Many of my feminist friends got offended by this post and I was bashed being politically incorrect on the notions of patriarchy and feminism. But Readers are the real judge. Please feel free to comment. I am embedding the facebook post as well.
The original post was;
"In our middle and upper middle class households, women are quite empowered. No matter if they are educated or not. What they need is a husband, kids and an eventual control on the family being a boss all the time. This is a cultural reality. This is not Stockholm syndrome. It is very much of a conscious choice. My feminist friends may call it typical behavior but these women do not see it in any clash to their rights. In conservative households of KPK, one finds matriarchal setups in majority of the families. Majorily there are only the young girls who suffer from any negative consequences out of this family system in more conservative families. Although the misogyny in the society at other places like workplaces, educational institutions and community centers is very much a reality."
Full discussion can be read in the post below or below the post.
The original post was;
"In our middle and upper middle class households, women are quite empowered. No matter if they are educated or not. What they need is a husband, kids and an eventual control on the family being a boss all the time. This is a cultural reality. This is not Stockholm syndrome. It is very much of a conscious choice. My feminist friends may call it typical behavior but these women do not see it in any clash to their rights. In conservative households of KPK, one finds matriarchal setups in majority of the families. Majorily there are only the young girls who suffer from any negative consequences out of this family system in more conservative families. Although the misogyny in the society at other places like workplaces, educational institutions and community centers is very much a reality."
Full discussion can be read in the post below or below the post.
•Julez Couture
Akif Khan-"being a boss
all the time". is not enough. The one who controls the money holds the
power. I am sure more than half of these women do not know how much their
husbands make .
16 November at 01:26 • Like • 1
•
Riaz Papin
I partially agree with this. They generally control the
broader decision making in the family.
16 November at 02:18 • Like • 2
•
Riaz Papin
Julez Couture. Interesting question. Do you think it is a
genuine right to be knowing everything about how much their husbands earn,
particularly while they would most likely not work or if they do, would most
likely have their own income to themselves only. This is generally the pattern
in middle/upper middle class
16 November at 02:20 • Unlike • 3
•
Julez Couture
Riaz Papin, marriage is equal partnership and yes yes yes
yes wives should know what their husband earns and likewise the husbands should
know how much their wives make. Personally, I think both husband and wife
should be making all financial decisions together. I don't think that happens
very often in these families.
16 November at 02:32 • Like • 2
•
Riaz Papin
I think when we talk of the middle/upper middle class, the
decision making is most of the times consensus. The earlier part about income
generally is that either women don't work ( I mean outside home) so the earning
is mostly by males and is to a large extent known; Or if they do, the general
trend in Pashtun society is that women's earning is kept by her as it is
generally not considered honourable to take her money for family use.
16 November at 02:36 • Unlike • 1
•
Julez Couture
Riaz Papi ,"is to a large extent known"; did you
mean unknown.
16 November at 02:44 • Like
•
Riaz Papin
I meant exactly as i wrote...lols.....known....but mind you,
i m talking of middle/upper middle class which is very narrow in the spectrum
16 November at 02:46 • Unlike • 2
•
Julez Couture
Riaz Papin- I come from that class so have had a lot of
friends and interaction with these women. Believe me this is just an illusion.
It does not matter which class one comes from- the bottom line is money and who
controls it.
16 November at 02:54 • Like
•
Riaz Papin
Control...yeah...see that might vary....In a patriarchal
society as ours, the final control in money matters stays with the male. But I
would still say about the middle class women, the classic narrative of
empowering women doesnot apply wholly..the women indirectly enjoy very
significant influence in all decisions.
16 November at 03:01 • Unlike • 1
•
Julez Couture
Riaz Papin- I agree with you fully that women enjoy very
significant influence in their families and the decisions they make. I am not
sure what the classic narrative of empowering women is ........but for me it is
that a woman should have the freedom to make choices for herself. Should we not
work towards making Pakistan an egalitarian society?
16 November at 03:10 • Like • 1
•
Akif Khan
Riaz Papin got it and explained it well. This is a reality.
The money earned by woman is considered sacred while the money earned by man is
considered to be the sole source for all expenditure. This question that women
has right to know the income, hence, lies in the shades of confusion and
contradiction, when you talk about egalitarian society. The problem is that
supposed "victims" are EQUALLY intelligent human beings adopting a
very conscious choice and would laugh it off when you will tell them that they
have been victim of some patriarchal indoctrination. This is a greater paradox
when applying certain standards of modern family system in this culture. Now I
understand why anthropologists ask things to be put un cultural perspective.
16 November at 08:09 via mobile • Like
•
Yasser Chattha
Maybe I'm reversing development in your conversation or
discussion but let me make my point(s):
Dear all, deciding on what to cook on any day,or when to wake up or
sleep,or of what colour clothing to wear, or what day laundry to be done or
what kind of curtains to hang, aren't the least instruments of measuring levels
of empowerment or jumping to conclusions that matriarchal system has been in
place.
Rather we need to judge on or look into what is the degree of
independence in deciding on matters of feminine wellbeing and betterment.
If an elderly or middle aged woman seems enjoying a modicum of
empowerment, cross check whether she's allied herself with patriarchal
tradition and has reconciled for this shadowy empowerment where she feels
herself in command but she's in fact serving male/ patriarchal interests or tenets.
1) I think such a mother is really empowered if she helps her under-age
daughter against getting forcefully wedlocked
2) If any woman can take decision regarding number of kids she wants to
give birth to depending upon her health
3) If she's free in choosing her partner and any empowered woman can
enable her in her such luxury
4) What's level or degree of any woman's financially autonomy
In sum, I beg to say we shouldn't term this state of any woman as
empowerment if she's independent to move, run or hop inside the strong and
well-defined walls of a social cage, saying in a kind of proverbial analogy.
Cultural standard is/ should-be for understanding and description, not
essentially for compromising on at least averages of humane values reached at
after long and tortuous civilizational evolution.
Thanks
16 November at 16:24 via mobile • Edited • Like • 1
•
Akif Khan
Of course the above stated is not empowernent. I will again
emphasize that I am talking about middle/upper middle class. The level of
empowerment is that the lady decides the foreign policy of the family. She
controls decisions of weddings of male and female children. She is incharge of
all the savings including gold, monthly expenditure, saved money and petty
cash. She of course decides what to cook and when to wash by whom; total
administrative power of household. In this setup, the key point is that the
elderly lady and network of her daughter in laws and daughters assume the power
from deceased/sick/old/retired uninterested husband and all the sons. This
setup grows stronger and sexually reproduce similar smaller systems in due
course of time. The earning males are usually kept away from the harem
activities and are silently in agreement to the things. Although, they are well
consulted and all diplomatic channels are used to manipulate their consent;
sometimes they may veto the decisions taken from the harem, which is also
usual. The children in this family system are very much independently grown up
irrespective of gender with the appropriate education according to the income
of family and all other rights. The conflict arises when children want to go
against the wishes of elders, which happens frequently but the magnitude of the
events os less. The women inside their homes wear, eat and communicate freely.
This is directly related to the overall level of liberal and conservative
extent of the whole family system which defines the communication and attire of
women. Overall it is not different and women wear and communicate according to
the normal trends without any restrictions. In slightly or more liberal
families women also work unless they get married and often the choice of
children is also considered. In this setup there is no point of empowering
women to the level of creating any sense for career, growth or modern
liberation. This happens in all South Asia. That's why most of the wonen and even
male cannot grasp the concepts of feminism and call them western propaganda
against their family system.The need to put feminism to cultural perspective
can necessarily be felt here. Fewer women want to break from this system. Some
of my friends have done research on these aspects. I guess @Manzoor Khattak has
even his MPhil thesis on the same thing with a very good qualitative and
quantitative data. I may request him to share his conclusions qnd remarks.
16 November at 15:06 via mobile • Like
•
Akif Khan
Summary daso!! No youtube!
16 November at 15:28 via mobile • Like
•
Yasser Chattha
I'm afraid what we're taking as "normal" is in
fact that entrenched patriarchal tradition, I tend to see it as reconciling for
ruling over the already ruled, one puppet of some other.
And the notion of freedom "inside harem" seems to me
synonymous or some cognate of my "cage" analogy.
Perhaps I need to further emphsise on the need of resorting to believe
in or use dividends of shared human intellectual development and there's a bit
need to question the cloak of cultural perspective pragmatism.
