What makes a good daughter-in-law

[Hell hound]

Haha you think i am blind. This is the kind of hyper feminism which has ruined "genuine feminism" movements in West.
But speaking of pakistan unfortunately pakistan has not even embarked on a journey of clearinh off barbaric practices like wani, faislay may dee janay wali larki and so much more.

i too am saving my energies with the expectation that this debate can go in that direction any moment

 

[I.R.A]

I didn't know Meera was this capable . I always thought people mock her for her English, but somehow her acting has managed a 37 page thread on PDF. Three cheers for Meera hip hip hurray.........

 

[abdulbarijan]

Yes thanks for reminding me exact definition of sexist. I knew that long time back it was used for any gender. Had not used this word for quite sometime , so had forgotten that it is used for both men and women. So today when you mentioned its roots i checked dictionary definition and this is what i found , it is a pre saved dictionary in my tablet , you have to highlight the word and click define and you get "prejudice, discrimination and stereotyping , typically against women on the basis of gender"

Now how did i lie or did not know correct definition of sexism? And even though i had forgotten the term is used for women too , what difference it made on my usage of it for you? I mean i am seriously not getting your nitpicking? I found you were biased towards other gender so i used the word sexist. Did i use the expression wrongly as per the definition? I mean seriously is this some point to pick on? If i find a women acting biased towards men which i actually i do, i would call them sexist too.

If divergent was sexist i would call her sexist but she is not . I find Manamas comments sexist and hyper feminist , i admit that. I wont shun away from calling a spade a spade.

I had mentioned ngo and rape incident discussions in response to your comment that i am labelling you sexist as a knee jerk reaction and just based on posts in current thread. My point was it was not on the spur of moment i had observed your posts for sometime before calling you that. My intention was not to start discussing seperate market and rape discussions here. I had expected you would reply to the other part of my post which was made in response to your earlier post.

Women only markets and rape news were not the discussions here. And honestly i can comment on them but i think that will be end up being a vicious cycle and a never ending loop. So I will bring the discussion to a pause over here.
Good day sir. Itna socha na karain. Khud bhi khush rahain doosron ko bhi khush rakhain.

-Instead of writing all what you have ... you could've simply written;

"I'm not going to address the points you made in regards to the basis of why I labelled you a sexist .... and that's because I simply cant, as with the details about those arguments revealed, it is now inconvenient to my narrative about you" ....

As far as that "other part" of your previous post goes, I didn't do that because I wanted to see you touch on the basis of why you labelled me ... which you say that you'd rather not ... which btw is frankly quite understandable at this point

then lets put sexism and wifes rights against each other. Would someone again be able to deny his wife a seperate home ? A peaceful environment to his family?

News flash ... under a social/legal system which has ' gender equality' in it's roots, it's not HIS responsibility TO PROVIDE FOR HER in the first place. Under that system, men and women don't have to adhere to their gender roles. Both of them are equal, and have the ability and opportunity to be financially independent, both of them have the complete freedom to go out and earn all they can and do with it what they want and agree on whatever living situation that they want.

 

[Verve]

In hand with and more about what the guy does, how much he is educated, if he is hard working, does he have a good character. Don't act like if none of this was correct they'd still go with 'but his family is wealthy' and hand their daughter over. No.

Pretending the world is ideal is insanity.

A girls raised in 10 Marla house is highly unlikely to go to a 5 Marla house.

And you claim to be from privileged so will your parents choose (or even consider) a PHD student with good character, clean history, £45k annual job (£2.7k net per month) and living in his owned 2 bedroom council estate house over another guy from a more privileged background educated just to Bachelor's level, has a not a clean history and running his father's business (£1m plus earner)? Let's assume council estate resident is better looking as well. And it's a fully arranged marriage. And the council estate guy will not take any kind of financial assistance to move to a posh residence, he doesn't want a penny from anyone, a man of high integrity and principles.

Now go ask your daddy and then ask yourself the same question - who would be chosen!!

 

[Divergent]

Pretending the world is ideal is insanity.

A girls raised in 10 Marla house is highly unlikely to go to a 5 Marla house.

And you claim to be from privileged so will your parents choose (or even consider) a PHD student with good character, clean history, £45k annual job (£2.7k net per month) and living in his owned 2 bedroom council estate house over another guy from a more privileged background educated just to Bachelor's level, has a not a clean history and running his father's business (£1m plus earner)? Let's assume council estate resident is better looking as well. And it's a fully arranged marriage. And the council estate guy will not take any kind of financial assistance to move to a posh residence, he doesn't want a penny from anyone, a man of high integrity and principles.

Now go ask your daddy and then ask yourself the same question - who would be chosen!!

Stop creating irrelevant scenarios that contribute a nil to the subject because the chances of that not common.

 

[ShoutB]

can't comment
kal meri bhi shadi honi hai Bhai... lol

 

[Verve]

Stop creating irrelevant scenarios that contribute a nil to the subject because the chances of that not common.

And your hypocrisy stands totally exposed!

There's nothing more to add here.

 

[Divergent]

And your hypocrisy stands totally exposed!

There's nothing more to add here.

There's no hypocrisy. It's simple are you plain thick or can you not comprehend? Women are entitled to their houses GLOBALLY. No one brought Pakistan in, but if you're referring to Pakistan too then those who are ABLE. There's No mention of 'those who are poor still have to etc' as well as if it works for some with consensus from their Mrs fair enough. Good on them.

You seem to nick pick little points and create bs unrealistic scenarios that Are rare.

FYI: majority of the community is breaking from this tradition and good on them.

Nothing to add here either.

 

[El Sidd]

can't comment
kal meri bhi shadi honi hai Bhai... lol

Kal kisne dekha ha.... Comment krne ka kash krlen

 

[abdulbarijan]

And apparently having a house/flat on rent which one CAN afford or is cheaper is an issue. From what I've established they're not interested in giving women their right but to avoid bluntly saying it and stick cultural backward norms would prefer sugar coating it with costs. Lol

Observe...

I have always said that if affordable and can look after the parents as well then all good.

Is she allowed her home with in her rights? absolutely, the religion says so, so who am I or anyone to question the right that Allah has afforded you.

The problem is you think that realistic economic issues are "sugar coating" it, No madam, not when the economic issues are literally the issue of the majority i.e. 60% of the population in Pakistan, which lives under $2 a day, as per PBS.

Money doesn't exactly grow on trees, you actually have to work for it. Your constant trivialization of financial issues and dare I say "naive-ness" to realistic financial issues facing majority of the population, is akin to a certain supposedly, french princess, who upon learning that the country people had no bread to eat, stated" Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" ... i.e. 'Let them eat cake.'

 

[Divergent]

Observe...

The problem is you think that realistic economic issues are "sugar coating" it, No madam, not when the economic issues are literally the issue of the majority i.e. 60% of the population in Pakistan, which lives under $2 a day, as per PBS.

Money doesn't exactly grow on trees, you actually have to work for it. Your constant trivialization of financial issues and dare I say "naive-ness" to realistic financial issues facing majority of the population, is akin to a certain supposedly, french princess, who upon learning that the country people had no bread to eat, stated" Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" ... i.e. 'Let them eat cake.'

 

[abdulbarijan]

All good

Was taking a little break from this topic specifically but this seems like an endless pit tbh! So many confused lot totally disconnected from realities of practical life. 'I want' is all I read between the lines.

Wanted to throw in poor, middle class, and upper middle class comparisons and review but these people at young age (& from well off families) are so hardlined already, imagine what they will be like when they are older .... a total nightmare for their own kids they would be if hard financial times hit on them yet they think that they are so open minded right now

Thats because most people haven't seen what an economic crisis looks like ...

 

[Ocean]

-Instead of writing all what you have ... you could've simply written;

"I'm not going to address the points you made in regards to the basis of why I labelled you a sexist .... and that's because I simply cant, as with the details about those arguments revealed, it is now inconvenient to my narrative about you" ....

As far as that "other part" of your previous post goes, I didn't do that because I wanted to see you touch on the basis of why you labelled me ... which you say that you'd rather not ... which btw is frankly quite understandable at this point
News flash ... under a social/legal system which has ' gender equality' in it's roots, it's not HIS responsibility TO PROVIDE FOR HER in the first place. Under that system, men and women don't have to adhere to their gender roles. Both of them are equal, and have the ability and opportunity to be financially independent, both of them have the complete freedom to go out and earn all they can and do with it what they want and agree on whatever living situation that they want.

Yes in equality it is not his responsibility to provide for her. In equality both men and women share expenses- equally or whatever they have agreed upon. And under principles of equality it is his wifes right to have her own house , and she is under no obligation to cook for her husband and take care of his parents. she can act fully rude and inflexible by demanding a seperate house even if her husbands parents are ailing and old. And in that new setup she will also share costs of her house. See the difference between our duaghter in laws and white peoples daughter in laws. Their dils are not bad but they are never as considerate and courteous in taking care of in laws as our women do.

Btw even islamically no woman is under any compulsion to not go out and be financially independent.

Lastly, you have no arguments left anywhere , you have been beating about the bush for over 5-6 pages. I do not even know what do you want to argue over,? you throw one argument the other person counters it,you nitpick something else , when replied to it you further break it down into so many parts that it loses any sense. This is exactly what verve had been doing too.

Sexism has nothing to do with egalitarian or whatever such societies , it just means biasedness based on gender. If you think that term should only be restricted for western societies , tho that is not the case, then fine we can use another expression in its place and that is callled gender-bias. Now you will pick this expression and nitpick further into it about this and that scenario, which would not mean anything.

1.) I called you sexist because i would see you with loads of complaints about almost everything in almost every thread related to women.

2.) i said if seperate home Is possible must be given, my reason was not just for wifes sake but also for the sake of peace of husband and for having a bigger house with more room for kids and whole family. I thought collectively.

3.) i talked abt seperate house because in majority of pakistani households dils are assigned lot of housework which is not their business but silly societal customs impose all of that on her as her obligations she must fulfill.

4.) i showed a lot of flexibility and argued losely on scenarios.

5.) then suddenly you appeared up and said i called you sexist which is a based on concept that gender bias is due to religion , and i am using religion as an argument give her a house. I do not even get how these two things co relate? I mean is that really some argument ? When all the time i said i used the term sexist based on dictionary definition and would not use it based on any reference towards religion. And having biasedness against women or men due to their genders does not only happen in west but also in pakistan and othe rparts of the world, so we would always need a term to describe that biasedness. Sexist is the only dictionary term which covers that. Man you really went further into nitpicking this! I just can not believe you.

Imean God i do not even whats happening here. Your whole set of arguments are like one huge entagled wool ball . One never knows what do you even want to talk about.

And you have Won the argument . Mubarak ho bohat bohat. This is my last post for you on this topic. Phew!

 

[Verve]

There's no hypocrisy. It's simple are you plain thick or can you not comprehend? Women are entitled to their houses GLOBALLY. No one brought Pakistan in, but if you're referring to Pakistan too then those who are ABLE. There's No mention of 'those who are poor still have to etc' as well as if it works for some with consensus from their Mrs fair enough. Good on them.

You seem to nick pick little points and create bs unrealistic scenarios that Are rare.

FYI: majority of the community is breaking from this tradition and good on them.

Oh, now you are talking Globally when $8 per month was about Pakistan! hahaha ... talk of goal post shifting ... gosh ..

Most of your argument and assumptions are BS of high grade. You are preaching gibberish that you won't practice yourself as marrying an educated and good guy living in a council estate however would be an insult to you, yet you say 'financials' do not matter at all. Yeah right!

divergent
dʌɪˈvəːdʒ(ə)nt,dɪˈvəːdʒ(ə)nt/
adjective

1. 1.
   tending to be different or develop in different directions.
   "divergent interpretations"
   synonyms: differing, varying, different, dissimilar, unlike, unalike, disparate, contrasting,contrastive, antithetical;
   opposed, disagreeing, conflicting, clashing, incompatible,contradictory;
   at odds, at variance, in opposition

* Contradictory = Inconsistent

Befitting nick name!

