Ideology or Biology?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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;) )

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

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...`` :)

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

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?

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

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.

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