I need to remark here that somewhat freedom which woman has earned in
Western societies doesn't belong essentially to any embedded structure in the
Western culture rather woman there has earned it through struggle: no one has
given her this as free lunch( eg in Christian religion she has been associated
with Original Sin and hence secondary) Therefore it shouldn't be taken as some
Western cultural onslaught rather might better be termed as human development,
but our vested interests want to keep it at arm's length by just dismissing it
to the good old Western conspiracy curse.
16 November at 16:23 via mobile • Unlike • 1
•
Akif Khan
I tend to agree 100 percent Yasser bhai. But the issue at hand
is very complex. The perspective of right and wrong for human development is
one thing and the need to change it from within that system is another hurdle
in this human development process. I am not saying this is how it should be. I
am saying that the feminism/human development for this system needs a different
strategy. Ain't it?
16 November at 16:44 • Like
•
Yasser Chattha
Thanks dear. I agree with you too regarding pragmatism.
But maybe I believe one must be clear at conceptual level and then propagating
ideas persuasively and repeatedly, removing misconceptions. Things evolve into
somewhat better shape.
16 November at 17:07 via mobile • Like
•
Akif Khan
Of course! I guess my friends know me on these conceptual
levels. I pointed out that too in my status and I proudly call myself a
feminist.
16 November at 17:09 • Like • 1
•
Faraz Talat
The problem is you taking women as a single, unified group -
like insects. You fail to see that even if the majority is satisfied with raising
kids and cleaning homes, that is not the case for all women. And every woman
deserves individual freedom to make choices that are different from what the
society expects.
Part of feminism is to get rid of gender roles: being born a female
doesn't mean one HAS to raise babies and cook rotis.
16 November at 17:21 • Edited • Like
•
Akif Khan
NO! I am not taking her as a single, unified group, lest any
allegory to insects. Where have I said that the majority is satisfied with
raising kids and cleaning homes? I am talking about the traditional/cultural
female role and the perceived power this family structure is offering to women.
And the way women feel themselves satisfied with it. It is based on some data,
its analysis, my observation, case studies and some experience belonging to
similar family watching similar families around. You cry your throats out to
tell the girls that they need career and not cleaning homes and reproducing
children, and these well educated/intelligent girls will never give your
lectures and theories a s*. They think this system as the last resort. So my
point is that a different strategy is required to challenge this system by
putting feminism in cultural perspective rather than issuing black and white
feminist fatwas. Please read the comments above for a clear idea. Faraz Talat
16 November at 17:31 • Like • 1
•
Yasser Chattha
Hmmm.... the girls which don't see anything better than
the established system are the same as majority of our society which
reconciles, compromises or is resigned to the circumstance or fate: it seems
thinking that whatever is prevalent is "natural" and seek success
while remaining in the confines of it.
Akif
you're right in pointing out their such thinking. Patriarchal ethos
is so strong that it has suppressed even desire to break chains.
16 November at 18:46 via mobile • Unlike • 2
•
Faraz Talat
Akif, Individuals don't need to be bound by any "culture". There is
no single culture, therefore, no single perspective, even in the same country.
Yes, women are encouraged to get jobs so they can attain financial
independence. But they are free to choose not to. No feminist is issuing a
"fatwa" against housewives. Please, let us avoid strawman
argumentation.
16 November at 18:53 • Edited • Unlike • 1
•
Faraz Talat
And I despise the phrase "putting feminism in cultural
perspective". Gender equality and human rights don't vary across cultural
boundaries. What's injustice in Sweden is injustice in Yemen.
16 November at 18:55 • Like
•
Akif Khan
Rather the strategy to apply the feminist principles be put in
perspective? Is it still not agreeble Faraz bhai? By Feminist fatwas I mean
hoping to apply crude forms of feminist theories in Pakistan. Do we need not to
consider any cultural limitations?
