Round - V - The 2nd Beginning

Read previous round here. Table of Contents here.

Kumar Alok

I haven't argued for mellowing down; I have argued for strategic change of direction. Targeting those who think women "deserved" to be raped would be very different from those who think women may become "vulnerable" due to their dress. While the former may be on the fringes of society and have very hard attitudes, the later are more common people as shown by the research studies. Not differentiating the two would be like administering cancer medicines to healthy and patients alike. The medicine may help cancer patients; however, it may endanger the well-being of normal, healthy people.

Moi

But therein lies the rub.

People who believe that women are 'vulnerable' due to dress are also deeply in error. These are the people who have been indoctrinated in the dehumanization of women. They are the true target - because the unconscious prejudice of the masses nurtures the extreme prejudice of the fringes.

Kumar Alok

The argument of "unconscious" is deceptive. It implies that even the most vocal feminists can be unconscious misogynists. That hardly helps. The argument of "indoctrination" is equally deceptive. If the whole society is indoctrinated to dehumanize women, then how come only feminists escape the indoctrination? One reasonable explanation can be that they are themselves indoctrinated to think women as dehumanized. Science describes and explains. Ideology do indoctrination and feminism is undoubtedly an ideology. The argument against "masses" is elitist. It is undoubtedly critical of every non-western culture. Further, it assumes that feminists are specially endowed people who are above all bias that masses are prone to. One can see that such elitist attitude hardly helps in communicating with masses. Besides, it can hardly sustain the test of science.

Read next round here.