Women and Police
Chowk P Room January 21, 1998
#26 Posted by MantoLives on February 6, 2006 11:56:11 pm
``No nation can rise to the height of glory unless your women are side
by side with you. We are victims of evil customs. It is a crime against
humanity that our women are shut up within the four walls of their houses
as prisoners. There is no sanction anywhere for the deplorable conditions
in which our women have to live. You should take your women along with you
as comrades in every sphere of life.``
-- Mohammad Ali Jinnah (Founder of Pakistan)
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#25 Posted by mohajir on December 27, 2001 1:57:46 pm
TIME, December 23, 1996
http://www.rpi.edu/dept/union/paksa/www/html/pakistan/jinnah2.html
A TIGERISH MAN, ATOP A SECTARIAN TIGER
The chronicle of a leader and the passions he fanned into flames
By Carl Posey
Delhi in the spring heat of 1946 was not relaxed,`` TIME reported that April. ``It was taut with waiting, gravid with conflict and suspense. Two socialist lawyers and a former Baptist lay preacher from Britain had sat of 25 days in the southeast wing of the viceregal palace, preparing to liquidate the richest portion of empire that history had ever seen---to end the British Raj, the grand and guilty edifice built and maintained by William Hawkins and Robert Clive, Warren Hastings and the Marquess Wellesley, the brawling editor James Silk Buckingham and the canny merchant Lord Inchcape and by the great Viceroys, austere Curzon and gently Halifax. The Raj was finished.``
Finished, perhaps, but still difficult to put down. The Raj at the end was like one of the unexploded bombs still lettering postwar Europe, and it held the same promise: peaceful independence if you do it right, explosive civil war if you fail. ``The issue,`` said TIME, ``seemed to turn on one man---Mohammed Ali Jinnah.`` On Boris Chaliapin’s portrait cover, the metaphorical tingers of East and West Pakistan stalked the subcontinent.
TIME had watched Jinnah intermittently since 1930, first as an ardent articulator of Indian nationalism, then as a spark flashing perhaps too close to the subcontinent powder keg. ``Where the low, bare limestone ridges of Sukkur, Sind slope like unkempt stairs down to the banks of the Indus,`` TIME reported in December 1939, ``Indians who loudly object to fighting Germans in the name of Empire last week fought each other in the name of their various gods.`` Muslims had claimed a government building near the river as the site of an ancient mosque and ``threatened to hold it until nirvana-come. Whereupon Hindus swept the city, storming, looting, burning Moslem shops.`` It was a chilling preview of bloodbaths ahead.
``The leaders of the Moslems,`` TIME observed, ``usually thinks first about independence for Moslems and afterward about independence for Indians. His name is Mohammed Ali Jinnah, and he is probably the greatest single force for disunity in all disunited India.`` As TIME watched the inexorable progress of the cracks that would culminate in India’s partition, that view of Jinnah would be modulated, but it would not fundamentally change.
There was, in fact, a good deal to admire in Jinnah’s tough single-mindedness and the way he played his cards. Talking with TIME correspondent William Fisher in 1942, Jinnah said he would accept a national government that gave Muslims ``a fair break,`` but that he would stop cooperating if the British made peace with the Hindu-dominated Congress Party.
The April 1946 Jinnah cover story reported by Pacific bureau chief Robert Sherrod was more than TIME’s bittersweet obituary for the British Raj; it was one of the world’s first real close-ups of the man who would have Pakistan, in all his coldly tigerish colorations. Here was a charismatic leader who during Gandhi’s 1942 Quit India campaign had ``boasted that if his followers joined Gandhi’s pacifist program, the British would have 500 times more trouble ‘because we have 500 times more guts than the Hindus.’`` It was also a grim prophecy. ``The British Raj had given India a unified defense and a unified region of internal free trade,`` said TIME. ``Jinnah would destroy both ... Between mighty Russia to the north and the main body of India to the south, Pakistan would dangle like two withered arms.``
In August, Jinnah unleashed---perhaps inadvertently, perhaps not---an ugly sample of the horrors to come. Opposed to a British plan for Indian independence that did not also create Pakistan, he designated the 18th day of Ramadan as ``Direct Action Day.`` ``Though direct,`` TIME reported, ``the action was supposed to be peaceful. But before the disastrous day was over, blood soaked the melting asphalt of sweltering Calcutta’s streets.
``Rioting Moslems went after Hindus with guns, knives and clubs, looted shops, stoned newspaper offices, set fire to Calcutta’s British business district. Hindus retaliated by firing Moslem mosques and miles of Moslem slums ... By the 21 day of Ramadan, direct action had killed some 3,000 people and wounded thousands more.``
Interspersed with what TIME called ``musical chairs`` of negotiation, in which neither the Hindu side nor the Muslim side could be budged by British nudging, the killing went on and on. ``Perhaps, after all, there would be no independent India,`` TIME mused sadly in May 1947. ``Indeed, there might be no India.``
Pakistan was by then an idea nothing could contain. In August 1947 it became the world’s largest Muslim nation. The forces of hatred unleashed by Jinnah’s rhetoric, however, had acquired a life of their own. By late October 1947 the plague of enmity flared in Kashmir, where a Muslim majority lived under a Hindu maharaja who decided to throw in with India. ``In Moslem Karachi,`` TIME reported, ``Pakistan Governor General Mohammed Ali Jinnah raged at the news. He ordered Pakistan troops ... into Kashmir.`` But as the raiders pushed into the Vale, ``the blind butchery of neighbor by neighbor had reached Kashmir. Pakistan heard that 50,000 Moslems had been slaughtered by Hindus. British officials said that 100,000 fleeing refugees from Kashmir and nearby Jammu had crowded south into the still reeking Punjab.``
Jinnah, meanwhile, seemed to fade even as his discordant creation took form. ``Last week,`` TIME reported in early December 1947, ``after less than four months of independence, Pakistan was economic wreck, and serious social unrest was rising.`` The new country coul dnot afford to feed its millions of refugees; its checks bounced around the globe. As for the health of the seldom seen Jinnah, TIME added, ``The Pakistan Ministry indignantly said: ‘There is absolutely no truth in the rumors that Quaid-e-Azam [the Great Leader] is seriously ill.’``
In fact, as evidently only he was aware, Jinnah was dying.
``Out of the travail of 400 million in the Indian subcontinent,`` TIME wrote in September 1948, ``have come two symbols---a man of love and a man of hate. Last winter the man of nonviolence, Gandhi, died violently at the hands of an assassin. Last week, the man of hate, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, at 71, died a natural death in Karachi, capital of state he had founded.``
Enemies gave Jinnah his due, though. ``The Hindustani Times,`` TIME observed, ``devoted a page to an uncompromising attack on Jinnah’s motives and methods. However, it concluded: ‘A man of destiny, he was perhaps the greatest man of Islam since Mohammed.’`` But, TIME noted warily, his death ``raised the possibility that his political heirs might seek the final solution for insolvent, disorganized governments: war.`` Indeed, Jinnah’s chief legacy proved to be an eternity of discord
http://www.rpi.edu/dept/union/paksa/www/html/pakistan/jinnah2.html
A TIGERISH MAN, ATOP A SECTARIAN TIGER
The chronicle of a leader and the passions he fanned into flames
By Carl Posey
Delhi in the spring heat of 1946 was not relaxed,`` TIME reported that April. ``It was taut with waiting, gravid with conflict and suspense. Two socialist lawyers and a former Baptist lay preacher from Britain had sat of 25 days in the southeast wing of the viceregal palace, preparing to liquidate the richest portion of empire that history had ever seen---to end the British Raj, the grand and guilty edifice built and maintained by William Hawkins and Robert Clive, Warren Hastings and the Marquess Wellesley, the brawling editor James Silk Buckingham and the canny merchant Lord Inchcape and by the great Viceroys, austere Curzon and gently Halifax. The Raj was finished.``
Finished, perhaps, but still difficult to put down. The Raj at the end was like one of the unexploded bombs still lettering postwar Europe, and it held the same promise: peaceful independence if you do it right, explosive civil war if you fail. ``The issue,`` said TIME, ``seemed to turn on one man---Mohammed Ali Jinnah.`` On Boris Chaliapin’s portrait cover, the metaphorical tingers of East and West Pakistan stalked the subcontinent.
TIME had watched Jinnah intermittently since 1930, first as an ardent articulator of Indian nationalism, then as a spark flashing perhaps too close to the subcontinent powder keg. ``Where the low, bare limestone ridges of Sukkur, Sind slope like unkempt stairs down to the banks of the Indus,`` TIME reported in December 1939, ``Indians who loudly object to fighting Germans in the name of Empire last week fought each other in the name of their various gods.`` Muslims had claimed a government building near the river as the site of an ancient mosque and ``threatened to hold it until nirvana-come. Whereupon Hindus swept the city, storming, looting, burning Moslem shops.`` It was a chilling preview of bloodbaths ahead.
``The leaders of the Moslems,`` TIME observed, ``usually thinks first about independence for Moslems and afterward about independence for Indians. His name is Mohammed Ali Jinnah, and he is probably the greatest single force for disunity in all disunited India.`` As TIME watched the inexorable progress of the cracks that would culminate in India’s partition, that view of Jinnah would be modulated, but it would not fundamentally change.
There was, in fact, a good deal to admire in Jinnah’s tough single-mindedness and the way he played his cards. Talking with TIME correspondent William Fisher in 1942, Jinnah said he would accept a national government that gave Muslims ``a fair break,`` but that he would stop cooperating if the British made peace with the Hindu-dominated Congress Party.
The April 1946 Jinnah cover story reported by Pacific bureau chief Robert Sherrod was more than TIME’s bittersweet obituary for the British Raj; it was one of the world’s first real close-ups of the man who would have Pakistan, in all his coldly tigerish colorations. Here was a charismatic leader who during Gandhi’s 1942 Quit India campaign had ``boasted that if his followers joined Gandhi’s pacifist program, the British would have 500 times more trouble ‘because we have 500 times more guts than the Hindus.’`` It was also a grim prophecy. ``The British Raj had given India a unified defense and a unified region of internal free trade,`` said TIME. ``Jinnah would destroy both ... Between mighty Russia to the north and the main body of India to the south, Pakistan would dangle like two withered arms.``
In August, Jinnah unleashed---perhaps inadvertently, perhaps not---an ugly sample of the horrors to come. Opposed to a British plan for Indian independence that did not also create Pakistan, he designated the 18th day of Ramadan as ``Direct Action Day.`` ``Though direct,`` TIME reported, ``the action was supposed to be peaceful. But before the disastrous day was over, blood soaked the melting asphalt of sweltering Calcutta’s streets.
``Rioting Moslems went after Hindus with guns, knives and clubs, looted shops, stoned newspaper offices, set fire to Calcutta’s British business district. Hindus retaliated by firing Moslem mosques and miles of Moslem slums ... By the 21 day of Ramadan, direct action had killed some 3,000 people and wounded thousands more.``
Interspersed with what TIME called ``musical chairs`` of negotiation, in which neither the Hindu side nor the Muslim side could be budged by British nudging, the killing went on and on. ``Perhaps, after all, there would be no independent India,`` TIME mused sadly in May 1947. ``Indeed, there might be no India.``
Pakistan was by then an idea nothing could contain. In August 1947 it became the world’s largest Muslim nation. The forces of hatred unleashed by Jinnah’s rhetoric, however, had acquired a life of their own. By late October 1947 the plague of enmity flared in Kashmir, where a Muslim majority lived under a Hindu maharaja who decided to throw in with India. ``In Moslem Karachi,`` TIME reported, ``Pakistan Governor General Mohammed Ali Jinnah raged at the news. He ordered Pakistan troops ... into Kashmir.`` But as the raiders pushed into the Vale, ``the blind butchery of neighbor by neighbor had reached Kashmir. Pakistan heard that 50,000 Moslems had been slaughtered by Hindus. British officials said that 100,000 fleeing refugees from Kashmir and nearby Jammu had crowded south into the still reeking Punjab.``
Jinnah, meanwhile, seemed to fade even as his discordant creation took form. ``Last week,`` TIME reported in early December 1947, ``after less than four months of independence, Pakistan was economic wreck, and serious social unrest was rising.`` The new country coul dnot afford to feed its millions of refugees; its checks bounced around the globe. As for the health of the seldom seen Jinnah, TIME added, ``The Pakistan Ministry indignantly said: ‘There is absolutely no truth in the rumors that Quaid-e-Azam [the Great Leader] is seriously ill.’``
In fact, as evidently only he was aware, Jinnah was dying.
``Out of the travail of 400 million in the Indian subcontinent,`` TIME wrote in September 1948, ``have come two symbols---a man of love and a man of hate. Last winter the man of nonviolence, Gandhi, died violently at the hands of an assassin. Last week, the man of hate, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, at 71, died a natural death in Karachi, capital of state he had founded.``
Enemies gave Jinnah his due, though. ``The Hindustani Times,`` TIME observed, ``devoted a page to an uncompromising attack on Jinnah’s motives and methods. However, it concluded: ‘A man of destiny, he was perhaps the greatest man of Islam since Mohammed.’`` But, TIME noted warily, his death ``raised the possibility that his political heirs might seek the final solution for insolvent, disorganized governments: war.`` Indeed, Jinnah’s chief legacy proved to be an eternity of discord
#24 Posted by high pockets on February 19, 1999 12:24:47 pm
Such stories of abuse can only harm all folowers of Islam. How a community treats its own members says more about it than all the propaganda ever writen.
#23 Posted by Born to Be on August 5, 1998 1:19:23 pm
Saima S`s top ten list was soooo true. These really are the kind of things bakree type pakistani girls/women say all the freaking time! Makes me sick!
Waheed Malik, I think whipped his up from god knows where? Doesnt sound familiar at ALL and I do know quite a few Pakistani feminists. Waht is the connection between dating and feminism? I have seen a lot more bakri types `secretly` dating and of course serving dinner/tea dutifully after they return from the `adventure`.
I think BG`s list was kind of more into the workings of the average middle class paki male who has an average education (from Pakistan). But the last part about the hymen being in tact, that is very close to the truth. Hit the nail right!
Waheed Malik, I think whipped his up from god knows where? Doesnt sound familiar at ALL and I do know quite a few Pakistani feminists. Waht is the connection between dating and feminism? I have seen a lot more bakri types `secretly` dating and of course serving dinner/tea dutifully after they return from the `adventure`.
I think BG`s list was kind of more into the workings of the average middle class paki male who has an average education (from Pakistan). But the last part about the hymen being in tact, that is very close to the truth. Hit the nail right!
#22 Posted by Asif on July 26, 1998 5:53:24 pm
The top 10 from Saima and Waheed are good and fun to read, but one from BG is kind of offensive. I have never thought this way and I do think most people with education dont think this way. I have no idea where she get this list from ... may be she might have heard her brother talk like that.
It hurts ..... doesn`t it!
It hurts ..... doesn`t it!
#21 Posted by BG on February 3, 1998 12:15:25 pm
Re: Syed Ahmed
I was not referring to Frued`s theories about human psychology when I wrote about misogyny at its core. Merely pointing out institutionalized sexism at every level of society, including marriage, language, traditions, etc.
