Debashree Mukherjee has elucidated the history of discrimination and injustice inflicted upon women by exploring the ideologies of many western philosophers as John Stuart Mill etc.
She puts an account of the instances of discrimination inflicted, via texts and popular beliefs, and states the nature of discrimination practiced in a diverse manner across cultures.
The English Dictionary meaning of the word ‘woman’ enumerates several dimensions of what might suffice under its terminology. To elucidate as per the said dictionary, the term ‘woman’ as a noun is indicative of the following five interpretations :
Firstly, a woman is an adult female human.
Secondly, she could be a wife, or sometimes a fiancée or girlfriend.
Thirdly, she is someone who is extremely fond of or devoted to a specified type of thing.
Lastly, a woman is also regarded as a female attendant or servant.
To go by this, one misses out on the main attributes of what a ‘woman’ is, or what it is to be a woman.
Traditional society, as such, in most cases, is primarily structured to prioritize male viewpoints and concerns. The position of women in such societies thus becomes marginalised and pulverized. Moreover, the presumption that women are ‘The Other’ also implies what the stature of women is predestined to be in the mainstream or ‘male-stream’ society, as some feminists call it. This further buttresses grounds for gender discrimination. Under this alignment, therefore, women are denied access to equal opportunities vis-a-vis men both in the private and public spheres of life.
Women, vulnerable in terms of resistance to differential treatment, trace its history back to several centuries when they were submissively placed on grounds of biology, which weakened their position in comparison to men. Women stand inferior to men in terms of physical strength and resistance capability. Although it never rationalizes all that women face on a daily basis, the issue of biological weakness has been unfairly capitalised upon. It is on such grounds that women have been kept confined to the closed walls of her home, under the strict vigilance of her husband or father, in both Western and Eastern societies. Although she is put on a pedestal sometimes, it is one of those pedestals she cannot descend from. And this is where discrimination under the tag ‘because you are a woman’ becomes convenient. Aristotelian philosophy deemed women to be ‘inferior men’, tainted by Eve’s transgression in the Garden of Eden, with fewer capabilities than men for moral behaviour and rational thought.
Moreover, didactic writing by men about ‘wifely behaviour’ in the Scriptures and European History indicates the desperate need for an overhauling of attitudes at a more mundane level. For instance, St. Paul in his epistles to the Corinthians and Ephesians justifies the complete subjugation of wives to their husbands. He states- “Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. [1 Corinthians 14:34-5]
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Therefore, as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.” [Ephesians 5:22-4] ”
Legal systems too have been heavily inclined towards men, lessening the scope for redressal for women. Far from providing equitable rights to women in property feuds, laws regarding matrimonial disputes and child custody further weakened women for centuries. The specific injustices faced by mothers in unhappy marriages due to their gender were highlighted in 1839 by the Caroline Norton case, which was the first major controversy to bring into light the legal disparities between husband and wife. In the early nineteenth century, the status of a married woman was still that of femme covert, which means that post-marriage the very being or legal existence of a woman is either suspended or consolidated into that of the husband. It is under the husband’s wing that the wife is practically supposed to perform everything. So when Caroline Norton’s husband, George, abducted their three sons in 1836, and tried to sue her in court by bringing a charge of ‘criminal conservation’ against Lord Melbourne, she researched the legal position for herself. With time, Caroline wrote a pamphlet, “A Plain Letter to the Lord Chancellor on the Infant Custody Bill” (1839), in which she attacked the anomalies in the law which deprived an innocent woman of her legitimate children. The result of the ordeal was the Infant Custody Act (1839) which permitted separated wives of ‘good character’ against whom adultery had not been proven, to have custody of any children under seven and access to their older children. However, it was not until 1873 that mothers were granted custody of children up to the age of sixteen, and not till 1973 that mothers were given equal legal authority over their children as fathers.
John Stuart Mill, too, criticised the exclusionary perspective adopted for women on grounds of their gender. In his treatise “The Subjection of Women” (1869), Mill reflects on the ‘legal subordination of one sex to the other’. He concentrates on the manner in which society has traditionally suppressed women and treated them no better than slaves and prostitutes. Thisdiscrimination on grounds of ‘being a woman’, according to Mill poses a threat to human development at all times . The rationale behind such marginalisation is absurd and insensible since it requires the powerful to assert itself at the expense of maiming the powerless. Very correctly then, Mill advocates an equal platform for women vis-a-vis men in domains of private and public life. Given the right opportunities, women could display tremendous potential, even better than men, socially and culturally.
From the 19th century, women themselves began to take up their own cause both in the United Kingdom and the United States, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul being some of the noteworthy women who took to the streets to fight for women’s right to vote. This right is important in several ways since the unenfranchised are hardly considered as active citizens.
In today’s age as well, women still lag behind their male counterparts. Although they have come a long way in diminishing discrimination and securing liberation, the propensity to treat women as subordinate to men holds. Moreover, the status of women varies significantly across societies and in many parts of Africa and West Asia, in particular, they are discriminated against, violated, stigmatised, and often brutalised. Even in the West, perfect sexual equality has not been established. To put it simply, the task of managing the household is still hugely regarded as a woman’s preserve. The shift from being an old-fashioned ‘housewife’ to the modern day ‘homemaker’ for women has contributed to nothing more than an addition to the popular lexicon. For instance, women today are often lauded for being able to perform the dual roles of being a worker and a homemaker simultaneously. Such praises are hardly uttered for the man. In matters of employment as well, women are sometimes deemed unfit for the world of professionals, due to her supposedly meek demeanour. Post- marriage and post-pregnancy, the demand for women in the labour market appears to fall in certain sectors. Such instances, if not a conscious undertaking, stems largely from a pre-conceived belief that women, regardless of their advances, are best kept hidden from the fierceness of the tough world. Post-marriage and pregnancy, therefore, women ought to devote more of herself serving at home rather than at work.
Because of the fact that the ideology of ‘being weak, being woman’ has never really stopped chasing them, women are prone to discrimination. Any act of transgressing the well-determined boundaries by women is sure to bring shame to the man’s world. Such shaming results from the deep-seated patriarchal belief regarding what women are and what they are therefore supposed to do. And it is this very factor that exalts and demonises them. Mythological sanctions of such notions also provide a platform for its further entrenchment. For instance, Hindu mythology extols ‘Sati’ and ‘Savitri’- the epitome of self-sacrificing women.
In India too, although women enjoyed ‘semi-equal’ status as compared to men in the early Vedic Age, overtime women lost their status and were confined largely to the ‘Andarmahal’ or the ‘private space’ of their houses. Moreover, evils such as ‘Purdah’ system and female infanticide reflect the low value that women were held in. Even years later, evils such as dowry deaths, female foeticide, acid attack and other forms of gender violence continue in full swing.
CONCLUSION
In effect, it can be stated that discrimination on grounds of ‘because you are a woman’ is commonplace every time age-old patriarchal values are at stake. It is when women step out that they are considered a ‘danger’. It is not fair, it is not ethical, but it persists. The task ahead thus not only comprises an increased empowerment of women, but also an absolute overhauling of patriarchal presumptions and viewpoints. Only then would the women derive a due share of respect and equality, both at the individual and collective levels of existence, out of being a ‘woman’.
