On stereotyping
I posted an article on female stereotyping at All Things Pakistan blog. There was a bit of discussion but I was also chided as being partial, class-ist and insensitive to men.
Here was this humble blogger, on the defensive:
Small wonder that the Taliban version of Islam cites its top priority as getting women into burqas - as is the case now in Swat where girls are to wear burqas or not attend colleges/schools. What is the purpose of this decree - let’s ponder a little more on this.
By limiting women’s mobility in Swat, is there a better chance of fighting a war against Pak Army that is allegedly pursuing extremists in the tribal areas?
I was also attacked for focusing too much on the middle class morality - this is what I rambled:
The way classes are formed and act are sociological realities. Let me assure you that the upper or lower classes have their own definition of morality even though the educated middle classes define the mainstream trends and attitudes. Women who work in the fields in the rural areas face another kind of exploitation (as do the men-folk) but the issues highlighted above mostly deal with the perceptions that literature, media, arts create - and who are the writers, artists and intellectuals? Surely neither the industrialists/feudals or the working classes (with exceptions of course).
I do not want readers to agree with me - this was a subjective piece but let me make a simple point: such stereotypes are imperceptibly developed in our (male) psyche and often we keep on reinfocing them.
Apologies if I came across as a classist - there was no mention of lower or higher - the article focused on the middle layer that I come from and that my wife had to deal with in her work-place all the time - simply that we are from this particular segment and interact with them in our personal and professional lives….
Subscribe
Nice write up. You are right that classes are formed and act due to socio-economic reasons. I have some random thoughts on this subject. So I apologize if I stray away from the topic. First of all luck plays a big role in our lives. Most people are not self-made and they mostly inherit their fortune from their parents. So just like monarchy the class system is also hereditary. I am not a communist but I like their goal of a classless and stateless society. As to morality I would say that rich and poor classes also have their moral codes but as you rightly mentioned it’s the moral code of educated middle class that dominates the other two extremes. I read somewhere that prosperity breeds monsters and adversity breeds humans. There is some truth in this saying. The goals of rich people are usually fun and power with certain exceptions of a few philanthropists. Middle class people are nice people having families and kids and most of their time is consumed in earning livelihood for their families. It is also a fact that the moral core of any society is in its family values. It is the institution of family that inculcates in us love and compassion for our parents, siblings and kids and then this love transcends the boundaries of our immediate family and encompasses the entire mankind. I believe that without family and family values everything will fall apart.
Have a good day.
Comment by Nauman — November 13, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
Raza, I can empathize with your views. I think there is a distinct turn to conservatism in many circles here, so even to talk of the lack of rights of minorities and women, and/or about class, one is open to the accusation of “middle class morality” or of being too ‘westernized’.
But these things that were obvious to me and you , raza, and to an older generation, are not so (I fear) to many others. Even here, at one of the top universities, I have met people who think the Taliban have had a bad press, and that Saudi (God forbid!) represents “pure Islam”.
Just to slightly disagree with Nauman, though taking on board the good point about the importance of family values: I think that to say that “middle class people” are nice is a meaningless statement; secondly, this country has is very rich in family values but is, I would suggest, messed up in many ways. I think there are other values we need to be thinking of AS WELL: those of the individual, and at the political level: pluralism and citizenship. Both are at odds with the conservatism and heirarchy implicit in ‘family values’.
Take care,
K.
Comment by billo — November 14, 2007 @ 6:03 am
I thought that your post was funny and entertaining. I guess some took it too seriously.
I don’t bother getting into debates with Pakistanis on the topic of sexism. That society is so far behind in terms of accepting women as equal members of society that it’s just frustrating to talk to them about it. How do you even talk about such issues in a society where even many educated people think that women are ‘weaker’ than men in almost all aspects of life. You have to adopt a medieval mindset to even begin to consider their point of view. It’s a far leap from that mindset to modern day feminism or issues of female empowerment.
Forget stereotypes and subtle workplace sexism, many Pakistanis think that it’s perfectly ok to abuse or hit women on a regular basis. They are still decades if not centuries behind other countries when it comes to women’s rights and abuse. They don’t even have proper laws to deal with such issues and the laws that are available are hardly ever implemented properly. If you bring this up then many Pakistanis say that abuse is rampant in “Western†countries as well. It is true that people abuse women in every society but at least other societies have laws to deal with these issues and it is not accepted or even promoted like it is in Pakistan.
Yesterday I was looking at a Global Gender Gap report that was recently released by the World Economic Forum and see where Pakistan stands out of the 128 countries that were included:
Economic Participation and Opportunity: 126
Educational Attainment: 123
Health and Survival: 121
Political Empowerment: 43
Full reports can be found here:
http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Gender%20Gap/index.htm
http://www.weforum.org/pdf/gendergap/ggg07_pakistan.pdf
Comment by cubano — November 14, 2007 @ 10:30 am
The rise of conservatism and attack on liberalism in Pakistan is a very frightening thing. The political events unfolding over there seem to be headed for a dangerous crisis which is perhaps a manifestation (or atleast one of the causes) of this.
I disagree with Cubano in that, there is a need to engage in dialogue with conservatives in our countries even if they seem (from the western educated eyes) to be living in medieval age. For if you don’t engage in dialogue then even a hope of changing these ideas doesn’t remain.
Comment by milieu — November 14, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
“…The applause came, but she risked stony silence too; she risked failure. Let somebody write his tunes and wait for criticism, the tunes might be praised, but they could be damned as well…” Du Maurier, The Parasites.
With so many commentators, coming from different backgrounds, criticism was bound to come, doesn’t matter if I think undeservedly :).
Comment by Astarte — November 14, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
I agree with you that we need to engage in dialog. I am just tired of arguing i guess…
Comment by cubano — November 14, 2007 @ 8:03 pm
“classes”!! you keep up the good work buddy
Comment by Shaheryar Ali — November 14, 2007 @ 11:48 pm
Raza, thought you might like this
Comment by billo — November 15, 2007 @ 6:48 am
Nauman and Billo: thanks for a great discussion - B, I agree with you that we have to inculcate values of pluralism and citizenship and reform the family as well…
But Nauman you are right about the difference between humans and animals..liked that quote
Cubano - I am most educated at the gender gap stats - hadn’t seen these publications even though I try and keep uptodate..But my dear dialogue has to be kept alive under all circumstances - we have to resolve issues peacefully and confrontation has to be avoided as far as possible - though I am not sure if we have that opportunity anymore when the extremists are raising their flags.
Milieu and Astarte - thanks for visiting and the encouragement. I agree on dialogue issue..:)
Comment by RR — November 15, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
I’m always pleased to read the dialog on your blog, Raza.
I’m facinated with the relationship of sexism with socio-economic classes. There’s this perception that, in America, there’s equality between men and women. As a young working woman in America, I don’t see the fruits of the women’s lib movement, or maybe we’re still experiencing it in this country? Sure, I can vote, get a job, wear what I want, live by myself, say what’s on my mind - but I think on the topic of sexuality and power, I feel that the movement ruined women. Just as many other countries, women in America experience abuse, rape and harassment. In America, I’ve also seen women abuse, harass and manipulate men. So in that sense, there is equality in encouraging vulgar acts in society. But overall, women are encouraged to use their “feminine pursuasion” to get their way in the world, no matter what class you’re from. I don’t view this behavior as liberating, nor postive to society. I also feel this so-called movement has degraded the quality of family life, except if you’re wealthy. Upper class women have more options in their life - in their career but also in their choice to NOT have a career. The middle class, which is quickly disappearing, and the lower class can’t afford a housewife in the family anymore. If parents become so busy just financially trying to make ends meet, their children suffer - from not learning how to cook for themselves to deep communication problems, which translates into a more disfunctional community. I believe that women’s true strength lies in her selflessness to family and community, whether it’s through a job or family. But it’s hard to have a family when you work all the time, so consider your priorities in life.
Comment by Meghan — November 17, 2007 @ 8:05 pm