Nishtha Satyam
We cannot efficiently enforce gender parity unless we recognise that offence might be the disruptive basis of change
It is not often that one's intellectual muscle is invigorated by a relatively benign tweet floating on the social media but a lousy scroll through my phone had my eyes fixed on these words, “Is she being rude, or have you been socially conditioned into believing that women should be warm, positive and friendly at all times and are uncomfortable when they don't adhere to that behaviour?”.
Most often, the discourse on the Right to Offend hinges on our Right to the Freedom of Expression and Religion. It is this context that makes me wonder whether the same rules apply to one of the most pressing issues of our time – gender equality. With the social media awash with trending hashtags such as #smashpatriarchy, much of the world remains offended by the power these words carry, and if so, why?
Gender equality, which has at itscentre a re-distribution of power, could be a rather offensive process. Talking about power, I am reminded of an extremely well-articulated statement by UN Secretary-General António Guterres who says,” from the ridiculing of women as hysterical or hormonal, to the routine judgment of women based on their looks; from the myths and taboos that surround women's natural bodily functions, to mansplaining and victim-blaming – misogyny is everywhere”. What strikes me the most from his statement is the implicitness of the issue of power and more specifically male-dominated power structures upon which nearly all our mechanisms pivot including national economies, political systems, and the private sector.
Change is bound to ruffle feathers. While that is inevitable, it is mostly never expected. In my myriad conversations with change-makers, even the most ardent supporters of change are particularly conscious of upsetting and offending the current patriarchal setup. The question that arises is – can we achieve gender equality without offense?
While we are on the topic of change, it is important to appreciate our progressive constitutional provisions that allow for dynamic growth into a gender-just society. While we are proudly placed as one of the most affirmatively legislated countries in the world on gender equality, the actual change on the ground is concerned with the intersection of socio-cultural norms, conditioned behaviors, questioning of male privilege, and the relative adherence to all three. All told, a rather spontaneously offensive combination.
It usually doesnot take much time for many to take offense to women who ask and demand. Anecdotes from women who have demanded their fair share in the property would tell you that. Despite the Supreme Court of India ruling that daughters of Hindu families are entitled to a share of their fathers' properties, thereby conferring property rights on them, socio-cultural norms insist otherwise, at least in the case of married daughters. Infact, several historians are led to believe that “witch-hunting”, a concept inexplicably entrenched in misogyny, is inherently linked to the land.
A seminal report by Reuters conclusively proves how women in rural parts of India are beaten, knifed, sexually assaulted, stripped naked and paraded, thrown into wells, set alight, and branded as witches, all for the sake of land or property coveted by a relative. We as a society have been conditioned to consider it impolite for women to ask, because the very notion of female independence, bereft of patriarchy micromanaging our lives, is a reason for alarm.
Another example of women asking and being denied equal treatment is in terms of employment opportunities. In 1981, Air India hostesses were required to either retire at 35, or on marriage (if they married within four years of joining the service) or on their first pregnancy. The Air India vs Nergesh Meerza case led to a landmark judgment where the Supreme Court annulled the offending rule and increased the retirement age of air hostesses to 45, with a further obligatory period of 10 years.
Reading this judgment made me believe that everything in the spectrum of change is offensive. Over-turning these gender stereotypes goes a long way in changing the existing discourse on gender justice and the metric of offense per milestone achieved. In all these cases, the very act of demanding equality, be it financial, property or employment-related is a challenge to the privilege men and patriarchy enjoy. However, this process of offence is something we must go through in order to achieve gender equality.
We must realise that the existing system we are wanting to be re-align has at its core the deeply embedded notion of patriarchy. Patriarchy is not to be mistaken as an island notion floating in oblivion. Rather, it is the oldest surviving institution in the world and any rattling of this institution is bound to create friction. Friction, which when gains momentum, will, in turn, trigger a re-distribution of power in our society. It will be a tectonic shift of power and it will ruffle feathers of our social structures, unkindly, impolitely, and vociferously.
While operating an enabling ecosystem that ensures better outcomes for women and girls under the garb of benign patriarchy, the parent establishment of all orthodox thinking, i.e., patriarchy, wants change at the cost of no change that is disruptive. This begs the question: Is change fundamentally offensive? In the deeper context of patriarchy and challenging stereotypes is where we must lay emphasis on the need for an allied force. This creates an opportunity for men to play the role of the allied force, to stand up and defend offence-based change and advocate that particular branch of change that doesnot suit them. This is where men must adopt the ever-important role as part of the solution and augment the disruptive process that is gender equality. Women's economic independence, growth, and empowerment sans offence of any kind is redundant and it is time we acknowledge it.
For far too long women have felt that we somehow owe it to the world to be nice and polite. Someone has to step out and say enough is enough. We cannot efficiently enforce and execute our system-wide strategy on gender parity unless we recognise the simple fact that offence might be the disruptive basis of change. And it is this change, armed with an offence, refusing to succumb to patriarchy, that is here to stay.
(The writer is Deputy Country Representative, UN Women, India, Bhutan, Maldives and Sri Lanka. The views expressed are personal.)
