My dear Bro Suleyman,
What's the source of this article or its your own analysis? Secondly, what is mascara government? Is it the army rule in Pakistan or what? Also, I don't understand your statement here or its the typo for eastern instead of western; "In the consequences of the same slogan, the Western woman is forced to become the breadwinner of the single parent family."
Also, I really couldn't understand the logic for your assertion when you say "33% seats in local bodies are incompatible with our religious social and cultural values. We have to consider the overall scenario of Pakistani women." Are you debating 33% or what? Do you think its more than what they deserve?
And, I also don't understand when you say "The basis of the foundation of Pakistan is still waiting for its implementation; that’s why the problem of society is still unsolved."? What were the basis of foundations on which Pakistan is still awaiting implementation? Can you be little more specific?
I think, you are taking examples of a totally disjoint issue to address the issue of women's rights. What bearing does it have of Wrong doings of feudal lords on the women's rights. You may still have the job left over of linking the two to conclude that its basically the women's rights which are the root cause of every thing bad that is happening in that country. Then, I do see you bringing religious slogans without quoting any references. e.g. "Why do we feel shame in the fact that women are not answerable to Allah (SWT) for breadwinning for the family? She is only answerable for the family matters. If we cross the limitations set by Allah we should be ready for the social and economical dispersion. " On the more, how do you link this "breadwinning for the family" and the "women's rights" issues togather? Do you mean to say 33% seats would make women responsible for "breadwinning for the family"? I don't think this is a logical outcome, so how do you relate the two?