We are what we aspire. People like us when they find us agreeable, enjoyable and satisfactory. People respect us when they feel deep admiration for our abilities, qualities or achievements. People need us if they require us because it is essential or every important. If I were to prioritise them, I would always want to be needed. To be needed, it requires one to be both talented and critical. However, in the corporate world today, not being liked hurts people the most, while being in a position of needed but not liked is considered the worst. I do agree that not being needed or liked can be the worst. I want to break this reflection of mine to a set of topics, starting with the importance of this idea.
Why is this discussion important?
The professional world has moved from infancy to insanity with no stops in between. For people like me who watched the horrors of professional exploitation of individuals from both the owners and unions, it is hard to make sense of the trigger. I remember in early 1990s and 2000s, there were two different kinds of industries. The first one was where, business owners would treat professionals poorly as long as possible. They will need your talent and the best way to retain your talent is by entrapment. The second type was one where unions held professionals to ransom. They ensure that one’s ability was never rewarded on par with their contribution. Any one trying to challenge this was a traitor.
If I look at the professional world now, individuals are forced to be acceptable and likeable. There is a high chance that people will be reprimanded for having opinions, saying uncomfortable truth or on set of arbitary guidelines set to constraint oneself. Unions are few and far these days. We have moved from being entrapped for exploitation to entrapped on social norms, professionalism and conformism. It has killed originality to such an extent that we look at people like Elon Musk as some form eccentric.
What is the impact?
People with power always find ways to retain it for their lineage. Historically, they have found ways to achieve this through religion, slavery, controlling knowledge, fear of law and if nothing works then violence. These rules eventually meant that there is a group that orders and there is a much larger group that executes. It also prevented the group that executes from ever switch sides to group that orders. In the modern corporate world, these rules have been eliminated. People are free to learn, legal system has evolved and threat of violence isn’t much of an option. How do we therefore ensure distribution? People have done it changing the dymanic of the game itself.
A person who is knowledgeable and needed cannot be let go
A person who is knowledgeable and needed will not care of medicrisy
A person who is knowledgeable and needed will not worry about telling the truth
Businesses have started to distribute knowledge to ensure dispensability. The rules have been formed to force people to believe that being likeable is more important that being needed. I have not seen a HR rulebook or ethics code where it clearly says, one can tell uncomfortable truth or one cannot be fired if their truth hurt or being right is more important that being fair. However, I have read enough books which force me to never hurt sentiments, apologise even if I am right and above all be respectful for feelings. Entropy on of the most crucial phenomenon in Thermodynamics and equilibrium is rooted in disorder. Employees are forced and have subsequently been brainwashed to execute. This starts from an associate and goes all the way to the CEO. As a result of this dynamic, we have created a world where dispensability thrives.
My prediction
While I may not consider myself a socialist anymore, the concept of materialistic conception of history continue to hold true even after centuries. While the tools of oppression might have been different across societies, the existence of oppression has been constant till date. There are three classes globally, oppressor, oppressed and free. While the free may look enlightened in general, it is only a subset of people who are knowledgeable, have broken the shackles and have found no need to oppress anyone. I am still in the camp that free will is an illusion. People who want to break the shackles will always break it. They will prioritise wisdom over adulation and respect. They won’t toe the social lines or bother about the impact of it. They know that society needs them. The rest will keep oppressing and getting oppressed.
Breaking shackles
The key to breaking free from the chains of subjugation is to release oneself from the pleasure of adulation. When we fall for praise, we tend to enjoy being liked. When we enjoy being liked, it is hard to state truth. The second step in this is to focus on gaining knowledge through critical thinking. Finally, obedience and loyalty are good for masters and not for people who want to be independent. We are 1/2 a chromosome away from a chimpanzee. To expect more from humans is just as ridiculous like asking a chimpanzee why it can’t add two numbers. We have one life. It is paramount to live it free.
The incidents of sexual abuse, rape and misogyny are so rampant to even cause a distraction in India. I have previously written about the cultural aspects of this and the support of religion. The most recent one is the uncovering of the rape gangs in the small town of Pollachi in Tamil Nadu, India. The incident has a lot in common with the grooming gangs of the UK, especially in Rotherham and Huddersfield.
What is the scandal in Pollachi
The scandal came to light when it was reported that the Pollachi East police have arrested four young men for blackmailing a 19-year-old student of a private college by taking her in a car, sexually assaulting her and recording the act. What looked like yet another case of rape and blackmail turned out to be one of the most organised sexual crime gang in TamilNadu history. The mobile phones of the alleged perpetrators had over a thousand videos of young girls who were lured, trapped, abused and blackmailed for years. I listened to the audio of one particular clip. It was gutwrenching to hear the pleas of the girl being ignored as these monsters harrassed her. While it takes a psychopath to rape anyone, it is unimaginable the treachery involved in deceiving someone in the name of love and then capturing the moments to blackmail them. As things emerge, the four people involved are part of a larger network of men who have been doing this for close to a decade. The network includes people who are wealthy, well educated and have political connections. The number of victims seems to be as high as 200 according to some media reports.
As it turns out the police have helped cover up these incidents for close to a decade. One of the main accused is an AIADMK party cadre, which is currently the ruling party in Tamil Nadu. This has resulted in the opposition parties calling for the ouster of the Chief Minister. The irony is none of the politicians is any better. The DMK Supremo M.K. Stalin has been accused of sexually assaulting many women. The hypocrisy in their speech is damaging the seriousness of the issue. The ruling party, on the other hand, is only interested in subduing the issue as there is an election coming up. They have transferred the case to Crime Branch – CID to wash their hands off. The government was so careless that they couldn’t maintain the privacy of the victims. They mentioned the names in the government order which went public.
The reactions to this have been extremely predictable. The public in Tamil Nadu alone is outraged but is not able to do anything apart from standing silently in solidarity. They are asking for the guilty to be punished swiftly.
The national media was not interested in the case as it didn’t involve Pakistan, Bollywood or bluntly people from the north of India. The coverage was so bad that Madras High Court had to bluntly tell the media that they are not interested in the rural parts of Tamil Nadu.
The average testosterone gushing men are forwarding the videos for personal pleasure at the expense of the emotional turmoil of the girls. The police are requesting people not to forward the videos but that doesn’t change anything in the minds of the sick.
Though everyone is outraged, the story goes that prospective grooms don’t want to marry anyone from that town as they feel the girls could be one of those victims. So much for the outrage.
What has happened now?
The alleged perpetrators have been charged with the below sections of Indian Penal Code for the sexual assault and blackmail.
354(A) Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment
354(B) Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe
394 Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery
66E IT Act violation of privacy
Few of them have also been charged the below sections for threatening the family of the victims and physical assault.
341. Punishment for wrongful restraint.
294(b) – sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place.
323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
324 – Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
Have you ever seen a parent who always sanitises the child’s hand every time the child touches the ground and is always behind the child to make sure it doesn’t fall? Have you ever seen a parent who complains to the school every time their child is upset about something that happened? If you are a parent or a school staff, there is a high chance you have met one.
Have you ever felt the urge to smack a whiny, self-absorbed, perennially offended colleague? If you have met one, then there is a high chance you have felt the same. I have and it is perfectly normal to feel so or ask the colleague to grow up.
This colleague of yours is the child from the first incident. The parenting which results in this behaviour is antibacterial parenting. A hyper-protective parent who ensures nothing bad ever reaches or happens to their child. They want a sterile environment where no one is hurt and everyone gets a cookie. These are the parents who think everyone is special and competition makes them not feel special. The parent who thinks it is the world’s fault that the child is not feeling special. The parent who wants to control what is said in the world. The parent who thinks hatred is bad and somehow can be eliminated.
The next time a child whines for anything or complains about something others are doing which is not to their liking think of this annoying colleague. While I won’t ever advocate running a rat race, eliminating competition is against the very fabric of development. I most definitely am not going to advocate physical threat. Both these are counterproductive in the long run.
How did we reach here?
In the 1970s there was a movement in the US called the Self Esteem movement. This Self Esteem movement created helicopter parents and the children grew up self-absorbed. The kids of the helicopter parents grew up with artificially inflated self-esteem became the new bunch of anti-bacterial parents. The satellite television followed by social media has contributed to that immensely. The parents now find the need to hyper protect their kids and smother them to the extent that the kids grow up to become socially incompetent. Then if the child doesn’t turn out to be the best in everything then they feel it is the society and the system which is at fault. This has become a civilisation risk. While I have taken a US example, it is not uncommon for you to see this in most countries. Social psychologist Roy Baumeister has done research to show that this movement contributed to lowering the school grades.
The field of child psychology has also contributed to this paranoia. After witnessing what was horrible in the world, the psychologists I believe have devised strategies to fix these ailments. They created measures which will create a society they think they want. The only issue is they industrialised the approach without running any experiment. With no proper mechanism to undo or learn these experiments are causing massive social damage. For example, continue to tell the child that they are special. Instruct a child to never utter the word hate. This doesn’t help the child learn.
Where should we be?
There is a popular proverb in Tamil ” களவும்கற்றுமற” which means ‘Learn to steal and then forget it. The essence of the proverb is to communicate the essence of making mistakes and more importantly learning from it. The author underlined the idea of individuals learning for themselves by doing and introspecting over being servile.
As a parent, I want to ensure my daughter has the following abilities to enable her to enjoy her life to the maximum.
