ANITA RAMGUTTY WONG, PhD
This year again we marked International Women’s Day (IWD), an event that claims diverse roots and traditions, and which is all about recognising women’s social, economic, cultural, and political achievements. Born from the working women’s activist movement, then installed by socialists, and finally adopted and celebrated in 1975 by the United Nations, IWD on March 8th is a call to action, based on the recognition of the disparities and injustices which continue to impact the lives of women across the globe and right here on our island as well.
Women are systematically at the centre of feminist debates, but surely the scope of the feminist ideology is not exclusively women’s? In his book The Time has Come, Michael Kaufman describes how any contribution to improving the situation regarding violence, oppression and domination in society can trigger a positive change. He explores how a patriarchal culture that has given power to men comes at a huge cost to women, children, and to men as well. Kaufman describes how, by placing power over women, over other men, and over nature, we are perpetuating a culture of violence and destruction in all sorts of forms, whereas what the world needs are habits and values of sharing, love, care and nurturing. In this vein, ecofeminism, a branch of feminism, claims that domination of nature is similar to domination of women by men and other forms of hierarchical thinking, and that, unless this dominating cultural mindset is transformed, the current environmental and other crises will be difficult to solve, since they are the outcomes of domination and exploitation of nature’s resources by humans, and the exploitation of the weak members of the world’s society by the dominant economies and corporations of the world. In a hierarchical system, one group holds power over another and exploits it for its own ends. Social practices (such as racism, gender bias, social classifications) and social institutions (such as capitalism, bureaucracies, and the structures of political governance) are symptomatic of this hierarchical mindset. The widespread destruction of nature that results from such an attitude, then, is inevitable and cannot be stopped unless our society becomes less hierarchical, less characterised by dominance of some groups over the others, and less exploitative. Ecofeminists have suggested that the ‘masculine’ approach of domination, even though not exclusively a male trait, and closely aligned with competition, excessive growth at all costs, rational calculation, and large-scale production, should be lessened and eventually replaced with the ‘feminine’ approach of caring for humans as well as for nature, even if such an approach is not the monopoly of females, and which is connected with such values as love, cooperation and understanding of and caring for each other’s and nature’s needs.
While I would find it inconceivable today to think that women in Mauritius should not be able to vote, or be able to own their own property or money, to get an education at par with males, or to marry who they choose or not at all, I cannot but witness daily reminders, through reports, radio call-in shows or simple observation, that, in the lives of many of our women there still exists the reality of domestic violence, workplace exploitation, discrimination and harassment, daily economic hardship, not to mention social, cultural and familial stressors and hindrances, rising incidences of teen pregnancies, high female unemployment, numerous unreported incidences of harassment at work, and highly autocratic work cultures. So, although women have indeed come a very long way in the past decades, persistent discrimination, exploitation and domination (or bullying) continue to exist for women in the basic areas of life. Germaine Greer in her insightful albeit provocative book The Whole Woman, wrote : “On every side speechless women endure endless hardship, grief and pain, in a world system that creates billions of losers for every handful of winners”. How we are still in this state of affairs after decades of conventions, laws and speeches, quotas and token leaders, indicates that the problem, and therefore its solution, lies much more deeply within the cultural mores of society, in the deepest and often dark “taboo” part of the societal iceberg, where beliefs, habits and traditions lie buried underneath numbers, verbal declarations and superficial measures.
The UN continually declares that, by placing women in top decision-making positions, we will achieve real and positive societal change, because by incorporating women in decision-making as equals, the entire society benefits. However, I have noticed over the recent past that much of the so-called progressive practices are based on tokenism, where one, or a few, women are held up to maintain an appearance, a so-called proof, of the empowerment women and the promotion of equality, whereas in substance, little effort is being made to address and challenge both the very real struggles of women in general and of the broader societal issues very much linked with women’s issues just mentioned.
Patronising ideology
The direction that women empowerment seems to be taking is to push women to be “strong”, entrepreneurial, to adopt STEM streams in their educational choices, to be ambitious about their jobs and their careers, in short, to be everything. This is a patronising ideology that encourages women to be both loving mothers and wives, to assert their femininity, and still “go for it”: go for your own ti biznes, go for higher education, go for sports, go for politics, by holding up an example here and there of superwomen who ‘have it all’. To me this seems to be a contradiction of sorts. The patriarchal and unequal system is trying to motivate women to be successful inside it, so that, if women do not succeed, it is as if they did not try hard enough, were not determined or motivated or competitive enough, or they didn’t seize the “equal opportunities” made available for them. Be they political groups or corporations, is highly problematic in that these structures blatantly espouse “progressive” ideas about women when they themselves, in their practices, structures and beliefs are built on a scaffold of discrimination, patriarchy, and disrespect, thus undermining the very pro-women causes they claim to support. Civil society organisations advocating for a change in this state of affairs are few and far between at making compelling demands in favour of women, who seem to be running on treadmills, playing “catch up” as if they were to prove that they could be as good as men – in politics, in business, in senior jobs. This is a perpetuation of the competitive “macho” mindset, with traditional hierarchies making room for “sisters-in-suits” but maintaining the same traditional terms as before. Commenting on racial tokenism, Malcolm X said once: “all this little tokenism that is dangled in front of the Negro and then he’s told, ‘See what we’re doing for you, Tom, is just hypocrisy”.
We do not need artificial intelligence to predict, based on our socio-political algorithm, that the “masculine” values and structures within political parties and in the corporate world are simply perpetuating the historical and current status quo, and that the incremental tweaking of laws and enforcement mechanisms such as proportional representation and quotas, might not necessarily lead to real change for the whole of society. Those who make it to the top of their careers, businesses, directors’ boards and even in the legislature all too often become assimilated into the existing culture and are unable or unwilling to represent the mass of the country’s women, women’s real issues, and the feminine perspective on broader issues of economy, society and the environment. I feel that, as long as males as well as females continue to docilely toe the line of their unenlightened political parties or senior managements, blocking out, as it were, the inner voice of ethics and basic human solidarity, then quotas and numbers will make little difference unless men and women embrace, uphold and promote the values of compassion, co-operation, seeing every person not through the lens of their gender but for what they contribute to the family, the economy, society, and the world. Women, however, must explore in what ways they might have a special perspective to bring to the table. If, out of personal ambition, the only future they can see is joining the masculine elite on its own terms, the whole of the country will become more divisive, destructive, and inhumane than ever. Recognising the masculine-feminine balance in everything, and fulfilling the potential of women, and why not, men, to come into our power as whole human beings, we will be able to create a better world.
“Feel-good feminism”
Women’s Day campaigns that have inspired the 8th of March event each year have always aimed to challenge exploitative policies and oppressive structures. Lest we do not slip further into a complacent slumber of “feel-good feminism”, I propose that this interesting year be a chance for those in decision making instances of political parties, corporations and civil society organisations, as they develop their programmes, events, policies and strategies, to demonstrate their sincerity about positively impacting the lives of everyone. They can achieve this by addressing and focusing on women’s issues, women’s views and feminine perspectives on important matters touching not only women, but the entire society for generations to come. For some, it might mean a sizable addition of votes; for others it will express their commitment to serving society for the common good. For all, it will mean getting on the right side of history, a very real chance to see and do things differently.