Strategic Depth at Home
Sameer February 17, 2002
#218 Posted by saminashah on February 24, 2002 5:12:15 pm
Fuzair,
I find that your many responses betray your difficulties in acknowledging the legitimate and valid critiques that obviously challenge the manifestations of patriarchal structures. In offering your male grad studies horror stories (and how your poor besieged brothers in arms will rush to the fray), you have represented and dismissed your female classmates by a slightly blurred version of the same old stereotypes. In addition, you have provided your readers with a your reference points of associations: Womyn=feminist=irrational/illogical=anti patriarchal=silly female. Quite disingenious.
Finally, you have unsuccessfully tried to excuse/harrump your way out of my points of contention: that it would be interesting to note the gender dynamics/participation in interaction
on an issue that is focussing on the gender that is silent/invisible on these boards. I think your responses are part of the answer.
Where to begin? Just to start off with a question: WHY did you think that my pointing out the almost completely male discussion of Sameer`s article was a call for female interactors to turn the board into a ``feminazi`` forum. Bit of a broad crayon stroke, na? I merely said that the emerging responses should be part of our examination of the political and social roles of Pakistani women. In other words; even our learned forum of debate can be seen as a microcosm of a larger contexts. If you will read the ensuing posts from female interactors, 1. it is clear that women interactors have something to say 2. for whatever reasons, had not been. I am curious: why weren`t you bothered by that? Why did some male interactors write about the domestic spheres of influence that women in their famillies wielded-which is completely missing the point of Sameer`s piece?
My suspicion is that the point of Sameer`s article; that not only do Pakistani women have a political voice, but also that many women organizations have been at the forefront of grassroots, progressive organising in many countries marked by violence, is not one that some readers want to hear. We read countless defenses of capitalism, but never about i.e. the Mothers of the Disappeared in Argentina. There are Chowkies who applaud the vicious suicide bombers and decry the Israeli military state, but have absolutely nothing to say about Jewish and Palestianian coalition groups against the occupation and the crazed fundo groups also destroying the Palestininan territories. (Women in Black, Hanan Ashwari, etc). There are interactors who will explode in technicolor self righteous indignation at the suggestion that sex workers be given citizen benefits-but refuse to admit that prostitution rings in Pakistan, Nepal, India, and Bangladesh exist. No mention of groups like Shirkat Gah or NGO groups- Why is that? No, instead we are treated to advice; ``relax``, ``don`t sound so shrill``, ``be logical``. These lovely pats on the head were dispensed to me in the last two days; funny, I`m actually pretty chill. I guess sticking to a point-and self examination is a problem on these boards.
Every diatribe you offer can be matched with stories I am sure female and sympathetic male Chowkies can supply; my grad classes are filled with men who monopolize class discussions, who interrupt women when they are talking (including women proffessors), who deny ``machismo`` cultures exist all over the world-this in the liberal arts. I had the extraordinary experience of sitting in a class in which Edward Said`s Orientalism was being discussed. I made a comment to the effect that Said`s contentions remain valid in terms of the current media campaign to support the US invasion in Afghanistan. A brilliant African American colleague (she`s getting her Ph.d in Composition Studies and Statistics) remarked that the media`s sudden interest in the status of Afghani women could be a part of the psychic campaign of garnering American support of the bombings. A Latino American colleague (without an iota of irony) told us that we ``should be grateful that we didn`t live in an Islamic country like Saudi Arabia``, where he witnessed, as a soldier, a man beating a woman in the streets while his commander told him not to intercede. I was asked why women in Muslim countries ``take it``. And of course I replied the same way Sameer has in this article: There are women`s orgs addressing and mobilizing around these issues-they get very little attention by outside and inside institutions. Now, someone like Urstruly will be outraged at the stereotypes that Muslim women are passive and are regularly beaten. But will Urstruly support women`s organizations in Pakistan that work towards laws that protect women in cases of battering?
re: ``So, relax. I only acutely dislike womyn, not women. Whats the difference? Simple. Women just want to succeed in the real world and want a fair chance at proving their competence--which, btw, they already have in the US. Womyn want to dismantle things like capitalism, a patriarchal tool for repressing womyn and (approved) ethnic and sexual minorities, and replace it with gibberish such as Gaia worship or some other touchy feely, New Age pap.``
Well, no, its not such a level playing field, even in America. I would refer you to a recent NY Times article that found that women in managerial levels are making less than their male counterparts, women who are mothers make less than their male counterparts who are fathers, and that a very high percentage of women managers choose to either put off motherhood altogether or until they are able to care for their children and not work. One would hazard that these discrepancies in salary are in effect penalizing working women, and working women who are mothers, but not men and not working fathers. Competence is proven but not paid for accordingly. So much for the well meaning patriarchy, even at the white collar level.
As for your last bit, I`m going to laugh it off. What with most of the women in the world following religious interpretations that refuse to relinguish priesthoods, or hey, even a driver`s license, you can be accountable for your own flippancy. Ah, the joys of male privillege.
I find that your many responses betray your difficulties in acknowledging the legitimate and valid critiques that obviously challenge the manifestations of patriarchal structures. In offering your male grad studies horror stories (and how your poor besieged brothers in arms will rush to the fray), you have represented and dismissed your female classmates by a slightly blurred version of the same old stereotypes. In addition, you have provided your readers with a your reference points of associations: Womyn=feminist=irrational/illogical=anti patriarchal=silly female. Quite disingenious.
Finally, you have unsuccessfully tried to excuse/harrump your way out of my points of contention: that it would be interesting to note the gender dynamics/participation in interaction
on an issue that is focussing on the gender that is silent/invisible on these boards. I think your responses are part of the answer.
Where to begin? Just to start off with a question: WHY did you think that my pointing out the almost completely male discussion of Sameer`s article was a call for female interactors to turn the board into a ``feminazi`` forum. Bit of a broad crayon stroke, na? I merely said that the emerging responses should be part of our examination of the political and social roles of Pakistani women. In other words; even our learned forum of debate can be seen as a microcosm of a larger contexts. If you will read the ensuing posts from female interactors, 1. it is clear that women interactors have something to say 2. for whatever reasons, had not been. I am curious: why weren`t you bothered by that? Why did some male interactors write about the domestic spheres of influence that women in their famillies wielded-which is completely missing the point of Sameer`s piece?
My suspicion is that the point of Sameer`s article; that not only do Pakistani women have a political voice, but also that many women organizations have been at the forefront of grassroots, progressive organising in many countries marked by violence, is not one that some readers want to hear. We read countless defenses of capitalism, but never about i.e. the Mothers of the Disappeared in Argentina. There are Chowkies who applaud the vicious suicide bombers and decry the Israeli military state, but have absolutely nothing to say about Jewish and Palestianian coalition groups against the occupation and the crazed fundo groups also destroying the Palestininan territories. (Women in Black, Hanan Ashwari, etc). There are interactors who will explode in technicolor self righteous indignation at the suggestion that sex workers be given citizen benefits-but refuse to admit that prostitution rings in Pakistan, Nepal, India, and Bangladesh exist. No mention of groups like Shirkat Gah or NGO groups- Why is that? No, instead we are treated to advice; ``relax``, ``don`t sound so shrill``, ``be logical``. These lovely pats on the head were dispensed to me in the last two days; funny, I`m actually pretty chill. I guess sticking to a point-and self examination is a problem on these boards.
Every diatribe you offer can be matched with stories I am sure female and sympathetic male Chowkies can supply; my grad classes are filled with men who monopolize class discussions, who interrupt women when they are talking (including women proffessors), who deny ``machismo`` cultures exist all over the world-this in the liberal arts. I had the extraordinary experience of sitting in a class in which Edward Said`s Orientalism was being discussed. I made a comment to the effect that Said`s contentions remain valid in terms of the current media campaign to support the US invasion in Afghanistan. A brilliant African American colleague (she`s getting her Ph.d in Composition Studies and Statistics) remarked that the media`s sudden interest in the status of Afghani women could be a part of the psychic campaign of garnering American support of the bombings. A Latino American colleague (without an iota of irony) told us that we ``should be grateful that we didn`t live in an Islamic country like Saudi Arabia``, where he witnessed, as a soldier, a man beating a woman in the streets while his commander told him not to intercede. I was asked why women in Muslim countries ``take it``. And of course I replied the same way Sameer has in this article: There are women`s orgs addressing and mobilizing around these issues-they get very little attention by outside and inside institutions. Now, someone like Urstruly will be outraged at the stereotypes that Muslim women are passive and are regularly beaten. But will Urstruly support women`s organizations in Pakistan that work towards laws that protect women in cases of battering?
re: ``So, relax. I only acutely dislike womyn, not women. Whats the difference? Simple. Women just want to succeed in the real world and want a fair chance at proving their competence--which, btw, they already have in the US. Womyn want to dismantle things like capitalism, a patriarchal tool for repressing womyn and (approved) ethnic and sexual minorities, and replace it with gibberish such as Gaia worship or some other touchy feely, New Age pap.``
Well, no, its not such a level playing field, even in America. I would refer you to a recent NY Times article that found that women in managerial levels are making less than their male counterparts, women who are mothers make less than their male counterparts who are fathers, and that a very high percentage of women managers choose to either put off motherhood altogether or until they are able to care for their children and not work. One would hazard that these discrepancies in salary are in effect penalizing working women, and working women who are mothers, but not men and not working fathers. Competence is proven but not paid for accordingly. So much for the well meaning patriarchy, even at the white collar level.
As for your last bit, I`m going to laugh it off. What with most of the women in the world following religious interpretations that refuse to relinguish priesthoods, or hey, even a driver`s license, you can be accountable for your own flippancy. Ah, the joys of male privillege.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#217 Posted by SameerJB on February 24, 2002 5:12:15 pm
Fuzair: The Womyn stuff you mentioned are really exceptions. Most of women concerns are absolutely legitimate. The examples of BB, Indira Gandhi or equal treatment at personal level experience within individual family are not very valid responses to any discussion about macro level injustices.
Women in our societies are treated more like a lower caste. The lower the caste, harder it is to fight against the vested interests. Even next door in India, at least a lower caste party is working hard and becoming politically important (my congratulations to BSP for remarkable showing in UP elections). In Pakistan too, lower caste - the women, must learn from the experience of BSP in UP. Now making a case for disliking BSP based on the intelligence level or exploitation of caste based politics by few BSP leaders is not important; sharing power with them is. What is so great about SP or BJP anyway compared to BSP. Similarly what is so great in Pakistan about a bunch of pirs, Shahs, Sardars, Chaudharies, Vaderas, Feudals and retired Army officers comprising of 200 members of National Assembly than 200 women from any background? What is so great about Pakistan being controlled by ISI agents and stupid generals on one side and their chamcha Sardar, Feudals and Vaderas on the other? What do people fear most from women empowerment at the highest level? There must be a standard before worrying about loss of standards. If male MNA can snore during Assembly session, so can a women MNA.
As for the bashing of male goes, it is legitimate technique in caste based politics. You just can not make even a dent by being soft. It is end that justifies the means, the end is empowerment and means is hard hitting politics. All the soft guys in Pakistani politics end up losing, no matter what party they belong to. People like Asma Jahangir are well known and reasonably popular, not because of being soft and humble but exactly the opposite. For an uphill battle against heavy odds, heavy hitting is essential.
