Men and their erroneous sense of intellect that it is their birth right to touch women

Source: Google image search

The Bangalore incident on the New Year’s Eve is a gruesome reminder of many such previous incidents in Mumbai, Kolkata et al and the fact that not much has changed over the years when it comes to women’s safety. The male section of our society often tends to use ‘alcohol’ as an excuse and ‘mobs’ and ‘crowds’ as shields and disguise to harass women among them. And it somehow gives them some sort of a kick or Adrenalin rush or some sort of sense of adventure.

We keep on harping about treating women with ‘respect’ but what baffles me is ‘understanding’ even before ‘respect’. Why is it so difficult to understand a woman’s – or rather a person’s – right to her own body? Many men now condemn rape as horrific and criminal, but why is groping and eve teasing taken so lightly? Even the dictionaries are seemingly diplomatic about the harsh choirs of groping (Grope (verb) - fondle for sexual pleasure; Fondle (verb) - touch or stroke lightly in a loving or endearing manner). But there is nothing loving and endearing about being rudely touched by a stranger without your permission. The moment a girl feels an uninvited hand grab her body she is filled with confusion, vulnerability and unequivocal disgust. Why do men not understand that it’s not their prerogative to have an overriding right on a woman’s body just because chance made them male? Leave alone just women, every living being, human or otherwise, has an un-abrogable right to their bodies and nobody – I repeat, nobody – should mess with that.

Time and again people use mobs and crowds to get away with things that are not allowed or forbidden. People have gotten away with heinous crimes like sexual assaults and murders. The problem is in a crowd not only is it difficult to identify culprits but also to fix responsibility. Men grope women all the time using crowds as an excuse – in public transport, in queues, in cinema halls; and then behave as if nothing happened or as if they do not even understand why we are glaring at them. Subways, public transport systems and crowded streets are prolific breeding grounds for those lurking with bated breath to viciously cross lines on some clueless figures. There’s no categorical description of groping because it happens all the time in literally every imaginable situation. We ask ourselves why it happens to us and we even ask guys why they do it. But I still can’t fully grasp the reason behind the uninvited, unwanted touching. What is it about human nature that basically makes one attempt to make others feel a way they would not want to feel themselves? Do guys who harass girls feel powerful because they can shift their own vulnerability onto someone else – a woman? If a woman yells back, the perpetrator can be quite pleased because they’ve upset her and reached their goal of projective identification. They know she cannot prove anything. It’s just her word against their own. Groping has become a UFO phenomenon. Even if you have witnessed one, reporting it becomes a problem, for the lack of validational elements.

In a culturally old-fashioned society where the boys are not allowed to feel emotions, they are allowed to inflict them on women, who again are traditionally subjugated as a weaker sex. The worst part is girls are also part of these societal expectations, where it’s far too common that sexual harassment can cost a woman her reputation. It’s the biggest cultural problem in terms of maintaining a culture of sexual harassment.

Most men today try to come out as empathetic and aware of women’s right to security. Some consider it a fad and brag that they are not like those people “who do such things.” “Not All Men” is the new trend. And yet women are groped everyday and everywhere. Not all men grope. But most who grope are men. And it’s not even taken seriously. Victims of groping, take protection under the compassionate blanket of ‘once bitten twice shy’ and are constantly on the alert. Whereas a groper is susceptibly high on the maxim, ‘once a groper always a groper’ because he can easily get away with it. It is like being inside an esteemed museum. We see the warning, “LOOK, BUT DON’T TOUCH.” However, we all know the rhetoric potential of that sign. There will always be those who will want to just touch it, for the sheer thrill. The excitement. In other words, an erroneous sense of intellect that it is their birth right to touch it. 

Practically and sadly, there is no end to groping. Only a heightened sense of awareness, and a belligerent trickle of proactive and preemptive remedial measures that can be put in place to tame and subdue this disturbing deed. But how do you reach that stage until men can be made to feel that “they cannot get away with it.”

When will this highest and hardest glass ceiling shatter?

