On the Previous Post
So!
What I answered was:
1) Setu, simply cos I can't find any sane reason (forgetting all definitions of morality or immorality) for raping someone.
2) Ravi, for not sticking up for Rani when she was going through an experience that definitely would not have been pleasant for her.
3) Vivek, for not being a good enough friend to accompany Rani (After all, a friend in need is a friend indeed)
4) Rani, for getting her cheap thrill on seeing erstwhile lover for being beaten up (But then, I suupose when you have been terribly in love and seen that your love was missplaced, your immediate reaction is to be hurt by it. And my suspicion is that Rani was more hurt by Ravi's treachery than Setu's cos after all, Ravi was the reason she'd gotten into all this in the first place)
5) Dilip could have done with more brain power and less brawn power but well, he's the Big Moose Kind...don't think anything he did was premeditated or malicious.
But the point is, there are no right or wrong answers. Not that there are no ways of defining morality. I think it's a bit hypocritical to say that...cos however cool it sounds, the point is that we all have ways of defining right and wrong, however subjective it may be.
The fact that people give such different answers only tell more about them than any of the characters. It's just a self-assessment thing to make you question yourself on why you think the way you do.
But the learnings were many:
For instance, most men( and some women too, to be fair) in the workshop had problems with Rani cos (a) they felt she asked for it (b)they felt she should have chosen death over dishonour (c) she dressed attractively. (d) they didn't think that if she was given the choice of jumping into the crocodile river, it amounted to rape.(e) some of them didn't even think of what happened as being 'rape'.
Just some of the very same accusations that a rape victim does deal with.
I'd say to (a) If you've been in love, you'll know that you are capable of incredible stupidity but that does not necessarily make one a person without values or morals. (b) I really pitied the wives of the men who said that...and I think it's so unfair that women are subjected to such strong stereotypes (The Sati-savithri-Sita syndrome) Honestly, would a guy who was being raped by a woman do that? Would a man find fault with another MAN who chose sex (unwanted though it was) over death??Why is it that a woman's "honour" is so much more precious to men than their OWN!??!?!?!? (c)this one was quite interesting cos most men equated attractive with 'provocative'. This in turn raised up questions of what exactly 'provocative' meant. Which dress could a girl wear that could not be termed provocative. Cos V, the guy who was handling the workshop said he was'provoked' by women in salwars and sarees, so did that make them immoral?? So, did provocative lie in the eyes of the beholder??(d) Is choice between the devil and the deep sea, really a choice? (e) What does one say here??
Anyways, I guess the point of the workshop was to address men's attitude to women like Rani. So, the 'wrong' answer was actually people who judged Rani for getting raped and treating her not as someone who'd got a raw deal but as someone who was guilty for what she had gone through.
The horrid bit where we had to sing songs about *ahem* I shall save for another day when I am feeling a tad bolder!
What I answered was:
1) Setu, simply cos I can't find any sane reason (forgetting all definitions of morality or immorality) for raping someone.
2) Ravi, for not sticking up for Rani when she was going through an experience that definitely would not have been pleasant for her.
3) Vivek, for not being a good enough friend to accompany Rani (After all, a friend in need is a friend indeed)
4) Rani, for getting her cheap thrill on seeing erstwhile lover for being beaten up (But then, I suupose when you have been terribly in love and seen that your love was missplaced, your immediate reaction is to be hurt by it. And my suspicion is that Rani was more hurt by Ravi's treachery than Setu's cos after all, Ravi was the reason she'd gotten into all this in the first place)
5) Dilip could have done with more brain power and less brawn power but well, he's the Big Moose Kind...don't think anything he did was premeditated or malicious.
But the point is, there are no right or wrong answers. Not that there are no ways of defining morality. I think it's a bit hypocritical to say that...cos however cool it sounds, the point is that we all have ways of defining right and wrong, however subjective it may be.
The fact that people give such different answers only tell more about them than any of the characters. It's just a self-assessment thing to make you question yourself on why you think the way you do.
But the learnings were many:
For instance, most men( and some women too, to be fair) in the workshop had problems with Rani cos (a) they felt she asked for it (b)they felt she should have chosen death over dishonour (c) she dressed attractively. (d) they didn't think that if she was given the choice of jumping into the crocodile river, it amounted to rape.(e) some of them didn't even think of what happened as being 'rape'.
Just some of the very same accusations that a rape victim does deal with.
I'd say to (a) If you've been in love, you'll know that you are capable of incredible stupidity but that does not necessarily make one a person without values or morals. (b) I really pitied the wives of the men who said that...and I think it's so unfair that women are subjected to such strong stereotypes (The Sati-savithri-Sita syndrome) Honestly, would a guy who was being raped by a woman do that? Would a man find fault with another MAN who chose sex (unwanted though it was) over death??Why is it that a woman's "honour" is so much more precious to men than their OWN!??!?!?!? (c)this one was quite interesting cos most men equated attractive with 'provocative'. This in turn raised up questions of what exactly 'provocative' meant. Which dress could a girl wear that could not be termed provocative. Cos V, the guy who was handling the workshop said he was'provoked' by women in salwars and sarees, so did that make them immoral?? So, did provocative lie in the eyes of the beholder??(d) Is choice between the devil and the deep sea, really a choice? (e) What does one say here??
Anyways, I guess the point of the workshop was to address men's attitude to women like Rani. So, the 'wrong' answer was actually people who judged Rani for getting raped and treating her not as someone who'd got a raw deal but as someone who was guilty for what she had gone through.
The horrid bit where we had to sing songs about *ahem* I shall save for another day when I am feeling a tad bolder!
posted by Rapunzel at 8:41 am
25 Comments:
First, did Rani get a raw deal here? What I am trying to say is, you can saw you got a raw deal when things turn against you unexpectedly. Rani's case isn't quite unexpected. When you are aware of the risk, and still go ahead with it, you are responsible for what happens.
