Monday, January 21, 2013

Gender divisions and performance in Why Loiter? and Seeing Like a Feminist

In an earlier post I mentioned that our Kolkata lit-fest discussion touched on the portrayal of women in popular Hindi films. Shyam Benegal, who was on the panel, has had so many strong and interesting women characters in his own movies over the decades that he is often referred to as a feminist director. I don’t know how Mr Benegal feels about that tag, but I do know that the word "feminist" unfortunately draws ambivalent reactions – some people, women included, are not comfortable describing themselves as such, because it is sometimes used as a derisive term, built around the stereotype of the bra-burner or the shrill, man-hating woman who is venting personal frustrations. However, as the journalist Rebecca West has tersely pointed out, feminism is not a complicated idea at all – it is merely “the radical notion that women are people”.

Of course, treating women as human beings can seem like a radical idea in a milieu where they are typically objects to be possessed or goddesses to be worshipped. The two modes often go together: the role of women as custodians of a family’s “honour” can easily become a way of denying them basic individual rights such as freedom of movement. (Those big goddess idols you see in temples or at festivals – they stay where they are, they don’t move around unless they are carried by men.***) It is also at the heart of the appalling belief – widely perpetuated in our country – that rape is “a fate worse than death”; that once a woman has been “shamed” thus she is no more than a living corpse, a blot that society must purge itself of and hurriedly forget about.


In such a climate, even those who consider themselves empathetic or enlightened can do with constant reminders of the many forms of discrimination that women face on an everyday basis. Here’s a recommendation for two fine books I read recently (one of them before the December rape/murder and the discourse around it). Nivedita Menon’s just-published Seeing Like a Feminist is an incisive, clear-sighted setting out of the many issues confronting feminists as they attempt to shift the markers of a patriarchal world; it is also an examination of the thought processes that lie behind mind-boggling prescriptions such as the one – frequently made by courts and other authorities here – that a raped woman marry her assailant. “The marriage is meant to restore social order,” Menon observes, “Once the rapist is the woman’s husband, the act of sex is retrospectively legitimised because of course, the consent of the woman to sex is irrelevant, in marriage and out of it. The morals of Indian society do not permit consensual sex outside marriage, but if you rape a woman, you can marry her!”

[That last sentence casts a chilling perspective on some of those Hindi-movie scenes we are all familiar with, where the hero “eve-teases” the girl he is attracted to. In most of those films, the heroine eventually reciprocates this strange love – but try extending the scenario into a hypothetical (and for a mainstream film, very improbable) one where the girl really isn’t interested, and then you wonder: how far will sweet-boy Rahul go to “get” her (and, with societal approval, “keep” her for ever)? Note: I’m not talking here about a film like Darr, where the stalker is presented as a psycho who gets beaten up by the regular hero in the end. Though even in that film, the character was treated at least partly as a figure of sympathy, a martyr to obsessive love.]

There is much food for thought in Menon’s book, but a section I found particularly stimulating was the one about the fluidity of gender, built on the idea that the classification of people into the watertight categories “male” and “female” can be misleading. Referencing the work of the feminist philosopher Judith Butler, as well as anthropological studies of gender roles in pre-colonial African cultures, Menon writes that being specifically a man or specifically a woman is to a large extent a performance that most people engage in, according to what society expects of them. Human bodies and psychologies are more versatile and complex than this, occupying various positions along a large spectrum (lactation can be induced in men, for example), but due to stern cultural codes “a range of bodies becomes invisible or illegitimate”. Thus a woman might, in a letter to a newspaper medical column, express her deep worry about her young son’s bulging breasts, and a doctor might reply that corrective surgery may be required – even though the boy’s condition is not necessarily a biologically abnormal one.

Nearly a third of the male population can have “breasts”, and if it is not due to rare endocrinological causes, the condition is perfectly normal. It seems to have no other ill effects than causing “disgust”, but, nevertheless, it is pathologised and made into a disease (gynaecomastia), and when other serious illnesses have been ruled out, the advice given is not to relax and stop worrying, but to undertake surgery, to make that body conform to a mythical norm.
[More excerpts from Seeing Like a Feminist are here]


Another book that touches on gender performance and learned behaviour is the very absorbing – and discomfiting – Why Loiter? Women and Risk on Mumbai Streets, co-written by Shilpa Phadke, Sameera Khan and Shilpa Ranade. In public spaces in India, the authors note, the act of constant self-surveillance by women produces what Michel Foucault (in another context) called Disciplined Bodies. “At bus stops and railway stations, a woman will often hold a file, folder or book close to her chest, keep her eyes averted and seem to focus inward rather than outward. Men, on the other hand, stand in postures of control with legs held apart, look around with apparent ease and often occupy additional space with their arms [...] the average woman will occupy the least possible space, rendering herself as inconspicuous as she can.”