I have been meaning to write this for about two weeks now; basically ever since Donald Trump got elected to be the next President of the United States. Even after all these days, it is yet to sink in. I could never in my wildest dreams have imagined that the Americans would actually select a misogynist, racist, hate - monger as their President. And what is more bemusing is that they selected him over a strong, confident and independent woman. Is gender bias really that strong in the world? People, even women, went ahead and voted for a totally inexperienced man who is a known sexist with the appalling view about women as apparent as when he said on camera that they ought to "grab them by the p***y"; over an established lawyer, senator and basically absolutely qualified for the role woman. Wow! It totally baffles me. It does.

I am not an American Citizen and I do not even live there. In fact, I haven't set foot in the US ever and I am totally uninterested in their Politics. I have not read much about either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton and though I have not heard many nice things about Clinton, I had definitely read and heard what Donald Trump would keep throwing at the people through his statements and tweets. They were far more disturbing than humorous. Inciting people based on race and religion; demeaning your opponent based on her gender; advocating sexual assault as a sign of one's masculinity and 'stardom'; and then dismissing it as "locker-room talks" - these are definitely not qualities one would like in a man holding the most powerful position in the world.

Most of our politicians in India are not exactly role models either, but here is one guy who is openly and brazenly chauvinist / supremacist and proud of it. And despite that more than half of about 325 million people put their own and their country-people's as well as the whole world's future in his hands.

Hillary Clinton had her flaws but she still had more leadership qualities than her opponent. She had the grace and confidence and even presence of mind to lead the US and indirectly impact the whole world. But then in one of the most developed country in the world, being a woman is more of a drawback than being inexperienced, brash, sexist and racist. True! It is the highest and hardest glass ceiling and it has not yet been shattered.

Now, I can only soothe my hurt feelings by appreciating and adhering to the words Clinton spoke in her concession speech, "never stop believing that fighting for what's right is worth it." Having said that, it was never really important to actually have a woman as a President. That would have only been symbolic in establishing and proving the fact that a woman can be anything a man can be. In our own country, and much before the US, we had one of our most effective Prime Minister who happened to be a woman. Despite my ideological difference with the Indian National Congress Party and my utter dislike for the Gandhi dynasty, I would not deny that Indira Gandhi was one of our most respected and able Prime Ministers. But like I said, it is only symbolic because despite having shattered the glass ceiling in India long back, it's not like our society is very accommodating for women here. It's not.

The purpose is not just to appoint a woman to the highest office. The purpose is to identify and prove by example that in our country, and our world, there is place for all genders and all races and all religions and that none is superior to the other. It's all about your capability and not where you come from. It's about what you are made of and not who you are. That is exactly what we want people to learn, and remember. You need to prove your worth irrespective of your gender. So, again to quote Clinton, I would like to highlight that "all the little girls... never doubt that you are valuable and powerful and deserving of every chance and opportunity in the world to pursue and achieve your own dreams."

Maybe it is time we start appreciating the likes of Justin Trudeau with his forward thinking and equalist and humanist agenda. Take a bow, people of Canada - you did far better than the Americans.

Seven things we can learn from children

Today is Children's Day in India. I have been seeing everyone sharing happy messages of their childhood since morning and it makes me wonder how come we lost all that charm all too soon. I think back and wonder how our childhood was all about innocence and playfulness; about joy and freedom. And yet it all eludes us now as grown ups. So, I grabbed a pen and paper and quickly jotted down what I would like to bring back from my childhood.

I made a list - a list of seven things we adults can learn from children. Here we go:

1. Be happy without reason

Children do not really need any reason to be happy. Just a smile can trigger off a laughathon. Just a touch of the finger-tip can set in a rally of tickling game. A funny scene in a movie can lead to raptures that continue well after the movie is over. A witty comment, a joke is enough to brighten the atmosphere. They don't plan their happiness. They don't think, "I'll be happy when this happens." They just are happy.

2. Forgive and forget

The kids don't keep grudges. They fight, they make-up, and they move on. No kid will remind you weeks later that you fought with me that day and this is what you had said. They won't tell you, "Oh! You hurt me when you did this." They simply get over it. And that is the reason they sleep peacefully.