Second, consider a scenario where a guy and a girl are in a relationship. Guy meets another girl one day over coffee. Guy's girlfriend calls him a jerk. Is the girlfriend's reaction justified? Wouldn't you have done the same? Agreed the situation is not the same as Rani's, the only difference is that the stakes are higher there.
What's *ahem*?
yes answers to such questions are a great way to judge character. about provocative vs. attractive, i came across a loosely-related blog about street harassment of females in cities. not sure if you have read it or not, but its very strong. here is the link.
my list wud've looked sumthin' like that.
and yeah, virginity is overrated, polygamy is a one-way definition and a virgin witch is okie while an innocent victim of molestation is an outcast.
I can justify blaming their(the men) background for the way they think, but only to a certain extent.
PS- jus' curious. Weeklong conference on child rights and this was an exercise?
I agree. In a lot situations, there're no absolute rights or wrongs. In this case, however, I'm not sure how, or why, anyone can fault Rani or even the he-man friend (I agree, violence is hardly the solution to any problem but...)The only two people I can seriously find fault with are the boyfriend and the boatman. In my book, the boyfriend is the bigger jerk b'cos he is supposed to be in love with this girl. If he cannot recognise what lengths she's been to just to be with him, he's not worth it. It is shocking that he can turn around and acuuse her. And, that he can find fault with her, makes him PNG for me. The boatman is villain # 2 and, although he is the rapist, I rank him below the boyfriend b'cos unlike the boyfriend, he didn't know the girl. So, there is no question of shattering any trust placed in him. He is just a low life, who took advantage of the situation. I guess you could also find fault with the friend who refused to accompany the girl across the river but, as I said before, we don't know enough about his circumstances to reach any definite conclusion about his conduct.
HYDE-thr is no similarity between case one and case 2. rape is a crime, its a violation of one's body...i fail to see your connection in the girl friend getting cheesed off thingie.
as for did rani get a raw deal...i put myself in rani's shoes. i and every other girl i know sometimes have a tendency to get paranoid.if i got slightly psyched out by the way an auto driver looked at me, but it was really important for me to make it somewhere, i'd ignore my uncomfortable feeling as paranoia.(some very creepy looking auto guys have turned out to be absolute gentlemen in their dealingsn i've realised that my initial feeling was absolutely unwarranted...)i am assuming rani did the same....i think the most she can be accused of, is stupidity and carelessness...to think of her as being immoral...??
SANITY STARVED-the next time i am feeling like a poised assured receptive woman of substance, i shall tell you :)
MITESH-yep i read it :)but hey whats the url??i mean how do i get there without clicking on your link?:-/
bharat-that was just a prelimiary exercise to get the reactions of people's attitude to women like rani. extend the woman to victim. children dont often say anything after they've been abused cos they feel it might have been their fault. there's this conspiracy of silence against sexual anything that kids dont talk. and after they've grown up enough, they realise even more that society might condemn them, so they keep at the silence.child sexual abuse was just two days..but it's something that my NGO has not been looking into too much(we're more into education for kids and stuff), so it was an eye-opener.
GHOSTOFTOMJOAD-i agree.the boyfriend is a jerk. an absolute one.and the sad bit is, by the standard definition of morality, he would be the most moral cos "after all", he just refused a "spoilt good". ugh!makes one boil to think of it.
What? What "standard definition of morality" are you talking about? Besides, I'm afraid, no definition of morality can condone his stand. What you're talking about is the standard male hypocrisy. Spoilt goods? Are you serious? Who even talks like that? maybe that he-ma didn't pummel the boyfriend enough :-)
mine and your list the same except i thought setu and ravi were equally unforgivable. but this is a serious topic and has been much debated. yuo really cant put the blame on a single person...
so sorry but i tagged you!
The URL:
http://knownturf.blogspot.com/2006/03/streets-stories-strategies.html
Two new things here. First, a blog where the comments section spills over into a post.
Second, a situation where I am in complete agreement with Tom Joad!
GHOST-i am glad you feel that strongly about it:) it's so difficult to get one guy to call another guy (even a fictitious one)a jerk. you dont have to convince me that the BF is a jerk u know. i am of the opinion that 90% of BFs are jerks anyways :) and the 10% who are not have strong TENDENCIES.boys are so much better of as friends than boyfriends (which is y i think V sucked as a friend)so! that said,u must realise that though you and i think of rani as a victim, the so called "guardians" of morality (the kind who got all worked up at khushboo's comment) would never quite think of it that way...or is chennai the only place where women face such stuff?
SOMEONE OUT THERE-absolutely. i did say that there are no right or wrong answers. my answers, if tehy came out strong was simply cos they were strongly my opinion at that point. I agree that Ravi and Setu are close 'contenders'.
शक्ती-lol...as long as there isnt a deadline!
Mitesh-much thanks:)
ARTHUR-how observant u are!
So was there a discussion on human rights at all? What did the men think their 'rights'were? And if most of us are still living in the dark ages, do these workshops have any impact at all?
I wouldn't call Rani immoral. Stupid, yes.
As for case 2, I do not quite recall the exact reason why I put it in. I think I was trying to highlight the action and its reaction. Note, I did say the case is not the same since the stakes are different.
That said, it is quite possible that initially I would have reacted the same way as Ravi. But then, I know I would have also thrashed Setu.
INKBLOT-did i say anything about living in the dark ages??*frantically searching post*
HYDE*giggle*@the thought of u thrashing ANYBODY, leave alone a rapist!
You haven't seen me when I am raving mad. So I will let that comment pass.
Post a Comment
<< Home