MARCH 16 — Two pieces of news affected me from the recent International Women’s Day (IWD). I will address both through this column in chronological order.

On the 38^th anniversary of IWD, PAS Ulama boldly claim that a woman’s role is one that is restricted to the family’s home and that women should only function as wives and mothers.

According to its information chief Datuk Dr Mohd Khairuddin Aman Razali at-Takiri, a household with both spouses working increases mental stress, “(causing) the erosion of moral values, patience, tolerance, and respect among couples, leading to divorce”.

In a world that still struggles for equality, I see this as a misogynistic, sexist comment coming from PAS. It not only disrespects IWD, but also devalues the everyday struggle of working wives and mothers. The rising cost of living puts a stress on everyone, what more in households that consist of nuclear families. Hence, both spouses need to work.

I also found discourse online that condescends stay-at-home-mothers (SAHM) in response to the statement by PAS, attributing SAHM as slaves to their husbands. Ironically, in wanting to support feminism, such comments are sexist instead.

Women should be allowed to make our own choices – if we want to take a career break to bring up our children, or have flexi-working hours, we should have a system that allows us to do so. This “break” should not stop us from advancing in our careers nor should it make us feel that we contribute less to society. Women should also be allowed to NOT want to be wives and/or mothers.

Husbands should share the responsibilities of household chores and parenting with their wives. After all, IWD this year calls a #pledgeforparity.

There needs to be talks about extending the duration of paternity leave to “tag-team” parenting responsibilities with the wife, instead of placing the responsibility solely on the female gender. Studies have shown that such paid parental leave can have health and economic benefits, with fathers being able to have deeper emotional connections with their children, children having more compassion and empathy, daughters having more confidence and parents themselves being generally happier due to shared responsibilities.

Don’t just take my word for it; please access the data-backed, social science studies in the hyperlink provided here.

Shafiqah Othman Hamzah recently wrote a brilliant piece highlighting superwomen in the Muslim world and the fact that Islam liberated women.

I suggest PAS have a long and good read of this, as well as re-looking at the egalitarian spirit in the Quran, the Prophet’s teachings and early Islamic history. Equality (musawah) and feminism is not a western import, instead, it very much have its roots in Islam.

38 years on, it still takes women to say what is right.

Thus, it took me by surprise when Datuk Seri Rohani Abdul Karim announced that Malaysia would be celebrating World Men’s Day (WMD) for the first time this coming November 19^.

I am particularly interested in the spending of our taxpayers’ monies to “modify existing buildings as halfway homes for husbands faced with household crisis”, and the motive(s) behind such a celebration.

I do not deny that there are men who experienced sexual assault, violence, discrimination, and sexism. These men do need all our support and systems that do not stigmatise against them. But having halfway homes for husbands? If we were to look at the latest (2014) statistics of domestic violence provided by the Women’s Ministry itself; 2917 complainants were female while 958 were male; a ratio of 3:1. Instead of providing these spaces solely for husbands, can I suggest that these homes be provided for young boys and men who are marginalised or disowned from their families due to their sexuality? Can we also have halfway homes for transgender persons? I think that these communities require more urgent help, empowerment and the need for acceptance by our society.

The current Domestic Violence Act already protects males, and most laws in Malaysia is patriarchal. Recent cases involving unilateral conversions and paying meagre fines to do away with domestic violence charges should point to the need to empower laws that would provide justice. Historically, women face more injustices than men, hence why we have IWD.

The spirit of equality is the basis for celebrating IWD. It is not a day to celebrate women’s sacrifices, but rather a reminder that we have a long way to go to achieve equal rights afforded so easily and readily to privileged, conformist men. Lest we forget, sexism and violence directed against men stems from a patriarchal system that is already embedded in our society.

WMD should not be about celebrating men’s sacrifices. It should be about understanding and respecting gender, sexuality, and the discourse on sexism. It should be a celebration of equality, one that is already celebrated for 38 years through IWD. Thus, having these two celebrations would be redundant.

In our haste for inclusivity, let us not lose sight of the meaning behind the struggle in the first place.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.