Just Another Woman

Sad story. Maybe the title should have been POWER & IMPOTENCE. She ironically never had any power, and his impotence precluded him from exercising his masculine role fully, thus leading to his rage at her.

FEROZK (Peply #63) anyone who uses the term MENS REA (intent) is a LAWYER. I`ve never heard that term used outside the legal profession.

re bina

of course, the reader is free to like or not like with the writing for whatever reason. it cuts both ways.

:)

re bina

sorry yaar, about the piggy bank, i mean. ;)

this seemed to me to be the essence of your argument: ``it`s important to make a commitment to take the reader along with them on every twist and turn of the way``.

nope. no way. nada. didnt work, bina.

the freedom-of-speechers will tell you, as i will, that the writer is under no obligation to do anything -- even write well. s/he is free to write what, how much, why and when s/he wants. or to cheat you by not writing what you wanted them to, or killing off the hunk with the biceps, or leaving loose strings untied. whatever...you went from saying that not making it clear whether its fiction or journalism was unfair to the reader to some vague supposed commitment to take them along on a journey.

didnt convince me.

i`m mailing you my piggy bank, c/o chowk.

cheers :) :) :)

``Being unfair to the reader`` - after BG`s challenge, I had to actually sit down and decide what that really meant. So here goes.

Writing is an adventure of discovery for the writer as well as for the reader. When you sit down to write you don`t always know what`s going to come out (unless you are a genius like Mozart and even I can`t claim his stature, much as I`d like to). Sometimes through writing you explore, you uncover feelings, emotions, ideas, thoughts, conflicts in your own mind that you didn`t even know existed. Get them down on paper! Go into them, delve, dive, dig them out, struggle with them, fight with them if you must, draw blood, your own if you have to. A writer has to face many of the conflicts and bizarre moments of that journey with courage. Revealing oneself as a writer is not an easy task. Peeling back the layers of self-protection; exposing family members (as fictional characters of course); talking about issues that may be very personally painful - it`s all part of the territory.

When a writer sits down to write something, it`s important to make a commitment to take the reader along with them on every twist and turn of the way. Sometimes you read something and you know the writer`s holding back, as if to say, ``I`ve been there but I`m not going to let you see what was really going on in my mind.`` I guess that feeling is what makes me feel the writer`s being unfair to the reader. Perhaps that ``unfairness`` of self-censorship is really self-doubt or lack of confidence in the truth of what one is writing (``it`s not appropriate, they shouldn`t know this, I don`t want to say this``), but dammit, you`ve aroused my curiousity, I`ve come with you this far, I want to know too!

Had to break the piggy bank for these,
Bina

An interesting introspection of the mens rea that haunts our society. I have been following this discussion with a lot of interest. The question that I keep asking myself is whether I should feel sorry for Sheila, for suffering the injustices or for her husband, for unknowingly punishing her for his own faults.

This is not a new tread in the old fabric of arranged marriages. I know of a young lady, educated in the states with a masters, who was married to a good boy from Lahore, because he owned the desi version of the American dream: a green card. They have been married for a while now and are still working out their mutual problems.

It is really interesting what one can learn just by offering a sympathic shoulder and a friendly ear to some one. Just talking with her and giving her the chance to vent her frustrations and emotionally cleanse herself, what I learned shocked me. Her mother (her dad is deceased)knows of her situation, but her rationale is that she does not have to love her husband, but bear his children and through them, she can show her love for him. As long as he is good provider to her children, she should be quite. I always asked her why did you agree to this and the answer would always be, because my family expected me to.

There are many intelligent and educated women at the chowk, will one of you please kindly answer me this: why are Pakistani women, who are educated, intelligent and beautiful all accounts be willing to put up this? Don`t they realize that by agreeing to family expectations, they are, in most cases, destroying their own future? Why are our women willing to commit this emotional satee to satisfy some one elses expectations? I have seen women from Pakistan that the western women could not hold a candle to and believe me they have far more attractive personalities! Is it a question of having confidence in ones own self worth? What is it? I don`t understand; they can have the world if they want to, so why are they willing, even happy, to foresake it ?

Please some one answer me if you can.

Thanks

RE: Journalism vs. fiction

Bina says it better than I. The distinctions between journalism and fiction are important - especially in a magazine such as Chowk that has stories as well as news and views. If its a story, it ought to be identified as such from the start. This is what other literary magazines, such as the New Yorker do. Its says clearly - Fiction. Patricia Smith and Mike Barnacle of the Boston Globe got fired for making up stuff in a journalistic piece.

Re: my medical stories

My apologies. Will refrain in future. Also, to whoever said that one can`t be a humanist if one is a physician - not true if a physician takes the Hippocratic Oath seriously.

Re: my dear friend Randon

Out of the blue
a Random attack
I haven`t a clue
what did this to you.

All my best,

Anita

Please do not apologize to anyone. Yours is one of the most well written stories that appeared in Chowk lately. I enjoyed it thoroughly. You are not responsible for how someone reacts to your writing.

I came across Chowk by accident. The first few articles were very interesting and of good quality. However, lately they have put out some real junk. Your piece is an exception. What I find even more disappointing is the reaction of the readers. I expected a discussion about the problems faced by women in our society. Instead, I read comments that are peripheral to the main story. It seems that some of the readers have this innate capacity to find the most tangential point and make a big issue.

Hello Anne Shamim,

Welcome to Chowk. I really enjoyed reading this piece. I thought it sat very well with the medium i.e., the internet. Perhaps the debate is just as interesting a part of the story.

re bina

i like the way you pat your own back (or is it pennies?) :)

okay, so ms. shamim can write in any style she wants. phew.

i disagree that `the experiment`/`lifelong suspicion` are more `dramatic`. maybe you should pay more attention to your editors. just another woman works exactly because of the reason you say it doesnt.

i must have been on mars when reading the replies sections on chowk. i thought the `howling` has mostly been about content and style. some of us behave badly and attack the author. unfair to the writer, yes, i can understand. unfair to the reader? hmmmm. has ms. shamim been plagiarizing or giving false references? please explain what you mean by `unfair to the reader` in this context.

i wait for more enriching pennies.

Annie Shamim:

I like the way you are taking sides between your supporters and your critics. It is a measure of your depth of intellect and there is a lesson in it for us all. Nicely done :).

Saad

Re Bina Reply 48

``To say, many comments later, that this ``could`` be fiction and Sheila ``could`` be a cousin, but not yours, is a little unfair to the reader!``

Bina, I don`t know if you have been following the discussion thread from the start. Anne`s Reply 44, to which you refer, was actually a tongue in cheek response to the persistent carping about style and identity of characters. She is not trying to have it both ways, merely illustrating the pointlessness of the nitpickers. She made certain choices in writing the story, in order to make a point. People who don`t agree with the point are deconstructing the piece as if it were a submission for the Creative Feminist Writer of the Year competition.

