A Moment of Madness

The first thing I read after I got up this morning was a piece called A Moment of Madness by Vinita Nangia in the Times of India. I read the text below the title and wound up annoyed. I then skimmed through the piece and felt furious. Do I not think that people have their moments of 'madness'? No. Do I think that they should be unaccountable for their actions? Absolutely not.
The author begins the piece by mixing history and myth, fact and fiction, giving one example after the other of men either treating women badly -- if not actually abusing them -- or of men allegedly simply losing their minds: the Buddha abandoning his wife, a fictional Othello murdering Desdemona, the Mark Antony of history supposedly being bewitched by Cleopatra thus determining his downfall, Shiney Ahuja allegedly committing rape. And at the end of it, somehow seems to be full of sympathy for those who behave badly in such moments of madness, as she calls them, without once talking about the effect of their actions on their victims. (I use the pronoun 'those' because through the dozen or so examples she gives, she does sprinkle some women .)
At any rate, our lady informs us that as far as Shiney Ahuja allegedly raping his 18-year-old maid is concerned, "Maybe if that flash in time had passed, he may have thought better of it and held himself back." Firstly, rape is not a crime about sex in itself, and restraining oneself from having sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with one is really not that difficult. Deciding to rape is always a proactive choice, not an 'action of omission' so to speak. It doesn't matter that she's even found a shrink to legitimise her claims saying, "The libidinal impulse that takes birth in the brain may take over so badly that it demands instant gratification," although the shrink has thankfully added that a sense of power and narcissism play a role.
And then the author puts in two bits from some lawyer who says nothing more interesting than that premeditation or lack thereof is considered by the courts, but just in case the moments-of-madness theory isn't doing enough to exonerate rapists and other assorted idiots, the lawyer brings in the "but the woman might have encouraged him" to rape her line. Tried and tested, it certainly is. When all else fails in a rape case, or even before that, talk about what the victim was wearing, how she flirted, and how much alcohol she drank. Bingo, you have yourself an acquittal. Never mind that clothes, suggestive behaviour, or drinking are not in themselves invitations to rape anyone. And despite being repetitive, it's not that difficult not to commit rape. All a man has to do is ask if he has consent. Consent is not a default condition and asking if another person wants to do something is not beyond the realms of the possible.
But guess what, there's case law. And that clinches the deal. Or at least verifies the moments-of-madness theory. In one case, a woman was apparently treated leniently because she had PMS and while I doubt that's right, I am quite certain the next example isn't -- a judge apparently asked a woman to dress in court in the manner she was dressed when she was raped and then sided with the her rapist. And for our author and lawyer, apparently, the fact that the cases were British legitimises them.
Never mind that British judges have come up with a lot of questionable judgments when it comes to rape whether it be saying that a teen contributed to her own rape by hitchhiking or that a rapist 'showed concern and consideration by wearing a contraceptive'. Or that we have our own share of judgments which are best left uncited. Just for example, in one case — Idu Beg, 1881 — a husband who struck his wife on her left side while they were fighting (verbally) thereby causing her to vomit, bleed from the nose and die within an hour due to her spleen having been ruptured by him was not held to be guilty of murder — he was held to be guilty only of having caused grievous hurt. And in a far more recent case — Venkatasen v/s State, 1997 — a husband who suspected the fidelity of his wife and who assaulted her with a stone because her insulting words made him ‘lose control’ and kill her was held guilty of culpable homicide and not of murder.
And never mind that moments of supposed madness do not excuse criminal behaviour. (Yes, insanity is a defence but not when it's of the 'it's merely convenient for me to claim insanity here' variety. Or that, in my experience, I've rarely heard a man say that he was abusive in anything other than in a moment of madness for which, naturally, he is not accountable.
We somehow live in a society where the unqualified acceptance of the concept that women provoke men to abuse them ensures that, as Ptacek has pointed out, “abusive men are neither abnormal enough to be considered to be psychopaths, nor are they responsible enough to be held criminally liable for their actions.” But what still angers me the most about this piece is that there is not one mention of the effects of these so-called moments of madness on their victims.

Brojaweli

I’ve always been aware that my knowledge of Assamese is truly abysmal but recently, I’ve been hearing people speak in what they tell me is Assamese without understanding a word of what they’re saying, and I’ve begun to think that small though the state is, its language, like Marathi, could be different not only in different parts of the state but also among different classes of people. To me, as far as Marathi was concerned, the text which I read in legal documents was very different from the lingua franca at the law firm I spent time at, and neither one bore any great resemblance to the language which domestic help used. The words were different, for one thing. For example, at work, I never once heard anyone use ‘tu’ for ‘you’; it was always ‘tumhi’. Outside, I never heard ‘tumhi’ being used anywhere.
Initially, I thought that ‘tu’ and ‘tumhi’ corresponded to the French ‘tu’ and ‘vous’ but while that’s probably true, it clearly isn’t the whole story if one class of people opts to use only one form and a second class opts to use primarily the other form of the word.
Coming back to Assamese though, the other day, I watched a play heavily influenced by Ankia Naat Bhaona: an Assamese form of drama first created by Sankardev in Assam in the 15th century. It has since gone on to become a distinct form of art which comprised elements of Sanskrit drama as well as other traditional art forms along with Sankardev’s own innovations. Before the Bhaona itself begins, a lamp made of bamboo with nine flames is lit up to symbolise nine kinds of devotion.
There is a narrator called a Sutradhar who not only introduces characters and tells the tale but also keeps reminding the audience of the importance of devotion to God by repeatedly saying: “Nirantare Hari Bol, Hari Bol.”
I hadn’t expected to understand too much of the play but what surprised me when I watched it was that the language used in Ankia Naat is not Assamese at all. It’s a language called Brojaweli that’s used: a mixture of Assamese, Hindi, Oriya and Maitheli. Two of the four languages, I had absolutely no knowledge of.
Thankfully, the programme included a copy of the story of the drama in English.

