GENDER , KINSHIP FAMILY AND MARRIAGE , EMERGING FORMS AND PATTERNS.

                                      SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER

Gender is such a familiar part of daily life that it usually takes a deliberate disruption of our expectations of how women and men are supposed to act to pay attention to how it is produced. Gender signs and signals are so ubiquitous that we usually fail to note them - unless they are missing or ambiguous. Then we are uncomfortable until we have successfully placed the other person in a gender status; otherwise, we feel socially dislocated. In our society, in addition to man and woman, the status can be transvestite (a person who dresses in opposite-gender clothes) and transsexual (a person who has had sex-change surgery). Transvestites and transsexuals carefully construct their gender status by dressing, speaking, walking, gesturing in the ways prescribed for women or men, whichever they want to be taken for - and so does any "normal." person.

 Once a child's gender is evident, others treat one gender differently from those in the other. The children respond to the different treatment by feeling different and behaving differently. As soon as they can talk, they start to refer to themselves as members of their gender. Sex doesn't come into play again until puberty, but by that time, sexual feelings and desires and practices have been shaped by gendered norms and expectations. Adolescent boys and girls approach and avoid each other in an elaborately scripted and gendered mating dance. Parenting is gendered, with different expectations for mothers and fathers, and people of different genders work at different jobs. Adults' work as mothers and fathers, and low-level workers and high-level bosses shape women's and men's life experiences. These experiences produce different feelings, consciousness, relationships, and skills - which we call feminine or masculine.3 All of these processes constitute the social construction of gender

To explain why gendering is done from birth, constantly and by everyone, we have to look at how individuals experience gender and gender as a social institution. As a social institution, gender is one of the major ways that human beings organize their lives. Human society depends on a predictable division of labour, a designated allocation of scarce goods, assigned responsibility for children and others who cannot care for themselves, common values and their systematic transmission to new members, legitimate leadership, music, art, stories, games, and other symbolic productions. One way of choosing people for the different tasks of society is based on their talents, motivations, and competence - their demonstrated achievements. The other way is based on gender, race, ethnicity - ascribed membership in a category of people. Although societies vary in the extent to which they use one or the other of these ways of allocating people to work and to carry out other responsibilities, every society uses gender and age grades. Every society classifies people as "girl and boy children," "girls and boys ready to be married," and "fully adult women and men," constructs similarities among them and differences between them and assigns them to different roles and responsibilities. Personality characteristics, feelings, motivations, and ambitions flow from these different life experiences so that the members of these different groups become different kinds of people. The process of gendering and its outcome are legitimated by religion, law, science, and society's entire set of values.

Gender and sex are not equivalent, and gender as a social construction does not flow automatically from genitalia and reproductive organs, the main physiological differences of females and males. In constructing ascribed social statuses, physiological differences such as sex, stage of development, the colour of skin, and size are crude markers. They are not the source of the social statuses of gender, age, grade, and race. Social statuses are carefully constructed through prescribed processes of teaching, learning, emulation, and enforcement.

The building blocks of gender are socially constructed statuses. Western societies have only two genders, "man" and "woman." Some societies have three genders-men, women, and berdaches or hijras or xaniths. Berdaches, hijras, and xaniths are biological males who behave, dress, work, and are treated in most respects as social women; they are therefore not men, nor are they female women; they are, in our language, "male women. "4 There are African and American Indian societies that have a gender status called manly hearted women - biological females who work, marry, and parent as men; their social status is "female men" (Amadiume 1987; Blackwood 1984). They do not have to behave or dress as men to have the social responsibilities and prerogatives of husbands and fathers; what makes them men is enough wealth to buy a wife.

Modern Western societies' transsexuals and transvestites are the nearest equivalents of these crossover genders, but they are not institutionalized as third genders (Bolin 1987). Transsexuals are biological males and females who have sex-change operations to alter their genitalia. They do so to bring their physical anatomy into congruence with their own sense of gender identity and how they want to live. They do not become a third gender; they change genders. Transvestites are males who live as women and females who live as men but do not intend sex-change surgery. Their dress, appearance, and mannerisms fall within the range of what is expected from members of the opposite gender so that they "pass." They also change genders, sometimes temporarily, some for most of their lives.

