I have wanted to write some of these things at different times since it happened, and always shied away. I was far less confident about my place in the legal profession, and was told it would be impossible to prove, that no one would want to take a chance on hiring me, that I would forever be known for this instead of for my work.
This may still be true but I care a little less, have a little more faith, and so when Legally India asked me to write about it at a time when people are receptive to listening and doing something about these issues, I decided to do it.
I once assisted a very senior lawyer whose advances towards me continued for quite some time after my assistance ceased.
The advances were not physical; it was more in the nature of an obsessive romantic and sexual interest, starting with inappropriately timed phone calls to flowers, dinner invitations, and then sexually explicit email forwards and SMS jokes to more explicit expressions. This wasn’t courtship, it was pursuit by a man old enough to be my father, who knew perfectly well how difficult it would be for me to reject him.
In some ways, these kind of advances are harder to voice an objection to without sounding delusional, and even harder to convince people to take seriously as I discovered when I spoke to some friends. While most readily saw it as a form of sexual interest that is clearly inappropriate, fewer saw it as harassment, and fewer still as discrimination.
After all, he didn’t demand sexual favours, nor did the interaction affect my work. He wasn’t being sexist in the sense of thinking, I was only good for one thing – I still did and was given great work. He didn’t exhibit a problem with successful female professionals. To many people, he seemed a reasonable, equality-minded sort of person with a bit of a crush.
This to me, misses the scope of the term “hostile work environment” which certainly goes beyond hostility as only being assaulted, fired, denied a promotion or a pay cut. It misses the fact that sexual harassment embodies fundamental gender stereotypes and that the hierarchy restrains people from challenging them. It misses how humiliating it is, to be singled out for unwanted attention, and to feel powerless. The impact it can have on one’s self esteem and career choices. How victims are perceived and valued in workplaces by employers, and differently so by peers, the kind of gossip and stereotyping it gives rise to which affects not just victims but all women, how they choose to deal with it and what strategies they use to make the best of a situation, and how they feel about those strategies.
It took me a while to be able to talk about my experience, and to express the conviction that I felt violated because I didn’t think I fit the idea of someone who is victimized or vulnerable. Of course I am intellectually aware of the arguments against this stereotype, and readily apply them to other people and empathise with them, but to apply it to yourself is harder. I didn’t want to see myself as a victim, I told myself it was not as bad as it could have been and there are others who have it worse, and I was also a little crippled by shame and fear – of not speaking out, and of the potential consequences of doing so.
Unlike what SJ experienced though, feminism didn’t fail me. It gave me a vocabulary and a discipline to think beyond the binaries and assumptions of litigation and to interrogate the double binds that women operate under in these cases - that silence equals complicity, but speaking out and spoiling the office atmosphere means there was a good reason to fire you and therefore you are just making it up to take revenge.
Or that you have to be traumatised to X degree in order for it to be harassment, and if you are traumatised to that degree, you are incapable of providing a lucid testimony.
That you must recall every detail of every advance else it clearly wasn’t such a big deal and you are clearly not very credible if you can’t remember what you or he was wearing on any given day; that there can only be one kind of response to something like this, and you must be an ideal complainant, he must be someone people don’t mind hating and your response has to be pitch perfect (but not rehearsed); that you cannot publicly allege something unless you are willing to brave the stigma, but if you are willing to do that then clearly you would do anything for cheap publicity; that if you stay you chose it, and if you leave then the harm is over so we can all move on.
In case anyone thinks these are one-off cases, let me correct that and say this is rife, I know dozens of women who have suffered far worse than I have, and litigation, with its powerful and entitled men and its intricate networks and hierarchies that stifle any challenge, is quite possibly one of the most sexist professions in the country.
A common reaction to SJ’s story has in fact been that this is precisely why people should never hire female juniors, they are always more trouble than they are worth.
I don’t want this to become a legal complaint, and I have no intention of pursuing this. It’s just that I did not have the courage to rock the boat earlier, but someone else has done it now and I felt the least I could do was add to her and so many others’ efforts.
Mihira Sood has been litigating in Delhi for the past six years and is currently pursuing her LLM at Columbia Law School
Comments
We are talking about a case of sexual harassment here, where the accused is the retired judge of SC. While my heart goes out to the "alleged victim" ( alleged because nothing has been substantiated yet) what about the rights of accused ?? Just because he is a powerful judge, so we should assume that he MUST have sexually harassed, while none of us know what exactly transpired that day??
And according to feminist bigots, a woman's testimony should be considered sacrosanct without going into the details which may possibly save the accused. Why the hell so?? How else does the accused save his skin, if at all he is innocent?
The term sexual harassment has been so broadly and vaguely defined that it is very much subject to misuse. Oh but I forgot, I can't question feminist hypocrisy, cos even questioning that on basic logic and legalities make me a "misogynist troll" a "patriarch" who believes in "subjugating women"! Human rights are prerogative of only feminist women, men who even question feminist hypocrisy are "moderated/down voted"
Would you mind defining what you understand to be 'feminism', other than standing for equal rights for men and women in society? What is so controversial about that to you?
I think the definition of sexual harassment is actually very clear. How are any of the examples that Mihira Sood has described in her column borderline, or ok behaviour in your book?
Ask yourself, as a man, which you appear to be, whether you would feel ok being on the receiving end of such comments from your male boss at work?
Also, no one is saying anyone's testimony should be sacrosanct, but the reality is that womens' testimonies in such cases are routinely undermined by personal attacks and slander on a woman's character and worse (and much of the sting in such attacks derives precisely from inequality: ask yourself, is it as offensive for a man to be called promiscuous or accused of suffering from a chronic 'disease' that draws you towards women? And would anyone even try in court or in the media if you were to make an accusation of harassment at work or by a judge?)
Best wishes,
Kian
Ps: Here's a fantastic video worth watching by the way:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkp4t5NYzVM[/youtube]
Would you mind defining what you understand to be 'feminism', other than standing for equal rights for men and women in society? What is so controversial about that to you?
Yes sir, which is the perceived meaning of “feminism” which our feminist friends want to propagate, but unfortunately the modern day feminists don’t stand for “EQUALITY” and their pseudo equality notions only seek to benefit females at the expense of men. You want logical examples?
1) There was a proposal to make rape laws gender neutral in India, obviously the case of women could be covered in such laws, but feminist ranting ensured that in India “technically” only women can be victims of rape, so according to feminists MEN/MALES can be subject to rape, sexual assault/harassment. There are thousands of reports of little boys getting raped,( if you wish I can send you a collection of news reports) but since they are “penis wielding men” so why should they enjoy any legal protection ?? And a woman committing rape/harassment of men?? Oh well are you kidding me, Women (Read : All women) are inherently so good and pious that nobody can ever sexually harass a man and if a man complaints to that, he is not a man enough ( That’s a social construct which feminists never oppose, as its about men)
I think the definition of sexual harassment is actually very clear. How are any of the examples that Mihira Sood has described in her column borderline, or ok behaviour in your book? Ask yourself, as a man, which you appear to be, whether you would feel ok being on the receiving end of such comments from your male boss at work?
So what is Ms Sood proposing here? That every innocent act of chivalry/ affection may be termed “sexual harassment”. Then first let’s ban on all acts of “proposing a woman/man”, or “asking someone out”. Or else let’s do it in full public view, with two witnesses with a notarized form stating all the contents, so that the man may not fear any false allegations in future?
