Male Dominance:
(Through strength for utility,
but also under fear and anxiety)
by Sain Sucha
INTRODUCTION
There appears to be a general agreement among the social anthropologists that women are subjugated by men
all over the world; although its
degree, the means, causes and their justification (or repudiation)
remain the topics of discord.
In this paper it
is intended to present some recent theories
which attempt to clarify the means and nature of this subjugation,
and the criticism of these theories by the opposing researchers.
The major question asked here is that although the theories discuss and explain the subjugation
of women as a class (category) by men as a class*, they fail to specify
satisfactorily why this class of suppressed women was further divided into
individuals and put into a one—one
relationship in most cultures as the dominated females.
An explanation based upon the feelings of inadequacy felt by most men in their sexual
performance and its subsequent effect, which probably resulted in the isolation
of women from other men and women, is put forward for further discussion.
* Throughout this article the word 'class' is used in its logical (mathematical)
context, and without any Marxist economical connotations,
except when used with the Marxist views.
We can judge
the existing patterns of economical, societal and sexual relationships between
contemporary men and women under two dissimilar values systems; and the
structure as well as the acceptance of these relationships according to these
systems would be quite different. For such an analysis we could either assert
that:
1.
The human relationships are prescribed and
ordained by some very able entity (entities) that has universal comprehension.
Such entity (entities) created us in our present physical and mental form, and
our mutual human relationships are based upon our belief and trust in this
entity. The structure of our relationship is traceable in the myths, sagas and
edicts that are related to such entity, and are given to us in written or oral
form by our ancestors. The annulment of such edicts in not within human power.
or
2.
The human relationships are the outcome of the
results and inferences drawn by our ancestors during the course of their
evolution, and the circumstances they have gone through, and passed on to us as
in our biological and psychological inheritance. The structure of our
relationship is traceable in the organisation of various cultures and societies
and their past and present history, myths and sagas. It is through their
analysis we can see how our ancestors in various periods of human life laid
rules and regulations for male and female relationships that we received
biologically and socially.
Bearing in mind that in this article I am looking at the human
relationships at a scientific level, obviously there is no point in discussing
such relationships which human beings can neither ordain nor nullify; thus, I
would confine myself to discuss thoughts endorsed in the second section.
Recent commentators intending to explain the so called imbalance between the male and
female relationships (Ortner 1974, Fox
& Steinmann 1974, Leibowitz 1975, Rubin
1975, Jordanova
1980) may, roughly, be divided into biological determinists, evolutionists,
cultural anthropologists, structuralists and Marxists.
Each of this
group has projected their picture of the development
of the human relations where men, for one suggested reason or another,
subjugated women, mainly, for the purpose of her utility within the domestic and
reproductive sphere; and if, and when, women were employed in the 'productive'
work outside the domestic sphere the value of their labour measured in
terms of material repayment was, and is,
generally lower than that of the male's, even when assigned to
identical tasks.
The biological
determinists rely primarily upon the muscle
strength, anatomical differences and female's vulnerability during
menstruation, pregnancy and post-delivery; period:
"Originally it was hard to question the allocation of roles based on the obvious differences between the sexes.
The men were larger, stronger, and had more endurance. The women were smaller,
weaker, and were subjected to mysterious periodic attacks of bleeding. The
women also bore children and had to nurse them. There were long months when
they were semi-restricted, both in the kind of work they could perform and in
their mobility"
(Steinmann & Fox 1974/17)
While the later representatives of this group go a step further
in ethology and draw heavily from the new research in genetics and
declare:
"that the human organism is 'wired' in
a certain way so that it can process and
emit information about certain facts of social life such as language and
rules about sex, and that, furthermore, it
can process this information only at certain times and only in certain
ways. The wiring is geared to the life cycle so that at any one moment in a
population of Homo sapiens there will be individuals with a certain 'store'
of behaviour giving out information at another stage to others who are wired to
tract this information in a particular way"
(Tiger
& Fox 1974/30)
Thus:
"In the
same way the rest of human culture lies in the biology of the Species."
