|
BREAKING
PATTERNS
Shikha Tiwari
Feminism
or feminist opinion/ideology so to say has been thought to be a
pattern, which focuses on breaking families and homes. Most often
than not, feminism is assumed to be coming from those women who
aren't good at those responsibilities that belong to "woman".
Though the complexity and dynamics of men and women as a whole is
gloomy, it would be hopelessly pessimistic to assume that things
haven't changed. Considering the long history of suppression of
women in India, the peculiar characteristics and complexities of our
society, and the scale and diversity of the country, the advancement
in the status of women achieved during the last 50 years is
something of a silent and soft revolution. The development of women
situation has been uneven development.
We as women play so
many different roles. A womans' life is thought to be a celebration
of contributions she makes in every aspect of life: in the home, on
the job, in their communities, as mothers, wives, sisters,
daughters, learners, workers, citizens and leaders. Whether it is
while playing with our children in the park, or washing clothes in a
river, or taking a break at the office water cooler, we come
together and talk about our aspirations and concerns. And time and
again, our talk turns to our children and our families. However
different we may be, there is far more that unites us than divides
us across the globe. We share a common future. It is integral to
find common ground so that we may help bring new dignity and respect
to women and girls all over the world - and in so doing, bring new
strength and stability to families as well. And it would be an
understatement to say that this common ground includes the men in
our lives too. A woman's struggle is not so much her own or just for
the female community. It is a humanistic struggle. It is for the
betterment and development of mankind on the whole on earth.
And
however different we may be we are told to think of ourselves in
relation to someone. We are most often understood as daughters,
beloved, wives, sisters and mothers. We are not understood in terms
of what we are - we exist in relation to someone else. We need to be
understood as individuals too, so I say that it is a humanistic
struggle. For men it is a feminist struggle because with that
definition it doesn't enforce any pressure on them. They exist as
the king of the realm ever after. It's convenient to follow the
patriarchy and that stands unquestioned.
It still is a
contentious issue whether the lives of women and girls matter to
economic and political progress around the globe. What we need to
focus around the world is that if women are healthy and educated,
their families will flourish. If women are free from violence, their
families will flourish. If women have a chance to work and earn as
full and equal partners in society, their families will flourish.
And when families flourish, communities and nations will flourish.
That is why every woman, every man, every child, every family, and
every nation on our planet has a stake in the struggle for gender
equality. Women comprise more than half the world's population.
Women are 70% percent of the world's poor, and two-thirds of those
who are not taught to read and write. Women are the primary
caretakers for most of the world's children and elderly. Yet much of
the work we do is not valued - not by economists, not by historians,
not by popular culture, not by government leaders. At this very
moment, as I write, women around the world are giving birth, raising
children, cooking meals, washing clothes, cleaning houses, planting
crops, working on assembly lines, running companies, and running
countries. Those of us who know how to read and write should be able
to voice their opinion and lead the way for the ones who cannot. It
is our responsibility to speak for those who could not.
There
is no formula, which can be devised to solve the problem, which
women face. That is why we must respect the choices that each woman
makes for herself and her family. Every woman deserves the chance to
realize her God-given potential. We also must recognize that women
will never gain full dignity until their human rights are respected
and protected. We are the ones who give birth and nurture so many
lives into human beings but tragically, it is our human rights are
violated which are most often violated. This violation has continued
because, for too long, the history of women has been a history of
silence. Even today, there are those who are trying to silence our
words.
It is a violation of human rights when women and
girls are sold into the slavery of prostitution. It is a violation
of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire and
burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small.
It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in
their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to
rape as a tactic or prize of war. It is a violation of human rights
when a leading cause of death worldwide among women ages 14 to 44 is
the violence they are subjected to in their own homes. It is a
violation of human rights when young girls are brutalized by the
painful and degrading practice of genital mutilation. It is a
violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan
their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions
or being sterilized against their will. If there is one message that
echoes forth from this, it is that human rights are women's rights -
and women's rights are human rights.
Families rely on
mothers and wives for emotional support and care; families rely on
women for labor in the home; and increasingly, families rely on
women for income needed to raise healthy children and care for other
relatives. Now it is time to act on behalf of women everywhere. If
we take bold steps to better the lives of women, we will be taking
bold steps to better the lives of children and families too. Not it
is the time for them to stand up for the cause of women. It is
integral for men to get out of their system of convenience and
supremacy to stand up for the cause of humans in general.
|
Men's
Role in Gender Equality
Shikha Tiwari
Ideas
about manhood are deeply ingrained. From an early age, boys may be
socialized into gender roles designed to keep men in power and in
control. Many grow up to believe that dominant behaviour towards
girls and a woman is part of being a man. Risk-taking and aggressive
sexual behaviour on the part of young men are often applauded by
peers and condoned by society. These stereotypes result in harm to
both women and men, and erode possibilities of establishing
satisfying, mutually respectful relationships. Targeted messages
that can help boys and young men reflect upon and discuss issues
surrounding masculinity, relationships and sexuality can contribute
to the deconstruction of negative, high-risk and sometimes harmful
attitudes.
Because the right to reproductive and sexual
health is so integrally related to a woman's well being, it can
serve as a useful entry point to a discussion on empowerment.
Conversely, neglecting a woman's right to reproductive and sexual
health lies at the root of many problems. Women cannot achieve
sexual and reproductive health without the participation of men. One
clear example is the spread of HIV. Men are involved in almost every
case of transmission of the virus and usually have greater power to
protect themselves and their partners. Coercion and abuse, including
rape, increase the risks.
The AIDS pandemic has helped
underscore the linkages between power relations and sexual and
reproductive health. And it has demonstrated that half of the
population has been neglected in terms of reproductive and sexual
health.
Children, parents and society benefit when men
become more actively involved with their family. However, while the
duties of a father vary greatly throughout the world, responsibility
for children, in particular, is still seen as belonging to the
mother. Fathers spend about a third as much time as mothers in
providing direct childcare. However, in both developed and
developing countries, a new ideal of fatherhood is emerging. The "new"
father: supports the mother during pregnancy and childbirth, has
close relationships with his children, cooperates with his partner,
and shares in household tasks. While this ideal is, indeed,
evolving, practice is slow to change. To successfully promote male
involvement in the family, concerned leaders, governments, and NGOs
must begin by confronting cultural barriers and providing education
that prepares them for a broader fathering role.
Women's
empowerment is the process by which unequal power relations between
men and women are transformed and women gain greater equality with
men. This transformation has been widely recognized -- in
international, regional and national conferences'- as a basic human
right as well as an imperative for national development and global
progress. At the government level, women's empowerment includes
extending to them all fundamental social, economic and political
rights. On the individual level, it includes processes by which
women gain inner power to express and defend their rights and gain
greater self-esteem and control over their own lives and
relationships. Male participation and acceptance of changed roles
are an essential element of these processes.
|
Generic
Scene of Gender Situation
Shikha Tiwari
Human
development, if not engendered, is endangered." this message of
the 1995 Human Development Report must be kept alive in all aspects
of life and social development. The current "gender and
development" focus acknowledges that the lives and livelihoods
of men and women are interwoven. It necessitates that all policies,
programmes and procedures to further the objective of equality
between women and men. Gender mainstreaming -- "taking account
of gender concerns in all policy, programme, administrative and
financial activities, and in organizational procedures" -- has
been endorsed by all agencies.
Despite the gains made in
improving the situation of women, the reality continues to be
disturbing, and bleak statistics have now become familiar. Women
continue to constitute the majority of the world's poor - 70% of
those living in poverty are women -- and in no society do women
enjoy the same opportunities as men. This is a development reality
and issue that affects all our other work and achievements and it is
a shared responsibility.
The advancement of women can be
considered a threat to the power-base of men, at both professional
and personal levels. In addition, gender equality can be dismissed
by men as being a "women's" issue. Under this construct of
fear, there is also a degree of insecurity among men in being
advocates for gender equality. Men hesitate to adopt a gender
equality stance in part from not wanting to be misunderstood and/or
ridiculed.
The Government of India had ushered in the new
millennium by declaring the year 2001 as Women's Empowerment Year,
to focus on "Our vision in the new century of a nation where
women are equal partners with men". So what was the grandiose
official declaration all about? A lot of programs with fancy names:
Swashakti and Stree Shakti for women's empowerment; Swayam Sidha to
benefit 100,000 women through micro-credit programs, Balika Samrudhi
Yojana for the girl child and some 2,000 other projects, all with
unimpeachable good intentions.
