When the British-Pakistani Roma Riaz stepped into the spotlight at the Miss Universe competition in Thailand, social media had a lot to say. None of the discourse appeared to revolve around the fact that she is British — instead, people seemed to cared more about the colour of her skin and her weight. They claimed that she didn’t represent Pakistan.

This is about more than body shaming and colourism — it’s about who gets to represent Pakistan in front of the world. Riaz isn’t one of the fair-skinned waifish models we see on our TV screens. She looks, as she said in what we believe was a wholly unnecessary defence of herself, like one of her people.

Pakistanis seem to think the fair skin we are constantly sold as the ideal of beauty is the standard in our country, conveniently forgetting that we are brown. Pakistanis come in all shapes, sizes and, yes, colours. If we looked beyond our television screens, we’d see that the average Pakistan does not in fact have skin fair enough to rival Snow White. Though our colonial overlords left decades ago, their standards and ideals about beauty remain, and to no one’s surprise, we embody those ideals in the choices we make.

When the stars of most of our television shows are petite, fair-skinned beauties, whose foils are more often than not, duskier toned women, when fairness creams continue to be used and when words like “jamadaar” or “maasi” are used to degrade models with darker skin, is it any wonder that Pakistanis have a problem when they see a confident woman who doesn’t match those standards we’ve been fed our entire lives?

Instead of tearing her down, we should have been rooting for Riaz, cheering her on and offering thoughtful commentary or constructive criticism on what could have been improved. But in this climate, even constructive criticism would likely have been viewed by her detractors as fuel for their hate-filled fire.

Riaz represented Pakistan with grace and dignity. Did we think that sometimes her sartorial choices could have been better? Yes. But that the commentary about her representing Pakistan devolved to near-constant criticism of her looks is a sad reflection of Pakistani society. It is also indicative of the twisted ideals we have about just who can represent Pakistan — someone who fits our incredibly narrow standards for beauty, standards that most Pakistanis wouldn’t be able to meet.

Cover via Roma Riaz/Instagram

The representative for NA-27 Khyber made a ridiculous statement about a K-Electric official after a meeting of the Standing Committee on Power to which the distribution company was invited to brief the committee on power generation and load-shedding.

According to Geo News, Afridi waited for the K-Electric team to leave the room before calling the woman’s clothes inappropriate and declaring there should be an SOP for clothing when attending a standing committee meeting.

The Geo News reporter noted that there was a consensus among the members of the standing committee — of which Afridi is not a member — that the woman’s clothes were appropriate and ‘sober’. The chairman of the committee, Muhammad Idrees of the PML-N, told Geo TV that it was inappropriate to speak about her clothes and apologised for the incident.

After the committee meeting, Afridi spoke to the media outside where he said people look to the assembly as an example to follow. Inexplicably, he said the K-Electric representative’s appearance would also be looked at as an example to be followed and he feared that if people were to dress like this “in a respectable society, what would children have to say about it”.

He described the woman’s clothes as a “sign of the system, society and establishment’s decline” and said in a society where his brothers, sisters and daughters lived, it was “not okay” for people like that to enter society.

We could write a thesis on how this man needs to keep his unsolicited, ignorant opinions to himself and perhaps sequester himself at home, where there is no risk of him seeing the female gender save for those related to him, but we’ve written all that before. We’re written article after article about how Pakistani men need to leave Pakistani women alone, but they don’t do much good because the Pakistani men who feel the need to speak about people’s clothes don’t have the good sense to keep quiet.

Men like Afridi will be told they are wrong and then go speak to the media outside, expanding on their stupidity and pat themselves on the back for a job well done, forgetting that they have actual jobs that don’t involve them policing women’s clothes. It is frightening to know that at a time when Pakistanis quite literally don’t know what to do about their electricity bills, when people are being driven to suicide because they do not know how they are going to pay these exorbitant bills, our representatives, the ones whose salaries come from our tax money, are thinking of women’s clothes instead of our problems.

The woman whose clothes Afridi found so offensive is a professional with years of experience. She has worked her way to the top and most certainly earned her spot at the table, yet her years of accomplishments and effort were reduced in an instant to a single outfit. She was there to discuss one of the most heated issues in our country at the moment, but there was more focus on what she was wearing.

We don’t care what the K-Electric representative was wearing. It is none of our business what she was wearing. It is none of Afridi’s business what she was wearing. And we won’t dignify these misogynistic remarks with a description of what she was wearing. We want to know what she was saying. What were her and her team’s justifications for electricity bills that have doubled and tripled in a few months? What did they have to say about load-shedding in Pakistan’s biggest city? What did they say about electricity tariffs?

Afridi seemed quite concerned with a ‘respectable society’ and what the children will say, but we care more about how the children and the rest of the citizens of Pakistan will pay their electricity bills. And in a respectable society, men should do better than zooming in on what a woman is wearing.

And if he thinks people look to the National Assembly as a pillar of respectability and decorum or a fashion advice column, he really should — as the unrestrained youth put it — touch grass. People have so much more to care about that a woman’s clothes — they are being forced to choose between basic necessities and paying electricity bills. They don’t think that highly of politicians and they certainly don’t look to them as icons of fashion or respectability. Those days are long gone. Now, we simply hope our representatives won’t embarrass us but it seems even that is too big an ask.

The other members of the committee described her clothes as ‘sober’ but clearly Afridi couldn’t get past his moral outrage to concentrate on why he was at the committee meeting in the first place — to question the power distributor on its practices.

Afridi seems to have been concerned about the message her clothes sent to the people of Pakistan, but his words sent an even more damning message to the women of Pakistan — no matter how you rise, there will always be a man there to belittle you because of their own insecurities, and they could use everything from your clothes to your makeup to your demeanour to your tone. Perhaps that’s the message men like Afridi want to send in the first place. Thankfully, the women of Pakistan don’t give a damn.

Coca Cola has been facing calls for a boycott even before October 7, but ever since Israel began its military offensive in Gaza, those calls have grown far louder. And they ring resolutely in Pakistan, where local brands have seen unprecedented support in the face of pro-Palestine boycotts. That Coca Cola is not actually on the official Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions list is immaterial as the strong sentiments surrounding the boycott in Pakistan have led to widespread calls to shun almost all foreign-linked products.

But Coke Studio is a brand in itself, one that has always been believed to be inherently Pakistani. It has launched the careers of many young artists and propelled some to global fame. ‘Pasoori’ — the Ali Sethi-Shae Gill mega-hit — was dubbed a tune that united India and Pakistan. Research papers have commended Coke Studio’s role in promoting “cultural diplomacy” and “trans-culturalism”. The platform has contributed to Pakistan’s music industry in ways that platforms before and after it have failed. It is, to put it plainly, a phenomenon.

But fans of both the platform and the artists who’ve contributed to it are now grappling with a new challenge — whether or not to listen to the songs produced by their favourite platform.

Coke Studio 15 — to stream or not to stream?

Coke Studio 15 released on April 14 with ‘Aayi Aayi’ after a delay of about six months without any promotions, marketing gimmicks or explanations for its overdue return. Sources told Images that the show had to return sooner or later because of payment delays for the many, many Pakistanis who had worked tirelessly on the season well before October 7.

The season’s producer, Xulfi, shared a video announcing its return on Instagram without addressing the reasons for the delay.

“Two years since ‘Phir Milenge’, the promise that we made to you, the promise that we closed Coke Studio Season 14 with. Today, with hope, love, humility and gratitude in our hearts, we begin another journey with you, for you,” he captioned his post.

Three songs have since been released and others are on the way, featuring both new and established artists. The platform has not, however, issued a statement or addressed the circumstances leading to its rather muted reception this year. Images also reached out to Coke Studio for a comment two weeks prior to the publishing of this article and is still awaiting a response. As Nadeem Farooq Paracha writes for Aurora, brands facing boycotts cannot pretend it’s not happening and instead must connect with their audiences in a more meaningful manner.

Sources confirmed to Images that the show was in its post-production stage when the October 7 attacks happened, meaning that artists had already signed contracts, recorded their songs and no longer had the option to disassociate from the label.

There is also the element of monetary support that Pakistani artists, and the Pakistani music industry at large, has gotten from Coke Studio over the years. The project, initiated by Rohail Hyatt back in 2008, was begun with the intention to reimagine and promote Pakistani music, as opposed to selling Coca-Cola.

A recent change to Coke Studio’s payment policy has allowed for artists to receive royalties as well as lump-sum fees, according to someone with insider knowledge of the process. Those royalties are divided between the multiple people who worked on the song — the singers, writers, producers and other stakeholders. The structure is informal and often decided case by case, but it is understood that artists have the power to negotiate their contracts.

The lump sum varies based on the artist, but, generally, it is a reasonable enough amount.

That means the artists benefit both monetarily from when a song’s popularity soars and from the publicity. The introduction of royalties is a newer addition to the policy — brought on by Xulfi — but even before this change, Pakistan has seen several artists’ popularity soar after a hit song on Coke Studio, which puts them on the path for more shows and tours.

And it’s not just the artists who benefit from the exposure — Coke gets more than sufficient mileage from the virality of the music too.

Coke Studio itself has not disclosed its profit-sharing policies and artist fees are not public knowledge.

Therein lies the problem

But while Coke Studio has done a lot for the Pakistani music industry, it still bears the brunt of the boycott this season and there is a conflict in the hearts of Pakistani fans of the music platform. Do they continue boycotting the platform for its ties with Coke or do they celebrate the Pakistanis behind Coke Studio and leave Coke out of it?

Many argue — albeit quietly — that Coke Studio and the many Pakistanis behind it shouldn’t suffer the consequences of a global boycott when it is inherently a Pakistani entity. The producers, singers, technicians, writers, mixers and everyone else involved are Pakistani.

Is the celebration of Coke Studio not a celebration of Pakistani music, they argue, or is it a celebration of Coca Cola, which, on the surface, doesn’t seem to have much to do with the music at Coke Studio.

The other side is conflicted and grappling with the idea of supporting a brand that is subject to a global boycott even if it means disregarding the work of local artists.

That the brand is being boycotted in solidarity with Palestine should be enough of a reason to boycott the platform, they reason, regardless of who worked on the songs. The other brands being boycotted in Pakistan also employ Pakistanis, after all. What’s so different about Coke Studio?

Coca Cola is, at the end of the day, a corporation that wants to make a profit. By patronising Coke Studio, consumers are inadvertently helping the brand meet its bottom line — which is something that those boycotting brands in support of Palestine don’t want to do.

Pakistanis now face a troubling moral dilemma — whether to continue their boycott or support a platform that has, since its inception, been labelled Pakistani. Can you separate the brand from the many Pakistanis who have worked and continue to work on it?

So the argument remains, can you take the Coke out of Coke Studio?

The Palestinian resistance, and attacks on Gaza have so completely overshadowed all other conversations and news that we think it befitting to speak about how monumentally it affected us and the rest of the world.

Images is a culture platform, but all the conversations we’ve had since October have been about boycotts, who’s speaking up and who isn’t, how to help, and why some lives matter less than others. We’ve seen beloved celebrities fall from grace in our eyes and seen others rise in our estimation, all over whether they’ll call a spade a spade.

Even Pakistani celebrities weren’t spared when it came to being called out for not speaking up. The message all over social media was clear — speak up or get out. This made us realise the importance of our individual voices — something we never really valued before.

No longer were people being forgiven for staying silent if they had smaller followings — everyone, regardless of position or social status was expected to post about Gaza and raise their voice for Palestinians. The boycott of products and services linked to Israel remains strong in Pakistan, where celebrities and influencers aren’t the only ones being slammed for supporting Starbucks or McDonalds.

Wearing Zara, or liking Kim Kardashian’s pictures is akin to supporting Israel in the eyes of the people now and they’re holding not just celebrities, but their friends and families accountable.

Silence is now complicity and even Taylor Swift hasn’t been spared for turning a blind eye to the violence in Gaza. Let’s not even talk about how Selena Gomez fared after trying to stay neutral. Because, at the end of the day, what everyone is trying to say is that there is no such thing as neutrality when it comes to violence and murder — to stay neutral and quiet is to side with the killers.

So much has happened that it’s almost impossible to remember that the recent spate of attacks on Gaza began post October 7 and that there were 10 whole months before October 7 that have faded from our memory. We’ve been educated on what it means to be Palestinian, and how important it is to not only talk about it, but also amplify the voices of those who have lived or are living through the violence.

Though some would characterise Gaza as a ‘political issue’, we would argue otherwise. ‘Politics,’ society and culture are so deeply intertwined that to separate them is laughable. Your beliefs — political or social — form a big part of who you are and the culture you’re part of. Culture is more than celebrity outfits and movies — it’s about people and the conversations being had. To bury our heads in the sand — as so many of our international peers have done — would be a great disservice not only to our readers, but ourselves as a publication.

As we enter a new year, we hope that the violence and devastation of 2023 are left behind and 2024 ushers in a more peaceful time for everyone.

You may wonder why we’re focusing on celebrities — people who are often there to entertain, not educate. Here’s why — they are the original ‘influencers’. And when millions of people across the globe are making themselves seen and heard, celebrities need to join them instead of avoiding the public eye.

Celebrities have a great sway over public opinion. You may not always value their opinion or their words, but there are a lot of impressionable people around the world who look up to them enough to believe what they have to say and be influenced by it. At a time when a people are being massacred, for so many celebrities with such huge followings and public sway to be silent is criminal.

We’re not talking about Pakistani celebrities in this piece — because most, if not all of them have been actively using their platforms to speak about Palestine. We’re talking about the celebrities in the United States, in the United Kingdom, in the West — the ones who have political clout, who have hundreds of millions of followers but are silent. And whose countries are allies of Israel’s atrocities.

It’s not as if these celebrities don’t have opinions — of course they do. They’re vocal when they want to be. Beyonce talks about the presidential candidate she’s supporting and Taylor Swift talks about feminism.

They’re allowed to have opinions and they’re allowed to be cautious about posting about something they previously had no knowledge about. But the time for wilful ignorance is over. Educate yourself that this is not a political issue or a religious one — it’s a humanitarian issue and millions of people’s lives are at risk.

Though some people — like Amy Schumer — have tried to conflate the massacre in Gaza with antisemitism, it is clear that this is about humanity. Calling for peace is not antisemitism, calling for an end to the violence is not antisemitism. Calling for peace is not ‘choosing a side’, unless by a side you mean choosing humanity.

It’s now time to make those opinions clear because we do not want to follow any zionists or war-mongers on Instagram. We do not want to watch their movies or listen to their songs. We do not want to show them even the slightest hint of support when they couldn’t be bothered to show support for people being killed for the simple act of existing. Men, women, children — no one is being spared in Gaza.

So let us know who you truly are. Let us know whether you support the massacre of Palestinians and the bloodshed and violence. Let us know if that’s who we’re supporting.

As the number of celebrities speaking up grows, it’s becoming increasingly easy to weed out those who are complicit. Because at this stage, silence is not neutrality — it’s complicity.

We see some of these celebrities liking posts by literally the worst person in Hollywood — Amy Schumer for the unversed — so we know they’re not unaware. At this point, there can’t be anyone with internet access who doesn’t know what’s happening, let alone celebrities sitting in cities where massive, historic protests are being held every weekend.

Are we to suffice with ‘they supported Palestine before’? Do we give them a free pass because they ‘don’t post about things like this’? Why should anyone get a free pass to ignore a massacre?

Many celebrities have played the role of human rights activists. Amal Clooney, known for her activism and her fierce defence of human rights, has been silent. Emma Watson, who once received backlash for speaking about Palestine, has been silent. Clearly, they think only some humans’ rights matter.

At times like these, it’s not asking too much to question who exactly are you supporting; someone who can happily bury their head in the sand when gross human rights violations are being committed? Someone who will continue to take our money for their music or movies but look the other way when people are being slaughtered?

DJ Khaled, who is literally a Palestinian, has been not only silent but also putting up his everyday shenanigans. Taylor Swift, with her massive, massive influence, has been silent. Leonardo Messi with his 490 million followers on Instagram and cult-like following has been silent — even when fellow footballers are being vilified for their support of Palestine.

We understand that it is difficult for some celebrities to pull themselves out of their apathetic stupor, but if there was ever a time to do it, it’s now. Celebrities cannot claim to be human rights activists and not stand up for the people of Palestine. They cannot claim to be feminists and ignore the plight of women and girls in Gaza. They cannot claim to speak for people of colour when the only ones they speak for are within the borders of their country. They cannot be human and not stand up for humanity.

So many celebrities choose to support by sharing a donation link on Instagram or resharing someone else’s words about the violence — so in case you don’t want to attach your name to a condemnation, take a cue from them.

Also, if you’re still concerned about ‘backlash’, know that celebrities with a far smaller following and not as much star power have taken a stand. Why can’t the big ones?

When Kid Cudi, Kehlani and Macklemore spoke out, why can’t you? When Zendaya, Drake, Zayn Malik, Ben Affleck, Bradley Cooper and many others have signed a list calling for a ceasefire, why can’t you? No one is asking you to head to the frontlines —the least you can do is sign a list calling for a ceasefire.

Do you not realise your influence? That a single post from Taylor Swift will massively help the cause, that Messi throwing his support behind the people of Palestine could make major waves? At the very least, ask government representatives to advocate for a ceasefire.

It’s not just the West. In India, there is almost absolute silence, save for a few brave celebrities — Sonam Kapoor and Irfan Pathan. The deafening silence is horrific, especially when you think of the massive influence of people like Shah Rukh Khan — someone with a following that could possibly influence a government.

So to the big names who have remained silent — across the globe — we’re looking at you. The anger is brewing and it’s sending a message — if you can’t speak for us, we don’t need you.

It can’t be that his words are being mistranslated — he’s clearly speaking in English. He has been educated at Oxford, after going to premiere educational institutions in Pakistan, and considers England his “second home” so he definitely knows the language.

It can’t be that he doesn’t understand the question, especially when it’s put to him so clearly. Could it be that he has a skewed understanding of what it means to be a rape apologist? We think so.

Being a rape apologist means that you provide justifications for rape or assault. There are no ifs and buts when it comes to it — rapists rape people, victims do not do anything to ‘invite’ assault.

Imran started off strong in his interview with the New Yorker — “How can anyone blame women for rape? Tell me, how can any sensible person ever make such a stupid comment? Look, the rapist is always to be blamed. Always. Simple. Full stop.”

He discussed crime statistics and said, “In the case of a woman getting raped, she’s marked for life”. “But even worse is when children get abused; that stays with them for the rest of their life. The ideas that came forward were, one, that we must bring down the level of temptation in our society, because you have a lot of frustrated people. Now, this is coming from civil society. And secondly, how do we educate children in schools to stop this child abuse?”

Yes, he used the ultimate buzzword when talking about sexual abuse — temptation. As if the person being assaulted is at fault because of the implication that the assaulter was powerless to resist said temptation.

“Well, the temptation is not women walking the streets with less clothes. Temptation is social media. On our mobile phones children now have access to information,” said the former premier. “But, at the same time, the level of the pornographic stuff on a mobile phone, which is available to children of seven and eight years old — never in human history have children been exposed to that.”

That’s all fine — a bit misguided because the issue has more to do with our society and its emphasis on policing women than seven-year-olds with mobile phones but still fine. But the real kicker was when he was asked about his earlier sexist comments about journalist Gharida Farooqi in which he said she was asking to be harassed online as she was “invading male-dominated spaces”.

“No. No. No. It wasn’t out of context. Look, in our society, we were … it was just in one particular rally where they were all men, and she was right in the middle of this male crowd. It’s just that … I mean, anyone who knows Pakistani society, or most sorts of societies like India or Pakistan — if you put yourself in that position, you are going to be vulnerable. It’s just common sense. Yes, the men are to be blamed if they do anything. But also it works two ways, you should all … in our society, normally, people would avoid putting themselves in that position. It’s as simple as that,” said our sage former prime minister.

“Isaac, we have brilliant women journalists in this country. They are doing a great job. But they don’t have to put themselves in positions — and let me just say, it was a specific situation I was talking about, because we actually tried to get her out of the situation.”

The idea that a woman doing her job is “putting herself” in any kind of position that results in her getting harassed is laughable. The focus should not be on “get[ting] her our of the situation,” it should be on stopping that situation from being created. Removing women from public spaces isn’t the answer, Mr Khan. He easily overlooks the fact that her job requires her to be in difficult situations, just like her male colleagues. But since she’s a female, she must take precaution because the men in our society clearly can’t be trusted.

Every time our esteemed former prime minister speaks to international publications, he digs a deeper hole for himself. He compounds his sexist remarks with even more baffling sexist remarks in an attempt to absolve himself of the blame being heaped on his head from his previous sexist remarks, creating a never-ending cycle of sexist remarks and rape apologies. The simple — and rather obvious — solution here would be to just stop talking. Stop making more sexist comments, stop commenting on what women should and shouldn’t do and stop trying to police women.

No woman is asking for it or inviting it or putting themselves in a position of any sort which would result in rape. The way to combat rape is to stop rapists, not stop women from doing their jobs.

While people may argue that we’re belabouring the point and nitpicking, the F-9 park rape is illustrative of what happens when men believe women are putting themselves in dangerous ‘positions’. The two men who raped a woman in Islamabad’s F-9 park on Thursday told the woman, after raping her, “not come to the park at this time”. She was at a centrally located park at 8pm in the capital of our country. Not to mention the Islamabad Police’s solution as of now is to request people to stay around the well-lit areas.

We may be tired of talking about Imran Khan’s sexist comments but the fact of the matter is, when men like him — with a massive following — say things like this, it emboldens rapists and assaulters to perpetuate acts of violence against women and then justify it by saying they put themselves in a ‘position’. It lets other men think the women in their homes need to be locked up or are inviting assault.

