Lillie Mr. Vasavada,

Thank you for writing about your experiences. We do tend to molly-coddle our children so.

What I `love` about the logic of employing a child laborer on purpose because ``otherwise, he/she will be laboring at a much worse place, we are actually doing them a favor`` is the apparent absence of the realization, that one could have helped the child more by sending him/her to school, and helping the family keep the child in school by supporting them in other ways, such as better wages for the parents. The real reason many people hire kids is because they can get the same amount of work, for much less money than they would pay an adult.

Re: Zain
You are right that early industrial England depended massively on low-paid child labor for economic growth. However, there are other ways to achieve the same goals today. We know that investing in children by educating them would be much better for long-term economic growth, than the short-term gain achieved by low-wage employment in their most critical years of life.
Also, if one is to believe Caldwell, once parents realize that they can no longer depend on their children for bringing in some extra cash, since by law, they have to be in school, they may voluntarily reduce their birth rates.

Anita

The Vacuous World Random:

A tangential argument, but worth pursuing further.

Must spouses necessarily disagree in public - I think not. My personal approach is usually a ‘no public comment’ one in most situations. Private conversations and arguments while among friends are of course exceptions. In fact, our friends would call us a pretty contentious couple, a necessary corollary of my views being left of center, and Saad’s being decidedly right; of Saad’s being a religious person, and my being essentially irreligious. Needless to say, I don’t like everything Saad writes and vice versa for him. We don’t feel the need to gag each other, but neither do we feel the need to criticize each other in discourse on a public forum. Each is fully capable of defending himself/herself (in fact, a cursory look will show that as a general rule we hardly interact in each others writings). Additionally, there are many people articulating a fairly leftist position on Chowk, and I don’t feel the need to interact incessantly. My writings speak for themselves.

Having said the above, there are some issues that both Saad and I feel moved to interact about, and have a common position on - moralizing from behind pseudonyms is one of the major ones. This is what I believe you mean when you refer to our playing tag-team. At the expense of sounding iterative, here is how this comes across to us:

I am an independently verifiable person (you can find me listed as a bona fide person on the Children’s Hospital, Boston official web site), as is Shandana. Whatever we say has consequences in the real world. We are exposed to getting s.h.i.t. from our relatives, friends, colleagues, employers, strangers. We can make (and probably have made) real enemies based on what we say. We say it regardless, if we think it should be said. I especially admire Shandana because she has the guts to talk about what she believes in, in the face of considerable danger, while living in Karachi. Whatever you (or Bad Girl) say, while maintaining anonymity has little or no consequence in the real world. The moralizing and calls to action seem fake and hypocritical if you can’t even bring yourself to articulate them openly, while living in the safety of the US. Seems like a bit of a cop out to me - something you don’t believe in passionately enough, can`t stand up for, if put to test.

Anita

PS. Am still waiting for some show of dissent between you and BG :)

Nothing to Wear! Thank you all who took time to comment.

For the record, I`d like to clarify that this is a parody of women whose most important obsession in life is the 3 Ws. What to wear, when - at the cost of much mental, not to mention monetary, expense.

I did not intend to imply that I think people in Nazimabad are not good, respectable folk - just that the uni-dimensional women in the poem think that they are not. This is based on the actual perception of some people that I have interacted with, who live in the Defence area (I myself grew up quite far from Defence, I write as the outsider). As an example, I`ll narrate the following conversation.

Some acquaintances of ours moved from Nazimabad into a house they had gotten built in Phase VI, Defence. I asked an old Defence native directions to the new house. She said, ``oh easiest thing to find - just go down such and such street, and it`ll stare you in the face. Bilkul Nazimabad ka thappa hai.``

As Saima Shah, a Nazimabadi native, says in Shandana`s Vacuous World piece, its better to bring to the surface these inane, but dangerously divisive views, rather than to brush them under the rug.

Anita

The Vacuous World Shandana and Arif,

Back from hibernating, I would have to say that Random is right. `Real` people with `real` relationships should not play tag-team in the virtual world. It is incredible bad form.