Genders, therefore, are not attached to a biological substratum. Gender boundaries are breachable, and individual and socially organized shifts from one gender to another call attention to "cultural, social, or aesthetic dissonances" (Garber 1992, 16). These odd or deviant or third genders show us what we ordinarily take for granted - that people have to learn to be women and men. Men who cross-dress for performances or pleasure often learn how to "do" femininity convincingly (Garber 1992, 41-51). Because transvestism is direct evidence of how gender is constructed, Marjorie Garber claims it has "extraordinary power... to disrupt, expose, and challenge, putting in question the very notion of the 'original' and of stable identity" (1992, 16) … 

the social institution of gender depends on the production and maintenance of a limited number of gender statuses and making the members of these statuses similar. Individuals are born sexed but not gendered, and they have to be taught to be masculine or feminine. 8 As Simone de Beauvoir said: "One is not born, but rather becomes a woman…; it is civilization as a whole that produces this. creature... which is described as feminine" (1952, 267). Sandra Bern (1981, 1983) argues that because gender is a powerful "schema" that orders the cognitive world, one must wage a constant, active battle for a child not to fall into typical gendered attitudes and behaviour

For human beings, there is no essential femaleness or maleness, femininity or masculinity, womanhood or manhood, but once gender is ascribed, the social order constructs and holds individuals to strongly gendered norms and expectations. Individuals may vary on many of the components of gender. They may temporarily shift genders, but they must fit into the limited number of gender statuses their society recognizes. In the process, they re-create their society's version of women and men: "If we do gender appropriately, we simultaneously sustain, reproduce, and render legitimate the institutional arrangements .... If we fail to do gender appropriately, we as individuals – not the institutional arrangements - may be called to account (for our character, motives, and predispositions)." (West and Zimmerman 1987, 146). The gendered practices of everyday life reproduce a society's view of how women and men should act. Gendered social arrangements are justified by religion and cultural productions and backed by law, but the most powerful means of sustaining the moral hegemony of the dominant gender ideology is that the process is made invisible; any possible alternatives are virtually unthinkable (Foucault 1972; Gramsci 1971).

As a social institution, gender creates distinguishable social statuses for the assignment of rights and responsibilities. As part of a stratification system that ranks these statuses unequally, gender is a major building block in the social structures built on these unequal statuses. As a process, gender creates the social differences that define “woman” and “man.” In social interaction throughout their lives, individuals learn what is expected, see what is expected, act and react in expected ways, and thus simultaneously construct and maintain the gender order: Gendered patterns of interaction acquire additional layers of gendered sexuality, parenting, and work behaviours in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Gendered norms and expectations are enforced through informal sanctions of gender-inappropriate behaviour by peers and by formal punishment or threat of punishment by those in authority should behaviour deviate too far from socially imposed standards for women and men.

Theories of the social construction of gender
1. materialist: it stresses the structural features of the social world, ensuring that men and women are fitted into distinct pathways within the society and emphasize the concrete social relation of work, the family and sexuality.
2. discursive theories: emphasis on meanings attached to being male or female within society, emphasizing the role of language and culture. 

Judith Butler and Gender Performativity

Judith Butler is one of the most prominent social theorists currently working on the social construction of gender. Butler is a trained philosopher and has oriented her work towards feminism and queer theory. Butler’s most known work is Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, published in 1991, argues for gender performativity. This means that gender is not an essential category. The repetitious performances of “male” and “female” following social norms reifies the categories, creating the appearance of a naturalized and essential binary. Gender is never a stable descriptor of an individual, but an individual is always “doing” gender, performing or deviating from the socially accepted performance of gender stereotypes. Doing gender is not just about acting in a particular way. It is about embodying and believing certain gender norms and engaging in practices that map onto those norms. These performances normalize the essentialism of gender categories. In other words, by doing gender, we reinforce the notion that there are only two mutually exclusive categories of gender. The internalized belief that men and women are essentially different makes men and women behave in ways that appear essentially different. Gender is maintained as a category through socially constructed displays of gender. Doing gender is fundamentally a social relationship. One does gender to be perceived by others in a particular way, either as male, female or as troubling those categories. Certainly, gender is internalized and acquires significance; some individuals want to feel feminine or masculine. Social constructionists might argue that because categories are only formed within a social context, even the effect of gender is in some ways a social relation. Moreover, we hold ourselves and each other for our presentation of gender, or how we “measure up.” We are aware that others evaluate and characterize our behaviour on the parameter of gender. Social constructionists would say that gender is interactional rather than individual—it is developed through social interactions. Gender is also said to be omnirelevant, meaning that people always judge our behaviour to be either male or female.

                                                 NEW FORMS OF FAMILY

SINGLE PARENT BY CHOICE FAMILIES

 Even with the rise in the number of single parents in recent decades (Hertz, 2006), heteronormative notions of family cause us to question single parents as a category of family. This is because there is an assumption that these single parents and their children are most likely half of a “broken.” heteronormative family. This stems from the notion in Western society that the socially sanctioned way to procreate is through legal marriage (Hertz, 2006). Single parent by choice families are not half of a broken whole; rather, they are single women and men who let go of their own “traditional” family ideals to pursue parenthood independently. While there is a lack in the literature of single heterosexual men or transgender people as parents by choice, there is research to support those single parents by choice, while not completely common are, found among straight women, lesbians, or gay men (Hertz, 2006; Stacey, 2011). 

Single gay parents, by choice, report that while they would like to have had a partner before adopting a child, they decided not to wait for that to happen (Stacey, 2011). These men are part of a category (which also includes some coupled gay men) that Judith Stacey calls “predestined parents;” these are men who report always knowing they wanted to be a parent regardless of being gay or coupled (Stacey, 2011). Yet, these  single parents by choice still ultimately hoped to find a partner in the future that would be a suitable parent, and those interviewed in Stacey’s book did (Stacey, 2011). Single women (heterosexual or lesbian) can become mothers by choice by a growing list of various means, which include insemination (by anonymous or known donors), and open or closed adoption of local or international children (Hertz, 2006). Hertz found that the single women in her study had originally desired to be in a coupled relationship before having children but for a diverse number of reasons decided to have children on their own, with most of them hoping to find a partner in the future (Hertz, 2006). Rosanna Hertz claims that most of these women, while feminists are nudged into having children by multiple forces, including “compulsory motherhood,” which is a culturally driven belief that all women want to be mothers, the belief that motherhood defines women, and there is a rise in cultural status that comes with motherhood (Hertz, 2006). Yet, none were willing to get married to serve as a means to achieve an end result of parenthood (Hertz, 2006). These new single parent by choice families can be seen as being both aligned with the heteronormative understanding of kinship and in opposition to it. Both women and gay men parents admit to ultimately wanting to find a partner to complete their family, which fits the “traditional” family model. In fact, both Stacey and Hertz reference the saying “first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes baby in a baby carriage” (Hertz, 2006:xv; Stacey,  2011:1). In fact, Stacey insists that “love, marriage and baby carriages are all the rage among lesbians [and] gay men” (Stacey, 2011:3). This comparison aligns them in some ways with a heteronormative understanding of family. Additionally, Hertz points out that one of the goals of these mothers is to create “lives that resemble a middle-class ‘normal family’” so that their children can be understood in those terms by the community and people around them (Hertz, 2002:2). The women tell stories of their “fathers” to their children which “actively affirms certain kinds of kinship ties,” regardless of the “father” is a known or anonymous donor (Hertz, 2002:3). This suggests that while these families may not be completely heteronormative by design; they attempt to mimic heteronormativity enough that rather than challenging the idea of traditional kinship, they end up reaffirming it (Hertz, 2002). On the other side, Hertz’s follow up of these women showed that they were changing the master narrative of the nuclear family, which is so prevalent in our society because many had a second child as an idea of “completion” of their family rather than needing to marry (Hertz, 2006). Hertz claims that by having a second child, these women “trumped conformity…taking single motherhood one step further” (Hertz, 2006:199). In her opinion, the idea that these women had another child instead of finding and marrying a man to “complete” their family showed that they pushed back at the boundary of the heteronormative family narrative. Yet, even in this act of difference, these new families are still understood in their relation, or in this case, opposition to the heteronormative model.  

GAY FAMILIES

The first anthropologist to extensively study gay families and theorize how the notion of “gay family” was created was Kath Weston in her book, Families We Choose. Weston used a historical genealogy of the gay and lesbian community processes to explain the creation of “gay families” or families we choose. Through this process, she tried to clarify that while not biologically (or genealogically) based, gay families created by choice were both just as meaningful and fit the criteria to be considered kinship relationships. Weston maintains that criteria of kin (based on the biological kin model) included sharing emotional and material resources and a shared sense of future and a common past (Weston, 1997). She explained that gay families should not be categorized as fictive kin because doing so would allow for limits on legitimacy and authenticity

 Nor are they a substitute (biological) family, but instead, “gay families” or families of choice should be viewed as their own distinctive model (Weston, 1997). She states that she “treated gay kinship ideologies as historical transformations rather than derivatives of other sorts of kinship relations” (Weston, 1997:106). 

