A father’s reflection on the issue of gender and roles

Not too long ago, my nine-year-old daughter and I were watching an episode from a historical drama about the family that founded the Ottoman Empire. To my utter surprise, she asked me why it was that each time the birth of a child was expected, the expressed wish was always for a boy and not a girl. I gave her as good an answer as I could. But I could not be sure that my response was satisfactory, even though she did not ask a follow-up question.

Another scene from another episode was about a group of young women who were attacked by roving bandits while they were travelling. To the bandits’ chagrin, these women were adept at fighting with swords (which both men and women in the tribe carried) and the women came close to decimating the bandits.

I observed my daughter’s excitement and pride that the women fought as capably as the men. I too was happy to see the sense of pride that she experienced. I could almost hear her say ‘Yes! A girl child is just as capable as a boy!’

This experience got me thinking about her future and my responsibility in preparing her for it. In particular, whether I should factor into her preparation the fact that men and women do indeed see and experience the world differently, and not encourage her, as is the growing trend, to believe that the only difference between the male and female is purely anatomical.

Already, studies confirm that there are significant differences between the sexes when it comes to reacting, coping or managing stress. These studies suggest that, overall, women experience higher levels of depression, frustration, and anxiety than men when reacting to stress.

There is no debating the fact that our world is becoming increasingly more stressful. So, why is it that in view of such scientific conclusions about the greater negative impact of stress on women, society appears loath to talk about how best to shield women who appear to be more vulnerable to stress. Any attempt at having such discussions rapidly degenerate into acrimony, with one being labeled as ‘sexist’, ‘misogynist’ or ‘anti-women.

These labels are also used against anyone, male or female, who advocates any idea that is seen as curtailing women’s right to live their lives as they choose, regardless of the consequences. Opponents generally interpret such ideas as an attempt at blaming women for society’s problem because they want to live a self-fulfilling life.

Notwithstanding these valid apprehensions we cannot ignore the fact that science also attests that women have a greater impact on the emotional development of children. But, if there is a correlation between stress and the quality of our emotional state, does this not raise questions about how a mother’s emotional state could affect the child’s, especially at the very critical stage of early childhood? Is it not prudent to conclude that the increase in abhorrent and unstable behavior among children, especially preteens, may be related to their inadequate emotional development, for which even science has shown that the mother has a greater impact than the father? This very important and honest question should not be seen as couched in accusatory terms.

A part of me understands the apprehension of women who view such discussion as attempts, or a ruse, to reverse the hands of time, to take women back to their ‘right place’ (I am being facetious here) in a male dominated world.

I must also confess that, as a man, I have never wondered about my place or value in society. Indeed, nobody or anything ever suggested that there are things that I cannot do. Or that my contribution or input would ever be undervalued. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for women in a male dominated world.

There is also truth in what many women say about the condescending attitude of the world towards women and their ‘expected’ role in society. For example, although society extols the importance of child nurturing, a role that many women gladly assumed in the past, the same society will not adequately reward women for this important role, unless it is being done as a business, i.e. a child care centre.

Today, we cannot discount the impact of technological advances on those domestic activities that were relegated to women. The time previously spent on most of these chores is now dramatically reduced, which some may argue had given women more time to look after the children at home. But even when she chooses to stay home to look after the children, society appears does not appear to append as much value to this as the value appended to working outside the home.

For those women who choose, or have to work outside the home, there is the humiliating experience of being paid less than a man for doing the same job – another way, perhaps, of asking women ‘to prove their worth’ in the male dominated world, where no man would be happy to be paid less than another man for doing the same job, at the same skill and paygrade level, at the same place and time.

However, deeper reflection will show that the real the issue in the scenarios described is equity, and fairness. Sexism, just like racism or class, is simply used as the motivation for this ignoble human penchant.

In today’s world, it cannot be taken for granted that all girls wish to be married, or to have children. And, an unmarried woman will, in all probability, need to work to support herself.

Many men have daughters who are being educated, preparing them to pursue careers of their choice. Our daughters are graduating to work as engineers, IT specialists, doctors, lawyers, teachers, architects, nurses, accountants, administrators, and so on. Many daughters who are married and have children are also trying to balance a career with ‘motherhood’ and ‘spousal’ expectations.  

Working mothers have long commute to work, requiring them to take preschool children to a day care centres, in some cases as early as 6 a.m. and picking them up at 6 p.m.! This is done Monday to Friday!

The two weekend days are crammed full of activities and do not always allow for the unstructured and spontaneous style of childhood that marked bygone days. Even where young parents are fortunate enough to have extended family support, the dual career family trend of the modern society is creating conflicts that have introduced a new stress of their own into family lives.

So, the question is: ‘Who should be tasked with seeking a solution to this obvious problem?’ Should responsibility lie with women to come up with new activities to occupy those who prefer to stay at home with children?

Perhaps, therein may lie the way forward. That women are allowed to come up with acceptable solutions to the societal dilemma that have a more adverse effect on them. No doubt that solution will address adequate remuneration of women for the very important work that is done at home, outside of the glare of the public spotlight.

Men may even be surprised to find that, for most women, the desired remuneration may not be monetary. Meaningful public respect and honour for their service or role may be just as important, if not more important.

I realise that I may be opening a Pandora ’s Box by asking these questions. But, the freight train of ‘gender equality’, ‘female empowerment’ has gathered so much steam worldwide that it is now virtually unstoppable. All societies are being shaken up, voluntarily or otherwise, by this development. Nevertheless, the question that we need to ask ourselves is: “Given what we know or are beginning to know about where this train could take us, do we want to hop off, or stay blindly on?”

Perhaps the quote below from The Grail Message may serve as a warning and a hint to resolving this problem

No people can ascend or be happy unless they possess genuine, unadulterated womanhood, in whose wake alone genuine manhood can and must develop itself.

Abdrushin