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.
No comments:
Post a Comment