And with all due respect to her what I do not get is even if we assume that his actions were wrong, can we “CRIMINALISE” them and equate it to the extent of molestation/rape, so you mean the actions of 16 December animals and actions of the man above in question are more or less similar!! Really?
Yes obviously, I would be offended, if it’s a male boss (and even a female boss, if I don’t feel any attraction towards her and if I feel any element of force.) BUT there you only prove my point, Sir for your information ( correct me if I am wrong) I can’t find any legal provision where I can go and file a report against my male/female boss stating I was sexually harrased and assuming there is any, I will be a bigger butt of joke than any woman who alleges sexual harassment, can ever be.
Also, no one is saying anyone's testimony should be sacrosanct, but the reality is that womens' testimonies in such cases are routinely undermined by personal attacks and slander on a woman's character and worse (and much of the sting in such attacks derives precisely from inequality: ask yourself, is it as offensive for a man to be called promiscuous or accused of suffering from a chronic 'disease' that draws you towards women? And would anyone even try in court or in the media if you were to make an accusation of harassment at work or by a judge?)
Ok I agree with you that in India a woman’s character is attacked during the trial, but then what about the character of the accused?? Isn’t it Media’s hypocrisy that media names not only the accused but his entire professional/personal details and the accused has to live with the “stigma” of a “rapist”/ “dowry seeker”. And Kian, are you telling me there are not any false allegations of rape/harassment
I can draw an analogy to a recent case in India - “Nisha Sharma” dowry case,( while dowry laws were created to kill the monster of dowry, thanks to feminist and media trial, it was horrendously misused) where thanks to media trial she was made a hero, but it was proved in the end that she made those “false accusations” just to hide her affair, but such “false accusation” created havoc in the life of family, ( everyone in the family lost the jobs, and faced regular stigma and ridicule for years till innocence was proved) thanks to the extreme and stupid law which does not give any “audi alterem partem” to accused in such cases. Please google the case if you don’t believe me.
Surprisingly your forum or any other feminist supportive media never even reported it leave aside “wide coverage” just because the victims were “patriarchal Indians” and should be deprived of human rights. If not, why not celebrate their victimhood, like we do here for unsubstantiated allegations. Hypocrisy at its best, when even court findings don’t give a genuine case media reporting but mere allegations spark such outrage.
As a personal aside,I believe medieval statements like “promiscuous or accused of suffering from a chronic 'disease' that draws you towards women?” defeat the very cause of “gender neutrality/equality” and defy all logic thereby fuelling the feminist hypocrisy and giving them unnecessary attention than they actually deserve.
Thanks for the video link Kian, but replying to that even I strongly urge you to read about Warren Farell and his work who is a man’s rights activist ( and also a ex- disillusioned feminist) and your own feminist apologist Barrack Obama ( who in order to appease feminists apologized for an innocent compliment given to Kamla Harris) invited him to assist in Gender-Equality issues. Considering the anti-feminist voices in the west, I am sure a real gender equality movement will be sparked off and the feminist bigots will be shown their place.
Amen
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rahimkanani/2011/09/05/the-need-to-create-a-white-house-council-on-boys-to-men/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Farrell
If I may offer my two cents, I do believe that we still live in a very very unequal world where a majority of women are faced with subjugation that some of us cannot begin to imagine. Personally, I would be up in arms against anyone who suggests that a woman ought to be sheltered etc. - agreeably, a latent yet dangerous form of sexism.
However, my concerns stem from the fact that a number of women who are privileged in many way argue for more privileges - a case of those with nothing being left by the wayside while empowered, powerful women, having been brought up to believe that they are always discriminated against, demand more privileges. It is such a situation which leads to inequity. Such inequity is justified in the historic context of women's subjugation but in my twenty-three years i have seen my female peers as equal if not more competent than me and also being treated as per their competence. If women want equality, they have to, at some stage, accept that those who are privileged amongst them have attained equality in most spheres (the spheres of social life where they have not reached equality, they are of course entitled to extra protection by the law). We need to train our guns on countering sexism in those facets of our society that need it the most. I almost never see any progress there - just already equal women insisting that they are still subjugated.
However, my concerns stem from the fact that a number of women who are privileged in many way argue for more privileges - a case of those with nothing being left by the wayside while empowered, powerful women, having been brought up to believe that they are always discriminated against, demand more privileges. It is such a situation which leads to inequity. Such inequity is justified in the historic context of women's subjugation but in my twenty-three years i have seen my female peers as equal if not more competent than me and also being treated as per their competence. If women want equality, they have to, at some stage, accept that those who are privileged amongst them have attained equality in most spheres (the spheres of social life where they have not reached equality, they are of course entitled to extra protection by the law). We need to train our guns on countering sexism in those facets of our society that need it the most. I almost never see any progress there - just already equal women insisting that they are still subjugated.[/quote]
Couldn't agree more with you mate!
1. False accusations of attempt to rape, rape, dowry, sexual harassment are rife and given the state of affairs, men must surely shudder to think what may happen if a false allegation is made. I have seen such false cases and it devastates the (falsely) accused. [b]In fact, now the courts are supposed to approach complaints of criminal breach of trust and dowry complaints most cautiously, as there have been tons of false cases.[/b]
2. With all the public opinion (and most people just bay for blood without getting the whole picture), how does a guy make an innocent proposal or ask a girl out? I quote - "[i]That every innocent act of chivalry/ affection may be termed “sexual harassment”. Then first let’s ban on all acts of “proposing a woman/man”, or “asking someone out”. Or else let’s do it in full public view, with two witnesses with a notarized form stating all the contents, so that the man may not fear any false allegations in future?[/i]"
What are you talking about?? "False Rape" ??? Do you think INDIAN WOMEN would do so, oh comon feminists are so pious and such strong supporters of human rights, I dont think they will ever allow such women to rot the lives of innocent men!! NO?? Ok I end my sarcasm here and since Kian and feminist brigade have shown utter insensitivity to issue of false rape here are a few weblinks -
1) http://www.indianexpress.com/news/false-rape-charge-lands-woman-in-prison-for-4-years/1163643/
2) http://ibnlive.in.com/news/girls-caught-with-lovers-file-rape-case-after-being-caught-court/429048-3-244.html
3) http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-07-28/delhi/40848274_1_false-cases-false-allegation-anita
4) http://standupforacause.wordpress.com/2013/08/11/false-rape-charges-on-the-rise/
These are the same "feminist supporting media" who have generalized and demonized an average man, am wondering why Legally India never does a story on such cases whichhve been outrightly proved false in the Court, in my previous debates with Kian, he merely "regretted" that such things happen but never suggested any solution despite the fact these problems are occuring due to feminist propoganda which seeks to prosecute a man, the moment allegation is made!! Kian, if you actually stand for human rights, just do one story on false accusations, anyways you do thousand stories on how women are unsafe, so that takes care of your concern that such cases are in minority, even that one story of yours will be in minority as against thousand others with feminist leanings.
It's not about insensitivity, but you are blowing the 'false rape problem' out of proportion, because you have not provided a smidgeon of evidence anywhere that suggests 'false rape' is as big a problem as rape itself and the failure of the criminal justice system in protecting rape victims.
I don't really want to do a cross post, but here's my response to your previous comment:
Please, can you provide us some ACTUAL statistics on how many false charges of rape there are against the estimated number of rapes (including unreported), rather than just straw dog evidence?
Have a look at the link below (and I'm sure with 1 more minute of googling "unreported rape vs false accusations"), you can find many more), for an interesting discussion. This seems balanced enough, since it is critical of what you would probably term 'feminist propaganda', and concludes: "It is true that most rapes go unreported, that the public believes false accusations are exponentially more common than they actually are, and that a man's chances of being falsely accused of rape are incredibly small."
slate.com/.../...
Again, no one denies that sometimes injustice happens. Just that statistically, many more women face the injustice of getting raped than men face the injustice of getting falsely accused (let alone convicted).
I'm not sure it's possible to quantify which injustice is greater to an individual. Some jurisprudence would argue that even one false conviction for any crime is one too many, getting raped and having no recourse or being shamed or coerced into keeping quiet, should rank pretty highly in terms of injustices that a human could take. And while a false allegation itself can ruin a life, I don't think it's on par with either being raped or spending many years in prison (plus there's defamation law too if an allegation is made maliciously).
However, in most purely utilitarian calculations of benefit and harm, due to the statistics involved, I would wager that feminist arguments would still win over 'man rights' arguments at the moment.
http://www.legallyindia.com/News/tehelka-tejpal#comment-46489
Everyone knows that this area of law is morally one of the most complicated in criminal jurisprudence. But what you perhaps don't want to understand is that the only meaningful game in this case has to include numbers, because all societies have to make some level of utilitarian calculation at some level, and without statistics or empirical evidence, your claims basically comes down to anecdotes and some rhetoric.
The number of crimes perpetrated against women globally and in India has only been dwarfed by the number of these crimes that have gone unreported or unpunished.
Some laws may have been rephrased and may have evolved to give women a slight edge (and men a slight handicap) in recent years, but this is only a reaction to the overwhelming scale of the problem that needs solving.
In an ideal world, all laws would be gender-neutral and workplace sexual harassment laws wouldn't need to exist because the behaviour has gone extinct.
But until we are there, the law needs to make us conscious of and nudge us in the right direction to tell us what's ok, and what's not. And by us I mean all men, including myself.
And if a few men are hurt in the process, I'm really sorry, but the alternative of continuing as we have been is worse...
Ps: Short answer to why shouldn't there be compensation in malicious false prosecution? Because even gathering up the courage to prosecute and get a conviction in an actual rape is hard enough statistically. Allowing actual rapists another tool to bully a victim to keep her mouth shut (by threatening her with 'malicious prosecution' offences, or a rape counter-claim), is counterproductive to the aim of encouraging greater reporting and conviction in rape cases. And if malice is proved and reputation is harmed, defamation is actually quite possible.
Nonetheless after knowing yours and your feminist friends utter insensitivity and sheer ignorance of plight of innocent men, I and so many readers who support me vouch to fight against this onslaught of feminism. Its high time men (& just, fair women) form a lobby to counter this dangerous form of "legal terrorism" ( Supreme Court itself used this word). Its time men and women unite to uproot the cancer called Feminist Privileges.
Please send promised statistics of the 'plight of innocent men' you describe - i.e., how many of wrong accusations or rape / harassment there are.
They don't have to be in India, where such stats might be scarce, so US or European data will do. Until then, my previous comments and arguments stand, and we will also exercise our discretion in not posting any responses that contain emotive and hyperbolic language like 'cancer' and 'onslaught of feminism', which are becoming tantamount to trolling.
Best wishes,
Kian
Your points are well taken.
However, within the parameters of Equality, would it be possible for you to explain why we have an Act preventing "Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace" and it is not gender neutral.
Yes, the necessity is to tilt the balance the other way to address historical biases and inequalities, but sexual harassment as an issue (particularly in legal and corporate work spaces) is so nuanced that it is difficult to take a black and white view of it.
For example, the actions that the author has talked about, inappropriate sms es, innuendo based forwards, probing personal questions, gifts (and much worse), these are the regular features in the life of associates (male and female) of a large law firm (and the sender is not male)- I am not sure I have heard anyone characterise it as sexual harassment.
I think the rules and boundaries need to be spelled out and communicated widely in organisations, which this article has helped with to some extent.
If men realise that inappropriate SMSes or innuendo, etc could be sex harassment, they should be aware of when they're doing them and think twice before sending them to any colleague, whether male or female, and whether the world and workplace is really improved by emailing their dirty joke.
If you know a colleague well enough, male or female, to where you know 99% they'll take it in the right way, then feel free to do it, at your own risk. In my law firm office-bound time I too may have sent some things in workplaces to very close friends, that if seen in isolation or out of context or if sent to anyone else could be inappropriate.
But if you go sending SMSes or emails of naked women or men or obscene jokes to random colleagues, I think you only have yourself to blame if one ends up being offended...
Common sense should solve 99% of practical nuances, really, IMHO...
Im sure his/ her argument is totally logical!!
Excellent reply. But you do realize you are talking to Indians, where even "Sita" had to prove her self. The mindset is that a woman is to be raped and trodden upon. When the CBI chief jokes about rape and the ministers have cases against them with similar allegations what can you expect. It's a shame that such is the situation. Another M.P. high court judge is known to be a rogue with similar attitudes where he passes favourable judgements if his sexual appetite is filled. The place is full of these horrid creatures in the indian judiciary. Are we fighting a losing battle? Time will tell. But you keep up the good work dude
Cheers
Dr. Rad man
Read what the CBI chief said in its context. "When rape is inevitable, enjoy it" is a phrase. Just because the word rape is used in a phrase, it does not mean it is sexist because even men can (and indeed have been) be raped.
Apologies for finding pointless faults, its just that I felt that the CBI Chief was unnecessarily targeted by the media.
That's incredible. It shows a nimbleness of perspective which will undoubtedly help you in the long run, professionally.
Even in the west, people have struggled to 'identify' the limits of acceptability. Eg: Even an innocent sharing a non-veg joke with a male colleague and female colleague has different results.
However this seems a very confused piece... Seemed more like random thoughts being put down as they occurred.
In a country where tort law is just reaching the point where incompetent doctors can be held liable for killing people, and workplace discrimination of many sorts is rampant and unremarkable, effectively addressing sexual harassment is a distant dream.
I would say most of these comments are attempts at dialogue. Not dialogue over whether what happened to Ms. Sood was justified but whether the proposals being put up to deal with issues of this nature are really the most equitable way of ensuring social equity.
I believe there are men who, despite their innocence, are painted with the same brush as the most heinous amongst us. A friend of mine was practically lynched for "inappropriately touching a woman" in an extremely crowded area where he inadvertently brushed against her. This, despite the pleas of his female companions that he is not that sort of person (in fact he has come out of the closet a while before this incident). Similarly, you'll recall the recent incident posted on quora (read here: http://www.quora.com/Navaneeth-Rameshan/India/I-was-arrested-for-talking-to-an-Indian-woman). My point being that these issues need a nuanced process which respects the rights of both parties till the stage of determination. Not a ham handed approach running roughshod over people's rights.
I totally agree.. These constitute to 60-80% of the female juniors that I have witnessed in almost every firm. In fact they themselves agree this is the way up. They even decide the same during moots and claim they have an advantage because they are female. What will you call it when a female uses such things to her advantage, including trying on those rich partners/ seniors in college..
i think author should have been more careful to specify if she rejected his advance/asked him not to do so and/or made it clear she was not happy.
There is a difference between formal and actual equality. If the society is biased in favour of the man, then to expect the laws to reflect a gender equality which doesn't exist in society is not equality, it is perpetuating inequality. Gender neutral law is only equal when there is gender neutral society.
Feminism: Not about equal rights between men and women, but about ending patriarchy and sexism so that it is not just women being treated the same as men if they adhere to male standards. But removing male standards as the norm. As Aman rightfully puts it, sexism harms both men and women. It is not about men versus women but sexism versus fairness.
Sexual harassment: Law is designed to take into account the fact that power dynamics and such make it difficult to say no. So onus is not on her to reject. It was wrong for him even to initiate in that circumstance because her consent is vitiated by her subordination to him.
When it is a female boos, these poor male juniors are so victimised.
This is called double standards.
You said you found it difficult to reject him. Why? Do you think just telling him that you don't welcome these things would affect your job, even though you were being given good work, and appreciated throughout?
Did you figure that you probably encouraged this, and he thought you were interested in him. Were you leading him on?
From your own article you project yourself as a woman who likes to take advantage of her sexuality when it favors her, and now as is typical of such women, you've used that guy and you want a piece of sympathy.
I'll be really careful if I was hiring you. You certainly don't deserve to serve in any organization if you don't have the courage and the moral strength to stand up when the need arrives, but you will still grab the opportunity to slander from a distance of course without getting into the mess of pressing charges and proving your allegations.
You conveniently blame men for your own failures and make everything a result of sexism.
Shame on you.
Seriously, close your eyes for a moment and then put yourself in the following position.
You are a male, 20-year-old intern in a law firm where you have dreamed of working your entire adult life.
The boss is a woman who rules the office with an iron fist. She is old enough to be your grandmother, and you are not attracted to her. But she is a great lawyer and you respect her for what she has achieved professionally.
You, on the other hand, being 20-years-old, are a handsome young man and she makes this clear at every available opportunity. She has clearly taken a liking to you. And you suspect she might want to sleep with you, but you don't want to. But she is giving you good work and you are learning a lot.
Are you going to rock the boat by telling her that her 'little overtures' are inappropriate, and risk your dreams, her ire, and her possibly jeopardising your chances of a job, just because you feel a bit uncomfortable? (And maybe you think it's your fault and you're misinterpreting grandmotherly affection as something else?)
What if a few years or months later, you've got a job at the firm, and one evening, late in the office, she makes a move or a sexual proposition?
At that point you may have invested your entire career in this firm of your dreams.
Do you politely tell her to go away? What if she is physically stronger than you? What if she explicitly says you'll get fired unless you sleep with her? What if you fear that by not complaining about it earlier, you've been leading her on? What if you feel, that even if you complained, no one would take you seriously, or would laugh at you, for not 'being man enough'? Or you get accused of being a handsome bimbo who's been flirting his way to the top?
Feel free to replace the female boss, with a male, openly bi-sexual boss.
And then consider, if such a boss were common, would you not want to put some rules in place so that young men weren't exposed to such kind of behaviour, dilemmas and fears?
The reality is, of course, than in most professions and industries only 10% of bosses are women (or males who are hitting on young men).
Therefore, the odds of a young woman being subjected to this kind of behaviour is hugely greater in the world we currently live in (male-dominated, patriarchal, etc).
The rules therefore exist to balance the playing field and to prevent this kind of thing from happening, and women speaking out about this should be applauded and supported, rather than attacked.
Do you politely tell her to go away? What if she is physically stronger than you? What if she explicitly says you'll get fired unless you sleep with her? What if you fear that by not complaining about it earlier, you've been leading her on? What if you feel, that even if you complained, no one would take you seriously, or would laugh at you, for not 'being man enough'? Or you get accused of being a handsome bimbo who's been flirting his way to the top?
[/quote]
Kian, did Ms Sood also feel that she would not be "woman enough" if she refused the senior lawyer's advances? Ms Sood is a well educated and trained lawyer smart enough to know the ways and means in which a "NO" has to be conveyed. Perhaps, she has internalised the feminist discourse to an unusual extent -- if her account of the "harassment" she believes she faced has been mentioned in her coloumn for the purposes of initiating debate on the subject, it should be condemned.
Sexual harassment (across the world) stems primarily from power (includes any kind of power - professional to sexual) struggles fuelled by gender streotypes. As you have mentioned in the comments above, women are usually at the receiving end of such displays of power. The legal profession is arguably the most affected.
Discussion and debate on this topic creates more awareness and is generally good.
Ms Sood's article is certainly well-timed if the objective is to create awareness and dialogue. But why is there reference to that "incident" where Ms Sood felt victimized? Did she feel victimized at that point in time, or did she realise now that she was victimised? In either of the scenarios, it would be better if she clarifies any action she took to convey her displeasure (besides including the incident in her coloumn). This is, of course, if she considers this to be a dialogue/debate, and not merely a rant.
Have you ever been in similar situations? If not, you might have a hard time understanding the emotional reaction that this could cause, ranging from fear, powerlessness, confusion, self-blaming, self-censorship, fear of over-reaction and so on.
Sure, sometimes women say 'no', and sometimes this puts an end to it. And sometimes, the woman also gets fired or her career suffers or she doesn't get promoted (there are enough documented court cases internationally of this happening, if not so often in India).
And sometimes, as many seem to suggest, she just stays quiet about it and hopes not to make a fuss. And very occasionally perhaps, as some seem to allege, the woman uses it to her advantage and a poor man suffers who should have been promoted instead.
But the question we should therefore be asking ourselves should be, why should women be placed in this kind of situation so often? Is it not unfair? If you were a woman, would you not want something to be done about it (without risking your job)? If you were a man, would you not prefer competing in a playing field were you don't have to worry about a colleague whose boss is openly flirting with her?
From whichever perspective you look at it, it should be the duty of every employer (or every boss), to stop putting women into such situations, just as it is their duty to pay them their salary, to not make them work in unhealthy environments or not to psychologically or physically torture them, for example.
Now, I don't disagree with what you have stated in your response above. Neither am I opposed to the central concern that Mihira has highlighted in her article (i.e., that sexual harrasment is rife in the legal profession). However, one cannot discount the fact that Mihira is no naive kid here - she's been around for enough number of years to know how to handle such a situation. Admittedly, she wasn't even assisting the concerned lawyer while the [perceived] harassment continued. Wonder if she'd be willing to discuss the options she could have used to address her discomfiture, but I am sure she is aware of them.
The questions raised by AD below are pertinent to determine whether it amounted to sexual harassment or not (some of the cases you refer me to consider many factors in arriving at a conclusion, and answers to such questions, unfortunately, do play a role). I am afraid (and apologize to Mihira if she feels uncomfortable) but her victimization is indeed at the center of this discussion. She has been bold enough to raise it, now she should be willing to discuss it.
I would agree with you if you say that it would not be appropriate for us to discuss the name of the concerned lawyer and other minute details on this forum, but then, the legal community is very small and its not difficult to guess the name of the lawyer she is referring to and his reputation is already maligned without even receiving a fair opportunity to put forth his version of the facts.
