Dhaka Friday December 16, 2011

Starting at home

Shayera Moula

History is obnoxiously irritating at times. Ours will often cite the roles of women in 1971 as victims rather than participants of the Liberation War. Check out the Liberation Museum War website (a curious man's first few clicks towards understanding the history of Bangladesh) and you would spot a few paragraphs on women: One, about their massive contribution towards the language and national movements and two, on them as protectors of wounded war men and lastly, as rape victims of the war; where the last one even today seemingly implies a sense of national shame.

There is a quick mention of the Gobra Camp where women were trained for the war but Mumtaz's story in Yasmin Sakia's Women, War, and the Making of Bangladesh: Remembering 1971 would tell you otherwise about the involvement of women in the supposed 'male space.' “I have told them that I have come here to fight, not to do bloody stitching,” she had said to them at the camp.

Naturally she found alternatives to finding arms and fighting the war, but what she did leave behind was a strong message that much of the contribution required from women was and is often at home or expected to be within that sphere. They are after all the ideological, cultural and biological reproducers of the nation and much of what they set as examples for a progressive nation is pretty much internalised within children and their surroundings; giving birth to the immediate 'new' nation and of course the one that will be carried on for generations through their children.

Amdadul Huq/drik News
Munir Uz Zaman/drik News
Jashim Salam/drik News

Stepping over the 40 years of democracy, militancy and even the caretaker government's short visit to the country, one thing has definitely neither been addressed nor changed the various ideas of women empowerment. It is usually simpler to estimate a woman's state of empowerment through financial independence, as is being thoroughly exercised within the rural sector of the society. But how often can you measure the well-being and empowered mind-frames of the middle or upper-middle class females walking amongst us? Does the woman with her BA certificate scared of crossing the streets alone make her independent and powerful? Or do those who work two jobs yet beat their house helps feel more empowered backed up by their social status, thanks to the money they make?

The third wave of feminism that started in the 90s celebrates the empowerment of women not just politically and economically but also on an acute individual level calling it the “personal empowerment.” Women here can recognise and establish their identities which can even be contradictory. But the identities that most women create come mainly from their homes. Whether within the slums or from a lavished apartment in Gulshan, the lessons learnt at home are the ones that eventually shape up the basics of any women.

When those from the 50s and 60s sit next to their house helps discussing the arrogance of some daughter-in-law and mother-in-law dispute on cheap and yet amusing TV shows, you know that the “awareness programs” your local NGOs are trying to diffuse into the minds of young poor girls are going to be more challenging than anticipated. And why wouldn't they enjoy the bashing and trashing of upper-class Barbie look-alikes and the foul attitudes of modern rich women who are terrible wives and mothers? These are the times you wonder whether it is the TV representing the world or the world representing TV shows. The point is that the messages that are being passed to both classes of female viewers, sitting next to each other, only strengthen a particular set of moral ideologies, which not only fail to often represent reality, but also effects the actions and behaviours of the women in the household.

The social evil of a “good girl” versus a “bad girl” or the portrayal of a socially inferior girl getting a man's attention only through her looks, or the label given to the rich woman in her sleeveless top failing to be morally stable are just some of the key ideas tossed around by TV channels as forms of entertainment. There is nothing educational here and one does not learn anything new about the world.

But that in itself is just one-sided. The shows can control how we may start to think but never vice versa. It is when these very actions and relationships or ideas are practiced behind every closed door that we have something to worry about. It is how your mother, who may be a school teacher, an NGO employee, an economist or even a homemaker abuses or treat those socially below them at home or on the streets that ultimately transmits this culture to the “new nation-builders” who later end up carrying the same old habit and attitude for a never changing rudeness that most people in the country seem to exercise so well.

Honestly, where does the empowerment lie when women get together and complain about how awful it is that female garment workers and slum dwellers these days dare imitate the same fashion and clothing as themselves. So then who is more empowered? The house help who now owns a cell phone or the begum of the house who complains that maids these days are too distracted by such gadgets, better cosmetics and constant demands of higher wages? Amartya Sen reminds us that when a woman knows that she has a choice and she can exercise her “agency,” she is empowered -- thus he is talking about this very class of women who suddenly realise that they too can choose the kind of bags they want, and they realise they can afford to buy the same beauty products bought by a well off woman once enough money is saved. But why does the fact that she owns the same product irritate the well off woman? Is it because she is buying something beyond her capability or is it because she, as a member of the marginalised group, now smells the same as the richer woman?

The unity of female voices in 1971 came due to a common struggle towards the independence for the nation. Educated or not, rich or poor, women played their part as nurses, warriors or even as those who gave shelters to wounded soldiers. However, it seems like women today are no longer fighting together towards a common goal -- they are now fighting against each other. Something as simple as the look of arrogance exchanged between women in beauty salons to the fierce competition in academia, in career and in the overall struggle towards being the best wife, mother and daughter-in-law, the fight this time is individualistic and against each other. From a bird's eye point of view, many stare at awe that Bangladesh, a conservation nation trying to wiggle out of its traditional slogans, has two female leaders! Many within the nation laugh at how the cat fight between the two can only get worse with age, knowing wholeheartedly that all this is really backed up largely by a man's framework of political combats. But again if those two leaders can't be examples of healthy competition between women, how can we expect any woman to treat each other with respect let alone expect men to treat females with respect?

So in the era where women seem often too busy trying to create and understand their roles, their identities and their choices, what we must not forget is the lessons we leave behind every action, and how it affects those around us. A little more compassion while telling the house help how to clean the dishes would probably make her clean it better without wanting to bomb the elite class, and at the same time the younger children, the younger girls in the house, would grow up learning how to maintain basic civil relations with others irrespective of class, gender or even race if it comes to that.

With more and more women in the workforce, where the formal education is taking proper effect, what we perhaps need is the practice of the informal education. There is no way a poor man will behave nicely on the road when all he is contemplating on is his mission towards his next meal. But those of us who have some privilege and a sense of consciousness should at least try and promote civic sense. If women are the cultural transmitters of every nation then perhaps now, 40 years in, we should take a positive attitude towards the relationships around us so that in 2051, 40 years later, we can at least look back at a nation well integrated and not further divided.

The writer is Sub-editor, Editorials & Op-Ed, The Daily Star.

© thedailystar.net, 2011. All Rights Reserved