Comments on: Answering Ms. Nasrin-II http://www.shaarique.com/answering-ms-nasrin-ii/ That's how life is! Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:37:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Stephen http://www.shaarique.com/answering-ms-nasrin-ii/#comment-21428 Stephen Mon, 26 Nov 2007 05:09:48 +0000 http://www.shaarique.com/answering-ms-nasrin-ii/#comment-21428 Another thing is that you start with certain assumptions which lead you to come up with certain, wrong, answers. You assume that because the American media say American women are liberated -- which is presented as being able to go shopping and dress themselves in mass-produced goods that supposedly make themselves into individuals -- then it is women's liberation that is causing the single parent families, divorce, violence and all the other nasty statistics you give. The problem is you are asking the wrong questions and thus it is impossible for you to get the right answer. One could make the case that American women are far more unliberated than 50 years ago. You should be asking what an American woman working longer, two or three jobs has to do with it, when fifty years ago a family could be supported well with the income of one person. Or the decrease of taxes paid by corporations from 40% 50 years ago to 7% now, and of the weathy from 90% to 7%? Or that CEO has gone from earning 50 times an entry-level worker's income to 1000 times now. Or the shift of 80% of the countries assets to the wealthiest 20% of the population. Or the shift of the major portion of the benefits and subsidies from the working class to the corporations. Or the deindustrialization of the country. And on and on. Check out the following paper by a medical doctor called Health and Poverty in the United States which clearly presents this case: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=10&ItemID=4647 Another thing is that you start with certain assumptions which lead you to come up with certain, wrong, answers. You assume that because the American media say American women are liberated — which is presented as being able to go shopping and dress themselves in mass-produced goods that supposedly make themselves into individuals — then it is women’s liberation that is causing the single parent families, divorce, violence and all the other nasty statistics you give. The problem is you are asking the wrong questions and thus it is impossible for you to get the right answer. One could make the case that American women are far more unliberated than 50 years ago. You should be asking what an American woman working longer, two or three jobs has to do with it, when fifty years ago a family could be supported well with the income of one person. Or the decrease of taxes paid by corporations from 40% 50 years ago to 7% now, and of the weathy from 90% to 7%? Or that CEO has gone from earning 50 times an entry-level worker’s income to 1000 times now. Or the shift of 80% of the countries assets to the wealthiest 20% of the population. Or the shift of the major portion of the benefits and subsidies from the working class to the corporations. Or the deindustrialization of the country. And on and on.

Check out the following paper by a medical doctor called Health and Poverty in the United States which clearly presents this case:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=10&ItemID=4647

]]> By: Stephen http://www.shaarique.com/answering-ms-nasrin-ii/#comment-21422 Stephen Mon, 26 Nov 2007 01:47:52 +0000 http://www.shaarique.com/answering-ms-nasrin-ii/#comment-21422 I think part of problem that you are identifying with feminism, is that feminism and the women's movement, like most all the movements of the 60s, has become subject to commercialism. In the sixties the word "revolution" was a scary word for corporations, now they use it all the time. Granola and futons were ways people made their own food and furniture, now both are found in high-priced boutiques and very few people make their own. The same for what is often now presented as "women's liberation" means buying things and following the directions of corporate fashion, and for elite women it often means feminizing the face of patriarchy and class oppression without really changing it (which is why poor women in the U.S. never really entered the women's movement). On the other hand I see women every day in our small midwestern state capital who are practicing feminism having little to do with exposing themselves, as you call it: operating and engineering our local community radio station, running free-trade coffee shops that are actively engaged with peasants in Central America and Africa (in fact I just stopped in one today on a bike ride through a neighboring town and I was the the only man among tables of women knitting and engaged in discussion), women organizing community gardens, farmers' markets and community supported agriculture, women building rain-water collectors, running rape crisis centers and community-based health clinics, organizing the peace movement, etc. All these are happening in our Midwest city. One reason you, and many young American women for that matter, may have such a distorted picture of feminism in the U.S. is that the commercial media don't want people to see this powerful current of feminism in the United States because it truly trying to make people, men as well as women, the modest more than the privileged, powerful and because it doesn't involve buying things. I think part of problem that you are identifying with feminism, is that feminism and the women’s movement, like most all the movements of the 60s, has become subject to commercialism. In the sixties the word “revolution” was a scary word for corporations, now they use it all the time. Granola and futons were ways people made their own food and furniture, now both are found in high-priced boutiques and very few people make their own. The same for what is often now presented as “women’s liberation” means buying things and following the directions of corporate fashion, and for elite women it often means feminizing the face of patriarchy and class oppression without really changing it (which is why poor women in the U.S. never really entered the women’s movement). On the other hand I see women every day in our small midwestern state capital who are practicing feminism having little to do with exposing themselves, as you call it: operating and engineering our local community radio station, running free-trade coffee shops that are actively engaged with peasants in Central America and Africa (in fact I just stopped in one today on a bike ride through a neighboring town and I was the the only man among tables of women knitting and engaged in discussion), women organizing community gardens, farmers’ markets and community supported agriculture, women building rain-water collectors, running rape crisis centers and community-based health clinics, organizing the peace movement, etc. All these are happening in our Midwest city. One reason you, and many young American women for that matter, may have such a distorted picture of feminism in the U.S. is that the commercial media don’t want people to see this powerful current of feminism in the United States because it truly trying to make people, men as well as women, the modest more than the privileged, powerful and because it doesn’t involve buying things.

