To say that these are cases that India forgot might be a stretch since cases like Minerva mills v Union of India, Rameshwar Prasad v Union of India are pretty well known and keep popping up in references every other day. Even the Bajaj v KPS Gill case was widely discussed by the media.

Overview of The Book

Each case takes a few pages at most and is more like a summary than a detailed description of what happened. If you’re looking for a more in-depth analysis, then this book isn’t it. But it’s a good collection of cases.

One of the things I want to talk about is the sharp contrast in the outcomes of two court cases. In the case of Tukaram v State of Maharastra (Mathura case), two policemen raped a tribal girl in the police station and the supreme court acquitted both of them and made disgusting statements that conflated absence of injury with consent. Ignoring that a person under police custody cannot even be considered to have consented, the court also ignored every principle of common sense or justice in this case.

Contrast this with the Bajaj v KPS gill case where Bajaj a senior government officer was slapped on her arse by KPS gill. She won the case all the way to the supreme court, despite the supreme court letting KPS Gill off with a small fine and overturning his 3-month imprisonment sentence given by the lower court.

It is rare for those who aren’t privileged or well off to get justice in India because the system is stacked against them. Another interesting fact is the coverage of the ‘liberal English media’ (The Hindu, Indian Express, Deccan Herald) on the Bajaj v Gill case. one would have thought they would have taken the side of Bajaj, but they were full of sympathy for KPS Gill and his ‘misfortune’ and were interested in praising his role in clearing the militancy in Punjab and felt it was the injustice that he was being punished by the courts for a different crime. Even Tavleen Singh defended Gill and tried to portray this as an over-reaction by Bajaj.

After the horrible judgement by the supreme court in the Mathura case, there were huge protests by women and massive outcry by civil society. Then the Supreme court in a face-saving measure decided to issue future guidelines by not requiring corroborating evidence (other than the statement of the victim) for such cases by making an even more Retarded justification behind those guidelines.

>>>The court reasoned its decision on the basis that Indian women were different from women in the ‘Western World’, and were unlikely to concoct an allegation of sexual assault. Women in the West could be driven by economic motives, ‘psychological neurosis’, vengeance or jealousy to fabricate allegations. An Indian woman, conscious of the ‘danger of being ostracised’, the ‘reflect[tion] on her chastity’ and other factors, was unlikely to do so.

The book also mentions cases like Naga People’s movement of Human rights v Union of India which talks about how the supreme court did not do anything to declare AFSPA unconstitutional or even dilute some of its guidelines in light of egregious human rights violations being committed. The Court also did nothing to fight for the rights of citizens against the draconian TADA act which was being misused by the police to file cases against anyone they wanted to target. In many cases, if they were angry that someone got bail, they would slap a TADA case.

We are seeing a parallel of that currently with the BJP government using NSA act to throw people like Dr Kafeel Khan or Sharjeel into prison.

One point I’d like to make is that in the case of the TADA, it was not the Supreme court that helped protect the citizen but the PV Narasimha Rao government which set up an NHRC commission. They did not do this because they cared about the citizens but because they were worried about an international backlash on the rampant custodial deaths/torture/human rights violations in India.

So sometimes it is a good thing for people around the world to raise their voice on issues anywhere and hope that those governments at least pretend to care about their image and do something. Instead of crying about outsiders interfering, maybe it is a good idea to focus on what they are saying and whether there is merit to it than focusing on who is speaking out. International pressure has been instrumental in helping the cause of human rights across the world.

About the Author: The Cases that India Forgot  

Dr. Chintan Chandrachud is an associate in Quinn Emanuel’s London office which he joined the firm in 2016.  His practice deals with matters on complex commercial litigation, tax litigation and international arbitration.

He possesses a PhD from the University of Cambridge on the subject of judicial review in India and the United Kingdom. His academic qualifications include postgraduate degrees from Oxford and Yale. He is also the author of Balanced Constitutionalism: Courts and Legislatures in India and the United Kingdom.

The post THE CASES THAT INDIA FORGOT — Book Review appeared first on WISER WORLD.

