Feminism dot comm

26/05/2026

12/05/2026

75-year-old human rights activist and Kathak dancer Sheema Kermani was detained by police outside the Karachi Press Club ahead of the Aurat March. Videos showing an elderly woman activist being physically dragged away spread rapidly across social media. She was later released — but the question remains: why was this necessary at all?

Because when women’s voices move beyond the language of “tolerance” and become voices of resistance, both the state and society often grow uncomfortable.

Aurat March is not just a rally. It raises questions about women’s bodies, labour, safety, dignity and the right to make decisions about their own lives. And that is precisely why the movement faces backlash, attacks and attempts at suppression year after year.

The question is not only about Pakistan.
The real question is: why are states and societies still so afraid of women speaking freely?

12/05/2026

In a recent Delhi High Court case, a pregnant woman who had allegedly been set on fire over dowry harassment later appeared in court and said she had forgiven her husband and in-laws and did not want them jailed. According to the allegations, her mother-in-law and brother-in-law held her while her husband poured kerosene and set her ablaze. Years later, the court reduced their sentence and remarked that “Women have very large hearts.”

But this is where the feminist question begins.

Is this really a story of a “large heart”?
Or is it a reflection of a society where women are taught to survive alongside violence inflicted upon them?

Feminism has long argued that family is not always a safe space. In patriarchal societies, the family often functions as a structure of power where women are taught:
“Save the marriage.”
“A husband’s home is a woman’s final destination.”
“Tolerating pain is a woman’s virtue.”

Simone de Beauvoir famously argued that “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” Girls are socially conditioned from childhood to see sacrifice, endurance and compromise as central to their identity.

Deniz Kandiyoti’s theory of the “Patriarchal Bargain” explains how many women negotiate with patriarchy in order to survive within it. Resistance can mean losing financial security, family support and social acceptance. In that context, compromise is often not free choice, but a survival strategy.

Pierre Bourdieu’s idea of “symbolic violence” helps explain how oppression becomes so normalised that even victims begin to internalise it as part of life itself.

Catharine MacKinnon argued that in deeply patriarchal societies, even women’s “consent” is shaped by unequal power relations and social pressure, making it difficult to view every act of forgiveness as fully free and independent.

And while Emile Durkheim viewed the family as the foundation of social stability, feminist sociology has repeatedly shown that such “stability” is often built upon women’s silent suffering and emotional labour.

The real problem is this:
Society still glorifies women’s sacrifice more than women’s anger, resistance or decision to leave abuse behind.

So the question is not only for the court.
It is for society as a whole:

Why does compromise feel safer than justice for so many women victims?

In a society where a woman fears sending even her attempted killers to prison, it is not only the law that must be questioned — but the entire social structure surrounding her.

08/05/2026

The viral video involving Kerala politician and MLA Bindu Krishna once again showed how easily society ignores women’s discomfort.
Even in front of cameras, when a woman visibly steps away, we still struggle to understand that as a refusal.

A woman’s “no” is still not treated as “no” by many.
When a woman publicly expresses discomfort and tries to distance herself, why does a man crossing her personal boundary still appear so “normal” to us?

The problem is not just this one incident.
The problem is how words like “fun,” “affection,” “political culture,” or “industry norms” are used to normalize unwanted touch and the violation of personal space every single day.

Feminist thinker argued that the issue is not only the act itself, but also the structure of power that decides who is allowed to protest and who is expected to remain silent. Women’s silence is treated as “normal,” while their clear resistance is often labelled as “overreaction” or “drama.”

Feminist theorist wrote that society often learns to see women not as complete human beings first, but through fixed social roles. That is why women’s personal wishes, discomfort, and boundaries are so often dismissed.

Not long ago, a South Indian actress was publicly pushed “as a joke,” while people around laughed. That laughter matters. Because the moment society turns women’s discomfort into entertainment, disrespect becomes normal.

Violence does not always begin with physical assault.
Sometimes violence begins the moment a woman’s discomfort is ignored.

Real change is not only about laws; it is also about changing culture.
Respecting a woman’s “no,” valuing personal boundaries, and refusing to dismiss these incidents as “small matters” is where resistance begins.

07/05/2026

A mother is not just a relationship. She is a woman too.

A woman who carries exhaustion, dreams, fears, unfinished desires, and the right to live life on her own terms.

Society celebrates a mother’s sacrifices — but how often does it truly acknowledge her invisible labour?

This Mother’s Day, saying “Thank you, Mom” is not enough.
Share responsibilities at home.
Respect her need for rest.
Value her choices and decisions.

Because motherhood should never mean self-erasure.

Celebrate Mothers. Respect Women.

07/05/2026

Feminist Theory on Power Structures” visually explains how feminist theory understands power not as limited to government or law, but as embedded in everyday social institutions and relationships. Using an academic infographic style, the poster presents patriarchy as a systemic structure that shapes women’s lives through family, economy, religion, media, law, and violence.
The central argument of the poster is that patriarchy operates through interconnected power structures. The circular and flowchart designs symbolically show how power circulates across institutions rather than existing in one single place. The use of muted purple, navy blue, and neutral tones reflects seriousness, intellectual depth, and feminist symbolism, making the design suitable for research and academic presentation.

The inclusion of feminist theorists such as Simone de Beauvoir, Kate Millett, bell hooks, Judith Butler, and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak strengthens the theoretical foundation of the poster. Their ideas collectively show that gender inequality is maintained through culture, ideology, morality, and institutional authority.

