The Verdict
Screaming from the margins

Screaming from the margins

It's not a women versus men thing. When people find out you're a feminist they judge you and assume you are the girl they don't want their family to meet.

Sonia Qadir August 14, 2010

Persecution doesn't always have to be physical. I cannot even begin to imagine the horrors of being physically abused, which is a daily reality for millions of women (and men) all around me (although the threat of that too is omnipresent), but there is a more subtle kind of persecution that absolutely none of us escape. Being a woman is bad enough, but if you are a woman and a hardcore feminist (and perhaps a few other progressive things along with that), well than god be with you.

Don't get me wrong: It's not a women versus. men thing. I almost wish it was then it would have been infinitely simpler. I feel just as harrassed by other women for my beliefs than I am by men. I see how women (extremely educated women that is, who supposedly know their rights) rationalize their own oppression and it's disgusting. And even more disgusting is how they rationalize oppressing other women! It is reminiscent of the complaint of the "natives" in post-colonized countries that their local brown sahibs are somehow even more cruel than the gora sahibs were.

So here's how it rolls. They find out that you identitfy yourself with the forbidden F-word, and lo and behold, they begin to see you in a new light (or shall i say a whole load of darkness?). First they'll stare at you like you're bonkers. Then they'll start to laugh. Overtime, the jokes would cease to be jokes and you'll realize you have been permenantly castigated: put in a box and labelled the loose woman, the girl you don't really want your family to meet for who knows what maddness comes out of her mouth?

Ofcourse you deserved all that. How dare you question authority? How dare you find fault with traditional wisdom? How dare you propose the same moral values for women as men? How dare you demand absolute freedom? How dare you point out that marriage and family are extremely oppressive institutions meant for controlling women's sexuality, cashing in on their free labor power and limiting their intellectual and political development?

Plus its all in your head anyway.

The propositions they come up with are often mindboggling. Take for instance the premise that men always need to marry younger women because guess what, women age quicker. On my protesting, the sophomore at my university tells me in all seriousness that I need to stop bullshitting because this is biology and perhaps I should go ask my mom. (Perhaps I should. Considering she's a little older than my dad and isn't any wrinklier than him, I really wonder what she'll say).

And these are people lucky enough to be studying social sciences at an elite institute. Makes me wonder, were these kids sleeping when the instructor mentioned something called "social construction"? Or how about "truth regimes"? Maybe not. Maybe they just choose to ignore it. For being introduced to radical social criticism at university is simply too late for most people. Its the hardest thing in the world to get rid of the prejudices you have been fed on for your first 18 years. Not everyone's piece of cake.

So where does that leave those few of us who were unfortunate enough to have 'opened up their minds'? In a ditch, so to speak. I keep wondering how is it my fault if other people are too dumb or lazy or apathetic to think for themselves? Well, i guess its not. But I'm starting to realize that there is serious catch to being progressive and questioning social norms: long before you become a serious threat to your enemies, you would have already become a serious joke to your friends.

I'm reminded of the words of an instructor, herself a feminist and an LGBT rights activist. As I complained about how outlawed sometimes I felt, she replied:

"Ofcourse they will marginalize us. They will hurt us, ridicule us, even ignore us. But what will we do? It's better to have a tiny voice then no voice at all. We can't give in, we can't stop being ourselves. We have to and we will continue screaming...even if we are only screaming from the margins!"

WRITTEN BY:
Sonia Qadir A law student at the Lahore University of Management Sciences.

The views expressed by the writer and the reader comments do not necassarily reflect the views and policies of the Express Tribune.

COMMENTS (22)

Sahar | 13 years ago | Reply The word for people who hate marriage is not feminist. It's misogamist. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/misogamist Family is an oppressive institution for a woman's sexuality? Wow, no wonder they stare at you like you're bonkers. You should have been born a black widow spider. "The female's reputation for devouring the male after mating earned the spider its ominous name". She doesn't have to deal with the pesky institutions of marriage OR family. :) lol

