Those charged with our safety should have a true understanding of what it is to be a survivor of sexual assault — slut or otherwise.

Sometimes the same people who think women should endure unhappy marriages also worry about the gender ratio. They see no connection or contradiction.

Some people think banning prenatal sex determination tests will end female foeticide in India, even if the society continues to see getting and staying married as a woman’s life-purpose. They see no connection.

The same people who claim to respect women also insist that controlling how women dress can control crimes against women.

Somebody told me this protest in Canada, ‘condemning the notion that suggestive dressing is an invitation to assault’ was ridiculous.

When a Toronto police member told the students that they could avoid assaults on campus ‘by not dressing like a slut’,

The protestors swept through the streets wearing whatever they wanted

I agree with them,

Being in charge of our sexual lives should not mean that we are opening ourselves to an expectation of violence, regardless if we participate in sex for pleasure or work.

No one should equate enjoying sex with attracting sexual assault.”

The protesting students and the staff demanded that the Toronto police force take serious steps to regain their trust.

“We want to feel that we will be respected and protected should we ever need them, but more importantly be certain that those charged with our safety have a true understanding of what it is to be a survivor of sexual assault — slut or otherwise,”

(Link shared by Desi Girl on Buzz, Thank You DG.)

Do you think, in India, the police (including women in the police), the educational institutions and our law makers, and all those who have the power and the responsibility to ensure women’s safety have a true understanding of what it is to be a survivor of sexual assault — even if the victim ‘participates in sex for work or for pleasure’? 

I doubt it.

Related Posts:

Sexual Assault Prevention Tips Guaranteed to Work.

Provocatively Dressed.

Why a ban on jeans may not stop street sexual harassment of women.

She does not invite it.

Indian family values are good for Indian daughters?

Even if Poonam does not run naked, she should be punished?

Model Poonam Pandey’s plan to strip if India beat Sri Lanka Saturday has angered the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) women’s wing which has sought police action against her.

“Indian women are revered and respected since time immemorial…”

How exactly do we show this reverence to women? Please do compare this to how we show respect to everybody else.

Can threats be called ‘respect’?

I have so much respect for you; don’t ask to eat with the rest of the family. Your happiness lies in seeing us enjoy the food you cook.”  Is that respect?

So basically,

If you disagree we can’t respect you.

Don’t try to give your point of view, we won’t be able to respect you…

Little girls earn this respect by respecting the fact that they are always second to their brothers. “What’s wrong with that, don’t they love their brothers?

It’s more like a Terror of Respect.

Do as you are told or else we will not ‘respect’ you.

Dress only the way we permit or else…

Don’t choose your life partner or else…

Let your husband and his family abuse you, or else…

Give us a male heir or else…

Don’t enter the temple, you are impure…

And worst,

Don’t complain if you were sexually harassed, molested or abused or else no respect.

So, when it comes to women, it seems respect is more a means to control than a privilege.

I would say the only kind of respect that matters is the respect we have for ourselves. Or Respect that is given in return of respectequal and mutual. All other forms of reverence and respect are not too far from ‘honor’ and ‘honor killing’ or honor related abetted suicides.

Kelkar objected to Poonam ‘sullying the image of Indian women before the whole world.’ (Read Bhagwad’s objections to granting Poonam such powers)

Another man thinks her actions can sully the name of his caste. So obviously this lawyer believes there are no Brahmin rapists, child abusers  and murderers? Or these crimes don’t insult Indian culture?

“Even if Poonam does not run naked, she should be punished as she not only gave a wrong impression of the (Brahmin) community but insulted Indian culture,” The case will be heard April 5. (Today)

We live in an India where some people can legally express their arrogant, sexist and casteist opinions and offend my democratic and tolerant sentiments. I find it difficult to understand or ‘respect’ such frivolous objections. Are they doing this for free publicity? In a country where rape victims have to wait for years for justice, aren’t such cases a waste of time and resources?

Thankfully we are a civilized, democratic society. Poonam Pandey, Rakhi Sawant and Mallika Sherawat are generally free to ignore these opinions or react (if required) through a civilized, legal process.  No stoning. No anti-blasphemy laws.

And that is something I respect about my country. 🙂

Women who value the respect they have for themselves more than the respect of every wannbe politician, publicity seeker, neighour’s third cousin etc are able to fight back.

Sraboney shared this video where this Pakistani actor Veena Mallik is fighting back against similar allegations. Makes me wonder if hypocrites are the same everywhere.

The rapists often don’t see their actions as crimes, the police said, and don’t expect the victims to report them.

Sometimes one crime and how it is reported tells so much about a society.

‘Five drunken young men from a nearby farming village accosted a couple…, beating the young man and gang-raping the woman. It was the latest in a series of brutal sexual assaults and gang rapes of women in India’s booming capital and its sprawling suburbs.’ (Thanks for the link RenKiss)

“The attackers often do not see their actions as crimes, the police said, and do not expect the women they attack to report them. “They have no doubt that they will get away with it,” said H. G. S. Dhaliwal, a deputy police commissioner in New Delhi who has investigated several such cases.”

We shall soon see where the attackers get so much confidence from.

Let’s believe the attackers really don’t see a gang rape as a crime, or at least not a serious crime.

How do they get this idea? This news report illustrates how. It’s a perfect example of how sexual crimes must NOT be reported.

One example,

“In each case there has been an explosive clash between the rapidly modernizing city and the embattled, conservative village culture upon which the capital increasingly encroaches.”

Why this effort to explain the rapists’ point of view?

And the facts are inaccurate. These rapes are a result of clashes of culture?
So rapists (some with previous criminal backgrounds) don’t rape women from their villages? (Click if you think they don’t.)

Going by the above logic a 6 month old or a 2 year old would be safe in these ‘sleepy villages’ with narrow lanes ‘redolent of cow dung’, since these babies are not ‘enjoying’ any unheard of freedoms, or romancing forbidden lovers?

What about when village girls looking for jobs in Delhi get raped by WagonR owners?

“India’s economy is expected to grow 9 percent this year, and its extended boom has brought sweeping social change. The number of women in the workforce has roughly doubled in the past 15 years.”

Can’t really blame the rapists, can we? How are they expected to adjust to ‘sweeping social changes’ and women doubling in workforce?

So women who stay inside their homes and whose lives signify no social changes are safer?

More facts.

A 60 year old, raped by her husband’s employer in her house (this rapist was earlier acquitted in a rape case), another 77 year old raped by a rikshaw puller, an 8 year old in her house, a 12 year old by her driver, 17 year old daughter of a Grade IV employee in Lady Hardinge Hospital, a 9 year old in Sarojini Nagar in her house, a 3 year old

[All examples are from Delhi]

The victims are almost invariably young, educated working women who are enjoying freedom unknown even a decade ago. The accused are almost always young high school dropouts from surrounding villages, where women who work outside the home are often seen as lacking in virtue and therefore deserving of harassment and even rape.”

Examples above show this is not true.

FACT.

Who gets raped?

Everyone. According to some statistics, only one in 69 rape cases in India are even reported. Only 20 % of those reported result in convictions for the rape accused.

Rapes happen across the social strata in India. In the Indian villages, it is the poor villager’s wife or sister or daughter who gets raped by another poor rowdy villager, and everyone from the local thanedar to the landlord. These rapes, unless the news becomes public due to unavoidable reasons, are never reported. It is reported in the newspapers or reaches the police only when a rape becomes part of a larger caste battle, family feud or political game. [Click to read and save the entire, very well written  article.]

“Seema Chowdhury, 20, the sister of one of the accused men, graduated from high school. But when she tried to enroll in college to become a teacher, her brothers refused to allow it. Young women who wander too far face many dangers, they argued.

“I wanted to do something in my life,” she said. “But they thought it was not a good idea.”

It’s so nice to see they are family men and want to see their sisters safe from men like themselves. Maybe such nice men can’t really be blamed for doing something they don’t see as a crime?

