I cannot quite say that what you are about to read is an essay. The organization is sloppy at best. Nor, in my opinion, does it reach a satisfactory conclusion. However, if you haven’t already guessed, this is not a typical blog. Instead, this paper is a compilation of my thoughts upon female submission, or more specifically relationship-oriented oppression, a subject I am still just venturing into three months later. India introduced the subject and God, or possibly my twirling mind that refuses to quit, has yet to close.
Unfortunately, I feel the need to preface this article by stating a few things. The first of which is that I am aware that I am guilty of gender essentialism. I by no means believe every woman is the same, and as such it is often harmful to group us together in one body. I understand by beliefs are not the same as another woman’s even when it comes to women’s rights. However, I believe there is a common bond that links women together in a patriarchal world. The second is that I am aware that my background (i.e. a 23 year old white privileged American) directly influences my perception. My perception is not fact- if my thoughts and ideas present themselves as such I do apologize. The third thing I wish to announce is that I was in India for less than a month- the time in which is not sufficient to logically justify my conclusions. My lack of knowledge about the culture and, more specifically, the women within the culture may lead to misinterpretations or assumptions. It is not my object to portray Indian women in any manner that does not befit their personal views. My only objective is to present my thoughts and the journey the Lord took me through during this month. Also, please note that my use of sarcasm is by no means meant to belittle or condescend, but rather my horrible but hopefully humorous attempt to provide insight into my rather jumbled mind.
When I entered India, the cultural oppression hit me hard. It was a chisel breaking away at my self-built acclaim to independence. What I had believed to be common courtesy (or just human decency) became an act of disrespect against the mightier male species. I was informed that I could not introduce myself nor extend my hand in greeting towards a male. Rather, I was only allowed to respond to such a welcome, not initiate one. Eye contact, which once was a sign of interest, devotion, and respect became an act of defiance and impertinence. Expectantly, a woman’s head is bowed down in conversation, representing her submission to male authority. I would not be surprised if women were unable to describe their husband’s facial features, but I bet they could tell you with precision how many hairs grow on their big toes.
Not only are women’s actions premeditated for them, so are their clothes. Shoulders, being of the scandalous nature that they are, not only need to be covered, but need to be draped with a scarf, less the lack of layers insinuate a lack of purity. Exposed knees are often gasp worthy, more likely due to the shocking display of shape rather than skin. A woman’s pants must be bought three times too big, disfiguring any curvaceous form a woman might want to expose. The fact that a woman’s figure does not resemble that of a disgruntled circus tent filled with deplorable balloon animals would be an astonishing wonder to encounter. The punjabi’s (the Indian style dress) do come in a wide variety of colors, much like the circus, which creates a spectacle all of its own.
Despite my cynicism, my original intent in looking through a feminist perspective was to find empowerment within the oppression. At first I rationalized the actions to portray Christian conduct. For instance, I justified the clothing choices (or lack thereof) by insisting that the conservative style encouraged the men to be honorable and respectful of the women around them. In other words, the more a woman leaves to the imagination, the less likely a lustful stronghold will have an impact. Similarly, the actions enforced a male leadership role within a family, in turn underlining the woman’s role as a trusting wife. Yet, in doing so, even if I fully believed that these cultural norms were a way for a woman to find her empowerment, I was still left with a question I could not answer. If women went out of their way to encourage their men, what were the men doing for their women? Besides providing for them financially, (which might I mention left only one acceptable place for women to be: the kitchen) I could not find a satisfactory answer. I felt as though the men were a dominating force yet to be reckoned with because the women had already accepted their fate as adoring kitchen maids.
As any young feminist bent on destroying the image of female subordination would do, I turned back to some scholarly essays I had once written about male supremacy. To my surprise, I stumbled upon an article titled “Family Structure and Feminine Personality” by Nancy Chodorow, who after being dissatisfied with the discussion that a woman’s inferior status was solely based in her biological sex, offered a new perspective. Chodorow discusses the effects that “early child care” has upon male and female development (“Family” 368) that eventually lead to the power dynamics between sexes. Her conclusion states that women are defined through their relationships with others. Her main argument discusses how a woman’s “fundamental human experiences,” such as lactation, sex, pregnancy, and birth, all involve a physical and emotional connection and interaction with others. Her argument that women are defined by their relationships on an emotional, physical, and mental level brought a horrifying question to my mind: can a woman be her own separate entity?
The more my mind pondered this question the more I acknowledged that the core of women’s submission, and thus oppression, lies in our relationship oriented definition. Chodorow, in her essay, explores this oppression through the mother-daughter relationship that places development at the core of mother and daughter interactions, starting once the child is born. Below is a look at how I believe our oppression and male domination has taken place, supported through Chodorow’s argument.
1) We are unable to separate ourselves from relationship ties. (The mother, Chodorow argues is the main caregiver of the children out of “convenience” (370). The mother is the one within the household and the one who must breastfeed her children, thus placing her situationally closer to her children (370). The father, on the other hand is distant during the children’s first few years of development (372). For this reason, the children form a dependence on the mother to take care of them. The mother, Chodorow explains, “is more likely to identify with a daughter … to experience her daughter (or parts of her daughter’s life) as herself” (371). This connection is made because of the biological similarities as well as the universal situations most women experience (such as separation from her family as she joins her husband versus a man’s inheritance of the family). As such, the mother to daughter connection is made. The daughter also makes a strong connection to her mother because the mother provides an ever-present example of who the daughter will turn into. As children grow, girls become “little women,” already introduced to the roles they will fill- mother and housewife, which are the most fundamental roles women must fulfill (at least according to society) (376). Girls see by example from the mother as well as the other women girls are often surrounded by in early years of childhood. The girl’s development and, consequently, personality is then defined as relationship based.
2) Men, in turn, gained power through their agency as individual beings, which created man’s domination and women’s subordination. (As boys grow up they become even more separated from their mother. Because the father is not around until the boy reaches age three, in which children “have an irreversible conception of what their gender is” (372), a boy’s development has already been shaped to repress all forms of femininity as exemplified in the mother. In other words, the mother has actually “emphasiz[ed] his masculinity in opposition of herself” (371). The boy begins “to reject his mother and deny his attachment to her … [and] the deep personal identification with her that has developed during his early years” (373). In this way, a boy’s personality is defined through his separatism.
3) Unable or unwanting to see a solution, women willingly submit themselves, furthering their oppression and destroying their agency.
If this cycle continues, how can a woman gain agency? How can she hold power in a male dominated society? The simplified solution Chodorow offers is for children to see both men taking an active role in child rearing and women having control in a public sphere. However, I don’t believe the solution is in the reversal or leveling out of gender roles. I argued that the cause of women’s oppression is in the meaning of our definition as relationship oriented, as such a solution can be found in the redefinition of the meaning. As a Christian, I believe that redefinition needs to come through God, our creator.
Part Two to Come! Obviously, this is not finished.
Also note- this was not proofread. I don’t have time. Please don’t judge. Thanks.
