Women have often used morality and religion to gain political power as they are allowed to participate in public life. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, women drove the Progressive Era-- it was safe for them to move into the public sphere if they were simply extending motherly and wifely duties of caring for public safety and public morals into the community. Prohibition grew out of the Progressive movement and the 18th Amendment passed with the 19th Amendment which gave women the right to vote.

Women were sick of men drinking away their household income and coming home drunk and beating the crap out of them. They saw prohibition as a way to gain power over the men in their families-- they were using the theories of the progressive movement-- morality, religion, sobriety-- to get more power over their families and their lives.

I am not sure if men not having alcohol will make them any less abusive and likely to harass. However I DO think this is awesome. Whether or not alcohol really plays a role in their terrible behavior towards women, this is a clear way of telling these men that what they are doing is wrong. It is holding them accountable for their own behavior, something that rarely happens with misogyny I think on a global scale. I think holding those individuals accountable for their harassment, abuse, and other hate towards women is a powerful way of countering this misogyny.

Not having alcohol as a crutch (the "oh I was drunk" excuse) will make the men more susceptible to people teaching them that it's wrong to harass women, in my opinion.

I think it's a great idea and I think people who have proved they can't be responsible when they drink shouldn't have the right to drink at all.

I don't know the situation in this particular case, so the closures may well have been reasonable. These responses, though, are a bit disturbing. Zoelawgirl, was it necessary that prohibition be included in the progressive movement in order to achieve the gains that women got? It seems that the problem may have been more that men were effectively allowed to abuse their wives and have authority over their property than that they were drinking.

Marissa and Clips, you're conflating harassers with everyone else who uses liquor stores. Holding irresponsible individuals accountable is often a great idea, but closing stores is the opposite of holding individuals accountable.

Won't this put many people, including women, possibly, out of a job?

And is it really that hard for the men of this town to obtain alcohol elsewhere?

I really dislike this idea because it seems like a bandaid solution that won't lead to solving the root causes of sexism.

As someone who lives in India, I can tell you that Reichart's hit the nail on the head. It's not the alcohol as such but the power imbalance here that's the main problem.

Secondly, prohibition, even partial prohibition, isn't the answer. Where I live, alcohol can only be sold in Government shops. The only thing that happens is that people who can't afford to pay the Government prices (alcohol is taxed pretty heavily) end up buying illegally distilled stuff. At least when there were privately run stores, I felt safe walking to the store to pick up a bottle of Glenlivet. Now the only shops where alcohol is sold are filthy, darkly lit, cramped, plain CREEPY holes in the wall with drunks hanging around the place and yelling insults. It doesn't do a damn thing to reduce violence against women, or alcohol abuse.

Like I said previously, the main issue here is that most Indians believe that harassing women is somehow non-reprehensible, even okay. It's apparent even in terms like 'eve-teasing' which is sexual harassment/assault, plain and simple, and should be termed as such. Hell, we only recently got an act outlawing domestic abuse, and our rape laws are an utter crapshoot. Banning alcohol, while it does help, isn't much more than a superficial solution. The real problem is much deeper and far harder to solve.

I'm of two minds about this.

On one side, I think that it is GREAT that women were able to come together and take action against what they felt was the cause of harassment against them. They were motivated and they got something done.

On the other side, I'm not convinced prohibition will be the answer. I don't know the culture. It may be that it is expected of men, as they drink, to turn bawdy and crude and start harassing women. If so, they are hitting the correct target.

Unfortunately, I think most of us know that men don't have to be drinking or drunk in order to sexually harass women. In fact, to me, harassment feels more insidious and infuriating when it comes from stone sober men who are always assholes, rather than those who need alcohol to muster the courage to be assholes. But that's just me.

I also worry of backlash. There are most probably men in Pune who drink and do not harass women. They are being "punished" for the sins of others. These men may find themselves siding with those who drink and harass against women they've never felt negatively towards.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

It's horrid, what Desi women have to go through at the hands of Desi men (I am Desi). It doesn't change outside of India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/etc., either -- for some reason, it's always the Desi men that swarm in droves, cigarettes in hand, and plague the women, in any country with a significant Desi population.

