A few weeks ago, the newly opened Bed Lounge Bar attracted a fair amount of flak for barring people wearing traditional costumes from their premises.
My own view on that was very simple. Any establishment has the right to choose its own rules. Whether i like them or not. If I don’t like the rules, i go to another establishment that has rules that i can abide by.
The reason why this came up was an article today about the University of Mumbai deciding to introduce its own dress code. But for very different reasons.
Today, Mumbai University has decided to:
ban women from wearing mini skirts, tight tops and shorts, saying this will help prevent rape.
I expect that the University is going to get jhaaped very nicely by all quarters. And rightly so. The mistake that the University has made is in creating a causality between rape and attire. The fact remains that women like Mukhtar Mai or the victims of rape in Gujarat were modestly clad. That didn’t prevent them from getting raped. I remember reading somewhere that the incidence of rape tends to be the lowest in nudist colonies. With this prouncement, the university has shifted the onus of blame of “inciting rape” on the victim specifically and on women in general.
Now, if the University had instead said that
We are an organisation – with a certain entrance, admission and behavioural parameters, and anyone who wishes to be a part of us needs to follow it
they would have probably achieved the same effect without idiotic cause of effect pronouncements.
I agree with you completely. But have the university folks ever used their brains? Read this nice post also, by the Greatbong.
🙂 a high school oin dorset has passed the same ban – on girls wearing skirts at school – except they dont use the word rape – they say – in a bid to help them maintain their ‘modesty’ – have blogged about it…
🙂 a high school oin dorset has passed the same ban – on girls wearing skirts at school – except they dont use the word rape – they say – in a bid to help them maintain their ‘modesty’ – have blogged about it…
and I dont agree with your comparison between bed lounge and mumbai university, harini – if you dont like the bed lounge – either the place or the rules, you can go elsewhere – if you dont like the rules that mumbai university imposes, then where do you go? students have no choice but to follow these rules – whether or not they agree… and worded any other way, the rules still implies that there is a link between clothes and rape / inciltement for sexual assault.
i don’t have an issue with a dress code. i really won’t lose too much sleep if the university tomorrow said “uniforms”
we follow these “rules” at work, shouldn’t be an issue of following it for education.
Also with the last three years of teaching and interacting with students leads me to believe that a dress code may not be a bad idea. At an 8 am lecture – coming face to face with a fashion parade is problematic:)
colleges like sophia’s, xaviers, and sies already have a dress code. no hotpants, no spagetti straps, no shorts.
The comparison for “bed lounge” is more that an organisation has the right to decide admission.
and today there is a lot of alternative to university education!
and, the excuse for the rule/dress code n is that students from poorer families will not feel inadequete or pressurise their parents for expensive clothes
I’m reading Freakanomics and it lists various problems with are tackled in wrong ways when the answers are all in the arbitrary.
All the Bombay University is doing is cause and effect. Because there is an increase in sexual crimes and they must be seen as though they are taking some action. Action here being
I study in pune. Pune is pretty educational centric with a large number of women students who live alone but no such debate has caught on.
It would be interesting to see what Stephen Levett has to say on the matter.
Deviating from the topic if you’re wondering how freakomics is ? I’m finding it better than tipping point. I should review it soon
I think the mistake that the people like this guy make about provocative dressing is that they think the basis for rape is the urge to have sex, and that urge is amplified when one sees a provocative dress worn by someone.
But rape is something more than and this article explains it more than enough.
But given that our courts do not THINK, as they are blind, and so are 90% of the indian population, there is nothing great to expect from the Mumbai University.
We bloggers can ofcourse voice our opinions, and maybe in some 50 years things may change
by the logic of “organisation has a right to deny entry based their own criteria” is a flawed logic!! or if extended can lead to tricky situations.. can i start a caste based entry system/or blacks and dogs not allowed thing.. a lot of golf clubs in US dont allow women.. is it okay?
abcdef
i am assuming, of course, that all these bodies will act within the constitution. And the Constitution does not allow for discrimination.
Caste/Gender/Racial/Ethinc/Religious etal discrimination cannot be condoned, and should not be.
however, there are girls only (or should that be women’s only) colleges here. As there are boys only schools. There are minority schools and colleges for specific religious/ community groups.
As far as golf clubs or for that matter cricket clubs are concerned -i really don’t have an opinion one way or hte other.
An interesting point. I have a cavil though:
“traditional *costumes*”? Surely, you mean traditional clothes?
no srikant. i meant costume.
that’s primarily because the entire recommendation is for show!:)
i am very comfortable wearing traditional clothes. but when i am forced to wear it by dictat then it becomes a costume.