the world hasn't changed all that much
This is a passing note that questions the whereabouts of the emancipation of women. I was scanning a copy of The Londoner, a neighbourhood newspaper and noticed two columns on the same page with short descriptions of the authors, a woman and a man, under their respective pictures. The woman was described as 'London mother, wife and columnist' and the man was referred to as 'teacher and columnist'. You may protest and say that the man may have been single, but he spent about a paragraph discussing his recent wedding anniversary celebration. Apparently it was necessary to inform us that the female columnist was married, perhaps to excuse the fact that there was no career mentioned, unlike the male who was a teacher.
Again a woman is known by her relation to a man. It's funny how we probably see things like this everyday but we just don't really take notice because it's so minor or so embedded in normalcy that it's unremarkable.
In Bangladesh everytime a woman fills out a form, she must write the name of her husband or father in the space provided. It felt odd writing down my father's name on my own form at the doctor's office, at the eye hospital and at the Canadian High Commission in Dhaka.
But I should have expected it. In many Muslim countries a woman belongs first to her father, then her husband, and finally her son. She does not exist in her own right. Ironically, the prime minister of Bangladesh is a woman, and so is the leader of the opposition party.
At work when I'm looking at a woman's credit file I often see 'housewife' listed under employment. I haven't come across a stay-at-home dad's credit file yet because I have yet to see 'househusband' although I'm sure there is an alternate, less humiliating, term for it.
Now Canada hasn't really had a female prime minister (no, Kim Campbell does not really count, sorry). But when we fill out a form we don't have to write our husband or father's names down to prove we are worthy. We don't even have to check the 'Miss' or 'Mrs' box if we don't wish to. We have 'Ms', a happy anonymous medium. Why is it then that every once in awhile qualifiers such as 'wife' sneak into the descriptions of a talented female columnist who just happens to be married?
Again a woman is known by her relation to a man. It's funny how we probably see things like this everyday but we just don't really take notice because it's so minor or so embedded in normalcy that it's unremarkable.
In Bangladesh everytime a woman fills out a form, she must write the name of her husband or father in the space provided. It felt odd writing down my father's name on my own form at the doctor's office, at the eye hospital and at the Canadian High Commission in Dhaka.
But I should have expected it. In many Muslim countries a woman belongs first to her father, then her husband, and finally her son. She does not exist in her own right. Ironically, the prime minister of Bangladesh is a woman, and so is the leader of the opposition party.
At work when I'm looking at a woman's credit file I often see 'housewife' listed under employment. I haven't come across a stay-at-home dad's credit file yet because I have yet to see 'househusband' although I'm sure there is an alternate, less humiliating, term for it.
Now Canada hasn't really had a female prime minister (no, Kim Campbell does not really count, sorry). But when we fill out a form we don't have to write our husband or father's names down to prove we are worthy. We don't even have to check the 'Miss' or 'Mrs' box if we don't wish to. We have 'Ms', a happy anonymous medium. Why is it then that every once in awhile qualifiers such as 'wife' sneak into the descriptions of a talented female columnist who just happens to be married?
posted by Salima :) at 1:34 a.m.
1 Comments:
"A woman's work is never done"... Isn’t that the old saying? Salima, I think you're absolutely correct, and that this question should be raised far more often in our 'modern' society. A 'modern' society in which many people are so out of touch that they firmly believe that bigotry, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc... are no longer problems, and that everyone lives happily together. They believe that these are all issues of the past. While these problems are very much a part of the fabric of our society, unbelievably and painfully visible (See: Michael Richards, Mel Gibson, Paris Hilton (but only if you REALLY have to)), they are far more common in smaller forms. This is unintentional bigotry. When the Londoner writes that one female columnist is a ‘wife and mother’ and one other male columnist is a ‘teacher’, they’re not taking a firm stand against women, but they are demonstrating to the community that their editing staff has backwards views on women.
However the thing that irks me the most about the whole issue? Salima reads the Londoner?!?!?!? What has this world come to…
*sigh* Yarn...
Post a Comment
<< Home