16 November at 19:02 via mobile • Like
•
Riaz Papin
I think the point Akif is trying to make is simply nor being
understood. While it is true that the vast majority of women in this
country/society ( or even broader Muslim/South Asian/ME context) do not have
basic rights like rights of choice to marriage, education/job, health
facilities, financial indepedece etc, but there is another paradoxical
complexity. Women in the middle/upper middle class while remaining within the
broader parameters of a Patriarchal structure assumed for themselves a very
powerful position in the family structure ( indirectly) to which the classic
narrative of women empowerment can not be applied. Sometimes this power can not
be judged on the classical scale/factors as used by the classical feminist
arguments. I personally think in certain cases it is even the case that they
have more powers at the cost of their men and use that indirect power to shape
the complete life of the family. For example, they will get education but ot
eager to work, will earn but not considered responsible for sharig i family
expenditure, will have veto in making marital decisions, decisions about
children. These are realities that have to be taken into account when talking
of women empowerment
16 November at 20:44 • Unlike • 1
•
Faraz Talat
There always will be cultural limitations. Do you suppose
the first wave of feminism advocating women's voting rights, was received with
open arms by in 1920's American culture?
Liberal movements, by definition, clash with the cultural limitations of
that time and region, and push out the boundaries of freedom.
16 November at 20:44 • Unlike • 1
•
Riaz Papin
That is agreed and not the point of debate. The narrative of
feminism in eastern societies should not be only about rights for women only
but also responsibilities as in the western perspective. You simply can't
diverse culture from this debate.
16 November at 20:47 • Unlike • 1
•
Akif Khan
This is exactly my point Riaz Papin. Thanks for explaining.
16 November at 20:56 via mobile • Like • 1
•
Faraz Talat
Riaz,
Obviously. What responsibilities are being disregarded with the feminist
movement in the East?
16 November at 21:39 • Like
•
Akif Khan
Surely the movements need to push cultural boundaries but with
internal realization. The women need to realize the oppression first and that
oppression is different from other kinds of opressions in the world which is
deeply embedded in cultural system and women themselves are part of that
opressive forces to a greater level. Women here are not stopped from driving.
The minimum age for wedding is eighteen by law. In S. Asia ir central Asia when
you tell them that they need to work out on their individuality, they don't
bother and this sentiment of mixture of assumed power and exploitation nit
known is used by the traditionalist religious lobby who will tell them that
these guys are trying to impose western culture over here. I have seen majority
of educated women settled on this system and don't bother to challenge it
because of these "benefits" they see in it.
16 November at 21:41 via mobile • Like • 1
•
Faraz Talat Benefits like what?
16 November at 21:43 • Like
•
Faraz Talat
And yes, patriarchal culture is upheld by both men AND
women. It's not a men vs women thing.
16 November at 21:43 • Unlike • 2
•
Akif Khan
Like no job responsibilities, easy money, archaic agrarian
housewife role, raising children, being social butterflies and internal control
of harem while man is limited to external affairs and he is also settled that
his house is being taken care of. Again I am talking about middle/upper middle
class families. Even if woman works, her role is not considered to be
participatory financially.
16 November at 21:50 via mobile • Like
•
Gulalai Ismail Gender base violence is more prevelant in Middle class,
than any other class.
16 November at 21:51 • Like
•
Akif Khan
So you want to say that thims seemingly
"matriarchal" system is actually patriarchal in spirit? I agree on
this. My ooint again is that it is gravely misleading unlike other societies
where realization of genDer discrimination can easily penetrate.
16 November at 21:52 via mobile • Like
•
Faraz Talat
Ah, so benevolent sexism? Yes, I've seen far too few
Pakistani feminists willing to relinquish those small privileges.
However, it's important to note that these privileges are poor payment
for the overall amount of oppression women have to face. You cannot expect them
to give up these 'benefits' first, even before they start receiving equal
treatment where it matters.
16 November at 21:57 • Like
•
Faraz Talat
And no, Eastern cultures don't allow women "internal
control of harem". That control still rests with the husband, for whom the
dupatta-clad wife darts around the kitchen to cook rotis for.
At best, the woman enjoys guardianship of the home, as long as the
husband is too apathetic to intervene and assert his authority.
16 November at 22:00 • Edited • Like
•
Akif Khan
Gulalai Ismail That's true but my question is why educated
women settle in this structure? Why they leave the benefits of individuality
and freedom? Do they not consider these 'small' privileges as very big
incentives? Faraz Talat where did I say that they should not enjoy these
things. I am saying that they consider it everything.