Visually, the puppet imagery and surveillance-like hand represent control and domination, suggesting that women’s agency is often manipulated by invisible social norms. At the same time, the final section on “Resistance & Transformation” introduces hope and political agency by emphasizing solidarity, policy reform, and cultural change.

Overall, the poster effectively combines feminist theory, visual symbolism, and academic structure to demonstrate that feminism seeks not merely inclusion within existing systems of power, but transformation of the power structures themselves.

07/05/2026

A woman was standing alone at a bus stop. Within three hours, nearly 40 men approached her to talk.

Later, it was revealed that she was an IPS officer conducting an undercover operation. But the significance of this incident lies not in her identity — it lies in society’s behavior.

The question is: Why do so many men assume it is normal to approach, surround, or show unsolicited interest in a woman simply because she is standing alone at night?

Sociology and feminist theory have long tried to explain this reality.

Simone de Beauvoir, in The Second S*x, argued that society does not construct women as the default “human being,” but as “the Other.” Men are treated as the norm, while women are viewed as separate, exceptional, and constantly observable. That is why a woman alone in public space is often not seen as an ordinary citizen, but as an object of curiosity.

British sociologist Anthony Giddens, through his “structuration theory,” explained that social rules are not maintained only through laws; they are reproduced through everyday behavior. Repeatedly invading women’s personal space, approaching them uninvited, or following them helps sustain old power structures through ordinary social actions.

Feminist theorist Laura Mulvey introduced the concept of the “male gaze,” showing how society often positions women as objects to be watched, judged, and possessed. This dynamic exists not only in cinema, but also in everyday life.

So the issue is not only about crime.
It is about perspective.

Why is a man standing alone at night seen simply as a traveler, while a woman standing alone is seen as a possible “interaction opportunity”?

That is where the problem lies.

Women’s safety is not only a matter of policing or law enforcement; it is also a matter of social attitude.

The day a woman can stand alone in a city at night without becoming an object of curiosity, entitlement, or intrusion — that will be the day we move closer to truly equal public spaces.

Because freedom is not only the right to go outside.Freedom also means the right to exist without unwanted attention and unsolicited intrusion.

23/04/2026

Election season is everywhere.
Speeches about democracy, campaigns, promises, and power struggles dominate the headlines. Yet in this democracy, women’s safety still remains uncertain.

In South Delhi, the 22-year-old daughter of a senior Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer was found dead inside her home. Police have arrested a former domestic worker who once worked for the family. According to reports, he had allegedly been removed from the job earlier after complaints about borrowing money and not returning it.

But this is not just a Delhi issue.This is not about one state or one isolated crime.

The real question is: has society across this country truly changed its mindset towards women?

Even today, women’s bodies are treated as something to control, violate, or dominate.
Even today, women are taught to be careful, to stay silent, to protect themselves at all times.
But men are rarely taught consent, accountability, or respect for women as human beings with equal dignity and freedom.

And that is why, in every incident, in every corner of this country, it is always the daughters of our homes who suffer the most.

A 22-year-old woman.
A life.
A future.
Taken away by brutality.

Then society asks the wrong questions.
Instead of confronting the mindset that breeds violence, it questions women — their choices, their movements, their trust, their existence.

This is not an isolated tragedy.
It is the result of a deeply rooted patriarchal culture where women are still unsafe — not only on the streets, but even inside their own homes.

A woman’s life is not a statistic.
Every woman deserves safety, dignity, freedom, and justice.

How many more women must suffer before this society truly changes?

23/04/2026

When Proof Isn’t Enough: Women Erased from the Voter List.From Saida to Sunita—when systems fail, it’s women who pay the price.

Saida Khatun, 27, wife of a cultivator and mother of one, never thought voting would become a battle. With her husband tied to the fields, she took it upon herself to navigate the system—collecting documents, visiting offices, standing in lines alone.
But despite doing everything required, her name was deleted. On voting day, she stood outside the booth—not as a citizen, but as someone denied recognition.

Sunita Biwi, 34, a mother of two, faced the same fate.Different name. Same story. Same silence.Across households where women already struggle to survive—balancing children, poverty, and absent or overworked husbands—another burden has been added: proving they exist.

The system meant to verify identity has instead created exclusion.
Technical terms. Data discrepancies. Unclear criteria.
And in the middle of it all—women, standing alone, unheard.
These are not isolated cases.
They raise a deeper, uncomfortable question:
What do we call a system that takes away voting rights from those already fighting the hardest to live?
Because for these women, this is not just about a vote—
it’s about dignity, identity, and the right to be seen.

23/04/2026

Erased After Proof: A Mother of Two Denied Her Vote.Husband abroad, papers complete—yet a 28-year-old woman disappears from the voter list
Sabina Bibi, 28, never imagined that proving her identity would still leave her invisible.
With her husband working overseas, she has been the sole head of her household—raising two daughters, managing expenses, and handling every official process alone. When discrepancies surfaced in family records under the “more than six children” criterion, her name was singled out and removed—despite being one of six siblings.
What followed was a relentless fight. Sabina moved from office to office, documents in hand—birth certificate, ID proofs, address papers—answering questions, standing in endless queues, determined to reclaim a basic democratic right: her vote.
“I did everything they asked,” she says. “Every paper, every visit—I followed all the rules.”
But the final blow came quietly.
On the day she went to collect her voter slip, she was told her name wasn’t on the list. No explanation. No error correction. Just a flat denial: she could not vote.
For Sabina, the shock was deeper than denial—it was erasure.
In a system where documentation is supposed to define identity, her existence simply didn’t count.
Her story raises a troubling question

If a woman can prove who she is—and still be denied recognition—what does citizenship really mean?