Gender inequality eh!
-
Was talking to an old friend (lady) today, two of them shared a flat in Mumbai, working at a big s/w firm and she said that the other had returned to B'lore (with an inferior job) , since they were looking for a groom for her groom in B'lore and she was herself planning a move on the same lines. Another friend (a lady as well) too had been trying to get a transfer to Hyderabad in any possible vacancy because of the same reason. And both these moves were voluntary.
Two guys in that group of friends I have in Mumbai had also moved out, but since the career prospects were better.
And I was back to pondering over that old question, who's responsible this so called gender inequality that many politicians (women especially) never tire from highlighting.
Every so often I am amazed to see the lady set barriers for herself trying to fulfill a norm which does not exist. Seeing marriage as a milestone she will voluntarily abdicate a large portion of what she's made of her life till then. Many will become willing homemakers ... what a prodigious waste of talent. And there is hardly any compulsion on ladies from this class. Why can't she think like an equal...and all those imaginary boundaries will either crash or atleast she will fight to bring them down. And I'm talking about the segment where I mix, all with the best of education and brains, earning 5 figure salaries, travelled far and wide.
And what is this inequality? Treating someone as special is as much inequality, as is treating as an inferior. Reserving seats for the them in buses and trains, special queues at railway stations or reserving constituencies for them in Parliament makes them special but not equal. Why, special recruitment policies to ensure gender equality is as much a slight on their abilities as not recruiting them?
And many of them would argue that this is the best road to their abilities getting recognized and reservations will lead, in the long run, to equality.
(don't think there's any lady reading this blog or there's a possibility that I'd receive a hammering again, they have that weapon, I am a lady, you're a man...what do you know of all this :-)).
But can't help recall an experience in Jena, Germany where I had been for a conference two years back. Jena is in former East-Germany and the invitees included among others, many brilliant students from those parts (both west and east). The dividing line was subtle but palpable. The East Germans felt that the West thought they were a burden that the West-Germans had to bear because of integration...they had received free gifts, they had received special grants for upliftment, how could it be otherwise? Many wouldn't go to the west for their further study (they's go to US rather) for they wouldn't be a burden, a recipient of some special grants given to some Eastern students. Go to Checkpoint Charlie and you'll feel it if you keep talking to people in the shops as you cross the now-largely ornamental border.
The point is if they are not good enough, let them be 'not good enough', don't change it to create equality artificially through reservation, superficially you might create equality for the whole wide world to praise, but deep down in the mind they think they don't deserve it (when probably they do).
It's the same for all kinds of discrimination. The fire has to start within, and that fire will last longest which burns without external fuel. And that is why I feel scared for Afghanistan or Iraq.
Anway I seem to be moving beyond the point I initially set out to write...
I've faced flak many a times for not treating girls specially, for not being chivalrous etc. etc.
But that's my point, if I treat her specially, she's no longer my equal, it is no different from treating her inferiorly. But listening to tales like this (the talk with old friends mentioned earlier in the post), I sometimes actually wonder whether they themselves want this special treatment, this badge of camouflaged inferiority.
Pishi had done her doctorate in those days when ladies in Kolkata hardly left home. But I've heard relatives quote Pishomoshai (himself a great educationist) say....(a rough translation from bangla to english)... Only 5 % girls will think like Indira Gandhi or Marie Curie, the rest will think the same whether they are Class X pass or PhDs.
Always believed this was nonsense, but sometimes when I hear such tales, can't help wonder...
Was talking to an old friend (lady) today, two of them shared a flat in Mumbai, working at a big s/w firm and she said that the other had returned to B'lore (with an inferior job) , since they were looking for a groom for her groom in B'lore and she was herself planning a move on the same lines. Another friend (a lady as well) too had been trying to get a transfer to Hyderabad in any possible vacancy because of the same reason. And both these moves were voluntary.
Two guys in that group of friends I have in Mumbai had also moved out, but since the career prospects were better.
And I was back to pondering over that old question, who's responsible this so called gender inequality that many politicians (women especially) never tire from highlighting.
Every so often I am amazed to see the lady set barriers for herself trying to fulfill a norm which does not exist. Seeing marriage as a milestone she will voluntarily abdicate a large portion of what she's made of her life till then. Many will become willing homemakers ... what a prodigious waste of talent. And there is hardly any compulsion on ladies from this class. Why can't she think like an equal...and all those imaginary boundaries will either crash or atleast she will fight to bring them down. And I'm talking about the segment where I mix, all with the best of education and brains, earning 5 figure salaries, travelled far and wide.
