This article has been stolen word for word and published at SavvyWomen.net without a link back to Nandini’s Niche. Please comment over there to register your disapproval and tell them to either link back here properly or take the article down. Thanks!
Amit Varma over at India Uncut blogged his disapproval of the women’s reservation bill in India recently citing biological differences between men and women as the reason why there are “naturally” few women in politics all over the world and concluding that therefore reservation of political seats for women will do nothing more than put unqualified people into leadership positions while subverting the democratic process.
This of course raised my hackles immediately.
See, this is why evolutionary psychology is such a pile of crap: it’s used by every Tom, Dick and Harry (seldom Jane, Juanita or Jaswanti) to justify doing nothing to correct the vast and virulently harmful systems of oppression the world over. It’s BIOLOGY, is the war cry. Unfixable by definition. Why try?
I called Amit on his bullshit. I asked him to please point me to this new groundbreaking research he apparently has access to which has proved the existence of the “POLITICS YAY” gene in men and “POLITICS NAY” gene in women. In a shameless but unsurprising shyster move, Amit pointed to the weasel words he had used to cover his ass – “I’m sure there is some discrimination, but it is not the sole factor…” – and claimed that he only meant biology was part of the equation, though it was by far the bigger part, the deciding factor.
I’m dying to talk about this biology crap. I’ve even written what can only be called a treatise on evolutionary psychology, which only needs some awesome linkage dug up and tacked on to be posted up here in all its kickass glory: it will be done by the weekend. But for now here’s another treatise I wrote that’s more on point to rebut, dismantle and shatter the myth that cultural discrimination plays little or no role in oppressing women/minorities.
Unlike Amit who has yet to show any evidence whatsoever for his OMG BIOLOGY position, I actually have support for my case – that the overwhelmingly larger role in keeping Indian women out of politics is played by culture. It’s ridiculously easy to find.
How about some evidence that Indian people truly are not open to the idea of female leaders? Here’s an MIT study conducted in West Bengal’s villages which shows exactly that.
Villagers [in the study] are not shy about admitting explicit preferences for males. [W]e see that men rank male villagers [69%] higher than female villagers. Women exhibit a much smaller, but significant, bias in favor of male villagers ([39%]). For both genders, this bias is magnified in the case of leaders. Male villagers rate male leaders [144%] higher than female leaders. For female villagers the difference, while smaller ([56%]),remains significant.
The same study shows that villagers were 150% less likely to agree with statements biased against female leaders when the village was forced to have female leaders for two consecutive terms because of quotas and reservations. They were also 300% less likely to agree with statements biased against women in general.
Here’s a Stanford University study of constituencies Greater Bombay whose top political seats were reserved for women; the study shows that after the reservation system ended, constituencies which had previously been governed by women were 500% more likely to freely elect women again than constituencies which had never been exposed to female leadership.
This is hard data that directly supports the cultural-bias hypothesis and flies in the face of the biology hypothesis.
But this isn’t surprising data, it isn’t something that contradicts our experience. It’s just that the OMG BIOLOGY crowd loves to assume away ground realities that mar their idealised depictions of how fair and good and just we are as a society. The first thing any of those people will tell you is “equal rights are already enshrined in law, discrimination is no longer a big deal.” But honestly, don’t we all know how far we have yet to go to achieve truly equal rights and equal opportunities and the end of gender/race/sexuality/disability-based discrimination? Don’t we all see the ground realities all around us every single day?
For instance, let’s consider the actual realities of life for Indian women. Let’s even tilt the playing field in favour of the biology hypothesis by talking only about young women, urban women, educated women, women from middle-class-or-richer backgrounds and “liberal” families. Here’s the story of these women’s lives:
She is born. If she is the firstborn or the second/third/nth girl of the family, neighbours and friends show up to commiserate with the mother. (Rural mothers from exceedingly oppressive backgrounds may well be forced to kill the child at this point, end of story. Good thing we’re only talking about urbanites, a demograohic less likely to commit female infanticide.)
