Understanding Oppression and Violence

I had wanted to post this before I went to class, and having returned, have no recollection of whether I did or not.

Samina..if you haven`t checked it out already, and if it`s of any interest to you, there`s tons of articles regarding the women`s movement in Pakistan, as well as profiles of Fahmida Riaz and an article by Dr. Nawal El-Saadawi (one of my favorite writers) in the current section of `Books and Authors` at www.dawn.com.

Ciao!

Ms. Shah:

OK, seriously now, at least as far as this one point is concerned (and I`ll lay off the snide remarks and sarcasm), I think we are talking at cross-purposes here in that we are starting out from two irreconcilable premises here.

There exists a difference between the average male versus average female wage in the US. Neither one of us contests this basic point.

However, I argue that this wage-gap disappears when you don`t look at just the raw averages but you include in factors such as years of education, years of uninterrupted work experience, whether or not the woman has children (and how many children), and any other ``relevant`` (relevant in the sense of pertaining to actual work related matters, so years of uninterrupted experience is relevant here but hair colour is not).

So, I argue, that having children for a woman puts her at an inherent disadvantage income and career prospects wise since it means that she has to interrupt her career path (even if only for a relatively brief time) and her job is no longer her top priority. The same factors work against men who wish to devote a significant part of their time and energy to their family and children.

Compared to, say, Pakistan or Ireland, for most women in the US there are minimal societal pressures to get married young and to have several children as soon as possible. Thus, I contend, it is essentially a freely exercised choice on their part as to whether or not they have children.

Furthermore, many women who want to have children/family/life-outside-of-work choose careers that make a lesser demand on their time (i.e., the ``mommy track``) BUT that consequently pay less, thereby further exacerbating the wage differential. This same logic applies to men who choose less demanding careers as well.

Your argument here is that while these `intervening variables` may explain the wage differential, women should not have to pay an economic price for being mothers. Women, or men, who wish to have children and/or a real family life should have the same financial rewards as those who do not wish to have children and that the difference in worker productivity should be absorbed by the state and/or the employer.

Is this a correct statement of your position?

If this is your position, then we have a positive versus normative issue here. I am arguing that given the realities of the US marketplace, there is no evidence of systematic discrimination against women in the market. Once all relevant factors are accounted for, the wage differential shrinks to between 2 to 5 cents on the dollar, still present yes but hardly enough to warrant a wholesale condemnation of the system. Furthermore, if you look at women in the age group 25-35, there is NO wage differential once we factor in relevant variables.

Why should we factor in ``relevant`` variables at all? Because otherwise our results are gibberish. If a 45 year old male with an MBA from a top 25 school is making 10 times as much as a 20 year old high school dropout female, is this discrimination? Of course not. The salary differential can, and should, be explained by the work experience, education, etc, variables.

Similarly, for a man and a woman who are superficially identical in terms of qualification but the man is childless and the woman has two children, I would realistically expect the man to be earning more than the woman (on average of course, individual results will vary). Why? Presumably the woman has taken maternity leave, might have taken on a reduced workload, might have left the work force for a few years, might have taken part-time jobs, etc, etc, etc, all factors that affect earning potential.

So, unless we change to an equalitarian system, I do not expect to see this change. Realistically also there are limits to how much social engineering we can do. Taller men with a bushy head of hair and an athleticish build make substantially more than short, balding overweight men who may have exactly the same paper qualifications. Furthermore, they tend to be overrepresented at the senior management level (recall Scott Adamss ``boss hair`` jokes?).

Is this also unfair? Probably but how does one propose to rectify this? Tax taller men more? Force firms to pay shorter men more across the board? File a class action lawsuit on behalf of all men under 5` 9``? Have senior management quotas arranged by height, BMI and hair criteria? Insist that high-paying firms hire more shorter men? For some problems, I would argue, the remedy is worse than the problem.

If, however, you know of large-scale studies that show conclusively that women with exactly the same educational qualifications (adjusted for ``quality`` as, whether this is ``fair`` or not, a Masters from Harvard is worth more than one from UMass Boston), years of full-time experience, no children and no breaks in their career path make substantially less money than equivalent men, I would be very interested in reading them. These studies would really prove than I am wrong.

Regards.

