This Women’s Enews article suggests that women were more likely than men to be killed by a Tsunami because many aspects of women’s traditional gender roles made it more difficult for women to flee or swim.
While official statistics are not yet available, grass-root organizations helping with relief operations in Sri Lanka, say women and children were the majority of the 30,000 total deaths currently tied to the tsunami.
Many of the losses are being tied to gender roles and styles–such as women’s long hair, confining saris, extreme sense of modesty and selfless commitment to husbands and children–that hindered their ability to escape. […]
Fernando, who has worked for years with rural women, says that most of the village women who drowned in the huge wave were wearing traditional saris that restricted them from running and also weighed them down when they became water logged after the sea swept into their homes.
Saris Are Rural Dress CodeWhile the majority of women in the cities have adopted Western dress styles–pants and dresses with hemlines around the knee and higher–90 percent of poor and rural women wear saris on a daily basis, says Saganka Perera, a professor of sociology at Colombo University. Others may wear long dresses with sleeves. […]
An even more important distinctions, she says, is that, in order to preserve their modesty, few rural women have been taught to swim. Rural women, Perera says, even bathe–usually at wells–while covered in long cloth.
More.
I’m sorry, but if you live within 200 miles of any body ofwater that’s more than an inch deep, it should be REQUIRED that EVERYONE know how to swim.
Well, that was helpful. How do we teach dead people to swim? How do we eradicate cultural demands for women’s ‘modesty’?
We’ll just get in our time machines, that’s what. Yeah, that’s the perfect solution.
“women and children were the majority of the 30,000 total deaths currently tied to the tsunami.”
Considering that women plus children are a majority of humanity, that isn’t particularly shocking. In other news, scientists discovered today that approximately half the human race is female.
I’m sorry, but if you live within 200 miles of any body ofwater that’s more than an inch deep, it should be REQUIRED that EVERYONE know how to swim.
And if you REFUSE, we should take you out and DROWN you!
Um…never mind.
well.. yeah. Everyone should know how to swim.
everyone should also be taught a basic command of algebra and physics.
literacy would be nice, too.
all those things are great. but they wouldn’t help in this case.
tsunami kill through riptides, pinning under debris, and the like.
swimming doesn’t help when it crushes your hut, pinning you in a pool of standing water. it doesn’t take that long to drown, really.
still, I’d like for everyone know if 1+x=6 then x=5. that the rate of gravity close to the earth is 9.8 meters per second per second, and that the rain is Spain falls mainly on the plain.
Women are about 53% of the population and children are usually plentiful in rural areas so, yes, they would be the majority of those killed. A statistical norm doesn’t make it any less tragic. And the point is that many of those women might have been saved if they’d just had the freedom to throw off their dresses. More of them would know how to swim if they weren’t so repressed that they can’t wear a bathing suit, or even bathe unclothed. The point here is that this is not just a cultural preference. This a form of hobbling women, restricting their power and safety. Freedom of movement is the first freedom from which others flow.
Men are plentiful in rural areas as well. A statistical norm should not make their deaths any less tragic either.
So far, I have seen no actual statistics that verify the claim that women were mostly the victims of the tsunami. And while women may have been hindered by their clothing, do you really want people to believe that it was the social norms, not the 30ft wave crashing down with enough force to collapse buildings, that killed these women?
Until actual numbers come out, I think people should refrain from making such statements like “X” was the majority of the victims, if for no other reason than it’s insulting and dismissive of the several thousand men and children who have lost their lives in this natural disaster.
As people who study famine will tell you, natural disasters aren’t just natural events. There are also social factors that make some disasters much more disastrous than others. And while I don’t know enough about the specifics of this case, in general I don’t think it’s particularly insulting to discuss those social factors.
