Now that everyone is done being outraged about my language, can we step back and take a look at the actual argument, please? Thank you.
I first thought of making this post a week or more ago, when I first read the original comment. The post I wrote in response was what I felt immediately on reading it. I saved it as a draft, but refrained from posting it knowing that the language would offend some people. After a week of thought, I decided to post it as it was.
Why did I post it with that specific example instead of toning it down? Because I deliberately intended to be provocatice and jolt the readers out of their comfort zones. I could have written a longer, politer, more expository and detailed piece about how Tejal was attacking the same system that guaranteed her life, sexual emancipation, and overall freedom, and people would have slipped by it bored. That is not the inattention an idea of this magnitude deserves.
Let’s look at how I could have responded in a ‘politer way’. I could have written this, for instance:
I think Tejal should set an example for the rest of us by ‘depriviledging’ her drawing room and throwing it open to everyone: Thakurs, Dalits, Maoists, the John Birch society, illegal Bangladeshi immigrants and to the libertarian cartel for our next meeting. I see no reason why everyone should be a have-not when it comes to having a place to meet, especially when Tejal has the power to make everyone a have.
Fair enough, right? I draw out the absurdity of Tejal’s argument without pushing the wrong buttons and stepping on the sensitive subject of sexual assault. But let’s consider for a moment that this actually happened. After all, turning a drawing room into an open meeting place is not such an irrational demand. Then, what stops me from writing this:
I think Tejal should set an example for the rest of us by ‘depriviledging’ her bank account and throwing it open to everyone: TamBrams, OBCs, Mother Teresa’s home for the Destitute, the Cato Society, Shivam and Nilu. After all, there’s no reason why they should be have-nots when Tejal has it in her power to provide them funds they need and can make good use of and turn them into haves.
And now the demand is a bit more unreasonable. But how far is it from a drawing room to a bank account? Letting random people access your house and your money both pale in comparison to letting them assault your body, right?
But, hey, since we’ve already opened up access to Tejal’s money, and it really isn’t that important compared to her dignity, let’s go a little bit further. After all, her body is the important thing out here. Her property, we can be flexible on.
I think Tejal should set an example for the rest of us by ‘depriviledging’ her working hours. Why should her employer or her professors be the only ones to make demands on her time? The Indian Cancer Society desperately needs volunteers. I desperately need a secretary. Dominos could really do with another delivery girl. Why should we be denied Tejal’s labours when it’s in her power to turn us into haves?
And now Tejal works for us for free. But hey, nobody’s anally violating her, which is the important thing, right? So now we take one more step.
I think Tejal should set an example by ‘depriviledging’ her body and donating her kidney. There’s this guy who really needs it, and Tejal’s a perfect donor. Why is she turning him into a have-not? It’s his llife at stake?
Oh, come on. It’s a kidney. You can get by on one kidney. Why wouldn’t Tejal agree? Fine, so let’s take one more tiny baby step.
I think Tejal should set an example by ‘depriviledging’ her body and letting infertile couples use her womb. They want kids so badly and don’t have any. Why is Tejal engendering this medical barrier by refusing to give out her womb?
All in a good cause, right? How far is it from here to raping Tejal? If her drawing room, her time and effort, her blood and organs are free for the taking, why not the rest of her?
This is why I started with the anal rape example: because it gets people outraged and excited. Because they respond to the fact that it is one of the most appalling crimes anybody can commit. Because you need to understand that the policy Tejal has advocated is the one which will lead to her loss of control over her own body. The earnest young leftist who says that the elite shouldn’t be allowed to decide who they can let on to their property is morally equivalent to the Congress (I) goon of 1984 who said that Sikh households were free for looting, or to the Bajrang Dal goons in Gujrat who said that Muslim women were theirs to rape.
Yes, we can debate elitism. I think the pros of elitism outweigh the cons, but I can appreciate and sympathise with people who want to mitigate or elilminate the cons. But when someone wants to pull down the system of property rights just because elitism flows out from it, they’re on the path to self-destruction. They would do well to remember it.
Wow, I seem to have missed the original discussion! While your choice of example is brilliant in its ability to elicit discussion, it would be nice to have an analogy* that also acknowledged the overall utility of an elitist community. Unless of course, anal rape is productive for the universe in some way I can’t conceive*.
* The author would like to apologize for all punnitive damages in the asterisked areas.
Dude,
You missed the point. Tejal is not dismantling elitism, she is promoting it.
Now is elitism a good thing? We can have a discussion over it, but denying people entry to my house is NOT eltism just like Tejaj has the absolute right over her body.
It is my fundamental human right! Thats all
Exec at TOI: news is so boring and depressing.
Another Exec: yeah… people dying in Iraq. women getting raped. blah. blah, blah. our readers are getting bored
Exec 1: we need something to jolt them and grab their attention
AK (jumping up and down like a monkey in heat): I know, I know. Let us put pictures of naked ladies on our front page.
(Collective applause and the world dies another time)
Confused: I was trying to make the same point as you- that denying people access to your house is a fundamental human right (which is why the post is filed under human rights). I threw in the reference to elitism at the end, because that’s where Tejal started from, and because I wanted to explicitly separate the effects of eliltism (positive or negative) from the system of property rights. Guess it didn’t come across. My bad.
Anonymous: Did you even read my post, you idiot? I said I’m grabbing attention to focus on an issue, not to distract from another on? Why don’t you go over to theotherindia or dcubed where ignorance and lack of logic are virtues? Jackass.
Calm down fella! looks like you are confusing private property with access to public institutions. And your slippage from property rights to rights over a woman’s body are very telling. No wonder India has one of the highest rates of sexual assault and harassment. I despair for the future of our country, when educated people can’t be more thoughtful. Maybe you are just young.
so, if you were talking to a girl across the table..you’d grab her to focus attention on what you’re trying to say? and try to enter her to make her see reason? so, it’s okay if someone else tries to enter your arsehole..you know, to focus attention on what they’re trying to say.. ?
I said I’m grabbing attention to focus on an issue, not to distract from another on?
That’s exactly what you have done, you miserable sycophant!
Sasha, “pubs. bars etc” are not public institutions, they are private property. And demanding that you have access to someone else’s private property is as outrageous as demanding you have access to their bodies. Please understand: Aadisht is saying that both are outrageous. You condone one and comdemn the other, which is sheer hypocrisy.
Dude, that’s just it. The original comment questions the exisence of those institutions and what the group affiliation of a person attending or allowed to attend those institutions is, remember, “Dogs and Indians not allowed”? conflating property ownership (a social arrangement that we agree on) with control of a woman’s body (a social arrangement somewhat disputed, thank God, though men would have it otherwise) is specious. Don’t you guys learn how to make arguments in comp 101 or do you just have to learn how to take exams and never have to write a paper in your life? Just curious.
Its not a question of getting access to someone elses private property, but what constitutes it to be so, that is the interesting question. Sadly, doesn’t look like this discussion will amount to anything other than to illustrate the willful ignorance of the Indian educated class.
[…] What I’m trying to say here is that the line between your body and your property isn’t such a sharp one where your dignity is concerned. And my ’slipping’ from property rights to rights over a woman’s body is justified. […]
[…] Update: People, please read this post for an explanation of why I’m being so disgusting, and this post for the reason I think this comment is worth making so much of a fuss over. […]
Sasha, the opacity of your last comment staggers me. Aadisht is simply saying that our right to private property is an inviolable as a woman’s right to her own body. Do you disagree? Yes or no? Keep it simple and spare us the jargon.
I don’t know how much more one can simplify this for simple folk. Apples and Oranges good enough for ya?! Good luck with that!
Your point has nothing to do with Tejal’s comment. Go read SIG’s comments on your previous post. Seems like you scapegoated Tejal for the pure purpose of creating an entry point for something altogether unrelated to what he/she was saying.
i dont know what would have been the comment if the women raped were his mother or sis. Learn to respect human dignity. U r upset with publiscity of shivam. sorry bross u cant have same with silly,stupid, vulgar and nude language