Motive: 7. Violence and objectification

Human beings live and work in groups. Each group develops characteristic behaviour patterns based on implicit theories, which become in time, ‘traditions’ that future generations are exhorted to follow. Differences arise between groups based on race, ethnicity, religion and so on.

Still, on looking closely, one might find that people across the globe are more similar than different, because of similar operative concepts, especially on the gender question. These can transform with new reality, but the basic threads of the ideology, the gender-role belief systems “rooted in the structural relationship between the two sexes” resist change. 

The traditions grow out of a continuum of positive and negative behaviours. Traditional masculinity, for instance, is associated with: personal sacrifice for dependents and calmness in danger. But it is also associated with: coercive behaviour, date-rape attitudes, high-risk behaviour and unemotionality. Thence ‘maleness’ finds expression in a collection of behaviours adapted to the needs of the specific cultural group.

A study in USA on the differential patterns identifies 5 endorsements types of the masculine ideology:

·        traditional

·        high violence/moderately traditional

·        moderately traditional

·        high status /low violence

·        non-traditional

These five endorsements were then related to the men’s gender-role beliefs in terms of:

·        Status/rationality

·        Anti-femininity

·        Tough image

·        Violent toughness

·        Gender-role egalitarianism

In the study, the non-traditional group of men was found less overtly masculine. They scored lower in the four variables of status, image, violence, and anti-femininity and higher than the rest in gender-role egalitarianism.

Each of the other masculine clusters identified – traditional, moderately traditional, high violence/moderately traditional and high status/low violence - were found to be moderate to high on ‘tough image’, ‘status’, and ‘anti-femininity’. To these groups, the presentation of an appropriate public image was the point.

Fischer and Good write:

… being perceived by others as tough, self-sufficient, and confident was at least moderately important… as a “ritualized form of masculinity that entails behaviors, scripts, physical posturing, impression management, and carefully crafted performances that deliver a single, critical message: pride, strength, and control… 

However, a difference was perceived in the mix regarding “violent toughness”. As the researchers explain their findings:

… men in both the High Violence/Moderately Traditional and Traditional clusters reported relatively strong endorsement of Violent Toughness as part of their masculinity ideologies … men who endorsed rather traditional-to-moderate beliefs regarding Status/Rationality, Antifemininity, and Tough Image also held quite nontraditional beliefs regarding Violent Toughness as important to masculinity (i.e., those in the High Status/Low Violence cluster).

In other words, they are divided on the display of machismo. Some wear the badge of violence; others emulate the minority ‘non-traditional’ group. Why the change? Considering their strong ‘anti-femininity’ responses, that ‘low violence’ men could be distancing altogether from gender domination and control is in doubt. Perhaps this group of status-seekers make tactical changes in the gender interface for impression management!

In many modern dual-income families, men may be uncomfortable with their wives choosing career development over part time jobs. Despite education and economics, the masculine devaluation and distrust of women is universally ingrained. At home and at work, women’s advancement may pose threats to their individual high status. In India, for instance, divorce rates and single-mother-households are both on the rise. 

Now, the high status/low violence group may be eschewing physical violence only to project in public the egalitarian image. To keep the progressives from unsettling the status quo, the subtle mode of gender discriminations may be applied instead, like objectification. Men of all cultures may ensure this feminine preoccupation with body issues with constant social reinforcements of the ‘standards’ to be achieved for their acceptance. 

What about the feminine ideology? In the patriarchal social structure, gender inequality is built in. “Female domesticity “ has been idealized throughout its history. Following the social learning in “subordination”, women eventually collaborate with men to carry forward the inequality. 

Jackson opinions that:

…women accepted male power outside the household in return for "rule in their own place."… they received "secondary gains" of social status, leisure, freedom from responsibility to earn an income, and the freedom "to devote a major portion of her time to personal adornment and attention to herself" through marriage.

In the last two centuries of organized social life, any change in women’s status has revolved around the basic tenet. More recent economic, political and legislative changes attempt to counter women’s subordination and gender inequality. But the outlook that arose from implicit beliefs and practices of male supremacy is yet to be eradicated worldwide.

Social norms targeting women cut across the divides of culture and race. For instance, women in Asia and Africa have over centuries, suffered torture to meet ‘standards’ of traditional beauty and sexuality. In the Asian Far East, the feet of female children were bound from birth to keep them small. On the African continent, young girls were forced to undergo genital mutilations to be acceptable for marriage.

Impett et al write:

Girls experience immense pressures to behave in feminine ways, both in their relationships with other people (i.e., by suppressing their own authentic thoughts and feelings) and in their relationships with their own bodies (i.e., by suppressing bodily hungers and desires to conform to prevailing images of beauty and attractiveness).

The objectification theory Fredrickson & Roberts formulated in 1997, suggests that women tend to internalize the socio-cultural values and “become their own first surveyors”. Researchers say:

… women learn to view themselves primarily through an observer’s perspective. According to objectification theory, society places more emphasis on attractiveness for women than men, such that women are constantly subject to appraisal of their appearance. Sexual objectification occurs when a person is treated as a body valued for its use by others.

Women have been taught over the ages that their personal sense of self and value in personhood rests almost entirely on others, especially the male gender, responding positively to their appearance – size, shape, colour, dress and what-have-you.

African American women may be more concerned about being judged on “skin tone, hair texture, and facial features”. Research has also found a strong link between skin tone and hypertension among this cultural group. Buchanan et al report:

…educational level, occupational level, and family income each were stratified by skin tone; higher mean educational attainment, greater participation in professional and technical careers, and higher income were associated with lighter skin tone.

In India, fairness of skin, a legacy of cultural invasions, has long been an index of beauty in the country. Fairness creams are the fastest moving consumer goods for women and men. Product advertisements suggesting associations between skin colour and upward mobility thus blatantly fill corporate coffers.

Celebrity endorsements are revered in this country, which the manufacturers utilizes to push their products. Film and TV stars gain fame leading the pack in fashion sense, and with globalization, the hot pursuit of the Western-influenced size zero dress measure. The obsession with body weight amongst the ‘white’ European and American women’s groups has often pointed to. Another emerging new trend noticed among young girls in UK is the following of porn stars. 

Buchanan et al write that:

Theoretically, this continual evaluation of the self in terms of internalized societal ideals may result in negative psychological consequences such as increased shame and anxiety. These psychological consequences of self-objectification may lead, in turn, to increased risks for mental health concerns such as depression, eating disorders, and sexual dysfunction.

Women in India and elsewhere, of the educated and employed circles as well, do little to improve their objectified status, and their debased self-esteem. The social learning has been to avoid conflict; hence the idea of confrontation is itself too stressful to contemplate. 

They would prefer to tune out of their present unequal circumstances, immerse in serialized soap operas suspending judgement and reflection on their subtle sexist messaging, or even fantasize that in individual suffering they contribute to the greater good. Implicit theories of gender inequality continue to flourish because women are yet to unite voices against second-class citizenship.

References for this post:

1. Bidisha “Pubic hair removal: The naked truth” Article guardian.co.uk The Guardian, Friday 11 February 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/feb/11/womens-pubic-hair-removal-porn

2.      Buchanan, Taneisha S. Fischer, Ann R. Tokar, David M. and Yoder, Janice D. “Testing a Culture-Specific Extension of Objectification Theory Regarding African American Women's Body Image” The Counseling Psychologist Volume 36 Number 5, September 2008 697-718 originally published online 8 July 2008.

3. Fischer, Ann R. and Glenn, E. Good. “New Directions for the Study of Gender Role Attitudes: A Cluster Analytic Investigation of Masculinity Ideologies”. Psychology of Women Quarterly 22 (1998), 371-384
4. Impett, Emily A, Schooler, Deborah, Tolman, Deborah L. “To Be Seen and Not Heard: Femininity Ideology and Adolescent Girls’ Sexual Health”. ARCHIVES OF SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR, Volume 35, Number 2, 129-142. 
5. Jackson, Robert Max “Chapter 8. Disputed Ideals: Ideologies of Domesticity and Feminist Rebellion” nyu.edu Working Draft of DOWN SO LONG . . . Undated. 

Motive: 6. Dethroning the matriarchate

"It would not happen overnight, but the enantiodrama was that the discovery of cereals by women permitted the discovery of warfare by men."

 WI Thompson

The battle of the sexes appears to retain its fervour even in the new millennium. Academics, otherwise meticulous in their research findings, may also be drawn into a universal endorsement of stereotypes.  Consequently they damage their own credibility across the globe.

Perhaps they need to realize the dangers of tunnel vision. For instance, Glick and Fiske outline a theory on gender inequality, which is largely thought provoking. They examine the hostile and benevolent versions of sexism convincingly (referenced in an earlier post). Ironically, they also write:

Hunter-gatherer societies (common to an earlier era of human history)… may have been relatively egalitarian, but the idea that matriarchy was once common has been thoroughly debunked…

The stray remark is unconnected with the substance of their theory. The authors have not investigated the ‘matriarchy’ issue themselves, but support the claim anthropologist Harris (first name Marvin), made in the 1990s that matriarchy is a myth. But the unquestioned endorsement conveys the impression that they themselves harbour attitudes discriminatory to gender and other cultures.

Unawareness of the universal context is clear. For instance, in North America, where ‘civilization’ dates only a few centuries, matriarchy may indeed have never existed. Patriarchy may be the present dominant social mode elsewhere also. However, in the older civilizations of Asia and Africa, patriarchy actually appeared later in time. In earlier age, matriarchy was more widespread, and pockets of indigenous people still retain its practice.

In his article on the origins of the “queenmother” (now reduced socially to figurehead status in Africa), Farrar writes:

Afrocentric scholars…have begun to seriously address the issue of female political and social power in ancient Africa, and have tended to place the discussion within the broader context of the question of the matriarchate. They are in agreement with the theory that matriarchy is the most ancient or primordial family form and maintain that it is older in Africa than anywhere else in the world.

And further:

When scholars began to search for actual examples of this type of society, historically and ethnographically, they could not find any. The idea that true matriarchal societies had once existed was thus largely dismissed. But also dismissed, and incorrectly so, was any notion that societies in which women possessed “real” political authority – authority that gave them power over the lives of men – had ever existed.

Essentially, the absence of empirical evidence satisfactory to modern Western standards should not be taken as enough to “debunk” beliefs and practices of civilizations that actually date thousands of years! If, as new discoveries appear to indicate, the origin of human life was indeed in Africa, Farrar’s comments that female power began in ancient Africa, and that politically, it built on “an underlying matriarchal foundation” could bear weight.

Similarly, ancient Indian civilization, over 5000 years old, has few surviving artifacts. Ancient hieroglyphics have never been deciphered, and modern written scripts did not exist. Cultural transmissions were verbal, handed down generation to generation over centuries - which possibly is unimaginable to present-day theoreticians. Humans were perceived as descendants of the gods, not apes.

In India, Durga, the sylvan deity was the original Earth Mother. The oldest surviving ritual that pays homage to her as Nature is the ghot puja. The ghot is an earthenware pot that is filled with water and a vermilion figure inscribed on its surface symbolizing the embryo being carried in the pregnant womb. Coconut and mango leaves placed at the mouth of the ghot represent Nature’s creative abundance.

This vestige of worship of the female form has been carried forward to the present day, and is the crucial initiator of any Hindu religious event. Women’s ability to reproduce then made them ‘magical’, and they were worshipped as goddesses. Durga is also the Warrior Queen, called upon to fight battles on behalf of the less capable gods. It seems logical to assume that in the beginning, women’s status was equal to if not better than that of men.

It needs to be clarified that Hinduism started as a philosophy rather than a religion. In India’s formidable “religiously schizophrenic” diversity, Hindu ritualistic practices vary widely. Harris (first name Ray) writes:

The name [Hindu] is derived from the word Indus (a river) and simply means the people of the Indus region. It is where we get the word India (Hindus call India Bharata). Hinduism is a collection of religious and cultural traditions. Today the main religious groups are Arya, Vaishnavites, Shaivites, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, Tantrikas and Shaktas…

India has been the hotbed of cultural intermingling, especially of the Aryan practices from the North and Dravidian traditions from the South. The Northerners perpetrated no bloody revolution but an insidious invasion of culture that infiltrated and assimilated. Harris explains:

…the Arya adapted some religious iconography to suit their needs…[they] could be flexible and creative when they needed to be. The one thing they were not so accommodating about was their caste privilege and power. The Brahmin caste were the priests and scholars, the 'keepers' of the Aryan ideology… [they] manipulated Indian religion and history in order to increase and maintain their caste privileges.

The Aryans brought the concept that the source of creation was the male element, the ‘seed’. In agrarian India, it made sense. Durga was thence dethroned as the supreme deity, and reinvented as the consort of Shiva, the male god, her guru (teacher) and master. Her social recognition thereafter stemmed from her relationship with him. Worship also shifted towards the male element thereafter, although the initiating ghot puja remains till today.

Caste Hinduism achieved a stranglehold on organized society prescribing cruel practices to keep the female gender especially underfoot.  For example, menstruating women, and those in childbirth were impure and banished to remote parts of the household, widows were burned alive on their husbands funeral pyres or forced to survive in pitiable conditions, and so on. Systems that rebelled against the imposition of patriarchy, like Tantrism, became esoteric cults associated with “sex magic” that worshipped the female form and considered menstrual blood sacred.

Giti Thadani, author of the book “Moebius Trip”, chronicles her experiences travelling throughout India in search of “’yogini’ temples”, that is, dedications to forms of the goddess. As Harris relates from her experiences:

India was once covered in yogini temples. They are quite different to the standard Aryan temple. They were usually circular and open to the sky… These temples also often contained a yoni stone, a stone carved to represent a woman's vulva. The goddesses of these temples were usually autonomous, independent of male gods.

Thadani found that proponents of Aryan patriarchy actively suppressed the goddess. In some places, the naked images were draped over with cloth. Elsewhere, there was “the systematic distortion and rewriting of Indian history”. Harris reveals:

Thadani has given numerous accounts of where the feminine of the original Sanskrit has been translated as masculine. She also encountered temples where the goddess had been mutilated and either replaced by or turned into a masculine god.

Thereafter, with the systemic removal or replacement of the goddess influence with Shiva lingam (phallic symbols), patriarchy and the caste system became the core of Indian social life. Religion, as interpreted and perpetrated in the patriarchal age, is often invoked even today to drive home the point of the given - a ‘woman’s place’ in subservience, and ascendancy of man. The casual onlooker may be easily taken in by the overlay. However, academics trained to analyze and evaluate all information need to be more discerning of the possible alternative layers of reality smothered beneath.

References for this post:

 

1.      Farrar, Tarikhu. “The Queenmother, Matriarchy, And The Question Of Female Political Authority In Pre-Colonial West African Monarchy”. Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 27, No. 5 (May, 1997), pp 579-597. Sage Publications, Inc. 1997.   

2.      Glick, Peter and Fiske, Susan T. “An Ambivalent Alliance”. American Psychologist. Vol. 56, No. 2, 109-118. February 2001. 

3. Harris, Ray. “INDIA ARYAN PATRIARCHY AND DRAVIDIAN MATRIARCHY” integralworld.net. INTEGRAL WORLD. February 1007. 

Motive: 5. The touch of culture

Women’s representation around the world seems to have had little uniformity. The comprising subgroups have shown between them, permutations and combinations of variables – traditional, non-traditional, educated, illiterate, employed and unemployed. Men, comparatively, constitute a more homogeneous mass of individuals, all apparently marching to the same drum.

