Doing gender

 Doing gender

"Doing gender" is relatively new word for old concept of gendering or gender typing which Indian  authors once used. However our sociological study on gender is still entrenched in antecedent, hermetic and deceptive traps of caste and religion. "Doing Gender" is action oriented concept establishing authority and use of power. It does question the very nature of how all systems like state,religion,literature,knowledge; institutions like family,kinship, marriage; and How individual participate in "Doing Gender". It includes how institutions are planned, buildings are planned, power structures are planned in order to keep women out of authority and power. 
Best example of this is: 

Example 1: Lack of toilets in the building plan, in school and workplace, which in long term reduces women work force. 
Example 2: Using husband name as surname or using Mrs in place of her own name.  even today in Indian military , wife of officers are addressed as Mrs Edward(If Guy is Edward) etc. 
Another example of doing gender is separate sex based toilets and their planning. 

uniforms in school is another curious example . Its funny why not to allow girls to wear shirt and trousers instead of shirt and skirt. 

There is another curious historical example. Its related to jeans. 

1950s and 1960s jeans were called mens' dress but with time that notion changed due to change in design of clothing. Result was 70s saw jeans pant for women. During 50s and 60s there was a ridiculous argument that jeans is mens' wear not women; this kind of argument still goes on in India (we are engulfed in mythological thought of sari being women ware). 

Another example that goes unnoticed is weapons in military. These weapons are made  from heavier material not because there is  no light material and technology but designer never felt that women are also the customer and would be the part of fighting force. Never there has been much research to have weapons made up of lighter materials. Or never there has been research design aspects that suits women in combat.

Indian sociologist are less likely to using  term doing gender. As this concept gets to core by  a questioning power and design structure of existing sysyem, I get feeling that it attacks basic structure of hyped family and kinship values of tribal continuum society like that of modern India. Sociologist like M N Srinivas has in my view glorified the fossilised Indian society, though criticising very little. Srinivas doesn't having leaning towards this kind of revolutionary concept.

Srinivas's theory has invariably helped in what is called "Structuration" (by Antony Gibbens) i.e reimposing what we never wanted women to suffer.  Structural ion is system and agency theory (agency being we). Statments like "Boys are Boys" are best example of structuration. "Right to touch women","right to pass eve comment","right to have sex with wife" etc are some of the typical examples of structuration. Structuration systematise and legitimise the process that re-enforces ideological belief. This structuration is at both micro and macro level. Some of abyssal 

Structuration example are as follows : "Raksh bandan","Duty to protect women(as she is weaker sex)","sati system", "arrange marriage which also include marriage related laws". Latest concepts like "concept of love jihad","Nymphomania" are some of best example of structuration . Nymphomania  with respect to women is considered to be clinical problem as if she doesn't have right to enjoy sex). Structration is time and again reinforced by hollywood and bollywood films . 

Lady With Lamp

Sleeping Beauty

Structuration also include concept Idealisation of sexes. Structuration brings whole question of sexes into  either "0 or 1" question ie either explicitly men or women character. It would never bring sexual choice as a continuous distribution of variations. This idealization is best protested by Indian serials, best example being is "Kusum " character in one of the hindi serial . Another example is Ravi varmas painting using "Lady with Lamp" painting to idealise women rather than using " Sleeping Beauty" even though both painting are from same person (Ravivarma has drawn some of the most artictic nudism of time. No one knows it as an art, even a year back i didn't,  until i came across Gibbens theory).

(Given  2 paintings are of Ravi Varma)

Below are some of the argument put to me in recent time so here is the argument and counter argument of the same. 

Argument : India is still not tolerant and matured enough to accept such kind of ideas, in this conservative society. It is also necessary to know, how women of this country, expect them to be treated? or want to live? or want to dress?

Concept of "Right to Question"

Yes that argument may be to an extent a valid one . I have seen many others using this as base to oppose the idea in itself. I want idea to start; engagement is important, conversation is important. It might offend some people but this must not stop the discussion all together. Even government has used this argument. Countries like Australia, England , USA, Canada did use this bogey not to tell ethnic minorities, Hispanic people  and conservative majority to mend their rules with the idea that it would hurt the sentiment of people. Recently there were cases of honour killing in UK and Canada. A country with such a liberal view like Britian must not have registered such cases.  Even in France, Britain and Canada sikh and muslim councils dont allow women in discussion; dowry is common among south asians in UK,Canada,US. So if liberalism was agenda then this Honor killing would not have happened. Government of liberal countries must tell the conservative minority to get integrated with liberal culture. These type of discussion is not to bring radical change but to engage, question, converse about unwarranted, detrimental, irrational and institutionalised social behaviours. Women exclusion revolves around power and authority. Power to control resource. All societies in the world according to various (almost all) anthropologist is patriarchal and patrilineal. Even European society followed this, but thing changed , irrationality changed. Reference of "Madame" went, culture of calling with Mrs went Ms came. It take time, but we must never stop questioning. 


If Nehru had bowed down to Karpatri Maharaj massive rallies after independence then Hindu code bill could have been a dream. Even people like Rajendra prasad, Kripalani, shyam prasad mukerji,Ramnarayan opposed these bill which world now considered as Primary gender revolution by law. Value of irrationality towards gender is embedded in the most society whether its south asian, muslims ,sikh,  hindus , all should be removed.

We must mark that conservative voice historically till today enjoyed authority and power. Hence they will be much vocal. If modernist doesnt raise voice it will not effect those who are moving on but it will effect who are left behind under conservative forces. World will not stop whether you come along with it or not. We never asked women in India to wear bikinis and tight jeans but they did, right! that beauty of Individuality (not to get confused with individualism). Certain section invariably will move forward, even though society approve it or not. Struggle is about doing whats right, whats right to my consciousness, if it against right consciousness then it should be questioned. struggle is about this; "the right to question". To develop this, environment has to be provided. Patriarchal society's basic tenet opposes this very idea of "Right to question". We have been raised not to question; In sociology Indian sociologist emphasise on "relationships of avoidance" ie daughter in law must avoid questioning both in laws and sister in law. But son in law has right to question. This is not only prb of hinduism; such quote and quote examples are present in islam,Christianity etc. When we develop environment and idea and attitude of "Right to Question" then we could ask them your questions

 "how women of this country, expect them to be treated? or want to live? or dress?". 

According to my knowledge no organisation has conducted country survey on what women want ? what they want to wear? whether they want to love stranger or of other religion? whats their though about pre-marital sex? what about have partner? what about dates and sex? what about property?their design or army? their design of sports? their design mm mi jjy society? their views on property and success? what about living single? etc . These questions are the best way to start a survey organisation dedicated to "Women empowerment and Women wants" .

Word of Caution

 Word of Caution

Ghettoisation, exclusion, victimisation, prosecution, state sponsored prosecution, collective punishment, quarantine, final solution; this is minority prosecution sequence. 19 th century and 20 th century saw this. Many countries have becoming victim of their own fear. Finding so called “Inner Enemy” of the state was tool to cover up inefficiency of the so called “Great Society”. Their is nothing great about society, and their is no need to make one. Its a mythical conception of few, implemented by many more few, participated by many. Society is what we and what we intend to be; we dont need myths, heroes, messiah or saviour. What we need is rationality, tolerance, empathy. European societies have fallen victim of concept of “Great Society”,”Inner enemy” etc. It was century back; we are within the next victim of this megalomania. I am seeing the very sign in front of me; Ghettoisation,exclusion, individual victimisation and to some extent collective victimisation. Its said that only a trained eye can recognise the crack in the Gem. I am not well trained but trained enough to see the signs. Reader may not even understand what its about. Most people in megalomania follow what other follow. Majority during 20 th in Europe, didn't object to what few were doing in the name of The “Majority”. They could have stood up against, but they let it go; resulting of million were killed for just being minority . But 21 st century is different; people have tool to rise their voice; tools to campaign against ,what these fringe elements are doing in the name of “Majority”. I believe collective intelligence will prevail. Its upto people to say “No To Minority Victimisation”. Be a part of this consciousness, quarter century down the line you will be proud to tell your children that you were part that stood against “Prosecution and Collective victimisation”.

Huntington's Actors

Huntington's clash of civilisation is one of the scores of theory, that want to or atleast try to predict the unpredictable? As many are saying ,he seems to be reductionist. Definition of culture hasn't settled yet. there exist lot of overlap between religion or culture or any other unifying forces. Is there clear cut demarcation between cultures? Huntingon know that there is no such thing. can this demarcation emerge in due course of time?. Yes this can happen. When Marx proposed his theory, people laughed at him. Socialism, communism never existed as separate entity but humanity created it, influenced it, polarised it. Difference does exist today as existed from centuries. 18 th century Europe used some difference to create nationalism and concept of nation state, if same notion were to be used then Indian subcontinent would have had many nations. But it didnt , so then can we say that theory of nation state is faulty; no we cant. Over generalisation or over stretching can be disastrous. can we ignore it (nation theory); no we cant. super slav state balkanised into 9 state. point is we as player fail to recognised our own bias; we take theorist at their face value. Although huntington has failed to describe players involved in it. inter civilisational clashes and alignment effect and many such things. He has left people to discover possible solution or resolution etc. Actor of clash of civilisation are very important; he has given that credit to whole community which may not be fare. However i want to ask other here ; Is ISIS or IS one of the actor of Clash of Civilisation.