Just a Woman
Aisha Sarwari May 29, 2007
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#43 Posted by Folio on May 30, 2007 5:44:10 am
Yasser,
>>English professors from India<<
That`s a wrong expression. It should always be `Professor of English from India` because English also connote ethnicity. This is the most common mistake committed even by teachers who teach English in India (No ENGLISH teacher, btw).
We may accpet these phrases under Indianisms.............
>>English professors from India<<
That`s a wrong expression. It should always be `Professor of English from India` because English also connote ethnicity. This is the most common mistake committed even by teachers who teach English in India (No ENGLISH teacher, btw).
We may accpet these phrases under Indianisms.............
#42 Posted by Aisha_Sarwari on May 30, 2007 5:32:26 am
Gandhi in The Handmaid’s Tale
Aisha Sarwari
October 4, 2005
Gandhi’s Anti-Feminist opinions
“My idea is to get these women to spin yarn.” MK Gandhi
I’m glad that no woman leader, at least not of international stature, has awarded their inspiration to M.K Gandhi known to the devout as The Mahatma, for it is because of these saintly Ayatollahs that women are not at the top of world affairs.
Saintly men are the most irresponsible of talkers, the most skilled illusionists. Even years after his death, Gandhi looms on San Francisco’s pier 42 as a statue of truth, sponsored by Pepsi Co. He is known to the world as a leader of the independence movement of India. He’s known as a frail man who led thousands to fight the British using the original method of non-violence. He’s a great story, but out of all his unpalatable myths I find the one about his “emancipator of women” most offensive.
Gandhi was the embodiment of traditionalism, religion and patriarchy all rolled into one. I say if you want to confine a woman, give her the role of cooking, label it sacred and her indispensable from the skill of its preparation and Viola! - There you have a society where men can reign supreme. This is of course my personal opinion but I am sure no non-chef woman will appreciate that Gandhi describes cooking as an obligation that all women must fulfill. Describing Hindu festivities he says, “The ladies are making preparations for the approaching grand day, by cooking and baking sweets, cakes, etc., for, in India, women of the highest class would not mind cooking. In fact, it is an accomplishment which every lady is supposed to possess.” (1)
Excuse my pettiness. I personally detest cooking as a women-only job. But I also find men referring to their likes and dislikes using women as a standard of honor, in extreme bad taste. An impartial reading of The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi has references of women being compared to methods of taxation, to market forces and to political systems.
So ingrained in his mind was the concept of the “fallen woman” as a woman who uses her sexuality by choice, that he talked of the concept with international correspondents during interviews. He says, “The condition of England at present is pitiable. I pray to God that India may never be in that plight. That which you consider to be the Mother of Parliaments is like a sterile woman and a prostitute. Both these are harsh terms, but exactly fit the case.” (2)
Margret Atwood novel, The Handmaids’s Tale, talks of a dystopia in a world without feminism. In it she outlines the most distinguishing feature of a totalitarian patriarchy to be an obsession with a woman’s ovaries to be viable. These societies want babies for the purpose of indoctrination and control. It is perhaps for this reason that Gandhi got a respectable member ousted from the London Vegetarian society, because he was advocating for birth control.
Gandhi continued about the British system of the time: “That Parliament has not yet, of its own accord, done a single good thing. Hence I have compared it to a sterile woman. The natural condition of that Parliament is such that, without outside pressure, it can do nothing. It is like a prostitute because it is under the control of ministers who change from time to time. Today it is under Mr. Asquith, tomorrow it may be under Mr. Balfour.” (3)
The second most defining characteristic from Atwood’s novel was the concept of anarchy resulting from a woman’s choice to select a partner for sex, because it puts pressure on men to compete for women, by bring to par their standards for women, rather than the other way round. Using Islamic Feminist, Fatima Mernessi’s argument- how chauvinists chose to deal with the fear was to debase a prostitute and define her in the most sinful state that the divine’s wrath is on.
