Women at work: What keeps them back?

Theoretically, it is the age of equal opportunities. Maybe more than equal, since many offices give preference to females during the recruitment phase. But still, many women do not feel completely comfortable in office environments, even those who have been given every opportunity to excel. The duties of home and hearth, coupled with some unwritten rules of discrimination, contribute to haunt women at workplaces.

Gyanu Pandey, Professor of Nepali Literature, once used to be a journalist. She sent word to a prominent politician that she would come to interview him the next day. When she reached his house, she was not given audience for a long time. She asked his PA to tell him that she was waiting, and only then did the politician appear. “Oh it’s you!” said he. “But my PA told me it was a woman!”

Such outright discrimination, when the politician had assumed that a woman cannot be a journalist, is rare today but has not been completely eradicated. Younger women continue to be underestimated and passed over just because they are women.

Shikha Bagla, an aspiring Chartered Accountant currently doing her articleship (three-year internship for CAs), feels that her male colleagues are handed important assignments more often than her. “Women can’t really handle major projects” is something she gets a lot, but when she studies her male colleagues’ reports to see if they have done anything better, she finds no difference in the quality.

In this era of positive discrimination, such direct bias has reduced by much. And yet, women continue to face insubordination from juniors like clerks and drivers, or even clients.

Umi Joshi, administrative assistant at WWF, wonders if it is because women are so soft and feminine. “Do we have to be commanding like men to be obeyed?” she asks thoughtfully, bringing up a complicated question of what femininity means in the first place. Is femininity always soft? Should women learn to be forceful to be heard at work? A cursory analysis may say so, but the truth is far more complicated than an easy yes or no answer.

One reason women lose their confidence at work is when femininity is discussed in traditional perspectives. Shikha gets uncomfortable when her male colleagues talk about actresses and models, and not in the most polite language. They ignore the presence of female colleagues, and the fact that sexist jokes may offend them. Sometimes, the talk may veer to personal issues, for example, someone may say “I need to get married because I need a dishwasher.” Reacting to such statements invites conflicts or the label of ‘feminist,’ while not reacting makes the women feel insulted.

Advices like “Take the Teej fast, as every good woman should,” or “Girls shouldn’t drink” abound in workplaces. Public space is just an extension of private space for these commentators, effective dumping ground for private ideologies. Women surrounded by such ideologies day in and day out end up feeling harassed for no reason, when these issues are unrelated to work and should have no bearing on the work environment.

Our social rules are changing, and many have learnt to keep offending opinions to themselves at work. But handling relationships at work remains a problem for women. For Shikha, keeping good relations with clients is a part of her duties. A man in her post may easily ask a client out to coffee or even drinks, but if a woman does the same, it gives out a different message. Things may get out of hand pretty soon and they start getting late night personal calls. When they try to keep their distance, clients complain that this particular woman is rude. Senior management do not understand such predicaments, and may instead turn around and reprimand junior female officers for not keeping good relations with clients.

Women feel comfortable if there are senior women in the management with whom they can talk about these issues. Having senior women in the management has many other benefits. “A woman can come in and tell me it’s that time of the month, and I will understand,” says Raveena Desraj Shrestha, Chief Business Officer at Mega Bank.

Raveena used to be a dresser in her younger days, paying a lot of attention to grooming. This immediately slotted her in the ‘Barbie Doll’ category for many, and she had to go out of her way to prove that she had brains. But now that she herself is in a senior position, she makes sure her juniors are well groomed, and does not tolerate any judgments based on appearances.

But that is not all. Hira Acharya, Under Secretary at HSEB, recounts that sometimes women hesitate to ask even work-related questions to supervisors, for fear of being laughed at. Even more, they are afraid of hearing the predictable “No wonder you don’t know much, women never do!” Surrounded by men, there is the pressure to prove that you are capable. If not, you risk labeling the entire female fraternity a failure. In more diverse environments, everyone feels comfortable to speak up about their doubts and challenges.

Women are known to be empathetic and intuitive and international researches tell us that women are sincere at work. Testimonials from employees in widely read business magazines tell us that women make good managers. And yet, women are mostly seen only in low to mid-level management, and not at the top.