Not for Sale

I've been reading a book called 'Not for Sale: Feminists Resisting Prostitution and Pornography' edited by Christine Stark and Rebecca Whisnant. It comprises a collection of essays on the subject by various authors and is both interesting and well written.

From the book:

Pornography is the documentation of prostitution. It is a technologized form of prostitution -- prostitution at one remove.
(Rebecca Whisnant)

Sexuality and conflict are unavoidably part of being human. But blow bangs and cluster bombs are not. There are choices about how to deal with sexuality and conflict. Blow bangs and cluster bombs are neither natural nor inevitable. ... Sexuality is natural and conflict is inevitable. We could choose to create a sexuality rooted in an egalitarian ethic of mutuality and respect. We could choose to create a world order rooted in an egalitarian ethic of mutuality and respect. In such a world, blow bangs and cluster bombs would not exist. ... Letting go of blow bangs creates the space in which new intimacy and sexuality can flourish. Letting go of cluster bombs creates the space in which we can rethink our own affluence and allow new relationships between people to emerge. ... Pornography and the wars of empire are based on the idea that dominance is inevitable.

(Robert Jensen)

'How can you sell your Self?' It is not difficult. Once a woman is abused, as a majority of women in the sex industry have been, she gains the powerful skill of dissociation. Once a woman's ownership rights over her body are stolen, the body becomes foreign, separated from Self. The body becomes a tool, a weapon, a burden to drag around. The body can be used for profit or further cause. Some victims feel betrayed by their bodies and turn to punishing them. The body can be caused with alcohol, food, starvation, self-mutilation, and even death. The victim of cause is left to frantically seek ways to regain her control (by abusing herself) and to increase her power (by abusing others). Promiscuity and prostitution fit here, for if you give sex away it cannot be taken and if you profit economically you are gaining power in this society. It is not difficult at all.

(Taylor Lee)

Most women now are treated as whores; and so are girls growing up, as if their sexuality should be a sexuality of sexual service. It's important to think about the ways in which women have been colonized, because it all has to do with our own bodies. We may also be hurt when men send ships and drop bombs and do all the other really exciting things they do when one takes the remote away from them. But since women are usually hurt by make intimates or acquaintances, and since the hurt takes place in our bodies, it becomes important to realize that the training to accept hurt is hand-delivered by a man or men to the body of a girl. Sometimes the mother is the instrument through which girls are trained to accept pain and humiliation. In childhood, for most women who are prostituted, the training begins with incest or child sexual abuse, often called molestation. Incest is boot camp for prostitution. Incest makes a prostituted consciousness as well as the compliant and knowing body: a human body in which there is the recognition that you do this and you get a reward, you do this and you get punished, including by the loss of what passes for love.

(Andrea Dworkin)

Inconvenient statistics, feral facts like the average life expectancy of prostitutes, the average age of induction into prostitution, the average income of prostitutes, and so forth -- hard demographics -- have never disturbed those who defined the sex business as a force of liberation. The fact that the 'freedom' being realised is mostly the freedom of men to access the bodies of women and children -- or of G8 nations to access the markets and raw materials of Third World nations -- is conveniently overlooked when predation is redefined as progress.
(D A Clarke)

I'm told that the authors are radical feminists. I'm not sure precisely what the term 'radical' means but I do know that, often, when I read the works of those described as being radical feminists, their ideas come across to me as being common sense with nothing especially radical about them. To ask that a human being be treated as a human being with inherent worth, value and dignity really doesn't come across as being all that outlandish.

Years ago, I did, however, start off with the idea of that prostitution should be legal. And I'm still not sure if it's a good idea for prostitution to be made illegal. I say that because in making prostitution illegal, prostitutes are almost certain to be criminalized, and unless a law is drafted which ensures that prostitutes are not made into criminals, as wrong as I think prostitution is, a law making it illegal is not a law I would ever support. I don't think that prostitution is wrong because it involves women sinning or some such thing. I think prostitution, like trafficking and porn, is wrong because it involves treating a person as a commodity, because it involves selling a person's sexuality, because it is the 21st century's version of slavery.

Similarly, when it comes to porn, I'd love to see it being made illegal without the people shown in it being treated as criminals. That, however, is unlikely to happen. Porn is somehow touted as being freedom and liberation. Freedom from what, I can't help but wonder. Is a woman freed from being the 'property' of one man (or more men) to whom she is really available by becoming the property of a thousand (or more) men to whom she is virtually available? I'm not sure how it is liberating and I find it truly appalling that the freedom of speech of those who produce porn is somehow more important than the ability of the women in porn to control what is done with images of their bodies, that the films and images produced by porn makers are protected by intellectual property laws such as copyright and that the women in the films have no such parallel protection under the law except possibly the right to publicity which wouldn't do them much good anyway.