 

[Divergent]

Oh, now you are talking Globally when $8 per month was about Pakistan! hahaha ... talk of goal post shifting ... gosh ..

Most of your argument and assumptions are BS of high grade. You are preaching gibberish that you won't practice yourself as marrying an educated and good guy living in a council estate however would be an insult to you, yet you say 'financials' do not matter at all. Yeah right!

divergent
dʌɪˈvəːdʒ(ə)nt,dɪˈvəːdʒ(ə)nt/
adjective

1. 1.
   tending to be different or develop in different directions.
   "divergent interpretations"
   synonyms: differing, varying, different, dissimilar, unlike, unalike, disparate, contrasting,contrastive, antithetical;
   opposed, disagreeing, conflicting, clashing, incompatible,contradictory;
   at odds, at variance, in opposition

* Contradictory = Inconsistent

Befitting nick name!

Are you plain thick? Really is this what you always tend to do get personal?

Where have I said it is compulsory irrespective of a person's financial situation? Your argument reaks horsesh**

If it doesn't work for you and your partner is happy with it go for it. It's not a hard full throttle decision which is endorsed with immediate effect without being oblivious to people's financial circumstances.

I don't understand why you're going on with yourself because to me it can't get any more reasonable than that and you're talking about Pakistan like it's only limited to that?

Quit being a little boy.

I still stand my ground. Bye bye.

Yes in equality it is not his responsibility to provide for her. In equality both men and women share expenses- equally or whatever they have agreed upon. And under principles of equality it is his wifes right to have her own house , and she is under no obligation to cook for her husband and take care of his parents. she can act fully rude and inflexible by demanding a seperate house even if her husbands parents are ailing and old. And in that new setup she will also share costs of her house. See the difference between our duaghter in laws and white peoples daughter in laws. Their dils are not bad but they are never as considerate and courteous in taking care of in laws as our women do.

Btw even islamically no woman is under any compulsion to not go out and be financially independent.

Lastly, you have no arguments left anywhere , you have been beating about the bush for over 5-6 pages. I do not even know what do you want to argue over,? you throw one argument the other person counters it,you nitpick something else , when replied to it you further break it down into so many parts that it loses any sense. This is exactly what verve had been doing too.

Sexism has nothing to do with egalitarian or whatever such societies , it just means biasedness based on gender. If you think that term should only be restricted for western societies , tho that is not the case, then fine we can use another expression in its place and that is callled gender-bias. Now you will pick this expression and nitpick further into it about this and that scenario, which would not mean anything.

1.) I called you sexist because i would see you with loads of complaints about almost everything in almost every thread related to women.

2.) i said if seperate home Is possible must be given, my reason was not just for wifes sake but also for the sake of peace of husband and for having a bigger house with more room for kids and whole family. I thought collectively.

3.) i talked abt seperate house because in majority of pakistani households dils are assigned lot of housework which is not their business but silly societal customs impose all of that on her as her obligations she must fulfill.

4.) i showed a lot of flexibility and argued losely on scenarios.

5.) then suddenly you appeared up and said i called you sexist which is a based on concept that gender bias is due to religion , and i am using religion as an argument give her a house. I do not even get how these two things co relate? I mean is that really some argument ? When all the time i said i used the term sexist based on dictionary definition and would not use it based on any reference towards religion. And having biasedness against women or men due to their genders does not only happen in west but also in pakistan and othe rparts of the world, so we would always need a term to describe that biasedness. Sexist is the only dictionary term which covers that. Man you really went further into nitpicking this! I just can not believe you.

Imean God i do not even whats happening here. Your whole set of arguments are like one huge entagled wool ball . One never knows what do you even want to talk about.

And you have Won the argument . Mubarak ho bohat bohat. This is my last post for you on this topic. Phew!

Precisely! Nailed it.