Wednesday, November 24, 2010


Waiving Off the Second Wave

Was the second wave of feminists who ran rampant in the sixties and seventies all washed up before they got going? What did they actually accomplish other than try to change the balance of power in the name of women’s rights? Does the current Minister of Family in Germany pay them homage or does she have her own view on why women can do what they do today without their help?

When in an interview published in 2009, I expressed my differences in ideas with Simone De Beauvoir, I found not only Indian feminists, but some western feminists came forward to protest my comments. One of known second-wave western feminists also asked me what I have done in my lifetime before protesting such eminent feminist like Beauvoir.

But recently an interview with German Family Minister Kristina Schroder, which made a wave of controversy in Germany, made me more enthusiastic that a whole new kind of struggle is emerging throughout the world. What attracts me first from the interview of Schroder is that she hints at this new struggle with the following words:

“I don't agree with a core statement by most feminists, the statement by Simone de Beauvoir: ‘One is not born a woman, one becomes one.’ Even as a schoolgirl I wasn't convinced by the claim that gender has nothing to do with biology and is only shaped by one's environment.”

In my book Sensible Sensuality, I have described in my essay “Bicycle & Me” that from my childhood, I could feel how the upbringing as a male child did not make any effect in my life and the legendary quotation of Beauvoir “one is not born but rather, becomes a woman” did not imply to my gender, ideas and feelings.

In another one of my essays, “Beauty Dilemma,” I wrote: “Many times western feminists, especially the second-wave feminists, adopted these fanatics, falsified, or wrong determinations to challenge the patriarchal hegemony of the ‘sex/gender system.’ Simone’s ideas made the feminists of the second wave keep themselves away from the masculine world. They refused to make themselves instruments (objects) towards masculine sexual pleasure and even kept themselves away from heterosexuality. As a result, we may assume the feminists of that time were either bisexual or lesbians. The result was that many women who generally supported feminism were not prepared to fully accept the ideological underpinnings proposed by these radicals and socialist feminists. Linda Scott, a pop singer feminist, admits in her book Fresh Lipstick: Redressing Fashion and Feminism that feminism had suffered a lot because of its views on beauty and fashion.”

Describing her opinion about the current dress code, Schroder reported, “I never wanted independence by mean expressing that I am very masculine or very casual dresses occur…..I never wanted to express my independence by dressing in a particularly masculine way or appear particularly boyish. For me, emancipation will only be truly reached when women wear skirts and makeup and as can be, without doubt, the reason of competence.”

The criticism Schroder faced from other feminists, especially from second-wave feminists, was that being a minister, she argued against feminism, which has played a vital role in her making political decisions. In my opinion, she never uttered a word against feminism and when the last but serious question was asked of her as, “Would a career like the one you've had be possible in Germany if it weren't for feminism?” she replied with a ‘no’ and admitted that had it not been for the feminist movement, that would have been impossible. What she has expressed is that the ideas to meet the challenge for feminism in the present relate to how they respond, ethically and politically, to a global context that is at once geared toward total control and fragmentation.

In the Western world, feminism became an organized movement in the eighteenth century as people increasingly came to believe women were being treated unfairly. The feminist movement was rooted in the progressive movement and especially in the reform movements of the nineteenth century. Mary Wollstonecraft had already argued against the injustices suffered by women and had published one of the first feminist treatises, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), in which she advocated the social and moral equality of the sexes, extending the work of her 1790 pamphlet, A Vindication of the Rights of Man. Her later unfinished work "Maria, or The Wrongs of Woman" earned her considerable criticism as she discussed women's sexual desires.

The feminist movement has successfully effected change in Western society including women's right to vote; in education; in gender neutrality in language; equality in payments for same job without any gender bias; the right to initiate divorce proceedings; the reproductive rights of women to make individual decisions on pregnancy (including access to contraceptives and abortion); and the right to enter into contracts and own property. The attempts and struggles made by these early activists largely responded to specific injustices they had themselves experienced.

In addition, they have successfully achieved the scope of higher education for women; reform of the girls' secondary-school system, including participation in formal national examinations: the widening of access to the professions, especially medicine; married women's property rights, recognised in the Married Women's Property Act of 1870; and some improvement in divorced and separated women's child custody rights in the United States.

Active until the First World War, first-wave feminists failed, however, to secure the right to vote for women. Women had won voting rights in New Zealand (1893), Australia (1902), Finland (1906), Norway (1913), the Soviet Union (1917), Poland (1918), Britain (1918), USA , Sweden and Germany (all are in 1919), and Ireland (1922). After World War II woman-suffrage laws were adopted in many countries, including France, Italy, India, and Japan.

First-wave feminism stretched up into the sixties, when Simone De Beauvoir’s well-known book The Second Sex inspired some of the feminist think tanks. Although it was published in 1949, it took almost 20 years to find its place in the minds of feminist think tanks. Then, feminism transferred to a more theoretical approach and was based on basic assumptions about gender, gender difference, and sexuality, including the category of "woman" itself as a holistic concept. Further, some were interested in questioning the male/female binary completely (offering instead, a multiplicity of genders). Beauvoir raised some questions on patriarchal behaviour with women and argued that men had made women the "other" in society by putting a false aura of "mystery" around them. She argued that men used this as an excuse not to understand women or their problems and not to help them, and that this stereotyping was always done in societies by the group higher in the hierarchy to the group lower in the hierarchy.