Ability to reason
Ability to handle adversity
Ability to overcome failures
These three abilities will help her be civil, maximise her potential and live a fulfilling life. Parents need to create an environment which fosters the development. This environment has to be imperfect and hard. Just like how a body develops immunity only by fighting germs, the mind develops a character only by practising. The best part of this is that the environment actually exists unless artificially altered. Parents just need to ensure they don’t ruin it.
How do we do it?
When left on their own, it is very common to see kids do the following.
Pretend play
Make games, create rules
Fight over rules
Break the rules and tell stories to coverup
This teaches the children to do the following.
Making sense of a situation
Figure out solutions
Having conflicts
Deal with conflicts
Arguing
How to tolerate dissidence in an argument
Failing
Standing up and continuing after a failure
Tell lies to escape a tough situation
Dealing with the consequences of telling lies
Teamwork
How to be friends with people who don’t agree with you always
Next time, when your child comes from the play and says that another child tells she/he has lost the game, don’t go back and tell people how to play without winners. Don’t tell the other kids to give up once. Don’t tell your kid failing is fine. Don’t tell your kid to not play. Don’t tell your kid that she/he is also a winner. Tell the kid to go back and do better next time. They have to learn to deal with issues themselves.
So, what should the parent do and don’t? Here are a few simple rules I want to follow.
Do
Give kids ample time to play with other kids
Explain why on every moral without asking them to obey
Explain the value of honesty and truth over feelings
Let kids have unstructured time to discover
Give them outcome goals and let them figure out how to reach there
Help them understand concepts and let them train themselves
Make them feel loved
Teach them the value of self-defence
Teach them the value of giving up in a negotiation
Help them carve a path for their career
Don’t
Compare your child with others and push them for that
Justify whining or glorify victimhood
Ever not listen to them
Ever ask them to obey you on something you can’t explain
Protect them from failures
Respect their feelings more than truth
Instil fear of falling sick or making mistakes
Tell them you will protect them always, especially financially
Always interfere when kids fight
Fear calling them out when they make a mistake
Conclusion
The reason to write this blog is not just for others but to also honestly admit that I have failed in doing or not doing some of the things I have given below. It is never too late. As parents, we have a duty to ensure the kids continue to live in this society and take it forward. If we can’t do it, we are doing a disservice to society and the child.
Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson has recently been accused of sexual misconduct and rape. This was preceeded by the accusation on Dr. Lawrence Krauss for groping and non-consensual sexual advances. I wanted to write about the allegations of Dr. Karuss but never found time to do it. Now with Dr. Tyson I feel there is a need to discuss this matter.
Since I am going to address a rather sensitive topic here, I want to begin by acknowledging a few points.
Women have been poorly treated by all communities in the past.
Some communities still continue to discriminate women just for being women.
I have written plenty about the above topics. I don’t find the need to further clarify my stance.
I also want to give the women accusing any man the benefit of the doubt. Shaming victims is a trend which has got huge consequences and ignoring them is just as bad. So, I want to always listen to the victims but analyse the merit of the accusations before convicting anyone.
In this article, I want to discuss the accusation on Dr. Tyson and present my opinion on both this case and what I feel is a bigger social movement. I want to break this article into four sections.
Analyse the accusations against Dr. Tyson
Analyse of Dr. Tyson’s response
Other articles on this subject
Highlight the dangers of this trend
The accusations against Dr. Tyson
The accusations against Dr. Tyson first appeared in a blog in an online magazine called Patheos. They disclosed three incidents involving him as an evidence for his sexual misconduct. Let us go through each of those incidents in detail first.
Incident #1: Dr. Katelyn N. Allers
Dr Allers is an Associate Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Bucknell University.
Event
The groping incident allegedly took place at an after-party following the AAS meeting in 2009, which took place in Long Beach. This was supposed to be a lighthearted social event to show that astronomers could have fun, according to Dr. Allers.
“Tyson was there, and he was dancing and drinking and all of that at the party, so a friend and I decided to get pictures with him,” she told me.
But after the first picture was taken (above, left), Tyson decided to explore Dr. Allers’ tattoo. It features a realistic solar system that stretches from her arm to her back and collar bone area.
“After we had taken the picture, he noticed my tattoo and kind of grabbed me to look at it, and was really obsessed about whether I had Pluto on this tattoo or not… and then he looked for Pluto, and followed the tattoo into my dress.”
Accusations
Dr. Allers said her experience was public and didn’t rise to the level of assault, but that it did show Tyson was capable of some “creepy behavior.”
“My experience with him is he’s not someone who has great respect for female bodily autonomy,” she told me in a phone interview.
Dr. Allers didn’t feel like she was in danger during her encounter with Tyson, but she did describe it as “uncomfortable and creepy.” That interaction also made her think twice about allegations brought by Tchiya Amet, a musician who says Tyson raped her in his apartment when they were grad students together.
“I think that he is someone that could use his position of fame and power in a way to try and take advantage,” Dr. Allers told me.
My Opinion
As already admitted by Dr. Allers herself, Dr. Tyson was searching for the existence of the planet Pluto in her tattoo. He did that in public. Further, we have to be clear on what “into my dress” means. He was checking her shoulder. I personally wouldn’t behave this way. I definitely realise it can creep a lot of women. I am with Dr Allers when she calls the behaviour “uncomfortable and creepy”.
However, the rest of the accusations are completely made up. She herself admits that she didn’t feel like she was in danger. This doesn’t translate into the rest of her accusations. I want to list the accusations one by one.
Accusation #1: “I think that he is someone that could use his position of fame and power in a way to try and take advantage.”
The choice of words here is very clever. One can say this about anyone. I can accuse Dr Allers as someone who sounds too creepy and could manipulate a situation to her advantage. Such a point cannot win the opponent a libel case even when the accusation has no basis. However, reading them in a sentence sends an extremely strong message. Going further, what does she mean by taking advantage? What evidence does she possess? It is an exaggeration of a creepy act beyond proportion.
Accusations #2: “My experience with him is he’s not someone who has great respect for female bodily autonomy”
I don’t see any other experience she has mentioned with Dr. Tyson other than the one at the party. She has then generalised it as someone who doesn’t respect female bodily autonomy. Is there evidence to believe that Dr. Tyson wouldn’t have done it if a guy wore a T-Shirt and showed off his solar system tattoo? What do she mean by respect for female bodily autonomy?
Irrespective of one’s gender every individual would have done something in life which could be perceived as creepy or sometimes is creepy. Doing something creepy doesn’t extend to other forms of guilt. In 60 years of his life which includes a lot public interaction and scrutiny, if people can only find a couple of creepy mistakes he made, then I consider that a very well lived life. It is also very important to note that one behavior is not a pattern. We can accuse him of that only one incident but not extend it to pronounce him guilty of mistakes we don’t have any evidence.
Incident #2: Ashley Watson
Ashley Watson was a former assistant to Tyson.
Event
Watson says she had been working directly under Tyson, who called out Trump in 2016 by saying he would grab him by the crotch when they met, and that they got along well. That all changed, however, when he invited his underling to his apartment at around 10:30 P.M. to “share a bottle of wine” and “unwind for a couple of hours.”
Watson, who said she felt pressured to impress her superstar boss, told me she agreed to come in for a glass of wine instead. Upon entering his apartment, Tyson allegedly took off his shoes and shirt, remaining in a tank top undershirt. Unfortunately, the night only got more awkward as Tyson, who is married, reportedly put on romantic music and replayed the most graphic parts.
She says Tyson soon brought out a cutting board and a knife to cut blocks of cheese that he decided they would share. But before slicing the snack, he allegedly gestured toward her with the knife and made a comment about stabbing.
Watson says Tyson started talking about how every human being needs certain “releases” in life, including physical releases. He reportedly mentioned how difficult it had been for him to be away from home for several months.
Watson says Tyson asked her if she needed any releases, and she responded with a story about sexual harassment she endured in the past. It was a smart way to diffuse a tense situation, but she says he was unfazed.
“It was like talking to a wall,” Watson said.
She was getting up to leave when Neil allegedly stopped her, saying he wanted to show her a “Native American handshake” he knew. That involved holding hands tightly, making eye contact, and feeling for each other’s pulse, Watson told me.
When she broke off the awkward and incredibly intimate handshake, which he allegedly said represented a “spirit connection,” she attempted to just get up and leave.
Tyson then allegedly put his hands on her shoulders, and said he wanted to hug her, but if he did, he’d “just want more.”
Watson says she left Tyson’s apartment quickly after the inappropriate sexual comments and that, the next day, she confronted him because she felt he had betrayed her as a mentor. He reportedly told her in that meeting that she’d never rise through the ranks in her career because she was too “distracting.”
Accusations
Watson said Tyson occasionally made “misogynistic comments,” and that he kept a list of overweight actresses on his phone to prove that women aren’t inhibited by portrayals in the media when it comes to health and fitness. He allegedly said it was untrue that women feel pressured to be skinny based on societal standards.
Watson says she took the comment as a bad joke, but it’s important to note that this type of “joke” is exactly what people in power need to keep in mind when dealing with subordinates. And it set the stage for a night filled with subtle intimidation and sexual advances.
“It was definitely a very weird power move,” she said.
My Opinion
There are two accusations here.
Accusation #1: Misogynistic comments
How did Dr. Tyson keeping a list of overweight actresses in his phone and stating that women aren’t inhibited by portrayals in the media become a misogynistic comment? If anything he is being critical of the media portrayal of women and suggesting women are not pressured to feel skinny. He is arguing for normal women here. Misogyny is defined as the dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women. On a different note, this accusation seems to be a case of misandry. It looks like a case of confirmation bias. If the starting position is ‘I believe men like Dr. Tyson are misogynists’, then it is not a big leap of faith to consider this comment he made about overweight women has to be misogynistic. Also, it is important to note that she has accused him in hindsight. This is not what she felt when she first made the comment.
