Mumbai molestation outrage

Just because the booze is unlimited doesn’t mean you guzzle it down like a gutter; by behaving in this manner, you are only inviting trouble.
Since this post is quoted in the same bunch of links, it is important to note that that concern by the blogger is not directly related to the molestation incident- she just seems to be airing a slightly related related rant that one should not drink irresponsibly.

It is not known if those girls molested that night were drunk or not.
Girls who get molested most nights, or days, are not reckless,not drunk, not “provocatively dressed”. Yet, molestation, rape happens. All around.
(I am not arguing against Sakshi’s point that one must be responsible, and be on their guard nevertheless: just that her quote w.r.t drinking seems a bit out of context here)

Yee haw. I was waiting for some troll (like Nilu, fellow Pundit Confused or his gang)to blame the women. Suprisingly the stupid argument has come from a woman. Not surprisingly, its still a troll, viz. Ms. Juneja. And by linking to them, you M/S DP, have added poularity to that logic. How can you blame the woman?

Ok, she’s drunk, she foul-mouths a crowd (who passes cheap comments on her) which then tears her clothes apart in public. Ah, guess what? she’s to blame. Who told her to get drunk on free booze?

Well, what’s wrong in guzzling free booze and getting drunk? Isn’t that what New Years is all about? And you told me that Mumbai was safe, so how am I to blame?

As a reader, here’s a question to all of you women contributors at DP – Do you support Sakshi’s crazy logic? Simple yes or no. Neha, Ash, Lekhni, Ideasmith..all of you. It’s your blog that linked to her. I know you aren’t asnwerable to you readers, but let’s make exception.

Do you support Sakshi’s crazy logic? Simple yes or no. Thank you.

@The_girl_from_ipanema – Thanks for clearing this up.

From what I have heard and read, the two women who were sexually harassed on 31st night were NOT drunk.

Personally, I fail to see how whether the women were drunk or not is relevant. If they had been drunk, would it have been okay to molest them? Would it have made it, somehow, their fault? Sakshi’s whole post strikes me as reactionary and wrong-headed – just another version of the classic patriarchal reaction of blaming the victims that we should have got beyond by now.

FALSTAFF

You make the perfect point. When I read what Sakshi had written I could not fathom what point she was trying to make. And it was even more amusing to see what some of the other commenters had written. Looks like New Year’s eve has left a lot of brains foggy.

As an aside…..

Metblogs Mumbai posted about this first, and DP did not link to us or pick it up.

I was truly amazed by media’s coverage of the whole incident. The same night terrorists killed 8 people in the middle of our country. Nobody is bothering about that. Have we and media got our priorities wrong?

it is half nude dress of girls,so called fassion that trigger molestation.

Falstaff – “classic patriarchal reaction”, really?? My humble request to you would be to kindly re-read what I have written. Not even once have I blamed the “women” who were unfortunate that night. But since you have failed to understand my point, I shall break it down in simple words for you.

The post is in two parts. One where I talk about the 31st incident and that people should be careful when picking public places to celebrate a night out. Rowdy crowd and sexually sick men don’t just thrive in limited cities, they are everywhere. And therefore one needs to act sensible and make wise decision.

And the second part is an observation, something I witnessed at a high-class society party filled with so called educated adults. The point of women being “drunk” out of their senses was mentioned here. Rape or Sexual Abuse be it provoked or not, is not justified…period and we all are well aware of this fact but the reality is that it still happens. No doubt it’s good to raise our voices against such atrocities, demand “attitudinal change” and work towards a better society but till we accomplish this goal…one must act in a responsible manner towards one’s own safety. It’s just like asking people not to drink & drive or wear condoms.

I found it very alarming to see the number of young girls completely whacked out of their mind, literally choking in their own filth on 31st night. As I mentioned in my post as well, it’s no crime in having a fantastic time, making merry with friends and loved ones…oh! Hell I do that too but there is always a limit (and this goes for both the sexes). But when you can’t even stand on your feet, you even take away the means of protecting yourself (and others around you) if the need arises. And the truth is – women are more vulnerable under these circumstances. As a good friend puts it, there are no shining amours .

So Mr. Arzan, so the point I am making is – watch your back at all times because it’s a bad bad world out there. And maybe, just maybe..the fogginess is at your end.

I think the fault lies with DesiPundit’s Lekhi who has made this erroneous statement:

“Sakshi, interestingly, seems to lay at least some of the blame on the victims.”

In her eagerness to show different sides to the story, she has taken Sakshi completely out of context, mixing one part of her post with another,

In her post, Sakshi first talked about the molestation incident, and then went onto the other thing that irritated her:

“Another thing that really pisses me off is to see women drunk to death. At the hotel where we were partying, no exaggeration here; there were more women literally puking their guts out in comparison to men”

‘The girl from Ipanema’ rightly pointed this out in the very first comment here, so it is sad and surprising to see that nothing has been done about it.

The moderators at DesiPundit really should take a look at what the new “guest contributors” are upto if this sort of this can be allowed.

It is in effect spoiling Sakshi’s reputation online, which is ridiculous as she is not saying what Lekhni is purpoting her to say!

As for the commentor ‘Commando’, all I can say is that you should READ the entire posts before jumping to conclusions (though to your defense, the link was badly titled by Lekhni).

Incidentally, I’d like to add (mainly for the benefit of some people who are only too ready to put others down), that when I saw this, my first reaction was “Sakshi, how could you blame the VICTIMS????”

I was very upset with Sakshi (& called her at once to tell her that), even while opening her post in another window.

By this time, I had realized that Sakshi wasn’t blaming the victims at all ! She was making a separate point about doing what one can to be safe in the midst of madness.

One can only hope that moderators at DesiPundit can understand the meaning of people’s posts before they link to it here with any title that suits their fancy.

Sakshi: sorry, but your clarification is actually the classical patriarchal reaction, which runs “Of course, women are not to BLAME, of course rape and sexual abuse are BAD, but if only women ‘behaved’ themselves – didn’t drink / stayed at home / wore decent clothes – all this could be prevented”.

The problem with these arguments (which are, for my taste, too common) is that by laying the onus of future action on the potential victims, by making women ‘responsible’ for their safety, they open the door to blaming the victims because they make the focus of the incident what the victim could have done to avoid being raped / abused / attacked, implicitly suggesting that it was at least partially her fault. When you get to the point where you’re saying things like “one needs to act sensibly and make wise decisions” you’re basically suggesting that people who suffer abuse / violence didn’t do so, and that’s both factually inaccurate and morally outrageous.

You say you are not blaming the victims for the incident. Okay. But you are making a value judgment about them (why shouldn’t women drink if they want to? Why shouldn’t young girls be whacked out of their minds? What’s so great about being sober anyway?) and the fact that you’re doing so in a post that is supposed to be about an incident of sexual abuse is, at best, criminally incoherent writing and at worst an underhanded attempt to shift the blame. If you don’t think the women are to blame why would you choose to focus your post on what they could have done differently (which, as far as I can tell, is nothing)? And if the two parts of your posts have, as you now claim, nothing to do with each other, then why make them part of the same post?

In any case, the (first part of the) post doesn’t make much sense, does it? If women are at risk everywhere and whether they’re drunk or not (by your own admission the victims in this particular incident weren’t drunk) then how does it help to “be careful when picking places to celebrate a night out”? Notice that these women weren’t in some ‘disreputable night club’ or in a dark alley in the middle of nowhere, they were on a fairly public street. So what your prescription boils down to is that women should stay at home after dark (if not earlier), though I’m not sure you think even that would help (it wouldn’t). What you’ve got therefore is a non-argument that serves no purpose except to reveal your own biases. Even if we accept for a moment that women should be doing more to protect themselves, why does that translate into their not drinking / not going out. Why not into their carrying a can of Mace with them, or taking classes in self-defense? Isn’t it interesting that your prescription for how women should exercise caution dovetails so neatly into what the patriarchs have been saying all along?

Bottomline: If you didn’t mean to blame the victims you’re doing a particularly bad job of not doing so.

FALSTAFF thanks for articulating the issue in such clarity.

Sakshi you may have had two different but related thoughts. When you put them as part of the same thought following one another it creates a contradictory arguement.

And my question to you is this…..who the fuck says that women should not drink, get sozzled, etc etc. These are rules made my a male dominated society and need to be changed. If a woman wants to break them she will be judged (wrongly) on a set of biased standards but then she should be prepared for it.

But that does not mean she stops doing things just because judgements will be passed. In that case no women would have ventured out to go to school and college in the early 1900’s when that was a largely male activitiy.

If you want to be someone who fights for feminist issues (i hate that term btw) then u should fight all out and not selectively.

The conclusion of your post is….

Its horrible that women get molested while walking down the road but a note of caution to all women to not drink because then u may get molested and you are the only one to blame.

Melody, as much as I appreciate your jumping into Sakshi’s defensne, you should read the entire post again and then re-read the last paragraph. Friends can be wrong and if you tell them so, they will still be friends (hopefully)

And lastly

Sakshi…..its either Mr. Wadia or Arzan, never Mr. Arzan.

@ Falstaff: Why is that things need to be extremes??

Why must you look at Sakshi’s post and say – she’s saying “Don’t Drink, Stay at home!” – when in essence all she’s saying, is be safe!

One neither has to go to the extreme of locking oneself up in a room nor throwing all common sense out of the window (and I’m not referring to the victims here, I’m talking about Sakshi’s caution to other women)

~ Avoid those areas where there’s likely to be trouble. Don’t drink yourself silly as there’s a chance you’ll not be able to take care of yourself after that! ~ this is what she was saying and I for one completely agree with her.

She’s not judging the women who were molested, she’s cautioning others to be careful.

@ Arzan: “Melody, as much as I appreciate your jumping into Sakshi’s defensne, you should read the entire post again and then re-read the last paragraph. Friends can be wrong and if you tell them so, they will still be friends (hopefully)”

Agree with you completely. Did you read the para yourself?

Melody wrote

Agree with you completely. Did you read the para yourself?

No. I did not. I am just wasting my time writing about that same paragraph in three different comments without reading it.

Duhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!

Melody – whatever is is, you cannot blame Lekhni for linking in the manner that she does. Sakshi addresses that issue in her post and if she chooses to mention “better safe than sorry” in the same breath – most of us are bound to make the assumption that she connects being molested to being “more vulnerable”. Which is very close to the usual “be less vulnerable and you shall be safer” argument.

Melody:

“Avoid these areas where there’s likely to be trouble” is just silly. What areas would these be, exactly? How many people, a week ago, would have said the area where this incident happened wasn’t ’safe’? As practical advice, avoiding trouble areas is meaningless, unless you extend it to saying women should stay at home (though again, I’m not sure that would help). A similar argument applies to alcohol.

It’s always possible, after the fact, to say so-and-so shouldn’t have gone there or shouldn’t have been out that late because it’s dangerous. But all that achieves – all Sakshi’s achieving with her post – is making the victim look foolish and irresponsible. If that isn’t ‘judging’ those who were molested I don’t know what is.