Did realize that the top ten list of what Pakistani feminists like to say was an attempt at humor and an obvious bait. But, I thought responding in the same vein, but pointing out real issues, might work. I know the top ten lists had nothing to do with police brutality, but they were about sexism - all of them. Just part of an ongoing debate/discussion, certainly not the cure for sexism....that`s what I think, but of course, you may disagree ;-)
I was not referring to Frued`s theories about human psychology when I wrote about misogyny at its core. Merely pointing out institutionalized sexism at every level of society, including marriage, language, traditions, etc.
Did realize that the top ten list of what Pakistani feminists like to say was an attempt at humor and an obvious bait. But, I thought responding in the same vein, but pointing out real issues, might work. I know the top ten lists had nothing to do with police brutality, but they were about sexism - all of them. Just part of an ongoing debate/discussion, certainly not the cure for sexism....that`s what I think, but of course, you may disagree ;-)
#20 Posted by Syed Ahmed on February 2, 1998 10:50:13 pm
Point noted. But how does the Oedipus complex
figure in a SHO`s behaviour against female prisioners? Was it repressed angst at his domineering matriarch? Perhaps it was repressesed sexuality brought about from dissapointment of not marrying a virgin.?
And how does responding to an obvious baiting technique ( the top 10 list) enhance the status of the Pakistani women. Inquiring minds want to know. :-)
figure in a SHO`s behaviour against female prisioners? Was it repressed angst at his domineering matriarch? Perhaps it was repressesed sexuality brought about from dissapointment of not marrying a virgin.?
And how does responding to an obvious baiting technique ( the top 10 list) enhance the status of the Pakistani women. Inquiring minds want to know. :-)
#19 Posted by BG on February 2, 1998 12:31:22 pm
Re: Syed Ahmed
I dont agree with you that the tangential discussions have been completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. One cant just talk about the hudood ordinance and the treatment of women by pakistani police in isolation. There are reasons for these manifestations of sexism in this particular form. And, to better understand and work against it, one has to understand and question misogyny at its core.
Please, use labels like ``predatory feminists`` and ``chauvinists`` with care.
If you are not interested in what people have to say, dont read it. If you would like to carry the discussion in another direction, please do so. If you disagree with what is being said, please express your disagreement. Lets have leave ``interact`` as democratic as it is..... :-)
I dont agree with you that the tangential discussions have been completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. One cant just talk about the hudood ordinance and the treatment of women by pakistani police in isolation. There are reasons for these manifestations of sexism in this particular form. And, to better understand and work against it, one has to understand and question misogyny at its core.
Please, use labels like ``predatory feminists`` and ``chauvinists`` with care.
If you are not interested in what people have to say, dont read it. If you would like to carry the discussion in another direction, please do so. If you disagree with what is being said, please express your disagreement. Lets have leave ``interact`` as democratic as it is..... :-)
#18 Posted by Mobasher on February 2, 1998 7:22:09 am
RE: Syd Ahamad ``...As much as I enjoy the humorous antics of both sides, I feel they detract us from dialogue at hand. Maybe we need a section on the chowk that functions as a primary forum for gender warfare ...``.
Going off on tangents is more or less true for all interactions on Chowk. My observations are tne same as Syd. And we`ve all been guilty of that at one time or another. FWIW, perhaps we need a moderator to keep us focused on the issues in the article?
Going off on tangents is more or less true for all interactions on Chowk. My observations are tne same as Syd. And we`ve all been guilty of that at one time or another. FWIW, perhaps we need a moderator to keep us focused on the issues in the article?
#17 Posted by Syed Ahmed on February 2, 1998 12:29:34 am
Perhaps this is not the appropriate thread,
but I feel on and off there undeclared warfare between predatory feminists and
male chauvinists across the chowk. On this
particular thread IMHO the replies on this thread have been completely tangential to the topic at hand. We are all cognizant of the the deeply engendered biases in our culture. Perhaps we should bring some relevancy ( might I add some maturity) in our replies.
As much as I enjoy the humorous antics of both sides, I feel they detract us from dialogue at hand. Maybe we need a section on the chowk that functions as a primary forum
for gender warfare.
