankly state their position on the status of women, particularly with regard to health, education, access to justice and above all political representation," writes Orzala Ashraf Nemat, an activist from Afghanistan, for The Guardian.
Firm conditions must be set before any negotiations begin. And the negotiators in this case should be required to post a bond of some sort, held in escrow, to prevent walking walking back on promises.
Some members of the Taliban may be prepared to renounce extremism and be prepared to compromise and live with decisions that are not exactly to their liking. And they should prove this by walking away from the organization.The Taliban are few in number. And the opinion of a minority group that does not respect majority rights should not be over-weighted in global or regional circles.
But negotiators can't even be sure that the Taliban gathering in Qatar are representative of the region's Taliban. The BBC reports that the group of 20 men includes no Taliban of Pakistan. "For years, the Afghan government and its Western backers have been trying to contact the Taliban, but they did not have a known address," reports the BBC News. "As a confidence-building measure, providing protection to those Taliban leaders participating in peace talks and finding them a permanent address became a priority for the US and the Afghan High Peace Council." The Taliban chose Qatar and the United States and Afghanistan went along. The Afghan government is rightly worried about the Taliban using the new base for promotion, recruitment or fundraising.
A few members of the Taliban are in a new locale, enjoying luxuries not available to them in Afghanistan. There are no guarantees they speak for other so-called Taliban in Afghanistan or have control over putting a top to extremism - convincing others to abide by political process.
The Qatar office could be nothing more than a scam.
NATO troops are withdrawing, and Afghans must choose the type of society they want. Most in the country probably do not want to go backward.
Photo of Afghan man beating a woman for removing her burqa in 2001, courtesy of RAWA and Wikimedia Commons.
Firm conditions must be set before any negotiations begin. And the negotiators in this case should be required to post a bond of some sort, held in escrow, to prevent walking walking back on promises.
Some members of the Taliban may be prepared to renounce extremism and be prepared to compromise and live with decisions that are not exactly to their liking. And they should prove this by walking away from the organization.The Taliban are few in number. And the opinion of a minority group that does not respect majority rights should not be over-weighted in global or regional circles.
But negotiators can't even be sure that the Taliban gathering in Qatar are representative of the region's Taliban. The BBC reports that the group of 20 men includes no Taliban of Pakistan. "For years, the Afghan government and its Western backers have been trying to contact the Taliban, but they did not have a known address," reports the BBC News. "As a confidence-building measure, providing protection to those Taliban leaders participating in peace talks and finding them a permanent address became a priority for the US and the Afghan High Peace Council." The Taliban chose Qatar and the United States and Afghanistan went along. The Afghan government is rightly worried about the Taliban using the new base for promotion, recruitment or fundraising.
A few members of the Taliban are in a new locale, enjoying luxuries not available to them in Afghanistan. There are no guarantees they speak for other so-called Taliban in Afghanistan or have control over putting a top to extremism - convincing others to abide by political process.
The Qatar office could be nothing more than a scam.
NATO troops are withdrawing, and Afghans must choose the type of society they want. Most in the country probably do not want to go backward.
Photo of Afghan man beating a woman for removing her burqa in 2001, courtesy of RAWA and Wikimedia Commons.
Labels:
negotiations,
Taliban,
women's rights
Tuesday, June 25
Bias?
As the author of a mystery novel set in Afghanistan, I have
often wondered if my internet wanderings have triggered alarms among analysts
at the National Security Agency. And as reports emerged abut PRISM, I filed a request with the
NSA’s convenient online form – inquiring about any files with my name or the
title of my fourth book.
I would not be surprised if the months of research for the
novel, Fear of Beauty,
set in Afghanistan, didn’t hit some nerves. The story is told from conflicting
points of view of a rural and illiterate Afghan woman and an Army Ranger, with
a plot focusing on extremism, varying interpretations of the Koran, weapons and
war, conflict among members of a provincial reconstructions team, surveillance
and more. So I headed to the National Security Agency’s web page on
the Freedom of Information Act and found: “If you are seeking personal records on yourself (i.e., security, medical,
personnel, applicant, etc.) or the reason why you were denied a position with
this Agency, you will need to submit a PRIVACY ACT (PA) request instead of a
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.”
After filing a request, I stumbled on the advice from the National Security
Archive for filing a FOIA request – and that advice could be a model for
the National Security Agency as they go about the business of collecting and
storing vast amounts of our personal phone and internet data.