In comparison, the young woman who was raped here had unimaginable freedom. She had a job as an accountant at a garment factory and her own cellphone and e-mail account. Using those, she carried on a secret romance with a young man she met online despite the fact that her parents had arranged for her to be married to someone else, according to the police.”

Rape justification continues, so does victim blaming. The girl was asking for it by being in the wrong place, in wrong company, at a wrong time and doing the wrong thing – basically breaking all the rules these nice rapists lay down for their own nice and hence safe sister. Also note, the notorious cell phone and the internet being used to carry on a  ‘romance’ when her nice parents have arranged a nice match for her elsewhere. Maybe she asked for it?

If she was a Swiss Diplomat, working with full permission of her parents, not meeting her secret lover, she would have been safer?

When they picked up Tony …he was still drunk, Mr. Singh said.

“He was so shameless he narrated the whole thing without any sense of remorse,” he said. Tony later denied that he had raped the woman, according to the police report.

Tony had apparently assumed that the rape victim would not come forward because the shame would be too great.

Why don’t the victims feel more angry than ashamed?

This newly-wed’s rapists were also given a subtle benefit of rape justification’ because she probably opened the door and offered a glass of juice to her rapist and murderer. Did she know the rapist? That might justify the rape?

It has become a strategy to talk about a victim’s ‘shame’ instead of pointing out the rate of conviction, as reason for women not reporting.

If a victim was assured support instead of blame, do you think she would not have complained?

“on Feb. 5 a young man came into police station to report that his cellphone and laptop had been stolen. When the young man claimed they had been snatched near some isolated farmland at the edge of the city, Mr. Singh became suspicious: it was an unlikely place for a robbery.

He pressed for details, and eventually the young man admitted taking his girlfriend to the secluded area so they could be alone, and that five men had beaten him and raped her.”

Why didn’t the man want to say anything about the rape? He too had little faith in the police, and, he knew a couple being alone in a secluded spot would be seen as a bigger crime than a gang rape.

“I realized from the beginning that the girl would not help us,” the police said.

“The police will not be able to restore my honor.”

Is it really about honor?

Why don’t women report rapes to the police?

We all have heard about shame and honor etc. But there’s more.

Police. Police is the reason.

Have you ever taken a good look at the average Indian policeman? have you ever been to a police station?

A police station is an intimidating place. The cultural sophistication of the average policeman in India is pretty much that of the average roadside thug. Your average policeman hardly knows how to talk politely, is barely educated, is uncouth, brash and rude.

Is this the paragon of sensitivity a victim of rape will run to?

Add to this the rising number of custodial rapes which every one knows about. People will turn to a policeman only when they are desperate. Educated, rich people are abused by the police in India routinely and they have to call upon their networks and call upon little netas to get the policemen to treat them with some consideration.

Expect a policeman to humiliate a rape victim, turn her back, discourage her, be foul-mouthed or maybe rape her in turn.” [Click to read the article]

*

Such reporting tells a rapist that when his mother claims, “If these girls roam around openly like this, then the boys will make mistakes.” someone looking to justify rape will promptly quote her with some satisfaction.

What else do we say that gives rapists so much confidence?

Related posts:

The rapists are listening gratefully.

If he were a a woman he would have filed a case against a man everyday.

Updated:

Another example of Victim Blaming by New York Times:
Victim-blaming in the New York Times’ Cleveland gang rape article.

(Thank You Ankita Prasad)

A Sari to make you a Respectable Indian Teacher.

A local government college in Bhopal has banned jeans pants for lady teachers instructing them to wear saris while in the campus.

A spokesman of the management of Sarojini Naidu (Nutan) College said that the decision was taken to instil Indian culture in the college.

He said that till now, teachers were wearing salwar suits, kurtas and jeans due to which it was sometimes difficult to distinguish between them and students.

The spokesman said that a similar decision on enforcing a dress code for students would also be enforced from the next session.

“A dress code for students cannot be enforced during the middle of an academic session,” he said.

Or watch the news here.

