A more controversial one among the many uncommon views that I hold has to do with gender, gender-difference, gender-specific values and roles, and the so called “gender equality”. Having realized that my take on the subject has the potential to hurt the sentiments of many who hold this subject close to their heart (as opposed to their brain, let’s say) I usually try to avoid discussions on this subject with all except a few who I know can appreciate the worth of an idea and the reason in a line of thought even when they do not necessarily agree with it. But something I saw recently made me want to write about this today. Also I count my readers among the select few who are adept at handling ideas that are radically different from their own without burning their feelings.  So this is perhaps the right place to vent my thoughts.

In the last two or three days I found a video that was shared by many of my friends and endorsed by many others (by their valuable likes, of course) which talked, in a characteristically unabashed manner, on how many crimes against women these days are rooted in (and promoted by) what they called “gender-policing”. An example that they gave was telling a man who is crying that men don’t cry. Another illustration was from a movie in which the hero does not fall in love with a “boyish” girl, but later “rewards” her with his love when she begins to dress and behave like a woman. The creators of the video particularly took offense at the hero telling the heroine (I wonder till when it will be politically correct to use these two words that are indicative of the gender) that she has finally become a girl. They go on to note that the mindset which rewards a girl for behaving like one is also the mindset which would punish her for being otherwise. And then they crown it with their “finding” that many of the sexual crimes against women are an attempt by those having the said mindset to teach the women who don’t meet their acceptance criteria a lesson. To prove this theory, they claim that the accused in one of the most heinous among the recently reported such crimes said, that their motivation was to teach their victim a lesson for hanging out with her male friend when it was too late in the evening. The conclusion drawn is that to stop crimes against women, gender-policing must be checked.

What surprised me was not that there are people who can come up with such unfounded theories, but that there are many sensible, educated folks subscribing to it without much of an independent validation. I don’t expect my readers to agree to everything I say, but only to consider the arguments I put forth and make up their mind based on their own analysis.

Let me start with what they call gender-policing. When my daughter grows up I will tell her that it is not good for a girl to go out skimpily clad or to be alone with a boy (In fact, if I have a boy I’d tell him even more emphatically that he shouldn’t be alone with a girl, since it’s more dangerous for a boy these days; with a passing allegation, any woman can bring down even the most powerful of men), that as a girl she should try to be at least reasonably good at cooking, and so on. This is among the many expectations I have from her, like being honest, to be loving and caring, and several others. As every parent does (and must do), I will reward her when she lives up to this standard, and correct her if she falters. The reason I do this is that these are the traditional values that I am brought up in, which I consider to be the wisdom of ages that can keep her happy. And I want her to be happy.

Values are what we value. They are diverse, varying from person to person, time to time, and land to land. I do not believe that they (or at least all of them) are rigid and universal. They are often subjective but they are close to our heart (yes, I agree). When we bring up our children we try to bring them up in the values we believe in. It could be traditional values for some, or ideals like socialism or feminism for some others. I would tell my daughter to behave like a woman just as a feminist would try to inject her ideas of equality into her son. The hero of that movie (referred to in the video) has as much right to chose a woman who is to his liking (because she fits his concept of an ideal woman) as a feminist has to reject a life partner who is not compatible with her values. I don’t see how one case is different from the other, and why one needs to be classified as gender-policing and branded evil.

This rewarding and punishing is natural and okay as long as the intention behind it is sincere (like someone sincerely wants their boy to grow up into a man or the hero who has sincere expectations of the woman in his life) and the means to dispense this reward and punishment are acceptable.  It should not depend on what the specific values are. For example, if a man who wants his wife to be a homemaker and a woman who wants her husband to support her in her career reward each other by way of mutual rejection, why should the former be blamed of gender-policing and the latter be complemented for having the guts to stick to her stand? So, do we agree that gender-policing (not a very positive term, but I’ll stick with what the creators of that video used because we know better than to be misled by names) and the system of reward and punishment that accompanies it are not different from any of the other values that different people follow? (If not, leave a comment and let me know why, so that we can discuss further)

Just as we agree that having a gender-aware value system is not bad in itself, we can also agree that committing a crime against somebody for any reason including their not following the values that you abide by is totally unacceptable. However, the only thread in that video that seeks to establish a connection between gender-policing and the crime is the supposed statement of an accused in one of the crimes. Yes, for the sake of convenience, let me accept their claim that the accused in one of the numerous crimes being committed did say that their motivation was to punish a girl who was doing something (they felt) she shouldn’t be (which is, being out with a male friend in late hours). Firstly, should we trust them when they cite this as the reason behind their crime? Could they not be hiding a deeper motive which they are unwilling to reveal or do not even realize? Can the motive of someone under the influence of alcohol be even traced to his notions of right and wrong when they’re sober? Now, if the accused had claimed that their motive was to punish a woman for strangling her baby, does that mean it is bad to have a values system that does not approve of a woman strangling her child, or does it mean that the crime is justified in this case?

To recap and rephrase the two arguments from above against the connection drawn in the video, first of all we do not know if the crime is actually motivated by a gender-specific values system as claimed. Further, even if it is, the authority of the values system does not decide the acceptability of a crime, nor does the heinousness of the crime determine the merit of the values system that was used to justify the crime or even triggered it. So the line of reason (or lack of it) proposed in the video is unsustainable and misleading. In fact, the heinousness of the crime and the public rage against it is being used by the creators of the video (quite cunningly) to manipulate general acceptance of a traditional value system that they are personally against (for no better reason than it being incompatible with their own value system – were we discussing punishment for non-conformance?)

While it is understandable for people to oppose and attack what they do not agree with (just as I am writing this critical response to a video I do not approve of), using a crime and another’s tragedy as a tool for this hurts the prospects of preventing or reducing such tragedies in future. It leads us to fight a wrong battle, wasting our resources and letting the actual problem survive. For example, alcohol is one of the most decisive influences in many such crimes – by clouding reason and making it difficult to distinguish right from wrong, as well as by hiding the consequences of the crime from the view of the perpetrators. Restricting sale and use of alcohol can help much more in reducing such crimes than gaining social acceptability for a woman to go into a pub and drink can!

Our core traditional values are the pillar that is holding our society from collapsing even after its walls have crumbled. The crimes are not because of the values we still hold on to, but the ones that we have let go of. To put an end to these crimes, what we need to do is not scrap the remaining values, but to reclaim the lost ones. The same shortsighted selfishness which makes people pursue their own happiness even at the cost of breaking families or hurting others is the motivation behind crimes in which the perpetrator is willing to destroy the victim’s (and his own) happiness for the sake of ephemeral pleasure. Love, compassion, service, selflessness, and non-violence are the values that we need to inculcate in the young to build a world that will be free from crime and suffering. It might be an impossible goal to reach; nevertheless, it is a dream worth following.