It is tragic that Police abuse ( in general)
and of women and minorties in particular is
treated in such nonchalant fashion , and the debate moves on to frivilous tirades.
THe preacher is done.. On with the show....
but I feel on and off there undeclared warfare between predatory feminists and
male chauvinists across the chowk. On this
particular thread IMHO the replies on this thread have been completely tangential to the topic at hand. We are all cognizant of the the deeply engendered biases in our culture. Perhaps we should bring some relevancy ( might I add some maturity) in our replies.
As much as I enjoy the humorous antics of both sides, I feel they detract us from dialogue at hand. Maybe we need a section on the chowk that functions as a primary forum
for gender warfare.
It is tragic that Police abuse ( in general)
and of women and minorties in particular is
treated in such nonchalant fashion , and the debate moves on to frivilous tirades.
THe preacher is done.. On with the show....
#16 Posted by Mobasher on January 27, 1998 4:18:11 pm
RE: Saima ``...unfortunately I laughed so much over your poem that I dont have much to say``.
Oh well :)- That was the whole idea!
Oh well :)- That was the whole idea!
#15 Posted by SaimaShah on January 27, 1998 9:06:36 am
Moe,
Good to see you back. Unfortunately I laughed so much over your poem that I dont have much to say..(Thank God!, you probably say). Being a very superior sort of female-therefore-better-person, I accept your accolade and thanks for pointing you to the true path humbly:))
As for badgirl..way to go!!!
Good to see you back. Unfortunately I laughed so much over your poem that I dont have much to say..(Thank God!, you probably say). Being a very superior sort of female-therefore-better-person, I accept your accolade and thanks for pointing you to the true path humbly:))
As for badgirl..way to go!!!
#14 Posted by Mobasher on January 27, 1998 7:34:15 am
Re:BG ``..Moe, you really are the man!..``
Appreciate your sentiments, ma`am. Being a
man or a woman or somewhere in between is
purely a state of mind :)-
Appreciate your sentiments, ma`am. Being a
man or a woman or somewhere in between is
purely a state of mind :)-
#12 Posted by Mobasher on January 26, 1998 2:28:36 pm
A Woman Anthem
Dedicated to ``Our`` Chowk Women
By Salman ``Rush-to-Die`` Limbaugh
I`m glad I`m a woman, yes I am, yes I am, yes I am
I don`t live off of unhealthy food, cashews and spam!
I don`t brag to my buddies about my past affections
I won`t drive to Hell before I ask for directions!
I don`t act like a buffoon at parties nor act like a clown
And I know how to put the damned toilet seat down!
I won`t grab your wallet, I won`t pinch your hump
My cummerbund`s not hidden beneath my gutton!
And I don`t go around ``readjusting`` my stump
Or yell like Tarzan when in a head-on collision!
I don`t belch in public, I don`t pick my sine
I`m a woman you see -- I`m just not that kind!
I`m glad I`m a woman, I`m so glad I could sing
I don`t have body hair like shag carpeting!
And what`s on my head doesn`t leave with my comb
I`ll never buy a toupee to cover my dome!
Or have a few hairs pulled from over the side
I`m a woman, you know -- I`ve got far too much pride!
And I honestly think its a great privilege for me
To have these two BBs and walk tall like a tree!
I don`t live to play golf and shoot basketball
I don`t swagger and spit like a Neanderthal!
I won`t tell you ``gosh, my wife just doesn`t understand``,
Or stick my hand in my pocket to hide that gold band!
Or tell you a story to make you sigh and weep
Then romance, roll over and fall sound asleep!
Yes, I`m glad I`m a woman, a woman you see
You can forget all about that old archie envy!
I don`t long for male bonding, I don`t cruise for chicks
Or join the Hair Club For Men nor think with my thing!
I`m a woman by chance and I`m thankful it`s true
I`m so glad I`m a woman and not a man like you!
