A fresh look at Gender Roles

At present Team Choices is trying to kick off its first official project “Shiksha – Jodhpur”. So obviously it is common for us to revisit and discuss several social issues that might affect the success of our program. Under this program Choices will sponsor education of economically disadvantaged students in Jodhpur, Mount Abu and Ahmedabad (Country: India, States: Rajasthan and Gujarat). The conditions a student must fulfil to become a part of this program are:

1.      Family income of the student must be less than $250

2.      Student must be enrolled in a school already

3.      Minimum attendance should be 70%

Once a student has been enrolled in the project then he/she must fulfil following conditions to stay in the program:

1.      Maintain 80% attendance in school

2.      Show an upward movement in his/her academic growth chart

3.      Follow the rules of the school and refrain from any and all illegal acts.

As we work on launching the program and get it working some of our team members were of the opinion that we should only finance girl students as they face so many difficulties in getting educated. This began the discussion on attitudes towards girl child in India and gender roles.

Gender Role is truly nothing more than division of labour (DOL) in a family setup. Irrespective of whether DOL occurs within a family or in an organization the arguments in its favour are similar. People by virtue of who they are have strengths and weaknesses and it makes best practical sense for them to specialize in tasks that agree with their strengths and leave the tasks they are not best at to those who are best at doing them. The only difference is that while in an organization a team supervisor will ascertain strengths of workers working under him (ideally); in a family setup an individual is assumed to have certain strengths simply by virtue of being born a male or female. Also, while in an organization if a worker fails at a particular type of task proving thus that it is not agreeable with its strengths he has the liberty to shift to a task he is good at (either by moving within the organization or joining another organization) but in a family setup even though an individual may prove at every step of his/ her life that his/her strengths lie outside the “assumed strengths” or gender role stepping outside the gender role is seen as rebellious for women and feminine / weak for men.

The problem thus is not with division of labour within a family but with lack of choice in that division of labour. Each individual must have the liberty to choose the course of his/her life depending on his/her strengths. In today’s world when women are as ambitious as men and are serious about their careers gender roles have become the focal point of contest in most urban family households. Women are traditionally seen as the nurturer and home is seen as their responsibility. A woman is supposed to not only nurture her family emotionally but is also expected to keep and maintain the house using resources made available to her by her husband. Today as she steps out of the traditional role and builds her career the society has adapted to this new ambitious woman in a very interesting way. As she takes the role of the man logically one would expect her partner to take up the role of a nurturer but in an interesting twist as the woman is allowed to step out of her house and build her career instead of shedding her traditional role she takes on both the roles. The line of division of labour disappears as she is expected to earn as well as maintain the home. If you read the matrimonial columns in the Indian newspapers you will find people looking for a working woman as their son’s partner. Does this mean that they are willing to discount her responsibility towards tasks like keeping the house clean, cooking for the family, attending family functions and being there for the family every time they want her (not need but want her) or does it mean that the son or the prospective husband is ready to take up the traditional role of a woman and shoulder the glorified responsibility of maintaining the household? No. It merely means that the modern Indian family has erased the “division” from division of labour for the women. A woman must now fulfil both the roles (of a man and a woman – of the provider and the nurturer). The outcome of such a situation is the same as would be in a factory or office. As division of labour is eliminated and one group or one person is expected to multitask and shoulder various equally demanding responsibilities, productivity decreases. As the woman’s productivity decreases, the same family that allowed their daughter and/or daughter in law to pursue her career revert back to the traditional division of labour in which a woman must give priority to family and household matters. At the time when the family and/or the woman herself decides to revert back to the gender roles little or no thought is given to the wastage of resources that is suffered by a company and by society at large when talented, intelligent women take a back seat and restrict themselves to the household boundaries. Imagine for a moment if Indira Gandhi or Hillary Clinton did not have the support of her family and had resigned from politics what a huge loss society would have incurred!

So what then is the solution? Could it be a solution that career loving women must only look for men who are ready to stay home and take care of the house? Probably, in an ideal world it would be possible without any negative repercussions. But ours is not an ideal world and women over the centuries have been conditioned to be the nurturer and men have been conditioned to provide. Thus, it is extremely difficult to find men and women (more so men) who defy gender roles and are still well balanced in the society and comfortable in their own skin.

The practical solution then is to balance the scales, bring corporate principles to action in our households and apply Division of Labour as it is supposed to be applied. DOL is never set in stone in a corporate environment for an individual. It is set and defined for positions (still not set in stone) but never for individuals. As an individual moves from one role to another his/her duties and responsibilities change. This is what the modern Indian woman experiences today as she oscillates between her roles as an employee and family nurturer. However, in a corporate environment DOL is only possible when there are multiple people fulfilling different responsibilities at different times. Each individual in a particular role fulfils its set of duties in such a way that others in the “Team” are able to fulfil their set of duties efficiently. Division of Labour is effective when it is employed with Team Spirit. It is this Team Spirit that must be developed in the modern Indian households.

Rahul Gandhi's interaction with Ahmedabad Youth

Rahul Gandhi's Youth Convention held on November 26, Friday in Ahmedabad gave immense fodder to sensational journalism. The media was kept out of this convention but that did not stop the media from using hearsay or second hand information gathered from those who were leaving the convention premises after it ended and using that information to come up with sensational headlines. 

Lucky for us, the student (Soumyaa Harsha) who caused all the excitement by her questions is a volunteer at Choices International and so we asked her to submit the transcript of her conversation with Rahul Gandhi. We hope reading the actual transcript will help you see through the sensational media headlines. 

Note: Soumyaa's conversation with Rahul Gandhi was in her individual capacity and not as a Choices volunteer. Her political opinion is not a reflection of Choices international.

Transcript

Soumyaa Harsha: Sir you said that our system should be more open so that more people can enter politics. But don’t you think for that security (in the state) is of prime importance. And Narendra Modi in our state has provided that. I look up to you and I think you talk sense. So keeping your credibility at stake who do you think are the 3 people in congress who can match Mr. Nitish Kumar and Mr. Narendra Modi with respect to development and security?

[The whole auditorium applauded.]

Rahul Gandhi: Well why just 3? I can name many. Mr. Manmohan Singh is a bulletproof man, A K Antony and Mr. Chidambaram. And, I don’t agree with you w.r.t. Narendra Modi. But yes I respect Mr. Nitish Kumar because he changed the politics in Bihar from cast based to development. But, what Mr. Modi did was development but at a huge cost. There are 140 million Muslims in our country and they are also an important part of our society and they feel that they are not being treated fairly.

SH: (interrupting) But sir we don’t have a better choice than him.

RG: (continuing he asked Soumyaa) You tell me, if you were a terrorist recruiter what would you look for?

SH: Courage?

RG: No, as in which state would you go to?

SH: Kashmir

Crowd: Kashmir, UP, Assam

RG: (surprised) Why don’t you think Gujarat would be the place to come?

Crowd: (unanimous) NO!!!

RG: Well, I think it will be on the top of the list.

SH: Then Sir you are the only one who thinks like that in this hall other than a few.

RG: It’s OK if I am the only one. But I believe in it and I have the courage to say this.

SH: Sir, I am not scared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RG: Well I am not saying that you are scared, but, I am saying that development has come at a cost. Tell me if your brother was murdered in front of your eyes would you not be biased then?

[Crowd applauded]

There were many dictators in history who did a lot of development in their country but was that good? Even Mao developed China, but was he good for China?

[Another boy stood up in the audience]

Boy: (in Hindi) Sir, today (in Gujarat) I feel much more secure in going to Muslim populated areas and making friends there.

RG: All I am saying is that this development has come at a huge cost. It is a dent on this country.

Some examples of how main stream media covered this interaction and the way his opponents have used it for their benefit:

1. Guj youths gave Rahul a reality check: BJ
2. On Gujarat visit, Rahul likens Modi to Mao
3. Rahul: Manmohan is ‘the cleanest man' in national politics
4. The Mao of Gujarathttp://teamchoices.blogspot.com/2010/11/rahul-gandhis-interaction-with.html

Ground Zero Mosque or Park51 Controversy: A Threat to American Civil Society

The Park51 controversy can only be solved through compromise and as the 'Liberal Muslims' building the mosque refuse to speak with the New York city administration the only answer is that those who oppose the mosque must make the difficult choice of caressing their emotional wounds at the cost of changing America forever or rising above the controversy, inject anaesthesia in their emotional wounds and try to forget it.


Demanding that the mosque or cultural centre be moved inherently suggests that those who oppose it hold Islam - the religion responsible for the act of terrorism by some fanatics. This suggestion in turn makes all Muslims - liberal or not very-very defensive making it impossible to negotiate with them or trying to make them understand the viewpoint of the other side. This is something that the American who has come across the "Minority Defensiveness" for the first time, simply has to accept.

The alternative to not understanding the defensiveness of Muslims and allowing them to build the Community Centre close to ground Zero is opposing the same (obviously). However, continuing the opposition has following risks:

1) If the Mosque is built despite the opposition, the thought - "Muslims are insensitive to the emotions of their fellow citizens who lost their loved ones at the hands of a Terrorist attack in name of Islam" will cross the mind of every non Muslim American. this is dangerous because it's a thought that will stay in the subconscious of the citizenry and will act as the first small scratch in the mirror after which every small blow creates a bigger and deeper crack. The thought that "Muslims" per se were insensitive towards 9/11 victim families will erode at the Secular nature of the American Civil Society.

2) If the Mosque is shifted to another place, the incident will become fodder for encouraging more anti American sentiments all over the world. This incident can be and will be used by terrorist groups to poison the minds of "Educated Muslims" who respect the values of Democracy and Secularism.

American Society today stands at the brink of making a historical decision that will define the shape of its Civil Society in future. India is a good example for America in this scenario. The tensions between Hindus and Muslims have always been strong in India considering the violent history of plundering and acquisition that Muslims had in the primarily Hindu India. Yet, the biggest blow to the Indian Civil Society came when Bhartiya Janata Party raised the issue of Ayodhya - A mosque had been built at the site of a destroyed Hindu temple in the auspicious city of Ayodhya. Ayodhya controversy was definitely the most damaging event for the unity between Hindus and Muslims in India after partition of the country. It is an issue that is still brought up and thrown in the face of a moderate - Hindu or Muslim when he / she begins to talk about Hindu-Muslim unity.

One hopes that the Park51 controversy will not become the Ayodhya issue for non-Muslim and Muslim Americans.

Park51 Mosque, Islamophobia and Muslim Accountability - Striking a Balance

Let's begin this discussion wrought with emotions and controversies with facts. Muslims have the Legal and Constitutional Right to build a Mosque at Park51 even though it is close to Ground Zero. What's more if Ground Zero belonged to a private party that wanted to build a mosque there, they would have the legal and constitutional right to build a mosque there. No American Law enforcement agency or government agency can deny this fact.

That said, this controversy is not about law it is about (pardon the pun) Sense and Sensibilities. It is about unconscious or subconscious biases and fears. It is about lack of accountability and a disconnect from reality.

The predominant argument is that because Islamic Fanatics destroyed the Twin Towers it is hurtful for the families of Ground Zero victims to see the symbol of Islam - religion of those fanatics that killed their loved ones - standing proud close to the graves of their loved ones. The argument against this feeling is that these families are calling all American Muslims collectively responsible in some way for the 9/11 attack. The families and their supporters in turn say that they recognize American Muslims are peace loving but still a mosque so close to the Ground Zero Hurts!

Now, let's understand this argument with an open and rational mind. Are the 9/11 families subconsciously and indirectly holding American Muslims accountable? YES. The answer is a resounding Yes. The next question is:

"Is it fair to make American Muslims accountable for 9/11?"

No American Muslim wanted 9/11. No American Muslim condones 9/11. American Muslims are moderate and peace - loving but they need to understand that when a religion gets corrupted every person following that religion is accountable. If Hindus exploited a large section of Indian society in the name of caste system every Hindu and specifically Brahmin is accountable till date for that corruption as remnants of it are still visible in the Indian society. when the Indian newspaper reports that a woman became Sati (Widow burning herself at the pyre of her husband's funeral) in the interiors of Uttar Pradesh (State in India) every Hindu sitting in Delhi, Hyderabad, Mumbai, Chennai, Dubai, Atlanta, New York, Chicago or Denmark is accountable for that corruption in the religion. No Hindu is responsible for the death of that woman at her husband's pyre but they are responsible for the "corruption" of their religion that made the woman burn at her husband's pyre and then made her family rich because people started worshipping the poor lady as a goddess.

Similarly, American Muslim is not accountable for 9/11 but American Muslims and Muslims world over are responsible for the corruption of their religion.

My following statement is admittedly a hypothesis but one I completely believe in. American Muslims and Moderate liberal Muslims all over the world failed Islam and humanity when they did not raise a strong Muslim voice against the 9/11 attack on America in the name of Islam. Even those Muslims who rejoiced an attack on America for political reasons should have stood up and said that America should have been attacked in the name of politics and national interests NOT in name of Islam. Islam does NOT allow terrorism. Islam does not allow killing innocents. Islam stands for peace. It stands for surrendering yourself to God. If American Muslims had raised not just an American voice against 9/11 but "Muslim Voice" against the 9/11 attacks, the building of mosque near Ground Zero perhaps would not have met with as much opposition.

Muslims world over need to acknowledge and accept that they can not sit quietly in their homes and wash hands off Islamic Fanaticism. Islamic fanaticism can not be cured by Non - Muslims. It needs to be fought by Muslims and when the world does not hear strong moderate voices against Islamic terrorism, moderate Muslim becomes accountable and responsible for the corruption of his religion.

Coming back to the controversy of Park51 Mosque, all said and done the argument that the mosque will hurt sentiments of 9/11 victims is dangerous. It is dangerous because by feeling hurt by seeing the mosque the 9/11 families and their supporters are subconsciously holding Islam responsible for acts of Muslims. A religion can not be held responsible for the acts of its corrupt followers.

America and specially the 9/11 families stand at the brink of making a very important decision. They can go with their emotions and risk a downward slope for the civil society of America or they can work with New York City and come up with an alternate plan the sorts of which I will be discussing in the next post.

