A
recent chat with a friend about her social media post got me thinking about
something uncomfortable but necessary: the way men often reduce women to their
bodies and gendered roles.
The
status itself, along with the conversation that followed, got me thinking. We
‘men’ have all probably, whether advertently or inadvertently[1] been part of conversations
where a woman is being reduced to her body/gendered bodily functions, or other
similar conversations, colloquially referred to as ‘locker room’ conversations.
These conversations can be heard in schools, college dorms, offices et al. There
is no one standard or definition that can cover the gamut of these
conversations, as they can range from being childish to having overtly sexual
overtones. The one thing, however, which is common in most such conversations,
is that the subject of the said conversation has not consented to being the
subject thereof.
So,
why do we feel comfortable as ‘men’ doing this?[2] Why are we ok with
checking out a woman in the most obvious manner, fully knowing that it will/can
make the woman uncomfortable? Why are we ok with reducing a platonic interest
shown by a member of the opposite gender to a case of imagined non-platonic
interest?
It
is because ‘consent’ is not a threshold we truly hold dear. Consent is not only
a concept that is relevant for determining the nature of a sexual act in case
of sexual assault allegations. It is a far broader concept that ought to govern
a significant portion of our interactions with the world around us.
A
woman may want to sashay down the street in the skimpiest of clothes – she has
not consented to being ogled or assaulted. A woman may have multiple sexual
partners – she has not consented to having sex with every man around her. A
woman may have consented to something once – she reserves the right to say no
the second time. A woman may be best/close friends with a man – it doesn’t mean
she wants to sleep with him.
All
of this seems pretty logical and commonsensical, right? But it doesn’t seem
that we get it. I guess it is correct when it is said that common sense is
pretty uncommon.
And
yet, as a society, we will resort to cultural crutches – like seeing women as
mothers or sisters – to curb behaviour, instead of fostering genuine respect
for consent and individuality. That men will behave in certain ways, I think,
is largely part of the societal discourse. I think the idioms like ‘all
women are like one’s mother and sisters’ or ‘bro code’ are all admissions
on the part of society that, unless made taboo in some manner, men will behave in
a particular manner with all women around them. Why do we ask men to see all
women as mothers or sisters? Because, as a society, we fear that without such
constructs, women will be sexualized. Or why make men swear by ‘bro code’
unless not seeing women in that light, will make women partners of friends
being fair game for men.
I
believe this is appalling. We shouldn’t be needing to see all women as mothers/sisters
or believe in the ‘bro code’ to stop (as the saying goes) boys(men) being
boys(men). We should really let women (and all other genders) be. They have an
equal right to enjoy this world without fear.
Further,
these tendencies of men actually make inter-gender interactions with women less
candid/authentic/sincere. Imagine a scenario where your male best friend is
always on their guard about what they are saying to you/behaving around you to
ensure that you don’t misinterpret the words/actions to mean something else. The
quality of the interactions would drastically reduce, right? The same happens
in many inter-gender conversations, to avoid platonic interest being
misinterpreted as non-platonic. Imagine the increase in the depth/quality of
inter-gender conversations if the female gender didn’t have to keep their guard
up all the time?
If
you are a man and you have read till here, essentially, one of two things are
happening in your head, (i) first, you think I am a ‘bleeding heart libtard’
and everything I said is rubbish, or (ii) you think there is some sense to be
had in what I have written. If you are in the first category, I have one
question for you: Do you think the women you care for in your life would be
happy with the utopic world that I seem to be suggesting? If yes, my politics
are irrelevant to this discussion. And if you are part of the second category,
bravo, and I hope this struck a chord that will be at least the frailest of
guardrails next time you find yourself in any of the situations discussed
above.
To
conclude, I would like to say to all ‘men’, all humans on this earth are equal,
and all genders have the right to enjoy this world equally and in a similar
manner. It's time to realise that this world is not ours to dominate or
consume. It's not your oyster – it belongs equally to everyone.
[1]
Even for the inadvertent events, unless one protested, one must adhere by the
saying, silence is acquiescence.
[2] That
women may be having similar conversations is firstly beside the point and
secondly irrelevant considering the gendered nature of sexual assault in
majority of cases.
No comments:
Post a Comment