Abeer Shrivastava, Week 6

Tanushree Paul in both her pieces argues that the social hierarchies that exist with respect to an individual’s mobility are bifurcated by binary functions, the function of the male being tackling hardships and flourishing in dangerous environment whereas that of the women being reproduction or domestic duties and flourishing in protected environments. She observes that for a supposedly feminine or a conventionally proper woman, loitering in public spaces is objectionable. If a woman enters a public space, she has to be in transit, has to have a destination, a purpose. On the other hand, it is considered normal for men to loiter around aimless, check out other women and smoke a cigarette or two. Women also shy away from ‘hanging out’ in public spaces as they are instilled with fears right from their childhood. The apprehension of incidents which may violate their modesty was created in the society as a means to control the female sexuality and limit the woman within the domestic domain. The author points out that the existence chivalrous men as known as the bhadralok bengali were a reason of confidence in women earlier since these men took it upon themselves to protect women in public spaces from sexual crimes. Lately, the chivalry of these men seems to be dying just as that of almost anybody witnessing an assault on a woman. Shilpa Phadke notices that the presence of people belonging to the lower class such as sex workers or labourers in public spaces creates an apprehension of lack of security in women. This fear, agreeably valid in some cases and not in some, was also devised to prohibit women from deriving pleasure from an activity exclusive to men, i.e., loitering. Right to public spaces comes along with the status of being a citizen of this country and in my opinion, does not welcome scrutiny from the society.