She explains that the development of families of choice started as a result of the gay liberation movement. The movement caused more and more gays and lesbians to start “coming out” or disclosing their sexuality to their biological or adoptive relatives rather than hiding their sexuality from kin, as most had done (Weston, 1997). As this process continued to happen more frequently, stories of biological families disowning their kin were not uncommon (Weston, 1997). These stories then led to fears of disclosing one’s sexual identity to families (Weston, 1997). Sometimes, although less often, it was the gay or lesbian individual that would decide to sever familial ties rather than endure abuse by their biological or adoptive family after coming out (Weston, 1997)

Instead, when individuals were disowned, they also experienced the loss of love. As Weston states, “being disowned also encompassed the withdrawal of 22 love, which made the termination of kinship more explicit” (Weston, 1997:61). For gays and lesbians, unconditional love has symbolic and substantive meaning for kinship ties (Weston, 1997). Rejection made it clear that bonds based on blood were similar to romantic relations in that they were “selectively perpetuated rather than ‘naturally’ given” and could therefore be terminated (Weston, 1997:73). This helped to produce an environment where kinship bonds could be both terminated or created by choice. 

Another key component in the process was the sense of “community” at the beginning of the AIDS crisis. Since gay men were often disowned by biological families, members of the queer community stepped into the role of “loved one” that was recognized by some hospital and hospice facilities (Weston, 1997). Weston said this idea of “loved ones” meant that love was an ideological connection to family that could span the “contrasting domains of biological family and families we create” (Weston, 1997:183). These chosen “loved ones” were often the ones that became “family” caregivers to gay men with AIDS when blood family had chosen to cut ties, deepening the meaning of these chosen family members. While acknowledging that alternative insemination is credited for the lesbian baby boom, she contends that choice was also important. She states that “choosing children” is something that gay people must always do, versus heterosexuals who might “plan” children but do not require the same level of choice (Weston, 1997). This is because lesbians and gays 23 “choosing children” can come in many forms, such as informal co-parenting, choosing to be a grandparent, etc. (Weston, 1997). 

However, one might question the idea of choice in insemination because while it goes along with the idea of choosing children, in “choosing” insemination gay and lesbian parents align themselves with the heteronormative model that they seem to work against. In this way, queer families create biological or blood ties even without heterosexual intercourse (Weston, 1997). Weston maintains that it is through these historical processes that families of choice became equal in meaning to biological families to the gay community. Weston’s work had a significant impact on kinship studies because it allowed the deconstruction of the long-held understanding of family and kinship; families of choice further pushed on the boundaries embedded in notions of kin. 

GAY FATHER FAMILIES

Gay father families work against the heteronormative notion of the family on multiple levels. First, as Weston noted, they must choose to have children if they do not already have them from a previous heterosexual life. They are also working against normative assumptions about the male gender disengaging from the desire to actively participate in childrearing activities (Lewin, 2009). Additionally, they do not fit into heteronormative gender assumptions concerning parenting roles. Finally, they work against the stereotype of a gay male lifestyle of endless parties and nightlife. While some gay men do have children from prior heterosexual relationships, many are “intentional gay fathers” (Lewin, 2009; Stacey, 2011), meaning that they came into parenthood by “choice” by actively seeking to raise children after they decided to live as openly gay. There are several paths to fatherhood for gay men. One such option is surrogacy, either through traditional or gestational surrogacy; this creates a genetically related child for the biological father. This process is costly and therefore “is available primarily to affluent couples, the overwhelming majority of whom are white men.” (Stacey, 2011:62). 

The choices for adoption include international or domestic, through the public system or private agency. These vary in cost and come with a host of bureaucratic and social struggles, such as lying (often at the suggestion of their caseworker) about their sexuality on international applications for countries that do not allow same-sex couple adoptions (Lewin, 2009). Bureaucracy and discrimination could be some of the reasons that gay men are more likely to adopt special needs and racial minority children that many heterosexual couples will not; however, this may not be the sole reason as many gay men actively seek to adopt children who are often considered hard to place for a host of personal reasons (Lewin, 2009; Stacey, 2011). Another path to parenthood is also co-parenting by way of a gay man “donating” sperm to a lesbian so they can share childrearing rights and 25 responsibilities. These families often become larger blended families. This idea of co-parenting or blended families will be discussed in more detail later. There are many ways to parenthood for gay men, but for the most part, they are not created within the traditional notion of the heteronormative reproductive family.  

