-Vijay Kumar Mishra
Gender Discrimination: Alive and Simmering
Abstract:
This paper is an overview of how gender is socially
constructed. It discusses how the biological basis to the differences between
the sexes does not explain their lived differences and inequalities. The paper
looks at the sex-gender distinction and the different explanations that have
been given for the near universal inequality between men and women. A discussion
on gender regimes in different domains of social life follows one on how
religion and kinship shape particular constructions of gender. Finally the
paper discusses how various type of discrimination practices on the basis of
gender in social life.
Introduction:
The differences, inequalities and the
division of labour between men and women are often simply treats as consequences
of ‘natural’ differences between male and female humans. Such a view informs
most commonsensical understandings of what it means to be a man or a woman in
any society and has been intrinsic to worldviews prevailing across different
societies throughout much of human history. The idea that natural differences
between the sexes are the source of all that makes men and women distinct has
also deeply embedded in scientific discourses.
The sheer variability of the roles and
relations of men and women across different societies and social groups
presents itself as one of the first evidence against this crude biologically
determinist view. If there is no constancy between how different societies
expect men to be men and women to be women, then there must be something other
than natural differences that underline their makeup. Further most of us have
experienced incongruence between what is expected of our ‘sex’ and what we are.
This mismatch between what ‘we are’ and “what we should be” is another clear
indicator that that something more than natural differences are at stake in
constituting us as men and women. That gender is a social construct is obvious
from the fact that it has a variety of manifestations and that it has more to
do with institutions that with individuals. Gender, which sociologist define as
social distinctions based on culturally conceived and learned ideas about
appropriate behavior and appearance for males and females. “Appropriate” male
and female behavior varies according to time and place. In the 1950s, for
example, men were not expected to witness their children’s births. Today,
however, it is taken for granted that the father will be present. If we simply
think about the men and women we encounter every day, we quickly realize that
people of the same sex vary in the extent to which they meet their society’s
gender expectations.
Some people conform to gender
expectations; other do not. This variability, however, does not stop most
people from using their society’s gender expectations to evaluate their own and
other’s behavior and appearance in “virtually every other aspect of human
experiences including modes of dress, social roles, and even ways of expressing
emotion and experiencing sexual desire. Sociologists find gender a useful
concept, not because all people of the same sex look and behave in uniform
ways,, but because a society’s gender expectations are central to people’s
lives whether they conform rigidly or resist. For many people, failure to
conform to gender expectations, even if they fail deliberately or conform only
reluctantly, is a source of intense confusion, pain and/or pleasure.
Gender Inequalities and
differences:
Alongside these theoretical concerns
regarding the veracity of distinguishing sex from gender, a nagging problem
that has occupied social anthropologists is that, notwithstanding the myriad
variations in gender constructs, the subordination of women comes close to
being a social universal. For the Marxist thinkers, gender relations are located
within system of production and reproduction that characterize different
societies and which have historically evolved to take the presently dominant
form of capitalism. In his classic work- The origin of family, private property
and the state, Engels (1948) traced the changing trajectory of gender relations
through history. He locates the source of women’s subordination not in
biological differences but in the emergence of private property and in women
themselves being rendered as a form of property. In this view then gender
inequality in not universal and arises under particular socio-historical
situations.
There are other scholars who have
nevertheless attempted to find some explanation for the near universality of
subordination of women. One of the most celebrated anthropological responses to
this problem is sherry ortner’s article “Is male to female as nature to
culture?” Ortners’ argument is that nature is universally devalued by culture;
because of their role in reproduction, women are closely identified with
nature, therefore, women share in the universal devaluation of nature by
culture. Though enormously influential in anthropological discourse, it is
arguable that Ortner’s idea that nature is devalued by culture hardly
withstands the test of universality and is in the least a deeply Eurocentric
position. Rosaldo’s argument that female
subordination is rooted in the division between domestic and public spheres
along with a consistent devaluation of the former is open to criticism on
similar grounds.
Gender, Religion and Kinship:
The particular manner in which gender
is socially constructed in a society is closely related to the religions, and
kinship organization of the society. The religious approach has almost universally
naturalized gender differences, treating them as immutable. Women are treated
as inferior to men in their mind and bodily attributes and almost invariably
men are treated as the normative human beings of whom women represent a
deviation. But most religious world views also embody an ambiguity towards
women. On the one hand women are treated as inferior and dangerous and on the
other hand they are venerated. Thus the fact that in Hinduism women are equated
with animals on the one hand and on the other worshipped as goddesses is
characteristic of the religious ambiguity towards women.
The kinship organization of a society
also plays a significant role in shaping gender relations and roles in most
societies. The system of descent followed in a social group has direct
consequences for the construction of gender relations in the group.
Anthropologists have shown that whether the descent system of society is
predominantly patrilineal, matrilineal or bilateral has major implications for
the construction of gender identities and relations of a society. This is
because the descent system is very often the basis of group membership,
entitlement to valued resources, ownership of property and patterns of
residence.
While discussing how kinship
constructs gender, we should consider the case of matrilineal societies even
though their actual prevalence has always been marginal. As against the popular
view, matrilineal societies are not the mirror opposites of patrilineal
societies. They are also far from being ‘matriarchal’ in the sense in which
most patrilineal societies are patriarchal; In other words, women do not occupy
the same position in matrilineal societies that men occupy in patrilineal
societies. Thus while descent is traced through women in matrilineal societies
such as the Nayars of Kerela and the Khasi of North East India, men continue to
hold an important position in their mother’s/sister’s household.
Current scenario of gender Discrimination:
Despite decades of talking and
debating about equality and emancipation of women, gender bias at work is still
alive and simmering, according to new studies on gender roles and
discrimination in work place. Women professionals are paid less than their male
counterpart, often forced to play second fiddle to male colleagues-particularly
if they competing for positions of authority, and put at extreme disadvantage
if they happen to take time off to raise families.
Women who are pregnant or have
children are also subject to dissimilation because of their status as
caregivers. Gender disparity is particularly evident in high-power or high
income occupations and fewer women rise to positions of power in these sectors.
In many organization and companies,
gender discrimination is often systemic. Dell, for example was involved in a
high profile discrimination suit with four women executives who accused the
company of specifically targeting women employees over forty in a spate of
layoffs in 2008 that saw over 8000 employees being laid of globally.
Systemic discrimination has become so
much a part of culture in many companies that it has become very difficult to
root out. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Women have to contend with overt
and covert discrimination not just in matters related to pay or growth and
development opportunities, but even in normal, everyday interaction at the
workplace. There are several ways in which gender discrimination occurs at
work. Direct or overt discrimination includes pay discrimination based on
gender or outrightly favouring someone because they are male or single instead
of a female, equally suitable. Such discrimination routinely occurs in male
dominated occupations and companies, where despite being well qualified women
are excluded from positions of power because selections favour men who would
fit into comfortable stereotypes and labels without upsetting the status quo.
Gender discrimination does not always have to be an obvious outright abuse. It
often takes muted forms a woman may deliberately be made to feel uncomfortable
unwanted or under appreciated.
For example, an ‘Old Boys’ network in
the office can covertly block women from rising to management positions. Quite
often, such covert discrimination is disguised in a passivity and triviality
that makes it very difficult to identify or remedy. Harassment is perhaps the
worst form of gender discrimination that can create a hostile, even dangerous
environment for women in the workplace and cause great emotional and
psychological trauma to the victim. Harassment includes violence or
inappropriate behavior, making sexist comments or making women feel inferior or
incapable of doing the job because of their gender.
It is true that members of both sexes can
be subject both discrimination and harassment not just on the basis of gender,
but on the basics of race, ethnicity, age, background and a host of other
factors. But women are more vulnerable, especially in countries like India
where there is often family and societal pressure to conform to accepted gender
stereotypes and the fear of being stigmatized drives women to sweep such issues
under the carpet rather than confront them.
References:
·
Beauvoir, Simone de: The Second Sex.
·
Mice Mariya: Women the last colony.
·
Blumer, Lipman: Gender Roles and Power.
·
Rao, Aruna: Gender at Work:
Organizational Change for Equality.
·
Bhaseen, Kamla: Exploring Masculinity.
·
Agrawal Anuja: Social Construction of
Gender.
·
Collins Randall: 1971 “A Conflict theory
of sexual stratification” Social Problems 19 (1): 3-21.
·
Brew, Jo. 1994: “European Feminists
Meet” off our Backs 24 (1):1.
**Assistant Professor, H.R.P.G. College, Khalilabad, Sant Kabir Nagar.
टिप्पणियाँ
एक टिप्पणी भेजें