“Why loiter? Radical Possibilities for Gendered Dissent.”
is a piece by Shilpa Phadke, Shilpa Ranade and Sameera Khan which explains,
through the research done by the writers, how even though there has been
political or economic progress, women still do not have any sort of claim or
right to public places in the city of Mumbai. Through the act of loitering, the
writers explain how a certain gender or class of people who are above in social
or political hierarchy are able to get access to right to public spaces which
limits women’s access to the same.
It talks about how the right is mainly restricted due
to the identification of the ‘dangerous other’ where intersection of class and
gender comes into picture. The description given of the ‘Tapori’ signifies how
a certain class, mainly the lower class men, through the way of clothing or the
body language, have been defined as a threat or as attackers or sexual
harassers of women which makes it hard for the middle class women to access
spaces because men have more access or can easily loiter, showing thus, how
hierarchy is introduced even in such actions. Respectable people, according to
the writers, occupy the least scope in the public spaces which then leads to a division
between the good and the bad women where the bad women are deemed to be not
worthy of protection from any sort of risk and it is due such form of characterization,
that it became difficult for all women to access public spaces.
Thus, we realize how the act of loitering is not one
of choice but something that has been condemned due to formation of class and
gender hierarchy attached to identification of certain people and it can only
be acceptable if and when loitering is not linked to act of demonstrating some
form of purpose or respectability and if, according to the writers, it is linked to something basic as the right of citizens can women be able to access public
spaces freely.
Submitted By- Saher Husain (18010673)
No comments:
Post a Comment