The Beginning: Kumar Alok

Table of Contents here.

The following is the complete verbatim text of Mr. Alok's comments before I entered the debate. The purpose of including these (and omitting the comments of other responders) is to give an insight into which points I was debating against.

I must admit my naivety in such matters; however, I am just curious to understand things. Feminists seem to take a very strong person-side in the person-situation debate by assuming that people behave independent of their environment. This is to say that males must remain unaffected irrespective of what girls wear or do. Is this a reasonable expectation grounded in the science of human behaviour? It is a well-established social-psychological fact that social cognition is shaped by culture. So is the argument against Indian culture itself? Do we know of a culture anywhere in the world where people do not care about culturally held values? A final point I am curious about is regarding safety. Shall I stop taking precautions because the Constitution guarantees me right to life? In a society, many people may have self-control but a few may not have. Any precautionary measure is against these deviants. Given that it may not be uncommon to have a few thousands or even a few lakhs of moral deviants in a country of 1.2 billion people, is it prudent to assume safety on the basis of presumed rights? To me it appears more sensible to take as much control in my hands regarding these matters as possible rather than make myself even more vulnerable for the sake of ideologies:)

I am not sure whether science is illogical or ideologies are impervious to logic though J

A basic requirement for logic is that the arguments must be consistent. One cannot justify a general position by citing examples applicable only for niches. Cabin crews follow a lot more code of conduct that we do not expect people in general to follow...not even the air-hostesses. A basic problem with rights-based approach is that it doesn't stop anywhere. If the idea of dress-code per se violates rights, then the argument doesn't stop with only women! Why not extend it to children in schools...or to police, army, fire-fighters or cabin crews! If the argument is for liberty, then it always comes within a framework beyond which it has no meaning. It is only because we accept our Constitution that we get our rights. It is clear that any right has a meaning within a reasonable framework...never beyond that.

Ms. Tumpa's reply at this point:

Kumar Alok Pls...I commented about the cabin crew only because of Madhu Kishwar's mandate on the air hostesses, nothing else...I am not inclined to giving doctoral lectures on fb

Mr. Alok , continuing...

We miss a basic point while discussing dress code. Dress fulfils a need for social acceptance. To the extent we need to be accepted in society, we all adhere to unwritten institutional codes. Even without a formal diktat, a reasonable person wears one kind of dress for office, another kind for ceremonies, and yet another kind for informal occasions. To assume that one is absolutely free regarding dress choices is naïve. The code is already there in the form of "propriety". Within the domain of propriety, people are free to exercise their choices regarding what to wear and I do not see a point in objecting to the idea of propriety itself given our need for social acceptance.

Read the first round of this debate here.