(Tiger &
Fox 1974/30)
And:
" In sum we
behave culturally because it is our nature
to behave culturally, because natural selection has produced an animal that has to behave culturally, that has
to invent rules, make myths, speak
languages, and form men's clubs, in the same way that the hamadryas baboon has to form harems, adopt infants, and
bite the wives on the neck."
(Tiger & Fox 1974/38)
In other words
the notion which human beings may have about having a mind and its personal use
in the choice of action, conscious planning, judgement of a specific situation
at a specific time under specific conditions
is merely an illusion for that mind. In reality all that we do and think
is genetically wired (and determined) for generations and for each person.
There is of course active voicing against any such determinism:
"The
evidence from primate studies and the examination
of human infants, adult hormones, and the behaviour of hermaphrodites and
others who have been called 'sexual anomalies*
(Hutt, 1972: Money & Ehrharnett,
1972) all point to the conclusion that biology constrains but does not
determine the behaviour of sexes, and the differences between human males and
females reflect an interaction between our physical constitutions and pattern
of social life."
(Rosaldo & Lemphere, 1974/5)
Also:
"The sexual division of labour is established by
rules stipulated within each social group. Such rules are sex related
(and age related), although not necessarily determined by either sex or age.
Instead social rules and tasks become associated with sex and age by an educational process of some kind,
whether formal or informal. In preliterate societies the recitation of
myth and the performance of ritual serve as educational processes."
(Bamberger, 1974/277)
Thus, on one hand
there are advocates who insist that whatever
we do or think is predetermined over millions of years through a process
of natural selection and has become a genetic part of human animal, making him a kind of robot which might
have misconceptions about personal knowledge or of conscious development
through a process of mutual learning and
understanding during human discourses. Their opposites contend, just as
solidly, that human action is a result of education and cultural activity within each social sphere, and a specific person would
behave differently if exposed to different programmes during his life time.
According to the biological
determinists and evolutionists the unbalance in the relationships between human
males and females is a consequence of partly the bodily determined functions —
male's physical strength, higher speed and stamina; female's weaker
constitution , disability during menstruation and longer periods of time given to care
taking during and after pregnancy — and partly the result of the extension of
the dominant role which males achieve during these periods when women need
care-taking:
"Enough specific experience would lead to the conclusion that the
pregnant women, the menstruating woman, and nursing woman should stay
home. Perhaps even the most primitive mind finally came to the general
conclusion that all women should stay at home."
(Steinmann & Fox, 1974/18)
A rather simplistic view about the
domestication of the women! It appears
that the authors of these lines never thought that besides menstruating and nursing women, in those societies there
must be a host of wounded and disabled men too
— after all the men we are talking about were hunters, warriors and braves: men
in a constant state of combative action against wild animals or other equally
strong but unfriendly men. If the recent history is any guide then the number of
wounded and disabled persons is empirically always a multiple of the dead in war-like activities at the local or larger
scale. And such men need as much nursing and care, if not more, than any
menstruation or pregnant women.
Nevertheless, there is a
general consent that the male's muscle power,
along with his mastery of weapon, while female's confinement to the
domestic sphere and child-caring did play a definite role in the domination of women by men, at least in the
early stages of human societies when our forefathers are said to be
mainly hunters and gatherers.
Kathleen Gough puts this case as:
..to the extent that men have power over women in hunting societies,
this seems to spring from the male’s monopoly of heavy weapons, from the
particular division of labour between the sexes, or from both.
Although men seldom use weapon against women, they possess them (or possess
superior weapons) in addition to the physical strength.
(Gough,
1975/70)
Once women were domesticated and put under the men's control
not only did their mode of physical existence change, but their status as a
thinking being also seem to have been relegated and its range was confined to
the realm of home — this is a view which is propagated by most of the male
anthropologists and some female anthropologists too who have declared the woman
as the second sex (de Beauvoir.S. 1953, Ortner 1974). Sherry
Ortner, who caused quite a stir among female anthropologists, declared that woman is a universal
victim of male dominance:
"The universality of female subordination, the fact that it exists
within every type of social and economic arrangement and in societies of
every degree of complexity, indicate to me that we are up against
something very profound, very stubborn, something we cannot..."
