India, Feminism, Law, and Individual Rights

Here is a bunch of musings that can even be seen as an unpopular opinion. So, please assume I am totally ignorant of what am talking about and enlighten me.

I feel Feminism should not be about pushing a woman to do everything a man does.

I see many so-called feminists encouraging women to smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol or sleep around with many men. Firstly, I don’t know if most women want that and, if a woman really wants to do such things, it should be an individual’s choice.

Making it a social fad is a stupid thing — that holds good for men doing it too. Doing anything that harms one’s own physical or mental health, only because it is a fashionable thing to do in the current social situation, is as dumb as it can get.

I think feminism should be about empowering women to do what they really want to do and respecting that choice.

For example, many feminists encourage a girl if she wants to pursue higher studies and not married, but would scoff at girls who choose to get married & settle down. If a girl chooses to pursue art forms like dance or music or takes up a spiritual path full-time, she is likely to be looked at as regressive by many feminists.

Why is this? Are these also not life choices by individuals who can think for themselves? Is feminism only about pushing a female away from femininity and towards masculinity?

What is it that feminists are really advocating? I would like to genuinely understand.

If we talk about opening up opportunities for women to do some things in society, sure — we can perhaps work towards providing opportunities for everyone and give them access to it equally.

But there are many grey areas in this space, that need to be debated & clarified.

The first example is in the case of physically laborious jobs. Men are socially taught to take up such jobs.

Should women choose to get into such jobs, they should be able to. But what happens when she injures herself in such a job? Most blue-collar jobs don’t have good insurance coverage. Does society leave her to suffer because it was her choice in the first place to get into such a job? What is the safety net for her in that case? If the same happens to a man, what is the safety net for him?

Where does an individual’s choice end, because for the law to step in and protect him/her, shouldn’t we know clearly if he/she willingly put himself or herself in danger? When individuals exercise a choice, do they also know how to face the consequences on their own?

As a second example, would you want your daughter or son, to go and work in a bar surrounded by drunken men?

Many might argue that, in this situation, women are unsafe only because of men’s behaviour. So, till most men turn to good behaviour around a lady, (just reminding you that this has not happened so far in the history of humanity) most women wouldn’t want their own daughters to be exposed to such jobs — as a general rule of thumb for that society.

If a woman still chooses to take up such a job, because of whatever her current life situation is, what is the safety net for her if she falls into harm? This is a serious point to consider & debate if such protection has to come through legislative mechanisms.

Again, what happens when such a ‘general guideline’ is later concretized into either a social or a religious rule? Then, even when such an opportunity presents itself, a woman would not be able to exercise it. It becomes oppressive. What is the safety net for her at that time? Should this also not come under legislative control?

If we agree both scenarios should be under the legal purview, should there not be a uniform law code for such social situations, irrespective of one’s religion?

I do not know if the Uniform Civil Code being discussed in India addresses such issues. I feel it should!

Why should Indian law be so fragmented as Hindu laws, Muslim laws, etc. when it comes to individual rights?

As another example, let’s take the case of a girl born in a Hindu family wearing a bindi or a girl born in a Muslim family wearing a hijab. It is one thing to teach your child the benefits of having a bindi or hijab and let her choose to do it or not. But children rarely choose or even get to choose. Most of it happens as a social/family thrust habit from childhood.

There are very few people who even see it as a choice because it is usually seen as a custom or religious rule. When it becomes a social/religious rule, even if a girl wants to, she may not be allowed to not wear a bindi or a hijab. Isn’t that oppressive?

How should such oppression be addressed — under the lens of a social law or under religious laws? Where does religion end and the society or law step in?

Another grey area is gender equality. Many feminists who speak about women getting the right to do what they want to do, in the same breath want men to be the breadwinners of the family or expect men to be in a ‘certain way’.

I am so confused by this ambivalence. Gender equality is providing equal opportunities to both genders to do what they want.

Why can a man not choose to be an at-home-husband and the woman be the breadwinner of the family? Why should women alone transcend the social views of a traditional woman but men can’t?

Anyway, providing equal opportunities to all is still remaining a utopian dream. We have not yet been able to bridge the ever-expanding gap in accessing such opportunities between the rich & the poor, let alone between the two genders.

Let me end my ranting here and let the debate begin 👍 … …