In hindsight, there were red flags that she “chose to not pay attention to,” Watson told me in an interview.
Accusation #2: Sexual advance and predatory behaviour
I want to list all the ‘sexual advances’ that Dr. Tyson has been accused here.
Inviting to share a “share a bottle of wine” and “unwind for a couple of hours.
Took off his shoes and shirt, remaining in a tank top undershirt
Put on romantic music and replayed the most graphic parts
Tyson soon brought out a cutting board and a knife to cut blocks of cheese that he decided they would share
Made a comment about stabbing
Talking about human beings needing releases
Native American handshake
Saying he wanted to hug her, but if he did, he’d “just want more.”
Saying she was too distracting
If I look at the evidences presented above from point number one to seven, the way I perceives the situation will depend on the below points.
How well do the individuals know each other?
Was there a demand for sex or at least physical contact?
Was there a threat of repercussion if you don’t submit to his will?
Was there contact in a way which indicated requesting for a physical relationship?
It is important to note that we are living in a free world where anyone can ask another person if they are interested in having a relationship. Anyone can reject the call for a relationship. There is an issue only if you are discriminated for not consenting to the wish or if you are forced without your consent. Even if I accept that this was a move made by Dr. Tyson to have a romantic relationship, it is still a call for consent and nothing more. I am beginning to wonder if people now are against checking for consent or romance.
Finally, coming to the last point where Ashley Watson was apparently told that she was too distracting by Dr. Tyson. What does that ‘too distracting’ mean? Does it mean he is distracted by her? Did he say she was too distracted? Either opinion is his view of the situation. It wasn’t a sexist remark. I have been told that in the early years of my career by both men and women when I went to them with complaints. It had nothing to do with wanting to have a relationship. I didn’t agree with their response but it definitely doesn’t make them sexist or misandrist.
Now, let’s look at the definition of a sexual predator. A sexual predator is a person who ruthlessly exploits others sexually. Where is the evidence of Dr Tyson ruthless exploiting even one person let alone many people? This careless use of accusatory words without presenting a shred of evidence has become a cornerstone to such cases.
Incident #3: Tchiya Amet
Tchiya Amet is musician, healer, and teacher, who claims have studied Galactic Astronomy in the graduate program at the University of Texas in Austin when Dr. Tyson also studied there.
Event
Amet said the alleged assault started when she went to his apartment to visit, like she did almost every day.
He offered me a glass of water. I accepted a liquid in a cup made out of a coconut shell. I recall coming back to consciousness briefly, then next thing I remember is seeing him in the hallway the next day. I have lived in this nightmare for 30 years, and it stops today.
I know this will be difficult for many of you to believe, understand or to know. However, know that this is the truth. Those who know me well can attest to the fact that I lived with undiagnosed PTSD of [at] least 25 years.
She also said Tyson was the reason she didn’t further pursue her dream of reaching the stars and becoming a full-fledged astrophysicist, and accused him of telling students they could pass Astronomy 101 if they gave him a blow job.
He talks about obstacles to reaching his goal of astrophysicist. Did anyone slip him a mickey? Perhaps this was his way of eliminating the competition….what a scam YOU are Mr. Tyson…
How does it feel to know that YOU are the reason there is one less [black] female galactic astronomer on this planet? Yes, YOU. How many freshman students did you give A’s to when they were failing? Were they really failing, or was that just an easy way to get free blow jobs?
Accusations
Dr Tyson has been accused of raping Tchiya Amet here. This is a serious accusation.
My Opinion
I want to start by saying of the three accusations, this one is extremely important and requires proper analysis. Rape cases are extremely serious and cannot be judged on individual biases.
Firstly, Tchiya Amet says she went to Dr. Tyson’s apartment every day. Is there a point here which hasn’t been covered. Were they in a romantic relationship or just friends? Did they have any physical relationship prior to the incident or after that? These points are important to understand the circumstance of the alleged incident.
Tchiya Amet says she doesn’t remember anything after that. Is there evidence that he actually raped her? What made her believe it happened? Let us say she became unconscious, how did she reach the hallway. When there is no evidence of the actual rape, it is important to understand the circumstances before and after. This is where the lack of coherence in this story feels like statements have been cherry-picked to suit a narrative.
Tchiya Amet claims to have undiagnosed PTSD for 25 years now. What is ‘undiagnosed’ PTSD? How does she know she has PTSD? On face value, I want to take the point as true. That still doesn’t prove he raped her. It requires a huge leap for faith. Now, what Amet’s motivation in doing this? I don’t know and I don’t want to speculate. If she can provide any evidence on this then we can definitely change our opinion.
Against without either direct or circumstantial evidence of rape, accusing a person is a case of vilification and slander. It is important to investigate this incident but the starting position shouldn’t be guilty until proven innocent.
Dr. Tyson’s response
Dr. Tyson gave a response to these accusations in his facebook page.
There are a few lines I want to highlight here.
For Dr. Katelyn N. Allers
I only just learned (nine years after) that she thought this behavior creepy. That was never my intent and I’m deeply sorry to have made her feel that way. Had I been told of her discomfort in the moment, I would have offered this same apology eagerly, and on the spot. In my mind’s eye, I’m a friendly and accessible guy, but going forward, I can surely be more sensitive to people’s personal space, even in the midst of my planetary enthusiasm.
It is important to note that he hasn’t denied doing it and is more than happy to learn from his mistakes. In this case, it was a creepy behaviour at best which had no sexual dimension to it.
For Ashley Watson
We became so friendly that we talked about all manner of subjects, even social-personal ones, like the care of aging parents, sibling relationships, life in high school and college, hometown hobbies, race, gender, and so forth.
Practically everyone she knows on set gets a daily welcome-hug from her. I expressly rejected each hug offered frequently during the Production. But in its place I offered a handshake, and on a few occasions, clumsily declared, “If I hug you I might just want more.” My intent was to express restrained but genuine affection.
Afterwards, she came into my office and told me she was creeped out by the wine & cheese evening. She viewed the invite as an attempt to seduce her, even though she sat across the wine & cheese table from me, and all conversation had been in the same vein as all other conversations we ever had.
Further, I never touched her until I shook her hand upon departure. On that occasion, I had offered a special handshake, one I learned from a Native elder on reservation land at the edge of the Grand Canyon.
At that last meeting in my office, I apologized profusely. She accepted the apology. And I assured her that had I known she was uncomfortable, I would have apologized on the spot, ended the evening, and possibly reminded her of the other social gathering that she could attend.
I note that her final gesture to me was the offer of a hug, which I accepted as a parting friend.
This is another case of just mistaken intent. To make this more out of this is purely conspiratory.
For Tchiya Amet
While in graduate school I had several girlfriends, one of whom would become my wife of thirty years, a mathematical physicist — we met in Relativity class. Over this time I had a brief relationship with a fellow astro-graduate student, from a more recent entering class. I remember being intimate only a few times, all at her apartment, but the chemistry wasn’t there. So the relationship faded quickly. There was nothing otherwise odd or unusual about this friendship.
This goes back to the same question I had. If she visited his apartment every day then does that mean they were going around. Did they have any physical relationship other than the ‘rape’ every day? Was the breakup mutual?
Other articles on this subject
It is important to look at the other articles written about this subject to uncover the broader conspiracy going on here.
But all of the men who have harassed or assaulted me have said similarly encouraging things, so the fact that I have had multiple positive interactions with Tyson over the years doesn’t make it harder to believe that he is guilty of serious misconduct.
But my own experience—backed by data—teaches me that Black patriarchy is real and the harm specifically to Black women is significant. In this case, the harm is multidimensional: I believe Amet is the victim, and to a lesser extent, so are all of the Black people who found inspiration in Tyson’s visible presence as the world’s most well-known Black scientist.
But in my view, I believe the claims are credible, which means he directly harmed multiple women, most egregiously by allegedly raping a member of his own already marginalized community. Tchiya Amet is a Black woman who will never join me on the list of African-American Women with PhDs in Physics. She deserved better. Our whole community did.
This specific individual has made this entire thing into a Black Women identify fight. She wants to bask in the victimhood of other and hog sympathy from it. Such people who want to play politics and gain sympathy from other victims are the genuine predators. These people result in the victims not actually getting their due.
Over the course of the MeToo era, the practice of hero worship feels increasingly absurd. I would like to celebrate the things that people do, when they are worthy of celebration, and not make it a blank check of approval for who they are. All people are flawed; some are evil. That little girl need not look up to Neil deGrasse Tyson the man; but I don’t believe that should negate the confidence in herself that he may have helped to build.
A block of encouragement from an imperfect person should not make for a less steady foundation. Science is built “on the shoulders of giants,” not saints. And when they topple, perhaps we can let them go and continue to climb.
Firstly what is a MeToo era? The author, Eve Andrews seems to drive us towards a post-truth era filled with people who are unable to look at the evidence before forming a conclusion. Eve Andrews has formed a conclusion based on accusations. It is also an ingratiating and incoherent article. For example her point on hero worship. I don’t believe in hero worship either and no one is asking anyone to workship Dr Tyson, least of all Dr Tyson himself.