So, does this mean that I support building a mosque at Park51? Not necessarily. I disagree with the emotional reason of 9/11 families but I do have my own reservations.

My reason for not supporting Park51 Mosque is simple. Fundamentalist Muslims sitting in Afghanistan and other Islamic countries that applauded Islam's attack on America will see this mosque as a sign of support from Muslim brothers in America. They will not see the good intentions of moderate Muslim behind this mosque. They will not see it as an attempt to bridge the gap between Islam and other religions. They will see this as a raised finger to America. They will see this as a sign of solidarity and support. Therefore, I strongly believe the Moderate American Muslim should desist from building a Mosque at Park51. It will only encourage the Fundamentalists and give them the wrong signal that American Muslims support them when American Muslims do NOT support them.

Just as the 9/11 families need to acknowledge the subconscious mistake they are making of tainting a religion because of it's followers' actions and need to accept this mistake and desist from opposing the Mosque, the Muslims need to accept their responsibility to raise a strong voice against radicals and desist from sending the wrong signal to the Fundamentalists by building a mosque at Park51.

Respect the National Anthem

Recently, I attended a function in the Hindu Centre in my city and observed something that was quite disturbing! The hall was full of chatting adults, playing children of all ages, servers serving food, volunteers from other charities that found it a good opportunity to talk to people about blood donation etc. and performers standing by the stage waiting to perform. In the mayhem ofcourse nobody paid attention to the host of the program on the microphone desperately trying to get the audience's attention. Suddenly, I caught the Host saying National Anthem and few seconds after that the speakers were blaring the Indian National Anthem Jana Gana Mana.


The audience was caught by surprise and while some of the adults and children stood up in attention and instantly stopped talking, others stood up and started to ask whoever they could see to stand in attention too (this of course meant that they were not standing in attention themselves but were talking and moving around while the anthem played) some others just looked confused and didnt know what to do and so continued doing whatever they were doing in a jerky half hearted manner that was almost comical and trhen of course there was a good chunk of people that simply did not care.

The result was that the Anthem began in midst of chaos and ended in the midst of chaos without a single second of peace and serenity.

Now, I have some serious beef with this! The organizaers ought to know that the audience will behave the way they did and thus not play the Anthem. The Anthem can not be used as a tool to attempt to bring some order in midst of chaos!!! Its a symbol of respect for the country to which the national anthem belongs and deserves to be played only and only when the audience is ready to receive it!

I shared the experience with our team here at Choices and everybody was suitably disgusted. Thats when one of my team mates forwarded me this You Tube Video that I think suits the mood of this post. Hope you enjoy it! and get the message too :)

Just for the more intellectually inclined, I have also attached a link to a nice article that talks about rules and guidelines for using the Indian National Anthem:

Rules and Guidelines to using the Indian National Anthem

Don’t shoot the messenger

Dawn is a reputed Pakistani Newspaper that also has a correspondent in India. Recently, I came across a rather interesting article in it's online version. Title of the article was "Don't shoot the messenger". Link to the original article is at the end of this post.

The gist of this article was that while nobody likes to see their country's dirty linen being washed in public by another national or (God Forbid!) in another nation's newspaper, Indians seem to be hyper sensitive to any criticism of their country by foreign nationals and foreign newspapers. The author Irfan Husain points out that while Indian media is good at fishing out scams and corruption stories it seems to play along with the Government's slogan of "India Shining". He accuses India of refusing to acknowledge its soft belly while it celebrates the growth of a small portion of its population. His advice to India is that it's hyper sensitivity to criticism creates the danger that it may lose sight of the huge problems that still exist.

I forwarded this article to my team here at Choices and it seems that we all agree that Mr. Irfan Husain does have a point. All Indians regularly criticize our politicians, bureaucracy, roads, education system, police etc.. However, if a Non Resident Indian criticizes the country in a similar manner most of his/her family members and friends can not accept that criticism. Even amongst Indian nationals, often a student criticizing his country will be bombarded by questions like "What are you doing for the country if you have such a problem?", "Don't you think you are being a hypocrite for criticizing the corruption in a system when you benefit from it at times?", "Why don't you clear up your own act before saying that the country sucks?".

While we must agree that these statements seem morally upright the problem with them is that such statements necessitate some sort of qualification before you can point out the bitter realities of your nation. This is obviously a problem as nobody needs any qualification to state the Truth and if an Indian needs to be a perfect citizen before pointing out the flaws and weaknesses of his country then nobody can ever speak the truth because nobody is perfect.

We hope that Indian nationals will have the courage and strength to accept the criticism forwarded in the article by Mr. Irfan Husain. After all, shooting the messenger does not eliminate the bad news. It merely makes us ignorant.

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/14-irfan-husain-dont-shoot-the-messenger-030-zj-06