Origin and Trend Setting of Colour Sexism

It must be noted that gender-colour stereotype and assigning a colour to gender isn’t an ancient concept but a twentieth-century trait. After World War II, blue was used extensively for men’s uniforms. Therefore, blue was identified as more of a masculine colour. Since 1940, pink was promoted as a woman’s colour. “Think Pink” was the marketing slogan to convince women to embrace their femininity. It grew massively in the 1970s and by the 1980s it was a full-fledged concept where markets were captured by brands selling gender-specific merchandise to parents indoctrinating a stark contrast in their minds. Also, the introduction of clinical tests that were capable of revealing the gender of an unborn baby, in different countries, played a major role as parents had the opportunity to preplan shopping for their children and stock up on everything that would speak loud and clear for the gender. Scrolling up and down social media apps I came across a trending concept of ‘Gender Reveal’ which was first started by Jenna Karnuvidis in the year 2008. She baked a cake full of pink icing to celebrate a baby girl they were expecting. After 10 years of this viral phenomenon, she realized how the trend picked up and someone’s potential and talent should not be compartmentalized depending solely on what’s between their legs. 

Sexism in Toys: Not a Child’s Play

With sexism being the primary focus while growing up, most children face a huge dilemma about peculiar universally accepted, gender-specific presents. Girls get a lot of Barbie dolls, kitchen sets, jewellery sets, anything and everything that’s ‘pinkified’. Boys are assumed to fancy GI Joes, Hotwheels, toy guns, for god’s sake the society loves gifting their sons a lot of weapons! It’s not just the gift that needs to be focused on but the dull mindset behind it. Gifting a kitchen set is the most suitable way to glorify what the society actually thinks of women, trying best to nurture their homely instincts because clearly, society would rather assign specific gender roles than let women dream of being bold, independent, and sore high with a mind of their own. I’ve seen parents often discouraging their boys who dare to show even the slightest of an inclination towards so-called ‘girly’ toys or makeup. This discrimination affects their thinking and behavioural pattern tremendously. The trauma of not being able to open up to your own birth givers about personal preferences, toys or choice of colours is claustrophobic in itself.

Second Home

We call schools our second homes and now I know why! There’s an uncanny significance between the two. A divide between girls and boys surprisingly exist in schools and educational institutions even today. We choose to ignore red flags of clear cut segregation that children commonly face on a day to day basis. For instance, boys who don’t like being a certain way and aren’t necessarily rough, rugged, crass and ‘manly’ if I must use the word are commonly subjected to a lot of bullying and are vulnerable to great deals of trauma that follows. This not only creates a problem for the child but also breaks their self-esteem. Yes, schools are very thoughtful and progressive about holding menstrual awareness workshops. Sadly these are strictly girl-specific and therefore boys are not just unaware of how a woman’s body functions but also made negligent about menstruation in general. Which is why the role of men in menstruation is still vague and sanitary pads continue to be sold wrapped in newspapers or black plastics. Girls are also taught to not speak about menstruation openly or involve the opposite gender because it doesn’t speak well of how ‘cultured’ they are. Sensitizing children about natural, biological phenomenon like these is a necessity and we need to acknowledge it as a society that’s concerned for the future generation.

‘Gender’ or ‘Sex’

Biology also teaches us the difference between a boy and a girl but what we’re often not taught is the concept of behaviour. Sexism forces one to behave in a set way. When we get behaviour into the picture let me tell you ‘Gender’ and ‘Sex’ are two very different terms. However, we end up using them interchangeably. During the second year of under-graduation, I took up Educational Psychology as an elective. While exploring certain topics I happened to come across a study which explained how humans are born as male or female biologically but socially, culturally and personally they might associate themselves as more masculine or feminine by nature. This masculinity or femininity is controlled by the society and anything that doesn’t seem to fit into their social construct is termed as abnormal and looked down upon. When a boy or a man places himself on the pink side of the spectrum we associate his gender or sexual identity with that of a woman and assume they’re homosexual. A lot of homophobics repel men who wear pink. Pink, thus in this scenario is seen as a badge of shame because it’s socially unacceptable for men to be inclined towards a colour like Pink because it’s assumed to be a colour for those who are soft, weak and feminine and men don’t gain social acceptance if they fall under such categories.

Fun fact, during 1930-1940, Nazi concentration camp badges included a pink triangle for gay men, while lesbians were lumped into an ‘asocial elements’ group with a black triangle. This shows the relevance of pink to femininity. However, in the late 60s, with the articulation of the LGBT rights movement, the significance of pink began a shift from shame to pride. The ‘Queer’ Community still struggles for acceptance because these factors are so deep-rooted. 

