Simply Stated
Rekha Chowdhary
Beti Bachao and Beti padhao campaign is well meaning and may be a key to eliminating bias against women since this is aimed at tackling two basic issues underlying discrimination against women – that of female foeticide and declining sex ratio on the one hand and the female illiteracy and huge female dropout rates in schools, on the other. It aims at targeting the societal prejudice against girl children who are given lesser value and preference as compared male children. The campaign as we can see, has picked up, especially at the official level. However, what would be the outcome of this campaign and would it ultimately lead to reducing the prejudice against girl child – is not easy to say. This is due to the simple reason that the appropriate gender ideology that needs to infuse the society while responding to these campaigns is generally missing. The societal ‘mindset’ which is often blamed for many of the gender related problems is filled with an ideological base that strongly reinforces the gender biases. Such like campaigns, therefore, even if seriously and vehemently pushed, may not hit the target of eliminating discrimination against women.
While there is a whole ideological structure that is at work in producing and reproducing biases against women and perpetuating the gender discrimination, in this article I would like to emphasise on two aspects of this ideological structure – first, of maintaining ‘difference’ between men and women and second, of denying women a right to be ‘person’ in their own right. The two points linked together explain much of the process by which women are devalued.
Seeing women ‘equal’ requires that woman to be seen as a ‘person’. However this does not happen. While men are seen as ‘persons’ who enjoy rights because they are born as human beings, women do not get the privilege to be similarly defined. They are not defined as ‘persons’ with their identity located in themselves. They are defined vis-a-vis their roles within the family or vis-a-vis their relation to men. Hence it is usual to see women being characterised as ‘daughters’, ‘sisters’, and ‘mothers’. Nothing wrong in that , one may argue. That women play all these roles, so why not refer to them so. Sure. But then men also play all these roles – of being sons, husbands, daughters and fathers. They are not referred so. One may further argue, that it is a privilege given only to women that they are ‘respected’ and hence referred to as ‘daughters’, ‘sisters’ and ‘mothers’. Yes, it is important that woman be treated with respect’. Women demand respect. But not only in being treated as ‘daughters’, ‘sisters’ and ‘mothers’ but also as ‘persons’. So long as they are treated as ‘persons’ and also defined by these roles, there might be no problem, but reducing them only to these roles in relation to men, takes away their right to be persons.
This can be explained with reference to an example related to the idea of ‘educating women’. A stereotypical logic that is often offered to explain the importance of educating the woman is that : you educate a man and you have educated one person, but you educate the woman and you have educated the whole generation! Or, in other words, you educate a man because you educate a ‘person’ – a person who is entitled to be educated, who has right to be educated and who needs to be educated for the only reason that he has the potentials which can be best realised by educating him. But then you do not apply the same logic for educating the women because women are ‘special’ or to be more precise, they are ‘different’ and rather than having the right to be educated because they are equal to men as persons, they have to be educated because they bear the responsibility of rearing the family and hence if they are educated, they will be able to fulfil that responsibility in a much better manner. While the ‘special’ role of women of educating a generation is eulogised, she is denied the right to be treated as a ‘person’ in her own right.
In an alternative discourse, the answer to the question – as to why should woman be educated? – could be that woman needs to be educated for the same reason as man needs to be educated. And that she also is a ‘person’ who has the immense potential which education can help her to fulfil. In this discourse, if the responsibility of educating the family and the generation has to be fixed, then it will not lie only on woman, but on both men and women. Because, like a woman who needs to be treated a person at par with men, men also need to share the responsibility of rearing, socialising and training the children as at par with men.
Same argument is offered for ‘beti bachao ‘ of saving the girl child. On being asked as to why fight against the female foeticide or why allow a female child to be born – one typical answer is that with lesser number of girls the societal imbalance is increasing leading to numerous problems – including that of not having enough girls for marriageable bachelors or of increasing sexual crimes against women. Again, here the logic of saving the girl child is not linked with the ‘person’ of women. A very simple answer to the question as to why should girls be saved – could have been that a female child has as much right to be born as a male child has and the female foeticide is a crime against the unborn girl.
Till the time woman is not seen as a ‘person’ in her own right, she will not be able to attain dignity that she struggles for throughout her life. There are too many problems attached with her not having the right to be seen as a person. For instance, many a crime are committed against woman because rather than being seen as a person, she is seen as ‘property’ or ‘honour’ of the family or community. She is denied her choices; she is confined; she is even murdered by the family members in the name of ‘honour’.
Alternatively, when she is not seen as a person, she is ‘objectified’. Her whole existence is reduced to being a ‘sex-object’ – available for anyone to pass comments (eve-teasing as it is called!); to make her a butt of sexual jokes; makes sexual passes and even to rape.
Seeing woman as a ‘person’ will actually take care of many gender related problems. The general understanding is that much of the problems of sexual crimes against women or violence against women will be taken care of if ‘mind-set’ is changed. It is difficult to understand what that ‘mind-set’ involves and what alternative ‘mind-set’ may be. But if one change in the ‘mind-set’ can be pointed out that can bring about a change in the status of women, it will be seeing women as ‘persons’.
(Feedback welcome at rekchowdhary@ gmail. com)
Follow our WhatsApp channel