Redefining sexuality

I remember I saw a movie called 'Abhimaan' by Hrishikesh Mukherjee. This is one of my all-time favorite movies. A well-known singer Amit (played by Amitabh Bachchan) marries an unknown woman from his aunt's village(played by Jaya Bhaduri) who turns out to be more successful singer than him. The outcome is not very unpredictable in Indian society: frustration and jealousy followed by the disintegration of the marital ralationship. The end is, however, happy with a moral lesson that there are more imporatant things in life than the gratification of ego.

But even after watching the consequences of having a huge ego, I could not think of any alternative behaviour the protagonist could have shown to exhibit without overstepping the limits of reality. In the present social framework, it is unthinkable for a man to be less successful than his woman. A woman wants and works to be more successful than thousands of men, but even she wishes her husband to be better than her. If it does not happen, she might lose respect for him. Many a times she starts connecting his failure with debilitation of his character and even libido! Even the so-called broad minded modern women is not above this mentality.

What should Amit do?

Is he supposed to celebrate or at least tolerate his inferiority gracefully? Has he been trained for that? Or has he been trained otherwise?

Is he supposed to work harder till he outshines his wife and redeems his as well as his wife's lost dignity? But then is it not a good action done for bad reasons? You must have heard about 'negative motivation'. Is this a sign of healthy spirit or a way of life worth emulation?

We see some suppositions. We are supposed to be like this and we are not supposed to be like that. We are expected to act like a man or like a woman, as per the pre-defined rules of the sexuality. There are guidelines for maintaining propreity in whatever we do or not do. If you dare to differ or deviate then you are less masculine or less feminine. History says that these definitions are dependent on time and place and are not absolute or immutable. For instance, keeping long hair or wearing pants/skirt can hardly be seen as exclusive masculine or feminine trait. But the voice of rationality is suppressed in the clamor of convention. These ideas of sexuality is so deeply rooted in our consciousness (may be subconsciousness) that it seems it cant be altered without the help of genetic engineering :)

Even success is, predominantly and practically, a social concept. So it is linked with sexuality. Being less successful than a woman is not manly, so shame and confusion, so insomnia, so crash!
What to do?

Ravindar Kour, a faculty member of the humanities department, IIT Delhi has written an article called "Men in Distress" in The Times Of India(30.04.05). The essay touches upon one of the most burning issues of the contemporary society: the gender roles in the 21st century.

Well the work was very witty and I laughed a lot. I liked the title very much, especially because it was conceived by a woman. Well man has always been in distress thanks to the unavoidable presence of women around him:) But this time the reasons are new and more interesting. I have already thrown light over these reasons in my previous post- "Sleeping with the enemy".

What caught my attention was the conclusion. She suggests a solution: to make new models for masculinity to enable man to adapt in the changing world around him. She says that now since man has lost the traditional role of the bread-winner for his family(because now even mamma earns!!), he is facing an acute psychological crisis. He is groping for his lost identity, alone. This makes him 'distressed' and therefore depressed and sometimes deranged too. :)
Result- the high rate of domestic violence and divorce in urban India. Now the story doesnt seem that funny!

She attributs this behaviour to the classic concept of masculinity which is being needlessly carried by us. Its hightime to jettison the antediluvian idea to avoid the sinking of the social ship. Only its removal (like a vestigial organ, say tail) will make us a man fit for the modern world. Noone is trying to suggest here that the present idea of manhood compels a man to react violently when a woman surpasses him in worldly accomplishments. But surely it deplumes him of his self-respect and peace of mind which engender undesirable consequences. So we need some change. Urgently.

Hmm... impressed?? At least I was impressed. She makes sense. When the concept of feminity is ardently being studied and revised and modernized then the idea of masculinty has to be adjusted to ensure compatibility and harmonious co-existence. When the role of woman is being rewritten then the dialogues of man has to be modified else chaos would take control of the stage.

In my previous posts I have mentioned that the root cause of conflict between man and woman in modern world is primarily the social concept of masculinity and not masculinity as such. It is difficult to say what is essentially masculine(or feminine). Try to think and you will realize that most of the attributes we associate with genders are surprisingly not based on reason but on the things as unsuspected as our mythology! We can only throw some light on what the society expects from a man(or woman). Sexuality is a social construct, whether you agree or not. And like every thing created by the imagination of man(for instance- religion) it exercises greater control on our lives(and death) than the forces of nature. There are separate code of conduct for men and women. And this code accordingly conditions the sense of morality, pride and shame for men(and women). A man feels exalted if he does anything manly and a woman feels glorified after doing something womanly. On the other hand, a man is made to feel ignominius if he acts womanish and similarly a woman disgraces herself by being mannish. All of these italicized terms are created and defined by society to control and monitor the actions of an individual. But the presence of rationality in this classification and differentiation is not beyond questions.

But there are people who can appreciate distinction in man and woman beyond biology. You must have heard of a best-seller book "Men are from mars, Women are from venus". The author can see the demarcation between the thought-process of man and woman! He means to say that they are psychologically(not only physiologically) different from each other. That means that the structure of a man's brain differs from a woman's brain. So we can deduce that the sense of sexuality is, partially at least, inherent in us.

A man and a woman living in a jungle would show different response for the same stimulus, and the response is determined by their sex which influences their minds!

Though the admission of this proposition hardly refutes the impact of cultural conditioning, it questions the possibility of remodelling of sexuality. Because one point is certain, any civilization which is based on a culture contrary to biology will not last long. We can not defy the inviolable rules of evolution without jeopardizing the very existence of our species. I am aware I am going far ahead but sometimes exaggeration seems to be the only way to present a perspective.

The next challenge comes in the implementation of the idea. As we are interested in the overall transformation of attitude about sexuality, it has to be popular. Now the dissemination of this new model for adoption and internalization by mass should be very aggressive. Sexual identity constitute a major part of one's identity. So the renunciation of the old one can not be expected to be readily accepted. The new notion has to be appealing, not just convincing. So it has to be marketted. How? May be through media. By publishing new books and telecasting new tele-serials.

Okay, fair enough. But then what are we going to do with the classic literature and movies which shape the minds of people in the traditional way? Because they will continue to perpetuate the old beliefs about gender roles. And then who will dictate an individual to choose a particular book to read and a particular movie to watch? And who should? Is it fair to confiscate subjectivity and freedom from a society to facilitate the injection of a political viewpoint in people's mindset? Should media be allowed to be used as an instrument of political propaganda? These are the sphinx-like questions which need to be answered before doing anything in this direction under the umbrella of rectitude.

At last one passing thought. Wont the proposed desexualization(or re-sexualization) make our life more boring? What'ld be its affect on poetry? On romance? On the man-woman chemistry?What would we do then, for excitement? Will it make ur more libertine? Or will it just lead us to more freedom and individuality? We need to estimate the overall cost of this change before giving it our countenance.

I find myself coming up with so many doubts. They are not unreasonable. But it might be because of the fear of the unknown. It might also be due to nostalgia. Or something like castration complex?? Or do I want to retain my power? Oh no. not again!! Is it nothing but a power game? At least there are people who would dismiss all your arguments in one sweep, by questioning your intentions. No, the poisoning has been done, irremediably. The change is inevitable.

No one can stop an idea whose time has come. - Victor Hugo

In the brave new world, Let Amit and his wife(I dont remember her name) sing in harmony. Amen.