The only point I can see about the author’s mention of #metoo movement is that she has used the MeToo standards to obliterate Dr Tyson. It is critical to note I don’t think we can’t climb the mountain of science on her shoulders as she doesn’t have much respect for evidence.
Another one bites the dust: Neil deGrasse Tyson is being investigated after allegations of rape, misogynistic comments, and inappropriate sexual advances.
This again is a clear slander against individuals to gain momentum for this MeToo movement. The author now has to define what is a sexual advance and what is the difference between appropriate and inappropriate sexual advance? I am more concerned about the smears than the tautology in the sentences.
Dangers of this trend
I am extremely sure based on the evidence presented Dr Tyson cannot be pronounced guilty. However, that is not the consent the media wants to drive. Therefore, this is a very dangerous trend. I want to assert why I consider it dangerous.
A post-truth movement
This movement is not worried about reality or at least truth based on reality. They want to act on what feels emotionally correct and not on facts. There is a difference between true predators like Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Roger Ailes and someone like Al Franken. However, the movement doesn’t differentiate. This lack of differentiation between facts and emotions is at the root of this new climate.
A retributive movement with selfish allies
I am observing signs of war against different sections of the society. In the intersectional oppression chart a straight, white, conservative Christian male is most liable to make a grave mistake. A person who belongs to this category can be pronounced guilty even without an investigation. Then this trend continues to other groups. For example, a male is always guilty of sexual misconduct once accused. A white Christian is always guilty of white supremacy once accused. None of these accusations seems to need any evidence.
The people fighting this war do not want justice but they want retribution. They want to punish people for the generations of hostility and discrimination done by their predecessors. These retribution movements are also fed by selfish allies like Vox, Buzzfeed and Salon. The allies provide the much-needed oxygen and in turn, use the movement to propel them to the limelight.
The retributive nature of this movement is also the reason why one might see two patterns.
The attack is always on high profile people irrespective of their race or political spectrum. It hasn’t resulted in the everyday predator being impacted.
The movement is losing people who will otherwise declare themselves as feminists like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris.
High profile targets are always the best to get attention. This is the same tactic used by extremists and terrorists. This #metoo movement is not alone. It has to be looked in conjunction with other such movements like ‘Women’s March’, ‘TimesUp’. ‘Black Lives Matter’ etc.
Finally, many scholars and scientists claim that earth’s climate change is the biggest risk to our human progress. I personally feel this social climate change of post-truth is an even bigger risk to our progress. Historically other social movements were intended to take us towards truth, eliminate barriers and emancipate individuals. This is the first time we are having a social movement which wants to take us away from science, progress and development. If we let this movement win, then truth based on reality will lose its complete relevance and with that will science. Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson is a victim of this new climate and if we don’t act it could be the future we never wanted.
From de-platforming people with whom I disagree to needing trigger warnings for every statement, the youth of the world are constantly being shown as hysterics. How much of this is actually true? Is there a reason for this hysteria? How do we calm this structural resonance? Will name calling help? I want to take an opportunity to understand, analyse and provide an opinion based on the data I have got at my disposal. As a person who is as far left in the political spectrum until it becomes a cult or violent, I got myself in situations where I had to oppose people with whom I had more in common. A past “socialist” employer of mine wanted to retain employees people based on their political and social beliefs. While I mostly agreed with his belief’s, I didn’t agree with the process. This was my first direct contact with such a hysteria. I have been waiting to analyse this since that day. I want to start by identifying the behaviours which I deem part of this youth hysteria.
Retributive justice
Identity politics
Intolerance towards alternate ideas
Correct Speech
Safe spaces
Post Truth
Intergenerational guilt
Difference due to the generational gap is bound to feel hysteric
Every generation I have met thinks they are at the peak of the wisdom curve. The insight I got from the conversation was quite uniform. All of them think they have revolted against the previous one to get all the wisdom by eliminating all the dogma. They also believe that the next generation is squandering all the wisdom with their stupidity. Imagine the counter-culture and free-speech movements of the late 1960s and 1970s. Now all those revolters and their children believe the millennials are the issue. They are anti-intellectual. I strongly believe both of them are right and wrong. It is true that collective wisdom grows with generation and age. Under ideal conditions, a person at 40 is meant to be wiser than one’s 19-year-old daughter. But the same daughter at 40 will be wiser than what her parents were at 40. However, the only way for the 19-year-old to be wiser at 40 is to let her do the mistakes at 19.
Can the current situation be explained purely as a generation gap? Dr Jordon Peterson tamely put the situation as ‘it feels the adult society is stuck in the body of a 13-year-old girl’. I do not think the current hysteria can be brushed away as purely generational differences. The actions are symptomatic of a deeper problem which is fairly unique to the time.
Symptoms of tribalism are seen at a time of anxiety
The word tribalism has a specific meaning in behavioural psychology. Oxford Dictionary defines it as a state of being organised in a tribe. Tribalism is characterised by violence, destruction of all social structures, loss of civility, disregard for judicial systems, hostility towards the opposition and extreme sensitivity.
Economic uncertainty
Economic uncertainty in people triggers the same behaviours which they exhibit when they have to fight survival. The young people from the middle or lower income group in the developed nations has concerns about decent paying jobs, student debt, healthcare, job security and the environment. The concerns are exasperated when the individual has an average IQ and sees that one’s government is not doing anything to address the issue. What is worse the jobs already in the market might be eliminated by automation. The young person’s mind is filled with questions like below.
Can I have a decent paying job?
Will my job last my lifetime?
Can I ever have a family and buy a house?
What if I fall sick?
Environment Uncertainty
People read about the man-made climate change and its threat every day. The youth are naturally disgruntled at the previous generation for the world they are leaving behind. I won’t be surprised if the question, “Is the climate change going to make it worse for me to live a healthy life? ” is on the top of their mind.
These uncertainties are bound to drive people to a tribal behaviour.
Fellowship
All of us are affected by our fellowship both positively and negatively. The bond and camaraderie across social groups have helped break the barriers of the past. Now, the bonds are causing some structures to implode. Having broken the barriers, I have now forced myself to take steps to correct for the atrocities which my friend’s grandparents have encountered. I read history and policies in the context of how can I help my friend. This is empathy gone wrong completely. These friends have become too empathetic for the collective development of their society. There is also a conflation of reflection and self-loathing which has made people feel guilty for mistakes they never personally made.
The reactionaries stuck in a time warp
According to me, the reactionaries are the group of people who are stuck looking at a fact with their time-warped memory. The left-wing of these people were called by Maajid Nawaaz as the regressive left. I prefer the term reactionaries because of a set of common attributes which are anti-enlightenment. Before I list down these attributes, I want to call out my observation. If you ignore the spikes, the world in general always moves leftwards socially. The worst racist is not as racist as the 16th-century one. The average homophobe doesn’t want to kill them. Women have the right to study and work in more places than in the 18th century. It is not where we want it to be but in general, the world is moving towards being more inclusive and tolerant. While one set of people feel this is wrong as they felt the world was better in the 16th century. The other set feels like the situation hasn’t improved but has morphed itself to a different form of discrimination. I want to list the commonalities of these people
Ideological conformism
Extremely sensitive to trigger
Lack of appreciation to the present
Lack of respect for the due process
Complete disregard of the facts
Blaming others
If I put the above six points in historical context, I can excuse someone if they think of Stalin, ISIS or the crusades. If I say these are some of the universities in the developed nations, then we have a major issue. These leaders are either dishonest and want to exploit the situation to make a name for themselves or they have gotten stuck in time. I want to look only at the honest players. If one is stuck in the 1960s, then all one can think of at that time is the fight for civil liberties, protest against unjust wars. If one has the nostalgia of those days or feels for their inability to participate in those activities, there is a chance to retry those now.
These reactionaries are in positions of power now. They have the opportunity to do their bit on the issue now. They see all social issues with the same lens. They also have the power now to influence the next generation, what they think, what they say and also what they should study. I want to detail this in a separate blog.
Rushing to solutions from symptoms
This is comfortably one of the most dangerous human aspects of how our brain works. We seek patterns and jump to solutions. Two people can see an institution not representative of the society based on a set of criteria like race, language, gender etc. I then see the same pattern in another institution. One person comes to the conclusion that it is based on discrimination and another one comes to the conclusion that the under-represented groups are not good enough. President Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders saw the same problems with the rust belt in the United States. While the latter attacked the large corporations, the former blamed the immigrants. I see the same problem with this issue as well. People see that the community as they see it is not represented. However, instead of taking an approach where I find out what is happening, why it is happening and the causal factors that led to this, I jump into a massive conclusion and come up with a solution for this. The issue then becomes worse when the two groups start blaming and attacking each other. The problem is exasperated by economic anxiety as given above.
Need to hate someone
I always wonder if as humans we have a need to hate some group. Who else better to hate than someone my group has marked as my enemy. As a guy growing up in India, I was always told to hate Pakistan. If I don’t I was told I am not a good person. When I met people from Pakistan and engaged in a conversation with them, I came to know that they had a similar upbringing. I wonder how many of these issues we see are because of a similar problem.
Tremors from a long gone earthquake
Structures are broken in an earthquake. The tremors from that are felt long after the earthquake is over. The effects of second world war still linger in the minds of people though most of them are dead. The families of Japanese people in internment camps, Holocaust or India-Pakistan partition still have the scars in their mind. The same can be attributed to people whose grandparents were abused during the apartheid regime or slavery. It takes a few generations for these tremors to completely disappear. The second generation doesn’t think like the first. So, we will see different reactions with every passing generation but it will eventually disappear.