In a way, sitting far away in Manhattan, Mihira has achieved much more than she would ever have by resorting to a legal remedy in this country (such as filing an FIR or filing a complaint before a DM or seeking redress under the Rules of the relevant court or before the relevant state Bar Council under the Advocates Act). Doubt if the concerned lawyer would be able to sue for libel here (that's another way of establishing truth?). But I am sure you would continue to say that Mihira's vitimization is not in question here.
on the other hand, once you grow up and are more independent and confident, you are in a better position to speak up - LIKE Mihira did.
Mihira my friend, i recommend you stop reading these comments. no point.
[...] A 'dont get a job anywhere' point is more applicable to a corporate structure and lesser so to freelance lawyers. So your argument is a bit faulty there.
And re: growing up and being more independent and confident, what pray changed [...] that makes Mihira so much more confident? And why is she just speaking up instead of taking some action against the concerned individual? Or even naming him? Wouldn't that forewarn other naive innocent fledgling young lawyers who might end up working with the concerned gentleman in the future? Or why not make an example out of him by proceeding against him legally, given that she is so independent and confident now?
[...]
But then, this is what this post and this site is turning into -- a place for silly arguments. At which point I remind myself that I like gossip and this website does feed me that. So there kian, that's the reason you will continue to my (and many other readers') patronage.
Now, there are two reasons why I am so critical of Mihira:
1. While I have had very little personal or professional interaction with Mihira, but whatever little it was, and by virtue of being part of this very small, incestuous world of lawyers, I am aware of the lawyers that she has worked with. While one of her many senior lawyers would know (and Mihira would know) that it is him she is referring to, the others have no clue. Even if Ms Sood took the pains of calling each one of them to clarify, how the hell do we know? You find it very courageous of her to have spoken about it, and indeed it is. But in just one stroke, she has turned the life of all other lawyers upside down. Now if I meet one of them, I would obviously ask him (remember, I and many other lawyers like to gossip) if it was him, and while he might deny it, we all know what's gonna happen next.
So please come out with the name!! Else, it amounts to defamation (even though it would be hard to prove it).
2. I sincerely doubt the motive/intention with which the "personal experience" with her boss was mentioned in the blog piece (I don't disagree with anything else that's written there or in the subsequent comments). If you are indeed courageous, then take action! SJ did, and I respect her for that. She has set the facts straight and the investigation will yield some results (at least the name will be out soon). There is enough protection for you now under Indian law, Mihira. So, please use it. Unfortunately, unless you do so, I will keep doubting every one of your seniors/colleagues, or I will treat this as a figment of your imagination that you included in your blog just to make it read more interesting than it did earlier.
This is too funny. As funny as saying she is defaming some unknown person by not identifying him.
No wonder your business is thanda.
Great job. In being "equal" and "sensitive", you just equated all gay men with women.
My statistics may be a little bit off, but the principle is that males face far less sexual harassment in the workplace than women.
My statistics may be a little bit off, but the principle is that males face far less sexual harassment in the workplace than women.[/quote]
Kian,
Keep exposing and keep fighting.
You have no idea how much a some sections of legal fraternity are grateful to you for this. both men and women.
Salut!!
H[quote name="anony"][quote name="kianganz"]I was saying, or at least trying to say, that the experience of a man being sexually harassed by a female boss is probably as common as a male being sexually harassed by a male boss.
My statistics may be a little bit off, but the principle is that males face far less sexual harassment in the workplace than women.[/quote]
Kian,
Keep exposing and keep fighting.
You have no idea how much a some sections of legal fraternity are grateful to you for this. both men and women.
Salut!![/quote]
He is hardly 'fighting'. For him its more about publicity right now. Anyway, this is a business and well considering we live in a free world, he is freely entitled to do so.
Everything else is just assumption on your part that only show your sick mind so I have no response.
Except to say, let it happen to your wife or girlfriend or sister or daughter, and then have people accusing her of encouraging it. You people will only learn when it happens to you. But even then you are probably incapable of making the connection between tour own beliefs and those of your wife or sister's abuser.
If she as an educated independent privileged woman is unwilling to take a first step at protecting herself, how can one expect a woman from an underprivileged background to make use of the laws that have been put in place?
It is insufficient to say that the laws must be stronger and men must behave themselves. For the laws to work they must be invoked, which Mihira didn't. For men to realise that this behaviour cannot be tolerated and they wont get away with it, they need to be made an example of. Which again Mihira didnt.
And again, no, she hasnt made an example of him yet. She is just venting and seeking sympathy for herself. Unless she is willing to do something about what she has said, then this article is really pointless.
Just to make sure I understand your comment correctly. You say that unless Mihira makes an example of men who harass female colleagues and juniors, how can such men possibly ever understand how what they do is wrong?
However, you say that you and others have read the article and understand it - doesnt' that mean that at least you and possibly some others who understand the article, now also understand that the kind of behaviour described in this article is wrong?
That does make it seem like the article has a very good and valuable point indeed...
I'm in no manner or form saying that publishing this article is pointless. However what I am saying is that it is insufficient in its scope and ambition.
Your 'in power and may possible abuse power' readers can be classified into certain simplistic categories - those who already know that this behaviour is wrong and wouldn't perpetrate it; those who already know that this behaviour is wrong but couldn't care less and will continue to perpetrate it; those who didn't know that this behaviour was wrong but now do.
The article is preaching to the choir re: the first category. It made no difference to those in the second category. And honestly, do we really want to discuss whether the last category is a sizeable number?
The criticism that I and a lot of other people have been trying to make is how does this article or any of your defences to it, try and get the point across to the second category I mentioned? It doesn't as of now. What would however possibly make them sit up and notice is a possibility of a pain factor for their action. If they think they can get away with it, why would they stop? And if you think that just telling such people that they are wrong will suffice, I have to disagree with you.
Mihira herself in a CNN interview had very strongly advocated for women to come forward and take advantage of the laws in place and not just sit back and be silent victims. Yet, she (back then) and from the absence of any positive indication in her article, even now, does not intend to take any action against the concerned gentleman.
And I'm not even getting into the question of whether she should have told him to stop, did she do something herself, etc. because those aren't really relevant to the harassment she faced. What however is relevant is whether she is willing to do something about it now. And if not, why not?
So the concerned gentleman, harasses her and just gets away. Whats to say he wont harass the next junior he has? He already got away with it once. Even assuming that no legal action is to be taken against him (that of course being Mihira's prerogative), should he atleast not be named so that future juniors of his be warned?
At present, the only point this article seems to be conveying to a reader of yours who may be undergoing harrasment presently or may in the future(irrespective of their sex) is that look if Mihira Sood, who was educated, independent and from a fairly privileged background, just sat quietly and did nothing because she thought her career would be jeopardized, may be we should too. After all even now all she is doing is saying she was harassed, she isn't doing anything else. May be so should we. Just internalize it and move on.
Was that the point of your article Kian?
Ps: Sorry for the long winding 'rant'y post.
1. The third category might be more sizable than you think.
2. How do you know this article wouldn't have an impact on anyone in category 2?
3. The situation is so messed up at the moment that no one has ever really publicly written about this problem in the legal profession, as far as I know. As such, there is a point to this article, in that it breaks new ground.
Maybe the next article by someone else can name a harasser or do whatever you think should be the next step?
You're saying it's a victim's prerogative whether she files charges or not, yet at the same time you're blaming Mihira for not naming him or not taking enough action and 'just' writing about it. Everything needs to start somewhere.
This is a website and it is partly there to encourage debate and awareness (or sensitisation, if you will) about important matters.
