abdulbarijan
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 1,251
- Reaction score
- 31
During the whole women's protection bill episode in 2016, the council of Islamic Ideology (CII) was vehemently criticized by different bloggers and writers for opposing the bill. A side story however, was that CII's council member were reported to have discussions regarding a bill about men's protection from violence etc. I wasn't able to find a follow up however, CII member Sahibzada Zahid M. Qasmi as reported by Dawn proposed that a bill be passed for the protection of men's rights.
Critics were quick to take shots at the proposition e.g. articles such as "From the CII man cave: Why the men's protection bill is a joke" . I encourage you to read the article, but the jest of it is, women have it so bad and men have it so good, therefore any attempts to get any form of protection for men in terms of a bill is essentially "a joke". Usually the left/ SJW wing of the left, prides itself in being able to hear the other side of the argument, before calling it a joke while taunting conservatives/ people on the right/ religious people, of being devoid of the openness to new ideas. The irony being, in this case the same type of reflex action was shown by the wing masquerading itself as "open to ideas/ thought/ arguments".
The Problem with the "Comparative" argument
To quote the article "From the CII man cave: Why the men's protection bill is a joke"
Frankly, even if we go by the idea with the entire "justification" along with it-- this "argument", has no logical, intellectual or moral leg to stand on. Let's take everything stated as true and consider two groups, A and B which are ruled by a set of regulations. Group A is subject to many injustices and is more vulnerable to being at the receiving end of some types of crimes. People decide that this is more than enough, and that something has to be done to protect group A. Therefore, a new set of rules is introduced to protect group A. However, it leaves group B in trouble because essentially, Group B doesn't have any protection at all. Even if Group B is less likely to be at the receiving end of XYZ crime, it doesn't mean that the group doesn't deserve protection from said crime.
Think in terms of violent crime. Men according to statistics from 2008 (Canada) are more than 3 times more susceptible to an aggravated assault. If this logic of regulations for selective segments of society, were universally applicable, we would have seen a "Men's protection from Aggravated Assault" bill. However, thankfully in most cases, we as different societies, governments etc. realize that while combating a problem it is better to target the problem instead of devising solutions that only help a segment of the entire population.
The Myth of Domestic Violence
For the purpose of staying on point and not expanding this article let's stick to the problem of domestic violence and No! .. I'm not saying domestic violence is a myth. The assertion that men don't have to face it, however is a huge myth. Let's look at different statistics from different countries in order to get a better perspective.
The facts suggest that from the western world to countries that are considered "patriarchal" the statistics show that men ARE victims of domestic violence. For Pakistan, I wasn't even able to find statistics which covered this issue. I was, however, able to find a qualitative research case study conducted in a village in Rawalpindi. The study concluded.
After reviewing the evidence and the fact that the problem is fairly common place when it comes to domestic violence against men, the grim situation begs the question ;
Why don't we do anything about it?
The answer is actually quite simple. We simply don't care. We don't view male suffering as suffering at all. Liberals/SJW's/Feminists who are all about "protecting an individual" don't exactly care unless the individual is a minority/ woman or someone from their immediate family.Those who are finding words to "debunk" this assertion only need to view a world event that never was.
I'm quite sure most of us, that are active on social media or just visit google or yahoo once in a while, know about the "bring back our girls" hashtag.
It was in response to the Chibok school girl kidnappings, where 276 girls were kidnapped from their school. The responsibility of the kidnappings was claimed by Boko Haram resulting in a huge outcry worldwide. Before the kidnappings of the school girls however, an event took place that had generated no hashtags, no global outcry, nothing - nada --- Why, you ask? The victims weren't from the right gender.
As reported in a piece by mediaite.com
"On February 25, between 40 and 59 children were killed by the fundamentalist militant group. Early that morning, Boko Haram terrorists attacked a boarding school and shot many of children, aged 11 to 18, while they slept. Some of the students were gunned down as they attempted to flee. Others had their throats slit. In some buildings, Boko Haram militants locked the doors and set the building alight. The occupants were burned alive.
All of the victims were boys. Reports indicated that the young girls the militants encountered were spared. According to the BBC, the militants told the girls to flee, get married, and shun the western education to which they were privy."
So I leave you with this question, with such conditions present, is it not time that men and women stand up for humanity (yes men are part of humanity as well) so that we can march forward towards a better and safe future for BOTH men and women ?
Critics were quick to take shots at the proposition e.g. articles such as "From the CII man cave: Why the men's protection bill is a joke" . I encourage you to read the article, but the jest of it is, women have it so bad and men have it so good, therefore any attempts to get any form of protection for men in terms of a bill is essentially "a joke". Usually the left/ SJW wing of the left, prides itself in being able to hear the other side of the argument, before calling it a joke while taunting conservatives/ people on the right/ religious people, of being devoid of the openness to new ideas. The irony being, in this case the same type of reflex action was shown by the wing masquerading itself as "open to ideas/ thought/ arguments".
The Problem with the "Comparative" argument
To quote the article "From the CII man cave: Why the men's protection bill is a joke"
Frankly, even if we go by the idea with the entire "justification" along with it-- this "argument", has no logical, intellectual or moral leg to stand on. Let's take everything stated as true and consider two groups, A and B which are ruled by a set of regulations. Group A is subject to many injustices and is more vulnerable to being at the receiving end of some types of crimes. People decide that this is more than enough, and that something has to be done to protect group A. Therefore, a new set of rules is introduced to protect group A. However, it leaves group B in trouble because essentially, Group B doesn't have any protection at all. Even if Group B is less likely to be at the receiving end of XYZ crime, it doesn't mean that the group doesn't deserve protection from said crime.
Think in terms of violent crime. Men according to statistics from 2008 (Canada) are more than 3 times more susceptible to an aggravated assault. If this logic of regulations for selective segments of society, were universally applicable, we would have seen a "Men's protection from Aggravated Assault" bill. However, thankfully in most cases, we as different societies, governments etc. realize that while combating a problem it is better to target the problem instead of devising solutions that only help a segment of the entire population.
The Myth of Domestic Violence
For the purpose of staying on point and not expanding this article let's stick to the problem of domestic violence and No! .. I'm not saying domestic violence is a myth. The assertion that men don't have to face it, however is a huge myth. Let's look at different statistics from different countries in order to get a better perspective.
The facts suggest that from the western world to countries that are considered "patriarchal" the statistics show that men ARE victims of domestic violence. For Pakistan, I wasn't even able to find statistics which covered this issue. I was, however, able to find a qualitative research case study conducted in a village in Rawalpindi. The study concluded.
- Domestic violence against men, is fairly common in Pakistan.
- Men are less likely to report acts of violence against them.
After reviewing the evidence and the fact that the problem is fairly common place when it comes to domestic violence against men, the grim situation begs the question ;
Why don't we do anything about it?
The answer is actually quite simple. We simply don't care. We don't view male suffering as suffering at all. Liberals/SJW's/Feminists who are all about "protecting an individual" don't exactly care unless the individual is a minority/ woman or someone from their immediate family.Those who are finding words to "debunk" this assertion only need to view a world event that never was.
I'm quite sure most of us, that are active on social media or just visit google or yahoo once in a while, know about the "bring back our girls" hashtag.
It was in response to the Chibok school girl kidnappings, where 276 girls were kidnapped from their school. The responsibility of the kidnappings was claimed by Boko Haram resulting in a huge outcry worldwide. Before the kidnappings of the school girls however, an event took place that had generated no hashtags, no global outcry, nothing - nada --- Why, you ask? The victims weren't from the right gender.
As reported in a piece by mediaite.com
"On February 25, between 40 and 59 children were killed by the fundamentalist militant group. Early that morning, Boko Haram terrorists attacked a boarding school and shot many of children, aged 11 to 18, while they slept. Some of the students were gunned down as they attempted to flee. Others had their throats slit. In some buildings, Boko Haram militants locked the doors and set the building alight. The occupants were burned alive.
All of the victims were boys. Reports indicated that the young girls the militants encountered were spared. According to the BBC, the militants told the girls to flee, get married, and shun the western education to which they were privy."
So I leave you with this question, with such conditions present, is it not time that men and women stand up for humanity (yes men are part of humanity as well) so that we can march forward towards a better and safe future for BOTH men and women ?
Last edited:
