Monday, October 03, 2005

Women Liberation - Are we taking it too far?

Ok, a very very , very very , very controversial subject. I accept.

I am going to deal with this in a manner that I hope does not hurt any sentiments and is as neutral as possible. Pardon me if unintentionally these views hurt someone.

I am going to discuss this point by point:

1) When women are forced to follow some rule, as was the case in Anna University, when a ban was imposed on Jeans and T-Shirt, a common misconception is that it amounts to "Oppressing Women" . I would not ascribe to such a thought. The reason why a ban is imposed on something is not with the intention of oppressing someone but to bring about an order in something.

Let me be more clear:

When we go to a boardroom meeting wearing a "Lungi" (it is a comfort wear that someone usually wears in their home) and a torn T-Shirt, we may be allowed inside the boardroom that one time. But the very next day there will be a memo on the office notice board that says that everyone should follow only "Formal" dress code in their offices.

There is an unsaid "Rule" that one person is expected to wear something in a place. It is ok if you wear a Lungi in your house but it is not ok to wear the same in a boardroom meeting. It is ok if we wear a sleeveless and shorts in your house but not so in a temple , which is why , appreciably, some religions allow men and women to worship in separate places within the same temple, so as to avoid distraction.

What I am trying to say is that, a "Rule" is not meant to oppress someone but rather to bring about an order in the way of life. If order is not there in life, then we can question just about anything in life and get away with it.

An educational institution is a place where one comes to gain knowledge. At a tennis court it is understandable to wear a shorts, but not so in an educational institution. A gym is a place appropriate to wear a sleeveless tops, but not an educational institution. By saying so is not to oppress women or stop their liberation in any manner. The same rule also applies to men. They are not supposed to wear lungis or shorts to colleges either.

Hence I wish to stress that "Oppression" and "Moral Policing" and "Rule Making" are three different things and should first be separated. They each deserve a different approach to argument. When one mixes the three and puts them under the head of "Oppression" it is a mistake, but when one clearly sees the difference then it is not so bad.

Let me illustrate:

"Donot wear sleeveless anywhere, you are not supposed to wear it because we say so" - Oppression
"A sleeveless top should not be worn by women because it is degrading to our culture." - Moral Policing
"You are not allowed to wear a sleeveless top in an office because a lot of our customers often visit the office premises and we expect to be in formal dress. " and "You are supposed to wear only conservative dresses in college because it is distracting students when otherwise." - Rule Making

Once the distinction is made among the three it becomes easier to really argue on the subject. An institution has every bloody right to impose its own rules and regulations and in case you are so hell bent against it, then it is better you go and join an institute which does not impose such rules.

Do we go and argue in an office as to why we cannot stand in the front of the building and shout at the top of our voice? Simple answer: If you do, you are then chucked out of the organization.

Rules are rules and an institution has a right to demand from its members that which it sees would benefit the organization, and in this case, the demand is not so outrageous as to merit such uprising.

2) Another common fad which is getting popular these days is to call any "Male" member of the society a "Male Chauvunistic Pig, MCP for short", whenever he even tries to correct a woman. I do agree that there are a lot of things that us men have to learn and yes believe us, we are trying. But at the same time I would request that the same effort be taken from the other side to understand that when a man says :
"Women are very good at taking care of children", he means that "Women are very affectionate and far better than men at handling children and it is a natural thing when women fare better at being a parent than a man, i.e a mother is more important than a father"

IT DOES NOT, and I stress, IT DOES NOT MEAN "Sit at home and watch the children, while I would go to work and earn the bread". So please donot jump up and down when someone says that children need to spend more time with their mother.

Child raising is no mean task, and to get a certificate that someone has done a good job at it , is , believe me, far more better than winning the best employee award. You feel more bad when someone says your son/daughter is a thorn in the society than when you donot get the "Outstanding" grade in office.

This does not mean that women should not go to work or does not mean that only they have to take care of household chores at all. IT just means a vast majority of women are better at handling a child than are men because of their natural ability to "care" more. Men at the same time are by a natural evolutionary process, "Physically" stronger than most women.

While I accept men have to come out of this feeling that they are the only bread winners, I would like to stress that women too, play their role correctly. In all the puranas and the Upanishads, women are held so highly as to call them the "Upholders of Society".

Anyways, there are as many opinions as there are heads in this world, and this is just what I think :).

A million typewriters and a million monkeys all over the world. :)

I hope I have not caused any hard feelings by this post. It is just to highlight some distinctions and some ways by which both sides can benefit themselves and move towards a more civilised way of life.

7 comments:

Shiva said...

I never thought of this machi.. "Waearing a Lungi to office.. obvious it's the most comfort wear".

Nice analysis da machi.. enjoyed reading it..

Srinath said...

i cant refrain from applauding ur effort to "not hurt anyone"... ur demarcation between the 3 concepts is indeed highly enlightening :) u certainly sound like an "oppressed" "male" urself though ;)... rules r rules, agreed but we need to draw the line somewhere, the qn is where... today anna university sez u shudnt wear this, this and this.... tomorrow mnm jain sez u cant wear dark colors.... wat next??? i have a creepy feeling that 10 years down the line the word "college" will lose atleast 25% of its meaning, and we'd be goin to undergrad "school".... ur thots plz

Whoiscb said...

@Sri : You are correct when you say that we have to draw a line. Now the conflict comes as to where we draw it and finally it will lead us to the point where our freedom is under question.

