I'm not so interested in male takes on the #AuratMarch.
They are largely irrelevant and usually come from a place of fear and insecurity.
However I am interested in examining the quality of writing deemed fit to publish, so a few quick thoughts on @ShahmeerAlbalos blog.
They are largely irrelevant and usually come from a place of fear and insecurity.
However I am interested in examining the quality of writing deemed fit to publish, so a few quick thoughts on @ShahmeerAlbalos blog.
@ShahmeerAlbalos 1: the #AuratMarch's wide-ranging manifesto was not quoted anywhere. If it had been, 80% of the article's claims would be invalidated at the outset. This editorial choice renders the entire piece suspect and unreliable.
2: The author places the burden of societal change entirely on feminists and feminist movements.
This is a classic way to delegitimise feminist movements: setting them up to fail by assigning them a largely unachievable task. And so #AuratMarch organisers in urban centers are
This is a classic way to delegitimise feminist movements: setting them up to fail by assigning them a largely unachievable task. And so #AuratMarch organisers in urban centers are
held responsible for 'excluding' women not in their cities, as if the author expects a march to alter PK's urban-rural stats in a day. Feminists: don't let anyone set you up to fail. Real change takes time, a thing commentators are quick to forget while examining women's rights.
3: While the author extensively quotes women who disagree with #AuratMarch (perfectly ok), he allows a march organiser only one quote right at the end which doesn't address the criticism that came before (not ok).
This editorial choice makes it hard to take the piece seriously.
This editorial choice makes it hard to take the piece seriously.
4: the author shifts goalposts within the piece. First #AuratMarch needs be less urban, then it needs be less elitist, then it needs be- I could go on.
This again smells of the author setting unwinnable goals, which smells of the author being unfair at best, biased at worst.
This again smells of the author setting unwinnable goals, which smells of the author being unfair at best, biased at worst.
5: the author posits that the #AuratMarch is little more than a 'one-time event' while failing to mention that the march is in its THIRD year.
This undermines the credibility of the piece.
This undermines the credibility of the piece.
6: I could be wrong, but I believe the author was not present at any #AuratMarch that took place in PK this year. This further undermines the credibility of the piece. E.g. I can tell you that at the march in Karachi I saw people holding posters protesting the disappearance of
Baloch activists.
I can also tell you that being present at the march - experiencing the electricity in the air and the exhilarating freedom to finally move in a public space unmolested - is necessary if you want to even TRY to form an opinion of it.
I can also tell you that being present at the march - experiencing the electricity in the air and the exhilarating freedom to finally move in a public space unmolested - is necessary if you want to even TRY to form an opinion of it.
7: perhaps the author tried to be fair to the #AuratMarch by speaking of anti-march protests by the religious right, but the language he used de-emphasised this issue.
Honestly, the piece read like the author didn't care that aurat marchers were stoned... not good.
Honestly, the piece read like the author didn't care that aurat marchers were stoned... not good.
8: editorial choices leave the impression of an author trying to set women activists up against each other, which is quite distasteful albeit expected.
A sensitive editor could have checked this impulse and suggested a rewrite.
A sensitive editor could have checked this impulse and suggested a rewrite.
9: The author frames truisms ("women’s interests do not all coincide") as a revelation, which is disingenuous.
I would ask: do women's interests NEED to coincide all the time for the world to take us seriously?
Do men's interests always coincide?
I would ask: do women's interests NEED to coincide all the time for the world to take us seriously?
Do men's interests always coincide?
Do men always move as a single-headed entity, is that why men are 'on top'?
No, right?
This is another example of meninist skullduggery: the author is setting up impossible goals. Thankfully the attempt is quite transparent.
No, right?
This is another example of meninist skullduggery: the author is setting up impossible goals. Thankfully the attempt is quite transparent.
10: for reasons above the piece is analytically flawed and poorly reasoned.
However, it also suffers from general incoherence. If reworked, ie, its grammar corrected, its structure improved, its arguements reframed... it could've had a chance.
However, it also suffers from general incoherence. If reworked, ie, its grammar corrected, its structure improved, its arguements reframed... it could've had a chance.
11: In closing, no movement is above criticism, not even the #AuatMarch.
However, not all criticism is created equal. If criticism is ill-researched, illogical or poorly argued, I have no reason to take it seriously.
However, not all criticism is created equal. If criticism is ill-researched, illogical or poorly argued, I have no reason to take it seriously.
It is therefore in a writer's best interest to revise and re-edit as much as possible... or then rely on a good editor's eye to improve his work.
I'm tagging @ShahmeerAlbalos in this because as the author of this piece, I hope you view this as constructive criticism.
I'm happy to discuss further if you'd like!
I'm happy to discuss further if you'd like!
