The United Nations just had a high profile launch of a campaign that is called “He for She” that prompts men to take up for the rights of women, given that men also face the consequences of a patriarchal approach. This provoked me to think about whether he’s can be for the she’s or for that matter whether she’s can be for she’s. One’s thoughts veered to when, and in what circumstances he’s have been for she’s and when and in what circumstances she’s have been for she’s and one has come to the inevitable conclusion that the sex of the protagonist does not always matter. It is the overall socio-economic and political environment, the conditioning and to an extent the protagonist’s own life experiences and exposures that matters.
One can start here on an autobiographical note. As I grew up I did not know the meaning of being discriminated against as a female and I would have looked at any woman talking about discrimination and denial of her rights as someone who is facing those problems because she didn’t assert herself enough and maybe even asked for it. Until one fine day when I experienced discrimination at an organization where I was volunteering which required that female volunteers (who had equal loads of work to be seized with) staying in convent hostels that required a check in by 7 pm latest while male volunteers were free to stay in the organization’s headquarters with no time barriers. And why? Because according to the head, women may go astray! Whoa! I was livid. The matter was put to vote and the quarters from which I got support were contrary to the stereotypes I then held – that people from Mumbai, Bangalore, Calcutta would support me and those from the lands of Madhya Pradesh and Bihar wouldn’t. The men and women from the tribal belts extended overwhelming support. This experience hit home to me the conditions of patriarchal attitudes much more effectively than tomes of reading materials or lectures would. That is the time I understood that the problem was systemic, that it had to do with certain mindsets, with certain conditioning, certain political approaches and that these mindsets, conditioning and political approaches could be residing in any person, be it male or female.
One also understood that sometimes other experiences of marginalization on other counts can also cause a show of solidarity. For instance, I would fathom that an Anil Kakodkar who has lived the pain and anguish of his mother being abandoned by his father would better understand this situation. (I am making no defamatory statement here. There is a widely published autobiography of his mother in Marathi in circulation that exposes the duplicity that many a political figure reflects).
If one peruses judgments of courts, one can also see these prejudices are the result of the prevalent culture of the time combined with many other factors and hence it is not only the sex of the person that enables a person to be empathetic to other members of the same sex. For instance, in the case célèbre which primarily gave cause for the Supreme Court guidelines for preventing and dealing with sexual harassment at the workplace, the judges in a lower court had actually observed that high caste men cannot rape! This goes to show the deep seated prejudices not only at the level of gender but also at other levels such as caste. Hence a judgment of this nature could well have been passed by a female judge.
One also recalls a former female Chief Minister insinuating that women with skirts invited problems, when a delegation of them went to her with a representation about some consequences of tourism. It reflects a mindset that takes away from the onus on the perpetrator and holds that the way women dress is responsible for the problems they face when we know that even women wearing full burqas have been raped.
Is one saying women are enemies of women? Nope! What one is trying to emphasize here is the social and cultural conditioning of the person has a lot to do with how a person appraises himself or herself of a situation and takes decisions, enforces laws, interprets laws, where they are in positions where they can do so. It doesn’t always depend on the sex of the person, or merely their specific experiences or certain stand alone factors. Various aspects go into defining how a person approaches an issue. So it is not about a war of the sexes. And yes, men can stand up for women’s rights. And women can stand up for women’s rights. But neither can exclude the other for standing up for their own rights.
It may also be about the times and the challenges that have been posed to the systems. Today systematic campaigns have led to legislation such as the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013, that recognizes for instance that consent for a sexual act has to be explicit and that it cannot be assumed. This is miles away from previous jurisprudence that saw non-resistance to let’s say an act of rape, as consent to the same, whereas non-resistance can actually be a survival strategy or a result of being fear-stricken. Therefore this takes away the effect of prior judgments by courts where judges looked for signs of resistance in women by way of physical injuries and held that if women are not injured, then they consented and hence the act cannot be called rape. This again was born of a mindset. And it is these mindsets, these political approaches and the systems that have to change for he’s to be for she’s and she’s even to be for she’s and in the long run, for he’s to be for he’s and she’s to be for he’s and all to be for all towards a just and humane society.
(Albertina Almeida is a lawyer and human rights activist)
