Blaming feminism

Feminists are wrong.’ ‘They don’t have any idea of Pakistani culture.’ ‘They are elite who represent the privileged strata of Pakistan’. ‘They don’t understand the complexities of Pakistani society.’
These are some of the arguments that people in Pakistan make against feminists. The dilemma is: a majority of the critics are not aware of the roots of the feminist movement or its aims. The latest example is a piece published in this newspaper titled “Just another open letter to feminists”. The writer, Umnia Shahid, asks a few questions and then develops a case against feminists based on those questions. The questions posed confuse feminism and the feminist movement with other struggles. Let me clarify one thing before presenting counter arguments. Humans hold so many identities at a given time. For example, I am a male (gender identity), dependent on salary for survival (economic identity), Pakhtun from Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (ethnic and geographic identity). Being a male in Pakistan, I am from a privileged class. If you want to judge me by my ethnic identity, I am underprivileged in Pakistan. The feminist movement is about the performance of gender identities in the socio-historical context.
Now let us dissect Ms Shahid’s questions and arguments. The first question she poses is, “Did you know that hundreds of Third World boys are viciously murdered on a daily basis?” Based on this question, she argues that “all everyone (including media and feminazis) talks about are the girls who are kidnapped or tortured”. Yes, she is right. Both boys and girls get killed. But does she know what the feminist manifesto or agenda is? The movement is a resistance against historical male dominance in society. It is about resisting patriarchy. The movement has a clear agenda: the empowerment of women and resisting male dominance. Feminists never said that killing boys is right but protesting against the killing of the opposite gender is not on their priority list. We should look at the feminist movement in the socio-historical context. The killing of both men and women in society does not mean that both are equal, or equally suppressed. Women have been historically marginalised. The feminist movement is about gender inequalities. Do you think that males and females in Pakistan have equal opportunities to go to school? No. Do you think both are punished equally for the same amount of crime? No. Do you think that women, especially in the rural areas of Pakistan, are empowered enough to make their decisions themselves? No. Feminists protest against every atrocity committed against females by the opposite gender. They resist the killing of women for a crime committed by their male counterparts. The equal number of murders cannot justify the historical suppression of women that still continues in patriarchal societies. Again, feminists are more interested in investigating and resisting gender inequalities than economic or ethnic inequities.
The second question the writer asks is: “Did you know that Third World boys make up possibly more than half of all sexually exploited children?” And then, she bemoans that the boys are getting neglected because of feminists. I don’t understand how the writer links this question with feminism? Yes, feminists don’t write about boys, simply because they are striving for something else. But did feminists stop someone else from writing about “sexually exploited children”? No. Other scholars interested in that issue can always write about it. There are people who are writing about child labour, child sexual abuse and economic inequality. Feminists are striving for gender equality and resisting male dominance. Resisting economic or other social inequalities is not at the centre of their activism.
Now let us analyse the third question that Ms Shahid poses: “Did you know that a bulky chunk of Third World boys live their lives enveloped in slave labour and under appallingly inhuman conditions?” The writer probably doesn’t know what feminists mean by “labour”. She generalises “slave labour”. I am appalled by how the writer, a women herself, thinks that boys and girls are made to do an equal amount of “slave labour”. Look at the gender inequality in the socio-historical context. A majority of women, especially in the rural areas of Pakistan, are doing slave labour 24 hours a day. The decision of whether they will go to school or not is taken by their father, husband, or brother. They cannot decide on their own whether they will earn their livelihoods. They cannot make even a single decision on their own. Feminists resist against that “institutional male dominance and suppression of women”.
Ms Shahid, addressing feminists, then claims that “This may surprise you, but many women who confine themselves to societal norms don’t believe they’re oppressed at all”. This opinion won’t surprise feminists. Privileged and dominant institutions in society — in this case male — always maintain their hegemony through a combination of force and consent. The dominant classes make you believe that you are making your decision by choice when in actual fact, you aren’t. Foucault noted that “naturalisation is the royal road to common sense”. Interestingly, common sense is determined by those who have power and resources: in this case, males. Hundreds of women believe that male dominance is natural. It isn’t. Male dominance is socially created. Feminists want to create awareness among women about their historical exploitation. They want women to make their decisions themselves. They would argue: do whatever you want based on your own informed opinion.
I would recommend that Ms Shahid read feminist literature before writing about feminism. Her arguments against feminism have no relevance to the feminist movement. It is just like blaming Shahid Afridi for not scoring goals in the English Premier League.
Disclaimer: I am not part of any feminist movement. However, I am against institutional hegemony.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 18^th, 2016.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.