What's new

Talat Hussain : sexist, misogynist and racist

sparklingway

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
3,878
Reaction score
0
If you had any respect for this flotilla hunk, you are about to lose it.

Update : Forgot to add, he's racist too. "ranga barangay yateem bachay" is symbolic of his racism.

Update 2 : Better takedown posted.

The Beard in the Stomach
Don't you just hate it when the facade of liberal, sensible urbane-ness you have so carefully constructed over years and years comes crashing down with one ill-conceived article that you thought would have the masses lauding your cleverness but which exposes you for the parochial, narrow-minded bigot you really are?

Syed Talat Hussain, finally officially confirmed as having been imported into DawnNews, must be feeling like that right now.

The article in question was published in the Urdu daily Express as an op-ed piece yesterday under the title "Jolie Ka Thhappar" [Jolie's Slap in the Face], and has rightly caused an uproar among most of those people who read it. Not because of the thrust of its main point, which was criticism of the government's alleged insensitivity to the plight of the flood affected - based on media reports of an allegedly leaked confidential report by UNHCR's goodwill ambassador Angelina Jolie to the organization after her visit to Pakistan - but in how he viciously maligned Angelina Jolie's character to build his case.

Here is how Let Us Build Pakistan / CriticalPPP, the first blog to call attention to the piece, took on Talat, and here is how our friend Kalakawa hilariously deconstructed him.

In essence, Hussain went on a diatribe against Jolie's personal life, her "immoral" lifestyle, her allegedly selfish and cut-throat nature, her alleged hypocrisy and manipulation in adopting children and even her "plain" looks - most of his 'facts' are in fact made up or sensationalized - only to build the case, right at the end, that even an 'immoral and wayward woman' like Jolie was deserving of more respect than the government since she at least criticized it for its peripheral preoccupations during the flood crisis. If you think that is a rather convoluted way of attacking the government, you would be dead right.

What Hussain has actually shown up with his words is his own sexism, his own bigotry, his own racism (he actually derides Jolie's children as "rang barangay yateem bachay" or 'multi-coloured orphan kids'), his own homophobia and his own amazingly parochial nature. He has conclusively proved, if it needed to be proved, that the paet ki daarrhi (beard in the stomach i.e. concealed bigotry) has a way of coming out at some point or the other. He has also shown how some hypocrites in the media write in one style for the Urdu-reading public and maintain quite a different persona for the English readership (perhaps he thought those who read English papers would never actually read his column in Urdu).

But you could not possibly understand why I say all of this without reading the article itself. For those who cannot read the purple prose in the original Urdu, here is my translation of it which tries to remain as true as possible to Hussain's style and meaning:

Jolie’s Slap in the Face

By Syed Talat Hussain

"Hollywood superstar Angelina Jolie’s life is a tortuous and colourful tale. This 36-year-old woman has suffered all those misfortunes about which her fans (I am not one of them) are all praise [sic] and which some of them enjoy thinking about. At a very tender age, she had adopted many of the habits of adulthood because father and mother could not bear living together and so this little girl and her brother were forced to live outside a family structure, with her mother. Madam hated traditions right from the start and thus constantly ran away from home to try and live life on her own terms. Finally, bidding farewell to even these broken relationships, she began working in the theatre (In America, theatre and prostitution are two different professions, readers are advised not to draw the wrong conclusions based on Pakistan’s example).

Because her looks were average, she couldn’t make much of a mark in acting. If one takes a look at Angelina Jolie’s photographs from that time, her face wouldn’t even invite a second glance: hollow cheeks, triangular nose, big startled-looking eyes and lips like an uncovered clay pot, no glow on her face nor the vitality of youth in her body. This is why, in order to advance her film career, she relied on marriages. She established relationships with well known filmmakers and thus inducted herself in the race for big budget films. Then with unflagging energy she worked hard to convert those opportunities into making a name for herself that is the envy of every good actress.

Angelina’s personal life is full of going against all those values that in every society lay the foundations of distinguishing good from bad. She is famously known as someone who can cross any limits to achieve her objectives. Her critics bestow titles such as “Sorceress” and “Queen of Hell” on her. In circles close to her it is said that, were murder not punishable by life in prison, Angelina Jolie would quite happily kill with her own hands any woman or man who came in her way, because softness is not part of her character.

According to some reports, the lady treats substance addiction like a profession and every year experiments with new substances to regularly nurture this disease. Besides her ambition for climbing the ladder of success, she also enjoys loving women (what you understand from this is right!). According to a recent newspaper report, Angelina Jolie calls herself the mistress of Sapphic love and considers these despicable experiences among the best of her life. According to her, only a woman can really understand the delicate emotions of another woman. Men, despite all their attempts, can never achieve the standard that is the apogee of women’s real desires.

Angelina Jolie has also made provisions to deflect attention away from these dark aspects of her life. That is why she has adopted multi-coloured orphaned kids to project herself as the goddess of motherly warmth and empathy. Her expert public relations machine has presented these aspects of her in such an effective way that the United Nations appointed this Hollywood actress as a goodwill ambassador. What special education or skills Angelina possesses to be appointed to this position, we do not know. Up until now, her biography does not reveal any period in which she shows herself to be proving her mastery of international affairs. In a life studded with addiction and intoxication and moral waywardness, if there is any glittering star, it is her efforts in the profession of film. Other than that, this lady does not live up to any standards and then Eastern standards are far higher than her character demonstrates.

If you have any doubt about this claim, open up the Constitution of Pakistan. Take out Articles 62 and 63. What do they say? Does it not say this: We who consider ourselves the flag-bearers of Eastern traditions, will consider those the best amongst us, who in addition to achieving excellence in other affairs, “possess a good character, do not go against the laws of Islam, do not commit great sins, are pious, and not involved in moral turpitude” etc. etc.? Our concept of piety is rooted in the assumption that those people who do not possess these traits in their personal life cannot have a position of respect in society. Be it in everyday life or matters of state, characters like Angelina Jolie, be they Muslim or non-Muslim, should remain deprived of respect. Indeed, had Angelina Jolie admitted to her shenanigans while living in Pakistan, she would have been stoned to death many times over.

But even this filmic woman drowning in her Westernisms has enough of a glimmer of values remaining in her to understand that pushing and shoving distressed flood affected people because of [official] protocol is a bad thing. In her report to the UN upon her return back from Pakistan, Angelina Jolie has expressed surprise that, at a time when 10 million people are restless with hunger, she was feted like royalty in the Prime Minister House. The prime minister’s family traveled in a special plane to come and meet her and give her gifts. This report is such a slap on the face that, if a person’s blood is not already cold, the redness of his cheeks would be visible to the entire nation. I don’t know why, after this report of her experiences in Pakistan, this Hollywood actress seems more worthy of respect than her prominent hosts. And I wonder if the hosts have learnt any lessons from this actress’ morals."

Just to set the record straight about Jolie:

1. She has been married twice, to actors Johnny Lee Miller and Billy Bob Thornton, neither of whom fall in the category of people who could give her a leg up in big budget films (in fact, how many people even know who Miller is?). She currently lives with actor Brad Pitt, whom she met long after she had become famous, and she has publicly said that she does not want to marry again until gay people also have the same right.

2. She has won one Oscar for Best Supporting Actress, two Screen Actors Guild awards and three Golden Globe awards, hardly someone you would classify as a non-serious actor who only got to stardom by sleeping her way through. In fact, there is no evidence (documented or gossiped about) of relationships with any directors or producers.

3. Where Hussain picked up his quotes about Jolie's intensely ambitious nature is a complete mystery (maybe Hussain spends his time reading The National Enquirer or has a yen for Brad Pitt's ex, Jennifer Aniston). In fact, Jolie has often expressed a desire to quit acting altogether to spend more time with her family.

4. She has never been accused, to my knowledge, of substance addiction, though she has admitted experimenting with drugs in her teenage years and has openly talked about her rebellious phase during adolescence.

5. The post of Goodwill Ambassador at the UN is predicated only on celebrities who wish to use their fame to advocate for causes the UN agencies wish to bring attention to. It has nothing to do with being experts in international relations. Jolie was appointed Goodwill Ambassador by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) because she is a famous actress, not because of the children she adopted.

Contrary to the sensationalist claptrap that this article peddles about Jolie, this is what we DO learn without doubt about Syed Talat Hussain from this article:

1. He believes all divorced or single parent families are unnatural and it is impossible to grow up happy or well-adjusted in them.

2. He hates people who hate traditions, no matter how stifling, and rebel against them.

3. He thinks all theatre actors in Pakistan are prostitutes. Actresses and perhaps all showbiz people are not worthy of any respect.

4. He enjoys making fun of people's looks, even if they are adolescent children.

5. He thinks that anyone who rebels against society's norms is destroying the good in society. Anyone who advocates equal rights for people based not on their gender, race or sexual orientation - as Jolie does - is the scum of the earth.

6. He has no problem making **** up to justify his claims.

7. He really, and I mean REALLY, hates gay people or even those who try and break down the barriers of discrimination against them through their words. He thinks of homosexuality as moral turpitude and despicable.

8. He can't imagine how any woman might find more fulfillment from another woman than a virile man.

9. He mocks children.

10. He has deep-rooted racial prejudices.

11. He thinks adoption is unnatural and is done out of pity by people as a public relations exercise.

12. He thinks everyone in the UN is a moron who gets fooled easily by PR machines.

13. He is xenophobic and thinks there is a clear line between Western and "superior" Eastern values. He also believes the West is irretrievably morally "corrupt" as evidenced by the 'looseness' of its women.

14. He thinks Article 62 and 63 of the Pakistan Constitution - inserted by the hypocritical dictator General Ziaul Haq to manipulate the parliament - are the epitome of Eastern values.

15. He thinks stoning people to death for their personal lifestyle choices or expression of opinion is acceptable.

16. He thinks it is okay to throw mud on someone's personal life to titillate readers as long as you are just marshalling your sleaze to make an unconnected point. Even if that person is completely unknown to you and has only gone out of their way to garner sympathy for the same people you claim to be fighting for.


Most people probably do not remember the fact that this cretin of a pseudo-intellectual was often himself accused (unfairly in my opinion), in the early part of his journalistic career, of being an empty-headed boy-toy for his female boss. They also probably do not remember the vile homophobic rant he once wrote (about 10 years or so ago) as an op-ed in The News, which is no longer available in the archives on the net (if anyone can find it, please do send it along to us). But we do, even if Hussain has tried to erase this past with a carefully cultivated image of sensibility and balance. Most, however, might recall that he is as fond of invoking the bogey of "liberal extremist", to label anyone who argues for secularism or progressive politics or offers dissent against antiquated societal norms, as people like Shireen Mazari, Ahmad Quraishi, Ansar Abbasi and Hamid Mir (great club you have there Talat). Someone should ask him to actually define what a "liberal extremist" is and how many of them actually exist in this country for them to be constantly used to scare people. We might learn some more about him.

There has also been a lot of speculation about where the well-spring of this anger and bitterness against Jolie actually arises from. Personally, I think Jolie probably ignored LittleMullahBoy on her trip to Pakistan, something his narcissistic ego just could not take.

But whatever the reason, we know now what the Express' idea of editorial decency is, and we also know another thing for sure: the Dawn Media Group really should reconsider long and hard about who it is taking on. Does Syed Talat Hussain really represent the values Dawn claims to uphold?

http://cafepyala.blogspot.com/2010/10/beard-in-stomach.html

Shame on you Talat Hussain!

Syed Talat Hussain ‘was’ an esteemed columnist, television host and journalist of Pakistan, until today when he targeted someone for following their own harmless cultural norms. In his column in the Urdu daily Express News, he targets the famous Hollywood actress Angelina Jolie in his shameful effort to target the current civilian government of Pakistan. The article reproduced below gives an insight in to the way of thinking that is standard of Pakistan’s new found pseudo intellectuals. The article is titled ‘Jolie ka thhapparh’ or ‘Jolie’s slap’ referring to her criticism of inconvenience and lack of empathy in maintaining the security protocols of politicians while they visit the flood affectees.

The article instead of taking the valid approach taken by many bloggers and columnists, whereby they portray Jolie as an objective outsider, who has more sympathy than those who hold positions of power chooses to takes a shocking alternative route. He chooses to portray Angelina Jolie as a characterless, good-for-nothing and sham actress, who had her acting career propelled by the casting couch in the wake of her lack of appeal and her publicly confessed bi-sexual orientation. He further declares her adoption of kids as a cover up for her past life and concludes the article by pointing out that even such a lowly person had more sense than our politicians.

For those who cannot comprehend Urdu, a summarized translation follows each paragraph.


New+Bitmap+Image.bmp

The opening paragraph introduces Angelina Jolie as a Hollywood actress, hints at her scandalous life and comments on her ever present contempt for social norms. She had (sexually) matured early (read slut), however, being ugly was a complete failure in the acting world.

