#MeToo, #WeToo, #WeTwo.

#MeToo, #WeToo, #WeTwo.

As the #MeToo moment builds, one fears if it will have its way as a social movement. It is not because it is skewed. Not because it’s just urban. Not because it’s old. Not also because it is not legally tenable. The fear is if it will be able to cross over the barriers that will be built by people in position. 

After all it is the people, rather men, in position who gave the intrusive misbehaviour with women a pattern, almost as a right to be.

When men and women come together to work, it makes the workplace encouraging, inspiring, and promising, at least at the entry levels. People become more conscious about how they dress, they present or cultivate a conversation. All that is vital in promoting skills, competence and aspirations.

Just then, however, women begin to feel being watched. The story takes a sudden disillusioned turn for them. They are made to be conscious about what they wear, not from the perspective of what will make them comfortable or make their personalities more noticeable. They are imposed to be cautious of what could attract a pinch, or an attention that has no space in the professional enhancement, or an image that will be cast against the various sexual benchmarks. 

Why must a woman face that challenge? She takes to work because she wants to give her skills a professional direction, earn a position worthy of her competence. Just as men do. Why should she face challenges that is beyond professional expectations? Why should she be engaging her energies in thinking on ways to encounter the various men in various ways? Why should keeping her body safe, secure and guarded from intrusive indulgence become a daily engagement in her professional life? Isn’t this an extraordinary challenge imposed on her? 

Should this culture continue undisturbed or unchallenged? These are questions that must get due response. And, it can’t happen in a Court of law. It simply cannot be put to a legal trial for redressal. It is a fight for the rights that women are justified in asking. 

It does not matter if a few mighty names feel defamed. It should not concern if the allegations are not substantiated by facts or evidences. It should not disseminate the cause if a few are frivolous. It has been a continuing exploitation. Even if it was consensual at the time of its occurrence. 

There are just two sides of the instances. Either a man and a woman came together beyond their professional obligations to be physically engaged, and felt cheated; or, the man designed an occasion to make her succumb. Both can be contested legally, and it is a choice of the individuals to choose the course.

The issue is deeper: the growing phenomenon of indulging men, specially those in a position to impact professional aspirations. 

The context that has been brushed under the carpet is: She ‘never’ wanted. He wanted it ‘no matter how.’

That she never wanted it, and he wanted it no matter how, is a cult that has evolved since about the 1970s as workplaces broke the gender barriers. The men continued to cultivate the craft while the women were coerced to conceive better ideas to evade. 

Having worked for long in the advertising, media and cinema industries, I stand by my conviction that men have been exploitative. Women have had a tough, humiliating and suffocating time navigating their professional aspirations. 

More, this trend has set such an established mistrust and faith in men. Are men proud of that position? Do men enjoy anchoring women as ‘safer’ friends because that is one of the ways women can get away from the menace? Do men feel comfortable as they go through a series of tests before they can be accepted to meet? Do men not feel insulted if the woman opposite her is more absorbed in noticing where their eyes go, or how she sits?

It is a delightfully stimulating experience for a man and a woman, as colleagues, spend an hour or so in not so matter of fact a conversation. Go for a movie or a play or a walk together, despite their status as married or engaged. It is unreal to conceive that charms do not work between a man and a woman when they are professionally related. Man to a man, or a woman to a woman is another level of a conversation. The man -woman conversation is endowed with dimensions that encourage individual flair and charm.

Once when a lady client and I, as her service manager, would never agree professionally, my boss and hers secretly planned to send us both on a work assignment to Mumbai for a week. When we returned, we were both taking agreeable views on most issues. 

Sharing a cab, having breakfast together in the hotel lobby, trying new restaurants for dinner, or taking a break for coffee together helped us both understand one another. Yes that was as good as dating but both knew that we did not attract one another. Yet we were both conscious of striking a rapport. We returned more agreeable professionally.

Such is the power of man and a woman working together, without indulgence. A relationship evolving out of this is a private issue. To believe that an engaging interaction between a man and a woman must conclude in some physical relationship is archaic and medieval. To impose the physical dimension is nothing less than a crime. 

Of course it is a crime when a man intrudes into the private space of a woman despite her reservations. The crime, however, cannot be redressed in a Court of law. 

Just as the freedom of nations from monarchy was not fought in Courts, the #MeToo campaign will lose its significance if it is given a legal direction. The battle must be fought by a compelling voice. A voice that will give freedom, respect and dignity for women as individuals. 

There will be women who will hesitate to share. There will also be women who will use this as an opportunity. The momentum that the #MeToo is building must not lose its course. It will conclude only when men begin to accept them as individuals with their personal choices as their exclusive rights. It does not matter if this does not resurrect the larger cause of the prejudices faced by the women across the nation. As someone commented that the freedom movement in India began at the levels of the intellectual urban, inspiring others to acknowledge freedom as a human necessity.

The Government will quite naturally form committees or forums to address the issues. Lawyers will be willing to offer legal help. That is their job. Such a solution will dissipate the impact of the movement, not enable the change that is expected. 

The movement requires a social direction only. Mobilise people. Make it engaging. Participative and voiced. The issue can be truly addressed if it finds solidarity from across professions, by men and women equally. As it stirs the women to be responsible for the future women, it must stir the men to think hard. Think what the men can do to establish trust and respect in women. How men can inspire themselves to see women as individuals. That women’s personalities are based on skills, competence and intellect, as variable as the men possess. 

Of course it will take time for the dynamics to change as the mutual respect, trust and dignity never got established. Perceptions, judgements, fears, doubts, insecurities and mistrust have shadowed what could induce the romance between individuals of contrary genders. The dynamics ought to revolve around its potential to enhance professional skills, individual capacities, and, further trust, faith and respect between the individuals. 

Can we expect #MeToo transform into #WeTwo?