She grows into a child. Her brothers play cricket outside while she helps her mother cook and clean to prepare for her future. Because after all, “Indira Gandhi may be Prime Minister, but when she comes home in the evening she is still a woman” who needs to fulfil her domestic duties. (Poor female children very frequently become maids in other people’s houses. Good thing we’re only thinking about middle-class-or-richer girls.)
She goes to school. It is a golden part of her life, where she is held to the same standard as boys are, expected to do the same things as boys are, and for once is treated as if she is a person who matters, not “just a no-account woman”. (Women who are in their 50s or 60s today did not enjoy this luxury. Good thing we’re only considering 20-or-30-somethings.)
She steps out of school. She walks home as quickly as possible to avoid being sexually harassed by strangers who lie in wait on the streets. Her parents expect her to come straight home for her own safety. Her brothers play cricket, build radios, hang out at street corners, hoot at girls, smoke, meet people, go for joyrides, hang out with their friends while she stays in helping mother with the cooking.
She gets her first period. Her parents promptly pull her out of all physical-fitness-type activities, forbid her from playing lagori or any other game with too much running involved, throw out her entire wardrobe and buy her a bunch of “modest” “womanly” traditional clothes instead. From this moment on her interactions with any male person, be it relative or classmate or friend or neighbour, is supervised, scrutinised for transgressions, and discouraged altogether. Her brothers reach puberty, and their mother only mutters under her breath that she cannot handle these young men any more. Their behaviour or movements are not curtailed in any way.
She grows into a young woman. In addition to her tertiary education, she regularly manages at least half of all domestic work and often does much more. Her mother is beginning to take life easy and “enjoy the help while she can”. Even though she is 20 years old she has a strict 7 PM curfew. Her brothers do not, and often party late or even stay out all night. Her parents tell her what a good girl she is, and how out-of-hand her brothers have gotten. But somehow, it is her brothers’ favourite dishes which are always being cooked for dinner, it is for her brothers’ business that the family savings are spent, and it is increasingly her brothers who seem to have taken over from their dad as the family decision makers.
She finishes college. Within one month of her final year exams, regardless of her wishes, she is engaged to be married to a suitable boy of her parents’ choice. She is forced to change her name, wear a mangalsultra, dress much more traditionally than when she was unmarried, and cease all contact with remaining male friends. Within one month of receiving her graduation certificate, she is married to him. Within one year of her wedding she gives birth to her first child, and even if she wasn’t before she is now a full time housewife and mother. Her brothers, meanwhile, are unencumbered by family pressures in any way and are busy building their careers and enjoying a lot of free time. If they do get married, they keep their own names, don’t dress any differently after marriage, do not move into their wife’s parents’ homes, and do not wear any outward symbol of couplehood (rings don’t count in India, since they don’t particularly symbolise anything, and unmarried people wear rings all the time).
She accepts her domestic-and-maternal role. She works just as hard as her husband but recieves no wages for her labour, and thus remains financially dependent on him. If she is very, very lucky, her husband gives her a little pocket-money to spend as she pleases, as if she has no real claim over “his” earnings. If she is moderately lucky, she is denied nothing but must specifically ask for money and permission from her in-laws or husband to buy every little thing she needs, be it sanitary pads or a movie ticket. If she is unlucky, she gets nothing other than the most basic sustenance and clothing as decided by her in-laws or husband. Her brothers, though, are given every form of assistance and opportunity to stand on their own two feet: they are automatically favoured by every employer, client and investor on the basis of their gender, their parents are willing to invest their life savings in their businesses, they are not expected to work without pay, they are not expected to even care for their own children… all that matters is that they earn a good income and thus retain their dignity by not having to depend on others for their needs and wants. Her dignity isn’t important, his is.
