@SMC what are your opinions on gender inequality and misandry in pakistan?
This is an excellent question. While people across the world talk about gender inequality against women and misogyny in all cultures, many people have started to recognize the misandry in western countries. Second and third wave feminism just pushed it much further but did not begin the process. While I can talk more about misandry in western countries and how it is part of the western culture fabric, your question was about Pakistan. This is a rarely discussed topic because there is a lot of concoted non-sense about Islamic countries and how the genders are treated, in particular the women.
In Pakistan, you have the similar concept of the disposable male, of the man being the protector and provider, of the woman is always right and innocent and the man is wrong, of women attacking a man's manhood as a weapon to control him.
First, I will talk about the labour market. In western countries a long time ago, women didn't do jobs and stayed home. While feminists argue that this was "oppression" by the "patriarchy", the fact of the matter is the vast majority of jobs in the past involved significant physical labour which most women would rather not do. One exception was perhaps farming, where women did participate. With the industrial age, more and more jobs started becoming office-based with no exceptional physical demands, so women started moving out of their homes and into their workforce. But instead of appreciating men for creating an environment where they could work safely - an environment that shields them from elements of nature or allows them to work without requiring significant physical strength - they spit on men by coming up with concocted non-sense such as "women weren't allowed to work". As it's natural (and I will talk about this near the end), most men just went along with women's non-sense and bought into this.
Pakistan is currently in a similar stage. It is an industrializing nation, where large percent of women in urbans areas work, but in rural areas most jobs involve serious physical labour. Again, farming is an exception and women do participate in that area. However, in urban areas, office spaces are filled with women. Yet again, however, women spit in men's face by coming up with the same concoted non-sense as was done in western countries. And yet again, men are going along with this.
Next, I will talk about the generic relationship model. Men must get married and provide and protect the woman he married. Men are expected to have credentials such as a good job, a good education, be wealthy and be able to provide. The women raise children and optionally keep a job. Despite the major disparity in expections, it is not acceptable to ask for dowry from women and their families. Expecting anything from women before a marriage is bad, expecting the world from men before a marriage is all good. This of course sets the tone for the duration of the marriage.
If women do keep a job, the money they make is theirs to keep but the money made by the husband is used on the whole family (including on the woman). Like in western cultures, house chores and raising a child is made to look like a tedious full time job, nevermind the fact that the women spend most of their the time "on their job" watching soap operas, movies, calling friends and family and whatnot. Most men would love having such leisure during their "full time job", but they're generally shamed into not doing that as it's not "manly". OTOH, the man slaving away, just so he can provide resources to the family but keep little for himself, is expected and not appreciated.
This is the generic marriage model and any man not wanting to do this is shamed - particularly by women - because he's not doing his job of being a woman's resource slave. There is no secret that women get pissed off when a successful man doesn't shack up with a woman.
In the course of the marriage, the woman will attack a man's manhood (the typical "na-mard" ["you are not a real man"] comment) as a way to control the man and manipulate him into doing what she wants. This is considered normal and acceptable, and even encouraged. The society will do this as well, in order to shame the man into marrying or into performing various other tasks.
Next, consider education. As with other countries, most students in universities in urban areas are women. In the tribal areas, the terrorist groups are against education, but some would have you believe they are only against female education. The terrorists have blown up many boys schools, and in fact the vast majority of children killed in the Peshawar massacre were boys. However Malala is considered the poster-child for children's education. The reason why I dislike Malala is not because she stands up to extremism (and I in fact laud her for doing that) and for children's education (again, I laud her for that), but because if it was a male teenager that was attacked and survived in a similar manner, he would've been a side cover story. They talk about lesser female literacy than males, and they explain that with rhetorical non-sense simiilar to "patriarchy" but never perform any root cause analysis.
Speaking on terrorist groups, a lot of non-sense is concoted on how they treat women so much worse than men. However, they force boys and men into fighting for them. Sooner or later those men and boys die of course. They certainly don't force girls and women into fighting for them. They stone more men than women to death, but everyone only cares about the female victims (as usual, with any issue). In reality they treat women much better than men.
Speaking of honour killings, most of the victims are men. But pick up any media report and they will make it look like women are far more disproptionately killed than men.
Next, we can talk about societal attitudes. Chivalry, i.e. benevolent sexism, is widespread.
A woman can claim that some man did wrong to her, such as hit her or look at her in a bad way. Without even so as verifying the claim, hoards of white knights will descend upon to beat the living sh*t out of the man. This is true in most societies, but it is particularly true in Pakistan. Vast majority of males in Pakistan are white knights. Men must get out their seats on a bus if a woman gets into the bus but the bus is full. When a woman gets off a bus, the bus comes to a full stop. When a man gets off a bus, he does so while the bus is still running (although at a slower speed). A woman can hit a man but the man must never strike her back. These are societal double standards that both men and women have endorsed in Pakistan. Let me be clear, these are only some of the double standards that come to my mind while I write this. Many of the double standards that apply in western countries will apply in Pakistan as well. As I also write this, I can safely say that misandry is far ahead in India than in Pakistan. For example, false allegations of various kinds are common and are almost certainly going to get a man beat up and landed in jail.
All this leads to my conclusion - misandry, or to be exact, gynocentrism is natural. It exists in all cultures across the world. It is either dismissed as non-existent, or is endorsed by the society as "equality". Men are evolved to protect women. They will do anything that women tell them to do in order to make them happy. They will screw over other men in order to get female validation, all the while the females see them as utility tools.
Some men on this thread are dreaming of a world where 90% of people are female and 10% male, where they are among the 10% the males will be worshipped by the women. They are reading to screw over other men in big ways to get female validation. They seriously don't have any idea what's in store for them if that were to happen. Most women could not care less about men as people -- they only see them as utility tools. Like I mentioned, women have group-think mentality, particularly when it comes to gender relations. If a woman is wronged, they will speak against it together, whereas if a man is wronged, most men will not care and certainly very few women will care. Some people will actually laugh at the man being wronged. This is why I say gynocentrism is natural.
This can be demonstrated by various domestic violence experiments where a man hitting a woman results in everyone rushing in to stop the man, whereas the same woman clearly being violent against the man (even when they use objects that can cause significant physical damage) results at best in only some looks, but primarily indifference. And of course if the man strikes back, everyone assumes he's the perpetrator as demonstrated by the last few NFL and Chris Brown cases, where the women were doing significant physical damage the the men and when the men struck back it was referred to as "violence against women" BS.
It can also be demonstrated with male rape being laughed out, or in some cases "he must have wanted it", but female rape is considered equivalent to murder.
With all this being said, I would say Islamic countries such as those in the middle east and Pakistan treat both genders more equally than those in western countries. I can talk about gynocentrism in western countries in a separate thread. Gynocentrism in those countries is much further ahead than in Pakistan.
So while humans have come a long way in terms of knowledge and technology, sh*tting on men is still considered OK and often even encouraged.
). My point is, we should give this some thought before dismissing her as a wacko.
