There is always this rhetoric about woman being the nurturer, even to the extent of saying she is creative, while man is destructive. This has basis, I assume, in the fact that women can give birth, and men cannot. Still, I like to think of man and woman as both being part of the process of creating human beings, although it is not always as simple as that.
As for nurturing, I do think we are biologically more capable of caring for children, but that doesn’t say much, either. My main issue is somewhat related to our notions of gender when it comes to children. I thought of this because of a story by Ambai (the pseudonym of CS Lakshmi) that we were reading in class today. It’s called ‘A Kitchen in the Corner of the House’ and describes the experiences of a young South Indian girl, Minakshi, who marries a man from Rajashthan and comes into his joint family household to be surprised by several regressive practices in place there. There is a very clear opposition between North and South India here. I should add that India is patriarchal even in the South, with a few, minor exceptions. In general, however, it is said that the North is more sexist, more “traditional”, more repressive than the South. This is, of course, a generalisation.
In this context, we have Minakshi, at the end of the story, in a rare moment of bonding with her Rajasthani mother-in-law, who is ill. Minakshi’s thoughts are as follows:
Had there not been those three hundred chapattis to cook every day, nor those fourteen children who once kicked in your womb
If your thoughts had not been confined to mutton pulao, masala, puri-alu, dhania powder, salt, sugar, milk, oil, ghee
If you had not had these constant cares: once every four days the wick to the stove has to be pulled up; whenever kerosene is available it has to be bought and stored; in the rainy season the rice has to be watched and the dal might be full of insects; pickles must be made in the mango season; when the fruit is ripe it will be time for sherbet, juice and jam; old clothes can be bartered for new pots and pans; once a fortnight the drainage area in the kitchen must be spread with lime; if one’s periods come it will be a worry; if they don’t come it will be a worry
If all this clutter had not filled up the drawers of your mind
Perhaps you too might have seen the apple fall; the steam gathering at the kettle’s spout; might have discovered new continents; written a poem while sitting upon Mount Kailasam. Might have painted upon the walls of caves. Might have flown. Might have made a world without wars, prisons, gallows, chemical warfare.
(Translated from the Tamil by Lakshmi Holmstrom)
The basic idea here is something I can agree with: if woman were not silenced and allowed to exist and act in only domestic spaces, she too would have been part of the dominant histories we study. This is not a new idea.
Also not a new idea: the idea that woman “[m]ight have made a world without wars, prisons, gallows, chemical warfare.” But this is what I want to question.
Why is it that we think woman is incapable of large-scale destruction? Is it merely because she has been suppressed and motherly all along? Do we like the mother-figure that much?
My question is this: if woman had been a greater (/more visible/more documented/etc) part of science, politics, philosophy — in short, of the production of knowledge — would we really have averted the creation and use of the atom bomb, various wars and holocausts, gross violations of human rights that continue today, ecological disasters…?
In some sense, this is an impossible question to ask. Our understanding of woman through the ages is a major part of our knowledge of the world. It is almost inconceivable to ask, “What if this never happened?” But I’ve asked it anyway.
I want to know why woman continues to be constructed as the more noble sex, the pacifist, the caregiver. And if that’s too easy, then I want to know whether these labels are “true”. Are we so noble as to not engage in war when we could profit from them?
My answer would be a definite ‘No’. As to the latter part, I think it’s probably the Freudian notion of man wanting to return back to the womb. And since we still live in a patriarchal society, the place of origin is supposed to be sacred etc. Blah.
Anyway, just wnted to say that I’ll get the film soon. I was really distracted at lunch. And nice blog.
They need to make a t-shirt that says “My womb is sacred.” I would get a few laughs out of that. Heck, I would wear a t-shirt like that.
And thanks!
No worries about the film; take your time. You looked a bit harassed when I saw you today.
I think people are just as capable of destruction (and creativity and nurturing) as each other. But if women were considered by the patriarchy to be capable of large-scale destruction, they would have to have been considered on a par with men – they would have been considered to have a place in frontline battle, for example – they would have been considered to have a strength equal to men. But that belief in a difference of strength that favours men is a significant part of men’s gendered identity, and a source of patriarchal power.
Also, I think this characterisation of woman also should be considered next to its opposite – or maybe it can be considered its destructive gender parallel: the loose, conniving, predatory woman. You know, the one that seduces men for her own gain, uses sex as a weapon, isn’t interested in having children or a husband, etc.
Yeah, I don’t know where I was going with that. I’m just talking shit now. =)
Stef,
At dA, Sparrowsong mentioned the same thing to me. I suppose we are considered destructive, just in a different way.
People who hold this idea clearly never met/heard of Margaret Thatcher. Or Queen Elizabeth I. Or Indira Gandhi. Or Golda Meir. Or …
It’s a theory that’s the flip side of the other one– that we’re biologically programmed to be Mothers, and sweet.
Not so, I say. People are people.
I think it has a lot to do with our role expectations. So when we flout them it’s just a bigger deal. I mean, why else is a ‘bad mother’ a whole lot worse than a ‘bad father’? Women, men, these are just categories right? Some of us don’t fit in either.And all these labels have an evolutionary purpose. So the mother is the nurturer because traditionally one of had to take care of the child and ensure that the species survived-the woman seems best suited because she bears the child anyway. Her role as a nurturer is programmed in a way because of her biological make up. But as a society, we place those role expectations on her. We enforce her biology I guess.
Coming to destructiveness, I think everybody has the potential to be destructive,again, provided the right environment exists. It’s really a play between the two that make us behave in a certain way. I think that may be the real issue, not so much a debate about men and women but people in general.
There’s a really interesting study done by Stanley Milgram on Destructive Obedience. It’s really a testament to how powerful the environment can be. Read it along with Phillip Zimbardo’s prison guard experiment. Both are incredibly fascinating and disturbing but I think they both attempt to address the issue you are bringing up here.
And, I don’t think labels are true/false- they just exist. And the burden is felt by all, not just women. We are all limited and secured by the categories we belong to. Nothing is ever so simple I suppose. (as you’ll see when you read about both these studies)
[...] email was in response to an old post of mine, ‘Can woman be destructive?’ A bunch of you asked to see what was in the email, so I asked Ambai if it was all right to post [...]
[...] email was in response to an old post of mine, ‘Can woman be destructive?’ A bunch of you asked to see what was in the email, so I asked Ambai if it was all right to post [...]
Can women be destructive? This is an idiodic question. Women ARE destructive, this has been demonstrated throughout time. You are presenting women as a collective, going to the toilet in pairs because the might forget what body function they had to perform. Women don’t like men, women don’t like women, women don’t like themselves. NAWALT (not all women are like that) you spout, stop with the “non statements” because equally true is the FACT that MOST women are like that.
41% of physical abuse towards children is instigated by Mom.
Telling an idiot woman (1 in 6 are bipolar-Scizophrenic) the word NO is not emotional abuse. And BTW, molecular bonds in the DNA of chromasome 15 do not resequence based on feelings, you were born nutz.
Your post is emotion bullshit, read the book of the same title.