Political empowerment still
remains a distant dream for Indian women. The Congress party began
the "empowerment year" by lowering its quota for women in
the AICC panel, after announcing its allegiance to 33 per cent
representation. Reservation for women in Parliament was among the
promises made in the ruling BJP's election manifesto. Three years
after the Vajpayee Government came to power the Bill still remains
in cold storage.
"Women's Empowerment Year" was
announced with much fanfare. But where are the results? Except for
organizing seminars and making speeches, what has the government
done?" asks Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairperson Najma Heptulla. "All
three sessions of Parliament are over but the Women's Reservation
Bill has not even been discussed. When the government is not ready
to give political empowerment to women, how will economic
empowerment be possible?" As for the programs announced by the
government, Heptulla feels that they should be considered normal
developmental initiatives. "After all, women form 50 per cent
of the population so the government is supposed to formulate such
programs. They are not special to the empowerment year."
Gender
equality, equality between men and women, entails the concept that
all human beings, both men and women, are free to develop their
personal abilities and make choices without the limitations set by
stereotypes, rigid gender roles and prejudices. Gender equality
means that the different behaviour, aspirations and needs of women
and men are considered, valued and favoured equally. It does not
mean that women and men have to become the same, but that their
rights, responsibilities and opportunities will not depend on
whether they are born male or female. Gender Mainstreaming is "
the process of assessing the implications for women and men of any
planned action including legislation, policies, and programmes, in
any area and at all levels. It is a strategy for making women's and
men's concerns and experiences an integral dimension in the design,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and programmes
in all political, economic and societal spheres so that women and
men benefit equally, and inequality is not perpetuated. The ultimate
goal is to achieve gender equality." The development of any
society is impossible without gender equality and gender
mainstreaming. Unless all sections of the society are working on an
equal platform, it is difficult to even assume the overall
sustainable development of any society.
|
ROLE
OF MEDIA - II
Shikha Tiwari
We
have been talking about the role of media in shaping the "idea
of womanhood" within not just the male psyche but also in the
mindset of women themselves. It would be an understatement to say
that media plays a very very important role in shaping our thought
process. Needless to say that it is a politically construed gender
construct, the foundation of which lies in the assumed sexual
difference. It is a powerful medium indeed and it can make people
think - "think" yes, but only what it wants or what suits
it. It shall not be problematic to say that it is hindrance in the
socio-political and economic progress of the nation. Media and
literature are so to say the mirrors of the society. Unfortunately,
the problems, issues and the conflict that the media raises through
its various mediums of expression are not the ones which women of
the modern world face. It is disheartening to know any creation of
the media does not reflect the woman and its substance, as it is in
the real sense of the world.
I would devote this
article to assess or so to say provide a critical review of what we
see on the small and big screen in the present day. In today's
modern world with its technological advancements and development,
the face of our everyday live seems to have undergone a change. And
this sea change has been complemented by the advancements in the
mind-blowing progress in the world of communication.
For I
am sure quite a few of you must have seen the latest box office hit
"Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham". It is supposed to be a film
about loving your parents. Well by the time one reaches the interval
period one realizes that it doesn't do what it proclaims. For if
that's the way one is supposed to love one's parents I guess one
needs to redefine either the idea of love or the relationship
between parents and children. And if there is anything in the world
that brings the separated parents and children together is only the
death of grandparents, the idea needs to be re-questioned. What
seems simply deplorable is the idea that besides the fact that a
woman is one major half of the family structure, their role seems to
be fairly subsidiary. There is only once in the film that a woman
speaks and that too is just a surprise or wonder to the idea of
patriarchy. She still doesn't question it in the major sense of the
word. Besides this what is even more offending to the idea of
womanhood is the proclamation that the only thing she needs is a man
in life, whether a father, lover or a husband. And they have a
complete right to make a cast for a woman's life, which is to decide
what shape will it take. And patriarchy does give them the right to
decide what course will a woman's life take.
The only
question, which still seems unanswered, is that who has given them
the right to decide that they can cast a mould for a woman's life.
Does it not bring into question the comprehensive idea of womanhood?
What is a woman and who makes what it is perceived to be?
|
WOMEN
AND THE MEDIA AT WORK
Shikha Tiwari
Of
late we have understood that media is the voice of the public. Our
opinions theirs and our struggles theirs. Media has always played a
very important role in shaping not only just our lifestyles but our
mindsets as well. More often than not our perception of our own
personality is guided by what a powerful medium like The Media
thinks of us. The very notion that media reflects what the masses
feel is in itself is distorted. It is not that the media reflects
what we think rather they mould our thinking and it becomes such a
vicious trap that it is impossible to find a way out. It seems like
the chakravyuh made in the war of Mahabharata, which seems
undecipherable. Is it a war that the media is fighting or is it a
war waged by them only? In concrete terms it seems that we women are
striving to maintain that image which is painted by the media.
The
Media has developed a socio-sexual-generic structure where the woman
is expected to fit in to suit the consumer or the society at large.
Since the dawn of marketing, advertisers have tried to sell their
products by exploiting our needs such as sex, power, beauty, and
money. These needs are used to sell the consumer anything from shoes
to cigarettes. As ridiculous and crazy as it sounds, it is effective
and can often times have negative cumulative effects on society as a
whole. On a daily basis people are bombarded with a host of
different advertisements and commercialized rhetoric. It is
unavoidable to the average citizen who constantly sees women
portrayed as sex symbols, conveniently displaying their "assets"
for all to see. And it is this created image which the women try to
live up to. Not knowing whether it defines their own personality or
not, it becomes a prototype of a successful woman. And who doesn't
want to be successful?
They also depict the woman in the
traditional old-fashioned way of life. These two kinds of ads define
the role and place of women in the society. A young women's presence
in a grocery store plus the only product in her basket at the store
being a box of laundry detergent contribute to the stereotype of a
woman's place in the home. Not only are people's attitudes towards
women being influenced, but also their attitudes towards their
environment. As she is seen again gazing at herself in the
refrigerator and dryer doors, she is taken away from her urban
reality and placed into a tropical paradise. Besides solving the
problem media has been involved in aggravating, rather creating a
problem out of nowhere.
A day near the television set can
actually kill a woman with enough self esteem to death. The roles,
portrayals; the images crafted; the problems raised and the issues
discussed and apparently solved are just not what the woman of the
modern world faces. What is in fact a woman is also problematic and
false. But we seem to be chasing it like cats and dogs. Indeed it
just helps to establish that statue, the goddess so to say; to keep
it on a pedestal to be worshipped. That's the most non-threatening
situation. For the "Woman of Substance" is a threatening
situation to the man dominated world. The media is doing today what
Spencer and Donne apparently did during their times . It is a
politically crafted situation, which suits the takers in this world.
It seems like barter system, everything is quantifiable. Everything
is consumable, everything can be sold and bought. And why not if it
appeals to the eye?
Had we not been running after the
viciously crafted image, I guess the entire substance of woman at
large would have been much different form what it is now. As of now
we are still moving ahead fast in a den where there is definitely a
dead end at the end of the journey. How shallow can this journey of
life can be?
|
DYNAMICS
OF MOTHERHOOD
Shikha Tiwari
Motherhood
is in all terms the most respected and idealized stage in a woman's
life, especially with respect to the Indian socio-cultural system.
Though it is not so difficult to visualize and understand the
dynamics involved in it, but more often than not it is chosen to
compartmentalize and ideologically authenticate the mother's role.
Like in the Spensarian literature, women were supposed to be placed
on a pedestal and worshipped. For that's the most non-threatening
position for men. The very idea of viewing one's beloved in the role
of a goddess, is almost like putting a free bird in a golden jail
and making the bird feel that this is the best thing which can
happen to her. Somehow it is the best way to ensure that the bird
can't fly. But there is a whole lot of politics involved in this
entire structure. It is not only patriarchy or a power structure but
also a gender and sex dominated system. It is not difficult to
imagine that for what reasons has the exploration of such a system
being denied; not only denied but buried all through.
However,
it is important to bear in mind that the sex-gender system is not
merely a structured set of power relationships. Sex drives and the
rules of the Eros game are far too powerful to be contained within
the set of powerful relations that constitute patriarchy. The sex
system and the gender system are two distinct, interrelated systems.
The latter is a culturally constructed system construing gender in
specific shapes. A woman or a man is not born. In shaping of
genders, a culture is reproduced, and the relationships of power are
redefined within it. The sex system, however, lies at a deeper level
of the biopsychic structure of the individual, and is in some man is
born, and can be remade only up to the point. The psychic structure,
as Freud demonstrated, is rooted in a largely un-modifiable id,
however much the ego and the superego might try and control it.