And what is this inequality? Treating someone as special is as much inequality, as is treating as an inferior. Reserving seats for the them in buses and trains, special queues at railway stations or reserving constituencies for them in Parliament makes them special but not equal. Why, special recruitment policies to ensure gender equality is as much a slight on their abilities as not recruiting them?
And many of them would argue that this is the best road to their abilities getting recognized and reservations will lead, in the long run, to equality.
(don't think there's any lady reading this blog or there's a possibility that I'd receive a hammering again, they have that weapon, I am a lady, you're a man...what do you know of all this :-)).
But can't help recall an experience in Jena, Germany where I had been for a conference two years back. Jena is in former East-Germany and the invitees included among others, many brilliant students from those parts (both west and east). The dividing line was subtle but palpable. The East Germans felt that the West thought they were a burden that the West-Germans had to bear because of integration...they had received free gifts, they had received special grants for upliftment, how could it be otherwise? Many wouldn't go to the west for their further study (they's go to US rather) for they wouldn't be a burden, a recipient of some special grants given to some Eastern students. Go to Checkpoint Charlie and you'll feel it if you keep talking to people in the shops as you cross the now-largely ornamental border.
The point is if they are not good enough, let them be 'not good enough', don't change it to create equality artificially through reservation, superficially you might create equality for the whole wide world to praise, but deep down in the mind they think they don't deserve it (when probably they do).
It's the same for all kinds of discrimination. The fire has to start within, and that fire will last longest which burns without external fuel. And that is why I feel scared for Afghanistan or Iraq.
Anway I seem to be moving beyond the point I initially set out to write...
I've faced flak many a times for not treating girls specially, for not being chivalrous etc. etc.
But that's my point, if I treat her specially, she's no longer my equal, it is no different from treating her inferiorly. But listening to tales like this (the talk with old friends mentioned earlier in the post), I sometimes actually wonder whether they themselves want this special treatment, this badge of camouflaged inferiority.
Pishi had done her doctorate in those days when ladies in Kolkata hardly left home. But I've heard relatives quote Pishomoshai (himself a great educationist) say....(a rough translation from bangla to english)... Only 5 % girls will think like Indira Gandhi or Marie Curie, the rest will think the same whether they are Class X pass or PhDs.
Always believed this was nonsense, but sometimes when I hear such tales, can't help wonder...
posted by Ayan Bhattacharya @ 21:15
4 Comments:
At 12:04 pm, March 12, 2005,
Jaya said…
Unfortunate, but yes true! The mentality of women themselves is not right for bringing in true equality...
At 6:23 pm, March 12, 2005,
Ayan Bhattacharya said…
And poor well meaning men get brickbats all the time...now that's gender inequality :-)
At 8:29 pm, March 12, 2005,
Jaya said…
No, I wouldn't agree to an extremist conclusion like that either :-) There are enough number of them around who are not well-meaning after all...
But both sides are the victims of stereotyping, that's true! But that also means the responsibility of change has to be shared. If men take their step back because they get a few backlashes, it won't do. Women are the product of the same history as men are. So, it is as difficult for them to come out of stereotyped roles.
Hope is that there are some change-leaders amongst women as well as men.
At 12:29 am, March 13, 2005,
Ayan Bhattacharya said…
When saying 'poor-well meaning men', I meant the 'genuine' well-meaning men who get the brickbats because of stereotypes, not the frauds.
I'm not comfortable with the idea of a charismatic change-leader holding forth a vision which induces the population to change, because in such a scenario the population is 'lucky' if it gets a Martin Luther King, there is every possibility that the leader will turn out to be a Hitler or Bush.
I prefer a composite movement where the leader, if you want to call him so, is just a conduit for implementation of the opinion of the population. Such a route might take much longer than route 1 but:
a) the populace gets what it deserves (neither less, which Hitler would've done, nor more, in case of say a leader like Martin Luther; and both more and less cause difficulties.)
b)and the change is long lasting. (Since the vision is independent of the 'chosen few' implementing it, it survives that 'chosen few'.)
I hope for this sort of a fundamental change in this gender-inequality case as well, however long that may take.
And I agree that it is as difficult for women to come out of their stereotyped roles as it is for men but in the specific cases I quoted, the men had been able to come out of the stereotypes (there was no pressure from the father, family etc.) while the women hadn't.
In fact, that's why I wrote the post.
This, of course need not be the case always.
Post a Comment
<< Home