Woman vs. Female: A matter of injustice

I wish to analyze the difference between a woman and a female and how the two terms are (mis)used as if they mean the same. We can also discuss the world views, particularly where it matters more, like in constitutions and laws of nations.

Who/what is a female?
A female can be of any age. New-born or too-old-an-age. A girl is not a woman, but she is female. So, that difference is simply put. There might be more detailed and more encompassing differences. Now, who is a female? I think it is a biological term. A female is the one with ‘female organs’ – not only sexual organs, but the general normalized differences between what may be considered as male organs and female organs. A strict definition of these organs may not be possible. For example, “is a person with vagina, but no womb / uterus female?”. All these attributes can be considered only on a statistical normative basis. The anomalies stand out, defined or undefined, classified or unclassified. The question who is a male or who is a female OR whether a person is male or female can be decided only statistically; or to be more scientific, probabilistically, not deterministically.

Who / what is a woman?
A female human being? I think, no. There are a number of biological (like anatomic and physical/ mechanical), psychological (like behavioral), aesthetic (the finer differences in organ morphology!) and social (more of emotional) factors that would decide whether a person is woman or not. It is a very complex. The factor that decides is very complex multi-parametric statistic. Layman’s comments like “that guy is womanish” or “that woman has got a manly body” after casually or seriously observing some person definitely suggest that we have pre-conceived ideas about who can be termed man / woman irrespective of that person is male or female.

What’s your problem?
Well, I have no problem as long as the common day-today purposes are concerned. However, I start having problems when it comes to science and governance / administration / law is involved. Because it affects one and all; the normal and the anomalous. Like the ‘Women’s Rights Act’ and ‘Domestic Violence Act’ – are they meant for women or for females? I believe that the laws, both of the international organizations like UNO and of individual nations are based on the essential assumption that all females are women and vice versa. HERE LIES THE TROUBLE.

How to differentiate?
(a) Men jump higher / longer than women
(b) Men run faster than women

1. Men are stronger than women
Are all men stronger than all women? Does it mean that a particular man is stronger than all the women? That every husband is stronger than his wife? The question can be asked in a physical strength sense or in a mental strength sense. THE ANSWER IS ‘NO’ OR ‘MAY NOT BE’.
Unfortunately, the laws are based on the assumption that men are stronger than
2. Men abuse women
Does it mean that women don’t abuse men, mentally or physically?
‘NOT AT ALL’
3. Women are more beautiful / women have more beautifull eyes. NO, some men also have.

The observations may go so and so on…….

However,
Females can bear children. She need not be a woman.
Males can father. He need not be a man.

THE ISSUE
The issue is that international organizations and governments make rules / laws / acts based on the assumptions that all females are women or vice versa. The properties of females and women are assumed to be exactly same. Let us look at an example:

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 was brought into force by the Indian government from October 26, 2006.
1) For the purposes of this Act, any conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence if he,— (a) habitually assaults or makes the life of the aggrieved person miserable by cruelty of conduct even if such conduct does not amount to physical ill-treatment; or (b) forces the aggrieved person to lead an immoral life; or (c) otherwise injures or harms the aggrieved person. (2) Nothing contained in clause (c) of sub-section (1) shall amount to domestic violence if the pursuit of course of conduct by the respondent was reasonable for his own protection or for the protection of his or another’s property.

Note that the respondent is ‘by default’ taken as a ‘he’. If ‘she’ injures or harms, it is not an offence.

Primarily meant to provide protection to the wife or female live-in partner from domestic violence at the hands of the husband or male live-in partner or his relatives, the law also extends its protection to women who are sisters, widows or mothers. Domestic violence under the act includes actual abuse or the threat of abuse whether physical, sexual, verbal, emotional or economic.

Was it necessary to protect wife/female only? What if the female/wife is manly / dominating / aggressive and the husband / man is submissive and violated. There is no ‘ACT’ to protect him!!

Renuka Chowdhury, the then Minister for Women and Child Development, agreed that "an equal gender law would be ideal. But there is simply too much physical evidence to prove that it is mainly the woman who suffers at the hands of man"

On the one hand the governments give more than due to the minority, while under this law “the minority (if at all it is so) men who suffers at the hands of women”.

One of the most astounding troubles involved in this kind of non-sense / senseless outlook is the case of some of the northeastern states. In some of these states as well as among some tribes of other states, the society is matrilineal and / or matriarchal. The domestic violence bill is applicable there also. Is it not like giving sword in the hands of the Satan?

