Dawn Images

After drawing heavy criticism for comparing women to flies, Adnan Siddiqui has said he “regrets” any unintended offence his words may have caused, because they were intended to be “humorous”.

Taking to his Instagram stories amid a social media storm on Friday, Siddiqui wrote, “I’d like to address the recent comments I made, which were intended to be humorous and not to cause offence. Metaphors like ‘slippery as a snake’ are often used in language. However, I understand how my words may have been misconstrued.”

“I regret any unintended offence. Moving forward, I’ll ensure my words are conveyed with greater clarity and sensitivity,” he added.

While the Meray Paas Tum Ho star’s demeaning analogy and subsequent acknowledgement of the offence caused may not be ill-intentional, both are equally damaging — especially since they set a dangerous precedent and reinforce harmful stereotypes.

Here’s a recap of what happened: During Nida Yasir’s Ramazan show Shan-e-Suhoor, a fly buzzed around Siddiqui and Yasir, and the latter jokingly suggested that the insect might be drawn to Siddiqui’s sweetness. However, Siddiqui’s response took a regrettable turn when he metaphorically equated women to flies. Despite Yasir’s attempts to divert the conversation, Siddiqui continued, asserting that women, like flies, tend to avoid men when chased but come running back when left alone.

While Siddiqui didn’t exactly compare women to inanimate objects, he compared them to flies — not sure which is worse — and he did so on live television, that too, unprompted, his statement expressing “regret” doesn’t exactly make things better. In fact, it puts the onus on viewers for having a limited understanding of “metaphors” or for being unable to take a joke. When in reality, what Siddiqui said was neither funny nor can it be passed off as a metaphor.

It also leaves little room to be misconstrued. While metaphors like “slippery as a snake” are commonly used and understood, drawing comparisons between women and inanimate objects or insects, for that matter, not only strips them of their agency but also reduces them to objects of desire.

Throughout history, women have been subjected to objectification through language and imagery, often likened to objects such as lollipops to coerce them into conforming to societal expectations of ‘chastity’.

In addition to addressing the problematic nature of Siddiqui’s analogy, it’s essential to also criticise his response to the backlash, particularly his attempt to frame it as a misunderstanding on the part of the audience. His post downplays the severity of his comments by attributing any offence taken to a misinterpretation of his intentions.

It also fails to acknowledge the inherent offensiveness and objectification embedded in his remarks. By shifting the blame onto the audience for supposedly misconstruing his words, Siddiqui sidesteps accountability. The idea that his comments were merely intended as humour does not absolve him of responsibility.

Furthermore, his assertion that his remarks were intended to be humorous overlooks the broader context in which they were made.

Siddiqui’s acknowledgement of the offence caused and promise to be more sensitive in the future is a step in the right direction albeit a genuine apology would involve not only acknowledging the damage done but also, actually apologising. Highlighting why such comparisons should not be made in the future and especially as jokes, would be a plus.

Moving forward, it is crucial for public figures like Siddiqui to recognise their influence and responsibility in shaping societal attitudes. While humour has its place in conversation and pop culture, it should never come at the expense of demeaning or objectifying others.