Read previous round here. Table of Contents here.
Kumar Alok, The following is the universal definition of feminism:
Kumar Alok, The following is the universal definition of feminism:
fem·i·nism \'fe-mə-"ni-zəm\ n
(1895)
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests
This implies that:
1. Feminism IS an epistemology - one of the many ways of
knowing the world - and one that sees women as equals to men. An alternative
epistemology to feminism would view women as not being equal to men.
2. The term Feminism was coined in 1895. The epistemology of
Feminism is as old as the existence of dehumanization and exploitation of
women, which is probably as old as humanity itself. See 'Theory of the Leisure
Class', Thorstein Veblen
3. All of the visionaries you named were not only feminists,
but the pioneers of feminism in India.
4. Feminism is not an ideology that sees dehumanization of
women in even innocuous situations - it exposes and fights against
dehumanization of women extant in cultures across the globe. To imply the
former is to call it a farce.
5. As you rightly pointed out, the situation of women is not
uniform across the globe. Naturally feminist activism is also not uniform
across the globe - we would be idiots otherwise.
In demonstrating the dehumanization of women I have used the
'politest' (but nevertheless fitting and true) examples. This has probably
misled you. Allow me to clarify:
1. We live in a country that dehumanizes women to the extent
of ARTIFICALLY SELECTING AGAINST WOMEN - I'm referring here to female
infanticide and the systematic deprivation of girl children.
2. We live in a country where Rape is used as a tool of
domination over people of the lower castes.
3. We live in a country where wives and daughters are still
considered property - I'm referring to Dowry, Domestic Violence and Marital
Rape.
4. When we give an organization the status of a legal
person, we acknowledge that any organization is a collection of natural persons
with a common purpose who are therefore treated as a single natural person for legal
purposes.
5. Simple and basic logic: 'All natural persons are legal
persons' implies that 'if a person is not a legal person, then she is not a
natural person' (It's called Logical Transposition).
2 comments:
I agree that every organization is a collection of natural persons with a common purpose and hence they are treated as a single natural person for legal purpose .But my point is practical related to an organization only.The point is when all work hard for an organization growth then why the lady employee is given preference over male employee when we believe in equality.Why mostly a men have to work overtime to get promotion .While very few women have to do so .Why all the document work that have to done at various other offices like tax work etc have to be done by men by running from pillar to post .And in conntrast of this why same employee is neglected and women employee preferred when there is meeting with directors etc .Why the anger of a boss burst on a male employee while his tone changes while talking to a female employee.Why a male employee have to come on off day for work and female employee is exempted .So there are many more case that prove that even though we believe in political ,social and economic equality of women but in an organization it is far from reality .Women have a upper hand in an organization and it is men who looks for equal treatment from all corners.Harsh but true.
Well observed Gaurav. You will notice that this situation is similar to the kind of approach that govt. & public sector organizations have for the SC/ST's and minorities. And the reason for that is same. In both the case of women and socially backward sections, the govt. and private sector have decided to cure the previously rampant discrimination by using reverse discrimination. And in both cases, this policy is proving counterproductive.
The truth is that even today, women are hired not because we are qualified, but simply because we're women i.e. to fulfill quotas. We are given visibility and promoted quickly because it shows a good picture of the organization.
This is actually proved by the fact that women are (in some places) not required to do either overtime or inter-office liaison. Employers continue to treat women as if we are liabilities. They think us incapable of doing these things, or in some cases are simply afraid to ask us to stay back late or go outside in case we get sexually harassed or start complaining about work-life balance. Because face it, a man working overtime is not expected to go home and cook and clean. And there are some women who do take advantage of this fact.
Male employees are considered generic and females are considered special. This is a systemic problem and doesn't give us any real upper hand in the equation. It merely makes our problems worse by reducing our perceived value in the organisation and by turning well-meaning people against us.
Post a Comment