Book Review: The Feminine Mystique

 I am surprised I didn’t read this book earlier, but I am also glad I finally read it. The second wave of feminism is one that I actively rejected, because of the negative press it got. For many like me, “I am not a feminist, I believe in equal rights” was a badge we wore with pride. After a lot of meandering and mistakes, I finally understood feminism, and why everyone should be a feminist. So now is perhaps a good time to read the book.

Sometimes when I look pictures from the 1940s, or read about some of the women of that generation, I find it hard to reconcile with the image of the pretty suburban housewife with her perfect waves (or buffoon) standing behind her wicket fence. This book demystifies it. And you realise just how insidious the ‘feminine mystique’ could really be. There is so direct parallel in India- we didn’t have a generation of women who got out of home, and then chose to move back in- but it should serve as a cautionary tale. Every woman should have something to do that occupies her brain completely- whether work or volunteering or the arts is not the point, it should be a full time engagement.

I have two minor gripes, neither of which really takes away from the book, because they are a function of today’s times. Firstly, the chapters are overlong and often repetitive. Yes, she has done an insane amount of work, but better editing would have made it far more accessible. Secondly, and more importantly, the book is only about the privileged white woman, but though it never pretends otherwise, it is not directly spelt out. Many women never have the choice to not work more than one minimum wage job while also keeping home as best as she can.

Apart from these two minor issues, where I disagreed quite virulently with her was on how she “blamed” homosexuality on over protective mothers. Yes, the book was written many decades ago when we didn’t know as much as we now do about homosexuality, but read from todays’ context, it was very jarring.

If you haven’t read the book yet, do. It is an important work in the feminist movement.

Why We Should Worry About The Growing Radicalization Of Young Men

By now, the saga of Andrew Tate and Greta Thunberg is well-known and literally reads like a page-turning thriller. The former Kickboxing World Champion, Andrew Tate, launched an unprovoked attack on environmental activist, Greta Thunberg on Twitter, who 24 hours later responded with - “yes, please do enlighten me. email me at smalldickenergy@getalife.com”.

The ‘manosphere’ influencer predictably had a meltdown on Twitter. He immediately responded with a “How dare you” and amplified posts where his loyal followers called her names and indicated that what she craved was to be f***ed by Tate. Without seeming to know what "small dick energy meant", he came up with an extremely puerile-

“Thank you for confirming via your email address that you have a small penis. The world was curious. And I do agree you should get a life”, while also releasing a video of himself smoking a cigar and describing Thunberg as “a slave to the Matrix” who was trying to con governments into taxing people to “tell the sun to be less hot”.

During the video, he ordered a pizza, which he specified should come in a non-recyclable box. What he didn’t realise was that the pizza box helped the international police pinpoint his location, and they launched a raid on his villa and arrested him on charges of aiding human trafficking.

There was a sense of poetic justice in the entire episode, and it is good that the man is behind bars. But more than anything else, the unprovoked taunting and the subsequent meltdowns took place so publicly that it is now impossible for people to ignore the corrosive influence that people like Andrew Tate have on impressionable adolescents and young men.

Who is Andrew Tate?
Andrew Tate, for those who do not know him, is the best-known voice in the ‘manosphere’, a virtual space where men allegedly talk about ‘men’s issues’, but which, in reality, is an ‘anti-woman’ space that promotes male superiority and strives to ‘keep women in their place’. Adolescents and young people have always sought out role models- while some find them within the immediate family, many have had to look beyond to find someone who they feel understands their angst, who sees them without judgement and who they can model themselves on. This is even more important today because the world is changing at an unprecedented pace. The growing demand for gender equity challenges traditional gender roles, leaving young men more confused about their place in the world.

Adolescents and young men need a supportive ecosystem where they can discuss issues like health and fitness, dating, relationships, finance, divorce, and father’s rights, and where they can find guidance and support. Unfortunately, far from filling that gap, the ‘manosphere’ makes it much worse by actively promoting an anti-woman and anti-feminist ideology, where establishing the inherent superiority of men seems more important than helping young men negotiate a world which is striving towards gender equity.

Tate, for instance, describes himself as “absolutely a sexist” and “absolutely a misogynist” and has gone on record saying that women “belong in the home” and that they are “given to the man and belong to the man.” He promotes a lifestyle that reinforces the traditional form of masculinity which describes the male as protector, provider and patriarch, and restricts the role of a woman to property, which exists only to serve the man. By espousing male superiority and endorsing relationships where women are subjugated, Tate and others like him are effectively radicalizing young men and making them unsuitable for living in a world moving towards gender parity.

What explains the growth of the ‘manosphere’?

More and more women are demanding greater gender parity at home and in the workplace. Women are challenging traditional gender roles and are demanding that in a relationship, the emotional load of caregiving, housework and child-rearing be shared by both partners. Ideally, men should realise that, in the long run, a gender-just world would be beneficial to all. However, many men are starting to feel that they are in danger of losing their social status and privilege. The demand for equality challenges privilege, and instead of embracing a more equitable world, many young men are starting to believe that feminism is a part of a global assault on masculinity.

‘Manosphere’ influencers like Andrew Tate work on the insecurities of these men and convince them that feminism will ensure they are emasculated, disposable, disrespected, discarded or even forgotten. They then radicalise the men with their clarion call towards reclaiming their “lost” masculinity and reasserting masculine sexual, physical and emotional authority over women. Young men are being taught that it is weak to express emotions, that they are failures unless they have a subservient girlfriend, and that ‘real men’ have the right to exercise coercive control and inflict sexual and physical abuse on women. These radicalised young men feel threatened when women (and men) speak of gender equity and perceive women’s empowerment as an erosion of their masculine superiority.

Till recently, ‘manosphere’ was viewed as a fringe ideology, and of the few people who were aware of him, most perceived Andrew Tate as an essentially harmless figure who cracks misogynistic jokes in a bid to remain relevant. His unprovoked attack on Greta Thunberg which had his trademark symbols of immature taunting, insecure boasting and gross male entitlement, has exposed the almost cult-like popularity which he and others like him enjoy among a section of youth. It is now clear that the manosphere ideology of male dominance and female subservience cannot be ignored since it is responsible for radicalizing a large section of youth.

How can ‘manosphere’ be countered?

The ‘manosphere’ ideology has its genesis in the growing insecurity of young men at finding their traditional privileges challenged. It can therefore be countered only by a two-pronged approach.

Social media platforms should actively prevent the dissemination of problematic views expressed by Tate and other ‘manosphere’ influencers like him. While one can argue that censoring certain kinds of content goes against the premise of free speech, it must be realised that freedom of expression cannot extend to hate speech, and extreme misogyny is a form of hate speech. Routine offenders like Tate should be de-platformed, and the reach of their old videos should be restricted.

In the long term, however, the only counter is through changing attitudes and behaviour. It is not sufficient that girls and women are empowered, it is equally important to enable boys and men to find their place in a society moving towards greater gender equity. In a gender, just world, men and women are natural allies of each other. Young men should be empowered to understand that while it may appear that their privileges are being taken away, equity will enable people of all genders to be themselves instead of being forced to conform to gender-demarcated roles.

In order to prevent the radicalization of adolescents and young men, it is important to acknowledge that they too are confused by evolving gender roles. It is not just women; even men need guidance and support to find their place in the world. Only by first acknowledging that manosphere influencers are a product of changing societal norms can we address the larger issue and move towards a more equitable world. 

How men are excused since they were drunk, but women are judged for it

 [First published as How Entitled Men Who Won’t Drink Responsibly Are Abusing Women Everywhere!]

Two incidents hogged the headlines in the first week of January- the horrific killing in Delhi where a young woman was dragged by a car driven by a group of men on New Year’s Eve, and the incident where a male passenger urinated on an older lady seated in the business class of an Air India flight. There were some similarities between the two incidents. In both cases the victim was a woman, and the perpetrators were men under the influence of alcohol. In both cases, the almost bizarre nature of the crime attracted immediate and widespread condemnation. But it was the third commonality that spoke most loudly about the gender divide- in both cases, alcohol was used to either exonerate the perpetrator or blame the victim!

In the case of the passenger urinating on his co-passenger and flashing his genitals till he was escorted away, it was clear he did it under the influence of alcohol. While it is unclear whether he had already imbibed alcohol before boarding the flight or not, by all accounts, at the time of the incident he had reached a stage where he had no control over what he was doing. Perhaps, like Indian men are almost trained to do, he stood at the first spot he could find and took aim, without even being aware that he was urinating on a person. Though he may never have intended to do what he did, that does not in any way condone his behaviour. Which is why it was jarring to hear a handful of voices trying to exonerate him. “He was not in his senses”, is not an excuse for appalling behaviour of this nature. If a person cannot hold their drink, they should not drink (or drink only in moderation), failing which they should take full responsibility for their action.

In case of the lady who was dragged by a car for several kilometres, it was initially argued that the men in the car were under the influence of alcohol and were not even aware that she was being dragged around. However, the nature of crime was so ghastly, that after that initial attempt, nobody tried to absolve the men of their guilt. However, once it came out during the investigation that the victim had consumed alcohol before the incident, and may have been slightly drunk at the time of the accident, people tried to use that to cast aspersions on her character. Whether or not she was in a state of inebriation doesn’t in anyway make a difference to the crime, but people did indulge in victim shaming in a vain attempt to distract from the gruesomeness of the crime.

While the two incidents seem unrelated, together, they are symptomatic of the patriarchal mindset of Indian society. 

“Boys will be boys” is one of the most common tropes used to minimise the guilt of individuals accused of the entire range of crimes ranging from what is euphemistically called “eve teasing” to physical and sexual violence at home. It is based on the premise that the “poor boy” is such an innocent person that he doesn’t even realise that what he is doing it wrong. The fact that it implies that the man in question is drunk on his on entitlement and that he doesn’t have even basic emotional control is something that is conveniently glossed over. So, obviously the “poor” man who urinated over a fellow passenger did it under the influence of alcohol; and after sobering up was absolutely contrite. Taking this argument forward, an attempt is being made to paint the passenger who was victimised in poor light, because she refused to accept the apology of the “contrite” man, thereby causing his deep anguish.

“She was drunk”, “why was she [insert whatever action the victim was preforming]”, “she should know better” are charges levelled at almost every victim who reports sexual violence of any kind. This victim blaming is the flip side of the “boys will be boys” trope. A woman is always responsible for provoking the violence inflicted on her- she is expected to know how men will behave, and take precautions to keep them pacified. Whether it was deliberate or an accident, the lady’s life would almost certainly have been saved if the men in the car had been paying heed to what was going on around them. Yet, it was found necessary to investigate how much alcohol she had consumed, and to use that to imply that she in some way brought it upon herself.

Both the crimes should be investigated and tried on the basis of pertinent information, and the perpetrators should be given a suitable sentence. More important, we should systematically and unequivocally call out all cases of victim blaming and of defending the perpetrator, so such attempts are not made in future.

Men should be expected to take accountability for the consequences of their action, and women should not have to constantly make allowances for the lack of control attributed to men.

The Gradual Invisibilization of Afghan Women

 [Since the Taliban took over in August 2021, there has been a gradual erosion in the personal, professional and political freedom of women. This should concern us all. First published in Women’s Web as Why We Should Also Worry As The Worst Fears Of Afghan Women Comes True!]

“You all are informed to implement the mentioned order of suspending education of females till further notice,” wrote the Minister of Higher Education to all Afghan Universities on December 20, 2022, thereby putting in place an indefinite ban on university education for women. The next day, thousands of female students who arrived at their university campuses were turned away by Taliban guards, thereby shattering their dreams of getting a university education.

This was just the latest in a list of steps taken by the Taliban to crack down on the freedom of women since they took over the country in August 2021. One of the first pronouncements they made after taking over was to shut down school for girls. Secondary schools were supposed to reopen in March 2022, but girls were barred from returning to school, thereby forcing women to drop out after primary school.

Women who were already in University had, however, been spared so far. They were permitted to access higher education provided classrooms were segregated and proper hijab was observed. With the new pronouncement, it has now become impossible for women in Afghanistan to study beyond primary school. With this, the worst fears of the women has come true, and their hopes and dreams have been shattered.. As a student who was hoping to graduate with professional degree said, “They have destroyed the only bridge that could connect me with my future.”

The Taliban’s minister of higher education has claimed that they have enacted the indefinite ban because “Islamic values” around dress rules and interactions between genders were not being followed. They claimed that women students were traveling to the University without being accompanied by a male guardian, which was against their rules. Also, they claimed that the classes were not properly segregated and hijab was not properly observed. The students claimed that neither of the allegations was true. While it is hard to ascertain whether or not the Taliban was right in the allegations made, the rest of the pronouncement showed that the Taliban considers that it is not necessary for women to study.

The ministry of higher education in the same video statement also mentioned that certain fields of study, including science and engineering was unsuitable for women, and they should not be allowed to pursue them.
There is a currently a debate raging on whether or not women should be allowed to become doctors- the focus of the argument is not, however, on whether or not women should study medicine. The focus of the argument is on whether or not a male gynaecologist can be permitted to treat the women in their families. The consensus seems to be that female gynaecologist are necessary, but that they can be trained in dedicated private facilities without needing to go to University. Essentially, the men in power have deemed that higher education is not necessary for women and that a small number can be trained according to need.

The personal, professional and political freedom of women is being taken away in other ways too. Women are not permitted to be in public without observing full hijab. Women are not permitted to access public parks except on certain days when men are not allowed to use them. They cannot undertake long journeys without a male guardian. They are banned from most workplaces, including government offices. Essentially, women are being pushed into tight gender segregated spaces, and are being invisibilised in public. Even gym, beauty parlours and reading rooms are being pushed underground, because of rules against them.

On December 24, 2022, the Taliban has announced that women will be barred for working in local and international humanitarian organizations, one of the few areas where women had been permitted to work. The purpose of the edit was clearly to restrict women from workplaces, and it is not clear whether it will apply only to Afghan women or all women. Either way, the unintended fallout of this could be that international humanitarian organizations will close their local operations. This will adversely impact the inflow of the billions of dollars of aid which has kept millions of Afghan citizens from starvation.

Fortunately, in Afghanistan, as in Iran, some brave men are standing in solidarity with the women. When the indefinite ban on university education for women was announced, many male students walked out of the University in protest to show solidarity with their women counterparts. Women continue to protest on the streets, despite being aware of the high risk involved. Both men and women who were found guilty of “moral crimes” including robbery, adultery and homosexual acts have been flogged in public. The Taliban has also informed that for certain crimes, punishment will be in line with the strict reading of the Sharia law, which includes public executions, public amputations and public stoning. While the exact crimes for which these punishments will be meted out is not known, protestors know that any crackdown is likely to be brutal.

There is only so much that the women (and men) in Afghanistan can do to protest against the brutal crackdown on the personal, professional and political freedom of women. It is upto the international community, including all of us, to continue speaking against the injustice meted out to Afghan women. Perhaps international pressure, and more importantly, the conditionality of international humanitarian aid may force the Taliban to rethink its position on women. Women make up half the population. Women hold up half the sky. Women have the right to education, the right to access public spaces, and the right to take their own decisions. The systemic denial of these rights to women in one country should affect us all. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”