If you find yourself unable to curb the urge, on the few occasions that you actually happen to support each others viewpoint (by now you`ve surely realized how rare this is going to be:), take a hint from Random and/or Bad Girl (do you think these two could be related, maybe even the same person?) - assume a pseudonym.

Anita

PS. Boy, am I glad to have you two on board as the other (out-of-the-closet) Chowk couple. Welcome! May the New Year bring glad tidings.

Bangladesh Memories Ras,

Incredibly evocative!

Anita

Gulabo and the Courage of Our Convictions Nicely written, Saima.

Prolonged wedding celebrations are a traditional part of our culture, and as you say, one of the few remaining legitimate ways of having fun for women. Thinking that banning food at weddings is somehow going to solve the country`s economic woes is the same as thinking that getting the female newscaster to cover her head with a dupatta will rid the country of its social ills.

Here is how the thinking presumably goes - let us see, what is it that the people enjoy doing? Aha, they like eating at weddings. So let`s ban that. Too much enjoyment is not good for the people. Incidentally, I am told (by a dejected soon to be, unhappy-at-missing-his-own-wedding-dinner groom), that the ban applies only to non-Punjab areas. Is this true? Is it going to be the `khula khaa` approach for Punjabi weddings only?

On a personal note, what I hate about our wedding scene is the multiple events for the same people and the obligation that one has to attend each one, or else risk ex-communication forever. Since weddings get bunched up in the winter months, as well as before Ramzaan, before Muharram etc, certain periods are killer months. Not just somewhere to go to everyday, but multiple places to go to every day, all the time taking care to remember not to repeat joras where the `crowd` will be the same. I just can`t keep up. The shaadi scene is not for me.

Anita

Pakistan: Pressure on the Press Beena,

Thanks for writing about this on Chowk. Hopefully, the hue and cry will make the idiots realize that they cannot suppress the truth from coming out.

Anita

Killing Iraqis Before Ramadan Starts So now we know who truly owns ``Weapons of Mass Destruction``.

The Sudanese are without life-saving drugs, civilizations spanning the earliest millennia are being destroyed, and we watch the spectacle on TV.

I agree with you BG. The CNN TV coverage is a sickening, trivializing, infuriating, spectacle.

Anita

Just Another Woman 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

Just Another Woman 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

Just Another Woman 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

Just Another Woman 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

Just Another Woman 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

Taxicab Hiccups Nice work, Arif.

For you, and others inhibited by the submission window (I think temporal has complained about this once too), you can write your submission as a Word document and paste it in Interact.

Anita

Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder Dawkins - brilliant as usual.

There is true, unimaginable wonder in science. To contemplate the mysteries of life and universe - nothing is so awe-inspiring. Who said science is cold and impersonal?

Think of the little mitochondria that all of us have - the essential machinary of respiration, and then to realize that they represent bacteria that our ancestral cells ingested millions of years ago, to import the respiratory apparatus essential for us to breathe in a oxygen-rich environment - now there`s a fact to boggle the mind.

Anita

Builders’ Mafia Re: Muneeb (reply #16)

Excellent point, Muneeb.

As a purely hypothetical exercise, I`ll make the following observations/statements:

1) Bad Girl is a hypocrite.
2) Imran Khan is a hypocrite.
3) Salman Rushdie is a hypocrite.
4) Nawaz Sharif is a hypocrite.
5) Prophet Mohammad was a hypocrite.

Only Statement # 1 is unacceptable at Chowk because it would be seen as a personal attack on a writer/respondent, and therefore is liable to be censored. The persons mentioned in statements #2-5 however, can safely be insulted because they are not writers/respondents at Chowk.

If however tomorrow Imran Khan or Nawaz Sharif, or Salman Rushdie were to write for Chowk (hey, that day might come), it would no longer be acceptable to call them a hypocrite, since now, they would be personalities at Chowk and would therefore fall under the ``no personal remarks`` rule. Unfortunately, since Prophet Mohammad can never write on Chowk, he can`t be protected by this rule.

Such are the vagaries of Interact.

Anita