That is why I would again say , that any organization has its own right to demand of its members certain behaviour. The members can walk out of the organization if they feel so hurt by those rules , and in case they feel that they should not be part of it.

Let me illustrate once again:

There are some students of the view that attendance should never be compulsory.

Now it is left to the organization to decide on the same. Some organizations may choose not to keep attendance compulsory while some other might not. It is all the choice of the institution. If MNM Jain says dont wear gaudy colours, and if you happen to be a hardcore Ramarajan fan who would always want to wear a gaudy coloured dress, then better dont join MNM Jain. You can always try to get into BITS :)

But I would like to know why you feel that rules like "No cellphones" and "No jeans" would result in a college losing its meaning. A college is lot more than just the dress we wear. The dress , certainly, according to me is not 25% of my college life.If at all it may form 0.25% of my college life :). Anyways, opinions differ...

Woodworm said...

I decided I'll clog your comments section today.. coz I am too lazy to make a post of my own :)

I think you're being a little too defensive while putting that.. because i think your analysis is absolutely valid.

I think the arguments against dress codes in colleges are largely misplaced and blown out of proportion. The only point against dress codes that can carry some weight could be the bloody Chennai heat. (And that really doesnt call for a "dark-coloured" shirt.. so thats really a non-starter)

However, as you may have guessed :).. I have two points about the Chennai psyche - which may be a little tangential to your post. But just to add some spice.

1. It does strike very odd that the rest of India should move in one direction, and Chennai portray a totally different face. Let us stand away from being "moralistic" for a moment. An average north Indian feels so unwelcome anywhere south of Bangalore. A part of it is due to the traditional anti-Hindi bias that still forms a part of the Tamil psyche, and the rest of it is probably due to the "judgemental temperament" that Chennai-ites have of the outsiders. For example, jeans has been an acceptable part of the average college girl's wardrobe in Mumbai for probably the last decade and a half. How do you expect a Mumbaikar or a Delhiite to come down and assimilate into the Chennai culture with restrictions like these? The merits and demerits of the famed Chennai conservatism can be argued to no end from a moralistic standpoint, but it is a fact that this city is still not a part of where the rest of India is going. I am not sure that's a very positive trend, because by taking a stand against being cosmopolitanism, we are in effect distancing ourselves from everything positive that can come out of it, be it economic or cultural.

2. Secondly, I believe Chennaites are paradoxically one of the most intelligent of urban Indians, and are also the worst emotional fools. The attitude spans both the general public, the government and the police. In fact TN Police are regular entertainers. Step back a few years, when for two weeekends, the staff of The Hindu were hounded for a civil privilege motion offence. Only to be told on Monday morning by the court, that there is absolutely no locus standi for any action at all. This in a state, where the likes of Prabhakaran and Veerappan were still to be brought to book. The police here makes bloody well sure that what they do makes sensational headlines the next day. What better way, than to suddenly discover that women booze in weekend parties in posh hotels, and that when young people of opposite sex get together in such parties, they sometimes smooch. Again, leave all the judgemental part alone - but do you seriosuly think the action against The Park was so precipitiously important? Or that Kushboo should have apologised for whatever she said? Oh yeah, excuse me.. this is a land where the ex-CM is reputed to have been a hopeless womanizer, and about the current CM's moral record.. the less said the better.

Chennai-ites are gifted with a lot of grey matter, but we rarely go that far upstairs. We delegate our thought processes to the wrong organs in our body.

:)

Whoiscb said...

@woodworm: I agree.

The reason why I was being defensive in the first place is so that I dont end up being termed a MCP (male chauvunistic pig) :)

We can keep arguing these things over and over to no end. Basically I would say that I donot entirely share the "thathas" views in the post below.

I would not want Khushboo to apologize for what she did, but I would neither want it to hit the headlines when little bunty is having dinner with me and he asks me what is "Virginity" only to make me look like a monkey.

Same goes for raiding a party in The Park Hotel. Totally uncalled for. People who are of a totally different way of life are enjoying themselves in private and they are not disrupting common public by doing so. They are just having their own "fun". Why go and disturb them? What I would say has gone wrong is that the whole thing was publicised and brought into the fore. Ivangala thiruthave mudiaadhu (I mean the stupid media and the police)

I agree 100% that the Chennai psyche is a lot different to the way the whole country in other parts is moving. It is in the border where it has to decide to jump this way or that way. A cat on the wall case. Not able to completely neglect its seeming "culture" and the new way of life.

Anyways :) ITs all a part of life :)

Srinath said...

machaan, i dint mean to say that 25% of the meaning of the word "college" is fashionable clothes, and i'm proud of anna univ for coming out with the "No cellfones" rule, which i feel i very apt......... the trend of imposing rules/restrictions is wat worries me, as college to me, is atleast 25% synonymous with freedom..... and after having been told wat to do by anyone who's even an year older than u, college life (esp., if u r a hostelite) is a lot abt liberation n freedom to me and this trend is not encouraging at all........ and the fact that our media n police try to make a mountain out of every possible molehill that can be connected to "moraility" makes it so bloody disgusting that i'm not able to refute any of woodworm's allegations X-(..... though the rest of india's moving in the same direction, they're not far ahead of chennaiites, i must say.... while it takes kareena and shahid to smooch if they wanna come on the front page in mumbai, here u can be a nobody n still smooch ur way to the dinalamar cover page....

Whoiscb said...

@Sri : Correct da. I agree. The trend might cause some worry, and I do agree about freedom being 25% of college life.