Kamla Bhasin Leads Students in Demystifying Masculinities and Femininities - 04 September
Students
from Hindu College in Delhi University had a hearty laugh and a fun time
debunking conventional perceptions of masculinity and femininity and how they were
linked to one another. They then dug deeper to examine its connection with instances
of gender based violence.
Around
60 students participated in a vibrant panel discussion held on September 4 in
the college on the issue Demystifying Masculinities and Femininities, excited
to be sharing space with renowned
feminists. Panel members comprised Kamla Bhasin, founder of Sangat South Asia
and Convener of One Billion Rising South Asia; Satish Singh, Deputy Director, Centre
for Health and Social Justice founder member of MenEngage Global and convener
of Forum To Engage Men (FEM) India Network; and Karen Gabriel, Professor of
English at St Stephens College, Delhi University. Also present on the dais was
internationally known dancer Navtej Johar.
The
mood was set by light-hearted, rhetorical questioning by Kamla Bhasin on
patriarchy and the trend of glorifying ‘macho-ism.’ The students cheered and joined
her in laughing about it, at the same time taking back a thought, a reflection
and a journey towards questioning traditional practices that implicitly form
the backbone of various hegemonic structures of privilege and power within
family, society and among ethnicities.
'Conditioned' into Patriarchy
Kamla
Bhasin picked on particular rituals, conventions and beliefs that conditioned
us to accept and practice patriarchy. She also showcased statistical reports
from surveys conducted by UN and state bodies on the declining sex ratio and proliferation
of domestic abuse at various levels to emphasize that misogyny was a cultural and
political practice significant in maintaining
the status quo of power residing in the control of the man. She said supporting
an aggressive, 'macho' oriented masculinity inevitably promoted misogyny and devalued
anything feminine. It leads to women being considered weak, incapable and
inefficient which subsequently leads to their agency over themselves being
transferred to the superior sex which is projected as being more ‘dependable’
than them. This also starts the story of commodification and objectification of
women who are seen as the property of the family and of men, as a medium of
transaction of power between men, and finally of the legitimacy of men to
punish their women. While
addressing the young men in the crowd she threw light on how the privileges and
power they invariably possessed due to their gender, limited their capability
to feel, express and deal with emotion. As a result, when men are faced with
emotions they tend to become escapists and if forced to confront it, their only
response is aggression and violence. She said if women were being stereotyped
through the lens of a patriarchal gender, the same process also stereotyped men.
Hence, the notion of a ‘free’ man versus a ‘bound’ woman was a myth. The truth was
that patriarchy limited all genders in various ways. She recounted Prophet
Mohammed, Guru Nanak and various other male leaders and saints who endorsed
respect for women as an integral part of the doctrine they preached. This had still
not culminated into a movement or practice, she observed, because men feared
losing the privileges due to their ‘superior’ gender. Feminism, she said, was
about the liberation of everyone from a forced coercion into practices and
cultures that violated their desires and choice. To hold onto one’s own power
without reflecting how that affected and deprived the other was not power it was
greed and morally and ethically wrong, she stated. She also commented on how
the constitution of a democratic country like India was in direct conflict with
the patriarchal culture that continued to exist in the country. She observed
that to respect the constitution, we should uproot patriarchy. It is we who
create a particular cultural environment and if we do not like it, it is up to
us to change it. Finally, she spoke about the popular media promoting aggressiveness
and being ‘naughty’ as a desirable image of a man and why that needed to be
checked. Journey from the Personal to Public Activism
Satish
Singh from CHSJ shared reflections from his childhood when being non aggressive
and non violent was a reason for being taunted by peers and others. He shared
how the present system of socialization and its notion of ‘essential’ nature of
manhood necessarily induced violence and aggression in boys and young men. He
spoke of how as a non violent and non aggressive boy, he felt quite confused
and alone. He shared how understanding gender and engaging with it had been a journey
of self discovery that enriched him by helping him stand up against violence.
