April 4, 2012 – Pakistan Gender News

April 4, 2012

Young women are safer in their parents’ homes, Karachi study finds

“Marriages are making girls vulnerable,” remarked Khalida Ghaus of the Social Policy and Development Centre.

KARACHI: Young women are safer in their parents’ homes, a study on the socioeconomic violence against women in Karachi has found.

“Marriages are making girls vulnerable,” remarked Khalida Ghaus of the Social Policy and Development Centre as she presented the findings on Tuesday at the Marriot Hotel.

The case study of Karachi interviewed 50 victims of violence. It found that these women spent more on legal services than on medical treatment. According to the report, a female victim spent Rs50,300 in judicial or legal services, Rs36,400 on police services. The least they were spending was on medical expenses – about Rs 10,100.

Ghaus said that 40% of the respondents belonged to the 19 to 29 age bracket, while a majority of them were unlettered and economically inactive. Around 64% were poor.

Physical abuse was the most common with 37.4% of victims suffering the aggressive nature of a perpetrator. The majority of injuries were sprains and bruises (33%).

Around 42% of such victims of violence were married, and a majority of the perpetrators (55%) were husbands, and 22% in-laws. Parents who committed violence on their daughters were said to be four per cent.

At the SPDC seminar another study was also launched: ‘Gender Dimension of Development-Induced Displacement and Resettlement: A Case Study of Lyari Expressway.’ It was this that became subject of a heated discussion.

A researcher who had conducted a study on the plight of women displaced by the project said their education and employment has discontinued. Former project director Shafiqur Rehman Paracha attacked him for it. “Did you visit the 42 colonies where these people lived before they were resettled?” he spat out. “Around 377 teachers from the community are employed in 27 schools in Taiser Town. How can you say that the displaced women have no employment?”

A series of questions and answers started with the researcher saying that the affected people were not consulted before being uprooted. Paracha argued that they previously had an even worse living standard — 20 people were crammed in a 16-square-yard house. It was then that Ghaus intervened and said that they were not saying that the project had been a success or a failure; their research was based on interviews.

The study included interviews with 508 households living in Hawkesbay, Taiser Town and Baldia, the three resettlement locations. SPDC economist Nadeem Ahmad presented the findings. “Employment figures have gone down drastically,” he said. “The percentage of men employed at the time of displacement was 73.9 and it is currently 66.5, while the figure of female employees has gone down from 11.4 to 6.7.”

He had other shocking figures to share. According to the study, currently 42.7% households have zero income. The women have no source of income, their education and employment has been cut off. Around 63.3% of females interviewed felt that living standards had declined.

The Express Tribune

April 4, 2012

Media misogyny

Ayesha Haroon

A little more than four weeks ago, Rush Limbaugh, host of a right-wing radio talk show in the US, called a female university student “a slut”. In the weeks that followed Limbaugh’s show lost almost one hundred advertisers.

With more than 14,000 radio stations and, an estimated, 80 per cent of the population tuning in at least once a day, radio is big in the US. And The Rush Limbaugh Show has the biggest listenership in America – 11 million plus. Mr Limbaugh himself claims to have 20 million people listening to him. Even accounting for exaggeration, it’s a huge listenership.

Limbaugh wears his political and personal far-right ideology on his sleeves. For years, he has openly and loudly used his platform for supporting his favourite political candidates, social causes, and worldview. He uses racial slurs against President Obama, makes derogatory remarks about immigrants, mocks Muslims, and equates African Americans with robbers and thieves. For the last 20-plus years he has had an unfettered reign.

On February 23, 2012, a law student, Sandra Fluke, testified before the US House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee regarding the impact of new healthcare regulations. She argued that contraception medicines are also prescribed to treat a variety of women’s health issues and hence should be covered by health insurance. Rush Limbaugh ignored the argument and decided to attack her in several shows, calling her a “slut” and a “prostitute”.

Widespread condemnation, by the public and the media, of Limbaugh’s misogynistic attacks led to a rapid exit by his advertisers.

There is definitely a reason why calling a female student “slut” became problematised in this way. Mexicans and Muslims and African Americans, including President Obama, have been called all sorts of names by him – but there he had been pushing the envelope on a political position held by some. In this case, he crossed a line by trying to invoke a misogynistic view of women.

Limbaugh has a huge amount of money, largest US radio talk show listenership, political contacts, and the channel he works for is owned by Mitt Romney, who is hoping to run against Obama in the next elections. But none of the above could keep the advertisers from abandoning him.

In the 21st century, his twisted view of women, at least, has been rejected by all the sides of the political divide in the US.

It is the same 21st century in Pakistan, but we are still trying to prove that throwing acid on a human being is a heinous crime and there can be no justification for it.

An anchor and columnist, Javed Chaudhry, recently wrote an article on the issue of acid-throwing. After using a couple of adjectives to describe the odious nature of the crime, he let a perpetrator of this brutality make his case for acid-throwing as a reaction to provocation and as a crime of passion.