Muhammad Ilyas Khan | 13 years ago | Reply Dear Ghausia,my comment began with, 'It’s an interesting debate so just for the sake of further the argument and with the mention that it does not in any way represent my point of view about women, I would like to share a few quotes from Arthur Schopenhauer regarding women and their nature'. So instead of turning your guns on me for posting the views of a philosopher, wouldn't it be a better option for you to respond to the 'misogynist' arguments with counter arguments? I don't believe in a blog pro-this or pro-that gender. For me truth and the search for it and ways to find it, is more importatnt. The idea behind the gun is what I regard more valuable and not the gun. Personally I believe in what Saghar Siddiqui feels about women more than what Schophenhauer says. And so listen to Saghar then: "Agar Bazm-e-Insan main Aurat na hoti Khayalon ki rangeen janat na hoti Sitaron kay dilkash fasanay na hotay Baharon ki nazuk haqeeqat na hoti Jabenon pay nor-e-musarrat na khilta Nigahon pay shan-e-muravvat na hoti Ghataon ki amad ko sawan tarastay Fizaon main behki Baghawat na hoti Fakeron ko irfan-e-hasti na milta Aza zahdon ko abadat na milti Musafir sada manzlon pay Bhataktay Safenon ko Sahil ki qurbat na hoti Har ik phool ka rang pheeka sa hota Naseem-e-baharan main nighat na hoti Khudai ka Insaf khamoosh rehta SUNA HAI KISI KI SHAFAAT NA HOTI.." Now two innocent questions: How do you know that 'all that fasting' weakens 'reasoning power'? And more than that how do you that I actually do fast in the first place?

VIEW MORE COMMENTS

Vagabond | 13 years ago | Reply Hmm interesting. Ok, Sonia, firstly, when I said 'are being followed brilliantly', I meant, they are being followed for the past decades and have turned into hardcore-social-values now. And no, they dont seem to work just fine. I vehemently support that claim of yours. There is absolute freedom of thought and pro-woman thought for that matter, a great idea, but only behind shut doors. You claiming this not to be a women vesus men thing, I beg to differ slightly. Do not misinterpret me. I am completely with you in terms of what you're saying as to whats going wrong. I pointed out the reason as to why men marry younger women because from reading that you 'protested' at the thought, made me think that you oppose the idea. So I thought I'd make it clear. Maybe I too misinterpreted you. One more issue. I would like you to elaborate on the following issue of marriage and labor when you said 'How dare you point out that marriage and family are extremely oppressive institutions meant for controlling women’s sexuality, cashing in on their free labor power and limiting their intellectual and political development?'. Thanks.

Ghausia | 13 years ago | Reply @Muhammad Ilyas Are you kidding me? Woman's reasoning is weaker? Seriously? SERIOUSLY? Madam Curie? The Amazons? Sarmiatian women? Knowledge in one limited spectrum is a very bad idea my friend, you should really do your research better. You just posted an insulting, misogynist diatribe on a pro-feminist blog. I think your reasoning powers are weakened by all that fasting.

Sonia Qadir | 13 years ago | Reply Vagabond, while I admit that this was written in one go (haha), I fail to understand what you mean by "point-blank". Why should I or other feminists try not to offend the wisdom of patriarchy 'too much'? You seem to purpose there is a limit to how much criticism is socially acceptable, just like everyone else.

Here, pro-women thought translates as anti-men for the masses which means it is against norms and values and traditions, being followed since centuries, brilliantly

a. You seem to be suggesting that Pakistan is a special case, so pro-women thought is not a good idea here. b. Misogynst traditions are not followed brilliantly, if by that you mean they work just fine and no one had any issues with them. c.The whole point of this post was to question "how things work". So your critique doesn't make sense in that context. d. If you had read the post more carefully, you would have realized that I did not claim that men marry younger women because they age quicker, this was suggested by someone else and I was perplexed at the reasoning.

