Chingya Luithui
A few years ago I happened to watch a video of a very lively debate within a Naga tribe on the issue of allowing women’s representation (let me flag here that there is a vast difference between representation and substantive participation which this piece does not deal with) in the village and tribe Hoho. Aside from the usual suspects of chauvinistic justifications against allowing such “unmentionable”, “prohibitive”, “tabooed” practices, what took the cake was the statement of an old distinguished looking gentleman. A helpful friend, kind enough to give me an abridged translation of the whole transaction, explained the old gentleman’s statement thus: “Women cannot be allowed to take positions of responsibility within the traditional institutions (of the village and tribe) because they discharge sticky substances”.
The nuances of the language escaped me. “Discharge sticky substances” sounded caustically funny and ridiculous. My friend in an embarrassed but candid manner explained that by “sticky substances” the old man meant menstruation. Voila!
The discussion that followed was an amusing, but shocking, unfurling of the state of chauvinism prevalent within our society; yes even among “educated” menfolk. For the next half hour, the old gentleman’s statement dictated the course of the discussion with most men grasping on to the thin red bloody space (no pun intended) of menstruation and how it is a source of proscription on women taking any positions of responsibility (yes, the focus shifted from traditional institutions to “any positions of responsibility”).
Really, what is it about menstruation that makes for a tolerable (if not an acceptable) argument in prohibiting women from taking active role within traditional decision-making institutions? Similarly, some churches also offer the same rationale in prohibiting women from taking responsibilities. How did the idea of menstruation or menstrual blood come to take cultural significance and meaning as dirty, polluting and defiling? And by identifying the bearers of this physiological trait as dirty, polluting, and defiling, ergo not fit for certain positions and roles.
Notably, negative ideas associated with menstruation are not confined to a few “primitive”, “backward”, or “uneducated” societies; it seems to be a fairly common notion, and quite antediluvian at that. Studies conducted in the USA indicated that a substantial majority considered discussing the subject socially unacceptable, and that much stigma and shame is still attached to menstruation. Similar studies conducted in other “advanced” and “developed” countries have come to similar conclusions.
The idea of dirtiness—physically, spiritually, socially, culturally—of a menstruating woman can be found in the Old Testament. Leviticus mentions menstruating women as unclean; this uncleanliness is perceived so severely that she is to be kept apart for seven days and anything she sits or lies on during this period, and anyone who touches her or things she touched during this period becomes unclean (Leviticus 15:19-24). Moreover, we see a menstruating woman as one with a “sickness” (Leviticus 20: 18). Other religions and societies also have taboos related to menstruation albeit with differences in severity, purposes and meanings.
Perhaps, it is only fair to mention here that women themselves contribute significantly in perpetuating the negative social attitude toward menstruation. In fact, studies have shown that women, in some societies, are harsher in enforcing strictures surrounding it.
Significantly, what informed contemporary misunderstandings of menstruation, in particular, and female physiology, in general, was a thirteenth century book, De Secretis Melierum (The Secrets of Women) purportedly written by a monk, Albertus Magnus. Amongst others, the book asserted that “Woman is not human, but a monster”, and that menstruating women give off harmful fumes that will “poison the eyes of children lying in their cradles by a glance”. Further, children conceived by menstruating women “tend to have epilepsy and leprosy because menstrual matter is extremely venemous [sic].”
Interestingly enough, some anthropologists have contended that the idea of female pollution (flowing from a number of reasons, but most significantly menstruation) is more common in societies where male dominance is significant but not secure or complete; in other words, in patriarchal societies where some characteristic of gender equality is also present. Curiously, these kinds of societies will often have well-defined gender roles and men will try their best to maintain these roles and status quo. The Naga society fits the bill perfectly in these aspects.
A popular myth is that gender division of labour is based on biological exigencies – men are fighters because they are physiologically better equipped; women are caregivers because their genetic makeup is attuned to this need. Therefore, the idea goes, in hunter-gatherer societies where game is the primary diet, the one who brings more game acquires a more important status. Who are these? Of course, they are men (because biological explanation tells us so). This elevated status continued and transformed into positions of power when humankind settled down. These positions of power, generally to make decisions, got culturally ingrained and institutionalized.
How is this linked to menstruation? According to a theory, menstrual odor can be so strongly polluting that it scares away game. Therefore, if you are a society that depends largely on meat, you need to do something to prevent game running away from you. Since it is women who give off this polluting odor, preventing them from hunting was the best answer. From here, the leap towards developing taboos against menstruating women from touching weapons, having sex, sharing a meal, etc. was not very difficult.
Consider the implications then: since women were not given the opportunity to bring meat, they were naturally denied a chance to achieve a more important status and following the same trajectory as men of becoming decision-makers. Gradually taboos were developed to prevent women from becoming decision-makers, leading to the forms of discrimination we see today. It also worked the other way round – arguments were developed to explain why these taboos were necessary. One that comes to mind is that because of hormonal changes and its associated mood swings, women are liable to make bad decisions!
Certainly, the discussion here is an oversimplification of an explanation of the much more complicated phenomenon of discrimination. Nevertheless, the point is discrimination exists on such flimsy grounds even today, in our own backyard, in our own society. The question then is, are we going to be tied to such logic in today’s world? We are not hunter-gatherers anymore and our scientific understanding of the physiological process of menstruation is much better. Aside from issues of hygiene, we know there is nothing polluting, defiling, or dirty about menstrual blood.
Lets quickly return to the old gentleman who started this mess (pun intended) of thoughts. He also said that according to custom, those who discharge sticky substances cannot be present in the gathering place for decision-making. So now we have a very sticky (no pun intended) issue of discrimination where the polluting, defiling or dirty nature of menstruation is conveniently intertwined with the expedient excuse of custom.
In discussing discrimination, custom is such an oft–used word that sometimes I am inclined to think they are twins. But what is custom? My understanding is that it is not a rigid set of unchangeable rules or practices, rather they are widely, and often informally, accepted behaviours informed by the practicality of situations and demands. Therefore, they are dynamic and ever changing. If we can change the way we dress (remember puritan Christians, we were practically naked just some 100 years back), our beliefs/religion (yes, custom-argument-relying people, we were all nature worshippers just some 100 years back), we can certainly change our position about giving equal opportunities for women to substantively participate in decision-making.
It would be apt to mention here much of the recent discussion on women’s reservation has also relied on the custom argument. More on custom another time, for now it suffices to say that relying on the custom argument is highly hypocritical and a double-edged sword.
And about menstruation as an excuse to exclude? Maybe it will be appropriate to remember that if our mothers had not discharged sticky substances, we would not have been here discussing the polluting, defiling and dirty nature of menstruation in the first place!