Yeah, we have some smart intelligent people writing on Chowk, and they can be critics, but lets all step back and stop taking things so seriously! I personally think all this ferment is healthy and views from every perspective enrich us all, especially if they stretch our own values and beliefs. I much prefer this to the previous air of self-congratulatory backslapping.

Re Anita

Noticed the tag-team approach early on as a reader; made a passing comment recently as random. Since it is fairly obvious I wouldn`t be surprised if other people have commented on it. Do continue your writing - it gives everyone a lot of `material` to work with.

Shafqat: Finally! Finally something nice from you!! Thanks, bud--appreciate your thoughts. As I said earlier, it`s imperative that there be honesty in evaluation of a work (even if it hurts to the core), because the alternative is too damaging for the overall advancement of art/science/anything. However, HOW it`s done--tone, attitude, sincerity, focus, evaluator`s credibility--are equally important to the cause.

--AS

BG:

No one said she wasn`t free to write in journalistic style. She is free to write in ``journalistic`` style, ``fiction`` style, or ``George-of-the-Jungle`` style if she wants. I was merely remarking that the flat, matter-of-fact tone she adopts confuses the reader a bit as to whether her piece is fact or fiction or both.

Not that ``The Experiment`` or ``Lifelong Suspicions`` are such great choices; merely more dramatic ones. My editors will tell you that I am ridiculously bad at coming up with titles myself, so I can sympathize. But ``Just Another Woman`` glosses over the seriousness of her topic.

If there was no such thing as being ``unfair to the reader`` we`d never have Chowkwallahs howling the way they do in the Replies sections to many of the pieces here on Chowk.

Where do I keep finding all these pennies from!

re random

ouch ouch ouch. very funny

re bina

i may not be as critical a reader as you, given that i am neither a journalist nor a writer, but i still want voice my disagreement with your criticism. (no offence intended)

i dont know if the story was written in a `journalistic style` or not. in any case, my understanding is that anyone is free to write fiction in whatever `style` they want, even a `journalistic style`. if we didnt experiement and push the envelope, we might still all be writing like thomas hardy or dickens.

secondly, even before having read the disclaimer, i figured somewhere in the middle of the story that it was a story based on real events and people, but changed around to ensure privacy. i mean, who else but a half-wit would put personal letters and details of their family`s lives on chowk -- which is pretty well-known and widely read amongst pakistanis. there was no unfairness to the reader. also, what does that mean really -- unfair to the reader????

the title ``just another woman`` works much much better than ``an experiment`` or ``lifelong suspicion``.

regards

Re : BG.

And an equally powerful rejoinder, BG.

Rishi

Re : Bina.

Very profound analyses. And valuable inputs too

Your 2(nth power) cents were worthy

Rishi

Re: Zaidi

``I am a humanist first, a physician second, a feminist third, which I guess rules out a knee-jerk support for the woman in this story in the absence of sufficient data``

However, the abuse that Sheila does receive from her husband cannot be ignored Dr. Zaidi. I believe that a humanist (if that`s what you really are) has to have some grain of sympathy for her plight and support her efforts at divorce. If the man refused medical treatment, what other option does she have?

Re: Zaidi

``The way this particular story is written, it implies fact. I certainly read it as fact.``

Re: Bina

``There was a lot more you could have done with language, as well as the presentation of the story, the characters etc. if you wanted this to come across as fiction.``

Dr. Zaidi and Bina bring up some excellent criticisms on the amateurish nature of the piece. Yes, it doesn`t do a very good job of hiding itself from reality and is a bit uncomfortable. However, in some ways that`s the charm of this piece. It`s not well-manufactured or polished, but partially raw. Dr. Zaidi herself has written an excellent piece which she subtitled as a ``story from her imagination`` which if read a different way (without the italics or that subtitle) might actually appear as fact. And who knows, maybe it is, but that is for the reader to guess. Anne Shamim`s piece doesn`t leave us much room for guessing which is somewhat distressing as pointed out earlier. By the way, the URL for Dr. Zaidi`s excellent *fictional * piece:

http://chowk.com/LeafyGlade/Victorian/azaidi_oct2798.html

aapka dost,

Pat Shah

Bina: Thank you for your intelligent commentary. And a BIGGER thank you for your civil tone. Most of your points are well-taken. If you`d like, I can discuss this with you in further detail via email: annogul@hotmail.com

I`m not going to comment on all the issues that are being raised here (don`t boo me!). Fascinating as the debate is, I read this piece twice and want to comment on the style.

First, Anne, I think the piece is well-written; you have a good command over sentence structure and say what you want to say cleanly, quickly, simply.

However, it is this matter-of-fact style that makes me think this is journalism, not fiction. Fiction usually has many devices - imagery, metaphors, allusions, foreshadowing (reminds me of 7th grade English class) - which you have left out. Opting for the journalistic style makes me feel that these are real events, even if you have changed names and some of the circumstances. There was a lot more you could have done with language, as well as the presentation of the story, the characters etc. if you wanted this to come across as fiction. To say, many comments later, that this ``could`` be fiction and Sheila ``could`` be a cousin, but not yours, is a little unfair to the reader!

At the same time, it feels like your narrator - you, fictional narrator, whatever - is even more two-dimensional than the other characters. Indeed, ``you`` are merely reacting, and might I say in very predictable ways, to Sheila`s situation. Simple anger was probably justified under the circumstances, but I as a reader would have been very interested in the narrator`s personal dilemma when considering the events. Did ``you`` really just think it was an open-shut case of sexual dysfunction? Didn`t ``you`` have any thoughts about the predicament of the man as well? Not that these thoughts had to be voiced to Sheila - the primary goal was to get her out of the marriage - but it would have been more interesting in a story to see what prejudices and conflicts this stirred up in the narrator herself.

The ending is ruined by the last line: ``And life goes on as usual.`` What does this mean? You have not defined ``usual`` or ``unusual`` so the phrase makes no sense in the context of the rest of the story. Try to avoid cliches like that - they are easy to resort to but are the death blow to any good piece - your writing will become much more powerful as a result.

Finally, I think that the title of the piece ``Just Another Woman`` does great injustice to the whole message of the story. This title implies the mundane, the ordinary, the unextraordinary, whereas you are trying to highlight Sheila and her struggle as something special, something to be taken notice of. I know ``Just Another Woman`` is trying to be ironic, but in my opinion, it doesn`t work. Perhaps something more dramatic like ``The Experiment`` or ``Lifelong Suspicions`` would match the high expectations that you set in the body of the story itself.

Well,I think that you could expand this piece and make it something great. But the way it stands, it ``skirts superficialities`` and ultimately avoids dealing directly with some of the issues you raise. This has all the potential of being a powerful psychological piece, but I feel that you have underestimated the reader and delivered less than you could have!

My 2 (to the nth power) cents.
-Bina

Articles like these are the best reason for
having CHOWK.

Ras

hey SR! how`s the bundle of joy and sunshine? (sorry for the tangent, annogul)

i think we have all had enough of dr. zaidi`s absolutely ridiculous tirades. why does everthying have to be reduced to medical this and therapy that? enough, madam. and enough already about your privacy concerns too. if the author is taking that risk, let her deal with the consequences too. we don`t need a nagging finger-shaking reprimanding net mommy, thank you very much.

RE: Anne Shamim,

In case my point was lost in the rambling, the reason that some of us are reacting so, Ms. Shamim, is that you have us confused - is this journalism (in which case your personal bias should be minimized - just report the events, and you`ll be excused the superficial nature of reporting, given the absence of more facts), or is it a story, in which case you can say whatever you want. You haven`t made it clear, and seem to want it both ways. If it is a story, its a pity that you haven`t enriched the characters more than you did and tell us why Qaiser was so - instead of just labeling him as `bad`.

Additionally, you seem to have a lot of biases against people with sexual dysfuntion, who you seem to think are all bad. If you consider sexual dysfunction as being equivalent to any other type of disease which is stigmatized, such as mental illness, you could perhaps understand why someone with this problem may become morose and emotionally manipulative. We do not know if he was impotent before he got married. The only evidence you present is the letter, which since we don`t know what is fact, and what fiction, we can`t judge the significance of.

As it stands, either way, it reflects badly on you. If the letter is real, you had no business taking someone`s private correspondence and putting it on the web. If it isn`t, you haven`t told us anything significant that suggests the sexual dysfunction was a pre-existing problem. So which is it?


Re: Random

I am amused that Saad`s and my `alliance` bothers you so, and apparently for a while too. Your musings seem familiar. Have you been around these parts under a different name before? If so, why change mid-course?

Anita

NasreenK: Thank you , thank you. Exactly.

random (Re #42): My Lord, I almost fell out of my chair reading that one. Making things funny in print can be really difficult, but your words just broke out like a troupe of clowns. Thanks, guy (or girl?).

Re: Aliya (reply # 35)

I have similar feelings. Because Chowk publishes both journalistic pieces as well as stories, sometimes it gets hard to separate fact from fiction.

The way this particular story is written, it implies fact. I certainly read it as fact. Therefore, I was especially uncomfortable to see a private letter reproduced, and talk of ``my cousin`` from Ms. Shamim.

Whether ``Shiela`` is really Ms. Shamim`s cousin is a very material fact to me. If I was her, and I wanted to write a highly personal story based on true events, I wouldn`t identify the person as ``my cousin``, without making sure she was aware and agreed.

Re: all others who think I am denying the right of divorce to women - nothing could be farther from the truth. Nor am I saying that Shiela did the wrong thing in seeking divorce. I am just saying that the institution of arranged marriage is flawed, and that our society has a high degree of misconceptions about sexual dysfunction. In this story, from what is presented originally (I agree with Shandana here), the events are presented very superficially. No insight into the husband`s actions is presented - so I cannot make a judgement. I am a humanist first, a physician second, a feminist third, which I guess rules out a knee-jerk support for the woman in this story in the absence of sufficient data.

And yes, generally speaking, my bias about abandoning people when they are sick does show. If you love someone, is it only for good times? It goes without saying of course that if you don`t, don`t marry them in the first place. Shiela after all was brought up in the US, was educated beyond college, and was 33 years old. Just as much gumption and individual thought as we expect from Qaiser might also be expected from Shiela (instead she seems to be making her decisions `according to her cousin` on what her cousin is saying). The father`s actions of course, are totally inexcusable. He is the most to blame for Shiela`s misfortune, rather than the `very, very, bad` Qaiser.

On an unrelated (to this story) note once I knew a homosexual man in his 50`s with AIDS. He had become blind from reactivation of chickenpox in his eyes and had very disfiguring lesions of Kaposi`s sarcoma all over his body. HIV had affected his mind to, so he was a pretty cranky old guy. His unaffected partner of several years was still around and taking care of the old guy, just refusing to quit, with no hope of an inheritence.

Needless to say people are strange - some want to run away at the first sign of ill health in a spouse, others actually want to adopt children with mental impairments, HIV etc. May we have more of the latter, and less of the former. One day I might just want to write about `Rick` - the amazing gentleman who has three adopted children with advanced AIDS, and just adopted two more (I do have his permission to do so).

Anita

Anita Zaidi:

--If my writing conveyed that I (Anne Shamim) have a bias against sexually dysfunctional people, I am a total failure. Sincere apologies for a confusing piece of writing that seems to be taking up so much of your time.

--I refuse to divulge any more about this couple (e.g. the letter, etc.). Maybe it is a ``journalistic`` piece and maybe it`s a total fabrication, but then again, maybe it`s somewhere in between. Or maybe it`s a total fabrication written in a journalistic vein, merely to point out that this might as well have been real. And maybe Sheila is really my cousin, but perhaps she is just a figment of my imagination. Or maybe she really IS a cousin, only not mine. MAYBE THE SPEAKER IS NOT ANNI!!! Could that be possible? Hmmm.

--It would be kind of boring without you. Thanks.

Dear Ms. Zaidi,

You still do not seem to have gotten the point. This story is not about why the gentleman in question has a sexual dysfunction. It is about how Sheila`s life was destroyed by her father and her husband.

Your claim that you are humanist first and a physician second sounds hard to believe. It appears that you are a physician first and always.

Regards,

Nasreen Khan

Re Zaidi

``it gets hard to separate fact from fiction.``

Do you experience any accompanying dizzyness and shortness of breath?

``that our society has a high degree of misconceptions about sexual dysfunction``

Okaaaay!!! Sooooo!!!???? Even my cat knows that.

``No insight into the husband`s actions is presented - so I cannot make a judgement.``

Feel free not to judge.

``If you love someone, is it only for good times? ``

What is this www.platitudes.com? Reality check, Sheila deserves some good times.

``It goes without saying of course that if you don`t, don`t marry them in the first place.``

Yadda yadda yadda.

``Shiela after all was brought up in the US``

An absolute fabrication of Anita`s imagination. Gotta get what she`s smokin`.

``once I knew a homosexual man in his 50`s with AIDS. He had become blind ...``

We wait with bated breath for further scintillating discussions of medical case histories.

Re Slink reply 22

``prefers living like an inflatable doll in somebodys house, letting the words of a perfect stranger shatter her self esteem.``

What! This is not an aberration. The vast majority of women in our culture are socialized to be this way. She doesn`t prefer it, its not an equal choice for her as it is, say, for the man. I cannot believe this misplaced scorn, you make her out to be a brain dead bimbo choosing the easy way out.

``only exacerbates the awful stereotype of Eastern men as tyrranical chauvinists``

Are you compensating desi men for the bad raps they get by dispensing a healthy dollop of mysogyny. Sheila cannot swap horror stories (I fought the patriarchy and won! ) maybe she doesn`t want to be a hero, maybe she doesn`t want to hang out and smoke dope. So what! Does it make her story less valid. Her story may not have a new and fresh twist, may sound like ``cardboard cutouts`` but that is the very reason for its powerful appeal. The issue does not get airtime and Annogul has eloquently put it up for debate. Judging from the varied responses there is no consensus on it either.

``set the stage for a `selfish husband doormat wife` ... one wield the spectre of `rights`for (of course) everyone will automatically line up behind it``

Please give people credit for having a brain despite the fact that they may support a `fashionable` position. You seem to dismiss the argument simply because you feel more comfortable taking a marginalized position. That may work for you but please don`t pass it off as a general panacea for the Shielas out there. When you judge Sheila as a doormat, I suspect you are frustrated with actual people out there like her, whom you know and cannot respect for being passive and not taking charge of their predicament. You as the observer are being disingenuous by not acknowledging emancipating influences such as your own socialization (parental, education), role models, status, power, and other tacit privileges. I did it, she can`t - die loser! Truly petulant. If a black man does not successfully fight back when he is being lynched by a white mob, does he deserve to live?

re rishi:

how amusing that you should mention that. one of the problems with being featured on chowk is that people have expectations of you. for a woman like me, brought up in the same atmosphere that sheila was brought up in yet having chosen to be what i am, it creates BIG problems. i guess i been `defanged`.

shandana

Just an observation: A lot of discussion about the `moral of` and `morals in` this story by most respondents . Perhaps if this piece was more fiction like, and less journalistic in it`s form, this TV talk show like air could`ve been avoided.

re Shandana:

``how amusing that you should mention that. ``

-- mention what, shandana ?

one of the problems with being featured on chowk is that people have expectations of you.

-- So.... ?

for a woman like me, brought up in the same atmosphere that sheila was brought up in yet having chosen to be what i am, it creates BIG problems.

-- what are you talking about here ? If you were brought up in the same atmosphere as Sheila and if you are what you are, then i would only applaud your perseverance and your courage. Why should that create any problem, let alone BIG problems....

i guess i been `defanged`.

-- when were you fanged Shandana?

--You might want to read my previous comments on all your articles before you would jump into any conclusions about my intentions to fang/defang you.

Rishi

re slink

``does it make more sense this time around? ``
nope. i understood what you said the first time around. i still disagree with it.

i never used rich and progressive together. i used progressive as merely one example of good fortune.

just being pissed off at women like sheila doesnt help. you are suggesting they stop being martyrs and give themselves a chance. here is my suggestion, why dont women like you, who have `broken` from their conditioning give them a chance?

Let`s distill the issues here:

1. Sheila`s father was wrong to pressure her into an arranged marriage with someone she hardly knew.

2. Qaiser`s family was very wrong to pressure him into an arranged marriage when they knew he had problems to begin with.

3. Qaiser was wrong to take out his shame/frustration/anger on his innocent wife.

4. Sheila did the right thing by getting out of the abusive marriage. She had no obligation to try to `fix` him and no incentive to do so since she was not in love with him. She only stayed in the marriage for as long as she did out of a sense of duty and because she didn`t have any other viable options.

5. It doesn`t matter that Sheila and Qaiser are 33 and 40, repsectively. They might as well be 10 and 17 because in Pakistani families, children are always chamchay in the hands of their parents and elders. Parent-child relationships rarely mature into mutually respectful adult relationships, so the children always feel pressured to obey their parents and abide by their every wish in an over-exaggerated sense of izzat. How many Pakistani adults do you all know that can stand up to their parents and defy their wishes for their own self-interest? Expecting Sheila and Qaiser to stand up for themselves since they are adults and refuse to enter into an arranged marriage is rather unrealistic considering the nature of the Pakistani family.

Anne Shamim: Is Qaiser gay or not? I suspect that he is, considering the letter from his brother Ishtiaq which confirms Ishtiaq`s `lifelong suspicions` about Qaiser. People have `lifelong suspicions` about their siblings being gay, not about their being impotent.

Anne Shamim:

Well, I don`t blame you for reacting the way that you are doing to all the criticism. My point, however, was a fairly straightforward one and I hope at some point you will be able to absorb it.
Good luck.

Shandana:

Couldn`t agree more.

Saad

re rishi
ouch! ouch! that was GOOOOOOOOOD. i agree with you almost word for word.

re bg:

my point was simply this...
this was a badly written story with nothing going for it in terms of character,language, imagery etc. my comments were given in this context.
i was wondering how much of it was conditioning..spousal abuse..hip drawing room term..let us voice our support for the poor woman.
taken by herself there was nothing to sheila that justified such outrage..such anger at the fact that `just another woman` was getting what she was made for.characters like sheila (and yes to an extent women like sheila) piss me off because i know too many of them where i live which, as you so kindly pointed out, is karachi. you might be surprised to learn that for every two such women i know i know another one who has had the courage to be herself, rule herself and live the way she wants to. and (you might again be surprised) these women are not the daughters of rich and `progressive` parents who dont really lose anything by rebelling, these are women who are really putting their lives on the line by staking their claims to freedom of action and thought.
the other point i was trying to make was that choosing to go along with the choices others make for you is a choice in itself, the choice to be a pawn in someone elses game (in this case the fathers and the husbands). it might not have BEEN an individual decision, but it COULD have been an individual decision if she had had the courage to forsake security for condemnation. isn`t that the only way things here are ever going to change?
it is not a matter of `blame one person`. the blame for problems like these rest with the many rather than the few. sure men have oppressed women for centuries, and no women haven`t been `asking for it`(how you read that into my response i dont know!) but i just think its time for women like sheila to stop being martyrs and give themselves a chance.
does it make more sense this time around?

this is getting hot!! what is all the big deal about, yar? a woman was in a bad situation and then got out of it.

here is my humble take on all this: as far as character develpmnet, and the quality of the writing, i didn`t really read this as totally a work of fiction or entirely real either. i think this is a work that is meant to bring readers attention to a very very serious problem in our society. and for that purpose the writing did the job. it was tight, flowed well, and the sentence construction was better than most of what appears on chowk.

Rishi: Thanks. ``Apologetic`` is certainly something I don`t want to be. Of course it hurts if somebody criticizes your writing--I won`t pretend otherwise. But in no way should freedom of expression and to voice opinions (especially about someone`s work, be it art or science or a craft) have to suffer because of it. We`re all grown-ups here. When I stated my evaluation of ``A Strange Love Affair,`` I did so with full realization (and a little hesitation) of the probability of the writer being ``hurt`` by it. But really, I think it would have been an injustice if I had stayed quiet. All too many of us (Pakistanis and maybe even Indians) suffer from the syndrome of being loath to point out that ``the emperor has no clothes on.`` I think the electronic medium makes us bolder in that regard, since we don`t have to do any of this face to face. So, it`s a great start for good, unembellished, (and sometimes brutally) honest criticism.

So, hit me, guys--I asked for it!

About the guy being a BAD guy. For Sheila, he IS a bad guy. A horrible turn in her not-so-great-life. You are right, he has his good traits, but as far as the thrust of the story--his role as a husband, his treatment of a ``weak`` wife--he is a villain. As a citizen of the community, he is wonderful, upstanding, generous. But as an abusive man with huge personal problems he really is a ``cut-out`` like so many others out there. The speaker is the one telling the story, and she definitely sees him as a villain.

Thanks so much for your smart, objective commentary. Support feels so good when it is presented the way you present it.

--AS

re slink:

``sheila comes across as a weak, feebleminded, indecisive creature who is 33, has gone to college,has an older sister who has been a good example YET she still lacks the courage to demand her rights but prefers living like an inflatable doll in somebodys house, letting the words of a perfect stranger shatter her self esteem.
why on earth should we feel sympathy for her?
most women here go through the same conditioning, the ones who break out of it break out of it
themselves.``

paaahleeez! its so easy to just blame it on her, isnt it? if i remember correctly, you live in karachi, right? last time i checked there were many like sheila in karachi, in fact, in many parts of the world. THAT should tell you something. that its not as easy as an individual/personal choice, but something that is systematic, persistent in society. so, blaming the individual woman is the wrong thing to do. what does it achieve anyway? in this case, it leave the 40-year abusive husband and the tyrannical father off the hook!

for women to assume that their personal good fortune -- progressive parents, for example -- gives them the moral high ground to judge other women as feeble and spineless is like rich people blaming poor people for their poverty. you may as well ask of all our starving country women and men: ``why dont they just work harder and take a shower?`` and of women who are raped: ``why did she wear that tight, short dress? why did she go out into the fields?`` or of sheila: ``why didnt she just break out of it?``

no one except someone who has never been married or been on crack while being married would call a husband, even an arranged married one, a perfect stranger. marriage, whether arranged or not, is one of the most intimate relationships, beyond the sex. and that is why, marriage makes even the strongest of women extremely vulnerable.


``qaiser..was meant to be viewed as some sort of villian as opposed to a man desperately in need of help. this is sexism in reverse, he must be an awful awful person hana? it is hard to reconcile that with the kind of adulation he inspires in his students.``

well, he is a villian. he is in his forties and educated AND he knows he has a problem. so, not only does he agree to marriage, he also blames sheila for his problem. how low is that? just because he is fuckedup he has a right to take it out on this woman, and because she is spineless just adds to the pleasure and ease of taking it out on her! and actually, many abusive men are quite charming and well-liked, so the adulation he inspires in his students is completely irrelevant to the facts of his marriage. how this is ``sexism in reverse`` is something beyond me. would you care to explain?

the writer was quite explicit about her bias. she is talking about her cousin, for god`s sake!

SR, yet again, is the voice of reason, who points out that sheila`s father should be called out for what he is -- a tyrant and a chauvinist and a control freak. i know far too many fathers like him to expect every sheila to just `break out of it`.

by the way, the anti-feminsit backlash is probably more popular than the `rights` bandwagon. heartening to see so many on it!

re : Annogul

How does it feel to be labelled a ``pitifully weak character development`` after you labelling ``A strange love affair`` as more than a little embarrassing....Funny how you and shandana seems to be in the opposite ends of the spectrum while criticising in both these articles/stories.....

I guess i am reading replies and articles in the wrong chronological order, being a couple of days away from chowk

Rishi..

Re : BG.

my thoughts exactly..

I posted my reply and only then read yours. made me think i wasted all those time in replying. You said it better than i could

Rishi

Re : SR.

As always a refreshing and true perspective. Almost makes me look forward to your replies.

No, I am not being harsh on Anita, just trying to point out that it is rather impossible to be objective in a story. History, Facts, Events, yes, one does have to be objective , but in a work which is essentially fiction, or pseudo-fiction , where the author has taken some event or issue and had made a story out of it, so as to point out certain maladies in the society, well, i`d care two hoots about being objective.......

Re : Annogul

You need not explain nor even remotely sound apologetic you know.. Actually you did not really paint the husband as a bad guy, let alone a ``bad, bad guy``. Or atleast my impression of him was never that. I too did view him as someone to be pitied. And that too as much as Sheila deserves it. And as SR points out, the people to be really blamed are the parents, and our society ( with all the excuses of them being uneducated and foolish in thought and action being counted in ). The point is such events are very normal in our society and this could be directly attributed not to any kind of ``male chauvinism`` but to the apparent lack of education and empowerment of women in our society. And your story successfully portrays it.

If someone else wants to flaunt their intellectualism by questioning ghosts not painted in the picture, to hell with them. They have their liberties to do just that. I cannot fathom how someone could question the author about the veracity of the story without knowing whether it is a fact or a fiction at all. Almost makes me wonder if there is a clique of sorts among pseudo liberal women writers alive in this forum .

I repeat ``you don`t have to explain at all``

Re : Anita Zaidi

Okay, i agree that i too see both of them as unfortunate. And i do not view the husband as the evil victimizer. So what ? . Inspite of the various scenarios that can be concocted to suit an argument, let me reassure you that every individual has the right to defend his/her own life and that is the course that Sheila has taken. Yes, probably she could have acted as the perfect eastern wife, noble in thought and action, pitied her husband for his faults and had taken strenuous efforts to cure him of his maladies. But she did not do it. If she opted to get out of her failed/failing/not-failed/temporarily failed etc etc marriage then so be it......

Reminds me of another argument where medical transcripts claimed that child molesters need to be pitied since they themselves would have suffered the same. But while they are being pitied and counselled , the molested child needs to be taken care of all the same. And the later would be the priority, not the former. One could understand it when it happens in one`s own family. The primary issue in any disaster is to damage control, tracing antecedants of the problem and prevention are issues which are far more important and long lasting but they are only secondary to damage control.... probably the author might even pen another article/story on how Qaiser`s family arranged for his medical examination and medical help and how he picked up his threads, married again and lead a happily married life.... but that is for another time and another place ...............About the ``libel`` issues........did anyone warn you after your previous articles, about their radical nature and how you might get a FATWA from the Purveyors of religious fascism.....Ch...Ch...where would you stop ?

Re : Shandana

First, Yes, sheila does come across as a weak, feebleminded, indecisive creature.. And nobody asks you to sympathise with her.

Second, the cardboard man in the story need not be viewed as a villain. There are events where Qaiser is portrayed as a very nice human being, supporting an old women he does not even know, being kind and helpful to his students etc. The author could have very well portrayed him as an evil, drug trafficking, child molesting person. That she did not chose to do so, but chose to highlight his goodness points out that she was probably not trying to villify him .. Rather she only succeeds in pointing out the existance of dual personalities in our society where a perfect son is not a perfect husband and vice-versa. Atleast that is the picture that i get, since the author in being defensive has restated the same.

And you say that the story has a ``pitifully weak character development``. This inspite of all that phantasmagoric , supposedly psychedelic nonsense that passes for works of poetry and fiction in chowk. Atleast there was some character development. Not some nonsense about how some girl butchered her lover to buy some hairdye.........makes me squirm to read those lines......

Rishi

slink: Thank you for your comments. I beg to differ on the ``weak character development`` part--at least partially. I think Sheila`s character development was not weak--SHE was. I agree with you there. But you are totally dismissing the CAUSES behind that weakness. THOSE are the real issue here. Wouldn`t you agree that there are hundreds of thousands of Sheilas out there, totally incapable of ``standing up`` or ``breaking out`` as you put it? Her older sister was the EXCEPTION, not the rule. And you might be right about the man`s character being a ``cardboard cutout.`` Unfortunately, there are a lot of such cutouts in our culture, and this whole piece, was meant to draw attention to that.

PSEUDO rights???????????????? My god, slink, what`s so ``pseudo`` about women asking for some kind of respect, asking to be treated more fairly? What`s so ``pseudo`` about the fact that most, and I repeat, MOST of our men are just that--TYRRANICAL CHAUVANISTS. And I wish it weren`t so, but it is. You or I may not be in such a situation, we may not have had to deal with the egregious panderings of such male egos, but that gives us absolutely NO right to put down the countless number of women that do. Not only that, it would be grossly short-sighted of us to just overlook all that and make the absurd proposition that they ``eat cake.``

And for those of us who can`t (or don`t want to) feel sympathy for Sheila must surely feel some sympathy for a painfully dysfunctional system that churns out such Sheilas by the millions.

And you ask, ``what is wrong with this picture?``

Plenty, my friend. And THAT is the whole point.

SR: THANK YOU! In all this ruckus, I had almost forgotten about the father! Without question, he shares a BIG chunk of the blame here.

BG: Thanks, babe. You said it!! (And said it with with such vociferous eloquence, I might add. Thanks again.)

--AS

anita and saad:

exactly.

anne shamim:

you`d like us to remember that this is a story and should be judged as such..
pitifully weak character development,it`s almost as if you took a couple of cardboard cutouts and pasted them up and then, on the basis of the kind of psuedo `rights` rants that are doing the rounds these days, expect us to go `oh hai hai poor woman hai baichari..`
sheila comes across as a weak, feebleminded, indecisive creature who is 33, has gone to college,has an older sister who has been a good example YET she still lacks the courage to demand her rights but prefers living like an inflatable doll in somebodys house, letting the words of a perfect stranger shatter her self esteem.
why on earth should we feel sympathy for her?
most women here go through the same conditioning, the ones who break out of it break out of it themselves.sheila is not a child.
second, i have a big problem with the fact that while we were meant to feel sympathy/pity/outrage for sheila, the cardboard man in the story..qaiser..was meant to be viewed as some sort of villian as opposed to a man desperately in need of help. this is sexism in reverse, he must be an awful awful person hana? it is hard to reconcile that with the kind of adulation he inspires in his students.
there was some very powerful material in this story...its a story where there no winners only losers..your admitted bias made it into `just another ho hum tale` about `poor poor weak weak women.`
`Even as I write, a nagging guilt is creeping up on me, since this is yet another account that only exacerbates the awful stereotype of Eastern men as tyrranical chauvinists.`
you said it for me.
another problem i had with this story were the assumptions behind it. since you had set the stage for a `selfish husband doormat wife` you didn`t bother delving into the issue, it seems as if its enough that one wield the spectre of `rights`for (of course) everyone will automatically line up behind it.

pat shah:

i dont think anita meant only women shouldn`t have the right to divorce because their husbands were impotent.

`Sometimes I can’t believe that my uncle and my father were raised by the same parents in an identical environment.`
if indeed they were, and your father is significantly different from his brother, that only proves the point that each person controls who they are and what they want to be.courage to surmount the odds and do what you think is right is not something you are born with or something that can be handed to you, you must must find/nourish/create it in yourself.
`For all of Sheila’s resistance to the idea of a divorce, the notion of immediate escape from this suffocatingly hopeless environment brought relief to her face. She didn’t argue, and the next day we left.`
first her father told her what to do
then her husband told her what to do
then the narrator told her what to do
she was 33 years old
her sister had defied the norms and survived
what is wrong with this picture?

shandana

My, my. All this hullah gullah over an issue which I thought was an open and shut case. Well, to those who think I`m being unfair to the poor man (and NO he isn`t a teacher at a university in Karachi...etc. etc.), here goes:

The marriage in question lasted as long as it did (over a year in reality) because ``Shiela`` wanted to give it everything she had. The ``poor`` man was content in having her live in a separate bedroom, never talking to her, ABUSING her when she wanted to say something even as innocent as ``why don`t you come back to our shared bedroom,`` etc. etc. All this while she was cooking and cleaning for him, ironing his clothes, and leading a pretty miserable existence, all in all. She even proposed that SHE WOULD LIVE WITH HIM WITHOUT SEX--in essence, give this marriage a facade of normalcy to save face (both his and hers) in society IF ONLY HE WOULD TREAT HER LIKE A NORMAL HUMAN BEING.

But, as the story shows, he didn`t.

So, let`s, for argument`s sake, FORGET that he GAMBLED on an unsuspecting woman`s life,

FORGET that he wasn`t decent enough to own up that there just might be a problem here (rather than dumping it on his wife, crushing down every last iota of her self-esteem)....

The fact remains that he mistreated her, inflicted terrible pain on her, and basically made her life a living hell.

And if that`s not a bad guy, god knows what is.

BG, jollymullah: thanks for your comments and compliments.

Anita Zaidi: Look, this is a story (based on true events, but that is really IRRELEVANT), and as such, you`ve GOT to judge (if making a judgment is ultimately your goal) based on what the words in the story are. EVERY story EVER written is written with a bias--the author`s bias, the speaker`s /narrator`s bias, etc. Here, I CHOOSE to make the man a bad guy--a very very bad guy. Maybe in real life he COULD have sex, but say, maybe... okay only once a year. Say in real life he was otherwise a gem of a husband. I CHANGED all that. ``QAISER`` is a different character altogether. So, real life and how Qaiser`s real life counterpart behaved is totally besides the point. This is it-- whatever you`ve got in print is all you`ve got on these people.

Shafqat: See above.

Pat Shah: THANK YOU!!! Anita Zaidi brings up a somewhat good point about the ``disposibility`` of a husband or wife. But my god, it wasn`t as if ``Sheila`` came in, saw damaged goods, and immediately resorted to ``returning`` them. Yes, that would be somewhat callous. On the other hand, since arranged marriage is such a ``marketplace`` anyway, ``why the hell not?`` is right.

Nasreen and random: Thanks, guys. My thoughts exactly.

