By Maxwell Pereira
I suffer from a gender bias. And over the years I have realised the bias is tilted strongly in favour of the fairer sex, having convinced myself that nature has dealt them a raw deal. It is also because I do believe those of the female gender, especially in our country, are a lot discriminated against, ill treated, exploited sexually, commercially and for labour, molested and raped, and attempted to be eliminated be it at the pre-conception or pre-natal stage by female foeticide, after birth by infanticide, abandonment or malnutrition – in a patriarchal male dominated society, by a people irrationally and unreasonably obsessed with a preference for sons.
I crusade against all this – work for and advise on women’s safety issues, join the debate on discrimination on grounds of sex, and fight against domestic-violence; advocate and participate in workshops on gender sensitisation for target groups where it is deemed necessary; write and attempt to draw attention to and impose my thoughts on the reader social milieu through column space the editors condescend to provide me – and engage myself, as currently, as a law enforcement consultant in the effort of the Union Health Ministry to combat female foeticide by discriminative sex selection aimed at eliminating the girl foetus/child.
Even so, there are times when I feel things are getting out of hand, that social thinking is getting a bit too warped, to warrant some limit, to draw the Laxman rekha at some point. Like when the Supreme Court tells us that a woman cannot rape a man!
Actually, I believe, in saying so the apex court has gone by the definition of statutory rape as codified in section 375 IPC, pointing out that a bare reading of it “makes the position clear that rape can be committed only by a man”. This was in a case where the Madhya Pradesh High Court had earlier taken a view that though “a woman cannot commit rape”, if she facilitated the act of rape then Explanation-I to section 376(2)(g) would come into operation to allow prosecution of the woman for “gang rape”.
The court is right, of course! Only in so far as the legal definition is concerned. But without going into legal semantics and the letter of the law on the subject, it is the sweeping statement and blanket conclusion projected in the media consequent to the court’s decision that “a woman cannot commit rape” is what I object to.
To me rape in any form or by either gender is wrong. And that's the bottom line. Rape is a disgusting crime no matter who commits it. And rape is the fault of the predator, the aggressor party, because it is not consensual but forced sex. Just as men do not own women, nor do women own men. It is about wanting to have sex or not wanting it – so the same goes for women raping men.
The reason why women raping men isn't a big issue is because most people cannot fathom a man being raped by a woman. Because we as a society do not see men as victims of sex crimes. A lot of people see this in their head as a ridiculous notion. For starters, a man is supposed to be stronger than a woman, so how can she overpower him? But consider, like in a case in South Africa, three women accosting a man at gunpoint to have sex with him! The most common view is that no man would deny sex, so how could a woman force him to have something he doesn't want? What people forget is that rape is not about sex, it's an act of violence – the sex is just a sidebar to the crime.
May be even courts would view male rape as a joke. In the west where the concept of females raping men is not so incomprehensible as it is here in India, there have been twister situations – when the attacker woman has got pregnant through her crime and initiative, and the courts have decreed that the victim man pay her child support. Similarly in situations of domestic abuse where the woman is the abuser, and not the other way around, the overwhelming bias tends to see this too as a joke, making victim men often the butt of derisive mirth, ridicule and insults. In a just society, just the fact that you are a man shouldn't make the act of violence you suffered at the hands of a woman, any different.
Studies elsewhere on Female Sex Offenders – from therapists, offices, college campuses etc – and not police reports, have proved the amount of female sex offences occurring, most of which never reported. That it happens, it’s real and society better get a handle on female sex offending, and realize it occurs, before they are completely blind-sided – and their loved one, son, friend or relative becomes a victim. Perhaps only then people will stop laughing and want something done about it in the legal system.
There appears indeed a deep-seated assumption that gender equity is synonymous with female disadvantage. In this context Cathy Young’s view in her book “Ceasefire! Why Women and Men Should Join Forces to Achieve True Equality”, is pertinent. She describes women as a “class whose presumed interests are to be given priority and see equality as a matter of convenience; women are tough and aggressive as men when it comes to fighting wars or fires” – as we would want to believe after the recent controversy over treatment of women in the Indian Army – “but frail and helpless when it comes to domestic violence; as carnal as men when it comes to sexual freedom, but innocent and victimized in any sexual conflict. To some extent this has also been the party line in the mainstream media.”
July 18, 2006: 950 words: Copy Right © Maxwell Pereira:
email: mfjpkamath@gmail.com; web: www.maxwellpereira.com
Comments
Jennifer Arul: Indonesia/Malaysia/Chennai: 18.07.2006
this is a very interesting AND provocative piece.......oh and by the way in Bahasa Malay the word (which I am trying to get for you) for MATERNITY HOSPITAL is THE PLACE FOR VICTIMS OF MEN!! From that one is led to assume that there is no such thing as consensual sex!!