Unprepared for the social experiment
Social Media is an experiment which has caught us by surprise. What started as an innocuous way to connect with friends and family has been a mass propaganda machine. The transfer of information and indoctrination through this media is damaging the social fabric which we didn’t have ways to protect.
Breakdown of social safety nets
The youth always has three social safety net to ensure they are well prepared to take the civilisation to the next step. The three levels of safety according to me are given below. The breakdown of these structures has caused a massive issue.
Family
Community
State
The family structure has become a conservative talking point. However, people have to be careful before having a child. By no means, I am asking for people to stay in an abusive relationship. I am advocating against having children before you sort out your lives. If two doesn’t work it is crazy to think the third one will work. Also, having a child is a massive responsibility and you shouldn’t do it with an abusive partner. I see more families breaking down now that I did when I was a child. However, people still seem to have children at roughly the same timeframe in their relationship. These children are going to be impacted.
The community was previously structured around class, race or religion. These three have no basis in the present world. However, we haven’t replaced it with anything. What does this neighbourhood mean to us? How do we help each other? I remember a story where a colleague of mine from a remote village told me about his rather poor neighbourhood. With a lot of love for his community, he told me that he can walk into any home and people will feed him with love. Everyone wanted everyone else to succeed and be happy with it. Where is that community now?
One of the key developments of the 20th century is the development of social democracies. From the ‘New Deal’ in the US to the welfare schemes in Europe, states provided a safety net to people. These schemes have been systematically eroded with time. The governments have been keen on removing them under the name of free-market. Not every individual has the capability to run all races. Some skills might not be needed anymore and some might be needed in the next generation. We have to ensure people are given the necessary support to ensure this continues.
With the breakdown of these three structures, we are creating a generation with is on a high dose of anxiety from their very young age.
Conclusion
To summarise, I am by no means justifying the hysteria or pushing those people away. I want to highlight the causal factors which have given us this situation. I do not have an answer on where this will take us. Therefore I operate under the below principles.
Try to understand the individual context to be best of my ability
Discuss bad ideas without trying to smear individuals
Avoid causing further partisanship
Recreate the safety net for people around me
Fight for the right of the present oppressed instead of the past oppressed
Let facts drive and correct the course of my path
Addendum
After I wrote this blog, I had an experience which relates a lot to this blog.
I responded to a tweet by Peter Boghossian in Universities becoming cults by agreeing with him and adding my view on what cults are and how I want universities to be.
I got a response to my tweet from a random person who just called what I said ‘masterpiece in irony’. While tweet might not be the best form of communication, I felt the need to engage with her. I finally got a response from one of her followers that Peter Boghossian said something in terms of ‘Universities have become advocates of American Capitalism’ in an interview.
As I dug into the profiles of people who either liked the tweets of people who responded to me or directly responded to me, I found a pattern. All of them hated the US for its history. They believe that the only solution to this is annihilation. They were anti-white(for want of a better word), anti-United States of America(they live there) and anti-capitalists. While I am not a big fan of Capitalism in general, I don’t think hating capitalists is an answer to the issues caused. We have to live in the world which will have people who hold differing views. Further, I also don’t know why one has to be guilty by association. Can’t one agree with their friends on 4 points and disagree on another 2 points in a discussion? Further annihilation of a complete society is not a solution for anything. Their views felt like the God of the Old Testament in human form. I re-read my blog and have to wonder which of the categories these people belong.
I should admit guilty of the unsolicited cheap shot at Jordon Peterson in the title of the blog. I am with Sam Harris on Dr Peterson. While I agree and respect 90% of his views, the balance 20% is shatteringly dismal. This blog is not intended at Dr Peterson though. I wanted to write about my experience with stories while acknowledging his thought-provoking methods of extracting I universal archetypes from ancient stories. I also want to share a viewpoint where an average individual who is not as smart as Dr Peterson can drift from having a metaphorical look at stories to a more dogmatic one.
Let me start in a simple fashion by defining an archetype. Archetype has its origin in Greek where ‘arkhe’ means primitive and ‘tupos’ means model. This morphed in archetype in Latin. In psychoanalysis, according to Oxford Dictionary, an archetype means a primitive mental image inherited from the earliest human ancestors and supposed to be present in the collective unconscious. Archetypes (Carl Jung, 1947) are images and thoughts which have universal meanings across cultures which may show up I dreams, literature, art or religion. Dr Jordon Peterson eloquently communicates how the religious texts of the past and other forms of fiction have communicated these archetypes by harnessing the power to stories. He quotes the works of philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche a lot in this regard. The part where he loses everyone including me is when he doesn’t separate value from the truth. There are two parts to his approach.
Use of stories as a potent tool to communicate a message
Considering the story as true, because the message is valuable to humanity.
I want to address both these points, first in isolation and then as a combination.
Stories as a potent tool to communicate a message
I agree with this statement completely. I will start with a personal example first. I have found out the best way for me to communicate morality, understand concepts even mathematics is through stories. A simple story makes her pick the concept so effectively which I struggle to get through when I explain in the first person. She thinks about it a lot better. The same can be said about communicating complex subjects to adults. Some of the best examples of fiction writers are Friedrich Nietzsche, William Shakespeare, Mark Twain and George Orwell actually communicated their ideas through stories. This is also the reason why the field of performing arts is uniformly adored across the globe. It is a great way to communicate a message. A story is to message is what music is to lyrics. You can have one without the other but the combination creates magic. It is also a way the human brain processes a message easily.
A story is true because the message is valuable to humanity
The pursuit to a definition of truth is an old philosophical concept. The most commonly used definition of truth is based on the correspondence theory of truth, where truth is grounded on a set of facts proven by the basic axioms accepted by everyone. There are various theories of truth in philosophy. I have listed a few here.
Correspondence theory of truth
Coherence theory of truth
Constructivist theory of truth
Consensus theory of truth
Pragmatic theory of truth
Semantic theory of truth
Dr Peterson has a morphed view of the pragmatic theory of truth, which was later named metaphorical truth. He feels reality which isn’t morally good is not true. For example, any reality which will result in annihilation and destruction of humanity is not true. He feels the moral truth superimposes all other truth. The other truths are only true in their realms. I don’t subscribe to it for the below reasons.
There was truth before humans evolved
There will be truth after humans become extinct
The Andromeda galaxy and the Milky Way galaxy will collide even if we don’t want to think it is true. There are plenty of other examples where I can say Dr Peterson’s morality based truth can even be dangerous. Also, there is a Circular reasoning fallacy in his argument. Dr Peterson’s claims that Darwin’s theory of evolution is the basis of his truth. Truth is what which helps in keeping humans alive and moral. Darwin fundamentally negated the foundation of the Judeo Christian ethics in which God created the universe and humans, around 5000 years ago. Peterson then says scientific reality is only true when it supports morality, especially the Judeo Christian one. Based on that Darwin’s theory of evolution which negates this premise should be false.
I have to discuss the nature of truth as that is the only connector in the premise. I accept something is a story. I accept there are morals valuable to humanity. Now we all have to decide which theory of truth we are using to decide if the premise is true or false. If we use the most prescribed theory of truth, the correspondence theory then Peterson’s assertion is not true. If you use his definition, then the proposition will be true. However, we have already rendered the logic of that definition as flawed.
There is definitely a possibility where one might say, I have used logic to negate the definition and Logic is fundamentally a construct of the correspondence theory. So, I have used the proposition to prove itself. It is a begging the question fallacy but again I have used logic. So anyone might see I can infinitely regress but one has to move out of the dimension of logic and reality to get into Dr Peterson’s world of truth.
A story is a potent tool, so I live my life like the story is true if it leads me to live a moral life
This statement sounds obnoxious and even a decent one at the outset. However, if you dig one level deep there are few fundamental parts of this which make it extremely diabolical. The core of the statement is moral life. Who defines what is a moral life. Let us say you define morality as something which will help humans prosper. Then the issue is what is prosperity and how to achieve that prosperity.
Now, let us take examples. A suicide bomber genuinely believes he is doing a moral act by living his life as the work of fiction he believes says. What do you say about slavery? Slavery is condoned in most religious texts across the world. These works of fiction are considered moral and are supposed to help us lead a moral life. I don’t think any sane individual wants to go back to that era.
In summary, I strongly agree with Dr Peterson that stories are a powerful tool to communicate a message. The message registers better and transcends generations. However, the validity and usefulness of the message don’t make the story true. If you start living your life like those stories are true, then you risk pledging your critical faculties to a work of fiction and live a life of servility and credulity.
Unlike most of my blogs, I want to construct this one around creating a conscious model for positive change. It will not be far from the truth to say this title come from my anathema towards the modern feminist movement. However, I will try my best to go back to the first principles instead of the fundamentalist and reactionary form of feminism that is seen today. For the sake of this discussion I reducing the variability of discrimination to just one parameter. I am also assuming a dichotomy of genders here for the ease of argument. Using principles of Induction, I can then extend it an increasing number of parameters.
Principles
Women have the same rights as the men (Liberty, Equality and Fraternity)
Women have the same duty to the society as their male counterparts
Physiological and psychological differences are not parameters which can make one group superior over another across all vocations.
Facts
Irrespective of what individual communities and religions say, women have been discriminated against in the past.
Today, some communities are better and treating their women than others.
There are levels of mistreatment and their impact has to be differentiated. A perceived sexist remark is completely different from a rape.