Muhammad Ilyas Khan | 13 years ago | Reply It's an interesting debate so just for the sake of further the argument and with the mention that it does not in any way represent my point of view about women, I would like to share a few quotes from Arthur Schopenhauer regarding women and their nature. So here it goes: 'One need only look at a woman’s shape to discover that she is not intended for either too much mental or too much physical work. She pays the debt of life not by what she does but by what she suffers—by the pains of child-bearing, care for the child, and by subjection to man, to whom she should be a patient and cheerful companion. The greatest sorrows and joys or great exhibition of strength are not assigned to her; her life should flow more quietly, more gently, and less obtrusively than man’s, without her being essentially happier or unhappier.' 'Women are directly adapted to act as the nurses and educators of our early childhood, for the simple reason that they themselves are childish, foolish, and short-sighted—in a word, are big children all their lives, something intermediate between the child and the man, who is a man in the strict sense of the word. Consider how a young girl will toy day after day with a child, dance with it and sing to it; and then consider what a man, with the very best intentions in the world, could do in her place.' 'The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower is it in reaching maturity. Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight-and-twenty; woman when she is eighteen; but hers is reason of very narrow limitations. This is why women remain children all their lives, for they always see only what is near at hand, cling to the present, take the appearance of a thing for reality, and prefer trifling matters to the most important. It is by virtue of man’s reasoning powers that he does not live in the present only, like the brute, but observes and ponders over the past and future; and from this spring discretion, care, and that anxiety which we so frequently notice in people. The advantages, as well as the disadvantages, that this entails, make woman, in consequence of her weaker reasoning powers, less of a partaker in them. Moreover, she is intellectually short-sighted, for although her intuitive understanding quickly perceives what is near to her, on the other hand her circle of vision is limited and does not embrace anything that is remote; hence everything that is absent or past, or in the future, affects women in a less degree than men.' 'To consult women in matters of difficulty, as the Germans used to do in old times, is by no means a matter to be overlooked; for their way of grasping a thing is quite different from ours, chiefly because they like the shortest way to the point, and usually keep their attention fixed upon what lies nearest; while we, as a rule, see beyond it, for the simple reason that it lies under our nose; it then becomes necessary for us to be brought back to the thing in order to obtain a near and simple view. This is why women are more sober in their judgment than we, and why they see nothing more in things than is really there; while we, if our passions are roused, slightly exaggerate or add to our imagination.' 'It is because women’s reasoning powers are weaker that they show more sympathy for the unfortunate than men, and consequently take a kindlier interest in them. On the other hand, women are inferior to men in matters of justice, honesty, and conscientiousness. Again, because their reasoning faculty is weak, things clearly visible and real, and belonging to the present, exercise a power over them which is rarely counteracted by abstract thoughts, fixed maxims, or firm resolutions, in general, by regard for the past and future or by consideration for what is absent and remote. Accordingly they have the first and principal qualities of virtue, but they lack the secondary qualities which are often a necessary instrument in developing it. Women may be compared in this respect to an organism that has a liver but no gall-bladder.9 So that it will be found that the fundamental fault in the character of women is that they have no “sense of justice.” This arises from their deficiency in the power of reasoning already referred to, and reflection, but is also partly due to the fact that Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength but on cunning; this is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an ineradicable tendency to lie.' 'Because women in truth exist entirely for the propagation of the race, and their destiny ends here, they live more for the species than for the individual, and in their hearts take the affairs of the species more seriously than those of the individual. This gives to their whole being and character a certain frivolousness, and altogether a certain tendency which is fundamentally different from that of man; and this it is which develops that discord in married life which is so prevalent and almost the normal state.' 'It is natural for a feeling of mere indifference to exist between men, but between women it is actual enmity. This is due perhaps to the fact that odium figulinum in the case of men, is limited to their everyday affairs, but with women embraces the whole sex; since they have only one kind of business. Even when they meet in the street, they look at each other like Guelphs and Ghibellines. And it is quite evident when two women first make each other’s acquaintance that they exhibit more constraint and dissimulation than two men placed in similar circumstances. This is why an exchange of compliments between two women is much more ridiculous than between two men. Further, while a man will, as a rule, address others, even those inferior to himself, with a certain feeling of consideration and humanity, it is unbearable to see how proudly and disdainfully a lady of rank will, for the most part, behave towards one who is in a lower rank (not employed in her service) when she speaks to her.' 'It is only the man whose intellect is clouded by his sexual instinct that could give that stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and short-legged race [women] the name of the fair sex; for the entire beauty of the sex is based on this instinct. One would be more justified in calling them the unaesthetic sex than the beautiful. Neither for music, nor for poetry, nor for fine art have they any real or true sense and susceptibility, and it is mere mockery on their part, in their desire to please, if they affect any such thing.' So how many of the 'feminists' or 'masculinists'for that matter would agree/disagree with the analysis of this 'pessimist' philosopher?

Vagabond | 13 years ago | Reply Okay, for one, this was a little too over the top, harsh toned and written in a single go, perhaps right after you dealt with a misogynist. Ease down buddy. By just merely stating that this is not women versus men, you cant really justify the point blank opinions of yours. You need to be aware of the society you live/move around in. Here, pro-women thought translates as anti-men for the masses which means it is against norms and values and traditions, being followed since centuries, brilliantly. Probably thats how you're being perceived right now through your word, hence those ugly comments. Mind you, I never said thats how it should be, but too bad. Thats how it is for the past hundreds of years. You somewhere mentioned that men marry younger women because women age faster. Interestingly, this is not the only and the primary reason for the norm. Even though you're a law student, I am sure you would have studied basic sociology courses in your first year to know that in a relationship, one person usually takes the dominating position, be it subtly, blatantly, conciously or sun-conciously. Maybe 'dominating' is too harsh a word for describing it, but obviously of a varying degree. In our society, like most other collectivist societies, only men usually play the role of running the kitchen, decision-taking, and taking the relationship control. And it is believed that if the woman is younger than the man she marries, it becomes easier for the man to take up the standard position he is expected of.

Mila | 13 years ago | Reply I support Sonia Qadir 100%. In fact, another feminist, Tahmena Bokhari has commented and supported this article as well. Good job Sonia, keep it up. http://www.facebook.com/TahmenaBokhari

Shahrukh Waheed | 13 years ago | Reply "The only difference between male driven activism and female driven activism is the hormonal imbalance." I don't know how it feels to be a woman, neither do I know what goes inside the mind of one, let alone a feminist one but what I understood of what you are trying to say here does sound a little selfish. Selfish in a way that you are pointing your finger at those women who don't support your cause and share your ideals (of "freedom" and "liberation") as in they don't have the dreams of being self reliant and free as you call it. I totally support your cause of standing up for your rights and everything but you have to keep that in mind that these movements have started not until very recently and before this kind of awareness, there was and still is a framework of the society in which "man gets food for woman and baby, woman cooks food and clean" (caveman voice), so most of the women got used to it, and as long as these institutions exist, some might find luxury in being imprisoned by them as there is this thing that is imprinted in their genes, do all that you can for your family, in return they will protect you, that unlike you most of the women find themselves incapable of doing for themselves. Just because you think marriage and family are institutions to imprison women doesn't make you right neither wrong, it might imprison you and your ambitions but to others it might mean security and protection. "One man's heaven is an others hell."

Ghausia | 13 years ago | Reply I do agree with you on the point that the hostile environment itself has been created by men themselves, and I think you'll agree that this has been done to appease the male ego, their need for dominance. And the worse part is, they use religion to justify themselves! In my first semester at uni, there was a class discussion on women's rights in Islam for four consecutive sessions, I refused to believe that what was being discussed were Islamic teachings, because if that were the case, then those teachings would be applied, not a warped, twisted version of said beliefs. My point about the rich man remark was that I'm not the housewife type. I chafe at being called gharilo just because I like to cook. Its not gharilo, I just like food, plain and simple. I can't fathom living like my mother and countless other female elders in my family, even if they are happy as housewives. But despite all my plans and dreams for the future, sometimes I get exhausted of everything and understand why some women are happy as a housewife or trophy wife. Would I like it? No. Would I like it even without the restrictions I mentioned? No. I'd rather live a rich comfortable life off my own earnings and hard work. But that doesn't mean all women are this way. Even if it isn't a rich man, but just a middle class man, a lot of women are happy settling for that instead of being as independent as you or to some extent, me. They're not being abused in any way, they weren't forced into marriage, and yet they're still happy, I know close friends and family that fit the bill precisely. That was the point I was trying to make, and these women that I mentioned, they're smart, brilliant people, gold medalists even. But they just prefer being married housewives. On the other hand, sadly enough oppression does exist. A friend of mine from college was married at sixteen, and was attempting to finish her education despite that. Yet her mother in law would have countless issues with her doing so, and she would often have to skip the entire college day altogether, she was forced to go to weddings when she wanted to stay home and study for a quiz. I also know a girl whose husband and mother in law tried to make her miscarry deliberately. So yes, oppression exists, I've seen it happen. But there are women out there who are happy with their lives, and don't view it as oppression. On your point about having equal moral values, this is something I completely agree with. Men in our society get away with anything and everything, from petty issues like smoking to larger issues like extreme forms of dating. A lot of people will hardly notice if a male is smoking but God help the poor woman trying to unwind with a cigarette after a long day. Its just ridiculous, and all kinds of wrong.