After all, what harm it will make if the ‘Act’ and for that matter all ‘Acts’ are made gender-equal? Would it have offered fewer powers to the women / females? NO.

THE SOLUTION

It would be desirable to distinguish between “female and women” and “male and man” after carefully devising the definition of these terms. In a world of gender equality, let us first identify the genders – male, female and including trans-sexual and then differentiate between female and woman/girl and also between male and man/boy.

LET US BE CLEAR ABOUT TERMS
LET US NOT SACRIFICE THE MINORITY
LET US NOT KILL THE ABNORMAL,
FOR,
MOST GREAT PEOPLE HAD BEEN ABNORMAL.

The Socio-political Status of Communism in Kerala

Communism in Kerala started wearing the democratic robe officially in 1957 with the establishment of E M S Nambuthirippad led government at the helm of affairs. Till then, it was a socio-political initiative which had brought about astounding changes in the social fabric of the common people. While communism was the main force that made the lower strata people to speak about atrocities and inequalities that they were subjected to, through a gamut of armed as well as unarmed revolutions, post-changes, communism failed change its outlook and activities in the newly established social fabric of equality.

While on the one hand the activities of communists was the chief force that brought about equality among the multitude of people in Kerala, why it was so successful in imparting the change was the establishment of Indian National Congress (INC)-led democratic government in the Union of India. The achievements of post-world war II INC had been, to a great extend in Kerala, went in the name of the communists. I think, why this could happen was the penetrative presence of communism among the masses, while the rooting of the INC was more or less restricted to the educated class only.

Democracy, as established by the Great ‘Constitution of India’ and the subsequent congress governments of Jawahar Lal Nehru brought forward equality to the masses at least on paper. Oblivious to this fact, the communists were successful in spreading the half-truth that the numerous local successes of the communists was the main factor that brought all the good to the people of Kerala.

Through the following decades of fifties to seventies, the two split up factions – the original communist and the communist-marxists – spread their root among the lower ranks of the society and made them trust the party leader and whatever he uttered. Even today this trend is prevalent among the followers of the communist parties. The leaders indirectly convinced them that the erstwhile ‘oppressed’ are more equal than others. Although this was not at all the fact, or at least what was not expected to be the outcome, the caste-based job reservations and other facilities brought about by the congress-governments at New Delhi facilitated the local communists leaders to ‘make-believe’ the Kerala people that all these were gifted by them.

In the starting the Indian communist classified the people of the country into “Haves” and “Have Nots”. The Haves consisted of the feudal lords and their castes and the Have Nots consisted of “Lower Caste” people who essentially depended on the Haves for their living, mostly through labour. They followed the Russian format with a little indigenization. The communist’s fundamental idea of economic equality of the people is “rob the Haves and give it to the Have Nots”. At that point of time it was relevant to a great extent. In the fiftees, the communist government implemented land ceiling and land distribution, thereby providing a piece of land to one and all. This resulted in “equality in the mind” of the people. However, as the time progressed, they stuck to the same principle by word meaning, which has now taken the shape of a huge “robbery” of financially ‘better to do’ section of the society and what is being robbed never reaches the Have Nots.

So the status today is on of the “Crabs Story”.
“The Crabs” Story
A man caught edible crabs from the backwaters and put them in a bucket. As you know, crabs are dumped into boiling hot water before cooking. Till then, they are kept alive in a container. Now, the crabs start climbing the walls of the bucket to escape. As one crab tries to climb up, the rest of them cling to the first and as a result the climbing crab falls down. Then another crab tries and the same is repeated. In the end, no crab is able climb up and out of the bucket and escape.

At the present socio-politico-economic equality regime of equal opportunity, the idea of “rob and distribute” is nothing but national suicide. The Haves are the ones who worked hand and with luck, could amass a sizeable financial security. The Have Nots are the ones who never felt the necessity of financial security or the ones don’t bother about it. The latter are the people who have the opportunity to earn a lot, and many do, but spend the earnings in liquor. Now, unlike the cold climate countries, in tropical countries liquor/alcohol is not something that heats up the body. Instead it is something exclusively for addiction. The progress of a country is achieved by the progress of its people. If you rob the “Haves” and distribute it to the “Have Nots”, all end up to be “Have Nots”. Equality is achieved. This seems to be the mantra of today’s Indian Communits. At the same time, the Communits of Eurasian countries and China have evolved to embrace resource generation as the key to progress.

Indian Communits MUST realize that the key to equality is no more “Rob the Haves and Distribute to the Have Nots”, but to “Enable the Have Nots to Work and Earn".