16 November at 22:02 via mobile • Like
•
Akif Khan
You call it pathetic guardianship of the home but she feels
settled for it. She considers it the beauty of family system. She makes herself
compatible with this cultural role and she calls these 'little' privileges as
honor and control.
16 November at 22:05 via mobile • Like • 1
•
Gulalai Ismail
Akif Khan that's internalization of patriarchy!
16 November at 22:11 • Unlike • 1
•
Akif Khan
"Benevolent Sexism" I think I am unable to explain
myself well or you are not willing to address it. I agree with you on
everything but I am confused as how to address the application point of view.
The culture is an important part and culture is different over here. You can't
whitewash it with straight argumemts. It needs to be challenged in a systematic
way and by unwinding the cultural fabric. I am feeling like a fool at this time
extending my argument but it is in no way intended to be sexist or favoring
patriarchy.
16 November at 22:13 via mobile • Like • 1
•
Akif Khan
I realize that Gulalai but there is a need to challenge that
internalization somehow unlike other cultures where this inrernalization is not
deep. Even in middle east it is not deep. The misogyny is rampant but cultural
internalization is not extensive like it is here in old agrarian/tribal setups.
16 November at 22:16 via mobile • Like
•
Faraz Talat
"Culture is different over here" is NOT a
reasonable argument to resist any rights movement. I thought we were agreed on
that.
Benevolent sexism too, by the way, is considered offensive by feminists.
It's pity-privilege based on the idea that women are too weak to do things like
earn their own money, open their own doors, find their own seats, etc.
16 November at 22:20 • Like
•
Faraz Talat
What if we were living in a culture where it's acceptable to
burn a widow with her dead husband? Would you oppose the howling feminists when
they try to import Western-inspired values of gender equality into this
cultural setting?
16 November at 22:22 • Like
•
Akif Khan
You will see an MBBS or PhD girl ditching her career happily
for these "supposed" privileges. They are settled on this
"empowerment." You know well which shared culture I am talking about
where sometimes the woman in charge is having more control and is shadowing the
patriarchy in guise of matriarchy. That is what I am settled on. But her role
offers an example to queued potential leaders.
16 November at 22:22 via mobile • Like • 1
•
Akif Khan
"How to" part is what I am talking about now! I assume
that we can't hit this complex cultural misogyny with simple tools that can
work in Middle East or in west. I am NOT defending the culture. I am talking
about it's complex embedding with and internalization of the misogny.
16 November at 22:27 via mobile • Like
•
Faraz Talat I agree with the MBBS point.
However, the 'joru ka ghulam' culture barely exists outside our TV
screens. The man of the house is still, surprisingly, the "man".
16 November at 22:27 • Like
•
Akif Khan
But we are living in a culture where woman can wear
everything, can earn best education, can drive, can choose life partner and can
do job and at the end loves to play the part of housewife for rest of her life.
What about this?
16 November at 22:32 via mobile • Like
•
Kamran Aziz
Bayanyah. Bayanyah. Ghalib Bayanye ky masail haen lala ji.
Logun se jis tarah bulwao gay, bolen gay. Jiss taraj jiwao gay, jiyen gay.
16 November at 22:35 • Like
•
Faraz Talat
"But we are living in a culture where woman can
wear everything, can earn best education, can drive, can choose life partner
and can do job.."
Are you talking about our culture, or are you speaking hypothetically?
Because if women here actually did have all that (and not just a few elite
women, whose family men are educated enough to allow this), feminists' work
here would've been significantly easier.
Anyway, as I said, it is not fair to keep both the above mentioned
rights whilst keeping all the privileges of benevolent sexism.
16 November at 22:39 • Like
•
Akif Khan
Faraz Talat some of our friends call it Naik Parveen Syndrome
as well. Remember?
