 |
| Benazir Bhutto and Asif Zardari. |
The distinction between genders: masculine and feminine, is
more of a social construct than it is an immutable physical division. A tigress
is as good a hunter as a tiger. But the complexity of human existence is very
different from all other species. We, as social beings, have developed advanced
social institutions and culture.
The distinction between males and females is based less on
their physiological traits and more on their respective mindsets. And these
mindsets, in turn, are an outcome of social expectations of behavior in a
cultural milieu. It is expected from the male members of a society to behave in
a manly fashion; and similarly it is also expected from the female members of a
society to act in a supposedly feminine manner.
But the emphasis on this binary distinction in a rural-agrarian
society served a purpose: the division of functions between the male and female
members; where the females were expected to do housekeeping and nurture the
offspring. This distinction is still maintained, to a lesser or greater extent
in an urban and industrialized society. But a distinction based on the division
of functions is a hypothetical imperative: as means to achieve certain ends and
not an end in itself.
Moreover, it is erroneous to assume that before the onset of
monotheistic civilizations, women were somehow equivalent to men. That was an
age of hunting-gathering, agriculture and strenuous physical labor and it is a
known fact that women are physically a weaker sex, that’s why we have separate
sports and athletics events for men and women.
Women attained the status of equality after the onset of
industrial revolution, mechanized labor and then the beginning of “The Information
Age,” when the focus shifted from physical labor to intelligence and information;
and when it comes to cognitive faculties, women are just as intelligent as men,
if not more so. Thus, blaming organized religions for sexism and misogyny in
the medieval times is a bit unfair; the subjugation of women in that era had
more to do with divisions of functions based on economics than religious
beliefs, as such.
Regarding matriarchy, I believe, that it was a fringe
phenomena; though, matri-lineage might have been a norm in some primitive
societies but matriarchy -- the rule of the women -- was only an exception in
the age of physical labor for the abovementioned reasons.
Additionally, while I agree with the feminist view that in
egalitarian societies the role of women is just as important as men’s, if not
more so, considering that they perform the pivotal job of raising children and
families; however, I generally shun taking a normative approach towards
scientific facts, because the treatment of disorder depends on the correct
diagnosis of the problem. Romanticizing the past and singling out pieces of
uncorroborated evidence that conforms to our preconceived biases will serve no
other purpose than self-deception.
In the primitive tribal societies women, as a weaker sex,
were treated as slaves and personal chattels. The organized religions gave them
rights and the status of mothers, wives, sisters and daughters. The modern
feminism dates back only to the First World War when most of the male labor
force in Europe either perished or became incapacitated for labor; it was only
then that the force of circumstances necessitated the “liberation” of women and
they began performing duties which were previously the sole prerogative of men.
Moreover, retrospectively applying modern standards to the
millennia old social systems is very unfair; in their time the organized
religions contributed to elevating the status of women. In modern times a
rethink is definitely needed to bring about parity in the status of men and
women but we must not underestimate the role played by the organized religions
for the empowerment of women in the ancient times.
Notwithstanding, instead of taking a binary approach to the
classification of genders, the modern feminists now favor to look at the issue
from the lens of a whole spectrum of gender identities. The way I see it, it
should not be about being “manly,” rather, it should be about being “human,”
which is the common denominator for the whole spectrum of gender identities.
When we stress upon manliness, it’s not “manliness” per se
that we are glorifying, but the presence of feminine attributes in the
socially-elevated male gender is something that we, as the agents of
patriarchal structure, frown upon. But such machismo is not a natural order of
things, because more than the physical attributes the rigid segregation of
genders is an outcome of social constructions that manifests itself in the
artificial social engineering of the male and female mindsets.
In our formative years such gender identities and their
socially-accepted attributes are infused in our minds through the technique of
gender “Othering,” but this whole heteronormative approach towards the issue of
gender identities is losing its validity in a post-industrial urban milieu,
where the gender roles are not as strictly defined as they used to be in the
pre-modern traditional societies.
More to the point, what are the virtues that are deemed
valuable in women separate and distinct from the ones that are deemed desirable
in men? If meekness, diffidence and complacency are disapproved in men then why
do we have double-standards for separate genders? Self-confidence,
assertiveness and boldness should be encouraged in both genders without
discrimination.
However, the trouble is that the mindsets of the individuals
and gender-roles are determined by the society, but if the society itself is
patriarchal and male-dominated then it tends to marginalize and reduce women to
a lower status. Therefore, a social reform is needed which can tweak with the
definition of "virtue" and the qualities which are deemed valuable in
human beings should be uniform and consistent for both genders.
Regardless, if we study the behavioral patterns in the
animal kingdom, the females of most species are generally more violent than
their male counterparts; because they fight not only for food but also to
protect their offspring. But how often do we find a violent woman in the human
history, or society? It’s a very rare exception. Thus, by nature women are just
as violent as men; but the patriarchy-inspired nurture and the male-dominated
culture have reduced them to an extent that they have even unlearnt their
essential nature.
Two conclusions can be drawn from this fact: firstly, that
it’s always the nurture and culture which plays a more significant role in
determining human behavior compared to some far-fetched concept of essential
human nature; and secondly, that essentially human nature is quite similar for
both genders, it’s only the behavioral process of social construction of gender
identity that defines and limits the roles which are deemed proper for one
gender or the other.
Additionally, it is generally assumed about males that due
to the presence of testosterone they are usually more aggressive and
competitive compared to females. If we assess this contention in the light of
global vs. local character traits theory, however, testosterone only promotes a
specific kind of competition, i.e. competition for mating. When it comes to
competing for food, however, as I have mentioned before, that males and females
of all the carnivorous species exhibit similar levels of aggression and
competition.
Therefore, it would be reductive to assume that the
distinction between male and female attitudes and behaviors is more
physiological and hormonal than due to the difference of upbringing and
different sets of social expectations of behavior that are associated with the
members of male and female sexes.
Finally, there is no denying of the obvious fact that
testosterone is primarily responsible for secondary sexual characteristics in
the males of all species. Through the process of natural selection only those
males that have succeeded in mating were able to carry forward their genes,
which proves beyond doubt that males with higher testosterone levels do have a
comparative advantage in the competition for mating, but its effect on
attitudes and behaviors of animal species, and especially the human beings with
their complex social institutions and cultures, is tentative and hypothetical,
at best.
No comments:
Post a Comment