Population First, Mumbai : Newsletter for May 2007
A communications initiative for a balanced, planned and stable population
Nightshift Nonsense
Karnataka state recently decided to take bold new steps to protect women from becoming victims of crime. It seems that rather than tackle the causes of crime or fight the criminals themselves, controlling the potential victims seemed the best way. The creative bods in the government came up with the imaginative solution to ban women from working in shops, hospitality, offices and other businesses after 8 pm. Somewhat inconsistently, the ban did not apply for women who work in IT and Biotech companies. So, unless the women in these industries have particularly good self-defence skills, it appears quite arbitrary why they are not subject to the ban. It is likely that these industries balked when suggestions emerged that the government wanted to remove an important section of their workforce, and so flexed their sizable economic muscle to prevent such ridiculous policies applying to them.
Nonetheless, women in sectors with less political sway would have been discriminated against purely on the basis of their gender. Not only is this a clear example of unjust inequality, but it removes any possibility of having even a minimum degree of equal opportunity for women. It boldly declares that the womans place is in the home and not at work. It also suffers from factual inaccuracy, as it ignores that men are more likely to be victims of crime. We all need protection from crime, and the psychological trauma of physical assault, robbery and rape can be just as severe and debilitating for men as it is for women.
Thankfully, after protests from numerous womens rights groups, the government realised its error and decided to withdraw the act. Instead, it opted for the far simpler and more sensible option of providing safe transport at night. Regardless of this U-turn, it still displays the worrying undercurrent of entrenched sexist values of those who control the state. We should be ready when they emerge again in future policies of various political leaders around the country.
Army Women: Favour-Seeking, Work-Shirking Liabilities
Recently, the military released a report stating that women seek preferential treatment in the armed forces. Based on a survey of women soldiers, their male colleagues and their superiors, it accuses female officers of seeking easier postings and more frequent leave. It also claims that 60% of women in the military routinely bypass the chain of command by attempting to wrangle undue favours from top commanders. Moreover, the report states that women become a professional liability once they get married.
This appears to be a damning indictment of womens ability in the military, but if we look closer, it quickly becomes apparent that we should be suspicious of the findings. First of all, it is clear by the responses that many of the participants of the survey are predominately sexist. They even admit it themselves when they state that women do suffer discrimination in the army. It is depressing but unsurprising that this takes place in an institution where its army vice-chief reportedly stated that the army could do without women .
Its Not Sexism, Women Are Not As Good as Men
While the average Population First newsletter reader may be able to assume that the reason for the discrimination is the entrenched sexist values in the military, Major General Afsir Karim, a retired army officer and defence analyst suggests otherwise. He stated his disbelief that the male officers could possibly be sexist, and instead suggested it has something to do with certain realities which have to be looked at. This in other words means its the womens fault they are being discriminated against.
The structure of the survey exacerbates any discriminative feelings towards the women officers, as it seems to have been framed by a person unaware of this gender bias. For instance, it was asked whether the interviewees believed that women seek preferential treatment, when this invokes the respondents subjective opinions. As a result, the survey only tells us what the opinions of the military are towards women and not the reality of women soldiers behaviour.
Finally, the hilarious claim that two men become a liability when married deserves further examination. Now, even if we forget for the moment that the term a liability is a terribly vague concept, we can see that at least half of all women in India are married by the age of 18, and by the age of 25 this figure leaps to 99% . Not only is this judging a large number of people to be a liability but it also appears to be insinuating that a womans place is in the home and she should stay there. Certainly, she shouldnt be taking risks. This antiquated view simply reinforces gender stereotypes, such as the conception that it is she who should look after the children.
Okay For Nursing, But Not For Fighting
On a similarly enlightened note, Vice Admiral Yogendra Singh recently declared that he believed that women were acceptable in areas such as nursing and administrative work, but not fit to have a role in frontline combat. His reasoning was that in contrast to Western society, India is not yet ready for seeing women casualties or exposing them to the risks of becoming prisoners of war. It may be true that India would be shocked at a female soldiers death, but that is probably because they are such rare occurrences, as well as the sexist attitudes that present men as the protectors of women. Thus, we can probably say that once the public are used to seeing women fight in the front line, they will also see that it is an equal tragedy to the death of a man.