Fuzair Sahib

re: ``...Did your Afro-american statistician friend explain regression analysis to you and, more importantly, why all of the detailed studies on male: female compensation ratios are wrong? I mean, by all means, lets ignore facts that contradict our most cherished views! After all, physical reality is a social construct, no? ...``

Indeed she did. She also read the NYTimes piece and said that she readily accepts the results as credible. In fact, many of the female professors (of varying generations, races and political persuasions) over here have been discussing the study and seem to find it valid and accurate in representing some of the issue they have faced or are facing at the present.

But, do tell them how they are wrong. Explain it to them as well.



Even Kinder Regards,

Re: Ms. Shah

My posts have been rude and evasive? What do you call yours? You, among many things, insist on saying that by attacking SOME women`s views, I demean, etc, ALL women. I love your logic and analytical ability. Is this what they teach you in whatever advanced basketweaving program you are in?

I only criticized a very small group of women academics/writers/publicity-hounds and I, deliberately, used language that was aimed at rubbing them (and you apparently) the wrong way.

As far as consistency is concerned, Ms. Shah, might I remind you that ``A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds`` (Emerson). However, you have been admirably consistent in your foolish persistence in defending the indefensible. If ever a lost cause needed a passionate defender, its yours.

However, I shall be the bigger man (oops, there I go being offensive again) and apologize for criticizing you and all that which you hold dear. I realize that you have great a deal of your self-worth and fragile ego invested in all this rubbish and you need it to reaffirm yourself. My wholehearted apologies for having bruised you.

Kindest regards.

PS: Did your Afro-american statistician friend explain regression analysis to you and, more importantly, why all of the detailed studies on male: female compensation ratios are wrong? I mean, by all means, lets ignore facts that contradict our most cherished views! After all, physical reality is a social construct, no?

hobbyty...no thanks are required, but nevertheless appreciated.

I don`t think I was trying to explain the article..just to sort out what I understood from it. I`m sure you do understand his article clearly :)

And how I wish I was on vacation...that won`t happen for another three weeks..until then...you all get to suffer my responses here at the chowk.

Ana

Thank you for taking time to respond. I regret having claimed some of your vacation time. I appreciate your effort at explaining Mr. Rizvi`s work to me. I assure you I understand his ideological position clearly.

Enjoy the rest of your vacation and do read to familiarize yourself with the possibility that a number of points of view can be valid and meritorious.

Samina

I think I may have come across that in one of my lit. classes..perhaps even when I was sleeping through Foucault!

Renaissance literature..ah memories!

Maaaan, am I getting payback more than `dugna` for rebelling and refusing to engage in intellectual `conversations` with my father!!!

Spring is finally in the air, the sun shines brightly over somewhere in the west coast of the USA, a scatterbrained student who has two weeks to research and write two long papers (one on the Kashmir conflict) sits and ponders on the burning questions posed by Chowkwallahs...

Hobbyty: I think we can be in agreement that if there are oppressed and subjugated, then there are oppressors and subjugators as well. One cannot exist without the other. And perhaps it would be difficult for critical readers, such as you perhaps (?), to believe that Rizvi does not want us to view the world in such binary opposition constructs, given that there are various ways of reading, and perceiving. As a not very good critical reader, here`s my take on what Rizvi might be suggesting: It is dangerous for us to view such oppositions as absolutes..because once you have an absolute view, dialogue ceases. This may be overstating the point, or being utterly obvious to the point of being ridiculous, but there it is. For us to say for example that the lack of justice that exists in the so-called third world is an East-West issue, and deal with it solely in that respect is denying ourselves of digging into other avenues to try and figure out how everything connects and leads to the injustices being perpertrated and suffered which will then hopefully lead us to how to repair such injustices.

I know I haven`t explained this all too clearly, but I think this is what Rizvi is getting at.

I was thinking (a troublesome task!)of a course I read for not too long ago, about genocide. We were reading Holocaust literature, and there is this inescapable thing, in some of the fiction, of the lines being blurred between who is the oppressor and who is the oppressed. In some of the fiction, those who were prisoners in the concentration camps, in order to survive, participated in the oppression and murder of other prisoners. It speaks to the fact that in a world devoid of logic, of morality, as the concentration camps were, that everything is turned upside down, there are no clear definitions of anything. And I`m not comparing the world of today to concentration camps, but the violence that is being perpetrated throughout the world has definitely turned everything upside down, and there are no clear definitions.