“There is a personality of a teacher. You are standing wearing anything, or jeans that look vulgar, that is not right. Even students do not respect you as they think. So, this is very important,” said Pandit. (A teacher)

Should colleges be telling the students that traditional clothing can make a female wearer look ‘respectable‘? And so not wearing a sari does exactly the opposite?

Why is a salwar kameez – very much a traditonal Indian outfit, less respectable?

One assumption could be that the sari makes a woman look older. Also traditionally, in some parts of India, all married women must wear sari. I have blogged about meeting someone who thought that married women who do not wear sari are doing it behind their in laws’ and husband’s backs.

Bombay High Court held that a marriage can’t be ended over a sari.

The college could to be trying to say that a teacher in a sari is seen as older and ‘respectably married’ (or at least marriageable).

This is how stereotypes are created.

Is it okay for a college to ask the students to associate ‘respect’ (or honor!) with sari and vulgarity with Jeans?

“In thousands of ways, our culture has conditioned us to anticipate rape as a natural consequence of violating social norms”. These misconceptions are responsible for women blaming themselves for sexual crimes against themselves (…makes it easier for those who don’t care to take action).

The male teachers are not expected to wear dhoti and achkan. Doesn’t the college think the students need to respect the male teachers too? Why teach the students that double standards and gender bias are acceptable?

Has the college really given this a thought? There are many who think sari is ‘sensual’.  Jeans are actually seen as comfortable and easy wear, and saris as ‘dressy’ by many others. Many others feel sari is not easy to maintain or move in, and not weather appropriate, while jeans and salwar kameez are.

Also consider why is it so essential for the female teachers (if at all) to look ‘different from students’? What if a teacher continues to look like one of the students (i.e. young and unmarried) no matter what she wears?

And most importantly, shouldn’t an adult female wearer (like the rest of the population) be trusted to decide what is appropriate for her to wear?

Compare this news from Bhopal to this news from Lahore,

Jeans, Body Hugging Dresses Banned in Lahore College fearing Terror Threats.

Related Posts:

Not Just a Pair of Jeans

No Jeans for a Indian Daughters in law.

The way a woman dresses…

Provocatively Dressed.

A woman is not a woman’s worst enemy. Patriarchy is.

This post began as a response to a comment on the last post, and in response to – ‘Can two women really become friends?’ and ‘Why women hate women?’

***

As little girls, women hear of the importance of things they have little control over. They hear about their skin colour, their physical beauty  and even today,  concerns about their happiness with their future in laws.

They are brought up to see marriage as the goal in their lives. Divorce or separation, staying unmarried or being widowed is seen as something they must avoid. This puts pressure on women to be ‘happily married’ or ‘happily in a relationship’, across cultures. And since much of this is not in their control – women have a lot to feel insecure about.

What’s more, Patriarchy is also responsible for why very little in this all-important relationship is in the control of those it involves.

Traditionally women’s partners are discouraged from seeing their marriages and their wives as important parts of their lives. It’s common for men to be shamed and taunted for showing they care for their wives or marriages. Jokes like ‘Shadi ke laddu, jo khaye wo pachtaye‘, or taunts like Joru ka gulaam are common. And this when women must move in among near strangers and depend on the spouse’s support to feel at home in a new environment.

Traditionally men’s partners are brought up to believe that finding a partner and ‘keeping him’ is their only goal in life. The education they receive, how they talk (softly), walk, look , respond to questions (always respectfully), the careers they choose (no jobs that require traveling) – everything is permitted keeping the comfort and approval of a future husband and his family in mind. Women are brought up to seek approval.

In Patriarchy, men are conditioned to fight for their egoes and ‘honor’. Jealousy in men is seen as manliness. Since the partner must depend on them, men might get away with being unfaithful.

Patriarchy also keeps women dependent on sons and brothers (Manusmriti is not very subtle about it) which makes them insecure about losing them to other women who depend on them, i.e. the women they marry. Basically the entire system puts women one against another.

In a Patriarchy – the partners women are made to fast, pray and work to one day find, are taught to remember that they must not become ‘joru ka gulaam’ or forget their priorities (their parents and birth-families) – so although they too want life partners – they are warned against giving as much as they expect to get.

