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.