A colleague of mine, Mr.U, said so in social media:
"It is women themselves who act to perpetuate the patriarchal values, by conforming to them, internalizing and passing on to the next generation. This is true at least with the women whom I saw around me (in the urban middle class professional space). I was and am deeply saddened by the apathy of the woman folk around me, who are well away from the Khap Panchayat like enironment and technically enjoy financial freedom. These women should first identify themselves as full individuals (not as some half of a male), then identify themselves as woman and place it before their identities of wife, GF, aspiring GF, sister, mother (all of which is essentially tied to that of a man's) and offer solidarity to their fellow women who fight to secure a dignified existence!!"
First things first: In spirit, Mr.U says is simple enough: the educated, financially independent urban middle class women professionals should fight to secure dignity for other ill-fortuned women. This is good statement to make. In fact, you could even extend this to apply to any socially responsible person, gender being not a consideration at all.
What raises my curiosity is, how the apparently noble idea is twisted to fit into an ideology to destroy the very foundation of civilization. Look at this: "The women should first identify themselves as full individuals, not as some half of a male and place it before their identities of Wife, GF, Sister, Mother etc, all of which is ESSENTIALLY tied to that of a man's".
First, let me take out the rather excitement-driven words, so that I can focus on the real stuff. The identity of GF is never a by-product of patriarchy, but that of anti-patriarchy. In any case, that is a poorer substitute for Wife. The identity of sister is purely biological. Any gender-specific disadvantages or advantages that patriarchy applies on the Sister-ship can be easily seen as tied to her future anticipated role of a Wife and Mother. So, essentially, there are only two identities that we are talking about here: Wife and Mother.
So, the argument is this: Women should identify themselves as a full individual before they identify as Wife and Mother. Since Patriarchy defines corresponding roles to men as well, for the sake of equity, this can also be read as: Men should identify themselves as a full individual before they identify as Husband and Father.
The reader must note here. Mr.U's argument is NOT that Patriarchy does not allow women to identify themselves as individuals as much as it allows men to identify themselves as individuals. The argument is different: the argument is that the family identities of women are tied to the identities of men, and hence makes her only a "half" individual.
Now, I need to elaborate a little bit here, so that I am fair to him. Individuality has many aspects. I like cricket. Mr.U may like soccer (my guess). That is individuality as per taste. I have the skills to write long boring paragraphs. Mr.U has the skills to write short witty paragraphs (my guess). That is individuality as per skills. I am a Malayalam-speaking Keralite. Mr. U is a Hindi-speaking North Indian (my guess). That is individuality by culture. Is it possible that Mr.U. is talking about of of these individualities? Unfortunately no. He is talking about Gender-specific individuality. This is obvious by the context and words. He himself said, "Identify themselves as women". He is saying that "be individual as a woman" and "not be half of a man".
So, what is this identity as a "full woman"? Let me give two pictures. 1) Get up in the morning. Go to your work. Work till evening. Have a party in the evening. Have a good night. 2) Get up in the morning. Send your children to school. Go to work. Work till evening. Teach your children in the evening. Have a tired night. Which is a "full woman"?
Now, the second picture is, by Mr.U's definition, is "half", because she happens to be a Mother. So, the first picture is "full individual", or at least a good candidate to that position. You may come up with your own better candidates, but none of them cannot have "Children" or "Husband" in there, because, by Mr.U's definition, their presence makes your woman "Half".
In those places where Mr.U's progressive ideas have taken considerable root, it is no wonder that abortion clinics are full of young women. It is no wonder that divorces become a norm of the times. It is no wonder that the term "family" is no longer a socially relevant term. People want to be "full" individuals. Who can blame them to think about getting rid of the obstacles that prevent them from becoming full?
Unfortunately, here comes the paradox. This paradox is the reason why I think his statement is absolutely hilarious and bordering on ridiculousness. Human beings are built to belong to someone or something. Apart from the creamy 1 percent of population who has some extraordinary skills (great thinkers, inventors, scientists or artists), and another 1 percent who are sociopaths, and may be another 1 percent who satisfies themselves with non-human things, the 97 percent of human beings just cannot find more meaning in life than being belonged to someone else or a cause that belongs to many others. For most ordinary folks, like me (I am pretty sure Mr.U also belongs to this category), it is the family. It serves two purposes - it attaches a meaning to life and it builds civilization. In other words, people are built to be "half" (or "quarter" or whatever). It is genetic. It is meant to be like that by the creator (if you are a theist) or by evolutionary pressures (if you are atheist). For such people, it is this very "half-ness" that makes their life full. For humanity, it is this very "half-ness" that makes its existence and progression possible. (An alternative is, of course, to bump up the numbers in the three categories. Bumping up category 1 is extremely difficult, hence the better options are increasing the number of sociopaths and materialists. This, by the way, is a parallel project of the same ideological camp. No wonders at all there).