Women in our societies are treated more like a lower caste. The lower the caste, harder it is to fight against the vested interests. Even next door in India, at least a lower caste party is working hard and becoming politically important (my congratulations to BSP for remarkable showing in UP elections). In Pakistan too, lower caste - the women, must learn from the experience of BSP in UP. Now making a case for disliking BSP based on the intelligence level or exploitation of caste based politics by few BSP leaders is not important; sharing power with them is. What is so great about SP or BJP anyway compared to BSP. Similarly what is so great in Pakistan about a bunch of pirs, Shahs, Sardars, Chaudharies, Vaderas, Feudals and retired Army officers comprising of 200 members of National Assembly than 200 women from any background? What is so great about Pakistan being controlled by ISI agents and stupid generals on one side and their chamcha Sardar, Feudals and Vaderas on the other? What do people fear most from women empowerment at the highest level? There must be a standard before worrying about loss of standards. If male MNA can snore during Assembly session, so can a women MNA.
As for the bashing of male goes, it is legitimate technique in caste based politics. You just can not make even a dent by being soft. It is end that justifies the means, the end is empowerment and means is hard hitting politics. All the soft guys in Pakistani politics end up losing, no matter what party they belong to. People like Asma Jahangir are well known and reasonably popular, not because of being soft and humble but exactly the opposite. For an uphill battle against heavy odds, heavy hitting is essential.
#216 Posted by Zakkk on February 24, 2002 5:12:15 pm
Vis a vis Omair`s Post about his ideal cabinet, I would make a comment, in his slection of people, he has not mentioned (with the exception of BB) a single Sindhi, nor a Single pashtun or Baluchi in the list of people competent enough to head a new Govt. Contrary to what you may think there are such things as educated Pashtuns sindhis and Baluchis who are quite competent in public service and have fairly high democratic credentials. Also I would point out the lack of any Minority particpation and Women in this distinguished cabinet.
#215 Posted by anNy on February 24, 2002 5:12:15 pm
nasah sahab,
Your critisism of pakistan would serve a better purpose were it done in a respecful manner. Thus people would read and better themselves. This way, reeking with patronizing and amusement, it does little good. Many like myself would be cursing you mildly inside our sad little jehadi minds and therefore it serves little purpose for we will remain the same bumpkins you feel contempt for and hate so much.
Hoping you will understand and be kinder, kind sir.
Your critisism of pakistan would serve a better purpose were it done in a respecful manner. Thus people would read and better themselves. This way, reeking with patronizing and amusement, it does little good. Many like myself would be cursing you mildly inside our sad little jehadi minds and therefore it serves little purpose for we will remain the same bumpkins you feel contempt for and hate so much.
Hoping you will understand and be kinder, kind sir.
#214 Posted by nasah on February 24, 2002 3:21:44 am
My dear friend tahmed:
You write:
``nasah: I am sorry if my criticism of your post hurts, but remember: sometimes we can benefit from criticism even if it hurts our pride (in ancient Greece or perhaps Rome writers used to pay critics to comment on their work.````(tahmed)
My friend, please -- your criticism of my post does not hurt me -- it amuses me.
You are exactly right -- ``sometimes we can benefit from criticism even if it hurts our pride``.
I hope you understand -- that my criticism of Pakistan is meant only to benefit Pakistan -- not to hurt its pride -- and please -- I don`t expect to be paid for my critique -- it`s all free:)
Eid Mubarak
You write:
``nasah: I am sorry if my criticism of your post hurts, but remember: sometimes we can benefit from criticism even if it hurts our pride (in ancient Greece or perhaps Rome writers used to pay critics to comment on their work.````(tahmed)
My friend, please -- your criticism of my post does not hurt me -- it amuses me.
You are exactly right -- ``sometimes we can benefit from criticism even if it hurts our pride``.
I hope you understand -- that my criticism of Pakistan is meant only to benefit Pakistan -- not to hurt its pride -- and please -- I don`t expect to be paid for my critique -- it`s all free:)
Eid Mubarak
#213 Posted by Romair on February 24, 2002 1:35:17 am
hobbytv #198: ``What kinds of odds are you offering on Musharraf being an ``elected`` President?``
I am not quite sure how Musharraf will pull this one of. But he has surprised everyone with his shrewdness, and straightforwardness. So he will come up with something. The simple fact is that he has no skeletons in his closet (which is a rarity for Pakistani leaders), and is thus popular.
It wouldn`t be a bad idea for the President to be elected, as is the case in the USA. But with Pakistan`s feudal politics, there is no way anyone without feudal support can become PM or be elected President. So I don`t think Musharraf would win out against a PPP or PML candidate.
Here is what I would consider an ideal possible leadership scenario, amongst the people I know about, keeping in mind a leadership balanced across all political parties:
President (Musharraf; 19th most influential person in the world according to Newsweek, Bush`s friend, PMA graduate), Prime Minister (Shaukut Aziz; EVP of Citibank, IBA graduate; he is the guy actually calling all the shots in Pakistan right now), Chairman Senate (Wasim Sajjad; the best that the pathetic PML has to offer; Rhodes Scholar), Speaker of the Assembly (Fakhr Imam; the best that the pathetic feudals have to offer; a decent feudal), Governor Punjab (Imran Khan; well known philanthrapist, Oxford Graduate), Governor NWFP (Omer Asghar Khan; well known philanthripist, Cambridge graduate), Governor Sindh (Mohammad Mian Soomro; banker; nephew of Soomro the PML big chief), Governor Baluchistan (don`t know), Foreign Minister (Maleeha Lodhi; voted one of 100 people who will define the 21st century in 1994 by Time, 70th most influential person in the world by Newsweek; London School of Economics graduate), Defence Minister (Gen (retd.) Sahibzada Yaqub; best buddy of Henry Kissenger and thus the powerful jewish american lobby; one of the only Pakistanis recognized internationally as a military intellectual, even though he is only a matriculate), Interior Minister (Gen. (retd.) Moin-ud-din Haider; the real guy going after the religious extremists in Pakistan, even though his brother was recently assasinated; PMA graduate); Law Minister (Aitezaz Ahsan; the best that the pathetic PPP has to offer; Cambridge graduate), Minister of S&T (Atta-ur-Rahman; seems to be doing a good job; I met him and like him; Cambridge graduate), Minister of Finance (Moeen Qureshi; did a good job in his PM stint; some Pakistanis say he did some underhand stuff, however; Fulbright scholar at Univ. of Indiana), Industries Minister (Babar Ali; successful businessman owner of Packages; founder of LUMS); Minister of Education (Gen (retd.) Sabeeh Qamar; philanthrapic founder of the citizen foundation free schools; PMA graduate); Minister of Information (Najam Sethi; successful editor/businessman; Cambridge grad I think); Ambassador to the US (Benazir Bhutto; if she agrees to dump Zardari and comes clean on all her corruption; she wanted to be in the foreign service before she joined politics; this will keep her away from creating problems in Pakistan; Harvard and Oxford grad); Ambassador India (Sheheryar Khan; ex-Foreign Secretary, heir of the Nawabs of Bhopal; Cambridge graduate) Mayor Lahore (Shahbaz Sharif; as long as he comes clean on all his family`s corruption; he is good at fixing roads, not at running countries)
All the above have been ministers etc. before, and/or have powerful positions in Pakistan`s current political parties. Drop a few, add a few.....Everyone else should be accomodated in the provincial assemblies. What do you think?
I am not quite sure how Musharraf will pull this one of. But he has surprised everyone with his shrewdness, and straightforwardness. So he will come up with something. The simple fact is that he has no skeletons in his closet (which is a rarity for Pakistani leaders), and is thus popular.
It wouldn`t be a bad idea for the President to be elected, as is the case in the USA. But with Pakistan`s feudal politics, there is no way anyone without feudal support can become PM or be elected President. So I don`t think Musharraf would win out against a PPP or PML candidate.
Here is what I would consider an ideal possible leadership scenario, amongst the people I know about, keeping in mind a leadership balanced across all political parties:
President (Musharraf; 19th most influential person in the world according to Newsweek, Bush`s friend, PMA graduate), Prime Minister (Shaukut Aziz; EVP of Citibank, IBA graduate; he is the guy actually calling all the shots in Pakistan right now), Chairman Senate (Wasim Sajjad; the best that the pathetic PML has to offer; Rhodes Scholar), Speaker of the Assembly (Fakhr Imam; the best that the pathetic feudals have to offer; a decent feudal), Governor Punjab (Imran Khan; well known philanthrapist, Oxford Graduate), Governor NWFP (Omer Asghar Khan; well known philanthripist, Cambridge graduate), Governor Sindh (Mohammad Mian Soomro; banker; nephew of Soomro the PML big chief), Governor Baluchistan (don`t know), Foreign Minister (Maleeha Lodhi; voted one of 100 people who will define the 21st century in 1994 by Time, 70th most influential person in the world by Newsweek; London School of Economics graduate), Defence Minister (Gen (retd.) Sahibzada Yaqub; best buddy of Henry Kissenger and thus the powerful jewish american lobby; one of the only Pakistanis recognized internationally as a military intellectual, even though he is only a matriculate), Interior Minister (Gen. (retd.) Moin-ud-din Haider; the real guy going after the religious extremists in Pakistan, even though his brother was recently assasinated; PMA graduate); Law Minister (Aitezaz Ahsan; the best that the pathetic PPP has to offer; Cambridge graduate), Minister of S&T (Atta-ur-Rahman; seems to be doing a good job; I met him and like him; Cambridge graduate), Minister of Finance (Moeen Qureshi; did a good job in his PM stint; some Pakistanis say he did some underhand stuff, however; Fulbright scholar at Univ. of Indiana), Industries Minister (Babar Ali; successful businessman owner of Packages; founder of LUMS); Minister of Education (Gen (retd.) Sabeeh Qamar; philanthrapic founder of the citizen foundation free schools; PMA graduate); Minister of Information (Najam Sethi; successful editor/businessman; Cambridge grad I think); Ambassador to the US (Benazir Bhutto; if she agrees to dump Zardari and comes clean on all her corruption; she wanted to be in the foreign service before she joined politics; this will keep her away from creating problems in Pakistan; Harvard and Oxford grad); Ambassador India (Sheheryar Khan; ex-Foreign Secretary, heir of the Nawabs of Bhopal; Cambridge graduate) Mayor Lahore (Shahbaz Sharif; as long as he comes clean on all his family`s corruption; he is good at fixing roads, not at running countries)
All the above have been ministers etc. before, and/or have powerful positions in Pakistan`s current political parties. Drop a few, add a few.....Everyone else should be accomodated in the provincial assemblies. What do you think?
#212 Posted by tahmed321 on February 24, 2002 1:35:17 am
nasah: addendum to my post below - Musharaff, to his great credit I think, also recognizes the importance of economic issues and law and order to Pakistan. This is generally recognized by Pakistanis who have seen him devote his attention to these matters, and from a dinner speech he made (I reported this on chowk last week), I saw for myself where Musharaff`s priorities lie - he spent two hours discussing very concrete steps being taken by his government to address economic issues and law and order issues. Compared to this he just spent 10-15 minutes discussing Pak-India relations, and the same time discussin Pakistan`s role in the Afghan crisis - but he spoke with passion when he spoke about the misery of the poor people in Pakistan. It is no wonder that we all stood up and gave him a standing ovation at the end of the speech, something I did not see happen when Benazir was gave a similar speech many years ago.
#211 Posted by tahmed321 on February 24, 2002 1:35:17 am
nasah: I am sorry if my criticism of your post hurts, but remember: sometimes we can benefit from criticism even if it hurts our pride (in ancient Greece or perhaps Rome writers used to pay critics to comment on their work). Also please recognize that by criticing your post, it does not mean you are a bad person, and I am sure you are a fine gentleman in real life. But think dispassionately about what I am saying and I think you will not find me off the mark: you say ``image`` is important and you quote Musharaff on that - maybe image is important to Musharaff (as it is to politicians in India and other places, since that is all that they need to keep their jobs). But is Pakistan`s image important to the ordinary people of Pakistan (or India for that matter)? I think law and order and economic security is more important. In a recent poll in Pakistan, I was told today, economic issues were considered most important to the vast majority of the people polled in Pakistan (the Kashmir issue got a negligible 4% of the votes as being the most important issue for Pakistanis, incidentally).
#210 Posted by tahmed321 on February 24, 2002 1:35:17 am
Stuka and Layman: Glad we agree on this important point of distinguishing between ordinary people on the one hand and nation-state politics and government policies on the other. Great minds think alike!! :-)
#209 Posted by audio-video-rad on February 24, 2002 1:35:17 am
Shankar #727 On this army of King Kong sized Hanuman`s, controlled by the Evil Dr. Advani from Delhi: Please dont put ideas in people`s minds, or else our Paki generals will start work on a tit-for-tat response and use up the remaining resources in the country.
#208 Posted by SameerJB on February 24, 2002 1:35:17 am
Fuzair:
[Fuzair, founder of the Chowk ``Male Liberation League.`` ]
Is this organization a subsidiary of ``World Male Domination Laegue`` headed by Allah?
Romair: Are you still taking bets for Taliban giving hell to Americans? What are the latest odds?
Sadna and SaminaShah: Thanks very much for being voices of reason. I wonder how asking for half (50 percent) by half of the population is feminisim or bad. Compare that with 20 percent of the population asking for separate country and actually getting it. All politics is power politics. Asking anything without power is begging. The power troika in Pakistan will give nothing even begging in the name of their mothers and sisters. On top of that they are Muslims!!!!
[Fuzair, founder of the Chowk ``Male Liberation League.`` ]
Is this organization a subsidiary of ``World Male Domination Laegue`` headed by Allah?
Romair: Are you still taking bets for Taliban giving hell to Americans? What are the latest odds?
Sadna and SaminaShah: Thanks very much for being voices of reason. I wonder how asking for half (50 percent) by half of the population is feminisim or bad. Compare that with 20 percent of the population asking for separate country and actually getting it. All politics is power politics. Asking anything without power is begging. The power troika in Pakistan will give nothing even begging in the name of their mothers and sisters. On top of that they are Muslims!!!!
#207 Posted by Rdesikan on February 24, 2002 1:35:17 am
RE urstruly 210
So the role of women, if at all, is to serve in the kitchen and to share their husbands with three other women. Bravo!
``Margaret Thatcher: Incompetent, Was kicked out of the office. Brought the country to near bankruptcy.``
Hey, is that what you learnt at the madrassa? If at all, Thatcher for all her flaws, was responsible for invigorating the economy from the socialist morass labour had left it in. Her economic reforms, like it or not, helped the UK to a better position. Being in a democracy, a concept you`re not to familiar with, means that one can get booted out at the will of the people.
And you left out the great Golda Meir. Of course, she is Jewish and Israeli, a double no-no. Imagine this, a woman kicked a whole lot of arabs in the cojones, assuming they had it.
Wake up and smell the s/h/i/t
So the role of women, if at all, is to serve in the kitchen and to share their husbands with three other women. Bravo!
``Margaret Thatcher: Incompetent, Was kicked out of the office. Brought the country to near bankruptcy.``
Hey, is that what you learnt at the madrassa? If at all, Thatcher for all her flaws, was responsible for invigorating the economy from the socialist morass labour had left it in. Her economic reforms, like it or not, helped the UK to a better position. Being in a democracy, a concept you`re not to familiar with, means that one can get booted out at the will of the people.
