Gender discrimination in discourse, in life

It was amusing as well as quite thought-provoking when an air hostess friend landed from London wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with: ‘When God made man, She was only joking’. Is that just a jovial statement, or does it carry a latent loaded message?

Some time prior to this friendly tryst, while with anthropologists at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, one learnt that the conventional definition of anthropology that almost all anthropology textbooks subscribed to — the Study of Man — was not acceptable anymore; and, was indeed being castigated as politically incorrect.

The hitherto widely used definition conveyed, undoubtedly, a male chauvinist stand. Some anthropologists attempted to correct the disparity by modifying the definition to ‘Study of man embracing woman’. Jocular or not, that definition too met with resistance, and rightly so.

‘Woman’ was just subsumed in the definition, but not given an equal position. ‘Man’ was, still, centre-staged. Hence, terms like ‘human’ and ‘people’ had to be invoked so as to shun the male bias, to be socially adequate, unhesitatingly gender-wise tolerable and neutral, and to be politically correct.

The conformist/traditional definition had to be made satisfactory and acceptable, in a wider sense, by redefining anthropology as the ‘study of human beings’ or the ‘study of people(s)’. The narratives alluded to above point out as to how male bias is omnipresent, in the way women get portrayed as subservient or get hidden due to the ubiquitous (male) gender bias.

Lack Of Sensitivity

On the one hand, contemporarily, we have decisions and pledges taken increasingly by academics and activists that they will not be part of panels, committees, and organisations that do not include women, and on the other, we have narratives and discourses that are unabashedly gender insensitive, if not misogynistic.

Would it suffice to adduce feminism or women’s movement as the impetus for bringing in a change or heralding, say, the above manifestation, to combat the overwhelmingly ubiquitous play of patriarchy? Could there be another way of looking at these reworkings?

For a start, how about paying attention to absolute lack of sensitivity to gender issues in our writings (and utterings too), for generations; probably from the time of the genesis of languages themselves? It is easy to understand that such questions are difficult to digest, and are not easily palatable. Yes, of course, most sensitive issues are difficult to handle, particularly when we have been habituated to certain ways of doing things for generations, and for being path-dependent.

Widely adhered to gospel veracities are not easily subjected to inquisitions. Invariably, and unjustifiably, there is strong resistance, if not sheer disregard, to do away with archaic patriarchal practices, and adopt relatively gender-neutral vocabulary. In fact, despite years of missives, decrees, and what not, from different quarters and agencies, there is, extensively insensitivity to adopt politically-correct gender-neutral terminology.

What makes it worse is the justification that is proffered for not adopting gender neutrality, and at times the extreme position that is adopted to just laugh off the gaffes in a casual manner. It is a high degree of path-dependence that rules the roost when it comes to lack of gender sensitivity. Many may not agree, but it is indeed in the realm of patriarchy when we do not pay attention to lack of gender sensitivity, and continue to tread the oft-beaten track.

Rereading Marx

Most writings, not excluding religious and academic writing, are replete with statements such as ‘evolution of man’, ‘culture created by man’, ‘language developed by man’, ‘science nurtured by man’, or the more usual ‘common man’, and ‘man in the street’. These phrases/assertions may all seem innocuous. But are they? It is also common to find terms such as fishermen, peacock, tribesmen, and the like. If we tacitly accept such phrases and words, could we be subscribing to misogynistic and sexist attitudes? Should not there be more sensitive ways of expressing our ideas and thoughts in our writings/utterings and narratives?

Today, even Karl Marx’s writing and work is under scrutiny. His statements, like the following, are questioned today:

Labour is, first of all, a process between man and nature, a process by which man, through his own actions, mediates, regulates and controls the metabolism between himself and nature. He confronts the materials of nature as a force of nature. He sets in motion the natural forces that belong to his own body, his arms, legs, head and hands, in order to appropriate the materials of nature in a form adapted to his own needs. Through this movement he acts upon external nature and changes it, and in this way he simultaneously changes his own nature.

In the quote above which is one of his oft-cited axioms, Marx predominantly refers to ‘man’; ‘man’ needs to be replaced by ‘people’, contends Karen Haydock in A Marxist Approach to Understanding Ecology. If that is done the rest of the axiom too will have to change wherein ‘he’ and ‘his’ get to be replaced by ‘they’, ‘them’, and ‘theirs’!

Going by the same logic should we not revisit William Shakespeare and modify Mark Antony’s celebrated speech at the slaying of Julius Caesar? The paraphrased speech would be ‘Friends, Romans, and Country people (instead of countrymen), lend me your ears….’.

Alfred Nobel’s Will

Alfred Nobel’s will throws light on how gender-related facets have roots quite deep in patriarchy in matters of property and legacies. There are two factors that are of concern here. One, Nobel’s conception of the winner of the Nobel Prize being a man (he). Two, the lop-sided bequeathing of his largesse between his nephews and nieces. In his will, his nieces get much less than what he bequeaths to his nephews.

The first aspect has been pointed out by journalist Jacob Koshy when he writes, ‘Though Catholic in scope, he (Alfred Nobel) also presumed that these luminaries would be male’.

As regards the bias and discrimination against his nieces, let us look at Nobel’s will, verbatim:

To my nephews, Hjalmar and Ludvig Nobel, the sons of my brother Robert Nobel, I bequeath the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Crowns each;

To my nephew Emanuel Nobel, the sum of Three Hundred Thousand, and to my niece Mina Nobel, One Hundred Thousand Crowns;

To my brother Robert Nobel's daughters, Ingeborg and Tyra, the sum of One Hundred Thousand Crowns each; (Paris, 27 November, 1895).

It is not that just the thought and conception of a person was in terms of the individual being a male, but that women (the nieces) were to get less of the legacy as compared to their male siblings/cousins. Gender discrimination, in some form or the other, that is patriarchy per se, has been prevalent all through history, in almost all spheres that impinge on humans.

The way one writes/talks about women impacts the way they are perceived and treated, the way resources (including something as basic as food) are allocated to them, starting from within the household and family, and their overall empowerment in terms of their access and allocation to property and other stores.

(MA Kalam, a social anthropologist, is Visiting Professor, Centre for Economic and Social Studies, Hyderabad.)

Disclaimer: The views expressed are personal, and do not represent the stand of this publication.