Perfect Women. Imperfect Men

The debate over women acting like men, I think, relies on an essentialist and reductive definition of gender. This idea of differnece supports the idea that men and women and fundamentally different. Obviously, there are the basic biological difference, however even those can be disputed by lesbian, gay, bi and transgender folk. However, what is important here is that gender IS an cultural construct. Male and female are roles that have been constructed by dominant ideologies, so subversively, that we don`t even know we are performing gender roles. So, my question is what does it mean to act like a man? Does that mean because a women is empowering herself, she is acting mannish? Only men have that right? I disagree and argue that maleness is just as much a cultural construct as femaleness.

Patriarchy, of couse, enforces this ideology of gender performativity. Religion, I would argue, is one of the most patriarchal institutions, and I dare say one of Althusser`s most effective ideological state apparatus. Religion dicates that sex is only for the purpose of procreation, thus rules against pre martial sex and birth control. Men must reach orgasm in order for conception, women do not. So, women are to derive no pleasure from sex and are merely sperm receptacles and baby factories. I dare anyone to argue that women are not disadvantaged by marriage.

I would like to address the comment :

Some die-hard feminists even avoided sex with men and were lesbians!

You seem to have ignored the fact that some women just like other women. Their sexual orientation is personal preference rather than a reaction to some jerks. In fact, lesbian sex is about pure pleasure for both subjects involved rather than the inbalance of orgasmic pleasure found in most heterosexual encounters. Yes, I am a feminist and, no, I am not a lesbian, but I am not going to deride someone else`s choice.

Before any changes can arise, we need to shed primitive notions of gender difference and realize that the categories of male and female are much more complex than we want to believe and people cannot be neatly place into these two categories.

re: men vs women

I think the superiority of one over the other is all in the mind. Is a woman inferior merely because she stays home, takes care of the household while the man goes out to make a living? Trying telling that to my mom who leaves noone in doubt as to who is in control.
The fight for equality in the West assumed absurd proportions when women tried to outdo men in everything that men did. It was kind of a movement. This meant: dressing up like men (bra burning was a popular ritual!), doing all the macho things. Some die-hard feminists even avoided sex with men and were lesbians! It is as if these women were very angry against the whole male sex.
West seems to have come back where it started. Men have reconciled to women`s urge for freedom while women have realised the stupidity of trying to ape men. Today, they seem to be at peace with each other.
It is good women in Indian subcontinent are not aping the west in this regard. I have seen conservative brahmin women in Madras, all doctors and highly regarded in their fields, not marrying but then not giving up their traditional cultural values either. Not marrying was a conscious choice they made. Such a a choice was not imposed upon them by any ``movement`` or ``anger against men``. There are also women who are perfectly happy in the role of homemakers and would not trade it for any other real or imaginary freedom one might offer them.
In Pakistan, the situation is complicated by the influence of religion in affairs of men and women. The clergy seeks to impose its will on the way women should behave (you will not find Shankaracharyas in India telling women what clothes to wear or how to conduct themselves). Naturally, educated women resent this.
Men, even if highly educated, seem to be conservative at heart. My Pakistani friend, who was with me during my residency days in New York, wanted to marry an educated woman who also did Namaaz 5 times a day! Though outwardly liberal, he was conservative at heart. Educated women (from this article) seem to say they do not really care for this conservative strain in men. They want to chart their own course. They also seem to be ``over-ambitious`` as someone put it. They seem to outdo men to prove a point. They also do not seem to care much for religion. If you do not believe me, go to the muslim section in www.shaadi.com and see how many muslim women from Pakistan want to marry outside Islam. It is an eyeopener.

Sridhar

I just got done reading this. Unfortunately I did not have the time to go through the replies so I might end up repeating somethings that have already been written here.
A lot of my friends here in the Bay Area got married over the last year or so. Some got married to ladies who were born and brought up in the US. Others went back to Pakistan and got married over there. There are still others who got married to Pakistani women who came from Pakistan on student visas and started working here after graduations. Now, I knew these men before they got married and we did a lot of things together such as playing Squash, Tennis, Golf, Cricket, Reading sessions, you name it, we did it. Since these marriages these guys have been involved in everything but the activities that they used to be involved with. Marriage does not in my opinion changes lives of women, it also changes lives of men. If women somehow feel that they are the ONLY ones making the sacrifices to keep a HOME together, I would humbly beg to differ. Its a compromise and that is all there is to it. Both have to make sacrifices to keep it together. There are men and women who do not get married for that reason. All you seem to have done is given voice to that minority in this article. We are all predisposed to the idea of marriage from the start. Our cultures and lives revolve around this one event for a lot of people. As far as dominance of men is concerned in marriage, I think it is more of an exaggeration than anything else. Mind you, I am not denying its existance. All I am saying is that it is overblown here.

AAmir 18,

POLYGAMY AND JIHAD

Well, well I have to make an exception to you as well. To support steady state polygamy, the number of women have to be more than men, while statistically at birth male and female are fairly even.

In islamic societies they have addressed this problem by a lower marriageable age for females and higher for males. Again in poor countries life expectancy for women is lower largely due to neglect and also due to death during child birth.

However this is where the jihad comes in to support polygamy. Only men can take part in jihad, which is essentially a darwenian culling of the stupid. Thus the smart men of islamic countries have suceeded in sustaining polygamy and in that process spreading their own progeny.

noorOO
ChaploN ke saye maiN hum pal ker jawaN howe haiN
Boot fauji ka hey qaumi nishaN hamara
Good girl! Keep waving or flinging the national flag......:))
[I still have a problem with romantic love being classified as a classist construction...but that`s just me. ]
I am sure it is not just you but it is a classists construct by be-haya, godless secular liberals.............

sameeroo...
[Now tell me why do you need bata ke chaplian with me, unless you sleep with your chaplian on?......*wink* ]
---haiNNNN? badma`ash! *flinging a chapli in your direction*

in terms of understanding the benefits of a `perfect couple` concept...there really is no such thing as the perfect couple...sounds like more of a myth to me. But couples, as well as the rest of us can always wish to attain perfection. woh baat alag hai. And yes, there are and always will be compromises to be made in a relationship, any relationship. Those who ignore that by saying `bas keh diya`, or don`t enter into ``romantic`` relationships because they don`t want to make such compromises...are selfish. There are some compromises that cannot or should not be made, but for the most part, true love is not without compromise.
I still have a problem with romantic love being classified as a classist construction...but that`s just me.

noor: I understand the benefits of ``perfect couple`` concept but if you look at life in general, it is all about getting through life as an experience with compromizes at every step. Do people work only at places where they are loved or where they can earn decent living? Do you have perfect job, perfect living, perfect meals, perfect neighborhood, perfect religion, perfect community, perfect culture, perfect nationality, perfect health, perfect beauty and the list goes on and on. Because of imperfctions and the efforts to make them perfect more often do not produce the optimum results, detachment model and life as dukha were proposed by venerated sears in the past. The total attachment to god in Sufi or monkish tradition is also for relieving the pressure to perform perfectly and achieving perfect results. Most of the things are beyind individuals control including predisposition by birth or limitation due to surroundings.
The romantic love is a classists construction outside hero myths of antiquity. Love originally being third in line, behind duty-responsibility-submission and compassion was elevated to a level of first man-to-man love in Greek mythology and much later made it to all levels of society without class barriers. In the history of class struggle, romantic love ideally transcended above struggle between haves and have-nots although in practice it remained intra-class with occasional exceptions. The romantic love across culture boundries was rare because multicutural societies were a rarity too.
Now tell me why do you need bata ke chaplian with me, unless you sleep with your chaplian on?......*wink*

sameeroo...
[: [........they can be just as difficult as a desi boyfriend. ]
tali dono hatouN sey bajti hey, don`t just blame one hand. Remember it was eve who messed up the pool.......*wink* ].
---i`ve just been waiting to fling my bata ke bane huay hawaii chapliyan at someone, and then you winked, aur mein ne kaha...nahin...abhi nahin. *wink*

Hamidm2

Whoops! Sorry! Apparently you are *cough!* the great hamid sahib...

I think you`ve changed the focus of your point slightly...I`ve heard the points you made before and agree with them.

Noor`s question might be a good one to think about: Is romantic love a classist construction/expectation? I certainly hope not....

re: alephnull

{Indians of both sexes typically get little or no training in all of this while growing up, for well-know reasons. It`s quite possible that Ms. Gawle and her female peers aren`t emitting the right signals or correctly reading the - in all likelihood faint - signals coming from the other side. The men may be equally at sea, but blaming one gender alone is far too facile.}

...but many of the same desi men find it far easier to chat up non-desi women than desi women...there is something else the matter too...

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

saminashah

...... first things first - repeat after me: `` there is in no hamidm but hamidm, and hamidm2 is hamidm too`` ........ stop it! - you are putting me into an identity crisis! ......... first mrs hamidm has the audacity to suggest that i loose a few pounds - with the peanut gallery of two chiming in - and then you have the temerity to doubt my very existence ........ astaghfirullah!

.......anyway, i am not suggesting that women with phds and mbas and ngo membership cards, should give up the right to find the man of their dreams - fabio with a einstein hairdo!........ i was simply trying to point out that in the bigger scheme of things, it is a nit on an elephant`s posterior ...........

............. never the less, it is a serious issue in a society where men and women are segregated from birth and don`t have the foggiest idea what the opposite sex is all about .......... school girls might have some silly notions they picked up from mills and boons, while the boys, stuck between the playboy advisor and their mothers, are equally clueless about what this man-woman thing is all about .............. and then there is this veritable insane institution of arranged marriages that is still the norm for 99.99 percent of the population .........so there you are - twenty three, with an mba from lums, no dating experience, hormones raging, an offer from a multinational and not too many rishtas .........so what do you do? .........don the hijab and become a muslima looking for a practicing muslim doctor or engineer ? ............start an affair with the nice married guy at the ngo who makes your heart flutter? ..........marry the first ``nice boy`` from a ``good family`` and employed by a multinational? ............the choices are limited, arn`t they? .......unless, of course, you get a ticket from PML-Q and become a minister or something ..............

..........and here is the kicker: it is just as bad with the pakistani muslim community here in america - where everyone was set free by clinton and monica except for the poor muslims who remain captives of their own slaving sub-culture ..........``intermingling is haram``, said the sunday school headmaster and the kids listened .............. so they grow up knowing cindy and matt, but have no idea what makes sister aisha and brother abdullah tick ....................the boys, born and raised in suburbia, with just the right amount of gell in their hair, a working knowledge of basketball and a carnal knowledge of cindy the school slut, lawyers and physicians, end up bringing back beautiful brides from ``back home``, who don`t talk back and who don`t throw themsleves on a couch, put up their feet and watch the basketball game ............... the girls, who refuse to consider a fob, a christian or a hindoo end up signing up with jimmy cater to build outhouses for the bushmen ............... or they join the msa and marry a guy with no furniture in his house because mullah omar in not have any ......... or, in desperation, they marry a fob who expects them to fix his tiffin every morning and a year later end up building outhouses for bushmen ............

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

hamidm2,

To paraphrase a legendary line delivered by an American vice-presidential candidate: I know hamidm`s posts, and you sir, are not hamidm....

My family settled in Karachi, and I`ve been there enough times to understand the jist of what youre saying. Funny thing -a relative of mine, got married and her prospective inlaws wanted suits, jewelry and jehaiz-in fact, this relative`s family could not possibly give them enough-their hand was always out for more-cash cow traditions we had never ever heard of, but were shaken down for...heres the kick-she is a doctor....would you care to talk about how the ridiculous idea of dowry is not particular to rural classes?

Secondly, I stand by my question-why shouldn`t these women have specific expectations of potential spouses? Or are you insisting that they strangle themselves with class guilt (ironic, since they are working in NGOS)? Are men who have specific expectations of wives held to a similar judgement. I think you know very well that the answer is no. So how does your post make any logical sense?

re: AE #47

Saminasha is an exceptionally generous person; otherwise, nobody else mera hadi bago. Given my history, most can only think of mera hadi toro :)

Re rsaxena #32:

I read Rupa Gawle`s piece with interest. I have the following observations:

(1) Ms. Gawle seems to know what she wants and has no problems being quite open about it in a newspaper article. Her diagnosis of Indian men being shy, socially inept etc. may be accurate in many cases. But she is actually in a position to do something about it. If she meets someone - of any nationality, Indian or otherwise - who appears promising, but seems disinclined to make the first move - WHY DOESN`T SHE ASK THEM OUT? Or is that the ultimate taboo? The worst that reasonably be expected to happen, a brush-off and a bruised ego, is a risk that men run *every single time* they make the first move. If women are as educated and claim to be as capable as men, and demand equality in their relationships, why shouldn`t they shoulder an equal part of the burden and risk of initiating a relationship? It seems very inequitable that the onus should always be on men.

In my experience, American women have far fewer qualms about taking matters into their own hands and are no worse off for it. This precise fact may greatly lower the potential barrier in initiating relationships in mainstream American culture. That it hasn`t happened yet among Indians makes things that much more diffiicult for Indian men.

(2) I strongly suspect that in cultures, such as mainstream American culture, where dating is commonplace and the norm, an explicit verbal move by either party is typically preceded by a good deal of two-way communication, a lot of which may be subconciously generated and perceived non-verbal cues - eye contact, body language and so forth. Indians of both sexes typically get little or no training in all of this while growing up, for well-know reasons. It`s quite possible that Ms. Gawle and her female peers aren`t emitting the right signals or correctly reading the - in all likelihood faint - signals coming from the other side. The men may be equally at sea, but blaming one gender alone is far too facile.

(3) Ms. Gawle is far too quick to draw inferences from the strength of a handshake. Just what is one to make of this priceless remark:

{{You can tell guys are nervous when they don`t shake your arm heartily. I hate those puny, effeminate handshakes. An assertive man will never go limp.}}

She is likely to go wrong more often than not with crude spot judgements of character along those lines, and may end up increasing the intimidation factor.