Austin Prabhu: austinporob@gmail.com: Chicago: 19.07.2006
Good article Maxwell; I really liked the title!!
John Dayal: johndayal@bol.net.in : Delhi: 19.07.2006
That, was a penetrating insight….
Fr. Jacob Kani: jacobkani@hotmail.com; Delhi: 19.07.2006
Not only the title, but the contents as well make it a good reading and reflection. I hope you won't object to my idea of publishing it in the next issue of Indian Currents.
BBL Madhukar :bblmadhukar@yahoo.com : Delhi: 19.07.2006
Like ur other articles,Woman on Top has raised very pertinent points.Some one should take up this with the apex court for a review through a PIL. I am deeply impressed. Thank u for ur timely initiative.
Martin Howard :honiwala@vsnl.com : Delhi/Gurgaon: 19.07.2006
Though it is possible to imagine cases where “Three women armed with guns” etc, importuned a male , it is a fact that for sexual intercourse to occur, the male needs an erection, and guns may not command that. The male be excited, and in such circumstances I wonder whether there may not be a voluntary element in it. However, when a male is excited and forces himself on a woman, this is an entirely different matter.
It is always the woman that is invaded, and if she doesn’t mind, then it is not rape and if she does mind then it is.
I am full of sympathy for what I think the SC intended.
Francis Aranha :francis.aranha@gmail.com : Delhi/Noida: 19.07.2006
I guess I am one of the proviledged few - maybe the only one, who had a chance to "preview" your piece.
Bravo! Shall look forwrad to more.
Manish Bhatnager :manish@digisoftonline.com : Digisoft Technologies; Delhi: 20.07.2006
One of the most radical pieces - of penning your thoughts; especially when it comes from a bureaucat who is always groomed to practice subservience to seniors and exercise abject authority on juniors.
I salute you for your belief, I guess its easy when you are not serving. However somebody has to begin at some level.
Sir, I would be honoured to meet you some time with such open debates, when we say open means open, no subservienvce - thats the way life always moves forward if we wish to really make a difference
Dr. Anup K Pujari IAS:anup@nic.in : Delhi/Bangalore/Harvard: 20.072006
Fabulously written and well argued.
(The title is catchy !).
subhash sawhney : subhashcs@yahoo.com : Delhi: 20.07.2006
Very thought provoking indeed.
Eric Gonsalves IFS : ericgonsalves3@gmail.com : Delhi: 20.07.2006
BRAVO MAXIE - TELL THE WOMEN LIKE IT REALLY IS CHIVALRY AND EQUALITY AS IT SUITS THEM
ABHA.DAYAL@itcwelcomgroup.in : 20.07.2007
Good one !!
Fatima Pais :fatimapais@gmail.com : Delhi: 20.07.2006
Nice writing. I also believed - how can a woman rape a man? However, after meeting a couple of guys who have taken a beating from their wives and heard about women looking for sex outside marriage because they were bored - I can believe anything is possible. I also know about real cruel women who can make their husbands sound like wimps. They'd just be the ones!
sawan dutta :sawandutta@yahoo.com : Delhi: 20.07.2006
Ha ha ha ha ha :-)
You sound like you're suffering from too many women in your life...
LOL!!!
A.S. Syali : vasanta@rajdootpaints.com : 20.07.2006
The article made very fascinating reading and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
I am always very happy to read your delightful articles and would request you to keep writing more
Sunil D'Cunha : sdcunha@staywellhealth.org : Bridgeport/USA: 20.07.2006
well written, not sure many women will agree, how are you able to do this much research.
VIMALA LOBO : vimala_lobo@sify.com : Mangalore: 21.07.2006
Max, You are back again, on the screen with somwe interesting reading. Thanks for it.
Vasanthi Nazareth : vasanthinazareth@yahoo.com : Florida/USA: 22.07.2006
You write about a very interesting and controversial subjects. Rape and sexual crimes of women and men. Yes, women can and have raped men but what percentage? I cannot qualify the statement I am making, but I am sure there are far more men sexual predators than there are women. What I am glad to note is that you are taking an interest in this subject, of specially killing innocent foetus of unborn girls, in India.
Life is beautiful, I am or once was a girl and what would life be without me in this world? Keep up the good work....
Tuesday, 18 July 2006
Tuesday, 2 May 2006
Corporal Punishment
By Maxwell Pereira
mfjpkamath@gmail.com
When the ‘caning’ of Michael Fay, an American teenager in Singapore, occurred on May 5, 1994 for car vandalism – despite intervention and request for clemency from no less a person than President Clinton, my first reaction was to imagine that the Singapore authorities were definitely Jesuit products. That was influenced by my own childhood experiences and exposure to caning and corporal punishment (CP), which was then a part of the disciplining process.