Rules
Religion has formed the rules of the dominance hierarchy. I will not use either the religious rules or my prediction to define the current
I will avoid ad hominem attacks on any individuals
Someone taking offence is nobody’s problem
Constructing Women’s Rights from the principles
I now want to construct a set of rights from these principles, facts and rules. According to me, there are three critical women’s rights. While these three might look like something applicable to everyone, there are specific tenets in it which make it specific to this issue.
Right to control reproduction
Right to work
Right to defend
Right to control reproduction
Women have the right to control their reproductive cycle. This includes contraception and termination under due considerations. Any movement to prevent contraception or short term pills is just plain unscientific, immoral, stupid and authoritarian.
However, the two movements in this space have created a false dichotomy. They have hijacked the discussion. This is not a pro-life or a pro-choice debate. While the pro-life team is completely evil, they do have a point do you consider the being to have a life. Based on the view of the biologists, I see that as the early stage of the foetal development, which is 9 weeks after fertilisation. Prior to that, it is an embryo. The other reason I think this is right is that after this stage, the termination of pregnancy also poses a risk to the mother. This is not to say I do not think pregnancy should be terminated after. I believe we should show extreme caution after that. Some of the reasons for the termination of pregnancy should be.
Improper development of the foetus.
A risk to the mother’s life
Other untoward reasons like rape etc
There is also a reason for being careful post foetal development begins. It risks people checking gender before termination. Again, I want to reiterate, I say we have show restraint and caution after 9 weeks. I didn’t say we should never do it.
Right to work
For me, the right to work includes the following tenets.
Equitable pay and allowances
Right to respectful treatment (which should cover everyone, not just women)
Fair policies compensation for women’s contribution to the society. I consider women bearing a child as something that is critical for the survival of our species. In that instance, the society (Government or otherwise) should compensate the women adequately for the process.
I do not mean the below items.
Special privileges which cannot be shared with anyone else. For example, flexible work arrangements if possible should be available to all employees.
Unilateral policies which convict people before an investigation, even if they are in favour of women.
Right to defend
Everyone has the right to defend themselves, especially from physical attacks. However, women need additional privileges to be able to do this effectively. Here are the main reasons.
Women are attacked more often when any relationship breaks.
Women, especially single moms are more vulnerable to physical abuses
Women on the average are physically less strong than their male counterparts, so they need to have enough armour to defend themselves.
This right will encompass the below points.
Pre-emptive strike to defend their honour against an intruder or a prospective molester.
Train to use self-defence arms like handguns.
Ability to get licenced arms without hassles.
Why is a reset of this topic important
I plan to write another blog on the arguments around privilege which we need to avoid. However, there are the reasons why resetting has become very critical.
The term misogyny is used indiscriminately. It has become a smear attack now.
Feminism has gotten stereotyped and has become the monster it hated. A mother who wants to stay home for a few years to take care of her child is not an old-fashioned submissive woman. That is her wish. To force our wish on a woman is what brought about this issue in the first place.
Defending anti-woman practices cannot be feminism. I am seeing women defending practices like female genital mutilation, dowry, submitting to the wishes of the male partner under the name of feminism.
Neither has every male lived a privileged life nor has every woman lived a subjugated life. Historically different cultures had different forms of subjugation and discrimination. There is no effective mechanism to come up with a weighted average of the impact of intergenerational subjugation and discrimination on individuals. So, an open statement on privilege by the looks of a person is not going to help. The war against class-based discrimination in medieval Europe had only people of one race. Most of it was not gender specific as well.
I deliberately called the new version of feminism ‘angelic’. It should respect feminity, individual preference, responsibility while continuing to oppose the anti-woman practices in the society.
As I concluded in my previous part, privatisation of the temples is definitely a plausible option. There is a movement in India to free the Hindu Temples from the influence of the Government. I am completely in favour of this option albeit for a different reason. In this blog, I want to write about the movement, the reasons and my opinion.
The movement to free Hindu Temples from Government Control
This movement is to challenge the Hindu religious and charitable endowments (also called HR & CE). These government departments control the management of the Hindu Temples under their control. It all started with the Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act in 1959. Here are the arguments against these controls.
Hindu Temples are the only religious institutions which are under Government Control
The income from the temples goes to the government, thereby depriving the temple to get richer.
Hindu Temples pay more income tax than other religious institutions
Hindus are not allowed to manage their own religious affairs
Hindu Temples and their assets are allowed to be destroyed by HR & CE of different states
These regulations take away the constitutional rights of the Hindu groups to manage their own affairs.
There are plenty more but these are the main reasons. There are some factual errors in this but I want to highlight one of them. The constitution of India does give the state government rights to pass regulations like these as deemed appropriate. So, the acts themselves are not unconstitutional.
Why is this relevant?
This movement has been gaining momentum from the beginning of this decade. This has gained prominence with the Sabarimala case as the same people like J Sai Deepak are fighting for both. Their logic is simple. If they gain enough momentum towards this case, they can make it an election issue. If these acts are removed, then the Hindu temples will cease to be public assets. Therefore, the rules of the temple are similar to the rules of a private body.
They will not have the money power to run education institutions to push their agenda.
None of their rules can be termed discriminatory. They can prevent people from entering, from women to people of the Dalit communities.
This will drive towards their broader agenda to make India into a Hindu nation.
Why do I feel the government should not control temples?
I am a strong proponent of the separation of church(or temples) and state. If the state starts to involve itself in the management of religion, it soon has to take sides in religious wars. It also is obliged to protect the demise of these religions. Here are my reasons why I want the state out of the business of religion.
The state has a responsibility to government people according to the rule of the law and not on religion.
The civil code should be uniform and secular. For example, child marriages, dowry and polygamy should be prohibited irrespective of a religion.
All institutions (religious or otherwise) should pay their taxes. Religious institutions should not get charitable status.
The government should not give grants or aid for people to perform religious activities, from Amarnath Yatra to Hajj trips.
The government in a secular country has the responsibility to be neutral. It can’t take responsibility to build or destroy places of worship.
The government has a responsibility to keep education secular. Religious concepts can be taught in scripture classes but not science. Evolution cannot be an optional part of biology.
The constitution still has laws against discrimination which has to be deep.
In conclusion, I see this as a dangerous sign. The articles in magazines like Swarajya show how nuanced the arguments have gotten. Considering the history and breadth of beliefs and practices in Hinduism, one is bound to find contradictions in the scriptures. This has paved the way to the new fundamentalists who have come up with an approach which only be called death by a million nuanced cuts. This confusion results in people falling for their trap. The only way to expose their devious behaviour is by letting them take control and expose their vicious, cruel agenda. If you are a parent of a child, you need to be worried about these people. Here are the reasons.
Your child might be a homosexual. Imagine the plight of a homosexual in a society run by such people.
Your child might be growing in an increasingly polarised society where the caste system is controlling collaboration.
If you have a girl child, imagine her plight as she finds a partner in her life. She might be forced to live a life of mediocracy just for being a person of the female gender.
If anyone thinks, I am exaggerating I want to attach some proofs.
This message is extremely specific. It doesn’t say that any false complaint should be punished. If one has to be fair, they should also consider any perpetrator who has denied crime to actually get punished more. Further, the girl just complained. She didn’t provide the judgement.
This was another tweet by a Hindu Right winger on the impact caused by Section 498A which is the Dowry Act that criminalises dowry.
They want to spread fake medical research too.
These people are capable of defending anything under the name of religion. If you think they are good just because what they are saying now is in line with your beliefs, then think more they might be coming for you or your family next.
As mentioned in my previous blog, S Gurumurthy recently triggered a discussion on Twitter around the Sabarimala case. He was weighing in his opinion on how the legal system cannot be above faith. This is a director at Reserve Bank of India. It is intellectually boring to break down any analysis by S Gurumurthy. His opinion and bigotry can only be matched by someone like Steve Bannon from the US. However, the most acclaimed narrative has been produced by a Hindu apologist, J Sai Deepak. He is the best spokesman for the Hindu right wing and I want to take down his argument in this blog. I want to do this through the below parts.
The Sabarimala Case
Analysis of J Sai Deepak’s argument
Analysis of other arguments
Ready to wait
Blaming judgements for natural calamities
My Opinion
The Sabarimala Case
The core of this case is extremely simple. A bunch of people filed a case against women being barred from entering the Sabarimala Temple. The case was filed in 2006 and taken up by the Supreme Court of India in 2017. Towards that time a bunch of girls from Kerala started a movement called ‘Ready to wait’. This movement wanted to keep the status quo. The movement got traction and attracted some prominent religious and legal experts into the case. J Sai Deepak was one of the lawyers representing the ‘Ready to Wait’ movement. I can go on an on about de-mystifying the Sabarimala deity, Ayyappa but that is not of any significant benefit to this argument. Wikipedia provides a decent introduction on Sabarimala and Ayyappa. However, there are a few points I want to share, which adds some value to the case.
Difference between Ayyappa and Manikandan
As the legend goes, Manikanda(n) was a prince of the Pandalam dynasty. He is believed to have lived in the 12th Century BC. He is supposed to be an incarnation of the Hindu god Ayyappa. It is one short of a trinity, probably can be referred to as duality.
The belief is Ayyappa maintains celibacy
According to the belief of the people who run these temples, the deity Ayyappa wishes to be a celibate. The temple website mentions the below.
