Where the Ladies At?

Definitely not on the streets of Dhaka, that's for sure.

One of the most striking and immediately noticeable things upon arrival in Bangladesh is the relatively absence of women in public life. There are almost no women walking the streets (except at rush hour), sitting at cafes or restaurants, working in retail, or participating in social gatherings. I have yet to see a woman driving a car, or taking a rickshaw alone. Only after three weeks of being in Dhaka did I see a South Asian-looking woman (other than myself) wearing western clothes, walking down the street alone.

The male-dominated public sphere of Bangladesh is quite a contrast to the other places I've worked. In west Africa, women are ubiquitous and very much the engine of society; one wonders there where the men are and what their purpose might be. In Cambodia all the markets are run by women, with very few men as buyers or seller. Even in India, right next door, women play a major role in all aspects of public life and are prominent in business, entertainment and politics. Yet Bangladesh remains a society where women are neither seen nor heard.

Despite this relative absence, women do play a huge role in the country's economy. More than 80% of the workers in the garment industry, the nation's largest export industry, are women. But an estimated 75% of employed women are unpaid agricultural laborers, as compared to 13% of employed men. Women's labor contribution accounts for an estimated 55% to 66% of total labor per unit output for agricultural work. A recent interesting study found that in one area of the country a pair of bullocks works 1064 hours, a man 1212 hours, and a woman 3485 hours a year per one hectare of farmland. Because women tend to work in the largely unregulated informal agricultural sector, they are afford no legal or economic protections. This arrangement leaves the open to mistreatment and abuse, and does not provide them any safety net in the form of social services such as pensions, disability insurance, and minimum wage.

Given their dependence on the low (or no) paying agricultural sector, its not surprising that Bangladeshi women face extremely high levels of poverty. Approximately 22% of the country's total population is comprised of poor and destitute women, and 95% of female-headed household fall below the poverty line. Although this situation is bad, it is not as it could be, thanks to the help of microfinance projects. The Nobel-prize winning Grameen Bank has given microloans totaling $8 billion to more than 7.87 million women since 1983. The bank has chosen to focus almost exclusively (97%) on women as borrowers since they are not only the most needy, but also the most likely to use the money responsibly, invest in sustainable projects, and repay the loan. In fact, the current repayment rate is near 98%, a level only dreamt of by major Western financial institutions. The bank has now expanded its projects, operating pension programs, health insurance plans, housing projects and many more ventures. In fact, I am able to post this entry because of Grameenphone, which provides our wireless network card, as well as our cell phone plan.

Yet for all the progress made by Grameen Bank and other empowerment projects (like the one we went to see in Manikganj) women in Bangladesh are still second-class citizens. While the country's constitution affords them equal rights in public life, on private matters such as marriage, divorce, child custody, and inheritance, they are at great disadvantage. For example, to divorce a man may simply claim adultery against his wife whereas she must prove adultery and other matrimonial offenses to be granted a divorce. After divorce women are not considered to be the legal guardians of their children, and as such may only keep their sons till the age of 7 and daughters till the end of puberty, if they are allowed to keep them at all. As for inheritance, a daughter may receive only half the share of her brother's, and wives only 1/8 of their husbands' estates. These rules result in limited economic mobility for women and a reinforcement of traditional patriarchal values that further degrade women's social status.

The social values of Islamic countries have come under even more public critique recently thanks to French president Nicolas Sarkozy, who last month called for a ban on the wearing of burqas in public. (To learn about the different types of head scarves, check out this infographic from BBC.) Although only about 10% (in my estimate) of women in Dhaka (and a slightly higher percentage in more rural areas) seem to wear the burqa, all dress very conservatively in public and most cover their heads when in the presence of men. The rules governing the interaction (or lack thereof) between men and women make participation in paid, formal sector labor or institutions of higher education extremely difficult, which in part explains their absence in public life. Of course, the fact that 78% of women are married by age 18 and formal sector employment/secondary education for married women is looked down upon probably has something to do with it as well.

But this issue of the burqa, independent of employment, intrigues me. What some have called "portable seclusion" and others (like Sarkozy) "walking prisons", the burqa has become the most visible icon in the "Islam/conservative versus secular/modern" debate. Yet from what I can decipher from various articles, there seems to be little religious justification for the burqa (as opposed to the hijab). In that case there must be some social or moral justification, right? Well that too is shaky. Modesty, respectability and symbolism of separate spheres seem to be the leading rationales, but they are inadequate explanations of why the burqa over the more practical hijab. But regardless, the overall argument here is that if a woman were to show any part of herself (or even create the outline of a the female figure), she would inflame the passions of nearby men, all of whom are supposedly lacking in any self-control.

So here's the part I don't get. The western line has been that the Taliban and conservative religious organizations, which are comprised of men, imposed the burqa on women as a form of psychological shaming and economic/social immobilization under the guise of modesty and protection. But for men to stress that women need protection from men is to degrade their own sex and heighten the power of the other. Put differently, why admit the savagery of the male sex and proclaim your powerlessness? And why imbue women with such mystic that if they dare show you their face or even a wrist you must, by definition, be filled with lust and rendered unable to think logically. If you don't react that way you've discredited the need for the burqa and if you do, then heck, women everywhere should flash some wrist and take over the world. Its an odd, delicate paradigm that is difficult for an outsider to understand but I think the key point is that the debate over the burqa and women's autonomy isn't black and white. Yes, it can inhibit participation in education and employment. Yes, it does offer women privacy and demonstrates their modesty. Yes, it was made mandatory under the Taliban. But yes, some women do choose to wear it of their own free will.

So what does all that have to do with Bangladesh? Like I said before, Bangladeshis aren't big into the burqa. But they still value the general overarching principle of purdah (i.e. the practice keeping women segregated from--or unseen by--men), at least as the ideal, even if they can't afford to in practice. (As we've seen, women are key to the economic survival of most Bangladeshi families.) Purdah operates under the same logic as the burqa--a demonstration of modesty and protection from men and their lustful ways. And it is largely this strongly-held belief that has prevented Bangladeshi women from entering male-dominated spaces; unfortunately this translates to being excluded from the public sphere in general. Purdah and patriarchy are the two pillars of Bangladeshi society, and in their manifestations, whether it be the burqa, early marriage or inequality in the law, have served to supress and oppress women.

Progress is being made thanks to the media and economic need, but there is still a long way to go. The revolution will be comprised of an extra year of school for young girls, the delay of marriage by a year or two, continued employment after marriage, the first paycheck in a lifetime, and yes, the flashing of a wrist or two.

(For anyone interested in learning more about the status of women in Bangladesh and the role of Islam there are three great reports I would recommend. One is the Asian Development Bank's country briefing paper, another is Healthbridge's report on women's contribution to Bangladesh's economy through unpaid labor, and the last is a more general study of women's position in Islamic countries by Bridge.)