Either / or: Either you’re saying the women in question could have been more careful and didn’t use their common sense (in which case I’d love to know why you think so, since I haven’t seen any evidence of this so far) in which case you ARE judging / blaming them; or you’re saying they did use their common sense and were careful, in which case it’s a pretty stupid example to use for the argument she’s making, such as it is. Either way it’s a silly, badly written post that seems incredibly insensitive to the trauma of the victims. No matter how successfully, you, with your obvious though inexplicable admiration for Sakshi, manage to rationalize it to yourself.

And let’s say all women in Mumbai took your and Sakshi’s advice and stopped going out to ‘dangerous’ areas (however defined) and drinking. Would incidents of sexual violence stop? No. I’m unconvinced they would even lessen in frequency, but let’s say for a moment they did become less frequent, but were still happening. What would be your ‘practical’ advice to women then, how could they be more careful? Presumably another round of restrictions, another set of freedoms given up. Where would you draw the line? Sooner or later you’d end up at the “don’t drink! stay at home” point. Which is exactly what patriarchy wants. Which is exactly what these incidents are about.

And while you’re busy agreeing with her all over the place, you may want to ask yourself why it is that both your and her solutions to women being more careful / taking precautions consist entirely of steps that limit the freedom of women instead of trying to empower them.

Falstaff – I’d agree with the main thrust of your argument re: victims and blame but I think your tactic of taking an idea to its extreme point in order to validate said argument is ridiculous. For one thing, Sakshi didn’t say that women shouldn’t be drinking or even that these particular women shouldn’t have been drinking. She said she’d observed these other women who were trashed and she didn’t think that was so great.

Now, irrespective of whether or not you agree with that, I cant believe you ask Why shouldn’t young girls be whacked out of their minds?

The question, again, is not whether young girls should be “whacked out of their minds”. The question is whether ANYBODY should be whacked out of their minds. Tens of thousands of people die every year around the world thanks to people who’re “whacked out of the their minds”.

I understand and appreciate the point you’re trying to make but you’re not doing anybody any favors by holding up alcoholism as a sign of empowerment.
Would you feel the same way about binge drinking if it was revealed that the men who attacked those women were drunk? Granted, alcohol didnt turn these men into pervs. But it sure as hell didn’t help.

Amrita: “The question is whether ANYBODY should be whacked out of their minds”

Why shouldn’t they if they want to? Okay, so you and Sakshi don’t like people drinking. That’s your choice, and your personal judgment – one that I don’t happen to share. I’m all for everyone – men and women alike – having the freedom to indulge in whatever activities they choose as long as they don’t harm anyone else. Being “whacked out of one’s mind” is a lot of fun and not an experience I would want anyone to be denied.

At any rate, that’s not the point. The point is that being drunk neither makes you liable for things other people do to you nor absolves you of responsibility for what you do to other people. Which is why it’s completely irrelevant to the molestation issue, doubly so since the women in question weren’t drunk anyway. Sakshi is either just babbling or cynically using the horror we all feel over the molestation incident to advance her own unrelated agenda for temperance.

If you want to make an argument for responsible drinking, I have no objections to that. But I don’t see that it has anything to do with sexual violence, and conflating the two, as Sakshi is doing, is ridiculous.

@ Falstaff :

Why does everything have to translate into a case of “either” / “or”?

Asking women to be careful equates shifting the onus of responsibility onto them and divests the molestors / perpetrators of it? Huh?

To give you an example – driving down the highway, someone crashes into your car at high speed. You break all your ribs. The fault is entirely the other person’s. He / she crossed over into your lane / lost control of his / her vehicle. HOWEVER, you broke ALL your ribs because you were not wearing your seat belt. The injuries might have been less serious had you taken care.

Now, does the fact of your not wearing your seat belt translate into the blame being put on you and the other person being absolved of it?

Think a little, buddy … Your arguments sound woefully juvenile.

@ Falstaff: ““Avoid these areas where there’s likely to be trouble” is just silly. What areas would these be, exactly? How many people, a week ago, would have said the area where this incident happened wasn’t ’safe’?”

The problem is you’re again mixing up the 2 different parts of Sakshi’s post.

She wasn’t talking about the victims when she talked about caution. She was talking about her experience on NY night.

I partied with Saks that night & we almost went to the beach ourselves – but didn’t because she knew it wouldn’t be safe & convinced us all against it. I wonder how things may have been for us if we didn’t.

I’m all for women being empowered – as I am against these sickos, trust me, I’ve had my fair share of “incidents” for me to feel this way.

Incidentally, would you (or anyone here who’s commenting against Sakshi’s warning to stay safe) go for a walk on a NY night to the beach in Mumbai? Or be okay with your wives doing that? Even if they had a man or two around?

It’s all well and good to preach here – as it is very necessary to try and speak out about it & do anything we can to stop the crap. But until it’s a 100% safe, why throw caution out of the window???

Please try and understand where we’re coming from, as a woman, what has happened has made me sick to the stomach.

God forbid, something like this may happen to me too – because one can never be sure no matter how safe one tries to be – but that doesn’t mean I should not try to be safe. I really hope you’re getting where I’m coming from.

Either way, I’m done commenting here. Take care & may we all have a happy and safe new year. May the victims be able to put this incident behind them in the best way possible.

Melody:

“Incidentally, would you (or anyone here who’s commenting against Sakshi’s warning to stay safe) go for a walk on a NY night to the beach in Mumbai? Or be okay with your wives doing that? Even if they had a man or two around?”