In her research on gay fathers, Lewin asserts that the gay men she studied actively worked for the right to be fathers, and in doing so, created identities that are not usually associated with men, gay or straight (Lewin, 2009). Lewin states that there are gender-coded activities such as food preparation, child care, and other household duties, typically connected to females (Lewin, 2009). Males assume fatherly duties that are “performed outside of the domestic arena” and are usually focused on the family's economic support (Lewin, 2009:133). And since “parental behaviour is imbued with gendered meanings as they are performed,” society often determines that men are not suited for the activities women perform as mothers (Lewin, 2009:28). Gay fathers feel that gender is not defined by the performance of typical “mothering” activities, such as preparing meals, volunteering at school, or caring for sick or injured children (Lewin, 2009). These gay men feel empowered in their role as gay parents and feel “free to express a full palette of gender options” (Stacey, 2011:82). They allow themselves to move fluidly through a range of “roles”, including that of the mother; they do not feel defined by the rules of gender (Stacey, 2011). Often gay men 26 invest as much, if not more, of their lives in childrearing than the majority of mothers in our society (Stacey, 2011). While it is true that not all heterosexual parents follow stereotypical gender roles, there still exist certain hegemonic notions of gender roles in our society that the mainstream holds as standards. Gay fathers do not find themselves needing to follow normative gender roles assigned to heterosexual fathers or mothers. This blurring of the gender lines pushes gay families outside the notion of “traditional family.”

One of the reasons suggested for gay men becoming parents is that in doing so, they gain legitimacy “as ordinary members of families and as citizens in a way usually connected to developmental markers of marriage and family only available to heterosexuals” (Lewin, 2009:128). (These developmental markers will be discussed in more detail later.) Some gay fathers work off the cultural belief that parenthood engenders altruism, which in moral terms helps to distance them from the stigma associated with being gay (Lewin, 2009). 27 This separation from the stigma allows them “moral mobility”, changing their status from selfish gay man to mature, selfless family man (Lewin, 2009). 

LESBIAN FAMILIES  

Lesbians, like gay fathers, can be compared to the heteronormative understanding of family on several points. Lewin states that “motherhood and womanhood continue to be conflated and mutually defined” (Lewin, 1993:191); and because lesbian mothers are placed outside the normative gendered understanding of mother and woman, there have been societal opposition to lesbians as mothers. Yet, lesbian mothers act in ways and have similar ideologies to heteronormative notions of mothers. Additionally, because they are mothers, lesbian parents fall into womanhood, which allows them more of a mainstream personhood status. Lesbians, like gay men, have several pathways to parenthood. Many lesbians have children from previous heterosexual marriages, with nonbiological mothers becoming step-mothers. Planned routes to lesbian parenthood include adoption, both domestic and international and various methods of alternative insemination. While our society does not always associate womanhood with special esteem, motherhood, on the other hand, has qualities that elevate it to a different level. Some feminists have devalued motherhood, believing it perpetuates gender hierarchy, yet culturally it also holds an honoured place in our society (Lewin, 1993). 

Qualities such as selflessness, nurturance, and devotion which are associated with the “naturalness” of motherhood give women a special position of moral authority in our culture (Ginsburg, 1998; Lewin, 1993, 1994, 1995). Motherhood is considered natural because it comes from the concept of women being procreative (Lewin, 1994). Since motherhood is thought of as being achieved through procreation, mothers are assumed to be heterosexual (Lewin, 1995). Based on our cultural ideology, heterosexuality is linked to procreation which is an assumed part of womanhood, thereby placing non-parent lesbians outside the margins of the category. This is because, in contrast to heterosexual women, lesbians are painted as being “at odds with the selfless devotion expected of mothers” (Lewin, 1995:103). The assumed lesbian lifestyle of nightlife and selfish pursuits of sexual exploits is not synonymous with our society’s notions of motherhood. Lesbian parents are against a cultural resistance to being mothers because they struggle for recognition as “good mothers” because they are not part of the mainstream mother identity (Hequembourg & Farrell, 1999). Yet, they no longer completely fit into their marginalized lesbian identity (Hequembourg & Farrell, 1999). This “otherness” means they are constantly negotiating between the two identities, taking on a “marginal mainstream” identity (Hequembourg & Farrell, 1999). This type of identity allows for lesbian families to be understood in oppositional reference to 29 heteronormative notions of family. It also means they still have more subordinate status than full mainstream mothers; they are mothers but not ones that fully fit the heteronormative narrative. However, it is not just our society that believes the lesbian nonmother stereotype; it is often an internalized belief on lesbians. Lesbians themselves often struggle with the identity of motherhood because they are not usually associated with mainstream family ideologies (Hequembourg & Farrell, 1999). Lewin’s findings supported this idea, stating that “lesbians reported that they had thought of themselves as not being suitable mothers, having internalized images of homosexuals as self-serving, immature, or otherwise not capable of the kind of altruism basic to material performance” (Lewin, 1994:337). Yet, even with the societal and internal questioning of the compatibility of lesbians and motherhood, lesbians understand the experience of motherhood in similar ways to heteronormative women in several ways. While some researchers (e.g., A. Jones, 2013; Stacey, 2011) find that some queer families pursue connections with other queer families, Lewin found that the gay community was not important to the experience of many lesbian mothers (Lewin, 1993). Lesbians did not feel a necessity to be connected to the gay community once they became mothers. 