It is a very clever piece of writing, in which the columnist narrates an acid-thrower’s version of a crime. The columnist does not tell the reader who is the criminal and who is the unfortunate victim. Is it a fictionalised version of many incidents, a real event, or a piece of pure fiction? Did the writer actually meet a criminal who was so vengeful that he inflicted terrible injuries on his ex-wife and yet wanted to send a message to the public that the victim is also a criminal? That by being stubborn the victim was compelling the assailant to kill her? One hopes the criminal was reported to the police after this horrifying confession.

Since the article is published in the Opinion-Editorial pages of a newspaper, the writer is taking a position on the issue of acid throwing. He calls the acid-thrower a “beast”, he says he felt like strangling the acid-thrower as he narrated his story, and would have gotten up and left if he did not have ‘bardasht’ (tolerance?).

He heard the criminal’s story but why did he write about it? If the attempt was to explore the assailant’s mental and psychological issues, was this the right forum and the right way? Why was it one-sided? Why was the victim’s version not reported? What if the criminal was talking a load of lies? The writer says he kept quiet when the acid-thrower finished his story and went away. The implication is that while the act of acid throwing is heinous there is merit in the assailant’s reasons for committing the crime.

The writer quotes the assailant as saying that, by being stubborn, even innocent women, who are not as ‘bad’ as his wife, must have compelled men like him to throw acid on their faces – even these innocent women must have made some mistake. What a terribly irresponsible comment to quote in public space. Why did the editors not scratch it?

The writer’s implicit suggestion that killing would have been better for the victim instead of acid being thrown on her is grossly wrong on so many levels. There can be no choice between the two – both are unacceptable. Again, why was this sentence allowed to be published in the newspaper?

It is unfortunate that a crime as obvious as acid-throwing can be picked up to create sympathy for the criminal. It is unfortunate that we have to fight cultural battles that we thought were fought and won. Our culture is saturated with misogyny and we have to be vocal about our rejection of stereotypes, exploitation, and violence.

The writer is a former editor of The News Lahore.

The News

April 4, 2012

Need stressed for women`s economic empowerment

KARACHI: Speakers at a seminar stressed the need for economic empowerment of women and female literacy so they could get financial independence, be able to raise their voice and struggle for their rights.

These views were expressed at the launching of two reports, `Socioeconomic cost of violence against women` and `Gender dimensions of development induced displacement and resettlement`, prepared by the Social Policy and Development Centre at a programme sponsored by the Royal Norwegian Embassy in Pakistan.

Presenting the data regarding violence against women, SPDC chief Dr Khalida Ghaus said that 82 per cent of the victims were aged between 19 and 49 years, while 38 per cent of the victims were illiterates with 30 per cent others having up to primary level education and only 4 per cent of the victim were postgraduates.

She said that 64 per cent of the victims were poor and another 32 per cent belonged to lower middle class background, while only 2 per cent of the victims were rich.

She said that in 55 per cent of the cases perpetrators were the husbands and in 22 per cent cases they were in-laws, while in 4 per cent cases the perpetrators were parents and 1 per cent were brother.

She said that 42 per cent of the victims were married while 30 per cent were separated.

She said that per unit cost the victims paid on medical services was over Rs10,000, if she went to police then she had to spend an additional over Rs36,000 and if she moved the judiciary then she had to spend another over Rs50,000.

She said that 46 per cent of the victims were economically not active while another 24 per cent had unskilled occupations.

She said that 40 per cent of the victims demanded social security, while 22 per cent wanted employment opportunities, 18 per cent called for legal help and speedy justice and 15 per cent wanted accommodation.

In his presentation regarding gender dimensions of development induced displacement and resettlement (case study Lyari Expressway), Nadeem Ahmed said that no consultation had been done with the people who had been displaced and relocated, and issues related to human rights and environment had not been properly addressed during the planning and then in the implementation of the project.

He said while the people in general had suffered in the field of education, employment opportunities, etc, women had suffered relatively more than men.

He said that people had more or better civic amenities and facilities like water, gas, doctor, transport, etc, when they lived along the Lyari River than they have in their present location.

Former chief of the National Commission on the Status of Women Justice retired Justice Majida Rizvi said that women were the marginalised section of the society and a lot of efforts had to be made and a long struggle had to be waged till the women got their rights.

She said that there were many women-friendly laws but their proper implementation was required.

She said that discrimination started right from the birth when the boy was given preference over the girl child in every field including education, health and even food.

She stressed the need for changing the mindset of the society and said that the justice system was expensive and time consuming and the need was to reform it to make it less expensive and fast.

Shafeeq Paracha, Masooma Hassan, Salma Murad, Zahid Farooq, Tariq Aziz and others participated in the question-answer session at the programme conducted by Rabia Sidat.

Dawn