Thread by @vsirnate

This is my considered response to Manu Joseph's column titled "Many women don't adore the idea of men: Now what?" I am writing this in the spirit of opening a conversation about the issues raised and as an Indian woman, who often throws words like "patriarchy" around.

Thread!

The column starts with this "After the death of some elderly Indian men, their widows grow healthier, their eyes flaunt life, and their skin glow." I am not sure what this is meant to convey. Do some women rejoice on the death of their husbands? And are these women in the elite?

Or is the author trying to say that some of these relationships were so bad for the women that upon the death of the patriarch they somehow get better? So is this an indictment of the women for healing? Or is this an indictment of husbands who are so rotten that

their wives feel relief when they die?

Then the author talks about how women 'despise' Indian men and then infantilizes the expression of this emotion by comparing to how a "street boy in Chennai starts a brawl".

I have a different understanding of why this happens.

Women don't just wake up one day and say "I hate men". This expression isn't an unconsidered, apolitical response. It is an emotion and a response that is built over time from observing family dynamics, experiencing control and living under a lack of freedom, being bullied,

facing microaggressions, being treated unequally, being told that one's voice doesn't matter because one is female, seeing parents dishing out preferential treatment to brothers and pressuring one to have a male child. This response that women have, is political rage.

It is rage against a system that constantly grinds you down regardless of whether one is elite or poor, regardless of religion or caste. The extent and scale differ for sure. Dalit women and tribal women face the brunt of this structural and physical violence.

This rage finds expression in layperson's language in the form of sentences like "I hate men". But really what is mean sometimes when that sentence is uttered is "I am being stifled by this structure and men are what prop this structure up. I want this to change."

Then the author says that some men are liked by women like those that are "sexually innocuous", like granddads, dads and sons. Actually, I would disagree. If my reading of NCRB data is correct women and children are more likely to be sexaully assaulted by family members and known

persons. This category includes grand dads, dads and uncles, etc. To term male relatives "sexually innocuous" is to misread and misunderstand the landscape of sexual violence in India.

I think the author is right that men are amused by the disenchantment of women. They know they hold power in Indian society. Making fun of the feminist impulses of women is sport now and Indian men would win a gold in this category.

This is where things get a bit tricky in the piece. I get the elite/poor argument. I even have sympathy for men who don't get the same opportunities as "elite" women. But here's the rub. The call for equality isn't a call by elite women alone. Women in India - poor, Dalit, tribal

women from villages, women from middle-class backgrounds and yes, elite women, have all called for equality and rights. In fact, elite women have had lesser incentive to call for equality. Many have thrived under the bargain they have made with patriarchy.

Be it environmental reform, rights, education, health, end to violence (all necessary for this broad term 'equality' to exist), women who are not rich and not savarna, have been instrumental in these movements.

I also think the author is right that activists aren't reforming men. But that isn't what the activists are trying to do. They are trying to make women wake up and be able to articulate their oppression. They are trying to push governments to pass legislations that can

keep women safer. This is infact a recognition that men won't change. Why would anyone want to change a system that disproportionately benefits them? Sure, there is the gender sensitization, and also the realization that most of the time it doesn't work. Why, you ask?

Primarily because masculinity in India, and other places, is tied to enacting sexual domination over women. That's why you see the cat callers, the teasers, the molesters, the assaulters, the rapists, the wife-beaters. So unless the things that root masculinity in a toxic culture

change, no amount of gender sensitization can bring that vast society-wide change we need to see.

My biggest issue with the piece is this: It downplays the massive resentment women feel towards men as an unconsidered, crazy or childlike, or irrational response. This resentment has been build over centuries and decades. It comes from hearing how our mother's struggled,

it comes from observing the many ways in which women are told they don't matter, it comes from being assualted and molested, abused, raped and being called sick names on the streets.

I don't know a single Indian woman, who has not undergone some form of trauma caused by a man. Why are women then expected to still be polite about their anger? Anger is appropriate in this situation, however unnerving or amusing it may be for men.

In the true crime world, a mantra that is doing the rounds amongst women these days is "F*** Politeness". The rationale is that being rude to a man who feels entitled to talk to you, offer a ride or ask for your phone number or address, could very well save your life.

So yes women don't owe men good behavior, they don't owe them polite responses and mostly we just want to be left alone and not dragged into debates about feminism or why we keep a distance from men or don't like them. It is what it is.

Even so, I am glad the author did write this column. It is good to know how things are perceived by others. And no need for unnecessary abusive comments here directed against anyone please. Everyone has a right to express themselves.

PS: some of you have expressed sentiments about me responding to the original column and also why I say anger is appropriate. I once read a book that told me that “anger is an emotion worth listening to” and that sometimes articulation of anger has to be considered

in order for it to be effective, or else it’s basically noise.