PaRCha - JNU - AISA material - 2012 ID-29144
.
Well, there are real and pressing reasons to challenge the terms in which these ads treat sexual violence. These ads refuse to recognize that the very machismo and masculine protectiveness they are invoking against violence on women, is in many instances responsible for the violence that women face! As the Hindi proverb has it, jis laung se bhoot bhaga rahe the, bhoot usi laung mein tha (the sense of which can be roughly rendered as: the disease lurks in the very pill thats prescribed as a panacea). After all, arent the men who seek to control their sisters or daughters friendships, relationships and mobility; who ask their wives to avoid wearing jeans; who commit honour crimes, real men, acting in a socially-sanctioned way, as guardians and protectors of women? If a woman is indecently dressed, or if she was out late at night or at a pub/nightclub, and therefore failing to display the shame that is expected of her, doesnt she fall outside the protective circle of masculine guardianship? Isnt she, in other words, she is less than a real woman, and therefore, fair game? Isnt it possible that real men, forgivably, mistook her for a slut, a woman without chastity and shame and therefore, neither needing nor deserving masculine protectiveness? Arent such apologias for rape commonly offered by the police and other public figures and private persons? In a recent press conference, the Delhi Police Chief referred to the latest NCRB (National Crime Records Bureau) data which revealed that 97% of rapes were committed by family members, friends, and neighbours. If this was the case, he argued, the police could only be held responsible for curbing the remaining 3% of rapes committed by strangers. He went on to say, in the same press conference, that women who venture outdoors at 2 am ought to be accompanied by a brother or male family member, and if she went out alone, she had only herself to blame if she was raped. His specious reasoning illustrates the limitations of the logic of protection: the police cant be expected to ensure safety of public spaces if women will insist on risking these spaces without providing themselves with a protective male family member. But what if male family members (those real men socially entrusted with the task of protecting their female kin) themselves pose a predominant risk of sexual violence? Well then, according to the Delhi Police Chief, that absolves the police of its obligations. One can guess at the reasons he might offer: one, policing and protection of women within the family is privatized and entrusted to male family members; and two, since the police cannot encroach into the private space of the family. It can be no ones case that the police are somehow supposed to miraculously anticipate and prevent violence against women, whether in public spaces or in homes. But the police is certainly obligated to ensure arrests and convictions of perpetrators and in cases where the crime has occurred within a known circle of family/friends/neighbours, surely it narrows the field of investigation for the police? Why, even when the offender in 97% cases is known rather than a faceless stranger, is the conviction rate so low, as the NCRB data establishes?! The problem is that the police, sharing the same ideological ground as the perpetrator of violence (be it honour crimes, domestic violence, or sexual violence), tends to be sympathetic to the perpetrator, and biased against the victim. The police discourages the complainant and witnesses, suppresses evidence, and the result is the failure to convict the offender. It isnt only the State machinery that invokes the patriarchal ideology of authentic (protective) masculinity in its treatment of violence against women. Womens struggles, too, tend to do so, unless they are consciously informed by a critique of patriarchy. For instance, there are several instances of women protestors against sexual violence, presenting police or administrative authorities with bangles; such gestures of protest work by shaming male authority figures for their effeminacy and failure to perform their masculine duty of protecting women and avenging rape. The ideology of masculine protectiveness of their women-folk, especially sisters, has deep cultural roots and emotive power. Take the North Indian festival of raksha bandhan, where the sister ties a rakhi (a band or string signifying the bond between sister and brother) to her brother, who in return for her sacred gesture of sisterly love, pledges to protect her. Brotherly protectiveness of sisters, invariably, involves avenging her sexual violation a notion that stretches to include protecting her from unwanted emotional and sexual entanglements. The brother derives status, prestige and honour from his ability to protect his sister. This honour is both personal and also shared and reinforced by the family/community. And the sister owes her brother a duty to safeguard her own chastity, on which rests his honour. If she compromises her chastity (and his honour, which in turn is linked to the .
.
PaRCha - JNU - AISA material - 2012 ID-29144
.
Well, there are real and pressing reasons to challenge the terms in which these ads treat sexual violence. These ads refuse to recognize that the very machismo and masculine protectiveness they are invoking against violence on women, is in many instances responsible for the violence that women face! As the Hindi proverb has it, jis laung se bhoot bhaga rahe the, bhoot usi laung mein tha (the sense of which can be roughly rendered as: the disease lurks in the very pill thats prescribed as a panacea). After all, arent the men who seek to control their sisters or daughters friendships, relationships and mobility; who ask their wives to avoid wearing jeans; who commit honour crimes, real men, acting in a socially-sanctioned way, as guardians and protectors of women? If a woman is indecently dressed, or if she was out late at night or at a pub/nightclub, and therefore failing to display the shame that is expected of her, doesnt she fall outside the protective circle of masculine guardianship? Isnt she, in other words, she is less than a real woman, and therefore, fair game? Isnt it possible that real men, forgivably, mistook her for a slut, a woman without chastity and shame and therefore, neither needing nor deserving masculine protectiveness? Arent such apologias for rape commonly offered by the police and other public figures and private persons? In a recent press conference, the Delhi Police Chief referred to the latest NCRB (National Crime Records Bureau) data which revealed that 97% of rapes were committed by family members, friends, and neighbours. If this was the case, he argued, the police could only be held responsible for curbing the remaining 3% of rapes committed by strangers. He went on to say, in the same press conference, that women who venture outdoors at 2 am ought to be accompanied by a brother or male family member, and if she went out alone, she had only herself to blame if she was raped. His specious reasoning illustrates the limitations of the logic of protection: the police cant be expected to ensure safety of public spaces if women will insist on risking these spaces without providing themselves with a protective male family member. But what if male family members (those real men socially entrusted with the task of protecting their female kin) themselves pose a predominant risk of sexual violence? Well then, according to the Delhi Police Chief, that absolves the police of its obligations. One can guess at the reasons he might offer: one, policing and protection of women within the family is privatized and entrusted to male family members; and two, since the police cannot encroach into the private space of the family. It can be no ones case that the police are somehow supposed to miraculously anticipate and prevent violence against women, whether in public spaces or in homes. But the police is certainly obligated to ensure arrests and convictions of perpetrators and in cases where the crime has occurred within a known circle of family/friends/neighbours, surely it narrows the field of investigation for the police? Why, even when the offender in 97% cases is known rather than a faceless stranger, is the conviction rate so low, as the NCRB data establishes?! The problem is that the police, sharing the same ideological ground as the perpetrator of violence (be it honour crimes, domestic violence, or sexual violence), tends to be sympathetic to the perpetrator, and biased against the victim. The police discourages the complainant and witnesses, suppresses evidence, and the result is the failure to convict the offender. It isnt only the State machinery that invokes the patriarchal ideology of authentic (protective) masculinity in its treatment of violence against women. Womens struggles, too, tend to do so, unless they are consciously informed by a critique of patriarchy. For instance, there are several instances of women protestors against sexual violence, presenting police or administrative authorities with bangles; such gestures of protest work by shaming male authority figures for their effeminacy and failure to perform their masculine duty of protecting women and avenging rape. The ideology of masculine protectiveness of their women-folk, especially sisters, has deep cultural roots and emotive power. Take the North Indian festival of raksha bandhan, where the sister ties a rakhi (a band or string signifying the bond between sister and brother) to her brother, who in return for her sacred gesture of sisterly love, pledges to protect her. Brotherly protectiveness of sisters, invariably, involves avenging her sexual violation a notion that stretches to include protecting her from unwanted emotional and sexual entanglements. The brother derives status, prestige and honour from his ability to protect his sister. This honour is both personal and also shared and reinforced by the family/community. And the sister owes her brother a duty to safeguard her own chastity, on which rests his honour. If she compromises her chastity (and his honour, which in turn is linked to the .
.