Women and Media Collective Press Conference on Violence Against Women

The Women and Media Collective held a press conference last week to address the incidence of violence against women with regard to the ‘grease devil’ phenomenon. The Collective also stressed that it wanted a ‘clear dialogue’ on the matter in order to militate against sensational reportage as well as further trivialisation of the issue.

The main points expressed by the Collective were the following:

- The State has an obligation to ensure the protection of women, to set about establishing impartial investigations and strengthen law enforcement, particularly with respect to the ability of the police to maintain law and order.
- “If women are insecure, it is also an indictment on the community and our society at large. We want law enforcement to work closely with communities and strengthen mechanisms that would ensure safety of communities”.
- It is necessary to avoid the “policing of women in the guise of dealing with this issue”, particularly to prevent restriction or confinement. This is important in order to recognise that women have responsibilities and assume an important role in their respective families and communities.
- Comprehensive investigations are required to prevent the repetition of incidents.
- The need to build confidence within our communities and for elected representatives to engage with their constituencies.
- The media has a responsibility to avoid sensational reportage and reduce levels of hysteria.
- The need for communities to work with law enforcement agencies in a manner that strengthens community trust.

Women and Media Collective Press Conference – 17th August 2011 from Centre for Policy Alternatives on Vimeo.

Tweet

1,723 views

These Sri Lankan whores! Serve them right!

Name and shame the whores that act in pornographic films online. Their seedy grainy stuck-between-teeth pictures plastered across newspapers will be the deterrent for other whores who have the same idea.

Designate parks for young people to canoodle in (but ensure someone watches over the canoodlers for we don’t want them to canoodle with naked noodles, for that would be a travesty of our cultural norms and mores).

Our children are getting abused. Our teenagers are getting pregnant. But we don’t need sex education. This is a Western concept. “If we promote our culture and practice the morals norms and values there is no need for sex education.”

These news stories among others, including sex education in international schools, these last few weeks have been interesting for us who work in the field of sexual and reproductive health and rights. If we do not pursue the discussion though, discussions around sex in the media could lend to superficial reactions that no doubt were among the reactions to the stories outlined above.

“What is our country coming to?”  “What has happened to our country?”

These same comfortable questions that we have asked forever, now applied to the latest sordidness however is not to further the discussion beyond forgetting about these issues until they reappear in the next report. We may love to talk about sex in Sri Lanka, but we do it mostly behind smudgy window panes, inside dark almirahs and under desolate bridges. When we discuss it in public we approach it less candidly, and necessarily gravitate towards the negative. We don’t seem to be able to have discussions on how sex can be natural, healthy, or that people actually do have sex for pleasure (no, it’s not a myth). No, if we talk about sex from the perspective of it being natural, healthy and pleasurable (god forbid!) it will lead to pre-marital, extra-marital, post-marital, just plain un-marital and therefore immoral sex. This is also the apparent concern with sex education, i.e. sex education which includes discussions around safe sex, are implicit, if not explicit exhortations to go forth and fornicate.

“What is our country coming to?”  “What has happened to our country?”

There are probably a few additional mutterings that express a harsher sentiment: “These whores! Serve them right!” I have heard this from relatively young (mid 30s) men who went to school with me when discussing the oppressive name and shame strategy for aspiring porn stars. Others have wondered at how all their nocturnal trawling on the internet hadn’t turned up these celebrated and now much maligned clips. (Censorship perhaps, despite using proxy servers.)

Celebrated… who celebrates clips of Sri Lankan girls and women performing oral sex and copulating like porn stars at the behest of their lover cum director?

1. The lover cum director.
2. The lover cum director’s friends.
3. Those who enjoy porn productions where girls are either forced/cajoled by their lover cum director to act, or better still tricked into displaying herself and performing in ways she thinks will please her lover (unaware he is also a cum director).
4. Sri Lankan (and Sri Lankan born) internet porn trawlers who enjoy watching their girls next door and boys down the street perform.
5. Foreign internet porn trawlers who enjoy watching dark skinned girls and boys perform.

This is not to suggest that some of those who performed in these productions were not compensated for their time and skills. In fact the Vikalpa article on the implications of the name and shame strategy speaks of sex worker rights. And they are right. Sex workers must have rights. Since 2006 I have been associated with the Asia Pacific Network of Sex Workers (APNSW) and their logo and motto is self explanatory.

I think we would all agree though that rights for sex workers in Sri Lanka are perhaps not very high on the list of priorities. They are a marginalized conveniently forgotten group although they do provide an invaluable service; the opportunity for men or women to release their sexual frustration. It is not clear however that the women and girls that have been filmed having sex are sex workers. And perhaps the rights we need to advocate for now are not the rights of a sex worker, but the right to not have your face plastered across newspapers of this country and be called a whore/man-whore.

And we are quick as a culture to reach the judicious conclusion of whore. The BBC article that speaks of parks for young lovers by the parliament begins with an account of the arrests earlier this year in Matara and Kurunegala of young people who were holding hands, cuddling, and perhaps even kissing – all under the gamut of canoodling – in public spaces. These poor girls and boys, some of them still in school were generally labeled as whores. No mark was burned into their skin but the overzealous police (BBC language) left them in no doubt that their actions had violated our mores and were an insult to our culture. How would you feel if you were picked up by the police for canoodling with your partner in public and being morally condemned?  Would you feel like a whore?

What a wonderfully awful word. How evocative. How many girls and women that are compelled to partake in the near 1000 illegal abortions a day in Sri Lanka are made to feel like whores? How many young girls that have become mothers without a key to the wedlock have been called whores? None? Some? Who dares stand in judgment? Family, family friends, the doctor that performs the procedure, friends, teachers, teachers’ friends, lover’s parents, lover’s parent’s friends, lover… what do we think of these transgressors of our culture?

“These whores! Serve them right!”

Also let’s be honest in what we do think and not be patronizing or piteous. No sad shakes of the head are necessary. If we do think “These whores! Serve them right!” then let’s say just that! The reluctance to say what we feel, often lends to confusion and stagnation, for no one knows how best to proceed towards a solution (if indeed a solution is warranted) for no one knows what the other really thinks.

Do you think we are ready for comprehensive sex education in schools? Are we ready to do everything that is required to achieve this? This includes ensuring that the teachers in schools are trained, given skills, and made ready for this onerous task. But if we think we don’t need sex education in schools, let’s just say that! Let’s stop pretending that it is a good idea. Stop developing mediocre curriculums under the sword of offending sensibilities that remain on shelves anyway and are hardly taught! If they are taught, teachers either leave out even more information and assure the kids that it would not be an exam question (immediate relief to our rote learning conditioning), or end up using another more comprehensive curriculum to supplement it. If we just say “No” other solutions to rising teenage pregnancies and near 1000 illegal abortions a day can be explored without us floundering in the quick sand of comprehensive sex education in schools.

But let’s agree that something needs to be done. The Daily Mirror article suggests that either the secretary to the Minister of Education, or a source from the Family Health Bureau (incorrect syntax in an otherwise cogent article leaves room for the confusion) believes that “sex education is not the answer to problems in our degrading society.” Fine, so what is the answer to these problems in our recognized state of degradation? Moral teachings? To follow on with that suggestion, can we speak of morals without speaking of what is other than moral? Is uninformed morality truly moral? How do young people choose to protect themselves if they do not know what they are protecting themselves from?

What about comprehensive sex education for young people outside of school? What about the National Youth Service Counsel taking the lead in organizing sex education for young people of an appropriate age, in addition to campaigning for parks? These have the potential to be frank and open sessions that deliver accurate and comprehensive information. Information that can prevent unwanted pregnancy and subsequent illegal abortions, which going by the statistics in the Daily Mirror, need to be addressed!

Call young people who experiment or have sex before marriage whores if you like, but serve them right. Ensure that youth friendly services are just that, youth friendly services where they can have access to accurate and comprehensive information on sexual and reproductive health and rights. For example this means factual explanations of HIV transmission and prevention, rather than moral. These youth friendly services cannot degenerate into club rooms to play carom, or gardens for badminton. Those are called recreational centres.

These whores! Serve them right!

And while we are geared for discussions around how morals and values alone will lift us from our recognized state of degradation, let us always remember that morals and values that are pragmatic will endure. In fact, the passing of the Casino Business Regulation Bill may have need for the application of pragmatic morals and values. And where Casinos go, sex workers usually follow. The discussions around sex worker rights may not be too far away.

These whores! Serve them right!

Tweet

7,097 views

Celebrating sexist, lewd live television in Sri Lanka

When I overhead someone talking about the dramatic finale of Swarnavahini’s Megastar reality show I wanted to know what had happened since I had seen a few episodes of this bizarre show – where arguments and insults that fly freely between the judges and contestants is as much the draw as the singing skills of participants.

I checked to see what footage was available online and when browsing websites, and was horrified to come across a video of a comment by Minister Mervyn Silva about fellow MP and contestant Upeksha Swarnamali’s performance. Mervyn Silva expressly notes that he was so charmed by Upeksha’s attire he wished he was an infant and could be breastfed by her. The host of the show, Kamal Addararachchi, is seen to giggle at this outrageously derogatory comment. This, to be clear, is a programme broadcast live on public television.

I’m not a fan of Upeksha’s, but I was embarrassed for her and offended. I won’t comment on Kamal Addarachchi’s lewd behavior on stage because pandering to Mervyn Silva’s antics and comments is par for the course on this show. The video clip shows Rosy Senanayake, also a judge, noting that the comment really wasn’t funny and was uncalled for. Just watching the way Mervyn reacted to her demonstrated again that he does not have an iota of respect for women, or for that matter common decency.

After watching the video I ended up reading quite a few reviews and articles about the show and the comments made by viewers. What appalled me was that not in a single place, except in an article in the Daily FT which said that the Minister had made a rude remark at Upeksha, could I find anyone referring to this horrendous incident and saying it was offensive or wrong. In fact from the little I did manage to find, people found it funny.

This for me is a new low for mainstream journalism in Sri Lanka. When did sexist, lewd and offensive behavior broadcast live on public television be accepted as normal? Why is such behaviour condoned and promoted by the media just for the sake of popularity and ratings? More importantly, why hasn’t anyone taken up this issue with the TV station or sought to flag it for public debate? What Mervyn said was downright revolting. There is something tragically depraved about the way people perceive this incident, and by extension, it scares me that this is a reflection of the true mentality and regard the majority have for women in this country. Men and women are equally to blame for this, and as a woman I’m ashamed that we have let this sort of behavior slide over and over again, to a point where we don’t even see anything out of the ordinary when incidents like this occur.

This particular incident and people’s reaction to it, in my opinion, is exemplary of the state of the country today. We can’t stop the likes of Mervyn Silva expressing his true colors, but why give a platform for and condone repeatedly incidents where people can be publicly humiliated for the sake of a twisted notion of entertainment?

Tweet

11,587 views

Why women in politics always matters: A conversation with Chulani Kodikara

Chulani Kodikara has written five articles for Groundviews, three on the topic of women in mainstream politics in Sri Lanka. Revealingly, they are comparatively three of the most under-read articles on this site. Women are not willing to go back to pre-war status quo, a compelling essay written for the special edition on the end of war, has at the time of writing only generated around 450 pageviews, abysmal in comparison to the tens of thousands who read and engaged with other articles in this special edition.

This marked lack of interest in and awareness of a vital issue provided the backdrop for a recent conversation with Chulani on the issue of women’s representation in Sri Lankan mainstream politics. Fundamentally, the issue is marginal to mainstream political parties and of peripheral interest at best to most voters – female and male. In an important essay, Chulani notes that “the main obstacle to equal political representation of women in political institutions in Sri Lanka is political parties” and goes on to say,

In reality however, beyond the symbolic inclusion of one or two women in nomination lists, both parties have not taken concrete action to seriously address the under-representation of women in political institutions. The enormous costs of contesting elections, the thuggery and violence, the competition within the party fostered by the proportional representation system and the general lack of support for women candidates from male colleagues mean that even the few women who are offered, are often reluctant to accept nominations. (From Women and politics in Sri Lanka: The challenges to meaningful participation)

In this interview, I ask Chulani about affirmative action, and also whether for example, the entry of telegenic females sans political acumen to parliament in any way helps advocacy on stronger female representation. Pegged to this, I also question her about substantive equality, that goes beyond, in her own words, the classical liberal notion of formal equality which assume that removing formal barriers, for example giving women the right to vote and be elected to political office, is sufficient to give women equal access to political institutions.

We talk about the role of women in post-war Sri Lanka, examples from South Asia as well as the rest of the world where women play a far more active role in politics, getting women to vote in women, the political culture in Sri Lanka and changing it for the better, experiences of other countries that post-war that have actively encouraged the participation of women in processes of reconciliation and the need, that Chulani herself has identified, to “revisit and reframe the discourse on increasing political representation of women in Sri Lanka”.

Tweet

5,232 views

Women and politics in Sri Lanka: The challenges to meaningful participation

In an earlier article on Groundviews titled ‘Half a Democracy‘,  the author referred to the virtual absence of women in political institutions in Sri Lanka, and their resultant inability to define  politics and influence decision making in a context of continuing conflict, soaring prices, and widespread human rights abuses by the state.

I want to add that the main obstacle to equal political representation of women in political institutions in Sri Lanka is POLITICAL PARTIES – their lack of commitment to give nominations to women, the lack of internal party democracy and the present political culture perpetuated by parties. Following more than a decade of women’s activism on the abysmal numbers of women in political institutions, it is true that the two major political parties now feel obliged to pay lip service to increasing women’s representation. Recent election manifestos of both the SLFP and the UNP make promises about increasing nomination of women candidates and implementing a reservation or quota for women. In reality however, beyond the symbolic inclusion of one or two women in nomination lists, both parties have not taken concrete action to seriously address the under-representation of women in political institutions. The enormous costs of contesting elections, the thuggery and violence, the competition within the party fostered by the proportional representation system and the general lack of support for women candidates from male colleagues mean that even the few women who are offered, are often reluctant to accept nominations.  

Women’s efforts to independently contest elections at the local level have also failed due to a political culture which does not recognize the legitimacy of such groups over established political parties. There is also the fact that women voters themselves do not vote for women candidates. The Sinhala Tamil Rural Women’s Network (STRWN) based in Nuwara Eliya was among the first independent women’s group to contest for provincial council elections in 1999. A community based organization working on issues of poverty alleviation, micro credit, health, education, environment and peace, with a membership of approx 29,000 members, STRAWN decided to contest elections mainly to address the marginalization and pauperization of vegetable cultivators in the area, but failed to win a single a seat.  This was also the fate of two other independent women’s groups which contested the Colombo Municipal Council elections in 2000 and the Kurunegala Pradeshiya Sabha in 2006, respectively.

The only way to address this imbalance then is through a legal quota for women which makes it mandatory for political parties to give nominations to a certain percentage of women at elections. Quotas aim at ensuring that women constitute a critical mass of 30% or 40% in elected institutions and represent a shift from the concept of formal equality to the concept of substantive equality. The classical liberal notion of formal equality assumes that removing formal barriers, for example giving women the right to vote and be elected to political office is sufficient to give women equal access to political institutions -  the rest is believed to be the responsibility of women. However, deep rooted socio-cultural and economic barriers which impede women from equally accessing political power are now well documented throughout the world. The principle of substantive equality recognizes that real equality of opportunity is not achieved through the mere removal of formal/ legal barriers. It recognizes that equality of opportunity and resources require at times that individuals or groups be treated unequally especially when they are disadvantaged due to conditions /circumstances beyond their control. Quotas and other forms of affirmative action are thus a means towards equality of results.

Since the late 1990s, a number of women’s organizations in Sri Lanka have been demanding for 30% quota for women at least at the local level. In the period 2000 – 2002, the International Centre for Ethnic Studies (ICES) undertook a process of research, advocacy and district level mobilization on the issue of quotas in order to create a discussion and debate within civil society and political parties, and also to determine what kind of quota would work for women in Sri Lanka. Do we want reserved seats or a percentage in the nomination list, should it be an open list or a closed list? Do we need to abolish the system of preferential voting at least at local level? etc. At the time the overwhelming majority of women preferred a return to a ward system at the local level and the reservation of 1/3rd of wards for women on a rotating basis during elections (as in India). This demand was informed by the understanding that a mere 30% in the nomination list under the present proportional representation and preferential voting system cannot ensure that 30% of women will in fact be elected. The magic of numbers proved to be a powerful advocacy tool at the time. By juxtaposing our staggeringly low rate of representation with the high physical quality of life (PQLI) of women in Sri Lanka as well as the increase in representation of women in the rest of South Asia following the implementation of quotas, ICES was able to highlight the issue as a critical issue of concern for women, but was unable to sustain the momentum created by those discussions.

With the appointment of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Electoral Reform in 2003 (as reconstituted in 2006), women’s organizations again mobilized on the issue of quotas. The International Centre for Ethnic Studies, the Women and Media Collective and the Muslim Women’s Research and Action Forum collectively and the Mothers and Daughters of Lanka (a network of women’s groups) presented two memorandums making a series of recommendations which addressed the problem of women in politics. These organizations also gave oral evidence before the committee in October 2003.

The Interim report of the Select Committee dated 5 June 2007, has recognized the need to increase women’s representation in politics, but makes a very weak recommendation that

1. political parties should include provisions in their policies to ensure  nominations of women candidates in order to guarantee better representation of women in Parliament, Provincial Councils, and Local government bodies, and
2. that the necessary legal provisions be formulated to make it mandatory that every third candidate nominated by a party secretary from the national list shall be a woman candidate.

The first recommendation allows parties the discretion to adopt policies that will increase nominations, without making a mandatory direction about how nominations for and representation of women should be increased at each level of government. Furthermore given that no party is bound by any list when it comes to the appointment of national list MPs, what purpose would a legal 1/3rd reservation in the national list serve, unless it is also made mandatory that the party is bound to adhere to a closed list submitted prior to the elections. If that is so, according to votes polled at the last elections, the UPFA would have been forced to appoint four (4) women, and the UNP three (3) women, respectively, from the national list. Not an insignificant number given the current statistics of women in parliament. None of the other parties however would have been obliged to do so as no other party obtained more than two (2) national list seats. In any event when these recommendations will be deemed final and implemented is unclear.  

In the interim, women’s groups will continue to demand for increased representation for women in political institutions on the basis of equality, democracy, justice, etc even though this language appears to have lost all currency in Sri Lanka. No amount of appeal to these values has so far changed party attitudes towards nominations for women even at the local level. There is clearly too much at stake. As many political analysts point out political power in Sri Lanka is maintained through elaborate and well organized patron – client relationships that connect actors from the national to the local levels. These relationships play a central role in the socio-economic as well as political benefits, opportunities and positions available to people.  Nominations during election times are opportunities to bestow rewards on those party loyalists, but not indiscriminately.  To be considered a ‘winnable’ candidate, money and muscle are important as is the active involvement in maintaining and supporting the chains of dependency between the party and the constituency. Most women lack both money and muscle and are passive ‘clients’ in the margins of these networks (except if you a wife, widow or daughter of a politician of course).

It may be a long wait for this political culture to change. Do we need to revisit and reframe the discourse on increasing political representation of women in Sri Lanka, in order to have an impact in the near future?

Tweet

5,197 views

A conversation with Kumudini Samuel

Kumudini Samuel is the founder of Women and Media Collective, a women’s group working for the inclusion of women concerns in peace process and the change of attitudes towards gender issues. We begin our conversation over Kumudini’s interesting naming of her son, leading to larger questions over discrimination and negotiation of identity, race and ethnicity in Sri Lanka.

Kumudini also talks about her work as a peace activist during the years of war from the 80′s, and about her time as a member of the Sub Committee on Gender Issues during the ceasefire agreement in 2003, negotiating with at the time high-level female cadre from the LTTE. I asked her why in 2003 she thought it fit to sit down with the killers of Sarojini Yogeswaran. As noted in this article, Sarojini, who was shot dead at her home, had refused military security in her belief that the political culture of Jaffna should, and could, be changed by a civil administration practising non-violent democratic politics. Where was the well-spring of hope, I asked Kumudini, that the LTTE had changed its character at the time of the ceasefire agreement.

We also talked about the prevalence of Gender Based Violence in post-war Sri Lanka, particularly in the North and East. I asked her whether after setting up the Women and Media Collective in the 80′s, she saw any positive change over attitudes towards gender and the representation of women in politics in Sri Lanka. As Kumudini noted, “The biggest problem today is that political parties are very reluctant to give women nominations”.

We end our conversation critiquing the mainstream media, and the challenge of using it to champion and raise awareness on issues related to gender and women.

Tweet

2,233 views

LLRC: Testimony by Ferial Ashraff

Groundviews was able to obtain the audio recording of the testimony by Ferial Ashraff to the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) on 24 September 2010. The recording is around 40 minutes long.

Ms. Ashraff incorporates into this vital testimony the opinion of many women, including those directly affected by war.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Tweet

1,917 views

USJP Students’ Union: Harassment and Gender Discrimination over clothing

Many believe that women in Sri Lanka are in a better place compared to its counterparts in South Asia. This is true up to a certain extent where women enjoy a high level of education, high life expectancy at birth (74 years) and access to economic opportunities. Sri Lanka elected the first ever female head of state and had since been governed by two female heads of state – namely Sirimavo Bandaranaike and her daughter Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunge. Yet women face gender related issues. Dominant among them is violence against women. Once President Chandrika Kumaratunga noted, “There’s a new problem – violence against women, social violence like rape, even rape of little children. Physical violence, (some) not heard of before, is on the increase”.

Indeed as President Kumaratunga says, women face diverse forms of physical violence where some are unknown to many. Like the instance of female students in Sri Jayawardanapura University coming under physical and verbal harassment for wearing three-quarter pants to university.

In the University of Sri Jayawardanapura female students are banned from wearing three-quarter pants and the ones who dare to wear them are often scolded in filth, threatened and raw eggs are thrown at them by the male students attached to the Students’ Union. This ludicrous dress code violating the basic freedoms and rights of the women was imposed several years ago by the male students of the Students’ Union in this university that is often attached to a radical Marxist party. The members of the Students’ Union argue that these pants are indecent and inappropriate to the culture of the University. Therefore it is evident that;

1)    Three-quarter pants are banned to protect the culture of the university.

2)    Scolding and throwing raw eggs at the ones who wear them are done to discipline them and to protect the culture of the university.

However, a glance at the rules and regulations of the University of Sri Jayawardanapura, does not suggest such ludicrous dress codes or ban female students from wearing three quarter pants to university. Therefore female students have every right to come in three-quarter pants to university as they are only expected to follow the rules imposed by the university not by the Students’ Union.

The University Student Union, which is considered an important body in a university, does not have any authority to make or impose rules in a university according to Section 112 of the University Act dealing with University Students’ Union and Faculty Students’ Union (http://www.ugc.ac.lk/en/policy/universities-act/48.html). They are only expected to assist the administration of the university to maintain discipline and despite the clear guidelines; the members of the Students’ Union continue to harass female students who come in three-quarter pants. However, this madness of harassing students over their attire is not restricted to female students; it applies to visitors too. Once, two girls who came on a visit to the Post-Graduate Institute of this university had raw eggs thrown at them by the male students for wearing three-quarter pants.

The conduct of the Students’ Union towards female students coming in three quarter pants is similar to the conduct of Taliban militants flogging Afghan women for showing the ankle underneath the Burqa by mistake. And this conduct of the Students’ Union is a violation of Article 12 (2) of the Constitution which states that; “No citizen shall be discriminated against on the grounds of the race, religion, language, caste, sex, political opinion, place of birth or any such grounds.

In this specific issue, the University in any capacity does not agree with or encourage the conduct of the Students’ Union; however, it has failed to efficiently address the issue by taking action against the students who misbehave and harass female students. It appears that the authorities of the university treat this issue as an internal matter between the students and therefore the matter has not been taken seriously. Even the security guards stationed at the gate, who bear the responsibility of providing security to students, are reluctant to take action against the boys who harass students over three quarter pants. Instead they warn the girls on possible attacks from boys, rather than warning the boys not to harass girls.

The most unfortunate outcome of this is that it has become the norm in the university where the students have unwillingly accepted the conduct of the male students and the Students’ Union on three quarter pants. Similarly they don’t resist when they are subjected to similar harassment during the ragging season and when they are forced to take part in protests organized by the radical Marxist parties affiliated to the Students’ Union. Victims who come across verbal and physical harassment often bare the pain and shame in silence, while some courageously defend themselves by arguing with the boys, which is a rare instance.

Victims are often reluctant to resist the oppressors mainly due to the fear of much more stringent repercussions from the oppressors. The lack of awareness on basic human rights and the law of the country among these students also contribute to this. Most students who come across harassment do not know whom to tell, whom to complain to and have no faith on justice served upon them.

It seems that the male students of the Students’ Union have imposed this ludicrous dress code to simply cast their dominance over women and also to suppress the ones who follow a liberal lifestyle. Members of the Students’ Union often come from rural and impoverished backgrounds and fail to adapt to the realities of a modernized urban society. As a result they develop an inferior complex with the ones hailing from affluent urban backgrounds. Therefore banning three-quarter pants as well as ragging new comers (freshers) is a reflection of this inferiority complex.

Tolerance, which implies the loving acknowledgment of the unique dignity of every human being, mutual respect for privacy and rights and the right to equal concern and respect does not exist in the vocabulary of the student political bodies, student political parties and even among the student community. This is another reason that leads certain students to act in such an oppressive manner.

The negligence and the silence of the University authorities and the students who silently oppose these kinds of acts have empowered the rowdy oppressor to continue with this madness.

The writer’s personal experience of being humiliated for coming in three quarter pants made her write this piece to reveal this madness to raise awareness among the society regarding the seriousness of the issue and to date, this issue remains a nightmare for female students.

Despite the change in times and having a special act to deal with domestic violence (Prevention of Domestic Violence Act No 34, 2005), harassment and violence against women continue to occur at universities, which should be a place of light, of liberty and of learning as noted by Benjamin Disraeli.

Tweet

5,182 views

Women are not willing to go back to pre-war status quo

By Kumi Samuel and Chulani Kodikara

‘Women are not just victims of war, as some aspects of their experiences are empowering and can be used as a resource for healing and transformation’.

War is a gendered process. Post war is no different.   It may be a cliché to say that in Sri Lanka as elsewhere in the world, the most visible and harmful impact of 30 years of war has been on women, but that is the reality.  As men joined militant groups or the armed forces, were arrested, abducted, disappeared, or took flight to safer locations outside the community or the country, women were left behind to cope with fractured families and communities; multiple displacement, transition in alien spaces such as camps for the displaced; or resettlement in distant and unfamiliar regions.  Untold numbers of women, mostly Tamil, (but including a significant number of Muslim and Sinhala women living in conflict affected areas) became de facto and de jure heads of household and were thrust into new roles both within and outside the private domain. They became responsible for the physical and economic security and survival of their families and had to battle the cultural constraints that challenged this conflict-imposed transition. While the violence of war and attendant militarism also contributed to increase the nature and levels of violence against women, ranging from sexual harassment to rape and sexual torture they were never merely victims of the war and violence.

Women took up arms, fighting alongside male combatants both within the LTTE and the SL Armed forces. As suicide bombers of the LTTE Tamil women broke every conceivable stereotype of the ‘good Tamil woman’. But women were also frontline human rights defenders engaging with political and military institutions on behalf of detained, tortured, raped, disappeared or executed loved ones. They were peacemakers in their villages mediating mutual co-existence with hostile neighbours. At the national level they became part of movements, such as the Mothers Fronts, demanding to know the whereabouts of fathers, brothers and sons who had disappeared.  They also campaigned for an end to the fighting, calling for a politically negotiated settlement to the conflict, engaged with processes of constitutional reform and in 2002 demanded the inclusion of women and gender concerns in the peace process.  In fact the government of the day responded by appointing the Sub Committee on Gender Issues with a mandate to include gender concerns in the peace process. Although the Committee could not continue its work when the peace process collapsed, it remains a significant landmark in women’s activism in Sri Lanka.

The. conflict has touched and transformed the lives of myriad women. Take the story of  Jenzila Majeed.  In 1990, at the age of 20, Jenzila, together with the entire Muslim population living in Mullaitivu was evicted by the LTTE. She says she was most probably destined to become a teacher. As an internally displaced person living in Puttalam, she found it impossible to ignore the plight of those displaced with her and in a less fortunate situation Together with five other Muslim men she set up the Community Trust Fund in 1992. Since then she has worked tirelessly to highlight the plight of displaced Muslims and Tamils, focusing particularly on livelihoods, health issues and women’s empowerment. Her work was internationally recognized this year when she became one of 10 recipients of the International Woman of Courage Award given by the US State Department. At home in Sri Lanka, she however remains almost unknown.

Or take the story of Saila who is the Secretary of the Taraka Widows Assistance Center, in Chavatkadu, Jaffna.  She lost her father to the war at 8 years and her mother struggled to provide for her five children.  Saila was married at 17 and widowed at 19 with a year old daughter.  Unable to deal with the ostracisation of widows, she rarely left her home in the next 5 years before meeting psychosocial workers from Shanthiham. Saila then trained as a psychosocial worker and began to play a leadership role at the Taraka Widows Assistance Centre.  Gaining both economic independence and respect in the community, the group of 90 widows has been able to challenge social bias and transform their lives.  They attend weddings, auspicious religious ceremonies, dress in bright coloured clothes, engage in public enterprise and deal with male officials and businessmen on equal terms.

Conflicts inevitably produce structural transformations for some women opening up new social, economic and political opportunities which challenge and reframe gender hierarchies and roles. But how does one sustain these positive gender shifts in the aftermath of war? Oftentimes the end of war signals a return to the pre war gender regime and valiant efforts to “reconstruct gender’’ in the old way.

One way to contribute to the consolidation of positive gains of women during war in its aftermath is to ensure women’s participation and representation in post war decision making processes. The experience of South Africa, Rwanda, and Liberia provide compelling evidence of how policy and legal reforms can contribute to women’s empowerment in post war contexts building on the diverse experiences of women during times of war. In Sri Lanka, however women remain unrecognized and invisible in post war reconstruction and reconciliation processes. The 19 member Presidential Task Force on Northern Development appointed in May 2009 does not have a single woman. The recently appointed Commission on Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation does not have a single woman. This is compounded by the abysmal representation of women in formal political institutions and the continuing lack of political will to enact affirmative action to increase representation.  Given the absence of women in these high level decision making processes we wonder about the content of rehabilitation programmes for ex women /girl combatants in various rehabilitation centers around the country. Are they now being re-educated to become good Tamil women again? We wonder about the livelihood programmes being proposed for widows and female heads of households? To what extent do these programmes offer non traditional livelihoods / vocational training options for women, do policy makers recognize women as primary income earners?  or do they continue to reinforce gender biases and stereotypes?

While official government policy maybe taking a protectionist and welfarist approach to women in the post war context, many women who experienced the war first hand may not be willing to go back to their kitchens and resume their pre war gender roles. As demonstrated at the Jaffna Municipal Council Elections held in August last year, women in the war affected areas in this county are ready to take up the challenge of rebuilding their communities in the aftermath of war.

From a total of 174 candidates who ran for the 23 seats in the Jaffna Municipal Council, 10 were women.  They had obtained nominations from various political parties. Three of the women won; a high 30% of those who contested.  These statistics defy the national norm, where no more than 2% women get nominations at local level. Anthonypillai Mariamma, a widow who contested from the TNA and who was among the winning candidates had this to say:

‘I am contesting for the Municipal elections because I think people in Jaffna must come forward after all these years to claim their democratic rights.  I am also contesting to ensure that widows are not marginalised and are treated without discrimination.  I was asked if I was not afraid of the violence of politics and I said, the only way to challenge the violence is for women to stand for elections and prove that violence can be eliminated from our politics’.

Ensuring gender justice in the aftermath of war does not happen in isolation. It is more often than not part of a wider process which addresses root causes of the conflict and which attempts to negotiate a new post war social order in which all people irrespective ethnic, gender, religious or other differences are ensured equality and social justice. Post war reconstruction and reconciliation in Sri Lanka is however almost exclusively government led without the benefit of such a process. This is what we desperately need – an inclusive process in which all of us, men and women, can re-imagine and renegotiate the fundamental contours of this nation state in a way that the rights of all identity groups are recognized and respected.

Correction, 27 May 2010: We have since learnt that there is in fact one woman on the Commission on Reconciliation. We apologize for this error.