I think Mihira's article has arguably achieved more of that on this website and where it has been re-published or where she has been interviewed, than many other initiatives have...
To deal with such situations it is essential that the rotting fish (on both sides of the gender divide) is identified and exposed for what it is. However, I know this is wishful thinking-its best to just get on and make the best use of "whatever you've got".
So long as you have the Abhishek Manu Singhvis who pontificate on national TV by night and yet are the Dr.Jekylls who play on the minds of their juniors, this profession will not remain cleansed.
Law firms aside, fully agree with the comments on the companies where lawyers are hired. Sexual harrassment is a two way street - both men and women involved suffer. Some bold women have come out with their suffering. It is high time that the men who have suffered and are suffering did the same.
But if we are debating it now - it is important to know why the lawyer continued his advances, and whether the author did anything to turn him down/reject his advances firmly. And whether he continued despite a rejection (i.e if he was deliberately using his clout to pressurize the author into a relationship, despite knowing clearly that she is not interested).
People would tend to reject it as publicity stunt though it may be some serious talks. Women always advice others that tolerating crime is like committing crime, then why all these things are happening only recently. Just like [b]Asaram's[/b]episode where only one girl had the courage of coming forward against these fake babas and then started pouring uncountable complaints.
I believe women of this country are themselves to blame for all the crimes being committed against them. Only thing they know is to gather at India Gate and perform candle light so called protests just to gain media glare.
My personal advice to all women is that they must join hands in fighting crimes against them rather them protesting afterwards.
Be pro-active rather than raeactive.
(Y.P.SOOD)
New Delhi
and why MUST he?
1. name and shame - unless positive action is taken against the person in question how is he being made an example of?
2. it forewarns other girls who might want to work with him.
3. the gentleman in question is being slandered without being given a chance to defend himself.
3. the gentleman in question is being slandered without being given a chance to defend himself.[/quote]
If you havent named the person then its hardly slander, right?
Case in point here being the infamous mms video a year back of a senior advocate with another lady advocate ( who was allegedly trying to get his favour for her recommendation on the bench)
Grow up and get some sensitivity.
As I read in one of these blogs, most (if not all) men are Like This Only.. Period. Given a chance, they will "explore", "prey" and "indulge" in sexuality (not merely as a means of sexual pleasure, but to indulge their egos, exercise control and or power) - the age-old "perpetuation of the species" argument was relevant yesterday, is so today - and will be tomorrow. And none of them are going to be Sorry for that.
And to all the girls who think that is too bad, inki maa-behen nahi hai kya, hope someone does the same to his wife etc - for all you know, most of such men may be treating them the same way too!
Society has to evolve, true.. evolve to recognize that men are physically built That Way. They will cut, thrust, burn and conquer - in matters of politics, business, profession and in matters of people (regardless of gender, please note). And I am not even a Talibanist. That shows itself in every facet of life - in policing, in drafting of laws, in the administration of justice.
If that "alpha" aspect of a Man were to change, then this world and the order of nature will be something/someplace else.
You (bra-burners) want to make a "better" world (with panzy boys who will cook food for you, wash your clothes and feed the babies or whatever) which is run by your own rules, well give it a good shot.
Capture a part of the earth's territory from the Alpha Males and rule that half - a females-only territory! Have rules/regulations of most-preferred treatment to its denizens - you deal with the "Male" half only on terms you deem appropriate.
Then, If its a war, it becomes a war. No holds-barred. But no, That is never likely to be acceptable... the stupid argument that i usually hear being - well, we are physically built differently and more weak, so please adjust the rules to suit that!
I think all this must have already run a course some time in human history - in some female-libbers minds at least...
Futile. And against the order of nature. Altho in Kian's gora good-boy assessment, a troll perhaps!
Just let me get your philosophy straight - in your opinion, life is best when societies and humanity are in a perpetual state of war and a never-ending contest of survival of the strongest and most violent, where your mythical 'alphas' prowl and inseminate any woman they come across?
Hell, why bother with police, government, international diplomacy, human rights or any of that law rubbish?
Frankly, if you are not a troll, you are either a fascist, a neanderthal or an idiot.
I ask with trepidation - are you actually a lawyer?
Soft-pedaling moderation (on any issue) has never created Anything. And will continue to create nothing, but people who gently smile at each other and drink camomile tea with low-fat butter cookies...
Of course, 'alphas' prowl.. not just in India but the world over. The Bond video you posted is ample evidence of that, even in the so-called developed UK. If you chose to ignore, then you do so sitting in your own cloud of denial.
Scrape the very thin veneer of civility of civilization, KG - and see things for what they are. No more No less. It is not pretty, of course - So?
Mihira, Kian, I guess your hands are already full dealing with such idiotic rubbish. All the best!
There are enough wolves in sheep's clothing spiritual leaders .. a la Rajneesh, Asaram etc. So you do get the drift i hope.
At the risk of repetition, sexual harrasment and sexual impropriety is merely an extension of acquisitive and controlling behavior of males who are programmed to or by their own desire, wish to dominate.
They are the mice that the cat of "balance" or "justice" or "equitable treatment of sexes" tries to catch. And about as successful in eradicating.
How many of you have any first-hand experience of being with, say for example, a multi-billionaire or a CM/PM or a powerful criminal??! In my 25+ years of practising law, I have seen enough of them - to conclude that the "Alpha" theory merits serious attention. And fear. And good luck if you think true "balance" can be achieved.
I have worked for over 16 years in a law firm type environment. Besides the fact that I can claim that I was probably even as a guy harrassed sexually by a women senior using Mihira experiences as any guide post.
I want to come to all the Male seniors i had besides being good at all the work I did, I had to deal with in my career with some unusually difficult bosses, once I had to arrange for a passport for my boss withhin 48 hours for which I had pull so many strings, so many times I had to assist with the shopping of my seniors, organise birthday's family functions and be at the recieving end of unusually harsh behaviour, including being stimagtized and victimised for refusing unreasonable personal request from my Seniors. I was in one year denied bonus and increment when I refused a significant personal favour for my boss who was very very senior in the profession and a managing partner of the firm.
I know with today's standards all of this would be considered as workplace harrasment but I have alway's considered this having lived " Life" this is real Life for you guys.. do we really expect when we go to a workplace we will have a super sanitized work environment and everybody will be magically perfect not have any biases will not misbehave or have unreasonable expectations from you.. I would like to say grow up people its not a matter of a guy on guy action or a guy on girl action. Fundamentally, I would argue when you step out to work its suppose to be challenging is that you have to deal with real world variables...
I am not defending anything whatsover, I am just wanting to say that Indian experienced this huge public outrage on this Nirbhaya case and since then Womanism (that's the word i think is appropriate) is finding new expression in our social space, but every day people who are at the work place Men and Women both and irrespective of whether they report to bosses of the same gender or opposite gender are faced with unreasonable requests..and thats probably life.. ask a government official who risk being transferred or some banker who can fired or re-allocated or a bonus withheld or some other action the legal profession is as exposed to harrasment as any other..
Lets teach our next generation to stand up to Life...
