Another Luxury Belief: Women Banned from Education by the Taliban

The banning of education beyond primary school for women by the Taliban in Afghanistan is an especially deplorable luxury belief. Post below by WDI.Afghanistan:

"In case you were wondering: the Taliban leaders send their daughters to fancy schools in Qatar and Pakistan.

“Just for the record, do your two daughters go to school?

Head of Taliban Office in Qatar - Of course they do.

This sums it all up. For their own daughters nothing is forbidden while for poor girls living in Afghanistan everything is forbidden."

Rob Henderson developed the concept of "Luxury beliefs." They are ideas and opinions that confer social status and the cheap signaling glow of "goodness" on the upper class, at little or no cost, while inflicting substantial burdens on the lower classes. Luxury beliefs are an especially destructive form of hypocrisy. Prominent U.S. examples of luxury beliefs:

1. Defund the police: Upper-class individuals advocate for reducing police funding, signaling progressive values, while living in safe communities (sometimes gated) or paying for private security, leaving lower-income neighborhoods more vulnerable to crime.

2. Abolishing standardized tests like the SAT: Affluent people advocate for eliminating such tests under the banner of "equity," yet their children benefit from expensive tutors and alternative admissions advantages, disadvantaging lower-class applicants who rely on merit-based scores.

3. Monogamy and marriage are outdated: Elite individuals publicly downplay the importance of traditional marriage and fidelity, but privately practice them to ensure family stability and success for their offspring.

4. Open borders or lax immigration policies: Upper-class advocates support unrestricted immigration, which doesn't threaten their high-skill jobs or neighborhoods, but increases competition and thus lowers wages for working-class Americans.

https://x.com/wdiafghanistan1/status/2017437051382075762?s=43

From Grok (link below):

Under Taliban rule in Afghanistan, as of February 2026, girls and women are permitted to attend primary school up to grade 6 (typically up to around age 12), but they face a complete ban on secondary education (grades 7-12) and higher education, including universities.

This policy, in place since the Taliban's return to power in 2021, has been extended over time: secondary schools were closed to girls in March 2022, universities in December 2022, and most recently, women and girls were barred from public and private medical institutes in December 2024, severely limiting the training of female healthcare workers in a country with acute medical needs.

Afghanistan remains the only country in the world enforcing such comprehensive restrictions on female education beyond the primary level.

The ban affects approximately 2.2 million girls who are denied secondary education, with projections indicating further increases if the policy persists. ...

These educational restrictions are part of a broader system of gender-based policies, often described as "gender apartheid," which also limit women's employment, movement, public participation, and access to healthcare."

From the NYT, NPR & MSNBC: No reporting on this abuse of women by the Taliban for at least the past year.

Continue ReadingAnother Luxury Belief: Women Banned from Education by the Taliban

Luxury Beliefs in Chicago

Rob Henderson coined the term "Luxury Beliefs" as follows:

Luxury beliefs are ideas and opinions that confer status on the upper class while inflicting costs on the lower classes.

Here, Rob offers a more expansive discussion:
In addition to my own experiences with social mobility, my luxury beliefs idea stems from Thorstein Veblen’s work, particularly his 1899 book, The Theory of the Leisure Class. Veblen, a sociologist and economist, described how the elites of his era displayed their status through conspicuous consumption, such as wearing delicate, expensive clothing, carrying pocket watches, or attending lavish ballroom events. While material possessions still play a role in signaling status today, I argue that they have become a noisier indicator of wealth. A century ago, one could easily distinguish the rich from the poor based on appearance alone. However, in our wealthier modern society, where access to goods is more widespread, it’s harder to gauge someone’s wealth at a glance.

Instead, status is increasingly expressed through what I call luxury beliefs, which have largely replaced luxury goods. These beliefs reflect what sociologist Pierre Bourdieu termed cultural capital. Elites invest in attending prestigious schools and universities, where they adopt the mannerisms, vocabulary, habits, and fashionable opinions of the upper class. This process enculturates them into the elite and sets them apart from the broader population. For example, while the conventional view might support law enforcement, someone seeking to signal their elite status might advocate for abolishing the police or reimagining law enforcement with ideas like hiring “violence interrupters.” Such unconventional or avant-garde views serve as a way to distinguish oneself from the masses and signal a superior social position.

Today, I noticed this post by A Gene Robinson, who doesn't use the term "luxury beliefs," but is angry about non-stop high crime in Chicago contrasted with what he considered the detached cheap signaling of those who participated in the Chicago No Kings Rally:

I asked Grok to compare the economic circumstances of those in Chicago's crime ridden neighborhoods to the circumstances of people who work for corporate media:

Corporate media workers earn 2–5 times more than residents in these Chicago neighborhoods ($60,000+ vs. $25,000–$50,000), enabling comfortable lifestyles with savings, travel, and leisure. They benefit from employer perks like health insurance and flexible time off, contrasting with reliance on public aid in high-crime areas, where poverty rates are 2–3 times higher (40%+ vs. national 12%). Media lifestyles involve professional growth and urban amenities, while these neighborhoods face survival challenges, unemployment-driven desperation, and violence that perpetuates economic stagnation. This disparity highlights broader urban inequalities, where media professionals might even report on these communities from a position of relative privilege.

Then I asked Grok to compare the economic circumstances of those in Chicago's crime-ridden neighborhoods to those who marched in the Chicago no-kings rally:

The economic divide between residents of Chicago's crime-ridden neighborhoods and No Kings rally marchers is stark, highlighting urban inequalities in race, class, and opportunity. Neighborhood residents endure entrenched poverty, with incomes 2–4 times lower than the implied stability of rally participants, who benefit from assets like homes and retirement funds accumulated over decades.

While the former face unemployment, reliance on aid, and violence-linked economic stagnation, marchers—often older, white, and from more affluent backgrounds—enjoy financial security enabling activism without personal economic risk.

This contrast underscores how protests like No Kings may draw from privileged demographics, potentially overlooking the direct economic hardships in the city's most vulnerable areas.

Continue ReadingLuxury Beliefs in Chicago

Rob Henderson: The Costs of Luxury Goods Are Not Always Obvious

Rob Henderson, writing at The Free Press:

I’ve long argued that many people who hold “luxury beliefs”—ideas and opinions that confer status on the upper class, while often inflicting costs on the lower classes—are oblivious to the consequences of their views. Support for defunding the police is a classic example. Luxury beliefs can stem from malice, good intentions, or outright naivete. But the individuals who hold those beliefs, the people who wield the most influence in policy and culture, are often sheltered when their preferences are implemented.

Some online commenters have said that my luxury beliefs thesis is undermined by these tragic events, because the victims were affluent and influential—and they still suffered the consequences of their beliefs.

But the fact remains that poor people are far more likely to be victims of violent crime. For every upper-middle-class person killed, 20 poor people you never hear about are assaulted and murdered. You just never hear about them. They don’t get identified by name in the media. Their stories don’t get told.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the poorest Americans are seven times more likely to be victims of robbery, seven times more likely to be victims of aggravated assault, and twenty times more likely to be victims of sexual assault than Americans who earn more than $75,000. One 2004 study found that people in areas where over 20 percent of inhabitants live in poverty are more than 100 times more likely to be murdered than people in areas where less than 10 percent of residents live in poverty.

Continue ReadingRob Henderson: The Costs of Luxury Goods Are Not Always Obvious