In actual fact though, CP as part of penal legislation in the then British Malaya has historical roots in the criminal laws of England and India. When the Straits Settlements Penal Code Ordinance IV replaced the common law in 1871, it was based on the Indian Penal Code enacted in 1860 to unify the criminal laws of the various provinces in India. The offences punishable by whipping were broadly similar to the ones in England of the time. So ‘caning’ was entirely an outgrowth of British legal and judicial custom and practice…. negating the erroneous belief attributing CP to Islamic justice.
Even though Corporal punishment as a judicial penalty was abolished in the UK in 1948, and in India in 1955, caning was retained as a primary penal sanction in Malaya and Hong Kong. Singapore is one of sixteen countries, including Malaysia, Pakistan and Brunei, that mandate caning or flogging as punishment for criminal offences. But Michael Fay’s case exposed the differences between the legal philosophies that underpin many Asian countries and the USA, describing the incongruousness as a clash of civilizations.
For more clarity, corporal punishment has been described in dictionaries as the deliberate infliction of pain intended as correction or punishment. Historically, most punishments – whether in judicial, domestic or educational settings were corporal in basis. The practice held to differ from torture in that it is applied for disciplinary reasons and therefore intended to be limited, rather than intended to totally destroy the will of the victim.
The practice of CP is known to have existed in classical civilisations of Greece, Rome, Egypt and Israel, used for both judicial and educational discipline. Among varied practices, scourging and beating with sticks were common. These approaches to CP continued into Medieval Europe, encouraged by attitudes of the medieval church and the muslim world (as during muharram) towards the human body, with flagellation being a common means of encouraging self-discipline or penance. In particular this had an influence on CP in schools as educational establishments were closely attached to the church during this period. But even then the use of CP was seen as a cruel treatment of children.
New trends from 16th century onwards, witnessed judicial punishments increasingly made into public spectacles, with the heavy public beatings of criminals intended as a deterrent to others. But early writers on education also complained of the arbitrary manner in which children were punished.
CP attracted heavy criticism during 18th century, both by philosophers and legal reformers. Merely inflicting pain on miscreants was seen as inefficient, influencing the subject merely for a short period of time and effecting no permanent change in their behaviour. Critics wanted the purpose of punishment to be reformation, not retribution – thereby reducing the need for measures such as CP. This led to a diminution of CP throughout the 19th century in Europe and North America. Even so CP proved most persistent as a punishment for violation of prison rules, as a military field punishment, and in schools.
In the modern world, CP has been largely rejected in favour of other disciplinary methods. Modern judiciaries often favour fines or incarceration, whilst modern school discipline avoids physical coercion. And yet CP has remained a common way of disciplining children. Although outlawed in some European countries, most legal systems permit parents to discipline their children however they see fit, implying a belief that there is a distinction between reasonable punishment and abuse. And although CP is still used in many domestic settings it has been specifically banned in seventeen countries.
In terms of punishment in judicial and educational settings, the practice is almost completely abandoned in Europe and North America, whilst other societies in Asia retain widespread use of judicial corporal punishment, including in Malaysia and Singapore. In Singapore, male violent offenders and rapists are typically sentenced to caning in addition to a prison term. CP also dictated as a punishment in traditional Islamic Sharia law, and applied in countries like Saudi Arabia.
Corporal punishment exists in schools in many countries, although in many countries this practice has now been made illegal. CP in schools was often in the form of hitting the child's hand with a leather belt, or hitting the buttocks with a cane. Many educators use a milder form of CP by "spanking" – usually slapping the child's buttocks with the palm of their hand. Others punish their children with a switch, belt, paddle, or rattan cane although this practice is less common than in years past.
The debate on corporal punishment has triggered yet again, with the Karnataka High Court’s recent ruling on April 19 that punishing a child in good faith cannot be considered as an offence – interpreted in terms of section 88 of IPC. Locally, visages of corporal punishment continuing to exist in the Delhi School Education Act were struck down by Delhi High Court in December 2000; following which all school principals were addressed in a circular by the government and the CBSE in 2002 to ensure no child is subjected to any corporal punishment. At the instance of the NCERT there is also an effort to eschew all forms of violence in the school environment – including violence disguised as discipline.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
May 02, 2006: Copy Right © Maxwell Pereira: 3725 Sec-23, Gurgaon-122002
email: maxpk@vsnl.com, mfjpkamath@gmail.com; web: www.maxwellpereira.com
mfjpkamath@gmail.com
When the ‘caning’ of Michael Fay, an American teenager in Singapore, occurred on May 5, 1994 for car vandalism – despite intervention and request for clemency from no less a person than President Clinton, my first reaction was to imagine that the Singapore authorities were definitely Jesuit products. That was influenced by my own childhood experiences and exposure to caning and corporal punishment (CP), which was then a part of the disciplining process.
In actual fact though, CP as part of penal legislation in the then British Malaya has historical roots in the criminal laws of England and India. When the Straits Settlements Penal Code Ordinance IV replaced the common law in 1871, it was based on the Indian Penal Code enacted in 1860 to unify the criminal laws of the various provinces in India. The offences punishable by whipping were broadly similar to the ones in England of the time. So ‘caning’ was entirely an outgrowth of British legal and judicial custom and practice…. negating the erroneous belief attributing CP to Islamic justice.
Even though Corporal punishment as a judicial penalty was abolished in the UK in 1948, and in India in 1955, caning was retained as a primary penal sanction in Malaya and Hong Kong. Singapore is one of sixteen countries, including Malaysia, Pakistan and Brunei, that mandate caning or flogging as punishment for criminal offences. But Michael Fay’s case exposed the differences between the legal philosophies that underpin many Asian countries and the USA, describing the incongruousness as a clash of civilizations.
For more clarity, corporal punishment has been described in dictionaries as the deliberate infliction of pain intended as correction or punishment. Historically, most punishments – whether in judicial, domestic or educational settings were corporal in basis. The practice held to differ from torture in that it is applied for disciplinary reasons and therefore intended to be limited, rather than intended to totally destroy the will of the victim.
The practice of CP is known to have existed in classical civilisations of Greece, Rome, Egypt and Israel, used for both judicial and educational discipline. Among varied practices, scourging and beating with sticks were common. These approaches to CP continued into Medieval Europe, encouraged by attitudes of the medieval church and the muslim world (as during muharram) towards the human body, with flagellation being a common means of encouraging self-discipline or penance. In particular this had an influence on CP in schools as educational establishments were closely attached to the church during this period. But even then the use of CP was seen as a cruel treatment of children.
New trends from 16th century onwards, witnessed judicial punishments increasingly made into public spectacles, with the heavy public beatings of criminals intended as a deterrent to others. But early writers on education also complained of the arbitrary manner in which children were punished.
CP attracted heavy criticism during 18th century, both by philosophers and legal reformers. Merely inflicting pain on miscreants was seen as inefficient, influencing the subject merely for a short period of time and effecting no permanent change in their behaviour. Critics wanted the purpose of punishment to be reformation, not retribution – thereby reducing the need for measures such as CP. This led to a diminution of CP throughout the 19th century in Europe and North America. Even so CP proved most persistent as a punishment for violation of prison rules, as a military field punishment, and in schools.
In the modern world, CP has been largely rejected in favour of other disciplinary methods. Modern judiciaries often favour fines or incarceration, whilst modern school discipline avoids physical coercion. And yet CP has remained a common way of disciplining children. Although outlawed in some European countries, most legal systems permit parents to discipline their children however they see fit, implying a belief that there is a distinction between reasonable punishment and abuse. And although CP is still used in many domestic settings it has been specifically banned in seventeen countries.
In terms of punishment in judicial and educational settings, the practice is almost completely abandoned in Europe and North America, whilst other societies in Asia retain widespread use of judicial corporal punishment, including in Malaysia and Singapore. In Singapore, male violent offenders and rapists are typically sentenced to caning in addition to a prison term. CP also dictated as a punishment in traditional Islamic Sharia law, and applied in countries like Saudi Arabia.
Corporal punishment exists in schools in many countries, although in many countries this practice has now been made illegal. CP in schools was often in the form of hitting the child's hand with a leather belt, or hitting the buttocks with a cane. Many educators use a milder form of CP by "spanking" – usually slapping the child's buttocks with the palm of their hand. Others punish their children with a switch, belt, paddle, or rattan cane although this practice is less common than in years past.
The debate on corporal punishment has triggered yet again, with the Karnataka High Court’s recent ruling on April 19 that punishing a child in good faith cannot be considered as an offence – interpreted in terms of section 88 of IPC. Locally, visages of corporal punishment continuing to exist in the Delhi School Education Act were struck down by Delhi High Court in December 2000; following which all school principals were addressed in a circular by the government and the CBSE in 2002 to ensure no child is subjected to any corporal punishment. At the instance of the NCERT there is also an effort to eschew all forms of violence in the school environment – including violence disguised as discipline.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
May 02, 2006: Copy Right © Maxwell Pereira: 3725 Sec-23, Gurgaon-122002
email: maxpk@vsnl.com, mfjpkamath@gmail.com; web: www.maxwellpereira.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
