His teacher had laid out quite clearly that a man is the head of the family...um because the Bible said so and because traditionally it is understood so. I have no qualms with that so long as the head as expected made room for the brains and other necessaries usually to be found in it, and doubly too otherwise what would be the difference between my head and the other. There was no talk about what the head’s job was, nor was there any talk about where the tail was to be found and what its role could be in the family. That was left to observations at home and since there was no “head” to be found at home in this case, a practical challenge arose. And thus was the basis of my son’s anguish.
Personally I thought (still do), head, tail or middle section the family is made up of humans who may be males, females, hermaphrodites or whatever else science has classified. They all do their bit albeit within the constraints of biology and society’s expectations to get the family going. I know there are some tinkerings a-going in the biology department but the primary differentiation is still intact. All Ps belong in one group and all Vs belong in the other.
My son was too young for that conversation anyhow so rather, I pointed out to him that the way I saw it, there were actually two heads in our home, his and mine. I also provided a rather sophisticated figurative explanation of what the head was supposed to represent. Since I was firmly in that seat, I also felt justified to take on the title, in this instance quite necessary. So mommy is the head of our family.
I think it went down well at the time because he nodded in a wise way. Subsequently I took further steps to remove my son from the grips of the school in which his still developing sense of self and belonging was seriously threatened.
My mind went back to this experience recently as the International Women’s Day (IWD) was celebrated and the usual and necessary calls for women empowerment were again ringing loud. This time there were also reviews of how far we had come; many more girls are in school, there are women of worth holding top positions in society etc. etc. etc., which means there has been some progress in the strive for male female equality. I agree.
Affirmative Action has contributed to this progress with the push for girl child education, non-abuse of women, quota in political office, interstate law and so on and so forth. Many examples exist to attest to improving circumstances of women. The “what a man can do a woman can do better” chant which belonged to the Beijing/ Equality campaigns also did its bit. Frankly I never was comfortable with that chant. I think it is absurd; why would I want to piss over the toilet bowl let alone perfect that act? Okay that was a joke (in all seriousness). Off course women are as intelligent and as devious as men, if not more, but some people have taken that chant to mean, “if a man can have multiple partners, so can I sort of thing. That may be consistent with the general chant of equality and capability, but no doubt un-empowering I should think.
The continued calls for “more to be done” however point to the continuing imbalance in gender relations in our society. More education, top jobs, widened career options etc have not changed much the sense of self worth or the place of the woman in the family. The family incidentally is accepted as the core of society so it’s a big deal. Thus the seeming need for women to have to prove themselves to be at par with men continues. And it’s all largely the fault of the “head of family” thing, say I. What next then?
One way to approach this empowerment (of mind) issue and perhaps the first is to scrap the “head”, “tail” teachings. This is school, education, scholarship not an opportunity to deepen a sense of superiority or inferiority between genders. Even the churches have failed to get their followers to appreciate what the “head” really means. Only feeble pleas for sensitivity, understanding and love for the woman so as to ensure “complete submission” to the man persist. http://islamqa.info/en/ref/930 and www.openbible.info/topics/head_of_household are two examples. This teaching however is also outside of school where it is more challenging to tackle but possible in family settings where children experience no discrimination of the sexes.
There is also the matter of the country’s laws/constitution and how they push for equality of the genders positively. After all, a turf war can only begin with what is allowed or available and what is not. In my lay person, perhaps naive view there seems a fundamental conflict, inadvertent maybe, in how our laws project this imbalance. Indeed if I was as audacious as I pretend to be, I may have made some contribution on the matter to the constitutional review process. Unfortunately I am no lawyer (in case that is necessary) and the respected few I spoke to about this, including gender activist lawyers only gave me that “yeah, this is a difficult subject” sad smile. So, I am on my own in this challenge.
A summary of provisions from the constitution is where I start;
- The constitution guarantees the protection and preservation of fundamental human rights and freedoms. (necessarily)
- All persons are equal before the law. (I should presume so)
- The laws of Ghana comprise among others rules of customary law which are the rules of custom applicable to particular communities in Ghana. (understandable but problematic)
- All customary practices which dehumanize or are injurious to the physical or mental well-being of a person are prohibited (good show!)
- A person is not to be discriminated against on grounds of gender, race, colour, ethnic origin, religion, creed or social or economic status. Discrimination means to be given different treatment whereby persons of one description or other as mentioned are subject to “disabilities or restrictions” that are not extended to other persons. (well said)
So in plain English, all persons are the same in relation to the laws of my country and should expect to be treated same; no discrimination. Also, all practices that undermine the wellbeing of any person are disallowed.
Why then do our laws (family) uphold the practice of potentially polygamous unions by way of customary law marriages? Off course one can argue that the women can exercise the same right, yes? No, that rule is based on custom which does not allow the reverse. What clearer indication of one not exactly equal to one do we need?
So question: is this rule discriminatory or not? Is this rule injurious to the well-being of an identified group or not? I think yes on both counts. It is injurious not only psychologically and physically to the woman but also economically and socially. Worse still, it hurts the whole family and society when in one breath all are equal and in another, some are more equal.
Very interesting.I liked the head, middle and tail section.Keep it up
ReplyDelete