(Ortner
1974/67)
What, on the other hand, Ortner dose not discuss in detail is that this
alleged inferiority of women is recognised by which group – by men alone, by
women or by men and women.
C.P.MacCormack comments:
”Ortner states that "everywhere, in every culture women are
considered in some degree inferior to men". But she does not say by whom
they are considered to be so. By men? By women? By how many? In field work I
have talked with women chiefs, women heads of descent-groups, heads of women secret societies, and women house-hold heads who would
not agree with the sweeping thesis as it stands. They would say that women are inferior
to men in some ways and men are inferior to women in some ways, giving
productive talks in the division of labour as examples."
(MacCormack 1980/17,18)
Actually we have two concepts here which are easy to get mixed with each
other – Subordination and Inferiority. That women are subordinated in most
culture is a historically verifiable fact, that they are also always considered
inferior within the same cultures is often a conjecture which may or may not be
true. Not all subordinated beings are considered inferior by the dominants. And not all
subordinated beings consider themselves inferior to those who dominate. The
classical examples would be the old and current civilizations of
Similarly, women may have been dominated by men in most cultures but
this does not mean that they consider themselves as inferior to men. Not
even all men who dominate women consider these women as inferior in all cultures — instead
in many cultures men are actually afraid of women and have gone to
extra-ordinary lengths to construct myths
and legends to nullify two natural superiorities which each normal woman
has against a normal man:
(1) Her ability
to procreate.
(2)Her natural privilege, when she has a free
choice, to decide the real line of descent, and consequently the distribution of
property by inheritance.
“In other words the identity of a newborn’s
mother is always certain, but that of the father is only expected. In the
modern world the observance of the patrilineal system is merely a tranquiliser
for the male’s vanity. In the natural world the only reliably traceable
ancestry is matrilineal. It is either through mutual consent or sheer coercion
that the male may decide the fatherhood; and not always successfully.”
(Sucha
1985/61)
Woman's natural gift to reproduce the human race
seems to have had a double negative effect — physical handicap and dependency
on men on one hand, and on the other the exertion of a compulsion upon men to
create things outside their bodies to give them also the status of 'birth-givers';
if not human beings then at least human ideas and their visible
manifestation in the form of material creations accomplished by male hands.
This ability to produce from 'within' the body and 'outside' the
body is evaluated differently by opposing schools of thought. According
to Ortner:
”In other words,
woman's body seems to doom her to mere reproduction of life; the
male, in contrast, lacking natural creative
function, must (or has the opportunity to) assert his creativity
externally, "artificially" through the medium of symbols and
technology. In so doing, he creates relatively lasting, eternal, transcendent
objects, while the woman creates only perishables — human beings."
(Ortner 1974/75)
While Weiner says:
"In the Trobiands, recognition is given to the perishability of
human beings, but, rather than diminish the inherent value of human beings as a
means of achieving immortality, this recognition, especially enacted in death
rituals, stresses the value placed on the continuity of life. In this way, the
perpetuation of life or human survival is given far more transcendental
significance than is the kind of immortality found in objects or in
"cultural" survival. Therefore women, innately tied to the continuity
of life, remain the locus of the means by
which human survival transcends itself".
(Weiner 1976/234)
She adds:
Thus, in the Trobiands, male power over others is limited and the male search for immortality
can only be fully achieved through women's
control of dala identity. Men's
attempt to achieve individual immortality
must always remain an imitation of women's
control over the re-genesis of human life. Men seek to imitate regeneration through control over property, which
allows them to construct power
hierarchies composed of women and men."
(Weiner 1976/233)
Personally I support Weiner. One need to ask Ortner one simple question:
If it is men who construct 'lasting, eternal and transcendent objects, then for whom
these objects are constructed? For men only? For other human beings'?
As long as women construct men
and other 'human beings' then the primary honours must go
to women because without their 'construction' there would
be no one to appreciate these 'lasting, eternal and transcendent
objects'.