Gandhi’s general opinion about women was very low. Not only did he objectify women by using statements that call to “cling to the old Indian civilization even as a child clings to the mother`s breast,” he shed all egalitarianism and insisted that “the care of children and the upkeep of the house is quiet enough to fully engage her energy.” (4)
When speaking of women Gandhi was often patronizing and authoritarian. To Gandhi the “good Indian woman” was epitomized by Sita, Draupadi, and Damyanti.
He’s often quoted saying that women made “too much noise,” that they didn’t observe “purdah,” nor did they know how to assemble near him with propriety. It is “difficult to “interest them in everyday topics,” because of their “extravagant and hypocritical” nature. They always, “gossip and are too found of their jewelry to part with it.” Women, he said don’t have organizational skills and must be “guided” by men. (5)
Another defining symbolism that the people in Atwood’s novel took to was “veiling” and propriety. Talking was prohibited, and possession of personal assets was treated a crime as bad as sedition. Of course in Gilerd, Atwood’s fictional account of the state, men were in charge of women.
However, Gandhi was a clever man, for every crude comment against women, he had 10 that supported women to go out and campaign, suggesting empowerment.
Gandhi prompted women to “defy” their husbands if they have to and step outside the house in the greater national movement, because women had natural “traits” and a “traditional role” which they could use in the great “battle to gain access in the temples of the untouchables whose numbers were needed. (6)
To get to the bottom of it, Gandhi’s double standard in the case of his wife’s political activism against the Marriage Act of 1913 in South Africa is telling.
After calling women to disobey for the cause, Gandhi was later apprehensive. When Kasturba, his wife led women against the Act, he said he “lacked confidence” in her abilities. He clarified, “If at the last moment they flinched, their prominence might seriously damage the cause they sought to advance. (7)
It was finally decided to let the “ladies” proceed with their plan but under no circumstance were they to divulge their names until they were “safely” in jail. Thus their men could be “saved from embarrassment if the women failed.” (8)
After they returned from jail, Gandhi urged them to be the same “patient and dutiful women that India has produced for centuries.” (9)
The Handmaid’s Tale, the centeral character, Offerd, was expected to be “patient and dutiful” moreover, she was forbidden to work/slave outside her household, though it may have been perfectly ok for her to do so inside. Similarly, Gandhi’s ideal society was unlike the European society, which he called an irreligious society:
“This civilization is irreligion, and it has taken such a hold on the people in Europe who are in it appear to be half mad. They lack real physical strength or courage. They keep up their energy by intoxication. They can hardly be happy in solitude. Women, who should be the queens of households, wander in the streets or they slave away in factories. For the sake of a pittance, half a million women in England alone are labouring under in factories or similar institutions. This awful fact is one of the causes of the daily growing suffragette movement.”
This statement also shows a clear lack of comprehension of the processes that a society must follow to develop and allocate resources equitably.
Some may argue that Gandhi’s personal character should be reviewed rather than his flawed statements. Fair enough: Shall we move on to how he treated his wife?
First of all, he didn’t think he needed her input on his vow of celibacy or the decision to have no more children. Certainly, even women from that era would not settle for an agreement so skewed in power. “It became my conviction that procreation and the consequent care of children were inconsistent with public service.” (10)
He had a lifelong conviction that most religious clergy have. That women were sexual beings, that they tempted, that men lusted when they saw them and that they were an indulging temptation that were diametrically opposed to a God that demanded suffering and extreme self-control.
“To be fair to my wife, I must say that she was never the temptress. It was therefore the easiest thing for me to take the vow of brahmacharya , if only I willed it.” (11)
It surprises me to no end, that MK. Gandhi is praised for spirituality but he never understood its basic fact that, the soul is developed only though interaction with the material, and not in isolation of it.
“The other thing which is equally harmful is sexual vice. Both are poison. A snake-bite is a lesser poison than these two, because the former merely destroys the body but the latter destroy body, mind and soul.” (12)
Gandhi was a carnal being, who instead of committing to self-improvement, decided to Band Aid his jealous boyfriend issues though religion, and also gaining some international fame as a result. He’s probably the only global figure who commands awe and respect dispite doing his own plumbing and not having sex for ages.
“I had absolutely no reason to suspect my wife`s fidelity, but jealousy does not wait for reasons. I must needs be for ever on the look-out regarding her movements, and therefore she could not go anywhere without my permission. I wanted to make my wife an ideal wife. My ambition was to make her live a pure life.” (13)
The idea of women’s independence was not acceptable to Gandhi, says also Anup Taneja who researched the topic, unlike my opinion piece here. The question to ask is if the world can afford to accept an icon who rejected half of humanity’s values, and was willing to lock them up in the four walls of “evil traditions.”
Aisha Sarwari
October 4, 2005
Gandhi’s Anti-Feminist opinions
“My idea is to get these women to spin yarn.” MK Gandhi
I’m glad that no woman leader, at least not of international stature, has awarded their inspiration to M.K Gandhi known to the devout as The Mahatma, for it is because of these saintly Ayatollahs that women are not at the top of world affairs.
Saintly men are the most irresponsible of talkers, the most skilled illusionists. Even years after his death, Gandhi looms on San Francisco’s pier 42 as a statue of truth, sponsored by Pepsi Co. He is known to the world as a leader of the independence movement of India. He’s known as a frail man who led thousands to fight the British using the original method of non-violence. He’s a great story, but out of all his unpalatable myths I find the one about his “emancipator of women” most offensive.
Gandhi was the embodiment of traditionalism, religion and patriarchy all rolled into one. I say if you want to confine a woman, give her the role of cooking, label it sacred and her indispensable from the skill of its preparation and Viola! - There you have a society where men can reign supreme. This is of course my personal opinion but I am sure no non-chef woman will appreciate that Gandhi describes cooking as an obligation that all women must fulfill. Describing Hindu festivities he says, “The ladies are making preparations for the approaching grand day, by cooking and baking sweets, cakes, etc., for, in India, women of the highest class would not mind cooking. In fact, it is an accomplishment which every lady is supposed to possess.” (1)
Excuse my pettiness. I personally detest cooking as a women-only job. But I also find men referring to their likes and dislikes using women as a standard of honor, in extreme bad taste. An impartial reading of The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi has references of women being compared to methods of taxation, to market forces and to political systems.
So ingrained in his mind was the concept of the “fallen woman” as a woman who uses her sexuality by choice, that he talked of the concept with international correspondents during interviews. He says, “The condition of England at present is pitiable. I pray to God that India may never be in that plight. That which you consider to be the Mother of Parliaments is like a sterile woman and a prostitute. Both these are harsh terms, but exactly fit the case.” (2)
Margret Atwood novel, The Handmaids’s Tale, talks of a dystopia in a world without feminism. In it she outlines the most distinguishing feature of a totalitarian patriarchy to be an obsession with a woman’s ovaries to be viable. These societies want babies for the purpose of indoctrination and control. It is perhaps for this reason that Gandhi got a respectable member ousted from the London Vegetarian society, because he was advocating for birth control.
Gandhi continued about the British system of the time: “That Parliament has not yet, of its own accord, done a single good thing. Hence I have compared it to a sterile woman. The natural condition of that Parliament is such that, without outside pressure, it can do nothing. It is like a prostitute because it is under the control of ministers who change from time to time. Today it is under Mr. Asquith, tomorrow it may be under Mr. Balfour.” (3)
The second most defining characteristic from Atwood’s novel was the concept of anarchy resulting from a woman’s choice to select a partner for sex, because it puts pressure on men to compete for women, by bring to par their standards for women, rather than the other way round. Using Islamic Feminist, Fatima Mernessi’s argument- how chauvinists chose to deal with the fear was to debase a prostitute and define her in the most sinful state that the divine’s wrath is on.
Gandhi’s general opinion about women was very low. Not only did he objectify women by using statements that call to “cling to the old Indian civilization even as a child clings to the mother`s breast,” he shed all egalitarianism and insisted that “the care of children and the upkeep of the house is quiet enough to fully engage her energy.” (4)
When speaking of women Gandhi was often patronizing and authoritarian. To Gandhi the “good Indian woman” was epitomized by Sita, Draupadi, and Damyanti.
He’s often quoted saying that women made “too much noise,” that they didn’t observe “purdah,” nor did they know how to assemble near him with propriety. It is “difficult to “interest them in everyday topics,” because of their “extravagant and hypocritical” nature. They always, “gossip and are too found of their jewelry to part with it.” Women, he said don’t have organizational skills and must be “guided” by men. (5)
Another defining symbolism that the people in Atwood’s novel took to was “veiling” and propriety. Talking was prohibited, and possession of personal assets was treated a crime as bad as sedition. Of course in Gilerd, Atwood’s fictional account of the state, men were in charge of women.
However, Gandhi was a clever man, for every crude comment against women, he had 10 that supported women to go out and campaign, suggesting empowerment.
Gandhi prompted women to “defy” their husbands if they have to and step outside the house in the greater national movement, because women had natural “traits” and a “traditional role” which they could use in the great “battle to gain access in the temples of the untouchables whose numbers were needed. (6)
To get to the bottom of it, Gandhi’s double standard in the case of his wife’s political activism against the Marriage Act of 1913 in South Africa is telling.
After calling women to disobey for the cause, Gandhi was later apprehensive. When Kasturba, his wife led women against the Act, he said he “lacked confidence” in her abilities. He clarified, “If at the last moment they flinched, their prominence might seriously damage the cause they sought to advance. (7)
It was finally decided to let the “ladies” proceed with their plan but under no circumstance were they to divulge their names until they were “safely” in jail. Thus their men could be “saved from embarrassment if the women failed.” (8)
After they returned from jail, Gandhi urged them to be the same “patient and dutiful women that India has produced for centuries.” (9)
The Handmaid’s Tale, the centeral character, Offerd, was expected to be “patient and dutiful” moreover, she was forbidden to work/slave outside her household, though it may have been perfectly ok for her to do so inside. Similarly, Gandhi’s ideal society was unlike the European society, which he called an irreligious society:
“This civilization is irreligion, and it has taken such a hold on the people in Europe who are in it appear to be half mad. They lack real physical strength or courage. They keep up their energy by intoxication. They can hardly be happy in solitude. Women, who should be the queens of households, wander in the streets or they slave away in factories. For the sake of a pittance, half a million women in England alone are labouring under in factories or similar institutions. This awful fact is one of the causes of the daily growing suffragette movement.”
This statement also shows a clear lack of comprehension of the processes that a society must follow to develop and allocate resources equitably.
Some may argue that Gandhi’s personal character should be reviewed rather than his flawed statements. Fair enough: Shall we move on to how he treated his wife?
First of all, he didn’t think he needed her input on his vow of celibacy or the decision to have no more children. Certainly, even women from that era would not settle for an agreement so skewed in power. “It became my conviction that procreation and the consequent care of children were inconsistent with public service.” (10)
He had a lifelong conviction that most religious clergy have. That women were sexual beings, that they tempted, that men lusted when they saw them and that they were an indulging temptation that were diametrically opposed to a God that demanded suffering and extreme self-control.
“To be fair to my wife, I must say that she was never the temptress. It was therefore the easiest thing for me to take the vow of brahmacharya , if only I willed it.” (11)
It surprises me to no end, that MK. Gandhi is praised for spirituality but he never understood its basic fact that, the soul is developed only though interaction with the material, and not in isolation of it.
“The other thing which is equally harmful is sexual vice. Both are poison. A snake-bite is a lesser poison than these two, because the former merely destroys the body but the latter destroy body, mind and soul.” (12)
Gandhi was a carnal being, who instead of committing to self-improvement, decided to Band Aid his jealous boyfriend issues though religion, and also gaining some international fame as a result. He’s probably the only global figure who commands awe and respect dispite doing his own plumbing and not having sex for ages.
“I had absolutely no reason to suspect my wife`s fidelity, but jealousy does not wait for reasons. I must needs be for ever on the look-out regarding her movements, and therefore she could not go anywhere without my permission. I wanted to make my wife an ideal wife. My ambition was to make her live a pure life.” (13)
The idea of women’s independence was not acceptable to Gandhi, says also Anup Taneja who researched the topic, unlike my opinion piece here. The question to ask is if the world can afford to accept an icon who rejected half of humanity’s values, and was willing to lock them up in the four walls of “evil traditions.”
#40 Posted by shandana on May 30, 2007 5:19:50 am
i was walking behind a middle aged man and his son in a park in karachi the other day. the kid must have been about eight or nine, and they were discussing the physical merits and demerits of the women who passed them. the kid would make a comment, the father would praise him if he thought it was graphic enough or gently correct him and add to it if he felt it was weak. they were walking quite slowly, but since my ears were already burning and their idiocy was doing for my heartrate what jogging only aspires to do, i adjusted my pace and stayed behind them till they left.
does this only happen in pakistan? in america last month a man came up to me on the street and said `shall i compare thee to a summers day?`. at a security checkpoint a guard held out his tray and said `belt, keys, phone number`.
over the years i have learnt that the best way to avoid men practising their lines on you is to look really pissed off, like super `i`m going to chop off your testicles and make kapuras` pissed off. the only completely effective way to avoid men practising their lines on you is to die.
i am working on a slightly less permanent alternative.
people who are attacking the author about typos and grammar...why? there have been lots of other articles on fp with poor editing, why no super focus on those?
does this only happen in pakistan? in america last month a man came up to me on the street and said `shall i compare thee to a summers day?`. at a security checkpoint a guard held out his tray and said `belt, keys, phone number`.
over the years i have learnt that the best way to avoid men practising their lines on you is to look really pissed off, like super `i`m going to chop off your testicles and make kapuras` pissed off. the only completely effective way to avoid men practising their lines on you is to die.
i am working on a slightly less permanent alternative.
people who are attacking the author about typos and grammar...why? there have been lots of other articles on fp with poor editing, why no super focus on those?
#39 Posted by hamidm2 on May 30, 2007 5:06:04 am
aisha,
........ the first thing that strikes you when you land in pakistan is the relative absence of women in public and the unblinking stares of men focussed on the few brave souls who dare to venture out ........... as somone said earlier, this sexual frustration is the result of the segregation of sexes at a very young age ........ i have noticed a marked difference in attitude between my nephews who go to co-ed schools and those who go to all boys schools - the boys who go to co-ed schools tend to be more comfortable, polite and `civilized` around women ........ i feel sorry for the poor boys who grow up thinking that women are beings from another planet - they tend to behave like uncouth `dangars` ..........
....... next time use mace instead of relying on the guards ........
#38 Posted by khamy1 on May 30, 2007 5:05:17 am
...it`s funny to see chowk publishing the said article depicting the everyday harassment of a female in pakistan whie women are insulted, called dirtiest na,es on a daily basis on chowk and no one gives a damn untill the reciver of the sexual insults is chowk`s ex editor who took a longer than expected hiatus for unknown reasons and has not been since...thank god for small mercies...the champions of chowk in the art of hurting, insulting and abusing females are: drum roll please... zeemax, the defender of the faith and salim chauhan, the chameleon...but chowk thinks it`s kosher then it must be...
#36 Posted by rahul_capri on May 30, 2007 4:34:34 am
http://blanknoiseproject.blogspot.com/
This is an org in India dedicated to empowering women and educating men about eve teasing.
It has done good work in recent years.
As Shandana has said, raising a voice through all means possible is a part of the solution.
Aisha, if you dont mind, do submit your writeup to the Blank Noise Project as well.
Thanks.
This is an org in India dedicated to empowering women and educating men about eve teasing.
It has done good work in recent years.
As Shandana has said, raising a voice through all means possible is a part of the solution.
Aisha, if you dont mind, do submit your writeup to the Blank Noise Project as well.
Thanks.
#34 Posted by Rukhsana-shama on May 30, 2007 3:08:12 am
Its a nice article highlighting as to what actually we as a women living in society like ours have to face.
But the thing is what is the solution to this problem??
Is there any solution at all???
revolutionization of the patriarchal mindset is the only way out, i guess.
But the thing is what is the solution to this problem??
Is there any solution at all???
revolutionization of the patriarchal mindset is the only way out, i guess.
#33 Posted by bjkumar on May 30, 2007 3:02:25 am
Yaraan, I was not trying to distract from the seriousness of the issue at hand, just thought a bit of humor will do us good - at Yasser`s expense, too (hey, what are the ``worse half``s for?!)
#32 Posted by MantoLives on May 30, 2007 2:25:27 am
Dear HP,
I am reasonably sure that self styled English professors from India like Alephnull can probably not utter a single sentence in the English language without making an utter fool of themselves (and when they do survive that it is usually because the accent is so utterly incomprehensible to the other person) ... hence the anal retentiveness when it comes to grammar... it is a deep-rooted colonial complex really or maybe something even deeper, a sense of insecurity because this fellow often boasts about ``backpacking through Europe``. The primary purpose of language is communication and as far as communication goes the article has made its points well.
On another thought, there may be a case for Alephnull to go and correct the homies when they say ``it don`t`` instead of ``it doesn`t``... but there I suspect, A`null has complexes of another kind.
#30 Posted by Zeena on May 29, 2007 11:57:42 pm
Dear Aisha Sarwari
Excellent! article so far on front page....
Bravo!
I must admit you took a really bold and first step to a very important issue for Pakistani women......
Aisha sista
The step that you have taken to expose the harassment of Pakistani women on the streets is the big step to end this harassment for women folks....you deserve a great appreciation for NOT putting up with this d for speaking up for your right to take you as an equal Pakistani citizen, not just a weak woman....
Yes, sadly, Pakistani women have to face such kind of harassment in their daily lives and they are expected to put up with such harassment wit dignity...and people have accepted such harassment the part and parcel of their society.....they have accepted as such abuse and harassment as the norm of society......that`s so unfortunate.
I must admit, I have always faced such situations in Pakistan, but, in USA have never experienced such harassment....In Pakistan, I can`t even think about going out in public alone without anyone.....
On the contrary, in USA I always travel alone.....never faced anything like that......and sad thing is , it is Pakistan where they remind and preach women to be subdued and submissive, in USA nobody tells women to be submissive or subdued, they do what they want to do without any danger of being harassed.......
You know why?B/c of strict law enforcement policies....
When I am in Pakistan, I always tell others,``Please, don`t remind me who I am , where I can go and where I can`t, what I can wear and what I can`t, stop patronizing my life with your unnecessary reminder for me , how to carry myself,how to stand,how to talk, how to look in my own homeland? without feeling at home.....
I do not tell these Pakistani men to respect me as their own family females,but, to take me as an equal human being and as an equal Pakistani citizen who can roam in the bazaars just like Pakistani men without any threatening environment and why not? Every Pakistani lady is as much a Pakistani citizen as any gentleman is? And My question to these Pakistani men is, `` listen, we Pakistani ladies just wish to roam around without the four walls of our homes just to feel free,that doesn`t mean we wish to be seen or we wish to be visible for men.....Just think about it.
The same society takes these men breaking every kinds of norms as norms,but, when any woman even tries to hang out in the streets of Pakistan, the same woman is considered ,``rebellious, Bit*h``etc, etc....
Pakistani society`s perspective needs to be educated about taking women as some objects of desire....they should be treated with dignity and respect, not like puppets.....
Let me tell you about my own experiences in Pakistan, I have had been harassed there no matter which dresses I wear.....whether I wear Jeans,shalwar kameez, chaddar, dupatta......I felt the same threatening environment for women out there on the streets......
Trust me, one day I even tried to wear burqa,but, I felt the samething......So, my whole point is, it has got nothing to do with dresses..........Whole society`s concept about taking women as objects need to be changed......and also strict law enforcements needs to be implemented.....
And that`s the reality and cruel reality.....
Pakistanis need to be mentally educated regarding this sad situation....
Stop street violence against Pakistani women....
Excellent! article so far on front page....
Bravo!
I must admit you took a really bold and first step to a very important issue for Pakistani women......
Aisha sista
The step that you have taken to expose the harassment of Pakistani women on the streets is the big step to end this harassment for women folks....you deserve a great appreciation for NOT putting up with this d for speaking up for your right to take you as an equal Pakistani citizen, not just a weak woman....
Yes, sadly, Pakistani women have to face such kind of harassment in their daily lives and they are expected to put up with such harassment wit dignity...and people have accepted such harassment the part and parcel of their society.....they have accepted as such abuse and harassment as the norm of society......that`s so unfortunate.
I must admit, I have always faced such situations in Pakistan, but, in USA have never experienced such harassment....In Pakistan, I can`t even think about going out in public alone without anyone.....
On the contrary, in USA I always travel alone.....never faced anything like that......and sad thing is , it is Pakistan where they remind and preach women to be subdued and submissive, in USA nobody tells women to be submissive or subdued, they do what they want to do without any danger of being harassed.......
You know why?B/c of strict law enforcement policies....
When I am in Pakistan, I always tell others,``Please, don`t remind me who I am , where I can go and where I can`t, what I can wear and what I can`t, stop patronizing my life with your unnecessary reminder for me , how to carry myself,how to stand,how to talk, how to look in my own homeland? without feeling at home.....
I do not tell these Pakistani men to respect me as their own family females,but, to take me as an equal human being and as an equal Pakistani citizen who can roam in the bazaars just like Pakistani men without any threatening environment and why not? Every Pakistani lady is as much a Pakistani citizen as any gentleman is? And My question to these Pakistani men is, `` listen, we Pakistani ladies just wish to roam around without the four walls of our homes just to feel free,that doesn`t mean we wish to be seen or we wish to be visible for men.....Just think about it.
The same society takes these men breaking every kinds of norms as norms,but, when any woman even tries to hang out in the streets of Pakistan, the same woman is considered ,``rebellious, Bit*h``etc, etc....
Pakistani society`s perspective needs to be educated about taking women as some objects of desire....they should be treated with dignity and respect, not like puppets.....
Let me tell you about my own experiences in Pakistan, I have had been harassed there no matter which dresses I wear.....whether I wear Jeans,shalwar kameez, chaddar, dupatta......I felt the same threatening environment for women out there on the streets......
Trust me, one day I even tried to wear burqa,but, I felt the samething......So, my whole point is, it has got nothing to do with dresses..........Whole society`s concept about taking women as objects need to be changed......and also strict law enforcements needs to be implemented.....
And that`s the reality and cruel reality.....
Pakistanis need to be mentally educated regarding this sad situation....
Stop street violence against Pakistani women....
#29 Posted by HP on May 29, 2007 11:54:12 pm
Aisha, Here is a quote from Angelika Schaser`s study of the patriotic German women`s movement in the `Second Reich`.
Male-only nation
Practically every new nation that was founded denied women citizenship rights, specifically the suffrage that was allotted to males, always with an apparatus of gendered `role` allotments. I take most of my examples here from the Kaiserreich (Germany 1871-1918), because that`s what I`m studying - but also because it is a fascinating example in itself.
In Imperial Germany, as Schaser puts it, ``the nation-state was composed of male individuals``. Only men had the right to vote and bear arms, men were in executive control of the family, men had superior education. Women belonged to the world principally through the family, while men accessed the world through a variety of vital channels. The ‘natural’ boundaries for women were drawn around the three ‘K’s – Kinder, Kuche, Kirche (children, kitchen and church). Under the Civil Legal Code (initially elaborated in the 1870s, but finally made law in 1896), married women had no say in child’s education, and all property or money in marriage became the husband’s responsibility.
The code states: ``the husband takes the decisions in all matters affecting married life``. The practice of abortion carried a 5 year sentence, and woman suspected of prostitution had to undergo examination by the ‘Morals Police’ (Sittenpolizei), while male clients faced no such humiliation. The state placed the full responsibility of the consequences of sexual interaction on women, while apportioning the full ownership of its benefits to men. Aside from that, the prohibition on abortion can be seen as an effort to exert strict control over the reproduction of society. This, of course, is not unknown: in the Soviet Union, which was the first country to legalize abortion in 1920, abortion was outlawed again in 1936, at the height of the mass deaths from famine and repression, and only legalised again in 1955. ``
In Israel, as Yural-Davis - herself an Israeli dissident - points out, abortion rights are severely restricted and rather controversial with the right-wing, in part because of the `racial` or - to put it more euphemistically - `demographic` struggle with Palestine.
She also recalls that females who chose sterility were upbraided by for inviting ``national death`` and ``race suicide`` by one Theodore Roosevelt (this at a time when the United States government was practicing a crude form of eugenics). `Race`, of course, with its trope of extended family, of blood-lines and originary human communities, of purity and decadence, is the sina qua none of a highly gendered nationalism.”
As we clearly see that the problems that women in our part of the world face are not so uncommon. The liberal West was not any different just 100 years ago. If you allow me to add, women still get teased in the west. The difference is that now they don’t have to call the cops for help but they can, if they so desire, respond back as aggressively as they can.
I think this an important subject and despite some moron picking on the grammar here, the importance of your point is not diminished in any way.
Let me ask you a question: With the way the society is in Pakistan and elsewhere where women are easy picking, you may have encountered this male behavior on many occasions, can you consistently sustained the approach you took in this particular incident?
#28 Posted by nila on May 29, 2007 11:30:23 pm
A woman writes an article on the indecent behaviour she had to face from men.
All that the men who managed to read it could make out were grammatical errors and typos.
But I don`t blame them.
That`s them. Men. Or rather, desi- men.
And thats exactly how far they can go.
Wonder when we will have more of women security guards.
And when desi-women will learn to tease back.
Cant help remembering the instances when I have seen gora men hold back ther sons telling them``let the lady pass``.
Thats culture. A different one.
All that the men who managed to read it could make out were grammatical errors and typos.
But I don`t blame them.
That`s them. Men. Or rather, desi- men.
And thats exactly how far they can go.
Wonder when we will have more of women security guards.
And when desi-women will learn to tease back.
Cant help remembering the instances when I have seen gora men hold back ther sons telling them``let the lady pass``.
Thats culture. A different one.
#26 Posted by HP on May 29, 2007 10:29:58 pm
#13 by ANull
The “unholyshitonthefaceandinthemouth” a-hole is back as grammar Nazi now. This ahole couple of years ago was a self styled intellectual. It did not take long to take the juice out of that balloon. Heheheheh…..
There was a time when this ahole was at least attempting to impress some turds, now he is down to finding grammatical errors.
“unholyshitonthefaceandinthemouth” a-hole, how about you write something here for us to judge how you present your ideas w/o any grammatical errors? Why pick on others, why not show your mettle right here?
Suggested topic: Dhoti and its benefits in rural Kerala. Heheheh….
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- nb: And how ridiculous to... Rape Survivor Families Struggle
- nb: Parthaab, you remind me... Rape Survivor Families Struggle
- jayp: Re: # 43 sharmeen, What are... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- jayp: Re: # 19 tahmed, Paki civil... Rape Survivor Families Struggle
- nb: I never knew until... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- _arjun30: heh... ‘Pakistan loses $1.5bn due... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- _arjun30: #64 Posted by... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- laddu: The more Islamist thinking... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
