For some time now, I have been getting tired of myself ! Why I can never agree with literally anyone is becoming a source of increasing frustration. Even more worrisome is my excessively rare sociological illness that entails not volunteering my opinion in a discussion on any important subject unless I actually "know" about it, and scarcely any subject is fortunate (yes, that would be fortunate!) enough. I call it a rare illness because almost everybody else (with very, very few exceptions) seems to enjoy perfect health. Most do not show even the slightest symptoms. Many of them just think that they were born with a height of wisdom that, for no more reason than glorifying the world with their existence, gives them the authority to pass judgments on some very serious matters of social and moral importance. Those who are humble enough not to deem themselves to be great philosophers are intent on making as much fun of everything as they can manage with their hapless sense of humor. At other times, which is most of the time, there is never ending gossip to endure.
That said, I feel much lighter.
----------------------------------------------
Lately, I have developed a queer habit of coming across articles and debates on feminism. The involuntary nature and frequency of this "coming across" is not what I would regard as particularly gratifying. I am not fond of the topic. Mainly because the writers of the articles and the debaters do not realize the implications of what they are saying. There is not even a single article that I can say is rationally thought of. They are mostly emotionally motivating (both for and against feminism) speeches, failing to integrate reason into them. Some get condescending, some angry, some feel personally attacked or insulted and others feel mystically glorified of their own accord. Well, to be reasonable, you have to be calm and objective and you need to leave room for the possibility that you might be wrong in your interpretations. As a matter of fact, I am not fond of the topic because I have experienced that the debates on this topic tend to go literally wild. So when I start this uninviting but impossible-to-ignore-anymore task of talking about feminism, I am leaving all the room on earth for disagreement with just one humble condition: think analytically before you argue.
As I said I do not volunteer to present my point of view on a matter of importance unless I have credible knowledge about it, so I will say only that I am certain about.
Being against or in favor of a theory depends upon how that theory is interpreted. If we go by the dictionary, feminism means the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men or a doctrine that advocates equal rights for women.
My first question: Why should women's rights be "equal to men"? Rights and duties are supposed to facilitate our lives, which necessitates that they should have a fair distribution among men and women; the distribution being based on how they spend their lives, what their needs are and what they can do best. Now let us ask ourselves: are men and women exactly similar in all these things? I don't think so!! I need not enlist all the differences. There are sufficient proven facts, surveys and researches available in the fields of medicine, psychology and sociology that can support my assertion.
My point is that women's rights and duties should be defined for what women need and can take responsibility for. Their needs and abilities are different; not insignificant or inferior, but different from those of men. If two things are not similar in nature, it is illogical and unscientific to talk about their equality.
Even if, by some argument, it could be proved that men and women ARE equal, then I would ask how that equality would benefit the society? Every single person's individuality defines his or her importance. If I am able to do everything with just as mush efficiency as everyone else can, then why would I tolerate anyone at all? What will motivate me to develop a lasting relationship? We live with others and stand by them so that we can collaborate with one another to achieve a common goal. If two people are exactly equal in their capabilities, their relationship will become competitive instead of collaborative. Competition has some occupational hazards: the two parties have ego clashes, they are prone to cheating and at the end of the day, there is a winner and so, there is also a loser. Accepting even an above average moral rank, I think it is extremely optimistic to expect both the winner and the loser to live together happily ever after. While it could be beneficial for two different entities, businesses for example, it cannot serve to keep two parties together as one entity with common goals. To keep the institution of family intact, which lays the foundation of social life, men and women need to collaborate. And as I said earlier, collaboration is motivated by complementary differences and is incentivized by some benefits anticipated from the other party that one cannot hope to achieve alone, while claiming equality fuels competition.
One thing that always eludes me is that why people are attracted to getting more rights; more rights come with more liabilities. Why they want to be answerable to larger number of duties and why overstretching oneself is such a desirous business is beyond my scope of comprehension.
My second objection is against the interpretation of "advocacy of women's rights". There is nothing wrong with the words as they are; the problem is that they are interpreted with an unwarranted exaggeration. In advocating for women's rights, people have an inclination for asking much more than their fair share of rights. What I have understood so far is that "women liberation movements" do not exactly ask for the acquisition of what rightfully belongs to the women, but they somehow try to create new rights for them. I am not an expert in history but what I have gathered from the literature from 19th century writers including Jane Austen, James Hilton and Bronte sisters is that those were the times when somewhat similar conditions existed in western countries and similar women liberation movements were being originated there. Where have these movements landed them? Are they more respected now? Do they still not face emotional turmoil? Are they not a victim of violence anymore? Do they make stronger families? Do they represent a stronger and more stable character? If somebody says that now they actively contribute in the business of their countries, I would say that they cannot contribute more than the women of our Pakistani villages, who do as much work in the farms as their men do and who actually are suffering the greatest violation of rights.
My point is that we should advocate for women's rights but for those women who are actually suffering. There is no success gained by tilting at the windmills; probably an illusion of success but nothing tangibly important.
I assert that the key to attain the required balance of rights and duties is education and law enforcement, not creating media circus.
I am not against women's rights; I totally accept the fact that there is a need to save them from violence and help them attain their basic rights. But should that entail abandoning of Hijab, breaking of marriages and driving them away from their home right into the midst of a self-created media hype? Because that is what our media is promoting in the name of feminism.
Speaking for myself, I would want to maintain my own identity. I would never want to step into another person's shoes and fool myself that I can walk with just as much grace.
Now there still remains a very important question: who, and on what grounds, would decide about the fair distribution of rights among men and women?
However hard a man tries, he can never know exactly what a woman needs. Even if he knows some women particularly well, there are no grounds for the assumption that he can understand all the women of the world. How then, will he devise some rules for the distribution of rights and duties? And will he be able to give his own interests an importance that is neither more nor less than fair for himself and for every other man in the world !!.. Same goes for a woman as well. So there should be someone who knows literally everybody inside out: our Creator. Our best option is to believe that the system Allah Almighty has devised for us, is the system of an ideal society. So instead of trying to create new theories, we should, I am saying it yet again, educate our masses about the best existing way of life and our rulers should enforce the laws given to us by Allah Almighty.
Finally,what I think feminist motto should be: Now it is unfortunately true that women are suffering injustices in our society, which calls for steps to be taken for the restoration of their respectable and rightful status. I think it would be more logical and practical to say that women's basic rights should be deemed equally important, not exactly equal. I sense that it is getting confusing. What I want to say is that the matter should be looked into in detail from every perspective and feminism should be redefined in a more logically satisfying way, along with and in consent with the targets that need to be achieved, in a well-defined order of priority.
For those who just think feminism is just being proud and thankful to be a woman, I have absolutely no objection.
----------------------------------------------
Actually I had may different things on my mind when I started writing this blog post. Feminism was just one of them. But now I realize that I have already spent quite a lot of time here. It was more challenging and interesting to write on a general subject than reviewing a book that I usually do here. I hope someday we will be able to figure out a little about this enigma called life and find a way to make it worthwhile.
