Recent events in school and beyond have\nled me to wonder whether I\u2019ve been living in a bubble; whether my bubble is in\nfact much smaller than I\u2019d ever imagined; whether the beliefs I\u2019ve long taken\nfor granted as desirable and universal may, for others, be pernicious and\ndangerous. One such event came in the form of a heated sociology tutorial. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
A classmate of mine was discussing gender\ninequality in the household, citing Arlie Hochschild\u2019s double burden,[1]<\/a>\nwhen another classmate interjected with a series of questions. He asked, \u201cWhy\ndo women complain about doing chores when men have to work in mining and\nconstruction? Would women want to do these tougher, dirtier jobs? Is housework\nreally so difficult?\u201d Why, in short, is nobody concerned about men? I didn\u2019t\nrespond then \u2013 the atmosphere was tense as it was \u2013 but I\u2019ll respond now. The\nfact that one exists does not invalidate the reality of the other. I don\u2019t see\nwhy there should be a competition to determine who is suffering more. Moreover,\nthese two phenomena share a common cause: the social construction of\nmasculinity and femininity, of masculine and feminine occupations. Men are expected<\/em> to be miners, construction\nworkers and rubbish collectors. Similarly, women are expected<\/em> to cook, clean and look after the children. And just to\nanticipate a familiar tactic of Singaporean male whataboutism, this applies to National Service as well<\/a>. The common denominator here\nis the polarisation of gender roles and identities in the division of labour.\nIt is a matter of structure. Blaming one symptom for another symptom takes our\nattention away from the cause.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This situation has broader implications\nand must be understood within a broader context: the historical categorisation\nof the public and private spheres. In the early days of capitalism, men were associated\nwith the former and women with the latter, setting in motion a gendered\ndivision of labour that would influence how \u201cwork\u201d is defined, organised,\napportioned and rewarded.[2]<\/a>\nIncreasingly, women are employed in labour-intensive and low-paying industries\nsuch as textiles and apparel, notably in the export processing zones of the\nGlobal South.[3]<\/a>\nWomen are preferred in these industries because they are considered more docile\nthan men and therefore less likely to unionise.[4]<\/a>\nAs political scientist Cynthia Enloe observes, the feminisation of factory\nlabour that served as the engine of British prosperity during the Industrial\nRevolution has become a business model par excellence, a fixture in the\ninternational political economy.[5]<\/a>\nAnd the international political economy functions as it does because of the\nmeasures taken to make women\u2019s labour cheap. Such measures are based on four\npatriarchal assumptions: sewing is not a skill because it occurs \u201cnaturally\u201d to\nwomen; only men can work in \u201cskilled\u201d jobs; women are merely supplemental wage\nearners; and women, simply waiting to marry, are not serious about their jobs.[6]<\/a>\nDepressing women\u2019s wages requires patriarchal power, the exercise of which\ndepends on the manipulation of ideas about masculinity and femininity \u2013 and on\na tacit alliance among factory managers, businesses and governments holding\nsuch ideas.[7]<\/a>\nIn short, the international political economy is not neutral but patriarchal. A\nfeminist perspective exposes the proverbial child of Omelas \u2013 young rural women\nin factories and sweatshops from whose labour multinational corporations such\nas Nike and Adidas profit and on whose backs the wheels of the global economy\nturn.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To adopt a feminist lens is to ask about\npower \u2013 its wielders and victims \u2013 and the role of masculinity and femininity\nin shaping cognition and action. To adopt a feminist lens is to ask how \u201ccommon\nsense\u201d naturalises inequalities. To adopt a feminist lens is to ask who\nbenefits from the gendered status quo. Lenses that assume gender neutrality ignore\nhow gender works structurally, how patriarchy works institutionally and how\npower works globally.[8]<\/a>\nSuch lenses are conceptually inadequate for understanding our social world, the\ncontext within which we must live our lives. <\/p>\n\n\n\n But who am I to pontificate about such\nissues? Am I not a man? Do I not stand to gain from the patriarchal order?\nWell, I write not because I know what it means to be a woman but because I know\nwhat it means to be called \u201cfeminine\u201d \u2013 as if its definition were static and\nself-evident, as if its label were an insult. And here I should correct a\ncommon misconception: feminism has nothing to do with maleness and femaleness, and\nnothing to do with bashing men and coddling women. It has everything to do with\nmasculinity and femininity, and everything to do with the institutionalisation\nof masculine and feminine dichotomies. These structure not only what jobs are\nseen as appropriate and how resources are distributed but also how we walk and\ntalk, how we sit and dress, how we internalise societal expectations and\nexternalise those expectations. Gender polarisation, then, is a collective\nproblem, and the fight for gender equality a collective\nresponsibility<\/a>.\nSo I am a feminist. Why shouldn\u2019t I be?<\/p>\n\n\n\n My instinctive reaction towards that classmate was aversion. But I wonder whether I should have suspended judgement and initiated dialogue. After all, who is to say that my beliefs are always right and always true? And who wins if we all retreat into our own ideological silos instead of debating in the marketplace of ideas? How can we learn if we don\u2019t challenge others and, more importantly, ourselves? Listening to those with whom we disagree may be difficult, but listen we must \u2013 now more than ever. <\/p>\n\n\n\n __________________________<\/p>\n\n\n\n [1]<\/a> Double burden is a term used\nto describe the workload of people who work in the paid economy but who are\nalso responsible \u2013 and expected to be responsible \u2013 for unpaid domestic labour.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n [2]<\/a> J. Ann Tickner, \u201cYou Just\nDon\u2019t Understand: Troubled Engagements Between Feminists and IR Theorists,\u201d International Studies Quarterly<\/em> 41\n(1997): 627.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [3]<\/a> George Ritzer and Paul Dean, Globalization: A Basic Text<\/em> (Oxford:\nWiley-Blackwell, 2015), 407.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [4]<\/a> Ibid., 407. <\/p>\n\n\n\n [5]<\/a> Cynthia Enloe, Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist\nSense of International Politics<\/em> (Berkeley: University of California Press,\n2014), 264. <\/p>\n\n\n\n [6]<\/a> Ibid., 279.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [7]<\/a> Ibid., 282.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [8]<\/a> Anne Sisson Runyan and V. Spike Peterson, Global Gender Issues in the New Millennium<\/em> (Boulder: Westview Press, 2014), 8.<\/p>\n\n\n\n ___<\/p>\n\n\n\n Header image: https:\/\/breakingthebinary.wordpress.com\/2015\/01\/26\/feminism-and-the-gender-binary-friends-or-enemies\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n