New+Bitmap+Image.bmp

She took to political-marriages to advance her career, fully utilizing each opportunity that came her way. Her thirst for success was devoid of any limitations so much so that she has contravened every value that forms the basis of a society’s morality. The highlight of her continuous social experimenting is her self-professed stint at sapphism.

New+Bitmap+Image.bmp

To blackout her ‘past’ Angelina Jolie has taken to adopting an ‘assortment’ of kids. This was publicized by her PR managers so effectively that despite want of ethics in general and Eastern values in particular she was made the United Nations Goodwill Ambassador. If you doubt my stance open up the Constitution of Pakistan and turn to Article 62 and 63 which dictates the need for people to be good character, to not violate Islamic values, avoid sinfulness, be sagacious etc. Our notion is based on the principle that be they Muslims or Non-Muslims, people with lack of (good) qualities as Angelina Jolie should remain disgraced at all times. Had she been in Pakistan she would have been (rightfully) stoned to death multiple times.

New+Bitmap+Image.bmp

But even a movie star, drenched in westernism had the decency to realize that inconveniencing flood affected people with protocol is inhumane. She recounts in her UN report that in such dire times the house of the Prime Minister had a lavish feast followed by a private in-flight by the PM’s family. The report is a slap in the face (of Pakistani leadership). For what reason?! This Hollywood actress would be feeling more honored than her Honorable hosts.


After reading the article apart from the fact that I fail to see the purpose of the same, I am appalled at the writer’s way of thinking. His obsession to impose Eastern values on Ms Jolie is beyond me and so is his persistence in alleging that she continually contravenes Western values, known only to Mr Talat Hussain himself. He does not find Ms Jolie attractive (for that I can only pity you Sir), makes an evil vicious witch out of her for being an actress and having scandals probably every person in Hollywood has.

He also has problems with her adoption of kids and more than anything her being selected as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Goodwill Ambassador. He is so spiteful of the superstar’s appointment (due to her having no feathers in her cap bar some acting), that he did not even bother to look up the purpose of such appointments, which is to ‘use their talent and fame’ to advocate the cause of refugees.

One can understand Mr Hussain’s compassion for Islamic values but the same values dictate him to refrain from thrusting them on non-Muslims let alone giving fatwas against them for not obeying the Islamic code. However, what is not understandable is the disappearance of this compassion when Taliban are going on a rampage bombing mosques, men and boys go missing in Balochistan and barbershops are forcefully shut down in the tribal areas and when the Lal Masjid’s moulvis issue threats of suicide bombings and kidnap police personnel.

The article takes the thanklessness and paranoia that permeate certain sections of our society to a whole new level. Saner voices should prevail if the society is to prosper, therefore it is imperative to condemn Mr Talat Hussain’s slanderous article against a person who came to help the people of Pakistan in their time of need. Thank you Angelina Jolie and walk away Talat Hussain with your head hung in shame.

Green goat's hide: Shame on You Talat Hussain!!
 
Here is the link to the newspaper of the day this article was published.
I had to check myself, because it was a really low standard article.
E-paper :: Daily Express


Maybe he was trying to prove that someone like Angelina who has a terribly flawed character is still a much better human than our PM who is supposed to be the descendant of one of the greatest saints in the history of Islam.
However he really lost his bearings and showed a side of him which i have not liked personally.

I too find this article a bad one because he is instead focusing on the flaws of Angelina rather than all the good work she is doing which is indeed her path to salvation.
However the real pathetic thing is that he disregards her good deeds as a cover up.
Pray tell me what she is covering up if we all agree she has done it all?

Certainly we cannot ever disregard the good work someone does by focusing on their flaws alone, this has not ever been the way of Islam which demands a high moral code of humanity.
In the eyes of Allah, even a tiny grain of sand's worth of a good deed is acknowledged and rewarded...whereas Angelina is certainly a flawed character, the good she does is also significant and worth praise.

We never know what shall happen on the judgment day, but there cannot be a case where someone's good deeds amount to nothing in front of the creator.
 
Everyone of us is biased to a certain extent towards attitudes not deemed appreciable ... Talat is no exception he is a very good and daring journalist otherwise .
 
Maybe he was trying to prove that someone like Angelina who has a terribly flawed character is still a much better human than our PM who is supposed to be the descendant of one of the greatest saints in the history of Islam.


I agree to this. I read the article and found it a satire. I don't think Talat intended to portray Angelina in a bad light.. he was setting it up for the last para. He intended to show that someone who might be perceived as a charachter-less person in our society has more sense about our misery than our own rulers. That's my reading.