Women's natural ability to reproduce ought not to have any negative
connotations to it, and it is only through envy and fear that men have
succeeded in producing such an inverse construction of reality.
Enormously fastidious explanations, throughout documented human history,
by men in power have been put forward to show that it is the male who is the
injector, the seed planter, the initiator of human life and the social creator,
while women were merely a receptor of the male grace. Mary Warner adduces:
"In the Hellenistic world, the Stoics maintained that men's
seed, divided into body and soul, joined with a part of the woman's pneuma, or soul, to form the embryo. In their view, the whole child
entered the woman's womb, and she provided none of the matter, only a
little bit of the soul."
(Warner.M 1976/40)
And not only did this view of the male as the active and woman being the passive has
influenced their relationship in the sexual field but it is argued that its
extension in the long run also determined woman's secondary status
as a social being:
"The physiological fact of women being the sexual receptor became
confounded with the social or psychological qualities of passivity and
submissiveness. Similarly, the physiological fact of the male being the
injector, became associated with activity and aggressiveness. It is not a very
big step from passivity to dependence, and from
dependence to inferiority. Thus women became to be seen as inferior, or at
least secondary, while men, in contrast, were seen as primarily in their sexual
and social role."
(Steinmann &
Fox 1974/18)
There are many other
examples which signify male's discriminations and fears
directed against the female, and the attempted desecration of her on
grounds of menstruation ( MacCormack 1980/9), aesthetically
repulsive associations of smell and form with her genitals (Gillison
1980/149) or legal proclamations describing her as legally only half reliable as the male (Quran). Through
these channels men have availed themselves with outlets which allow them
escape in the nature (Gillison 1980/146), practice
sodomy, under a multitude of symbolic and/or explicit excuses for their own
sexual release (Rubin 1975) or else have
degraded her to a level of sub-cultural, almost sub-human, servile being
whose main function in life is to attend when service is demanded (Paul.L 1974/ 290).
But why impose all this
degradation, domination, subordination and misuse of a being which constitutes one half of Homo sapiens?
To some it is a genetic
code which makes us behave the way we do (Tiger & Fox 1974), to others it is the exchange of women
in marriage alliances which propagated men
to subdue and utilize women (Levi-Strauss 1969), other structuralists
say that it is woman's closeness to
nature and that of men's to culture which resulted in that those who
developed culture could control those who were non- or semi-participants in the development of
culture, societal rules and jural regulations (Ortner 1974), while the Marxists
or neo-Marxists contend that although the most primitive societies were
sexually egalitarians , it was the growth of class society which, along with
the concept of private property, gave rise
to the subjugation of women for the purpose of domestic and reproductive
labour, while men were used for the productive (economic and cultural ) work
(Engels 1891, Sacks 1975). While discussing 'The Origin of the
Family' Kathleen Gough depends basically
upon the Marxist theory and the new evidence which has become handy by
the detailed study of the primates — our closest relatives in the animal kingdom. According to her, when the
human societies changed from gathering and hunting bands, to
semi-permanent agrarian groups, on to settled
agriculturists with the appearance of villages and small towns, leading
to the rise of state, and now through the industry the concentration of huge
masses in crowded residential areas, there has been a gradual alteration in the
male/female relations at all levels.
The band societies involved periodic intensive co-operative ventures, which were followed by
the dispersal of the band into smaller units.
This involved sexual intimacy at two levels concurrently: husband/ wife
pairing as separate units, as well as male/female group relations if and when the occasion called for such mating.
Probably no rigid code of behaviour existed between the two modes, and
the members of the band societies could change from one mode to the other
without much fuss (Gough 1975/68). The semi-permanent agrarian groups required
more stable relations between particular males and females, both in the
societal discharge of rights and obligations and that of sexual avail-ability.
The appearance of the settled agriculturists was followed by primarily with the personal rights to the use of
the land and secondarily with the private ownership of the specific
pieces of land; along with the establishment of the patriarchy and the
formulation of the rules of inheritance, in most societies.
She concludes:
"A distinct
change occurred with the growth of individual and family property in herds, in
durable craft objects and trade objects, and in stable, irrigated farm sites or
other forms of heritable wealth. This crystallized in the rise of the state,
about 4000 B.0 with the growth of
class society and of male dominance in the ruling class of the state, women's
subordination increased, and eventually reached
its depth in the patriarchal families of the great agrarian states."
(Gough 1974/75)
Suddenly the men needed the women not only as the co-workers and
the reproducers of the future co-workers, but also as the reproducers of
the children of particular genitors to enable the children to qualify as the
inheritors of those particular property owners.
In different cultures the rules of inheritance vary but the
biological bond within the family between the members of the same gender is often a strong one, even in those
societies where the sons do not inherit the biological fathers (Weiner 1976/ 141).
These above
given argumentations, if correct, give a reasonably consistent chain of events
which depict that how and why men subordinated women; but there is one
important link missing — Why men subordinated
and subjugated women as individuals in almost all cultures, rather than
as groups? Women could have been used for the performance of all services -
sexual, reproductive and domestic - as a class in groups of moderate sizes, as
she is used in some isolated cases. Why men confined
women into separate homes and restricted their physical and mental movement
when, in fact, had they utilised them collectively it would have been easier to use them; just the same way
dominant men have used other men as slaves and labourers for the
productive work?
One explanation is the sound proposition forwarded by the Marxist
analysts that it was the concept of private property inheritable to
particular children fathered by certain individuals only.
But I believe that there is another reason too, which is little discussed in this context:
it is the sexual inadequacy of the most men
in giving sexual and sensual satisfaction to his female (Hite 1976), which
causes deep anxiety among most men, every-where and In every culture, and which resulted in the
restrictions imposed upon the female
availability to other men.
The female body, because of its anatomy and physiology, requires a
completely different handling, to put it mildly, than that of the male.
Male's physical satisfaction is the moment of orgasm (Masters &
Johnson 1966). An easily observable empirical event, which is
followed by immediate obvious changes in male's body and mood! A woman knows when a man is relieved. For most men
the female orgasm is a mystery, and
not an easily achievable end by straight forward copulatory intercourse (Hite 1976).
In most case it requires the stimulation of the clitoris and other erogenous
parts of the female before and during the sexual intercourse. Very few men know the technique to bring forth the apex of sexual satisfaction for
most women. And this inadequacy causes an anxiety which runs deep in the
psyche of the human male.
Discussing the sexual relationships among American men and women in 'The Male
Dilemma' Steinmann & Fox write:
"But today women consider themselves as something more than sexual
objects, and rightly so. They have learnt that their bodies are more sensitive
to a variety of erogenous stimulations than a man’s,
and that they are capable of profound and prolonged orgasms the same and even
different from men's. Thus the meaning of femininity has taken a
different dimension, and a woman feels she is less than women if she is unable
or is denied the opportunity to experience her total sexuality."
(Steinmann &
Fox 1971/129)
Also:
"Thus the male finds himself in a double bind. He is not a man' in his own eyes
if he does not assume the dominant sexual role and gratify his own
desires, but in his wife's eyes he is not a man if he can not
satisfy her as well."
(Steinmann & Fox 1971/128)
This book is written in 1974 and considers human relation-ships in the late sixties in the
It is only in the Western World (where most 'dominant' social
anthropologists happen to be), just breaking out of the bondages set by the
Christian view of sexuality and those
Muslim countries where she is considered only semi-human, the female
sensuality is considered as a new discovery.
One, of course, must differentiate between that
which is naturally true of males and females from that which has become a part
of the men and women's contemporary existent nature, or that which is
assumed to be their nature but in reality is a behavioural pattern after
years of coercive compliance. The practical possibilities for the physical and
mental activities believed to be true within a specific society for its male and female members may not be true at all in
their unadulterated form; yet, the members of that specific society may
behave and practise their beliefs as if they
were universally true — women in many Muslim countries may almost behave
and function like half-intelligent beings because they have been conditioned to behave so, or women in many cultures may,
initially, act sexually passive because they have been taught to appear
so, and this passivity may consequently become a part of their external
attitude.
