Are We Ready For Women's Equality?

There is no dispute that women in India were given less than their due for most of the last millennium. There is no dispute that this inequality needed to be straightened out in Independent India. Again, there is no contention to the fact that the issue was social as much as legal.

In India, the status quo stayed simple for most of the last millennium: Women would be given virtually no regard in public life. At home they were given respect as masters of the home domain and the bearers of children.

Then came the British and ingrained ideas of "ladies-first" and chivalry into our social fabric.

Today, with women undoubtedly far ahead of where they stood in pre-Independence India, we arrive at two inevitable predicaments: 1. Equality vs. Chivalry 2. Discrimination vs. Reverse Discrimination.

On the first predicament:We're used to treating women with special respect and dignity. It's the gentlemanly thing to do. To let the ladies walk through first while you hold the door open for them, to wait while the ladies sit down first, to serve them first at dinner, to have a special queue for them at rail reservation counters etc etc. However when women are to be regarded as equal, all this is a confusing contradiction. Equality is essentially first-come-first-serve, not ladies-first. It entails an even platform for all the equal parties, in this case, men and women.

On the second predicament. We as a society are now well aware of the taboo that is discrimination against women. Not only that, we’re extremely wary of it. Woe betide anyone who says, does or feels anything that may be even remotely regarded as sexist. So great is our fear of being branded chauvinist that now we don't mind discriminating against men just so everyone is clear that we're on the politically correct side. A simple case of reverse discrimination.

Not convinced? This entry will now go on to explore a few scenarios where the above issues come starkly into view.

Consider now the issue of women's reservation. The overwhelming claim, from women everywhere is that they're equal and should be treated as much. That our laws and people should recognise the strength of the Indian woman and let her compete on an equal footing with her fellow male. Fair enough, but then on what grounds can we justify 33% reservation for women in educational institutes, jobs and government? Reservation by definition identifies a particular group as weaker/less developed and caters to help them out. It is, in its very concept, an unequal idea. Equality entails competing fairly with the rules of the game same for everyone. Reservation involves making things unequally easy for one group at the expense of another.

If we are to go ahead with reservation for women (which it seems we will), we brand them as unequal for all eternity. Not only that, other kinds of reservation have shown us that when we set reservation for women at 33% we will ensure that their participation in the reserved spheres will never go beyond 33% . That our idealistic figure of an equal 50-50 will never be achieved. Yet, statistics have it that a majority of women are in favour of reservation. Why? Is the demand for equality or special treatment?

Let’s now go on to infidelity laws in our country. As of now, a woman in India cannot be criminally charged with infidelity/adultery. Not even as an accomplice to the crime! In all cases of infidelity the woman is regarded as a victim and a victim only (Am I the only one who finds this outrageous?). So recently some good soul decided this was unequal and pushed for making the law more equal, such that even women who committed adultery could be subjected to criminal proceedings. What happened next? Women's rights groups all over the country were suddenly up in arms against the proposed change. Their contention was that this wouldn't solve the issue of infidelity and extra-marital affairs.
Firstly, I don't see how a law against infidelity will not serve to deter offenders. Secondly, even if it doesn't, how about we go through we go ahead with it because it's the fair and equal thing to do. Equality, isn't that why these women's rights groups exist in the first place anyway?

Let's come to the issue of equal employment opportunity now. At my college we recently had placements and internship selections. One of my friends applied to a global oil giant for an internship. A little background: The institute we study in has a 5% female population. The oil major who was selecting students apparently has a "very healthy male-female ratio". During the selections, my friend (an excellent debater) took charge of his group discussion session and gave it direction, meaning and coherence. The only other person who spoke during the entire GD session was another guy. At the end of it all, it turned out my friend didn't make it. Two ladies who were also part of the group however, made the cut. Like I said before, these ladies spoke nothing. Confused, my friend approached the interviewers. Which is when he was told about the "very healthy male-female ratio" and how it was essential to the company to maintain this to avoid coming off as "unequal".
Now let's analyse what really happened here, despite the blatant claim of equality made by this oil giant.
The college has 5% women and 95% men. Let's assume the applicants were in a similar ratio. Now the oil giant wants an "equal" number of men and women. So let's say for every hundred applicants they select 2. One male and one female. Since 95 of these hundred are guys, 1 guy gets selected out of 95. That makes his selection probability 1.05%. In the women's category however, 1 woman gets selected out of the 5. So the selection probability for a woman is 20%. This, apparently, is equality. It doesn't take much to see the very plain reverse discrimination here. Forgive the men for feeling just a little discriminated against.

Now let's analyse what is perhaps more important than any of the issues above. The matter of general attitudes towards women. Most of us are comfortable with the idea that men will take care of women. That they need taking care of. This manifests itself in daily life all the time. For example, it is customary for the guy to pay if a couple is out on a date. As another, we allow a separate queue for women at reservation counters.We have seating reserved for women on buses. All very gentlemanly, all very polite. Yet it is this very presumption of the "inherent weakness of women" that causes us so much grief. When society agrees that women must be taken care of by men, then it automatically implies that women will hardly be allowed to compete equally with them. That they may receive the love and affection a child gets, but never the mutual respect of an equal. In a much worse scenario, each time a woman is abused/molested/raped, it is a reflection of society's feeling that women are somehow less than men. Do we really want this to continue despite our urgent desire for equality?

When we talk of any equality, we have to accept that it cannot co-exist with special treatment. Moreover, what everyone needs to understand is that if we hope to achieve real equality, we have to oppose inequality at each instance, even when it favours us.

In summary, India has to make a choice. The choice between giving women a special place in society and letting them remain unequal or letting them become equal and removing many of the privileges that they currently enjoy. Essentially, we need to ask ourselves if we're really ready for real equality for women, and men.