Ideology or Biology?

Wasiq Bokhari breaks up some of the reasons for women’s inferior status in Pakistan in two broad categories: ideological and biological. In the ideological category, he analyzes the Islamic legal, economic and social framework to point out some reasons for women’s subordinate position in our society. In the biological category, he points to women’s different biological endowments/functions and their effect on women’s ability to work.

Religious, traditional and cultural biases against women are essentially ideological. In Pakistani society, for example, the Islamic patriarchal vision (detailed by Wasiq Bokhari) is combined with misogynistic cultural practices and roles for women. Hence, we have traditions like dowry, smaller shares of inheritance for women, and of course, the social ideal of tall, fair, long-haired, long suffering, sacrificial wives (without an ounce of self esteem). None of this is biologically or genetically determined. There are societies that allow women to inherit as much as men; there are societies where women get married without having to provide a dowry; and there are (though they may be few) matriarchal societies with strong, powerful female role models.

In addition, there are arguments that point out how women’s biology supposedly limits their economic and social participation. These arguments sound relatively more “objective”, but, in fact, are not. Because women have uteruses, menstruate, give birth and breast-feed, they are assumed to be “weaker”, “less rational”, “more emotional” even more prone to “hysteria”. Woman’s biological childbearing function has repeatedly and traditionally been conflated with her social child rearing function. And all this has been assumed to affect her not only physically, but also mentally, emotionally and even spiritually! In this article I will only respond to the argument that because women are physically weaker than men are and because women bear children, their abilities or opportunities for work are limited and they are, therefore, relegated to an inferior social status.

First of all, brute force is no longer necessary for survival or work in the modern world with its myriad tools and weapons, ranging from the somewhat primitive to the ultra modern. (Of course, the notion of brute force ever having been the most important endowment for survival is itself questionable). Furthermore, strength is neither merely inherent nor unchanging. Strength can be acquired and increased, depending on how we exercise or use our muscles. Many rural women are, in fact, stronger than urban men because of the physically challenging tasks they perform are. And, on one measure of strength – life expectancy – women actually do better than men.

Secondly, women’s role as mothers and caregivers is not a “natural” law. Just because most women have wombs does not mean they all have to give birth. And, just because many women give birth does not mean that they have the entire responsibility of taking care of children, even when they are breast-feeding. Extended families, village communities that share the work of child-care, “good” husbands and child care facilities at work are all options that free women’s time for other pursuits even when they have infant children. All of these options have been and are available to different women. All or some of them can be available to most women today if the social and political commitment to children and family truly existed.

Furthermore, despite childbearing and rearing responsibilities and supposedly less strength, third world women work harder and longer than men as farmers, factory workers, domestic workers, sex workers, construction workers and housewives (to give some examples). Then why is this statistical fact not reflected in their social and economic status?

Women are subordinate not because they are less capable of working, or indeed, work less. Part of the problem is how “work” is defined, recognized and rewarded. For instance, “housework”, performed mostly by women, is considered “low-skill” and is not generally included in the calculations of GDP/GNP or “productive” work, as it is not transacted in the market. On the other hand, the same chores that consist of housework – food processing and preparation, sewing, laundry, etc. when performed in the market are valued differently. Chefs (mostly men), designers (again mostly men) are not considered low skill workers. Women performing the same tasks as chefs and designers, at home, are not even considered productive workers; their skills and remuneration is another issue altogether.

Countless studies worldwide have shown that men and women performing the same work get paid differently and men are promoted faster and higher than their female counterparts. It has traditionally been argued that women are “secondary” workers (primary caregivers) who only bring in “supplemental” income and are not as “committed” to the workforce. Women workers are, therefore, given less responsibility and paid less. This notion of women as walking womb-bombs in imminent danger of exploding into several wailing infants is in complete opposition to statistical reality. Whether they work full-time or not, have children or sick parents to look after or not, the majority of the world’s women work more than men do. About two thirds of households in the world are headed by women, and this proportion is rising. These women are the primary breadwinners, who work constantly to support entire families on their incomes. So, it is a belief, not a fact that women are secondary workers. It is an ideological notion of the inferiority of woman, her work and her worth, not objective biological reality.

Some women’s economic independence is also compromised because unlike their male counterparts, they have less or no control over their labour and the payment they receive for their work. In many parts of the third world men mediate and control the labour of women. Some women have to get approval from fathers, brothers or husbands before they take up a job. Also, it is not uncommon in Pakistan for married and single women to hand over their wages to their fathers or husbands who decide how the money will be spent. So, even though these women are “working” and earning, their subordinate social status prevents their complete economic empowerment.

In fact, those who work the hardest in the world are also the poorest. And, over two thirds of the poorest people in the world are women. Many of the richest individuals in the world have no need to work as they live off their inheritances and trust funds. Wealth, power and social status are, therefore, not a direct result of the amount or type of work individuals are biologically able to do. How much wealth and power someone has depends largely on social factors, such as access to and ownership of resources and means of accumulating wealth.

Therefore, most arguments that explain women’s subordinate position, whether looking at religion or biology for legitimacy, are ultimately ideological in nature. The good news is that ideologies are not laws of nature or cast in stone; they can be challenged and replaced by more egalitarian notions of women, work and worth. The bad news is we still don’t have an answer for why different types of ideologies have been used for centuries by almost all societies (with some exceptions) to create the conditions for women’s continued subordination. If we did have an answer to this question, might we have an easier fight against misogyny?