In the sixties, two women’s groups, Women’s Consciousness-Raising (known as CR) and the National Organization for Women (known as NOW) became active and public in the United States by stopping traffic and by breaking existing laws to provide a platform for safe and accessible abortions thus contradicting the older generation. Meanwhile, President John F. Kennedy had established the Presidential Commission on the Status of Women in 1960. The Commission was constituted in 1960 and in October 1963, the Commission issued their final report documenting the status of American women. The report criticized inequalities facing the American woman in a "free" society while paradoxically praising traditional gender roles as themselves being anti-communist.

This Commission’s report helped win various legal victories in the United States such as the Equal Pay Act of 1963, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX and the Women's Educational Equity Act (1972 and 1975, educational equality), Title X (1970, health and family planning), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (1974), the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978.

In Western countries, the slogan 'The Personal is Political' summed up the way in which second-wave feminism did not just strive to extend the range of social opportunities open to women but also strived to change the domestic and private lives of women through intervention within the spheres of reproduction, sexuality and cultural representation.

Along with the victory over patriarchal injustice and providing freedom from the second-class status of women, second-wave feminists emphasised their theoretical base to different angles and very soon, the movement was no longer a unified one. Differences of opinion and philosophy caused splits between black feminism, lesbian feminism, liberal feminism, and social feminism. Though there were many successes during the effective life of the second-wave feminist movement, there was an undeniable idea also that it had failed.

Motherhood, parenting, and heterosexual affinity were blamed by the feminist think tanks of this time as the reason for the demise of the second-wave movement. They argued that throughout human history, maternal experience has been defined and written by a patriarchal culture. They further argued that not only motherhood but other myths such as marriage, heterosexual relationships, and family bonding had patriarchal roots and were the foundation for social practices that historically restricted women.

Jill Johnston in her Lesbian Nation (1973), called married women who were heterosexual females 'traitors.’ Kate Millett in her Sexual Politics (1970), redefined heterosexual sex as a power struggle, whereas in Kathrin Perutz's Marriage is Hell (1972) and Ellen Peck's The Baby Trap (1971), argued that motherhood blocks the liberation of a woman. These feminists always tried to paint marriage as legalized prostitution and heterosexual intercourse as rape. They came to the decision that men are the enemy and that families are prisons.

In my opinion, second-wave feminism, though it achieved some of its goals to make women more visible and successful in society also lost its direction as it traveled through its existence. The movement which was once started to protest sexism transferred itself to heterosexism and the solution was to dismantle the family -- not just the patriarchal family but the heterosexual family as well.

Later, after the nineties, many feminists found these ideas of heterosexism a hard pill to swallow and the feminist doctrine of women's victimhood was the major cause for the overwhelming public interest in women's issues. Here, I am reminded of the arguments between second-wave feminist Alice Walker and her daughter, third-wave feminist Rebecca Walker. I will not repeat those sequences here, as they have been repeatedly discussed in my different articles from time to time.

Why were our earlier feminists so critical against heterosexual relationships? Because, they argued, such relationships need submission during sex. Schröder responded to this argument that “it is absurd if something that is fundamental for humanity and for its survival should in itself be defined as submission. That would mean that society can't carry on without the submission of women.”

When she was asked whether feminists fundamentally oppose relationships between men and women, Schroder responded, “There was indeed a radical movement that argued in this way and saw being lesbian as a solution. I didn't find it very convincing that homosexuality should be the solution to the problem of women being disadvantaged.”

When asked whether she thinks feminism made women happier, Schröder replied, “The early feminism at least overlooked the fact that partnership and children can provide happiness. It isn't the only way but for very many people, it is the most important way.” Throughout the interview, she seemed to emphasise that there are differences between men and women and we have to accept the truth, not with an inferiority outlook, but to glorify the truth with all its potentiality.

Schröder might face strong controversy for her clear and loud statements, but I am sure she could raise a voice to let people know that feminism is not all what the second-wave feminists would have you believe it is. It would help people to re-identify and redefine feminism.

(The full interview with Schröder can be found at: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,728175,00.html)

Feminism has often been misunderstood as a bunch of stereotyped hysterical man-hating fanatics who seek power and control rather than true equality. It has further been characterized as anti-male, when in fact, it seeks to liberate men from the macho stereotypic roles men often have to endure such as the need to suppress feelings, act aggressively, and be deprived of contact with children. But ‘feminism’ is not just a movement for the liberation of women; it is a broad social movement which strives for the equality of each individual worldwide.

Feminism should emphasise the importance of such values as cooperation, tolerance, nurturance, and the freedom for each person to achieve her or his full potential. Feminism should not act in opposition to men as individuals. Feminism should be against oppressive and outdated social structures which force both men and women into positions which are false and antagonistic. Thus, everyone has an important role to play in the feminist movement. Let us emphasise our femininity rather than impose the so-called stereotyped feministic attitude of the second wave.

Monday, October 11, 2010


Questioning Femininity: An Exchange of Ideas

(Tai Lihua, the disabled lead Chinese dancer of "The Thousand-handed Goddess of Mercy", impressed the audience by her refined performance but more by her spirit.)




Sonia Pressman Fuentes is an American feminist (although she was born in Berlin, Germany, of Polish parents) and a founder of the second wave of the women’s movement in the U.S. She has been involved in women’s rights since 1963. She was a founder of NOW (National Organization for Women) and FEW (Federally Employed Women) and the first woman attorney in the Office of the General Counsel at the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). She spent thirty-six years working for several agencies of the federal government and with two national corporations as a lawyer and executive. Since she retired as an attorney with the US government in 1993, she has remained a feminist activist, writer, and public speaker.

She opposed my ideas of femininity at Facebook and we had a wonderful conversation about the subject. I think my readers should have access to the ideas of femininity from two different sides of perspectives. Follows are our exchanges. I am thankful and appreciative to Sonia for giving me permission to publish these conversations.

13 September at 08:56

Sarojini Sahoo writes:

Dear Madam,

Thanks for writing me in my personal id. I am sorry that I couldn't write earlier as I am still worried for my daughter's health who is suffering from appendicitis. I have now replied you from my Facebook message box.

I feel myself lucky to receive a letter from the personality like you. I also have been fortunate enough to be once recognized by NAWO (Orissa Chapter) for my ideas on feminism. For me feminism is not a gender problem or any confrontational attack on male hegemony. So, it is quite different from that of Virginia Woolf or Judith Butler. I accept feminism as a total entity of female hood which is completely separate from the man’s world. To me, femininity has a wonderful power. In our de-gendered times a really feminine woman is a joy to behold and you can love and unleash your own unique yet universal femininity. We are here for gender sensitivity to proclaim the differences between men and woman with a kind of pretence that we all the same. Too many women have been de-feminized by society. To be feminine is to know how to pay attention to detail and people, to have people skills and to know how to connect to and work well with others. There will be particular times and situations within which you'll want to be more in touch and in tune with your femininity than others - being able to choose is a great skill.

I have discussed these topics in one of my recently published book Sensible Sensuality.

It will be my pleasure to find my self associated with you in any means of creative aspects.

Want to hear more from you. Please keep in touch.

Take care,

Sarojini

#######

13 September at 17:04

Sonia Pressman Fuentes writes:

Hi: Lovely to hear from you and thanks for your kind words. I hope your daughter will be fine.

As for your philosophy, I can only say that I do not agree with a word of it. :) I do not like using the word "feminine" or "femininity." Those are words to which some men have attached meanings of what they believe women should be or what they would like women to be --rather than what women actually are. I believe "feminine" is whatever women are.

Best,

Sonia

#######

13 September at 23:19

Sarojini Sahoo writes:

Dear Madam,

I adore your ideas, but I think 'femininity' is the proper word to replace 'feminism,' because the later has lost its significance identity due to its extensive involvement with radical politics.

In one of my recently-published interviews in Muse India, I stated that I differed from Simon de Beauvoir in her 'Other' theory where she says “one is not born but rather, becomes a woman.” I further stated that I think a woman is born as a woman.

There are inherent physical, behavioral, emotional, and psychological differences between men and women and we affirm and celebrate these differences as wonderful and complementary. These differences do not evidence the superiority of one sex over the other but rather, serve to show that each sex is complemented and made stronger by the presence of the other. As a different unit, similar to man, the female mass has their right for equity as well.

Such a statement by me surprised some of my scholar friends in that how could I state this when it is known to me that according to social anthropology, gender is more a societal than a biological phenomenon? This following article aims to clarify my stand:

I started my first article of my book Sensible Sensuality with “Bicycle and Me,” where I wrote of my experiences of childhood. As my father had an obsession for a male child, he wanted to see me as a boy and therefore, I was dressed as a boy; my hair was cut like a boy’s; and I used to play boyish games with boys instead of girlish games with girls. In my second blogging, I mentioned my Portuguese friend’s query, where he asked whether this had any impact in my sexuality in later life or not. It is clear that these cross-gender activities did not make any difference in my later life and I grew up normally as a woman.

When I studied more about gender theories, specially in Anthropology, I found that the anthropologists tried to confirm that gender is not innate but is based upon social and cultural conditions; my mind did not accept the theory so easily. Margaret Mead, in her anthropological study in 1935, concluded that the differences in temperament between men and women were not a function of their biological differences, rather, they resulted from differences in socialisation and the cultural expectations held for each sex. (See: Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies by Margaret Mead; New York: Dell.). This is, I think, the earliest study that led to the conclusion that gender is more a social and cultural factor than a biological one. According to this study, it is the social environment of the child, such as parents and teachers, that shapes the gender identity of a child. A child learns what to wear (girls in frocks and boys in shirt-pants); how and what to play (dolls for girls and cars for boys); how to behave (passivity and dependence in girls and aggressiveness and independence in boys); and how to reciprocate (gender-wise thoughts, feelings, or behavior). And these learnings confirm an appropriate gender-wise appearance and behavior, which leads to gender identity.

The sex/gender distinction seen as a set and unchangeable dichotomy does not help social scientists. They might have feared that “the set of sex/gender distinction serve to ‘ground’ a society's system of gender differences, but the ground seems in some ways to be less firm than what it is supporting.” (See the essay: “Transsexualism: Reflections on the Persistence of Gender and the Mutability of Sex in Body Guards” by Judith Shapiro in the book The Cultural Politics of Gender Ambiguity (eds) J. Epstein and K. Straub, 1991). Other social anthropologists like Moira Gatens , Henrietta Moore, Pat Caplan dismiss the idea of a biological domain separated from the social. Even Pat Caplan declared that “...sexuality, like gender, is socially constructed.”

From the discussion above, one can see that gender identities are grounded in ideas about sex and cultural mechanisms [and] create men and women. But we also have to remember that the biological sex is related to chromosomal sex, genitalia, assigned birth sex, or initial gender role which are rooted deeply in science and somehow proved rather than hypothetically assumed. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes within each cell; twenty-two of these are alike in both males and females. But when we come to the twenty-third pair, the sexes are not the same. Every woman has in her cells two of what we call the ‘X’ chromosome. But a man has just one X and another Y chromosome. These sets of chromosomes are what make males and females different.

The sex hormones, primarily estrogen and testosterone, have a significant impact on the behavior of males and females. For example, why do boys typically like to play with cars and girls like to typically play with dolls? Social anthropologists think it is the impact of socialization while Biological science thinks it is the role of these sex hormones which differentiate the choice children make gender-wise. Biology says the sex-specific differences in the brain are located both in the primitive regions, and in the neocortex--the higher brain region that contains 70 percent of the neurons in the central nervous system.

The neocortex is divided into two hemispheres joined by a 200-million fiber network called the corpus callosum. The left hemisphere controls language analysis and expression and body movements while the right hemisphere is responsible for spatial relationships, facial expressions, emotional stimuli, and vocal intonations. Females use both their right and left hemisphere to process language in certain circumstances while males just use one hemisphere. Females also reach puberty two years earlier than boys, as per biological science, and this changes the way they process social and sexual information.

There are still some characteristics and feelings that I think social anthropologists rule out for the sake of their theory. What about the voice pitch? Males have harsh voices and females have soft voices. This is a biological characteristic and it is related to gender. The crisis of infertility may create a serious trauma to a female, which a male cannot feel. This is a feeling innate with specific feminine gender and it is more a psychological and biological than a social problem. The menopausal psycho syndromes are totally biological and not categorised with this social gender theory. Social anthropologists emphasise that we are all trying to pass as a gender which is decided by cultural systems, not our biological sex. But what happens in the cases of transsexuals who do not pass it? The operation does not make their bodies fully male or fully female. The genitals will not function as genuine genitals and their chromosomes cannot be changed. Voice pitch and other physical characteristics might reveal their transsexualism.

Actually, the high level of testosterone in males drives them toward some specific masculine characteristics, while the lack of high levels of estrogen in women creates a natural, biological push in the direction of feminine characteristics. Each gender has different strengths and weaknesses; this does not mean that one sex is superior or inferior to another. Being feminine is a woman's birthright! It is always hard for me to understand why any woman would want to give up this cherished possession. I feel proud and adore my feminine dress, grooming, carriage, posture, voice, and language.

I want to use an integrated analysis of oppression which means that both men and women are subjected to oppression and stereotypes and that these oppressive experiences have a profound affect on beliefs and perceptions. I am against the patriarchy role model of society but it does not mean that I want to replace a matriarchal form of society in place of the existing patriarchal one. What I want is to develop equal mutual relationships of caring and support between all genders and I want to focus on strengthening women in areas such as assertiveness, communication, relationships, and self esteem.

Above all, I feel myself more a writer than a feminist. As a writer, I feel more sensible and sincere to my feelings and as a feminist, I am more inclined towards my femininity.I just don't understand how people can be feminists and not realise that to be feminist, you must also not be racist, ableist, homophobic, etc. If you are feeling oppressed by a masculine world, then you should not be prejudiced and bigoted towards other oppressed groups either, whether they are a result of patriarchy or not.

I hope my stand has been further clarified. If it hasn’t, I’m sure you’ll let me know!

Take care,

Sarojini

#######

13 September at 23:46

Sonia Pressman Fuentes writes:

Dear Sarojini:

I love your last sentence, and, of course, you are right.

Thanks for clarifying your thoughts. That helped me to understand.

We probably want the same things but are coming at it from different directions. You identify yourself primarily as a writer first and a feminist second. I see you also as a scholar and perhaps a philosopher. I am a feminist activist first, a writer second and also a lawyer.

I am not much interested in the differences between the sexes -- I am interested in their similarities. Both sexes should be able to develop to their utmost potential -- which I see as the same for men and women.

To get the changes we need, I believe in using laws, education, picketing, protests, demands, whatever works.

I am not as much interested in theories as I am in results. I want the US and the world to be a better, kindlier, more equal place for women. I want women to receive equality in their work environment (pay, promotions, benefits, maternity leave -- and also paternity leave for men -- retirement), etc. I want them to be equal in their homes and for their significant others to play an equal role in the homes. I want equality in political life, religious life, in health care, including maternal health care, in all segments of our society. I don't want women to be battered and want them to have access to safe houses when they are. Issues such as hunger, poverty, lack of water, disease, rape and rape as a weapon of war, violence against women, the treatment of women in prison, forced marriages, child brides, female genital mutilation, sexual harassment, HIV and AIDS -- all these concern me and I want to do what I can in all these areas. Laws and practices like the stoning of women in Iran and their convictions for adultery are abhorrent to me as is their treatment as second-class citizens in many developing countries.

Best regards,

Sonia

#######

14 September at 00:05

Sarojini Sahoo writes:

Dear Madam,

I agree with you when you say we probably want the same things but are coming at it from different directions.

Quoting your words, I can say I also want "the world to be a better, kindlier, more equal place for women. I want women to receive equality in their work environment (pay, promotions, benefits, maternity leave -- and also paternity leave for men -- retirement), etc. I want them to be equal in their homes and for their significant others to play an equal role in the homes. I want equality in political life, religious life, in health care, including maternal health care, in all segments of our society. I don't want women to be battered and want them to have access to safe houses when they are. Issues such as hunger, poverty, lack of water, disease, rape and rape as a weapon of war, violence against women, the treatment of women in prison, forced marriages, child brides, female genital mutilation, sexual harassment, HIV and AIDS -- all these concern me and I want to do what I can in all these areas. Laws and practices like the stoning of women in Iran and their convictions for adultery are abhorrent to me as is their treatment as second-class citizens in many developing countries."

But I never think these wishes come from a bunch of stereotyped hysterical man-hating fanatics who seek power and control rather than true equality. For me, ‘feminism’ is not just a movement for the liberation of women, but rather a broad social movement striving for the equality of each individual worldwide. Feminism should emphasise the importance of such values as cooperation, tolerance, nurturance, and the freedom for each person to achieve her or his full potential.

I think feminism should not act in opposition to men as individuals. To me, feminism is against oppressive and outdated social structures which forces both men and women into positions which are false and antagonistic. Thus, everyone has an important role to play in the feminist movement. It seems ironic that feminism has been characterized as anti-male, when in fact, it seeks to liberate men from the macho stereotypic roles men often have to endure such as the need to suppress feelings, act aggressively, and be deprived of contact with children. I think we should emphasize our femininity rather to impose the so-called stereotyped feministic attitude of the second wave.

Perhaps we are working for a same goal, but our ideas and paths are different. However, I feel happy to share these with you.

Take care,

Sarojini

#######

14 September at 00:14

Sonia Pressman Fuentes writes:

Dear Sarojini:

You wrote: "But I never think these wishes come from a bunch of stereotyped hysterical man-hating fanatics who seek power and control rather than true equality." Who are these stereotyped hysterical man-hating fanatics who seek power and control rather than true equality?" I have been fighting for women's rights in the US and various countries around the world since 1963 -- and haven't run across such creatures yet.

You also wrote: "I think feminism should not act in opposition to men as individuals." Did you read anything I wrote that has to do with opposition to men? I've been working with feminist men and women since 1963 and have heard no one oppose men or their rights. Of course, equality would make the world a better place for men, too.

It seems to me you set up straw men and women, which you can then knock down.

Best,

Sonia

#######

14 September at 00:20

Sonia Pressman Fuentes writes:

I see you also wrote the following: "I think we should emphasize our femininity rather to impose the so-called stereotyped feministic attitude of the second wave."

I've already written you what I think of the word "femininity" so I don't have to repeat that. As a founder of the second wave of the women's movement, I certainly don't appreciate your describing it as a "so-called stereotyped feministic attitude" nor do I have any idea what you mean by each of those words. The second wave fought for equality in the workplace and in academia and in other aspects of American society for women. What is "so-called" about that? What is "stereotyped feministic," whatever that means, about that?

Have you been fighting for better rights for women in India since 1963? If so, what have you achieved? We've secured a legal revolution in women's rights in the US; we have much more to do but the changes we've wrought are mind-blowing.

Best,

Sonia

#######

14 September at 00:33

Sarojini Sahoo writes

Dear Madam,

For many feminist thinkers, after marriage a family breeds patriarchy. Happily married women are considered false and double-crossing. The titles of popular feminist books from the early movement highlight the split between gender feminists and women who chose domesticity. Jill Johnston in her Lesbian Nation (1973), called the married women are heterosexual females 'traitors'; Kate Millett in her Sexual Politics (1970), redefined heterosexual sex as a power struggle; whereas in Kathrin Perutz's Marriage is Hell (1972); and Ellen Peck's The Baby Trap (1971), argued that motherhood blocks liberation of a woman. These feminists always try to paint the marriage as legalized prostitution; heterosexual intercourse as rape; and they come to the decision that men are the enemy; families are prisons.

Betty Friedan and Germaine Greer were against marriage in their earlier thoughts. But they tried to skip from their anti marriage ideas in later period. Marriage is a three-sided arrangement between a husband, a wife and the society. That is, the society legally defines what a marriage is and how it can be dissolved. But marriage is, on the other hand, for partners of marriage; it is more of an individual relationship than a social matter. This is the main reason of crisis. Individually, I think marriage must be taken out of the social realm and fully back into the private one. The society should withdraw from marriage and allow the adults involved to work out their own definition of justice in the privacy of their own homes.

Our feminist thinker always tries to skip the idea that offspring begging is a natural instinct of a woman and it is related to our ecological and environmental situation. Anything against it may resulted to disaster. We find a woman has to pass through a different stage in her life span and there is a phase where a woman feels an intense need of her own offspring. Feminists of second wave feminism have always tried to pursue a woman against the natural law because it is seemed to them that motherhood is barricade for the freedom of a woman. But if the woman has her own working field, doesn’t have it mean that her working assignments would demand more of her time, of her sincerity and of course of her freedom? If a woman can adjust herself and can sacrifice her freedom for her own identity at outside her home, then why she shouldn’t sacrifice some of her freedom for parenting when parenting is also a part of one of her social identity? And it could also be solved by rejecting the patriarchal role of parenting. We have to insist the idea of the division of labor in parenting. This equally shared parenting is now common in Western, but still in South Asian countries we find it as a taboo factor rather because of economic inequality between men and women, our crazy work culture, and the constrictions that are placed on us by traditional gender roles.