“Theoretically, the opportunities are out there for anyone to grab,” says Umi, “And yet, there is this invisible glass ceiling which restricts women from advancing after a certain step.”

In the previous eras of homo-socializing, when men were friends with men only and women with women, women had few senior persons to socialize with. But men often socialized before or after work with colleagues, which created a bond between them. When two people compete for promotion, this bond may prove a crucial decisive factor, all else considered.

Many women of that generation bear the grudge of being left out of the promotion loop. “Why is it that I’m one of the first two females to become a Professor in the Department of Nepali Literature?” asks Gyanu who only got the coveted highest post in academia a few months ago. “It’s not that there were no qualified women before me, but somehow it was easy to pass them over.”

In these changing times, socializing in mixed groups has become normal. And yet, women often do not have the time to socialize because of responsibilities at home. With the birth of children, demands on time increase dramatically for women, but only marginally for men. No wonder when asked about what can be done to make offices women-friendly, Raveena does not skip a beat before saying “crèches.” These responsibilities mean that women may not have as much energy as a male counterpart to give to work. This also means that women depart from work earlier than male counterparts, cutting out their socializing time.

Ultimately, we come to the question of how to change things for the better. As a gender studies expert, Gyanu is wary of playing the gender card all the time. “The problems women face are definitely bigger, but focusing only on women may create imbalance in society in favor of women,” says she. The focus should be on changing all of society, not just women.

International pressures and scrutiny have raised our awareness of gender issues, and most offices, especially multinationals, have already prohibited discrimination. Testimonials from women indicate that increasing not just the quality but also quantity of women in workplaces contributes to women-friendly environments. With more and more women joining the workforce, perhaps the day is not far when women can feel as comfortable at workplace as their male counterparts.

Published in Republica oon 28 March 2014, Page 11

When god was a woman: book review

Fantastic foremothers

Any anthropologist worth his salt will agree that the earliest human societies were matriarchal. Nepal’s own Satya Mohan Joshi once mentioned to me the stories of Kathmandu’s mother goddesses who ruled the kingdom before men. But centuries of patriarchy has completely obliterated the evidence of such societies. In her book, When God was a Woman, Merlin Stone provides a refreshing outlook on ancient goddess worship and how they were obliterated by successive religions.

Let us start with what we know. In so many religions, the deity of agriculture is a woman—Laxmi in Hinduism, Demeter in Greek are just examples. And so are the deities of knowledge—Saraswati, Athena, etc. These attributions are not arbitrary—it is now agreed that farming and writing were developed in the earliest matriarchal civilizations. Stone documents evidence of worship of such female figures as far back as 25,000 BC in many parts of Europe and Asia.

Women had a high status in this society: Women, as the “gatherers,” stayed at home, which means, in modern terms, they owned the property. As mothers, they were the center of society. It was perhaps so because for a very long time, men’s role in procreation was not understood, and women were revered as sole creators of life.

And also as carriers of wisdom, women were worshipped. Mythologies of that age show mother goddesses as the Supreme Being, maybe comparable to the all-powerful Allah or Jehovah today. This goddess went by various names in many places: Isis, Innana, Ashtarte, and even finds mention in the Bible as a pagan goddess.

Gradually, as farming developed, men began staying home; as knowledge of men’s role in reproduction grew, so did the concept of monogamy and inheritance based on blood relations. While Stone attributes the changes in society to “Northern invaders” with regards to such aspects, I would go for less dramatic versions by other writers. For, gradually, a newer generation of myths came up, and those were based on the conquest of the feminine spirit. Indra’s conquest of Vritrasura is incomplete without the sorrow of his mother Danu, and Greek stories are full of the suppression of wise females, like Medusa.

Many other civilizations, like Egypt’s, contain similar stories. Perhaps the most prominent of them is the Jewish one where the female Eve is mercilessly suppressed. In fact, the Bible is one of the best proofs of this phenomenon. ‘Patriarch’ Abraham is the person who instituted the worship of the Biblical, patriarchal God. But Rachel, the wife of his grandson Jacob, continues to worship the old gods, among whom Innana is mentioned by name. There are also hints that the worship of these gods was widely prevalent then as opposed to the worship of Abraham’s Jehovah.

Today, we believe these new generations of myths are the oldest knowledge that we possess. Hinduism claims to be the oldest religion, and Judaism lays claim to the oldest monotheism. But that is just the effect that these mythmakers wanted to create: make us believe this is how it always was, that there was nothing before.

Stone’s book is essentially about the power of myths: how deeply the things we believe in shape us. We believe that our patriarchal myths have been there forever, since man’s days as an animal. We believe this is the way it should be, because it was ordained by nature. But these myths hide a dirty cover-up job. Those who buried one layer of myths under another knew that that was the most powerful and lasting way of perpetuating their version of the story. 

I had always been bothered about why, if women were capable of anything (as I believed), there were so few societies where women were powerful, so few role models of women scholars, leaders, and inventors. It always led me to doubt my capacities and fall back on the prevailing belief that women just aren’t good enough. But I gained confidence from the numerous examples of all kinds of capable and successful women in this book. I began to believe that apart from the physical category, a woman can do anything she wants to if she has the opportunity.

Perhaps assumptions of the kind that I made also blinded the earliest scholars of ancient history, because there are records of scholars who found such evidences and dismissed them. Scholars preferred to study periods when patriarchy was strong, and judged the idols of earlier mother goddesses, who often had huge, ungainly figures, by the standards of modern beauty – “fragile, willowy ideals,” in the words of Stone. They thought these figures belonged to some kind of “ancient Aphrodite.” When they came across stories of queens who took new kings every year, they believed the woman had become the queen only after marriage, when the evidence was to the contrary: permanent queen and renewable kings.

In essence, their Victorian social setting prevented them from seeing women as anything other than sexual objects, let alone ancient seats of power and objects of worship. This realization led me to question everything: not just the obvious patriarchal ideas floating around, but also the in-depth scholarship that justifies them. I realized that I needed to reanalyze every assumption about gender I have and my society has, and separate facts from contemporary values. The scholars also found the myths of women’s sexual liberties “shocking and morally depraved,” but it made me wonder if we went backwards in time instead of forward.

Going back in time and reviving these pagan religions or customs are not the answer to the gender discriminations that women face today. In the words of Stone, “Our hope is in the future, not in some mythical, glorious past.” And yet, knowledge of foremothers who were wise and respected gives women role models to look up to. I hope this book inspires confidence in women, as it did in me.

Published in Republica, March 7, page 12

Nepali women in war: Conflicted legacies

Like every other professional arena, soldiering has been a domain of men since time immemorial, with a few exceptions. Before the Maoist war from 1996 onwards, the battle of Nalapani was the only example in Nepali history where women fought. The presence of women in a battlefield was considered inauspicious, and to follow a female leader meant certain failure. But all that changed in the decade-long civil war. Women made up 40 percent of the rebel army. Suddenly, women were stepping out of their traditional, housebound duties and exploring new frontiers.

How did their decade-long experience in the field shape their lives?

“Initially, women were attracted to the war because it gave them a sense of identity beyond being ‘means of entertainment’ or ‘baby producing machines,” says Amrita Thapa, Central Committee Member of CPN-Maoist. One of them was economic identity. Before the war, though women’s labour had a very important part in agriculture, they had little or no say in how the produce of their labor was used, and most often were not involved in the decisions about the gains. But during the war, women farmed and give some parts of what they produced to the party as levy.

Neeta Gautam, a health worker during the war, remembers that even if it was just a single egg, they were proud of their contribution. It gave them the feeling that they were not reduced to the four corners of a house, that they were full-fledged persons who could contribute to society.

“It’s said that a woman can’t be an expert on the world,” says Neeta. “That may be true for a lone woman.” But when women got together and shared ideas, they learnt to analyze their situations. They realized how they were discriminated against in society.

This inspired a feeling of revenge in many women, and subsequently the desire to join the Maoist militia. They chose combat rather than administrative or organizational positions, because they believed they could get their revenge that way. “They took up guns with pride,” recounts Jaypuri Gharti, Central Committee Member of CPN-Maoist, who has been in politics for more than twenty years.

