I have written so much on rape, rape myths, rapists, and sexual violence that now I legit feel throwing up even just thinking of another blog. Seriously, because of this misogyny-nation, I have begun smelling banality in my writing. Keep parroting one thing over and over again. IT SUCKS. This time, however, it was our P.M. Hardly a day goes by without Imran Khan expressing some controversial views to the level of disappointment even to his opponents and leaves it for his followers to blindly justify, or defend whatever cock and bull story, he puts together. Irrespective of how ill-thought-out statement he brings in, his followers would bend over backwards proving it to be the most rational idea, often going above and beyond their duty. This unconditional devotion to the leader reminds us of the Hitler-cult or Trump-cult or worse, but let’s stay adhered to the point.
Imran Khan in his recent interview was asked about the increase in sexual violence against women and children. When Imran Khan could have pointed out the fault-lines in our social, political and legal system, he thought to turn it around women, opening the can of worms. According to Khan, Pakistan is not West, where the culture of nightclub or disco exists, but it has a conservative society that somehow locates to the species of well; so every time a woman wears revealing clothes, she is asking for harsh outcomes. This means rapes happen because of less-of-purda. Obviously, Prime Minister belongs to a planet, where burqa-clad women, compromised men, children, and animals don’t get raped, only beparda women and that even because of their revealing clothes. So who is wrong here? Without any doubt! Women for tempting men. At least the rest are safe. By the way, WHY MEN DON’T FEEL ATTACKED?
it’s reasonably clear that the extreme majority of Pakistan go by a very decent dress code, ranging from Shalwar Qameez to Abaya or Chadar. While a thin minority, (somewhat elite) might wear a dress that doesn’t fall under the moderate dress, VULGARITY, however, is out of the point.
He let out more than that but the gist remained the same “Clothes of women has a strong influence on the desire of the rapist” Well, you could beat around the bush and blame it on the out-of-context but it’s not the first time that Imran Khan has been condemned over his regressive remarks. Even in the recent past, he was called out for blaming women’s dress for increasing rape victims, but Imran Khan seems obstinate enough to leave any space for correction.
First to clear, If we talk about the dress, so it’s reasonably clear that the extreme majority of Pakistan go by a very decent dress code, ranging from Shalwar Qameez to Abaya or Chadar. While a thin minority, (somewhat elite) might wear a dress that doesn’t fall under the moderate dress, VULGARITY, however, is out of the point. So my question from Khan is where does he see women wearing revealing or seducing clothes? Okay, for once, just for the sake of argument, if we attend his words that revealing dress entices men into committing rape, nonetheless, we will have to see the aftermaths. Following his words that “Men are not a robot so obviously would respond to temptation”, we could come up with two conclusions;
1: Women’s clothes drive men into committing rape, possibly a knee-jerk reaction to the stimuli (here, stimuli is the dress or woman or a child). It means a rapist just out of the knee-jerk reaction rapes a woman or a child. For instance, he saw a woman who was wearing revealing clothes so he grabbed her and raped her, right?
So, how many times have you seen or heard a woman or a child being raped because of their clothes? A very thin or zero at all. Most of the times we hear women in abayas, inside their home, in the hospital, and even dragged out of the graves to be raped. Children are raped in Madrassa, inside the house, by neighbours, by their teachers and so on. However, if we believe that somehow the victim enticed the man into raping him/her, It indicates that the person was uncontrollable. He saw it and performed it. But anything uncontrollable becomes abnormal, in the world of Psychology? So those uncontrollable men are psychologically ill? If they are ill, it means they can not even be held responsible for their crimes, right? If something is uncontrollable, you can’t blame humans for them. Then why are they even convicted?
if we believe that the person was uncontrollable. But anything uncontrollable becomes abnormal, in the world of Psychology? So those uncontrollable men are psychologically ill? If they are ill, it means they can not even be held responsible for their crimes, right?
2: Men don’t rape the source of temptation (the woman in vulgar dress) but displace that temptation on someone else. For instance, he watched porn or saw a woman spreading vulgarity so he looked out for the prey, which he found in the form of a child and raped it. In simple words, they can’t resist temptation so they vent out their lust on their prey? That brings us to the conclusion that rapists don’t move by a knee-jerk reaction. First of all, they watch for their prey. Someone easily available, someone approachable. Once having overpowered, the rapist rapes his victim. A premeditated, calculated crime. It involves a lot of planning. Definitely, not an uncontrollable ejaculation.
3: If Pakistani men can not control their lust, should expect other countries to throw them out or not allowing them to enter their counties? Men, that Imran Khan called uncontrollable, become well-behaved when leaving Pakistan. Why? Because they know, if they break the law, they will be dealt with accordingly, unlike Pakistan seeking loopholes to blame women for it. Hence, proved, it’s the law that keeps people in control, not morality. If you believe that you will be punished for your crime, even if a woman pulls you to the degree of committing it, you would never do it.
Imran Khan knowingly or unknowingly has steered a dangerous thread. In a country where victim-blaming and rape myths, dominate the discourse, his words would feed the frenzy. It would fit the narrative of the ideal victim, (if you are not fitting the criteria of ideal-victim, you deserve to be punished) rendering a sort of licence to rapists for lynching violence against anyone they don’t find under the scope of acceptability.
Here, I want to say the last thing, ” Women and Men” are expected to follow a modest dress code, following the societal and religious norm and who appreciates deviation? But that should remain “Cultural and Religious” aspects don’t flaunt it as a defence for women against rape, NO, IT’S NOT.
In Pakistan, we expect women “not to get raped” failing to notice the active role of men, altogether. With the pressure to forfeit their basic rights to buy safety, women are put additional and unreasonable restrictions on. When a state is expected to be responsible for the safety of its citizens, women are left on their own. They are expected to follow defined criteria of rules ranging from “the dress code to, when to leave the house, to who to accompany as a bodyguard” consequently leaving no space for women to survive but to breathe an air of uncertainty and anxiety.
The solution to keeping women safe has always been confining them, keeping them in segregation, but why we forget confining women would let men’s lubricity unleash on children? If you confine children their next victim would be animals, if not animals, family members come to be at higher risk. Here the victim is varying but a predator is constant, which is MAN. Instead of wasting our fuel in teaching women to keep their perpetrators at bay or keeping their lives safe why we don’t go for the perpetrators? One who is violating others’ privacy and rights.
Here, I want to say the last thing, ” Women and Men” are expected to follow a modest dress code, following the societal and religious norm and who appreciates deviation? But that should remain “Cultural and Religious” aspects don’t flaunt it as a defence for women against rape, NO, IT’S NOT. We will have to stop asking questions such as who were victims, what they were wearing, what they were doing in a specific place at any time but our questions should revolve around the predator. A basic and most vital “Why he thought to infringe upon the other person’s privacy”? Our questions should haunt predators, not victims. Unless your land justifies crimes, you would continue seeing cases like Zainab and Mufti Aziz Rehman, far away from the influence or temptation of a woman.