]]> By: Rah http://www.shaarique.com/answering-ms-nasrin-ii/#comment-8566 Rah Mon, 07 May 2007 15:53:27 +0000 http://www.shaarique.com/answering-ms-nasrin-ii/#comment-8566 Hai Nasrin, I like to know more of your explanation and like to make relationship with you. looking forward your kind reply Rah (mujirh@yahoo.com) Hai Nasrin,
I like to know more of your explanation and like to make relationship with you.
looking forward your kind reply
Rah (mujirh@yahoo.com)

]]> By: sporadicblogger http://www.shaarique.com/answering-ms-nasrin-ii/#comment-3379 sporadicblogger Sat, 03 Feb 2007 19:35:29 +0000 http://www.shaarique.com/answering-ms-nasrin-ii/#comment-3379 ah, I see. Misread that :) Thats true enough. Its really amusing how some countries in the west like the US claim to have liberated women, but in actuallity, that is anything but the truth. Women there are repressed in many many ways, the least of which is not the pressure to have the 'perfect' body and dress 'sexy'. Hm. ah, I see. Misread that :)
Thats true enough. Its really amusing how some countries in the west like the US claim to have liberated women, but in actuallity, that is anything but the truth. Women there are repressed in many many ways, the least of which is not the pressure to have the ‘perfect’ body and dress ’sexy’. Hm.

]]> By: aqsa http://www.shaarique.com/answering-ms-nasrin-ii/#comment-3343 aqsa Fri, 02 Feb 2007 15:10:02 +0000 http://www.shaarique.com/answering-ms-nasrin-ii/#comment-3343 sporadicblogger, well i said, in the name of feminism.....so and so was promoted. i dint talk of feminism in itself. im a woman myself and obviously i will stand upto any effort for empowering women. i guess theres no contradiction now. "..and shedding clothes for the male gaze isn’t very empowering." this is precisely what im saying. just to make sure that the male audience will have a good time why the hell women are asked to drop their clothes? sporadicblogger,
well i said, in the name of feminism…..so and so was promoted.
i dint talk of feminism in itself. im a woman myself and obviously i will stand upto any effort for empowering women.
i guess theres no contradiction now.
“..and shedding clothes for the male gaze isn’t very empowering.”
this is precisely what im saying. just to make sure that the male audience will have a good time why the hell women are asked to drop their clothes?

]]> By: sporadicblogger http://www.shaarique.com/answering-ms-nasrin-ii/#comment-3335 sporadicblogger Thu, 01 Feb 2007 16:44:18 +0000 http://www.shaarique.com/answering-ms-nasrin-ii/#comment-3335 Feminism is the biggest abuse to the entire womanhood in the history of mankind. In the name of feminism women were made to shed their clothes which ultimately satisfy the male members of the society. This is a contradiction. Feminism is about empowering women (not making women mroe powerful or 'better' than men,mind); and shedding clothes for the male gaze isn't very empowering. But yes, shedding clothes because you want to for yourself and not to be perceived as 'sexy' would be feminist, and you are welcome to disagree with that :) An interesting read. I'm not a fan of Tasleema Nasreen, either. Feminism is the biggest abuse to the entire womanhood in the history of mankind. In the name of feminism women were made to shed their clothes which ultimately satisfy the male members of the society.

This is a contradiction. Feminism is about empowering women (not making women mroe powerful or ‘better’ than men,mind); and shedding clothes for the male gaze isn’t very empowering. But yes, shedding clothes because you want to for yourself and not to be perceived as ’sexy’ would be feminist, and you are welcome to disagree with that :)

An interesting read. I’m not a fan of Tasleema Nasreen, either.

]]> By: Sharique http://www.shaarique.com/answering-ms-nasrin-ii/#comment-3280 Sharique Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:56:20 +0000 http://www.shaarique.com/answering-ms-nasrin-ii/#comment-3280 I Me My, No. Actually my train was 12 hours late and the the total journey without delay was of 44 hours I Me My,

No. Actually my train was 12 hours late and the the total journey without delay was of 44 hours

]]> By: I Me My http://www.shaarique.com/answering-ms-nasrin-ii/#comment-3269 I Me My Fri, 26 Jan 2007 03:09:27 +0000 http://www.shaarique.com/answering-ms-nasrin-ii/#comment-3269 A 55 hour train ride!!!! Were you doing a 'travel Asia' trip aboard a trans- Himalayan/ trans-Siberian rail? A 55 hour train ride!!!! Were you doing a ‘travel Asia’ trip aboard a trans- Himalayan/ trans-Siberian rail?

]]> By: Sharique http://www.shaarique.com/answering-ms-nasrin-ii/#comment-3265 Sharique Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:59:01 +0000 http://www.shaarique.com/answering-ms-nasrin-ii/#comment-3265 Red, I am really sorry for not answering you. Just reached home after a 55 hour train ride. Will answer your questions and read your post this weekend. Red,
I am really sorry for not answering you. Just reached home after a 55 hour train ride. Will answer your questions and read your post this weekend.

]]> By: Red http://www.shaarique.com/answering-ms-nasrin-ii/#comment-3251 Red Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:50:34 +0000 http://www.shaarique.com/answering-ms-nasrin-ii/#comment-3251 Aqsa I understand the context of your speech as well, and I sympthasize with it to a great extent. However I fear that by overstating your case and making sweeping generalizations, the people who need to listen will just find another excuse to ignore you. If Shaarique allows me a bit of self promotion, I would like your feedback on something I wrote a long while ago http://eastwords.blogspot.com/2005/10/ultimate-victim.html Aqsa

I understand the context of your speech as well, and I sympthasize with it to a great extent. However I fear that by overstating your case and making sweeping generalizations, the people who need to listen will just find another excuse to ignore you.

If Shaarique allows me a bit of self promotion, I would like your feedback on something I wrote a long while ago

http://eastwords.blogspot.com/2005/10/ultimate-victim.html

]]>