We are an entertainment-starved society. That is enough of a reason to justify the exaggerated over-popularity of some TV plays or writers that otherwise seem far below the accepted standards. We may have an opinion but cannot deny the freedom of expression by writers for sharing quite bigoted views or the choice of viewers when they are happily buying the lowly sentiments and melodramas. I seldom watch TV but I remember how the charm of Game ofThrones kept me captivated for years despite it being pure fantasy. So, what is the point in feeling sorry for the millions of fellow Pakistanis being entertained and amused by the TV serial Mere Paas Tum Ho (I have you)? Substandard content being aired and liked by many shouldn’t have been my problem till I came to know about its preaching aspects and defining what a ‘good woman’ should be like, the ideas around ‘faithful’ and ‘unfaithful’ women, and how the writer has dared to prescribe the same definitions to be followed by everyone in a society that is already engulfed by twisted moralities, serving well the interests of men that like to have a control on the lives of others. Contrary to Game of Thrones, which everybody watched as a fantasy, the play I am referring to and its writer, during off-the-set interviews, have givensome highly objectionable comments, especially while trying to portray men and women as two entirely different species with absolutely different needs, sentiments and set of moralities – ofcourse too harsh and judgmental towards women. I could even ignore the plagiarism by writer when his ‘unfaithful woman’ seems to be inspired by Diana Murphy of Indecent Proposal, and his plot is a mix of several Indian movies; my only issue is the certain contribution in retrogression the play has potentially played. Another critical question is why some degenerate views shared by a writer should be an issue in a society where politicians and even sportsmen seem to have become preachers and use religious cards as and when it suits them; preachers are doing politics by influencing innocent gullible followers in favour or against their favourites; honourable members of the judiciary try to emulate stand-up comedians; and journalists have assumed the role of judges. The answer is simple. It has always been the writers that resisted riding on the bandwagon of populism and played a huge role in elevating societies by remaining true to their thoughts and ideas despite the rejection and sufferings they faced at times. It is also true that extremists and hardliners are present in almost all parts of the globe, even in the most advanced societies.A society where charlatans are encouraged to thrive in every field, a writer with his cunning populism wouldn’t have been shocking to mebut for the massive response he has received.It’s been really sad to watch some apparently saner elements clapping mindlessly on his insane rants. What’s shocking here is the mainstreaming of the bigotry and gender stereotypes. Men and women, if they want to, should be living happily with each other or at least with a certain level of acceptance and tolerance for each other. Now, it was a useless tirade of rants by the writer when in his defence, he angrily said, “Its men that provide for and cater the financial needs of their mothers, wives, sisters and daughters.” Unfortunately, all in audience responded with a huge round of applause instead of questioning him and informing him that no one intends to demean kind fathers, loving husbands and devoted sons when ‘men’ are accused of denying the rights of women. Mary Wollstonecraft, the 18th century writer and advocate of women’s rights, once said, “I do not wish them [women] to have power over men, but over themselves” The role of men is questioned in a patriarchal society where women are denied the right to education, right to play, right to vote, and right to access to equal opportunities. Their demands include an end to all sorts of discriminations, freedom from gender-based violence and access to equal opportunities. Maybe the writer was needed to be reminded of the rampant ‘honour killings’ of women and girls across Pakistan, abductions, forced conversions and marriages, acid throwing, vani, sawara and other social evils hindering women empowerment. As for the rants such as ‘women or men are made like this,’ in reality, there is no difference between them. Both are equal parts of the human race with similar needs, wants and instincts. Men and women both could be equally compassionate or vile, decentor cruel. All depends on individuals, their upbringing or the character they have developed and choose for themselves. The only much-cited difference is biological, and who knows this may also become irrelevant in future thanks to science when both genders may be relinquished from reproduction responsibilities. However, it’s a sad reality that under patriarchal systems, many women are indoctrinated to nurture the very oppressive systems they are victims of only to adapt to the image of a ‘good woman’ that they have been informed about. It was also a sad scene to observe a women rights activist presenting arguments out of scriptures to refute the claims of the playwright. The approach, at its best, could be somehow useful in order to establish communication with men fromthe marginalised communities. However, at an intellectual level, everyone knows that entering into this field is a sure recipe of disaster as quoting from the scriptures would complement the narrative from the clergy and conservative elements that they are considered ‘experts’ in this arena. Therefore, sticking to UDHR would be more advisable while emphasising the quality among the humans. Mary Wollstonecraft, the 18th century writer and advocate of women’s rights, once said, “I do not wish them [women] to have power over men, but over themselves.” Unfortunately, we don’t have a Mary Wollstonecraft with us who may articulate this debate for us when both the champions and ‘naysayers’ of women’s rights and equality tend to resort to the same ideological basis. The writer is an Islamabad-based analyst