With all due respect, I understand the truth you are expounding. According to me, your opinion/truth that exploitative actions of what you call alpha males, is to be understood as nature's way, is deterministic thinking, and deserves to be rejected. Kindly reflect for five minutes on the history of mankind, and it will become clear to you that man has progressed through the ages, and that progress has been grounded in the realization that the old ways must change and give way to something better. What you are suggesting is the opposite of progress. Your powerful cm/pm/ceo also cannot abuse their power and admit to their dastardly acts, because even they know what they are doing is wrong. So what they will resort to is hypocrisy. And kindly do not cite examples of politicians as prime examples of what society admires. Men are not by nature prone to be bad - if you have only encountered such men then you are truly unfortunate.
Within the legal fraternity at least, the unfortunate, pathetic truth is that it's common knowledge that harassment is rife, whether at court or within firms. Accordingly, I don't believe articles that state, in effect, "I was harassed by someone at court. I am not going to say who because of my own reasons. Just saying." really do much for the cause of highlighting positive attention to the issue at hand. Please understand that all I'm saying is that the bare minimum I expect from any action taken towards countering sexual harassment is at least naming the person involved, if not proceeding against such persons legally. I have read the reasons cited for not doing so, and here is my opinion on it. Iunderstand people are not named partly because of no vendetta existing between the victims and the accused. I think if you're going far enough to say you don't really harbor any real grudges against said persons, and given everyone already knows of the existence of this problem, it's a cop-out to just come forward and claim the unfortunate attention accompanying victimhood without fulfilling the responsibilities of a law-abiding victim, that of proceeding against the guilty. In other words, your credibility comes into question for half-measures such as this. I personally also do not buy fear of repercussion as an argument. Given the kind of attention rightly accorded to these issues in today's times (where a maid is unafraid of proceeding against a mid-tier Bollywood actor), I tend to believe that our sisters at the bar are in a position to speak out more freely than through benaami articles on the internet, but maybe that's just my congenital male security kicking in; you know, the one nurtured over generations of Indian chauvinism. Please let me further clarify that I am all for ANY action against harassment and that my objection to this sort is not merely because I deem it insufficient and non-committal, but because I sincerely believe that the outcomes I have observed in court have leaned towards multiple male lawyers mentioning, joking or in some cases, even sincerely stating their trepidation against hiring women as their juniors. They do not fear this because they do not trust their own demeanor or passions, mind you: They fear this because they believe that any junior of theirs, could walk out of their chamber some day, work with another lawyer who does subject her to harassment, followed by which such victim could post an article describing her harassment by, let us say, "a very senior lawyer that she had worked with". While ordinarily a general piece without naming the perpetrator ought to have been fine, but contributors should realize that it directly leads to aspersions of doubt being cast on every single person fitting into the brief, broad and vague traits that they do deem fit to disclose about the perpetrators. Another outcome I tend to note is more worrisome. If you tend to indicate with the wave of a hand rather than a pointed finger, you tend to engage in the fallacy of synecdoche: I believe the absence of specific information has tainted the reputation of the bar altogether unfairly. While I reiterate that I KNOW this is a rampant problem that needs to be addressed, let me only state that there remains a difference between a problem being prevalent and a problem being universal; while the former tends to evoke constant vigilance, the latter often evokes dismissal outright. For instance, my cousin is currently studying law and had expressed her inclination towards litigation. However, given the recent spate of events, her parents are now actively dissuading her from practising in New Delhi. If, on the other hand, the victims had come out and at least taken legal recourse against the accused, I think women everywhere could have taken courage from their examples and found faith in their own abilities to address problems as serious as this. These articles to me seem like informative advisory notices which describe the illness without really identifying either the specific causes or the solutions involved. The value of such articles is outweighed by the deterrence they create in both, the entry of women at the bar, as well as the welcome that certain paranoid members of the bar extends to them. If you've read this far, bear with me a little longer: MS, SJ and everyone else. Please do not mistake this comment as a questioning or examination of your experience, nor do I mean to devalue or criticize the efforts you have taken towards a solution. I merely advise caution going forward and a holistic approach to your efforts wherein you think of every possible aspect of the impact your efforts may have. I sincerely hope that future efforts in this respect keep this in mind.
I take issue with the following, however, that you write
[quote]
"Within the legal fraternity at least, the unfortunate, pathetic truth is that it's common knowledge that harassment is rife, whether at court or within firms. Accordingly, I don't believe articles that state, in effect, "I was harassed by someone at court. I am not going to say who because of my own reasons. Just saying." really do much for the cause of highlighting positive attention to the issue at hand."[/quote]
Surely, the reason that it's common knowledge only in the fraternity and not actually a bigger concern to anyone, is that this awareness hadn't permeated into the mainstream dialogue yet, because NO ONE, 'sisters at the bar' or otherwise, had really stated even the obvious, as far as I'm aware, or perhaps explained it in a readily understandable manner...
In the past few weeks now, pretty much every single lawyer, newspaper and TV station is aware of what was 'common knowledge' inside the legal profession. And maybe something is now being done to fight it properly, just partly because of Mihira's and SJ's courage in taking the small steps they did?
And that their accounts didn't live up to what you or others expected of your 'sisters at the bar', should not be their problem, but the bar's, for not having addressed the problem earlier.
I take issue with the following, however, that you write
[quote]
"Within the legal fraternity at least, the unfortunate, pathetic truth is that it's common knowledge that harassment is rife, whether at court or within firms. Accordingly, I don't believe articles that state, in effect, "I was harassed by someone at court. I am not going to say who because of my own reasons. Just saying." really do much for the cause of highlighting positive attention to the issue at hand."[/quote]
Surely, the reason that it's common knowledge only in the fraternity and not actually a bigger concern to anyone, is that this awareness hadn't permeated into the mainstream dialogue yet, because NO ONE, 'sisters at the bar' or otherwise, had really stated even the obvious, as far as I'm aware, or perhaps explained it in a readily understandable manner...
In the past few weeks now, pretty much every single lawyer, newspaper and TV station is aware of what was 'common knowledge' inside the legal profession. And maybe something is now being done to fight it properly, just partly because of Mihira's and SJ's courage in taking the small steps they did?
And that their accounts didn't live up to what you or others expected of your 'sisters at the bar', should not be their problem, but the bar's, for not having addressed the problem earlier.[/quote]
Dear Kian,
Thank you for granting your consideration to my comment. With respect to the portion of my comment you take issue with, I do believe I clarified my point elsewhere as to not taking issue with the existence of, or whatever modicum of good brought by, these articles, but to the fact that their inadequacy, or what strikes me as their inadequacies, does have an adverse effect. Whether or not such adverse effect outweighs the good it does is, I suppose, subjective. My opinion is it does. I believe any act that could have a good, as well as a bad impact ought to be treated responsibly. You're absolutely right about the fact that these have helped highlight to the mainstream media and population the existence of an erstwhile evil-that-must-not-be-named. Nonetheless, do try and see that I am not opposed to the dissemination of information; I only seek a responsible outlet. MS, SJ and others obviously, unselfishly said what they had to say with the best intentions. This was my way of highlighting, without devaluing their efforts, to them and to everyone else who, heaven forbid, may have to consider this path in the future that their words matter, for good, but unfortunately for bad as well. It's odd that I sense a tinge of almost adversarial criticism in your response to my comment, but maybe I'm just imagining it. Nonetheless, do let me clarify that this comment was never about my expectations from the efforts of anyone, but merely a word of caution, delivered post-facto after having observed the side-effect (I know, not subtle) of the efforts in concern. Also, because a turn of phrase as innocuous as 'sisters at the bar', utilized only as syntax to denote women lawyers within legitimate context, seems to have registered well enough in your editorial consciousness to have manifested twice in your response (within quotes, that too), please reast easy: this observer has been disciplined. I will henceforth only refer to men and women at court with the non-discriminatory and gender neutral 'colleagues at the bar'.
Sure, in an ideal world victims and media would all name alleged harassers in clear cases. And sure, a little bit of fallout happens in that maybe 1 or 2 lawyers who are completely innocent are now suspected unfairly by a few people.
That doesn't take away from the need for someone to come out and actually speak about their experience. And actually, in these cases, it's a lot more conducive to intelligent discussion NOT to name someone. Witness what's happening in the Tejpal case - once an actionable allegation is made against an individual, that individual (and their legal counsel), inevitably ends up throwing mud at the accuser.
As it stands, everyone can discuss the general menace and how to solve them, rather than making it personal, and a he said, she said.
Finally, that argument you and others have been making is an argument you could make against almost any major scandal written about by the media, which upsets those in power.
Snowden: why tell this story because it might hurt some legitimate interests of the United States and its allies?
Wikileaks: Some sources might be compromised when war crimes are exposed / governments embarrassed by leaked cables.
Watergate: When the allegations were first made, it creates distrust of the administration and a great and popular president
(And paedophilia in the Catholic Church, Lewinsky-Clinton, phone hacking, etc, etc...)
I appreciate your "words of caution" were honestly felt, but sometimes such words or theoretical arguments are ammunition that is harmfully used by those actually seeking to bury truths.
Best wishes,
Kian
Ps: I quite liked the expression 'sisters at the bar' actually :)
Considering your evident penchant for analogies, consider this: by your argument, any medicine that alleviates a disease, in part or in while, but has serious side-effects (I could do this all day) should be unabashedly touted as a signficant achievement, while anyone who stands up and says, sure, "My head doesn't ache that much anymore, but my nipples fell off and I can't smell anything" should have to endure the Wrath of Kian (Trekkie4evayawlz).
Let me restrict the rest of my rebuttals to bullet points:
(i) For you, it's a question of one or two lawyers, a casualty of war, so to speak. I think the number is higher, speaking as a member of the Delhi bar, and, again, while you'd be quick to dismiss such casualties as necessary, I'd advise caution in abundance.
(ii) You and I are on the same page, Kian, about one thing. More and more women need to speak out, and up until now not enough of us have been listening. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY I hope that women at least consider what I'm trying to get across: One, everyone is or should be listening right now. Two, what you're saying could hurt as much as help. Three, if you, on the basis of my comments, at least keep in mind points one and two when you make your efforts in the future, I believe the hurt can be minimized and the help enhanced.
(iii) Speaking of the instances you raised, Kian, at least with respect to the ones I'm familiar with (Wikileaks and Watergate, for instance), it behooves me to tell you that your instances are not only not comparable, but the precise opposite of what my point is: I am all for necessary upheaval in power structures being justified by speaking out and bringing attention to things that deserve it. My issue is with incomplete or seemingly irresponsible outlets leading to an absence of clarity, thereby resulting in as much harm as good. Building on your own analogy, what if Monica Lewinsky had come forward and simply stated someone at the White House had harassed her? Or if Julian Assange hadn't released diplomatic cables from the White House but had only said, "I have some stuff I intercepted. It's pretty bad, guys. Can't tell you more, but you know, just be afraid."
(iv) Finally, my arguments are theoretical to the extent that I, not having been born a woman, do not know first-hand what it would feel like in such a situation. Nonetheless, to devalue my input as 'words or theoretical arguments', without for a second considering that perhaps I have a wife or friends at the Bar that I care about, or screw that, irrespective, that sexual harassment and the overall improvement of the Bar aren't things that matter enough to me for me to have a cogent, rational, unprejudiced opinion on is uncalled for. Thank you for your unwarranted patronizing with respect to my thoughts on what ironically has been termed an opinion piece. You're right: My theoretical arguments hold no weight against the real trials and tribulations of MS, SJ and others, but thank you for bringing me to the truth: If a woman stands up and alleges sexual harassment, I am expected to tread lightly and let her actions go unblemished and unquestioned, even if I have concerns that I truly feel for. The true irony is that this is pretty much exactly what I wanted to highlight in the first place: That there's this stigma attached with this subject matter that lends gravity to the words of the victim, as it rightly should. If, however, I were to urge such individuals to not respond to their afflictions without considering the impact it may have collaterally, I stand answerable to an ocean of glibness harping on the courage of those who spoke out and the wonders of mainstream attention. Funnily enough, I never contested those to begin with. Thank you also for the back-handed condescension that was the implication that my words of caution (again, with quotes!) are honestly felt, because, gee, I'm constantly seeking external validation for my sincerity, but no wait, you're right. My words will only come in handy for those who are actually seeking to bury the truth. No, it won't help people take a fair perspective without being overwhelmed by the disgust they should feel at sexual harassment. No, it won't help women come out and make declarations with at least some consideration to the possible side-effects. Last of all, it won't help people trying to make sense on an LI forum at all. It'll help chauvinistic monkeys that blame harassment on the victims and other equally contemptible animals that bury truths.
You may have phrased it in a balanced manner, but a lot of others do not, and have not in this thread or others. Some people were using exactly the argument that the accusations are irresponsible to try and sweep this issue under the carpet or implicitly discredit the accuser as irresponsible (or, in a similarly sinister mould, that such accusations are irresponsible because they will cause women to lose internship opportunities at the bar or the bench).
Sure, it's a fair point, but IMHO it's neither Warp engine science nor something that deserves major debate or ethical soulsearching (at least journalistically).
Personally, I also wouldn't have had a problem with Lewinsky saying she was sexually harassed in the White House by 'someone', if that results in the issue actually being discussed (and arguably, naming Clinton resulted in a political farce and denials that must have cost the US economy billions in unproductive TV viewers and politicians and lawyers. And I'm sure Clinton is not the only sexual harasser ever to have worked in the White House).
Or, for argument's sake, someone blowing the whistle and saying, by the way, rape exists in the US army, but I don't want to name names - if you care enough, find out yourself.
Similarly, Watergate wasn't born one day as a fully-fledged story - it was pieced together through hundreds of newspaper reports, building on previous reports, adding facts and angles bit by bit, telling an incomplete story, that finally turned the case from a simple break-in into a constitutional crisis (not saying our reporting is comparable, but do read All the President's Men, if you haven't already - if Woodward and Berstein had named Nixon in their first, second or even tenth story, without thousands of hours of reporting, they would have probably been assassinated by the FBI).
However, in some ways we have a similar situation here. These young women have raised the flag, the issue has got the attention of the media, and now it is up to the appropriate authorities (or the profession) to find out the rest (or for the media to start investigating more thoroughly and exposing any alleged injustices).
Best wishes,
Kian
I frequently find that the people passionate about urging checks and balances against a particular evil are often unmindful of the impact of their own actions in the pursuit of their respective ideals. Surely, a check and balance against them isn't entirely uncalled for? And surely, the exercise of caution I have been speaking for isn't warp engine science either?
Lastly, while I haven't read the book, I have watched the film multiple times. Accordingly, I ask you to think of me not as the FBI, but as Bradlee, who constantly urged caution at relying Deep Throat as a source, and demanding that allegations be made responsibly.