So, the paradox emerges. Mr. U is asking women to be "full" by not being truly full. By asking them to demote the very same thing that makes their life meaningful (like your own child), to the second place, he is promoting a culture of emptiness (from an individual's perspective) and a culture of death (from a civilizational perspective).
This paradox can only be resolved if Mr.U understands that he has committed a category error. A category error in philosophy is when you represent a thing as belonging to category 'A' while it actually belongs to category 'B'. The category error here is: "Wife", "Mother" etc. does not belong to the category of "Roles invented to tie women". They belong to the category "Natural duties of a female in a civilized human world". It is not a burden that her other "half" mounted upon her. It is not a yoke that man invented to punish her. It is a duty that gives her life its natural meaning. It is a responsibility that she has been proudly owning throughout civilization. It is a priority that never goes to the back of a FIFO list. This is the truest identity a woman can possess from a gender perspective. Just like the role of a Father as far as men are concerned. You could be a teacher, an engineer, a doctor, a janitor or any other thing. But that does not define your identity as a woman. It is confined to the role of a Mother and Wife.
From that perspective, the educated, financially independent urban middle class women professionals who are able to maintain their utmost commitment to the role of Mother & Wife are indeed leading a magnificent life in every sense. I would encourage Mr.U to appreciate that fact, instead of pronouncing judgement on their perceived affiliation to the patriarchal values. They know what it means to be dutiful to their family. They know what it makes their life meaningful. They naturally affiliate themselves to those values that recognize this fundamental human truth. There is no point in being peeved at them for not following the footsteps of the culture that robs them and the entire civilization off the most precious thing - the children, the future. So, if anybody wants to address the real gender problems that women face, let them first address the real issues that every Mother and Wife faces. Solve gender-issues through these identities rather than outside of these identities.
"It is women themselves who act to perpetuate the patriarchal values, by conforming to them, internalizing and passing on to the next generation. This is true at least with the women whom I saw around me (in the urban middle class professional space). I was and am deeply saddened by the apathy of the woman folk around me, who are well away from the Khap Panchayat like enironment and technically enjoy financial freedom. These women should first identify themselves as full individuals (not as some half of a male), then identify themselves as woman and place it before their identities of wife, GF, aspiring GF, sister, mother (all of which is essentially tied to that of a man's) and offer solidarity to their fellow women who fight to secure a dignified existence!!"
First things first: In spirit, Mr.U says is simple enough: the educated, financially independent urban middle class women professionals should fight to secure dignity for other ill-fortuned women. This is good statement to make. In fact, you could even extend this to apply to any socially responsible person, gender being not a consideration at all.
What raises my curiosity is, how the apparently noble idea is twisted to fit into an ideology to destroy the very foundation of civilization. Look at this: "The women should first identify themselves as full individuals, not as some half of a male and place it before their identities of Wife, GF, Sister, Mother etc, all of which is ESSENTIALLY tied to that of a man's".
First, let me take out the rather excitement-driven words, so that I can focus on the real stuff. The identity of GF is never a by-product of patriarchy, but that of anti-patriarchy. In any case, that is a poorer substitute for Wife. The identity of sister is purely biological. Any gender-specific disadvantages or advantages that patriarchy applies on the Sister-ship can be easily seen as tied to her future anticipated role of a Wife and Mother. So, essentially, there are only two identities that we are talking about here: Wife and Mother.
So, the argument is this: Women should identify themselves as a full individual before they identify as Wife and Mother. Since Patriarchy defines corresponding roles to men as well, for the sake of equity, this can also be read as: Men should identify themselves as a full individual before they identify as Husband and Father.
The reader must note here. Mr.U's argument is NOT that Patriarchy does not allow women to identify themselves as individuals as much as it allows men to identify themselves as individuals. The argument is different: the argument is that the family identities of women are tied to the identities of men, and hence makes her only a "half" individual.
Now, I need to elaborate a little bit here, so that I am fair to him. Individuality has many aspects. I like cricket. Mr.U may like soccer (my guess). That is individuality as per taste. I have the skills to write long boring paragraphs. Mr.U has the skills to write short witty paragraphs (my guess). That is individuality as per skills. I am a Malayalam-speaking Keralite. Mr. U is a Hindi-speaking North Indian (my guess). That is individuality by culture. Is it possible that Mr.U. is talking about of of these individualities? Unfortunately no. He is talking about Gender-specific individuality. This is obvious by the context and words. He himself said, "Identify themselves as women". He is saying that "be individual as a woman" and "not be half of a man".
So, what is this identity as a "full woman"? Let me give two pictures. 1) Get up in the morning. Go to your work. Work till evening. Have a party in the evening. Have a good night. 2) Get up in the morning. Send your children to school. Go to work. Work till evening. Teach your children in the evening. Have a tired night. Which is a "full woman"?
Now, the second picture is, by Mr.U's definition, is "half", because she happens to be a Mother. So, the first picture is "full individual", or at least a good candidate to that position. You may come up with your own better candidates, but none of them cannot have "Children" or "Husband" in there, because, by Mr.U's definition, their presence makes your woman "Half".
In those places where Mr.U's progressive ideas have taken considerable root, it is no wonder that abortion clinics are full of young women. It is no wonder that divorces become a norm of the times. It is no wonder that the term "family" is no longer a socially relevant term. People want to be "full" individuals. Who can blame them to think about getting rid of the obstacles that prevent them from becoming full?
Unfortunately, here comes the paradox. This paradox is the reason why I think his statement is absolutely hilarious and bordering on ridiculousness. Human beings are built to belong to someone or something. Apart from the creamy 1 percent of population who has some extraordinary skills (great thinkers, inventors, scientists or artists), and another 1 percent who are sociopaths, and may be another 1 percent who satisfies themselves with non-human things, the 97 percent of human beings just cannot find more meaning in life than being belonged to someone else or a cause that belongs to many others. For most ordinary folks, like me (I am pretty sure Mr.U also belongs to this category), it is the family. It serves two purposes - it attaches a meaning to life and it builds civilization. In other words, people are built to be "half" (or "quarter" or whatever). It is genetic. It is meant to be like that by the creator (if you are a theist) or by evolutionary pressures (if you are atheist). For such people, it is this very "half-ness" that makes their life full. For humanity, it is this very "half-ness" that makes its existence and progression possible. (An alternative is, of course, to bump up the numbers in the three categories. Bumping up category 1 is extremely difficult, hence the better options are increasing the number of sociopaths and materialists. This, by the way, is a parallel project of the same ideological camp. No wonders at all there).
So, the paradox emerges. Mr. U is asking women to be "full" by not being truly full. By asking them to demote the very same thing that makes their life meaningful (like your own child), to the second place, he is promoting a culture of emptiness (from an individual's perspective) and a culture of death (from a civilizational perspective).
This paradox can only be resolved if Mr.U understands that he has committed a category error. A category error in philosophy is when you represent a thing as belonging to category 'A' while it actually belongs to category 'B'. The category error here is: "Wife", "Mother" etc. does not belong to the category of "Roles invented to tie women". They belong to the category "Natural duties of a female in a civilized human world". It is not a burden that her other "half" mounted upon her. It is not a yoke that man invented to punish her. It is a duty that gives her life its natural meaning. It is a responsibility that she has been proudly owning throughout civilization. It is a priority that never goes to the back of a FIFO list. This is the truest identity a woman can possess from a gender perspective. Just like the role of a Father as far as men are concerned. You could be a teacher, an engineer, a doctor, a janitor or any other thing. But that does not define your identity as a woman. It is confined to the role of a Mother and Wife.
From that perspective, the educated, financially independent urban middle class women professionals who are able to maintain their utmost commitment to the role of Mother & Wife are indeed leading a magnificent life in every sense. I would encourage Mr.U to appreciate that fact, instead of pronouncing judgement on their perceived affiliation to the patriarchal values. They know what it means to be dutiful to their family. They know what it makes their life meaningful. They naturally affiliate themselves to those values that recognize this fundamental human truth. There is no point in being peeved at them for not following the footsteps of the culture that robs them and the entire civilization off the most precious thing - the children, the future. So, if anybody wants to address the real gender problems that women face, let them first address the real issues that every Mother and Wife faces. Solve gender-issues through these identities rather than outside of these identities.
No comments:
Post a Comment