The
backlash of women's lib
By Uttaranand Sharma
The Indian
activists, with the blessings of the government,
would have us believe that the poor and exploited
races, everywhere, have a brave new ally in
ferninism, active behind the enemy line. The
logic of this line of thinking is the reservation
of jobs, representation in village panchayats,
formation of a committee to delineate
women’s rights in society, and creation of a
women’s bureau in the Department of Social
Welfare.
In a sense,
populist vote-catching measures, right from the
Hindu Marriage Act, have created an intense
social crisis in Indian society, leading to the
break-up of marriages, the presence of orphaned
children and growth of a promiscuous society.
The so-called
women’s lib movement in India is an offshoot
of Western culture, totally alien to our context.
It is being given out that family life,
upbringing of children and motherhood are forms
of drudgery.
The ideal of
relative equality varied with the changing times,
at different stages of development of society.
There is no such thing as absolute and
unconditional equality. Historically, the fight
for equality has taken the form of attacking a
specific manifestation of inequality and its
alleged justification. But in this case – of
equality for women – it is more of shadow
boxing.
No society could
ever be free from inequality, be it a polity or a
communist dispensation. In fact, an element of
inequality could be conducive to harmony in the
family, for maintaining a desirable quality of
life, which is all so scarce in a modern society.
This historical
debate has assumed political overtones in recent
years in the West. Most social commentators agree
that it was Betty Friedan’s book, The
Feminine Mystique that provided ideological
underpinnings for a women’s movement. The
main thrust was that women although intimate and
integrated with men, have always been subservient
to the latter.
The malaise, as
understood by the supporters of the movement, was
that women were both producers and consumers.
They felt that their share in the technological
advancement has not been commensurate with its
accruing benefits to society as a whole.
The arguments seem
short on logic and are based on a pious hope.
Women, being an integral part of society, need
not necessarily be equal partners. Not all parts
of a mechanism need to be of an equal size and
weight. A more worthwhile fight would be against
inequality among women themselves, the oppression
of women by women–in India, of the
daughter-in-law by the mother-in-law and
sister-in-law.
The battle of the
sexes is not implicit in the anatomy of man and
woman. The truth is that women take it for
granted that a battle is to be fought for certain
ostensible reasons, though they may be vague.
In any society, it
is the woman who mans and manages the family.
This what she prefers to call a prison, although
she herself is the jailor of the prison-house and
the mother, wife and sweetheart in it. Since
women are wont to confuse the issues involved,
they resort to radicalism in their relations with
men.
For instance, more
radical groups in the West, in the 1970s,
suggested the total segregation of women to be
"in equal partnership with men". The
radicals even today argue that women should join
together in their own "communities",
away from men, the enemy. Lesbianism, in this
context, was seen politically as a way of life
with women, who could express their sexuality,
independently of men. In fact, sexuality and
sexual activity became targets of attack. Sex got
politicised.
The new freedom in
sexual morality sought to de-idealise the virtue
of chastity, and gave rise to a permissive
society. The "liberated" woman felt one
up on her man.
As a result of
this bloated pride, women became more
"available" outside marriage. There
were no longer unequal costs to women, for having
relations. But sex equality, they found soon to
their dismay, was not necessarily linked to
equality in other spheres. Equality in this
regard, they realised, was altogether different
from the "equality in pay for equal
work".
Such factors have
created new conditions for playing out the
strident commitments women made. But they are
experiencing the backlash in their personal
relations with men, leading to a larger number of
divorces and break-up of the family units.
Marriages seem more fragile now, under the new
assaults of the incongruent needs for autonomy
and privacy, for rest and support on the part of
both partners.
Any set of
freedoms creates problems of disharmony between
the rights and needs of the individuals. Not only
men but women, too, tired of the battle, may
retreat into the traditional models of marriage
to establish equilibrium in their lives. But by
then the "pig" of a man would be fully
convinced of the ideological unworthiness of the
compromise made for living together.
As it is, it is a
man’s world, that is how, if one believes in
God, he wanted it to be. The women’s lib
movement can go on agitating against the male
"chauvinistic pig", but it has not been
able to make any dent on the sons of Adam.
Fighting uphill against the male arrogance, the
feminists have discovered to their dismay that in
the long run it is disadvantageous to them only.
Time was when
theologians denied women even the possession of a
soul. But not now. A concession, indeed! That was
bad enough. But the secular judges have made
matters worse by attaching a price tag to a
woman’s honour.
Behold yourself!
The other day, a British judge roused the ire of
the entire women’s world by passing a very
light sentence on a rapist, ostensibly on the
ground that the "provocatively
dressed", modern women invite trouble. In
fact, the judge, whose court was
"stormed" later by angry women, sought
to make out that rape was a pardonable offence in
certain cases.
Another judge,
this one in Greece, has dealt another blow to the
cause of women’s lib by assessing the value
of virginity. The Greeks are outraged that the
court in Athens, abiding by the Civil Code in
force, continues to put a price tag on virginity.
The latest price
quoted was 350,000 drachmas (4,600 pounds). The
Athens Appeal Court awarded this sum as damages
to the parents of a schoolgirl of 15, who was
seduced by her foreign language teacher. The
court ruled, reports The Times, London, that the
girl had been induced to surrender her chastity
by false promises of matrimony.
The man was
ordered to pay this indemnity because in the
court’s estimation, this was the sum that
the plaintiff would eventually have to add to her
dowry, "in order to compensate a man of her
own economic and social standing for the loss of
virginity". Under the Greek Civil Code,
dowry is obligatory.
The Greek
women’s organisations have raised a storm of
protest again "this humiliating
anachronism", and are demanding a prompt
revision of the Code.
It is said that
when a romance turns sour, it is the woman who
pays. Judged, however, by the monetary yardstick,
it is the converse that holds good. A
philandering husband has to pay alimony through
his nose. And a Don Juan who runs away with
another man’s wife has to pay a sizeable
amount to the aggrieved husband if he chooses to
sue the "lover boy" for damages.
Money,
unfortunately, is the accepted yardstick for
assessing any kind of damage, even in the case of
one’s honour. Maybe, that is as it should
be, in an age and in a world, which has dedicated
itself to the worship of Mammon. Oscar Wilde was
not merely polishing his wit while he said,
"When I was young, I used to think that
money was the most important thing in life, now
that I’m old, I know it is".
In one of the most
famous cases in our country, the Supreme Court
wanted a "positive evidence of
resistance", which created a storm. The then
Union Home Minister, Giani Zail Singh, said that
the Government would make a new law, so far
nothing has been done, and the Mathura case has
been forgotten. Maybe, life imprisonment would
have done the trick! But judges are judges; they
have to interpret a law as it is on the statute
book.
Human nature being
what it is, all women are not vestal virgins who
shrink and blush, every time a presumptuous male
makes a pass at her. After all, we have our own
variety of Pamelas who at the weekend have their
hair permed and lacquered. The Swingers’
Clubs have sprung up, whose clandestine trade
goes on unabated, in special orgy rooms and
lockers.
The feminist
activists would have us believe that it is all a
creation of the male pigs. The libbers say that
childbearing by women is exploited by male. But
history cannot be controverted.
Henry VIII died of
an overdose of women; Edward VIII kissed his
crown and kingdom a good-bye over a woman.
Napalean retreated from Moscow because he
suddenly felt lonely in the absence of his women
in Paris. Cleopatra was just a sandwich. She
sailed up and down the Nile in her papyrus boat
and called all the tunes to make poor Antony mark
time!
When France ran
out of bread, it took Marie Antoinette to offer
cakes and then go and lose her pretty head over
not being able to account for a baker’s
dozen.
Nevertheless,
Manu, the curmudgeon of a law-giver, Saint Paul,
who saw the light on his way to Damascus, and
Rousseau, the romanticist, said, after all, women
are lovable creatures, if within "decent
limits" of social order.
Manu ordained that
"day and night women must be kept in
dependence by the males of their families."
Saint Paul had an equally quaint thought.
"Let your women keep silence in the
churches", he told the Corinthians,
"for it is not permitted unto them to
speak".
As fro Rousseau,
he believed that "the whole education of
women ought to be relative to men, to please them
and to educate them when young, to care for them
when grown up, to counsel them and make life
sweet and agreeable".
These noble
thoughts are today misinterpreted by libbers.
But, in reality, these provide a solid base for a
family life, as it should be.
The USA, which set
the trend in the women’s lib movement, in
the 1960s and 1970s, has moved a full circle, and
the libbers have folded up their agitations for
equal rights. How else can one explain the
rejection of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) by
the Senate in the State of Florida? For months
before the crucial vote, the women were busy
trying to plead with, threaten, cajole and bully
their men folk to spare them the "ultimate
insult of equality before the law".
Equality, they
argued, would spell certain doom. It would put
the seal of sanctity on homosexual marriage,
encourage lesbianism, deprive women of their
natural grace, and men of their
"virility". "So let us remain as
we are" – in effect, "doormats,
lower breeds, sphinxes, without secrets".
In spite of such
reverses suffered by the libbers in the 1980s, if
they persist further in their demands the world
of Alvin Toffler will unfold itself with all its
dreadful consequences. According to him, when the
traditional family unit breaks down through the
sheer weight of its contradictions, the family
unit will be replaced by a modular and more
functional unit, in which man and wife will not
be bound down to lifelong bondage.
Instead, a man
will have a choice of 4 or 5 women, complete with
children, as a modular family. He will hop from
one family to another periodically. Similarly,
women, who head these modular family groups, will
have a panel of husbands to live with, at
periodical intervals. Indeed, back to the
primitive days of life! Thanks to the libbers.
While the intense
debate goes on unabated, throughout the world,
the moderates between both the sexes have
expressed anxiety about the future shape of
things to emerge. They expect the passions to
cool down – as cooling down they are –
an outcome of a gentle acceptance of the
biological facts and the existence of less
spectacular techniques to alter the existing
order. Women were created for roles different
from those of men. Let the fair sex remain the
most agreeable blunder as it had been. INAV
|