She raises children to school age. If she is lucky, she is allowed to get a job at this point, but she still has to work a second shift of domestic duties when she comes home and a third shift of childcare as she is expected to feed the kids, check their homework, and put them to bed. By necessity her job must not require late hours – which curtails her opportunities for advancement and higher pay. She cannot even consider taking a job that requires travel or worse, frequent transfers, because which husband would be willing to quit his job and move just because his wife got a job in a different city? Her brothers, meanwhile, have jobs that require travel 20 days a month. They switch jobs every few years and grab opportunities to move to new cities or even overseas, and their wives willingly move with them at the expense of their own careers. What kind of wife doesn’t move with her husband?
She wants to enter politics. Her husband laughs at her. She says she wants to make women’s lives better. Nobody understands what she means. “Everything is provided for you,” people tell her. “Your life is easy. You have a good husband and good children. He is not drinking or beating you. You live in this big house because of the money HE earns. He allows you to work and be independent. What are you complaining about?” Her in-laws flat-out forbid it. Emergency phone calls are made to her parents, and her parents talk to her as if she is a child and tell her she is being foolish. What sort of work is politics for a woman? No, no, that cannot be allowed. Better stick to her secretary job. Her brothers on the other hand deal with politicians and politics every day in the course of business. If they want to go into politics, the parents grumble but what can they do? By now they are retired and dependent on their son. And after all a man must do what he must do to earn a living… and after all, politics needs bright young people like their son.
She begins canvassing for her candidacy at the grassroots level, begins to build her network of supporters, begins to work hard and long to pursue her dream in spite of family opposition. This is when her inlaws and her husband throw her out of her home. How can a man tolerate a wife who neglects her chores, her inlaws and her kids, and is not at home to cook and serve his dinner on time? Even one as virtuous and tolerant as Lord Rama abandoned his chaste wife because she was kidnapped by a man and forced to spend weeks in the same palace as him. She intentionally goes out and has meetings with and works with so many strange men, staying out late with them, having lunch and dinner and tea with them! No man can tolerate this from his wife. Her brothers, ha, her brothers don’t even need to do any grassrots activism because they have a readymade network of boyhood friends and business contacts already among the rich and powerful. But even if they do go door to door at some point, they are never questioned – it’s part of their work! Why would parents and wives try to stop them from doing it?
She gets divorced. She loses her home. She is awarded no alimony even though her husband and inlaws forced her to give up her career long ago. She has no claim on any of her “husband’s money”, or even her own dowry, perhaps not even her personal jewellery which were handed over to her husband’s family the moment she became part of their family. She loses custody of her kids even though she has always been their primary caregiver, because the judge thinks they will be better off with the rich father than the poor hussy of a mother. She is ordered by a judge to change her name back to her maiden name, because her husband doesn’t want people to think they are still married. He owns the name, he gets to force it on her and strip her of it. Her parents will not admit her back into their homes because she is a disgrace to the family. She has nothing and no one. Her brothers may get divorced, but they will not lose their home or property or name or family as a result of it.
She goes on the campaign trail, against all odds. Her support for anti-gender-discrimination laws, women’s emancipation, maternity leave guarantees in private companies, and other women’s issues earns the ridicule of the male dominated progressive media. She is branded a narrow, irrelevant “special interests” politician, someone who wants “special rights” for women, in spite of the fact that she is representing the long-ignored interests of fully 50% of the population, and asking for human rights to be extended to them rather than special rights to be created for them. In the male dominated conservative media she is branded a hussy, a slut, an affront to womanhood, a woman of loose morals, an immodest woman, an uppity woman, too emotional, too frigid, not a woman at all, a ball-breaker, an unattractive she-male whore, a bitch, a dyke, a disgrace to the rich cultural heritage of India… etc etc. Notice that on both sides of the fence she is primarily attacked FOR BEING A WOMAN, and not at all on her actual policies or credentials or promises. When her brothers enter politics, they are critiqued on the content of their campaigns and character rather than the contents of their pants.