Sonia Qadir | 13 years ago | Reply Ghausia, I understand your point, I would not pretend that I do not wish to have male company when I venture out to certain places within my own city. But there is difference between saying that this is the way it should be, and men are naturally destined to be our protectors, and recognizing the fact that this state of affairs is created by our patriarchal society, which first creates a hostile environment for women and then feeds us the rhetoric of 'this is for your own good/you need protection, its a bad world out there'; and acknowledge that this is wrong and needs to change. If you hold the former opinion, than I've no choice but to say that you are rationalizing your own oppression. On your second point: well that is the whole problem, isn't it. The oppressed (in any context, not just women) have two choices: Either try to themselves join the class of oppressors, or become its faithful pet, hence limiting their individual problems somewhat OR fight the system of oppression itself. Now you could certainly marry a rich man, possibly even a nice rich man, and live comfortably. If he put certain restrictions on you, you could accept them because you do not wish to give up your other privileges. But can every woman marry a nice rich man and live comfortably? No. So while you close your eyes to reality, it does not disappear. Most women out there would continue to be oppressed physically, economically, sexually, politically. So if on top of marrying your rich man, you also adopt the stance that oppression of women doesn't actually exist, or its biologically necessary or inevitable, and anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy, then prey tell me, what should I call you?

Shumail | 13 years ago | Reply but which part of society is this talking about - an important point to address in perhaps a different post?

Shumail | 13 years ago | Reply

"So where does that leave those few of us who were unfortunate enough to have ‘opened up their minds’?"

Don't you feel you have made a big over-generalization? However, I will stand by this with you:

Yes I think its very sad that people do not question social norms.

Ghausia | 13 years ago | Reply I feel like women can take care of themselves but particularly in a patriarchal, male-dominated society like Pakistan's, men do serve as protectors in a way. Again, I'm dumb and oppressive? Honestly, there are days when I get so tired, I just want to stop working so hard all the time and marry rich and live in the lap of luxury. That doesn't make me anti-feminist, it just makes me human. Out of curiosity, when you mention divorce laws, you'll obviously tackle them from the religious context as well, seeing as we're far fro ma secular country? I agree that they are incredibly warped, specially how men use them. The whole saying talaqh 3 times, a lot of times they find loopholes and say we're not divorced yet(I've seen it happen to a few people myself). It would certainly be a pretty interesting read if you do tackle the topic.

Sonia Qadir | 13 years ago | Reply I think you are missing the point here. Whoever said anything about me trying to stop women from marrying? a). yes it is a rant, for people judging me for MY views, which is always the minority view. It's not the women who want to get married who are treated as insane and laughed at. It's the other way round. b). when i said women oppress others and rationalize their own oppression, I did not mean by simply upholding marriage. I have heard numerous instances of "women were made to stay at home" or "women really can't do this or that...", "we should be obedient to men", "men are our protectors" etc etc. Similarly women oppress other women in so many ways, economically, socially (going into that would require too much time). c).Marriage as an institution is oppressive. Women can and and do have happy marriages, (did I not say its not a women v. versus men thing?), but I'm talking about the overarching system here. Problem is not that some women make an independent and informed decision to marry, the problem is that most feel they have no choice but to marry, no matter how unhappy the marriage may turn out, or how badly it may limit their freedom. My purpose here is to critique that sense of fatalism, the "oh marriage is absolutely necessary for women, and if you say otherwise, you're going to hell" approach. P.S. Divorce laws, and how they are implemented, is such an interesting and sad topic. Perhaps I'll write about that sometime. Having worked in the area of family law, let me just mention that they are not very pro-women. d). Yes I think its very sad that people do not question social norms. Specially people who are trained in social criticism. It would still be another thing if they gave it a thought, and after deep contemplation came to a different view. That is alright. But when someone refuses to think, and has issue with other people doing so, and makes arguments like "leave all that 'social science' to class/it does not apply to the real world", I find that extremely problematic. 'Opening up your mind' does not imply being correct on every count, or knowing everything, it simply means a willingness to think, to question, to learn. d) Mahvash, like I said, this is not a discussion on the strategy of feminist politics/organization, or the merits or de-merits of trying to liberate women. If you wish to marry, do so by all means. Just stop lashing out at and judging the next feminist you meet who does not want to.

