DISCLAIMER: the title is a bit of a clickbait. What I will be talking about is not really fear conditioning. #sorrynotsorry
Before the article starts, I’d like to clarify one thing: I’d like to call myself a feminist. That is, I stand for gender equality, which means women being treated on the same level playing field as men in all aspects, and being uplifted in the many areas where they have for decades (often centuries) been denied or subjugated. Eventual equity among all people, in terms of opportunities available, is what I hope for. Yes, my actions/opinions sometimes may not strictly be feminist, because I am still a product of a largely patriarchal culture in a rather orthodox country, but I try my best. This article airs some of my views, and seeks to further my understanding as well.
This is going to be an incredibly long article, because I have tried to factor in and refer to a lot of the research I have done, and present my argument as completely as possible. I haven’t written in quite some time, aside from some rather unstructured diary entries, so please bear with me in case of a lack of clarity and just point it out, I will try to explain it better. Fair warning: the article also contains some swear words.
Feminism has seemingly become a word sufficient to cause heated debates in recent years. The pro-feminist agenda reached a true fever pitch in India following the tragic Nirbhaya rape case of December 2012. The incident galvanized the government to make women’s safety laws stricter and to ensure their implementation in a far more serious manner than ever before. Fast forward a few years, and many men across the country are feeling the bite of how those same laws can be unfairly used on innocent men with impunity. This ties in with the fractures in the global feminist movement, as can be seen in this somewhat famous Tumblr blog on how far the feminist movement has strayed from its core beliefs. The blog is written by a woman, by the way, and does speak from the Western perspective, but many of the points are surprisingly valid even in our country. For example, The Hindu did a study on rape cases in Delhi, reported in April last year. As you can see in the article, from a data set of nearly 600 cases, 40% of the complainants did not show or turned hostile, while 24% were outright false allegations by parents of consenting couples (the largest category of cases were cases involving consenting couples).
If this were not enough, the post-2012 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act disturbed a lot of men even more. For example, Section 354A labels “making a sexually coloured remark” a cognizable offense under Sexual Harassment. The fines/prison terms were markedly increased (which is valid, of course), but the implementation became almost overzealous. Today, it is almost ludicrously easy for a woman to falsely implicate a man on trumped-up charges and make his life complete and utter hell at almost a whim. Furthermore, no counter exists to such a move in the Indian Penal Code at this point in time. I personally know a man who was falsely accused of demanding dowry by his former wife, who then proceeded to file a FIR and drag a court case for over a year, even going so far as leading raids to his house to seize “her” fortune. As the Dowry Prohibition Act states, burden of proof of claiming the offence has not been committed falls to the respondent. Eventually, there was an out of court settlement done, because the law was technically on her side: the man and his family lost a good third of their life savings at the very least.
Now we come to the kicker, though: men are afraid of these almost Draconian laws, but is there a need for that? Has feminism truly become a veil for misandry, or is it crucial for the development of society and for the still-trounced rights of women?
Only a few days ago, I came across an article about how Barkha Dutt talked about how she was sexually exploited in her childhood. While such a thing is tragic in itself, what disturbed me much more were the comments I saw all over social media regarding this revelation. Thanks to Facebook’s “trending” feature (which is fairly convenient if you want to brush up on major happenings sometimes), I got to see posts and comments by a lot of random people on the incident. Barring a few voices deploring the poor treatment of women in our country, most comments were about how this “anti-national” “whore”, “bitch”, “” was doing a “randi-rona” (not joking, actual term) and trying to garner sympathy – because who on earth would “fuck/rape” an “ugly slut” like her.
Let’s step back and try to analyse this objectively. First, let’s assume Ms Dutt WAS in fact being duplicitous and trying to garner sympathy. Can that ever justify the level of abuse that was meted out? The woman was verbally humiliated and degraded across entire social networks. Even if she was lying, she was just one more of hundreds of people hungry to gather fame, and less depraved than most. And if she was being honest, as I personally feel, then such comments are a truly horrific reminder of the lack of value that society places on the dignity of women. I am leaving aside the nationalistic argument in the issue, though it has major significance, but I will say this: if a nation cannot respect its people, including its women, then we have absolutely no right to be proud of it.
Arguably the most disturbing thing about the entire incident (after the vitriol of the response in itself) was the instant correlation between her appearance and the experience. The notion that physical appearance is associated with the act of rape (whether correlation or causation) is one that tilts dangerously towards victim blaming, taking the focus away from the aggressor’s opportunistic assault on the dignity of another individual and the failure of law enforcement, to the condition of the victim and how it could have “possibly” led to rape; the classic “she was asking for it” stance that defending lawyers like Manohar Lal Sharma of Nirbhaya rape case fame take. This is in stark contrast to multiple studies done on the nature of rape and rapists, such as this older one from the New York Times that reached the result that rapes are MUCH more commonly opportunistic assaults by normal men rather than planned crimes by sexually depraved criminals; that is, these were guys who thought they could get away with it. It had nothing to do with the woman’s appearance.
Now, if one were to read that article in its entirety, one would find that the study reached a multitude of other more disturbing conclusions, notably – “those who admitted having forced sex on women tended to have a hostile, adversarial relationship with women in general. “These men feel they have to be in control of their relationships with women, even in conversation,”” and “these men typically had “an earlier sexual initiation, sometimes forced, and endorsed myths about rape such as the notion that if you know the woman, it’s not rape,””. Clearly, when your sociocultural environment is drilling into you a warped definition of masculinity, or a culture that (often subconsciously) promotes controlling women, then it is a lot more likely to lead to producing rapists. We all know this of course, but the point I am attempting to drive home is that THIS is a perfect example of why we still need feminism.
Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, personal, and social rights for women. This is your basic definition that a simple Google search will yield you, and it is absolutely to the point. Clarity is important – feminism is not misandry. It is about equality and equal opportunity, not superiority of one gender over another. In fact, the arguments of feminism strive to make gender a non-entity in grant of rights to individuals. This is incredibly important, because it also transcends another powerful barrier in the way of equal opportunity: the two gender myth. It gives more power to transgender people, androgynous people, homosexuals, bisexuals, etc. The key idea is the abolition of patriarchy (the male-dominated style of leadership pervading much of the world) in favour of individual ability. And it is without doubt a noble cause.
What a lot of men don’t realize is that patriarchy hurts men almost as much as men. It forces a particular brand of masculinity down our respective throats, and punishes us for not living up to it. Boys don’t cry, emotional men are pussies, a man should earn more than a woman – these are myths that are reinforced by patriarchal social systems and place enormous psychological burdens on the men trapped in these systems. It places even worse on those belonging to the LGBT community or those who simply do not conform to one gender – they do not even have a place at the table, so to speak. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s thoughts on feminism as presented at the World Economic Forum make a powerful argument that is worth considering, and I really could not put it any better. It covers everything from the positive impact of women at corporations to the inherent misogyny that starts from birth.
A common argument heard by those who oppose or are angered by feminist discourse is that if women desire equal opportunity, why do they not simply rise up and take it? After all, men struggle to find their place in life, so why should women expect government assistance, subsidies, dole-outs, reservations and other similar crutches? Pause to consider that the lack of privilege can often feel like repression to those who were formerly privileged. The answer lies before us, though many of us choose to look the other way: women have been denied rights in this country (globally, in fact) for centuries, if not legally then socio-culturally.
The drafting committee of the Indian Constitution during independence was remarkably foresighted and liberal when it came to women’s rights, giving them equal status and voting ability on par with men. And yet, too few people remember that the codification of Hindu personal law almost tore apart the Indian National Congress, due in no small part to how it tried to give a much more equal status to women. This is just an example of society resisting gender parity; the Shah Bano case of the Rajiv Gandhi era is another example, yet far more tragic for the government of the day supporting the regressive side rather than the progressive.
Almost seventy years on, and society remains almost as regressive as it was. Rapes, dowry murders, child marriage, and female feticide aside, there is a marked difference in how society views women versus men. Political leaders either view them as porcelain dolls to be protected, or as immoral seductreses always on the hunt to ensnare men. This percolates into the average household, resulting in often absurd restrictions being placed on the average girl. The Pinjra Tod protest highlights the obscenely sexist rules put in place by university hostels in a city as urbanized and modernized as Delhi; think of the condition in other cities in the country. And the truly sad part? There are millions of men, and even women, across the country who vociferously vouch for and safeguard these brazen attacks on equality.
In light of this, pause and consider: legally, the women of our nation lack for nothing. Yet, they have been repressed for decades. You’d be right if you blamed either implementation of laws or societal attitudes, but the existence of said repression is undeniable. Therefore, does it make sense to expect an entire subset of population that has been systematically, and systemically, denied their rights to just rise up unaided from a position of relative weakness and seize what they are owed by the Constitution itself? In an ideal world, change would come from within the society, as it became more accepting of the changed pace of the world and the parity of genders. But the lack of such change forces the government to account for these societal inequities and implement measures that essentially force-feed equity into the system. It isn’t a perfect solution, or a complete one, but it is better than nothing, especially to those women who are able to benefit from it. Millions, unfortunately, are not.
While this makes a case for subsidies, reservations and other dole-outs, detractors will still point to the biased nature of laws pertaining to women’s safety. While in principle, I agree that many of the laws are overtly biased, I genuinely feel there is perhaps a case for this: I recently had the opportunity to film a documentary in Ahmedabad on why people there simply do not wear helmets. Drivers are extremely rash, and two-wheelers are in abundance, and yet a very small number of people actually use helmets. One of the conclusions we reached was that while they are aware of the benefits of a helmet, they find it inconvenient. The other? That the fine for not wearing a helmet is so low that they are simply not concerned; pay the cop 50 bucks and he’s least bothered.
Ideally, a government should focus on the implementation of its laws. But when the implementation fails, as it so easily can in a country with the population of 1.4 billion, then one option is to turn to extreme punishment for those who are caught. Case in point: the legislation in Delhi on drunken driving. There is no longer a simple fine if you’re caught, you’re just dragged to court (or a lock-up for the night). While the chances of your getting caught remain low, the FEAR that you will be caught curtails the chances of you indulging in the offense in the first place. And I feel that this fear of harsh punishment is exactly what women’s safety laws are banking on. The threat of hanging or life imprisonment may make a man think twice about seizing a rape opportunity; the threat of unquestioned reprisal from the police may halt a dowry-demanding man in his tracks. The very existence of these laws is meant to act as much of a deterrent as their implementation, perhaps more.
Statistical data on the impact of these laws can be viewed here. The increase is mostly in reporting, and a significant increase it is. Conviction, of course, is a slave of the comparatively slow pace of the Indian judicial system. The same article asserts that not much real change has been effected by these laws, but I disagree: the very fact that their existence is causing more cases to come to light is heartening in itself. Even if we are to discount some of them as false, there is still a net increase in reporting. Women are empowered enough to report them, no longer as held back by sociocultural ostracization or a fear of legal protection. And we as a society are becoming aware of just how corrupt our core is, and how much work needs to be done before serious progress is made towards the goal of gender equality.
This is not to say that I support the trampling of the lives of innocent men under a juggernaut labelled “Feminist Cause”. Far from it. If the existence of these laws is necessary, then at least let their frivolous or malicious use be as heavily discouraged. For example, it is unfortunate that the Criminal Amendment Act as linked above specifies Sexual Harassment, Voyeurism, and Stalking as offences only by men against women. But it is equally true that men are as often and as unwillingly on the receiving end of the same offences. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is just that: protection of women. Men face domestic violence too, and there are too few forums like the Save Indian Family Foundation that try to address it. In my view, equalizing these laws is the need of the times. In one stroke, it will both give innocent men a legal recourse in case of false accusations, and mollify (or perhaps even convert) many who are on the fence or feeling threatened by feminism. It would not be an unequal, or undemocratic move, though the legal niceties involved are leagues beyond my expertise. It is my hope that such an attempt would improve the framework of society, while not upsetting the scales of justice – rather it would balance them more thoroughly. If there is anything that has a chance to bring more people over to the feminist cause, to curtail abuse of laws in favour of one gender or another, and to unite society in pursuing the goal of gender equality, then it is surely worth attempting.
the credible hulk 