My Problem with the #metoo Movement

Let me just say straight off the bat that I am not an ardent feminist. Too often feminism today is used as a cudgel to spread hatred against men, organized religion and the clergy, as well as promote rampant deviant sexual behaviour and norms. I am a feminist when it comes to equal pay for equal work, equal legal rights under a secular legal system, and a workplace free from unwanted sexual harassment. However, too often nowadays feminism is much broader than that, and encompasses such radical ideas (such as #SlutWalk or female imams for mixed congregations) that it is impossible to say "I am a feminist". Especially when they provide blanket support to the #meToo movement.

Now the #meToo movment has had a lot of positive impact. It's hard to deny that sexual harassment occurs, and has occurred, especially in  highly competitive industries such as entertainment, media and politics. While harassment by definition targets both genders (such as the famous Kevin Spacey case), the overwhelming number of times it is the male perpetrator against a female victim. The #meToo movement has brought out these cases in the public and made it easy for women to report such advances, as well as brought on awareness. That is a good thing.

However, there are serious problems.

1. All women who allege harassment are speaking the truth and their allegations are to be believed.

There is a concentrated effort to say that ANY women who alleges certain harassment allegations is speaking the truth (because why would women lie) and therefore MUST be believed. Why would a woman come out with these "troubling incidents" if it wasn't true? Pardon my French, but what sort of legalized weed are you smoking?

The best example of this nonsense was during the celebrated Jian Ghomeshi trial. Even though Ghomeshi was legally charged and then legally acquitted of ALL five charges, rabid feminists still insisted that we MUST believe the women who came out with claims of non-consensual sex against him. EVEN though the court of the land found him not guilty. Even though the defense lawyer was able to prove inconsistencies in the witness's statements. Even though there were records of the alleged "victim" saying she loved what was done to her, after the incident. In an ironic twist, these same radical feminists turned on his lawyer Marie Henein - a female - for daring to take on the case and defend her client. You know, doing her job. Apparently the right to choose only goes so far.

Women lie. Women can lie. Take the case of Patrick Brown. The poor guy was all set to become the Premier of Ontario when two unproven allegations derailed his career overnight. His own political party, besotted with lust for power, turfed him. Then it turned out one of those cases had a glaring dishonesty, and now the whole thing is in front of the courts.

No one should be immediately believed when they bring forth a case of sexual allegation. Rather, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is, and should always remain, on the accuser.

2. A woman should be able to remain anonymous when she makes the accusation.

Take the case of Aziz Ansari (and more on that in the third point). I am no fan of Aziz Ansari. I don't find him funny, I don't find him relevant and I hardly watch any of his shows. I also hate the fact that he is presented as a "true good liberal Muslim" and anyone who is not like him is a fundamental extremist. Anyone who drinks alcohol, has premarital sex, and presents those things as proper and not Islamic cannot be a good Muslim.

Yet, his career threatened to unravel when someone (called "Grace") wrote an article, anonymously, accusing him of sexual harassment. Almost overnight he was embroiled in the scandal and lucky for him it unraveled quickly enough. But again, you say that the accuser should be known so the accused can publicly defend himself (or herself), and then you will be accused of "victim shaming". Whatever that means.

I understand there is sometimes reasons for concealing the name of the accused, especially if the person being accused is in a position of power. However, this is only in case of an investigation (either from work's HR or from the legal prosecution). After the investigation is over and a charge is made, the name of the accuser and the accused should be a matter for public record. There should be no trial by media. Which brings me to my final point.

3. A bad choice by a woman is not a sexual harassment.

If you consented to it, without there being pressure of losing your job or life or something similar, it cannot be sexual harassment. Take the same Aziz Ansari case. It was a first class example of a date gone wrong (if it's true), but it's not sexual harassment. If he asked for something, and you gave in, you can't say he forced you. If you had said no, would he have harmed you? If not, then it's on you, not on him. Yet the #meToo movement ignores this vital aspect.

Another thing it ignores is that women are conscious, thinking individuals who are adults making their own sexual choices. Take the celebrated Nouman Ali Khan case, for example. Let us say it's true, and for argument's sake let us assume the scholar did marry (and then divorce) many women.

Did he force those women into marriage? Did he threaten those women's livelihood or life if they did not marry him? Did they not willingly start an affair with him, or exchange sexually graphic messages and texts? Are they not equally guilty?

All of this is of course if you believe the story, for argument's sake. Yet the feminists will say no, only the scholar is guilty. Why? Something called "spiritual abuse". Whatever the fudge that means.

Completely ignored is the fact that just as people can be attracted to beauty, they can also be attracted to power. Whether that power is political, economical, or the flowering oratory of a preacher who commands the attention of millions, is irrelevant. If people feel an attraction towards a preacher because of his position, that is not "spiritual abuse". That is giving in to your momentary desires and lust, and then later regretting it and trying to blame the guy, calling it "spiritual abuse".