I`m glad I`m a woman, yes I am, yes I am, yes I am
Yes I Am! Yes I Am! Yes I Am! Yes I Am! Yes I Am!
Dedicated to ``Our`` Chowk Women
By Salman ``Rush-to-Die`` Limbaugh
I`m glad I`m a woman, yes I am, yes I am, yes I am
I don`t live off of unhealthy food, cashews and spam!
I don`t brag to my buddies about my past affections
I won`t drive to Hell before I ask for directions!
I don`t act like a buffoon at parties nor act like a clown
And I know how to put the damned toilet seat down!
I won`t grab your wallet, I won`t pinch your hump
My cummerbund`s not hidden beneath my gutton!
And I don`t go around ``readjusting`` my stump
Or yell like Tarzan when in a head-on collision!
I don`t belch in public, I don`t pick my sine
I`m a woman you see -- I`m just not that kind!
I`m glad I`m a woman, I`m so glad I could sing
I don`t have body hair like shag carpeting!
And what`s on my head doesn`t leave with my comb
I`ll never buy a toupee to cover my dome!
Or have a few hairs pulled from over the side
I`m a woman, you know -- I`ve got far too much pride!
And I honestly think its a great privilege for me
To have these two BBs and walk tall like a tree!
I don`t live to play golf and shoot basketball
I don`t swagger and spit like a Neanderthal!
I won`t tell you ``gosh, my wife just doesn`t understand``,
Or stick my hand in my pocket to hide that gold band!
Or tell you a story to make you sigh and weep
Then romance, roll over and fall sound asleep!
Yes, I`m glad I`m a woman, a woman you see
You can forget all about that old archie envy!
I don`t long for male bonding, I don`t cruise for chicks
Or join the Hair Club For Men nor think with my thing!
I`m a woman by chance and I`m thankful it`s true
I`m so glad I`m a woman and not a man like you!
I`m glad I`m a woman, yes I am, yes I am, yes I am
Yes I Am! Yes I Am! Yes I Am! Yes I Am! Yes I Am!
#11 Posted by BG on January 26, 1998 9:53:52 am
Re: Saima and top ten
I agree completely and wholeheartedly with everything Saima has said. We are so deeply sexist that our language is replete with words and phrases that always refer to women in the subordinate. Though, what Jinnah said does sound pretty progressive (and was given the context) it, nonetheless, implies ownership by talking about ``your`` women. It is not accidental or to make it more personal - it happens all the time. Ideally, he should have been addressing a collection of women and men in the first person as equals (not as ``their`` anything).
Also, the argument that women should be ``allowed`` to participate in society assumes that they are not already participating (besides assuming that they need permissoin). Of course women participate in critical and valuable ways. Its a problem of recognition and value assigned to their participation.
Finally, may I remind the readers that the word ``feminazi`` has been coined by Rush Limbaugh, who is as right-wing, sexist, anti-poor, anti-immigrant as they come? To equate thousands of women who are struggling for issues as diverse as access to food, water, housing, safe abortions, contraception, equal wages, civil and political rights, lives without violence based on their gender, etc. with nazi`s or facsits is truly troubling.
Also, here`s my list of favorite things Pakistani chauvanists like to say (in no particular order):
1. I want a `girl`(never an adult woman) who has the same background as mine (so she can bring lots of dowry).
2. I want a tall, fair, thin and beautiful wife (whom I can wear on my arm as a trophy that others will envy and who will ensure that our gene pool remains attractive, if stupid and sexist).
3. I want a young girl, perferrably 18-21 (who will be able to adapt to my selfish, obnoxious ways and my parents` demands).
4. My wife cant work - she has to look after the kids ( my life, my aspirations, my abitions, my work is more important than hers. sperm donation, food, housing and clothing is all that is required to be a father).
5. I will not give you the right of divorce (I will feel insecure if there is anything that gives you a little more power).