3. Get over guilt

They make mistakes - as all humans do. They feel sorry too - as all humans do. But just as they don't linger on grudges, they don't linger on guilt either. They move on. They apologise and when the apology is accepted, they forget all about the incident itself. And guess what, they sometimes make the same mistakes again. But at least by harbouring no guilt, they keep the innocence alive.

4. Live in the moment

The children don't dwell in the past. They don't worry about their future. All they are concerned with is their present. They feel the feeling they are having that moment - be it joy, or sorrow, or anxiety, whatever. They just go with the flow! They just have a buoyant free spirit that is not bound by the shackles of past failures and future uncertainties. 

5. Wonder

I have quoted this earlier on numerous occasions and I will quote this again: There are no seven wonders in the eyes of a child; there are seven million. They find something exciting and beautiful in everything they see. The gorging fat caterpillar in the garden gets them all excited. Sitting in a train is an experience to cherish. A yard full of dandelions may seem like weeds to an adult; but to a child, it is a field of beautiful yellow flowers through which he/she can make thousand wishes. A paper boat on water is as wondrous as the huge ship in the sea.

6. Believe in magic

When was the last time you believed that Santa would grant your wish? When was the last time you believed that a four leaved clover will bring you good luck? When we were kids, we would see a pair of sparrows and earnestly believed that we await 'joy' that day. And then we would single out all happy instances during an otherwise normal day and attribute it to the two birds. Simply because we believed in the power of those birds. We believed in fairies and we believed in angels. We believed in magic and we believed in prayer. And all in all, these beliefs made our lives beautiful.

7. Fool around sometimes

Children have the most amazing ability to be carefree and merry. They allow themselves the freedom to appear like a fool. They can jump on the bed or splash into a puddle or even strip down to nothing and run through the neighbourhood without a care in the world. They don't try to be so darn perfect all of the time. And they don't worry about what the onlookers will think or say. Any other person's opinion does not matter as long as they are having fun.

I think sometimes we adults need to revisit our childhood and 'reboot our systems to these default settings' to enjoy life. How about doing it today? How about doing it every year on Children's Day? Let's bring back our inner children out every year this day and enjoy life once again.

Image source: Google image search

Is going to war with Pakistan the solution to infiltration?

Gurdaspur, Pathankot, and now Uri: Yet another Indian Army Base was ambushed again. And yet again, for over two days since the heavily armed militants stormed a battalion headquarters of the Indian Army in north Kashmir's Uri, killing at least 17 soldiers and injuring 10 other personnel, all Indians including some attention seeking politicians are baying for Pakistan's blood.

The Hindustan Times highlights that the incident was the single deadliest attack on the Indian Army in at least 26 years. As expected, given the proximity of the attack to the Line of Control (LoC), the line demarcating India-administered and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, and the sophistication of the fidayeen (suicide squad) attackers, Indian leaders were swift in blaming Pakistan. Basis a primary research, the Indian authorities believe that Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), the same group responsible for the strike earlier this year on the Pathankot Air Force base in Punjab, carried out the Uri strike. The Pathankot attack, along with the July 2015 attack on a police station in Gurdaspur in Punjab, highlights a growing frequency of high-profile fidayeen attacks against hard targets. All three attacks have come in relatively quick succession after a relative lull in alleged Pakistan-sponsored attacks in India after the 2008 Mumbai attack, which, by contrast, involved a large-scale coordinated strike against softer civilian targets. It is also believed that the time and place of the Uri attack is of special significance since the Indian Army is already facing criticism for its heavy-handed tactics in suppressing protesters in Kashmir following the killing of Burhan Wani, a Hizbul Mujahideen militant, earlier this summer. It is said that this attack is timed by Pakistan to move the international focus to the Kashmir-issue.