She is given her polling results. Most people who don’t want to vote for her say, “I don’t care if she is a woman or a man, but I just somehow find her unlikeable”. Or else they say, “I don’t care if she is a woman or a man, but I don’t agree with her policies”. Some people admit they are not sure if a woman can be as good a leader as a man: isn’t it a biological fact that women just don’t have the GOOD LEADER gene? Her brothers poll better with the public. Nobody in their polls ever utters the words “I don’t care if he is a man or a woman”.
She wants to raise more funds for her campaign. Backers, financers and donors are hard to come by, because few people believe in her chances of winning this. Her brothers throw gala fundraising dinners, and all their inside connections in business and politics fork out lakhs of rupees at a time. They stand a good chance of winning, so it’s good to start the process of trading favours already.
She realises that what she needs is an entourage of men. Having men surround her on the stage when she makes speeches, or when she does a photo op, or when she meets with the rich and powerful seems to get her better results than if she is alone or surrounded by a group of women. People take her more seriously when they see that MEN are on her side, not just no-account women. Her brothers do not need to surround themselves with women to be taken seriously. They do not face any negative consequences from having an all-male team as staff. In fact, having women on their team is dangerous. It could make them look as if they are womanisers, because everyone knows that the only reason why women would be there is for sex.
She goes on TV to give interviews. She must be careful what she says, and she must also be careful what emotions she shows. She should smile, or people will say she is a ball breaking bitch. She should not smile too much, or else people will say she does not have the gravitas of a true politician. She should not show anger, or people will she is hysterical. She should not cry, or people will write her off as “just another emotional woman trying to gain sympathy”. She should dress modestly in a saree or salwaar kameez, never a pantsuit or any type of western dress. She should cover her head with her pallu or dupatta. She should expect to mainly be quizzed on her family life, her divorce, her children, and stuff like “Why are today’s women like this or that”. Her brothers go on TV to be interviewed. They can smile just as much as they always have all their lives – their habits of facial expression are considered normal and people don’t read too much into them. They can show anger, they will be thought strong and passionate for it. They can cry, they will be thought sensitive, sincere and “deep” for it. They can dress in western or in traditional clothes, and wear what they normally wear without being thought immodest. They will be quizzed on their policies, promises and the content of their campaign, and any questions about their families is nothing more than a side note. They will never be asked to speak for their gender.
She has lost the election. People will use her failure as a case in point for why women should not enter politics (look how she ruined her life!) or why women are just not biologically suited for it (that’s why women always lose elections!). Amit Varma will proclaim that women are not in politics because they don’t want to be there. Amit Varma proclaims that this woman must not have been qualified to run, so the will of the people is done. Her brothers also lose the election. People do not draw conclusions about the irresponsibility of men towards their families or the incapacity of the whole male gender from their failure. Her brothers’ teams start preparing for the next election season.
I had read and fumed at Amit Varma's post.
You have answered it perfectly.
I had blogged about the why women do need reservation here, http://indianhomemaker.wordpress.com/2010/03/08/reservation-by-custom-and-tradition-is-acceptable/
This is the unvarnished truth, very well put
Well said!!
oh yeah.. which is them reason why i feel reservation is hubug.. what needs to change is ppl's perception
Generally I am dead against reservations (in any form) but this is one time that I would make an exception and do so gladly. Really well articulated post (Thanks IHM for the pointer)! As I read your post I couldn't help remembering so many of my friends (both M and F) whom I have seen so eagerly putting up with all such bullshits of societies. Used to make my blood boil and often landed me in not-so-pleasant debates. :] Keep up the good work!
Generally I am dead against reservations (in any form) but this is one time that I would make an exception and do so gladly. Really well articulated post (Thanks IHM for the pointer)! As I read your post I couldn't help remembering so many of my friends (both M and F) whom I have seen so eagerly putting up with all such bullshits of societies. Used to make my blood boil and often landed me in not-so-pleasant debates. :] Keep up the good work!
