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
"بے حیائی جنسی تشدد تک لے جاتی ہے"
If it's a suggestion its a dangerous suggestion . If its a declaration of a fact it needn't be advertised . As advertisements tend to multiply the effects. If its a warning it needs the law. With neither at their disposal the least they could do was give the right message. To suggest that a human being is an animal driven by drives is no different from what the others are saying. Hasn't Allah given more respect to human beings?
Saima Sher Fazal
Comments