Live and Let Live

I’m sure if you’re a boy you must be able to relate to sentences like ‘don’t cry like a girl’ or ‘boys don’t cry because crying is for the weak’ and if you’re a girl you might’ve come across sentences like ‘sit like a girl, talk softly like a girl’ a zillion times! We need to get our basics right and realise that it is every human’s right to choose what they feel is best for themselves, associate or dissociate with people, colours, art forms or ideologies. Especially babies shouldn’t be pushed towards something purposely, taking advantage of their age and their inability to form an opinion or even understand what likes and dislikes are. This cycle of unnecessary pressure and dominance also has to stop. There should be absolute freedom in order to keep diversity alive. Diversity nowadays is probably best defined in an LGBTQ rainbow flag which is symbolic of an all-inclusive society. We should learn to live and let live instead of assigning particular colours and laying expectations on toddlers to stay true to them. There should be absolute freedom of picking any colour at any age, making it your own, and possessing the liberty to change it too because let’s face it, we’re much more than the X and Y chromosomes that we limit ourselves to!

The post FIRST IDENTITY: BLUE OR PINK? HOW IT PROMOTES SEXISM? appeared first on WISER WORLD.

The notion that gender is binary, that is when gender is recognised in only two terms – male and female is highly refuted. Social research has shown there are as many as 52 genders. Some definitions of gender overlap and some change over time, as a cultural change. One would commonly encounter individuals who would identify themselves as cis-gendered – a label whose personal gender identity is the same as the sex they were assigned to at birth.

Cisnormativity is the notion that a cis-gender identity is a socially accepted norm. This leads to discrimination and creates stronger social setbacks for those who do not fit in this norm. It has thus become important to understand gender closely and use appropriate language and gender. This not only promotes inclusivity but also lets people know one is supporting and affirming to the other person’s gender. For example, a genderfluid person moves between different gender presentations. The individual may identify as masculine one day and on another day, the individual may identify as a femme or woman. Hence, the use of gender-neutral pronouns such as “they/them” is encouraged for genderfluid people

Gender becomes the most conspicuous difference between humans and animals and it manifests itself psychologically. Traditional western viewpoints designate males and females as binary opposite and argue that gender is inescapable. But this is not the case anymore. In our social surroundings, gender plays an important role. Through this article, we learn about the meaning of gender and its distinction from sex along with some cases and examples. We identify the common gender-related discrimination and understand the true sense of the word.

A Tryst with High Heels

The famous red-soled Louboutin with their breathtakingly high or rather painful stilettos are reserved for the women’s section and viewed as a commodity for the feminine gender only.

A commodity restricted to gender, strikes as a strange idea to me.

The retailer asked, in a rather monotonous tone to my friend, “Which size ma’am?” and then when we told him it is for me, a he! At once the retailer was taken aback and for a fraction of second, we could see the gears in his brain process the information. Well, we tried the shoe, it wasn’t a perfect fit, end of the story.

A Brief History of Gendered Commodities

Historically, high heeled shoes were initially designed for upper class men to use when hunting on horseback, an activity considered fairly masculine.

With time, as women began wearing high heels, male heels slowly became shorter and fatter as female heels grew taller and thinner. Over time the perception of the high heels gradually became seen as feminine. There is nothing intrinsically feminine about high heeled shoes. My friend enjoyed wearing my ‘Peanuts’ themed Vans sneakers but, she wasn’t subjected to gender horrified looks or old auntie gasps. Such has happened because social norms have made it so.

Gender roles are not set in stone. It varies from society to society and time as well. It is susceptible to change.

Understanding Gender from Biological Sex

The baffled expression of the retailer tells us something which runs much deeper in the texts of Gender Psychology and its social perspective.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) defines gender as “the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.”

Through the social lens, gender becomes a much broader term. While sex refers to an individual’s biological status as either male or female; gender refers to the person’s sense of expression of their maleness and femaleness.

While most people are born either male or female, they are taught appropriate norms and behaviours. This includes how they should interact with others or of the same or opposite sex, within micro and macro levels of societies. Such as households, classrooms, communities, religious places, sports fields and many more.

Individuals or groups who do not fit established gender norms, often face stigma, discriminatory practices and subjected to social exclusion. This in return has an adverse effect on health- both their physical and mental wellbeing. For example, the atrocities acted upon the hijra community in South-East Asia.

Cross-cultural and historical evidence do challenge this limited ideology and many gender-based stereotypes. The early rise of 20th-century feminism emerging as a social and political force has been fighting for equal opportunities and challenging traditional sexism of patriarchy.  This viewpoint is further supplemented with an interesting case from the Philippines.