The conflict between American mother-daughter feminists Alice Walker and Rebecca Walker is well-known chapter for Western feminism. Alice Walker, the mother, the second-wave feminist, obviously had an anti-motherhood ideas as the other western feminists of her time. But Rebecca Walker, her daughter and a feminist of third wave discussed in her book Baby Love about how motherhood freed women like herself from their roles as daughters, and how this provided the much-needed perspective to heal themselves from damaged mother-daughter relationships and claim their full adulthood. What happened? This latest article is mired in unresolved childish hurt and anger (especially in the chapter “How my mother’s fanatical views tore us apart”), which would be all well and good except that she strikes out at her mother by striking out at feminism. I personally think the bitterness between her and her mother, as any woman who has ever fallen out with her mother knows, is a very painful experience and note to self, one that probably shouldn’t be written about too much in public.

In her book Baby Love, Rebecca Walker writes directly about unadulterated excitement and pride about becoming a mother. Rebecca argues that motherhood frees us from childhood. It is the most important step a woman can take because it creates another human being and because it makes a woman an adult. I found this to be true for myself. In one of my story “AMRUTA PRATIKSHA RE” (Waiting for Manna )(1989), published much more before Baby Love, where I want to discuss the queries after a lifetime of wondering whether to have children, wondering if the sacrifices are worth it, wondering if life is full to bursting enough already -- how does our generation of women decide to have children?

I can give hundreds of examples where many second-wave feminists tried to enhance stereotyped hysterical man-hating fanatics.

Thanks for asking me to prove.

Take care,

Sarojini

You may continue this discourse. But as it is midnight (12:30) here, I beg your permission. Please write. I will try to clarify my stands tomorrow.

#######

14 September at 02:08

Sonia Pressman Fuentes writes:

Thanks for asking me to continue writing -- but you haven't answered the question in my last e-mail. What have you accomplished for women in India since 1963? You are critical of the second wave in the US -- but we've created a legal revolution in women's rights, with effects in the rest of the world. What have you achieved?

But, more importantly, I do not plan to continue this discourse because I like to spend my time working with men and women of like minds on common goals to achieve change.

Sonia

#######

14 September at 07:21

Sarojini Sahoo writes:

Thanks for writing. I am concluding with one of my quotations that I feel myself more a writer than a feminist. As a writer, I feel more sensible and sincere to my feelings and as a feminist, I am more inclined towards my femininity. I am not an activist at all. What I achieved from this 'travel' is my realisation. So, there is no question for me what I could achieve and what you could achieve. So, to realise a truth is more important for me.

However, there may be every chance for you to differ and I adore and have respect for your ideas and feelings.

Let us say bye and conclude this discussion.

Thanks again.

Sarojini

The important thing to realise is true progress never happens unless there are free exchanges of ideas and dialog, and that there are forums in which these ideas can be exchanged freely. Is there a wrong? Is there a right? Who knows? Our words speak for themselves.

Friday, August 27, 2010


The Irresponsible Use of Words by Those in Responsible Positions

The entire feminine discourse has been reduced to a grand celebration of infidelity and contemporary Hindi women writers are like prostitutes because they dare to promote female sexuality in their works.

So says Vibhuti Narain Rai, a vice chancellor at the Mahatma Gandhi International Hindi University in recently published articles in the Naya Gyanodov Journal and in the Indian Express.

The Naya Gyanoday is a journal of the Jnanpith Trust, which confers the most prestigious Jnanpith awards. Sri Rai is also a member of the panel that chooses the prestigious Jnanpith awards. In this interview, Mr. Rai criticised that women writers of today are competing to prove themselves to become ‘sabse badi chhinal' and one can find the references of 'kitne bistaron men kitani baar' in their work. ‘Naya Gyanoday’ means ‘New Realisation of Knowledge.’

Mr. Rai, and also somehow Mr. Ravindra Kalia, the editor of the journal, prove that for them, their ‘new realisation’ is that repression of female sexuality is more acceptable for men to become themselves more sexually promiscuous. This modern-day double standard may have rather practical roots in their minds where they can use such ‘vulgar’ words to represent their reprehensible behavior. The honourable VC Rai acts in the way the fundamentalists often act. Readers can certainly mark how the socio-political fundamentalist groups often act to save their great cultures.

Recently, the TV channel Zee Chhatisgarh broadcast some undemocratic nuisance acts of the Dharm Sena, a state-based fundamentalist group. Members of the group forcefully tried to stop the celebration of Friends’ day in Raipur, the Capital of Chhatisgarh. The volunteers not only physically threatened the girls, but used vulgar language that could not even be broadcast by the TV channel when airing the report.

How can the decorum of culture be saved when fundamentalist groups and even a VC of a central university can’t control their vulgar language?

I forwarded a message on Facebook to my intellectual male and female friends separately regarding the culpable comments of vice chancellor Rai. I found it strange that all the female intellectuals and writers responded with their remonstrations but that none the male intellectuals and writers, responded -- for or against; except C.P. Aboobacker, the poet, critic and editor of Malayalam literature. Instead, the other males seemed to avoid the matter entirely, possibly thinking silence to be the best policy in this circumstance. But why?

What Feminism Is And Is Not

Feminism, to me, has often been misunderstood as a bunch of stereotyped hysterical man-hating fanatics who seek power and control rather than true equality. But to me, ‘feminism’ is not just a movement for the liberation of women, but rather a broad social movement striving for the equality of each individual worldwide. Feminism should emphasise the importance of such values as cooperation, tolerance, nurturance, and the freedom for each person to achieve her or his full potential.