Letting Women to Fight in Close-Combat
There was a recent report in the U.K. justifying the decision to forbid women in close-combat situations. What could the British militarys reason possibly be for this? Was it because women are too weak and feeble to be physically capable of undertaking the required arduous and demanding exertions? Not really, as the report admitted that at least some women have the capacity to reach the necessary levels. Could it then be due to psychological factors that force the soldier to kill a person face to face? Obviously, a woman could not possibly do such a thing because they are too loving and caring. But the British discovered with some shock that this is not true either. They did some research and discovered that women could be equally aggressive and violent as men. So, what possible reason remains for banning women in close combat? The politician whose job was to make these decisions didnt know, and so passed the buck to the military top brass (who incidentally are all males) and reached the conclusion that the inclusion of women would be bad for morale.
Now, there are numerous reasons why the British could try to justify their sexist attitudes, but the damage to morale is a curious response. The same reasoning was employed in the US when there was uproar over allowing black troops fight alongside white troops. It was claimed that due to racist attitudes held by many soldiers, morale would be hit. For this to hold water, the following arguments would need to be forgotten. Fighting alongside those with differences can help increase understanding. Damage to morale is likely to be short term. It is likely that there will be numerous societal benefits by the installing a principle of equality of opportunity.
First, as a symbolic gesture, it shatters the belief that women need to be protected by men, and so it is beneficial in itself. Second, it would potentially have positive repercussions for the rest of society. For example, it may encourage more women to apply for other areas of the army, as they will feel that they will be less likely to be discriminated against. As a consequence the gender imbalance in all sections of the military will hopefully be corrected. Outside the military, more women may aspire for careers in fields which have traditionally been the domain of men, indeed it may help to remove the shackles of having certain jobs for certain sexes. We would all benefit from this, as then the best people would find themselves in the best jobs and yes, many of the best people are women. There are numerous examples of successful women, in nearly all industries (the military being one exception). The late Indian born astronaut Kalpana Chawla shows us how for the potential of womens careers, the stars are the limit.
This distrust of women’s ability in combat appears to be a recent development too. Remember, Indian women were actively involved with combat situations in battles for independence. Colonel Lakshmi Sahgal, formerly in Subhash Chandra Boses Indian National Army stated that women are fit for combat duty and that those women who fought the British fought bravely, and on many occasions better than men, even in the face of heavy aerial bombing.
Key facts on the Indian military:
There are 1,468 women currently serving in the military.
Out of 40,000 officers, 918 are women.
100 of the 6,000 navy officers are women
454 of the 15,000 air force officers are women.
Tell us what you think:
Should women be able to fight in the military? Do you think they are worse at this sort of work? Why do you think the government thought it was a good idea to ban women from working at night? Email us at: info@populationfirst.org
Opinion
Here are some responses from our readers to the April 2007 e-newsletter in which we questioned the opposition to sex education:
“There can be no sane or sensible argument against sex education for children. However, like in anything else so much depends on the teacher and the way the subject is taught. Weak and shoddy handling can wreck this program. For example answers to queries raised by the children, access to any individual counselling if requested, size of class etc., This aspect does not get the kind of attention as it deserves and often results in failure of the basic purpose.” – Shankar Ghose
“(Sex education) Must be made compulsory.” – Krishan Khanna, Chairman & Founder, i Watch
“Sex education helps to understand the dos and donts. It helps to stop sexual abuse. Girls would not get lured and this would prevent their trafficking for sexual exploitation. Sex education would lead to cultural development of the country. It can not be and should not be stopped at any cost.” Chandrasen Turkar
“I strongly agree to sex education in schools. I feel adolescents should be made aware of the changes in their bodies and are entitled to know about the changes through knowledgeable instructors in imparting this information. I believe by educating all the youth, both boys and girls alike, in small villages and big cities about the consequences of unwanted and unplanned pregnancies and unprotected sex, we could significantly reduce sexually transmitted diseases and health risks that come with them.” Bharathi Tallury
Email – newsletter@populationfirst.org