A Case from the Philippines

PETA, acronym for Philippine Educational Theatre Association, a non-stock, non-profit organisation found in 1967 by Cecile Guidote gave the women of Philippines a strong voice. Under PETA, the Women’s Theatre Program (WTP) becomes an artistic medium that eventually becomes a weapon in the face of conservative political and religious influences which had been oppressing the women of the nation, solely due to their gender.

When PETA was formed, the Philippines was suffering from the dictatorship of President Marcos, making major gender inequality gaps and oppressing women. The WTP explores issues such as violence against women, prostitution and trafficking, poverty and reproductive right for women.

From the mid-1970s to mid-1980s PETA took seriously the task of leading a national theatre movement that would fight Marco’s dictatorship. They believed the struggle for social justice, women empowerment, democracy and equality amongst gender should also be urged on the educational and cultural fronts. The importance was paramount because without shaping people’s consciousness, the change will never prove lasting.

Sartorial Sexism

We dive deeper in the social perspective of gender in current times with the life examples of author Vicki S. Helgeson in her book The Psychology of Gender.

When her daughter was born, in 1998, Helgeson was exposed to the psychology of gender far more than as an advocate of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women.

She observed that after dressing up her baby in gender neutral clothes, passer-by’s often mistook the infant for a boy.

In her book she explains, the biological default is female. At conception, the embryo is destined to become female unless exposed to male hormones.

But the social default is male. When in doubt, assume the baby is a boy unless strong social cues are present, indicating the baby is a girl such as the pink, the bow, the specific patterns on toys and clothes. Further, she observed that it is not nearly as offensive to assume a girl is a boy as it is to assume a boy is a girl. She was surprised to find out how apologetic people become when they guess a baby boy for a girl.

Sartorial sexism stands strong within infants as it stood against me in Marks & Spencer. Infant clothes and toys are divided, with strict hints of sexism present. Slogans on apparels such as ‘Daddy’s Little Princess’ are for girls, expecting them to behave in a certain manner while for boys there are ‘Daddy’s Handyman’ reinforcing the machoism at an age when they cannot spell the very word. Symbolism also strictly divides dress codes with a pair of denims with stars and glitters are considered for boys and rugged or faded jeans are kept for girls.

Something seemed funny in that last line, didn’t it? And that is the social perspective of gender we carry today.

Conclusion

The nature of gender roles varies from society to society and time as well, such as certain commodities have shifted from one gender to another through time. Sex and Gender are two distinguished terms where sex relates to the biology of the individual and gender relates to the expression of behaviour from the individual. Gender manifests itself psychologically and if individuals do not fit the societal gender norms, they often face discrimination and subjugation from the dominant gender. Cecile Guidve initiative in 1967 lead to the creation of the Women’s Theatre Program (WTP) under the Philippine Educational Theatre Association (PETA) which fought gender inequality from both educational and cultural means. Sartorial sexism exists in our society and manifests itself through symbolic slogans, colour and fashion.

The post HUMAN GENDER: THE SOCIETAL CONNOTATION appeared first on WISER WORLD.

“Believe me, every heart has its secret sorrows, which the world knows not, and oftentimes we call a man cold, when he is only sad.”

— Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Hyperion

Although emotions have a biological base, the meanings of emotions and the appropriateness of emotional expression are products of socialisation. One critically important moderator of what children learn about emotions and the appropriateness of emotional displays is gender (Parkins R, 2012). Gender differences in experiencing and expressing emotions is largely a result of the gender-stereotypic socialisation which is usually instilled in the members of culture from early childhood (Fischer A, et.al. 2004). Thus, emotions which are fundamentally neutral and are experienced by all, come to be perceived as gender-specific stereotypes.  Consequently, these stereotypes provide a basis for society to determine what is and is not socially acceptable for males and females in displaying emotions.

IDENTIFYING THE STEREOTYPES

Phrases like “boys don’t cry”, “emotional women”, “man up” and the like are all examples of stereotypes associated with gender-based appropriateness of emotional expression. We are all wired into believing that women are more emotional than men, or at least are more emotionally expressive. This occurrence of women being more emotionally expressive than men is majorly a result of the early shaping of our views on emotional expressivity. 

According to Denham et al. (2007), children learn about emotions through three primary modes of direct and indirect socialization: 

1. Witnessing others’ feelings and emotions, 
2. Having their emotional displays responded to and 
3. The ways they are taught about their feelings and emotions. 

Indirect socialisation happens when children observe other family members display specific emotions. Accordingly, they gather information and internalise the level of appropriateness for specific emotions. Direct socialisation takes place through discussions on emotions parents have with their children or via parental reactions to emotions. Emotional expressions which are reinforced with warm, sensitive responses from parents and caregivers are instilled and repeated whereas emotional expressions which are accompanied by non-supportive responses are suppressed or avoided.

As a result, several studies have found that men learn to express powerful, externalizing emotions that display one’s assertiveness and power, such as anger, contempt and pride and suppress the “non-masculine” expression of sadness (Siegel & Alloy, 1990) whereas women express the powerless, internalising emotions such as happiness, embarrassment, surprise, sadness, fear, shame, and guilt which serve to imply vulnerability and maintain harmony in social relations with a minimum of overt hostility.

Even the highly applauded Pixar movie “Inside Out” which beautifully taught us the importance of balancing the complex emotions, portrayed certain stereotypes. Anger was shown as a man with a deep, gravelly voice, Disgust was guised as a “spoiled bratty girl”, sending strong messages about emotions in female adolescence and Sadness and Joy were personified as two distinct types of women, capturing the idea that sensitive empathy and unswerving optimism are synonymous with the female emotional condition. 

These gender stereotypes associated with expression of emotions is not only restricted to face to face communication, but also social media interactions. In a study by Róisín Parkins (2012), posts, tweets and comments were analysed to examine the emotional expressivity of men and women in the realm of social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. It was interesting to observe that despite the relative anonymity that comes with online communication, the gender stereotypes associated with expression of emotions is still prevalent and women are the more emotionally expressive gender.

However, a study by Fabes and Martin (1991) has shown that women are perceived to express emotions more than men but that there is little difference in the perception of men and women’s emotional experience. This means that one has to consciously understand the difference between “expressing emotions” and “experiencing emotions.” This distinction is meaningful because it endorses the notion that gender stereotypes shape emotional expression. 

UNDERSTANDING THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES

Times and situations have changed and we now live in a world where gender roles have become overlapping and the very concept of “gender” has become more fluid. In these times inability to foster emotional diversity in children may have long-term problematic consequences. 

Both men and women are subjected to norms of appropriate expression of emotions in the workplace, but women experience greater scrutiny compared to men when it comes to emotional expressions at work. While men who get angry at work are perceived as decisive and strong, women who loses their cool and act in anger are regarded unprofessional and incompetent. At the same time, when women express the stereotypical “feminine” emotions, they are judged as lacking emotional control, which again undermines their competence. Such perceptions leave women in a bind – being passive prevents them from being heard and expressing anger raises questions on their professional legitimacy. This leads to women diverting or suppressing their anger. While the former may hamper their relationships with friends, family and loved ones, the latter can make them more resentful and cause anxiety or depression. 

Men, however, suffer beneath the gravity of conventional masculinity and experience greater depressive symptoms than women. Boys grow up in a world inhabited by a narrower range of emotions and the cultural pressures to act masculine may further prevent them from expressing their emotions in healthy ways. Men are taught to refrain from expressing any emotional vulnerability and are expected to show only a limited range of emotions. This process of limiting the range of men’s allowable emotional expression helps set the path towards anger and aggression. Denying emotional vulnerability makes them prone to engaging in health risk behaviours and substance abuse. While women may experience depression more than men, many men may restrict emotions and avoid the feelings associated with depression by embracing anger and resorting to physical violence. Inability to express emotions extends to the home as well where men find it difficult to share their own vulnerable emotions with partners and are less open to these experiences in their partners. Thus, emotion suppression can have detrimental effects on their physical, psychological and relational health and men may be at greater risk for stress-related cardiovascular problems in the long run.

CONCLUSION

Letting the guards down and expressing emotional vulnerability is easier said than done, but bottling up or avoiding emotions has never had a positive outcome. Thus, acknowledging and embracing the emotions, expressing them in appropriate ways and creating a safe space for others to open too are necessary for the psychological health of the individual and for the society at large.  

“Life without emotions would be as calm as death, like a world without weather. Accept feelings as they are; pleasant or painful, they are natural and don’t need fixing. Let them rise and pass without allowing changeable emotions to run your life.”

— Dan Millman

The post UNLATCHING THE CAGE OF EMOTIONS: BREAKING GENDER-SPECIFIC STEREOTYPES appeared first on WISER WORLD.