He observed how the general tendency in society to favour boys a “little more”
over girls went a long way in promoting misogyny and subsequently gender based
violence. He said marriage is a politically fraught social practice and we needed
to reflect upon and rework such cultural practices. Talking of domestic
violence he asked why state and society were not ready to look at a woman
within the closed world of the household as a citizen. He raised concern over
how the notion of sanctity of “family” and “marriage” prohibited the acknowledgment
of a woman’s basic rights within family and marriage. Finally, he observed that
men had the tendency to feel entitled to some form of power as an essential
part of their gender, emphasizing the need for such stereotypes to be discussed
and thrown light upon. Karen
Gabriel of St Stephens said it was important to link the hegemonic
understanding of masculinity to other forms of inequality based on race, caste
and class. She spoke of how gender was the first basis on which hegemony of one
human was established fundamentally over the other. She observed gender was
integral to the notion of power. While reflecting upon and reworking this
dynamic of power, she said one also needed to focus on the manner in which
gender overlaps with other hegemonic system of power such as race, caste and
class. She also spoke on the relationship between nationalism and masculinity,
observing that Nationalism and Military are manifestations of hyper
masculinity. Nationalism and military were often deployed as tools of
oppressing the voices of the minority. A culture based on heralding hyper
masculinity invariably tends to throw an invisible cloak over voices coming
from sections of the population that are different. She observed how promoting
self at the expense of others is a problematic understanding of ‘competitiveness’
and that that such a culture of competition needs to be reflected upon.
The
discussion was then opened to students for their comments and queries. Concerns
were raised on how men and women both were responsible for discrimination of
women since both had an equal role in maintaining society and following the
favoured mode of socialization. Rajender, a student from Hindu College, was of
the opinion that a woman, as a mother, had a big role in her son’s socialisation
and also asserted that sometimes she herself teaches him misogyny in
unconscious ways. A girl student raised concern about why a girl felt dependent
and what aspects of society conditioned her to be so. An interesting query was put
forward by a BTech student who asked whether a society where equality and
freedom proliferated could be a manageable system or not. Deliberations were
also made on how to negotiate with the family on issues of power and freedom.
Kamla
Bhasin quoted ritual practices within families, like ‘Kanyadan,’ recommending
the need to eliminate them, as also terminologies such as “pati” or “swami” for
the husband. She observed how these practices were also unconstitutional as
they referred to women as a form of property. Most relationships in a
patriarchal family were based on a conduct enforcing a form of hegemony of
power. She concluded that we could bring equality based conduct in these relationships
so that the bond remains but it would no longer be to maintain a hegemony but
to celebrate the love. Satish
Singh said negotiations were a part and parcel of living. Everybody negotiates
for privilege or profit and one has always been doing so. Negotiations are the
basis on which relationships are made. If the nature of a family today can be
said to be more “progressive” than before, then it was so because of
negotiations that are leading to its evolution. Negotiating a
Better World Karen threw light on
matters of intimate relationships where negotiations are hard to make. She
observed how creativity becomes a part of the negotiations, suggesting that if
people are approached with care then
there are chances of a more positive response. These negotiations, she said,
are necessary not just to confront differences but also to represent a sign of
care, that is, the ability to understand each other better, to be able to
tolerate each other and last but not the least, to be able to respect each
other beyond all differences.
Renowned dancer Navtej
Johar, also on the panel, spoke about his own journey of choosing a passion
that is not a popular choice for boys. He observed that ultimately as humans we
know the difference between right and wrong. He spoke about the disturbing fact
that today, even a child knows the world around him or her is unequal. It is
important to learn to deal with it. He observed how there was nothing as
beautiful as the feeling of freedom, urging the students to follow their hearts
and not succumb to any forced obligations. He also encouraged them to reflect
on how participating in inequality means giving one’s freedom away. He
suggested that the students be reflective of their decisions and actions and
simultaneously feel free to choose.
The event concluded with
rousing slogans by the panel members and students - slogans of freedom for
women and freedom of choice, before the audience and the panel departed with a
note to stay in touch and be together in the fight for a ‘gender just world’.