In the era, when we talk about abolishing gender discrimination and giving the fairer sex equal rights as our not-so-fair counterparts, we manage to hold onto those seemingly simple rules, that seem harmless but have a grave implication, proving that the pomposity of the we-are-no-longer-a-patriarchal-society falls flat on its face.
The abhorred thralldom of the race of Aphrodite may no longer appear as restrictions in jobs or the right to vote, but it lurks there, sneering at the feminists, from behind the shield of ‘discrimination for preservation’ - an impressive phrase, and so convenient too.
The streets at night are not safe for women, so let us shut them up in the hostels at 9. We are, here, referring to the proportion which says
Safety of women :: Daylight
Which directly implies that darkness and night are indirectly proportional to the safety of women, that makes them, of course, directly proportional to the threats on women.
But hey, knock knock……..and should I mention the various attacks on women in broad daylight and crowded streets? Or let us together go through the police records containing incidents where men were stripped off, not their ‘virtue’ but off their ‘wallets’?
A woman walking alone during the daytime is as likely to be targeted by scavengers prowling the streets as a woman at night. A male specimen for that matter, is just as delicious meat for criminals as women. The crime committed against the two sexes might differ but both of them are at par in their vulnerability.
If you agree with me, then why do we have the ridiculous rules regarding late nights and night outs where women are concerned, when the men of the same age have no restraints at all? It is, as you know, a rhetorical question. I do not need an answer. I already know it and so do you. All this pondering is just a crop of disappointments, bound to make me yearn for the freedom I cannot have, but the dream of which makes me pen down the storm in my head and torture people who dare to read this.