Nepal’s deeply ingrained gender bias reached into soldiering, and beliefs such as “if a woman touches a gun, it won’t not explode” were stringently upheld. In 1996, Dilmaya Yonjan broke this myth by successfully firing a gun. Women were not even supposed to be on the battlefield, but these women not only went into battle but led assaults and won. Devi Khadka, a war veteran and former CA member, remembers that many times it was women opened fire, breaking the myth that battles initiated by women are lost causes.

But still, every new step continued to be an uphill task. Even after women proved themselves in battle, they were not detailed for ambushes. Ambushes are dangerous because you have to set a trap, attack the enemy, defend your team, and make a successful retreat. Women were not entrusted it. But the Maoist women cadre protested and finally carried out a successful ambush in Morang.

Today, most of these women warriors have abandoned violent means and returned to peaceful ways. But their brief stint with the gun has left them deeply changed. Having broken many boundaries, they now believe they can do anything if given the opportunity. Previously, the only women who became politicians were those who had a husband or father in politics. But after holding leadership positions during and after the conflict, women believe an ordinary Nepali woman can become a leader and bring about change.

Many things have certainly changed. Jaypuri looks back fondly upon the cultural and religious barriers women broke during the war. They initiated movements against women not being allowed to wear pants, to have short hair, to eat before men, and many other such things that may sound insignificant but were important to women’s freedom and mobility. Later, they graduated to protesting social ills like alcoholism, domestic violence on women, Chhaupadi, restriction on dressing for widows, etc.

And these are changes that are here to stay, even in the most rural parts of the country.

“These problems haven’t been solved completely,” says Jaypuri. “But we brought these issues out into the open and made it acceptable for women to talk about them.”

Perhaps the most lasting legacy these women have brought back is political awareness. Amrita remembers the political coaching given to women who came in to vent their frustrations about discrimination. They were taught what a state is, what its duties are, what their rights are, what role social structure played in discriminations, and how they could change things through political activity. This knowledge, coupled with their successful economic activities during the war, has given many women the self-assurance to speak up for themselves and take initiatives.

“The difference is qualitative, not quantitative,” says Kamala Rokka, one of the first female guerrillas, who was Minister for Youth and Sports in 2011. “The centuries-old patriarchal system took a blow.” The tremendous rise in women’s political awareness and activity across the nation speaks for itself.

The war veterans are also proud of the legislative leaps that the nation has taken after the war, like the provision of citizenships through mothers, equal rights to property for sons and daughters, and presence of women in the country’s infantry. “Female leaders of other parties have told us that our movement made it easier for them to discuss gender issues within their parties too,” says Kamala.

And yet, it is their changed consciousness that has become a problem for some war veterans in their second innings in society. They have changed in the ten years they have been away from society, but the society has not. These women have fought in battles, led guerrilla groups and organizations, broken gender stereotypes. They have explored their capacities and discovered leadership potential. But now they are expected to go back to their old duties.

“During the People’s War, men and women were treated equally,” remembers Onsari Gharti, a commissar during the war and the newly elected Vice Chairperson to the CA. “Can you now turn around and tell the woman that she must be submissive, and expect her to obey?”

Many of these women are depressed as their dreams have not come true. Women still are not strong economically, educationally, or politically. This has left them struggling with inferiority complex and disillusionment with the leadership. Jaypuri feels their situation is akin to being raised to the skies and falling back to the ground with a thud.

Onsari believes this is because our society is in transition. It has not left its old structure behind, nor fully embraced a new structure. She believes women will not be able to fully explore their potential unless these changes are institutionalized.

Reflecting on the changes brought about by violence, Jaypuri agrees that the gun is not the only way to change society, but insists it would have taken decades for similar changes to come through peaceful ways.

So long as the conflict manifests traumatic repercussions, the debate on whether or not it was right will continue. But there is no doubt about the conscious and aware women it produced: a by-product that perhaps few had imagined. Their consciousness came through active participation in war.

But how long will it last? With the end of the conflict, will this consciousness end, too? These women, at least, believe they will pass it on to the next generation.

“I used to be afraid to speak up in front of my father,” says Onsari. “Many women still don’t speak in front of their husbands. But my daughter won’t be afraid to speak to anyone!”

Published in Republica, March 7, page 11