hi i agree i am kind of late but there have been a LOT of comments to previous posts that i find VERY disturbing. the reason that i am leaving my comment attached to this post is that i feel it has more chances of being heard in a newer post. regarding the "unwanted" sticker and the following picture of some guy and some balloons- in the comments section to this post there were some people who felt extremely disturbed that this man's picture was on the blog. apparently, he was being "publicaly lynched" and disgraced. i would like to point out that if he was in a PUBLIC space and eve teasing a woman/women then his intention was to disgrace her in PUBLIC space. here's the deal. When a person bombs a place or someone steals something or someone else runs cons/scams etc they have commited a crime. sometimes their pictures are published in newspapers/magazines or shown on tv - all these are PUBLIC meduims. the reason - these people have commited a crime and it is useful for the rest of us to know that we might want to be cautious in our dealings with these people should we encounter them at some future stage. eve teasing IS a crime. the man in the picture is an offender and all women who visit this site have a RIGHT to know this. if it his "right" to letch at women then women also have a right to know about his intentions.
another thing. across several posts there have been commnets about women in western clothes. apparently, women in western clothes are "asking for it". WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?????????? According to this grand theory women dressed in indian attire (example - sari/salwaar kameez) should never in their lives experience sexual encounters. most people's mothers and grandmothers dress in indian attire. how could your fathers/grandfathers EVER be sexually attracted to them? BUT STILL THEY WERE. they had sex. this is how you were born. SHEESH. USE YOUR BRAINS. if you have still missed the point - CLOTHES HAVE NOTHING to do with CONSENT. (this applies to the Rakhi Sawant remarks as well).
one more thing. regarding this whole business of public interventions where women stand and stare back at the starer. there are SO MANY MEN who are JUST STANDING on Indian streets and staring at women. So why are there people protesting if WOMEN choose to JUST STAND on streets and stare back at men? hypocritical, double standard. there is another angle to this. many believe that by standing on a street and just staring back at men women are "inviting" attention or "attracting" eve-teasers. i am a girl. i have participated in an intervention. and i can tell you one thing. i get groped/letched/whistled/felt up while i am WALKING on a street. i get groped/letched/whistled/felt up when i am TRAVELLING inside a bus. i get groped/letched/whistled/felt up when i am in a SHOPPING IN A CROWDED place. i get groped/letched/whistled/felt up when i am in a LONELY space as well. if i leave my house on ANY GIVEN DAY at ANY GIVEN TIME i KNOW that i will be sexually harrassed by a stranger before i return home. at all the incidents i have described i have been MINDING MY OWN BUSINESS. i am not LOOKING TO "CATCH" AN EVE TEASER. and yet i encounter several of them, no matter what. So. So. if a group of women are JUST STANDING in some place then it is NO DIFFERENT. STANDING is NOT a crime.SEXUAL HARRASSMENT IS.
SvetaThe problem is that we don’t see the man doing a thing! Are we to assume that his action in this photograph indicate that he some how harassed some one? And NOBODY IS SAYING THAT HARASMENT OF WOMEN IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE IS NOT A REALITY but you can not fight fire with fire, so as to speak. The mode of protest CAN NOT and SHOULD NOT violate someone else's rights. Rights to privacy, to a fair hearing before you parade him/her in a public sphere.Beaten horse
anonymous/beaten horse - you have missed my point. i am going to repeat it for your benefit. When a person bombs a place or someone steals something or someone else runs cons/scams etc they have commited a crime. sometimes their pictures are published in newspapers/magazines or shown on tv - all these are PUBLIC meduims. the reason - these people have commited a crime and it is useful for the rest of us to know that we might want to be cautious in our dealings with these people should we encounter them at some future stage. when these people's pictures appear on your television screen or in a newspaper or magazine THEY ARE NOT SHOWN ENGAGING THEMSELVES IN THE CRIME THEY HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF. Why should a person who has committed a crime against women be treated any differently?
The difference is...when their pictures are shown in magazines and on TV, they are accompanied with an explanation of what they were doing to deserve that. In this specific case (the balloon pic) all you have done is stick the label onto him, without explaining his crime. If he was eve teasing, you could atleast have mentioned how exactly he was doing it. By simply posting the picture without explanations, the effect is that you yourself have become the judge, jury and executioner. BeeBo
I did not know that my comment was being replied here. Hence the delay.Hi Sveta**,I completely agree with any and all the objectives of this project. I would be happy to help in any way possible. It is terribly and absolutely criminal when a person leches/gropes/touches/whisles. I am sorry to hear it happens so often. I understand your anger. I would personally like to see each one of those people to be punished by the law and made to repent.But, I am not sure about the percentage of the people who think this guy can be publicly disgraced like this. I definitely I *do not*.There were 2 parts to my comment:* Extrajudicial punishment:The way I understand it, Blank Noise Project is here is spread the word, let the ignorant rude Indian male know that women are not objects. You people have been very effective, congratulations on that. But we are not a bunch of vigilantes trying to threaten people to behave with the instrument of fear of extrajudicial public disgrace. A person might have killed, but still until proven beyond doubt, she/he stays innocent. Whether the punishment he recieves is commensurate with his crime is a complex issue to be dealt without being compromised by extreminst-feminist war-mongering tendencies. I repeat, " That man in that picture was lynched by the Blank Noise Project people."* Looking at women:I am not "sure" if "looking" at women is eve-teasing. Agreed, everything is in the way someone looks. But, it is very difficult to say who is disgusting and who is not. A wife may like her husband to look at her in a sensual way but definitely not others. A college student may like to be looked at by men and women in her class. Enter a public dating place like a bar (just an example) and the situation becomes very very fuzzy. Simply put, some people like it and some people dont.In other words: A man cannot strip with the way he looks, but a women can feel stripped with the way a man looks at her.Also, it is extremely difficult to know if a person has filthy intentions or not. Judging based on whether a girl finds a person disgusting is the most subjective way to deal with this issue. And that is what happened here.When the situation is as fuzzy as this... It is just not politically right to say "Looking is Eve-teasing" especially when the sticker also says "Staring, leching is eve-teasing." The sticker makes a clear distinction between staring, lecching and looking. I repeat, The first thing the sticker says is Unwanted Looking is eve-teasing. Which is not always true. The sticker should be more descriptive on this issue.If looking (however it may be) was outlawed, it would be *similar* to saying "Men would feel seduced when women walk in sleeveless shirts in public and hence ban western clothes (it was metaphorical)" but only in the reverse. Btw, this is not far from the reality in some countries with Sharia law. Afganistan was like this.PS 1: I am ready to change my mind anytime, if people come up with valid arguments. War mongering, does not change anything though.PS 2: What the man in the baloon picture was doing was explained in a later post titled "BLANK NOISE HYDERABAD: DISPERSING TESTIMONIALS". But I am not sure if that was the same person.
beebo - in the blog post there is an "unwanted" sticker covering various behaviours that women percieve as sexual harrassment. immediately below the text of the sticker there is a picture of the man.below that, the blogger's text reads that this person won the sticker. if this was a newspaper his picture would appear with accompanying text. if this was television, his picture would appear with accompanying voice over. this is a blog, and the picture, accompanied by a sticker plus the text is how the blogger has represented the story.
aarthi - i understand your point about looking being subjective. some people may like being looked at. others may not. i completely agree with you. the sticker in question says UNWANTED looking. let's say someone is looking at you. let us say you are in a public space and a stranger is looking at you. if you LIKE being looked at/WANT to get to know this person better/want to let this person know that you ENJOY them looking, there would be ways for you to express this. for instance, you may smile back at the person. or you may go up to them, introduce yourself, strike up a conversation. however, let us say this person is looking at you and you DO NOT WANT their attention/it makes you uncomfortable etc. there are ways to respond to this as well. you may look away. you may move away. or you may give them an "unwanted" sticker to let them know how you feel. therfore, once you have given a person these cues then regardless of what their intention may have been, they need to STOP looking at you and making you uncomfortable. a no is a no is a no. i hope you understand the point i am making. i dont think the sticker is about outlawing looking. it is addressed at UNWANTED looking. if a woman feels uncomfortable with the way someone is looking at her, she has a right to let this person know how she feels.
again, the classic question of whether or not should looks be considered "Sexual Harassment" and I would strongly say NO...In fact, as I've accentuated elsewhere in the group meets and on the chat windows, I guess the words/phrase 'Looking', 'Staring' and 'Unsolicited Conversation' should be pulled off...Its quite possible that you do these three things and at the same time, not 'Offend' the other person and make him/her feel "harassed". Think about it. If a (wo)man approaches you and strikes a casual conversation (void of 'bad' intentions and filthy language), do you think you are really being tormented by h(im/er)???Also, as aarthi said, the entire 'looking/gazing' is indeed, a very dicey area and we should be extremely careful while dealing with itKRishna
crisna da turtlethanks for bringing that point up :) it is entirely possible that you may not feel harrassed by any of the behaviours listed in the sticker. the sticker does not work in isolation. like i mentioned in my previous comment, if you ARE feeling harrassed by someone who directs any of the listed actions towards you, then they receive the sticker, as a means of letting them know how their actions may be affecting you. atleast this is how i have understood the sticker to work. if i have got it all wrong, then i apologise. Jasmeen could clarify all doubts about the sticker and its functions to end the confusion.
thanks Svethaits not about looking but ways of looking..how do you look, or even glance?it is in the intention that gets revealed through the act. most often in eve teasing there is nothing tangible for us to report, talk of...it is grey...and lets get talking about that. yes gazing, looking, glancing, staring, leching are all grey areas. no proof, just a pair of eyes that are saying everything you just felt.The sticker is a sticker that one could stick on, give to the one that has violated you..
hey jasmeen,saw a story in the Newyork Times website about harassment on the Newyork subway, and women taking pictures of flashers! that reminded me of you. can't seem to link to it though - i think your spam filter kicks in. Anyway, thought you'd be interested. loveshrimoyee
hey jasmeen,thought you'd be interested in this story about harassment on the newyork tube, and what women are doing abt it (including taking photographs). tried to post this yesterday as well. but i think i got filtered out. here's the linkhttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/24/nyregion/24harass.html?_r=1&oref=sloginloveshrimoyee
beaten horse, bee bo:hold those thoughts, you've made some vital points.
Svetha or Sangs alike, you should see some psychiatrist (fultoo dimaag game). This is a non-sense as oppose to some project.Mans or whatever and Svetha alike people should consider being lucky as there asses have not been slapped yet with million dollar law suit or google has not brought their site down (lack of complaints) on "Invasion Of Provacy".Just a wanderer!
Boss Log....i am new..so please don't mind..i've been looking at beautiful girls since i was a teenager...i have been staring them like anything...Now tell me, is it wrong to adore someone..who is beautiful....1. women is the most beautiful amongst all beings in the world....2. SEX is an integral part..3. Society Forms limits to maintain dignity...Like someone shouldn't have sex with his/ her sister (Nobody would like to please....don't think i am sick), but can surely have it with his / her wife.4. Only guys adore / adore + eve tease a girl is not TRUE...Girls also look at boys..it's kind of Raw human nature....5. If you are a boy...Then Please try to stop yourself when you see a girl wearing Jeans...and her thongs are VISIBLE.....and do send me an email if you can do that...and just after that visit a good sexologist.6. i am not saying Sexual harrassment is usual and OK, but everything ---even looking at a girl couldn't be like that...even pointing towards her is not....Tryin to get physical is certainly Condemned...Lets draw a line...
Post a comment