Mila | 13 years ago | Reply Really good article. I am going to share it with others. Please see the page of a very bold Pakistai feminist, I think she will also like your article... http://www.facebook.com/TahmenaBokhari

Ghausia | 13 years ago | Reply Way to go Usman lol. I have to admit, I did pause for as second when I read the paragraphs you highlighted and thought, wait, so by supporting marriage, wanting to eventually get married, and being happy for friend's getting married, I'm being oppressive, assisting in oppression, and I'm a dumb moron? Didn't seem very polite at all, for an intellectual, open minded woman. Like Mahvesh said, don't judge other women for being different from you. It is what makes us human after all, our individual differences.

Usman | 13 years ago | Reply Wow, now that is quite a rant. A hardcore feminist being overtaken by mere pathetic emotion? 'How Ironic' would be an understatement. The author can certainly express her frustration for feeling 'outlawed', but the way she claims and justifies her innocence by treating the rest as dirty laundry.... She writes: 'I see how women (extremely educated women that is, who supposedly know their rights) rationalize their own oppression and it’s disgusting. And even more disgusting is how they rationalize oppressing other women!' Rationalize their own 'oppression'? What? Really? Lol. I guess I just got a doze of what a holier-than-thou attitude can result it. And she doesn't stop there: 'So where does that leave those few of us who were unfortunate enough to have ‘opened up their minds’? In a ditch, so to speak. I keep wondering how is it my fault if other people are too dumb or lazy or apathetic to think for themselves?' So in short, she 'opened up her mind' and became the intellectual and honest representative of an ever so unbiased set of opinions, which are no less than facts to her. Do you actually think that people are too dumb to even think for themselves? You have a right to raise your voice and for that you first need to learn the etiquettes of an intellectual discourse. The earlier you stop thinking about the 'rest' as dummies, the better.

Ghausia | 13 years ago | Reply I get your point, but a good idea for this is to maybe keep things to yourself. I'm pro-LGBT, and I've faced difficulties sometimes when people get to know about it, so I just keep it to myself, else people start accusing me of being a homosexual. So you don't need to comment every time someone is getting married on how oppressive it is. You think so, but a lot of women like the concept of marriage. You can't change someone's beliefs, but you can always adapt to them and respect them for holding on to said beliefs. And I'm sorry, the marriage being oppressive part is ridiculous. I fo agree that its silly if you're ever with one person your entire life, and I agree about men and women having the same moral values, but if you end up with someone who's your equal, there's nothing wrong with that. Its not necessary that every man out there is going to crush your independence or abuse you every single day. And if he does, well, just divorce him then. You have every right to.

n- | 13 years ago | Reply I get where you're coming from, and you're absolutely correct.

Mahvesh | 13 years ago | Reply Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one characteristic of feminism the freedom to choose options? So if someone says to me, that after they've completed their MBBS and studied their butts off for 6 or 7 years, they want to get married and raise kids, hey, power to them. We seriously need to reconsider this mindset of ours where we think we're oh-so-liberated and all other women who don't think like us are oppressed and too blinkered to know otherwise. Don't judge other women just because they don't agree with all that you say, and seriously, grow up and think of feminism more broadly than in along the lines of 'all women are oppressed and I am the one to liberate you.'

abid | 13 years ago | Reply there are many different categories of feminists. If you've studied them you'll know that there are many ikhtilafat among feminists as well. I myself agree most with liberal feminists. And yes family and marriage maybe oppressive institutions but not just for women. And what do you suggest we do about it? Start living in communes and stay unmarried forever?

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ

Screaming from the margins

More by this writer

FOLLOW US