There is therefore a sex system, and a set of interlocking drives
and checks that have a powerful impact on the individual's emotions.
The gender system, superimposed over the sex system, modifies the
latter to some degree but not beyond that.
To express it as
a formula, the sex system arises out of the biological differences
between men and women; whereas the gender system arises from the
culturally reproduced distinctions between them. The gender system
is closely moulded by class; but the sex system, that lies at its
core is in some measure beyond the reach of class. Gender and class
have therefore been closely linked in human experience ever since
the emergence of civilization: together they mould the mentality
that is prevalent in all the civilized societies.
While the
mind belong to the individual and the bio - psychic structure must
necessarily correspond to a particular body and mind, mentality
belongs to the society in which an individual is born and brought
up. The mental outlook is culturally constituted, and in its
constitution there is a melange of Eros, emotions, power drives.
This view of the matter takes into account the culturally reproduced
as well as the biological difference between man and woman, and does
not fail to give due consideration to the psychic and emotional
relationships that arise from this. The older term 'man-woman
relationship' which preceded the current term 'gender relation', was
sensitive to the psychic dimension of the sex gender system.
In
this context if we see, the mental, social and emotional baggage
which is attached with the idea or the role of being a mother. It is
probably a situation where a woman is most bargained. The maternal
instinct that a woman brings up her children kind of
compartmentalize her as someone emotional, sensitive, forgiving and
vulnerable and this is the image which kind of travels with her all
through her life. Pregnancy is in some ways the best time to make
the women feel such an ideal of love and care that she may never be
able to get out of that mould. And this structure is not just male
dominated but approved by the society (which is certainly male
dominated). It is in this structure; social and ideological that a
woman is born and brought up. This kind of a structure ensures that
she will never be able to get away from that mould of thinking that
she is nothing but emotional and sensitive.
|
DIMENSIONS
OF REPRODUCTIVE VIOLENCE
Shikha Tiwari
Around
the world at least one woman in every three has been beaten, coerced
into sex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime. Most often the abuser
is a member of her own family. Increasingly, gender-based violence
is recognized as a major public health concern and a violation of
human rights. The effects of violence can be devastating to a
woman's reproductive health as well as to other aspects of her
physical and mental well being. In addition to causing injury,
violence increases women's long-term risk of a number of other
health problems, including chronic pain, physical disability, drug
and alcohol abuse, and depression. Women with a history of physical
or sexual abuse are also at increased risk for unintended pregnancy,
sexually transmitted infections, and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Yet
victims of violence who seek care from health professionals often
have needs that providers do not recognize, do not ask about, and do
not know how to address.
Violence against women and
girls includes physical, sexual, psychological, and economic abuse.
It is often known as "gender-based" violence because it
evolves in part from women's subordinate status in society. Many
cultures have beliefs, norms, and social institutions that
legitimize and therefore perpetuate violence against women. The same
acts that would be punished if directed at an employer, a neighbor,
or an acquaintance often go unchallenged when men direct them at
women, especially within the family. Two of the most common forms of
violence against women are abuse by intimate male partners and
coerced sex, whether it takes place in childhood, adolescence, or
adulthood. Intimate partner's abuse also known as domestic violence,
wife beating, and battering is almost always accompanied by
psychological abuse and in one-quarter to one-half of cases by
forced sex as well. The majority of women who are abused by their
partners are abused many times. In fact, an atmosphere of terror
often permeates abusive relationships. Violence against women is the
most pervasive yet least recognized human rights abuse in the world.
It also is a profound health problem, sapping women's energy,
compromising their physical health, and eroding their self-esteem.
Despite its high costs, almost every society in the world has social
institutions that legitimize, obscure, and deny abuse. The same acts
that would be punished if directed at an employer, a neighbour, or
an acquaintance often go unchallenged when men direct them at women,
especially within the family.
While intimate partner abuse
is widespread, it is not universal. Anthropologists have documented
small-scale societies such as the Wape of Papua New Guinea's where
domestic violence is virtually absent (95, 275). This finding stands
as testament to the fact that social relations can be organized in a
way that minimizes partner abuse. In many places the prevalence of
such violence varies substantially among neighbouring areas (255,
319). These local differences are often greater than the differences
among countries. For example, in Uttar Pradesh, India, the
percentage of men who said they beat their wives varied from 18% in
Naintal District to 45% in Banda (319). The percentage that
physically forced their wives to have sex varied from 14% to 36%
among districts.
Not some very relevant matter is available
as to why do such violence happen only in a certain strata of
society. However, poverty increases the risks of violence whether it
is due to low income itself or to other factors that accompany
poverty, such as crowding or hopelessness. For some men, living in
poverty is likely to generate stress, frustration, and a sense of
inadequacy for having failed to live up to their culturally defined
role of provider. Poverty may also provide cause for marital
disagreements and at the same time make it difficult for women to
leave violent or otherwise unsatisfactory relationships. And it
becomes a vicious circle, which affects the women's mental and
emotional well being.
|
ELIMINATION
OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Shikha Tiwari
Elimination
of violence against women has been a vital area of concern for
leading scholars from all areas of study of late. Though it is
encouraging to believe that it is discussed as an issue of social
concern across various tables but no so much as at the same time
they chosen to leave out the dynamics of the whole social construct.
The various level and the forms on which the discrimination exists
is conveniently narrowed. There is a difference between gender and
sex and the violence, which occurs at both these levels, can be so
varied that it is nearly impossible to separate these parameters
when the intensity of violence is concerned. But then a little move
in the right direction can do some good at the end of it. So far so
good the UN Convention does say, "...The full and complete
development of a country, the welfare of the world and the cause of
peace require the maximum participation of women on equal terms with
men in all fields". For probably the convenience of doing some
work effectively in this area, discrimination is understood only as
"any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of
sex...in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any
other field". The Convention gives positive affirmation to the
principle of equality by requiring the governing authorities to
provide all appropriate measures, including legislation, relating
the rights of women as human rights imperative for social upliftment
and progress.
Most often than not the marital status
of women is considered to be an obstacle in the progress especially
economic growth. The women's legal status has been linked to
marriage, making them dependent on their husband's nationality
rather than individuals in their own right. But these equations
become all the more problematic in the case of rural women whose
particular struggles and vital economic contributions to the country
are much higher than other women or even men in the cities. This
seem rather significantly crucial keeping in mind the educational
opportunities and options to be equal with men working in the same
field as they and the awareness levels as well. Article 15 asserts
the full equality of women in civil and business matters, demanding
that all instruments directed at restricting women's legal capacity
''shall be deemed null and void". in this concern role of a
woman as a mother and their reproductive rights are extremely
important provide them economic liberty and status. The preamble
sets the tone by stating that "the role of women in procreation
should not be a basis for discrimination". Most often then not
maternity is not considered as another social responsibility. In
fact it is just another instrument to stop their growth and
development. If a certain set of circumstance stun anyone's growth,
then it does not mean that there is enough freedom in the air to
live. The link between discrimination and women's reproductive role
is a matter of recur ent concern in the Convention. For example, it
advocates, in article 5, ''a proper understanding of maternity as a
social function", demanding fully shared responsibility for
child rearing by both sexes. Accordingly, provisions for maternity
protection and child-care are proclaimed as essential rights and are
incorporated into all areas of the Convention, whether dealing with
employment, family law, health core or education.
|
THE
ECONOMICS OF THE LIFE OF MODERN WOMEN
Shikha
Tiwari
Most often
than not it is found that the modern day gifted women face a lot of
challenges and fight numerous struggles in the present social
system. Some say may be they are too modern or in that sense too
equipped to face the modern day struggle. Women in today's world are
aware that they have faced enough challenges and miseries to
channelized a thorough defense mechanism, which does not only make
them prepared to strive through the tough moments but also come out
successfully through each of these moments. It makes them stronger
and more confident but at the same time unfit for the world.
BATTLES
Many battles have I fought,
It means existence to me,
Its eternal love between us,
Wed in a pre-natal ceremony,
Tachycardia meant breathing a struggle,
Devotion meant
love a struggle,
Loyalty meant friendship a struggle,
Sincerity
meant existence a struggle,
And I love it now,
A pseudonym
of my existence.
And all these year things haven't been
easier for us women of late. We have strived struggled, challenged
the prevalent social structure and got out the hard way out,
successfully. But how many of us are appreciated on that account.
They don't even realize that there is any struggle whatsoever in a
woman's life. For men all the struggles in this world are saved for
them for only they are equipped to face them. Most often the thought
of getting married is so very difficult because we are not looked up
for what we are. But we are weighed on that scale where we, our
self, identify does not show anywhere. It is still supposed to be
that baggage of identities beyond our self, which is meant to
please. And the modern day woman has consciously chosen not to be
take up that job of pleasing for she never gets it back.
Its
like all my life, I am conditioned to prepare myself for the big bad
world. And when we are grown up enough to have made that our
lifestyle, we are expected to let it go because that independence
and grit was required to fight the world alone. But now when its
time to get married, which means, " a woman would have someone
to look after" she is supposed to let that entire tussle go for
its not needed. For now that her independence grit, courage has kept
her safe, she can easily get into marriage.
Men were able
to exercise their power for their economic position but its not the
same now. She is economically sound and is not ready to let the
independence of mind rot in the rut. And that's certainly a problem,
which we are all fighting nowadays. For god may someone respect us
for what we are?
|
ECONOMIC
EQUALITY
Shikha Tiwari
All
these years' women have felt economically suppressed just because
when a man enters the home on the 1st of a month and gives his
entire month's salary in his wife's hand, he immediately places
himself in a situation of power. Its not so much an issue that he is
being considerate to his wife's needs but the fact that it is "HE"
who provides everything at home. The very structure that a man will
go out and earn places women in a second position. It suits the
man's machismo and egoism to cater to all the needs of a woman and
his family. And it continues to keep him at a higher platform. And
to keep women suppressed all through.
Economic inequality
is a central fact of women's lives in every country in the world,
and a central manifestation of discrimination against women. Women's
economic inequality includes a range of conditions - from utter
destitution to the overall inequality of women's share of wealth,
property, income and resources. Women are 70 percent of the world's
poor and they own 1 per cent of the world's wealth. In every country
in the world, women are poorer than men, and their poverty and
economic inequality affects every aspect of their lives - their
basic survival and the survival of their children, their access to
food and housing, their physical security, their ability to escape
from violence, their sexual autonomy, their health, their access to
education and literacy, their access to justice, their ability to
participate in public life, their ability to influence and
participate in decisions that affect them. Women's economic
inequality is integrally connected to their sexual exploitation and
to their lack of political power. As long as women as a group do not
have an equal share of the world's economic resources, they will not
have an equal say in shaping the world's future.
There is
growing evidence that the standardized economic agenda now being
implemented globally - which encourages diminishing the size of
governments, cutting social programs, privatizing public services,
and deregulating markets - is having a negative impact on the
economic and social conditions of women. In fact, women's inequality
is deepening, as evidenced by the increasing poverty of women, and
the proliferation of sweatshops and other forms of economic
exploitation, including trafficking in women. On a global level,
economic policy is being treated as though it is unrelated to the
human rights of women.
Although the economic and social
rights movement has been successful in putting specific rights such
as the right to food, housing, and health on the human rights
agenda, this movement has failed to consider the particularity of
women's experience and consequently failed to incorporate a gender
perspective into the interpretation and treatment of these rights.
Gender-neutral treatment of economic, social and cultural rights
does not advance women's equality. Programs designed to improve
economic and social conditions often work best for men because they
do not consider or account for the gendered character of poverty.
Women are poorer than men in every society, and they are poor for
different reasons. Women's persistent poverty and economic
inequality are caused by a number of interlocking factors,
including: the social assignment to women of the unpaid role of
caregiver and nurturer for children, men, and elderly people; the
fact that in the paid labour force women perform the majority of the
work in the 'caring' occupations and this 'women's work' is usually
lower paid than 'men's work'; the lack of affordable, safe child
care; the entrenched devaluation of the labour of minority women,
including indigenous women, migrant workers, women in the informal
sector and women with disabilities; the economic penalties that
women incur when they are unattached to men, or have children alone;
and laws, policies and traditions which treat women as adjuncts to
men and deny women independent entitlement to credit and loans, and
to own, rent, or inherit land, property and housing. |
GENDER
SENSITISATION
Shikha Tiwari
In
this article I will talk about a specific experience of my own. In
the past few years I have been involved in conducting gender
sensitisation teacher development programmes with government school
teachers. The basic idea of sensitising this group was primarily
that these teachers play a very significant role in shaping the
minds of those children of belong to the less privileged economic
group of the society. However they belong to the less privileged
economic group, they turn up to be the torchbearers to the future
nation. It becomes imperative to deal with such a group especially
on an issue of discrimination, because the future of any society and
successful society depends on equality of all groups. The issue is
not a feminist one but a humanist issue. It is important for all
groups to thrive on an equal plane.
The basic framework of
the workshop was such that it tried to establish the distinction
between gender and sex. Most often than not these two aspects are
thought to be one. Anyway the workshop was designed in a way that it
involved the participants in a way that it would evolve such issues
and questions form their mind and ask them to re-question those
ideologies themselves. Each of these workshops that I conduct are
always a learning process for myself - each time I happen to
interact with a new group and it's a new understanding for me at all
times. But it was only this time I came across a group of men who
were almost shouting or one can say that pleading that they do not
exercise their power or authority upon their wives or daughters or
their sisters because they like it. Their plea was that since women
don't raise a voice they assume that it is acceptable. But at the
same time they forget that women are not taught to raise a voice,
and since they take it silently it is supposed to be suppression or
exploitation. But then we men don't do it. I had come across these
argument manier times during my workshops in all these years but I
always countered it. But this time I don't know when this man said
the same thing time and again I was forced to hear his voice. And he
repeatedly said the same thing.
Why I am pointing this
out is that we women are going through a certain kind of a problem,
some kind of exploitation, which the men folk has been knowingly or
unknowingly given it to us in all these years. But at the same time
we forget that we have always taken it too. And may be taken it in
the wrong way too. If we need to fight this struggle effectively we
need to look at the whole structure in a positive way that it was
rightly structured at some point of time. Of course when I am saying
all this I am excluding all those women who are less fortunate in
terms of the educational support they have received. But a change
needs to come through the more educated lot. We need to understand
the dynamics of the complete social structure, its design and its
need and only then can we fight it.
|
HOW
DOES IT HAPPEN
Shikha Tiwari
It's
a Sunday and the husband is fast asleep. The wife gets up at her
usual time and begins the day's chores. It begins like any other day
for her. She has her morning cup of tea. Everyday her husband
accompanied her for their first cup of tea. They began their day
together though he would go away very soon for his work, and she
would be all alone. But then that's a part of life. He has to go to
work and the wife stays back home waiting for him eagerly to return
back at the end of the day. He returns back home finishing the day's
job, back to her. She is happy, elated and joyous that her husband
is back to her to spend time with her, to speak to her to listen to
her.
But the husband is too tired he has been listening to
so many people for so many hours now that it seems an impossible
job. He has been dealing with varied sets of crisis all the day that
he just wants to retire to bed to prepare for another set of crisis
situations. Even if she wants to talk to him she can hardly talk
because he would not respond the way she would like him to. And this
crisis goes on and on. But now it's a Sunday. She assumes that there
would be enough time to spend qualitatively with each other. But
today's the only day he would not be dealing with any other group,
which would need his time, his expertise or for that matter would
need him in any other appeal but himself.
But that's only
half the story. She waits everyday to talk to him. And now that it
is a Sunday she has all the more reason o assume that she would be
able to spend some quality time with her husband. But then he is not
ready or willing and then isn't it too difficult to do anything in
this male dominated society without their acceptance.
If
at last he ever plans to give her some time the only thing they
blame she would talk about is her family, the home, the walls in the
house seeping, the neighborhood daughter not doing too well and he
is bugged. He assumed that she would talk about something
interesting and romantic to him. This is the scene of every house in
India where the wives don't go for work.
We have discarded
this problem thinking that there is no solution to this but then
this hasn't stopped hitting our minds with the same force or in fact
hurting the wife with the same intensity as it used to hurt some two
three centuries back.
That's because we have stopped
understanding the dynamics of any situation different form ours. We
are so self centered that it becomes absolutely unnecessary for us
to give any consideration to the other person's situation. This is a
very easy situation to understand. And each one would understand the
others' situation better if he/she is put in the others' shoe for
some time.
The typical and standard, social roles and
structures that our society has created, during the past few
centuries has been so embedde in us that it is difficult to think
otherwise. But it is these very social structures, which are
creating discord and disharmony in our lives now. Our age old
traditions and norms have so differentiated men and women just
because it suits a certain social structure, that now that very
social structure and the basis of same needs to be questioned. If
the basis of these structures and formula is convenience then, we
need to just re-question our very fundamentals of existence.
If
our existence has always meant just giving absolutely no importance
to the other person's needs, space and individuality, we need to ask
ourselves where are we going and what are we doing. At this stage it
becomes imperative to understand ourselves better to understand the
other person best. Giving meaning to our situation is integral to
understand the other person's situation. And it is not the other for
that matter. It is a part of our self. Our self is a set of all our
past experiences and our present moment, which is our future.
Everything that surrounds us is a part of our self; it is important
to be in harmony with this other to be in harmony with our self.
|
REPRESSION
Shikha
Tiwari
In my previous
articles, I have spoken about repression in various ways, which are
mostly situated in the socio-generic construct. With repression,
here I mean all ways and means, which ensure the unfulfilled state
of a girl child's mind. We have dealt with problems at work place,at
home that can take so many different forms, can effect the mind in
so many different ways, to such a great extent that there is no
coming back. Most often than not we are not even aware of this
damage because it is embedded in the mind…it is deep within the
psychological processes of the mind… and the scar is invisible
to people whose senses are blind.
The best way which our
society has used till now in order to ensure the killing of a girl
child: mind it I am here talking in terms of mind, the conscious and
the subconscious is to constantly keep telling the girl child, "this
is no way to behave! This is no way to sit, why are you speaking in
such a manner?" and so on… questions like these ensure
that the girl child cannot think by herself. Everything that she
does is labeled as illegal or unacceptable. It is difficult to put
it down on paper that what is the effect on any child if he/she is
left with no correct answers. This is the type of conditioning that
the girl child grows within, but even then anything and everything
that is related to a girl child is specific, peculiar, indigenous
and gravely wrong.
In so far as Freud referred to any
conditioning at all in early stages of his researches, he had in
mind the concept of repression. Till late it was a matter of study
and research whether repression was socio-culturally constituted at
all? A little reflection would show however that every individual
has a range of wishes, not all of which can be fulfilled. The
emotional history of a culture is based in the socio-cultural
construct. In so far as the conscious emotions are shaped by
repression - and it ought to be borne in mind that are allowed to
surface from the lower depths of the mind - the emotional history of
a culture must also give weight to the processes of repression.
Human emotions are permanent but they are shaped by social and
historical processes into sentiments. Thus emotions and sentiments
change over time to time from one culture to another. Emotions can
be both conscious and subconscious. It is always more difficult to
track the unconscious emotions than the conscious ones. But in our
society, the age-old trend has been just to deny it completely.
Especially when it comes to the girl child. And more often than not,
we forget that it is the emotions and ideas both conscious and
subconscious which form the mentality and attitude.
It
seems like a vicious circle. We women are blamed to have a sick and
narrow mind, a mind that can not think and formulate anything. But
then we are made to live in a society, in a construct where we are
not allowed to think and if at all we think it is shirked off; for a
simple reason that it shakes the code of human law. Would somebody
ask them where are we to go? |
GENDER
POLITICS
Shikha Tiwari
How
often has each one of us felt that we face a sad or an embarrassing
situation only because we are women? How often does it not happen
that we are into a group of men who pass on leading statements about
women's sexuality? If we just take a minute to think before we read
on, we would find that numerous times we come across these moments,
sometimes we just ignore the whole thing as if it never happened and
for that matter we are not even aware if anything happened.
For
we have got so used to such incidents. At the same time there are
times when such incidents can just scar a young girls mind to an
extent that probably things can never the same for her. And how
often does our society and here I would include the older women,
thought about all this in its depth.
For example, Fat is
(still) a feminist issue. Distorted unattainable sexist images are
the inevitable consequences of a social system in which those with
power benefit from the exploitation of women in the home and the
workplace. The most effective way to combat this phenomenon is to
develop strong campaigns involving large numbers of women which aim
to change women's unequal living conditions in a whole range of
spheres and out of which alternative images, created by women
themselves, will develop.
'A WOMAN can't be too rich or too
thin' so said the Duchess of Windsor, and so says every fashion and
beauty magazine, every television ad, every weight loss center and
even many families, friends and doctors. Fat is bad; thinness will
bring you happiness.
This is being taken to extremes in
the fashion industry's 'waif' look: hollow cheeks and skeletal
bodies. The Beauty Myth, written by Naomi Wolf in 1990, powerfully
documents the effects of the unattainable body ideal on women's
physical and mental health, and indicts the fashion, cosmetics and
plastic surgery industries, which benefit from women's misery to the
tune of billions of dollars a year.
These profits are made
by creating a deep sense of dissatisfaction amongst millions of
women about their bodies, a dissatisfaction that is growing with the
growing gap between the 'ideal' body and reality. But why can't
women simply ignore all the ads and fashion magazines? They know
from their own observations of reality that these ideals are
fantasy.
Media images also do have a powerful effect, but
they are also continually reinforced in everyday life. Comments on
women's appearance are so commonplace and accepted that we can
underestimate the effect they have on how women see themselves.
Women are described in terms of what they look like; rather than
what they think or do, far more than men: 'Mr Jones and his
beautiful wife Sandy'. Family and friends comment weight loss on
favorably: 'You're looking so well.You've lost weight.' Approval for
being thin and disapproval for being fat, has more impact on a
woman's self-perception. Needless to say, that this is only one kind
of violence, which comes to a girl's mind. Passing out statements
within the train, a bus, or any local conveyance for that matter can
be equally hazardous. An incident of this kind probably takes only
one second to happen but it spoils her completely.
It is
suffering and not suffrage that keeps us women up on our pedestals.
And if God hadn't wanted us up on pedestals, he wouldn't have made
us shorter than our husbands. Well it never takes an extra sense to
feel what the other person has undergone. And only if these men
could have understood what we do feel and sense. Only if they would
not have been judgmental to the extent that we don't exist and we
can't feel anything. But it is high time we stopped living in hope
that men would ever change or for that matter the society would
actually pave the way for our peace.
Believe me, much of
the strength comes from the mind. Before one actually starts doing
something one has to think that one actually do it.
If you
think you are beaten, you are,
If you think you dare not, you
don't
If you like to win, but you think you can't
It's
almost certain you won't
Life's battles don't always go,
To
the stronger or faster man,
But sooner or later the man who
wins,
Is the man WHO thinks HE CAN!
Similarly, we have
to really shun this out of their minds that men are any superior to
us or they have the powers. If you look at it from the other way, it
is we who rule their lives sexually. So dear, where is the problem.
Nowhere, but in ourselves. We have to consciously forget that we are
weak before we can start feeling stronger.
Why can't we
feel proud and laugh upon the thing that we regulate their lives in
every sense of the word and are intelligent and witty enough to make
them feel that they rule us. We face more challenges and hardships
than them and come out successfully. Don't you (all women folk)
think that men have actually been living in an illusory world and we
have helped them do so, just for the reason that they feel happy
about it. Moreover, it is one of those innate numerous qualities of
women to make the world a happier place in their little/big ways in
their little/big worlds.
So is the question hierarchy and
power still troubling? Why can't we feel happy that we can do so
many things and keep people happy at the same time? |
WOMEN
AT WORK
Shikha Tiwari
Young
women entering today's workforce have more opportunities than
previous generations. Not only are more women working, but also
women occupy more senior, high-paying jobs than ever before. Women
have moved from typing pools and schoolrooms all the way to
corporate management. But while women face limitless opportunities
on the job, the same cannot be said for their future retirement.
Women face a lot of problems and challenges at their workplace due
to their position in the social structure. 'Sex' does not just mean
one thing. In fact the significance of sexual practices is that they
stand in for so much, which can go, unsaid or misinterpreted as a
result. It's rare for two people to be explicit about what they want
and mean when they make love/have sex for the first time. The needs
and fantasies expressed through sex make us feel too vulnerable, or
too guilty, maybe. Yet people assume that 'sex' is simply about
bodily pleasure and doesn't mean anything else. This comes from the
assumption which sees sexual urges as natural and direct, unmediated
by society as a biological urge has been applied to women's
sexuality. So the meaning of 'sex' is different for women and men.
For example, the curious phenomenon - men refusing sex
with women where there was a mutual attraction - would not have
seemed so curious in the case of a woman. Men are assumed to want
sex anywhere for its own sake. A man would sum up his sexuality in
such terms: 'I want to fuck. I need to fuck. I've always needed and
wanted to fuck.' It would be unusual to hear a woman say that.