But, all this is for political analysts to probe. What I am appalled by is the fact that the entire nation is screaming for a war. So much so that you cannot not tell anyone that this issue should be looked at more objectively. There was this article in the Hindustan Times which mentioned which state three of our slain soldiers belonged to. While most of the people commenting on the story were asking India to open a war against Pakistan and take not just Kashmir back but also Pakistan over, I had simply commented that mentioning the regions or religions plays to divide people and that what is important is that all the soldiers who lost their lives were brave and courageous. I did not mention "war" or "Pakistan" and was therefore called out as a "bloody liberal Hindu". I think it is insane - the whole reaction to the situation is insane.

I want to understand how waging a war against Pakistan will solve our internal problem of failure of our national intelligence services to identify a security breach. Because that is exactly what this was - a security breach and a mega failure to identify the same. Be it Gurdaspur or Pathankot or Uri, in all cases a bunch of fidayeens not only cross border but enter heavily armed and supposedly secure areas and kill our very well trained soldiers. And what's more abominable is that every successive attack in this series has been deadlier and more ghastly than the previous one. This only means that they are not only growing more confident by the day but they also realise that the Indian Intelligence system is probably not equipped even now to identify the contravention. This is what we need to counter; this is what we need to work out; and this is what we need to tackle right now before the next big lapse and loss of our brave lives. No Sirs and Ma'ams, we don't need a war against Pakistan. We need a drastic and expeditious improvement in our intelligence networks. Let's put our time, effort, money and focus at the right place - at the root cause. The war against Pakistan would only lead to more problems, political, social and financial. Even if we assume we go ahead and accomplish what all Indians are shouting, we take Kashmir back and even add Pakistan to our territory; we would only be bringing in terrorists from across the borders to within are own and that's not a very smart thing to do seriously.

FAQs On Law, Sexual Violence And Section 375 & 376 Of The Indian Penal Code

Disclaimer: This is reproduction of a post on another website / blog. The validity and accuracy has not been verified. For source, please see the link here.

In a recent engagement with people in the comments section of the Facebook page of Feminism in India, it dawned on me that while sexual violence and advocacy for the survivors is a concern for most readers, many readers have questions about legal provisions in India relating to sexual violence. Questions that popped up, included fundamentals like: Exactly what is rape? Are rape laws gender neutral? Does rape require penetration?

Laws are constantly evolving and the criminal justice system often witnesses the complex interplay of many laws, in any given case. Lawyers need to keep themselves updated and study the facts of a case before coming to a legal opinion.

However, for lawyers and non-lawyers alike, who want to have conversations about sexual violence, the law on sexual violence is a very important component. To enable meaningful conversations on the law, everyone, must have access to information on fundamental questions. To that end, this article is a modest attempt at some sort of ‘F.A.Q’, on laws relating to sexual violence in India.  Given the fact that this is a large topic, the posts will be divided up in parts.

This part, will focus on ‘Rape’ as defined in Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (Sometimes, as and when relevant it will touch upon some other laws, other Sections, and particularly the POCSO Act).

FAQ 1: Who can commit rape, under the purview of the IPC?

The language of Section 375 of IPC is clear. It begins with ‘A man is said to commit rape if…’

In so prefacing the definition of Section 375, it is clear that in the Scheme of the Indian Penal Code, the perpetrator of rape can only be a man.

However, as far as child victims of sexual abuse are concerned, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, is gender neutral. The offence of penetrative sexual assault (defined in Section 3 of the POCSO Act), is materially equivalent to the offence of rape, as defined in the Indian Penal Code. In case of child sexual abuse, both the victim and the perpetrator can be male or female, and it is in this context that female perpetrators are recognized by the law.

FAQ 2: Who can be the victim of rape, in the eyes of the law?

Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code only recognizes women as survivors of rape. The POCSO Act does recognize that any child (irrespective of gender) can be the victim of penetrative sexual assault. However, this leaves out adult male survivors of penetrative sexual assault, who the law does not recognize, as victims of rape.