--AS

random: i don`t think anyone is saying that anyone has a the right to abuse anyone. The issue is understanding, through understanding we might be able to prevent abuse from taking place in the first place. If the *only thing * we do is assign blame, then abuse will continue; along with blame there has to be also an approach to understanding and attempting to figure out why abuse takes place. Another option is for men and women to stop living with each other, that way we`ll do away with this kind of abuse anyways. According to native american (Navajo) legend that took place a long long time ago, things didnt quite work out to well in that arrangemnet either...

That there is abuse and exploitation of the young woman is undeniable. That the man involved may also be a `victim` is not a reasonable justification of the deceit and exploitation of the woman. However, the main culprit here is not as much the husband as is the bride`s father. He is the real criminal.

This poor woman is a cripple and thus she suffers at her the hands of her `sick` husband. But no one asks the real question: who is responsible for turning her into a psycho-sexual and social cripple? A 33 year old over-sheltered, woman transfered like a farm animal into another`s barn yard...come on folks, lets be real. Who did it to her? Her own family, especially, I suspect, the father who made her feel ashamed of her body from the time she was 12. He is the one we should be denouncing. Not the neurotic, frustrated, maladjusted husband.

If there is a lesson in this story it is that the parents of young girls should encourage rather than supress their individualism and social development.

Unfortunately, the typical desi man attocates tremendous amounts of anxious energy to the fantastically absurd preoccupation he has with the preservation of the sexual virtues of his women folk. Such is nowhere near the concern for the male children. Father, brothers, uncles, et al, lose untold hours of sleep worrying about the virginity, of their daughters and sisters. This is the real root of the absurdity.

( I sometimes wonder if chastity belts could not be marketed to the anxious millions. That could make a killing...)

re: randon, Rishi

You are being a bit too harsh with Saad and Anita. I didn`t get the impression from their messages that they were unsympathetic towards the poor girl. Its just that they didn`t agree that all the blame should go to the husband without any question. That, I also say because the husband is not the one doing the `zulam`. Its the father.

...SR

A typical parosan story dressed up in soft English prose. The author`s hostility towards Sheila`s husband is misplaced. This poor fellow is a victim, too, and needs our sympathy. He is a victim of the cruel social rigidity that regards sexual issues as the most vile taboo in our culture. When confronted with sexual dysfunction, the typical desi male has little recourse except to internalize his predicament. If I were in the author`s place, I would have arranged for a medical, followed by a psychiatric, consultation for Sheila`s husband (with the help of his family) instead of reflexively painting him the villain. At the Shifa clinic on this website, we have so far answered nearly 50 questions on sexual dysfunction, including problems of this nature. Impotence can almost always be helped. There is a good chance that the marraige could yet have been a satisfactory one, had someone had the intelligence to challenge the familiar illiterate social barriers.

I would like to strongly urge anyone confronted with such issues to please - PLEASE - not give in to pre-existing social complexes but rather to seek professional medical help. You are welcome to look up the Chowk medical staff at www.chowk.com/clinic, where sound, straightforward sexual advice is available under complete confidence. People not willing to disclose their real names can communicate through hotmail aliases.

Saad Shafqat

Re Shafqat & Zaidi

There goes the tag-team again. The issue is simple. Whether the guy is a victim, or feels pressurized by society, or has a medical condition, or is gay - is all irrelevant. Nothing - I repeat NOTHING - gives him the right to abuse her. And abuse he clearly did. Nobody asked for free medical advice on the couple concerned.

Re: Rishi

I still view this as a ``one-sided`` account in which we, the observers, do not have all the details to make a fair judgement. Yes, Sheila definetely was unfortunate, but rather than viewing her as the victim, and the husband as the evil victimizer, I see both as victims in this situation. Even if the gentleman knew he had ``problems``, he may have been (mistakenly, but sincerely) thinking that marriage to a ``beautiful, intelligent woman`` would be curative. There may have not been much distinguishing his behavior from that of a desperately ill man seeking that last experimental cure, regardless of the costs - only in this case, the experiment involves another human. But that`s the irony - during sickness most people act selfishly, and put their own interests before those of others. Sick people expect society to take care of them, in many cases, regardless of the costs.

The point that I was making about impotence was that should it per se be a reason for divorce, if its not related to being gay, or ``intentional`` (in quotations because as I said earlier,its probably not intentional, rather foolish)deception? What if Shiela`s husband had not been impotent on their wedding night, but became so 1 month later because of an illness or injury? Should she still have bailed out? Is that any different from leaving one`s spouse if they were found to be sterile, suffered a stroke, needed to have a colostomy because of colorectal cancer, or developed dementia from encephalitis.

What about the situation when a Nikah has taken place but `rukhsati` hasn`t and let`s say the bride is diagnosed with ovarian cancer which necessitates losing an ovary to save life (not to mention losing hair temporarily due to chemo). Should the groom nullify the Nikah?

What I am trying to do is point out the inherent flaws in the institution of arranged marriage which is predicated upon the buying and selling of a perfect good. Since there is no `feeling` for the other person, if the good is not perfect, or becomes imperfect in the middle of the transaction, or within a socially-acceptable `return period` one doesn`t want it. Why would anyone knowingly buy an imperfect good?


Re: Anne Shamim

Yes, the privacy issues did concern me. I do hope that the lady whose life you describe is not really your Chacha`s daughter,her former husband not really faculty at one of Karachi`s prestigious universities, and the letter reproduced for all the world to read totally fictional (if it is, do you have anything else that suggests the gentleman is gay). If not, in addition to the obvious privacy violations, you expose Chowk to being sued for libel, if he happens to come across this.

Anita

Dear Anita Zaidi,

A lot of times the information you provide is useful and related to the material. Not everyone is an MD, however, so every writer cannot give the medical information in the case. Additionally the biological or medical facts in the matter are not always relevant or even interesting. It is very clear that the family of the gentleman in question suspected that there was a problem. All too often, people conveniently `hope` that marriage will set problems straight. Particularly if they are difficult or taboo problems. This is an unwillingness of people to face and try to solve their problems. It is a way of putting the burden on the woman to somehow solve the problem. This is not a decision based on reality, but a fantasy and a need to escape from responsibility. The gentleman`s position is not enviable but he is an intelligent and educated person in his forties! He has to take responsibility for deceiving Sheila and her family. Your medical knowledge on impotence is much appreciated, but does not detract from Anne Shamim`s argument that her cousin was used as an experiment. It is also close to impossible that the parties concerned will sue for libel from Pakistan.

Excellent piece. I completely understood the title ``Just Another Woman`` as I know someone in a similar situation a few years ago: arranged marriage, etc. and six months later in a divorce because of some serious questions about the male`s sexual ablility/preference. Unfortunately, those short 6 months have ended up almost ruining the rest of her life as the family of the man she loves now refuses to let him marry her (of course, the fact that he doesn`t just marry her anyways also brings up some questions).

Re: Anita Zaidi

The sad and scary thing about this is that even so-called enlightened readers like Anita Zaidi say things like this:

``The point that I was making about impotence was that should it per se be a reason for divorce, if its not related to being gay, or ``intentional`` (in quotations because as I said earlier,its probably not intentional, rather foolish)deception? What if Shiela`s husband had not been impotent on their wedding night, but became so 1 month later because of an illness or injury? ``

SO WHAT???!!! Why the hell not? Why can`t impotence be a reason for divorce? Or any other medical condition? Yes, yes, most impotence is often a treatable medical condition but who cares? If a woman wants to divorce their husband because he is impotent or because his pubic hair is curly, or whatever, THAT IS HER CHOICE FOR GOD`S SAKE. I think I can see where your argument about medical problems is going, but as far as I`m concerned a woman has every right to divorce if she likes - no matter what. If it`s cause the husband`s got colorectal cancer so be it. We may disapprove, but that doesn`t mean a person can`t divorce. Why should ANY spouse (husband or wife) put up with a marriage if they do not want to? I am not advocating that people should not try to seek medical help, etc., but I think that Dr. Zaidi`s comment reveals an underlying belief in our desi societies that somehow the woman does NOT have this right and that it is their burden to make unworkable marriages work. Dr. Zaidi -- considering your excellent articles, posts, etc. in the past that reflect an open-minded person I know you also probably believe in the idea that a woman has this right; however, I just wanted to point this out to be very clear that ``Sheila`` and any other woman in her situation should not feel restricted in exercising their right to divorce.

BG: Abuse does take a variety of forms, but what is manifested in marriage is also often a sympthom of the larger society. Where we have a society where the man may himself may be being abused at work by his boss, insecurities, the problem of abuse within marriage is as easily solved if the man gets up getting all the blame; without an understanding of the wider picture. A similar case with women who may also abuse their husbands, and that usually takes the shape of emotional abuse, it does happen with some frequency; but not recognized as such... that emotional abuse often is the result of her own problems within the society; not being recognized as a woman, being put down etc. That is often th eonly thing the man or the woman knows... it is a problem of how men and women interact with each other, what have we been brought up with? They all get manifested within marriage...which then ends up being so often unhappy...

extremely well written. you had me hanging on to every word. i know a woman who was in a similar situation, but in her case, the man beat her up also... emotional, sexual or physical, abuse in a marriage has to be one of the most awful experiences.

it is amazing how many different faces abuse has.

...anyway, look forward to more of your stories/articles.

regards

Oh, by the way, annogul is my User Name.

Anne Shamim

Thanks for all your heartening comments.

ayaashi: I`ve submitted some other stuff, which I hope they`ll put out.

Amira: I agree, although Sheila would definitely disagree on exactly how ``lucky`` she is.

Anita Zaidi: Thanks for your thoughts on this. Although the main theme (and the events directly surrounding it) are true, most of the ancillary details (``identifiers``) are made up/changed. But your point about respecting others` privacy is very valid and well-taken.

Afrasiyab: ``Shiela`` is fine--working, surviving, holding her own.

RanaRansher: ``Just Another Woman`` as in, one of many who suffer through a similar fate at the hands of a society which is, by and large, indifferent to the awful plight of its women.

Re: Anne Shamim

A well written piece Anne. This is a sorry state that plagues arranged marriages in particular. Education and self-empowerment of women is the only avenue for tackling such issues.

Re : Anita Zaidi

C`mon Ms Zaidi, give it a break. The author is not discussing the causative nature of Impotency nor is she trying to stigmatize a medical problem. She is only pointing out an unjust act being committed and which is something all too common in S.Asia. And when an author writes an account without revealing any of her character`s real identities, it is pointless to wonder if she had checked with the characters involved. This is not a biographical account but rather an attempt to explain a malady in the society. The very fact that it involves medical issues need not warrant such a response at all. For all you know , it could even be a fictional work.

And you must know that there is something called `` a writer`s liberty``.

Rishi

A very touching story. I`m glad Sheila found a way out, but I`m left wondering how her jilted husband fared after all of this...

I agree with Anita Zaidi that it is not clear from this article whether the husband is gay, impotent, or a combination of the two. If he is gay, then this is a powerful cautionary tale about not pressuring gay people into an unhappy marriage. Everyone suffers in the process.

As a society (South Asian), we need to be much more open about discussing the nature of marriage, relationships, and sexuality, including homosexuality, in order to remove some of the stigmas associated with these topics. Chowk has presented so many articles and stories on these subjects, which is great, but I wonder if they are making a difference. If it`s only open-minded, liberal-thinking people who read these pieces, then we`re merely preaching to the converted. We need to educate the agents of these outworn beliefs and practices in order to bring about real changes in the nature of our society. Are you all out there?...

i don`t think the story was totally clear if the man was gay, if the woman was simply unattractive to the man, or if he had ejaculation problems, or if he was having prefomance anxiety (very common amongst newly weds, but comes as a surprise to the newly wed man usually, that it`s not all mechanical). But it is about how are these things handled? And the blow given to the man`s being a man, since sexuality is such a big part of being a man...

A touching account of a very personal tragedy.
But why is this `Just another womans story` ?

I hate to comment on the specifics of this case, as only the two people directly involved know the true state of affairs.

Impotency can have a myriad of causes. It is a medical condition. I do not think people with a medical problem should be stigmatized. Here, it is not clear whether the gentleman is gay, or whether he is impotent, or both, and whether he really thought that marriage would be his `cure-all`. In any case, if he intentionally deceived the lady, he clearly wronged her.

Regrettably, deception in marriage happens all the time, much more so in arranged marriages. The decision-makers somehow think that all problems manifested before marriage will be fixed by the act of marriage(often ofcourse, the reverse is true). Medical conditions, both mental and physical are especially hidden. Since our society considers unmarried status a major sign of failure in life, and there is so much emphasis on physical perfection, even minor physical conditions are considered detractors, and if possible, are concealed. Needless to say, mental illness is always hidden.

Since there are so many identifiers given in this account, I hope the author checked with the principals involved before reporting on their highly personal tragic life events.

Anita

I just got done watching the movie ``Fire`` and then the first thing I did was read this article. I feel like screaming out loud not so unlike the female lead character in the movie IN & OUT,

``Is everybody gay. What is this the twilight zone.``

Kidding aside, it is a very serious issue and there should most definitely be more open discussion about this at our forums, this one included.

To the author:

Well written and well done. How is your cousin doing now.

Very well written, Bravo!!! It`s very thought provoking. But what`s sad is Sheila was one of the lucky ones who got out of it, there are so many who are unable to break out of the web of guilt and shame they have created for themselves.

not something i could relate to at all (thank the lord!) but was definitely a good read. it`s a shame that desi men have to :

1. be so ashamed of personal problems

2. take it out on their women.

first time i`m writing in although i`m a regular reader. hope to see more stuff from you.

this guy should read one of the comments/consults on this page re: sexual problems... organsm/ejaculation is as much physical,as psychological...

jolly mullah