When I study Sociology, I always find women fighting for their rights to be recognized, equal to men etc. Feminist sociologists always have something to say about how women are oppressed in a million and one ways under the "patriarchal regimes" of men. Admittedly, many of them are quite convincing, but when they start making comments like "Women have always been dominated by men throughout history, it's time they started standing up for themselves", I just find something factually incorrect.
Patriarchy has brought over it's legacy to the modern world. No doubt about that. However, to say that women have been oppressed over the entire course of history is way too generalized a statement. Sure, there are historical events here and there that proves the point of gender oppression, but given that men have dominated over 99% of all great civilizations, surely there must be something more than just brute strength and an elongated member of the body that "forces" women to submit?
This might be an overly-romanticized theory, but permit me to go on. A slight observation on my part leads me to believe that the greater the possibility for men to die on the battlefield, the more subservient the womenfolk are. To explain further, every time a civilization goes to war for a prolonged period of time, female values emphasize subservience. Every time a civilization is at peace for a prolong period of time, gender equality grows.
Firstly, we must note that "oppression" in today's terminology might not translate into "oppression" in the terminology of the past. Furthermore, I will argue that the very things that we might label as "oppressive" could very well be demanded from the victims themselves! This might seem strange, after all, who wants to be oppressed? But if we ask ourselves that, then we must be able to explain why there are so few historical records of female uprising.
Well, there can be a few valid explanations:
Possibility 1. Women did not have the means to form up together and fight men. This includes the fact that they were largely illiterate, had no formal organization that acted as gathering points, had no access to war equipment and had did not have any experience of domination and military strategy.
Argument 1. Note that most women were farmers in the past and living in villages, where most of the men were equally illiterate and knew no military strategy or domination. Gossip centers (both male and female) are the easiest organizations found in every village, and war equipment were pitchforks, which were accessible to all. Yet history notes that Confucian subservience of females to males was largely subscribed to, especially in ancient China and Japan.
Possibility 2. Women were not strong enough to fight back. They are in general the weaker sex.
Argument 2. That is nonsense. Physical strength never equated to ideological domination. If so, there would still be records of failed female uprisings. No one would dare think women are stupider than men anyway. Today's modern society only proves the exact opposite.
Possibility 3. Women oppressed other women e.g. mothers-in-law oppressed daughters-in-law to take revenge for the oppression they suffered under their own mothers-in-law.
Argument 3. This is a strong argument that I learned in Sociology of Gender. There is evidence that women fought among one another, causing them to push members of their own gender down so as to serve men, and in so doing, be unable to unite to fight men as a whole. However, although it serves to explain internal family struggles, it doesn't explain why inter-family disputes between genders never really occurred.
Thus I come to my final conclusion. Women may have been oppressed from the perspective of a contemporary scholar, but they did not see themselves as being oppressed as a gender group at that point in time.
Then my next question is: Why didn't they see themselves as oppressed? It is clearly so, given that wife-beatings, men having affairs etc. was extremely common in most civilizations. In addition, women were nearly treated as servants to men in some of the most advanced civilizations, Japan, for example. This is blatant oppression, it would take a non-human to be unable to recognize it. Even dogs know when they are being oppressed in such an obvious manner.
So I fiddled with the idea, talked to my dad (who's a marriage counselor), and the answer, I believe, can be found in the Bible, specifically, the example of Jesus and the Church.
A woman will wholeheartedly serve her man, if she believes that he will die for her.
As civilizations advance and declare war on one another, men don't even have a choice. They have to fight for both their families and their countries. Most probably don't give two hoots about the latter, but for the former they'll be hard-pressed to draw the sword, I feel. Thus, given that his life is on the line (and more so, the more wars there are), there is a possible link between frequent wars and the subservience of women. Women, wives in particular, are more likely to be willing to serve their husbands in such circumstances, because if their husband loses the war, they lose their lives too. Serving is almost a form of self-protection because it ENFORCES the idea of the "weaker" gender that requires protection, so that they don't actually have to go to war. (No, women will not stand in for men. Remember, marriage wasn't based on romance, daughters were matchmaked and "sold" to their husband's family) Love for their husbands that is shown through their dedication thus "grows" from such an arrangement.
So, there's my conclusion. Not exactly a complete explanation, but plausible to me.
However, a contemporary example is required to prove my point. As I've been going around Orchard Road these few days, I see the usual bunch of ah bengs and ah lians. I always wonder why ah lians are so hot. Don't see such standards in the average university girl. And it's strange also, how they stick to their ah beng boyfriends, especially when abused or treated like shit. Guys, do that to the university-level girlfriend and you can kiss her goodbye. Stranger still, given societal norms, hot ah lians should have more options of boyfriends, and university girls should have less, but yet such things happen. Education in simple economics should suffice to justify how weird this is.
So I came up with a wacky explanation. Ah lians are more willing to suffer because they believe that their ah beng boyfriends would actually die for them. The fact that quite a few of them are willing to pick a fight if you simply verbally abuse their girlfriends probably proves the point.
In conclusion, I'll pick something out from my dad's marriage counseling materials. Men, if you're not willing to die for her, don't marry her. Women, if he's not willing to die for you, don't marry him. That's what my dad always warns those who are undergoing the marriage counseling course. Christ was willing to lay down His life for the Church, and the subservience of the Church (we're nowhere close, really) to His will is justified based on this fact.
How many of us would enter into marriage if confronted with such a statement?
This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. -1 John 3:16
Do you want me to tell you something really subversive? Love is everything it's cracked up to be. That's why people are so cynical about it. It really is worth fighting for, being brave for, risking everything for. And the trouble is, if you don't risk everything, you risk even more. -Erica Jong
No comments:
Post a Comment