Today's Reuters has a series of articles on the position and location of women in India. One of the articles is a "snapshot of women's status in India:"
INFANTICIDE:
- A traditional cultural preference for sons has fed into female infanticide, neglect of girl children, high maternal mortality and sex-selective abortions, experts say.
- Aid Agency Oxfam says the trend is regional. In 2003 it said South Asia was missing some 50 million women.
- It is normal for more male babies to be born than females, but India's sex ratio is one of the world's lowest with an average of 933 females recorded for every 1,000 males in the 2001 census, up from the 1991 census figure of 927.
LITERACY:
- India's adult female literacy rate is 47.8 percent, compared to the adult male rate of 73.4 percent in 2004.
INCOME GAP:
- Women's average annual earned income was US$1,471 in 2002, almost three times less than the average for men of US$4,723.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE:
- Dowry-related violence, where in-laws beat and abuse new wives for not bestowing enough gifts or money at the time of marriage, is the most commonly reported domestic abuse. Some 6,787 cases of dowry-related deaths were recorded in 2005.
RAPE AND FORCED SEX:
- More than two-thirds of married women in India between the ages of 15 and 49 are victims of beating, rape or forced sex, according to a 2005 report by the United Nations Population Fund (UNPF).
- Sexual harassment, known as "Eve Teasing", is also reportedly on the rise as more women enter the workforce.
PROGRESS MADE:
- Since independence six decades ago, India has enacted about 10 landmark laws to support and protect women.
- More women now serve in the armed forces, in senior corporate, media and government positions, and there are more girls in schools.
- One-third of seats in village councils are now reserved for women. However, a bill to give women one-third representation in parliament has been stalled for a decade.
HIGH ACHIEVERS:
- Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister from 1966-77, was the first woman ever elected to lead a democracy.
- Other high-achievers include Booker Prize winning writers Arundhati Roy and Kiran Desai, and Kalpana Morparia, Joint Managing Director of ICICI, India's largest private bank [Link].
A pretty gruesome picture is painted, right?
But then there is another piece in that group of articles:
From female deities worshipped at Hindu temples to revered historic figures such as Indira Gandhi and Mother Theresa, women have made their mark on India. But not enough to stop widespread abuse and chauvinism.
More than 60 percent of married women, aged between 15 and 49, are victims of beating, rape or forced sex by their husbands, according to a study by the United Nations Population Fund.
Government officials say a new domestic violence law passed in October empowers these victims by giving them rights over their abusers' assets and legal protection.
The landmark legislation -- which also applies to women in live-in relationships, mothers, sisters and daughters -- is one of many laws introduced in this patriarchal society to bridge the gender divide since India's independence almost six decades ago.
According to police records, a women is murdered every 77 minutes as a result of dowry-related issues.
Sati -- the custom of burning widows alive along with the bodies of their deceased husbands -- was outlawed in 1987 but rare cases still occur in parts of rural India.
And the rising number of abortions of female foetuses by parents preferring male babies has led to legislation barring the use of ultrasounds to determine gender of unborn foetuses.
But such ultrasounds continue illicitly and a joint study carried out by researchers in India and Canada last year estimated that 500,000 unborn girls are aborted in India every year.
At the same time, the role of women has changed since India's economic reforms began in the 1990s and increasing globalisation has opened up the traditional and largely conservative South Asian nation to the rest of the world.
But in a country where the majority Hindus worship female deities like Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth, or Saraswati, the goddess of learning and where the female form is revered as the Universal Mother -- women continue to be abused and disrespected.
But activists say India still has a long way to go to safeguard women's rights and security in a country where a woman is murdered, raped or abused every three minutes on average [Link].
Ok, here's my issue: it's one thing to talk about the status of women in India, and identify the social, economic and political dynamics (such as the socio-economic sexual divison of labor and so on) as well as religious aspects that go into configuring a female's position (such as the Hindutva's idea of "womanhood," which is a perfect example of politics, religion, economics, nationalism, gender, sex, and moral policing all rolled into one) . But Lakshmi, Saraswati, the "Universal Mother" and Indira Gandhi in a "traditional and largely conservative" South Asian nation? What's this stereotypical, almost orientalist depiction juxtaposed with ugly realities? Clearly, there are women in India who are not Hindu but suffer the same brutalities and degradation; and there are countries where the majority is not Hindu, but women are dehumanized, abused, and violated.
But then again, whenever there is a non Western country, they are almost always conceptualized as "conservative" and "traditional"; patriarchal and oppressive to women; a people steeped in religion (as if all 700 million plus self identified Hindus actually revere female deities and transpose that into real life) and backwards mentality, even though violence against women exists in so-called "liberal" and "non traditional" societies.
- Desi Italiana's blog
- Login or register to post comments
-
"You know, I have to be honest: The way “Mother Goddess” comes off sounding really… orientalist. I know the female spirit and various female deities (such as Laxmi mata) are invoked endlessly. But that certainly doesn’t mean that it means reverence to mortal females."
Agreed. That was the point. My professor had...rather sadly...overused the Hindu reverence of The Mother Goddess so many times in lecture I ended up using it in a sardonic voice in my (otherwise professional) thesis paper. It is very orientalist, so to speak, and overused...but definitely not to anyone's advantage....
"It’s more socio-economic relations, division of labor, and etc that may get to the root of the problem. Of course, religion can be used to justify a certain order, but I don’t think the problem is a specific religion per say."
Agreed again. But what I was getting at is that there's a marketability when you only pick one facet, not just religion, and exploit that in such a manner that everyone forgets that the problem isn't a specific religion, labor division, economy, or even education. This is a combined effort that will require a great deal of time, investment, and a contagious case of abstract awareness.
Whoopsie, typo... per se
You know, I have to be honest: The way "Mother Goddess" comes off sounding really... orientalist. I know the female spirit and various female deities (such as Laxmi mata) are invoked endlessly. But that certainly doesn't mean that it means reverence to mortal females.
Anyway, the way this story above is framed is rather faulty. I mean, supposedly the Virgin Mary symbolizes chastity and the mother figure; but how much bearing does this have on the actual treatment of women? It's more socio-economic relations, division of labor, and etc that may get to the root of the problem. Of course, religion can be used to justify a certain order, but I don't think the problem is a specific religion per say.
I absolutely agree that there are women who teach and perpetuate violence; for example, mothers telling their daughters to put up with abuse and to "just be patient" (I've actually heard this crap in my own family, and I know others who have been told the same thing).
In general, I have issues with this "men vs. women" set up when it comes to violence, women's rights, and etc, because it is neither accurate nor true all the time.
But it's not only mothers, sister in laws, and so on who perpetuate this violent cycle. Let's not forget that they too are products of patriarchal conditioning.
I once wrote a final paper discussing the dichotomy and irony between revered Mother Goddesses and the present, tragic social conditions. Needless to say, it got me into a lot of trouble with "our traditional" men (ie. misogynists--nothing exclusively male about that, though, it's unfair of these reports to make such generalizations), but I didn't even touch these "religious" reasons as the cause of of poor treatment for women--my reasoning was trying to tie in universal socio-anthropological themes in other major cultures that are stereotyped in this manner. You're right, DesiItaliana, it's all over the world...but without the confines of stringent, misunderstood religious parameters, who can you blame? A single reason, please, otherwise sensationalism would never sell *eyeroll*.
In general, I have issues with this “men vs. women” set up when it comes to violence, women’s rights, and etc, because it is neither accurate nor true all the time.
Right, but it is helpful in formation and organizing around issues like domestic violence. Most domestic violence agencies do indeed help men too - but the numbers end up being 250 cases of women serviced to 1 man. And of course men are differently affected by domestic violence than women. But this is a 'heterosexist' alliance as well, and lesbians can be just as abusive to each other. From my experience with DV groups though - very few of them have had cases of lesbian DV (if any).
I guess it just ends up being - you need a place to launch and you chose who you can help based on the circumstances and numbers.
While talking about violence and oppression of Indian women, we tend to forget about the role women play in it. Its the Mother-in-laws and Sister-in-laws who encourage violence or trigger the cause of dowry deaths in lot of cases.
Its a utter shame the way we treat our women, but again empowerment of women was done by a Raja Ram mohan Roy some time back and more recently by a Rajiv Gandhi, not by a Indira Gandhi or a Jaya Lalitha. I think Rajiv Gandhi's 33% reservation policy did help in empowerment of women. For example my cousins benefited from 33% reservation in Medical and Engineering colleges, which wouldn't have been possible 10-15 year back.
I have personally have seen some progress made by women in the last decade, but we will see more progress in the next decade or so.
Happy International Women's Day!
Yeah, I was kinda confused what you meant at first by orientalist, but then I guess I agreed with whatever I decided orientalist meant based on how you used it and how I use it on a day to day basis. Now to clear up my otherwise vague definition job -_-
I just dislike the term "Mother Goddess". I agree that it gets overused when it comes to discussing how we're one of the few religions that gives a female entity divine status, it's referenced far too much in the manner you just indicated, everyone always makes it sound so "adorably pagan", and it's lost all meaning to me. I've started to use it in a very sarcastically in day to day conversation, especially when my more devout Christian friends who start the "But your religion....right?" spiel and ignore the extra facets. The word is orientalist and any use of the word in reference to how people should *actually* feel/treat individuals in the religion according to scripture (one of the most debated and spread out aspects of the religion, so they're taking on a Herculean load by suggesting even that) is orientalist as well.
Vivek's right for the most part, my paper was trying to define what Mother Goddess meant through the various religious literature where She/They are mentioned and then compare that to the treatment of women as mother, wives, brides, daughters, but most importantly, victims of cultural subjugation brought on through various anthropological bio-socio-evolutionary comparisons. It does point out that the religion reveres women, but it does everything it can to try and prove that globally, societies do not adhere to their ideals but for the most part have treated women as second class citiziens and any minorities in their midst as non-human for centuries until the recent (and by this, I mean 20th century) movements for civil rights from giving women more power in the government, considering the rights of the transgendered (still in progress), and the illegalization of caste based racism (even though that still continues, it's the premise that many individuals are now aware and now working to end injustice). I even ended up dedicating a paragraph to the influence of Gandhi on MLK, just cause it was on such an ethnographic roll.
In short, sure we have a Mother Goddess and a lot of other religions don't, but it sucks for women everywhere, doesn't it? And so, as the existing dominant mammalian group, we, globally, are human before we're any denomination, race, or religion.
I swear if I could find this paper, I'd post it now and sort of end this giant multi-post synopsis.
Nail on the head.
On a related note, today is International Women's Day.
A few years ago when I was on a study abroad program in Madurai, we had the Minister of Parliament from Madurai District over for lunch at the program house. He's from the Communist Party of India (Marxist).
It was March 8, and he talked about how great Women's Day is, how great women are, etc. Then he asked one of the women associated with the program what she thought. Her response:
We'll have made real progress when we don't need Women's Day any more.
That shut him up right quick.
Crappy wifi connection, I wrote a post here and then it ate it up.
Anyway:
I'm confused too: First, Antahkarana says,
Then,
I thought Antahkarana was agreeing with me, as in "Yeah, it's a bit orientalist to attribute all of India's problems to religion, a religion which reveres The Mother and The Goddess... Hinduism is not like 'patriarchal' Abrahamic religions, it is more 'matriarchal' and appreciates the female..."
Ok, I'm off to bed. Hope this comments goes up...
Very true.
Like no one attributes violence against women in the US, which is overwhelming "Christian" to how women in Christianity are depicted and how Christianity plays a role. So why the assumption that treatment of women in India, with an overwhelmingly "Hindu" population, is directly influenced by Hinduism, or that Hinduism should be accorded such attention when we discuss violence of women? The assumption is orientalist- that "Eastern" societies are more directly influenced by a specific religion, whereas the "West" is not. What is the degree of religiosity of those 700 million+ Hindus, to the point that it shapes their daily interactions?
And we all know that Hinduism has various sects, and not all of them are devotees of female deities.
And the treatment of women does not differ too, too drastically from one religious "community" to another
I've heard many say, "Oh, in Islam, women are equal" and "In Hinduism, the Mother Figure is sacred." Fine, but it's the not specific religion per se, it's how religion can be used to forward an agenda on gender roles and such. And often times, those gender role agendas are tied into societal, political, and economic factors. This is, of course, my opinion.
Ok, now I'm really off to bed.
DI, I'm confused. I thought Antahkarana's original point in describing her paper was that it made the distinction between reverence for The Goddess and therefore the conceptual reverence for Women as Mother, and the irony of the lack of respect for women on an every day basis.
I'm confused about how Orientalism plays a part...