From: hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: **Female Pakstudent and burqa
Date: 6 Apr 1992 17:37:58 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: pageboy.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Apr1.141916.14288@linus.mitre.org> 
	m21757@mitre.org (G) writes:
>In article <kthc80INNkf1@pageboy.cs.utexas.edu> 
	hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder) writes:
|| Do people think that the concept of "segregation" in Islam is
|| discriminatory? I have found in my observations for the
|
|yes. But the real question is how much of the segregation that you see in 
|'Islamic' societies today is from the prophet's (PBUH) time and how much 
|of it is add-ons from subsequent interactions with other cultures?  For 
|instance as I recall, (this is from a hadith, from memory now) the 
|injunction for Muslim women to wear a cloak was for the purpose of 
|delineating them as 'free' women, who should not be harassed.  As it seems 
|that if you were not of a certain social class men were free to approach 
|women and 'posture' in a gross sexually implict fashion and otherwise 
|harass them.

No arguments with above. I am myself had been at pains to point
out that our society is not an ideal. We must struggle to reform it.
It is because of all this
divergence away from that straight path, that has made us
the slave of the "interests" of the powers that be.

|
|| last four years in USA, that the so called "liberation" of
|| women has resulted in nothing but her "cheap and easy availability
|| as sexual objects to be enjoyed and discarded". It is this
|| same observation which has galvanized and motivated  the
|| Christian extreme right in this country (typified by
|| Pat Buchanan) to take up cudgel agains the so called "liberators".
|
|With every good also comes bad, and vice versa.  I also don't like the 
|"cheap and easy availability as sexual objects to be enjoyed and 
|discarded".  So do we get rid  of that mindset and call men to task for 
|this (stopping it at the source),  or do we throw out the baby with the 
|bathwater?

No, just make the couple enjoying the intercourse, resposible for
whatever costs that may accrue from it. Be it a child, the 
problem of career or whatever. Time for "choice" is not when
the results come in from the lab, but when the choice
for coupalation is made. (Interestingly, enough this reminds
me of the "commit-protocols" in the transaction theory in
Computer science. When should one commit oneself? Looking
at all the problems, abortion debate, single family etc, I
am now convinced that the time to commit is at the time
of intercourse not later on).
|
|| 
|| Only yesterday, on PBS was the timely documentary of Bill Moyers
|| titled "Families First"! The Florida Judge, the "Home Buiders"
|| (name of the social group working for mending the faimilies) and
|| the Govt. officials were all unanimous in saying that there
|| is (i) no substitute for a family
||    (ii) a "Foster home" can never be a substitute for the family.
||    (iii) Family is the most efficient unit economics has ever
||          known.
||    (iv) Just watch the emotional torture of the children
||         given in foster care and one will realize the folly
||         of deriding the family.
|
|It is unfortunate that the women's movement may have belittled the family, 
|however, today's women do not belittle the family.  Women today _have_ to 
|work along with their husbands just to stand still in economic terms.  
|Also if it is possible to have an emphasis on the extended family that 
|would lessen the burden on the family as a whole.  When you say foster 
|care, I assume you mean day care is that correct?  After all the prophet 
|(PBUH) was sent away for 'foster care' for x years in his early, early, 
|life.  I think the main intention of the women's movement was for equal 
|economic opportunity, not the debasement of women.

Exceptions prove the rule. It is of course, impossible to provide
"family" for every person of the society. But, doesthis in any way
imply that the concept of family itself is suspect? Foster care
is ofcourse necessary, but only for exceptional cases. When exceptions
are made the rule then problems occur. Let's keep the exceptions to
what they are, exceptions!

|| 
|| |A woman who is prepared to invest her time and money in university
|| |education will most probably try to seek employment on completion of her
|| |education. 
|| 
|| Just see the time and energy and the cost associated with the
|| effort of re-mending the broken family, and you will realize that
|| how big  a productive share in the national budget a family
|| means. See in the above documentary, the skills needed for
|| being "simply a traditional mother", which lib derides so much.
|| As if what they are doing is worthless, and all worth lies in
|| becoming a "secretary", "operator",or  a single parent "executive".
|
|These days  a woman needs to be economically viable for herself as well as 
|for her family.  The idea of a woman staying home and solely taking care 
|of the kids is for well-off people who can afford it.  

Interesting hypthesis for economics majors. There is a concept 
of comparative advantage. 
	The "concept ofcomparative  advantage" rests on the
   fact that different  businesses have "specialities". 
   It is proven in scientific terms of economics, that it
   is better to develp one's own specialities and trade the
   fruits thereof, instead of asking every one to develop and
   duplicate the same products.

One of the major reasons of this economic hardship is itself
the violation of this concept of comparative advantage when
it comes for the specialities of women and men.

|| 
|| |So a separate university would hamper her ability to cope with a
|| |situation where places of work entail interaction between sexes. Also 
|its
|| |rather unfair to spend millions of rupees on a luxury such as this 
|while sacri-
|| |ficing the larger interests of basic education for women.
|| 
|| If you are looking at the larger interest of women in Pakistan, then
|| still the statistics will tell you that most women in Pakistan are
|| more comfortable in segregated institutions. 
|| 
|| The final myth
|| about the need for accustoming women for 'workplace' is in its
|| last throes of death. For the workplace of future will be the
|| home and not the office place. The networks and computers will allow
|| you to transfer most jobs to people's own homes rather than the
|| workplace!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|That is assuming that they have the education needed to use the computers. 
| If solely segregated schools exist then there is no reason to believe 
|that women's universities and colleges will get the equipment and training 
|needed to then finally do work in their homes.

Who ever in the world said that women should not have education.
Infact, they ought to have the most education. Because it is
on their shoulders that the ultimate responsiblity lies. the
responsibility of the future of the society. Whereas men
are only working for the day to day running of the family
and society, it is the women who is shaping the whole
course of future!!!!!!!!!