It is difficult to pin-point that at what level
of social evolution the incest taboo was
introduced upon most of the human society; because initially all small
groups must have been incestuous and, or, consanguineal. The non-availability of
the sexually mature females to a certain-kind and number of males because of
the incest taboo was counter‑balanced
with the rules of exogamy, which ascertained a formal mode of peaceful exchange of nubile women between different
groups, and which was, when needed, supplemented with the coercive
recruitment of the females from other sources by abduction.
Whereas exogamy
facilitated various societal groups to secure women, and men, for the
purpose of biological intimacy it has one big drawback — it ensures no
emotional intimacy between the intended husbands
and wives. People put together by the common needs of the society may, as individuals, turn out to have quite
uncommon likes and dislikes in their
day to day intercourse; which also applies to the sexual satisfaction
extended, and expected, by each gender to the other.
It is generally accepted
that the incest taboo was imposed by the males for the protection and isolation
of the female, so that she could be used for exchange during kinship alliances.
While discussing incest in
'Male Dominance and Female Autonomy' Alice Schlegel puts
forward two alternative, and interesting, hypothesis about
male/female relations, proposing that it was not the female but the male who
was the principal object of protection. The two hypotheses are:
"1) A man who dominates a woman in other spheres of her domestic life
is likely to dominate her sexually as well.
2) The 'subordinated female is not only more accessible to the dominant
male but is more attracted to him as well. Besides she finds him the attractive
object and is potentially seductive towards him.
“Thus, the relative strength of the incest taboo serves to protect the
susceptible man, not the helpless woman."
(Schlegel 1972/128,129)
The female sexuality — generally referred to as 'wild; 'natural',
'unrestrained' but according to my judgement ought to be
called as 'unsatisfied' or rather 'dissatisfied'
— makes the male feel insecure, not only in psychological terms but also in physical
context. Although the subordinating male has the sexual power over the
subjugated female, the subjugated female has the sensual power over the
dominant male – Sexuality : Sensuality :: Body : Mind.
In order to fight off this strong attraction between the few dominant males
and the many dominated females in all societies the other men were
forced to erect barriers, both material and legal, between the two attracted parties if they
were also to get their own women and children.
After a man has copulated with his woman couple of times, she can feel calm because her man is
discharged; at least for the same occasion; often longer, the duration of this
discharged state growing longer with the advancement of her man’s age. After
converting her mans stiffness to softness she knows that no further
constrain is called for to curtail his movements. The reverse is not true.
The professional, and some historical, ladies (Messalina,
wife of Claudius), have been documented to accommodate 20+ men the same
evening, in a succession of evenings, quite regularly.
And the professional and non-professional sisters of those professional
ladies all over the world are gifted by nature that whenever instead of a clash
between body and will there is wish for the union of body and mind then they have
a greater capacity for it than their contending men.
According to natural system almost every healthy male can be sexually
satisfied by a healthy female. But its reverse, as I have said earlier, often
results in female’s sexual dissatisfaction. Thus, if men and women lived in
groups then only a few men would have been popular among women, whereas most
men would have been deprived of female sexuality.
We see the same system among other animals which live in groups, where
only few attractive males impregnate all the females; while most of the males
spend their time quarrelling and fighting with each other.
Among human beings we have evolved systems according to which most men’s
personal needs are satisfied, but these men can not get rid of the feeling of
female sexual dissatisfaction from their minds!
In various societies men have tried to find a remedy for their complex
by curtailing the female sexuality by different means – in certain parts of
Africa her clitoris is surgically removed; for a long time Christianity
considered the sexual act as dirty, and women were told that their
function was to procreate only; and according to the Muslim tradition the
recommended position of sexual union is such that not only women get the
minimum of clitoral stimulation during intercourse but the men also avoid
looking into her eyes; lest!
A solid proof of men’s fear of the female heat is the jokes and
advertisements that we find all over the world in books, magazines and TV,
where men are continuously reminded that they are victim of some sexual
deficiency and the cure for their deficiency is available. Unfortunately
the punishment for the so called sexual deficiency of men is inflicted upon
those poor animals whose horns, tusks and other bones are said to be the cure
of these ailments, and as its result these animals are becoming almost
extinct.
Thus, if good moral societal rule, as defined, prescribed and enforced by
men, are to be practised then unnatural, often called as cultural, boundaries must be drawn to restrain the dissatisfied women;
the men are restrained by the nature.
And women were and are, thus, not only subjugated by the dominant men for utility
as a class, but that class was further broken into individuals by the
less-dominant, and generally insecure, men to ascertain the availability of the
women for their sexual and domestic needs, as well as for the reproduction of
the future helping hands and inheritors.
There is mush to be explored in the field of 'sex role', but I restrict
this paper to the projection of three thoughts:
1)Not only elements of
superiority but acute feelings of inferiority can also produce conditions of
dominance, through desperation, with extremely adverse results for the
dominated.
2)The male's
obsession with the control of the female, both as a class and as an individual,
is partly a product of male's superiority in strength and weaponry,
coupled with laws associated with patriarchy and division of property, and
partly the outcome of a deep anxiety which has its seat in the emotional
insecurity of the male.
3)So long as women
all over the world do not break the social chains that men have entangled them
into, using devious concepts like feminine honour, shame and disgrace, and
struggle to achieve the human equality and liberation from such stigmas they
would remain subjugated.
An honourable and dignified human being must be able to look eyes to eye
at another person, say candidly whatever is there on his or her mind and listen
to the other party just as attentively.
A creature coerced to follow all kind of right or wrong commands with
averting eyes and a bowed head is not a librated person.
The basic identity of a conscientious human being is that as a person
he, free from all prejudices associated with race, nationality, complexion, sex
and gender, should be able to reflect and decide individually and collectively
upon the steps for the progress of current and coming generations at various
societal levels. Such person feels responsible for the suggestions and
decisions that he has participated into and justly claims the benefits and
fruit of his labour; and also according to the rules of the society that he
lives in participates actively in the life of other members of that society.
Every human being who is wholly dependent upon the decision of another
person for his own development is a subjugated person!
REFERENCES:
Bamberger.J 1974 'The Myth of Matriarchy'
in Woman, Culture and Society, eds. M.Z.Rosaldo
and L.Lamphere.
Gillison.G 1980 'Images of Nature in Gimi Thought' in Nature, Culture
and Gender, eds. C.MacCormack and M.Strathern.
Gough. K 1975 'The
Origin of Family' in Towards
an Anthropology of Women, ed. R.R.Reiter.
Monthly
Review Press = T. a. An .o .W
Hite. S 1976 The Hite Report.
Macmillan.
Jordanova. L. J 1980 'Natural Facts'
in N.C.& G
MacCormack.0 1980 'Nature,
Culture and Gender: a critique in N.C.& G
Masters and Johnsons
1966 Human Sexual Response.
Little, Brown.
Muhammed bin Abdullah (Narrated by) The Quran.
Ortner. S 1974 'Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture' in W.
C. &.S
Paul . L 1974
'The Mastery of Work and
the Mystery of Sex in a
Guatemalan village' in W. C.& S.
Rosaldo .M .Z 1974 'The
Theoretical Overview' in W. C.& S.
Rubin. G 1975 'The Traffic in
Women' in T. a. An. o. W.
Sacks. K 1975 'Engels Revisited: Woman, the Organisation of
Production, and Private Property' in
T .a. An. O .W
Schiegel. A 1972 Male
Dominance and Female Autonomy.
HRAF Press
Steinmann. A & Fox.
D. J 1974 The Male Dilemma.
Jason Aronson Ltd. 1974.
Sucha. S 1985 The Roots of Misery
Vudya
Kitaban Förlag, Sweden.
Tiger. L & Fox.
R 1974 The Imperial Animal.
Gernada Publishing Ltd.
Weiner. M 1976 Women of Value, Men of
Renown.
Werner. M 1976 Virgin Birth in Alone of All Her Sex. The
Myth and Cult of the Virgin Mary.
Weidenfeld & Nicolson,