CHITRA SANKARAN: My years of growing up in Chennai were rather idyllic. I was born and brought up in a family of independent thinkers. Since both my parents were doctors, they were not only educated but also were very progressive people who encouraged me to think more and take my decisions on my own. Especially my mother, who was an extremely strong lady. She was someone whose life and thoughts influenced several people, including me. My mother went to London in the 1950s to pursue her postgraduate study in medicine. Instead of staying back she decided to come back and join the medical service. From there she rose to being the first lady Vice Chancellor of the first ever State Medical University in Tamil Nadu. Being raised by such a strong mother had a very profound impact on me. I too followed suit and left for London when I was 23 years old. I lived there almost a decade. It was a great time. It was a big learning curve of my life. I completed my PhD from the University of London and worked there for a few years. The good thing about working in an university environment is that you meet so many like-minded people, it helps you grow as an individual. And that is exactly what happened in London. I met people who knew so much, who had a different level of understanding of issues, it was interesting and very intellectually stimulating. After spending some good 10 years in London, I was beginning to miss home. Therefore I thought of returning back to Chennai. There I started teaching in a women’s university. However my stay was limited to a very short period of time. I got a better opportunity in Singapore and I decided to move again. So I packed off for Singapore and I have been living here for nearly two decades now. People when move to other countries, they often face many issues. The cultures are different, mannerisms are different, it is whole new world you are thrown into and mostly you do not know how to react. There are people who have had bitter experiences in the foreign countries. But I can truthfully say that I did not face any identity issues or any kind of racism here in Singapore or in London. As aforementioned I spent most of my time in an university environment. And one surely cannot expect such things to happen in these places as everyone who is academically inclined has been trained to think critically. They have all had great exposure to radical and critical theoretical perspectives. Most of them are liberal intellectuals who believe in liberal politics. Perhaps I am most fortunate. However, I would not deny that these issues do exist. I have heard several stories where people who are less fortunate, complain about racism, sexism and other issues in their workplace. And this problem is not peculiar to Singapore. It is prevalent, to a greater or lesser degree, everywhere in the world. People often ask me about what pushed me towards feminism. I really can not think of any particular incident that made me shape my thoughts in this manner. My upbringing was rather privileged, but I would say that many around me were not all that fortunate. I witnessed how a patriarchal society functions. I feel that it was no surprise that I was naturally inclined towards feminism. My interest in the subject was essentially a cerebral attraction to an important cause. However, Feminism is only one of my topics of study. The other, however slow it might be, topic that interests me deeply is post-colonialism. Both these theoretical perspectives interest me at a personal level, because they impact me on my personal location—as a woman and as a postcolonial individual— but at a broader level, they interest me because they are about how groups that perceive themselves as disempowered and are fighting to gain equality with more empowered groups. This fight is a difficult one because, given the nature of the politics involved in both fields, power is rendered invisible by the powerful groups. For example, a common myth that is perpetuated by men is, “Oh! Women are all very liberated now. They are more powerful than men! What do they lack?” These kinds of statements show how difficult a fight women have on their hands. One of the ways in which power operates is to cloak itself. It normates and naturalises unequal power politics by making it appear natural. When people say that God or Nature meant man to protect and rule over a woman; our Shastras ordain it; etc, they are doing nothing but hiding behind a shield. Main or ‘malestream’ power, at least in the teeth of opposition, operates most effectively by cloaking itself. This does not mean that all men are better off than all women. Obviously, trajectories such as educational qualification; earning capacity; affluence, all these work to empower people regardless of gender. However, within a group of equally qualified people, you will find that males have more power than women. The theory of feminism is quite layered and varies from place to place. It omnipresent of course! But penetration levels are different. And it is a natural thing, like any dynamic and thoughtful movement this theory as well keeps evolving. According to me the feminism is a deep rooted belief that both genders are equal. Even if you grant that they are different this should not lead to differences being hierarchised. When Europeans came across other cultures and colonised them because of their superior artillery and naval power in the 17th Century, they set out to divide the world between the ‘West and the Rest’. They could not treat difference as equal. What was alien to them had to be labelled as ‘inferior’. So “beyond Europe became before Europe.” They could not accede that different cultures develop differently. They thought that there was only one path to advancement. A similar mindset seems to operate in gender relations as well. I think wherever on earth you are, the fundamental philosophy remains the same—that women deserve to be treated equally in every sphere of life. They deserve the same rights; e.g. equal pay for equal work; etc. How this philosophy manifests itself may change from time to time within a culture and from culture to culture. Here in Singapore we have women’s toilets painted in pink, in India you will notice that the Delhi Metro uses pink sign boards to signify the women’s coach of the metro. This is nothing but stereotyping. Women do not subscribe to the pink colour and men do not subscribe to blue. It is regressive thinking. I believe any kind of stereotyping is reductive; and reduction is certainly the anti-thesis of progress. This is because reality is always complex and is meshed in several shades of grey. Yet another stereotyped notion that exists is that feminists hate men; that they usually fall prey to misandry. This is a misconception that comes out of a very limited and antiquated view of feminism. Currently most feminist theorists believe that patriarchy (or the rule of the Fathers) strait-jackets not just women but also men. Men too are forced to conform to stereotypes of masculinity just as women are compelled to conform to stereotypes of femininity. People of both genders who do not conform are punished under patriarchy. Women are certainly punished more severely and viciously; rape; molest; honour-killings are all common occurrences in a world which encourages misogyny. But men suffer too. If a boy wants to be a dancer, how many families (in India or in many other parts of the world) would encourage him? If a boy is perceived as ‘soft’ the instinct of his parents is to say ‘toughen up—you are a boy’. They say these things because they realise that otherwise society at large will punish him in various ways. So under patriarchy, misogyny is pervasive. So pervasive that we are all educated to be in denial about it. But if there is misandry, it is perpetuated by patriarchy not by feminists, except perhaps by radical feminists. They may have their reasons. When I teach this subject to my students I can see a visible change in the thought-process, but this needs to go beyond the confines of the university campus. The male students in my class who choose to pursue a module in feminism are usually rather more thoughtful and more mature than the average, indoctrinated male. So they usually respond very positively to the theories taught in class. This definitely is a positive sign that change in happening, however slow it might be.