For a male reader, Why Loiter? is an eye-opening account of how hard it can be for women to use public spaces in a relaxed, comfortable manner, even in situations where there is no immediate sexual threat. Especially disturbing, I thought, was a chapter about the disgraceful lack of public toilets for women even in big cities, a feature of urban planning that tells us something about the still-prevalent attitude that a woman’s rightful place is in the home – that she has no business wandering about too much. As the authors point out, even in a relatively cosmopolitan city “the very presence of women in public is seen as transgressive and fraught with anxiety”. They must constantly demonstrate a sense of purpose when they are outdoors – they can’t be seen to be “merely” loitering, because respectable women don’t do that. Thus,

Women on their own in parks, for instance, produce a particular type of body language of purpose. They tend to walk a linear path, do not meet anyone’s gaze, and often listen to a Walkman or talk on their phones ... the effort seems to be to legitimatise their presence by demonstrating that they are walking for exercise and not for fun or social interaction. Similarly, when forced to wait in a public place, women will be careful about the kind of place they wait at, often choosing bus stops and railway stations. Tied to these spaces is a sense of legitimate purpose – that of commuting. [...] In other ways too, women legitimise their presence in public space by exploiting acceptable notions of femininity such as those which connect them intrinsically to motherhood and religion.
The very fact that presences have to be “legitimised” – and that many of the women who engage in this process are barely conscious of what they are doing, having internalised this behaviour – says something about how hegemonic our society can be towards 50 percent of its population. Both these books are a reminder of how far that hegemony and hostility has seeped into our everyday lives, and of the urgent need for both sexes to participate in the carving out of new spaces and new mindsets. Do read them.

-----------

*** An old post on Satyajit Ray’s 1960 film Devi – about a girl trapped in an image of divinity – is here

14 comments:

  1. feminism is not a complicated idea at all – it is merely “the radical notion that women are people”.

    That's not a "radical" notion at all as many feminists want to believe.

    Several countries around the world have had female monarchs (India included) long before feminism was ever heard of.

    Having said that women did have fewer "rights" as well as fewer "responsibilities" than men right up to the 20th century. But the reasons for that are not too difficult to grasp.

    It was largely dictated by nature and the very high infant mortality rates that prevailed all around the world. A couple had to plan 8 pregnancies to have a decent chance of having 2 healthy kids. As a result it didn't make much economic sense for the woman to be the bread earner.

    It is only in the 20th century that we have reined in infant mortality rates and by the middle of the century we had also come up with birth control - revolutionary developments which did not exist anywhere in the world for most of human history.

    Once that happened, women's rights have expanded to a very significant extent and rightly so.

    None of this has anything to do with feminist activism.
    It is the natural course of history and science.

    I think we are truly blessed to have been born in the 20th century. Not sure if feminists who crib all the time about gender roles realize that. They're more apt to view the glass as half-empty while I view it as half-full.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Shrikanth: I agree that many people - in their rush to denigrate the present and glorify the past - overlook the advances we have made in many human areas (whether it is in women's rights or in the battles against racism, classism and other areas). In many important ways, the world is a much more equitable place today than it was 50 or a hundred years ago.

    But about this statement: Not sure if feminists who crib all the time about gender roles realize that. They're more apt to view the glass as half-empty while I view it as half-full.

    I think you would be much less likely to view the glass as half-full if you were the one on the receiving end of the discrimination! When one is actually in that position, it is small comfort to know that the times we are living in are better in many ways than the past was. Just something to keep in mind.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It is amazing to see how similar the posture of men and women in public are in Belgium where I currently live. Really made me take note of the difference in India. Also makes me wonder about the conditions necessary to make this happen.

    Poorna

    ReplyDelete
  4. "There is much food for thought in Menon’s book, but a section I found particularly stimulating was the one about the fluidity of gender, built on the idea that the classification of people into the watertight categories “male” and “female” can be misleading"

    I have had so many conversations with friends on this and they all find it so hard to accept this fact. And it is even tougher to understand their behaviour when they have spent considerable time now in the west (which is supposedly more aware than India).

    "Women on their own in parks, for instance, produce a particular type of body language of purpose" Interestingly, this behaviour varies from place to place in India. For instance, in my opinion, women tend to be extremely careful in Delhi than in Bombay

    ReplyDelete
  5. Shrikanth, "Having said that women did have fewer "rights" as well as fewer "responsibilities" than men right up to the 20th century." really, how true is that!! Undergoing eight pregnancies so that perhaps two might survive must have been a cakewalk!! not having economic, social or political independence doesn't make it a life free of responsibilities but a horror no human bring, man or woman, should have to face as women did for hundreds of years. so yes, the glass is still half empty, thank you very much!