The archive warns the public seeking FOIA requests that
obtaining records can take a long time and be costly. Many
documents are already public available – and alternative sources should be
checked first. “Overly broad requests are wasteful in time (yours, and the
government’s),” the site notes. Appeals can be filed, and the public is advised
to check in occasionally, but not harass the FOIA officers.
Long delays can be expected and the site notes that “agencies
that handle national security information have delays ranging from a few months
to several years…. Delays are exacerbated by the fact that, for most agencies,
FOIA is not an agency priority -- budget or otherwise.”
Finally, the archive advises: "Don’t send frivolous letters or file
pointless appeals; they will delay the processing of yours –and others’ –
requests." My request was not frivolous, and the NSA and our political leaders need
to know that a huge range of Americans, of all ages and backgrounds,
are concerned.
A response arrived in less than two weeks, notifying me the
request was denied. I won't appeal, but Congress must
review these programs, and eventually much of the methods and data collections will be declassified to
truly determine what works and what doesn’t. Transparency could contribute to
ongoing public support of the widespread surveillance while eliminating the
many questions and concerns.
Of
course, blanket searches of any type may eliminate some bias of targeted
searches and profiling, but not the labeling and stereotyping that may go on
among thousands of analysts with minimal education and training who have access
to our data.
And that’s the most troubling aspect of these programs. Hundreds of thousands of contractors with questionable backgrounds seem to have access to data, with so much potential for misuse and a lack of accountability among the managers who devised this unwieldy system.
Congress needs to get straight answers on the operations of
the National Security Agency – determining what kind of data should be
collected, the appropriate number of analysts who need access, and the proper
level of training. The House of Representatives hearing on NSA surveillance was a start.
NSA headquarters at night courtesy of the NSA and Wikimedia Commons.
Labels:
FOIA request,
NSA,
privacy
Saturday, June 22
Facial recognition
Survivalists suggest that "A human face is a dead giveaway to the trained eye against a heavily forested background."
Actually, the face of any creature attracts attention, particularly a big creature like a bear. Leaving a state park on one of Michigan's rural peninsulas, I noticed a face peering at me over a road sign, and my brain immediately registered curiosity and bear. Ducking, the bear moved out of sight and I thought I must have seen a stump.
Then the bear crossed the road.
Perhaps it was not the face, but the eyes - and the reason I initially registered an emotion over the creature itself. Another survivalist page advises carrying sunglasses: "Being able to look into someone's eyes gives you a lot of insight into what they are feeling and thinking."
Human eyes do still out more than others because of the ample white color surrounding the iris and pupil - which allows others to determine what our eyes are staring at even if our head is not pointed n that direction. " Knowing what another person is looking at provides valuable information about what she is thinking and feeling, and what she might do next," wrote Michael Tomasello, co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, for the New York Times. "If I am, in effect, advertising the direction of my eyes, I must be in a social environment full of others who are not often inclined to take advantage of this to my detriment — by, say, beating me to the food or escaping aggression before me. Indeed, I must be in a cooperative social environment in which others following the direction of my eyes somehow benefits me."
The cooperative eye hypothesis might explain why in some societies women don veils, covering the entire face, even the eyes, and why veils in other societies expose the eyes.
Photo by D. Olsen
Actually, the face of any creature attracts attention, particularly a big creature like a bear. Leaving a state park on one of Michigan's rural peninsulas, I noticed a face peering at me over a road sign, and my brain immediately registered curiosity and bear. Ducking, the bear moved out of sight and I thought I must have seen a stump.
Then the bear crossed the road.
Perhaps it was not the face, but the eyes - and the reason I initially registered an emotion over the creature itself. Another survivalist page advises carrying sunglasses: "Being able to look into someone's eyes gives you a lot of insight into what they are feeling and thinking."
Human eyes do still out more than others because of the ample white color surrounding the iris and pupil - which allows others to determine what our eyes are staring at even if our head is not pointed n that direction. " Knowing what another person is looking at provides valuable information about what she is thinking and feeling, and what she might do next," wrote Michael Tomasello, co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, for the New York Times. "If I am, in effect, advertising the direction of my eyes, I must be in a social environment full of others who are not often inclined to take advantage of this to my detriment — by, say, beating me to the food or escaping aggression before me. Indeed, I must be in a cooperative social environment in which others following the direction of my eyes somehow benefits me."
The cooperative eye hypothesis might explain why in some societies women don veils, covering the entire face, even the eyes, and why veils in other societies expose the eyes.
Photo by D. Olsen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)