Group affiliations are central to male lives, with distinct behaviours, beliefs and attitudes distinguishing each. Sounds, symbols, and body language, facial expressions, gestures and signs express thoughts and feelings. These transmitted in characteristic organized patterns make complete sense to members socialized into the process, while remaining meaningless to those of another unique group. The ways of doing things, use of technology, and abilities in arts and institution building, become typical of tribes, communities, or populations.

 The male identity requires this reference group of other men for its development. Masculinity, in the sense of being an integral part of society, does not developed in isolation anywhere in the world, but in tandem with the particular group identity. The externally directed individual depends entirely on the concrete presence of this group to influence his existence, e.g., fraternity, religious or political factions. The inner-directed man may not be dependent on any immediate group, but draws sustenance from the implicit value system he constructs through knowledge and experience.

A “masculinity blueprint” constructed in the ’70s in USA, hallmarked 4 specific dimensions: avoidance of anything perceived to be feminine, status achievement, aggressiveness, and independence. The emphasis on any one or more of these roles is tuned to the particular social structure and organization. For example, where anti-femininity is a given, violence towards women should be of no surprise.

Some males however, are left with an undefined self-concept, and confusion of the gender role. Perhaps with conflicting messages from the environment, and inability to anchor to a specific reference group, their motivations are of the moment, and often frowned upon by the larger society. 

Wade holds that factors contributing to the traditional ideology are lower educational level, lower family income, and African American ethnicity. The influence of education and economics makes sense, but ethnicity? One would think that all cultures have the traditional, non-traditional and confused factions in their ranks – by dint of their social learning (or lack of it), and not genetics! 

Wade writes:

Masculinity … not only restricts men from exhibiting signs of behavior or thought attributed to the female role, but also entails a wide array of specific behaviors and self-perceptions to which men closely adhere. For example, traditional masculinity entails such characteristics as homophobia, competitiveness, physical and sexual violence, restricted emotionality, and restricted affectionate behavior between men.

His study has been on the ethnic African-American group, and while acknowledging that little research has been done in this field, Wade makes the association that traditionally masculine men have greater health risks.  The alpha-male attitudes responsible for keeping up machismo prevent clean living. That premise certainly holds true across the globe, for any patriarchal culture preoccupied with overt displays of manhood!

Another study, also on the African-American ethnic group, has associated perceptions of racial discrimination with mental health. Essentially the greater the perception of racial threat, the lower the mental well-being. Again, this is probably common across cultures with minority or backward social status, although there has been little empirical research conducted within these groups to confirm it. The researchers tested whether any factors had a moderating influence on the perception-mental health link, among them racial socialization experiences, and self-esteem.

Findings reported by Fischer and Shaw are that concrete socialization behaviours and experiences had a positive impact on the individual’s mental health. However, although self-esteem had the highest moderating effect, the direction of influence was contrary to prediction. They write:

In particular, we were surprised to find that African Americans reporting relatively high levels of self-esteem had poorer mental health when they reported perceptions of more racist discrimination…

It would seem that self-esteem that is built solely on the intra-community networking and interactions, suffers devastation in the more exactly interface between races and cultures. The reason for this may be the inward-looking socialization that, while creating the necessary support groups of family and friends, increases culture-centricity at the same time, attenuating both awareness and understanding of ‘others’ in the same universe. 

The fears of racism and “white flight” contribute most to pockets of demographically concentrated races, communities and cultures. Consequent to this forced isolation, although erstwhile homogeneous Western societies may now boast of increasing multiculturalism, there is little social integration between majority and minority groups.

Tariq Modood points out in his article that:

… all minorities – including Muslims – want to live in mixed neighbourhoods, and ghettos are created by those who move out…Society cannot be reduced to individuals, and so integration must be about bringing new communities, and not just new individuals, into relations of equal respect …not by denying that there are groups in society but by developing positive group identities and adapting customs and institutions that enable that.

Socialization within familiar environments does little to facilitate adaptation to the unknown; rather it is likely to accentuate ‘us-and-them’ groupism. I would submit that socialization that cuts across boundaries of culture and race would in fact encourage more interactions between groups, alleviating fears and perceptions of threat. As a result, the buffering action of a  hardy and stable self-esteem developed in an open universe, would more effectively moderate influences on health in any ethnic group.

  

References for this post:

1. Wade, Jay C. “Masculinity Ideology, Male Reference Group Identity Dependence, and African American Men’s Health-Related Attitudes and Behaviors”. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. 2008, Vol. 9, No. 1, 5-16. 

2.      Modood, Tariq. “Multiculturalism: not a minority problem” guardian.co.uk. 7 February 2011

3. Fischer, Ann R. and Shaw, Christina M. “African Americans' Mental Health and Perceptions of Racist Discrimination: The Moderating Effects of Racial Socialization Experiences and Self-Esteem” Journal of Counseling Psychology 1999, Vol. 46, No. 3, 395-407. 1999. 

Motive: 4. The need for status

Sexism - meanness in inter-gender relations directed at women - is traditionally attributed to men. It comes in two packages. Hostile sexism is defined as “antipathy towards women who are viewed as usurping men’s power.” Benevolent sexism, on the other hand, is “subjectively favourable, chivalrous ideology that offers protection and affection to women who embrace conventional roles.” Either way, the intent is a stinging set-down for women. It may surprise some that men are not its only practitioners; women also partake of this gender-based prejudice.

In India, of course, hostility within gender is not at all new. The virulent mother-in-law – daughter-in-law dyad has been the subject of poignant human stories and movie masala in equal measure over decades, if not centuries, of organized social life. It prevailed during the joint family social structure and carried over into the now nuclear units of the extended family.

Erstwhile close-knit families continue to blame the fissions in their generational relationships on the machinations of newly wedded wives (and their families of origin). Mothers complain that marriages of grown-up sons doom the cohesive mother-son bonds, and make them outsiders in their offspring’s lives. Daughters-in-law are suspected of using witchcraft to bind the men. In fact it is commonly said that it would be less astonishing to be told that two suns have risen in the sky than to hear that two women are able to live amicably under the same roof!

Women have been at the receiving end of abuse at the hands of their husbands through the ages in most patriarchal cultures. The social expectation has been to ‘discipline’ of wives in displays of authority, domination and control, or be accused of being under their thumb or worse, unmanly. Albeit on a lower scale, even in this new millennium of equal opportunity, reports abide around this country and the world of domestic violence, and dowry attacks, torture and death. 

The hope is forlorn that sexism is on the downturn in developed and developing nations. Gender inequality thrives almost everywhere in a form not immediately recognizable as such - benevolent sexism. The image of this behavioural type, translated from an Indian vernacular, would be the “knife of sugar-candy” that spreads insidious sweetness as it stabs (the spirit). The thin veneer of protectiveness overlays the motivation to keeping women off-balance, dependent and inferior. 

Glick and Fiske theorize that:

…this term [benevolent sexism] recognizes that some forms of sexism are, for the perpetrator, subjectively benevolent, characterizing women as pure creatures who ought to be protected, supported and adored and whose love is necessary to make a man complete. This idealization of women simultaneously implies that they are weak and best suited for conventional gender roles…

The “cherishing” of femininity is calculated to erode women’s resistance to the inequality and ensure that they remain in gilded cages happily admiring their chains. Many of these women insist that when their husbands/protectors treat them like queens, why on earth should they want for anything other than more of the same?

From their survey findings from about 15,000 respondents in nineteen countries in Asia, Africa, Europe and America, the researchers say that sexist beliefs are consistent across cultures. Gender prejudice is universal. Benevolent sexism is complementary to the hostile form and is perhaps the civilized face that set women a high bar for acceptance.

The sexist standard in the Indian scenario is the traditional pedestal of motherhood. A woman lives up to this ideal when she extends the unquestioning lovingness and nurturance associated with the mother-image into the marital household. She earns further social approval when she also delivers the male heir. In the process, she shapes into conformity; her individual identity becoming indistinguishable from the family she is married into. In earlier times, her given name too was reset to match.

Women in India have largely been looked upon as secondary to men and dependent on them for their identity. Times have changed somewhat with education and employment. In tune with feminine groups elsewhere, women of (Asian) Indian origins attempt to be in control of their creative potentials, and distance from stereotypical roles of simply nurturing hierarchy in the family and the organization. They disapprove of and reject the traditional hostile sexism. They are also more supportive of other women.

However, conflicts arise when persisting patriarchal attitudes collide with gender equality. The female drive to be assertive unsettles the status quo, and resistance from conservative family members and male colleagues receives tacit social support. Women themselves vacillate between orthodoxy and modernity, between traditional care-giving roles and the need to self-actualise.

Indeed the women’s interpersonal relations appear inconsistent and gender-based. They are empathetic with women, although they despise womanhood as weak and lesser than. This ambivalence is stark in work organizations, especially private or multi-national concerns, where attrition rates for women from entry to top management levels are also significant. Moreover, many women adopt the ‘masculine’ approach to decision-making, internalising the traditional (male) attitudes and standards of action.

The researchers say further that:

Dominant groups prefer to act warmly toward subordinates, offering them patronizing affection as a reward for “knowing their place” rather than rebelling. Open antagonism is reserved for subordinates who fail to defer or who question existing social inequalities.

A sisterhood characterized by “subordination and affection” is not quite genuine, but rather a disarming “reward” to reinforce the discrimination. By patronizing those even less favoured, women perhaps seek to raise their own diminished self-esteem. 

Their perpetration of subtle prejudice may in fact be a defence mechanism. Fischer speculated that:

…women’s benevolent sexist attitudes may be, in part, a self-protective response to environments they perceive as hostile to women.

In the study she conducted, women subjects were assigned to one of three groups at random. The experimental conditions of the groups differed only in the information that was given to each.  One group was told that studies show that men hold negative attitudes towards women. Another was informed that men’s attitudes towards women have been found to be positive. The third was told that men’s attitudes have been investigated but given no further details. Findings showed that the group that was made aware of men’s negative attitudes responded with the “strongest benevolent sexist attitudes.”

In regions where male hostile sexism is high, female benevolent sexism follows suit to also be high. Fischer explains the phenomena as:  

…some small bit of protest against the hostile attitudes, along with hope of reward for at least some members of the group (i.e., the right kind of women).

In other words, by exerting control over those lower on the totem pole, women indirectly justify and come to terms with their own need for status in the social hierarchy, precisely as the system’s dominant males would want it to be. Women as a group thus continue to be ‘invisible’ while the consequent emotional stress they are burdened with takes toll on their health and performances. 

Women need to reassess their conceptual premises, and understand how the standard received wisdom they have obediently swallowed so far hurts them as individual and group.  They need to reason with their emotions (not against them), and resurrect their suppressed identity. They need to perceive one another as real people, rather than caretaker tools for the traditional hierarchical system. And finally, they need to step up from the shadows and manage control of their own lives as the lead characters of the act.

References for this post: 

1. Fischer, Ann R. “WOMEN’S BENEVOLENT SEXISM AS REACTION TO HOSTILITY” Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30 (2006), 410-416, 2006. 
2. Glick, Peter and Fiske, Susan T. “An Ambivalent Alliance”. American Psychologist. Vol. 56, No. 2, 109-118. February 2001. 

Motive: 3. Developing undercover

In a recent legislative ruling, the French Government banned the burqa. The action fuelled debate whether human rights was supported or violated. Some have applauded the stand - in fact, we hear that other European countries are considering following suit. In the opinion of others, like with the deportation of the Romany, the nomadic gypsy tribes of Eastern Europe, the French government agencies lack empathy and understanding of the issues of migrant minority groups.

Many perceive the dress as religious attire for Islamic women. However, it is not mentioned as such in the holy books; rather people are exhorted to dress modestly, which interpretation is left to the individual, as should be the case today.

In Western eyes, the burqa is symbolic of the resistance to change and integration into the mainstream culture of the land. Its persistent usage is taken as a get-in-your-face exhibition of cultural differences. Besides, with the rise of terrorism, the burqa is now a security risk. Citing ‘religious immunity’ from body searches and photographs, terror-mongers have used the dress to escape detection and also to transport arms and bombs strapped to the body.  

Fadela Amara, French secretary of state for urban policies and herself a Muslim, says:

The burqa confiscates a woman's existence. By and large, those who wear it are victims. I favor banning this coffin for women's basic liberties. The burqa is proof of the presence of Muslim fundamentalists on our soil and of the politicization of Islam.

As a woman of Muslim origin, who obviously is well integrated into the system and now a part of it, perhaps her perspective carries weight. However, in catalysing change, is it necessary to be cruel to be kind?

In times gone by, might was right, and wars were a constant threat. Aggressors tended to target women for capture and defilement to bring their opponents to their knees. It was then logical to cloister women for their own and the community’s protection. Hindu women started to wear the veil against foreign invaders. Muslim womenfolk eventually adopted the burqa for much the same reason. The accepted customs of a particular age have been carried forward unchanged through the ages, although the times and circumstances have obviously changed.

Yet have they? In the minds of immigrant family elders, who have just arrived on alien shores, fears of being overcome by ‘foreign’ cultures remain, of being invaded and assimilated psychologically. Decisions to travel west to the lands of plenty are generally based on economic numbers.  Only much later do cross cultural issues and stark differences with the countries of origin hit home. For a people brought up on religious stories and cultural parables, it is difficult to accept close interactions with ‘kafirs’, those of other communities.

The men fail to thrive in unfamiliar circumstances, and dominance over women and children become their only way to cope with alien surroundings. They seek to prevent the loss of cultural identity; to protect the women in the way it was done in the past – through cloistering. In the mind of the patriarchal community, the burqa is the protective veil to shield ethnicity from rapacious eyes of other men. Perhaps as a response to the cultural domination in some Western countries, new generations are taking to the dress as a show of solidarity with their origins.

As in earlier times, women find that the war of words between men, are being fought over them. The women at the centre of the controversy being ordered to put on a dress or take it off are not being consulted in the matter. The point here is that it is not the women who lack confidence in new surroundings. In the female psyche, adaptability is built-in.

The girl child is taught from an early age to survive in whatsoever circumstance she may find herself in. She learns to bear oppression along with the children to perpetrate the marital lineage, since all this is her lot.  Yet it is her gender identity that is suppressed and repressed, including the simple freedom of the choice of dress.

In an article published elsewhere, The Diva writes:

Government polices may have contributed to racial, religious and ethnic divisions… it does nothing to correct people’s opinions, beliefs and implicitly prejudiced theories (that actually guide their actions.)

And further:

Immigrant women have severe limitations to work through… Often they are the hostages with few alternatives. Westerners need to accept that immigrant women sometimes wear traditional dress – sari, hijab, etc – to blend within the (ethnic) community, to not draw attention (or retribution) to themselves.

Women of patriarchal ethnic cultures, especially those not blessed with the necessary education, status or affluence to open doors, are used to the odds being stacked against them. It does not stop those who are determined to succeed. Adversity stimulates creativity, and under cover of the traditional garb, they  may be developing to make a new life for themselves and their children in their adopted country - not through revolution, but a quiet social evolution. In this sense, these immigrant women are further disadvantaged by the ruling. They are now exposed, to become easy targets for the community's ‘moral police’ empowered for honour killings.  

References for this post:

1.      Guitta, Olivier. “Why France is right about the burqa”. globalpost.com. Global Post. February 26, 2010       

2.      The Diva. “Protection of the veil” twmacademy.com. The Working Manager Ltd. Undated.