Some serious feminists I respect (men and women) are running shy of this topic nowadays despite the fact that it is getting a lot of attention in the media, academia, and digitalised hyperspace. Even my Department — the Department of English, mind you, not of Culture Studies or Political Science — recently hosted a one-day seminar on the #MeToo movement.
There are easy opinions on this, including by men of the caveman sort who think that ‘grab her by the pussy’ is permissible bloke talk. There are also vast differences between cultures, national (regional) and professional. For instance, it takes far more courage to accuse someone of sexual harassment in Saudi Arabia than in India, and, for that matter, in India than in Sweden. That is because, as is the case with Saudi Arabia, there are unfair laws that can rebound with draconian force on the accuser. Or, as is the case with India, matters of sexuality usually lead to either silence or sniggering. There are career differences too: for instance, the infamous ‘casting couch’ in the profession of acting might be far more hegemonic than, say, the professorial armchair in academia, though the latter can claim its victims too.
Sex, both a private and public act
Given all this — buttressed by the fact that women (though not only women) in all cultures experience some degree of sexual harassment and mostly have trouble getting their grievances redressed — the first line of this column might come as a surprise. Why is it that some men and women, who consider themselves gender-conscious or feminists, are shying away from this debate? Once again the answers are many, and they differ by culture and profession. But one aspect remains common to all of them: the intricate nature of sexuality and freedom, and their imbrication.
I will make a possibly controversial claim here: one of the greatest achievements of the 20th century is sexual freedom. Or, at least, a degree of it. Why? Because sex — and hence sexuality — is at the same time the most private and the most public of acts. It is private because it is a matter that concerns only the participants: the lovers. It is public because it provides the basis for procreation, and hence it is considered essential to society.
The private aspect can make sex the most radical of forces, for in it one can totally ignore the rest of the world. As far back as the 16th century, John Donne made this perception central to his poem, ‘The Sun Rising’, in which a lover addresses the sun in order to prove that the entire world is encompassed in the bed he occupies with his beloved. The poem ends with these lines: “Shine here to us, and thou art everywhere;/ This bed thy center is, these walls, thy sphere.”
However, the social aspect also means that all societies and religions do their utmost to control human sexuality. To control sexuality usually also means to control women, and vice-versa. But this applies to other aspects of society too, because a degree of sexual freedom is essential for other freedoms to exist unimpaired. To control the body’s sexuality is to control society.
Curtailing freedom
Now, I am not arguing that men who harass women indulge in such freedom. No, far from it. Men actually curtail the freedom that women have (and should have) to use their sexuality as they wish and not as dictated by these (or other) men. Sexual harassment of women by men is a private act of transposed social coercion, which tends to happen more in societies where traditional forms of sexism are under attack but still powerful.
My point is different. What I am saying is that some of the discussion on sexual harassment is turning into arguments that can be used (and sometimes are being used) to curtail sexual freedom, and this will be a decisive step backwards, particularly from a feminist perspective. A fine balancing act is required here. Sexual harassment has to be exposed but not at the cost of sexual freedom. In places like India, one has to add that there is very little sexual freedom for women.
Some traditionalists will object that sexual freedom can be abused. Unfortunately, that argument exists for every kind of freedom: freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of press, freedom to own a knife (to hack vegetables, not stab human beings), freedom to make money (but not cheat on taxes), etc. One has to live with the possibility of occasional abuse in order to have any freedom at all. Attempts to deny freedoms unless they were ‘foolproof’ have led to the atrocities of Stalinism and Nazism in the past.
In order to prevent the legitimate fight against sexual harassment from being turned into a reaction against sexual (and, inevitably, individual) freedom, one needs to look more carefully at the nature and circumstances of sexual power and exploitation. These are not always unidirectional: youth and beauty can be exploited, but they can also exploit. Hence, one has to wait for legal cases to run their normal course, and not jump to conclusions based on digital evidence and gendered perceptions. Sadly, there is no other option.
