Vantage point

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

Another Reader's Response

A blogger, Umesh, jumps to the defence of what Prakash had written here - ( ).

A few excerpts and my reactions.

we cannot deny the fact that it is the dressing of the girls that attract men and so their is no doubt that they are responsible for all these rising sexual harassements on women or rather hot-babes, if I am allowed to say so.

You are allowed to say so, but you would be wrong. The reasons are already explained in my original blog post.

It was Menka who broke Valmiki's meditation, and that she did by seducing him and I need not detail here on how girls can seduce a men.

Firstly, followers of Valmiki, protest!!! Valmiki's good name is being sullied here. Valmiki's meditation was never broken(sic) by Menaka. And followers of Menaka, join in. She never tried to break(sic) Valmiki's meditation. I think it was Vishwamitra.

Anyway, what is the point here? Quoting from mythology/fiction to give an analogy? Grow up! Well then on a totally different topic, do you agree that it is possible for a lion to curb his meat-eating instincts and not eat his friends, like in the movie Madagascar? Or since we are on Hindu mythology, everyone knows how Vamana got enough land using just two of his foot-steps. How do you feel about land-reforms which will give peasants two foot-steps of land, since it is enough, as shown by Vamana?

Even if for the sake of argument, we assume that there existed a Menaka who enticed Vishwamitra, then remember, it means Menaka was a consenting adult trying to seduce him, so Vishwamitra did nothing wrong. I am not saying all men are un-seducable.

If we get a polling done on the "Eve-teasing" or "Molesting" done on scantily dressed girls Vs well dressed girls, then definitely the percentage of the former would be much higher.

This is that logical fallacy whose name temporarily eludes me(Cartellians, help!). "IF" we get a polling done, then "DEFINITELY".... again, what is the point of this? Either show a proper poll which reflects this or then shut up. Secondly, even if the point is assumed true for the sake of the argument, so what? How does that justify the stance taken?

Suppose a poll shows that maximum money is stolen from houses of people who have money, does that mean that a person having money is responsible for the theft? Would you say people who have money want it to get stolen? Or suppose there is a woman who wears jewellery everywhere she goes. Would you say that she does it because she wants the jewellery stolen?

If someone says that a woman wearing a lot of jewellery on a deserted street is at more risk of being robbed than a woman who does not wear the jewellery, it is fine. But saying she is "responsible" for the theft is wrong, because it was the thief who is responsible. Saying that "she wanted the jewellery to be stolen" would be so outrageous that no one would even say it. Yet some people like Prakash B have no qualms in saying that "WHEN A WOMAN WALKS DOWN THE STREET IN A SHORT SKIRT, SHE ALREADY HAS IN MIND THAT SOMEBODY SHOULD LAY HER DOWN.", and people like Umesh will defend these people.

I argue that girls get what they invite for and if the boys sometime crosses their limit, the whole blame goes these uncultured/uncivilised boys, and the poor girl is just the victim.

There are more contradictions in this single sentence than L K Advani's entire political career.

Umesh ends his post with a lot of advice for me, and a dare which is reminiscent of dares we used to give each other on kindergarten playgrounds.