Why a ‘Pair of Shorts’ became a topic of national conversation when Gullan Bharo, a young mother of two from Pakistan’s Sukkur district – yes, do you even know her name, fell victim to honor killing – another young, beautiful life, laid to rest by her husband, in order to save the honor of the men in her family, but Pakistan continues to throw shade on a pair of shorts.
Two different conversations should not be conflated, agreed, but it takes a lot of will power, and a handful of boring genes I believe to steer the conversation away from a man wearing shorts in a televised interview as opposed to a woman being shot by her husband because she decided to leave him.
One is about a man’s will to do as he pleases, wear what he pleases and disregard public criticism in his personal space – his attire being a personal choice – and one is about a woman’s submission to do as a man wills, wear and act as he wills, keeping public and social criticism at the forefront of her decisions – her life being a matter of public choice – not personal, not private and definitely not a right recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which Pakistan is a signatory.
When society criticizes a man for dressing as he pleases in public, it is rarely about his clothes. It is about women – their right to dress and live as they choose. Too often, we treat rights as a limited resource: granting freedom to one group by restricting another.
Khula, for example, is a right available to women through both the state and religion, yet many men view it as a humiliation when a wife chooses to leave. This is what happened with Gullan Bharo. Her decision to separate from her husband three years ago (reportedly after an abusive marriage) was not something he accepted lightly. When a woman exercises her right to khula, the man she leaves can interpret it as a loss of his authority and entitlement – the power he expects to have over her life and choices – the power to which he has, by some strange act of misogynistic fate, attached his honor.
That is why, when a man in our society insists on his right to wear what he wants, when he wants, and where he wants, women are compelled to speak up. The issue is not about a pair of shorts; it is about why a man can claim freedoms that a woman is denied.
Have you ever heard of a woman demanding to kill her husband for divorcing her to protect her honor? No? And for the same reason, you rarely hear women publicly defending their right to wear shorts on television. Because a woman cannot claim freedoms that a man feels entitled to. Or, to water down the argument, she’s just wired different – another topic, at another time, but this is not the time.
We may like to joke that men are from Mars and women are from Venus, but when last I checked, they still live under the same sky and share equal rights. If a woman is subject to trolling or considered dishonorable if she so much as chooses to bare her legs, (dare she ask for khula), what is the man expected to do, give up his comfort, and cover his legs too?
But equality cannot be selective – say the critics. What’s dishonorable for the woman, is dishonorable for the man.
And as for Gullan Bharo, she was effectively denied the freedom to seek khula (her right to divorce) without facing consequences – another gendered double standard that has no place in the laws of the country. Gullan Bharo did not choose to be born in Pakistan, but neither did her husband; hence his honor must be defended, just like his right to wear shorts – and hers to stay covered as well as continue living in an abusive marriage.
And that is why, a pair of shorts became a topic of national conversation. It was never about the shorts or the person wearing them – it was about the gender wearing them…
I’ll leave you to figure out the rest.
If this article gave you something to think about, you can read more of my work here.
Sources: ARY News,Friday Times