It may be tiring and frustrating to continuously remind Imran Khan of how he keeps putting his foot in his mouth, but as long as women are raped and harassed in this country and people justify it, we will continue to call out politicians and public figures who are rape apologists.

She is not the only politician to leave the PTI in the past few days after being incarcerated over the riots following Imran Khan’s arrest, but she is the one whose exit shook us the most.

Mazari, the former human rights minister, is known for being bold, brash and not caring what anyone thinks. From her colourful hair to her feisty personality, the politician is someone who says and does what she wants.

Though her comments on Twitter in the past year or so had grown increasingly angry and conspiratorial, she remained a woman undeterred. She has faced sexist attacks from her parliamentary colleagues, abuse for upholding the basic principles of democracy and not forcing her daughter to vote for her own party and just being a woman who isn’t cowed by anyone. She worked on the extremely sensitive issue of ‘missing persons’ as well as several other laws, and at one time was known for being the loudest voice against human rights abuses. That she is exiting politics at such a tumultuous time is something for all of us to ponder on and lament.

Whether you support the PTI or not, the treatment of its leaders and supporters right now should alarm you. That Mazari, who has been such a staunch supporter of her party and thought to be ‘unbreakable’ in the face of adversity, is choosing to leave is troubling for women in politics in Pakistan and narrows the already miniscule space for female representation at the top.

Her exit came after five arrests and much turmoil for her family, particularly her daughter, lawyer Imaan Mazari-Hazir. There were also several attacks against Imaan on social media for being one of the reasons for her mother’s political exit. People seem to forget that for all her legal prowess, Imaan was very much a daughter fighting for her mother’s release and for that she should not be criticised.

We have also seen many unfavourable comparisons of PTI women leaders to Benazir Bhutto and her time in jail. Benazir suffered in jail. So did PTI leaders. Struggle should not be glorified, nor should pain and hardship, regardless of the time spent behind bars. No one should have to go through what Benazir did — not her nor any PTI leaders today. Accountability is one thing, cruelty is another.

We may not have always agreed with her politics, but we admired Mazari for her courage of conviction and that she chose to be a warrior rather than a damsel in distress.

And that this warrior’s swan song could be a ‘press conference’ that has since become all too regular is disheartening and discouraging for all women in politics.

Last month, she clashed horns with transgender rights activist Dr Mehrub Moiz Awan after the academic was excluded from a TEDxISL (International School Lahore) panel in a move she decried as transphobia. The designer lauded ISL’s decision to remove Awan from the panel and had some very strange justifications, including but not limited to being a concerned parent. A month later, the designer is back to give even more unasked for opinions on the Transgender Act and the ‘effect’ it has on families in Pakistan.

On Saturday, the designer, whose full name is Maria Butt, shared a video of herself and her sisters Najia and Aafia talking about the law, saying it’s a “hot topic” that they want to discuss considering that it will “affect their children”. “The first thing that one needs to do is to identify what transgender means. Who is the most famous transgender in the world? Everyone knows about Kim Kardashian and her father. He was her father first and then her mother. His name is Caitlyn Jenner,” Butt said, misgendering Jenner who goes by the pronouns she/her and misidentifying her as the ‘most famous transgender’ person in the world.

She then questioned if the act approved by lawmakers in Pakistan is for people like Jenner. “No absolutely not, this act was made for the khwaja sira community. They are intersex people and there’s a massive difference between them and transgenders. On the act that represents the marginalised community, after 70 years when we’re doing something for them, and transgenders have usurped their rights,” she said.

Before we get into what can be described as Maria B’s audition reel to be a TV show host, we’ll put forward some facts:

• the law was enacted by parliament in 2018 to provide legal recognition to transgender persons, enshrining their rights to education, basic health facilities, the right to affirm their transgender identity on ID cards and passports, as well as the right to vote in and contest elections.
• the opinion of the chairman of the Council for Islamic Ideology had been sought with regard to the Transgender Rights Act
• the matter remains under discussion in parliament while the outcome of two petitions filed in the Federal Shariat Court (FSC) is awaited

Given the sensitivity and technical nature of this topic — medically, religiously, legally and socially — we’re not going to get into the actual law itself. What we’re going to be talking about is Maria B and her propensity to put herself forward as the unasked for champion of the khwaja sira community. This debate is being had in the parliament, by members of the transgender community and, soon, in the FSC. It does not need to be had by Maria B, a woman who has 369,000 followers on Instagram but no expertise in this matter.

Maria B and her sisters are not members of the khwaja sira community, so their ‘need’ to speak about for a segment that is already struggling to be heard is deeply problematic. Is it perhaps then a saviour complex which has them speaking about a community they are not part of or is it that seeing other people get basic liberties is offensive to them in some way?

That is not to say that you don’t have a right to talk about an issue in society — everyone does. You can absolutely speak up about those who have been marginalised, but don’t speak for them. You should not be jumping into a conversation that requires that community’s input and that of experts.

In a society where there is a lack of understanding and empathy for this community, don’t give your two cents on how a person can prove they are a ‘real’ transgender or khwaja sira. Talking so frivolously is equivalent to propagating hate. Let people far more learned than you talk about this so that they can actually “educate” people.

One of Maria’s sisters argued vehemently for DNA and blood tests to ‘prove’ if someone was khwaja sira, transgender or cisgender. The other argued about the merits of the law when it has no “verses from the Quran and Hadith” in it. This shows ignorance about how laws to be; there are systems in place to ensure that if and when religious guidance is required, input from learned religious bodies is sought and incorporated — as is being done right now.

When it comes to religion, we’ll leave it to Islamic scholars with expertise in Islamic jurisprudence to have this discussion. Three women without expertise in this matter (unless we’re missing their credentials on this topic) and with access to a camera and social media users cannot authoritatively weigh in on whether this law goes against ‘Islamic values’ and again, cannot speak for a community that continues to fight for its rights and faces violence while doing so.

As a Dawn editorial noted: “Members of the transgender community in the country are often at the receiving end of both their families’ and society’s censure and derision. Most are rejected and disowned by their families, while for its part, society sees them as lesser humans.”

Remember this before you weigh in on a topic this critical — this community is made fun of and ridiculed already; your flippant views and facial expressions only add to this ostracising behaviour.

The arguments against donating pads can be summed up in one word — mansplaining. People, mostly men, seem to think they understand a woman’s body better than women themselves. They seem to believe that women affected by the floods don’t need sanitary pads or other menstrual products because other items are ‘more important’. “Why provide pads when you can provide food,” they ask. “Why not provide medicine that can be used everyday, as opposed to pads that need only to be used for a few days a month,” they say. Why indeed. As people online have already pointed out — periods don’t stop when it floods.

Pads and other menstrual hygiene products are NOT a luxury, as many of our menfolk seem to think. They are absolutely a necessity. Not having adequate and clean menstruation products can result in increased risk of urogenital infections, such as yeast infections, vaginosis or urinary tract infections.

Most women of menstruating ages bleed every month and need menstrual products to manage their periods. This is not new news nor is it something shocking. Yes, many women in villages use cloths instead of pads, but right now, they don’t have access to anything. That’s the point, they need something and this is what people can easily provide. If you want to provide cloth pads, do that. If you can help provide disposable pads, do that.

At a time when they do not have access to any menstrual products, give what you can so that these women do not have to suffer through the added indignity of having to bleed through their clothes. As any woman who has suffered through this can tell you, it is humiliating and no one should have to go through it.

Your donations should help people and ensure that victims of the floods get what they need. If what they need are pads, then donate pads. Please put your delicate sensibilities aside and do what’s best for the people affected.

If the argument is that women in rural areas don’t know how to use pads, they can be taught how to by volunteers. It’s not that difficult and we don’t know how many of them already use pads, so let’s not deprive them of menstrual hygiene products because of what we think might be an issue.

Mahwari Justice is an organisation that is working to provide period products to people affected by the floods and is accepting donations. Most organisations that are accepting physical donations are also accepting sanitary napkin donations. Here is a list of organisations you can donate to. Remember, the goal is to help, not make inane proclamations about what people do and do not need.

The Pakistani entertainment industry is on its way to revival and we have much to show for it.

Last year, we had a whopping 21 movies release and the number is similar this year with 23. 2019 also saw many productions shift away from only hitting the screens during Eid, with big releases spread throughout the year. While it wasn't much, it's a start we hope to see more of in 2020.

This was the year of big debuts like Kamal Khan and Nehr Ghar's Laal Kabootar and even bigger comebacks like Meera's Baaji. However as a whole, we feel like the quality of movies didn't hold up as last year's offerings which included Load Wedding and Cake. Maybe our expectations were too high.

Here we rate every single one of past year's major releases so you can catch up on what you missed:

1) Laal Kabootar

Was there any doubt that Pakistan's Oscar submission wouldn't be our number one? Kamal Khan's directorial debut impressed us all and raised the bar way too high. The film is a rollercoaster ride taking you through Karachi’s dark underbelly alongside Ahmed Ali Akbar as Adeel Nawaz, a hustling taxi-driver and Mansha Pasha as Aliya Malik, an unstoppable force searching for her husband's murderer.

Read the full review here: In Laal Kabootar we finally have a movie that equals Karachi's chaos and glory

2) Durj

Despite almost being banned, Shamoon Abbasi's psychological thriller/horror is based loosely on a series of true events and we applaud the crew behind the film for taking a topic that can be easily too grotesque, and treating it right. Also, shout-out to Sherry Shah for a brilliant performance!

Read the full review here: Shamoon Abbasi’s Durj is about so much more than cannibalism

3) Baaji

Meera made her major comeback in a movie that seemed to tell her own tale. Her passion, drive and rapport with the equally on-point Amna Ilyas was a treat to watch and despite some flaws in the script, the duo's dynamics and individual stories got them to here.

Read the full review here: Meera finally gets the role she deserves in Baaji

4) Parey Hut Love

Based loosely on the classic rom-com Four Weddings and a Funeral, Asim Raza’s second feature is a light-hearted and fun watch. Just make sure you keep in mind what you’re heading into the cinema for — two hours of pure rom-com escapism full of tons of wedding inspo for Decemberistan aka shaadi season.

Read the full review here: Parey Hut Love is pure rom-com escapism

5) Superstar

What really worked for the Mahira Khan and Bilal Ashraf-starrer was the simplicity in the story — a welcome change from the wacky OTT plot twists we've been seeing in mainstream cinema — and an idea we could be invested in. Had the script been detail-oriented, it would've ranked up higher.

Read the full review here: Mahira Khan and Bilal Ashraf do their best in Superstar

6) Heer Maan Ja

What sets the tone for HMJ is not its roller coaster plot, half-baked chemistry between the film’s leading pair, or a cursory exploration of serious socio-cultural issues. What makes it a worthwhile watch is the film’s promise to entertain, and by being a jack of all trades, entertain it does. Suspend your disbelief and you will be amused.

Read the full review here: Heer Maan Ja fails to impress but doesn’t fail to amuse

7) Chhalawa

While the ensemble — especially Zara Noor Abbas and Aashir Wajahat — impressed us with their potential and we laughed to half of the jokes that landed quite well, we really wish the plot didn't have so many inconsistencies and unclear shifts in character motivations.

Also, can we stop making crass jokes with suicide as the punchline?

Read the full review here: Chhalawa is filmoun ki Imran Khan

8) Sherdil

Mikaal Zulfiqaar has us rooting for our nation in the cinemas as he soars the skies. We loved the action, especially the well-executed scenes with the fighter planes. However, it wasn't enough! Perhaps if we got more action and humour instead of the boring romance, we'd be giving it a higher rating. A sequel is in the works and we request more fighter planes please!

Read the full review here: Sherdil uses patriotism as bait and hopes a love for Pakistan will keep you hooked

9) Project Ghazi

The superhero action film serves as an important lesson to the film industry about the importance of post-production and being aware of what quality comes out of what deadline. The film improved magnanimously from its 2017 premiere. While it has its fair share of flaws, at least we knew the plot!

Read the full review here: Project Ghazi is a superhero film that learned from the past

10) Ready Steady No

Amna Ilyas shines in this rom-com that attempts to raise awareness about caste marriage. If the film had carried out the comical aspect thoughtfully instead of relying on ludicrous twists every 15 minutes, it would've fared much better and delivered its message clearly.

Read the full review here: Does Ready Steady No succeed in calling out caste marriage?

11) Wrong No 2

While not a sequel to Wrong No. the Yasir Nawaz flick features the same brand of slapstick/occasionally R-rated humour in a plot that similarly relies on multiple mistaken identities and wildly intersecting storylines to keep the audience hooked.

Read the full review here: Wrong No 2 is more than a silly comedy film

12) Gumm

Sami Khan carries this thriller on his shoulders and he does so well. For all the small holes tearing at its plot, the film doesn’t drag and wraps up neatly in less than two hours. The story grips simply because it remains unpredictable till the very last scene.

Read the full review here: Sami Khan's Gumm is surprisingly watchable

13) Talash

Talash is dubbed as the first Pakistani venture to tackle the subject of malnutrition and the cast members feel that ‘working for a cause’ will open new doors for others.

The biggest draw of the movie itself are the three debutants — Ahmed Zeb, Noaman Sami and Fariya Hassan — who are not just leading the way but also enthusiastic about their project.

Read the full review here: Talash aims to take the film industry forward

14) Sacch

As if the trailer didn't give us Yash Raj vibes, the movie itself feels like it tries hard to be a Bollywood film but remains a Pakistani one with much room for improvement. We still commend Hum for taking a chance on complete newbies for a feature film shot in Scotland.

Read the full review here: Truth be told, Sacch could've been a better movie

15) Daal Chawal

For a film that is more or less a public relations message about the valiant men and women of the police force, Daal Chawal veers quite close to how things are in reality. That said, it came off more like a telefilm than a movie made for the cinema; it lacked that little polish.

Read the full review here: Propaganda without a bite

16) Kaaf Kangana

Khalil ur Rehman's directorial debut (which he also wrote) has a screen time of 2 hours and 37 minutes and is a celebration of stereotypes, dialogues that seemed to be written in the early 90s and acting that can only be described as inspired by Ekta Kapoor’s extra soaps for Star Plus.

We know the attention it got might have you wondering why it didn't make it to last place. Unfortunately, there were films that ended up being much more disappointing — at least this one gave us memes.

Read the full review here: I finally watched Kaaf Kangana and instantly wished I hadn't

17) Tevar

We're always glad when a movie steers away from the commercial rom-com and while this flick has a minuscule premise, it works in its favour. The characters are given ample room to showcase their traits and temperaments and, as a result, the actors have room to perform.

We just wish the brutality was a little toned down, it went over the top quite often.

Read the full review here: Poetic Justice

18) Betabiyan

This alternate universe of late 90s storytelling clichés has glib characters, a trite premise and a screenplay that stretches one’s sense of belief. Overall, the cinematography didn't add any value from the framing, the lighting, to the low-light noise of the camera that has been, quite apparently, cleaned up during post-production.

Read the full review here: Betabiyan will leave you betab for the film to end

19) Jackpot

We're done with disgusting humour, sexual depravity and guts to make a movie without a fleshed-out story. Also, how many more more films will we get with Jawed Sheikh as a cigar-smoking baddie?

Read the full review here: Losing the lottery

20) Sirf Tum Hi Tou Ho

The Danish Taimoor-starrer may have been a sufferable idea 15 years ago — but even if made back then, the script (provided there was one) would have needed a re-write, and a better cinematographer, editor and director.

Read the full review here: Lost in competence

21) Kataksha

Saleem Meiraj did his best but couldn't save the film from confusing writing and weak characterisation. The film self-professes to be Pakistan’s first psychological horror. The psychological aspect is nowhere to be found here. It is, quite evidently, lost, like the horror and the storytelling.

Read the full review here: What exactly was that?

22) Roundabout

Yet another stabbing nostalgic reminder of the bad 90s movies that ran cinema (and cinema owners) into the ground. The screenplay takes a brief one-line idea and expands it into an overlong, illogical, slapdash movie.

Read the full review here: All pain no gain

23) Junoon-e-Ishq

With a plot that's overstuffed with story-twists that may go anywhere and end haphazardly, the film falls into the “so-bad-it-makes-you-cry-with-laughter” category.

Read the full review here: Sheer Madness

Special mention: Zindagi Tamasha

Sarmad Khoosat's film had its premiere at the Busan International Film Festival and also took home the Kim Ji-seok Award. The movie has not released in Pakistan as of yet and oddly enough the trailer has mysteriously disappeared. We hope that doesn't mean it won't release here!

But it really stings when a woman bashes the movement.

Singer Quratulain Balouch took to Twitter yesterday to remind us of the dichotomy between "real" and "fake" feminists:

"Real feminist gets down to work and wastes no time shouting for her “rights”," she tweeted.

Lets just back up a little...

You have the privileges you enjoy because of all the "shouting" women have done before you to pave the way.

Quick question: how are women supposed to "get down to work" when so many of them aren't even allowed to work?

We march so that no woman has to ask for permission for how she chooses to live her life.

Also, why is rights in quotation marks?

While we get that actions speak louder than words, if anything's going to change, we need to first be having these conversations.

Painting us off as unruly, shouting, angry women is just a tactic used by the patriarchy to diminish us; feminists working towards change are just simply clubbed together as "angry", too irrational or emotional to be taken seriously. Similarly, internalised misogyny is a product of the patriarchy that divides us even more.

Also, where does it say that if we're making noise, we're also not doing the work?

Also read: Khalil Ur Rehman, please sit

Tone-policing like this is how women who have gotten the short end of the stick for far too long are silenced, over and over again so it's disappointing when a public figure like Balouch peddles the same narrative. Ladies, don't let anyone, man or woman, tell you that having strong opinions or demanding your rights is the same thing as being angry.

Not to mention, it's just bad timing for her to throw her own gender under the bus; we have enough sexists like Khalil Ur Rehman Qamar, Orya Maqbool and Fazal-ur-Rehman opposing the Aurat Azadi March and slogans like Mera Jism, Meri Marzi which literally advocates for bodily autonomy.

We don't need someone who has internalised stereotypes about how women should behave enforcing on us her idea of what makes a feminist a "real" feminist; it's not that different from Qamar acting like an authority on who's a good woman or a bad woman.

So QB, we encourage you to join us at the March this year and see what women are supposedly shouting for. There are those who hate us, violate us, threaten us, rape us, silence us. We're expected to stay quiet 364 days of the year; we get March 8 to let loose, this is our day. Let us scream and shout and let it all out; our abusers and oppressors don't deserve our civility.

You’re quite the repeat offender — a certain tractor trolley remark instantly comes to mind — and you’re never repentant. Most of your sexism, it seems, shines through on the floor of the National Assembly where you’re able to speak to your heart’s content with little opposition from your peers.

We noticed that no one has censured you for this — not Sherry Rehman, who was seated right behind you and couldn’t have missed your disparaging and frankly disgusting remarks, not Shazia Marri, not Marriyum Aurangzeb, not your niece and PML-N leader Shaza Fatima Khawaja and certainly not Maryam Nawaz. If only people around you would tell you how disgusting your words are — especially those who otherwise claim to be champions of women’s rights. They can’t stay silent just because the offender is someone close to them or their party.

You don’t need a reminder of what you said, but our readers do. You called PTI senators Sania Nishtar, Zarqa Suharwardy Taimur, Falak Naz Chitrali and Fawzia Arshad leftover garbage. You said they are the remains of the PTI, the “ruins”, the “leftover filth and waste”. “This is the garbage left here, which has to be cleaned,” you said, adding, “Depraved women should not lecture on chastity.”

If you were anyone else, we wouldn’t have to lecture you on why what you said is wrong. But clearly, you don’t see anything wrong and nor do your peers who clapped along while you spewed hate on the floor of the assembly.

What in the world makes you think that speaking like this to anyone is okay? Using this kind of language against anyone — man or woman — is sickening and should not be allowed anywhere, let alone in the assembly. We don’t know if speaking about decorum and respecting the assembly will have any effect on you, given that you don’t respect the members of the assembly either.

At your tender age of 73, you shouldn’t need frequent reminders to mind your manners. And now this filth is spilling over onto your daughter. Social media is awash with pictures and videos of someone who had nothing to do with this, because filth doesn’t stay contained in a nice little box, the way you want it to. That garbage spreads and taints anyone involved, whether it is fair or not, whether they were involved or not.

You’re right that garbage needs to be removed from the assembly, but you seem to have mixed up what the garbage really is.

We’re not talking about seeing them celebrate a birthday, we’re talking about seeing a fine line, wrinkle or, God forbid, a grey hair.

For a moment, let’s set aside the deeply troubling fact that people feel they have the right to comment on what a person’s face looks like, whether they did something to it or not. Let’s instead dive down to the root of the problem — the fact that we hate to see people, especially women, age.

To visibly age is to ‘let go’ of oneself. Do you not care about how you look, women are asked if they let their grey hair grow out or don’t use expensive creams to try to cover their wrinkles.

Ageing is a normal process, yet women, especially those in the spotlight, are judged very harshly for it. If they let their wrinkles or lines be, they’re judged. If they get work done to hide those wrinkles and lines, they’re doubly judged. There’s no winning, not unless you can somehow stay 25 forever.

There’s a myth that people age ‘badly’ or ‘poorly’, as if there’s some one-size-fits-all measurement for how people will age. Some people will develop lines around their eyes, others will see their cheeks start to sag — all of this is normal and beautiful and not something to be judged for.

Our faces change with age — no one will look the same at 40 as they did at 20, nor should they. But whether your face changes a lot or a little, it has nothing to do with anyone but you.