And you left out the great Golda Meir. Of course, she is Jewish and Israeli, a double no-no. Imagine this, a woman kicked a whole lot of arabs in the cojones, assuming they had it.
Wake up and smell the s/h/i/t
#206 Posted by aicha on February 24, 2002 1:35:17 am
Layman - although I havent read shankar`s post i remember asking him the same thing earlier - because it does make me uncomfortable also - taht what someone says in confidence/pvt to their doctor can become a source of conversation. But apparently a patient doesnt have too much control over it !!
#205 Posted by rsaxena on February 24, 2002 1:35:17 am
re: nasah on TAhmed
{{Excuse me for saying this -- sometimes your interpretation of people’s postings are so skewed – one has a hard time believing you are the same -- understanding perceptive moderate wise man from Pakistan -- you seems to be }}
you can say that again...i suspect he really is going senile...what else could explain why he twisted my post lamenting that detriot mullah`s sexual harassment into some affront on pakistan...
{{Excuse me for saying this -- sometimes your interpretation of people’s postings are so skewed – one has a hard time believing you are the same -- understanding perceptive moderate wise man from Pakistan -- you seems to be }}
you can say that again...i suspect he really is going senile...what else could explain why he twisted my post lamenting that detriot mullah`s sexual harassment into some affront on pakistan...
#204 Posted by aicha on February 24, 2002 1:35:17 am
what rubbish - why is a competant inquiring questioning female mind always dismissed as a feminist whatever?? Myn pls follow your own advice ie.. if you cant handle the heat atleast spare us the cliched feminazi label. Women are no longer going to toe the line on anything. Samina - while i dont always agree with everything you say - i am glad someone is giving tehm a run for their money - and you can count on my full support iff it doenst get too ugly here : ) !! chains indeed !!
#203 Posted by Pankaj on February 24, 2002 1:35:17 am
A must read for everybody interested in K-problem.
http://www.theonion.com/onion3804/indo-pakistani_tensions.html
To awaken the interest here is an excerpt:
``
DETROIT— Indo-Pakistani tensions continue to escalate this week at the Eight-Mile and Telegraph Road Amoco, where hostilities between owner Rajesh Srinivasan and in-store Subway mini-franchise manager Majid Ashraf threaten to spill over into all-out war.
``We have made every effort to extend the hand of friendship to the Pakistani delegation that runs the Amoco Mart`s Subway Express,`` said the India-born Srinivasan, 49, in a statement to the press Monday. ``But that hand, my own hand with which I built this business for my family, has been repeatedly and without remorse slapped away.``
http://www.theonion.com/onion3804/indo-pakistani_tensions.html
To awaken the interest here is an excerpt:
``
DETROIT— Indo-Pakistani tensions continue to escalate this week at the Eight-Mile and Telegraph Road Amoco, where hostilities between owner Rajesh Srinivasan and in-store Subway mini-franchise manager Majid Ashraf threaten to spill over into all-out war.
``We have made every effort to extend the hand of friendship to the Pakistani delegation that runs the Amoco Mart`s Subway Express,`` said the India-born Srinivasan, 49, in a statement to the press Monday. ``But that hand, my own hand with which I built this business for my family, has been repeatedly and without remorse slapped away.``
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- nb: And back to NFP's... The Correct Turn
- nb: I didn't know that,... The Correct Turn
- akcheema: Re: # 182; nb thanks... The Correct Turn
- nb: Cheema, hing is asafoetida... The Correct Turn
- akcheema: Re: # 180 yaar nb... The Correct Turn
- nb: HP, if it was... The Correct Turn
- akcheema: dost_mittar and hamidm sahibaan,... The Correct Turn
- ahmedmadani: When we who write... Politics of PPP and