Hi nadnini
Thats a very well written post and Im' sure guys like Amit varma(Amit have nthing against u) will think twice before posting such nonsense..
However I also feel in your defense, you seem to have gone a bit overboard with your argument:
1.She walks home as quickly as possible to avoid being sexually harassed by strangers who lie in wait on the streets
I am surprised if u, as mentioned are referring to the 20 something urban woman..I wonder if all girls these days. even come home on time..Most of them are busy at CCD or barista with friends,they wear the latest clothes(no curtailing happening)& they freely hang around with boys..boyfriends..manu of them in relationships hidden from their parents..
I could understand this statement in the rural/semi urban context but in urban it sounds far fetched…
In fact,I feel the urban girl of today is aggressive, knows her mind,competes as hard and beats the shit out of boys(I know this becasue in my research experience, I have interactd with hundereds of young 20 somethings and gotten to know them.)
I'm saying the above only nin terms of the urban girls..I think other realities are true, but guess again there is much more freedom for the girl to delay her marriage(girls are getting married late these days)today than before..
so,I guess don't agree with the above statement, but agree with the overall spirit n gist of the post..Hail women power!
@IHM: this post was inspired by a long weekend I spent browing your blog! So thanks for what you do, and thanks for your comments here.
@Phoenixritu: Thanks, I like to think so.
@Winnie The Poohi: That's the thing, right? The research I cited shows that reservation changes perceptions. People are much likelier (500% more according to that paper) to elect women freely after being forced to have women leaders for 8-10 years.
@Anonymous/Rakshit: Reservation has certainly been misused in many instances, especially in India, but the idea is fundamentally sound. When a society is dead set against certain demographics playing certain roles (an outcaste being a Brahmin's financial advisor, or a woman flying an airplane filled with men, etc) then reservation is the only way to combat the discrimination and eventually change people's mindsets.
@Pravin Nair: Perhaps there is a generation gap at work here! I am a late-20s woman who grew up in a much more conservative environment than the one you describe. A lot of what I wrote is direct personal experience. My sister who is in her early 20s would see much more to relate to in the picture you paint…
Even so, you can hardly argue that women in India have it easy compared to men. After all, the segment of population you are speaking of is an exceedingly narrow one. It's safe to say that 90% of women in India cannot even dream of what you describe. And even the remaining 10% lose all this freedom once they get married.
Thanks everyone for reading this extremely long post and commenting. What patience!
I don't think the interpretation of biological differences between women and man is right.
I read Amit's post and what I understand that mostly the motive for men to get into politics is power and money, while the same is not true for women which results in fewer representations of women.
I wont say he is wrong either because if you look at the women representation in the parliament most of them have already some kind of political lineage which had drawn them into politics.
Having said that I am for women liberalization in the country and think reservation would give women a fair share in the male dominated politics.
BTW, don't agree with the argument on what a girl to a women goes through in an urban India. The women in today's Indian society is living a far liberal life. Have seen plenty of examples of that starting from the 80's as a kid till now. Its the social conditioning that needs to change.
@The Survivor: See, that's where both you and Amit are mistaken, both of you seem to think that the only people who want to be in politics in India are already IN politics in India – that those who aren't in politics don't want to be. The point of my post was to point out the hundreds of ways in which women who would like to change their villages, towns, cities and constituencies are prevented from doing so.
I'm curious about the examples you can give me about the liberated lives that Indian women lead. Are they really on an equal footing as the men? For example, how many of their husbands have changed their last names to their wives' last names (true equality means equal numbers of wives taking husbands' names as husbands taking wives' names)? How many of them never have to wear a sindoor and mangalsutra, not even when they visit parents or inlaws (since husbands are never forced to wear such visible symbols of marriage, even when visiting inlaws or parents)? What percentage of them have husbands who are stay-at-home dads (true equality means equal numbers of stay-at-home moms and dads)?