The men expect to be the top priority in their spouse’s life but they are told she should not be their top priority or she might take them away from their parents. (But they are also told she must leave her parents, friends and family for them.) This naturally makes them take the women a little for granted. This makes the women insecure again.

In a traditional set up,  the respect and awe for male members at home and the insecurity and lack of self worth in the female members at home passes on from one generation to another. Even when they know they need not depend on male approval, the conditioning remains. The husband is still being brought up not to forget his parents come before his wife, and women are still being told the spouse is their world.

We also know that unlike a man who can walk out on an unfaithful wife (or honor-kill or throw her out etc) a woman is more likely to be asked to stay and make her marriage/relationship work. And then there maybe financial dependence. So more insecurity.

Women don’t hate each other any more than the rest of the population does. It seems women bond even when there is so much insecurity and dependence.

Movies like ‘Mirch Masala‘ and ‘Delhi 6‘ and awe inspiring stories like ‘A Thousand Splendid Suns‘ show how well women bond, even in unlikeliest of circumstances.

Sex and the City‘ is also about women bonding, supporting and being there for each other.

In real life and in the blogosphere, women are seen supporting, encouraging, taking out the time to counsel or just to listen to women.

Also consider, who exactly are women expected to get along with the most, but often don’t? Do they have a choice here? Often women are expected to get along with their spouses’ female relatives of all ages, backgrounds, expectations and attitudes. Traditionally, they are not encouraged to stay in touch with their friends. So they are deprived of the support system that friends could provide and are expected to get along with those who see respect (etc) from them as their right.

Patriarchy does not put the rest of the population under pressure to win the approval of their spouse’s relatives, so the rest of the population has little  opportunity to find out just how unfair and dis-balanced the system is. [Read Desi Girl’s take on this here and here]

And finally men do compete as much as women do – they have fought wars, fought duels, killed or got killed – but we ignore it as male aggression, male jealousy or machismo.

Patriarchy being a system that allows a few to control the lives of many, does not benefit most of those it controls, not men, not women. Not even those who it seems to benefit… but that’s another post.

If your boyfriend is abusing you physically…

I am sharing parts of a conversation, initiated by The Bald Guy on Google Buzz, because I think Desi Girl’s response needs to be read by more of us.

The Bald Guy If your boyfriend is abusing you physically then its time for you to hit back at him and move on. You do NOT need such a person in your life.

Girl Desi No, hitting is not the solution. Research has shown women get more harmed when they hit back as men hit back even more severely.
Fighting back also makes it harder to leave.
Report physical abuse to authorities. In India it can be filed under IPC 123, and for more grievous hurt file for civil damages.

It is time consuming and expensive, so the best way is to make a legal noise and leave…

If planning to leave never tell the person because he’ll immediately change behavior and confuse you. Do not engage with the abuser, keep interaction to the minimum. When finally out, let the person know in very clear words you are through. Severe all contacts. Stay in the company of people who support you and will not rat you and your plans to him. Change phone numbers, block his email id. There is no looking back.

Physical violence should be seen as Deal Breaker. They say in Hindi “aadmi ka haath nahin uthana chahiye, nahin to haath khul jaata hai.”

Research shows, once an abuser hits he is bound to hit again.

YES, You do NOT need such a person in your life.

***

Culture supports the men in abusing their wives.

Numerous women are raped by average Joes, they are not all tall dark handsome prototypes. Go to Tarai region you’ll find these hill sides full of idle men sitting and smoking on the roadside and their tiny women folk carrying heavy loads of produce and fodder on their heads. These women work dawn to late night, every thing from farming to tending cattle, weaving, housekeeping and care work (children and seniors) still these tiny idle men beat up their wives.

How come, these strong women are beaten up by these druggie idle men?
Because  culture supports the men in abusing their wives.

***

A Commenter : More men are beaten by women, than women by men.

Girl Desi You telling us huge number of men being beaten up by women is far from truth, please substantiate your argument with statistical evidences and peer reviewed studies. DG works in violence prevention in conjunction with law enforcement (in both continents), if you want she can give you all the stats you want. More men are abused by other men be it suicide bombing, religious crusades or family feuds for land and honor (that definitely qualifies for inclusion in family violence).

Gender neutral trends of violence are not yet happening in India.

***

Women as abusers.

In Indian context women have been abusers for centuries.  And culture supports them to be abusers in the form of mothers and sisters.

The number of wife comes in ripe old age or after she has achieved her reproductive goal (read, has a male child that is still alive) or the husband is not able to provide for the family due to personal failures like substance abuse and gambling etc.

Mothers and sisters of men play good mind games with taunts like “chudiayaan pehan rakhi hein” orjoru ka gulam (JKG).” Masculinity is challenged every now and then.

No one talks about the violence perpetrated against men by their mothers and sisters, discussions always comes and rests on wife to husband abuse.

Why?

Because mother and sisters are the primary relations, the pillars of family and wife is an outsider who is not considered insider until she is dead and initiated into the family ancestors (all her life time she remains outsider, “paraye ghar ki hai.“)

Abuse is about power and control.

It is not that gender burdens only women. Even men have a gender and it bears them down too.

The problem lies with the concept of masculinity and femininity within the patriarchy. To be a man one has to be in a position of power and be dominant. To dominate a woman or a man is all about being a man.

To be a man one must not be in a subordinate position. If he falls into a subordinate position he is considered a lesser man. (Read emasculated and woman-like). Mid-level bureaucracy has that problems all the time: clerks bad mouth female officers regularly, have personally over heard lunch time male gossip.

To be a man and be abused by another man (or worse, by a woman) refers to a man’s inability to be a man. Thus not disclosing abuse is all about being a man.

Men are under pressure to perform their gender as much as women are. Yes, men collectively have more power/benefits than women but individually many men lack power as compared to other men.

If we were to dismental the structures of power then we need to undo the concepts of masculinity and femininity.

If we want peace then it is time for Patriarchy to go because it selectively gives power to few and oppresses so many.

[DG hates to write post length comments but she just can’t stand the misappropriation of concepts and data coz’ she works both at grassroots and policy levels. At times it feels she and friends are just wasting their time coz’ those who are able to make a difference are stuck in presumptions.]

Another comment: What if it is the girl who abuses physically, mentally or emotionally ? It happens trust me.

DG : Of course it happens. Research shows women engage more in verbal abuse that is a component of emotional abuse. Until a few years ago (in west) and it is still in India it is considered provocation and an excuse for male physical violence. A small percentage women do engage in physical assaults.

That does not mean that one can discredit that more women are abused by men than the other way around. Here the discussion was on male to female violence hence the reply.
Who ever is abused has to use the same steps as mentioned here there is no other way around it personally and legally.

Why does Gender Sensitivity in Legal Language matter.

At first there were objections to a man in a live in relationship being expected to provide palimony to a partner. One objection was that this would amount to permitting him polygamy. That the man would be giving from the legal wife’s share to the live-in partner.

Now both, the man and his partners are required to be unmarried.

(3) they must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage including being unmarried,

[Click to read more]

I think that sounds fair.

So,

The Supreme Court today ruled that if a man has a live-in relationship with a woman only for sexual reasons, it cannot amount to a relationship that entitles either partner to the benefits of marriage.

Sounds fair too.

Then what is the objection? The objection is to the use of the words, ‘keep‘ and ‘one night stand’.

The court said, “If a man has a keep whom he maintains financially, and uses mainly for sexual purpose and as a servant, it would not be a relationship in the nature of marriage.”

“The words used in the judgment are derogatory. Words like ‘keep’ and ‘one night stand’ are not legal language. The Court has to be gender sensitive. It is like setting the clock back after the Supreme Court passed the historic judgement in the Visakha case,” ASG Jaising had stated.

Advocate Mridula Kadam said, “…Such words are used by uneducated people…”

I agree.

Advocate Kranti Sathe said: “… I would certainly feel offended if words like ‘keep’ were used by any judge hearing my case.” [Link]

I would too.

“I am concerned about the image of the Supreme Court of India, which is known for its sensitivity to women as you can see in its Vishaka (sexual harassment of women in workplace) judgment. I am a member of the international body ‘Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women’, which fights to get rid of discriminating language and stereotypes against women. I fear the remarks in the judgment may put the clock back as it is not in a legal language befitting the Supreme Court,” she said in favour of expunging the remarks in the judgment. [Link]

I was not surprised to read comments disagreeing with ASG Jaising. Some of the objections implied that ‘such women’ deserved such names. Words and language have the power to change mindsets. Legal language is not street language.  We do not use the street words used for describing incest in legal language do we?

Here is one of the many reactions, and exactly why legal language needs to objective, accurate and free of any judgment.

“The society defines cetain relationship with certain names which get to be accepted language of daily use . Some names get derrogated over the perid of time because of the kind of relationship or the effects f relationship on the society. Over a period of time such as this kalyoug some of such relationships are getting glorified but they donot have the guts to be called by old name… In indian socity husband and the wife a couple legal one is respected and cherished and it should not be equated to the status of live in , mutawa, keep,slave ,temporary relationship. Democracy and freedom does not mean that we can do anything . We may change the previous norms of society by discussion and law but not accept them after it is done for the convenience and pleasure of few.” [From here]

Related Posts: Every blogger should mind their language.

‘Sexual Assault Prevention Tips Guaranteed to Work!’ is on facebook.

As recommended by Allytude in a comment on,

Sexual Assault Prevention Tips Guaranteed to Work!

Facebook group created. 🙂

Say No To Victim Blaming

Add your tips and links to any blog posts that deal with Sexual Harassment or Sexual Crimes against women, the right way.


Please click below to join:

Sexual Assault Prevention Tips Guaranteed to Work!

Invitation to Sinners, to join group on Facebook

All Sinners Against Gender Stereotypes are cordially sinfully invited to click here and join SINNERS AGAINST GENDER STEREOTYPES (SAGS) on Facebook.

Please share the links to your SAGS confessions (posts about your ‘paap ka khulaasa‘)  on the Facebook page, so that other paapi like you can also read and find solace in knowing they are not alone in their ghor paap.

If you think such groups are blasphemous – kindly turn your ire towards Pinash whose idea it was 😈

Your ire for  terms Paapi, Ghor Paap and Paap ka khulasa may be directed towards,

Blue Mist – Paapi

Sandhya– Ghor paap

Sakshi – Paap ka Khulaasa

:mrgreen:

Woman you are not doing anybody a favour…

I agree that motherhood is not a favour to the baby.  In fact a society owes every baby and every mother a healthy, welcoming, safe and happy environment. What happens when a society disrespects motherhood?

Unmana blogged about [Link] how Indian Air Force thinks ‘Pregnancy makes women pilots cost-inefficient’.

Nature’s way of life is that you get married, bring up a family… if a lady goes into family way, she is off-duty for 10 out of 12 months.”

I won’t discuss ‘nature’s ways,’ (that’s another post) but are we grudging the mothers their 10 months Maternity Leave?

“… we request you to be happy, be married, but no offsprings.”

Fine. Today in India we don’t seem to need a new generation of citizens. There are too many of us anyway.

Today we feel it’s okay to deprive women of career opportunities if they choose to be mothers.

We think we are doing mothers a favour if we ‘permit’ them self reliance as they  scrub floors, treat tumours, work at construction sites and FLY fighter planes.

Motherhood is being made a luxury for women, let’s say justifiably so.  My question is, would it then be understandable if women gradually start accepting that they have to give up too much to be mothers? This is happening in many parts of the world.

Do some gentlemen think motherhood is a finable offence, or perhaps the real feeling is revealed when they wonder if women are suited for a man’s job like being a fighter pilot…?

Because he also asks,“…psychologically, are we fit?”

This from the nation of Rani Lakshmi Bai.