Tweet

2,279 views

On women’s attire and gender equality: pondering on the long way ahead

I was strongly tempted to write this article after reading an article entitled On woman’s attire: Are we really tempting young boys and priests, by a writer under the pen name “Gypsy Bohemia”. The article was published on Groundviews on July 10 2009. We learn that the writer of the said article is a journalist working for a leading Sri Lankan newspaper. What follows is a ‘salad ball’ of ideas that stemmed from reading Gypsy Bohemia’s article and reader comments.

First of all, as a Sinhala Buddhist and a Sri Lankan, I extend my sincere appreciation of this writer and I my regret on her unpleasant experience. I fully endorse her viewpoint on the issue. To put it in a nutshell, a Sri Lankan woman found Gypsy Bohemia’s attire ‘unacceptable’ at a public event. Reading through some forty-three reader comments that follow this article, I was left with partial satisfaction and boiling rage. The comments made by some Sri Lankans demonstrate the daunting extent of male-dominated, macho attitudes of some of my countrymen. One Groundviews reader laments the extent of ‘Western influence’ on Sri Lankan women’s’ attires. Some others seem desperate to know what Gypsy Bohemia was wearing, so they can judge if she wore ‘acceptable’ clothes or not. By any means, it is crystal clear that Gypsy Bohemia’s article sparked a good few reactions among Groundviews readers.

In the present article, I wish to make a simple, clear statement: in a ‘civilised’ nation in modern society, a woman’s attire should not form the subject of discussion in relation to national values and morality. The comments made to Gypsy Bohemia’s article clearly show that for some Sri Lankans, a woman’s attire represents something close to morality, and even national values/identity. Through views of this nature, I see a major malaise in contemporary Sri Lankan society.

A woman, especially a young woman (i.e. 80s generation and after) definitely has the right to wear a dress she deems appropriate. If her parents, family or anyone else finds it inappropriate in any way, that is their problem, and not hers. The woman who approached Gypsy Bohemia, who calls herself a consultant, represents the high level of above-mentioned amnesiac malaise in Sri Lankan society. The most challenging fact is that the present political regime in Sri Lanka strongly encourages the healthy continuation of this malaise, instead of taking prompt steps to eradicate it. A good few months ago, I watched a Sri Lankan news bulletin featuring a controversial government minister, who holds a high degree of hatred towards media institutions, notably to the Maharaja Group. When asked why he was so mad at Sirasa TV, the minister’s answer was that Sirasa was instrumental in removing half-saris and dressing up young women with short skirts (Sri Lankan readers may understand, and non-Sri Lankan readers are kindly requested to ask someone familiar with Sri Lanka for clarifications). This view is both directly and indirectly propagated by the present government, which uses it as a means of appeasing hard-line Sinhala nationalists and the Buddhist establishment. This is the government’s key strategy to remain in power; when the large majority of the island’s permanent ethnic majority is successfully fed on Sinhala nationalist euphoria and the endorsement social conceptions on women’s attire and freedom, their support ensures the safe continuation of the regime.

Hence one commenter’s conviction that the ‘priests’ referred to in Gypsy Bohemia’s article are Sinhala Buddhist priests. This writer fully agrees with this view. As some other readers have mentioned, the word ‘priests’ can also refer to ministers of religion in other faiths. If holy men and women of non-Buddhist faiths share this level of contempt on a woman’s attire, it goes without saying that all such views deserve is outright condemnation.

Secondly, some people are worried about so-called ‘Western influences’. To summarise their views, Western influences have a negative impact on the way Sri Lankan women dress. This, by all means, is a pitiful and extremely ignorant assumption, which only shows an extremely high level of prejudice, ignorance, and a chronic inability to understand Sri Lankan society.

The so-called Western societies, and some societies in non-Western parts of the world, have evolved into societies that tolerate equality for the two sexes to a high extent. This applies to all aspects of life, including sexuality. Women’s fashion has evolved through the years, in par with the evolution of societies and cultures into more accommodative and inclusive entities. A society is something in constant evolution, and modern Britain, to give an example, has turned the clock a full circle since the days of Victorian values (which were exported to all parts of the British Empire, and still have some degree of influence in some post-colonial societies).

In Sri Lanka, we belong to an energetic and creative society that is in constant evolution. In such a social landscape, it is our responsibility as young Sri Lankans to tirelessly promote ideas that help create a modern society marked by gender equality, mutual respect (among genders, ethnic groups) and an increasing openness towards the world. Today, what we see in Sri Lanka is the exact opposite, where the state propagates ideas that do not correspond to the social and political needs of the times. Instead of mutual respect between ethnic groups and the development of a sense of in-depth appreciation of ‘the other’, the government is harnessing ethnic prejudices, promoting majoritarian clichés, and capitalising on the rising tides of Sinhala Buddhist nationalism. Instead of promoting the rights of women, gender equality and sexual freedom, the government is actively promoting the exercise of ‘social control’ over women’s sexuality, women’s dress code and is vehemently attacking media groups such as Sirasa that provide new platforms to explore young talent. The euphoria over female dress code can be seen everywhere in public service, where, to be decently and appropriately dressed, it is compulsory for a woman to be dressed in a sari, whereas men in normal office clothing is absolutely fine. This is a major violation of a woman’s right of suitable attire. If a female public servant deems it suitable and convenient, she should have the fullest right and possibility to wear office clothes (i.e. in more comprehensible terms, the so-called ‘Western’ office attire). This should apply to the teaching profession and most importantly, to the Sri Lanka Foreign Service (SLFS). It is pitiful to see how the SLFS forces its female officers to go around in saris, as if a sari (a completely Indian import) represents our national identity. A foreign service that upholds views of this nature can be of very little ‘service’ to a country like Sri Lanka.