Adult male survivors of penetrative sexual assault, as a category, are left out of the ambit of Section 375 of the IPC. It is a glimpse into the patriarchal construct of our laws that an adult male survivor of penetrative sexual assault will have to take recourse to Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, a relic from a rather draconian past that seeks to punish ‘carnal intercourse against the order of nature’ and does not differentiate between consenting adults and non-consenting participants. This creates a tragic legal fiction that deems that ‘men can be sodomized but not raped’.

FAQ 3: What acts are required to constitute the act of rape? Is penetration necessary?

Before 2013, the law did not recognize as ‘rape’ incidents of forced anal penetration, or oral sex. This led to an anomalous legal position where if someone was forced to have anal sexual intercourse, they could only be charged under Section 377 of the IPC, and not for rape. This had a significant impact on the Aruna Shanbaug case, where the perpetrator was never charged under Section 377 IPC, reportedly to save the fiancé of the victim from ‘embarrassment’. The perpetrator was convicted or attempted murder and robbery.

With the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 2013, the ambit of the term rape in the IPC was broadened to include many categories other than ‘penile-vaginal’ penetration. Four categories of actions are recognized as constituting rape, when done without the consent of the woman:

When a man penetrates, to any extent, of themouth, vagina, urtethra or anus of a woman or makes the woman do so with him or anyone else. (The vagina includes the labia majora)	Inserts, to any extent, an object or a body part, not being the penis, into the aforementioned orifices, or makes her do so with him or any other person.
Manipulates any part of the body of the woman so as to cause penetration into the said orifices, or makes her do so with him or any other person.	Applies his mouth to said orifices of a woman or makes her do so with him, or any other person.  (Note: No form of penetration is required here)

FAQ 4: What does consent mean?

Section 375, goes into great detail on the question of consent. When an act falling within any of the four categories is done, under any of the following conditions, it constitutes rape:

Conditions under which the 4 categories of acts constitute rape.

1. Against the will of the woman.
2. Without her consent.
3. With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt.
4. With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be law­fully married.
5. With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupe­fying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.
6. With or without her consent, when she is under eighteen years of age.
7. When she is unable to communicate her consent.

Ok, but what does consent mean?

Consent, as laid down in Section 375 of the IPC, means an ‘unequivocal voluntary agreement’ when the woman by ‘words, gestures or any form of verbal or non-verbal communication’, communicates willingness to participate in the specific sexual act.

The Indian Supreme Court has clarified that ‘against her will’ and ‘without her consent’, are two distinct categories, though there might be an area of overlap between then. The phrase against her will, connotes an act of sexual intercourse committed despite a woman’s resistance and opposition. Consent on the other hand, according to the Indian Supreme Court, implies an act of reason accompanied by deliberation.

The Indian Penal Code makes it abundantly clear that the fact of a woman not physically resisting the act of penetration shall not by the reason only of that fact indicate consenting to the sexual activity. Merely submitting to sexual assault (for example due to fear), without putting up a physical resistance, does not amount to consent.

It might be interesting here to mention the Mathura case, a case that remains a blot on Indian legal history. This 1972 case involved the custodial rape of a tribal girl, by two police constables. The alleged perpetrators were acquitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The decision betrayed a confusion about the difference between submitting to an act of sex, andconsenting to it.

In inferring that the 16-year-old girl ‘consented’ to the activity, the court relied upon factors such as “stiff resistance having been put up by the girl is all false” and the “alleged intercourse was a peaceful affair”.

In an open letter, written to the Chief Justice of India, by leading Indian academics (it is worth a read and can be found here) the underlying assumptions of this judgment were challenged. One paragraph of this letter, hits the nail on the head with regard to the meaning of consent, and I have quoted it below:

“There is a clear difference in law, and common sense, between ‘submission’ and ‘consent’. Consent involves submission; but the converse is not necessarily true. Nor is absence of resistance necessarily indicative of consent. It appears from the facts as stated by the Court and its holdings that there was submission on the part of Mathura. But where was the finding on the crucial element of consent?”

Let us now look at some other questions that are frequently asked on the issue of rape, particularly about the quantum of punishment for it.

FAQ 5: What is the punishment for rape? Is there a more severe punishment for rape committed in certain circumstances?