    Jai, have read Why Loiter. Do you know where i can get a copy of Menon's book? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Deepa: it's a Penguin/Zubaan publication - have linked to the Zubaan page in the post. But it's available on Flipkart too: here's the link.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I see that someone has raised the point that Mumbai is safer. Maybe its a different Mumbai that I have seen.

    2 years ago, I was with my girlfriend in the bus, and she was sitting wearing a sleeveless kurta. A guy ("man" seems inappropriate; a real man wouldn't stoop so low, tried to continuously rub his crotch against her bare shoulder. Initially, she didn't realise it, and thought that due to cramped spaces, the guy had no other place to stand (and the guy saw this as "approval" of the crotch rubbing act). Later, when the crowd cleared, the guy continued to do that, and eventually brought his finger down to her shoulder.

    It was then that she realised what was happening. So, the "Why Loiter" part of the essay really struck a cord.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Name withheld: I don't think the statement "Mumbai is safer" equates to "Sexual harassment does not occur in Mumbai". (Not that I have any personal stake in the Mumbai-vs-Delhi argument. Even one such incident is bad enough, regardless of where it happens. Hope you and your girlfriend yanked off this chap's finger, or at least gave it a good twist.)

    ReplyDelete
  9. The saddest aspect of this internalised behaviour is the way a woman is quick to criticise another who's "transgressed." Just the other I had a rather heated discussion with a woman friend who was criticising a middle-aged lady who does not drape a dupatta around herself while on her morning walk in the building compound. The fact that a dupatta is cumbersome when exercising was of no consequence; it looked "indecent," she felt. It ended with me almost screaming, "Every woman has breasts! It's natural! They might even juggle while walking! SO WHAT! Why must we all take pains to make them inconspicuous at any cost?"

    Needless to say, she wasn't convinced.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Damn! I mean "jiggle," of course! :D

    ReplyDelete
  11. Undergoing eight pregnancies so that perhaps two might survive must have been a cakewalk!!

    I can understand your anguish.
    But those were the realities of the times. We are here today discussing feminism on this blog because some lady in our ancestry gambled on that extra pregnancy which paid off after several unsuccessful attempts! So should we celebrate her sacrifices or express anguish?

    not having economic, social or political independence doesn't make it a life free of responsibilities

    Even men didn't have economic, social and political independence until very late in human history. Why single out women? Ideas of representative democracy, free press, govt with checks and balances, religious freedom which we take for granted are all barely 3 centuries old! Largely the legacy of a few Western European countries (especially that of one medium-sized island!).

    but a horror no human bring, man or woman, should have to face as women did for hundreds of years

    Human beings have faced horrors throughout history. Not because they wanted to, or the society wanted them to. But because life was tough. Eg: In the case of many women, the survival of the race without "horrors" like "6-7 pregnancies" was not possible.

    Every generation undergoes horrors and strife in order to make things better for the next generation. What appears to be a "horror" for us was a "mildly unpleasant duty" for a forefather.

    For all we know our kids might regard absence of central heating system during Delhi winters as a horror!

    It is very easy to ridicule the past. But history teaches us that the past existed the way it did for a good reason.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Speaking of eight pregnancies, women rulers, pre-independence,loitering and seeing like a feminist; I remember watching Mughal-e-Azam as a teenager and being very aghast. :)

    I could never enjoy what is considered one of the greatest films in India's cinematic history because I was very bemused and worried about how bored the court dancers would be while not prepping to be desired by court nobles or practising choreographies, singing, hanging around fountains and gardens and generally quite out of value after their youth fades away. No crosswords, no travel, no books to read etc.

    Add to it being plastered into a wall, and you have one very pissed teenager as an audience.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The same caravan magazine where you penned the loooong but delectable story on Dibakar and his craftsmanship, ran an article on 2 movies/documentaries on women in public spaces.

    http://www.caravanmagazine.in/arts/unbelongers

    Do read and see the documentaries (I am also trying to get them!)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Jai, I've been away from your blog for some weeks, so it is a delight to catch up on so many lovely posts. Thank you so much for writing about these books, I will check them out. I am a woman who grew up in India, so this subject matter is really close to my heart.
    Shrikanth, etc. --- please pause and reflect on how it is to be female in India. You have no idea, no idea at all, of the kind of the fear and stress we have to put up with every single day.

    ReplyDelete