Catharsis

In the final stage of pre-placement training, I was encouraged to read Surviving Without Romance: African Women Tell Their Stories, which I approached with fear and trembling.  Fear because I guard a little corner of my heart reserved solely for romance, surrounded by a thorny layer of cynicism, and I don’t want it under attack; trembling because the plight of women the world over already makes me unreasonably angry, and I dislike turning green and ripping through my clothes.  First of all, it’s a terrible title; the book explains that women tend to look for love with their children and friends – not from their husbands. 

“I was even more angry at his spending his pension money for more wives than I was about the beatings he had given me,” a woman notes.  The flip side of this (speaking from a vaguely Indian perspective) is that, as long as a man provides for his household(s), a wife will endure almost any hardship for this security for herself and her children.

This post is not an iteration of how miserable and backward ‘Africans’ are.  It is an attempt for me to come to grips with my misconceptions and the negative emotions with which I already approach the situation of women in certain cultures.  Widows in India used to be burned on the funeral pyres of their husbands – clearly, when your husband was gone, your life was gone.  I believe (and some of the women who shared their stories note) that the Bible offers a new way:  A woman’s salvation and security are not to be found in any man.  This is difficult to practice, even in a mainly Christian country, when a man’s social status is connected to how many wives and (male) children he has, regardless of whether or not he is able to support them.   

I do not believe that:

• Men are individually responsible for the view of women as second-class citizens. 
• Women are individually responsible for the view of women as second-class citizens.

Quite frankly, it’s a group effort.

What I have seen is that reasonable men and women in traditional societies join their unreasonable brothers and sisters in saying that there really is no problem – if you want to do something, go ahead and do it.  I’m not sure how they adequately explain rates of female infanticide, or the percentage of female engineers, mathematicians, soccer players, or politicians.  They insist that there is equality… (except for those silly little problems like sexual violence, child marriage, dowry, laws that govern inheritance, female genital mutilation, and serious suggestions for shorter shorts in soccer to encourage viewership).

The book has a central theme of women who have endured very normal things by cultural standards and have gone on with life:

• Christian men with a second wife pushed on them by their families because the first one refuses to produce offspring (because it is obviously entirely up to her). 
• Men pushing first wives out the door (or chopping off their arms) for producing girls or not bearing children at all.
• Women needing the protection of men (first in marriage, then in childbearing – sons, naturally) to secure their safety, possessions, and lives.

Women must get married at a certain age – beyond that, she is beyond hope.  Women should produce children within the first year of marriage, or in-laws begin grumbling about damaged goods and a return on that security deposit called a dowry (which has likely already been used to procure wives for the woman’s brothers).  Women should produce sons, or they fear going home from the hospital.  Women must ensure their families are fed and watered regardless of extenuating circumstances (i.e. she is less likely to walk out on her children or take a day off due to illness).

What I find most worrying is that these practices are continued by well-meaning people who would insist that equality is alive and well, and wrap their arguments in a prettier package.  A woman must get married by a certain age to grow with her husband.  Women should have children when they are young and energetic.  Women should have sons to inherit and take care of them in their old age.  Women love to provide, care for, and feed their families.  These are all true, good things.  The problem comes when reasonable people say things like, “No one stops women from being engineers, mathematicians, soccer players, or politicians – let them!  The fact that they aren’t – despite this freedom – indicates that, maybe, well…”

But they’re not including the pressure to cook, clean, care for siblings, get married, and then do all of the above for the husband and children – which is what all women are best at, of course.  Not to mention Biblical verses that seem to indicate (usually to insecure men) that all women are subordinate to all men (and not, say, that a wife should respectfully submit to her husband’s loving leadership).  And if a woman’s role was given as much glory as a man’s, it would be fine.  But what becomes evident is not only the idea that housework is a woman’s domain, but that it is also less than a man’s contribution – something that anyone can do with little to no effort.

Reasonable Traditionalists (RTs) disagree.  Of course, they see that providing food and care for their family is a worthy job.  How can anyone dispute that?  It seems a waste of time to discuss it any further.  But it isn’t.  Because RTs seem to have odd underlying ideas - for example, that God made men more sexual, and women to bear it.  And this explains why men can be pastors but women cannot - men are more likely to be tempted by female pastors.  And God created this dynamic.  Somehow I ascribe that to sin and society.  RTs mean well, but they seem hesitant to accept that the limb they’ve stepped out onto is on fire.  

A significant percentage of the population is seen by many as only capable or worthy of doing relatively ‘simple’ tasks such as having babies, cooking, and serving, and it is difficult to set adequate benchmarks of love or respect for a multi-purpose Uterus/Kitchen Appliance/Slave unit.  Also, owning more than one of this convenient home appliance ensures an (un)healthy competition for resources and drive to satisfy, a higher probability of fathering sons, and an respected position in society – all with next to no responsibility to educate, clothe, or feed the resulting family/families other than personal conviction. 

[Which, in this society, is not personal at all.  Feelings of shame are connected to the tribe or clan and what the group collectively dictates, rather than an inward feeling of guilt.  If the whole village is doing it, there’s nothing to be ashamed of.  This is excellent for cohesion and solidarity.  It is less helpful when evaluating certain traditions such as killing one or both twins at birth.]

What would possibly encourage a man to think differently and marry one woman, compromising his own desires, and support one family?    

…Women internalize all these facts and responsibilities and… go on with life.  They pretend it’s all normal until something goes wrong and they have to give up their careers to 'adequately' care for their families or they’re left to survive either on their own or with children – without the right to their husband’s or father’s land or property.  Even when the law is on their side, they are either unaware of it or without the means to contest their in-laws or brothers. 

I don’t imagine the stories in the book are anything special - they seem to happen with distressing frequency – but to normalize them under the idiom ‘Boys will be boys’ is unconscionable.  And yet it is also the recurring theme in patriarchal societies – whether in obvious ways such as rape or more subtle ways such as keeping women voiceless in science and technology, sports, religion, or politics using circular arguments.  I can wail for days about the injustice of this, but the women who shared their stories seemed to have come to grips with the important thing – their lives with God.  And I pray that I can highlight this wherever I go – that we are sons and daughters of the King.  That this means that we treat each other with dignity and respect.  That a woman’s worth is not found solely in marriage and children.  That men deserve respect that varies in direct proportion with their support of those who depend on them.

Mind the Gap:  Between cultural values of modesty and abstinence versus dating and a high rate of teenage pregnancies.  Between professional businesspeople and dowries of cows and goats.  Between Christianity and polygamy.  Between hard-working, confident, beautiful, strong women and one of the worst histories of women’s rights.  Between the society that was and one that is becoming.