Read previous round here. Table of Contents here.
My point is that dressing in a so called modest way is not an effective precautionary measure against rape. This is amply demonstrated by the fact that the vast majority of rape victims in India were dressed in salwars, saris and even burkas and similar modest attire.
This is because the underlying motivation behind rape is not
sex, but violence. It is a hate crime against women for possessing sexual
agency.
As regards 'khuli tijori', the very phrase is lifted straight
out of a Bollywood dialogue. Our entire culture is built around the
objectification of women.
Finally, since you insist on talking about propriety, please
remember that the so called provocative clothing is vetted by the contemporary
standards of taste and fashion and thus by definition falls within the bounds
of propriety. If any person were to exceed these boundaries, they would face
social criticism and perhaps legal action (for indecent exposure). Rape is
neither.
Reply:
I believe it may require careful research. Human behaviour
has generally multiple determinants and those determinants themselves often
interact in various ways. To refute any role for dress, I believe the following
conditions must be shown to exist:
- dress doesn't exercise any influence on the onlooker
- people are indifferent to cultural propriety of a dress
- people make no inference about other people on the basis of their dress
- category-based hate is not influenced by category-based stereotypes, especially regarding dressing, and
- dress cannot trigger unconscious motives in a person.
Second, you still need to show that there is any culture
anywhere in the world where certain category-related stereotypes do not exist.
You need to also consider whether men are not objectified by the very same yard
sticks. Are students not objectified when we grade them? Are people not
objectified when we categorize them as BPL, APL, Middle-class or Rich? Are
people not objectified when we consider them as contemporary or uncivilized?
Are people not objectified when we refer to them by the positions they hold in
their organizations? Are people not objectified when we categorize them as
likable or disgusting? Please consider such questions and their whole ilk. If
they make sense, then you are not raising a feminist question.....you are
raising an existential question regarding how humans are and what they do.
Finally, I may like to draw your attention to one more fact.
In the contemporary society, relationships with sexual overtones are getting
privileged over other kinds of relationships. A college-going girl may feel
offended if a boy calls her "Bahan ji" or a boy may feel awkward if a
girl calls her "Bhaiya". Primary school children are also taking
pride in having girl friends or boy friends. These ideas seem to reach rural
areas as well through pervasive media. It is intuitive to think that sex-crimes
may increase if much of the social discourse is revolving around it. Law cannot
be a substitute to morality though morality is the last thing people want to think
about these days. Indeed the problem is multi-layered and hence the solution
also has to be complex.
Read the next round here.
Read the next round here.
1 comment:
I super agree with your point on being offended, when called Behenji or Bhaiya.
Post a Comment