Daily Times

It gives me goose-bumps to imagine that science and reason have faced far few challenges in understanding kinetic energy and artificial intelligence than psychologists working out the true nature of men and women. Carol Gilligan -an American psychologist- after great toil informs us that men are guided by ethic of rights whilst women are guided by ethic of care. Their reasoning is different which convinces John Gray to say ‘men are from Mars and women are from Venus.’ It is no wonder then, when they are asked whether stealing drugs from a pharmacy to save the life of a dear one wrong; they reason yes with different dimensions. This is so, because men and women are informed by different sense of justice. For men an act is wrong if it deprives a person of that which rightfully belonged to him. By this threshold, stealing a drug is wrong because it appropriates the property owner- the pharmacist- of his exclusive right to sell the drug. For women, on the other hand, an act is wrong if it deprives family and friends of the opportunity to offer help. On this logic, stealing a drug is wrong because it undermines the role of love and affection to which people are tied.

Much contrary to Gilligan’s findings, time and again, we are told and taught the contrast between men and women. We are made to believe that men are rational, patriarchal, selfish beings and women are emotional, nurturing and nursing beings. Here and there, we hear that men force women to private domain and women are exploited at the hands of men. At times, we feel ashamed for this bird view of our societies’ fathers, brothers and husbands. At other times we let our thin morality pray for our mothers, sisters and wives injuries and wish them remedies. But whether we feel deeply enough to reform the societal pride in patriarchy and subjugation is a moot point. I say this because we silently contribute to the irreparable harm in keeping men and women hostage to the writing of Greek Great philosopher Aristotle: “the relation of male to female is by nature a relation of superior to inferior and ruler to ruled.” Our first remedy, therefore, is in rejecting that the superior-inferior divide is natural. This has already been done by Mary Wollstonecraft in her book ‘A Vindication of the Rights of Women’. But we need more likes of her. In fact our real panacea is in accepting men and women as human beings worthy of rights.

The outcome of this tug of war is ever-growing demand for wayward rights

This untested men-women formula has pre-determined gender roles. It has deprived men from developing beyond patriarch, rational and selfish beings. Not to deny, it has precluded women from growing beyond nurturers, home-makers and house-wives. And while little progression is seen we are still hardwired to seeing them in these roles. Today our men and women are either traditional or progressive men or women. Let us start with men. Our traditional men are still epitome of masculinity with their proud control over home and family. Our progressive men are mark of politeness with their control over money and thought. Let us now move to women. Our traditional women are still national heroes for they befit reproductive and domestic roles. Our progressive women are also no less than stars with their boldness and somewhat disinterest in making traditional homes. This divide has made grass greener on the other side of the fence for each group. Much more our new divide is between harsh types and soft types (for men) and marriage types and work types (for women).

The outcome of this tug of war is ever-growing demand for wayward rights. Our traditional men ask for more control over home and family. And our progressive men look for more and more freedom and autonomy. The situation is farther from clear in Venus. Traditional women press for rights like marriage with person of choosing, respect or freedom from home responsibilities, separate dwellings, fewer children, work rights and mixed sex education. On the other hand, progressive women urge for rights like freedom from slander, battery, character assassination and economic exploitation. This concurrent demand for rights at both ends has misled men and women. It has made them misunderstand each other’s plights. Men relate to women’s plight as either a mistaken demand for empowerment or a misguided call to feminism. It is either a challenge or a possible threat to male dignity and provider status quo. Some have shut the matter by calling women figures of ingratitude. Women are not behind in their blame game. They relate to men as selfish patriarchs whose masculinity has given them a license to victimize women.

Believe you me; it is heartbreaking to see Mars and Venus misunderstands their trouble. And trust me; it is equally disappointing to see lack of counseling to gulf these parted men and women. In Gilligan’s experiment men and women reasoned differently because they were guided by different sense of justice. But both men and women reached the same result that stealing drug was a wrong. If this is what psychology has to say about our nature then men should be free to go by the ethic of right and women by the ethic of care.

Men should take care of the rights of women. This includes all women. For men women should not be traditional or progressive. They should be one group deserving of rights. Men need to understand that their roles are not confined to protector, provider, guardian and wali. They are educators too. They are also source of learning for misinformed fellow men. They can teach their friends, brothers and fathers about respecting women and treating them fairly. Likewise women should reciprocate men with their ethic of care. This includes all men. Men should not be rational or irrational. They should be one group deserving of affection. Women need to understand that their roles are not exclusive to care, home and children. They are also comforters. They are source of communicating words for mistreated fellow women. They can teach their friends, sisters and mothers about respecting men and treating them respectfully.

The writer is a law graduate of the University of London and teaches Jurisprudence & Legal Theory