If you are a professional in an emerging industry, like gaming, data science, cloud computing, digital marketing etc., that has promising career opportunities, this is your chance to be featured in #CareerKiPaathshaala. Fill up this form today!
Do women need safety or protection?
The recent Cobrapost expose that claimed a young woman in Bangalore was being stalked illegally using Gujarat state resources has set us all a-twitter, and and of course, the official version that we are being asked to accept is that it was done ‘for her own protection’, at the request of her father.
A lot of conversation centres around whether her family was aware of it, whether her family requested it, whether she was in some danger that justified it – in short, did the demands of ‘protecting’ a young woman justify the surveillance?
Whether all the facts as presented by the expose are correct or not, whether or not her father asked for it, regardless of who ‘Saheb’ is and what his interest in the surveillance was, as women, the arguments adopted in defense should make us very, very scared – because, all obfuscation aside, the defense boils down to this: We did it for her own good (never mind that the Indian constitution does not authorize surveillance because anyone’s uncle asked for it).
This is not acceptable, regardless of which party does it – and its entirely possible that the party in question is not the only one doing such snooping or misusing official machinery, so it is not about which party you support. This is about whether you think women need safety or protection.
What’s the difference?
Safety is the ability to walk on the roads, knowing that no one considers you an encroacher or anomaly in public space because you are a woman. Protection is when your family asks you to stay indoors, or you decide its a bad idea to go out after 9, because the roads are not safe for you.
Safety is public transport that runs at all hours of day and night, and connects all localities, even ones not close to the main road. Protection is segregating women in women only compartments, because we cannot ensure safety in the general.
Safety is knowing that if you sense danger, you can report it, and there is a police system to come to your aid (or a highway patrol, or a cybercrime unit, as the case may be). Protection is your parents monitoring all your activities and curbing some of them for good measure, knowing that no system exists to apprehend danger.
Safety is knowing that in the event of an attack, your attacker will be put away by a competent investigative and judicial system, so that another woman is not attacked. Protection is hiding away from all potential attackers, limiting your life so you don’t get on their radar.
Safety is knowing that if you are in a bad marriage, you can count on the support of those dear to you. Protection is when those dear to you chop off your head, so you don’t get into what they believe is a bad marriage.
When we work towards safety, we work for better cities and systems for all women. When we work towards protection, we have already given up – we have accepted that women need to be monitored, controlled and subdued so they don’t ‘invite danger’.
When we work towards safety, if a woman is in danger because of a stalker, we go all out to identify, warn and arrest the stalker. When we work towards protection, we mount surveillance on this woman so we can ensure nothing happens to her.
When we work towards safety, we assume women are adults who can make their own choices in an environment geared to protect the interests of all. When we work towards protection, we assume that women must always be cared for and overseen, whether they want it, like it – or not – and the state is only taking over the role of father or brother.
In short, safety is about all of us working together to create better spaces, better systems for all citizens. Protection is paternalistic surveillance at its most benign and honour killing at its worst (when the ‘protectee’ fails to measure up to the criteria for being protected).
Women (and men) need safety, but we don’t need the protection of Big Brother, however benign the motives may be.
Pic credit: Nat media museum (Used under a Creative Commons license)
Founder & Chief Editor of Women's Web, Aparna believes in the power of ideas and conversations to create change. She has been writing since she was ten. In another life, she used to be read more...
Women's Web is an open platform that publishes a diversity of views, individual posts do not necessarily represent the platform's views and opinions at all times.
Stay updated with our Weekly Newsletter or Daily Summary - or both!
Shows like Indian Matchmaking only further the argument that women must adhere to social norms without being allowed to follow their hearts.
When Netflix announced that Indian Matchmaking (2020-present) would be renewed for a second season, many of us hoped for the makers of the show to take all the criticism they faced seriously. That is definitely not the case because the show still continues to celebrate regressive patriarchal values.
Here are a few of the gendered notions that the show propagates.
A mediocre man can give himself a 9.5/10 and call himself ‘the world’s most eligible bachelor’, but an independent and successful woman must be happy with receiving just 60-70% of what she feels she deserves.
As long as teachers are competent in their job, and adhere to the workplace code of conduct, how does it matter what they do in their personal lives?
A 30 year old Associate Professor at a well-known University, according to an FIR filed by her, was forced to resign because the father of one of her students complained that he found his son looking at photographs of her, which according to him were “objectionable” and “bordering on nudity”.
There are two aspects to this case, which are equally disturbing, and which together make me question where we are heading as a society.
When the father of an 18 year old finds his son looking at photographs of a lady in a swimsuit, he can do many things. What this parent allegedly did was to dash off a letter to the University which states: