Harini writes about the decision of Mumbai University to ban women from wearing mini skirts, tight tops and shorts, saying this will help prevent rape.
Rightly, Harini has taken offence to this cause-effect pronouncement – between rape and attire…
And then halfway across the world, there is this – Sartorial shock as English school bans skirts – English, as in, of England.
Sure, the head teacher Marilyn Warden does not mention the word rape here – she goes a step beyond (or is it backwqrd?) and claims that this move is to help the girls maintain their modesty.
I am sure Queen Victoria approves heartily, Ms. Warden.
Here is where I disagree with Harini – worded any other way, such a rule still sucks. Wording it differently may make the link more subtle or indirect but the link remains… Wear revealing clothes and be prepared to get punished for it…? And this is in junior high school – for girls aged between nine and thirteen…
(Just as a thought, would you condone a burglar who has broken into your house because you left a window open just to enjoy the cool breeze – come on, it is your fault, you should have kept the window shut)
The best part is to come yet – “This move,” she argued, “is meant to enhance all of our pupils’ overall educational experience.”
How exactly? Now that the girls are all fully covered, hundreds of hormonally challenged adolescent boys will turn their minds away from bare female legs and suddenly discover the joys of education (I mean the stuf you can learn from school books)?
***
Related to this is a question that I have asked earlier, and been thinking about for a long time now – there has always been a rather simplistic explanation for sexual violence in a country like India – “repression”… but how does one explain such – deviant sexual – behaviour in otherwise ‘open’ countries – where sexual mores are much more ‘progressive’ (for lack of a better word for now) – where there is unlimited opportunity for interaction between the sexes from an early age – where there is no concept of “indecent western clothes” – or equating jeans or a skirt with modernity / vulgarity – as in India?
i really don’t have an issue with a dress code in educational institution. we pretty much accept a dress code in every other area of society.
my problem is the implied causality between “modern” dressing and rape. The “She Asked For It” model of explaining rape needs to be ruthlessly crushed before it gains momentum.
absolutely Harini, what I was surprised about is the link with “modesty” in a so-called forward society… like the UK. but we may accept dress code for the sake of a dress code, for say, maintaining uniformity or whatever, but imagine if an employer passed an arbitrary dress code, say, only saris at work – and said it was for the sake of modesty – would we accept it as easily – would it be then, quit your job if you dont like it?
This kind of decision is by its very nature moronic. It is like implying that rape didn’t take place in the 18th or 19th century. Searching for a simplistic solution to a complex problem can in no way be condoned or excused. The burglar analogy is perfect.
I personally think that deviant sexual behaviour is due to the aggressor, and not the victim. It rises from a very basic emotional or psychological problem. The openness or otherwise of society has a part to play in it, related to repression, but it does not decide everything.
PS: I’ve blogrolled you.
Right Aditya, sexual violence is always about the aggressor and not the victim – but social discourse has it that the woman / the victim must have been responsible in some way for the act – either by word or gesture – or maybe by just being a woman?
To me, even the thought that women “invite” rape by wearing revealing clothes is repugnant. This is a disgrace to the country and womankind in general and shows how far we still have to go with respect to women’s rights in India. And what amazes me even more is why some WOMEN themselves feel this way. Could it be because they feel somewhat jealous of women who are able to wear these revealing clothes? What is disturbing is its not just the previous generation who feels this way, it is the current generation, and the next generation too (from a poll of teenagers). That means, these ideas wont die out at least for the next 40 years till the generation after that is in charge.
As for deviant sexual behavior, I dont think theres anything wrong with that (as long as its between consenting adults), heck if someone likes icecream with some hot sauce on top, go for it, says I. I also think deviant sex arises not from repression, but from having too much of it, you need to find ways of keeping it interesting.
Its disturbing that this kind of backward thinking is coming from women in many cases. Why would women do that to their own gender? The other disturbing aspect in this is its not just people from this generation or the previous generation with these views, its kids from the next generation too who still think this way. And that is what makes me pessimistic about the status of women’s rights in India for the next 50 years at least.
I have also wondered about that. The only answer i come to is, a unbalanced man who is lascivious just cannot be controlled and can cause casualties that are irreversible. It is horrifying to think that they can go to great extents to satiate their appetite. Check out a related post at my blog.
dregg, right on – sometimes women can be more cruel towards their own gender – motivated by what, I wonder – spite? a misplaced sense of morality?
CC – I read your post – that is so horrifying – just thinking of those trusting faces makes me want to do soem violence to the men involved…