Skip to main content

On domestic violence

Dont "Beat me"!
Pakistani women have responded quite strongly to the UN women 'beat me' campaign on the social media. Owning its problems and finding their solutions is the main characteristic of an empowered community. It doesn’t take others to make it realize what’s wrong with it and how to right that wrong.
While the world wants Pakistani women to embrace their 'unbeatable' self. A significant section of Pakistani women can’t relate to this paradoxical innuendo; 'beat me'. This campaign like many others before it tries to break the stereotypes by showing women from different fields of life challenging men to beat them at their specific talent.
The real questions that we need to ask ourselves are: why do we as women need to challenge men, why do we need to compete?. Is the notion of empowerment directly related to a showdown with men? Also how exactly will challenging men help an already violent, intolerant and polarized society?
The underlying purpose of the whole campaign being 'domestic violence' somehow loses its intended objective and instead seems more to focus on a sense of immature and glorified rebellion and competition. Domestic violence is a very sensitive issue. It happens to women usually in a relationship with someone really near them. Someone they love and consider their own. Someone they are vulnerable to. Its very personal at every level. Turning it into a 'bring it on" battle between men and women isn’t very appealing.
Women who suffer from domestic violence come from all backgrounds. Educated and professional are as vulnerable to domestic violence as uneducated and unprofessional. Who then, can actually help these women to realize that suffering for the sake of 'keeping together a family' is not a good enough reason to bear violence. Abusive relationships do not contribute to a society. They destroy the whole social fabric. Generations of men born out of such liaisons end up abusing more women.
Then why exactly do women suffer? Why do women, specially educated and capable women keep on choosing to suffer?
"Every time i have to relate my situation to someone like the police, lawyer, employer etc. They all tend to at one point or the other ask me the same question. "Why didnt you leave him?", well! its not easy. Its difficult to go back to a society which glorifies suffering in the name of patience." Shares a survivor.
We as a society need to come to terms with the fact that violence is not acceptable. That said, it is vital we understand that the best way to help such women survive is to give them another choice. A better choice. Majority women will never end the relationship willingly if given that choice.
A chance at helping the abuser become a better person. Marriage counseling,family and group therapy, rehabilitation programs for spouses with abusive and psychologically challenged behaviour. This and a lot more can help save many families. Sadly, many families ignore the possibility of working together and denouncing the violence they witness. They consider it a husband and wife issue. Whereas NO abuse of human rights should be left alone. It has effects far and wide on the family and the society thus both need to wake up and take care of such issues swiftly on their own. They should intervene without shame or guilt and reach out to the victim as well as the abuser as soon as they are called upon or become aware of violence. This can help many a women to survive and retain their relationships, giving the abuser a chance to mend his ways. 

In case a reconciliation is not desired, the woman has complete right to leave an abusive relationship. Every strong society has its basis in a strong family system. The very essence of a strong family lies in the complimentarity between its men and women. When men and women together stand up to abusive people in their own families and outnumber them. When men and women decide to stop assisting the abuser by ignoring and start helping him/her by intervention to become a better person only then can we ‘beat’ violence!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

On Cue:

Spell bound?  Qazi Shareeh was a a famous tabaai ( those who had the opportunity to sit with the Sahaba of our beloved prophet saw) appointed as the head of the judiciary in the time of Omer (RA). The fact that in the presence  and life of great figures like the Sahaba, Shareeh was appointed as a head judge is of significance. He had the courage to give judgments against the ruler of the time and both Hazrat Omer and Hazrat Ali (RA) agreed to his verdicts in their opponents favour.  This independence ofcourse came from a strong character. Honesty, courage and humbleness at both ends. It was very interesting to follow the confusion of the govt and the conflicting statements of the opposition over the NAB ordinance mess. The way amendments are dished out in our country is so amazing that one wonders weather 'writing the law' has become more important than the implementation?! According to the spokesperson the amendments will bring more 'clarity'. Hoping they can bring mor...

ہلکا پھلکا:

اقبال کے زمانے میں مشینوں کی حکومت کا یہ عالم نا تھا جو ہمارے زمانے میں ہے۔ مرحوم نے نا جانے کیا کچھ جانچ لیا تھا اُس وقت جو ہمیں ابھی تک سمجھ نہیں آئی۔ اب تو مشینوں کی حکومت کا یہ عالم ہے کہ کل ہی ہمارے آئی فون نے اطلاع دی کہ "آپ کو پتا ہے کہ اگر آپ سڑیس میں ہیں تو قرآن مجید آپ کے سٹریس کو کم کرتا ہے"۔ ہم نے بھی اشرف المخلوق ہونے کا حق ادا کرتے ہوئے آئی فون کو جوابی اطلاع دی "جی مجھے علم ہے اس فائدے کا اور میں رابطے میں ہوں اپنے رب سے"۔  اس تمام اطلاعاتی مراسلت کا نتیجہ یہ نکلا کہ ہمیں اپنے فون سے شدید انس اور لگاوؐ محسوس ہوا۔ کسی زمانے میں انسان انسان کا خیر خواہ ہوتا تھا۔ جب سے  انسان نے حکومت اور کاروبار کی خاطر انسانوں کی خریدوفروخت شروع کی تب سے خیر خواہی کے لیے کچھ مشینوں کو آٹو میٹک پر کردیا گیا۔ خریدوفروخت کرنے والوں کو خاص قسم کے انسان چاہیے تھے اور انسانوں کو سہارا۔ یہ ڈوبتے کو تنکے کا سہارا نہیں ہے۔ یہاں پر تو مشین ڈوبتے کو سیدھا ٓاسمان پر ایک ہی چھلانگ میں لے جاتی ہے اور اس تمام سفر میں جو ایک نقطے سے دوسرے تک ڈسپلیسمنٹ ہوتی ہے اُس میں انسان کی ...

On Cue:

 While reading up on discourse and narratives I discovered why individuals and groups decide to resist or adhere to certain discourses. A need to belong, to assert their existence and negate any threats to it seemed to be the most prevalent logic. The feminist discourse on 'women rights' and the conservative discourse on 'duty first' is no different. It's  a draining  debate on the organisation of two truths. Human fitrah adheres to its duty if its right to exist is not threatened. Zooming in, that is why each discourse tries to answer the critical questions of existence and purpose. No one claims complete answers. All take positions.  Positions can be conflicting, conciliatory or reciprocative.  Often enough in different circles I have felt an absence and intolerance to  that very prick that can burst the bubble of a certain discourse.  A conservative religious organisation's banners caught my eye and disturbed me greatly. It stated in Urdu that ...