Yes (though I can only speak for myself, not for other commenters) and yes (though I don’t have a wife, let alone ‘wives’). And even if they DIDN’T have a man or two around (I fail to see how that would help anyway).

At least, I wouldn’t advise them not to go, or not go myself, for fear of harassment (I would not go myself because it’s such a cliche, but that’s a different story).

I would for the reasons I’ve outlined – once you start giving up on things you want to do where do you stop? Besides, every time you make concessions out of fear, fear wins.

And help me understand this. Sakshi says that the first part of her post was the one (and I quote, in all her stomach-turning grammar) “where I talk about the 31st incident and that people should be careful when picking public places to celebrate a night out. Rowdy crowd and sexually sick men don’t just thrive in limited cities, they are everywhere. And therefore one needs to act sensible and make wise decision.” So how am I mixing up the 2 parts of her post? And if she wasn’t talking about the victims here where was she talking about them. Are you seriously claiming that she wasn’t talking about them at all? That when she said 31st incident, what she meant was your and her decision not to go to the beach, and the rest of us were supposed to magically infer this somehow.

I give up. I really do.

KK: Ummmm…actually a) not wearing a seatbelt is a criminal offense in most parts of the world and b) if you’re not wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident, a number of reasonable people (including yours truly) would say you were at fault. See

http://accident-law.freeadvice.com/auto/no_seatbelt.htm

on ’seatbelt defense’ in the United States, and

http://casselsbrock.com/publicationdetail.asp?aid=1002

on similar issues in Canada.

So a fairly stupid example, don’t you think?

And while we’re at it, allow me to point out a few others reasons why it’s a terrible analogy.

a) Wearing a seatbelt is almost entirely costless; not going out to places you want to go to is not.

b) Wearing a seatbelt is a clearly defined act; I still don’t know what ‘exercising caution and avoiding dangerous places’ means, since outside of casting a general fog of fear no one’s actually bothering to say how it’s operationalized. So far all I know is that one shouldn’t go to a beach in Mumbai on New Year’s Eve, and even there I don’t have any actual reason to believe that the beach on New Year’s Eve is any more dangerous than any other part of the city at any other time.

c) There’s considerable empirical evidence to show that seatbelts work – that wearing a seatbelt will actually reduce the risk of injury in an accident; I know of no evidence (aside from Sakshi’s incoherent speculations and Melody’s paranoia) that shows that ‘people who are more cautious’ are less likely to suffer sexual harassment, perhaps because ‘being more cautious’ doesn’t mean anything except when you claim that someone wasn’t cautious enough after the fact.

So, unlike seatbelt advisories, Sakshi’s arguments, such as they are, don’t provide any concrete steps that women could take that would make them demonstrably safer. All they do is dabble in fear and create the opportunity for people to blame the victims of harassment after the fact.

Melody and Sakshi – From all that you’ve said and posted, I’m still trying to understand the difference (or even similarity) between safety and freedom. And how both are different for men and women, in a free society.

For e.g. I’m still grappling with how the freedom of a woman getting drunk (on free or paid-for liquor) has anything to do with her safety.

I agree with everything that Falstaff has said.

@ Falstaff : This could get interesting …

And while we’re at it, allow me to point out a few others reasons why it’s a terrible analogy.

a) Wearing a seatbelt is almost entirely costless; not going out to places you want to go to is not.

Who decides what is costly? And then to flip the point around, don’t you think that you actually “save” when you do not go to places that you would like to?

Attempts at humour aside, who decides the cost factor? There are some ( maybe the majority of people in this country ) who would feel that they have not lost much by not stepping out of their homes / workspaces at all. No?

So we agree that this is not context-independent?

b) Wearing a seatbelt is a clearly defined act; I still don’t know what ‘exercising caution and avoiding dangerous places’ means, since outside of casting a general fog of fear no one’s actually bothering to say how it’s operationalized. So far all I know is that one shouldn’t go to a beach in Mumbai on New Year’s Eve, and even there I don’t have any actual reason to believe that the beach on New Year’s Eve is any more dangerous than any other part of the city at any other time.

Use your common sense to operationalise it, as a lot of women who have never been molested / eve-teased do ( and contrary to media belief – there are quite a few, just that maybe you choose not to mix with them ). No? Pretty simple, I ought to say …

And, if you do not know, ask your friendly neighbourhood never-teased / never-molested woman.

And since I am homing in onto the pro-feminist ( read : western ) undertones to your comments above – ask your friendly neighbourhood dude who has never been mugged / threatened / beaten-up. The same principles apply.

c) There’s considerable empirical evidence to show that seatbelts work – that wearing a seatbelt will actually reduce the risk of injury in an accident; I know of no evidence (aside from Sakshi’s incoherent speculations and Melody’s paranoia) that shows that ‘people who are more cautious’ are less likely to suffer sexual harassment, perhaps because ‘being more cautious’ doesn’t mean anything except when you claim that someone wasn’t cautious enough after the fact.

When you use “I know of no evidence”, it probably means that you never looked for it, never tried to empirically asess it yourself. It has also been empirically proved that we never seek evidence to the contrary of what we choose to believe.

So, unlike seatbelt advisories, Sakshi’s arguments, such as they are, don’t provide any concrete steps that women could take that would make them demonstrably safer. All they do is dabble in fear and create the opportunity for people to blame the victims of harassment after the fact.

Fear is not necessarily a bad thing, or else it would have evolved itself out of existence. You’re with me here?

I would not know about either Sakshi’s or Melody’s advisories. Maybe they are inchoate. Maybe they are not as well thought out and “operationalised” as you would like to believe. I am not contesting any of these things …

To return to the seatbelt analogy, law is nothing more than objectified common wisdom ( unless you vehemently disagree ). Law is also context dependent. It follows that what is commonly wise in one context is not necessarily so in another. I am sure there are instances wherein a seatbelt actually impeded someone from escaping injury ( again unless you disagree categorically ). Think of shifting from your seat at the last moment before impact ( Been there and done that, so I should know ). Think of being stuck and unable to get out because you cannot wrangle your way out of the wreckage and the twisted seatbelt tangle.

Let me get a bit anal here – “seatbelts reduce the risk of injury” is NOT true. Categorically. What they do is reduce the quantum / impact of the injury. You do not avoid injury by wearing seatbelts. The risk of injury remains the same ( subject to the constraints of you following traffic rules and the others NOT ).

And then, to get back to what you started with :-

Ummmm…actually a) not wearing a seatbelt is a criminal offense in most parts of the world and b) if you’re not wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident, a number of reasonable people (including yours truly) would say you were at fault

I’m surprised you’ve included yourself in the category of reasonable people.

You are following the same dictum that a lot of people who blame the women do.

In summary – there is a lot of difference between “being at fault” and “making a mistake”. For someone who has had his ribs crushed due to the other driver’s fault, it was a mistake not wearing a seatbelt.

See, not so difficult after all.

The comments space is getting sidetracked from the issue at hand.

But,

KK – Ever heard of this “Analogies, it is true, decide nothing, …”. Using an analogy to protract other’s argument into a strawman is, well, non-sequitur – and as juvenile as it might not sound, it is.

@ AS : Thanks. Never heard of that. And now that I have, I shall do my best to dismiss it from memory.

The point is simply what Falstaff chose to ignore from my first comment – that asking women to take care does not mean that they are to blame. To take a cue from Falstaff’s dismissal of the fine ladies’ arhguments – it is the classic western ( and dare I say it? Hysterical ) feminist knee jerk response – ” You’re blaming the victim “.

KK – All I can say is to take it in context. “That asking women to take care does not mean that they are to blame” is not the point. Sakshi did not write the post on a “Global Women’s Safety Awareness Day” (thats rhetoric, FYI), but in the context of the molestation incident that has taken place.

@ AS: In which case you may like to glance at this …

The problem with these arguments (which are, for my taste, too common) is that by laying the onus of future action on the potential victims, by making women ‘responsible’ for their safety, they open the door to blaming the victims because they make the focus of the incident what the victim could have done to avoid being raped / abused / attacked, implicitly suggesting that it was at least partially her fault.

A male gets mugged, threatened and / or beat-up. The standard response, akin to what happens with women ( if Faltaff were to be believed ), is that the dude should have taken care. The same logic applies. No?

In which case, why don’t we have males ( and females )taking up cudgels on behalf of the victim, asserting that blame is being unfairly apportioned onto him.

THAT is the problem.

Would you like to know what my definition of a western / urban feminist is? – He/ She who wants freedom / emancipation / equality at all costs, WITHOUT having to pay for it, of oourse.

Name one instance in history whereby these freedoms / rights have been accorded without a cost in blood, sweat and tears.

I do not have much more to say. Hope this gives you something to chew upon.

Agree with Falstaff completely. Curtailing our freedom is not the answer. So fine, going out on NY night, when the entire city is awake, in front of a big hotel, walking with male companions is not safe…

but the exact same thing happened to me while boarding a local at andheri, in western formals, at 6 in the evening. so obviously, the idea is not to keep restricting movement. it very obviously doesnt work. i wrote abt it here. http://thebratthebeanandbedlam.wordpress.com/2008/01/02/

KK – I am dying to know your definition of an eastern/ peri-urban/ rural feminist. By your definition, someone wanting to walk around on New Year’s Eve has to shed some copious amount of blood, sweat etc to be able to walk around!?

It’s one thing to demand a right that isn’t provided to you constitutionally, but quite another to grapple with something that goes beyond an issue of law – the lack of implementation because the government has this wonderfully patriarchal view of what women must do. To ask someone to “take caution”.

Being molested is an infringement of an existing right.

Neha : You miss the point I made w.r.t. a male being mugged / beaten-up.

As for the definition of a feminist who does not fit the description I provided, someone who makes a bit of noise about the teenaged female who was raped and murdered out in the boondocks ( rural Maharashtra, I forget where ) by a gang of four. Found hanging on a tree, if I am not wrong …

In fact, makes more than a noise. Does whatever she can to make sure that THAT case gets processed on a fast track basis. Hauls the administration up if nothing happens. Does not rest till something happens, in case she feels so strongly about the safety of women.

Zillions of words are being written about two drunk women on NYE being harassed by a mob triggered off by a caustic remark / aside from one of them.

Isn’t something essentially wrong somewhere? In your perspective?

What is it this time? Just a few “scandalous” photographs in the news? Of something happening in an urban milieu? Something which fades to inconsequentiality in the face of the other incident?

Incidentally, IF ( as commonly espoused by MANY urban, liberated women ) Indian Men are the quintessential Mamma’s Boys, I wonder how it is that “patriarchy” continues to propagate itself. Must be something the women really do want … No?
Or would you argue that they do not know how to think / feel for themselves and so need these urban types to do so for them. Isn’t THAT condescending / demeaning to the majority population of women in this country?

I could go on … Hope you’re still alive.

KK – I am dying to know your definition of an eastern/ peri-urban/ rural feminist. By your definition, someone wanting to walk around on New Year’s Eve has to shed some copious amount of blood, sweat etc to be able to walk around!?

You’re bloody well right … if you feel that is your right. If those freedoms mean anything to you, TAKE them, by all means. Only be prepared for some backlash / violence …

I’m sorry. That’s about as prosaic and real as it gets…

@Falstaff,

I will just elaborate on this point made by Sakshi, with whom I totally agree!

“be careful when picking places to celebrate a night out”

On New year’s eve I was in Goa and I really wanted to party on the beach…but against all my plea’s my sensible friends decided to party instead at lounge fly. Now at 2 I took my bf and went on the beach coz I wanted to! note, I was drunk and so was he, he is a black belt and could have protected me had the need arisen…but had 10 thugs come and attacked us am pretty sure he couldn’t have done much…we came back from the beach in exatly 5 mins after seeing the rowdy crowd there.

What am trying to say so inarticulately is that had we been attacked on the beach, which was a stupoid decision on my part, I could well be one of the victims. But since we decided to be sensible and party in a club that was not only safe (Read: Sane bouncers) but also had a crowd that would not stoop to sexually harassing a female. it’s difficult to predict what one does under the influence of alcohol and had any guy, who would normally not harass a female, tried such a thing, the guy would have got beaten if not thrown out from the place.

SO yes, if you want to be safe, the onus lies on you. it’s stupid to expect the world to be nice to you!

KK: So your point is that unless you take on every issue that affects women you’re not an effective feminist?

The freedom means a lot to me – but I shouldn’t have to grab it from anyone. It’s already given to me by the state. Incidentally.

And please don’t talk of patriarchy unless you actually understand the term. Patriarchy influences the way our families and inheritance is structured. Which basically means that a woman’s status went up if she had a boy because he would inherit property. I have no idea what a mamma’s boy is. Women are agents of patriarchy – and nobody disputes that.

This issue really isn’t about “bad men” and “good women” at all – which you might understand if you understood feminism and patriarchy. It is however, about gender constructions and expectations.

It angers me when some kid somewhere is raped or killed. But we all are affected by one incident more than the other. If you judge one incident to be more important than the other, perhaps you need to examine your attitude. I am not judging the levels of heinousness – but one incident provokes me at a more personal level than the other. I am more likely to shout myself hoarse about one issue than the other. That doesn’t mean my commitment is patchy. It only means that I have a limited amount of energy and I decide where to invest that.

As for you telling me what to be concerned about – well that is about as anti-feminist as things can get. But don’t beat yourself up over it – I hardly expect someone happily jumps into the boats full of stereotypes to get anything.

This is delicious!

Lekni whoever that is interprets naively a post and links with her/his connotation-
A libellous offence in some countries. But someone says He/she of course is not responsible because ‘most of us’ are bound to think of what sakshi hasn’t said. In fact, for the benfit of the challenged has repeatedly denied the worth of a such an interpretation.

But, If some lewd urchin on the street thinks your legs are cute because he can see them that is solely his responsibility even if he insists most of us are bound to see the pair.

The absurdity of it. Condoning and arguing for a blatant open mistake.

Oh wait! Just before some moron says something useless:

Please. Do whatever you want. Wear whatever you want , if at all, you need to wear. What the Steve Bucknor ??

“A libellous offence in some countries.”

Sunil, I can see that not only are you an expert in law, you are an expert in the law of many countries. Doubtless, if I get a libel suit filed against me, I know whom to turn to..

Btw, for those who have decided to play “shoot the messenger” and attack me personally (Sunil, Melody), I can see that there are many different concepts that are hard for you to understand. But can you not get even my name right – it’s Lekhni. Just 6 letters, and you cannot even spell that right

Neha :

KK: So your point is that unless you take on every issue that affects women you’re not an effective feminist?

No. It just means that you have blinkers on.

The freedom means a lot to me – but I shouldn’t have to grab it from anyone. It’s already given to me by the state. Incidentally.

That proves the point I made earlier. About the western / urban feminist stereotype.

Yashita makes a nice point above.

Patriarchy influences the way our families and inheritance is structured.

If I restate it as – ” The structure of our families influences how patriarchy is inherited “, how wrong would I be? And the structure of our families is a compact between the male and female. Unless of course, you choose to believe that women were bludgeoned into submission. Which brings me to the point I made about women being agents of patriarchy ( Thanks ) – you think they cannot think for themselves if they choose to propagate the system? Are they wrong?

It is however, about gender constructions and expectations.

Are either of the two necessarily bad? Are such constructs essentially baseless?

We could argue till the cows come home …

I am not judging the levels of heinousness – but one incident provokes me at a more personal level than the other. I am more likely to shout myself hoarse about one issue than the other. That doesn’t mean my commitment is patchy. It only means that I have a limited amount of energy and I decide where to invest that.

Precisely. Maybe you need to examine why a particular issue which involved no loss of life or innocence takes precedence in your mind as opposed to one which did. That does indeed speak for the nature of your commitment ( not that it is patchy ) and buttresses the point that I made about the feminist stereotype.

Thanks.

KK – If those freedoms mean anything to you, TAKE them, by all means. Only be prepared for some backlash / violence …

Dude, if only you’d said that earlier. That one sentence puts it all so succinctly. Couldn’t disagree more, and I’m leaving it there.

Lekhni – For whatever it’s worth, it’s quite obvious you’re not at fault.

KK: Now, you sound more funny than annoying.

Hi lekhni

Deki ye ji. Ek H saaala aadmi ko sharminda bana deta hain.

Sorry about the missing H.

See. I have no interests in any of the parties; I don’t know any of you at all. Sakshi, yourself Lekhni, Neha, or the only educated moron I have come across in three continents Falstaff.

I was referred to here and have read the post and commented. If you and your friends are settling some old personal scores with sakshi ( a theory which I am increasingly moving to believe), please please count me out . If that’s what you meant by things I don’t understand.

If you really want to see the sense, you and the Desipundit even once should at least listen to what people have been saying.

Let me give you an example from your own comment: imagine this.
You are lekhni.
I continue to insist that you are lekni, lekko, lemon, etc. You tell me its lekhni . I laugh it off and say in ‘your own words‘: there are many different concepts that are hard for you to understand.

Would you believe it?
Well that exactly what you have done.

I have no interest in any of the parties; its plain for anyone sensible to see that sakshi is not at all, well, a phrase that you have coined…‘blaming the victims‘.
Yet you have wrongly added your meaning to it, continue to claim that you are right because ‘there are so many different concepts in the universe which all of us cant understand. This in spite of Sakshi herself repeatedly asserting for the benefit of you all here that — she hasn’t meant it at all. Yet you and friends continue to believe that what you have understood is the only possible meaning of what she has said. When questioned Your friends and well wishers come by and say all of us are bound to see it that what way, or type a thesis on patriarchy.

For ‘most of us’ ..a writer has been undermined of the authority of her own work right before everyone. Just like what you said to me, not even knowing me, you have decided for me what I am capable or incapable of understanding.
Is that the under running sentiment here?

I don’t know about DB, you seem nice, so I am telling you this.

There has been a mistake. Which we are all prone to. If I were you I would immediately change the link words and offer sakshi what I have been owing her for a few days. An apology. I hope that you aren’t blinded not to see its sense.

Anyway, thanks and you take care.
Good luck with future linking
cheers
Sunil

Sunil: Sakshi has the right to say and justify what she believes. I understand her concerns. Sometimes when a person writes a post other things tumble out – and give others a meaning than the writer did not intend. No one is settling any scores here. It’s however, about opinions. It would probably be expecting too much – but don’t make assumptions about people’s personal motives.

Hi Neha,

Glad to meet you here.

Correction. I did not assume there are personal motives. I am merely speculating.
I have said , a theory that I am more and more willing to believe. It doesn’t mean believe there is a conspiracy. And I say that because of defences like this:

1. Most people are bound to come to the conclusion that lekhni has imposed on sakshi’s view which is as farcical as if I argue that ‘most people’ would come to the conclusion that lekhni has a personal agenda.

Who are these most people. I declared no conflicted interest or interestees.

2. And generalized statements like this ‘Sometimes when a person writes a post other things tumble out – and give others a meaning than the writer did not intend.’

Wow. Sometimes? Like when Muslims believed that Danish cartoons mean what they only believe mean? and if others take a different meaning that the writer hasn’t intended then that’s other’s prerogative. Not the writer’s. here the reader has claimed that writer said something which the writer has denied a dozen times on this very page.

3.The next defence was: there are so many concepts in the whole wide universe that are beyond your comprehension.

For Lekhni’s sake, I refrain to comment on it.

That you have walked into a conversation , defending someone who is quite capable of defending him herself is the sentiment I have been questioning. If lekhni has posted the link, I have more than faith in her than you do that she can defend herself. As I said you haven’t even realised you are undermining an adult.

But the personal motives aren’t the question here, and there is no need to get all defensive about it. If there are no personal motives, good for you. But then what is the malice in the motive to continue to insist on an interpretation that the writer has disowned and states she never meant it all.

What is called? Traffic? Hits? Instead of seeing the farce someone else who come and say I am wrong in assuming that.
Jesus! Thanks anyway

Bombay Addict : Wonderful. That we disagree… Thanks.

Neha : Now you’re not annoyed? I’m sorry.

Let me put a little spin on what else you had to say …

The freedom means a lot to me – but I shouldn’t have to grab it from anyone. It’s already given to me by the state. Incidentally.

If it is already given to you then there is no quarrel, is there? No patriarchal state that treats you as second-class citizens and such like?

The state guarantees you the freedom but it cannot, repeat CANNOT, guarantee you concomitant safety. You’re on your own. Please behave like adults. Responsible for yourself. Like wearing your seatbelts when you are out to drive on the freedom highway. How in the name of hell can you ask the state / fellow citizens ( and that too ALL of them ) to guarantee you that you will NOT meet with an accident NOT of your own making on this highway?

That’s your feminism for you. And that is the gist of my earlier definition.

P.S. Can you even guarantee that you will escape an accident of your own making before you set out?

Wow, this discussion’s taken a life of its own, hasn’t it? V. interesting.

KK, i think you’ve got the wrong end of the stick but I’ll have to get back to you coz I have a little mini-blog for Falstaff and I only hijack other people’s boards once a day if I can help it

Falstaff – Okay, I dont know whether it was accidental or deliberate but i’d like to point out that you’ve completely misrepresented my [and Sakshi's] views. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say it wasn’t deliberate.

I don’t have a problem with drinking as you infer. I have a problem with binge-drinking. And I have a further problem with your mixing up issues (much as Sakshi did in her post) and confusing the RIGHT to drink (not in contention) with the RIGHTNESS of drinking (contentious).

In my case, I dont have issues with binge drinkers because of morality or because I like to stand up for traditional gender roles – my problem stems directly from the fact that I’ve experienced a very different side to binge drinking than you seem to have. Drinking alcohol does not violate a law. But a lot of people who drink it find that it influences their behavior to an extent that they go on to break a law, sometimes to tragic effects. And this is not MY opinion. Alcohol companies go around saying “drink responsibly” for a reason.

And as far as drinking and women go, I’m with you to the point where you say women can do whatever they want and nothing excuses assault – but when you take that argument to imply they’re somehow above / immune from consequences you’re on a trip of your own. It’s one thing to argue that women SHOULDNT have to think about things like their safety when they go out for an evening drink. It’s completely another to say women DON’T.

As far as Sakshi’s post is concerned, she didn’t express herself very well but she’s said repeatedly that the meaning you derived from her post was not the one she intended. Jump on her by all means for writing badly but don’t try and hold her to a position that she doesn’t believe in simply because that was the impression you first got.

Like I said, your heart’s in the right place but your head’s out to lunch.

Amrita:

Fair enough. Notice that we’re now miles away from anything Sakshi actually said in her post. Sakshi’s post said nothing about people breaking the law while drunk, nor did it make a case for responsible drinking in terms of the harm you could cause other people. As I said in my last comment to you, I have no argument with a case for responsible drinking, should it be made as you just made it here. Sakshi’s post only seems to argue for women not binge-drinking, and the only arguments she offers against it are that a) she finds it unattractive and b) that binge-drinking lays women open to sexual violence – neither of which are arguments I’m impressed by. Not to mention the incredibly judgmental tone she adopts towards people who drink, which there’s no need for and which again I find unacceptable. Saying people should drink responsibly because they’re liable to break the law / harm others when they’re drunk is fine with me. But this is the first time anyone’s argued that.

Second, I’m not holding Sakshi to anything. I said in my first response to her that if she didn’t mean to blame the victims she’s doing a particularly bad job of doing so, and I’m perfectly willing to accept that Sakshi’s post was an incoherent and idiotic piece of writing, with no malafide intent behind it. Everything else I’ve said here and elsewhere is in response to the silly attempts being made by people to defend what Sakshi may or may not have said, and in particular to the claim that women can somehow avoid becoming victims of sexual violence if they’re act sensibly and are more careful – a claim that Sakshi IS making. I believe that a) that claim is untrue (and I’m yet to see any evidence to convince me otherwise) and b) a belief in that claim only leads to women being made to feel bad / at fault for something that they probably couldn’t control – even if that isn’t Sakshi’s intention – and is therefore a dangerous claim to make.

Third, let’s be clear that “why anyone should be whacked out of their minds” – the question both you and Sakshi were asking – is always the wrong question. It is not the individual’s responsibility to justify his / her actions to you. If you believe that people should not binge-drink you need to provide the reasons why not – stating them as coherently as possible, and providing evidence that your assertions are valid. Hence my questions the last time around.

(Incidentally, there seems to be the general belief that when I say “Why shouldn’t they if they want to?” it’s meant to be a rhetorical question. It’s not. I’m asking you to provide a good reason why not. Sakshi didn’t.)

And finally, I remain unconvinced that avoiding binge-drinking will make any real difference to the problem of sexual violence. What is binge-drinking anyway? HOw many drinks is too much? How many acts of sexual violence involve victims who had been binge-drinking, and how do we know that the person wouldn’t have been assaulted even if they weren’t drunk / were less drunk? All that posts like Sakshi’s achieve, in the guise of giving advice / solutions, is make the victims look bad (intentionally or unintentionally so), create an atmosphere of fear and repression in which women believe (mistakenly) that by giving up on their freedoms they can avoid becoming victims, create the illusion that binge-drinking by women is a big part of the problem (it’s not) and provide convenient fodder to patriarchal idiots trying to make the case that women who fall prey to sexual violence were behaving irresponsibly. Which is why that claim is worth taking issue with, again and again.

Amrita :

I’ve merely been responding to the distressing cognition that education serves to amplify patent idiocy. It “should not” … ( if you get what I mean )

More than anything else it’s amusing to see some of the well-known Indian bloggers acting so immaturely. A very simple point on “personal safety” and knowing “one’s own limit” made by Sakshi has been nothing but distorted (not to forget misquoted) by the ones who claim to be full of balanced views.
As she has mentioned time-n-time again; one must raise voice against the ills of the society, work towards attitudinal change but that doesn’t mean one can afford to be careless and irresponsible towards their own self and their loved ones.
But I guess for many it’s just easy to flash their “open mindedness” without taking “reality” into account.

Shirrin> I guess you said it !

Hey folks, stop behaving like Burkha Dutta or Prannoy Roy or Arnab (sic!) and making this whole thing into one discussion hungama… Stop behaving like MSM. BY God ! you are all BLOGGERS !!!

The whole argument seems to be (again) what a Person should or shouldn’t blog about. So what’s fucking wrong if Sakshi wrote two different views in the same post ? Or if she did or didn’t make sense ? Fuck, it’s HER blog and if she wants to call Mr. Bush a Yeti or something, it’s her frigging right as a Blogger. I thought that’s what the Elite bloggers of the Indian desisphere have stood for since time immemorial (or at least since the IIPM tamasha). And yet, all the comments, including the ones in her favour seem to be ‘molesting’ the original post; depriving it of its spontaneity, its insta-publish value, both IMHO is the actual spirit of Bloggin’.

I think it’s crazy trying to convert Blogs into Forums. There is a hell of a difference between Word Press and Simple Machines. And it’s not just the php coding. It’s the whole damn concept.
Stop Moral Policing Blogs! (Literary Policing ? Intellectual Policing ?). JUST BLOG !!!!

Writing about it here. anyone who feels my views are unreasonable, unacceptable are more than welcome to present their case.