6. I think women are equal, they just have different roles (it`s too bad their roles confine, control and degrade them)
7. Feminism makes women unfeminine and unattractive (I am insecure around women who dont act like sex objects or ornaments and who can argue with me).
8. Ammi is perfect (I actually want a mother with whom its legitimate to have sex).
9. I dont think changing YOUR last name is a big deal (even though it is a western patriarchal practice of assigning ownership to chattel - like naming wives, children and slaves with the ``master`s`` last name. And, of course, I would never change my last name).
10. It is important for men to be experienced and women to be innocent (I have lisence to sleep around, but you better have your hyman intact).
I agree completely and wholeheartedly with everything Saima has said. We are so deeply sexist that our language is replete with words and phrases that always refer to women in the subordinate. Though, what Jinnah said does sound pretty progressive (and was given the context) it, nonetheless, implies ownership by talking about ``your`` women. It is not accidental or to make it more personal - it happens all the time. Ideally, he should have been addressing a collection of women and men in the first person as equals (not as ``their`` anything).
Also, the argument that women should be ``allowed`` to participate in society assumes that they are not already participating (besides assuming that they need permissoin). Of course women participate in critical and valuable ways. Its a problem of recognition and value assigned to their participation.
Finally, may I remind the readers that the word ``feminazi`` has been coined by Rush Limbaugh, who is as right-wing, sexist, anti-poor, anti-immigrant as they come? To equate thousands of women who are struggling for issues as diverse as access to food, water, housing, safe abortions, contraception, equal wages, civil and political rights, lives without violence based on their gender, etc. with nazi`s or facsits is truly troubling.
Also, here`s my list of favorite things Pakistani chauvanists like to say (in no particular order):
1. I want a `girl`(never an adult woman) who has the same background as mine (so she can bring lots of dowry).
2. I want a tall, fair, thin and beautiful wife (whom I can wear on my arm as a trophy that others will envy and who will ensure that our gene pool remains attractive, if stupid and sexist).
3. I want a young girl, perferrably 18-21 (who will be able to adapt to my selfish, obnoxious ways and my parents` demands).
4. My wife cant work - she has to look after the kids ( my life, my aspirations, my abitions, my work is more important than hers. sperm donation, food, housing and clothing is all that is required to be a father).
5. I will not give you the right of divorce (I will feel insecure if there is anything that gives you a little more power).
6. I think women are equal, they just have different roles (it`s too bad their roles confine, control and degrade them)
7. Feminism makes women unfeminine and unattractive (I am insecure around women who dont act like sex objects or ornaments and who can argue with me).
8. Ammi is perfect (I actually want a mother with whom its legitimate to have sex).
9. I dont think changing YOUR last name is a big deal (even though it is a western patriarchal practice of assigning ownership to chattel - like naming wives, children and slaves with the ``master`s`` last name. And, of course, I would never change my last name).
10. It is important for men to be experienced and women to be innocent (I have lisence to sleep around, but you better have your hyman intact).
listing 1-16
1 2
Interact Index
Also by Chowk P Room
Similar Articles
- A Dismal Performance! saeed qureshi
- Government Wins Manmohan Singh Loses Dost Mittar
- Edward De Bono's Point C: Situtation in Pakistan Faysal Malik
- Healthcare in Pakistan, Lessons from Cuba Mahvish Zehra
- Where Billions Vanish Pervez Hoodbhoy
US Elections 2008 Primaries
Get Chowk RSS FeedLatest Interacts
- jang: OM P, borivli has... Pleas For Sanity as
- om_prakash: tahmed32, you drama queen,... Pleas For Sanity as
- tahmed32: GT sahib #190 Please... Pleas For Sanity as
- om_prakash: birivilli, do you feel... Pleas For Sanity as
- om_prakash: All this theoretical stuff... Pleas For Sanity as
- Eklavya: aha_snark, I have previously... Pleas For Sanity as
- borivili_express: om prakash would you... Pleas For Sanity as
- Aha_Snark: i'm sorry if my... Pleas For Sanity as