Offence	Punishment	Relevant Section
Rape	Not less than seven years, may extend to life, with fine.	See Section 376 IPC
Rape by a) Police officer -1) Within police station -2) Premises of any station house -3) On a woman in the custody of the police officer or his subordinate b) A public servant on a woman in his or his subordinate’s custody c) A rape committed by a member of the armed forces deployed in an area by the Central or State Government, in such an area. d) Rape committed by a person in the management of or staff of a hospital, remand home, jail, women’s institution, children’s institution, or any such place of custody. e) Rape committed by a relative, guardian, teacher, or a person in a position of authority over the woman f) Rape committed during communal or sectarian violence g) Rape committed on a woman, knowing her to be pregnant. h) Rape committed on a woman under sixteen. i) Rape committed on a woman who is incapable of giving consent. j) Rape committed when the perpetrator is in a position of control or dominance over the woman k) Rape committed on a woman suffering from a mental or physical disability. l) Rape committed on the same woman repeatedly m) Causing grievous hurt, disfigurement, maiming, or endangering the life of a woman during the commission of rape.	Rigorous imprisonment for not less than ten years, which may extend to life (which shall mean the remainder of that person’s natural life) and fine	See Section 376 IPC
Persistent vegetative state or death caused in the commission of rape	Not less than 20 years, may extend to life (which shall mean the remainder of that person’s natural life) or with death	See Section 376 A
Gang-rape	Not less than 20 years, may extend to life (which shall mean the remainder of that person’s natural life) and fine	See Section 376 D

FAQ 6: What is a gang-rape? Does each member of the group or gang have to commit sexual assault in order to face punishment?

Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code lays down that ‘Where a woman is raped by one or more persons constituting a group or acting in furtherance of a common intention, each of those persons shall be deemed to have committed the offence of rape and shall be punished ….’

This provision for gang-rape recognizes that it is not necessary for each person in the group to actually commit the crime of rape, to have high degree of culpability. The law penalizes any activity done in furtherance of the common intention of the group as if it was the offence of rape itself. This would mean that even persons who stand guard over doors, or hold the victim own cannot get away with a lighter punishment by claiming that they did not actually commit the sexual assault.

FAQ 7: Is there a more severe punishment for repeat offenders?

Section 376E of the Indian Penal Code states that whoever has been previously convicted of an offence punishable under Section 376 or section 376A or section 376D (i.e. committing rape, causing death or vegetative state in the course of committing rape or committing gang-rape) and is subsequently convicted of an offence punishable under any of the said sections shall be punished with imprisonment for life (which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life) or with death. Note that this section requires a previous conviction to be present, followed by a subsequent conviction.

These are some questions on rape and the law that we thought were relevant. As mentioned before, this body of law is large, and some things can get left out, keeping in mind the demands of brevity and readability. If there was something you wanted to know, that we have not addressed, feel free to shoot out more questions, and we will try to answer them to the best of our abilities.

Olympians: Our poster children for "Save the Girl Child" campaign?

In the days ensuing the Olympics, our two medallists (Sakshi Malik and PV Sindhu) and two almost

medallist (Dipa Karmarkar and Aditi Ashok) have been relegated to eternal glory. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. They deserve every bit of the adulation (and maybe we would have seen more such enterprising athletes if the attention is given before the games rather than after it.) But, then they were started to be linked to the “Save the girl child campaign”. So much so that, we all made them intentional / unintentional poster children of the campaign. The fact that it takes Olympic medals to justify saving our girl children is a horrific idea indeed. Every life deserves to live and the “Save the girl child campaign” was brought to the fore because the girls were faring much worse in the infanticide statistics. Don’t they deserve to be saved even if there are no Olympic medals to point out that girls bring laurels to our country? The fact that it is a life – a living breathing soul – gives them a right to live whether or not there are poster children to support justification of their existence.

Please do not get me wrong. I do not intend to say that we should ignore the glories the girls brought to our country. But that glory should be used as a justification to encourage sports and its wider reach. Female infanticide, however, is a different matter altogether – which deserves equal attention but the right kind of attention. Linking the two issues dilutes their importance and the attention they both require. Why are we sending out a wrong message? That till a girl wins a medal, her birth and her existence do not merit automatic celebration. So the message is, “Don’t kill your daughters not because they are human beings and have as much as value as your sons; but because they may someday become potential medal winners.”

Some social media enthusiasts even went ahead and dug out a picture of PV Sindhu in traditional saree regalia to demonstrate that she could carry the weight of tradition and wield an Olympic medal winning badminton racquet with equal pride. Don’t be fooled by the short skirt and the unapologetic aggression on court, it was suggested. This girl respects boundaries. The kind that really matter. What a tragedy to provide such justification to people who are still hell-bent on seeing women play the traditional roles of the society no matter how much they prove themselves capable of something. This reminds me of the now famous Sania Mirza interview where Rajdeep Sardesai proved his very

orthodox mindset by asking a very sexist question about motherhood and settling down; a question she didn’t take too lightly. The popular anchor in the end acknowledged it wasn’t something he might ask a male athlete. But, it took a usually calm and composed tennis ace to slam him down to make him realize his folly. The issue is that no matter how progressive they pretend to be, this is exactly what comes naturally to people whereas feminism needs to drilled down their throats.

Let’s give credit to PV Sindhu, Sakshi Malik, Dipa Karmakar, Aditi Ashok and Sania Mirza where it’s due without appropriating them to any campaigns. They are just doing the best they can to realize their ambitions and to excel in their chosen disciplines regardless of the cultural, political and sociological tampering that goes on around their gender. An ambitious woman in any case is an anomaly till she makes it big and then everybody wants a little piece of her. Then she becomes an emblem of something that is obviously bigger than her. The country, culture and conditioning that have impeded her growth now want credit for her success just by association.

Bringing up our sons like our daughters: Is it too much to ask?

Early morning as I sipped my tea and browsed through my Facebook timeline, I read a post on one of the "Mom" groups I follow. The post was as follows (and I quote verbatim):

One of my students, is about to play the nationals in football. When she broke the news yesterday, naturally there were cheers all around, except for a boy. He just could not believe that girls could play football and this good.
Bend it like Beckam has not reached his house obviously.
This response is surprising as he is part of an affluent society and has travelled abroad.
Somethings can never change? I refuse to believe!
Can we as Mothers, do our bit for gender bending?
No saying " Don't cry like a girl!"
"Don't sit like a boy! Sit like a lady!"
"Don't be a wimp!"
"What are you doing with needles and thread?That is a girl's domain"
"Learn to cook! What will happen to you after marriage?"
"Bulk up! You are a boy!! And Ditch those hideous pastels"
"Watch your weight! Be dainty and dress in pretty pinks"
Bunkum!
Teach both boys and girls to be life ready. Teach them how to budget, cook, wash, iron, mop and dust.

Image courtesy: Google search

Just as I read through the post, I realised that it is very easy for me to appreciate what had been written and even practice it because I am a mother of a girl. As our society gets educated and mindsets change, we start equating our girls with boys and bring them up like boys. I never tell my daughter to sit like a girl, not play heavy-duty sports or learn to cook. I do tell her that you'll have to learn to drive when you grow up and look for a job and be independent. But, I think that is the easy part - bringing up our daughters like our sons; calling them beta or "you are a son to me". The difficult part is bringing up our boys like girls. I think as mothers, it is our duty to ensure that we sensitise our sons also like our daughters. THAT I think is the more important bit and that is yet to happen even in the educated society.

In fact, as I browsed through the comments of the said post, I noticed how all people - and all were WOMEN themselves - were only talking about how they are ensuring that their daughters are being raised like sons. Not a single lady mentioned how their sons are being raised like daughters. It's kind of sad to me.

We have to realise that the responsibility of equality is equally if not more on a mother of a son. The whole dynamics of our society as it exists today has to change and the mothers will eventually have to pick up this baton to bring this change; especially the mothers of boys.