Once upon a time (in the Paleolithic Age), Homo Sapiens wandered on earth in search of food and safety. They moved in tribes from place to place, walking miles everyday. Both males and females gathered food. They mated freely with each other and procreated. The institution of marriage did not exist. A male would impregnate as many females as he wished. A female would seduce a new male every time she was in heat. During pregnancy and nursing, the female needed shelter and food. The children belonged to the tribe as a whole, exactly like animals. Everybody raised them. (Such societies exist to this day in places like Nicobar Islands).
Then, sometime around 10,000 BC (i.e., Neolithic period, the last stage of the Stone Age), humans learnt agriculture. They began settling down (near rivers), instead of wandering. All ancient civilizations happenned next to mighty perennial rivers, namely, the Indus Valley Civilization on the banks of Indus and its tributaries (Sapta-Sindhu), the Mesopotamian Civilization on the banks of Euphrates and Tigris, the Egyptian Civilization on the banks of Nile, and the Chinese Civilization on the banks of Hwang Ho). Humans began to grow crops, which provided them with a steady supply of food. They also learnt to preserve their excess food. Abundance led to accumulation of wealth. Land holdings increased in size. Allied professions like cattle-rearing, dairy-farming and poultry-farming grew, providing more variety in food. Crop rotation renewed soil fertility, ensuring a new productive staple-crop season.
Note : Even today, agriculturally unproductive deserts and arid lands are inhabited by Nomads and Gypsies.
A safe, settled and sufficiently comfortable life brought in socio-cultural and lifestyle changes. Humans set up permanent dwelling houses, safe from weather and predators. Water was fetched from the nearby river. Time was available for further professions to develop, e.g., weaving, carpentry, pottery, smithing (metal-working), painting, carving, etc.
A settled life increased the frequency of mating. This increased the population. Females got busy in pregnancies, child-rearing, nurturing and care-giving. The males spent their day in the farms and fields, while the females were looking after the offspring. The settling down also meant permanent dwelling places, which had to be maintained and looked after. This was done by the females (who were in and around the house all the time now), while the males continued to work in the fields. Thus began gender-ing of roles in agricultural societies. Fewer and fewer females were seen working in the fields. Even if they were, they were employed by men. The males had the land holdings, and now controlled the process of wealth-generation almost exclusively. This made them financially powerful. The females, back home, counted on the males to feed and shelter the family, raising them to the pedestal of the 'provider'. Slowly, the females stopped bothering about the means by which the male brought in the family-income. She was totally occupied in household activities (cooking, cleaning, laundry, looking after children, attending to family members, handling stores, etc.)
Agrarian cultures slowly stabilized in this norm of hierarchy and gender-based economic polarization. The modus operandi had a very distinct division of labor, one for money (males) and the other for free (females). Men began enjoying privileges of being the 'bread-winner'. Socio-economic and socio-cultural rules were made by men, for the benefit of men, enforced by men; to be followed by women (detailed in the next chapters). The wife began providing a constant support to the husband to organize his day and run it smoothly. She woke him up, got his bath water ready, prepared his clothes to wear for the day, prepared his breakfast, packed his lunch, served him breakfast, fetched his work-related paraphernalia, made his bed, did his laundry, arranged his cupboard, cooked dishes of his choice, decorated his house, dressed up for him in the evening, made him comfortable when he returned home at the end of the day, washed his tiffin-box, gave a patient hearing to his venting out of the day's problems and frustrations, forgave / overlooked all his domestic carelessness, served him dinner, provided him sex (even if she was tired) to relax him into sleep. Women slogged for men, and men worked for themselves. Note : men did work for 'the survival of the family' only when there was poverty. However, agriculture was already bringing in prosperity. Heading a family became an ego-issue for men. Slowly yet steadily, women got reduced to assistants to male ambition and success.
In this whole process, the female never developed her own economic power, nor her own economic self-esteem. Her round-the-clock efforts were indispensable, yet not monetize-able; and hence her woman-hours were never monetarily compensated. Monetize-able hours of effort were the 'man-hours', spent outside the house. After spending the whole day outdoors, the home became the place where the man returned to relax, rest, unwind and sleep, before getting ready for another day at work. Yet, this place, where the woman spent 24/7, kept her busy but financially-dependent. (Caveat : I am not going to be glorifying housewives next!). She had no time to market her skills and become a wealth magnet. Even if she sold her cooking / care-giving / teaching / hospitality skills, such professions were perceived as less worthwhile as compared to agricultural work, and were therefore, paid less. Marketing requires self-confidence in women, which had already waned in the glare of male success and prosperity.
Thus began the economic exploitation of women (which continues till today), assuming that men with bigger muscles work more and better. This assumption did not understand that women can work longer (because of more fat in the body). She has more muscle endurance, which is distinctly different from muscular strength. Let's see their definitions : Muscular Endurance is the duration that the muscle can work repeatedly without getting tired. Muscular Strength is the Maximum force that can be applied by the muscle once (one rep max). Simply put, males are for sprint and females are for marathon.
The Indo-Gangetic plain is the agricultural belt of the country, enjoying fertile alluvial soil irrigated by perennial snow-fed rivers (Ganga and its tributaries). It is interesting to see that it also has the highest density of population (see map above). Coincidence? No, it is an anthropological reality. Also, it is an undeniable fact that North-Central India is strongly patriarchal, with dismal sex ratio and female literacy, and regressive attitudes towards females in general. This is one of the strongest examples of how (i) agriculture, (ii) population, and (iii) patriarchy are inter-related.
Sparsely populated MP, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan are also highly patriarchal. Densely populated Bengal and Kerala are mildly patriarchal and even matrilineal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Male Psychological evolution.
Greed : Generating wealth became a race for the men. More forests were cleared for cultivation. Bigger houses were built for bigger families. Natural resources were exploited to meet human needs (or male greed?). Thus came in mining, another major source of wealth generation (to this day). The race never stopped.
Territorial attitude : Land-ownership consolidated the male ego further. The size of his land holding became a status-marker. The biggest land-holder, who was able to employ more people in his farm, consolidated more wealth. He became the king of the tribe. Later, the size of the kingdom became the status-marker. Kings conquered others territories and annexed it to their hitherto territory. More land meant more wealth, since agriculture was the bedrock of wealth-creation. The captured territories started paying taxes to the victor. Geopolitical ambitions caused wars. Countries attacked each other and try to occupy more land, at the expense of the other. Expansionism (Vistaar-vaad) plagues political psychologies even in the 21st century, only slightly moderated by the devastating World War 2. Even today, men show off their bungalows, luxury cars, big gadgets, hunting trophies, and a beautiful wife as the markers of success (money + power + fame).
Competition : Men were always trying to out-do each other in physical strength, skills, financial power, size of possessions and property, land area captured, even number of rivals eliminated. It led to toxic masculinity. Because wars were devastating, a harmless substitute called Sports was encouraged to keep the men busy, where they showed off their muscular power and physical skills, trying to outdo each other. Again, men started showing off their medals and trophies won in these sports. Notice this : In every century, men have a new game to play : the biggest animal hunted, the biggest area of land owned, the most wealth earned, the most beautiful woman captured, the most powerful mechanical / chemical / nuclear / biological weapon possessed, the most quantity of oil controlled, the most luxurious car owned, the most data handled, etc.
Ego : The man's ability to provide for the family began being linked to his self-esteem and his masculine ego. He took it upon him to be the sole earning member of the household. A working wife began considered to be an 'insult' to the husband! (More about this later).
Female Psychological evolution.
The hypnotizing of the female mind had already begun. Things had become too larger-than-life for the female brain to comprehend, who was busy in nurturing the future generation within the four walls of the house. When she was teaching her child to walk / talk while simultaneously looking after her home, the man was ploughing the field / milking the cow / storing crops in granaries / administering the territory / mining metals / playing a sport (archery, wrestling, hunting) / fighting a battle. The gender-based polarization of the society had become stronger. The female was too busy with children to herself think, form opinions, develop skills, earn money, decide upon her own life. The game of money-making had long become alien to her. She neither understood its rules, not did she have the time to play it. The game kept evolving over the generations and it became more alien to her (more gender-based social polarization happened). Her natural innate abilities of nurturing, growing, sharing, and caring could never find a role in this masculine game of competition, fighting, violence. Mind you, a female can be very violent, but only when she needs to save herself or her children from harm. She does not fight simply to show off her strength to other females. Women didn't like sports because someone has to lose for the other to win. She wanted a win-win situation. She avoided fights and confrontations. But of course, women were also competitive about beauty and catch-a-husband games. But that was driven by the subconscious desire to ensure financial security for herself and her children. Then she got herself ingratiated to the husband for providing her with food and material comfort. She degenerated into servile attitude and docile behavior.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's do a quick check from the current times. Prosperity, which generated more employment opportunities for both males and females, quite counter-intuitively, led to a decreased female participation in the workforce. India's work force was 36% female in 2005, while it was less than 4% in 2016 (See here). When the man earned enough money to run the household, he discouraged the women from working. A similar trend is seen in trading societies (Gujarat).
India's fertility rate was 6 (!) per woman even after Independence. It is only recently that it has come to about 2. This is because the woman has expanded her life beyond home and child-rearing. When the woman gets busy with creating wealth outside home, she has less time for reproduction. Cultures with more female workforce participation are less patriarchal (Hint : South India, as compared to North India).
No comments:
Post a Comment