Understanding the Concept of Father

Generally the notion of “biological” father is associated with understanding the concept of father in a layman’s term. But Kinship studies in Social Anthropology makes a distinction between the biological father (Genitor) and sociological father (Pater). I found this distinction interesting as Todas (a tribe of Nilgiri Hills which practices polyandry) has the prevalence of ceremonial rituals to determine the sociological father of unborn child. The biological father of the child may be different from the socially accepted father of the child. In our own society we have the concept of adoption wherein the society acknowledges and provides the same status to the adopted child even if he/she is not biologically related to the adopting parents. So we see that there might by distinction between genitor and pater.

Recently I was listening to a Ted talk episode on YouTube by Otto Kelly. He pointed out that most of the sociological problems which are prevalent in the present society like drug abuse, delinquency, alcoholism, child abuse, rape and violence, teenage pregnancy etc. can be attributed to the absence of strong father figure in an individual’s early life. His main observation was that the childhood wounds of absence of fathers either physically or emotionally or both may have long term impacts on the overall development of the individual. He called upon the men to take up the charge and fulfill their responsibility of committed father to their daughters and sons.

But I was wondering what happens in case of children coming from separated/ divorced/ widow parents? Renuka Sahane in an episode of Behensplaining on the release of her recent movie Tribhanga (available on Netflix) spoke how she had to face discrimination growing up as she was coming from a separated family. Other children refrained from playing with her and she was looked down as if touching her would lead to break in their own families. This is important to note as our society treats these children (coming from divorced/ single parents) differently and a stigma (using Goffman's term) is attached to these children.   

Bollywood has celebrated the notion of ideal families (movies like Hum Sath Sath Hain) but Tribhanga tries to explore the so called “flawed” families wherein it depicts the lives of three generation of women in search of their aspirations and dreams. The issue of absence of father in one's life is highlighted through the character of Anuradha (played by Kajol). She always blames her mother Nayantara for the absence of her father. Later on Nayan’s second husband starts physically abusing her daughter (Kajol) and the movie shows its ramifications for Kajol as well as the entire family. Kajol’s daughter Masha (played by Mithila) does not want to repeat the “mistakes” of her mother as well grandmother and settles in a traditional family wherein she even goes for sex detection of her unborn child in order to ensure that the baby is not a girl.

I have used the example of of Bollywood movie here but real life situation is not very different. Young children especially the girls face lots of challenges in the absence of father in our society. This is not to undermine the role of mothers in child rearing and upbringing. But to also acknowledge the role of father in a child’s life. 

Role of Education for Gender Inclusive Society

Yesterday I listened to a lecture by an eminent professor on the need of gender inclusive education so that children can be sensitized about gender from early age. Personally I did not had a clear cut understanding of gender till my graduation. When I studied the paper Anthropology of Gender during Masters course then only I started thinking critically about the gender related issues prevalent around me. 

The Prof. spoke that gender is a very problematic concept. An individual is required to fill his/her/their gender in all kind of forms- whether belonging to male/female/transgender category. But gender is a social construct. What does it implies? Very often people confuse gender with sex but these are not synonym terms. Sex is biologically determined while Gender is socially determined. Gender being a “social construct” implies that social norms, values and ideas shape the understanding of the individual’s gender. From a very early age, girls are encouraged to participate in the household chores while boys are encouraged to play outside. Girls are cheered for developing the feminine traits of care and nurture. For example, I saw at a construction site, a girl of 5-6 years old kept carrying her baby brother (almost 6 months old) while her mother was busy in work. Another example is that a young boy (about 5-6 years old) is encouraged and sent along with his 11/12 years old sister in order to protect her. So from a very early age our children learn the gender roles and the differential treatment accorded to them by their parents and society. But what is considered ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ traits differ from one culture to another culture. The much celebrated study (Sex and Temperament in three Primitive Societies, 1935) by Margaret Mead (famous anthropologist) focusing on New Guinea native tribes-Mundugumor, Arapesh and Tchambuli pointed out that cultural conditioning determines the masculine and feminine characteristics. She observed that both male and females were gentle, responsive and cooperative among Arapesh. For Mundugumor, both males and females  were violent and aggressive. While among Tchambuli, woman were dominant, aggressive and managerial and men were less responsible and more emotionally dependent.

According to the Prof., children require an gender inclusive curriculum since the very early stage rather than having a separate paper on gender. It should be incorporated into the syllabus of every subject. This is a very welcome step. 

The main concern today is the safety of our girls/ women while we read the heart wrenching news of rapes (one rape reported every 16 minutes as per 2019 data in India). But safety concerns from whom? Obviously from the men or the boys of our own society. The very incidences of increasing rape cases indicate that we have failed as society to raise our boys/ men who understand and respect the opposite gender. This is a very important and the New Education Policy (NEP) also talks about the importance of gender inclusive education.

But is classroom education enough to build the moral character of our children who can realize the gender based discrimination and can raise their voice for making a just and equitable society? My argument is that children spend far more time in their homes and society as compared to the time spent in the  respective classroom. Home is the very first center of learning for the child. The role of education is limited in order to bring the gender awareness among the children if they witness the gender based violence and discrimination in their homes and in the society (in case of larger perspective). I have seen grown up well educated men (even having PhDs also in some of the cases) with no change in their way of thinking. These men do not loose a single point to make you realize that you are a woman and no matter what it is the responsibility of women to manage the household (not concerned with how well you are earning or managing your career). This stress on managing the household become more pronounced when the topic of ‘Who cooks the food’ surfaces up. This is a high time that we realize doing household chores is life surviving skills and irrespective of the gender every individual  should learn these. What we need is to have more gender inclusive spaces at homes, offices, and society so that learning of the concept “gender” is not limited to the classroom. For this we need to start from our very homes.