Ideology or Biology?

Pray tell us why the reader should even consider lending your `statistics` any credibility?

``over two thirds of the poorest people in the world are women``

``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``

that aside... Job Well Done. You `home in` on your point with substantial skill

I was hoping that you would also cover other forms of subjugation of women. Wearing bangles, rings, etc. are all forms of property identification used by societies in the past (women were considered a property). Even today, women take such pride in getting an engagement ring (a solitare) that entire day is spent in discussing the quality of the ring. They take extreme pride in the fact that they now belong to someone.

What`s this all about.

RE: BG

I don`t like tomorrow`s Brave New World any more than the next person, but that`s the writing on the wall my myopic eyes read through the mist of time.

Unfortunayely, our world is changing at a break-neck speed as we hurtle through the time tunnel into a future fast-forward on the Pegasus of the technological revolution. This is the Third Wave, as Alvin Toffler calls it. (The first two having been the Agricultural Revolution and the Industrial Revolution.) Every aspect of personal and collective life is subject to alteration at a scale never before witnessed. We cannot alter this course but we can brace ourselves for the change, for come it will, whether we are ready or not.

As for the poor and the dispossessed, their lot is never good. Only now, I fear it may get worse before it improves (if it ever does). The human infestation of planet earth has gone unchecked through the last three centuries. There are too many humans being born (as one of Saima`s articles pointed out months ago) and not all will live a `whole` life. The divide (between the haves and have nots)is getting worse and by mid to late 21st century we may see massive DEPOPULATION (dwarfing the one seen in the 1300s) globally. Those who do not make it in the upper two third, unfortunately, will become fertilizer, permaturely. Not exactly, an optimistic world view, is it? But that`s how it seems to be shaping up. I`m glad I will not be around to see most of it.

...SR

Dear Mr Al Beruni,

I have seriously considered your proposal for changing my name to ``Simpleton``. But, I wonder if it will be okay with Anita Zaidi, who might get even more irritated with my new name pseudonymn. Anita, what do you say to Mr. Al Beruni`s proposal?

Hi, there joecool. I agree with you one hundred percent. I tried to make a reference to the same issue by pointing out that working does not mean wealth and power. I did not want to go into a discussion about capitalist slavery that we are all to some degree enslaved by. Maybe you can write about it?

I`m not sure how to respond to your appreciation for my `blabber` -- does being cool demand a certain lack of courtesy ;) ?

Dear SR,

What a fascinting scenario you have prophesized for the next century! I`m not sure I like the sounds of it. Poor women will still not have too many options while the rich can buy wombs for their fetuses. And what kind of eugenic nightmare will cloning unleash on the world? Aap kyaa sochtay hain?

best,
BG

TYPO...correction

I wrote ``Fathers, after all, do not * *bare * * their children, but still love them all the same.``

It should read ``...do not BEAR their children...`` :)

Ideology vs Biology:

This has been a fascinating debate to follow, I thank and commend all participants.

If we dare to speculate about the future we can see that Biology will eventually prevail over Ideology and elderly, white women will be ruling the world by the mid twenty-first century. Let me elaborate.

It is a fact that women are biologically more robust than men. They have to be, by design. They are the ones to endure the perilous burden of reproduction. Therefore nature has, in order to ensure the survival of the species, endowed women with a superior biological endurance. With the exception of size and muscle bulk, women have a better and longer lasting biological apparatus than men. Even after controlling for dangerous activities (war, street violence, accidents, etc.) which involve a disproportionately large number of men, it is clear that in every age-group men die faster, more easily and more often.

Thus even though about 52% males are born against 48% females, by age 20 there is parity in numbers and thereafter women are in a majority and the gap continues to widen throughout life. (This is observed in any population where healthcare access is equal and where child marriage and lack of family planning do not take a surplus toll on the female population.) Now lets see what are the likely consequences of this into the next century and beyond.

In Western countries the writing is clearly on the wall and “...the meek shall inherit the Earth...” In this day and age, where wealth is the real source of power, women are going to have the bulk of the wealth and thus a power-shift is underway on a macroeconomic scale.

(The Third World is still not going to see this phenomenon for some time, but I think it will eventually happen everywhere. Since most of the wealth and power is in western hands today, what happens in these societies will likely impact the whole globe.)

Women, on average, live almost a decade longer than men. This means that at the geriatric end of the demographic spectrum wealth is continuing to get concentrated in the hands of women. Today, more than ever in human history, it is reaching an unprecedented level.