Traditional assumptions rather place women as wanting sex within the
security of married life and motherhood.
Gender difference
thus means that women and men experience their sexuality
differently. According to Freud, material is repressed through
defence mechanisms. These do not operate only within a person, but
between people.
However, a psychoanalytic account does not
draw the implications about the power differences, which result from
these dynamics. Gender difference means that women are suitable
vehicles for men's projections: they have already been constructed
in such a way that they manifest the characteristics that men are
suppressing. Likewise they experience themselves as wanting
commitment and materially are more likely to be in the position of
needing it, because this is how they have been positioned
historically. Thus women's and men's positions are complementary, in
the sense that these gender differences make it likely that both men
and women will see men as wanting uncommitted sex and women needing
committed relationship. The way that gender produces different
identities leads to collusion between women and men, which make
changes in these areas difficult. None the less, the effect is
consistently oppressive to women: it reproduces a power difference
where men are supposedly free of needs and are invulnerable. Women
are left carrying this for both. No wonder we sometime feel
powerless! Despite collusion, the resultant contradictions have
created a significant space for change.
If men's sexuality
were wholly accountable through these gender positions (subject of
natural drives, object of women's wishes for commitment), why would
they ever stay with women, need women, feel strong emotions, and
feel lost and desperate when women leave them? The answer is that
'sex' does mean more than natural urges for men too, but their
subject position in that discourse offers them the possibility of
repressing their strong needs of women. They take up this position
unconsciously, as the slippage from one meaning to another in J's
account illustrated. As psychoanalytical theory would insist, the
slippage of meanings, the inconsistencies and illogicalities; they
are motivated. As M's account illustrates, they are motivated by the
extreme vulnerability which is the consequence of needing a woman
that much - a consequence which is not eradicated when the feelings
are projected onto her. |
"
SHOULD PROSTITUTION BE LEGALIZED ? "
The
arguments raised for and against the legalization proposition
warrant an objective debate, as the issue is too complex and
complicated. No doubt the pros and cons have to be examined
thoroughly, care has also to be taken to ensure that the debate does
not get mired in misplaced emotions, hypothetical assumptions and
finally into a war of nerves between the protagonists and
antagonists.
The debate must determine, define and
deliberate upon the issues in the backdrop of recent developments
the world over, the ideas of which have reached us and have inspired
many people-feminists, human rights activists and commercial sex
workers themselves. Let us for a moment think on the genesis of the
debate which is somewhat like an old song sung on several world
congresses on sexology and too many discussions on the plight of
commercial sex workers (prostitutes in popular parlance) have had
heated deliberations on legalizing prostitution as the only
practical solution to the degradation and dehumanization of those
women and girls (including girls children) who are engaged in flesh
trade that flourishes unchecked in many countries especially those
in our region where exploitation denotes the key feature of
prostitutes' life conditions.
Let us first listen to those
who favor legalization. The protagonists argue that we must
recognize and accept the inevitability of prostitution in no
uncertain terms and bring in some rules and safeguards to protect
the interest of prostitutes. The other equally forceful argument is
that by providing a legal status to this notorious profession of
ancient vintage, we can partly control the daunting specter of AIDS
of which prostitutes are the main carriers. Legalization the
approvers say will enable prostitutes to insist on safe sex by
forcing their clients to use condoms. Another argument of no less
significance is that legalization will end clandestine operation of
the trade, as there would be clearly marked authorized places of
business. Legalization, approvers say, will entail statutory
provisions for inspection, regulation, treatment and protection of
prostitutes from exploitation by police, pimps and procurers.
The
argument further is that legalization would entail the recognition
of prostitutes as commercial sex workers, thereby making them
eligible for protection under certain labor laws. They will have
full access to their earnings and would gain the right to form
unions. The undefined status of sex workers under current laws
leaves them open to exploitation of various sorts
At the
moment prostitutes have no legal protection and are left to languish
in pigeonholes, controlled and commanded by unscrupulous
elements-lady lords, lumpen elements and law enforcement
functionaries. Legislation, it is said, would help eliminate
middlemen who are at the root of most of the evils in the
prostitution business. This, the protagonists say, would greatly
reduce the scandalous nature of the business and minimize the
racketeering in the induction of minors into the hell of the flesh
trade. The last and the most compelling argument concerns the human
rights of sex workers. The right to work, the right to human
dignity, the right to protection against exploitation and sexual
slavery are the pivotal points to considering the problem of
prostitution from a humanistic perspective.
On the other
end of the spectrum there are hordes of arguments against the
legalization proposition. Those who are clearly against it find
legalization as a moral affront and sickening proposition to debase
and downgrade the proverbial, respectful and reverent image of women
in the country. The reference is made to culture and tradition of
the country and to its old pro-women ethos, which describes women as
deities, adorable and admirable for the humane qualities they
possess in plenty. The socio-religious backdrop permits no room for
vulgarization of women by allowing them to sell their sexual favors
in an open flesh market. Those who loathe legalization vehemently
deny that prostitution is the oldest profession. They say that
treating prostitution, as a profession is the product of the sick
minds of evil persons. Prostitution does not possess any of the
recognized attributes of a profession, at least in India. If it does
in the West, it is none of our concern because sexual revolution in
the West does not denote progress, it only indicates a moral decay
of the western world, where sex has become a commodity to be sold
like cassettes of pleasure. Indian society, they say, cannot and
should not treat commercial sex activity as respectable work much
less a profession.
The legalization proposition, it is
feared, will let loose forces of further exploitation of women for
commercial sex purposes. It will legitimize abduction and immoral
trafficking in women and girls, will help open flesh shops in every
nook and corner of the city, may strengthen the stranglehold of
organized sex criminality, and finally will lead to consolidating
the criminal commercial forces which intend to treat women as
saleable sex products. The human rights arguments, these people say,
are phony since the State cannot allow women to degrade themselves.
Legalization proposition would mean the acceptance of the worst form
of commoditification and legitimization of human depravity and
degradation. Finally, the argument is that legalization of
prostitution would vitiate the moral atmosphere of the country and
would lead to increased debauchery in society. The sum total of the
argument is that legalization being a western idea is unfit for any
consideration in Indian society. To combat prostitution and immoral
trafficking in women and girls what is required is the strict
enforcement of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and sincere and
vigorous efforts to rescue and rehabilitate those trapped in the
trade. The iron hand of the law needs to be strengthened to bring to
book all those who help perpetuate the obnoxious sex trade.
Decriminalization
of prostitution stops its clandestine growth, saves prostitutes and
their clients from penal consequences, makes the sexual relationship
socially acceptable like any other commercial transaction,
eliminates intermediaries, ensures safe sex and avoids unnecessary
stigmatization of prostitutes, and their patrons. Such a liberal
approach to prostitution has become possible in some western
countries because society there has no moral hang-ups about the
sexual behavior of consenting adults. The selling and buying of
sexual favors is not considered a sin and such transactions invite
no social disapproval. The sexually permissive societies in the west
have matured to a level where prostitutes are considered as
commercial sex workers and are entitled for necessary protection
against their harassment and exploitation. The sex workers have the
right to refuse their clients, for there are no madams to manipulate
consent through coercion and other demanding and deceitful means.
|
Domestic
Violence as a threat to Security
Shikha Tiwari
Violence
does not refer to common household arguments or conflicts. There is
a difference between a domestic argument and domestic violence. It
is important to understand and recognise this difference. People can
argue without one party having more power or control than the other.
This can be a healthy way to resolve differences. It is natural for
men and women to try to use whatever power and control they have to
win an argument. However, because men are often physically stronger
than women and because our society has a history of encouraging men
to be aggressive and powerful - while at the same time encouraging
women to be weak and submissive - it is not surprising that the
balance of power usually tips in favour of men. If men choose to use
this power in harmful ways, the result can change from some of the
more subtle forms of domestic violence to severe injury or death.
The term domestic violence can be sometimes very
confusing. The terms domestic violence, family violence, spouse
abuse, wife abuse, wife assault, and woman battering, are all often
used to mean the same thing. The term family violence includes all
forms of violence within families: children being harmed by their
parents or caregivers; children being harmed by older siblings or
members of extended family networks; women being harmed by their
partners, elder sons or daughters; men being harmed by women; and
older family members being harmed by their offspring. In fact, it
includes any type of violence occurring in any type of family.
The
term 'domestic violence' is commonly used to describe the abuse
women suffer at the hands of their male partners. Sometimes,
however, the term domestic violence is also used to mean family
violence. Because of this confusion, the terms 'spouse abuse' and
'wife assault' are used to define more clearly the exact nature of
the violence.
"Domestic Violence" should be
understood in a more broader context, as it refers to violence
between men and women in both gay and heterosexual relationships.
This is done to acknowledge the fact that domestic violence knows no
boundaries and is therefore not specific to males who abuse females
in heterosexual relationships. Domestic violence can be physical,
sexual, psychological, social or economic. Violence generally refers
to behaviour which results in humiliation, damage or injury to
another person and/or which results in someone living in fear of
another person's behaviour. Blaming men or women for the position
they are in does not help us understand domestic violence. It is a
complex issue at both the individual and social/cultural levels.
Sadly, domestic violence is a hidden problem. It occurs in
the privacy of home, and those involved are usually reluctant to
talk about it. And it can take many forms. Physical abuse like
hitting, punching, pulling hair, slapping, grabbing, bruising,
twisting arms; sexual abuse is also one kind of domestic violence
and this kind of violence mostly takes place in the safe structures
of the home. Verbal abuse consists of derogatory comments, insults
and constant put downs, lack of physical attractiveness, inferiority
and likewise. There is another more severe kind of damage, which is
of spiritual abuse. It describes the damage violence does to the
spirit of those who have been abused. For some women this cannot be
equated with psychological or emotional abuse. Spiritual violence is
deeper than any of these kinds of violence and disappointingly they
all happen in the safe confines of the home and family.
|
SOCIAL
SECURITY
Shikha Tiwari Personal
security is central to every person's physical, intellectual,
emotional, economic and spiritual sense of well being. Crime and the
fear of crime are two critical factors that can greatly undermine a
person's sense of security. Personal security issues are
particularly important for women and girls. Women consistently
report higher levels of fear of crime than do men. Almost half of
all crime victims in the society are women, and women and girls are
the victims in the vast majority of certain reported crimes, such as
physical and sexual assault by someone known to the victim. Various
studies have indicated that gender-based violence is the primary
threat to women's personal security.
The root of the
problem lies in attitudes, behaviours and social institutions that
sustain unequal power relations between men and women, and render
women and girls 'acceptable targets' for violence and abuse.
Gender-based violence has consequences for individual women and
girls, and for the communities in which they live. Exposure to
violence or an experience of victimization may increase the risk to
personal security. A young girl who runs away from an abusive family
situation may face new risks such as substance abuse, HIV/AIDS,
violence from strangers and pressures to engage in prostitution and
adopt an antisocial or criminal lifestyle. A woman who leaves an
abusive relationship may face financial insecurity that limits her
ability to find safe housing. Research suggests that personal
security issues may be at the root of problems such as engaging in
violent behaviour as a defensive coping mechanism and using
inappropriate coping skills (such as substance abuse) to mitigate
the effects of violence.
The level of gender-based
violence in communities also contributes to a sense of fear and
danger. Women and girls may modify their activities to lessen their
perceived risk - hampering their access to educational and
employment opportunities, and reducing their freedom to participate
as equal citizens in community life.
There can be many
forms and imperatives for violence against women. Physical abuse
alone can take so many forms including hitting, punching, pulling
hair, slapping, grabbing, biting, bruising and so on - the list is
endless. And as women victims of such abuses, we all know very well
how much does these kind of incidents affect our mind and our sense
of personal security. The injuries are not always obvious as abusers
often make sure the signs of their attacks are hidden under
clothing. For many women there are a real and constant threat of
death because of the seriousness of the abuse, "Most attacks
took place at night. While my three small children slept I would sit
waiting for him to come home. It was like living with a time bomb.
The waiting, the wondering, when would he be home, what sort of mood
would he be in, would he eat his dinner or throw it at the wall or
me, would the children wake scared and frightened, would he break up
the furniture again." (Family Violence Professional Education
taskforce, 1991, p. 62). And this seems to be daily routine for
quite a number of women.
There is another aspect to this
issue: "like delivering verbal abuse in front of other people,
such as put down jokes, criticisms about women's weight, appearance,
sexuality, intelligence etc. controlling behaviours such as
following her to work, controlling access to friends and family,
thus leading her to cut herself off because she fears enraging her
husband, or parents. " Social abuse is the constant monitoring
and control of a women's activities, outings and friendships. She
maybe forced to account for every movement, and may be denied the
right to leave home and / or see friends. Some family members would
go out of the way to control the females in their homes, including
locking them in the house, control the phone calls they receive and
like wise" (Family Violence professional Education Taskforce,
1991, p 64). And all this is just one aspect of the kind of
insecurity women have to deal with in daily lives.
|
A CASE
FOR EQUALITY
Shikha Tiwari This
article will be concerned with social and political equality. In its
perspective usage, 'equality' is a loaded and 'highly contested'
concept. On account of its normally positive connotation, it has a
rhetorical power rendering it correct as a political slogan. At
least since the French Revolution, equality has served as one of the
leading ideals of the body politic; in this respect it is at present
probably the most controversial of the great social ideals. The
terms "equality", "equal", "equally"
signify a qualitative relationship. Equality signifies
correspondence between a group of different objects, persons,
processes or circumstances that have the same qualities in at least
one respect, but not all respects, i.e. regarding one specific
feature with differences in other features. Equality need to be
distinguished from 'identity' - this concept signifying that one and
the same object corresponds to itself in all its features: an object
that can be referred to through various individual terms, names and
descriptions. For the same reason it needs to be distinguished from
'similarity' - the concept of merely approximate correspondence.
Thus to say that men are equal is not to say that men are identical.
In
distinction to numerical identity, a judgment of equality presumes a
difference between the things compared. According to this
definition, the notion of 'complete' or 'absolute' equality is
self-contradictory. Two non - identical objects are never completely
equal; they are different at least in their spatiotemporal location.
If things do not differ they should not be called 'equal' but
rather, more precisely, 'identical' as e.g., the morning star and
the evening star. Equality and equal are incomplete predicates that
necessarily generate one question: equality in what respect?
Equality denotes the relation between the objects that are compared.
Every comparison presumes a concrete attribute defining the respect
in which the equality applies - equality thus referring to a common
sharing of this comparison - determining attribute. There is another
source of diversity as well various different standards might be
used to measure inequality with respect in which are compared
remaining constant.
For this reason it helps to think of
the idea of equality or for that matter inequality, understood as an
issue of social justice, not as a single principle, but as a complex
group of principles. Depends upon which procedural principle one
adopts, contrary answers are forthcoming. Both equality and
inequality are multifaceted concepts. In any real historical context
it is clear that no single notion of equality can sweep the field.
Many theorists concede that much of these discussions of any concept
are vague and theoretical. But they do agree that there is also a
common underlying strain of important moral concerns implicit in it.
Above all it serves us to remind us of our common humanity, despite
various differences. Equality in its perspective usage has of course
a close connection with morality and justice in general and
distributive justice in particular.
The predicates ' just'
and 'unjust' are only applicable when voluntary actions implying
responsibility are in question. Justice is hence primarily related
to individual actionsIndividual persons are the primary bearer of
responsibilities. Individuals have to take responsibility for their
actions and for the circumstances they could change through such
actions and omissions. The responsibility people have to treat
individuals and groups they affect in a morally appropriate and in
particular, evenhanded way has hence a certain priority over their
moral duty to turn circumstances into just ones through some kind of
equalization. Establishing justice of circumstances is beyond any
given individual's capacities. Hence one has to rely on collective
actions. In order to meet this moral duty, a basic order
guaranteeing just circumstances must be justly created. This is an
essential argument of justice in favour of establishing social
institutions and fundamental state structures for political
communities; responsibility in the best possible manner. This
structure further leads to equal respect and equal worth to all
human beings. Any modern structure abandoning this structure will
not exist for long. It appears impossible to peacefully reach a
general agreement on common political aims or for the common good of
society, without accepting all men and women as equals.
|
THE
LIBERAL SELF
Shikha Tiwari The
constitution provides us with some fundamental rights like freedom
and equality to provide us with legal and fundamental protection.
But it only means legal protection. Even after 50 years of
independence these fundamental rights have not attained a humane and
social manifestation. These rights fail to protect a human being and
especially women from injustice at home. It seems when these rights
were instituted women were not supposed to have the same rights as
men.
