Redefining the Man-Woman Relationship

Redefining the Man-Woman Relationship

Yogesh Snehi
The Tribune, Sunday, October 27, 2002
Chandigarh, India

GENDER hierarchies in a society are determined by some universal subject-object projections. In physical terms 'subject' would mean or represent the doer of an action and 'object' is affected by such action or in simple words, subject 'does' and it is 'done' on the object. In almost every society, man is considered a subject and women an object. It is but an obvious model of patriarchal setups. Interestingly these underlying hierarchies, which create domination-subordination, evolve inequitable positions in the society.

Women's objectification has a lot to do with her sexual status. The very act of sex, in its 'penetrator-penetrated' model, places women at the receiving end. Such a model has been centre to ancient societies too. However, the relationship there did not symbolise hierarchies but roles (male with bija and female with bhumi). Today, the societal attitudes are determined by the former (sex-model).

An important outcome of this is seen in the attitudes of men. Despite linguistic and cultural diversity in India, verbally abusive terminology shares a common platform. It gives expression to in-built social attitrudes and sexualises women. The abuse may be directed on anyone but it women who is 'penetrated' and 'objectified'. These symbols find inroads in the early childhood from peer influence. Interestingly, in Punjab and Haryana husbands verbally abuse their wives and children in a similar fashion. There cannot be any doubt about male perception of females in this westernised urban setup. 'Modern' dress codes and physical outlook play a significant role in furthering this perception. Women regard 'mini' clothes as an expression of freedom. Also, the preference for sleek and slender bodies has become a standard. This fits well in the subject-object model. Most men believe that modern dress codes have sexualised women.

Media plays a catalytic role here. Most of the advertisement campaigns are complimented on. Interestingly the gendered identification of cars and bikes with 'she' exemplifies the driver-driven relationship. Although the latest model of a motorbike (Bajaj pulsar) claims it to be a 'truly male', 'the gaze of the bike' replicates another version of subject-object relationship. This brings forth another relationship of 'seer-seen' and it is again taken up by attractive advertisement campaigns. What is seen? Female bodies. By whom? Men.

There lies a paradox in women's perception. Some radical women question this subject-object formula and believe the opposite to be true. They feel that women control men's attention and are the subjects. Men, however, feel that ultimately they 'drive' women. Since this model is based on the sexual projection of hierarchies, it is strongly opposed by many feminists. They contend that women who labour more than men are undoubtedly doers and subjects and men are objects.

This explains us why the women who were revolutionaries and revered have been virgin or single and continue to be such. Both religious and non-religious traditions are full of examples of virgin females. Shakta traditions glorify mother goddess as the creator, sustainer and the destroyer. There are plenty of such examples in the French Revolution.

In the final analysis we see that subordination exists more at the sexual and physical levels. At the emotional and philosophical plains these differences cease to exist. The present societal setup is highly influenced by the sexual model—thanks to the rising consumerism, which owns a greater responsibility for objectification of women. No wonder, we see a sharp rise in the number of cases of sexual abuse and rape.