One does not need to apply complex feminist theories to analyse and understand social behaviours and manifestations of gender discrimination in a country like Pakistan. The inequity between genders is evident in all walks of life and in every single expression of social performance. Women are emotionally, sexually and psychologically stereotyped; they are engaged in a constant war against a set of beliefs that exist beyond their physiological and psychological domains; they are marked and sidelined in both domestic and public spheres; and the male-dominated structures in place not only restrict their occupational and professional options but also disempower them at individual, organisational and societal levels. These social verities have devastating effects on society to say the least.
Let us, however, forget for a while about who performs gender and in what particular ways – a set of postulates already explored extensively by Judith Butler and the like. Let us also put aside the historical precedents informing theories and ideologies through which the gap between genders is highlighted and critiqued!
In this piece, I particularly deal with those ingrained myths and social schema that turn the victims of oppression, commonly regarded as women, into agents of oppression. The generic boundaries between genders determined by years of historical and intellectual understanding dissolve as soon as one prizes open the realities informing intra-gender dynamics.
The history of feminist awakening, although successful, can still be challenged on the grounds that it somehow limited its own scope by vesting power of defining womanhood with women, thus inadvertently creating and promoting an absolute power zone against which the feminist movement actually gained momentum in the early 1970s. From the perspective of most of the prevalent theories promoting feminism, the root cause of male dominance has been attributed to social behaviours that favour and perpetuate patriarchy. What is overlooked in many cases is that the victims of oppression per se become the agents sponsoring gender inequality in society. The concept of equality does not attain meaning through gender polarisation. In other words, it is not enough for a balanced society to have males who believe in emancipation and equality of women. Insofar as social equilibrium is concerned, the dynamics of intra-gender awareness are inevitable.
In the twenty-first century Pakistan, in which the possession of latest Apple products, Android tablets, and iPhones are emblematic of progress – jaggins and tights are regarded as symbols of modernity and erroneously for female emancipation, and surface naming of feminist theories are considered signs of intellectual superiority – the physical and psychological impact of male authority still affects the life of every male and female of a normal household. However, the edifice of this domineering environment is built as much on male sponsored ideologies as on the practices carried out by women.
Since a typical household in Pakistan is incomplete without a woman. Women can, and mostly do, play a significant role in making decisions, as well as creating and sometimes strengthening domestic norms and structures already in place. For instance, the birth of a son or a male heir is still coveted and regarded a privilege by women no matter to what class, social status and educational background they belong. Women not only hold another woman responsible for not being able to perpetuate her husband’s bloodline by producing male heirs but also refuse to believe that the father is responsible for the gender of his child.
Whether it is the practice of making girls more desirable as prospective wives through genital mutilation in African countries or the ancient Chinese custom of breaking and bending girls’ toes to make them a sign of husband’s effluent status in society, or the Indian tradition of chastising women by forcing them to immolate themselves on their husbands’ pyre, the major enforcers are mostly women who take pride in their actions regarding them profitable in religious and socio-cultural terms.
In our society from the most trivial routine acts such as dishing out of food and washing and pressing of clothes to important matters such as the distribution of property and access to social facilities and benefits, men are given priority. However, most of the time women are responsible for denying equal rights to other women and cultivating ill-will among genders. Although men have been held responsible for propagating images and attributions that are favourable to the continuance of their control but many a time women can be seen working surreptitiously behind these control panels. After all how can we explain the behaviour of a mother who discriminates against her daughter from schooling to the provision of life time opportunities or a mother-in-law creating biased rules for her daughter-in-law while privileging her own daughter? Who is responsible for promoting such ideas: women or men?
This attitude is also exemplified at workplaces. Sharon Butler speaking about workplace ethics relates instances where professionally established women try to keep other less successful women down. The ascription of success in this case is gendered. In other words, femininity is used as a tool to impress and gain advantage over other women. This practice does not only strengthen myths about how one gender differs from the other in terms of its professional capacity, but also produces professional hostility for if being a woman can fetch success, all women can get success. From psychological point of view, this attitude is an outcome of fear. A woman’s beauty, studiousness, confidence, and even intelligence can be a threat for other women. So a woman at a workplace will struggle not to let another woman use her skills to excel.
A similar idea has been presented by Canadian researchers Maryanne Fisher and Anthony Cox who find mate competition among women as important as competitor manipulation. In their urge to become successful professionally, some women forget to take into account the fact that their baseless competition will result in incapacitating other women. In terms of manipulation, women can go to the extent of socially excluding other female colleagues by turning their backs on them and making them feel uncomfortable. This is not to say that this practice is specific to female professionals and men are free from such politically driven emotional tactics but to put across how an already suppressed gender is further belittled in an andocentric social set-up.
I can give many examples from my professional and academic life when my male colleagues and mentors showed greater understanding of my problems and guided me through rough times. This is not to say that women played no role in what I achieved in life or that men have always been helpful. Such a sweeping statement will be highly unfair and inaccurately generalised. Nevertheless, it does refer to a very common attitude of how women at times become unfairly more critical towards other women.
Although, I condemn the misuse and abuse of power against women at both domestic and public levels, I strongly believe that if willing women can change the image and condition of other women by showing greater concern for their wellbeing and honest concern for their progress and success in life. This can only be accomplished by dissociating ourselves from centuries-old traditional narratives about women and their presumed role in society. Moreover, a more accommodative attitude will pave way for the realization among women that it is not the other women who are hankering for their positions and trying to control their lives but it is the male establishments and patriarchal mind-sets depriving them of their rights in society.