I conclude this rendering with a note on what I view as timely and essential acts of reform for Sri Lanka. The state should actively support gender equality, and the rights of women to dress as they wish. In a place of high temperature all year around, it is fully acceptable for people to be dressed accordingly (what some condemn as ‘showing too much flesh’ is an expression of sexual frustration, and should be vehemently opposed). Gender equality is essentially achieved by sexual freedom, and a woman’s sexuality is exclusively her own business. Therefore, the Sinhala Buddhist practice of ‘white-cloth virginity proof’ should be officially prohibited as a punishable offence by law. This also applies to so-called ‘age-attaining ceremonies’, where a young girl’s sexuality is made a matter of family and social concern. These practices are extremely disrespectful, and should not apply to future generations of Sri Lankan women. Now some may say that these are elements of our ‘traditions’. If these acts represent traditions, such traditions only receive contempt and condemnation, not endorsement. Such traditions should be done away with, and replaced by new traditions of sexual freedom and respect. Moreover, the use of the pill, the morning after pill and the female condom should be widely popularised in Sri Lanka, so that young women can freely live their sexuality (this should obviously be accompanied by an extremely strong emphasis on sexual education and safe sex). These are areas where the state needs to take political risks and push new policies forward. Social considerations of wanting to marry a ‘virgin’ and that a young woman should remain a virgin until legal marriage should be discouraged, and gradually made to perish from Sri Lankan society. Reforms of this nature must most certainly include homosexuality, which needs to be legalised in Sri Lanka. Reading these ideas, some may think that given Sri Lanka’s culture and the present situation, this is more of daydreaming; but I stand firmly stating that these ideas in no way present one person’s ramblings, but represent a deeply felt desire among a substantial proportion of Sri Lankan youth.

If reforms of this nature cannot be pursued at state level, it is up to young Sri Lankans, such as the commendably conscientious Gypsy Bohemia, to promote these ideas among Sri Lankan youth (and in the wider Sri Lankan society at home and abroad), leading to required social and political changes.

P.S. the views expressed in this article are exclusively those of the writer. They do not represent positions of any other person or organisation.

Tweet

3,864 views

On a woman’s attire: Are we really tempting young boys and priests?

As a journalist, there is almost no end to the diversity of people I meet on a day-to-day basis. I was covering an event this morning with a colleague and was accosted by a lady who asked to speak to me in private to which I agreed, thinking that maybe I could ask her for an interview after the event. She introduced herself as a counselor who worked with children and then proceeded to ask me a series of invasive questions – first, what my age was and then, if I was married.

I answered her truthfully and politely wondering where this would lead when she hit me with it: “Darling”, she said sweetly, patting my arm, “I counsel young children on their attire. Now, there are young boys and priests here and when they see you dressed like this, you give them temptation. And that is not good for you”. I was so appalled that, at the time, I couldn’t do anything but nod and take her card as she went on to offer me her counseling services.

I walked numbly out of the room, hardly believing what she had told me. I will not even mention what I was wearing because I think that is quite beside the point. As for the temptation part, well, if I’m a woman and attractive, I will not apologize for it.

I wanted to confront her as soon as I had my thoughts in order but she had left the place, and left me seething. I came back to office and wrote her the following letter.

###

Dear Ms.,

I am the journalist you met this morning, to whom you offered your card and services as a counselor based on my attire. I was not only highly insulted by what you said to me today but also, quite simply, appalled. Out of respect for the place we were in and the event about to begin, I only smiled and nodded but now I feel if I do not reply you, I would be letting down all the women that I interact with on a daily basis; all strong, independent women I am proud to know. Women who would not compromise their own identity for anything.

I am proud to count myself amongst these women and would not change for any reason, much less the ones you gave me today. Which, by the way, insulted not only me but also my parents, my upbringing and my place of work. My parents are well known and respected people and I have had the choicest upbringing and attended the best schools and universities – if my attire does not offend my parents or the professionals with whom I work (my superior is one of the strongest women I know and one of the most well respected female journalists in the country, then that is all I need. I certainly will not change what I wear so that “young boys and priests” will not get tempted when they see me.

I am a woman, proud of my body and the way I look. If these young boys and priests look and me and feel “tempted” then I think you should be giving your business card to them and not me. It is precisely your brand of judgement that, in its most extreme manifestation, renders the rapist innocent and instead blames the victim for bringing unwanted attention to herself. In my opinion this is not the way to address this problem. Men should be able to respect a woman and treat them accordingly no matter what their attire. I think your services would be of much better use if you counsel chauvinist men instead of encouraging impressionable young women to cover up for fear of men looking at them.

No woman should have to stifle herself and her identity to avoid tempting men. The idea is, quite frankly, ridiculously outdated and anti-feminist. And as a born and bred feminist, it stands against everything I believe in.

Incidentally, I met and interviewed priests and nuns at the event and got none of your patronizing judgement from them – merely, friendliness and a healthy respect for me in my professional capacity as a journalist.

I would not even have accepted your card if it had not been that I wanted to make sure I had a way of contacting you to tell you exactly how I feel. And it is this: that you are doing much more harm than good talking to young women the way you do – making women cover up does not solve the problem. Encouraging young men to treat women with respect and without judgement is a much more valuable service – one which I hope you will turn your efforts to in the near future.

I do not mean to be insulting – I merely wish to share my point of view as you so freely gave me yours without any thought to whether you might offend me or not. If I am being judgemental it is because you invited it upon yourself by being judgmental of me.

I am an adult and, above all, a woman. A proud and independent woman. I think you should endeavour to find some pride in your own femininity instead of trying to stifle it in others.

Tweet

9,312 views