Yes, the so-called third world (forgive me, but I automatically resist such classifications) has struggled with moving from a traditional to a post-traditional society, but then again, I cannot agree with what you say about the `entire` third world wanting to be like the first world. Some of the inhabitants of the so-called third world want to see a just society, others may want a melange of the traditional and the modern. Does the desire for material wealth, and the devouring of fried chicken and burger necessarily imply that we want what the first world has?

I think that terms such as tradition, post-tradition are problematic in themselves. Yes, in moving forward, we should take our pasts into consideration, but how many of us have a real understanding of what our `tradition` was or is? I`ve read posts on one of the boards where it was implied that Pakistanis don`t have a heritage which I thought at first was pure behooda thinking, but I`ve also met some Pakistanis who in their extreme negative feelings towards India, deny anything in their heritage that is remotely Indian, which also seems behooda to me.

Language has this double-edged sword of being liberating yet limiting. Rizvi doesn`t really provide us with an answer or a solution, just more questions, which is what I think was perhaps part of his goal with this article.

I`m not familiar with Popper or Weber or any of the intellectuals you`ve listed other than by name, and I`m sure they would be useful in learning more about conflict resolution. I don`t know if I`ve addressed any of your questions or points..it`s just that I`m not the best of critical readers myself, especially when braindeadedness is slowly rearing it`s ugly head. :)

Fuzair,

re: ``... I think you owe me a (slight) apology, even though you did retract, but sans apology, your earlier claim that I was ``Ms. Shah.`` If I wanted to ridicule you, I wouldn`t bother trying to hide behind another name...``

While I readily apologize under most circumstances, I don`t think our conversations merit one, quite frankly. Your posts have been uniformly, screamingly rude and evasive. You`ll live without one and offend again, I`m sure of it.

``I did read some Foucault (I generally prefer Nozick, tad too Libertarian though usually, Rorty and even Rawls) a few years ago and while some may say that Foucault got his politics confused with his sex life, I think he had some great contributions to make as we are all prisoners of our own discourse and all criminals are indeed anarchists. BTW, thats one of the reasons why I`m in favor of the death penalty AND for greatly expanding its scope as well.``

Well, consistancy is a grind, isn`t it?

``Oh, geez! I just realized something! Other than my pathological misogyny and a sneaking fondness for Free Trade, I am a stinking libero-progressive after all! Excuse me while I go shoot myself.``

Well, perhaps Shammi and a few other interactors might miss you; better not load up that revolver. Btw, do you have a license for that gun? Furthermore, what kind of punishment should be proscribed for attempting to harm one`s self, Mr. Unpredictable?

``Apologies to the rest of the interactors on this board. Ms. Shah and I have a private ongoing feud and she started this round of it by calling me names!``

My apologies as well. However Fuzair is incorrect when he writes that I called him names. Ahh, how the patriarchy dissembles...

Ana,

Speaking of Foucault and sexuality/theory, I learned a fascinating fact in my Renaissance Lit course; did you know that hetero/homosexuality was a recent construct? That is, sexuality was open and unclassified and subsequently enforced/punished until the late 19th century...

Fuzair sahib writes:

....while some may say that Foucault got his politics confused with his sex life, I think he had some great contributions to make .....

We are amused (apologies to long gone Queen Vic) by this observation whether it was meant to be amusing or not.

Perhaps someone should write about the politics of one`s sex life..I`m afraid I can`t volunteer because at least a couple of my pieces are in Chowk`s trash pile, never to be resurrected. Khuda ka shukr hai I haven`t developed a new complex to add to the old ones!

from being dull and unamusing..it`s back to dull and serious again...ciao!

Re: Ms. Shah

I think you owe me a (slight) apology, even though you did retract, but sans apology, your earlier claim that I was ``Ms. Shah.`` If I wanted to ridicule you, I wouldn`t bother trying to hide behind another name.

I did read some Foucault (I generally prefer Nozick, tad too Libertarian though usually, Rorty and even Rawls) a few years ago and while some may say that Foucault got his politics confused with his sex life, I think he had some great contributions to make as we are all prisoners of our own discourse and all criminals are indeed anarchists. BTW, thats one of the reasons why I`m in favor of the death penalty AND for greatly expanding its scope as well.

Now, being prodeath penalty shouldn`t come as a great surprise to you but let me also tell you that I am Pro-Choice (none of my business if a woman wants to have an abortion, but I do feel somewhat queasy about very late term--well into the third trimester--abortions) AND in favor of much stricter gun control (why should it be easier to get a gun license than a driver`s license in most of the US? And who really needs an automatic weapon anyway?) AND a single-payer national health insurance program (it is a disgrace that the richest nation in the world has so many tens of millions w/out any health coverage) AND a greatly expanded Earned Income Tax Credit (actually, I think a Negative Income Tax would be better but that would never pass Congress).

Only reason why I`m telling you these things is to ask if they come as a surprise to you? Did you have me pegged in a different hole?

Oh, geez! I just realized something! Other than my pathological misogyny and a sneaking fondness for Free Trade, I am a stinking libero-progressive after all! Excuse me while I go shoot myself.

Apologies to the rest of the interactors on this board. Ms. Shah and I have a private ongoing feud and she started this round of it by calling me names!

Regards.

Ana

Thanks for the response. I take your point about what Mr. Rizvi says he is doing in his article. Do you think it is correct that language construes and constructs social reality? If it is true, how would you evaluate the language Mr. Rizvi uses?, What is your evaluation of the social reality he constructs: ``Oppressed``, ``Subjugated``, etc., - must we not agree that if there are oppressed that there are also ``oppressors`` and ``subjugators`` - and who might these be? - In concluding his piece Mr. Rizvi claims that he does not wish for readers to view the world as a ``East Vs West`` or ``Rich Vs Poor```` construct - but would you agree that is certainly difficult (were one to maintain that Mr. Rizvi`s work has internal cohesion, internal logic) for critical readers to do.

I, too find the concepts of social change, fascinating and I agree that educators are indeed agents of change - but I am also interested in the direction of change, even as I am aware of ``unintended consequences`` and conscious that language construes and contructs social reality. Of course we can not agree on the need and direction of change unless we first become aware of such a need and become conscious of our pasts.

``As for the post by the author whose name is unknown to me...`` I wrote this post and have presented more than two times on two privious boards. I find the work of Karl Popper, AbdolKarim Saroush, Robert Bellah, Peter Bergen, Daniel Bell, Thomas Kuhn and max Weber, to be compelling. The post you are having a problem with is based on the work of Soroush, popper and Weber.

``I guess I`m having a problem with the traditional vs. the modern. Like for example...

Didn`t man (are women included too?!) have rights in the traditional scheme as well? And man (okay..i`ll include women myself) is just as duty-bound in the modern scheme as he (they) were in the traditional one. I`m still trying to figure this particular article out..I`m not sure I agree with all of the assumptions.

OK -that`s good - first an agreement - lets not be unnecessarily prickly about the use of the word ``man`` or the omission of the word ``woman``. I have used man in the sense of ``mankind`` - any other sense of the word does not apply - I want us to be clear on this. I`m not interest in gender wars, though I would readily agree that patriarchial constructs have and are still percieved as ``oppressive`` by many persons.

``Didn`t man (yes, women are included) have rights in the traditional scheme as well?``

Certainly, in the Muslim tradition, the language asserts ``rights`` - the rights of the father or mother or son or daughter in the family, but I a persuasive case can be made that these are not so much ``rights`` as they are ``duties`` ``obligations, of one to another. A subject (not Citizen - as it`s definition itself includes the carriage of rights) is characterized primarily by the duty of the subject to the sovereign - The religious adherent is characterized primarily by the duty of the adherent to his or her, creator. In the post traditional society, it is the ``demand`` for the carriage of ``rights`` and not ``duties`` that has resonance. You did not object to the omission of the word ``women`` in my post from a sense of duty (though many see the deliverance of such an admonition as a ``duty``) but rather from a sense that a ``right`` - to be acknowledged - has been abbridged.

Ana, The transition from a traditional to a post traditional society is what characterizes the struggle of the entire Third world - The entire Third world recognizes that it has to make changes - it wants to be ``like`` the First world, the peoples who inhabit the Third world want the kinds of lives for themselves and their children, that they see in the First world - The kinds of lives and the kinds of scoial orders people of the third world live in - is rejected by the peoples of the third world - they want democracy instead of dictatorship, they want material wealth or material want and deprivation - they want greater predictablity and stability than they have now - they are tearing down walls, fences to get to the first world - devouring ``burger`` and ``fried chicken`` like it was going out of style - responsible intellectuals and leaders must ask themselves, why? they must answer these questions and then they must act on the answers - this makes the discussion of social change not only facsinating but imperative. There is a redcognition that traditional societies must transition to post traditional - but how? In the West they had the luxury of time and ``obliviousness`` to the agents of change - we don`t - we know that change in values and the intellectual foundations of those values is the engine that will enable this transition - now we ``negotiate`` the creation of the intellectual foundations of that transition -We recognize Tolerance, Pluralism, religious pluralism, pluralism of salvation, freedom of conscience, political representation and equality before the law, as elements of that intellectual foundation - yet we recognize that make changes enduring, they must be connected to our past, our tradition - we must ride into the post traditional on back of our tradition, our pasts -

``Still trying to figure this article out...`` Please, do feel free to discuss items which you are not clear about. I think such a discussion will also help me better understand these works. Are you clear about ``velayat`` and ``vekalat`` ? Do you see why the concept of ``velayat`` is a traditional concept? and why ``Vekalat`` is a post traditional utility? Do you see the relationship between these two concepts and that of duties and rights? What do you think about the discussion of values and ethics and it`s relationship with modernity or rather it`s relationship with the language of modernity, scientism. What do you think of the language? of the social constructs it seeks to examine - you will note an absence of the language of ``liberation`` - yet, are the doors of discovery and illumination it seeks to open, not ``liberating?`` - What are the implications? Are you familiar with Popper`s ``Logic of Scientific Discovery``, ``Open Society and it Enemies`` and ``All lLife is Problem Solving``? What do you make of my critique of the ``reflexive`` human or as others have said, the ``instinctive`` human?

``Ought`` human beings be``reflexive``, ``instinctive``? why? Do you think the reference to Dionysius appropriate, in this regard?

If you have an interest in conflict resolution, the works will serve you well. I think you will be rewarded by learning more about the language of modernity, it`s eclipse and - above all you will be rewarded by Popper`s conception of the dynamic of social change. I look forward to discussing and learning more about these issue with you.

Anyone check out today`s NYTimes article on operation disinformation; a policy of planting false articles in international papers? Could someone post it?

reply samina Shah #18:

``....a hydra headed interactor (Aamir) who amasses more nicks than a jihadi does virgins.``

LOL. Is he upto seventy-two then? Fast work, 12H!

hobbyty..

I`m not quite sure how valuable my reflections are, and how they can actually help you--but I`ll give this a go, and perhaps others can pitch in as well.

What Rizvi seems to be suggesting here is a need for a change in the discourse, the discourse that has mainly been manipulated (perhaps overstated, but nevertheless true) by the power elite through media and other means in order to `oppress` and `subjugate` a people. He believes this can be done through education, and advocates for an education that can help us understand the root causes of oppression and violence, education that is not controlled by the elite to serve their own purposes, but rather education that would empower and liberate those who have been demonized by global media for example, or the power elite. He gives the example of Shariati. Other examples of those who have previously (and still are) been demonized are Northern Ireland and Palestine. He is not trying to legitimize violence, but rather try to understand the forces behind violent acts.

In your initial response to this post, hobby, you had suggested that Rizvi sahib could be just as manipulative. But he is in dialogue with Freire, which creates openings for further dialogues through education, through understanding of who is an `oppressor` and who are the `oppressed`. Clearly this would involve educators as agents of social change (and all of us are educators in one sense or the other).

As for the post by the author whose name is unknown to me...I guess I`m having a problem with the traditional vs. the modern. Like for example...

*Whereas in the traditional view, duties define one’s relationship with others and to God, in the modern or post traditional view, it is the demand for “rights” that tend to characterize such relations. Man was duty bound in the traditional scheme and is a rights-carrier in the modern. The rights-carrier is an altogether Different set of values than that of duty bound. Whereas the former envisions society as a market place where the aim is satisfying the members, the latter, envisions society as a temple whose purpose is to please the Creator. Indeed, the dichotomy may be represented as that between notions of Valayat (guardianship) and Vakalat (representation). Valayat becomes an even more problematic when the element of religion is infused in it. *

Didn`t man (are women included too?!) have rights in the traditional scheme as well? And man (okay..i`ll include women myself) is just as duty-bound in the modern scheme as he (they) were in the traditional one. I`m still trying to figure this particular article out..I`m not sure I agree with all of the assumptions. And one thing I`d like to know, is who wrote it?

Ana,

Sorry, misunderstood (must slow down)-I would also love to read work by and about South Asian women from the Subcontinent and diaspora-you are absolutely right on!