[*purdah - the practice of preventing women from being seen by men. This takes two forms: physical segregation of the sexes and the requirement for women to cover their bodies and conceal their form]
The other day the NY Times carried an article of a woman-only train in India entitled "Indian Women Find New Peace in Rail Commute ." The article discusses how incidents of pinches, groping, stroking, and staring at women in crowded trains got so frequent and so bad, that first they created women-only train cars. These would then be invaded by men who were, according to the article, escaping overcrowding in the other cars, but you and I can surmise as to whether they were claiming their woman, their space,. So therefore they created a completely separate train for women. This too is in danger of being invaded by men - boys come in to use the bathrooms, men glare from the station platform, and have spoken outright of closing the "Ladies Special" train down.
This is wonderful for those women who have just had enough. Why should they have to put up with daily harassment? How nice that they can have a peaceful unmolested ride to and from work.
This is not wonderful because it is segregation, a modern day purdah , and does nothing to tell men that their behavior is unacceptable and disgusting. Why is it that women have to cover themselves, separate themselves, and be protected from men when men are never held accountable for not being able to keep their hands, eyes, and words to themselves? And as someone who has had to deal with these men - trust me, they are in States with the same bad habits - while they may not be close enough to pinch, they think they can freely stare at women as if they owned them and even worse - those of you who've been flashed or have had men fondle themselves know what I'm talking about. I was once on the E train and a man was blatantly gazing at a woman's breasts, and she asked him if he lost something there. (God bless you amazing Latina girl, you inspired this desi girl to become a feisty woman right there - I stare back now, I don't get tired of it, so I win every stare contest because really, I'm trying to figure out what the allure is of staring...). He walked to the other end of the car. They are so surprised if women don't just look away or bear it because they've gotten away with it for generations.
If the government wanted to help women, they should have a zero-tolerance campaign against harassment, with penalties, with arrest, with an easy and quick complaint system, with women police in the trains - I'm just brainstorming now, but I want a policy and law with teeth. Not just a policy or law on the books, or a policy or law that is set out only in bulletins, signs and posters. I want a law that is enforced.
But even more importantly, I want women to take advantage of that law. Because so many of us just bear it. In Mangalore, crazy Hindu radical nationalists attacked women in pubs, women wearing western outfits, women hanging out with men, and these attacks were caught on videotape, and the local law enforcement and politicians had to get involved. But NOT ONE SINGLE WOMAN stepped forward to press charges. Women activists started a pink chaddi campaign where they mailed their underwear in to local officials (and more) but really, without individual women calling for accountability it must have amused those officials. But they have the right idea. Why not have women go out in force, like those women did with Night Action , on the streets of New Delhi where they were continually harassed? They went out en masse, a multitude of women as one woman, daring men to say something to them then.
Or the Gulabi Gang
(the pink sari gang), who are a band of women committed to protecting
women against social malpractice, corrupt administrators, and abusive
husbands. They are called vigilantes, by the press, because they beat
men who beat their wives .
It's hard for women to take that stand. As one woman, you make a
simple cost benefit analysis - do I take the train with men, and risk
the fondling, the harassment, and then the added hassle of filing a
complaint, going public, all at the risk to my reputation, my standing
in society, my personal relationship with my husband, and family? The
answer is an easy no. We must support all those individual women to
come together because the cost-benefit analysis of a group of women is
this; we take the train with men, we slap the guy who fondles us b/c
there will be enough of us to feel safe, to stand together and support
each other, we will file the complaint together, a class action where
we share the costs and the hassle, and then we support each other when
the press calls us feminists as if it was a bad name, when our
communities ask us why were are being troublemaking women, and try to
besmirch our good name, and together, we can control what is said about
us. And it should be the ones with the privilege - the higher
socioeconomic class, the higher caste class, and the higher connections
to make a fuss. In India, as in so many parts of the world, it is the
poorer ones who take the trains and buses, and who just don't have the
capacity or access to be able to bring a case to court, or to have a
policeman come to their aid quickly and believe them, to be able to
withstand the public scrutiny that occurs when women take a stand.
Those with all of the above take chauffered cars with tinted windows to
work and home. Step out of the cars and out of the gated communities
and take care of your own - for what happens to one woman, happens to
us all.
My mother-in-love who lives in Bombay once said something about how she wouldn't let her daughter out of the house scantily clad because then she would be asking for it - and by it, she meant harassment, abuse, rape. She said that woman should cover themselves to avoid unwanted attention, shouldn't go to certain parts of the city that are known for attracting rowdy men - once again, woman should keep themselves covered and apart so as not to tempt these wayward men. And I understand her rationale - she sees it happen and it is an easy decision - it is just not worth the risk. But I told her, that I should be able to walk down the street naked and nothing should happen to me. That no man has the right to touch me or think he can have sex with me just because I am a woman, clothed or unclothed. And she saw my point, instantly - but I saw hers, because there is no way I would walk on Chowpatty Beach completely nude to make my point. I don't even wear my miniskirts - which are by far, not that short, not the most revealing things I own when I go out for a drink in Bombay (with my husband of course, because god forbid I did it solo). But I have to say, even full clothed, as a curvy girl, I get the stares anyway. One day I'm going to ask, why? What is the point of the staring?
But here's the thing. Imagine a railway car, with signs saying "Be a Man, keep your hands to yourself" or "For every girl you harass, imagine a man harassing your mother, daughter, sister, cousin, aunt" or something like that. Imagine a policeman/woman on that car and at every station. Imagine a law that provides that a complaint may be filed if you are the victim of harassment, based solely on your affidavit, and maybe a police report or one witness, but that your affidavit is enough (of course you'd need to catch the guy so I presume police involvement will be required) and even better, a law that provides the ability to sue the city, the state, the government for failing to protect your right to enjoy your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness because of the repeated stroking of your butt or breast as you commute to work.
Then imagine you, and your friend, and her friend, and the neighbor down the street, and the girl you always see on the 9:10am train to work and the other old aunty who you always give your seat to on the 6:03 train home and your cousin and your dance teacher and your fellow students and what the hell, your brother, your husband, your son, your partner of whatever sex, all riding the rails together and raising hell if anyone tries to harass any one of you. Of showing those men who think they own woman and can touch, stare and fondle as they please, that as a society, you all condemn them, and that as a community, you are all watching each others back, and that as one, you will come down on them hard if they try it again.
Maybe then women will find this "new peace" that the Times articles refers to - at least it would be a start.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: No more Purdah for us, thanks..
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16068
Thank you for posting this. Though there are significant challenges still facing us, I am reminded again how the feminist movement in this country has made major triumphs that simply are not present in other countries.
So, your "solution" to the problem of street harassment on Indian commuter railroads involves large scale police harassment of men.
And, since we know how police repression works under capitalism (basically, it's "capital punishment" - if you don't have capital, you will get the punishment), that in practice would mean large scale harassment of working class men - with migrant, low caste and Muslim men especially singled out for repression)
And your repression not only would go after men who commit actual misdemeanor assault (that is - touching a person against her will) but against men who dare to stare at a woman.
Back in the jim crow days in the South, White cops and Klansmen used to call that "reckless eyeballing" and Black men were often kidnapped and murdered for the "crime" of looking at a White woman's body.
Is that what you're calling for?
I cannot speak for the OP, but what I read in hir piece is that she wants women to have a legal outlet that is accessible and takes them at their word when assaults do happen.
As far as the men who stare/fondle/leer/ogle, I believe they are advocating for *social* policing of men. Men have historically men allowed to consider women's bodies public accomodations: theirs to use as they see fit without any reciprocation or consent, like a water fountain or statue. Thus, the society around them needs to rise up to boldly assert that women are not here for aesthetic improvement of (in this case) railway cars. And I am certain the OP does not advocate violation of a man's body, considering the thrust of this piece is that people have a right to go literally unmolested through their days.
I do think, however, you have some valid points about how classism (caste-ism?) and racism could play into this.
You're using Emmett Till and similar tragedies to justify groping women on public transportation?
Jeez Gregory Butler, did you READ the piece? The OP isn't calling for police harrassment. She is talking about *social disapproval* and for women to have the option to *MAYBE, IF SHE DECIDES TO* call the police. That's all. The job of the police is to, um, police.
Why this in your mind equates to legions of police patrolling public transport, looking for a man 'daring to' look at a woman...I just don't get it. As if the police anywhere have the spare resource...or the inclination.
And please can we not start with 'what about teh poor widdle menz'. I don't care how working-class or black a man is, those things do not give him the right to harrass women.
And actually, from my experiences as a Brit commuting to work in London, middle to upper class city boys are as likely to harrass, grope, & leer as are working class men.
LOL!I know! Another distorted interpretation induced from privilege by Gregory Butler!
I like the ide of the police on the trains. If there were stiff penaltys with significat jail time for theas perverts This would stop.