From: usubrama@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Uma M Subramanian)
Subject: Re: Respect for women in India (was Re: More about India)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:52:05 GMT

In article <1b1qe5INNdqf@overload.lbl.gov> prem@prem.lbl.gov (Shirdi R. Prem) w
rites:
>    Hi net pals and palinis,
>
>         I have been following this recent discussion about
>    eve-teasing/harassment/whatever-you-call-it, and have contributed
>    my own opinion once or twice. However, the way it is being carried
>    on now seems rather disappointing, with considerably more heat than
>    light.
>         I agree about some of the things Aruna Mahadevan, Sylvia,
>    Uma etc are saying. But I have noticed one trend of late. Rather
>    than express their point of view, there have been repeated references
>    to what they assume Indian men to be. I feel that is somewhat unfair,
>    and clouds the issues a bit. I don't have the articles at hand to
>    quote verbatim, but this is the general idea: Someone posted that
>         "men just want their wives to be at their beck
>          and call, to do what their husbands want......"

You ignore the fact that the posts also had passages like:

"All I've said is with due apologies to the many male Indian individuals
I know who're wonderful people. This is a discussion about the culture
and the underlying assumptions that permit this unspeakable phenomenon
of public sexual assault."

I remember this passage since I wrote it. The others too might have
mentioned that not all Indian men are scum.

(I would like to talk about something that doesn't directly relate to
your post, even though it might be somewhat relevant to it. At any
rate, what follows is not really a response to your post, but
an addendum and officially, you're not the target of the rest of
this response, despite references to your article and you.)

The difficulty in addressing anyof these issues on a forum like SCI is
that one  might be responding to an article that says "the heroine
LOVES all the harassment and encourages the hero" or one that proudly
proclaims that all harassment stops at the outskirts of Delhi, Bombay,
Madras and Bangalore and anything you say in response is too severe
to someone a weebit more in touch with reality.

Like you said, there are men and there are men. So why don't we take
into consideration the original article in judging the response?

And finally, one can't touch upon a topic like this and expect the
women who've seen teh reality to pardon the denial of the problem
as a case of harmless, well-meaning ignorance. When one speaks
about horrendous violations that they've been subjected to, one
lashes out, especially at the slightest accusation "oh, come on
now, it can't be that bad". If the sight is too ugly, close your eyes.
You wouldn't be the first one.

After six months of writing on SCI, I think that the most presumptuous,
condescending expectation from some of the otherwise well-meaning
male readers is that the women share their thoughts on women's
issues in the fashion of a gracious hostess serving rasam at the table.
"Are you ready for some more? oh, silly me, you're not ... I'll
wait ... hope that wasn't too hot... it *is*? oh, I'm terribly sorry ...
It won't happen again ... "

Too bad ... things don't happen that way.

>         Comments like these are really generalizations, extrapolated
>    from your own experience with the men you have happened to meet. It
>    is highly misleading to apply this to a whole gender group. To put
>    it into perspective, it is as inaccurate as a man saying :
>         "women really appreciate being whistled/hooted
>          at; they just don't admit it. "
>
>          How does that make women feel ?? My point is that it would
>    lead to a much more interesting discussion if we did not make
>    assumptions of each others thoughts/morals/intentions/ethics/........
>
>         There are men and there are men. Some may behave in the
>    boorish fashion that you describe, but I know several guys who are not
>    like that. I don't think a woman's place is at home, or that women as
>    a group have a lesser contribution to make. But I am not saying that
>    is true of all the guys. I think it is only fair that you recognize
>    that the opposite is also true.

See the passage I quoted above from my post.

>
>         Prem!
>==============================================================================
==
>==  Customer    : Er... Excuse me, Does this Barbie come with Ken ??
==
>==  Salesperson : No sir. Barbie comes with G.I.Joe. She fakes it with Ken.
==
>==============================================================================
==
Uma Subramanian