16 November at 22:39 via mobile • Like
•
Riaz Papin
Faraz Talat. I disagree with you to some extent. This culture
is very much prevalent ( remember we are talking middle class). On a seperate
note, I would agree that it is internalization of patriarchy by the women and
it has to be addressed in a different way than the classical narrative of women
empowerment. Gender equality is a better phrase for me. I would like my daughter
to be groomed in an environment where she sees herself as a person in herself
rather than my reflection or that of her mother. She has to dream of a life
where it is importat for her to get educated, make her own decisions and own
the responsibility for these decisions ( even in crises situations). I would
like her to have the freedom and with that the realisation that she has to fend
for herself ad not come crying to Daddy or Mummy. She has to be master of her
destiny both good and bad. This to me is the crux of the matter
16 November at 22:43 • Unlike • 1
•
Akif Khan
Sir g yes and at the end they would settle for traditional
housewife role thinking it as their saviour and offering "benefits"
as well. This is where I am asking that they consider it empowerment but is
actually not and needs to be challenged, but how? I still have no problems with
a woman enjoying all the "little" privileges.
16 November at 22:43 via mobile • Like
•
Kamran Aziz
Can I add something? Akif Khan
16 November at 22:45 • Edited • Unlike • 2
•
Kamran Aziz
I have read above comments. Have something to say Akif Khan
16 November at 22:46 • Unlike • 1
•
Akif Khan
Riaz Papin but at the end after my or your all honest
intentions will be drained when my or your daughter will settle on traditional
housewife role with a loving hubby, two cute children, a car at home, good
income of husband a good reputation in Susral. We will also be feeling settled
on this as she is "happy." No?
16 November at 22:47 via mobile • Like • 1
•
Akif Khan
Sure Sir you are among one of the best qualified people over
here to speak on the matter. Kamran Aziz
16 November at 22:48 via mobile • Like
•
Faraz Talat
Riaz,
Middle class Pakistani women get to wear whatever they want, get the
best education, and choose their own life partners? Are you sure about that?
It might be the case with some households, but I'm sure more women would
disagree.
16 November at 22:48 • Like
•
Kamran Aziz
I think sometimes the problem lies in the way we articulate
ourselves. When you say that we will settle on this or that, don't you think
you are snatching the right of a person to be happy in a way she wants?
16 November at 22:49 • Like
•
Kamran Aziz
I agree with you that people ignore all investments made on
their education etc. But don't you think that even if an educated person does
not become a professional, still she is an asset because of the fact she is
educated. It leads us to another question. If we I ask you to think beyond a
few big cities and make yourself relevant to the social and economic structures
there, would you be able to do that? Is there enough market for the educated
that gives them a sense of value? And also a sense of spoiling something by
disregarding it?
16 November at 22:52 • Like
•
Kamran Aziz
Does that solve the problem? Or should I move on to the
next?
16 November at 22:53 • Like
•
Akif Khan
Kamran Aziz Exactly that is my another dimension. If she
considers herself happy then obviously she feels empowered. It is different
from our definition of "empowerment" but how and what is the
alternative if it is exploitation. Let's put the "ethics" bit aside
for a while.
16 November at 22:54 • Like
•
Kamran Aziz
You sound like, 'she must empower herself'
16 November at 22:56 • Like
•
Akif Khan
True, I agree and you are in fact strengthening my argument
that she sees "benefits" in this. This is where cultural relevance
jumps in, no? Faraz Talat What's your point of view on this hypothesis?
16 November at 22:57 • Like
•
Kamran Aziz
Unless the institution of family is relevant, kinship is
entrenched, she will always see benefits. I think the question is, why
something appears to be beneficial, when in some eyes it is totally
exploitative. Is this what you are actually putting?
16 November at 22:58 • Unlike • 1
•
Akif Khan
No! I am saying she feels empowered. Friends are disagreeing
and are calling it internalization of patriarchy. I agree on that too. So,
conclusively the problem that appeared at the end is, "Is it empowerment?
If not, as considerably it is the internalization of the patriarchy, then is it
embedded with culture? Friends say, culture is no excuse and we should
challenge this patriarchy with classical gender empowerment arguments. Whereby,
I insist that culture is important and there is a need to define what exactly
is wrong with the empowerment that she feels and how to challenge it with
keeping culture in consideration?
16 November at 23:03 • Like
•
Kamran Aziz
But here we are talking about culture as something definite...which
is problematic. It is not. If culture had been so definitely determining
behaviors, then we would not see anyone challenging them. I think culture is
more of an arbitrary thing in that. Surely it defines the broad outlines but it
never determines human behaviors in definite detail. Students of culture have
talked at length about this. And most of them deny that culture is a kind of
structure in which humans are imprisoned. Rather, its the framework through
which humans rationalize their actions. Taojeeh karty haen apny afaaal ki.