I've experienced the phenomenon of so-called "eve-teasing" personally in London, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Singapore. No white British, ethnically Malay, or Singaporean Chinese man would treat me with anything but respect, but the Desi men? Forget about it. The only times I felt unsafe in Malaysia and Singapore were when I was alone and had to walk by those swarms of Desi men surrounded by cigarette smoke and paan stains. In Pakistan, I existed in utter terror and wouldn't dare to leave the house without an older relative, preferably a male, despite the fact that I was dressed in "native" clothes cut in a much more conservative fashion than typically worn by Pakistani girls my age. In London, the harassment was limited to catcalling, but was extended to every female from age 5 to 50, even the ones in burqas.

In other words, I'm glad that any steps are taken towards bringing the problem of "eve-teasing" to light, even if it's an imperfect step and a much less than perfect solution. Something needs to be done, as the conditions are intolerable for women, at least to me, an American born-and-raised Desi woman.

Interesting note: the problem seems to be increasing in a correlated fashion with the decrease in the female population of India due to sex-selective abortion.

That's awesome for them if they feel it will help their local community. Similar activism could certainly help in the US, maybe not the shutting down of liquid stores (or maybe near college campuses) but gun shops in violent neighborhoods and that kind of thing.

Since a lot of my criticisms of this post have already been addressed in other comments, let me go a little off the topic of the post’s content and argue about a technical problem I see.

I believe men can be taught to not harass women and not harass women when they are drunk.

Can be taught? This strikes me as both a condescending and naïve attitude, to say the least. Are men so silly and stupid? Read the same line with the sexes reversed: Women can be taught to xyz… It sounds pretty patronizing to me. I think we need to be careful of this sort of rhetoric, which exemplifies double standards similar to those feminists fight so hard to stamp out. Additionally, this is a complicated issue, and the idea that “teaching men� would somehow be a comprehensive remedy (though I’m not entirely sure if that is what Samhita meant) is tragically inadequate in the first place. Ignorance may be a factor, but let’s not forget about power dynamics, culture, political motivation, religion, the list goes on…

This strikes me as both a condescending and naïve attitude, to say the least. Are men so silly and stupid?

Yes.

Ignorance may be a factor, but let’s not forget about power dynamics, culture, political motivation, religion, the list goes on…

Things which have taught men to be sexist, requiring men to be taught otherwise.

I agree with Samhita that these women are to be celebrated for seeing a problem and for addressing it in a forceful way.

I also agree with manabanana that we need to watch the gender stereotyping. I, and I think a lot of guys who read this Web site, are feminists and favor empowering women to achieve real equality. I personally don't want to be lumped in with the -- I think -- relatively small percentage of men who do things that hurt women. To say that one of the ways that we can stop harassment of women in public places "is to not allow men to have access to alcohol" (and by the way, I know you're not advocating that) or that "men can be taught to not harass women" suggests a sort of gender stereotyping -- punishing all members of a gender for the wrongs committed by a few -- that feminists have long opposed.

I understand that it would be a quick and effective solution to a problem that's hurting women to banish men from drinking, but any solution that would hurt men allied with the cause -- just because they are men -- doesn't seem consonant with the principles of feminism.

Hi,

This is an interesting story. Canada never did have have prohibition, but it is worth noting that the early feminists in Canada were temperance advocates (Women's Christian Temperance Union).

Alcohol is often bad for women trying to gain rights - husbands drink away their salary and men who hit women are more likely to do it when drunk.

Women in India seem to be going after something which negatively affects their life. Good for them and it doesn't surprise me that it is the same thing Canadian women went after 90 years ago.

Chris

Group punishment is reprehensible and counterproductive. There are men who aren't harassers, and the last thing you need is to give the harassers and decent folk a common enemy.

You are likely already aware of the campaign and blog for Blank Noise Project: http://blanknoiseproject.blogspot.com/

It is an inspiring attempt to counter eve-teasing.

Funny how undiplomatic language gets in the way sometimes. It seems kind of facile and presumptuous to phrase it in terms of "MEN can be taught it's not okay to abuse," as if all men abuse. An accurate wording would be "ABUSERS can be taught it's not okay to abuse. It would be interesting to see statistics on what percentage of men in that area engage in "eve teasing" (what a creepy term; the flip side of the terminology coin; why should harassment be euphemized?). If it's anywhere near a majority of the male population, that sort of rhetoric is justified. If we're talking about a few creeps, that's a pretty broad brush to tar "men" with (not to mention drying up the liquor supply for those who haven't warranted being cut off.)

It also will be interesting to see whether these cretins will reform their ways by virtue of sobriety, or will they continue to act out elsewhere. They may no longer have a reason to hang around outside those liquor stores, but that doesn't mean they aren't going to find another place to ply their vile habit.

But, you see, the thing about making comparisons to the US temperance movement is that the temperance movement didn't work. People hated it. Organized crime got rich. And women couldn't drink either, which, if the issue is male irresponsibility, seems unfair. Temperance was an outlet for many of the very legitimate frustrations that women had, but it was ultimately, in my opinion, a distraction. Alcohol doesn't make men abuse women. I've gotten drunk with a number of men who abused neither me nor any other women. Sexism makes men abuse women.

I'm completely unfamiliar with the socio-economic situation in Pune, so none of the above may be applicable there. It's just a comment about American temperance.

Excellent point about temperance, EG. I likewise don't know the details of Pune, so it gets me thinking:

If nearly all men (say >90%) are harassers, and harassment is only tolerated in the context of drunkenness, maybe it's an appropriate response. I'd be especially surprised if the latter were true, but it wouldn't be the first time I was especially surprised.

I think that alcohol just makes people freer to express and act upon how they really feel. Take away the alcohol, and the men will still believe that women are objects or second-class citizens or what have you. Teach men a new way of regarding and respecting women, and everyone can have all the beer they want. With some exceptions, of course.

lizadilly:

Teach men a new way of regarding and respecting women, and everyone can have all the beer they want.

That's some good maternalistic sentiment there. (roll eyes)

Do any of us have an idea of how pervasive eye-teasing is in that area? What % of men take part in it? I have to echo some of the above posts in that it seems rather unfair to paint the entire gender with the same brush. Again, as mentioned above, the only thing I can see happening with this is the men to do eye-tease will find a huge number of new allies. The goal of this might be laudable but the way its being presented and some of the responses to it seem very sexist to me.

That's some good maternalistic sentiment there.

Oh, I get it! Maternalistic! Like the patriarchy, but, you know, with women instead! Oh, you!

Moving right along, Noah, I understand not wanting to be lumped in with men who are abusers, but it's not true that it is a very small percentage of men that hurt women. Perhaps it is a small percentage of men who physically hurt women, though small is a pretty subjective term, but it is a pretty large percentage of men who perpetuate sexism and I would venture to say that unless a man is pretty darn vigilant about himself, it's nearly all men at some point in their lives, and probably at many points. That includes my feminist boyfriend. I don't mean this to sound unappreciative of whatever your contributions are, but this post is not about the hurt feelings of men. It's about the abuses the Pune women have suffered. And it's about the efforts that they deemed workable on their own. It's about what they gathered together to do to attempt to solve a problem in their communities. And if the implications of their efforts to protect themselves hurt your feelings, too bad. Women are victimized by, yes, men. You might not be one of them, and goodonya, but that's not the point of this post.

In the same way, I fail to see what American Prohibition has to do with this. Constantly, western feminists are rebuked for having too much to say about what would be good for women in other cultures, but when we just want to note a group of women for doing something for themselves, suddenly the criticisms coming pouring in about how what they did was a terrible idea and what the implications of their efforts are for the men posting on this thread. Self-centered much? Not only does what they did have nothing to do with the men here (I'm looking at you Mr. Morden, so gather your bruised ego if you would), but it might well be a very good way of addressing the harassment of those women there. I have no idea if it is or not, so I feel the best thing is to say, good for them, and pretty much leave it at that.

kissmypineapple

Hey, I'm very happy that India has a vigorous activist tradition. It means there's hope for them. It doesn't mean that I have to agree with everything they do. To make my position clear and explicit, I support feminism on personal liberty grounds, and taking alcohol away from adults violates that principle.

Look at me all you please, I'm not about to wither under your glare. What I was objecting to was lizadilly's implication that she had the moral authority to determine who gets alcohol when. If another word raises your righteous indignation less, try "moralistic" on for size.

"That is not a strategy that would ever work in the United States"

Maybe it wouldn't work IN the US, but it's a strategy used BY the US government.

This was the exact response the US military made to the recent rape accusations in Okinawa. All the liquor stores on all bases on the island were closed, and people were not allowed to go to any off base location unless it was to church or an off base home. Now, a few weeks later, they're permitted to drink in on-base establishments but are still not permitted off base. So, the local economy is suffering, and the accused women have dropped the charges (coincidence?), but so far the ban is still in place.

This is definitely a band-aid solution.

"Perhaps it is a small percentage of men who physically hurt women, though small is a pretty subjective term, but it is a pretty large percentage of men who perpetuate sexism"

"if the implications of their efforts to protect themselves hurt your feelings, too bad."

Either hurt feelings are relevant injuries here, or they aren't. It seems like you're trying to have it both ways.

That said, I don't really think the whole "teach men X" wording is terribly wrong, but I also don't have any problem with a whole bunch of other wordings that seem to offend people.

You should think about the conflation of the particular and the general when you write things like "Women are victimized by, yes, men." In many senses, this is true. There are also senses, however, in which it is true that women are inferior to men, or are naturally domestic. That doesn't make it okay to say "Women are inferior to men," or "Women are naturally suited for child-rearing." The truth of your statement isn't the only thing about it; it also has an emphasis and connotation, and that can be helpful or unhelpful.

"Not only does what they did have nothing to do with the men here [...], but it might well be a very good way of addressing the harassment of those women there. I have no idea if it is or not, so I feel the best thing is to say, good for them, and pretty much leave it at that."

If this is about those women and men, and not women and men in America, on what basis do you assume that these women are in the right here? Why do you say "good for them" rather than "bad for them" about a group of people exerting power over another group of people? You say that you don't know enough to judge the merits of these women's action. I suspect you're analogizing the case at hand to your past experience, or relying on generalizations about women and men, and what their preexisting relation is likely to be. These kinds of generalizations are necessarily about "the men here."

I'm not saying it's inappropriate to praise these women; the kind of harassment they're fighting is a real problem, and they may have no other available means of combating it. I'm just asking for qualified praise.

Where is that noted feminist Carry Nation when we need her?

Not one commentator here has raised the issue of individual freedom to consume alcohol in moderation. The only debate appears to be whether prohibition would be effective in the U.S., not whether it would be an unwarranted restriction of personal liberty for women as well as men.

Too bad.

"Perpetuate sexism"...? When did it change from "men who harass" to "men who perpetuate sexism?" What exactly does "perpetuate sexism" mean? And how much "perpetuating sexism" does it take to justify locking up the taps?

despite the fact that I was dressed in "native" clothes cut in a much more conservative fashion than typically worn by Pakistani girls my age.

I'd like to comment on that. While conventional knowledge seems to hold that wearing provocative clothing is more likely to result in being harassed or raped there is research showing that it is flawed. Harassers (even bullies) typically prefer to target people who appear submissive. Going out of your way to dress more modestly shows is a submissive gesture. In contrast, provocation is what people who are powerful do. Harassers tend to avoid those who project power.

In contrast, provocation is what people who are powerful do. Harassers tend to avoid those who project power.

Way to blame the modest there. It's almost like blaming the immodest -- wrong. My point was that the "immodest" and the modest both get harassed, with no regard to what they're wearing.

Benquo, I'm not sure where you got that I'm wanting to have it both ways. I was differentiating between physical abuse and upholding a patriarchal structure, which can be done in myriad ways, not hurting women's feelings. This was in regard to some posters who seemed to think that what these women have done somehow reflect on them personally. I don't see how the women in Pune thinking that limiting access to alcohol might help curb their harrassment implicates the posters here or their behavior while drunk, and that was my point. And equating the perpetuation of sexism with hurting women's feelings is somewhat strange. One can certainly follow the other, but I'm not sure what your getting at.

Avast, when you exercise your male privilege, you perpetuate sexism. That seems fairly simple. I'm not advocating taking your drinking rights.

When I say good for them, I mean these women got together with a common goal and accomplished it. Good. For. Them. Maybe in Pune that will work out. It almost certainly is a band-aid, but not being from there and knowing nothing about that culture, I really have no idea. A more systemic change in the culture is probably needed. But for now, I think it's good that these women were able to do what they set out to, if only because it may embolden them to work more directly against whatever other problems they have.

Lastly, women, as a class, are victimized by men, as a class. Women are also victimized by some individual men and some individual women, but I was addressing Noah's contention that there are only a handful of men wronging women, which is simply not true. If it were only a handful, we wouldn't have this incredibly powerful cultural structure and hierarchy, and it wouldn't be so hard to uproot. So, I stand by my original comment. The many insidious ways that individual men do perpetuate sexism are important and just because they don't result in bruises doesn't mean they don't count.

But that's the end of this derail, because the post is about women in Pune, and I'd really rather the thread be about that.

In contrast, provocation is what people who are powerful do. Harassers tend to avoid those who project power

I walked confidently with my head held high; I looked anything but submissive. The harassers avoided no one, no matter how they were dressed. My point was not to put down women who dress provocatively (who can define that term, anyway?) but to point out that no matter how you dress, you still get harassed.

I can't speak for the other poster, but I can note the things I see wrong with the argument.

This obviously isn't about me. I live on the opposite side of the planet, and my drinking privileges haven't been revoked.

My point was that this was about shutting down the liquor supply in order to cut down on harassment. I noted that even (local) men who don't harass are being affected by this. You seem to be saying, well, not all of them harass, but all men exercise male privilege (even while sober, btw), therefore it is okay to cut off the liquor for all of them. Last time I checked, this was not about drying up the liquor supply to bring down the Patriarchy. I don't know why you brought that into this. All of sexist behavior includes all men, even, as you say, your feminist boyfriend. To me, that is what looks like trying to have it both ways. Are we going to limit the discussion to the situation in Pune, where it is reasonable to say it's not about me (which is far and away how I prefer it; I have about as much connection with and influence over men from Pune as I have over men from Mars), or are we going to talk about the whole of male privilege, in which case I do get dragged into the picture?

Moving on, however, I note that liquor stores get shut down in the United States (and I assume in other parts of the West as well), when they pose a public nuisance. This is seen as a perfectly ordinary event. Had this topic been framed in terms of removing a nuisance business, rather than women as a group exercising control over men as a group, we wouldn't even blink at this news.

You're connecting two separate points I was making. Nowhere did I say that I think it is okay to cut off anyone's drinking privileges. I did say that all men at some point in their lives exercise their privilege, and that was directed at Noah. Completely separately from that was my saying that it's good for these women that they accomplished what they set out to do, something that is probably very difficult for them. I reserved judgement for the outcome, and in my second post I said that yes, it probably is a band-aid solution. Hopefully, this success will give them the courage to try to take on cultural sexism more directly in the future.

So again, no, I don't think that being male means you have your alcohol taken away. And again, the only reason I brought up male privilege in the first place was because someone said that he is not responsible for the abuses of women and doesn't want to be counted among the apparently really small percentage of men that are. I just wanted to gently remind him that you don't have to hit a woman to contribute to sexism, and that plenty of good men are sometimes responsible for small transgressions. Given that, you don't get to just say, count me out, b/c I'm totally pro-woman! You have to own the effect your privilege has.

And just in case it's confusing again, nowhere am I advocating taking away your beer b/c you've got a penis.

Kissmypineapple, thanks for explaining. I think I see what you meant now.

When I said it seemed like you were trying to have it both ways, I meant that your judgment about these women's action relied on a (correct, IMO) judgment about men in general. So while I agree with you that it's missing the point for men "over here" to take the actions of Pune's women as a personal insult, I'm not so sure that this isn't about everyone in some important ways.

Of course, you're right that it's mainly about the women in Pune. Good for them! Good for them for taking more control of their own lives.

In liberal societies, only liberal means are appropriate. In other places, other means are appropriate. (This is also how I reconcile my support for federalism with my support for the civil rights act.)

Way to blame the modest there. It's almost like blaming the immodest -- wrong. My point was that the "immodest" and the modest both get harassed, with no regard to what they're wearing.

You seem to be interested in blaming. I am discussing correlations here. Being from India, I can tell you that everybody isn't equally harassed, there is no point in claiming that. Do you think a woman who looks like a marine is as likely to be accosted as a woman who looks like, say, an average high school girl?

Heina: To clarify, I am not commenting on your original incident. I only brought it up because you mentioned that you were more modestly dressed than the natives. I am not holding you responsible for anything here. You could be dressed in an Afghani tent or an micro-bikini and the harasser would still be completely responsible for harassing you in either case. What I was discussing was the popular perception that dressing modestly necessarily decreases harassment is unsupported.

Being from India, I can tell you that everybody isn't equally harassed, there is no point in claiming that.
I was talking about Pakistan.

What I was discussing was the popular perception that dressing modestly necessarily decreases harassment is unsupported.
No kidding. That was my point, too -- that no matter what you do, if you're in an area where disrespect of women is common, such incidents will occur.