Privileges conferred on me by patriarchy

During one of our discussions related to the subject of patriarchy, my daughter, Sara said that I should be aware of and acknowledge the benefits and advantages offered to me by this system to understand the real difference between the struggles of a man and a woman in any society. The discussion was especially related to Indian society because of some of her own experiences during her recent visit to India. Sara had a valid point. I have been fighting against patriarchal traditions since I became aware of their discriminatory nature, but I never openly acknowledged the benefits conferred on me by the culture of patriarchy. Sara's comment made me look back at my life and recognize some of the advantages and privileges offered to me just for being a man. This post is to acknowledge some of those privileges and show the terrible nature of this system where half of the population is systematically discriminated against and suppressed, and it is done with so much sophistication that most who get these privileges don't realize that they get an unfair advantage and those who get suppressed also don't realize that they are being mistreated or suppressed.

The string of privileges started at the time I was born. I was told that my birth was celebrated by not only my parents but by the entire family (my parents used to live in a joint family back then). The reason, I was the first boy born after six or seven girls, so it seems there was some sort of gloomy atmosphere within the family due to the birth of only girls and my family thought my birth would change this trend. The problem with this is that if it had happened the reverse way it would not have been celebrated or even deserved to be mentioned (a girl being born after seven boys with the hope that now more girls will follow). 

Second, this is about my skin color. I have the darkest tone in my family, my two brothers have a fairer tone than me. This was never an issue for me, but I remember that many people mentioned in front of me to my mom that she was lucky that I was a boy with dark skin, imagine a girl with my skin tone. According to many people, it would have been a nightmare for my parents to find a good match for me if I had been a girl. I never felt bad or inferior because of my appearance or skin color in my life even though I was reminded about it on countless occasions, but I realize that the big part of this immunity was because of my gender. India's obsession with fair skin is well known, products like Fair and Lovely or Fair and Handsome blatantly display this racist mindset, but I did not get affected due to this mainly because I was a boy, what a privilege to have.

Third, I never faced any sexual harassment or assault and I am dead serious about this privilege. Many might think that I am exaggerating by claiming that every girl goes through such harassment, but based on my personal experience I have seen that getting taunted, sexually harassed in various ways, and things like eve-teasing was a daily ritual for most females irrespective of their age. I never went through it, but this definitely saved me from the trauma and agony of dealing with such experiences daily. It's not that boys don't get sexually harassed, but in most societies, victims of such harassment are disproportionately females.

Fourth, my education was not discontinued for being perceived as a waste of money like it was done for all my sisters. The rationale behind this was, that a girl will anyway one day go to someone else's house, so why waste money on her education, rather than save that money for her dowry and marriage. I did not have to face this challenge to justify the expenditure for my education.

Fifth, I was allowed to go to late-night parties and remain outside of the home for an extended amount of time. This is a normal part of college life, this is how we form friendships, and create some of the memorable moments. There were very few restrictions imposed on me because I was a boy, girls were not allowed similar freedom, not even close. As a boy, there was no social stigma if I smoked, chewed tobacco, or even drank alcohol. I agree it was not encouraged, and kids get punished if get caught. I never indulged in any of these things, but I had the choice, people were OK if boys did such things, but for girls, forget about it.

Sixth, even though it was limited, I had a choice to reject marriage proposals. Yes, no matter how ridiculous it sounds, it's true. The system of arranged marriage used to be heavily biased in favor of boys, but slowly it's changing. However, at the time when I got married, and especially in the northern parts of India, if at all anyone had a choice it was the boy who could reject the girl, not the other way around.

Seventh, my wife was supposed to obey me just because I was her husband. Girls used to be trained to be obedient wives, but similar training was not offered to boys (to be obedient husbands). My wife has to face all the brainwashing and conditioning where girls got trained about their so-called duties and roles, not me, why, simply, just because I was a boy.

Eighth, I don't have to change my last name due to marriage. A big advantage that many men don't even recognize. Even today, if anyone has to change the name it's the wife, not the husband, the reason, patriarchy.

Ninth, my name was used as my kid's middle name. This is the flip side of the advantage of keeping your name after marriage. The husband's name becomes a family name or middle name, another systematically discriminative tradition that patriarchy has created to favor males.

Tenth, family inheritance is guaranteed for me just because I am a man, both, by law and by social tradition which is more powerful than the law. Technically, Indian law gives equal rights to sons and daughters, however, practically, most inheritance is passed ONLY through boys. Girls are not offered their share and they are also very hesitant to ask for it, even though it's their legal right. Patriarchy conditions many girls in such a way that they feel guilty even to ask for their legitimate, legal rights. They are made to feel greedy or selfish, but if it's a boy, then that right is not only automatically awarded, there is nothing wrong if they fight for it.

This list can go on and I can add many other things to it. Some people might argue that some of the listed things are not a privilege but part of the culture and tradition. But these are discriminatory traditions and once there is discrimination it doesn't matter how old these traditions are, they are biased. Once there is discrimination, there is a privileged party and there is a discriminated party, and the truth is that I was a privileged party just because of my gender. I need to recognize this privilege, no matter even if it dilutes some of my achievements. Thanks to Sara for flagging this out. I am against patriarchy for the privileges it conferred on me because of my gender, the system that suppressed almost 50% of the population just because of their gender cannot be a just system, no matter how old it is and from which culture it originated.

Thanks for reading and please share your opinion about this topic. 

Woman president - no thanks

Like many, the result of the US presidential election was surprising for me. It was not shocking as the contest was very tight, but the result definitely surprised me. Politically, I consider myself an independent. I don't subscribe to any political ideology as I find some good, bad, and terrible policies from both political parties. I support some of Mr. Trump's policies, but that "locker room talk" was too much for me to take. He literally sounded like a sexual predator in that video, it was horrifying to watch a presidential nominee talking like that. Whether it was locker room talk or not, it displayed a demeaning attitude towards women. Now, I know the difference between dirty talk and sexual assault. The released conversation was not just dirty talk; he could do as much dirty talk as he wanted, but this sounded like a confession of a sexual assault, and there is a huge difference between these two things. 

The two choices presented by both parties were not perfect. Hillary's CV was much stronger for that job, but just having a strong CV doesn't guarantee you any job, the interview panel should like you and then only the job is guaranteed. Hillary failed to impress the interview panel, the voters. There can be several reasons for election defeat, but this election was special. The question is, how much her gender played a role in her defeat? According to some polls and opinions, Americans don't mind having a woman president, but so far this amazing country where women are so talented, qualified, and hard-working, couldn't find a single qualified woman fit for that job. The path to the White House for women is so hard that this was the first time a woman made it through primaries to get a major political party's nomination. It took more than 200 years to find a black person to lead the country, and no one knows how many years it might take to find a qualified woman to lead this country. 

So, why do I think that Hillary's gender played a role in this election? Was she judged with stricter standards just because she was a woman? To understand this, I want readers to imagine a hypothetical scenario by switching the gender of candidates. Imagine Hillary as a successful business person with undisclosed tax returns and an extremely lavish and flamboyant lifestyle. Imagine the release of her "locker room talk" video, where she is bragging about her attempts to sexually harass men and how she loves kissing young men, grabbing their crotch and she can do whatever she wants because she is rich, powerful, and famous. Do you think she would have had any chance to win an election or even get a nomination? If your answer is "no chance," then you know what I mean when I say that her gender played a major role in her defeat. Yes, emails mattered, the FBI director's sudden statement mattered, her image mattered, Bill Clinton mattered, her time in the government mattered, but her gender played a BIG role. This is what disappointed me. I was not sad that a Democrat lost or a Republican won, I hardly cared about their party affiliation. I was not sad that Hillary lost, as I am not her fan, I was sad that ultimately once again gender bias won.

To explain why this loss was more bothersome, let me give an example of India's parliament election of 2014. Here also Mr. Modi, with a questionable attitude towards his own wife won the election with an impressive majority, but his victory was not unexpected as his opponents were really weak. He at least looked like the most competent person among all who were competing for that job. His total disregard towards his wife was not even an issue. No one bothered to think that if a prime minister could treat his wife like this, then what about other citizens? He didn't even bother to give her a divorce, just ignored her as if she didn't exist. It showed society's total disregard for women's rights, but I hardly expected that Indian voters would even think about this issue, and as expected they didn't. So, it was not an unexpected result, but I didn't expect something similar to happen here in the USA. I know that resentment against immigrants or minorities is a very strong feeling and I wrote a post regarding this issue just a few days before the election. In that post I mentioned that the use of resentment against immigrants can result in huge political dividends, it happened in India so there was no reason why it couldn't happen in the US. It seems Hillary could have lost the election to any other Republican candidate as Mr. Trump won even after the release of that video. This is surprising to me and it puts a question mark in my mind about society's attitude towards women, and I hope I am wrong about this.

Women played a significant role in Mr. Trump's victory. It seems the majority of white women voted for him. Obviously, race was not a factor as both candidates were from the same race. So, most probably, gender might have been the determining factor. The effect of patriarchy is so strong that even women think that men are most suitable for any leadership position. This thinking is inculcated since childhood and each tradition or custom is designed to validate this thinking. It becomes so embedded in our minds that we don't even realize that most of us become proponents of patriarchy. The glass ceiling about which many women leaders talk is not just created by men or patriarchy, but women are equal contributors to make sure that ceiling remains intact. Such incidents have happened many times before and may happen in the future. But that doesn't mean women should stop trying. Indeed, it's not easy to break that glass ceiling, but definitely, efforts of all these years made it crack a little, and now it is up to us to break it. It is not going to be easy, but it is possible, let's give one last punch to break this glass ceiling.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing.]

Despite being a woman

During his Bangladesh visit in one of his speeches Indian Prime Minister Mr. Narendra Modi said, "I am happy that Bangladesh prime minister, despite being a woman, has declared zero tolerance for terrorism." There is no doubt that he wanted to praise Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina for doing a commendable job in dealing with terrorists in her own country. So, what is wrong with this statement of Mr. Modi which created some controversy in social media and became the subject of some TV debates? The use of the term "despite being a woman" is highly objectionable to many including me. I don't think there is any doubt that he should have chosen better words to praise her, and there was absolutely no need to mention her gender while complimenting her for her stance against terrorism. Special mention of her gender displays the typical patriarchal mindset of our society, even our PM did not think that it is wrong to compliment anyone by highlighting their gender. This also shows a stereotyping of women as gentle, nonaggressive, soft gender who can not deal with tough situations like terrorism the way men can. It would be unfair to say that Mr. Modi is the only politician or person who thinks like this, this mindset is present in many societies including many developed countries, even in India many politicians across party lines say insulting or derogatory comments about women regularly. Whenever there is a huge uproar against such comments they are brushed under the carpet by labeling them trivial remarks not to be taken seriously or they cite the usual excuse that they were taken out of context.

Why I am picking this statement? Does this single line diminish all other achievements of this foreign tour of Mr. Modi? This tour is very successful and I am sure there will be many media releases and advertisements by the Indian government to highlight these things, I don't have to do that. But the reason why I am picking up this statement is that this displays deep-rooted prejudice against women in our society. Mr. Modi's supporters will of course downplay this incident, actually not only his supporters but every political leader's supporters are very forgiving towards anything done by their own leader.

Now let's see how the following statements sound,
It is great that despite being a woman you learned how to drive. It is very admirable that despite being a woman you are doing an industrial job. It is nice that despite being a woman you earned a college degree. I am glad to see that despite being a woman you are in the military. It is good to see that despite being a woman you play football (soccer). I am happy to see that despite being a woman you are a writer. And so on.

Actually, I can go on offering these so-called compliments to women for the many achievements that they managed to achieve despite being a woman, but the question is, are these really compliments, or these are insults in a very subtle way exposing my patriarchial and misogynist mindset? Because of this deep-rooted bias, some people feel that women can only do a certain type of work and if they excel in any other field it is an exception and therefore it deserves special praise, this is why they specially mention their gender and use the phrase "despite being a woman" she did this or that. We need to ask these questions to expose this patriarchal mindset of our society. Why do some of us still think that being a woman is like having some sort of disadvantage? If any woman becomes successful then why do some of us feel that it is an exception and not a normal incident? Actually, because of such a mindset, women have to face many hostile situations in their day-to-day lives. Because of this narrow-mindedness, some people don't welcome women's presence in many professional spheres as they think they don't belong there. Women need to fight against this prejudice which is why it is not proper to compliment them like this. There are many examples of successful women from all fields including politics (both from present and past eras), we know many strong female political leaders, so, it is not a strange or unusual phenomenon anymore. The time has come to get rid of this narrow mindset and stop using phrases like despite being a woman you did this and you did that while praising the achievements of any woman. Women have fought hard and still fighting hard for equality in our society, they still face uphill battles and such statements don't help their cause. I hope we all realize this and next time complement any person and judge their achievements not based on their gender but purely based on the merit of their work and achievements.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Can man and woman be just friends?

Recently my Facebook friend Lalit Kumar wrote a very wonderful and thought-provoking post on his blog related to this subject (http://dashamlav.com/1637). I highly recommend this post for readers who can read and understand Hindi. I found this post very interesting because I also faced this dilemma or question. This subject is not something very new but the issue discussed in the post is still very relevant and affects all of us. Many people have very strong and different opinions about this question. Many feel that there is strong physical attraction between heterosexual males and females which overpowers simple friendship that's why it's not easy for them just to be friends.  Many think that except for some very close blood relationships (like brother-sister), all other relationships between man and woman are bound to face the problem or challenge of physical attraction. Many fear that no matter what, society will always look with suspicion at any man-woman relationship outside the immediate family. Many believe that it is indeed possible to have a pure and healthy friendship but it needs a lot of understanding, maturity, and commitment from both sides.

I was born and raised in a very conservative atmosphere where friendship between boy and girl (or man and woman) was not approved by our society. By today's standards, it was a very narrow-minded and restricted environment as far as male-female relationships were concerned and this was the case till I graduated from college. I could never make any female friends because of this. The unwritten rule was "stay away from girls." I always felt it was not an appropriate thing to make female friends and people in my neighborhood would laugh at me or think that I was a person of loose character if they saw me with any girl. I think all those restrictions and taboos were because of a strong belief that male-female relationships are always physical in nature. Maybe society is scared of the physical aspect of male-female relationships because it is related to the creation of new life. That is why many times it seems that the whole burden of morality or character of society rests on male-female relationships. This belief was so strong and dominant that it took me a lot of time to shake it off and I am sure many people living in India and many other countries must have felt the same. Not only families, but society including many movies, and books, propagated this perception. There were very few and rare examples of male-female friendship around me at that time and this whole thing contributed to my perception that they can not be just friends. Either they have to be related or are lovers there can not be anything else.

But then as I grew up I started reading many books, met many new people from different cultures and backgrounds, and slowly got to know about the world beyond my family and neighborhood. I met with some very good friends who showed me the other side of life where there was a possibility that a boy and a girl could just be friends, very good friends. It took me some time to understand this beautiful fact but finally, I am very glad that I could get over my inhibitions. There are many who can not get over these inhibitions and still think that pure friendship is not possible between a male and a female. This not only creates a lot of problems for them but also creates a lot of trouble for people around them. The real problem with this mindset is not only the person who thinks like this can not form friendships with the opposite sex but he/she also looks with suspicion towards all people around him/her who have such relationships and this pollutes the environment for everybody to some extent. It's good to get rid of this inhibition to experience the beautiful world around us. Friends and friendships are very important parts of everyone's life. Friends are friends it doesn't matter what's their gender, race, caste or sexual orientation.

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing)