Pubs in Andhra to be officially Reserved For Men?

Does the absence of women in public spaces makes these spaces safer for women? 

Can you imagine such reservation possible if it wasn’t for Patriarchal traditions?

Link and message shared by Madhavi Kaivalya K

Hi IHM,

I came across this some time ago but turned a blind eye. But I can’t any more. This is so outrageous and people should know what kind of powers we’re giving to what kind of Govt.:

I think it will be good if you can blog about this. I don’t understand – if men are committing crimes against women, they should ban men in public places after 10.00 p.m. I know it’s not men Vs. women but this news is so outrageous.

I’ve a suggestion for those who claim that men can get provoked and lose control when they see women dressed in a certain manner – Just take a vote and pluck the eyes of everyone who claims that they can lose control when they see women being dressed “provocatively”. I don’t want to sound barbaric but if that’s what they claim, then this would be the right course of action to keep the country safe rather than restricting women.

Thanks & Regards,
Madhavi Kaivalya K

Another gem from Andhra:

Freedom at midnight but doesn’t mean we can roam around freely at midnight

Those who make such reservations for Indian men seem to believe that generations of Indian men are like kids, singing the first part of this post,

An Indian Shravan Kumar’s poem to his mother

I might be thirty five year old,
But I still crave for your food.
Yes, I do have a wife,
But all she gives me is strife,
Over things I don’t do,
Or wasn’t taught to do,
Like how I need to grow up,
And get things in order,
But what do I do, I always had you,
Fussing over my every single mood,… [Click here to read the entire post]

Related Posts:

What’s the best way to fight for your rights and freedoms and to prevent Talibanization of India?

I do not like reservation.

In Gurgaon, jobs, safety and roads after 8 pm, reserved for men?

I don’t care for freedom

Male escorts and whistles: IIT-Madras’s new safety plan.

One Billion Rising, Gurgaon : Photographs.

48 thoughts on “Pubs in Andhra to be officially Reserved For Men?

  1. WTF! Its like saying a 16 year old boy gets murdered when sleeping on terrace. So, all 16 year old boys would be banned from sleeping on terrace? Or let the 16 year olds be and CATCH THE MURDERER? Seriously, where is the common sense in the government?

    Like

  2. I heard about this two weeks ago. From what I’ve heard (from people in Hyderabad)–restaurants/bars that can afford to pay off the police will go about as usual. It’s bars/restaurants aimed at the ‘middle class’ that’re going to have to follow this law. It’s just another ploy for the cops to make some extra cash on the side.

    That poem is unintentionally hilarious and scary. I can imagine the poet becoming like the character in Psycho–keeping his dead mother’s corpse on a wheel chair and impersonating her!

    Like

    • I actually blogged about this last week- but the ‘spin’ at that time was that the authorities took the step due to rising incidents of public drunkeness by women! There was even a quote to that effect by a police official.
      Now suddenly it’s safety?!🙂
      Must have realised how stupid the first excuse sounded.

      Like

      • I read your post. Hilarious!

        Everybody’s saying that it’s not going to make a difference at all. Bar and restaurant owners are annoyed because it means they’ll have to pay off the cops some more than they already do.

        Like

  3. This is like saying that if your car gets stolen in a public parking lot, you should stop driving your car in order to prevent people from getting “tempted” into taking it.

    The point is, no woman needs to be told to do anything to keep her safe. It is the job of the government to stop the people causing any of its citizens harm from doing so. Stripping away rights in the name of “safety” is pretty much the slippery slope into dictatorship. Of course, for many women in India, you don’t need to have a totalitarian government to live in a totalitarian world. Its things like this that make me happy I don’t live there.

    Like

    • At least women are being ordered by the government on the assumption that it will make life better for women (don’t go to the pub, don’t work in a coal mine). Now imagine how men feel when they are ordered to stay away from the ladies compartment on the assumption that they are all rapists and child molesters.

      Like

      • Ahhh yes…this is a very fair comparison…women are harassed on the streets, in pubs, on buses, in trains, in the daytime, during night time…the government’s hopelessly inadequate response is to blame women for their problems and to restrict women’s basic freedoms…your main worry is that men cannot travel in ladies compartments….really??? Your complaint about discrimination against men would have been valid if one out of every 10 compartments had been designated as men’s compartments and if men had been prohibited from entering the other nine compartments. Given that now 9 out of 10 compartments are mostly occupied by men and are de facto men’s compartments, I don’t get what you are beefing about…

        Like

      • “At least women are being ordered by the government on the assumption that it will make life better for women”

        No, actually, I disagree. I don’t think that the government has women’s best interests at heart here at all, as much as they might want to use that excuse. In India, banning women from pubs is all about preserving the status quo of the patriarchy. Anything that prevents a human being from moving about as freely as they please, provided they do not cause harm to anyone else, is an infringement of fundamental human rights. You can dress it up all you like, but that doesn’t change anything.

        “Now imagine how men feel when they are ordered to stay away from the ladies compartment on the assumption that they are all rapists and child molesters.”

        That is WHY more men should stop defending rapists and using the excuse that it was a woman’s clothes/hair/her presence. This is exactly why the curfew on women going to pubs should make them angry as hell. It assumes that a man’s natural state is that of a rapist, and that he is nothing more than an animal who ought to be caged. It confuses me why this is a distinction men want to carry in society.

        Like

        • Also, in response to your post below, feminism doesn’t assume that every man is a potential predator. It is the result of thousands of years of human history perpetuating that myth and using it as an excuse to allow men to escape punishment for committing crimes against women. After all, “boys will be boys”, right? (Wrong.)

          The bottom line is that women are not at fault for those who choose to assault them. But neither are men. It is the criminals commit such crimes who are at fault, plain and simple. So why is the focus so vastly placed upon men? Because for the overwhelming majority of human history, it is men who have been oppressing women. It is an unfortunate heritage to bear, but it’s the honest one.

          If you want to change that perception, then believe me, holding feminism to fault is not the solution. Simplistic solutions such as reserved coaches for women, not allowing men to sit beside children on planes, etc, are solutions that most feminists reject also. Because those will never change the underlying perceptions that we want to change. Unfortunately, changing those perceptions takes time, and it takes effort. It’s much easier to think that all humans belong to a one-size-fits-all box, even if it is damaging.

          Like

        • “This is exactly why the curfew on women going to pubs should make them angry as hell. It assumes that a man’s natural state is that of a rapist”

          Love this. Well said.

          Like

  4. If it is any consolation, British Airways, Virgin and Qantas have a policy that bans MEN from sitting next to unaccompanied minors on airplanes. Every man is a potential pedophile, after all.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10182869

    So, yes, feminism may suffer a setback or two, but the global movement for male subjugation is in great shape overall.

    Like

    • Most men are not pedophiles, of course….but approx. 91% of known pedophiles are men. Maybe that was a factor in their decision…I too personally feel that the airlines logic is biased against men…but I’m curious about your reasoning…you are fine with women’s basic freedoms being curtailed under the excuse of protecting them…but men being asked to sit one seat away to protect unaccompanied minors…that’s an example of “male subjugation”? really??

      Like

      • Is this the kind of profiling we accept when applied to, for instance, a racial group? A religious group? Should we ask Muslims to pass a special security check before boarding a plane?

        I am actually not at all fine with women’s (or anyone’s) basic freedoms being curtailed. I am against pub bans, ladies compartments, airline seat discrimination….the whole package.

        What I am pointing out is that when discrimination is directed against men, it goes completely ignored in a way no other kind of discrimination is in the modern world. Just think, British Airways is one of the world’s most well known airlines. They had this policy in place for 10 years …till 2010 when a man finally sued and won in court!

        Can you imagine a similar British Airways policy discriminating against Muslims? Against blacks? Against women? It would make worldwide headlines instantly. But men…meh…as if men are people. For 10 long years, men would meekly get up and change seats. Imagine the announcement: “Ladies and gentlemen, we have a man sitting beside an unaccompanied minor in seat 35B. In order to protect this child from being sexually assaulted, we request a woman to exchange seats with the male passenger”. And then the man is paraded to the other seat in front of a plane full of people. Imagine how he feels.

        Can you imagine a black person being paraded to a special section of the plane, in order to keep the white passengers safe? The sky would fall on BA’s head if they tried to do this. But men…meh…

        Like

        • The seats could have been allotted ahead of time to avoid asking anybody to get up and I am sure most men would be fine with not sitting next to an unaccompanied children.

          Like

        • I agree that the BA policy is discriminatory to men, and I’m glad that the passenger won the case.
          However, with any such discriminatory policy, it’s important to examine the context in which the policy was framed. With private companies, they aim to set policies which limit litigation and headaches later on. They will often put their own interests first, as far as as is legally possible.
          With governments, the aim is entirely different- they HAVE to serve the best interests of the population in a fair and non-discriminatory way.
          So your comparision of government policy with an example from a private business is flawed.

          Like

        • IHM, I’m very surprised you made the comment ‘most men would be fine with not sitting next to unaccompanied children’. It sounds like the equivalent of ‘most women wouldn’t mind this ban since they don’t go to pubs anyways’ (based on my unverified assumption that most women don’t drink)

          Like

        • @ Niketan: The difference is in that many women may wish to go to pubs, but I am not sure how many men would wish to be seated next to unaccompanied children.
          Edited to add: The point is, one set is being denied a something they may want, another is not.

          Like

        • Abhishek, I get the reason why you feel that men are being discriminated against…but your overall logic does not hold water…In the comparisons you’ve provided with muslims and blacks, the outrage usually happens for biased policies in places where these groups are marginalized minorities…if, hypothetically, a muslim is asked in Saudi Arabia to not sit near unaccompanied minors, do you think people are going to accuse Saudi Arabia of racially profiling muslims? Or if, hypothetically, a black person is asked not to sit near unaccompanied minors in Somalia, will the country be accused of racially profiling blacks? By all means, we can and should fight against these biased policies against men…but my point here is that people do not take accusations of discrimination against men as seriously as they should because men still sit at the top of the world power structure…most of the political, social and economic power in the world is currently skewed in favor of men…Men hold most of the decision-making power in this world…In such a scenario, I feel it is highly pre-mature to talk about “male subjugation” simply because of a few biased policies.

          Like

    • S instead of taking it up, blogging about it , fighting against unfair discrimination again men by airlines you think women should be discriminated too🙂. My friends 4yr old grandson thinks this way too. Good argument.

      Like

  5. What a pitiful decision, govts do that not because it’s right but because it’s easy. women are also harrassed on streets in buses at work and many other places, then instead of making them safe for women should we also declare them “for men only” and lock the women in homes. Decisions like these never lead to a a healthy society. How will both the sexes find what equality is, how to live in civilized world with collaboration rather than confrontation, when instead of being allowed to mix freely and act independently, they’re forced to obey a dictat. These things can only make matters worse, not improve them.

    Like

  6. Men’s only pub – Bad Business Plan.
    it will be like convent schools – when the school leaves, boys from the neighboring co-ed schools will wait outside to accompany their femaile counterparts /introduce them to one

    On the contrary a pub should be made for women, where the women can choose to bring in the men — with increasing women who is stepping outside of home – this will be a good business and even conservative parents will not mind

    so who is going to partner with me – any investors ?

    Like

    • these pubs are only for 2nd tier places like Madras , Ranchi, Raipur. Bombay is not going to buy it – The women are a powerful powerful lot and know how to let the hair down or pull the hair.
      chow

      Like

  7. I wonder what the A.P Govt. will do if they find women getting into drunken brawls at 9PM? Or say at 8PM? How will they ensure women’s safety then?
    Why are no men banned from pubs after 10PM? Why only women? Do all men leave the pubs as sober as they were when they entered? There is no such thing,right? Does it mean the Govt. isn’t bothered about men’s safety! If so, why?
    Very soon, women will be told to never leave their homes. Ever.

    Like

  8. But why are they banning women from the pubs? Can’t we have an all women pub? This will also put men and women at separate buildings and hence we will be able to keep them separate as per the norms of our culture.
    Oh! sorry, I forgot. Women are not supposed to drink at all.

    Like

  9. These steps do not create a safer society: not for women, not even for men. My personal view is that this kind of twisted logic is a product of both power dynamics and pure laziness. All of us know that public spheres particularly, pubs, bars and discotheques have traditionally been considered a male-dominated arena, and as more and more women have entered and taken up space in this arena, there have been several ugly instances of crimes against them and increasingly instead of advocating for women’s rights to these spaces, the government officials have taken the easy way out and have been passing orders and laws to restrict women’s freedom and mobility; laws that segregate the two genders more; laws that marginalise women further and tilt the balance of power further in favour of men and weaken the society. This really bums me out. Try suggesting even once through a satirical piece that men be homebound, blindfolded etc. since they largely seem to be incapable of restraining themselves from committing crimes against women, children and other men and see the response. You can foam many mouths if you even try to propose limiting men’s freedom like we limit women’s. I can assure you that there will be no dearth of vile comments cursing you, calling you names (even using misogynist slurs) and what not for daring to propose something preposterous like that (I should know…I have been there and done that :P). The same boys will be boys rhetoric that many apply when people are limiting women’s freedom magically disappears. Instead, you see claims like not all men are like that. As if we didn’t already know that.

    But you will rarely see a strong response to stupid orders that curtail a woman’s freedom, rights and mobility ironically in order to ‘protect’ them. In fact, you will have many people including parents of daughters nodding their heads in agreement. I once read a post that called for limiting women’s freedom because guess what men will be men and many men agreed that it’s a wise solution to the malaise. It’s really sad. Recently, I read in news that panchayats of six villages in Haryana have banned about 600 girls from going to school. The reason for this ban is the recurring instances of sexual harassment of teenage girls. I couldn’t believe this at first. It’s disheartening to say the least. The futures of 600 girls have been gambled for the misbehaviour of a few boys. How is it that nobody for once thought of punishing the boys, teaching them a lesson, educating them about why what they have been doing is wrong and utterly disrespectful?
    Such unwise measures create another problem for women. God forbid, if a woman is out at certain time, or at a certain place that has not been sanctioned by the government and something happens to her, it becomes easier for others from police officials to chief ministers to deny any accountability and shift the blame on the victim-to fault her, to ostracise and castigate her instead of the criminal, the lapses in the system. These deeply ingrained hypocritical social attitudes need to be weeded out immediately.

    I would like to share a video with you. Maybe you can share it with wider audience through a post.
    it proposes what I believe is the solution, what needs to be done as soon as possible.

    Like

    • Love your comment and completely agree.

      “The futures of 600 girls have been gambled for the misbehaviour of a few boys.”
      Makes me so angry. Surely this is against the constitution? Why are they allowed to get away with this ALL the time?!

      Like

  10. This sounds similar to temples that do not allow women… only men, kids and aged ladies above 60 years are allowed. Reason behind this rule is that the sanctity of men need to be preserved when they visit the temple!

    It is sad to see the same patriarchal rules being applied everywhere from temples to pubs.

    Like

  11. Pingback: No Women In Pubs In Andhra After 10 PM · Global Voices

  12. Pingback: No Women In Pubs In Andhra After 10 PM | OccuWorld

  13. Pingback: ممنوعیت حضور زنان در میخانه‌های آندرا پس از ساعت 10 شب · Global Voices به فارسی

  14. Andhra govt should ban men from pubs…. and from streets… or actually, from stepping out of the house without a female escort and a blindfold.

    We live in a sick, twisted, perverted society.

    Like

  15. Pingback: Frauenverbot nach 10 Uhr abends in Andhra Pradeshs Kneipen · Global Voices auf Deutsch

  16. Pingback: Of course it was unsafe to ask for lift, but what exactly were their options? | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

  17. Pingback: “I will not sit back and allow the image of India’s men to be tarnished by an article that does not articulate other sides to India.” | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

  18. Pingback: Everybody knows what women should do to not ‘get molested’ in India. | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

  19. Pingback: Punjabi University locks girls in hostels to prevent ‘nuisance’ on Holi | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

  20. Pingback: So how will banning cabs make public transport safer for women? | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s