Question
V and I spend as much time as we can talking about this and that over the phone. During last night's conversation, the topic of gender roles in society and what it means to have grown up as a female in Indian society came up. I feel that even though I am among the lucky ones who had a functioning, loving family around me, I still grew up being told
( Read more... )
I had come to the conclusion (which I later challenged in the US) that a woman's role was indeed a support role and she should serve her man. Granted I was young, and I myself faced no opressions or restrictions.
I see the changing gender roles now slightly differently. Women and men are equally encouraged to do the same types of things in society today. This sets up the problem of childcare. We do not have a socially sanctioned system that ensures adequate child care right now, world over. The gender roles that used to ensure this has now been obscured, but there has not yet been an adequate substitute for it. Instead the cost of living (or expected lifestyles) has gone up to the point where dual wage earners is almost a necessity. In changing the woman's gender roles (but not truly examining the man's), we have a "hole" for the roles that the woman previously filled and each of us are struggling to fill that hole the best we can, but there a social system hasn't yet evolved. Eventually we'll get to greater balance.
Background noises came from various sources. The subjects that women would study, the level of greatness that women could achieve, The fact that women were, whether equal or not, more vulnerable than men, and thus had great restrictions on their life and mobility through their lives. The background noise that implied that the concerns of women were less important than the concerns of men - recipes, bargains, value shopping, running the household were somehow less important than making the big bucks, business negotiations, office politics or employer-employee power struggles.
The world itself is still this way, changing slowly. We are only slowly starting to see emotions as both useful and important. When I grew up rationality was everything. Not having a rational and logical thought process was weak, not sensitive. Was undesirable, not important. And rationality was considered the man's domain where emotions were considered part of the female realm. Stoicness and lack of expression was highly valued, whereas expression was considered talkativeness / empty chatter and emotions were considered weak.
Just the usage of the word "female" in conversation seems deregatory... Both genders used the term, it was inbuilt into our psyches "That female...", but men were guys, chaps, or men or boys... but we were "females" of a species, rather than girls or women.
The background noise also comes from media and advertising. Gender roles were neatly defined and there was a value judgement attached to those gender roles. The surf woman, targetting women to wash clothes. There were and still are so few ads that cross the gender roles, and these become part of our interpretation of society around us. Women were at home going to the market in their sarees, and men were wearing western clothes in coroporate environments being exposed to the world. We saw this time and time again.
Too long a comment. Stopping.
Reply
Reply
On a very related note, see the conversation on latelyontime's journal here
Reply
Reply
Mother as the one who had the responsibilities of the home, EVEN if she too was a wage earner and had a job. Father could come home and rest, because his obligation was done, but mother's obligation was at home. She could work, but only in addition to her other obligations. Father's work was still the most important and he was done with that. No sharing of housework required or demanded, only given out of generosity by the man.
High pitched voices were considered bad and deep voices were considered good. Many jokes revolved around this. The fact that a boy had a high pitched voice before he became a man appeared analogous to the idea that the deep voiced men were somehow evolutionarily higher than boys or women with the higher pitches.
A man would be criticised for "acting like a woman" as though it was despicable thing, especially when he expressed sentimentality, cried or showed a "feminine" side. But a woman would hardly be criticised, but applauded for "acting like a man". Only in recent times did "becoming comfortable with one's femininity" gain favor as a stylish metrosexual phrase and behavior.
An example so close to my heart. The fact that women take men's first or last names as their names after marriage. This one is HUGE for me. The fact that women's identity revolved around the man in their lives, their protector and guardian, be it father or husband. The simple verbage that puts Mr. before Mrs. Have you ever seen Mrs. and Mr. so and so ? It's always Mr & Mrs. It's always "MAN and wife", never "Woman & husband".
My priest conducted the Kanyaa daanam without gender bias, but more often than not, father gives away the bride, as though he possessed her and then the husband would. Women were property much like the negro slaves were considered.
Examples of space and location: Behind every successful man stands a woman. The woman stands behind a man. Not next to him. Even when the saying is reversed, it is usually easily interpretted as sexist. BESIDE every successful woman stands a man. Like the woman needs the man there. Note that it's usually said beside, not behind when the gender roles are reversed.
The simple English language which is patriarchal to the core. All of mankind includes women. But all of womenkind is an unknown term, and where used, specifically excludes men. The male pronouns are used as default to refer to a group, even casually: "You guys" which can include gals, but "You gals" cannot be gender inclusive. You have fellow countrymen, not countrywomen.
"Frills and fancies" were overages and unecessary extras, but staidness and simplicity implicitly carried greater value.
Even when women do superhuman things that men cannot even imagine the capacity to do, they are flippantly referred to as "popping out babies".
Woman, as a result of their emotional instability from hormonal changes have, from time immemorial, been considered incapable of stable rational thought and action and men have dominated them on this concept as well as sheer physical strength. Man as protector and agressor and women as the protected and vulnerable is an accepted social norm, with even some amount of bioligical credence. Even their inability to express emotion and communicate was seen positively as a stoic nature, rather than a inability.
The examples are plentiful, built into concepts of space, language, culture, art, lifestyle, home life, daily mobility, and so much more.
Reply
The simple English language which is patriarchal to the core.
This one is very close to my heart. I remember my college principle saying "when I say 'boys' I mean 'boys and girls'". I dont remember this happening in FAPS actually. And before that I was used to hearing "girls" all the time so "boys" for "boys and girls" just seemed ridiculous. And its not just English ..... even the few concepts of Vedanta that I am slowly getting familiar with seem to be steeped in the same patriarchal hue.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment