Why Are the 100 Million Women Missing? Because of the Economical Structure or Because of the Culture?

“More than 100 Million Missing Women,” is an unabridged statistical document of the Indian economist and Novel Laureate Amartya Sen, where he discusses thoroughly the gender ratios worldwide and in less developed regions comparatively. He points out the fact that how the environment where a woman grow up, the culture of that environment and the views and perceptions of people of that environment towards that woman, tremendously effect the rate of her life expectancy. In the second paragraph of the 5^th section in page 11 of the text, Sen adopts an informative tone by using some effective evidences to illustrate on his claim that if a woman get her basic rights of living including educational right and economical right, from the society, her chance of surviving increases, even more than a man.

            At the beginning of the paragraph, when Sen says, “gainful employment is not the only factor affecting women’s chances of survival. Women’s education and their economic rights-including property rights-may be crucial variables as well,” he infers that may be “gainful employment” for women, which means being an earning member of the family, getting recognition for their work is not the one and only way of decreasing the mortality rate of women, but providing them education and giving them economical rights can be some of the most important factors to do so. For proving his argument, he brings out the example of India. In India, some of the most economically advanced regions (for example- Punjab and Haryana) have greater inequality than less lucrative regions (Kerala) because of the culture and people’s perspective regarding the issue of women’s education of these areas. He shows his readers the statistics of the ratio of women to men in these areas, incorporating with his logic that is education and economical right can be crucial factors for women’s survival. When he talks about Kerala, he says, “consider the state of Kerala in India……it does not have a deficit of women-its ratio of women to men of more than 1.03 is closer to that of Europe,” he implies that though Kerala is not that much economically advanced area of India, the rate of mortality of women is much less here than the richest areas of India. He also provides the information that why it is happening so in Kerala. He says, “…..Kerala’s remarkably high literacy rate; not only is it much higher than elsewhere in India, it is also substantially higher than in China, especially for women.” By providing this information, Sen boosts his claim by showing that in spite of being a poor region, Kerala’s high literacy rate (that definitely happened because of the culture of that area) among women is increasing their life expectancy and education is playing a vital role here, not the economical structure of that area. According to him, religious and cultural norms are deeply rooted factors in the gender gap and these factors are responsible for making the women “missing,”

WORK CITED

Sen, Amartya. “More Than 100 Million Missing Women.” Nybooks Archieves. 20 Dec. 1990.

            Press. 31 Mar. 2013   

Why Can’t a Woman Have Her Own Room?

“A Room of One’s Own,” a brilliant creation of Virginia Woolf, where the author creates her argument by reflecting on how men’s oppression affected women’s intellectual pursuit in the twentieth century. By employing metaphors and simile, by using an effective imaginary character she exemplifies women’s surrendering nature to restrictions and boundaries placed upon them in their education in the Elizabethan period. In the title when she brings out an issue of “one’s own room,” she doesn’t mean of a conventional sitting room of our home, rather she implies a room of a woman that she and only she owes: a room where she can enhance her capability, her potentiality, where no one could intervene between her and her desire of exploring the world of art and literature. And by creating an imaginative character of Judith Shakespear, Woolf describes the miserable situation of women of that period by discussing how they were deprived from the right of following their own mind and how they were compelled to become unable for creating their “own room.”

            Woolf brings out the example of Judith Shakespear to demonstrate the miserable facts of the lives of Elizabethan women of facing discrimination in the society just because of taking birth as a woman, in spite of having intellectuality and knowledge equal to a man. When she says, “it would have been impossible, completely and entirely, for any woman to have written the plays of Shakespeare in the age of Shakespeare,”(42) for illustrating this conclusion, she conjures the imaginary character of Judith Shakespeare. Judith is as gifted perhaps as her brother, but receives no education except that which she can create for herself in what free time she has. Although she is “the apple of her father’s eye,”(43) her family expects her to conform to a social role that leaves no room for the development of her talent. She writes some, in secret, but hides or burns her work for fear of reprisal. She becomes engaged at a young age. When she begs to be allowed not to marry, she is chastised and beaten by her father. After this she runs away, driven by “the force of her own gift alone” (44). She wants to go into acting, but meets with rejection and ridicule. She is finally taken up by a theater-manager, becomes pregnant by him, and commits suicide. In spite of being same kind of genius like her brother, she couldn’t get the value of her talent from people because according to them, “it is unthinkable that any woman in Shakespeare’s day should have had Shakespeare’s genius” (42). The touching portrait of Judith Shakespeare takes us beyond mere facts, touching the tragedy and anguish that would have been at the heart of an intelligent woman’s experience at that time. Her imaginary story makes us feel and realize the sufferings and sorrows of the real stories of the women’s lives of that time. This is how the life of a woman with Shakespeare’s genius might have looked at that time, according to the view of Woolf. The author could have chosen the story of a real woman’s life, but her strategy of creating an imaginative sister of Shakespear makes the reader feel that even after having the same qualities like Shakespear, even after becoming the sister of a great personality, Judith (if she truly existed) had to face the same consequence because people used to believe, “Cats do not go to heaven. Women cannot write the plays of Shakespear”(42).

                                                                                                                                                      

WORK CITED

Woolf, Virginia. A Room of One’s Own. Fort Washington: Harvest Book, 1929.

“Doing gender” and “Doing sex” are they same? No. So how can “sex” and “gender” be same?

Judith Lorber, a sociologist, who is the author of “Night to His Day” presents herself as being very knowledgeable in this writing by discussing an array of topics on gender while going into great detail and backing them up with examples to help her readers understand the issues. She uses effective figurative language along with a concrete diction to build up an informative tone throughout her writing to persuade her reader to understand the difference between “sex” and “gender.” Moreover, her picturesque writing helps her audience to realize the acute existence of “doing gender” in our society.

At the very beginning, when Lorber says, “talking about gender for most people is equivalent of fish talking about water” and “…questioning it’s taken for granted assumptions and presuppositions is like thinking about whether the sun will come up” (54), she uses two powerful metaphor and similes to demonstrate on this fact that gender is so pervasive in every aspects of our life that we cannot restrain ourselves from “doing gender” at any cost. It has become such an inseparable part of our life that if we question its intrinsic ethics, it will be like we are questioning about our own existence or any universal truth of the world. Furthermore, when she says, “…we assume it is bred into our genes” about practicing gender she illustrates that these issues are so routine activities for us that we hardly even see that they are there; however, they are constantly changing.

To support her claim she shares her personal experiences of observing two little babies with her readers. She claims that though the social gap between sexes is narrowing in this modern world, still it is essential for people to maintain and show the basic differences that exist between a man and a woman. When Lorber describes the appearance of gender by saying, “Then I noticed the gleam of tiny ear rings in the child’s ear……….lace trimmed socks. Not a boy after all. Gender done” (54) she amazingly proves her point that still it is important for the parents to make people understand about the exact sex of their child by “doing gender” like this way with it.

An interesting topic the author addresses that needs to be persuaded is the difference in the terms “sex” and “gender” and the false view that a person’s sex determines their gender. According to Lorber, this is a Western belief and it is not valid. She claims that “Physiological differences such as sex, stage of development, color of skin, and size are crude markers” (56). “Gender cannot be equated with biological and physiological differences between human females and males”; “The building blocks of gender are socially constructed statuses” (58). Here the author is trying to strengthen her argument that, though the words “sex” and “gender” are interpreted as same by people, the actual meanings are completely different from each other. Sex is something that is decided by the genitalia but gender is something that is reaped within ourselves by the society to tell us the way we should act, behave and live. No matter, if it creates inequality between man and woman. The society would designate it as the biological difference between a man and woman, not as socially constructed matter.

WORKS CITED: Lorber, Judith. “Night to His Day”: The Social Construction of Gender. Yale University Press, 1994. Print.

PLATO AND FEMINISM: TOGETHER OR POLES APART

         Is Plato a feminist? Did he use to feel a little bit sympathy for Greek women during the time of ancient Greece while women were just considered as an object of fulfilling sexual need? Or is he just like his student Aristotle who is clearly a declared anti-feminist? Whenever looking at feminist literatures of ancient philosophers, this question may arise in a reader’s mind that whether Plato is a feminist or not? First, we have to look at the terms “feminism” and “feminist.” Feminism believes men and women are equal in every aspects of life and a feminist is who have faith in this doctrine. Feminism is a modern term and Plato is from an age, where the term feminism had no existence at all. So, if we question if Plato is a feminist or not, this will not be an appropriate one. It would be better if we question like this way, “does Plato have some qualities of feminism or not?”

            There are always three characteristics of an argument. One is for, another is against and the other one is neutral. I think the answer of this question is the third one. Plato is neither a feminist nor an anti-feminist. He always has played a neutral role in his creations whenever it comes to the matter of women. Why does not Plato have the qualities of feminism? If we look at his two creations named “Symposium” and “Republic”, we would find that here Plato has given respect and promoted those women to the guardian (ruler) class who are more likely to man than woman. If we drag out the example of Diotima’s (a character from Symposium) speech here, we would see that she has given regard as the men but she doesn’t have any individual voice as her voice was given through a man. Also, some people think that this is the only reason she has got a voice in this discussion. According to Arlene W. Saxonhouse, Plato has given regards to those women who have manly features. Briefly, his respect is towards those women who are actually desexed (72). Moreover, Elizabeth Spelman thinks that, Plato’s respected women are not altered from their body but of their souls. As she thinks that to Plato physical distinction really doesn’t matter. What matters to him is the soul; to him men’s souls are noble and those women who can achieve the characteristics of a man are worth of achieving the respect of guardian class (4, 6). These examples may help a reader to conclude that may be Plato is not a feminist.

            But, still there are some counterarguments, which do not let the reader to come to this conclusion. Again, we can have the example of Diotima here. Though Diotima has got her voice through a man, she explains the nature of love, beauty and immortality through metaphors of the female body. She enlightens that the way of gaining immortality is by creating and conceiving of beauty, which a women can easily do by conceiving and nurturing her child (Bar On, 85). We should keep this thing in mind that whatever Diotima has said is actually the thoughts of Plato himself. So, Plato’s obvious admiration of Diotima makes us to think that may be Plato is the first feminist Philosopher. In conclusion, after seeing all this arguments we can assume that Plato is actually neither a feminist nor an anti-feminist.

 

WORKS CITED:

Saxonhouse, Arlene W. “The Philosopher and the Female in the Political Thought of

Plato.” Feminist Interpretations of Plato. Ed.  Nancy Tuana.  Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania

State University Press, 1994. Pg. 67-86.

Spelman, Elizabeth V. “Hairy Cobblers and Philosopher-Queens.” Engendering

 Origins. Ed.  Bat-Ami Bar On. New York: State University of New York Press, 1994. 1-24

Bar On, Bat-Ami.  Engendering Origins:  Critical Feminist Readings in Plato
and Aristotle.  State University of New York Press, New York, 1994.

PAUSANIAS’ VIEW ON LOVE IN SYMPOSIUM

“Symposium” is a frame narrative fiction of Plato that is based on real people who are having an argumentative dialog and this whole conversation seems real to the readers while reading. One of the speakers of this dialog is Pausanias and he is giving his own view regarding the matter of love.
“no action is either good or bad, honorable or shameful….Love is not in himself noble and worthy of praise; that depends on whether the sentiments he produces in us are themselves noble.” This is how Pausanias defines love from his point of view, which is totally contrary with the view of the first speaker Phaedrus. I like Pausanias’ idea that there is more than one type of love. According to his suggestion there are actually two kinds of love as there are two goddesses “Aphrodite”. What I got from Pausanias’ speech was that there are two loves to represent two main loves; common love and old/heavenly love. Common Love, according to Pausanias, is bad because its attraction is indiscriminating, directed toward bodies rather than toward minds. As a result, people who are motivated by Common Love are equally interested in women and boys, and the less intelligent the better: that way they can get what they want more easily. Heavenly Love is associated with the daughter of Uranus who has no mother, and so it is directly only toward males. This kind of Love is usually felt for boys of developing maturity who show signs of intelligence, and with whom a life-long partnership is possible.
Obviously the main topic of love that these men are focusing on is love towards a boy or a male, but I am not going to address this because it really doesn’t matter what the subject is but the ideas associated with the subject. When Pausanias talks of common love, he means love that is associated with immoral love and has mostly to do with sexual attraction. His observation towards this is it is vulgar because it is more linked with using love only to satisfy the body but not the soul. The heavenly love is greater than the common love as it may satisfy the body but has a major focus on satisfaction of the soul. This is considered as an older love because this kind of love usually develops at an older age, when our body is not that much important due to infertility or may be people of this age is looking for or at least is more aware of a deeper connection that is based on a love of courage and wisdom.
I like his view that what matters is not the action or love of another, but how we love and the values we include in our love. Pausanias’ observation is that appropriate love takes place when the lover makes the loved one good and wise, educating him and teaching him virtue, and when the loved one gratifies the lover, and is eager to acquire the wisdom his lover has and he can share with his partner. According to him the main purpose of love is to create virtue and interpreting it in any other meaning is totally wrong.

Analyzing “The Looking Glass” by a reader’s looking glass

The poem “The Looking Glass” is a brilliant creation of Kamala Das, where the poet uses irony tone to praise the male ego by admiring a man’s ability to draw attention to her own soft, feminine self. Here, the speaker is the poet herself and the structure of the poem seems like a lyric poetry to me as it has strong feelings and thought of the poet. By using this way she is trying to stimulate a man’s passion and satisfy his superior male ego but in a verbal irony tone that means saying one thing but meaning another.

In the poem the poet says, “be honest about your want as/ Woman. Stand nude before the glass with him” so that he feels himself “the stronger one/And believes it so and you so much more/ softer, younger, lovelier…” She lets the man feel that he is her “only man” and to satisfy her “endless female hungers” she offers to him her whole female being which includes “the musk of sweat between the breasts, “scent of long hair” and “the warm shock of menstrual blood”. These lines show pure sensuality in the form of touch and smell. She says, “Gift him all.” It means she is saying to women to give everything that makes them women to their “superior” men. The idea of the gift here is used in the sense of surrender and to submit them totally.            

Here, poet Kamala Das uses an irony voice to show the readers the actual truth of the relationship between man and woman. While reading the poem, readers may think that the poet is praising men by approaching women to surrender themselves completely to the man but actually she is trying to show us the society’s view for women regarding the matter of man-woman relationship where women always have to maintain the pretence of subscribing the idea of a strong man. The poet uses “nude” as a metaphor that means even in nude, it is the man who seems stronger than the woman. So, a woman always has to obey her “man”. Even if he departure, a woman has to make her sexual life “drab” and “destitute” because she can’t give her “man’s” place to anyone else. Her sexual self that once received warm erotic touches is compared as ‘‘Gleamed Like burnished brass” now should become colorless. Without her companion, she lost her color; she lost her glow.