Cogito, ergo sum, I think therefore I am, said Rene Descarte, in his Discourse on the Method and geared up our thinking faculties to a climax which could not be pulled by superstitions and other value-systems. This mind-prioritization seems true looking at the human discoveries from robots to electric cars to space ships to vaccines etc. However, there is still a narrow sphere of activities where human mind is limited.
To make it a point, today my reliance is not on any data or statistics or psychological knowledge of mind for two prime reasons. First of all, at least, in the case of Pakistan it is accepted many times by well-known columnists and experts that the statistics on, for example, child abuse are not reliable, let alone understanding the mind. Secondly, the debate over nature/nurture thesis is unsettled and scattered. Whilst some opine that human nature is innate and immutable, others contend that it is governed by environment and is mutable, let alone saying with certitude how mind interacts with emotions or body. Much more, till now, the reality of dreams is unknown to us. Against these mental limitations, I wish to start off with observation, which if repeated can perpetuate into hypothesis. Although there is no wish to give a hypothesis but there is hope that my observation will be a steppingstone in sensitizing us about the issue at hand. For the worrywart, just a word of caution, there is nothing hazardous about this approach as observation preceded Newton’s laws of motion (he had observed an apple falling from a tree before stating that objects have motion).
It is part of my long observation that our society calls men names, some of which are probably justified because of their actions but there is one particular title ascribed to men which I wish to discuss here, that is men are cold-hearted or heartless beings. There are two ways or senses in which this is translated in our society. First, that they are unsympathetic to daily life miseries. For instance, if a woman slips on a banana peel in the middle of road men will not attend to her. Second, they are not prone to suffering or they are unaffected by suffering. For instance, termination of marriage does not hurt men because they are allowed polygamous marriage. Or that forced hijab does not affect men because they are used to imposing their will on women. The society blames men for these learned behaviours or adaptive traits without taking its share of blame that it is responsible for making them masculine and self-made. Both these endowments are society-ingrained and it is heart-touching that it easily keeps itself detached from any minor blameworthiness.
If you so care, their masculinity means to be strong both physically and emotionally. It means they should exert appearance that makes them look steel-strong, which they fit into either by keeping moustache or body muscles or wearing starched clothes or keeping husky voice. Besides they should behave emotionally strong, so when there is bereavement they are expected not to pour their hearts out as women. Thus we see men cry less on such occasions. In fact crying is seen as a symbol of weakness or femininity. In this way, to live up to these societal benchmarks men adapt themselves to be masculine and later get blamed for being cold-hearted. On the other hand, being self-made means making money and spending it back on the family that immediately comes under their guard. This makes them take the upper hand in decision-making and responsible for things that happen within the family. In this way they become self-made but also earn other titles such as patriarch and control freaks.
Mind you, it is these wayward expectations and their unquestioned existence that have done us tremendous loss. We have failed to assure our own women safety at and outside home, let alone assuring other countries that our men are responsible, hard-working, warm-hearted and caring human beings.
Above all, it has compromised our administration of justice too. In child custody cases, whether one accepts it or not, it is presumed that the psychological needs of a mother are more and because of her nurturing and nursing abilities children should stay with her with the provision of occasional court visits available to father. May I pause here and ask, if the desire to procreate is found in all human beings then how is it that men on separation lose this passion and suddenly wish not to care for their young ones? Likewise, in divorce cases, it is presumed that men had taken dowry from their women and are liable to pay them back a minimum of few lacs owing to the fact that dowry is entrenched in our society. This is burdensome for those men who had not taken dowry from their wives. But this matters little because our current attitude is that divorce is the outcome of fault of men alone. And men should pay its cost. The fact of the matter is that it has become pretty easy for women to buy the hour of justice in their favour in khula, all they have to do for a successful suit is to say that they would rather like to die than continue their marriage. This alone is enough to dislodge her from the tie of marriage and the love and affection of the husband becomes vain.
The writer teaches jurisprudence and legal theory at Pakistan College of law, Lahore. She can be contacted at mawraraja@protonmail.com