There are those that say the slogan — fast becoming a marker of the movement this year — promotes promiscuity. But for the women who coined it, the offence lies not in the slogan, but in how centuries of oppressive social structures have taken women's fundamental right to bodily autonomy hostage.

Actor Ahmed Ali Butt, no stranger to controversy, joined in on the anti-slogan campaign.

In an Instagram story he recently posted, Butt equated the slogan as a western campaign that is being exploited locally and that wants to make prostitution legal.

He highlights what he calls the hypocrisy being "sold on social media and how everyone jumps on the # bandwagon."

Butt continues to 'inform' his uninitiated audience that that we shouldn't follow 'trends' and a 'foreign-funded' movement.

This is the same actor, who in his defence, works on media projects based on the same borrowed ideologies that he now claims to be hating on when it comes to women's rights. Now you can see why we can't sit this one out, even though we've just been through this.

To start with, if Butt, who seems to believe that feminism is a 'western' construct, had stepped out of his little bubble, he'd be surprised to find that the grassroots movement, which has slowly been taking shape over many years is a collective of women, different minority groups, and individuals who have mobilised around issues that affect those who don't have the privilege or the opportunity to speak and be heard.

By calling the local women's rights movement 'foreign-funded', Butt has discounted the beauty of organic initiatives that have a larger social resonance.

Secondly, if the actor had only taken the time and effort to research the slogan, which literally means that women want bodily autonomy and have the right, as enshrined in the Constitution of Pakistan, to make decisions concerning their own bodies, he wouldn't be quick to judge.

These decisions essentially include women having the right to make important calls about their bodies, their health, and really, their lives. Simple, isn't it? Of all the discourse that has been happening around Aurat March, if what Butt chooses to take away is that feminists somehow want to legalise prostitution, then that really says more about his interpretation of the slogan than it does about women's actual demands. The slogan is about consent, a concept clearly lost on Aurat March naysayers.

Also read: Before you get all worked up about Aurat March, read what it stands for

Feminists say the 'personal is political' because our homes are one of the first spaces where women undergo abuse, discrimination and control. The outside is even worse.

So we ask you Ahmed Ali Butt, do YOU have any evidence to support your claims? If not, please don't get on the bandwagon and 'follow trends'.

We wish you had read the Aurat March's charter of demands, rather than singling out one slogan out of thousands. Sorry to say, while your credentials don't qualify you to comment on this, we urge you nonetheless to think — and perhaps educate yourself about what the Aurat March stands for and who it represents — before you speak.

For those who are still misinterpreting the slogan and using it to comment against an already oppressed gender, we feel terrible that you are not able to see things for what they are, even with thousands doing the labour to break it down for you.

The brand's latest collection features a sweatshirt and hoodie which has 'Boys don't cry' written on the side.

Now, here's the problem. For too long, society has been teaching young boys not to express their emotions unless it's rage and look where that has gotten us. The inability to reveal emotions such as love, compassion and pain under the premise of it being weak has lead to violent inhibitions and overall mental health issues for men.

Let's not even get into the debate of how these terms, including 'don't act like a girl' are insulting to women by implying them as the weaker, inferior lot. These terms place shame on the value of vulnerability, which is human. Last we checked, men are human and should be allowed to behave as such.

The past decade has seen several debates on the subject of toxic masculinity and the dangers of perpetuating these stereotypes. We've talked about its link to domestic violence in married couples. We've talked about the rise in suicide rates and depression because men can't express their emotions. And we've come a long way from letting phrases like 'man up' or 'mard ko dard nahi hota' or 'boys will be boys' define society. Same goes for 'boys don't cry.'

Fashion like this is outdated and ignorant to the times. Like we said, the new year's nearly here so lets leave the sexist stereotypes behind; we're done with the reinforcement of such tropes. Let boys cry, they will grow up to be better men.

Amidst the chaos, Shaniera Akram exclaims enough is enough.

Earlier today, she took to Instagram to speak about her struggles as a white woman who went through exhaustive lengths to look tan because she was told it was beautiful.

“When I was growing up, we rubbed harmful oil on our faces and bodies and lay out all day in the harsh UV sun and burn to a crisp, just so that in 3-4 days the red and extremely painful burn would die down and eventually we would have a brown tan! We would also spend hours lying in a solarium which is fake sunlight machine risking skin cancers, skin disease, spots and adding years to our faces causing wrinkles and irreversible damage,” she wrote.

“And when the sun wasn’t available we would also rub toxic stains and dyes in to our skin everyday to give our skin a 3-5 shades darker sun kissed brown look.”

To conclude, she wanted her post to be a message of positivity and encouragement, which it is, to all the brown girls who were told they were not beautiful enough by those around them.

“What I’m trying to say is don’t try and change who you are, be happy underneath your skin, your beauty is interpreted by you, you are beautiful no matter what your skin colour is! And just remember, to all the girls with brown skin who want white, you are the envy of half the women on this planet, women and girls all over the world that go to any extremes to have your colour skin, so that’s got to be something worth enjoying!” she added.

Read: This photo highlights how we apply different standards to desi women versus foreign women

While we appreciate the sentiment, lets not pretend that we’re cut from the same cloth; light-skinned folks get to rock the ‘tan’ without the burden.

Unlike the darkened skin on white bodies that symbolise a sun-kissed, self-care day off spent sunbathing and sipping cocktails, a woman of colour is seen as inferior, even in her own society.

Regardless of how many creams she uses, how much skin she covers, she is still ‘exposed’ to not just the sun – but also the harsh words of those around her. There is nothing ‘exotic’ about that.

“We thought that if our skin was brown we looked healthier, prettier and more attractive to boys. We would go to any length to change the colour of white to brown because that what what was instilled in our minds, that brown was more beautiful,” stated Shaneira.

Except this is the problem. When fair people are obsessed with getting a tan, it is a choice they made and it is done in an effort to seem beautiful and exotic. But when a brown girl is bleaching her skin to look a little lighter, it is done in an effort to avoid all the oppression that comes her way because of her skin tone.

A white girl is never excluded from public spaces, ridiculed, or shamed for the way she looks even when she is not tanning her body but a brown girl faces the burden of her colour, especially when she’s not doing anything about it.

While Shaniera doesn’t agree with us, and we respect that, we also don’t agree with the idea that ‘reverse racism’ exists; assumptions and stereotypes about a dominant race are examples of racial prejudice, not racism.

Until a white girl is deemed unworthy of marriage because of her colour, until a white girl is deemed unfit in society because of the way she looks despite her accomplishments, and until a white girl is denied employment because she is not ‘attractive enough’, we don’t agree that they have shared our struggle.

Like, has she ever been told ‘chai nai piyo kyunke kaali hojaogi?’ Has Shaneira been deprived of chai because of her skin? Imagine that, girl.

According to Anaya, she felt uncomfortable with Sharik coming too close to the stage during her performance, but invited him onstage anyway. Once he was up, Shahrik proceeded to shout abusive and transphobic remarks about Anaya's physical appearance and her espousal of feminism.

"I wore a top which said 'We Should All Be Feminists.' I started with jokes about women empowerment and then I replied to those jokes, which were based on trans people."

"Then Sharik Shah, from Lahori Prankstar, and another comedian named Usman made jokes and used the [derogatory terms] khusra and shemale while the whole audience was laughing and enjoying my performance. He came up and kept trying to come onstage," said Anaya, who is a theatre artist, researcher and trans comedians in an improv group.

"I asked him to leave. He kept showing me his [middle] finger and I said even my fingers are not worthy of you, so he kept abusing me. I completed my performance and I was shivering when I left the stage."

After performing again for a brief encore, Anaya immediately left the venue.

The event organiser, LahoriFied, has since come out in Anaya’s support, saying, “Abusing someone on the basis of their gender is totally UNACCEPTABLE and we apologize [to Anaya].”

“I love my audience but I can't go through this stress and shame which I just faced. I have the video but I don't have the courage to watch it, and the more I think that many people were recording [the incident], the more I feel depressed and angry. I know this will be out and I'm imagining how happy that will make transphobes.”

"I lost my confidence; I thought I'm brave but until when? To what extent? Why can't this society become brave and fight against such people? Why didn't anyone stand up at the event and answer him?"

Even though the organiser has apologised, Anaya says, "There were some people who laughed at [Sharik's] comments, which made me think that people still find us as a joke. There should've been a pin-drop silence."

"This was not a joke. I was not a joke. I work hard to write stuff to make them laugh to give them good time, even in such stressful times."

Lahori Prankstar is a YouTube channel run by three pranksters from Lahore — Osama Khan, Asad Ramzan and Sharik Shah, who abused Anaya onstage. The channel has a history of uploading videos of public pranks involving crude portrayals of marginalised communities and people, including trans and disabled people.

"I was excited obviously [to perform that night]; it was a new audience. I kept thinking I'll do a different set and the moment I went on stage, I broke the ice and everyone laughed out. They were enjoying the performance so much," Anaya said.

"I was scared when I was called again onstage [for the encore] but had to do it — audience kept shouting 'Once more, Anaya'. I took a breath and went back, but i was shivering so had to end it."

Anaya expressed her distress at Shahrik's abusive comments and open transphobia, saying, "I was shocked that such people are still existing in this society and people follow them."

It goes without saying, but it's clear that it needs to be repeated: it's wrong to joke at the expense of people who are trans — and we need to make public and community spaces more inclusive for everyone.

Before the hype could die down, Neelum Muneer's dance performance on the track 'Khabon Mai' brought the spotlight back, especially with the actor's defence for taking on an item song because "this movie is a project of ISPR".

Read: Kaaf Kangana's item number might be my first and last, says Neelam Muneer

DG ISPR Asif Ghafoor also defended the track when called out for it, but it looks like it didn't pan out the way he expected it to:

While he clarified that the song does not take place at GHQ as implied by the Twitterati saying, "(GHQ is at Rawalpindi, not Islamabad) nor of an event organised for ISPR as such," it was his defence of the item song that struck the wrong chord.

"The item song is by an Indian girl in the movie as per her role, you may watch movie to know the context."

The comment is confusing (at best), as it doesn't really absolve the movie of objectifying a woman - that too with some extremely uncomfortable and derogatory lyrics - and implies that it is okay as long the the actor - who is still Pakistani - is playing an Indian.

How about we don't sexualise and objectify women at all, regardless of their nationalities? And perhaps it would be a good idea to not inject the politics of war and conflict into every debate.

Given the brevity of Twitter, a statement such as this could also be interpreted by many to mean all song and dance are inherently bad i.e. "If the enemy does it..." and the classic, "Not our culture".

Song and dance has always been a part of desi movies - and that in itself is not a bad thing. But when we already live in a society that doesn't respect women, these 'item' numbers catering to the male gaze do no one any favours. Of course, that point really wasn't made here.

To sum it up:

It all started when he opened up about his favourite onscreen adaptation of his writings being drama Mere Paas Tum ho, which centres around infidelity and broken marriages, commending its director Nadeem Baig for a job well done.

It all went downhill pretty fast when he started talking about the problems with married couples, good women and bad women and...women.

In fact, during the interview - which felt like an audition for a melodrama in the 70s - he even managed to shock host Yashfah Butt who clearly didn't see it coming as soon as he said: "Women shouldn't get angry at the drama considering how they've insulted men."

Asked about what inspired the themes and plot of Meray Paas Tum Ho, the director entered a strange spiel about his take on feminism and gender “equality”.

Spoiler alert: he doesn’t understand what either of those are.

Here are some of the most disturbing takeaways from his latest interview:

Qamar believes he can decide what makes a woman in fact, a woman

"I don't call every woman a woman, whether you like it or not... There's only one thing that makes a woman beautiful and that's haya [modesty] and wafa [loyalty]. If you don't have those, I call you non-women."

First of all, that's two things. And we're confused whether Qamar thinks the lack of those makes a woman less beautiful or not a woman at all. Are only beautiful women women? Why has Qamar pronounced women three different ways in the same video? So many questions.

While mansplaining to the female interviewer about womanhood, he also tried to equate loyalty as something that just women embody, absolving men of all responsibility of doing the same. Slow clap.

"There's no bigger feminist in Pakistan than me"

Qamar says, "I am fighting for the good women, there is no bigger feminist in Pakistan than me" but also manages to say, "I will give them equal rights, but a little below [men]" in the same 10 seconds.

We will pause for a collective eye-roll. All together now. Good? Okay, moving on.

Someone please explain to the director what feminism means. Being a feminist literally means political, economic, and social equality of the sexes so we think maybe the words he was looking for are 'biggest misogynist'.

So equality according to him means women raping men

Hold on because this one is truly bizarre.

Qamar mentioned asking a person, "Have you seen the news where a woman was kidnapped by five men? But have you ever heard of five women kidnapping a man? Do that! If you want equality then do that!"

"I'll know there's equality if I hear about women robbing buses and gang-raping men."

There's a lot to unfold there, like how Qamar condones violence and thinks feminism should be based on such heinous acts. Can't believe this needs to be said but no, when we ask for equality, we don't mean equally partaking in assaulting each other.

Why can't you just listen to women and hear the issues they're constantly addressing rather than just talking about these superficial points? This is just an upgraded version of the 'does equality mean I can hit women?' argument. It's dated. Stop.

Qamar doesn't know what rights women want

He goes on to say, "What even are these rights that women want? Your problem is that us men have stolen your rights so cleverly you don't know what they are. Instead of finding that out, you want our rights."

As the saying goes, equal rights for women doesn't mean less rights for men, it's not pie. Also, thanks for admitting you stole some from women. Biggest feminist indeed.

Qamar thinks men can't say no

Qamar seems to think consent is a commonly understood concept, which is naive at best, but actually horrifying... because he goes on to say that men don’t have the power to say no.

"You can't change a man's nature," said Qamar continuing his rant. "The entire society will crumble...why lift fingers at men?"

Honestly, this is way more insulting to men than women. We're surprised that folks who say "not all men" aren't annoyed at a filmmaker stating they have no control.

It isn’t just the logic here that’s flawed, but also the implication that men have no free will or power over their own thoughts and actions. This does not, in fact, reveal men as vulnerable but actively dehumanises men.

"Women can say no, men can't," is Qamar's justification of men cheating on their wives. Apart from how incredulously rapey that sounds, we're just wondering exactly how does Qamar, a man, know a woman's capabilities so well. Can men just quit mansplaining women to women? It's getting embarrassing now.

To also qualify that only “good” women have the power to withhold consent, and to place the responsibility of consent squarely on them, is also extremely flawed and dangerous.

Our biggest fear from men is apparently the other woman

After bringing up a gang rape incident himself, Qamar believes that the biggest thing women fear when attached to a man is the other woman, who, despite not betraying a spouse like the husband, is equally to blame, if not more.

”What is the greatest thing women fear from men? That he’ll leave them for another. So that other woman is another woman, right? The other woman is not a man. They’re bringing each other down on the one hand and raising a fuss about it too.”

Talk about victim-blaming. We've heard enough cases of married men pretending to be single to women to know better than Qamar's "philosophy" as he calls it.

And should the roles be reversed, it's still the spouse's responsibility which is greater. The way blame is always shifted onto the woman is ridiculous.

Our biggest fears are actually domestic abuse, rape, acid attacks... the list goes on. When the host asks if the other woman was to blame in another high profile case which was related to domestic abuse, Qamar immediately denied speaking about it. So, there you go.

While the biggest fear men apparently have is makeup

While we're fighting against violence, the biggest fear men seem to have is makeup. Qamar clarifies that apart from “unsatisfied and undesired marriages”, failed marriages are the result of too much makeup.

”The first time a man sees a woman, she has Rs50,000 worth of makeup on. After marriage, she turns out to be something else. You should only sell the product that I’m going to spend the rest of my life with… I’m not going to spend the rest of my life with makeup from Depilex. Show your true face.”

A face, a person is not a product on sale for the male gaze. Not to mention, makeup shaming is so 10 years ago. Newsflash: women don't care if you think they're wearing too much or too little makeup. Lets not even get into the whole gendered expectations from society that dictate how a woman should appear.

Also, how come no one talks about how men trick us with facial hair? We all know how deceptive that can be. Thanks for coming to our Ted talk.

Dua Mangi was walking with her friend, Haris Fatah in DHA when four or five armed men in a car intercepted them, fired multiple shots, left the guy wounded and took her away, officials and witnesses said.

Family of the now missing woman put up statuses on social media while the news covered the shocking incident and people starting talking about the matter, but not in the way you'd think.

Disgusting and ridiculous comments poured in, calling out Mangi for being kidnapped because apparently, it was her fault. Her crime? Trying to be herself.

From her dressing to her tweets, people found a way to rid men with weapons of any guilt over kidnapping a young woman and shooting her friend - leaving him to recover in the ICU.

The same folks who go 'not all men' are going beyond complicity in their support of the kidnapping, saying 'yes all women.'

And the same people who say "that's just his social media personality" to defend a person's problematic statements claim she was “asking” to be abducted because of her tweets and views.

The very people who deny the notion that this country isn't safe for women have once again proven this country isn't safe for women.

And of course, because no one really cares about the wellbeing of a young woman, some didn't even miss a chance to mock her appearance and looks in general.

To you all we say:

A young woman's life is at stake, so many others have suffered like this. Can we all please have some basic empathy and stop with the moral policing?

"She shouldn't have made those videos in the first place."

"Ladies, beware and don't believe in dekh kar delete kardunga."

Some doubted the authenticity of the videos and came up with their own conspiracy theories about who could be behind the leak.

None of that matters.

Whether or not those videos are real and whether or not they were properly deleted should not be anyone's concern. Whether she really made them or why is also nobody's business; she is entitled to sexual privacy just like any other public or private figure.

What matters is that they were clearly made public against her will and weaponised against her.

We need put an end to this victim-blaming mentality and put the shame where it belongs, with the offender of an electronic assault such as this, not the victim whose privacy was violated.

And she is a victim here. The dissemination of explicit videos or photos without their consent subjects a person to emotional distress, psychological trauma and public humiliation.

In a country like Pakistan, where women exercising their sexual agency can bring "dishonour" to the family, circulating images of such nature can have even more dangerous consequences.

Whether her videos were leaked in revenge for a perceived slight, to blackmail her or by someone who came across an old phone she sold to the second hand market does not change the fact that leaking private personal data without consent of its owner and subject is unethical. And a crime, under the 2016 Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act.

If convicted, an individual can be sent to prison and fined as well. However, this hasn't stopped the spate of hate.

What is also deeply disturbing is that even now, more than 24 hours later, men on social media are still openly asking for and sharing her videos, collecting and trading them like Pokemon cards, and hashtags are inundated with links to download.

The expression of faux outrage is particularly hypocritical; those who seek and watch the videos are the same ones involved in harassing, publicly shaming and ridiculing Pirzada for making them in the first place.

In her latest tweet since the incident, Pirzada has written that whoever conceals the faults and sins of another, God will do the same for them on the Day of Judgement:

Stop sharing the 'leaked' data. Report those posts. Instead of slut-shaming and moral policing her, start calling out the perpetrator who violated her consent.

We're hoping Pirzada is staying strong in the face of such dreadful abuse and vehemently condemn this breach of her and any person's privacy.

Complaints related to cyber crimes and online harassment can be reported to the Federal Investigation Agency here.

Titled 'Feminism: The Other Perspective', the talk will feature five speakers and surprise surprise, they're all men.

On 22 November, Duraid Qureshi, Jibran Nasir, Mohsin Sayeed, Muaaz Ahsan and Nabeel Qureshi will be chatting about feminism without the inclusion of a single woman.

You can see why this is a troubling line-up and Twitter didn't hold back on calling them out on it:

People started predicting how that dialogue would go:

Just sayin'

Jibran Nasir has since responded to the backlash online, explaining how the title might be misleading. "I've requested the organizers to change it. I was informed the panel is about men talking to other men about rethinking masculinity and why as men we need feminism. It wasn't to explain feminism or talk about women issues as men," he wrote.

He also said, "It's about how as men we must support women around us... Im a vocal critic of manels. But this is about men speaking to other men. I've already communicated these concerns which are legitimate to the organizers and have asked them to issue a clarification about the intended discussion of panel and whom the panel is addressing."

We're glad that Jibran figured out that the title is also what's problematic about this. Just calling it some thing else like 'Male Privilege Made Me A Feminist' or 'Redefining Masculinity' would have made all the difference.

And while it is important to talk about toxic masculinity and allyship, and it's sad but true that men have a a far better shot at getting through to each other, can you really have a fruitful discourse about how to support women without any women present? An all-male meeting like this minimises the value of women's insight and representation.

Because it sounds as ridiculous as this:

Like...

This guy gets it:

The panel, formerly titled 'Feminism: The Other Perspective' and now called 'Understanding Feminism' was criticised for the all-men roster, with many calling it out for hijacking the movement.

Also read: Jibran Nasir clarifies why upcoming panel on feminism is a manel

Jibran Nasir, who is part of the panel, had given his clarification, admitting "the title is misleading and I've requested the organizers to change it."

According to him, "the panel is about men talking to other men about rethinking masculinity and why as men we need feminism. It wasn't to explain feminism or talk about women issues as men."

The talk will now include two women - Mehtab Akbar Rashidi and Quatrina Hosain with Uzma Al-Karim as a moderator; filmmaker Nabeel Qureshi is no longer on the panel.

We're still a little unsure about the title if the purpose of the panel is actually about redefining masculinity (that sounds like a fine title right there) and discussing men supporting women. However, accountability is important and we're glad that the issue was understood by those participating and there was an attempt to fix the glaring problem. There's nothing wrong with admitting an error in judgement and saying "I stand corrected" as Jibran did.

We just hope a lesson has been learnt rather than the changes being made for the sake of optics after being called out for excluding women. Baby steps. Guess we'll find out when the event takes place.

But does that mean we push everything aside, forget why we're social distancing and go about our daily lives as if there isn't a global pandemic rapidly spreading? Of course not.

That's why it was rather surprising to see Nabila's latest update about her salon reopening with the latest precautionary measures for the safety of her clientele.

The salon claimed that it planned to be "a safe space with a superior level of hygiene combined with best practices and medical level sanitisation to ensure the health and well being of everyone who walks through our doors."

You can imagine that this raised some eyebrows in the comment section; the amount of gloves, masks and PPEs have irked many who responded to the video reminding the salon owner that those should go to the health workers who are on the frontlines risking their lives to save others.

However, instead of clarifying the situation, Nabila took a different and rather hostile approach

Even when sharing that the salon isn't open, she was rather aggressive

To say her comments were harsh is an understatement as she even insulted a health worker who brought up the issue.

And some responses... were just confusing

Images reached out to the salon owner who simply stated, "I will not be bullied."

She made sure to highlight the fact that she wasn't immediately opening for business.

"I am waiting for the government to give me the green signal. I understand that I am not offering an essential service which is why we have now been closed for seven weeks. But when other businesses start opening eventually, I want us to open as well."

"I cannot sit back and do nothing which is why I have consulted with doctors and my own stylists to devise ways of running the salon while strictly following corona compliant SOP’s. Even if we do open, we’ll be functioning at about 30% of our normal capacity while the price of the products that we use has increased by 20%. That means we’ll only be earning about 10%. That’s no way to do business, but in these circumstances, that’s all that we can do," she added.

About the online comments from people, she went on to say, "The trolls that have been attacking me are saying that we are wasting PPE that should be used in hospitals. PPE was not easily available earlier but right now it is in surplus and we are exporting it.

"I am getting my supply of masks through a friend of mine who is giving me the ones that are rejected because of a few stitches that have gone wrong. I am going to try and make use of that."

According to Nabila, "The video I made about raising the bar simply outlines how I am trying to find a new way to move forward. I am an industry veteran, I have given 35 years to this business, I am the president of PHABA (Pakistan Hairdressers and Beauty Association)."

"When trolls attack me on [Instagram], calling my haircuts ‘stupid’, cursing at me, telling me that I should die from the coronavirus, I react. I am human and I feel angry. Perhaps I could have worded my [comments] differently but even if I had, the basic gist would have been the same."

While we sympathise with her situation as a business owner and are aware that those employed within the salon industry are suffering, it really does not justify the replies she posted on Instagram. As businesses evolve to keep up with the times, people understandably will have queries and concerns, which entrepreneurs and owners much like Nabila need to answer if they want to keep their customers.

Trolls who get personal deserve a clap-back but the responses made by Nabila were mostly to people upset about the situation. That could've been avoided by an explanation that drives home the point that the video is for future preparations. Nowhere does it clearly state that the salon isn't reopening immediately. Nowhere does it state that the masks are the ones rejected because of 'a few stitches gone wrong'.

It makes sense that people are expressing their reservations when previously several medical professionals has voiced their concerns over not having proper equipment when dealing with Covid-19. It also makes sense if people want to know how you plan on social distancing while running a high-contact business. A lot could be sorted with an explanation rather than lashing out.

Additional reporting by Maliha Rahman

How could she not be? She's always had her beautiful vocals and profound, heartfelt lyrics that get our eyes all misty. Over a decade later, she's still a queen.

However, when the singer recently resurfaced on social media after being MIA for months to thank essential workers at the frontlines and everyone who wished her happy birthday, the internet was only focusing on one thing. Yep, you guessed it. Her weight.

We understand you can't exactly ignore it; it is a somewhat drastic change. But why are we discussing Adele’s weight again when she herself hasn’t commented on it? Oh right, because that's what the internet's been doing to her since she was 19.

For years now, people have been comfortable judging her on the one thing that has nothing to do with her talent: her body. She’s been at the receiving end of fatphobic comments and jokes like 'she turns her weight into Grammys' throughout her career; anytime her weight fluctuates, there are new memes. Like a human being is expected to stay one size forever

Unsurprisingly, this time around though, it’s all compliments. And it's rather irksome the way it's being celebrated over social media.

Here's a look at Adele's accomplishments; 15 Grammy Awards, nine Brit Awards, 18 Billboard Music Awards, an Oscar and a Golden Globe, just to name a few. A few. This is hardly the most memorable thing she's ever done.

For people to say she's 'finally' beautiful, as if to place all her value and worth on her figure, to imply it as her biggest achievement is an insult to the past decade that was her successful career. As if her old body was wrong.

Not to mention, celebrities who succumbed to different illnesses - both physical and mental – come out better but comparatively overweight, definitely don’t get the same kind of affirmation.

Lets be honest, people don’t care about Adele’s glow-up in the context of her own happiness and well-being, they just care that she’s skinny.

The past few years have seen an increase in discussions around body positivity and acceptance but there's still a lot more ground left to cover. We have set unrealistic and damaging standards of beauty and weight by using this odd label of ‘thin’ as healthy and anything above that as unhealthy when that's just not the case. It's time we acknowledge that weight loss isn’t always warrant celebration or praise and while it can be a positive thing, that isn't always the case.

For now, let us just say that while we're happy for Adele (who's smiling and sounds well!), we'd rather not see all her worth placed on that alone. And from previous conversations that shehas had, we can assure you that neither does she.

In her own powerful words at 23 to People Magazine: “I’ve never wanted to look like models on the cover of magazines... I represent the majority of women and I’m very proud of that.”

Leaving you with this key reminder:

But why do they have to be either? The couple in question hasn't spoken up after the 'incident' — some very obviously fake Twitter accounts in their names notwithstanding — and have been lying low since their expulsion. We've made them into crusaders for a cause but has anyone asked if they want to be the poster-children for love in Pakistan?

But whether they like it or not, Pakistan is talking about the "incident". Videos uploaded on social media showed a young woman handing roses and cards to a young man and then bending down on one knee and holding out a bouquet of roses to him. He takes the roses and then pulls her in for a hug. A crowd of students surrounds the couple and cheers them on. Everyone from politicians to celebrities is talking about it.

And apparently, when a video on social media goes this viral, even the government will take notice. The Ministry of Human Rights Parliamentary Secretary Lal Chand Malhi recently called the University of Lahore’s decision an “overreaction” and asked the varsity to re-admit them. That the government officially intervened is shocking in itself — most ministers' preferred form of action is taking notice via Twitter — but that it stood up for an unmarried young couple is even more noteworthy.

The university says the couple violated Section 9 of its General Discipline Rules and Code of Conduct. Unlike other varsities, the University of Lahore doesn't publish these rules online, but Pakistani universities have a poor track record with allowing students the liberty to express themselves.

Malhi called the university's action "moral policing" and said deviant behaviour should instead be regulated through counselling, noting, however, that such services were mostly not provided by university administrations.

The letter noted that the personal freedoms of the right to marry and propose at will are guaranteed by Pakistani laws and the Constitution, as well as international covenants. The university's "extreme action" has sent a critical message that it could not tolerate and accept two students proposing to each other, wrote Malhi.

One of the biggest arguments online against the couple's expulsion was that the university hasn't taken action against teachers accused of harassment but pounced on this opportunity to flex its authority. Why was a couple hugging more abhorrent to the University of Lahore than harassment? Online, people began bashing the couple and argued that they should get married before hugging. They're ignoring the fact that they were punished for a public proposal. In our experience, most proposals are for marriage.

Amid all these conversations, we seem to have missed something pretty major — a young woman broke barriers for proposing to a young man. In a society where men are expected to make the first (and only) move, we should be applauding her for being brave and going after what she wants. Instead, we turned her into a villain and ruined her future.

Pakistan, we have so much more to worry about. Our Covid cases are rising and violence against women continues unabated. National outrage over an expression of joy is both unneeded and unwarranted. Would we have preferred that he wasn't happy about being proposed to?

The Ministry of Human Rights said, "Both the girl and the boy did not commit such a heinous crime for which they were punished severely and expelled from the university." Their crime, it seems, was being too happy for Pakistanis.

It all started when morning show Subh Savaray Pakistan aimed to have a conversation on divorce and its effects on children. The show's host, Sarvat Valim featured psychiatrist, Dr. Naushaba Manan who brought some brilliant points about how it's the not the divorce itself but the toxic and abusive environment that damages a child's psyche.

Unfortunately for the doctor and the important topic, the panel also included Mrs. Khan, who is now being identified as a popular rishta aunty (matchmaker) by the internet.

Mrs. Khan steered the conversation away from the impact of divorce on children and attempted to talk about why divorces happen in the first place. Guess where her internalised sexism took her?

That's right people, divorces happen because women are speaking up for themselves.

Said Mrs Khan, "Keep your tongue in check. If women control what comes out of their mouth, divorces won't happen so often. We used to be told that when the husband comes home, his shoes are placed in a certain manner, his clothes are kept in a proper way. There should be a roti on the tawa just ready to be served with the salan."

Oh, the irony of a woman yelling on national television telling other women to control their tongue. Won't lie, we were appalled that such a voice is being amplified in 2019.

We live in a time when men and women are both out and earning for the home; many of us have been raised by working parents. Also, are we still not raising men to be able to take care of themselves? Is a reason for divorce actually that women aren't, placing their shoes properly?

Read: Why I made the sign 'Khud khana garam karlo'

"What is it with women these days who say 'I won't make roti'? Why get married then?"

Dear Mrs Khan, no woman gets married so they can do unpaid labour to their husband. Marriage is about respect and many are out now looking for partners who'll enhance their lives, not reduce them to a Rotimatic.

Speaking of which, to all those who want to bring in a wife or daughter-in-law so that they can get rotis whenever they want, check out the Rotimatic. Gets the job done, costs a fraction of a wedding and also will save a woman's life since you won't be bringing her in as house help.

Mrs. Khan went on to claim that if a woman doesn't do all these things, she isn't a proper woman.

"Who raised you and who gave you your education. Who came home from work? These same rules apply to you."

While she meant to imply that husbands go to work and mothers do the cooking and raising, she fails yet again to acknowledge that many have been raised by working women and fathers are also involved in raising their children.

These thoughts reek of internalised misogyny and toxic masculinity that even many men have moved on from.

Mrs. Khan also took it up to an 11 and went on a rant about women choosing to take care of their husbands and not the in-laws.

"How can you only take care of your husband? You should get out of the house then."

Apart from the fact that Mrs. Khan has completely backtracked from her earlier statement about women refusing to take care of their husbands, wait till she finds out how many women actually do want to get out of the house.

The most fascinating part of these old-school problematic thoughts is how it has nothing to do with the impact of divorce on children.

You didn't let anyone change your mind — not public outcry, not international horror, not even your supporters twisting your words to mask your meaning. And this time, you spoke in English, leaving no room for ambiguity.

We would commend you for staying true to yourself if only the words you uttered weren't so problematic.

Women across Pakistan can rest assured that if someone rapes them, our prime minister will say it was the fault of "temptation", not the rapist. Would the same apply to children?