I also think the title of the thread should be changed because it is derogatory in itslef!
 
I dont see anything wrong in this article. The message he wanted to give is in the last few lines and I fully agree with him. Most of what he has written about the actress is true.

The article is very clear and the message is very clear I dont know whats the fuss.
 
I agree to this. I read the article and found it a satire. I don't think Talat intended to portray Angelina in a bad light.. he was setting it up for the last para. He intended to show that someone who might be perceived as a charachter-less person in our society has more sense about our misery than our own rulers. That's my reading.

I also think the title of the thread should be changed because it is derogatory in itslef!

You don't write homophobic, misogynisyic, racist scandalous rants to make that point. Sahab ki pait ki darhi bahir a gayi. I think she declined the mullah boy an interview and he's stuck with his flotzilla image. About the title, I think he deserves it. Any mod disagreeing can change it, no ego problems here. And please spare me any you-worship-jolie replies.
 
You don't write homophobic, misogynisyic, racist scandalous rants to make that point. Sahab ki pait ki darhi bahir a gayi. I think she declined the mullah boy an interview and he's stuck with his flotzilla image. About the title, I think he deserves it. Any mod disagreeing can change it, no ego problems here. And please spare me any you-worship-jolie replies.

There is no Mullahism here an ordinary pakistani will think in similar ways. "Enlightened and Moderated" are still an exception in Pakistan.
 
Ethical standards of journalism have no relevance to him?

As i said, the article [as i see it] seems to be a satire. I don't see it as a violation of ethical standards of journalism. If it were, it was the job of the editors to make sure it didn't run.

You also wrote that she might have declined him an interview and Talat might be trying to score a point. The article actually paints her in good light if you read the last para. And, this is all this article is about in my view!
 
As i said, the article [as i see it] seems to be a satire. I don't see it as a violation of ethical standards of journalism. If it were, it was the job of the editors to make sure it didn't run.

You also wrote that she might have declined him an interview and Talat might be trying to score a point. The article actually paints her in good light if you read the last para. And, this is all this article is about in my view!

This isn't a satire in any way. There isn't a form of satire where you write this stuff. Problem is the aura of moral superiority that is contradicting what he saw. Can't reconcile the fact that somebody he considers morally vile and despicable is altruistic. Since altruism and humanism are traits found only and exclusively in self righteous moralist good super muslims, the contradiction forced him to write this vile and venomous rant. Fill in some sexual and sapphic stories, remind people that they wank off to Gia and they've got an exotic fascination with her , balance it with moralistic judgments and make you feel absolved of the arousal you had minutes ago. Be racist and misogynistic and make your point. Tell people her acts aren't any good since the thing that matters is not virtue but being judgmental about other peoples lives.

He wrote an anti gay rant in The News some years ago as well where he was all despicable-homos-stone-them.

We can agree to disagree.
 
We can agree to disagree.

What you wrote didn't cross my mind when i first read the article. Perhaps you are reading too much into it. I cannot say for sure what Talat's intention was in writing the article the way he did. My view about the ultimate aim of the article remains the same, though i do concede he could have done it in a more civil manner.
 
what i understand from this article is
.
Tallat wants to say that
History of Angelina is very very bad
but still she have a kind heart and she cane for help
and
then he compared her with Pakistani Prime minister
who dont have any good feeling for flood effecties
and
that
Angelina with this history is far far far better then him
.
.

THIS IS REALLY A VERY VERY GOD ARTICLE FOR THOSE WHO REALLY UNDERSTAND IT
 
But even a movie star, drenched in westernism had the decency to realize that inconveniencing flood affected people with protocol is inhumane. She recounts in her UN report that in such dire times the house of the Prime Minister had a lavish feast followed by a private in-flight by the PM’s family. The report is a slap in the face (of Pakistani leadership). For what reason?! This Hollywood actress would be feeling more honored than her Honorable hosts.
What he is saying in the end is not the way you have put it. He has clearly narrated in this manner
" I don't know why but after her personal account of her experience in Pakistan she is looking more honorable than her respectable hosts. Don't know if the hosts learned anything from the morality of this actress".
Have an impartial person translate it, Just because you cant apprehend the obvious there is no need to misguide people.
Talat's intention's for portraying Angelina as a charismatic figure are pretty evident from this para. Feel free to disagree in your usual grandiloquence.
 

Military Forum Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom