STEREOTYPING OF WOMEN IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY: A FEMINIST DISCOURSE

          

     Since the feminist movement started in India most of the educated and elite women have tried to redefined their status and their identity both in the public and in the private life but this has not percolated into the lives of those women who are outside the fringes of these movements. And to a certain extent it won't be wrong if I assume that even within these 'educated' women there are women who suffer different forms of atrocities in their everyday life. It’s a known fact that women can become victims of violence, notwithstanding her class or age. Instead of writing about the feminist movements or the steps that are being taken by them to alleviate women's status, I would rather like to write about the various forms of visible and invisible gender stereotyping that is found in the contemporary society. Many are so subtle that even the one using it seldom realizes that she/he is actually guilty of gender stereotyping. 

    How many times do we use the word 'History' in our classrooms and in everyday conversation? Here, I emphasize the word 'His'. 'Her' is thus considered as someone who do not make, contribute or forms the 'History', 'her' merely becomes a passive observer who adjusts to the norms of society, and it is the men who make history....their story! I am sure that, 2000 years later we still would be referring to 'history' and ignoring the contributions made by the contemporary women. There is again a gendering of profession. Historically speaking, men have always been a dominant character of society due to their superior physical power and thus establishing hegemony over the construction and manipulation of history itself.  

    Another major problem lies within the very conception and understanding of the feminist movement itself. I would like to use a term ‘elitisation of feminism’. By this term I mean that the people involved in this movement, the issues which concern them at large and the activities undertaken mostly target the elite although they say otherwise. In this context I would like to tell about the recent Delhi gang rape case that ‘jolted’ the nation and the feminists equally but where were such upheavals in case of Sony Suri (a poor tribal woman who were raped by the policemen), Bhanwari Devi (gang raped by sarpanchs and other higher caste for stopping a child marriage), and many such were raped or assaulted? These women failed to catch the attention of the media and feminists alike hence the public too did not expressed any outrage. I am not undermining the rape case of the Delhi ‘braveheart’ but don’t these women deserve equal attention. Delhi case involved someone who was from a middle class background, thus giving it enough attention. But the other incidents occurred in far flung places (far from the capital) and to women who were neither elite nor literate and ‘modern’. It can be said that the so called feminists and media alike has no desire to take up issues involving the rural, non-elite women. As stated in the opening discussion, these movements do not popularise the plight of such women nor do the media ever hype them. Many of such cases even remain forever buried in the piles of documents in court rooms and police stations. A movement be it feminism or any other cannot have much impact if it fails to mobilize individuals in the grass root levels. A pattern of bottom-up should be followed instead of the illusion of a trickle down process from the ‘top to bottom’. The women who take steps to direct the feminism movements are always from the upper strata.

    In the contemporary world concepts are created by the electronic media many times even very unconsciously. In the minds of the coming generation this stereotypical image of women is deeply being manufactured through popular T.V. ‘soaps’ and movies, which is watched with relish by most! Let me focus on any T.V. serials. The women is depicted in a ‘sati-savitri’ style (fidelity to husband), all decked up, showing respect to her in-laws even if they do not like her, forgiving or tolerating the husband’s misconducts and infidelity, listening and serving to all his needs, always in need of his support and protection, a simple home maker with no say in family business or career, very soft spoken with perfect feminine qualities. All these reaffirm both the concepts related to masculinity and feminine connotations. The public too prefer the portrayal of women in this way. Many a times she is also shown as a vamp playing ‘politics’ inside the house but no role in the public sphere. In the movies a woman (actress) has to look glam and good all the time, have perfect figure and need to expose them to seduce her man, while the man is shown to be muscular and ever present to protect the woman from the ‘villains’. The glam image of a woman (be it in the form of a modern chick or a traditional woman) is always loved by all. All these can be well reflected every day in the matrimonial columns, where the bridegroom wants ‘fair, virgin and homely’ girls’, I only wish women would also demand these traits from their men counterparts too! Many think that portrayal of women’s body in advertisements, movies and hoardings are a sign of women’s liberation; it’s a misconception, a popular fallacy. In movies the fully clad hero with a skimpily dressed girl depicts the desires and fantasies of men for the female body. It cannot be vice versa as most people cannot even conceive of any ‘ideal’ female having fantasies for the male body. It is as if the vagina has no desire to penetrate! Her ‘pussy’ is merely considered to be ‘his pet’! Females are not suppose to initiate sex but only show coyness when a man initiates it. That is what is shown in our popular culture that makes our conscience. Many people believe that boys can see porn or hang the scantily clad portraits of women in their room but a girl doing these to her male hero t is considered as a sex maniac. Another image of ideal women is conceived in the minds of small girls when they play with barbies and other dolls. They learn that it is looks that matter the most for a girl and every effort on her part should be made to portray herself physically attractive. Her brains do not matter it’s her appearance that can only determine her future. Her brains come secondary and her intellect is often neglected. One of my sister in law has a ringtone saying ‘hey beautiful you have got a message’. She told me she has this, just like men have something saying, ‘boss, you have got a message’. She said that very casually and unconsciously but this sums off a women’s status she can be beautiful but she can never become the boss.

    Profession is many times gendered too. The word often used to describe doctors, bureaucrats, scientists, philosophers, leaders, boss, etc. ‘He’ is often used to describe these professions. Many argue that it is because these arenas are dominated by men, but can we ignore a minority of women who are a part of such profession? In that case why our constitution and our laws did not ignored the Indian ‘minorities’ but conferred them many rights? Note this, in the word ‘she’ the word ‘he’ is included but the opposite is not true so using the word ‘she’ for all purposes should refer to both the sexes. ‘He’ may not be required at all. People naturally refer ‘she’ when we use words like nurse, school teacher, receptionist, secretary, etc. Let me tell you a story here, the answer to which I seeked from many friends, and most failed to reply. A father and a son were going together in a car and in an accident the father expired on the spot and the son was rushed to the hospital. In the hospital the doctor was shocked and refuses to operate him saying ‘the boy is my son’. How?? I asked the answer is the doctor was his mother but most could not think of this. They failed to conceive of the doctor in the image of a woman. This shows the people’s perception about a women’s job. ’She’ suits better for ‘low paying’ and ‘low position’ jobs. Even ‘spaces’ and language in the contemporary world is gendered; men can be seen in tobacco shops, paan shops, tea stalls, gossiping in a groups, mostly visible in public places. But women cannot access these places due to certain norms; women are mostly clustered within private spaces. A man can use words that are vulgar and have sexual connotations but people will be horrified if a woman uses them. She has to be soft and non-aggressive. So all these norms are enforced and socialized and institutionalized by a patriarchal society, to control women. I do not advocate that using filthy language is good; I rather condemn it both for men and women.

    Recently, in Haryana a democratic state government and some of its leaders actually dared to say that the marriageable age of girls should be decreased from 18 to 16! Why? This would save girls from being raped in Haryana, a place where rape cases are all time high in the country. Isn’t this outrageous? These leaders instead of accepting that they have failed to maintain law and order want laws that will chain a woman. The questions are, can’t a married woman be raped by outsiders? Can’t she be a victim of marital rape? Can’t girls below 16 be also raped? Many women even do not know that marital rape is equivalent to rape. The society think and women too perceive that a husband has all rights over a women’s body. This is a culmination of a primitive patriarchal culture that actually sanctions violence against women. Again this culture was seen in Kashmir when the all girl’s rock band was threatened and warned that a fatwa will be issued lest they call off their performance. The terrified girls and their families not only were forced to call off the performance but went into hiding fearing a backlash. This should have been the plight of persons who threaten them; instead it happened to these honourable torch bearers of women rights. A particular religious leader of a community said in a sexist remark that women should stay in home and sing only in front of their family members. This anguished me. Religious norms should be respected but no one has any rights to impose them on any one, be it the ‘mufti’ or the Vishwa Hindu Parishad villians who harass couples on Valentine’s Eve. If a woman does not want to go out or sing outside or celebrate lover’s day out of her own choice it’s very fine, but who are these men to force it on them? Nothing happened to people who made such sexist remarks. Omar Abdullah supported the girls in Kashmir but failed to punish the guilty. Even in this era such people escape with impunity. All these itself shows how seriously the rights of women are upheld in contemporary society.

    A few women leaders who are in power in India merely are puppets of their fathers and husbands.

ALL ABOUT RELIGION AND SECULARISM

Religion as any other philosophical concept or idea is perceived in a myriad ways and from a variety of vantage points .The contemporary phrase ‘Religion’ today is very difficult to discern, although it has always been a subjective concept, and today it is becoming quite individualistic too. The extreme tirade of secularism that swept the post modern world changed the homogeneity of religion; as it became more pluralistic and complex. When Marx commented on religion as‘opium’ for the masses he must not have ever fathomed then amount of change that secularism brought into the very concept of religion. Religion I believe must have been very valid for the people during his time as much as it is today and most non-marxist continue to see Marx as an iconoclast. I do not intend to endorse Marx’s ideas as a whole; but what I wish to say is that religion that Marx perceived then has a greater contemporary significance than it was during his time. Today centuries later, his comments on religion seems to ring an alarming bell and is very much turning real every day. In an earlier era religion used to be an effective means for social control and it reaffirmed the ideals of a homogenous society. The difference between the religion that was practiced then and the way it is practice today has a lot of differences.                                                   

           Today religion has been reduced to the level of rituals whereas earlier religion as a practice included both rituals and the implicit ideals within it. The pre modern societies were, off course; never completely free of religious fanaticism and violence, but today it has escalated instead of abetting as it was expected (since society moved into a more rational plane).The hatred and violence that was largely based on ethnicity and was sporadic has now become organized (terrorism) .It has become an international matter of concern affecting the lives of many people and their fates. This is the sheer outcome of practicing any form of religion merely as ritual without any inherent norms. This is what I believe has made religion as a ‘toxic intoxication’ that seeks to destroy every forms of beliefs that is viewed as contradictory to the other form. I disagree though with the cynicism that Marx shows, almost a deep aversion towards ‘religion’. The reason why religion today is becoming like‘opium’ is not due to religion per se rather due to way it is being recognized today. I have realized that what we call religion today lacks the true essence and only seem appealing on the outside. It largely lacks the normative ingredients. Gandhi said that religion is an indispensable part of society and no matter how technologically we advance we need religion, since ages it has always acted as a support system for the people. But Gandhi’s religion was quite different from what we see today.

             By merely reducing our beliefs to a system of dos and don’ts we have made it an institution based on rites and rules eroding its philosophical structure. This contemporary trend according to me is the sole cause of religious fundamentalism that is erupting almost everywhere in the world today. It is due to this reason that Marx’s proclaims on religion has become today a real phenomena. Looking back on the issue of terrorism (or any other form of extremism) that I mentioned earlier one becomes very obvious of the fact that it erupted due to loss in the normative pattern of religion. Another factor will also be pertinent here to mention; is a more recent phenomena of ‘secularism’ or to be apt ‘secular fundamentalism’ has led to such a change in the perception of religion. Secularism is viewed by many as a concept which seeks to eliminate religion from all spheres of public life, albeit, it only means equal treatment to all religions. When secularists tend to uproot religion in every visible form they make a mistake in realizing that religion can be personal but never very private. Today many secularists frown upon any ‘harmless’ display of religion (like festivals or wishing), so the religious hardliners have started a sort of ‘competition’ with the ‘secular fundamentalist’ to reaffirm their staunch faith. This silent form of desire to subordinate each other has led to many negative repercussions. Terrorism has now gripped almost the entire world. Terrorists are the living example of religious intoxication. Their religion being the opium has given rise to demonic crimes. Here, again a misconception of religion made them what they are and is making humanity suffer heart wrenching tragedies.

        So in the present it can be asserted that the way Marx viewed religion is somewhat beginning to show itself practically with a more heightened intensity. I do not decline completely that religious intolerance was absent in pre modern era but I say that this has further accelerated today. In various sectors we have experienced advancement or precisely ‘modernity’ is thought to have infringed every institutions. Then why in terms of religion have we become more primitive and orthodox?  Ironically it is this system of modernity which has distorted the very essence of religion (like the development of modern, extreme secularism). Mark Tully exactly says this in his book ‘India’s unending journey’

        “The religions that the secularists fear are fundamentalist, yet ironically it is their own dogmatism that plays a role in creating the dogmatism that they fear. The world got warning of this with the Iranian revolution against the shah. The Iranian professor Ahmed Fardid coined the term ‘west-intoxication’ for poisoning and pollution Iranians felt was afflicting them. Fearing what they saw as extreme materialism many Iranians naturally took refuge in an extreme form of Islam”.

     In India, the current battle is on: between hardliners from almost all religions and those who can be called as the ‘secular fundamentalists’. This has led to a sharp polarization of identity leaving very little space for a middle path; it is this status quo in Indian politics that needs to be changed. Both of these groups simultaneously malign the concept of religion, the latter by negating its conception and by subtle minority appeasement and the former by appealing to people’s emotions and denouncing other religions. The problem with the masses is that they simply gape at the ramblings of priests, maulvis, rabbis or propagandists and define their religion in a half hazard manner, a sort rummaging is done which leads to more entanglements and complexities. Demagogic politicians also often contribute.Most people never ever question, modify, discern or logically think about his ideas and beliefs. Religious hatred and hate speeches are cheered by many just because most people in India cannot find any other form of identity other than their religion and caste. By accepting everything unquestionably they feel a part of their micro group social associations. In order to stop this we need means which will widen people’s sense of identity (like nationalism).The secular fundamentalists (a term which is of recent invention), frown upon against any public display of religion (and in India it connotes a strong minority appeasement) but they fail to comprehend that this restrictive policy can actually urge people to cluster up even more within their intra group identities.

In the context of modern Indian when Jinnah reinforced the idea of ‘Pakistan’, they used the subtle force religion to mobilize hatred and flare up violence. In India the demolition of Babari Masjid can be called the greatest religious intoxication; the people involved went berserk with rage. It shows how intoxicated religion can do much harm to the harmonious fabric of a nation. Today, almost all the parties and politicians, have interwoven facts, myths, fictions, etc, to create their own religious legends. And many times they have succeeded in mobilizing public opinion. With the onslaught of fast paced modernity in the country the tendency remains to cling on to the sacred yearnings, which in itself is not the problem, rather trouble arrives when it is preached upon others.

What we define religion today is, in fact, irreligion. The line between religion and irreligion is getting blurred. There is confusion all around as to what is religion? Today, when we analyze religion we give much importance to its explicit contents. Explicit contents are just the outer ones like symbols, eating habits, drinking habits, rituals etc. Explicit contents though have some importance, yet if we fail to understand the core implicit contents, then our religion is vague and worthless and irrational.

Now we have been neglecting the core values of religion which are more or less, universal in nature. Implicit stuff constitutes the real religion. They are the values and intrinsic goodness that religion teaches us. Today we mostly look upon people who follow all the religious norms strictly, but what is forgotten is its universalistic principles .Religion is something that plays parts in uniting any society and at the same time it creates cleavages within societies. What I believe is that the institution of religion is creating more havoc than the concept of god. If one can associate with the concept of ‘god’ without getting himself or herself tagged into any religion, the problem will be solved.

Religion is something which can truly be learns through direct experience. There are religious advisors everywhere but ultimately it is the person who has to follow it in his or her own ways. You have to experience or feel your own religion. By learning to unlearn other’s interpretations of the texts one may be actually able to delve in. The only reason why we have so many extremists and hardliners is that Marx’s perception of religion is gathering momentum, due to fall in religious morals. We are, without a doubt, advancing fast in technical field but getting more and more primitive in religious fields. We are narrowing the entire concept of religion. This has led to chaos. Optimistically, I must conclude that both the religious ones and the secularists will understand the values of true religion and will make an effort to analyze them in a discerning manner .This will put a full stop to conflicting identities and contradictory ideologues.