Today’s women (from the upper third of the socioeconomic ladder) stand to inherit wealth from three independent sources. First, their parents who accumulated wealth as a result of the West’s economic hegemony in the post-W.W.II era, will pass it on. Second, their husbands whom they outlive by more than a decade will also leave them their lives’ savings. Third, women of this generation, for the first time in history, in their very own right, shall have been successful players in the marketplace and shall have their own nest-eggs. This is a tripple-decker ! And as if that was not enough, finally, we have entered an age of new modes of wealth creation (“The Third Wave”) which will simply amplify the magnitude of their wealth.

The other major impetuous may come from breakthroughs in biotechnology. Almost everyone agrees that the biological burden of reproduction is a debilitating factor in the economic competition between the genders. The next century may usher in a new era (at least for the upper third in the West) where the woman is completely emancipated from the biological hazard of childbearing. In the coming Brave New World both men and women will only contribute their germ cells and let the next generation “incubate” in a surrogate womb. (We have genetically engineered cows that produce human milk, next may be an immunologically identical intra-uterine environment capable of accepting human embryos.) There is no logical reason to believe that it will diminish maternal love. Fathers, after all, do not bare their children, but still love them all the same.

The irony is that men may lose their hegemony not because of democratic or enlightened principles, but because women’s biology will beat them at their own game of cold-hearted capitalism. :)

...SR

Re Farouq
We are on the same wavelength, then :)

Re Sahar Shafqat
Great commentary, Sahar. Thanks for your contribution. I am happy to see so many more women on chowk :)

Re Bubba
Hey, I am confused too. I dont subscribe to any of the options you have listed. Please point out a specific argument, assertion or statement in the article so I can respond appropriately (or is that not the point;) )

Re Farouq Taj

Thanks for the compliments, but I cant lap them up without confessing that I was arguing something altogether different from what you said :)


Re maTHa

Thanks for the support! I`m dealin`...

Re Tahnoon

`usurious` alimony payments. Disagree on this one, Tahnoon. Long and complicated ... another time perhaps?

The rest:

1 ``futility of confrontational feminism and the sharp delineation of action and intent it espouses`` Sounds fair, but not sure what is interpreted thus by those on `the other side`.

2 disagree with a view of the `oppressed` as mere hapless, unresisting victims. too paternalistic and condescending.

3 Even though there are an ocassional `moral` ones amongst the rulers, real, lasting change comes when those at the receiving end fight for it.

4 increasing incidence of female headed households suggests ``a trend towards normalization of status``??? or the complete abdication of social reproduction by men?

5 on underemployment and homemakers -- d`accord! Though, as you yourself agree (see 6 below), how the market values something may not be without problems.

6 ``Economic value does not necessarily confer human worth`` Of course. But, what a sad neglected fact.

BG,

It just occurred to me that the obvious counter to the argument on underemployment is the usurious alimony payments people are required to make in your part of the world.

We are almost bound to disagree here, but IMO the packaging of such punitive and parasitic components into a marriage simply does the institution harm by making people further leery of its percieved value. It should be relative contribution to assets and not simply an individuals presence that determines final disposition of those assets.

Just a side thought.

Tahnoon.

BG,

Yes, implicit in the hypothetical scenario was the assumption of alternative reproductive practices. Do men command sufficient resources? I think that they clearly do. You’re right though, the scenario was hypothetical because men are not necessarily amoral or immoral. I did not state the scenario as a possible future, but to illustrate the futility of confrontational feminism and the sharp delineation of action and intent it espouses.

It has little to do with an intent to resist. Subject peoples down the ages will tell you that. In this I disagree with you, as I do with the contention that history suggests this to be inaccurate. As you pointed out human cultures are practically all androcentric and androphillic. This testifies to a history in which de-humanisation and ultimately successful conquest of one gender by another took place once already. Nothing suggests a different conclusion if it were ``done over``. I repeat, conceptually, if I have no ethical or emotional associations with women then they are pure competitors. I would compete with all the resources at my disposal. I would no more attempt to value their contribution than I would reduce my efforts at work to give my peers a ``fair chance`` at the promotion they get passed over on because of me. World events tell us that the most ``enlightened`` nations are not averse to the death of individuals if it serves local self interest. Why should this be different?

I also take issue with the idea of ``nothing being given``. From the anti-colonial to the feminist movement, and these no doubt were brave souls who risked their all, it was the morality of the ``rulers`` which led them to capitulate rather than allow the conflict to escalate. I thought that this ``morality`` and its trend were what you were speaking of, and you are absolutely right, this is where discussions of justice and equality devolve.

The increasing number of female heads of household do not suggest the extinction of men any more than the reverse has held true except in hypothetical simplifications. It does suggest a trend towards normalisation of status which we both lauded earlier.

On underemployment and home making. The idea is that you can gauge the value of a particular kind of work once it is moved into the formal economy (Its replacement cost, if you like). As more women enter the workforce, home-making is necessarily ``out-sourced``. Economic statistics for occidental urban centres approximate such an environment. If you examine the amount of a household budget that is spent on goods and services that replace home-making in this gender-neutral setting (we are talking generalities and none of these statements are meant to be taken as absolute) we know what these are ``worth``. I may be mistaken but I recall 15-20% of expenditure as the number. Assuming that men and women can generate equal amounts of output in the workforce, to keep them at home therefore wastes 30% of your potential output. How you grow the balance is academic to this. In this regard, home-makers are clearly under employed.

This leads me to echo an earlier statement of Saima’s which I agreed with in my post to her. Economic value does not necessarily confer human worth.

Tahnoon.

Tahnoon,

In your hypothetical scenario of amoral and asexual men and women, are men able to reproduce independently of women? Then, you might have a stronger case for arguing that women could become endangered, but only if men held ALL the aces and ALL men were amoral (lets not even touch immoral). Fortunately, even those who do not have the aces are able to put up a good fight and there are enough moral men out there! This is as good a time as any to say that women are not always unresisting, passive victims of patriarchy. They often put up a good fight, whether or not they succeed immediately, or in the short run. Judging by history, women would not face extinction at the hands of self-reproducing, asexual, amoral men sitting down.

Interestingly, what do you have to say to the trend of femle headed households being on the rise? Is this ever going to translate into men ending up on the endangered species list?

I wasnt making, as much as responding to, an economic argument -- questions of equality and justice are moral in my mind.

Tahnoon, nothing has ever been *given * to anyone by those who have some or all of the aces -- the civil rights, women`s and anti-colonial movements testify to that.

Not sure if I get your point about under-employment and home-making???? I realize tha t someone has to do the homemaking. But women give birth to and raise male children, just as they cook for men as well as women -- then why dump the entire responsibility of biological and social reproduction on them? And, if they are dumped with it, why not recognize that its valuable and can be switched around a little so that women have some more options?

Saima,

No, I was not posing a biological/ideological dichotomy as justifications of women`s subjugations. Just suggesting that an argument based on `biology` is actually an ideological one (and I use ideology as a catch-all phrase for tradition, culture, religion, etc.) if held up to statistics.

No, I was not suggesting that the lack of recognition has perpetuated misogyny. I was asking whether is as much due to misogyny as female genital mutilation, dowry, etc.

Yes! the concept of a male breadwinner is a myth in this day and age of households/families supported by women. Yes! it is a not-counting problem, not a not-doing problem.

Yes, the desier for freedom alone is not necessarily moreal, but freedom as an ideal is finally a question of morality, not economics or mathematics.

Yes! the concepts of `work`, `competence`, `success` are gendered. Language, just like other social institutions, is androcentric.

Waqas,

Thanks for taking the time out to continue this dialogue. Forgive me if I say anything that sounds like a personal attack, but my intention is to respond only to the issues you have raised.
Thank you, for reassuring me that you are on the same side (as presumably I am?). However, just saying that you believe women should be given rights is not enough. You have to recognize where the problems are and how they are manifested. It is clear to almost any open-minded man that the law of evidence in the homeland (2 women = 1 man) is in flagrant opposition to the notion of eqaulity. But, it does take more reflection to understand an issue that has not been raised before or is not that obvious. Before I was exposed to a certain kind of literature, I assumed that men did the `real` work of society, while women stayed at home and took care of the children. It took me a while to realize that the notion of work itself is gendered and problematic. When we think of terms like workers, labour force, employers, employees, etc., most of us do think of men. But, the reality is that women do a great deal of work that is essential to society, despite their biological differences. And, that is all I wanted to share with the readers.

I do think that you need to read my piece more carefully before you start accusing me of making `abject unsupportable generalizations`. I supported my arguments with data. If you need more, I can give you even more references. I never claimed that women are ``superior and stronger and harder working``. I did say that women work harder (and gave you some references). Does that imply they are superior? I think not! Many people in Pakistan employ servants who work around the clock. Their long and hard work is never understood to mean they are superior to their employers, some of whom do nothing all day but sit on their backsides. I actually believe that having to work really hard in order to survive actually reflects a lack of power, not superiority as you seem to have read it.

I also said that many RURAL women (who walk hours to fetch firewood and water and lug big weights around) are stronger than, check this out, URBAN men. (I know many men urban in Pakistan who lead a sedentary life and ask servants or daugthers to even flip light switches when they leave the room. How strong are they compared to women who engage in manual labour all day?) Also, I merely pointed out that on ONE measure of strength, life expectancy, women do better. I never said that ALL women are stronger than ALL men, that ALL women work harder than ALL men and therefore, ALL women are superior to ALL men. That is a complete distortion of my argument.

I also dont appreciate the fact that you continue to accuse me of hyperbole, when I have given you statistics to back my assertion that women work harder than men, not because they can and men cant or because they want to BUT BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO. And the one of the main issues I raised was that there is no recognition of it or reflection of it in their social status. In fact, someone like you who claims to be on the same side, is so resistant to statistics (provided not by some `pseudo feminist`, but a male dominated organization like the UN) that show how hard women actually work.

As far as the free market system goes, like I said earlier, there is no market free of ideological notions of women and work, and therefore, you see women workers being relegated to mostly unskilled, temporary, flexible labour-type jobs. Also, as far as managerial or professional jobs go, the lack of any accomodation to families (like child care, family leave, etc.) affects women`s careers much much more than men`s as female headed households rise across the world.

For clarification and reciprocal reassurance, I am not here to start a `battle of the sexes` or declare war against men or some such garbage. I really do believe that women and men are equally valuable and deserve respect and dignity and some basic human rights no matter how rich or poor or black or white they are. I am not trying to prove that men are inferior - patriarchy has been trying to prove the opposite for centuries, and that is not a paradigm I hold in high esteem. The basic argument I made was that, it doesnt matter whether women have uteruses and babies, they work harder than men and that is a fact that is not acknowledged because what they do is not valued as worthwhile work. Therefore, it is not a biological difference in endowment that affects women`s economic participation in society, it is the ideology of undervaluing their contribution. So, basically, even a neutral sounding `objective` biological argument turns out to be no better than one based on patriarchy, prejudice or tradition.

You say, that ``freedom is the key. Once young girls know that ther are no barriers to their lives in terms of opportunities, economics, politics, careers and choices...`` That, Waqas, is an extremely tall order. You may raise your daughter and son the same way, as my father did, but that doesnt mean that the world and society will provide the same opportunities and choices to both of them. There is no such thing as an acontextual, free choice. If anything, Anita`s postings should make that clear. If women find no support from society, including men, for their families and their children, then they have to give up making partner at the law firm for the development, if not the birth, of their child.

Saima,

Taking it from the top - I think you may have missed the point, although obviously I can’t speak for what BG was thinking. To ask whether anyone can justify the secondary status of women is a rather meaningless question. You can and you can’t, it depends upon the initial assumptions you make regarding society and the valence you ascribe to various conditions. - If I am concerned with a sustainable means of keeping a home in order, the secondary role is justified. It is only when one brings greater ethical queries to the table, that this no longer becomes a valid reason.
You may think that I am concurring with your opinion on the ethical question the article raises, but from your subsequent commentary, I believe not. Waqas was justified in arguing for an economic imperative. A motive for change does not need to be unique or necessary, it simply needs to be practicable.

I considered the statement on Misogyny peripheral rather than central to the article. The consequence of the ``secondary status`` of women is not that men hate them, indifference, I imagine, is closer to the attitude of the third world male. I have re-read my post to discover where you got ``women may have deserved this state of affairs by not fighting hard enough for equal rights and by not working hard enough.`` , from. This is patently untrue. I will not repeat my earlier contentions in the interests of saving space, I suggest you re-read the dialogue with BG.

On a more general note, it is time for an unpleasant home truth, at least partially in response to BG..
In an earlier discussion with a friend, I was asked what I thought the consequences would be, if the human race suddenly evolved to the point where women and men no longer interacted sexually and women ceased working as part of a ``family unit``. I think that the answer is obvious. In an environment where you admit that men hold all the aces, like any competitor ``species`` the female gender would swiftly find themselves on the endangered list. This is straightforward self interest. In this I agree with you, there is no argument *except the economic * which a rational and amoral man would consider sufficient to allow women an equal status.

When you adopt a confrontational approach you ignore the consideration that you are dependent on the goodwill of a physically stronger, better armed and wealthier opponent to succeed. It is unfair to say that ‘female emancipation is due to an act of charity’ but that charge can be levied against many facets of life.

I thought this consequent morality of man was the unspoken question strongly underscored in BG’s article. Sadly, it appears sufficiently complex that no-one has chosen to address it.

A final few points.. the new system of economic rewards owes very little to Karl Marx. The industrial revolution which caused it predated him and was a consequence of technological progress not philosophical contemplation. The roots of the parliamentary system of government and the idea of ``liberte, egalite, fraternite`` respectively arose 400 years earlier when King John signed the Magna Carta and during the French Revolution. Ideologues like Marx or Engels were a symptom and not a cause of the change.

Again both to yourself and BG…the easiest way of determining whether women are ``under employed`` or not is to examine those nations where the largest proportion of women are active in the workforce. Lower wages notwithstanding the proportion of the household budget spent on goods and services which replace ``home-making`` is invariably low. It is a rough approximation but should serve to make the point.

A wife taking her husbands name is a personal decision based as you said on ``love`` among other things. IMHO it is extremely presumptuous of anyone to judge the intellectual merit of others expressions of love.

And in following my own advice, thank you for opening up a fascinating new aspect of the discussion. :-)

It seems to me that we are speaking at cross-purposes in certain places. I guess this happened because BG was talking about two or three aspects about the secondary status of women. The real question that I have understood, is whether the secondary status of women is justifiable? If so, on what grounds is it justified, biological/ideological. The reals question of ethics is whether this justification is right?. BG has defended the economic and skills contribution of women by saying that society has failed to recognize it in monetary terms for reasons of its own. That it has perpetuated misogyny (perhaps based on deep-seated fear of female sexuality and the ability to procreate). The stand some people are taking is that women may have deserved this state of affairs by not fighting hard enough for equal rights and by not working hard enough. (Waqas, Tahnoon am I right?)

There are a few clarifications we require. Firstly, hard work as a moral Value (the Work Ethic) came about recently. Before that, the economic and social order was based on inheritance and royal favour. The new system of economic rewards is owed to ideologists and philosophers like Karl Marx; ideas of equality or liberty became values in themselves and active in the political decisions of a society.

Prior to this, value systems incorporated the Family as the fundamental cornerstone of society. I believe that Islam has given immense importance to the family as a social institution. The person who has been kept central for all the decisions on the codes of conduct of women, (some posted by Synic (thanks) is the Child). Really it is he/she who gains most from the institution of Family. All the financial caregiving of children born to a man in and out of wedlock were given to the man. Contraception wasn`t available and this was the best way to protect the unborn future of society. This was perhaps the most practical way to deal with the problem of looking after illegitimate children. Morality was defined in these value terms.

Now that we have options, the traditional heirarchy is a prison. It is becoming more and more redundant as the patriarchial earning male demi-god is becoming a mythical figure. More and more women are discovering competence as a value and an end to strive for. I rather liked the poem posted by Anita Zaidi. I think we need to recognize the very real contributions of women and assign monetary value to them. It is unfair to call home making and child raising `non-economic activity` (which is what `50% of the nation is not working` theories do). Please, it`s non-recognition problem, and not a `don`t-do` problem. I think society needs to recognize and respect women as valuable in themselves. I believe we all agree here. No its not a conspiracy of the men against the women; it sure feels like one when all the opportunities and options automatically go to the male child, when it is always the man who chooses the bride or his family and all the important questions are dealt with by the man. Women don`t trust in their own abilities and worth. What is most awful is the Pakistani girl`s ignorance of her own lack of freedom. It`s so ingrained it`s scary. ( some got lucky though:-)

Obvious questions about Family Values abound. I agree with BG, why is it that women are the ones to bear the brunt of it? Why can` t men be responsible for family life too? Or do they like the patriarchical model? It makes them become quite stupid too for example there is this desire to see the wife take the husband`s name for no reason but to show she is HIS wife. Personally, I would find it tiresome for some man to be called by my name. I have heard it`s about love but heavans, find a better way to show it!:-)

Lastly and to clarify my previous posts and questions arising from it:
Re: Waqas
No, I hadn`t seen your second post at the time I replied. I liked your questions immensely. To answer them is to write a book or several:-)

Re: Tahnoon.
No volte face. Please see clarification. The point is that social costs can be avoided and redefined. Japan IS prosperous and feminism hadn`t hit it. There was a good article in the Newsweek of end Jan98, about the conflict and fusion of Eastern and Western Value Sets. I still re-iterate, that the desire for freedom is not automatically moral; neither does it need to be justified on ethical or economic grounds. How it is viewed depends on which side of the globe you are on as well as personal ideals of Ethics. As good `ol Shakespeare said `` To be or not be; whether `tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune; or by taking arms against a sea of misfortune end them.``

Some say nobility lies in fighting for freedom and some say nobility is to suffer and endure on the cross. Islam advocates Jihad and Christianity says turn the other cheek. I don`t know what the ultimate decision of the Pakistani/South Asian woman will be. Right now it is to bend the head and say `yes` when someone says `qabool hai?`