Voice for Laws for Men: Not a War Between Men and Women

The author of this blog is Ritika Sharma. She is the Founder of the blog, HUMAN.DROITS, and is also an LL.M. Graduate from the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. She can be reached at ritika4523@gmail.com. 

Reads: What lessens one of us lessens all of us

With the emergence of women empowerment movements, a parallel voice regarding the need for gender-neutral laws is on the rise these days. Sexist statements such as “Men don’t cry”, “Man up”, “Boys will be boys”, etc. have long set some complete orthodoxy and disgracing notions for men which not only consider them emotionless but also universally generalise them as “flirts”. The direct impact of these notions on women is that they should be weak, vulnerable and shy to be able to fit within the specified boundaries of society.

The need for laws for men emanates from two major factors. One is inadequate laws to redress their issues and the other is growing concern about the number of false cases filed by women against them. Talking primarily about the issue of inadequacy of laws for men which is quite apparent these days, our statutes IPC, CrPC, Indian Evidence Act, etc. have expressly discriminated against men in several ways. Some are justifiable while others are not. IPC does not criminalise acts of rape or sexual assault when these are committed against men. The simple reason is that the patriarchal society cannot picture a man as a victim of these offences. Consequently, they find themselves juggling between the shackles of incompetent justice mechanisms and narrow-minded society, both of which are always reluctant to accept that something wrong could happen to men.

The second factor of false cases against men under several provisions such as Section 498A, 304B, and 376 of the IPC makes the matter worse. During my short duration of Court Internship, I had come across several cases where husbands and their families claimed that false cases had been filed against them and for them almost no immediate redressal was available. Although, I vehemently condemn the false cases filed by women against men, at the same time I oppose the acts of hating or criticising women or women empowerment movements or laws aiming at upliftment of the women. One cannot argue against the fact that when an offence is committed against a person, whether male or female, it affects their whole family (or loved ones). Offences and false cases against a man affect their mother, sister, wife or daughter as well and the same goes for the crime against a woman. Our nation hasn’t yet progressed much, giving every female unbridled power to go to court and in most cases, the responsibility or decision-making power of filing cases and meeting lawyers are in the hands of their father or brother. Instead of removing or declining the strictness of women-centric laws and continuing the process of subjugation of one gender over the other, separate provisions should be introduced under which offences against men are recognised. On the other hand, the problem of the falsity of cases can be removed with the aid of guidelines or rules with which the stages of investigation and trial could become more detailed and stringent leaving out any scope of defaming or convicting innocent men.

This year, two prominent cases i.e. Zomato and the cab driver case were being vigorously conversed about on social media which basically had given rise to an online mass debate with two sides, where one side criticised the women empowerment movements for creating roadblocks in the men’s lives and the other, resultantly argued with them. The positive side of this debate was that we witnessed several females standing up for the rights of men and criticising the acts of girls in these cases which reflected their concern towards people irrespective of the gender war which was going on. However, the most unfortunate aspect was that people commenced social media trials. These instances highlighted deep-rooted aggression towards women's empowerment movements like feminism. The main issue was not that a woman has harassed a man but it should be that a person has harassed another person. The cases came into the limelight because the people opined that the law favours females or the females in the respective cases dared to harass males because of the shield provided by several women empowerment movements and feminists. The fact that these cases get so much attention when a large number of incidents of conflicts between two strangers arrive daily is something very odd and shocking. The only difference is that the alleged accused in these cases were women and not men as when a man beats another man on the road then it never becomes the news of the nation. So, did these cases welcome huge masses because women were involved in this? Or, was it because it was presumed that it all occurred due to feminist movements? Or, was it due to the rare nature of these cases?

Let’s take an example of an offence of eve-teasing (an offence under Section 509 IPC) where the victim is a woman and the perpetrator is a man. Thousands of these offences occurring every day on the streets gather little attention from the public because of three major reasons, first, the instances of eve-teasing are a dime a dozen; second, these offences majorly go unreported and third and most importantly the victim is a female (weak/vulnerable) and accused is a male (strong/inviting), which very well fit within the pre-set conceptions of the society and do not in any way trigger the patriarchal notions. It is unacceptable and saddening that a man has been harassed by a woman in comparison to a woman being harassed by a man. And the reason is rudimentary thinking and sexist statements that either make offences against men unacceptable or exaggeratedly shocking (thereby, gathering more attention).

The conundrum is that these voices for the rights and needs of laws for men are targeting feminism and other women empowerment movements. There is a need to spread awareness regarding feminism which could show red flags to the ones who have started hating the women empowerment movements and also to those who under the veil of these movements and personal, deceitful motives, create obstacles for the innocent females who really need to be empowered. The essentiality of these movements can be reflected in the fact that each and every female needs empowerment, some need it to save themselves from abuse while some need it to get their deserving jobs, salaries and equitable lifestyle.

It is necessary to draw a line between these two issues. One is discrimination faced by women and the other is inadequate laws for men. The irony is that the factors which have given rise to these major social problems are identical, for example, division of gender roles, categorical separation of weak versus strong gender, innumerable presumptions, judgments and lack of empathy. It is clearly not a war between the two genders but it’s a war against deeply rooted notions of society.

The only solution to tackle the grave injustice faced by today’s men (and indirectly faced by their families) is to introduce gender-neutral laws with utmost unambiguity and meticulosity. Indisputably, learning and unlearning daily in this dynamic world are the substantial parameters without which we all cannot leave our capacity to harm or tread upon the rights of others.