I'm sleepy.
I got a visit to a very important place tomorrow with my students and the bus is set to come at 8.00 a.m tomorrow morning. The very nice officer that will be receiving us tomorrow already said that she's looking forward to see me as I am as ecstatic to see her.
But now it is 1.21 a.m in the morning and I'm just beginning to type this.
I'm afraid I got to meet the officer with raccoon eyes tomorrow but I.just.got.to.get.this.out.of.my.chest.
So here goes.
Last weekend was as awesome as awesome could be. I was tired out of my mind and my body worked overtime. I was part of the organizing committee for my office's family day (technically it is days but let's not let our OCD to get the better of us here). There were many glitches but we overcame each hurdle that came our way. But we somewhat hijacked the whole show from the program director, or more rightly, he just left everything to us. This glaring ineptness of our program director is a constant pain in the neck but hey, the show must go on and he took the back seat. But all is over now and it was, I must say, a HUGE success! We did it! Gile-ah, but we did it! Yeayyyyy!
Then after the journey back, some of us fell into this conversation about the responsibilities of husband and wife. We talked about the supreme position of the mother for the son (read: husband) and the supreme position of the husband to the wife. Mother-son, mother-child has no contest. But when we come to husband-wife, stories of over dominant husbands emerged. Stories of over dominant and irrational husbands that the wives would have to obey, regardless of the circumstances except when what the husband requires or asks for is not aligned to al-Quran and as-Sunnah. I wondered why would they (the husbands) do that? Why would they be so mean? The answer was, "saje nak tunjuk kuasa lah tu /they're just showing their power."
A thought immediately came to me: if we are required to succumb to the wishes of our husband, if we must follow his orders and guidance then that husband must be someone of sound judgment, someone who I can actually rest my hopes and worries, someone whom I can trust won't let me down but will lead me to the right way. I am not particularly someone to just suck it in and bear everything so I'd rather the person I choose to be my husband to be someone whose judgment and knowledge I trust. If not, rest assured the marriage would be hell.
Then I remembered something in fb: it was a statement going along the lines of if a girl does not know how to cook, how to dress, how to take care of the family and everything it is a major sin but if a boy does not know how to be an Imam it is a small issue and often overlooked. Although this statement is quite controversial, it still has some truth in it. Why is the spotlight always on the girl? Why are we subjected to such microscopic scrutiny when the ones supposed to be our Imam, those whom we look to for guidance gets away with so much?
It is unfair and alarmingly worrying.
The traditional roles of husband is to be the provider and the wife is supposed to hold the fort, to take care of the house and family. But, has this role as the provider be considered deeply? I think our society now is disillusioned, we have taken the wrong understanding of it all. The would-be husbands, our youth, must be equipped with the skills and capacity to be an effective leader/ Imam. Then only they can be the navigator of the family's/wife's fate. If not, better they step aside and let others take the rein.
Let's just go back to our inept program director. My question would be, "Why select an ineffective leader in the first place?" Surprisingly the answer is because a man is usually the prime candidate for leadership regardless of capability. It is sad when the question of who tales the helm is settled by what type of genitals you have. Sorry for being so harsh but this practice is rampant in our society. For instance, the other day when the students are electing their new president a girl candidate got the highest votes but she got up, declined the position and said that it is more appropriate for a boy to take the helm. And the boy was not even willing! But in the end, majority rules and he got elected. I am not saying the new president is ineffective but what riles me up is why the leaders not elected based on their capabilities?
Yes, it is stated everywhere that in a mixed group, a man would be more suited to be the leader. Fine. But why? If he is up to it I am ok but sometimes there are so many more who are better than him.
Go back to the husband and wife. If the husband is not up to the job, why is he even a husband? If the husband is someone that is irrational and power-crazy that he makes bad decisions, why put him there as a husband? He shouldn't have married if he ends up being the major source of misery for the wife and children.
My point is being a husband, being a leader, being an Imam is so much responsibility. So many sets of skills to acquire and to master. When these requirements are met then only will a great family, a great team, a great ummah will emerge. Yes the men should be the priority, but only when they are fit for the job. If they are not then they should give way to those who are better. When the time comes when the hands that rock a cradle have to shake the world, the men should be ashamed. The shame should be so unbearable that they fix things up and be a great husband, leader, Imam.
Let us the women be what we were made to be: a mother, a lover, a friend and confidante. Don't let us be also the provider, the protector and the builder of ummah. But just so you know, if you keep this shitty act up then of course we will run the show. Then suddenly the nightmare of Amazonia would have to come true.
Seriously now, don't let it get that far ok?
6 comments:
I wanted to say I LOLed hard reading this but that would be a lie. I don't. I smile the whole way through though.
It's not funny, but it is amusing. And it reminds me of Dilbert and Peter Principle. Both are satirical and hysterically funny (ok, maybe not hysterical, but definitely funny).
I think you'll find the answers as to why leaders and management folks can be a bunch of incompetent fools in those principles.
I believe that an ideal marriage can only be achieved when both sides mutually understand the responsibility, obligation and commitment of each party without saying a single word. Without being reminded, being told or any hint at all, they just know. And they continuously do what's best for both of them according to the Golden Rule. But the probability of all that in real life? Possibly nil.
Do I agree that husband is superior to wife? No. Do I believe that husband is equal to wife? No. So, am I saying that wife is superior to husband? Nope.
Each had their own responsibilities, obligation, perks and privileges. Neither is superior than the other AND they are not equal to each other. Is that a paradox? =D
I always believe that for as long as human beings require a written set of rules and a whole judiciary and policing system just to keep them from hurting each other, that's a sign that humanity has failed and universal compassion is nonexistent.
It's very sick when one use (and abuse) religion as a basis to oppress another human being. When husband can't be fair to wife and vice versa, how can one expect both to be fair to their children? You may disagree, but I believe that fairness is hereditary and that will lead to bigger and worse problems down the line.
Ok, this is long enough. Haha.
ahaha, I never thought of it like Mr Adams did. Maybe, just maybe ;)
About the husband and wife thing, I think I get you. The other day I went to Dr Zakir Naik's talk. He said something along the lines of: Let's say we have student A and student B, both score 80% in exams. But looking in the situation in detail, they didn't answer all questions the same. For example: Q1 student B got it right but student A got it wrong but then student A got Q2 right and student B got it wrong and so on. But bottomline is they both got 80%. So while we are all equal, we are not identical. We have strengths in different facets in life. So its the same with man and woman, husband and wife.
Tapi, I don't quite agree with you that an ideal marriage can happen without being reminded, being told or whatever coz sometimes as humans we tend to forget things at the most inopportune moment.
And what is the Golden Rule? I bet they never teach that during kursus kahwin kan?
But I believe that humans do need a written set of rules and all that you said because of freewill. We make choices and sometimes the choices are stupid or just plain wrong. So we need a kind of guideline and reminders so that we wont slip.
I basically agree with the last paragraph but I'd like for you to clarify about fairness being hereditary? What does that mean?
1. I like to suggest that just because a person got things in common with another, doesn't necessarily makes them equal, in the same way that just because a person is different from another, doesn't necessarily makes any of them superior to the other. I like to think that humans are more complex and complicated than that. Does that make sense to you?
2. I agree with what you say about individual strength. Or as Mr Adams says "People are idiots...Everyone is an idiot...about different things at different times. No matter how smart you are, you spend much of your day being an idiot...Life is just too complicated to be smart all the time."
3. Hence, an ideal marriage. In real life, it's practically impossible to have an ideal marriage. None of the people I know of had an ideal marriage. They just make it work. And some don't.
4. Golden Rule. It's basically common sense. But I'm not surprised if they don't teach that in any kursus. Sometimes when people got so obsessed with chasing the "perfect" ritual and dogma, they tend to forget common sense (or they conveniently set it aside).
5. Hereditary, as in inherited. I'm saying that unfairness can be passed on from generation to generation (usually indirectly). Unfair parents breed unfair children and it goes on for generations indefinitely. It can only be corrected if the person suffering from this hereditary disease (if that sounds offensive, it's intentional.) is honest about it and try very very hard to change it. In other words, to get out of this infinite loop, one requires an acute sense of self-awareness (which is something that most people lack of). Of course, I'm not going academic on this one. I don't have any proof. You can take my words for it. But you don't have to. =D
1. So you're saying each and every one of is unique? I like to believe that too, but lately I see many traits and patterns that link one to another that I'm willing to make allowances. Some are unique and some are just ordinary. Equality is hard to measure unless we limit the scope. Boleh?
2. Loving the quote. So u like satire? Do you consider yourself a pessimist or a realist or something else altogether?
3. Yes.
4. Common sense is not so common. It usually comes as an afterthought or reflection after the fact. Most of the time.
5. Inherited from upbringing right? Coz when u say hereditary it reminds me of genes. But maybe unfairness is actually insensitivity or lack of tact. If they have been that way all their life and have only known people who do like they do, then they will never realize that what they are doing is wrong. So muhasabah diri (to create self- awareness) cannot proceed effectively without a wake up call from knowledge or friends that will shake their reality. Right?
Btw, how come now u resurface again after being silent for so long? But it is fine, I like to give and read long answers ;)
1. I understand. Some people choose to live their life like a bunch of sheeple. It's hard not to generalize. But usually even the most ordinary person have their own story to tell.
2. I enjoy reading Dickens, Twain & Swift. You didn't ask whether or not I'm an optimist. I guess it's pretty obvious, eh? lol.
3. Is it obscene to suggest that unfairness may have been propagated/inherited via DNA? Is it fair to say that it exist in the gene pool?
4. Yes, I do agree that a catalyst might assist in making an impact. But it means nothing if it doesn't resonate from within. Like the saying: You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
5. Usually I prefer not to say anything especially if the blogpost seems to be extremely personal. But sometimes, I just can't help myself. ;p
Hmm..rs mcm Dr Mahathir due to the numbered list.
1. Tu la, got to choose which ones worth listening to.
2. Yes, that was intentionally left out ;)
3. I don't really know but I don't agree. It's like suggesting that because some people are unfair due to their genes, then would fair people is just fair because of their genes? Where's the freewill?
4. Yes but maybe by leading it to water it would be tempted to drink it. It's like, "eh, haus la pula tiba-tiba"
5. Good thing I don't know you in real life. Kalau tak, memang kena letak paper bag atas kepala and just punch holes for the eyes :p
Post a Comment