“As Sabarimala Ayyappa is ‘Nithya Brahmachari’ (celibate)women between the 10-50 age group are not allowed to enter Sabarimala. Such women who try to enter Sabarimala will be prevented by authorities. Only pilgrims who have observed Vrutham alone are allowed entry through the holly Pathinettampadi. They have to carry Irumudikettu (Pallikettu)also.”
Sabarimala is autonomous but under the Government of Kerala
The Sabarimala Temple is run by the Travancore Devaswom Board. Though the functioning of the board is autonomous, the members of the board are nominated by the state government of Kerala. The Travancore Devaswom Board website has the details. It is not a completely private institution. Further, they cannot have a constitution which contradicts the constitution of the country.
The judgement hasn’t come through on the case
There is so much noise around this subject but the judgement hasn’t been given yet. The court has reserved the judgement to a later date.
This wasn’t the first case on the subject
This case cannot be understood in full context unless we look into in the context of the judgement given by the Kerala High Court in 1991 in a case related to letting women entering the temple. After listening to the argument, the judgement was pronounced as below.
“The restriction imposed on women aged above 10 and below 50 from trekking the holy hills of Sabarimala and offering worship at Sabarimala Shrine is in accordance with the usage prevalent from time immemorial.”
“In the light of the aforesaid conclusions we direct the first respondent, the Travancore Devaswom Board, not to permit women above the age of 10 and below the age of 50 to trek the holy hills of Sabarimala in connection with the pilgrimage to the Sabarimala temple and from offering worship at Sabarimala Shrine during any period of the year. We also direct the 3rd respondent, Government of Kerala, to render all necessary assistance inclusive of police and to see that the direction which we have issued to the Devaswom Board is implemented and complied with.”
There was a similar protest to allow women to enter the Haji Ali Dargah. The women who fought for their rights won their case. The judgement was pronounced on 26 August 2016 when the Bombay High Court ruled that women could enter the Dargah. Though the Sabarimala case was filed a long time before, the Haji Ali Dargah case definitely has opened the floodgates.
J Sai Deepak’s argument can be divided into the below parts. There is so much mentioned about the veracity of this argument but I feel it only convinces people who are already convinced. I don’t think defending anything reprehensible should be praised as an act of bravery and skill. Anyway, I will deconstruct his arguments to see what makes sense.
Lord Ayyappa is a juristic person and has the liberty to do what he wants
This is a question of religious freedom
It is not a women’s issue
The court should not be imposing their views on religious practices
There are similar examples across other religions or other temples
I have given references to the argument presented by J Sai Deepak in the section below.
Lord Ayyappa is a juristic person and has the liberty to do what he wants
“Lord Ayyappa of the Sabarimala is a “juristic person” for the purposes of property ownership and taxes and hence, he equally has rights under Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty), 25 (freedom to practice religion) and 26 (freedom to manage religious affair) of the Constitution.
The deity has the right to remain a ‘Naishtika Brahmachari’ (eternal celibate) and this was also part of the right to privacy of the deity, the will of the deity needed to be respected.”
It is true that Lord Ayyappa is considered a juristic person under the Indian Penal Code. According to law, the juristic person includes not only natural person (living) but also corporations, idols and even the dead people. However, Article 21 has an exception. When carrying out a procedure established by law, one’s personal liberty shall be deprived. So, Ayyappa has the right to remain an eternal celibate, as long as he stays lawful. The same is the case with Article 25, Ayyappa has the complete freedom to practice his religion.
However, the argument is completely mute. Sabarimala is not owned by Lord Ayyappa. The place is owned and operated by Travancore Devaswom Board for the person named Lord Ayyappa. Lord Ayyappa can walk out and sit inside his private property. At that point, he will have all the personal liberty he wants. As long as he is sitting inside a building owned and maintained by Travancore Devaswom Board it has to operate under Article 5 of the constitution. Travancore Devaswom Board is partially maintained by the State Government of Kerala and has constitution provisions.
Article 15 – 2 (b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.
The proof that the board is funded by the state is in Article 290A of the Indian Constitution.
290A. A sum of forty-six lakhs and fifty thousand rupees shall be charged on, and paid out of, the Consolidated Fund of the State of Kerala every year to the Travancore Devaswom Fund; and a sum of thirteen lakhs and fifty thousand rupees shall be charged on, and paid out of, the Consolidated Fund of the State of 1 [Tamil Nadu] every year to the Devaswom Fund established in that State for the maintenance of Hindu temples and shrines in the territories transferred to that State on the 1st day of November, 1956, from the State of Travancore Cochin.
So, this argument is a non-sequitur.
This is a question of religious freedom
Now, let’s look at Article 26 of the Indian Constitution which outlines religious freedom.
26. Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right— (a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes; (b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion; (c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and (d) to administer such property in accordance with law.
This is a plain conflation of concepts. Every religious denomination has the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion. However, matters of religion come under the law. Supreme Court is not ruling against rules of Hinduism. However, the rules of Hinduism have to come under the legal code. For example, if my religion asks me to perform a cruel operation on a newborn resulting in the death of the baby, it will still be classified as murder. Right to manage your religious matters doesn’t mean a right to discriminate. Either way, the usage of this clause is meaningless in the context of an individual called Lord Ayyappa.
Now, coming to the definition of Naishtika Brahmachari. Naishtika Brahmachari means celibacy till death. How do women entering the temple take away the celibacy of the Lord Ayyappa? According to Hindu scriptures (Smritis), a naishtika brahmachari is supposed to live under the supervision of his guru. This means he owns nothing and lives by begging. Can you think of someone begging and a male offering them food in the olden days? Also, this rules of Lord Ayyappa owning the place. Now there is another famous naishtika brahmachari in Hindu mythology, Lord Hanuman. I don’t think he avoids seeing women. The Supreme Court of India is not changing the definition of the word by any means.
It is not an issue of discrimination against women.
This is laughable. I am not sure how you can say that women who are capable of having a child cannot enter the temple and still say it is not an issue of discrimination against women.
Further, the point mentioned was “The women have been respecting the tradition for a long time now and this is not a case of temple versus women or men versus women”. Now women have also been respecting Sati for centuries. That doesn’t make the sati an acceptable practice.
The other point made is, “The issue of exclusion of women was not based on the notion of purity and rather dependent on facts like celibate nature of the deity which has been preserved for years”. This is completely false. How do I know? Prayar Gopalakrishnan, the president of the Travancore Devaswom Board has done the job. His quote says everything that needs to be said in this regard.
“These days there are machines that can scan bodies and check for weapons. There will be a day when a machine is invented to scan if it is the ‘right time’ (not menstruating) for a woman to enter the temple. When that machine is invented, we will talk about letting women inside.”
The court should not be imposing their views on religious practices
The next point by J Sai Deepak is that the court and others should not be “superimposing” their social views on the temple which has stated its position “loud and clear”. He followed that with the below point.
“Tomorrow somebody can say that he would like to offer chicken as ‘prasadam’, can such an offer be entertained and the rules of religion and the God cannot be changed.”
This is an argument from emotion than logic. Let us look at the first point here. The court should not be superimposing their social views on the temple. This is completely incorrect. The temples come under the jurisdiction of the Indian Constitution and any views that they have which are against the constitution will be challenged. A temple, for example, cannot preach discrimination or violence. It is against the law. Temple is within a jurisdiction of a legal entity. It is cyclic fallacy if you use the same law to argue that the temple is above law.
On the second point of offering chicken as ‘prasadam’, there are laws protecting such actions. For example, one cannot say that by allowing women to enter mosques, pigs can also enter the mosques next. This is a hasty generalisation fallacy. It also commits an argument from analogy.
There are similar examples across other religions or other temples
The last of his argument was that there are other such practices which continue. The example used is throwing of babies outside the Baba Umer Dargah, Solapur Maharashtra. It is worth noting that the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights has already banned the practice. It still continues to happen illegally because such people are idiots. Further, the fact that A is wrong and still happens. Therefore, B is wrong should also be allowed to happen is not a logical argument. If he is trying to trigger a divide between Hindus and Muslims in this case, then it is worth noting that there are Shiva temples in the same area which do the same ‘Throwing Baby’ act.
Overall, his complete narrative is an argument from incredulity. There is no logic to it apart from trying to strike an emotional chord with his co-fundamentalists.
Analysis of other arguments
I also want to list other arguments presented in this case.
Argument by K. Radhakrisnan
A Senior advocate K Radhhakrishnan, appearing for the Pandalam royal family, referred to the concept of morality and said that the constitutional morality cannot override the private morality in cases of religious practices. This is completely wrong. Morality is the principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. As seen in Wikipedia, morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper. Constitution fundamentally does that. Most religious moralities allow you to own and trade people as slaves. The constitution gives you the right to think and speak freely. It is your right to not want to exercise it. Morality, however, is how you behave with the society in that context. Private morality is a meaningless construct in that case. It is a deliberate conflation of the definition of the word morality. I am assuming he meant liberty. Even with that, I have already shown that the argument is flawed.
Argument by Abhishek Manu Singhvi
Abhishek Manu Singhvi is a lawyer and a Member of the Parliament in India. It is outrageous to see him defend unconstitutional practices.
Defending the Sabarimala tradition in the Supreme Court, advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi on Tuesday told the bench that there are temples in the country where even men are not allowed. He added that a court cannot be invited to give a finding that a tradition or belief is not of antiquity without the evidence being examined in a trial. Arguing for the Travancore Devasom Board which administer the sabarimala temple, Singhvi also argued that there are hundreds of traditions practised buy dozens of faiths in India and it is not possible to bring them all under definition of Constitutional morality. “Even in Mosques across the country, women are not allowed,” said Sighvi. He added that the test under articles 25 and 26 was not whether a particular practice was right or wrong but whether it was a bonafide belief practiced for centuries by a community.
His first point of men not being allowed is fundamentally allowed under the constitution of India. This is the same reason why you have women-only compartments in trains but don’t have it for me. Article 15-3 of Indian Constitution says, “Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.” So, women can have such special privileges. There are 8 such temples in India. His second point should comfortably be the worst of the lot. Since there are too many traditions, we should not bring them under the constitution. I wonder what is the purpose of a constitution or legal system in such a situation. I wonder if he is calling for anarchy in a court of law. And finally, I have already discussed the articles 25 and 26 above. So, I am not going back to it.
Ready to Wait argument
There is something about this campaign which invites mockery. The premise of the ‘ready to wait’ campaign is utterly stupid. While it is a cool hashtag, it is meaningless. No one is forcing these women to not wait. Even if the judgement allows women to enter the temple, it doesn’t force these women to enter. It is not a mandate. They can wait. I am surprised, people can’t see the stupidity in these arguments. It is also pretty ironic that the parent organisation is called ‘People for Dharma’. I wonder the context in which they are using the word ‘Dharma’. It could mean righteousness, rule, law or cosmic order. Do they mean, the rest of them are for ‘Adharma’? This is the callousness seen in some movements like ‘Pro-life’, like anyone who opposes it is ‘Anti-life’. You don’t need a right to wait in a democracy, just like you don’t need a right to stay hungry or right to shave your head.
I was subsequently proven right by the nature of the arguments posed by the people propping up this campaign. Here are a few.
“If you don’t wish to believe in Hindu deities and their stories/legends, then don’t. But this sudden interest in destroying millenia old traditions in the name of “rights” is becoming absurd. Would you, for instance, support my right to eat pork inside a mosque? Religious places are not public places.”
“Sati, triple talaq, child marriage are social customs. #Sabarimala temple’s tradition is based on Shastras. Not a ‘SOCIAL’ issue. Devotees coming out with #ReadyToWait declaration. Women don’t intend to allow atheism win over Bhakti.”
“I respect my traditions, therefore will never visit Sabarimala before the right time for me. Feminists should leave us alone.”
I sometimes wonder how far and deep the termite of misogyny has spread. Now women want to become their torchbearers. I want to just highlight a few points.
Destroying traditions under the name of rights is not absurd. Traditions have to be questioned in any civilised society. The Hindu Sastra (Manusmriti) highlights the role of a woman to be subservient to her male guardian.
You do not have a right to eat anywhere. It doesn’t say that in the constitution. You don’t have the right to kill a lion as well.
Shastras are social issues. Hindu Sastras call for discrimination of people based on various factors. I wish she reads a bit more before making a fool of herself in public.
Feminists are not forcing anyone, especially these people to go to the temple. No one is forcing anyone to enter. People are fighting for the right to enter a temple here.
It is not surprising to see this line of argument. In 1934 there was a report submitted to the Maharaja of Travancore on allowing lower caste Hindus to enter the Sabarimala Temple. I have given an excerpt from the report (as I read it from another source) below. This was called the ‘Temple Entry Committee Report’. I have provided more links in the references section.
“Exclusion from temples, not always the result of the excluded class being considered inferior to others. It is based on a belief that the approach of certain people is likely to derogate from the spiritual atmosphere surrounding the pratishtha, the deity installed in the temple. A large body of (high-caste folk) believe, on the basis of the (scriptures), that the entry of the (low) into (their) temples would cause defilement of the temples…and there will be no efficacy in the worship or rites performed in them.”
As it can be seen, this line of argument is not uncommon with the people running the temples and the people practising these beliefs.
Blaming judgements for natural calamities
Religious fundamentalists have always been guilt tripping judiciary when it has promoted equal rights against the will of their religions. The evangelicals in the past have blamed Hurricanes in the US, the attack on WTC, the earthquake in Haiti and even the 2011 tsunami in Japan to gay rights. Now the Hindu right in India has taken over the same approach. They are pressurising the judiciary into think there is somehow a connection between the judgement and the floods in Kerala. However, they are using a multi-pronged approach for this. There are volunteers on the ground who are helping the flood victim. This builds the goodwill. Then, there are people who drive local movements drawing the connection. They evoke the causation versus correlation conundrum in people. Finally, there are people who attack the judiciary. It is a good strategy only if everyone else is an idiot.
My Opinion
I am not a fan of religious reforms. When people talk about reforming a religion, all they do is add another flavour of the religion essentially twisting some elements of the religion to make it more palatable to the society. If the religions adapt to the social changes, then they do not perish. So, we leave the next generation to fight this evil construct. Morality has always come at the expense of religion and not because of religion. Religion has successfully collected the social morals of a time and encompassed them in their system. However, morals evolve as people learn more. If religions are allowed to move their goalpost we can never get rid of this evil.
At the same time, I am not sure about the need for any self-respecting woman to enter the temple premises after knowing how they are being discriminated against by the system. Unless they do it to annoy the establishment, I can’t think of a valid reason to enter. For that reason, I can’t think why any woman would want to be religious. No religion ever gives a woman equal right.
I want the Supreme Court of India to give the Travancore Devasom Board two options. The fundamentalists fighting for the right of the Lord Ayyappa like J Sai Deepak want the first option while the people who are contesting them want the second. I feel the court should provide both the options to the board and ask them to take a call.
Option #1: Become a completely private entity by leasing the area from the Government. This means
Lost their charity status
Pay taxes like a private institution
Lose government protection
Still under Indian Constitution and Legal system
They would run like a theme park. They set their rules. However, this requires a constitutional amendment.
Option #2: If they want to operate in its current fashion then
Allow women of all ages to enter the institution
No discrimination against any community, gender or sex
On a different note, I wish tax rebates for all religious institutions should be removed. When a cab driver or a car mechanic has to pay one’s full due of taxes why should religious institutions get a free pass?
Nothing obliterates a civil society more than its despicable treatment of women. The traditional conservative societies have moved from enslaving women to whining about their freedom to now claiming to have been an embodiment of women’s liberties. Not only have they not done anything to liberate women but also are intentionally obtuse to distract everyone from their devious intentions. The theocratic societies across the middle east and south Asia exemplify this behaviour.
The case in the Supreme Court of India to allow women to enter the Sabarimala Temple and the reactions aftermath stands a testimony to the new wave of religiosity. S Gurumurthy, the journalist and one of the directors of RBI tweeted about the possibility of the connection between the Kerala Floods and allowing women to enter the Sabarimala Temple. The sad story of the Indian culture is that this is a mainstream opinion. I want to address this in three parts.
I want to wrap this up with my opinion on how to take on the theocratic bullying we are witnessing.
The stigma and trepidation around menstruation
The deep-rooted misogyny in the Indian Culture was always covered up by traditions. I have already written about the culture of rape in the country. The discrimination against menstruating women is the ugly domestic secret of the Indian society. For a seemingly developing society with a high percentage of college graduates, it is rather ironic to see their belief in superstitions. The culture is obsessed with the women’s vagina and what comes out it. Anyone who thinks the previous statement is gross or a massive exaggeration is either an ignoramus or a charlatan. I am sure that everyone from an Indian Hindu family has seen treatment of women during their mensuration. I will call out some of the most common practices.
Menstruating girls and women are
not allowed in most religious functions and temples.
not allowed inside the kitchen
not allowed to touch anyone in the house
not allowed to go near the place of worship inside the home
not allowed to use the same dishes as the rest of the members
As a young girl child, one is made to feel scared, ashamed and even disgusted with what is happening to their body. I have personally witnessed this in well educated upper middle class families growing up in a city. The situation is worse in villages and other remote areas. While every culture across the globe had these superstitions, not all cultures have equally come out it. Education has especially done a lot to get most societies out of it. But the Indian society seems to have a unique status where a very educated family finds it acceptable to follow these prejudices. What is worse, they have upgraded to new reasons for why these practices are valid. I have heard a few Hindu religious scholars say some of the below reasons.
The radiation from the body is so intense that people should not come near menstruating women.
This sounds scientific, doesn’t it?
God cannot withstand the energy from women during those times.
I am assuming they have some weak god.
To prevent men from getting attracted to women during those times.
This assumes men have no control. If they mean religious men like themselves, then I suggest we cage men when their wives go through this. I will be more than happy if men actually took care of their wives during those times.
Women get extremely angry during those times.
I want to see the reaction in a man bleeding for three days.
The most ridiculous reason I heard was that people married their daughters at a very young age those days only to avoid these questions. As you might see, none of these actually have any moral value. There is no way a humanist or a secularist will every present such an argument. This irrational bullying is the superpower of the theocratic community. Most women who have grown up being subjugated with these practices have a trepidation at the possibility of questioning these practices.
There is also a line of argument that Hinduism or what the fundamentalists like to call Sanatana Dharma worships menstruation. The examples quoted are the Kamakhya Temple in Assam and the Bhagavathy Temple in Chengannur in Kerala. It is counterproductive for people to bring this up as neither of these temples actually allow menstruating women to enter.
As I have mentioned before in my earlier blog, the systemic misogyny in India is too deep and too well spread. The problem is that defendants of the misogynic practices now are becoming more mainstream and taking a more nuanced stand. The main case which is highlighting this is the case of allowing women to enter the Sabarimala Temple.
Demystifying a skeptic's world 