Rick Chakravorty
Himachali village girls
It was around 5 pm and I was returning from Jalori pass trek, when I saw these two girls. They were returning from their pea farm.
I immediately took out my camera to take pictures of them and this how they reacted when they found out that I was clicking their pictures.
This is what I have always got whenever I have photographed the locals. A broad elated smile. They don't feel violated (consent). They kind of know and appreciate the difference between a photographer and a stalker. They might be poor and not have formal education. But they are not dumb.
Sometimes some people tend to criticise me for photographing women in public. For the modern educated intelligentsia this amounts to consent violation. "You aren't supposed to click her without her permission". Interestingly, I never face such criticism when I photograph men (my feed has photographs of construction workers, tour guides, rickshaw wala). This discourse makes me question the very inherent structure of the human psychology. Does this issue of consent violation only stands true in case of women? Or is it our psychology that is shaped by years of patriarchal ideologues that forces us to think that women are a weaker sex and are supposed to be protected (in this case consent violation)? Well, I think we should all deeply introspect our thoughts, try to figure out its roots and then finally restructure our mind.
Women don't need protection. Instead they just need their due credit.
And as far as consent violation goes. Photographing a human isn't violating any sort of personal rights law. Until and unless you are invading personal space. We don't follow our subject all the way to their home or whistle at them or crack lewd comments at them. **Clearing out the difference between a photographer and a stalker (because that's how some people confuse photographers with stalkers)
Himachali village girls
It was around 5 pm and I was returning from Jalori pass trek, when I saw these two girls. They were returning from their pea farm.
I immediately took out my camera to take pictures of them and this how they reacted when they found out that I was clicking their pictures.
This is what I have always got whenever I have photographed the locals. A broad elated smile. They don't feel violated (consent). They kind of know and appreciate the difference between a photographer and a stalker. They might be poor and not have formal education. But they are not dumb.
Sometimes some people tend to criticise me for photographing women in public. For the modern educated intelligentsia this amounts to consent violation. "You aren't supposed to click her without her permission". Interestingly, I never face such criticism when I photograph men (my feed has photographs of construction workers, tour guides, rickshaw wala). This discourse makes me question the very inherent structure of the human psychology. Does this issue of consent violation only stands true in case of women? Or is it our psychology that is shaped by years of patriarchal ideologues that forces us to think that women are a weaker sex and are supposed to be protected (in this case consent violation)? Well, I think we should all deeply introspect our thoughts, try to figure out its roots and then finally restructure our mind.
Women don't need protection. Instead they just need their due credit.
And as far as consent violation goes. Photographing a human isn't violating any sort of personal rights law. Until and unless you are invading personal space. We don't follow our subject all the way to their home or whistle at them or crack lewd comments at them. **Clearing out the difference between a photographer and a stalker (because that's how some people confuse photographers with stalkers)