16 November at 23:08 • Like
•
Akif Khan
It might be the case with some households, but I'm sure more
women would disagree.//
That's why we narrowed it down in the start to middle/upper middle class
families.
16 November at 23:09 • Like
•
Akif Khan
Kamran Aziz But the culture of family structure is same in
this Indus part and agrarian history puts my question in perspective regarding
culture related to family structure.
16 November at 23:12 • Like
•
Kamran Aziz
As for feminism, I think some of their arguments are really
convincing. Dehumanization of women is all pervasive. And there is no doubt at
least in my mind that its basis are cultural. Here I might be denying something
I said above but now we are in field, that was theory. Cultural conceptions
like honor, ghairat, izzut, these are some of the cultural constructions
through which women are dehumanized and looked at just as carriers of these
criteria or values or wishes. They become more like objects.
16 November at 23:12 • Like
•
Akif Khan
I agree on all that Kamran Aziz but you are still not grasping
my question. It is not about honor, ghairat, killing etc. It is about
women/educated women settling for the traditional role of a housewife considering
it an empowered role and the family structure as a normal and benefiting thing,
not at all in clash with their rights. Is this really empowerment, if it is
not, what is the source of the internalization of misogyny that it seems
empowerment, and how to challenge it when the "victims" don't
consider it exploitation? Is the culture responsible? Is the family structure
responsible? Are their any benefits or the "benefits" she assumes are
real or imaginary, how?
16 November at 23:18 • Like
•
Kamran Aziz
True. But culture is not static. It considerably changes
across classes. But the fundamental problems sated above are surely the
negative energies of our cultural system which need to be attacked, changed,
and stated and spelled as clearly as possible. So that people get to know that
these things are wrong and they don't have any right over others' lives. Most
of the honor killings in Punjab are reported from Lahore, Faisalabad, Rahimya
Khan. These are all centers of the classes you mention.
16 November at 23:18 • Like
•
Kamran Aziz
The very social organization is its source. The fact that
family life, being a housewife is a relevant, accepted and admired role is the
source of its internalization.
16 November at 23:20 • Like
•
Kamran Aziz
Well, here I think I don't have any data. So I will have to
respond speculatively. The criteria for something as a benefit, valuable, good,
desirable, is always determined by the society. Not absolutely ofcourse. There
are degrees of goodness, badness, desirability. This means that you will need
to change the way a society behaves as a general collection of people, change
the sources that propel these kinds of desirability. Which means, Industrialize
it, open it, liberalize it. The dominant mode of living is important for people
than your and mine arguments dear.
16 November at 23:24 • Like
•
Akif Khan
So here comes the Faraz's question, what if burning a widow is
considered as normal by society, do we not challenge it just because west
advocates the human rights and is no authority to challenge the norms and
culture?
16 November at 23:26 • Like
•
Kamran Aziz
So, they will never cease to behave in a particular kind of
way unless the sources, patriarchy, modes of production (agriculture),
philosophic model (a religion that allocates space and rights/ responsibility)
are changed. But this is almost impossible. A better way to achieve this, is to
change the people perhaps. Make them irrelevant.
16 November at 23:27 • Like
•
Kamran Aziz
I have said above, that the negative energies of a system
need to be challenged.
16 November at 23:28 • Like
•
Akif Khan
So either accept it as "empowerment" or keep on
challenging it with classical gender argument approach?
16 November at 23:28 • Like
•
Kamran Aziz
No, I really disagree with at least the face of feminism in
Pakistan. I never advocate pessimism. Educate people. Give your share to the
society. But then ofcourse we ll have to leave the final judgement and course
of ACTION TO THE PEOPLE.
16 November at 23:30 • Like
•
Akif Khan
What is negative in this empowerment when a woman shuns her
career and opts for a traditional role?
16 November at 23:32 • Like
•
Kamran Aziz
Akif Khan One thing that people do not realize is that this
is the age of science. But it does not end here at social network discussions.