IF it's true. Till now we have no idea WHAT the specific allegations against Nouman Ali Khan is or WHO even are the accusers. But feminists will tell you it doesn't matter, just believe these unknown, unnamed women who are "hinting" at something. So a man's career and life's work must be ruined, because, feminism. #meToo.

Inflated Desi Weddings

I was reading an article on cheap weddings and how a couple managed to get married on $4000 in a city where the average wedding cost was $27,000. That led me to think about our own desi weddings and how and why the costs are so inflated, and what we can do to lower the cost of a wedding so it is easier for everyone.

GUEST LIST

I think this is the no. 1 reason for a desi wedding to cost so much. I have seen a growing trend, particularly among second generation Canadian Bangladeshis, to have a smaller wedding. You simply don't have to invite your father's office colleagues whom you don't know, and whose kids don't for sure know you.

I personally feel you should invite only your close friends and relatives to your wedding. Relatives always should get priority, simply because they have a right over you, followed by close family friends. A typical wedding guest list for the average couple shouldn't really cross 100 people (at most).

This also has to involve a change of mindset of everyone, particularly the elderly.

"Oh, did you hear so-and-so is getting married, and didn't even invite us! How dare they?"

Well, if they are not close relatives of yours, they don't really owe you a wedding invitation (and even then, it depends on how close a relative). If I hear so-and-so is getting married, I simply wish them well, even if they didn't invite me. I love to give the example of a close Companion in Medinah getting married, and not inviting the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). He didn't take it to heart and in fact gave him some valuable wedding advice that is passed on to this day. If the Prophet was living in a Bengali community, I always joke, he would be attending a wedding every day.

"Oh, how can you NOT invite the Prophet?"

This is a big lesson for us. It shows us that none of us should expect a wedding invitation and it also lessens the pressure on the wedding couple to have a big feast.

ACCESSORIES

Some of us who got married ten years ago, or more, now like to say we were lucky we got married before the Instagram age (aren't we old!) and Facebook was in its infancy when we got married. So much of weddings that we attend now seem to have, for lack of a better word, accessories, that make for a good Instagram picture.

Any wedding cake will not do. It has to be seven layered with two of the layers as separate cakes. Dessert is not some desi sweets - you MUST have a chocolate fountain so people can say WOW. A wedding car is not just any car - a limo or Hummer will not do any more - now you must get a super car. I have attended weddings where the car was a Rolls Royce or a Ferrari.

You MUST have a Photo Booth now - it's a standard. AND a wedding hashtag. After all, we have to check the social media after to see everyone getting 'tagged'. #XwedsY2018 There's no risk you will offend anyone you haven't invited because of course you have invited EVERYBODY.

I mean it's all nice if you can AFFORD it. And that's the key word. AFFORDABILITY. Your wedding should not be a burden on you.

What are some of the ways YOU think a wedding cost is inflated in our communities? 

Why is Blogging Dying?

This is a surprise post as I had no plan to write on this. But I have to.

As I see the wild fires ravaging Fort McMurray (and a silent prayer goes out for them), I see why the two forces that blogging used to make fun of - traditional media and social media - come to the fore in reporting this story, while bloggers lag far behind.

There were many reasons why bloggers used to make fun of traditional media. They were the establishment, they were dinosaurs, they had an agenda, they had to toe the party line ... etc. etc. These were (at some times) valid concerns, and bloggers were at the forefront of breaking stories. They were beholden to no one and could write whatever they damn pleased.

In the 2005s, it was so. Bloggers were suddenly the new cool thing. The Liberal party leadership convention that ultimately chose Stephane Dion had a blogger outreach program and a place for bloggers at their convention. I know, because I was one of the bloggers. At that time I used to blog (actively) on Crescent Canuck.

Slowly but surely, traditional media fought back. They had more resources to cover a story, had more experience in prioritizing stories, and were actually accountable (to a degree) for telling the truth. They had more credibility. Reporters also became bloggers (or had a blog). Some bloggers became news agencies, such as Doha News.

At the same time, social media such as Twitter and Facebook were breaking ground. At first we bloggers rubbished these sites (ironically the same way newspapers rubbished bloggers). 140 characters is too small to express a complex thought on a complicated issue, we argued (true). But just like Trump followers don't care for the truth, Twitter interactions never cared for the nuances that a blog could provide.

Today, blogging is cumbersome. It's far easier to interact on Twitter or post on Facebook. Blogging platforms have simply not kept up. At the same time, the good bloggers are those who blog often, are corporate and made themselves semi professional. Amateur blogging, as blogging was mostly, is dying.

Partly it is also the sign of the times. Nowadays we simply don't have the time to read a person's thoughts in the form of a blog post. Much easier to read a small tweet, and respond. And that, in the end, is why blogging is slowly dying.

Now, please share this article on Twitter!