Additionally, Lewin found that both single lesbian and single heterosexual mothers often relied on their own mothers (blood ties) for assistance in times of need or crisis  (Lewin, 1993). Also, those lesbian mothers, like their heterosexual counterparts, considered fathers as a vital part of their child’s life and felt obligated to help maintain their child’s relationship with their father (Lewin, 1993). Yet, for the various ways lesbian mothers are similar to heterosexual mothers, there are still differences. For non-biological co-mothers, the experience was very different from that of lesbian biological mothers. Since some scholars note that lesbian relationships are more egalitarian than heterosexual couples, having children creates a cultural power imbalance between biological and social mothers (Hayden, 1995). The social lesbian co-mother claims to motherhood are only as valid as the acceptance of it by the network of significant others and mainstream social networks around the mother (Hequembourg & Farrell, 1999). This reliance on others to validate the co-mother happens on several levels. First, the non-biological mother’s own blood kin often questioned any claims to motherhood precisely because of the lack of biological connection (Hequembourg & Farrell, 1999). Then due to lack of a biological connection, teachers, medical providers, legal officials and the like often doubt the ability of co-mothers to be “good mothers” to an even greater extent than extended family (Hequembourg & Farrell, 1999). Additionally, some lesbians work to regain power equilibrium within their relationship and society by “establishing a figurative or literal sharing of blood between the nonbiological mother and her child” (Hayden, 1995:50). They employ several methods to do this, including combining or hyphenating both mothers' last names to create a name for their child, which connects the child to both parents (Hayden, 1995). These parents also often have their children call them names that reinforce their parental equality, such as using the same term of momma, or mommy, etc. combined with the parents first name (Hayden, 1995). Additionally, they create equality of parenthood by having both parents’ own families participate and be recognized as full kin so that the child will have grandparents, aunts, uncles, and such from both parents (Hayden, 1995). Even with all the strategies used by lesbian parents, it still would seem that lesbian co-mothers face more obstacles in their battle for cultural legitimacy as kin. This is due in part to our heteronormative assumptions that allow the birth mother to automatically receive cultural validity because of her biological connection to her child, which is often reinforced by phenotypically recognizable relationship to the child (Hayden, 1995). 

 Unlike heterosexual women who already have acceptance (albeit at a lower status than men) in our heteronormative society and are by default assumed to raise their status when they become mothers, lesbians do not have the same opportunity to raise their status in our heteronormative world. Regardless of the means, by becoming mothers, lesbians can accept responsibility, which is part of a “transformative experience” that allows them to achieve full adulthood (Lewin, 1994). This transformative experience of motherhood allows women, in general, to become “altruistic, spiritually aware human beings.” Still, for lesbians (again like gay men), there is a power in parenthood that helps avoid the stigma associated with being queer (Lewin, 1994:349). Lesbians, like gay men, believe that being a parent allows them to claim the “citizenship” given to heterosexuals by default (Lewin, 1993). Additionally, as mentioned before, motherhood comes with an assumption of heterosexuality; for lesbians, this assumption “naturalizes” them as women and elevates their status in a heteronormative society.

                                                   FAMILY AS A SITE OF VIOLENCE
The United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women (UN General Assembly 1993) defines violence against women as “any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivations of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life”.The traditional norms of Indian society, being largely patriarchal in nature, tend to condone and shelter the existence of such gender-based violence, which are not only engraved in individual socialization, but also, they get embedded in the structural formations and institutions of society.

In India, an individual‟s identity is subsumed under and reflected by their family and community, further enveloped in caste, religion, culture and other such affiliations. The family institution continues to be the primary site for gender relations, and family and kinship ties play a crucial role in establishing such relations and the rules and norms for power hierarchies and resource allocation. Kinship, which is one of the most important factors for organizing social relations, also becomes the basis for organizing economic, cultural, and sexual and reproductive practices. Marriage and family, in India, are seen more of in collective interest rather than individual interests or desires. These institutions are underlined with values like „honour‟, „shame‟, „respect‟, „sacrifice‟, and „placing family before everything else‟. All these values are geared towards making family the representative of the larger community and hitherto putting all its actions under the scrutiny of whichever community it belongs to. This sense of collective honour and shame leads to violence in the face of any transgressions that might occur, which puts the honour or status of a particular community at risk. Furthermore, these acts of violence are usually meted out towards women. The notion of honour in the Indian patrilineal structure is closely tied to the chasteness and movements of the women of the family or community. The patrilineal fact of controlling women‟s sexuality leads to violent lash-back towards any transgression by women, such as going against caste and community lines for marriage or within the family- for not adhering to norms set down by the male members.

According to Dube (1988), gender roles are conceived, enacted, and learnt through a complex system of relationships embedded in the family structure and the wider context of kinship. The family structure performs two essential functions. It reflects the rule of recruitment and marital residence and how one generation replaces the next; two, its configuration of role relationships which decided allotment of resources, sex-based division of labour, and socializing children for future roles. In India, the family structures and kinship patterns are largely also tied to the institution of caste. The membership of caste groups is determined by birth. It has a strong component of boundary maintenance, the onus of which falls on women because of their role in biological reproduction. The patrilineal setup condones certain acts of violence that are meant to be preventive measures against women taking control of their own sexuality, disrupting this material and resource allocation system. Acts of violence like female feticide, dowry deaths, domestic abuse, rape, etc. work and sustain themselves under the patriarchal banner, which permeates community and family life and is also internalized by men and women at an individual level which in turn leads to such values and ideology permeate into state machinery and legal institutions and their policies.

For Patricia Uberoi, the family is often a site for exploitation and violence, but even academics sometimes tend to overlook this fact. This is probably because family is deemed as a cultural ideal and focal point of identity. The matter is compounded by the surrounding environment, which limits interaction between the professional academic and the private sphere of the family, thus rendering it inviolable. Further complications arise from the notion of „izzat‟ or honour that the family holds, which enables a culture of silence and exploitation to flourish within the family system and, at the same time, is unavailable for questioning from outsiders. This notion of honour propagates violence as well as inhibits women from seeking help against violence. The honour of a family or community is embodied and represented by the women of that family or group. It is embodied in the sense that women‟s bodies are seen as the property of their family and a body to be protected from violation from outside. This makes it imperative for families and communities to lay down strict rules to control women‟s sexuality as a preventive measure to the threat on their honour. Women have to adhere to strict rules regarding mobility, interaction, marriage, etc. it is regarded as the moral responsibility of the woman or girl to uphold the honour of her family and any transgression or even perceived transgression can lead to violent outbursts from the family and the larger community.
As patriarchy places a much higher value on males, as they are seen as the heirs, and it is through them that a lineage is forwarded- it ideologically condones the practice of son-preference. Women in this system are seen as temporary members of their natal families as they have to move to their husbands ‟s house after marriage. Thus they are excluded from inheriting land, which is a key clan asset. Their temporary membership to the natal family causes their lack of value, and the existence of dowry further lowers their desirability in a household.

According to Kelkar (1985), violence runs along the lines of power in the sex/gender system. The family as the primary institution with its division of labour by sex underlies the sex/gender system. Thus studying family authority relations is an important means in making visible violence that is organized around it.

FEMALE FOETICIDE/FEMALE INFANTICIDE

 Feticide is the practice through which the sex of the fetus is determined with the help of ultrasounds, in-vitro testing, scans etc., and then the fetus is killed through the process of abortion. Female feticide then is the practice through which the fetus is aborted once it is determined that the sex of the fetus is female. It is also called sex-selective abortion.  With the advent of new reproductive technologies like amniocentesis and ultrasound, which van used to determine the sex of the unborn fetus, it is sex-selective abortion that is gaining ground, i.e. female feticide. The simplicity of the tests and the ease of availability, along with the prevalence of son-preference, made female-specific abortions very popular.

 In states like Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh, which are economically prosperous, the prevalence of female feticide is remarkably unprogressive. According to Bose (2007), the main reasons seem to be: (1) easy access to medical facilities such as ultrasounds and abortion facilities: (2) no lack of money to pay for these tests and abortions; (3) good infrastructure like roads which cut down cost and time in travel. Causes that contribute to this abhorrent practice are the fear of dowry. Still, families who are rich and can afford to pay dowries also partake in these practices, and that, according to Bose, is largely due to the high esteem and social status awarded to families with sons. One of the causes could also be that sons lack restrictions in mobility and can migrate in search of better opportunities and jobs which are of value to their families. Globalization, which has led to labour mobility, has added to this phenomenon and become one more reason to continue this practice.

DOWRY RELATED VIOLENCE:
 In addition to the demands made before or during the wedding, there were often periodic demands of more money and items. The failure of the bride‟s natal family to meet these demands often led to the harassment of the bride by her husband and in-laws and sometimes even death, which was termed as dowry murders and was usually committed by burning young women in the house. The dowry Prevention Act passed in 1961 did not do much to curb these incidences because, according to the law, the families that gave dowry were as guilty as the family who demanded them. Thus, no complaints were registered for a long time. Dowry related deaths occur for a multitude of reasons. One of them being, the apparent subservient nature of the bride‟s natal family about the marital family because women being devalued causes the grooms family to be on higher ground. The fear of losing face or „izzat‟ in the community lead to most families of the bride paying the dowry demands so that their daughter would not be returned to them in disgrace. Even with all the legislative change brought about by the agitations of various women‟s groups, the practice of dowry and related violence still continues. In connecting dowry deaths to greed for dowry, the state names dowry as the main culprit rather than addressing the subjugation and devaluation of women. a belief that simply eradicating dowry will lead to a drastic improvement in women‟s lives is to ignore the prevalence of other kinds of violence against women like sexual harassment, female feticide, forced marriage, etc. which all have the same underlying current of female subjugation.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: 
The term domestic violence is preferred over the term family violence because the former situates violence within the physical location of the home or the house. Domestic violence can be the differential treatment of family members depending on their sex which can lead to physical impairment or emotional trauma- like inadequate nutrition to girls in relation to boys, sexual abuse, wife-beating or intimate partner violence, even dowry-related abuse, etc.
Domestic violence entails the following:
 Physical violence including slapping, kicking, beating, hitting, pushing, choking, burning, and threatening, and assault with a weapon.
 Sexual violence including sexual coercion, sexual harassment, and rape;
 Psychological abuse including demeaning, insulting, threatening, isolating and abandoning behaviour;
 Financial abuse including deprivation of material goods, control of money and control of assets.

Different forms of domestic violence can exist:
1. Intimate Terrorism- this form is almost entirely male perpetrated and is found in studies of women experiencing long term abuse and harassment from their husbands.
2. Violent resistance: a form of violence that some victims of intimate terrorism use to resist their partner‟s control.
3. Situational couple violence: it does not come from a partner‟s need to enforce control over the other but rather arise from certain circumstances or situations which give rise to tension and conflict.

Wife beating is the most common abuse from respective, community, religion, and even caste background. It has been argued that it is not only a woman‟s dependence that makes her susceptible to violence but even working women are subjected to domestic violence. One important characteristic of intimate partner violence or domestic abuse is that many women do not report it or even acknowledge it as abuse. The occasional slap or rebuke is taken as a part of being a woman, and it is only when the abuse is extremely violent or deathly that women seek help. There is a widespread tolerance for wife-beating, and some reasons are also considered justifiable- like, disobedience, neglect of household duties, etc.

Marital rape is another form of violence under the umbrella of domestic violence and is a much-hushed topic. Like child rape, marital rape is under-reported, and women mostly do not talk about it. As of yet, India has not passed any legislation to include rape within marriage as an issue. It is an extreme form of sexual abuse.


HONOR KILLINGS: Honour killings are acts of retribution or vengeance, usually perpetrated by a male member of the family towards a female member who is perceived to have brought dishonour upon the family or the community. This perceived dishonour could be for one of the following reasons: (1) going against the cultural norms of dressing and attitude or behaviour.
 (2) Wanting to terminate one‟s arranged marriage or marry according to one‟s choice, especially inter-caste marriages;
(3) engaging in sexual acts outside of marriage;
(4) involvement in a non-sexual relationship perceived as inappropriate.

Honour based violence like acid throwing and honour killing, occur in societies where there are collective notions of honour and shame. Such crimes are usually justified as protection of traditional values and societal norms. At the core of these norms is the woman, the control of whose sexuality and its bestowal in marriage with its intrinsic importance as to who controls her reproductive and productive labour, which is crucial to patriarchal forces. Therefore, honour and shame are often linked to the expected behaviour of families and individuals, specifically those of women. Honour, in this sense, revolves around the public perception of the individuals rather than their actual behaviour. Causing a scandal or becoming a topic of gossip in your community or group is usually the reason for the offence against honour- of your family and the extended community.

According to Sylvia Walby, Patriarchal relations are maintained by 
1. Household production
2. Patriarchal relation in waged labour
3. Patriarchal relation in the state.
4. Male violence against women
5. Patriarchal relation in sexuality\
6. Patriarchal relation in cultural institutions.

Production of Gender inequality
In her book, The Velvet Glove,1984, Jackman says that gender inequality is reproduced through ;
1. Paternalism: Originally referred to a traditional father-child relationship, whereby the father cared for and exercised control over his children. Paternalism is a powerful ideology because it contains the feelings for the subordinate group with the exercise of social control.

2. Deference implies that the subordinate group reciprocates these positive feelings, who see no reason to challenge the dominant group's control over them.

For  any suggestions and queries contact on: 

E-mail: anthrobasics@gmail.com

Instagram: anthroclan_india