My sister-in-law survived 9/11, and she found that the high heels she was wearing were a significant impediment to running away. She’s a total fashionista, but it occurred to her that there’s something a little warped about a society in which women routinely wear shoes that put them in danger in case of an emergency. Obviously, 9/11 is the fault of the terrorists, not of Jimmy Choo. But I still think we can ask what’s going on when women’s clothes impede their mobility or when ideas about modesty prevent women from being taught potentially-life-saving skills.
It’s a pity saris are so restrictive of movement. I think they look kinda cool, in how they flow and drape.
“I think they look kinda cool, in how they flow and drape.”
Y’know coming in to make a lascivious, male-privilege-inspired remark about how sensual and all you find saris on women’s bodies is more than a bit creepy in a discussion of how those saris contributed to the deaths of a large number of women.
Well, as I said, it’s a pity that they’re so restrictive, and because they are apparently so restrictive, I would not advocate wearing one on a day-to-day basis while doing most things, and I think a culture which heavily pressured women into wearing them on a day to day basis needs change. I happen to think they look good, though not in a lascivious way (It’s not as if they’re that revealing)
A lot of people, men, women, and possibly chilren, think that high heels look good. I happen not to, but regardless, I think they’re often impractical because of the difficulty they create in walking. That’s a pity, because safety conflicts with a lot of people’s aesthetics.
Ties… I don’t think they’re good looking, but then they don’t do much to restrict you when you where one (perhaps not a coincidence since it is the only one listed so far worn mainly by men). They’re still rather silly IMHO, though.
Look: the tsunami was a terrible tragedy, and if this were a thread abot the tsunami per se, talking about clothing fashion would be terribly inapporpriate. However, this is about gender roles, which included, very prominently in the second half of the article, a discussion of clothing: Saris to be specific. Do you really think the aesthetics of clothing are irrelevant to anyone who wears them, even if the basic parameters of appropriateness are determined by cultural context?
“As people who study famine will tell you, natural disasters aren’t just natural events. There are also social factors that make some disasters much more disastrous than others. And while I don’t know enough about the specifics of this case, in general I don’t think it’s particularly insulting to discuss those social factors.”?
It’s not insulting to discuss the social factors that can contribute to the danger of a natural disaster. It is insulting to state that women suffered more than men, and more women died purely as a result of having to wear saris. The flip-side to that statement would be more men died as a result of societal norms that force them to place women and children’s lives above their own. If you want to discuss the problems caused by social norms, then discuss all social norms. However, I would still say that such a discussion would be insulting to the victims.
“My sister-in-law survived 9/11, and she found that the high heels she was wearing were a significant impediment to running away. She’s a total fashionista, but it occurred to her that there’s something a little warped about a society in which women routinely wear shoes that put them in danger in case of an emergency. Obviously, 9/11 is the fault of the terrorists, not of Jimmy Choo. But I still think we can ask what’s going on when women’s clothes impede their mobility or when ideas about modesty prevent women from being taught potentially-life-saving skills.”?
But in our society, women choose to wear high heels. No one forces women to wear them. I’ve noted the silliness of wearing something that could easily lead to a serious injury, but most of the women I know who wear heels wear them to impress and out-do other women.
So sure, ask what’s going on with their society. But let’s not pretend that only women have social barriers that would unnecessarily put their lives at risk. That’s precisely what the article implies.
“Do you really think the aesthetics of clothing are irrelevant to anyone who wears them, even if the basic parameters of appropriateness are determined by cultural context?2
I think that you coming in with a comment on how much you like the way saris “flow & drape” when we’re all talking about women being killed in a tsunami is creepy. It’s not even like you made the comment in the middle of a larger observation.
Like you were reading everything people were saying, but what was really going on in your mind was the visual image of women in saris, which was apparently strong enough to make you feel the need to comment.
It’d be like me reading a discussion about a group of men who drowned because their jeans got too saturated with water & became too heavy to allow them to swim, and I piped up with a post that said nothing but, “Oh, but I do like how a nice pair of jeans mould themselves to the male form.”
If we were discussing how jeans were hazardous, and there was speculation that maybe men shouldn’t wear them, then I wouldn’t be offended if you said, “That’s a pity. I do like how a nice pair of jeans mould themselves to the male form.”? I suppose we have different responses, different thicknesses-of-skin, different sensitivities. I suppose your feeling is that respect for the dead requires that after some form of disaster, we should not discuss things related to that disaster except in specific relation to the disaster? (e.g. if there is an airplane crash, and faulty engine design is suspected, we must keep discussions of the engine design’s faults focused on its impact on the tragedy of the plane crash, and never discuss aircraft engine design more generally until a mourning period has passed for the victims of the disaster) If that is a correct way of understanding your view… well, I understand it, but my view of respect for the dead is not so stringent.
BTW, Jaketk, I’m skeptical about your view that “The flip-side to that statement would be more men died as a result of societal norms that force them to place women and children’s lives above their own.” Undoubtedly, there are some norms of, call it honor or chivilary that can put men’s lives at risk in dangerous situations, but from the evidence presented in the actual article, it doesn’t seem generally true that men were sacrificing themselves to save the women and children. From the article:
‘Last to Climb the Roof’
“I was the last to climb the roof of the house and the water was up to my waist dragging me down,” Mala Silva, a teacher in Tangalla, told Women’s eNews. “I was saved because both my hands were pulled strongly by my husband and elder daughter, who did not let me go in that terrible movement.”
Local media reports of women found dead, holding babies in their arms, suggest that many women were killed because they were carrying their children, which slowed their ability to run from the huge wave.
Julian, given your overall creepiness on this blog in general, I feel quite justified in saying that you’re full of it. If you’re not busily trying to find excuses for men to coerce unwilling women into sex, you’re barging into a discussion of dead women in order to make a sexist comment how their clothing fits on their bodies.
It’s not *my* thickness of skin, it’s the level of provocation you feel you have the right to aim at women that’s the problem.
Your comment was inappropriate given the context.
I’ve worn a sari. For most daily activities- walking, cleaning, cooking, carrying a kid, etc. , they’re not restrictive at all. Actually, when one is outside on a hot day, they’re very comfortable. I would not, however, want to have to run in one, or swim. They are also quick to get out of- a sari is held up by being tucked into the drawstring waist of a long skirt, worn underneath.
“For most daily activities- walking, cleaning, cooking, carrying a kid, etc. , they’re not restrictive at all. ”
I know you didn’t mean this in the way I’m taking it, but my first instinct was: well, none of those are “daily” activities for me! So in a sense they are un-restrictive, up to the point where women want to do something other than traditional “women’s” activities, then they become immediately restrictive. I certainly would have a hard time riding my bike to work!!
Julian: your attempts at humor and cuteness are failing you. Are you not aware that male culture has a long history of dressing it’s women in restrictive and harmful clothing?
Precisely what I was discussing with regard to the restrictiveness of saris and high heels in post 11, Q Grrl. I also included the closest male parallel for such silly attire, ties, though as I noted in my parenthetical remarks, it doesn’t restrict like saris or high heels. This is not, as I noted, a coincidence, I think.
My bad. I must need more coffee.
Oh, definitely, Q. However, if a person could ride a bike in a long dress, she’d be able to do it in a sari. I’ve never tried. I could do my job in a sari, though. I have, however, run in a sari. They’re no more restrictive than any other long dress, and in some ways are less confining. Also, one sari can be worn until it gets holey, since it’s just a long strip of cloth. It’s more flexible than a more structured garment- a woman can wear the same one no matter how her size changes.
The flip-side to that statement would be more men died as a result of societal norms that force them to place women and children’s lives above their own.
Actually, your assuming that these are the gender roles in that part of the world. The societal norm that men should place women and children’s lives above their own is a WESTERN norm, and a pasé one at that. Therefore, it would not apply in this situation.
Regarding the swimming issue, I would not make such a sweeping statement that women are not taught to swim to protect modesty. While it is true as a whole, when you break down and see according to the ‘castes’, most of the lowest caste women learn to swim and it is the ‘higher castes’ (the other three) who take on this ‘modesty’ arguement.
Mildly in Julian’s defense, a true male privilege statement would have been something along the lines of “I like saris, so women should wear them, who cares if they’re restrictive and potentially life-threatening?”
What he did say was more along the lines of “I like saris, so I wish they were more convenient for the women who wear them.”
Still not all that great for this article, but better than some people seem to translate it.
Heels are nasty. I can’t even stand properly in stilettos, let alone walk, and when my mom pushed me into wearing thicker high heels to a friend’s wedding dance, I tottered around all night afraid of breaking my ankle. But the level of cultural pressure I experience is NOTHING compared to elsewhere in the world. I can’t imagine having to BATHE with clothes on. Ugh.
An Iranian Friend of mine, a Professor and Feminist were having a discussion with friends about the failings of the Shah of Iran and the Imams in regards to women’s rights. She brought up the very enlightening point (to me) that the Shah declared traditional clothing for women to be discouraged and that Western attire should be adopted without regards to the desires of individual women. The same sort of thing occurred when the Ayatollahs were in charge; accept now the Abaya and traditional dress were required, again with out consulting the desires of the women they were forcing to comply with their demands. In both cases the freedom to choose was denied to the women.
In Sri Lanka the traditional dress, Sari for women and Doti for men (a large rectangle of cloth worn like a Western skirt in Sri Lanka and pulled up like a Kulot [sp?] in much of India) are still very popular and have deep cultural as well as utilitarian ties. ( hygiene, toilet, mobility, manufacture, etc.) While the Tsunami event was undoubtedly magnified by cultural issues, like villages on the coast and the materials and construction of homes, one must be careful when generalizing about repression and cultural norms. The fact that many babies were found with women may have more to do with women breast feeding as there is little money to afford formula, than men not having the care for their families. Many men are doing jobs in the sea, forests, and plantations while women work in tea plantations and other areas and care for the little ones apart from them, as happens all over our country today. Given the choice, I am sure that many would prefer to wear traditional clothing over Western clothing as is the case in many countries where folks are given the opportunity to choose.
Personally I enjoyed the “modesty” of the Southern Indian/Sri Lanka people; it is nice to be in a culture that does not push everything from dog food to toothpaste with sex 24 hours a day. (However I understand this is changing now.) There is much that needs to happen to progress the culture of child labor, indenture etc. (Arranged marriages are still practiced) but where people are given the chance to be themselves things seem to work rather well. As far as priorities go, attire is less of a concern than human rights i.e. the Tamils, equal opportunities, education, food and energy resources. (Wood is still the major fuel for cooking… deforestation is a real issue.) Not that women’s rights are not a priority.
The point I am attempting to make is that not all the folks wearing traditional dress are repressed. That Tsunami withstanding, the Sari and Doti are valid choices for folks to make and should not be minimalised. Many are working with educating folks to understand there are choices in many roles, but that is where it should stop, not to judge the norms that people choose for themselves given the opportunity.
Teaching folks how to swim is a great idea just for itself. It probably would have saved very few in the power of the water. If thousands of women and children were to die in the US as a result of office buildings falling that also provide daycare, the argument could be made that if they were in the fields when the earthquake hit than they would have survived, based on a cultural norm of women in offices keeping kids with them, it would seem to be discriminatory.
As for riding a bike in long skirt type attire, put your feet wider than your shoulders, grab the back of the hem between your legs and pull it up and tuck it down the front of your waist. This makes them into a type of pants (very cool) I have done it for bike riding, and have female friends I have seen do it as well. You can do it the opposite way also front to back. I do not know if it works with Sari, I have never worn one. Blessings.