(ii)
What do you understand by invisibilization of women's work
Answers
Answer:
I am a feminist and I usually, very consciously make it a point to assert for equal rights in forums, discussions, debates and casual conversations. It can be tedious at times, but I don’t back off. I’m supporting anyone who is speaking on the me-too campaign as well. But on this point, I’m finding myself against the SC verdict. I am a Keralite Hindu woman (for whose sake the legal ban was lifted) bred outside Kerala since childhood and I think people have the right to practice religious freedom.
The question ‘should women be allowed into sabarimala’ is akin to asking, should women be allowed oxygen, education, vocation, identity, equal rights, it demands a yes and there is an answer already implied in the question.
I’m not against women’s entry of Sabarimala shrine as a matter of principle and social inclusion. Why I’m not for it is because of the nature of the deity, due to metaphysical and philosophical reasons of worship. Essentially this is something about religious practice, theology, hindu philosophy, and things like occult, but somehow these things are primarily being discussed in the public domain with the lens of social reform and oppression. It's made into a single story of oppression based on Brahmanical supremacy, when there is so much more to it than that.This is a matter of a religious practice rather than a socio-cultural practice, custom or tradition that could have been argued from the perspective it primarily deals with, which would be of Hindu philosophy and metaphysics, but no, it is only and only viewed and discussed from social and political viewpoints in the large public discourse.
If you ask me, are there structural and systematic inequalities between men and women? My answer would be, of course.
If you ask me, if the society in Kerala is patriarchal despite being matrilineal? My answer would be, a resounding Yes. Look at the issue of WCC. Look at how many women politicians we have in the Communist party, Congress and BJP? Look at the fact that there is no 50% representation of women in the parliament, yet people are vociferously fighting over this as if it is any similar to women’s entry in public sphere.
If you ask me, should we be focused on legislation that corrects these systematic inequalities? My answer would be, yes again, but depends on how we go about understanding these issues, working on multiple factors besides simply passing laws. This is religious reform in the lazy way - to get a court order, employ the might of the State and enforce the rule, ignoring all the negative consequences as collateral damage inevitable and inherent in any reform. The ends being justified to the means, is another definition of moral corruption.
The ideal question is, is this forcible entry into sabarimala worth fighting for the women? Forcible because although SC with it’s verdict supports the women, clearly the devotees and the people of Kerala don’t, other than people who identify themselves as communists. My answer would be no, because the victory cannot be generalized to north indian temples, temples in other parts of India (all temples don’t follow the same rules and shastras). It doesn’t change the reality for India women at large who are anyway fighting with a multitude of issues. It doesn’t even touch the women in Kerala but hurts the devotee women who exist in larger numbers than the women who are plain curious to see the idol.
Equality is not equity.
Explanation: