Secularism, the way I understand it, is looking at all religions the same way without bias—in essence accepting the equality of all faiths (as opposed to my God bestest).
Likewise, gender-equality strives to attain equivalence of the sexes in terms of perception and opportunity.
Noble aims indeed and ones to which I fully subscribe to.
One of the fundamental concepts inherent in the definition of “equality” is that to an external observer, the two equal quantities should appear the same, modulo some property. In other words, if I say that A and B are equal in weight, then modulo the property of weight, they should be indistinguishable.
Right?
Or not?
Annie Zaidi writes thusly about the debate about women in the Army:
The trouble is that men live trapped in men’s bodies (and of course, they don’t have a choice in the affair) which makes them utterly incapable of forming rational, logical views on the subject of strength, fortitude, courage etc.
And then:
As a woman and a citizen, I can say two things with certainty. One, that if an army requires strength, courage or sheer tenacity, women are more fit for the job than men are.
The response in the comments section of Annie’s post: “Bravo” ,”Applause” and other assorted encomiums.
Now, let’s say someone had written the same thing in such a way that every occurance of the word man/men and woman/women are interchanged:
The trouble is that women live trapped in women’s bodies (and of course, they don’t have a choice in the affair) which makes them utterly incapable of forming rational, logical views on the subject of strength, fortitude, courage etc.
And
As a man and a citizen, I can say two things with certainty. One, that if an army requires strength, courage or sheer tenacity, men are more fit for the job than women are.
Here’s the question. Since I have replaced equals with equals, the effect of these two posts should be the same with respect to reader reaction.
I suppose you have already realized the point I am trying to make.
If anyone had written this “interchanged version” , the comments would be “Shame shame” (from the same people), and the blogger would be dubbed a MCP, a misogynist and worse.
Is this equality?
Now the point here is not the blog post. It’s the audience reaction to it. As an example, this is what Dilip D’Souza says this about the post from which I have extracted the above lines.
There are many reasons Annie Z is a fine journalist. Here’s one more.
This labelling intrigued me as I have always wanted to be a fine journalist myself—-and have only polite “No thank you”s and editorial silence to show for my efforts.
Now when someone like Dilip D Souza, a famous journalist, awarded author and noted blogger himself, calls this an example of fine journalism—–I have to confess that it sets me thinking as to what the concepts of fairness and equality really are in the journalistic world.
As another example of this curious definition of “equality” between the sexes, we have had a spate of cases in the US where female school teachers have been found sleeping with underage school boys and let off with much lighter sentences than male teachers who have indulged in similar acts of moral turpitude.
These female-teacher-does-male-student-stories generate mass media frenzy (standard Leno joke: Goddamn, I wish I went to that school), there is a lot of sympathy for the female teacher (ooh her husband ignored her in bed), the underage boy is blamed (it was he who seduced the female teacher—-he looks so grown up) and legal howlers like the case where one female offender [Debra Lafave] was let off on the grounds she was too sexy for jail.
“Lafave, her lawyer argued, was simply too attractive to be put in jail.
“To place Debbie into a Florida state women’s penitentiary,” Fitzgibbons said, “to place an attractive young woman in that kind of hellhole, is like placing a piece of raw meat in with the lions. I don’t think Debbie could survive it.”
Judge Timmerman apparently agreed.
Now if the perpetrators were male, there would no jokes, no quarter given for an aloof wife, no consideration of whether the girl came onto him or how mature the girl looked—he would be seen as a paedophile and nothing more.
There would be universal revulsion and condemnation all around, people would chuckle gleefully at the indignities that would be heaped on a child molester in jail,pointing out to each other that it’s time this pervert realized how it feels to be violated.
When faced with such facts as the above, the standard “counterattack” from people whose concept of gender equality borders on female chauvinism is that women have had it bad for centuries and in some ways, it’s payback time.
So tough luck.
Of course, this is the same logic that justifies caste-based reservations (punishing this generation for the wrongs of their forefathers) for all perpetuity.
And also sanctifies the breaking down of mosques ( Babur and Mahmud of Ghazni broke our temples in the 1500s and burnt our house and raped our women—-and so in 2002 we am doing the same to you)—–so I won’t spend time in discussing this absurd arguement any further.
Which leads me to the question I started out with: is the concept of equality something I have totally failed to comprehend (a rather damning possibility for someone who proves equivalence relations between process models for a living)?
Is this the reason why I have never managed to become a journalist—let alone a fine one ?
I agree with you on the teacher-student issue where the sex of the offender shouldn’t matter because the victim is a minor (considered incapable by the law of making a sound decision even regarding his/her welfare)
But the other issue of men vs. women in the army, you might observe that women have been selectively excluded from those professions due to a simple gender difference without any sense of logic or reasoning. Women physcially weaker than men holds good only in duties that actually need physical labor and we know that not all duties in the army need that. The major difference here is the history of discrimination that even the legal system acknowledges. If a particular section of the society has been historically discriminated then it is required by the state to correct that anamoly by recommending relevant and feasible ameliorative action.
Thus, you cannot really argue for equal thinking when you compare men and women and probably interchanging those terms in the passages may not be appropriate. That said, I may not agree specifically with those exact words by Annie as I would have to go back and read the context in which she made them.
@Patrix: Ahem. I think that if a male blogger had, in ANY CONTEXT, made those remarks then the proverbial shit would have hit the fan. In any case, the extracts have nothing to do with the argument about women in the Army but instead are “assertions”—assertions I found rather “interesting”.
In other words, there is NO context in which someone who believes in gender equality as opposed to superiority can make those statements.
In your comment you have commented upon the men vs women in the Army which is a totally orthogonal issue to the one I have written this post on. Which is why I am not commenting on it here—maybe a subsequent post will do justice to it.
I completely agree with you on that one. In fact it reminds me of something else. While studying from Operating Systems Concepts by Galvin/Silberschatz/Gagne, the programmer, or any other human character is referred to as a “she” in the sixth editon. Everytime I encounter this “she”, it rings a remote alarm bell. Not that I find it annoying, but it seems absolutely foolish. Forgive me, dear womens’ rights activists, but sadly and tragically, a majority of the world’s programmers are men. I agree, that the best they could manage was just a bug-ridden Microsoft Windows, but the truth still stands.
The point I wish to make here, and I am in complete agreement with you, is that if men are such a useless bunch of people, then in a thousand years men will be wiped out from the face of the earth and the world will be full of dildo-wielding lesbians, who dont know how to produce children. It is not pretenders like Annie who need liberation, but those really oppressed women in the villages who need it.
Annie is just another of these “misandrists”- if there is anything like one, who loves to bait upon the male species.
[Edited out by Blog Owner: Let’s not get personal about any blogger here, Harsh. I have edited the next two sentences out–the edit does not alter the point you wish to make—]
Likening every man to a worthless criminal, feels exactly like likening every woman to a whore.
“Have you seen what Greatbong has written”, the email said. So I came running over.
You’re on the button.
But my point about journalism was different, and I believe your post only affirms it. Journalism must serve to make people think. (What was it that somebody said? “Journalism must comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable”). The best journalists stir you up, give you provocative things to think about, etc.
So when I pointed to Annie’s piece approvingly, I was not saying “This is a beautiful piece of writing”, or “I completely agree with all she says”. I was saying “Here’s something that will make you think and react.” It’s Annie’s ability to do that consistently that makes her a journalist I respect.
On a related note: couple of years ago, I did a review of Suketu Mehta’s “Maximum City”. Here are some lines from that review: Before I read it, someone at a discussion described this book as “literature”. That put me faintly on edge. … It is Mehta’s great achievement, and I mean this as high praise, that this doesn’t come across as literature, just literature. Maximum City is a tour-de-force of journalism, of measuring and reporting the rhythms of my city.
I know lots of people who didn’t like “Maximum City”. I know very few who didn’t take away something to think about from it.
Too cool…
I totally agree with the fact that female chauvinism is seen by people as liberating while Male Chauvinism is seen as potentially barbaric…
GB,
Now now haven’t you read 1984 and Animal Farm.
You should have been aware of the game by now.
Patrix,
Women physcially weaker than men holds good only in duties that actually need physical labor and we know that not all duties in the army need that
If that is the case why not do away with the requirement of physical tests (for both men and women) for those jobs altogether (which do not require physical labour)
Regards
GB, the trouble here is the concept of equality DOES NOT exist in a socitey….every body knows for a fact that he or she is either superior or inferior to the person he is being compared to…..the concept that should be preached is tolerance (indifference actually)…”till you are not troubling me, you are entitled to what u think!”
All sexes are equal, but some of them are more equal than the others.
That is why we have separate ladies’ queues at ticket counters, ladies’ compartments in trains, ladies’ seats in buses. Nowhere do we have a “gents’ compartment” or a “gents’ only queue” or “gents’ only seats”. Ladies make use of the “general” ones as well. After all we are equal, right? Who ever heard of a lady leaving her “general” seat in a bus for a (physically sound) gentleman?
And try to get onto a ladies’ compartment! There have been incidents where men were pushed off running local trains because they climbed onto a ladies’ compartment in hurry.
@Arnab
What can we say? After that masterpiece of illogic on reservations, the redoubtable Anne Zaidi is at it again!
@DilipD
The point of journalism is not just to provoke reaction and I take issue with your characterizing as such. If that were the case then each article and book by Ann Coulter will also have to characterized as “fine” journalism. Anne’s article is nothing but political correctness run amock, where just being female gives her the right to say anything against men and get away with it.
And you (and so called enlightened and progressive journos like you) let her (and others like her) get away with it, maybe as Arnab implies, to atone for the misogynistic history of your (our) forefathers…
Whether women should be in the army is a different question and Anne does women no favours by her statements. If she is representative of a gender who wants to be in the army, then I would be deeply suspicious to letting them in any kind of decision making position.
We, as Indians have let the country down at every point. We have not been able to stop infighting and get on with buliding a future. It is either lower castes v/s upper castes, hindus v/s muslims, and holy cow…. men v/s women. We have to make sure that everyone is either pulled down or taken apart. if anything works, we have to break it. If anything is broke, we wont fix it.
Point is, it does not matter who gets in to the army. Only criteria should be phyiscal & mental capability along with the right intentions of the country.
Why shoul there be relaxation of rules for women. Let the physical tests be the same. Let them fight it out. If you cannot compete with your fellow men, dear ladies, the enemy is not going to spare you an inch.
And if you are good enough, you know what, the enemies across the border, will have a tough time explaining to their superiors that they got beat down by a woman. More demoralizing than losing Kashmir , I guess. But to do all that, please compete on an even keel with our men. No one in the country is unwanted (except traitors of course and mischief mongers). Please dont make it sound as if you being victimised. If the army sees a number of cases of women not being able to cope with the rigors of the army, then they have to take some action, else the human rights vultures ( yes, right they are vultures , nothing else) will descend upon them and hold them culpable of treating women with such disregard. Who is to say that the same blogger , Miss Annie Zaidi wont come out of the woodwork and say that women are being ill treated in the army and that there should be separate tests for them.. Hell with qualty and to hell with equality. We want represenataion……
equality is a myth. its like the concept of a warfree world. note, i am not saying peace. such concepts are multilayered and interconnected.
Hiee Arnab,
off the topic,sorry..
And how’s you? You’re one of my family members,,just go and visit my blog for details…
thank you..
@DilipD
I completely agree with you when you say that textual pieces like “men live trapped in men’s bodies” is provocative and makes the reader think. It not only makes you think but also makes you read it again and again to understand what the meaning is. You are a MAN (hope that does not hurt) of good taste. Bin Laden is so provocative, Kiran More is provocative too.
Agree with you on almost every account GB. I have as much of a problem with misandry as I have with misogyny. The way for women to realize their potential is not to compare themselves to men and assert that for every parameter they score higher.
The fundamental problem has been one of institutions discriminating on the basis of sex. While it’s one thing to patriarchy - it’s quite another to blame men. By insulting men - we’re alienating them from the entire exercise. I personally think it borders on foolish to compare women and men - like you’re comparing race horses.
MERCY!
BRAVO!
Greatbong, in my completely unqualified and foul-mouthed opinion, I think you’d make a fucking fine journalist!
(umm, in case you’re wondering, this means that I think you’ve written a great response).
Hey GB u are one of MY family member too…please add me to your blogroll
Muslim league one accused BJP of being a communal party.
so much to say about secularism in india
its simple..fundamental really…as the saying shows:- “Show me the person and i will show you the law” just as men will be men, women will be women, birds and bee gotogether…..this law is universally applicable!!
Greatbong:
Bravo!
Women & The Army Dept:
I believe that referring to the purported discrimination against women in the army into this post doesn’t make any sense. Whichever way you look at it, it doesn’t come across as the fundamental problem, if we confine our discussion to this post.
The way I percieve it, this post comes across as a general comment on the acceptability of an anti-male attitude/misandry in the society, which talks so glowingly about equality otherwise. As Greatbong rightly pointed out, regardless of the context, “The trouble is that men live trapped in men’s bodies (and of course, they don’t have a choice in the affair) which makes them utterly incapable of forming rational, logical views on the subject of strength, fortitude, courage etc.” was an indepented assertion fully qualified by itself.
That assertion, and “As a woman and a citizen, I can say two things with certainty. One, that if an army requires strength, courage or sheer tenacity, women are more fit for the job than men are.” comes across as nothing, but blatant female chauvinism, naturally overlooked by everyone else while showering praise.
If you ask me, Annie has got her foot in the mouth with this one.
I think you have plucked Annie’s words completely out of context.
If you have read her post, you must realise that she wrote as a response to a blatantly sexist post. An indication of this is her asking the question “Does the army really need men?” as a radical counter-point to the question “Does the army need women?” And the fact that she starts off the post mentioning that she is pissed off by that sexist post she refers to.
She argues against the notion that women are fragile creatures who need to be protected by men; men who are the perpetrators of most crimes against women. Biologically, women are the ones who face the most trauma. Before the 20th century medicine, one in three women used to die at childbirth. So, you cannot argue that women cannot take pain or that they lack the mental and physical strength. Physical strength in warfare is immaterial unless you are fighting empty handed. Strength is not required even in a sword fight. To quote some one, “it hardly requires a pound of pressure to break skin [using a sword]”.
Also, even when she is pontificating a radical viewpoint, she says this -
“are women more likely to ask questions, worry about who they’re killing and why, as compared to men?
I wish I could say an emphatic ‘yes!’ … but, I don’t know. Yet, I do know this – if women are more likely to stop and think before killing, then that is all the more reason to have women in the army.”
Note the emphasis on ‘if’ there and the ‘I don’t know’. Hardly sexist…
Plus, if you have read Annie’s post regularly, you would realise that she is not the kind of radical feminist who says that the world does not require men. So, to accuse her of being [reverse-]sexist and her regular readers as being blind is hardly a creditable argument.
I support Dilip’s view that she is a fine journalist. In fact, I would go further and say that she is an exceptional journalist. One who knows how to write effectively about issues that matter. we need more people like her.
PS. I am disappointed with the responses that this post has generated. Misandry is uncommon. Misogyny is exremely common. An indication of this is the popularity of the ‘Great Indian laughter challenge’. If you ever find a joke there that is misandrous, I will be damned.
PPS. Am not saying that misandry is acceptable. Just that it is nearly non-existent compared to the amount of misogyny that goes around…
GB - First time commenter here.
Big Fan of your blog!!
I have a feeling that Annies is being satirical in her post, which essentially was a response to an insensitive post regarding women in the army. The stress is on insensitive(not sexist) and hence her post resorting to the same insensitive tactics from the other side of the court. Exactly what you have written in your post where you replace ‘women’ with ‘men’ - but its not very obvious if youre not a regular follower of her blog.
Spot on, Arnab. You never cease to amaze.
Dilip,
a) Do you or do you not agree with what she says in her post?
b) Do you or do you not agree specifically with the portions from her post that GreatBong has quoted?
A simple yes or no answer, please. Thank you
Hi,
This has nothing to do with Annie’s post, but yours has an inherent logical fallacy. That switch of words you have made shows that you start off with the assumption that men and women have complete equality in society and have had it long enough for inherent biases to be wiped off. That you are ‘replacing equals with equals’. That’s not true. This whole discussion about the Army has started off because historically that’s not been true. So the mere interchanging of words becomes a trifle simplistic, and triggers off silly, predictable responses such as ‘women get ladies seats, special queues’. It’s so much more complex than that, really.
GB,
Some very good points there. Annie might be a fine journalist but clearly she does not as yet have a sense of proportion. She relies more on clever word play rather than logic. However, this was not about the women in army issue as you yourself pointed out. This was about a blatantly sexist statement made by Annie.
Apuva,
I will go further ahead and said she is the finest journalist around. So?
Yes, her post was a reply to a blatantly sexist one. So?
No one if defending what shravan had written, but I am unable to understand why you have defend Annie around when she is in wrong. That is all!
@Nitin
Its a dying sine curve. Men had their time. Women are currently riding the peak and this is the last one. But the great equalizer zero seems nowhere in sight. Like all other facts of life, this may seem unfair, but its true.
And, yes, you DO make a good journalist.
Marauder’s Map
GB post has no such assumption.
His assumption (if it can be called )is that “men and women are equal” not “There is gender equality in society”.
Seriously people should understand that there is a thin line logic and sophistry.
Nitin,
Strange are the ways of journalism and can not be fathomed by mere mortals, it is futile for you to even try
Nitin,
Can’t do “simple yes or no”, no matter how much you amuse your emoticon-happy readers by asking for it. Not least because “Do you or do you not agree“, you will agree, does not permit either yes or no.
(”Do you or do you not agree that Rajesh Khanna acted in Hindi films?” “Yes.” “Yes, what?” “Yes, I do not agree.”)
Nevertheless, I will give it a shot because I believe in trying to answer questions. I realize that’s a rare trait in these parts.
a) I agree with some of it. I don’t agree with some of it.
b) I don’t agree with the first excerpt. I agree partly with the second, and with GreatBong’s transmogrification of it.
31 responses here already. Annie, we need more journalists like you.
Dilip,
Can this emoticon happy reader do one more please?
But seriously speaking, if getting responses is any criterion for deciding the quality of writing then Shravan would be the finest journalist around, no?
I am not questioning Annie’s credentials and I applaud you for answering questions(I hope you share the same sentiments about me) but a wrong is a wrong. Please do note, your approval of Annie’s post carried no such clarification that you recommending it only because it will provoke a response.
I couldn’t resist adding my two cent’s worth.
Personally, I’m still trying to figure out what journalism has to do with any of this. The way I saw it (the way I still see it) Annie’s post was simply a rant - the expression of a strong personal opinion against a fairly execrable post. As far as I’m concerned there’s no information in that kind of a blog post about how good or bad a journalist someone is.
For the record, I do think that the statements quoted here are over the top, and agree with Neha that rants like these do more harm than good to the feminist cause. That said, I do think Annie had provocation, and a number of the other arguments she makes in her post are good ones. None of that excuses the discriminatory statements she’s making, of course, but it explains why I’m willing to cut her some slack, and why I think accusations of misandry are probably excessive.
Finally, on the larger issue of equality more generally, I think the problem is at least partly semantic. As I’ve argued elsewhere on the blogosphere, I think one of the key failings of feminist rhetoric is its tendency to use words like ‘men’ and ‘male’ loosely - making an insufficient distinction between an attitude and a gender (a failing that, sadly, often ends up corrupting the logic of their arguments as well). A lot of the ranting one sees against men is really ranting against patriarchal attitudes (and perfectly justified ranting against patriarchal attitudes at that) and using more generic terms like male / men ends up confounding the issue. laying feminist arguments open to misinterpretation and charges of discrimination and misandry, and causing the movement to lose crucial male support. To the extent that gender inequality is a reality, the rhetoric against gender discrimination will always be one-sided (as will positive action taken to correct the imbalance) but we’d all be better off, as GB suggests, not dealing in stereotypes - either about men who hate women or about women who hate men.
Arnab,
First up let me point out that out of the 37 comments made thus far, 5 are by my namesakes. My comment will mean approximately 16% of the posts are by people bearing my name. That is grossly disproportional to the percentage of people bearing my name amongst the blogging population of India, and hence I feel guilty of perpetuating social injustice.
OK, getting serious…
Arguments which are reverse-discriminatory are in fact very damaging to the very concept of equality, since such arguments can be shredded to pieces by someone like you and rightly so.
Having said that, while I feel the Lafave case and the response to female teachers guilty of sex with minors is a classic example of that very hypocrisy and double standards, I do not think Annie’s post deserves to be tagged as such. I find the post to be well short of crossing the line in that regard, especially considering the context.
I also think that in these modern times, when a hand-to-hand fight is not the dominating method of military combat, it should be fairly easy to find several women who will fit realistic criteria of serving as soldiers and/or officers. Basic physical fitness is not solely the domain of the male, even genetically speaking. Armies of today are not necessarily made up of the world’s strongest men, in terms of brute force.
I find any attempt to use Sushmita Chakraborty’s suicide as a tool to even start a debate about women in the army (either for or against it) as idiotic, irrational and bigoted. As if men never commit suicides. A suicide is a personal decision, and I do not see it linked with one’s gender.
I just realised that you said that the issue of women in the army is orthogonal to this one, so please treat the previous two paras also as orthogonal to this debate.
@confused: as someone said, Annie’s post was satirical. By giving a radically opposite viewpoint, she makes you think.
Her post reminded me of a short story written by a Bengali female writer in the early twentieth century. Sadly, I do not remember her name or the name of the story. But I do remember her arguments. One of which goes like this - women should not be imprisoned in zenanas to protect them from men because that would be akin to imprisoning the innocent. it is men who should be imprisoned much like lions and tigers are in zoos and national parks, so as to stop them from harming the innocent.
I know you are going to jump all over this as a piece of misandry but her argument is compelling. Tigers are put into cages because they are deemed dangerous, even though it is usually the older and injured tigers that become man-eaters. Preventive detention is used in the case of human beings too. For example, the police would arrest potential miscreants before a certain provocative event.
Plus, it would be a mistake to assume that she is actually suggesting that men be shut into cages. What she is really trying to do is to counter the argument for keeping women in burqas and in the zenanas. Pointing out that this patriarchal argument is fallacious is the intent of the story, and not a cry for a radical social change.*
Annie’s post is exceedingly similar to this story that I mention. Her post basically points out how fallacious the argument of Shravan is. Full. Stop.
@falstaff: I kinda agree with you but I don’t think Annie use of the stereotypes is wrong, mainly because she is pointing out the stupidity of arguing based on stereotypes by deriving a radical counter-view, that is obviously unrealistic, based on those same stereotypes.
I somehow think that Annie’s post has been extremely misunderstood. Most people seem to have taken it as a personal attack on them and not surprisingly, their responses have been defensive.
* Interestingly, if I remember correctly, she wrote this story to impress her husband who was instrumental in getting her educated. He was, needless to day, impressed.
Oops! This must be the worst blooper I ever made. My name is Apurva and not Apuva
Apuva,
congratulations for your pseudo-freudian analysis.
If there was any satire it was missed by everyone.
It was what GB said, it was also what GB did not say (out of politeness) tripe.
I find this (off-topic) debate on the defining ‘good journalism’ as bizarre. Dilip said: 31 responses here already. Annie, we need more journalists like you.
Come again ? If someone makes a blanket statement on their blog: ‘The trouble with having Muslims players in the Indian cricket team is that they are unpatriotic and hence not dependable…..’ (mind you - neither I or anyone else is making that claim - just considering a hypthetical situation) - I am sure that blog will get flooded with comments (if enabled and un-moderated) - mostly against and unfortunately, a few in favor. Especially so if the piece gets picked up by Desipundit or any A-list blogger. But where is the correlation between number of comments (or even the popularity of a blog) and good writing/journalism ?
If this was the case, then a Glenn Reynolds or Kos would have been Pulitzer prize winners many times over.
Coming back to the topic - could not agree more with GB and some other commentors here about how discussions on equality (race or gender) is often hijacked by the ’some are more equal than others’ fallacy.
Having said that, I do believe that anytime a historical minority is allowed entry in a profession or even society at large, there does need to be certain safe guards for that minority. Discrimination against women in army or the workplace in general, both in India and US, is very real. Dealing with it sensitively without going overboard in political correctness is a delicate balance.
First thing first, Greatbong, good post, and a thought provoking one at that…because as you pointed out, it’s true that an article by a male for males will provoke an outrage as opposed to an article by a female for females. In fact, the sunday TOI had recent articles like ‘Women on top, are you men ready?’, which I felt was too juvenile and immatured because all that the article was about was infidelity in marriages and women are catching up with the men there…God, as if that was something to be proud of!
But then, I haven’t read the actual article on which you commented but if it is in reply to a sexist article, naturally it will be sexist too…you cannot blame the person who replies without bringing in the person who provoked the reply…I suppose you can only be fair in pointing out both articles.
@Harsh:
While studying from Operating Systems …. the programmer, or any other human character is referred to as a “she†in the sixth editon. Everytime I encounter this “sheâ€, it rings a remote alarm bell. Not that I find it annoying, but it seems absolutely foolish. Forgive me, dear womens’ rights activists, but sadly and tragically, a majority of the world’s programmers are men.
So, just because a majority of the programmers are male, you need not ridicule or discredit the fact that there are female prgrammers as well. I find it ‘absolutely foolish’ that you have a problem when characters are ’she’ , as then, by your logic, till the 5th edition of that book, there might have been females who would have a problem reading those chatacters as ‘he’.
And yeah, the majority of programmers are male because there are more males who are into science and technology than females, so what’s the big deal here, which is making you gloat? Are other occupations, like teaching or nursing, where women are a majority, so demeaning?
Lastly, this is for ‘Joy forever’, who wrote:
‘That is why we have separate ladies’ queues at ticket counters, ladies’ compartments in trains, ladies’ seats in buses. Nowhere do we have a “gents’ compartment†or a “gents’ only queue†or “gents’ only seatsâ€. Ladies make use of the “general†ones as well. After all we are equal, right? Who ever heard of a lady leaving her “general†seat in a bus for a (physically sound) gentleman?’
Well, women do have separate queues, seats and compartments, and don’t pretend to be naiive or outraged about it, they have these ’separate’ places because otherwise they would be victims of so-called ‘eve teasing’ or rather, more simply put, sexual harassment. It is out of necessity and not as a favour, so don’t try to make it into an issue when there is none. If men could behave themselves in these places, there wouldn’t have been the necessity of ’separating’ queues, seats and compartments.
Sigghsss.. Dilip is here too. I wonder how many discussions has this person spoiled with his inane logic.
Now the discussion will disintegrate to an India bashing rant soon, and everyone will be frothing seeing Dilip repeat the same things again and again in different words. And of course, Desi Godwins Laws apply too. Just replace Hitler with our very own Modi.
Battles of the sexes is only fair when the fairer sex wins it.
@gaurav:
uh? Freud, really? Where?
“If there was any satire it was missed by everyone.”
But you don’t _represent_ everyone!
Apurva,
“I somehow think that Annie’s post has been extremely misunderstood. Most people seem to have taken it as a personal attack on them and not surprisingly, their responses have been defensive.”
This is called freudian analysis.
By everyone I meant everyone who was not amused with this piece of fine journalism. My bad.
good post. agree with great bong.
If the govt. can discriminate between people based on math/phy/chem marks etc. Why can’t they discriminate people based on gender. As claimed by Annie in her post - if women can be superior to men in some aspects - they can also be inferior in other aspects?
Borrowing somebody’s joke - It is like women wanting equal rights to be a p e n i s model.
maybe women simply just fail the physical test, which conveniently appears as “excluded” in media.
Someone here remarked that using a “She” was ridiculous. Well, in all honesty - I find using a “He” always rather ridiculous. Like Man discovered how to make a fire, Man invented the Wheel, Man discovered agriculture and Man harnessed the power of water. When you talk to ten year olds and ask them to draw a picture of the discovery of fire they ALWAYS draw one man bent over a pile of sticks or with a flint in hand.
Woman is as likely to have invented the wheel. And yet why do people cringe when they read “Woman invented wheel and it revolutionized how humanity could do work”. Why is the word man more representative of humanity than woman?
I don’t think Annie’s post and the sexual assault bit can be drawn up as neat parallels. Child Sexual Abuse, regardless of sex - is when an adult sexually abuses a person under the age of 16. However, I don’t agree with Annie’s post on comparing men and women either. I can’t help but wonder if there is an element of satire to it. Journalism it isn’t - opinion at best.
Apurva: “I somehow think that Annie’s post has been extremely misunderstood. Most people seem to have taken it as a personal attack on them and not surprisingly, their responses have been defensive.”
And why do you think that is? My whole point is that it’s because she’s using stereotypes that she’s getting that reaction. It’s unrealistic to say that ‘men’ are “utterly incapable of forming rational, logical views” and then not expect them to get defensive. The sad part is that she’s making some good arguments in the rest of her post, but because she chooses to deal in stereotypes she undermines her own credibility.
Oh, and I’m fairly sceptical about the satire argument - if the post was meant to be satirical I would say it was extremely bad satire. And to GB’s point, if we’re willing to assume that Annie’s post was satirical, then why not assume that Shravan’s initial post was satirical too? We could then say that Shravan’s post has been extremely misunderstood, most people have taken it as a personal attack and not surprisingly their responses have been defensive (not that I believe that for a moment). Why not give them both the benefit of the doubt (here’s the crucial word): equally? :-).
Falstaff,
I am not defensive, I am quite incapable of any rational thought :-).
I am deriving malicious pleasure from the hiding the “fine journalist” and “the messiah of poor” got from GB
@falstaff: Agreed that Annie’s post is not exactly a ‘classic’ satire. In fact, I would have to stretch the meaning of satire to catagorise her post as one.
But her use of stereotypes is a deliberate undermining of the stereotypes themselves. Maybe, it wasn’t as obvious as I thought it to be…
It’s unrealistic to say that ‘men’ are “utterly incapable of forming rational, logical views†and then not expect them to get defensive.
I didn’t. I find this a very individual response but just that the majority of those who responded this way happen to be men. Reason: On its own, this sentence seems to imply that the writer is a bigoted person who thinks all men are dumb. But in the context in which it was written in, ie, as a response to Shravan’s assertion that the army is about physical tenacity, violence, physical rigor, and many other such characteristics that go with being men.
Both the statements are ridiculous which is exactly the point.
Men arn’t all brawn. Men arn’t all brain either. Women likewise.
I, personally, would not characterise myself as physically fit. Maybe my Y gene has been corrupted.
why not assume that Shravan’s initial post was satirical too?
I just had a ‘d’oh’ moment when I read that.
@gaurav: Still not convinced. Even if that last statement of mine was indeed a piece of Freudian analysis, firstly, how is it pseudo, and secondly, how is it that you dismissed my entire comment pseudo-freudian when it was the last bit that you point to?
btw, I never said that her post was journalistic. I was actually referring to her real journalistic pieced that get published in the magazine, Frontline.
Arnab,congrats dude,you have done it once again.The hornet’s nest has been sturred to the right oscillation and now let me sit back and watch the swirling comment section.Reminds me of the Crichton novel Disclosure.But then again it’s a blogging world where all we do is type and type.At the end of the day there will still be leagues of fuming feminists, macho MCPs and a few good men and women torned in between.
Apurva,
I quoted it “out of context”
Apurva,
As Falstaff pointd out that Annie’s piece was not a satire. She has made a serious argument against Shravans illogical and sexist statements.
Why should a sexist statement countered by another sexist one? I would have thought that Shravans little tripe would be so easy rip apart that you did not need to make a sexist argument at all.
If I am told that because I am a man I am unable to comprehend a woman’s issue, then well, you lose me. That is all.
@Bongo,
bang on bro! lovely.
Women are not equal to men, not physiologically not psychologically.
A woman having sex with a young boy is different from a man having
sex with a young girl for the simple reason that the emotional responses
are different, and consequently the psychological effects are different.
The silly thing is that this is something we know quite well from our everyday interactions, but
on putting ink to paper we suddenly insist on the existence a fantasy.
I do not think it is morally correct to insist on two beings with different innate instincts and physiologies to be treated to the same behavioral standard. It is perhaps even stupid to insist so.
GB
“Bravo†,â€Applause†and other assorted encomiums.
Confused,
“If I am told that because I am a man I am unable to comprehend a woman’s issue, then well, you lose me. That is all.”
Ahaa sparks are still there
@confused:
Why should a sexist statement countered by another sexist one?
*sigh* Why is that I feel I am talking to a wll whenever you are involved?
If I am told that because I am a man I am unable to comprehend a woman’s issue, then well, you lose me. That is all.
Ah! You take her words quite literally. It was not meant to be (atleast I think so).
@Apurva,
Fine. We can agree to disagree.
btw, it makes me go duh! too.
It would have been better of course if Annie herself had defended her post instead of you knowing and thinking everything on her behalf.
But from her past record, she never will.
Have a good one.
Well, enough anatomy of both the posts has already been done, but I dont think there can ever be a comprehensive all-points-discussed-and-mutually-agreed-upon kind of discussion. ‘I’ is ego, and till it remains live (God! let it..’we’ stinks.. amen), there will always be a debate - who is superior and who isn’t.
In my view, “equality” should be replaced with the now notorious “equal opportunity”. The meaning of this term has been skewed much by certain Arjun Singh…but anyway, I believe in it the following way:
Let there never be an aggreement on who is superior, and lets just see each men-women-oppressors-oppressed as egos. Let them play the game akin to Last Man (oops) Standing, Let the egos clash to the point one prevails over the others. Let there be no cheat-codes of reservations in this game, and who ever wins takes away the Girl (oops again)
@Harsh: Though the idea of dildo-wielding lesbians wandering the world is rather arousing, I dont think we will come to that. And in our politically correct age, perhaps we need to create a 3rd gender-neutral pronoun—-I propose using “it”.
@DilipD: The response to your comment has already been made very eloquently if I might say so by others in the commentspace. Repeating what they in essence said, I do not think that good journalism lies in making people “react”. Anne Coulter makes people react. Narendra Modi makes people react (and think). Would their writings and speeches make for “fine” journalism just because they make you stop, think and react?
@Scipio: Stemming from a notion of faux-”liberalism” if I might say so.
@Gaurav: Yes I know some people are more equal than others……I just wish they would actually keep up the pretence of “equality” .
@Gourav: True.
@Joy Forever: Well all I can say is that if a woman genuinely believes in equality, then she should not sit in the Men’s section when the Woman’s section is full.
@Shan: Aah well.
@Anon: Again the point here was not whether women are suitable for all sections of the Army. I deliberately did not discuss the original issue for fear of obfuscating the main point.
@Jedi: Perhaps so.
@Gangadhar: I am fine thank you. I am honored to be a part of your family.
@Neha: Agreed totally with your first comment. Now with respect to the second,
you said:
Why are they not parallels? My point is that media and public reaction varies according to the sex of the 15 year old—just as it does when the male and the female word are interchanged from Annie’s post.
@TTG: Fuckin good man.
@Gourav: LOL. Is this the last scene of “Yaadon ki Baraat” ? Do you see me playing a guitar?
@Pegasus: The pot calling the kettle black.
@Satyajit: Bird and bees go together?
@Vulturo: Thank you
@Apurva:
Plucked out of context? Right. Absolutely. Of course by providing a link back to her post, I have allowed people to read the context—-but of course you wouldnt care for that.
Because you have already honed in on the truth. She wrote this in response to a blatantly sexist post.
Just like Narendra Modi justified the murder of Muslims as a response to Godhra—–one bad deed truly justifies the other just as one act of sexism (I do not think that the original piece was as sexist as Annie Zaidi’s) justifies the other.
Apurva, actually we need more people like you. Misandry is uncommon—perhaps. But we see one glowing example here, no matter how you would like to call it.
@slash: Its strange that so few people got the satire and the sarcasm. I think I am pretty good in understanding such forms of rhetoric —-and I found absolutely none. Except this one in the comments section of Annie’s post:
Studies in leading universities in Canada and the United States have repeatedly shown that women do not have a penis.
On second thoughts, I am not so sure.
@Nazim.k : Thank you
@debOLiN:
@Marauder’s Map: No its not more complicated than that. As I said, Annie’s words have no bearing with the Army—they are just flat, sexist assumptions. Whether women have it easy or hard is not germane to the issue. Saying that men are incapable of strength, fortitude and courage cannot logically follow from historical wrongs against women.
It is indeed disappointing (since I do admire your blog) that you would seek to justify this kind of writing.
@Confused: Right….
@Ali: Do I ?
@Falstaff: I would be very much curious if this happened:
A blogger A, based on an outrageous statement by a Maulvi (say a fatwa against Sachin Tendulkar) goes on a rant against Muslims (saying how they lack courage and judgement etc etc).
People come and say: ” I do not agree with the discriminatory statements A is making but I am willing to cut A some slack considering the outrageous statements of the maulavi. Accusations of communalism are probably excessive.”
Yes I would like to see that happen.
@Gaurav:
Oh dear…so many proud Gauravs here—-all in my family of course. As you pointed out, the point of this post is NOT the debate over the role of women in today’s army but certain ad-hoc sexist statements made by a certain blogger (and as I have taken pains to point out: this cannot be justified as a reaction—if it is then Gujrat and Delhi 1984 can also be rationalized).
@BongoPondit: Couldnt have said this better.
@Apu: One wrong does not justify another. I beseech you to read the post Annie’s post was in reaction to and compare the shrillness in their tones.
@Shadows: I dont think we will get to India-bashing in this comments section. Modi—I have already brought him in…but not to compare any of the discussants with Modi.
@Suyog: And when there is a lot of fair sex in it.
@Hawkeye: True….discrimination is all around the world… and some of it is essential.
@Apurva: No the satire is not as obvious as it should be. And I have been saying D-oh moments too—-and I have been having them while going through some of your comments.
@Bishu: Stirring the hornet’s nest is much fun…as they would say in JU—”Bawali hobe…..”
@Seven_Times_Six: Awesome. This comment should be highlighted.
What if its a man fondling a boy? How about the emotional response there Mr 42? Dont let the kinky appeal of the older woman–younger boy coupling cloud your judgement here.
I felt a bit sick reading your comment.
@Deepa: Now that would not be sarcasm, would it?
@VNS: Didn’t quite get the point…
GreatB: The response to your comment has already been made very eloquently if I might say so by others in the commentspace. Repeating what they in essence said, I do not think that good journalism lies in making people “reactâ€. Anne Coulter makes people react. Narendra Modi makes people react (and think). Would their writings and speeches make for “fine†journalism just because they make you stop, think and react?
Just because the response was made by others doesn’t make it right.
Annie makes people think. Annie is able to do that consistently. (My opinion, of course). Those are the things I said about her. These things, I believe, make her a good journalist.
I don’t believe I could say those things about Coulter/Modi.
@Dilip: I dont think I can say that about Annie either. Her piece, characterized by a form of virulent chauvinism (and let’s not get into the action-reaction chestnut here), is absolutely Coulterish and Modish…that you choose not to see it is of course your choice.
I am sure that Modi says had made you think—-the revulsion to Hindutva that you have always conveyed through your writings for the last 6-7 years was ,I presume, born out of thoughts triggered by the actions/speeches of the Hindu Right.
Arnab: just a note of caution - the word “journalist” is rather loosely used in Indian blogosphere
delightful as ever …
GreatB: “those things”. I said two things about Annie. She has a body of work. I have read some of it. For “those things” and for other reasons that I’ve noticed in that body of work, I believe she is a good journalist.
I don’t believe I can say those things about Coulter/Modi.
If this has to be reduced to a comparison to Coulter/Modi, I’ll let you do it. I’m not interested.
Studies in leading universities in Canada and the United States have repeatedly shown that women do not have a penis.
On second thoughts, I am not so sure.
I await with baited breath the release of your sexual memoirs, o greatbong.
P.S - Apologies for the blatant “misquoting” for the purpose of conjuring up an innuendo.
@ GB: If we compare the number of comments to your blog and how detailed they are, with those of Annie’s blog for this topic; it’s obvious who has a written a ‘better’ journalistic piece according to Dilip D’Souza’s criteria of “making people think and react”.
I guess if DD calls you a ‘fine journalist’, you would be pacified and comforted!
I have never been interested in blogs…but last week, I read one of your blogs and ever since I’ve been hooked.
Good blog, this one, as always.
———————————————————–
By the way, I tried reading Annie’s piece and frankly speaking I don’t see what was so fine about it. It was filled with the usual cliched illogical female chauvinistic horse-shit about the “pain of child-birth” and “women in Rajasthan carrying water for 20 kms”. I gave up before I could even finish. Nothing original or witty or thought provoking about it and too full of illogical ideas to even want to leave a comment there.
GB,
You can’t expect people to react the same way to similar kinds of posts by men and women. It has been my experience that most ( civilized ) men tend to be more sympathetic to women than other men; and women ( except nutty feminists ) treat men and women equally. Thus, the world being male dominated contributes ironically to life being harder for men. I hate this but that is how people seem to function.
The west - the kind of free individualistic society you seem to uphold in many a libertarian post - seem to be becoming increasingly anti-male ( some of the issues are listed here). Inspite of sensible organizations like i-feminists that strive for genuine equality the male-bashing trend is what seems to be getting stronger. And I think that is the way a free individualist society will proceed - it won’t behave sanely. So much for championing freedom etc.
7*6 : you have made this same comment before in ravikiran’s blog. Do you have any concrete suggestions on what kind of difference there should be in treatment?
Neha : If you had as much problem with misandry as with misogyny how is it that you yawn for one post and link the other in global voices with a favourable language? This is downright hypocrisy ( while I don’t agree with shravan but going by the language etc. I don’t think he was nearly as vituperative as Annie ).
@GB:
Just like Narendra Modi justified the murder of Muslims as a response to Godhra—–one bad deed truly justifies the other just as one act of sexism (I do not think that the original piece was as sexist as Annie Zaidi’s) justifies the other.
And I have been saying D-oh moments too—-and I have been having them while going through some of your comments.
I see… It looks like I either failed to put my point across or there has been a complete failure of understanding. I would just say that you are mistaken…
My previous comment here brought two responses apart from GB’s… so I’ll try to answer them.
@The Marauder’s Map: You said, “So the mere interchanging of words becomes a trifle simplistic, and triggers off silly, predictable responses such as ‘women get ladies seats, special queues’.” Yes, those are silly, and predictable too. Because they are true. You rightly said, the issue is much more complex. If so, then why try to oversimplify it by creating stereotypes out of men?
…which brings me to the second response.
@Apu: You said Well, women do have separate queues, seats and compartments, and don’t pretend to be naiive or outraged about it, they have these ’separate’ places because otherwise they would be victims of so-called ‘eve teasing’ or rather, more simply put, sexual harassment. It is out of necessity and not as a favour, so don’t try to make it into an issue when there is none. If men could behave themselves in these places, there wouldn’t have been the necessity of ’separating’ queues, seats and compartments.
Egg-jaktly! How right you are! I have been a daily-passenger in Kolkata local trains, and since I was unable to ‘behave myself’ (being a man), I sexually harassed a woman every day. Sometimes two.
So it’s certainly natural that they’ll be needing separate queues, seats and compartments. Only, it beats me why they come crowding into the general compartments, seats and queues. Maybe they wish to be sexually harassed? Maybe they try to seduce the men? Otherwise how do you justify women sitting on both ladies’ and general seats in a bus while the men are standing (I’ve personally seen this)? Imagine a situation with the roles reversed! And it also beats me why we don’t have a men’s only compartment or queue… they should be protected from sexual harassment by women, right?
Now… did you say women don’t do that? Come on! They are not equal to men then, after all.
GreatBong: I did not make any comment on the psychological effects of men fondling boys, so you can feel as sick as you like by as much extrapolation as you’d like. The fact is, most 14 year old boys wouldn’t be psychologically affected by having sex with 30 year old women, while the reverse does not hold true. That’s all I said, and that’s all I’m going to say. To demand the same punishment to both perpetrators is silly.
FrogInTheWell: perhaps you misunderstood me. I’m not saying they “should” be treated differently. I’m saying it is wrong to say they “should” be treated similarly. There is a subtle but important difference between the two statements: One example of the difference is in the first para.
I’m saying this not so as to rationalize treating women differently in an exploitative fashion; I say this so as to prevent blind ethical passions, removed from reality, from exploitatively forcing women to behave similarly to men.
@Gaurav Sabnis: My sexual memoirs? A blank page? A pamphlet perhaps at the most?
@Gusty: Yes ! So I at last become a fine journalist but not the way I expected.
@FrogInTheWell: True…
@Apurva: Yes I am wrong. Now since we have all logically proved that, can we get on with our lives?
@Seven_Times_Six: Yes I understand it. Boys enjoy sex with older women….which is why they dont get psychologically affected. To demand same punishment to both is silly.
One word: sick.
I am also curious as to how Seven_times_six’s view on boys and the effect of rape on them is not being attacked by “feminists”…
Incidentally, if women fondling boys leaves no effect, then why should men fondling boys be any different?
There