I think many men who like to think that women already have “enough” freedom and “enough” independence and “enough” equality should examine their prejudices a little more closely.
You are getting it wrong. I talked about the “motives” that drives people to politics. It does hold true for at least women representation in the parliament.
If you look at the current representation of women in parliament almost 95% of them have some kind of a political lineage and its only 5% of women who moved up all because of their abilities. The same also hold true for women at the grass root level. Do you know out of the 59 female MPs in the Lok Sabha, 68 percent or 40 of them are multi-millionaires?
Also I am not supporting Amit Verma merely stating that the point he makes about motives to join politics holds true.
That's why women reservation is needed so as to give the opportunity to women who have been active in politics but struggling to get tickets from their respective political parties.
When did I spoke of equality?, it still has a long way to go. What I said was giving examples in context of the view you put forward. For e.g.,
Girls not allowed to play. I am not sure which era was that but I have grown up playing with a mix of boys and girls group and none of the girls were confined to kitchen, this does not happens in the urban India even in the 80's. Women born in the 70's were allowed western clothes by families who were not even educated but migrated to cities to make a living. If that was not enough they were even let to have girls night out without any supervision and the deadline was not even 7pm. The only time they actually stepped into a kitchen and learn cooking was when their marriages were fixed. It still holds true for a majority of girls in the urban cities. On top of that some of them even managed their family owned shops/businesses and other worked. The people I talk about don’t have educated parents but still have been liberal to give their daughters the freedom and they all belonged to middle class families. I know women who don’t put sindoor and magalsutra both at in laws and parents house but only for the occasions. I also know about women who lighten up their father’s pyre. One of the instances took place in the early 90s. I have even seen women beating roadside romeos and blogged about it too.
If this is not freedom then what it is, there are still issues that needs to be dealt but the urban women has the freedom to do what she wishes to and no body can stop her. If she wishes to stay in live-in relationship, she can do that too. The argument that you put forth of a women in urban society is hard to digest especially when I have seen women doing what she wants.
Actually, you're supporting my case: the only women who can make it in politics are those from families who are already in politics. Men may have the freedom to go into politics whether or not they have a family history but women do not have the same freedom.
I'd like you to think about why you're giving me examples of women who have been allowed a certain degree of freedom. Both you and I know these are isolated examples, certainly not the norm even in urban India. If isolated examples disproved my case you might as well have thrown Sonia Gandhi and Pratibha Patil at me (as Amit Varma in fact did in his blog post).
WRT girls being allowed to play: my claim was not that girls are NEVER allowed to play or are FORCED to cook in these families I spoke about. It's more that the pressure of domestic duties weighs far more heavily on girl children than boy children. I still know many families where when the brother and sister come home from school, the sister is in charge of putting shoes and book-bags away while the brother gets to relax and watch TV. Think about big family occasions, when the mother is trying to cook huge meals – who is helping her, the brother or the sister? And even you admit that when they're old enough to get married, it's the girls and not the boys who're forced (this time, really forced) to learn how to cook.
> the urban women has the freedom to do what she wishes to and no body can stop her.
Does she have the freedom to go out at night alone? Does she have the freedom to dress exactly as she pleases, in shorts or mini skirts, after marriage? If you think so you are truly ignorant of the plight of the vast majority of urban women. My husband's parents' neighbour in Bombay is a 30 year old married woman who has just been given permission to wear jeans by her husband/inlaws, and she has to wear only long tops with these jeans. And this is not an isolated example, it's the norm!
I am not supporting anyone. I am just giving my opinion. Women has the freedom to join the politics with or without any political lineage. No body can stop that but we should also understand that politics in India is being ruled by family dyanstay. It holds true for the men and women too. One has to be really determined to break the nexus.