We will have to collect a stupendous amount of data before launching or
scientifically tackling a society for a project that looks to undermine its
very foundation, the family.
16 November at 23:33 • Like
•
Akif Khan
Manzoor Khattak has the data.
16 November at 23:35 • Like
•
Kamran Aziz
The one who opts should be talked to. In fact i specialized
discourses, there comes a point when we get engrossed with an idea. For
example, women. And their subordination. Why should a women chose to become a
professional? In fact, being lazy, avoiding work or hard work is something we
all learn from an early age in my opinion. So, what if a women decides not to
work when she has a prospect that her husband will provide her with each and
everything she needs. As I said earlier, we cannot impose change you see. In a
hypothetical situation we can continue debating, but this is for the individual
to decide what she wants to do.
16 November at 23:38 • Like
•
Kamran Aziz
I am not trying to undermine the importance of your
questions. Of course these are very real, important to discuss. What I want to
emphasize is that the mode of reasoning matters. And our window too. If
questions are tackled and things are read from a safe distance, perhaps they
will come to us more clearly.
16 November at 23:45 • Like
•
Akif Khan
I hope I am not being sexist here. I saw this problem and expressed
my opinion opened for debate.
16 November at 23:48 via mobile • Like
•
Kamran Aziz
There is an interesting anecdote. Some passionate marxists
went to a saraiki area and reached a settlement of laghari tribe. They asked
people, who were understandably enjoying the umpteenth cup of their tea on a
summer noon, what do you people do? They said we just work here in forms and
for the landlord. Marxists told them that they have come to help them get their
rights. They told the tribesmen, YOU ARE THE REAL PROLTARI. And they said, No
no, we are lagharis. And Marxists said, oh comm'on, don't kid wid us, you are
in fact proltaaari. They said, o baba kasum le lo we are lagharis. Check the
next village perhaps they are proltari
16 November at 23:51 • Edited • Unlike • 2
•
Akif Khan
I saw this problem in my family and around. And question to me
was how ro challenge it? What form of "liberty" can be
"advertised" as you mentioned to solve it or whether it is a
"problem" or not? I have often heard and read cultural
anthropologists speaking of "cultural relevance" when talking
"gender rights" in South Asia.
16 November at 23:52 via mobile • Like
•
Riaz Papin
LOLs...Kamran...LOls..that makes your point of view very
clear. The point still remains that to address that you can't have a top down
approach as narrated by women empowermet. The movement of the proletariat has
to be from within.
16 November at 23:54 • Unlike • 1
•
Kamran Aziz
Yaar yeh anthropologist are also like thekedars of cultures
these days. Personally I do not believe in such adventures like women
empowerment. These days no one knows where the power is. I am more concerned
with how the state empowers itself. As for feminist, I agree with you Akif
Khan. This is a problem. You have confronted a real issue which needs a
solution. I personally think that we categorize women, and then force our
constructed category on them. Women are not a cohesive group. And if you just
look around, you will see many Baloch sardars willing to join the establishmentarian
efforts to control that province. How would you explain that?? This simply
means that Baloch are not one category or collection of people that agrees to a
particular agenda politic. So, a women can very well be a beneficiary of a
patriarchal system.
17 November at 00:00 • Unlike • 2
•
Akif Khan
Exactly Riaz Papin! And by no means Sir we see it to be
challenged from within in near future.
17 November at 00:05 via mobile • Like
•
Akif Khan
So the question again is whether it is as simple to approach
the problem with classical gender argumentation or a newer strategy needs to be
developed? Yes or No is not simple and if yes what would it be and how will it
be applied? We are still not settled on assuming it a problem in classical
feminist approach as our friend Faraz Talat tends to disagree.
17 November at 00:09 via mobile • Like
•
Kamran Aziz
In fact I have seen movements being hijacked. A whole
revolution was stolen in Iran. So, nothing explains the eruption and withering
away of movements. They look more like natural processes of history.
17 November at 00:09 • Unlike • 2
•
Kamran Aziz
Akif Khan Yar things are so complex. We are still unble to
categorize the larger sections of this society. We are still waiting for more
federating units to be defined. Do you really think that society such as ours'
allows us to construct as big a conce...See More
17 November at 00:16 • Unlike • 2
•
No comments:
Post a Comment