For Better or Worse

one of the cheif problem in our culture is......we have this mardana attitude according to which men neither take care of kids nor cook....this isnt so in west......though the burden still falls on women there too.......they r left with extra chores......the baby wakes up thrice in the midst of the nite....and hubby darling is snoring which can b frustrating if u havta wake up too early in the morn to work.......

Hi Malhi!...i like the way You have prtrayed this issue. But i have an objection. In the article you wrote ``It’s only the woman of the house that can turn a house into a home.`` Well i think man`s contibution is eqally important, as we cannot neglect the fact that it`s the man who if makes his wife happy would get a house tranformed to home.
We belong to men-oriented socities where men like to rule. Some girls face problems in geting married if they are better qualified. First, proposals problem can occur. Second, the girl herself would want to get married to someone who is even more qulaified than her. Plus, there are some cases where too much awreness among women make them think that they are the queens, whereas men who are the kings supposdely donot the like women to rule!!!!!
Regards
******
Zunera

One item that has not gotten the appropriate insight revolves around ``double standards.``

Double Standards would keep on staying alive and kicking for various reasons. Just having women financially independent is not equivalent to providing them with equal rights. Providing women safety and security along with appropriate facilities is the need of the day.

Muslim countries in general do a very poor job in that regard. A society that dwells on providing security to a woman who is with a man is a messy society. What if she is a widow peasant? In a muslim country that chants right and left on its ``religiouness,`` an ordinary woman and for that matter any woman has no safety and security till she is in power.
Sadly enough, in South Asian countries, power is damn corrupting inspite of being the origin of many holistic teachings.

And, Islamically(since that is the ususal guilt trip Muslims like to play around with) men are ``only`` given an upper hand on women because they take care of their families, including their wives.

Unless women are not granted 100% equal rights, women should not pitch in 50% in their homes. They should only look into 25% or 15% depending on the rights they have.

I wish this particular item is challenged in the legal system of Pakistan - probably in the family court.

Case: Men against the double standards of Women

Case Description: Since women have come forth with a flag of financial independence in all sectors of life, men would like to put their foot down that working women ought to pitch in exactly 50% in their homes.

Male Plea: It`s unfair with a man to support a working wife and also take care of his family.

Female Plea: A system that does not allow women to have 100% equal rights has no right to demand a woman`s 50% contribution. A woman will only contribute 50% if and only if she is granted all the rights that are given to her by her religion(if anyone truly believes in the enlightening rules) and the ones granted to a male. Since both fall under the category of human beings, therefore the rules of the game should be the same.

- If it`s unacceptable to a man to be that tolerant and accepting then women will continue with their double standards and last but not least prudent games.

- If it`s acceptable to a man then women will take a stand on their participation and that means 50% contribution in the total household affairs. Since women give in too much they are taken for granted. And this time they need to have rules and policies stated in black and white for the well being of the nation. Men don`t produce nations, women do with the help of men, of course!

This ain`t laughing matter or tit for tat.

This is the basic requirement of the day.

Dear Sheharyar
I have read your article. Conjugal fadility is a serious question of our society too. Though west has not solve this problem yet too but they pretend that they had. We are living in double standard history period. and on the other hans flood of imfromations has confused all our society. Our mostly awarness is borrowed. That does not base on cultural experiences of our society. It is awful that we have data of only a very few people and try to generalize our problems in the light of that data. And unfortunatly the resource persones of that data are badly influnced by westren thoughts and theories. In the age on media domination and super capitilist influnce we have been doomed to do and think all that what they wish to enhance in our minds.
Last paragraph is particularly very thought provoking. But we should be careful about it that all these like compromise, love and trust are relative. Our most marrieges are just for marriage with our any long life porpose or due any deep and keen intractions. It has been seen that both working husband and wife are spending happy life and it also has been observed that on which base some one select his or her spouce soon after marriage that main intraction changes into a strong conflict. Anyway I think we should think ourself about our problems in the light of our social and cultural norms. In this way we can solve many of our social and cultural problems. In the end i feel my duty to congratulate you to adpot a balance way.

``Compromise is the key to success in a married life``

Amen or Aameeen......

Really liked your concluding paragraph.


Ras

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Writer,

I repeat that you do not have a clue on the audience addressed in your article.

And, I would not waste a single more minute on this piece regardless of its intent. I was just giving it the benefit of doubt.

Take Care

PS: Kindly think of another topic for your next venture where you may have logical reasoning supporting your genuine cause and its effects. Best Wishes!

ZahraJ: I totally do appreciate the positive criticism and I am not justifying anything here but then I do have a point of view which probably isnt making sense to you. I think I could relate to it since I find your ideas pretty vague at some places. (Just some of them that is) I agree totally with the education part and the correct implementation of law n order.

With reference to the interviews of CAs and Lawyers... I have talked about lower MIDDLE class... Most of the people I interviewd were professionals who came from a very humble background and were self made individuals thus totally understanding the challenges they were facing DESPITE a decent earning. They are struggling their way upto the middle class but most of them are still far from it.

Lastly Bibi.. A piece of advice for u... get some lessons for a constructive Communication. This isnt a battlefield or a platform for ego satisfaction! I wud like to add that I definitely encourage positive criticism but looks like this article has fallen more on your wisdom than on my ego. Plus, unlike the attention craving feminists, I was not looking for a bunch of men supporting me in this. If that was the case I would have joined one of those Chauvinist parties.

I do admit that some of your arguments are totally convincing and make sense. Also your suggestions r pretty considerable but be a little more rational, accomodating and most importantly.. Chillax!

Cheers


Cheers...

Dear Writer,

Thank you for your candid response.

As I highlighted earlier, your approach should be dissected since it is not comparing apples to apples. You are talking about CA, Businessmen, Women Rights Advocates and etc...Not a single place have you talked about lower class women. Since I brought that up you have suddenly gotten a rude awakening and changed the theme of your article.

- Do you think the lower class women would be comparing themselves to the western way of living? What are you talking about!

I care less what your leanings are, but I do care as a reader that you stick to your guns. The more you are interacting, the more it`s becoming evident that you are not very clear on what and who you wanted to talk about precisely. And, it`s ok. Just accept the critique and admit that you ignored that. Since I have invested my very precious time in pointing out the discrepancies in your approach, I suggest that you accept vs. avoid.

95%(if I am not off) population of Pakistan is of Muslims. There are some strong cultural elements that kick in, but aside from that the religious role of marriage has a great significance. When Islam says something for the women, it defines 10 things for the men as well. Islamically, there ain`t any restriction on women when it comes to working, studying and progressing in their life.

- Why should a man come in the way of the rights that are defined by the religion for the woman ? Are men going to take over Islam and start revising it?

- Why should a man come in the way of what is clearly an indication of human rights vs. gender rights ?

Obviously, women are not living in a world where they are by themselves. Men were cut out to be the companions to women. Surprise Surprise... :) That`s why as an individual I am very sensitive to the terminologies and their implication. Roles is damn scary and suffocating. Companionship eases the pressure and makes it look slightly lucrative, for the lack of a better term. So, where I am going with my argument is that where there is true companionship, there will be sensitivity and understanding. Where the aforementioned are lacking, the husband and wife will constantly debate on their roles and responsibilities, and it can be very ugly. Yes, with more awareness and education, it should be mandatory to be communicate your outlook towards life.

Based on the argument that you are raising on double standards, I would say that in order to completely eradicate them from your society, you need to enlighten men to grant women 101% equal rights. Ask the bufoon clerics and retarded law and order system to stop reading things upside down. Since a male by nature is reticint (muscles don`t count and height is also not a major factor) to grant a woman 100% equal rights, therefore he raises this point to scare women of the repercussions their financial independance may cause. I have seen very well educated young couples where the wives are not even allowed to spend their own money. Both the couples were making a very decent 6-figure salary and both the men were of Pakistani Origin residing in the US. And, do not be surprised to hear that the women were complying.

You are not obligated to respond or provide a vent.

But, you are obligated to take a step back and read my earlier post along with this with a careful eye and open mind. This is not a mission to put you down in anyway. Had that been the true intent, I would have been very nasty. As I pointed out that I appreciate your sincere intent to make a difference, therefore I want to contribute to your line of thinking for your own clarity. You are not clear. It`s great to be opinionated and defend yourself, but constructive critique should not be misread. Ego should stand up for your voice, but ego should not kick in when you are getting some feedback that may benefit you. Probably, you were desiring a batallion of men siding with you and cheering you up. I am sorry for being a party pooper.

Smalhica,

re: 66

1. How do lower to middle class homemaking women in Pakistan earn an income for their housework? Who pays it? What is a standard salary?

#67 by DRUMZ on June 12, 2003 10:24am PT


I can understand your frustration...

I can see what you understand about being a man.

I being of lesser intellect will have to fumble in my own stupid ways.

This stupid fool is objecting to me saying ``sh1t`` and in the same breath has the audacity to justify the most backward stone age injunctions ive ever heard... But because this idiot doesnt swear, i bet u all look up to him.

Ali is brilliantly explaining why islam permits wife beating. Only if she doesnt listen to him, then he can ``symbolically beat her`` like a feather. Honestly if u dont believe in something be a MAN and say u dont believe in it. Why do u warp all sorts of logic and make up words to put in the quran (feather) to justify idiocy. Id like to see a fragile lil man like u lay a hand on a woman and get the sh1t kicked out of him.

63 by DRUMZ on June 11, 2003 9:13pm PT

i accepted your Intellect dear...

Looks like your parents did not realise the importance of potty training because of your obvious intellect. Obviouly they did not know that it does not take intellect to wipe your ass. Which explains your frequent references to what you encounter when you drop your hands below your waist.

ZahraJ: I wish I had much time to respond to everything you mentioned below but unfortunately.. CANT!

I am not surprised that your ideas are in a complete contradiction with what my article states. Not that I am trying to justify my logic here but the way u have responded to this issue explains why women have to work on a lot of other things before getting into a career.

just a quick response to some of ur ideas...

``This is a very blanket statement and also a naive question thinking that a man is always/100% capable of having an upper hand on the woman. Secondly, this is not even 100% applicable to the sweet category of men I like and can tolerate; commonly know as ``secure beings.`` Probably you were in mid-evil (…) times while you stated this question.``

=> This might not be 100 percent applicable but the article is meant to reflect the greater majority in our society and the question here is not about the capability of a man to have an upper hand rather its about what REALLY goes on. Justified or not... thats another debate! As for the ``secure beings`` YOU prefer, that is good for you and AGAIN, this article was a reflection of the majority BASED in Pakistan and NOT what the privileged FEW settled abroad prefer!

``This is a very sensitive point. It also varies based on the economic strata you have in your mind. But in general, it`s my observation that responsible workingwomen do pitch in without any choon charan.``

=> There we go! An evident double standard. Why is this a ``sensitive point``??? Why do issues that need to be addressed clearly become SENSITIVE? I am sure working women contribute or pitch in but then why is it assumed that the man should provide the food and shelter for the kids and sponser their education? Why cant the mother do that being a parent? NOW dont rub in pointless examples of the counted few you know who do that because this isnt about people you know... This is about what is CLEARLY VISIBLE in the majority of Pakistani families irrespective of their social status. Even if a woman comes out to help her husband, it is still assumed or rather taken for GRANTED that the major FINANCIAL responsibilities of the house need to be taken care of by the man.

``This is again a very weak question. Who says that a housewife gets more pampering? What if her husband cannot afford her pampering treatments and can only afford running the house? ``

=> Pampering was an alternate term for getting all the basic needs of life in a GOLDEN PLATE! It is no secret that man from sub-continent is pretty laid back and he desperately needs to change his thinking and approach but the woman from this region should be no exception to this either. She needs to GIVE UP her dependency and learn to support herself and partially the kids, THAT IS IF SHE NEEDS HER INDEPENDENCE. You CANT have best of both. You cant have your independence in what you want and be dependent on what you need. If you want Rights EQUAL to that of a man, then dont expect a special treatment ANYWHERE, be it given a priority in a long line outside a bank or financial support at home.


I might sound but i am NOT a chauvinist, not that I care about what I am tagged as. This article precisely is not to suit the idealogies of ``Privileged Begum Sahibas`` spread accross the globe but its a reflection of the Irony faced by women from lower middle class who dont have much exposure and chances to aquire a career, good enough to settle in any other part of the world.

Cheers!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

ali: No sir, kindly go into detail about why your allowed to ``lightly`` beat a woman by warping anything which remotely resembles logic.

If this sh1t fools u idiots its because u are idiots.