Isolated cases? Are you sure we are talking about urban India? There are always two ends in the society. Justice and Injustice. Freedom & Restriction. In a society, you will see both the cases but times have changed. Have you see the auditions of reality based shows on dance, singing? You will find that people from lesser known cities go out and support their daughters for these auditions. Don't take my word for it, check it out yourself
That itself gives a glimpse of change the way a daughter is being treated now. Do you know the number of women playing an important role in corporate sector?
Do you think that would have been possible if they were isolated cases?
Women has the freedom to go night alone, they do night shifts at call centers and visit the pubs too. Yeah you will find them, but don't expect women wear mini skirts walking down the road. You will find them wearing shorts while going for a jog in the morning. I can give you many further examples but I am sure you will then ask me something else
When restrictions are put on, its upon the individual to break them and if they submit to the restrictions then I don't think its fair to keep blaming the society.
A society only makes progress when the old customs/thoughts are done away with and for that one needs to starts fighting if they feel their rights are being infringed upon.
Ummm Okay, women in india now can wear whatever they want while hanging out at CCD? This is how we define liberation – Fully covered up Jeans at a coffee shop? WTF.
here's a thought- I wore a knee length dress to get coffee with my friends and on way back in the autorickshaw, the driver's buddy (who was sitting next t him in the driver's seat!!) felt me up.
Yeah..no curtailing, my frikking ass. Wake up and smell the harassment, Pravin.
Jups.
p.s. this happened in bombay so please let's not get in to the “urban india” defense.
@ Pravin
You define liberalisation as women being able to out with boys or they boyfriends in the wee hours of the night, wearing whatever they please.
wow.
Guys hang out with their guy friends through the wee hours of the night all the time. Why should women only hang out with guys late at night!?!!
Women are starved of an all-girls-night because of the rampant sexual harrassment! They are safe from sexual harassment ONLY if they are in a group with a male:female ratio is 1:1.
What irks me so much is the desperate need for women's liberalisation in the so-called urbanised India today.
After having lived here for the last 5 years, I've come to realise that nothing's going to change in India even by the next century. People here are such hypocrites you see.
Amazing article nan! I loved it!
Thanks to IHM, I found this post. Congrats once again on the win.
Congratulations
This post in one of the winners of 'Tejaswee Rao Blogging Awards – 2011' (TRBA 2011). We would like to create an ebook with all the winning entries in 47 categories on Feminism and Gender Issues in India (and one category on Animals Rights). Please do let us know if you are fine with your winning post/s being included in this ebook. ( Please click here to let us know).
congratulations on the award, and ur posts rock!
Wonderful post! Came here from IHM’s post on the TRBA cash prize. Congrats. You so deserve it.
You have put across the dichotomy in the social conditioning by gender very well- it read so much like my own experience.:( I’m an urban woman from a metro, and my parents were educated -yes even my mother was a professional, but I’ve experienced the same kind of conditioning that you describe. I would be the one who would be expected to help in the kitchen and do other chores around the house. I was the brilliant one in the family, yet today, the conditioning has worked, coupled with a similar mindset in my in-laws’ family, and today am ‘just a housewife’ inspite of my professional degree, and my brothers, the ones who plodded through school, are out there earning big bucks. It hurts.
I sometimes think it is only those women who have never married, or who have had the courage to throw off the shackles of matrimony and all it represents, who do manage to get somewhere in life.
brutal but true…
there was not a single senence when my head didnot nod with you.
unfortunately…. every single word…true
wow, wow, wow!.. what a picture you have painted.. fabulous writing. .Thanks to IHM, I landed up here through the award (TRBA 2011). I hope we can correct a lot of the life of an average woman too..
Got here from IHMs blog. Love the way you have written this post. The truth behind each word makes me feel very sad.
Congratulations, Nandini! Very well-deserved win. And THANK YOU for writing this post. Feels good to see my own outrage put into such articulate wording.
Thank you, Wild Child! I’ve been on vacation this past week and it’s such a surprise to see my inbox full of messages about this… I can’t believe I won amidst all those wonderful entries.