In our country, rights movements had been a step forward and two steps back. It was hardly a month when the Aurat March generated so much of the debate in the public as to agency of women with regard to their physical beings that the jubilant sensation of bringing the debate into the open for everyone was suddenly turned into disgust by another spate of remarks by a generally well-respected cleric. The earlier exuberance had yet not finished finding its way into write ups, tweets, memes etc. that suddenly women found themselves rebuked in a paternalistic tone for getting their communities ravaged by a divine scourge due to their “immodest” ways. Like all under developed societies, our people too are mired in superstition. Unfortunately, scientific approach to describe natural or social phenomenon had been conspicuous by its absence. Disease and poverty is not described as causal effects of circumstances but in terms of divine retribution, black magic, occult and wrath of God. This miserable situation compounds and complicates when these attitudes appear to get the official approval too, even if tacit only, by looking the other way when controversial sexist remarks are made on powerful forums. Ascribing an epidemic or a natural disaster to the faith related reasons does not only deflect the focus away from approaching natural phenomenon scientifically but also deal a blow to the personal liberties of the groups who are singled out for being responsible for the natural calamities. The long struggle against Hudood laws is a glaring example of brutishly narrowing the space for women for political agendas, agendas which were thinly concealed, yet it took decades to undo them, and undone for political agendas chiefly In our society even if there is havoc wreaked by an earth quake then it’s not as much the field of structural stability and advancements in it, which get the attention, but the presumed waywardness of the devastated people and how the victims brought it upon themselves. No discussion and debate on the poverty of the victims has ever taken place, which renders them unable to cope with the natural disasters while their resourceful compatriots emerge as better survivors from the same disaster. Similarly, in case of an epidemic, instead of adopting preventive and curative measures backed by scientific research, it’s the supposed immorality of the hapless population who got inflicted for their “vices”. Even the ages old dietary habits of the target group may get the blame for the instant catastrophe. Obviously, these theories cannot stand even a superficial scrutiny, but thanks to social media (our very own evangelists too are not behind any other group in applying its potential for spreading their message), are widely circulated and believed too, tragicomedy at its best. Even from an ethical point of view, this haughty tone of calling a group sinners, and thus responsible for the collective misery is pure hubris wrapped in piety. Positivism appears to have not an inch to itself in the vast territories of wild guessing at the reasons of natural disasters. And mind you these are just guesses presented as gospels, not even a hypothesis presenting itself up for a critical observation. Who has the courage to call out those making these statements from pulpits? Every one of us fears for his life in this environment of bigotry. Can we forget that the founding fathers of this nation were very progressive and liberal men who encouraged women’s visibility in the public sphere? With the passage of time, this society was held captive to the retrogressive ideas of the few, but very unfortunately those few were those who mattered, and thus women kept receding space to the conservative ideologues. The long struggle against Hudood laws is a glaring example of brutishly narrowing the space for women for political agendas, agendas which were thinly concealed, yet it took decades to undo them, and undone for political agendas chiefly. For Pakistani women too like anywhere else, political is personal. However, this time around, the sexist remarks have got an unparalleled attention, chiefly, because of the political views of the speaker. Had it not been the case of political controversy, pendulum would not have swung. The misogynist remarks only would not have definitely been so widely rejected, had it not been for the covert political reasons. So this time around even some of the critics of patriarchy had their own scores to settle. This may had worked to serve the purpose of feminists, but let us not forget that had the remarks been politically palatable for all, this support could not have been rallied. In standing with the women, many a critic actually stood against the cleric supporting the regime, so a positive externality for women, at best. It appears that more space is receded to the retrogressive elements after each controversy than is recovered from them after long battles. With each retrogressive step in the public sphere, which already was very restricted, it leads further narrowing of the private sphere. These hard won victories appear to be too ephemeral when even the state chooses to remain silent. When the misogynistic theories are propounded openly, they need to be rejected loudly and openly. This disdain and derision on the remarks is not just sound and fury signifying little more than a political axe to grind, but a reminder of a heroic epic of a long struggle against oppressive patriarchy. The author is a gender and human rights specialist