The situation is not very different in today's world
as well. Because even after having these rights for long women still
hold a secondary position in the social structure of today's
society. Although Rousseau (1973 [1762]) seemed to advocate a
positive conception of liberty, according to which one was free when
one acted according to one's true will (the general will), the
positive conception was best developed by the British neo-Hegelians
of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, such as Thomas
Green and Bernard Bosanquet (1923). Green acknowledged that 'It must
be of course admitted that every usage of the term [i.e., freedom]
to express anything but a social and political relation of one man
to other involves a metaphor...It always implies...some exemption
from compulsion by another.
For Green, a person is free
only if she is self-directed or autonomous. Running throughout
liberal political theory is an ideal of a free person as one whose
actions are in some sense her own. Such a person is not subject to
compulsions, critically reflects on her ideals and does not
unreflectively follow custom and does not ignore her long-term
interests for short-term pleasures. But this kind of individualism
does not exist in today's modern society. We have failed to
understand that it is only when every human being in the society
exercises her/his individualism to the fullest can a society
progress in its holistic terms.
Individuality is the same
thing with development, and...it is only the cultivation of
individuality which produces, or can produce, well-developed human
beings...what more can be said of any condition of human affairs,
than that it brings human beings themselves nearer to the best thing
they can be? or what worse can be said of any obstruction to good,
than that it prevents this? This is not just a theory about
politics: it is a substantive, perfectionist, moral theory about the
good. And, on this view, the right thing to do is to promote
development, and only a regime securing each individual's extensive
liberty can accomplish this.
This moral ideal of human
perfection and development dominated liberal thinking in the latter
part of the nineteenth, and for most of the twentieth, century: not
only Mill, but T.H. Green, L.T. Hobhouse, Bernard Bosanquet, John
Dewey and even John Rawls show allegiance to variants of this
perfectionist ethic and the claim that it provides the foundation
for a regime of liberal rights. (Gaus, 1983a). And it is fundamental
to the proponents of liberal autonomy discussed above as well as
'liberal virtue' theorists such as William Galston (1980). That the
good life is necessarily a freely chosen one in which a person
develops his unique capacities as part of a plan of life is probably
the dominant liberal ethic of the past century.
Turning
from rightness to goodness, we can identify three main candidates
for a liberal theory of value. Insofar as perfectionism is a theory
of right action --- that rightness consists of promoting what Mill
called 'utility in the largest sense', i.e., human development (1991
[1859]: 15) --- it can be understood as an account of morality.
Obviously, however, it is an account of rightness that presupposes a
theory of value or the good: the ultimate human value is developed
personalities or an autonomous life. Competing with this objectivist
theory of value are two other liberal accounts: pluralism and
subjectivism. |
THE SELF
Shikha
Tiwari The topic of the self
has long been salient in feminist philosophy, for it is pivotal to
questions about personhood, identity, the body, and the agency that
feminism must address. In some respects Simon de Beauvoir's
trenchant observations, " He is the subject, he is the Absolute
- she is the other," sums up why the self is such an important
issue for us. To be the other is to be the non-subject, the
non-person, the non-agent - in short, a mere body. In fact there was
certainly this belief at some point of history that God created Adam
first and then from him came the Eve. One can accept that only if
one begins to understand that god did create man in the first place.
In cultural stereotypes, women's selfhood has been systematically
subordinated, diminished and belittled when it has not been
outrightly denied. Since women have been cast as lesser forms of the
masculine individual, the paradigm of the self that has gained
ascendancy is derived from the advantaged men who have wielded
social, economic, and political power and who have dominated the
arts, literature, the media, and scholarship.
This socio -
cultural view of womanhood is fundamentally misleading. Many
feminists take up the question that who provides the paradigm for
these conceptions as their point of departure. It has always been
the MAN. He is pictured in two major roles - as an impartial judge
or legislator reflecting on principles and deliberating about
policies and as a self-interested bargainer and contractor wheeling
and dealing in the marketplace. But, it is no accident that politics
and commerce are both domains from which women have historically
been excluded. It is no accident either that the philosophers who
originated these views of the self so typically endorsed this
exclusion. Deeming women emotional and unprincipled, these thinkers
advocated confining women into virtues, in the role of submissive
wife, obedient daughter and nurturing mother.
Feminist
critics point out that this misogynist heritage cannot be remedied
simply by condemning these traditional constraints and advocating
equal rights for women, for these conceptions of the self are
themselves gendered. In our culture, mind and reason are coded
masculine, whereas the body and emotion are coded feminine. To
identify the self with the rational mind is then, to masculinize the
self. If selfhood is not impossible for women, it is only because
they resemble men in certain essential respects - they are not
altogether devoid of rational will. Yet it is understood that
feminine selves are necessarily deficient, for they only mimic and
approximate the masculine ideal. Problematic as well is the way in
which these gendered conceptions of the self contribute to the
valorization of the masculine and the stigmatization of the
feminine. The masculine realm of the rational selfhood is a realm of
moral decency - principled respect for others and conscientious
fidelity to duty - and of prudent good sense - adherence to shrewd,
fulfilling, long range life plans. However femininity is associated
with emotionally rooted concern for family and friends that spawns
favoritism and compromises principles. Likewise, femininity is
associated with immersion in unpredictable domestic exigencies that
forever jeopardize the best-laid plans and often necessitate
resorting to hasty retreats or charting new directions. By
comparison, the masculinized self appears to be a sturdy fortress of
integrity. The self is essentially masculine, and the masculine self
is essentially good and wise. Women are consigned to selflessness -
that is, to invisibility, subservient passivity, and
self-sacrificial altruism.
The nullification of women's
selfhood has been the case ever since men and women existed on
earth. Though we have come far ahead from this scene of the history
but we women still struggle for our own identity, for our own voice
in the family, in the society, in our workplaces. This is an
overview of the problem we face in asserting our individuality. What
could be worse to have to fight to assert that "I exist not as
a body but as being with an independent consciousness"?
Unfortunately we are living in this scenario only. How to tackle a
situation like this is a problem, which we independent women are
still fighting for. To solve a problem it is important to identify
the problem and understand its imperatives. The differences, which
exist in this society, are MAN made. When I say MAN I explicitly
mean the masculine gender. It is to their benefit to call us the "other".
And sadly the docile women were made to accept this disparity. But
today it is high time we need to question this MAN made differences.
|
REJUVENATING
SPIRITS TO FLY
Shikha Tiwari Has
it not become trendy to be talking about women's issues? And that's
the reason, which inspires me to write about it, to present my point
of view, which is open for any kind of criticism. I would like to
start on a note, which though being in discussion down the ages is
now a stark truth but still often discussed: Men are from Mars,
Women are from Venus. Believe it or not but to put it in a
colloquial tone they are actually made up all together of different
stuff. For that matter we are all very different from one another.
No two people are the same. But women classify men as one breed and
men classify women as another. It is not just an issue of
differentiation and classification - but it is a socio - cultural
construct. But more often than not, the essence, the individuality
of a woman is at stake in this construct.
Investigations
of reason and objectivity are crucial for feminist philosophy.
Feminists contest powers that gender distributes asymmetrically
between men and women, men otherwise privileged and other men, and
some women and other women. Among those powers are powers to name
and describe things, to find and attest fact, to be an arbiter of
interpretation, to speak for oneself, in public, or with authority,
to speak credibly of various things in different places, or to speak
at all. These are matters not only of knowing but also of being able
to claim that one does. Such powers have a peculiar role among those
(economic, sexual, domestic, legal, political, cultural, and others)
distributed by gender in the context of other differences. They can
determine whether any differences or asymmetries of power-including
the power to know and to claim to know-will be identified as such.
And they determine from whose viewpoint, and at whose insistence or
permission, they can be so identified.
Is this not
strange, that a woman who is just another human being has to
struggle or fight for issues like speaking her heart out, to be
treated like any other member of the family and likewise. Fighting
for these rights began long ago almost a century ago or it has
existed since ages but has now assumed a pronounced dimension. The
concept of International Women's Day is just one manifestation of
it. This day is the story of ordinary women as makers of history; it
is rooted in the centuries-old struggle of women to participate in
society on an equal footing with men. In ancient Greece, Lysistrata
initiated a sexual strike against men in order to end war; during
the French Revolution, Parisian women calling for "liberty,
equality, fraternity" marched to Versailles to demand women's
suffrage. The idea of an International Women's Day first arose at
the turn of the century, which in the industrialized world was a
period of expansion and turbulence, booming population growth and
radical ideologies.
But even after this century long
struggle we all know how far we have actually reached. It is not
that we have not moved ahead but there is still that extra mile to
cover. And we all know what it takes to reach that point. But what
is most important for | |
