Dear Editor,
I beg to differ with Abu Bakr’s contentions in his letter ‘No uniquely guilty sex/gender’ in the perpetuation of violence against women in Guyana (SN 14.4.2009). It has historically been men who have been at the heart of the oppression and subjugation of women for centuries. Women, who have accepted their fates as the oppressed, do so with the inevitable resolve that there are no real exit options.
How can you measure occurrence rates of victim abuse when it is a psychological issue you are dealing with? How can you measure aberrant behaviour and extrapolate this onto an entire culture or society? One man may slap his wife around once in a lifetime, another may do it every day and another may be civilized enough to never to it.
One man in an Indian culture may do it after consuming rum, another if his curry has too much salt, another if another man looks at his wife.
What does this tell you? There are no fixed schedules or reasons for abuse within groups. It is individual characteristics that determine if someone has it in them to be violent against women. All the group dynamics will provide is an ‘acceptable’ manner of delivering the abuse. Domestic violence transcends class, race and cultural background and is a universal issue. The only difference is the form in which the violence is perpetrated.
Domestic violence is about the exercise of power and authority over the meek or those who should be meek. This is what transcends culture. This is where society has a profile. Women are perceived as the weaker and inferior gender, so they receive less pay for the same work, their efforts at authority make them a ‘bitch’ at best, or a witch/hag; they are excluded from certain cultural and religious practices and painted as ‘Eve,’ and to regain a sense of dignity they should be seen as subservient housewives − the maidservant, the nanny, the chauffeur, the cook while the spouse seeks stimulation elsewhere.
The narrative that explains domestic violence and cruelty is indeed complex, but while these are mainly acts of individual aberration, society’s tacit sanction has allowed the continuous perpetration of this abuse. There is no need for a victim profile. It already exists. It is a profile which was born with the patriarchal society in which women were seen an inferior to men and hence treated with utter contempt and cruelty. This is not to say that there are not men who have shifted out of this mould and treat women as their equals.
Victims are never in accord with the cultural narrative that explains their victimhood as “deserved or excusable.” Rather, it is a case of not having any viable exit options. A woman who has the means and will to walk away from an abuser will do so. When such means are absent, a woman will accept her situation and try to make the best out of it.
To understand the narrative of domestic violence, one has to go back to the matricentric society and its replacement in the Neolithic revolution with a patriarchal society. Women were central figures in matricentric societies and revered spiritually as they were seen as holding the key to life. The divine/creator was seen in the form of female goddesses and women were the head priestesses. This did not mean that women were dominant in these cultures or that men were discriminated against. Both genders stood as equals, with the men as the hunters and fishers and the women as the gatherers and caregivers (also medically). Men were not prohibited from religious office and stood as shamans with female priestesses. Technology (the introduction of the iron plough) and the agricultural revolution changed all of this. It not only brought warlike conflict for land and the taking over of indigenous tribes, it also shifted the roles of men and women, introduced a patriarchal society and classes with far-reaching consequences for women’s rights. Men began to see themselves as the dominant force in society, providing both food and security (against capture of collectively managed soil). Women were pushed from the priesthood and a dominant male god replaced the female depiction of divinity. Those goddesses who could not be eradicated were changed into a wife or daughter of a newly proclaimed father god. The natural and inevitable god-given dominance of the male was proclaimed and female power became sinful (Eve) and willpower inferior. Women’s generative powers (of conception) were disparaged and the male sperm give these powers. Women became no more than vessels and their generative power became “unclean.” The contempt for women that followed led to the practice of them being raped as the spoils of war, and women being captured to provide children for men so their progeny could live on.
The priests under patriarchy reinterpreted sacral symbols as signs of tyranny and even secular leaders used these reinterpreted symbols to justify their acts of violence. The priests disparaged women and female goddesses were made into dragons and killed off. The system of symbols was also changed from a unified picture of the cosmos and its cyclic process to a dualistic world view of heaven and earth and masculine spirit and feminine nature justifying patriarchal rule.
The warrior aristocracy that emerged meant slave labour, especially women and children, so that their prestige would be retained. Contempt for “mere labour” emerged with men preferring the more prestigious tasks while women did the lion’s share of the work. Matricentric societies were built on peace, patriarchy made war a virtue, leaving in the path of war glorification a trail of murder, looting, pillage and rape. (See ‘On the Patriarchal Transformation of Matricentric’ in The Rule of Mars, edited by Dr Cristina Biaggi, Manchester CT 2006, ISBN 1-879198-31-2.)
It is the patriarchal society, which turns a blind eye to the injustices against women. And while the unadulterated spiritual messages in the scriptures of the various religions do not speak to women as being inferior, the preachers for these religions have perpetuated the inferiority of women and have turned a blind eye to their grievances. Colonisation and the spread of Christianity, further installed the idea of a man being the head of the household and the woman as the evil temptress (Eve), unless she conforms to certain behaviour. Men, who felt emasculated under colonisation, exerted their power and authority in the home.
While men achieved their desire to be free men, with the right to their self determination, such emancipation for women has lagged behind, and they continue to be perceived as the weaker sex, the one who should submit themselves to a man’s authority. We continue to perpetuate the dominance of man as the dragon slayers and the invincible male heroes in Batman and Spiderman. Women roles are the coffee servers, the pretty face, with little significance to the larger picture.
We perpetuate this in our homes as we give preference to the boys over the girls and bury into the female subconscious what her limitations are rather than what her potential could be. So women have been brought up in a society to be a muse, only for decorative purposes and unconsciously contented to be the object of man’s desire.
That is, an uncomplaining maidservant, mother, wife, nanny, sexual vehicle, without any right to self determination or free will and subjected to her husband’s political, economic and domestic domination. Violence enters the picture when this authority (read ego) is threatened or challenged. Those women breaking out of the mould to become the subjects of their own desire have not as yet realised that it is not entirely possible without financial independence.
For women to say no to an abusive relationship and exit, there must be a viable alternative backed by financial independence. If a woman is unable to meet the needs for her daily existence and those of her children in walking away from an abusive relationship, then what choice does she really have? We do not have the framework in Guyana to put an end to domestic violence.
If a man hits a woman and knows that he will get away with it, then there is no disincentive to discontinue such offence. The punishment should fit the crime. But for that to happen, there must be a victim who is willing and able to exit her situation and go the extra mile and testify and stay away from the aggressor. In Guyana’s case, domestic violence has been an aberrant social attitude, which has escaped an ineffective enforcement, legal and social framework. Societies, which have a handle on domestic violence, have done so by providing not only the enforcement and judicial framework, but also the welfare system to make it possible.
It is because women are no longer content with a passive role and being acted upon, that there is an upsurge in violence in the upper classes of society. As women increasingly become aware of their own desires and wishes, and seek to step out of the view that a patriarchal society imposes, there will be increases in the reporting of violence against women.
Each human being has the right to self-determination. This also means, each woman. It is society’s responsibility to create the conditions for this to happen. Until and unless society creates the environment for women to be treated as equals with men, even if it means legislation and enforcement, there will continue to be abusive relationships. A valued component in this enabling environment would have to be a value system which places above all else a love for life rather than the glorification of power, and a social framework which will allow a woman to walk away from a violent relationship without the worry of a roof over her head and income to support herself and her children.
The issue of abuse of men at the hands of women is not a non-issue, nor is it an unimportant issue. But it is not an important issue in this dialogue of violence against women. It is a different narrative and let us not mix our narratives up.
Yours faithfully,
Gitanjali Persaud