In an interview to Jonathan Swan for Axios, the premier was asked about his earlier comments about temptation, women's dressing and men's "willpower” — and how he was accused of rape victim blaming.

Imran, brushing it off as nonsense, said the concept of purdah is to avoid temptation in society. But then he went on to explain how Pakistan's society works and this where he lost the plot.

"We don’t have discos here, we don’t have nightclubs, so it is a completely different society, way of life here, so if you raise temptation in society to the point and all these young guys have nowhere to go, it has consequences in the society."

The interviewer point-blank asked him if what women wear has any effect. This is where our premier really went off track.

"If a woman is wearing very few clothes it will have an impact, it will have an impact on the men, unless they’re robots. I mean it’s common sense."

Is it common sense, PM Imran? Do you think men are so weak and out of control that the slightest show of skin will send them into a violent sexual fit?

When questioned if women's clothes would really provoke acts of sexual violence, the premier instead of saying "No, rape is not provoked", he said: "It depends on which society you live in. If in a society where people haven’t seen that sort of thing, it will have an impact on them."

There you have it folks, our prime minister in all his glory.

If you still have doubts about whether the premier is a rape apologist, let us disabuse you of that notion.

A rape apologist is someone who excuses, condones or justifies rape. When PM Imran says women wearing "very few clothes" will have an impact on men, he's saying men will rape you if you don't wear the clothes they want you to. To our Oxford- educated prime minister, clothes "provoke" rape. What then were the children and animals who were raped in Pakistan wearing, we ask.

Clearly, he must have an answer for that.

Men are not robots, he said, as if any sane man would attack a woman based on her clothes. If you weren't insulted before, you should be now. Imran Khan seems to have little respect for rape victims and it seems he doesn't think much of men either. He believes that men can't help it: they'll see a woman in "very few clothes" and attack. That he sees Pakistani men as little more than animals with no impulse control speaks volumes.

And for the people who say, oh but he's talking about "very few clothes", let us ask you this: what constitutes "very few clothes"? Is it a bikini? Or jeans and a T-shirt? Or shalwar kameez without a dupatta? Or a hijab without an abaya? Or an abaya without a face covering?

We'll say it again and again and again: There is no justification for rape — not the victim's clothes, shoes, hair, style of walking, manner of talking or anything else.

He also needs to keep in mind that by pushing this problematic narrative of "young men" not having outlets for their sexual urges, he is giving rapists and harassers an excuse on a silver platter. And they are not all "young men"! As was recently proven by the Mufti Azizur Rehman sexual abuse case, rape is a crime perpetuated by anyone in a position of power.

If nothing else, the premier could have kept this harrowing case in his mind while answering questions about rape and temptation and reminded himself that though there is never a time to be a rape apologist, this is an even worse time than usual. The trauma of rape is immense and it resurges every time a rape apologist provides what in their mind constitutes as a reason for this violence.

To our prime minister we have a few heartfelt requests: 1) Think, really think, about the impact your words have on survivors of sexual assault and their families. You have reduced their pain to something as vague as temptation and don't seem to have any concrete answers as to how you plan to tackle this issue or give them justice 2) Talk to women, and really listen. Women are groped in societies which have "discos and nightclubs" and women who wear an abaya and a hijab and a veil have been subjected to sexual violence as well. Stop putting all the burden of sexual violence on women and how they dress.

If you don't know what the women of this society go through regardless of what they wear, and are going to group all men into the category of "unable to control their sexual urges", then you, Imran Khan, are not fit to represent this society that you speak of.

An agreement reached between the two parties — the victim, Mirza Akhtar Ali, and the dogs’ owner, Humayun Ali Khan — has stipulated that the dogs will be put down. According to the compromise agreement dated July 6, Akhtar had agreed to forgive Khan “for the sake of Allah” on the following conditions:

• The dogs’ owner tenders an unconditional apology to Akhtar for the “hurt and injury caused to him”.
• Humayun Ali Khan and his family will not keep “any dangerous or
  ferocious dogs” at their home as pets. Any other dogs kept as pets
  will be registered with the Clifton Cantonment Board and will not be allowed to venture out on the streets without a properly trained
  handler and will be muzzled and leashed at all times when they are
  outside.
• The two dogs involved in the attack on the lawyer will be euthanised/put down by a veterinarian “immediately”. Khan will give away any other such dogs that he owns.
• The dogs’ owner will make a donation of Rs1 million to the Ayesha Chundrigar Foundation/ACF Animal Rescue.

News of this agreement and the condition that a donation must be made to the ACF has sparked what is in our opinion a rather needless debate. The ACF has now been made to bear the brunt of people’s outrage. They’re angry that the ACF accepted the donation and didn’t rehabilitate the dogs but in a legal agreement between two parties, what role does the ACF have? Were they expected to swoop in and grab the dogs from the authorities or refuse the donation that could be used to help many other animals?

In a post on Instagram, the ACF announced it will be using the money for its ongoing trap/neuter/vaccinate/relocate-release programme. It also addressed the hate it has been receiving.

To be clear, the two dogs being put down is a tragedy. As the ACF said in its post, “no dog is born bad”. They were products of their upbringing and lack of training and the blame for the attack falls squarely onto the shoulders of their owner.

But to those who are arguing that the ACF shouldn’t take the “blood money”, we say this: in a civilised society we wouldn’t need the ACF at all. In a civilised society, people would treat animals with respect and the government would have animal shelters to help injured animals. But this isn’t a civilised society and we don’t have that.

Instead, we have an organisation that has worked to help and rescue hundreds if not thousands of stray animals from horrendous situations that is now being bashed for accepting a donation stipulated in a legal agreement. It’s unfortunate that such a compromise was reached in the first place, that our legal system allows compromises of this nature to be made, that our state doesn’t have a mechanism to house and rehabilitate these dogs and that people have the ability to purchase and then neglect animals.

If things were different, there would be dozens of solutions other than euthanasia but this isn’t a civilised society. This is one where humans barely have rights, let alone animals. It’s one where we would rather kill stray dogs than neuter them, where calls for murder seems to be our instinctive go-to whenever something happens.

The burden of blame here falls on many players — the dogs’ owner, the state, the legal system — but it doesn’t fall on the ACF or the animals. The Rs1 million donation can be used by the organisation to save many other animals but it’s not coming at the cost of two lives. The ACF not accepting that money wouldn’t have saved those two dogs — the donation would have been given to another organisation instead.

In a perfect world, none of this would have happened — not the dogs’ lack of training, the attack, the compromise nor the donation — but we don’t live in a perfect world, we live in Pakistan and, unfortunately, we have to make the best of a truly bad situation.

This was the deeply disappointing takeaway from the speeches Prime Minister Imran Khan and PML-N Vice-President Maryam Nawaz made in Kashmir over the weekend.

In his speech, the premier referenced pictures of former premier Nawaz Sharif, who went abroad in 2019 for medical treatment, attending his grandson Junaid Safdar's polo match in the UK. Junaid is the son of Maryam and Captain Safdar and was playing polo for Cambridge University.

"The poor should go to jail and the powerful get NROs (National Reconciliation Ordinance) and go park themselves abroad and watch their grandson’s polo match," Imran said in his speech.

"This grandson who is playing polo in Britain [...] I’ve met so many Kashmiris in London and Manchester, ask them what kind of person can play polo there," the premier said, not masking his disdain. "They will tell you it's a king's sport!"

He said the common man cannot play polo. "You need a lot of money to keep a horse and play polo. So tell us where this dear grandson got this money from. It's your [the people's] money!" he told the crowd.

The next day, Maryam addressed his comments about her son in her speech, but instead of taking the high road, she went even lower.

"[Junaid] is now the polo team captain and is increasing Pakistan’s respect [abroad]. [Imran] says 'that grandson' is going abroad and playing polo, he doesn’t even spare children," she jibed. "He says, 'where did he get the money to play polo'.

"I didn’t want to bring children into it, but the way you’re talking, you’re going to get a befitting reply," she said before launching into an anti-semitic tirade.

"He’s Nawaz Sharif’s grandson, not Goldsmith’s. He’s Nawaz Sharif’s grandson, he’s not being raised in the lap of Jews," she said.

There you have it — Pakistani politics at its finest.

Both statements are problematic and unnecessary but apparently that's not obvious to our politicians.

Let's start with PM Imran.

If you want to bash Nawaz Sharif for going to a polo match when he says he is too ill to return to Pakistan to face court cases against him, do it. That is where you criticism should have ended.

Dragging Nawaz's grandson into politics, for merely playing a sport, makes no sense. Imran Khan himself was a sportsman and his private life, including assets and acquaintances, were scrutinised relentlessly. His own experience with the media poking holes into his private life should teach him not to go after a young man who is neither in politics nor a professional player.

Yes, the main target of Imran's address was his political nemesis Nawaz but raising questions on where Junaid got the money to play polo from is uncalled for.

He has a father, mother and grandfather — all political figures — for you to take potshots at for their sources of income, and you have done that. So don't go after the kid thinking he's fair game just because of his family tree.

Now, on to Maryam. There's so much to unpack here.

1) Don't bring down another woman

Jemima Goldsmith (formerly Khan) has been subjected to so much hate from our people. When someone wants to take a hit at Imran Khan, Jemima and her religion inevitably become the butt of their jokes. Yes, she married a Pakistani man but even years after her divorce, she and her kids are dragged into dirty politics. She has even spoken about the hate she got from both quarters — the Islamophobes and the anti-semitics.

As a mother, and as a woman, Maryam should know better than to go after another — and that too knowing full well how Jemima has been targetted personally for her ties to Judaism.

2) Hold yourself to a higher standard

While Jemima frequently shares her thoughts on Pakistani politics on Twitter, her sons have pointedly stayed away. They have never made any public remarks about Pakistan, politics or anything really. They don't even have public social media accounts.

Ironically, Maryam in her speech even pointed out that "he (Imran) doesn't spare children", but then went on to do the same.

"He's not Goldsmith's grandson," you said, as if that is something to be ashamed of. "He’s not being raised in the lap of Jews." When you drag someone's religion into your argument, you know you've lost any credibility you ever had. Perhaps we expected more from Maryam because of her own struggles or the fact that she too was in the spotlight for being the child of a prime minister. We believed she would be above targeting children and wouldn't justify doing so just because her political opponent did the same.

3) Anti-semitism is never okay

We can't even begin to explain how uncalled for your "raised in the lap of Jews" comment was. If Imran Khan is everything you say he is, then be better. Why are you sinking to this level to one up him? Anti-semitism or any kind of hate for any religion has no place in politics and Maryam Nawaz should know that.

What kind of message does this send to the kids being raised in non-Muslim households in Pakistan? Will that be held against them? If you aspire to be a leader of this country, then know that it has people of all faith. Derogatory language regarding someone's upbringing, particularly because of their religion, is not okay.

To both of them we say, stop the petty politics and acting like children — wait, we retract the last part; children are also taught to fight fair.