I think feminism should not act in opposition to men as individuals. To me, feminism is against oppressive and outdated social structures which forces both men and women into positions which are false and antagonistic. Thus, everyone has an important role to play in the feminist movement. It seems ironic that feminism has been characterized as anti-male, when in fact, it seeks to liberate men from the macho stereotypic roles men often have to endure such as the need to suppress feelings, act aggressively, and be deprived of contact with children. I think we should emphasize our femininity rather to impose the so-called stereotyped feministic attitude of the second wave.

What Prostitution Is and Is Not

The honourable vice chancellor has uttered the word ‘prostitute’ for the Hindi women writers. Once, a poetess of Oriya litearture also asked me why I am promoting the idea of sexual rights for women. She asked me whether I wanted to promote prostitution in society or not. These are, I think, very superficial ideas that the VC or the poetess possess.

For instance, has a prostitute ever enjoyed sex any day from her profession? Is there any meaning of sexual rights for her or is she possessed so?

Prostitution is a product of ‘patriarchy’ and patriarchal culture rests on the principle that the unique duty of women is to satisfy men sexually in marriage or by prostitution. A woman as a wife is regarded with honour while a woman as a prostitute is kept away from society while her customers are not. Never does a prostitute do this by ‘choice’ or even by ‘taste.’ The beneficiaries of prostitution are not the prostitute but the pimps, dealers, customers, and all those who view sexuality as a mechanical act, deprived of reciprocity and any responsibility making those who receive the services of prostitutes agents of patriarchy.

As the original dictum of demanding sexual rights for women aims with ending sexual slavery, how can Hindi women writers be called prostitutes?

In 1998, the United Nations Organization (UNO) has declared the treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is known as ‘The Rome Statute.' In its Article 7(2)(c), sexual slavery is defined by the situations where persons are forced into domestic servitude, marriage, or any other forced labour involving sexual activity, as well as the trafficking of persons, in particular women and children. So, human trafficking for the purpose of commercial sexual exploitation is a major cause of contemporary sexual slavery.

To demand sexual rights and to support sexual slavery are opposite to each other. The International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), in 1994 defined the sexual right for women as the right of women to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence.

In Conclusion

Seemingly unaware of this definition, our intellectuals and those in responsible positions are acting like fundamentalist social pundits.

But I am always optimistic. In our considered opinions, it is necessary that esteemed readers are made aware of all the implications of even any rudimentary assimilation on the part of our impressionable young people of the novel ideas from the West, including some with innocuous labels such as ‘freedom’ and ‘equality.’ This is because we must know in which direction we are applying our minds, to what purpose, and towards what end. If whatever we think and do is believed to be correct without verification, does it necessarily enable mankind to continue progressing? What do you think?

Friday, June 11, 2010


Beyond the Mars and Venus Dilemma

'The Cockfight' (1846) is a painting of Jean-Léon Gérôme (May 11, 1824 – January 10, 1904), a French painter, kept in the Musée d'Orsay, Paris.( Source: Wikipedia)


In my speech at Nandini Satpathhy’s 79th Birth Anniversary at Jaydev Bhavan, Bhubaneswar, India, on last 9th June, my claim that sexual rights for women are mandatory, raised the eye brows of our social gurus and some intellectuals. I think it is time for a new feminist perception without any misandrist ideas. If men and women would be aware that the other has a problem, then they should tend to treat the other in exactly the way they want to be treated (a.k.a. ‘do unto others’). And if this were done, I think we could solve a major sexual crisis without having to do any more lengthy and costly research studies. To me, the answer seems clear. We are all first and foremost human beings and are basically against any type of chauvinism, be it in the form of misandry or be it in the form of misogyny.

In my previous article, I have discussed about Prakruti and Purusha concept in Sankhya Darshan, a well-known Hindu philosophy which denoted co-eternal binary opposition. The concept of such dualism is not only seen in India.

The concept of Yin and Yang in Chinese philosophy was also originated in the Confucian school (most notably Dong Zhongshu) around the second century BCE. It is the most scientific Chinese description of how things work. Yin and yang are symbolised as two spots, one in black in the white space and another is white in the black space, and moving within a greater whole. Yin moves downward and Yang moves upward. They are both, though, opposite; Yin is usually characterized as dark, passive, and downward, cold, contracting, and weak while Yang, by contrast, is characterized as bright, active, upward, hot, expanding, and strong. They are associated with two forms of energies, negative and positive, and also as femininity and masculinity respectively. Though these two energies are opposite to each other, they are complimentary to each other as well.

Though Swiss psychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung (1875–1961) was a trendsetter personality in human psychology, much of his life’s work was spent exploring other areas, including Eastern and Western philosophy. Jung claims that ‘anima’ and ‘animus’ are the two primary anthropomorphic archetypes of the unconscious mind, opposite but complimentary to each other. The animus is an archetype of the male personality whereas anima is the archetype for the female personality. According to Jung, all relations with the opposite sex, including parents, are strongly affected by the projection of anima or animus fantasies. The more astonishing postulate of Jung is that every man carries within him the anima, and a female bears an animus within her.

The eternal image of woman residing inside a man is not the image of any particular woman, but a definitive feminine image. This image is … all imprint or “archetype” of all the ancestral experiences of the female, a deposit, as it were, of all the impressions ever made by woman. Since this image is unconscious, it is always unconsciously projected upon the person of the beloved and is one of the chief reasons for passionate attraction or aversion. Jung believed that every woman has an analogous anima within her psyche, this being a set of unconscious masculine attributes and potentials.

How is the animus formed in a woman? How is the anima formed in a man? They are shaped by relating to and being in the presence of the parent of the opposite sex. The man’s anima takes form through relating with the mother. The woman’s animus takes form through influence by the father. But Jung focused more on the male’s anima and wrote less about the female’s animus. According to Jung, anima in man developed in four distinctive levels, Eve, Helen, Mary, and Sophia.

The first one is Eve, and deals with the emergence of a male’s object of desire. The second one is Helen, and is named after Helen of Troy in Greek mythology. In this phase, anima shows a strong schism in external talents (cultivated business and conventional skills) with lacking internal qualities (inability for virtue, lacking faith or imagination). The third phase is Mary, and is named for Jesus’ mother Virgin Mary, and in this stage, females can now seem to possess virtue by the perceiving male (even if it is in an esoteric and dogmatic way). And in the final phase, Sophia is named for the Greek word for wisdom and is where anima allows females to be seen and related to as particular individuals who possess both positive and negative qualities.

Later Jung had been criticised for his dichotomy of masculine and feminine concept which is considered as sexist theory similar to patriarchal milieu. Feminists, mostly the feminists of the second wave, criticised that Jung’s archetypes are actually socio?cultural constructions, not timeless psychological truths. But I think, Jungian theory at least tries to alter the conventional concept of masculinity, where images of masculinity are somehow outdated insofar as they placed tremendous emphasis upon the dominance of the male: the male as the breadwinner, the male as the unquestioned authority, and the male as the heterosexual. Jung tried to redefine that the male is no longer the primary breadwinner, is not necessarily heterosexual, is hardly the unquestioned authority and power-holder and is, within the context of Western societies, not necessarily dominant.

But the social scientists always claim that gender differences in behavior and personality characteristics are, at least in part, socially constructed, and therefore, the product of socialization experiences. Most of the feminists believe that gender role in our society often politicised and manipulated patriarchal society, which then resulted in the oppression of people. Social scientists always try to differentiate biological sex and gender, and though to some extent, they seem to be correct but their extremist outlook suggests an androgynous gender stereotype, which approaches cross-cultural sexual archetypes.

Masculinity and femininity culture thus painted with a gender bias outlook makes both the sexes opposite and rival to one another along with their original characteristics of being complimentary to one another as believed by ancient Greek, Indian and Chinese culture, or even modern Carl Jung’s perception.

Gerda Lerner, a historian and a Professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and a visiting scholar at Duke University, wrote a book in 1986 entitled The Creation of Patriarchy. In that book, she claimed that “patriarchy” was something created by Judaism and Christianity. Patriarchy always tries to place masculinity at the centre, never at the margin; always dominant, never subordinated. But actually, if we would omit the patriarchal outlook for masculinity, we find each and every man does not possess hegemonic masculinity and a culturally idealized form of masculine character is totally different from that of hegemonic model of masculinity.

Here, I can’t resist my instinct to share a novela by Rokeya Sakhawat Hossain (1880-1932), one of the premier Islamic feminists on the Indian subcontinent who is very much discussed in Bangladesh while very little is discussed in West Bengal. And I don’t really know the reason for this! In her English novela Sultana’s Dream (1905), she depicts a fantasy, where a Muslim girl dreamt about a Ladyland, where women were roaming freely on the roads and she met more than hundred women, but not a single man. She felt herself more curious to know where the men had gone and she asked a lady. The lady replied they were in their right place where they ought to be; they were shut indoors. Sultana (the Muslim girl) then asked the lady how it could this be possible when men are mighter than women? To her query, the lady answered that a lion is stronger than a man but it cannot dominate the human race. So the masculine world is kept indoors in a place called ‘mardana,’ where they have to mind babies, cook, and to do all sorts of domestic work, while the outer world is controlled by the feminine masses.

Rokeya’s feminist utopia may be considered as a gender role reversal to highlight the absurdity of the position of women in society. But the main point of discussion here is that all our studies about male hegemony are from a patriarchal viewpoint and not from the individual man’s perspective. Whenever men are studied, they are generally studied from an essentialist perspective, as if their biology predetermined their behavior; as if all men were the same.

But there are men actively supporting female issues. In India, for example, the issue of women’s suffrage and other issues are always initiated and ignited by men. In India, I have discussed in my earlier essays, how the feminist movements are also begun by males [please see: Beyond Mysogyny]. In such cases, how is it practical and accurate to blame masculinity for male hegemony?

Rokeya ‘s novela was originally published in Madras-based The Indian Ladies’ Magazine in 1905. Rokeya also represented the Muslim female mass, who were opressed by the patriarchal religious and social gurus and she fought for their proper education and employment for the female masses within the Shariyat law. Though the condition of the Hindu female mass was not satisfactory, it was better than that of the Muslim mass.

A lot of important social and economic changes have been taking place in India since then as a result of modernization and industrialization. As demands of the times and altered situations, women entered the workforce into fields that previously had been male-dominated. Some examples of these fields are: politics, art, and industrial careers. In the middle classes, there have also been important changes in social norms, largely influenced by international tendencies. These changes affected most of all the identities of gender and the hierarchical relations in marriage and the family. Individualism was increasingly the norm among these social classes and new forms of experiencing gender relations came into the foreground with the questioning of patriarchy. Questions were raised on piety, purity, submissiveness, and the definition of true womanhood. This comes to the front in the discussions about free love, the end of marriage, and the feminization of men.