A Conspiracy of Silences
CASUA SEXIS
#1. Casual Sexism and Microaggressions
• Casual Sexism and Pg. 1 Microaggressions • Are We Sexist? Pg. 2 • Linguistic Casual Pg. 4 Sexism • Denial of the Reality Pg. 5 • Sexual Objectification and Pg. 5 Oversexualisation of LGBTQ community • Assumptions of Traditional Pg. 6 Gender Roles • Intersectionality and Pg. 8 Sexual Microaggressions against the Queer Population • Increasing awareness Pg. 9 throughout the years • Conclusion Pg. 11 • Journey of the Article Pg. 11
October 2017 witnessed a wildfire. The #MeToo movement, although initially appearing to be another one of those hashtag storms on Twitter and Facebook, turned out to be one of a kind. It brought on mass realisations through the sheer force of numbers. For the most part, this movement talked about dire and direct forms of sexual harassment, that is, inappropriate touching, demands for sexual favours, lewd and inappropriate remarks at the workplace et cetera. There is however, another set of sexual harassment, called Casual Sexism. What distinguishes direct offences from casual sexism is their intensity. Furthermore, sexist comments can be directly made towards a person, or can be general comments directed at no one in particular. A misogynistic or misandric joke (reflecting dislike, mistrust, or mistreatment of women and men respectively) in public is neither as intense nor as directed towards a primary target individual as in the case of inappropriate touching. Such a joke affects a majority negatively and adds to the chain of morally detrimental public discourse. It sets and reflects the tone and course of dialogue in our daily lives, hence normalising a harmful trend. Such a joke then, comes under casual sexism. Insight conducted an anonymous survey in late October about casual sexism and its awareness in the institute. We got around 730 responses, with 75% respondents being heterosexual males, 20% heterosexual female and 5% LGBTQ. The sample size of 730 responses in a population
of 10,000 students guarantees a 95% confidence level with a 3.5% confidence interval. The following is an excerpt from one of the entries that we received. For clarity’s sake, we’ll refer to the individual as Person A. “I’m a PG female student and this is the first time I actually ventured out of my state for educational purposes. Back in my Bachelors, my previous college endorsed us absolute equality in our views and ideologies which in turn led to some very interesting and valuable discussions in each and every field we happened by. While coming here, I wanted to continue that belief. However, I quickly had my beliefs questioned when all my views and ideologies were met with statements such as ‘I keep too many opinions for a girl’, or ‘I talk back a lot’, or I’m just being ‘too much of a feminist’ when I spot someone ill mouthing another female according to the size of her breasts. [...]What’s worse for me is that now it [has] happened to me so much that I [have] almost started to get used to it and as a result speak less. And I thought this wouldn’t bother me.” Such a narrative captures how casual sexism, despite being indirect, can be quite harmful. The presumption that casual sexism is too petty an issue to bother with while much more “serious issues” need to be tackled prevails strongly in the institute. The former claim is supported by the observation that in our survey, 63% of the respondents who are aware of casual sexism showing apathy towards the issue, by stating that they do not think that we should be
covering issues like these because there are far more important issues that remain to be tackled. Following are comments typical of the general response that we received in our survey “[on inappropriate nicknaming based on traditional gender roles]...I simply wouldn’t have given it a second thought”; “[on being questioned upon sexism amongst Teaching instructors] Marks chahiye mujhe, who the f*** cares about who the TAs are interested in as long as we get the marks we deserve”. These portray the trivialisation of this issue and the indifference resulting from it. The same sentiment is echoed in Person A’s account when she states that she originally held a belief that casual sexism would not bother
her, or force her to change her habits and personality as a defence mechanism. But eventually, it did. The key-word to be introduced here is microaggressions. Ever felt like you offended someone while having a casual conversation with them, without ever intending to hurt them; or that you might have accidentally said something that you should not have? Such instances come under microaggressions. Microaggressions are defined as brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral and environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory or negative slights and insults that potentially have harmful or unpleasant psychological impact on the target person or group. 1
In reality, what most of us do not consider is a pile up of microaggressions in the atmosphere that shapes our ideas and opinions and affects us negatively. A large and frequent number of such instances cumulatively become a social vice that can no longer be ignored. The effect of a single microaggression is seemingly negligible, yet it hits the person it is directed at hard on the inside, even though they might not show any signs of distress when engaging socially. What we have to scrutinise is not the intention of the person, but rather the impact it has lead to; because in the end, an intended microaggression will do the same amount of damage that an unintended one would.
#2. Are We Sexist? Some valid questions to ask now would be •Are these microaggressions universal? •Is this even centered around IITB? •Is IITB indeed sexist? The definite answers to these questions are highly subjective and will vary from one person’s experience and perspective to the next. So we’ll try a data driven approach instead. Ponder upon the ubiquity of the following statements in the institute “ओए ठरकी कॊन्टॆक्ट्स बनवा ना!” (Hey sleazeball, help us make some contacts too!) “तू तो साथी जॉईन कर ले यार!” (Go join Saathi, dude!) “लड़िकयों का तो इन्टर IIT िफक्स्ड है।” (Girls’ selection for inter-IIT is fixed.)
All three target a different sexuality. Out of the 730 odd students that answered our survey, 77% heterosexual females, 61% heterosexual males and 64% LGBTQ individuals feel that n addition to the commonly perpetrated levels of sexism in our country, we also have institute specific issues because of the skewed sex ratio (affecting all sexualities. i.e. a skewed sex ratio brings pros and cons to each sexuality instead of being an issue pertaining to a specific sex). These numbers speak for themselves. We cannot deny the apparent feeling of unease among the majority of institute populace and thus, there is a need for dialogue to address the same.
1- Definition of Microaggression by Solorzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000
2
The issue of Casual Sexism is universal. Let’s hear from one of the Insight editors involved in this article “I’ve grown up admiring the eminent physicist Richard Feynman. I possibly cannot put into words the motivation that his biographies and lectures had upon me during my JEE years. But all that changed when I started researching for this article. I came upon an 2anecdote from W. Daniel Hillis, the founder of Thinking Machines Corp. It went like this ‘The charming side of Richard helped people forgive him for his uncharming characteristics. For example, in many ways Richard was a sexist. Whenever it came time for his daily bowl of soup he would look around for the nearest “girl” and ask if she would fetch it to him. It did not matter if she was the cook, an engineer, or the president of the company. I once asked a female engineer who had just been a victim of this if it bothered her. “Yes, it really annoys me,” she said. “On the other hand, he is the only one who ever explained quantum mechanics to me as if I could understand it.” That was the essence of Richard’s charm.’ The “charm” of Feynman bothers me. It bothers me that my ideal physicist wouldn’t have treated me as an equal to my male colleagues. And I would digress here to say that here’s where the need for stronger female role models becomes
apparent.” In our survey, we included a case study in which a teaching assistant/instructor is seen giving more attention and consideration to a female student, over any other male student. Students were asked to choose what their nearest response to such a scenario would be. It is reflective of the institute’s current mindset, experiences, and atmosphere that 48% of the respondents feel that in such a scenario, the teaching instructor is clearly sexually biased. 14% of the students also opted for a misogynistic option claiming that the female student has received higher attention because of her gender and its responsibility lies on her. The option here was considered misogynistic because in reality, the student did not ask for a preferential treatment and the cause-effect reasoning behind such a mindset is extremely jeopardised. When the data is split asunder on the basis of sexual orientations, we see that the heterosexual female and LGBTQ groups tend to gravitate towards the more neutral assumption of the female identifying student’s query being attention-worthy, while the opposite is true for heterosexual males. The preference for the third, and slightly misogynistic option, is lowest among heterosexual females (6%) while the levels among heterosexual males are higher (15.5%) than the average of 14%.
2- ‘R.P.Feynman was a sexist’ http://longnow.org/essays/richard-feynman-connection-machine/
#3. Linguistic Casual Sexism The social conditions that an individual has grown up in shape their ideas. These seep into our language of dialogue and we then conceive words that have sexist undertones. Some examples of this from our institute include (examples taken from survey responses) • हिरयाली (to refer to an abundance of females in any event) • मीठा (to refer to an effeminate male) • ठरकी (to refer to a male with considerable number of female friends and vice versa) • बंदी Quota (to refer to a (hypothetical) quota favouring the selection of a female over a male in any competitive interview process) • Non-Male (a term used for a female whose appearance doesn’t correspond with the traditional notions of female beauty) This, in fact, is linguistic casual sexism and it is an important factor that goes unnoticed by unassuming speakers but damages the victim sectionality deeply. Here’s an 3 example of the same from Cantonese “In Hong Kong, in the colloquial terms, the cantonese phrase for “career line” (事業線) is widely used to refer to a woman’s cleavage. Every day, the phrase peppers tabloid media and casual conversation. And every day, the use of this term legitimizes the objectification of women. It diminishes a woman’s professional achievement by making it all about her appearance.” Linguistic sexism can also manifest as homophobia, as an example, in the use of heterosexist language among the LGBTQ community.
Some examples would be - when you qualify a professional—as in “gay athlete” or “lesbian doctor”— and, in effect, say that athletes and doctors are not normally gay or lesbian. A very popular counterargument is the intent of the people using these words in their sexist connotations versus their impact. Since these words have been normalised in the institute culture over years, people no longer seem to think that these should affect or offend; and those who are offended though, are tagged as over-sensitive individuals; ponder on the following comment from our survey that summarizes this attitude “[on inappropriate nicknaming based on traditional gender roles] Maybe people should stop being sensitive little bit**es. Words are just a way to convey meaning, they do not alter reality.” But do they really not distort our reality? 57% of our respondents recognised the use of sexist language as the major instance of casual sexism in the institute; among these are 71% heterosexual males, 22% heterosexual females and 7% LGBTQ. Plainly, this is a placidly identified issue. Words (offhand incidental words) may result in anger, frustration and withdrawal by the recipients. In the worst case scenario, these words can be imbibed by the psyche of the intended sectionality; normalised and accepted as the unshakeable, unwavering fact about themselves, resulting in loss of self-confidence and a defeat before the battle itself can be fought.
3- Linguistic casual sexism in Cantonese - https://www.edelman.com/post/combatting-casual-sexism/
4
#4. Denial of the Reality On 24th January 2018, Maitreyee Shukla, a first year M. Phil. student from the Dept. of Humanities and Social Sciences, IIT-B, published a note on her Facebook timeline on ‘IIT, Sexism, and the Failure of Due Process’. This note contained Maitreyee’s personal experiences in the institute for an entire year and an analysis of IITB as a microcosm of the world outside. The note received attention from national news media and students alike. Here’s an excerpt for the readers who missed out “I remember, at my orientation that happened a few months ago, we were shown a video about life at IIT. The video started with peppy music and a map of IIT-B on the screen. A little dot starts moving from the main gate, going inside the campus it crosses a hostel- a girls’ hostelcomes back, whistles in front of the hostel, and moves on. In the presence of the Dean, faculty members,
and the entire Women’s Cell, this pathetically sexist thing happened, and no one winced. I heard a few laughs, and it was clear that from the moment you enter the campus, you submit to the male gaze and give in to institutionally sanctioned sexism. Our orientation into the culture of IIT had begun.” Many of Maitreyee’s readers expressed their shock at the harsh claims the note made. A section of the student populace outright rejected the piece as sensationalization of trivialities. The IIT administration took a 4stance opposed to Maitreyee’s and stated that women are treated equally. The truth of the matter is, again, very subjective to the position that one has in the institute and the level of awareness about such a nuanced contention. However, we come to an important point here - denial of the reality
of casual sexism. Either it’s the elephant in the room or, if dragged to limelight by a speaker, it’s denied ubiety and existence. About 41% of our respondents have experienced or witnessed a stark denial of the reality of sexism in our campus. The mention of the word itself invigorates the atmosphere, be it a social gathering, classroom conversation, or watercooler banter. The problem is that of perspectives and portrayal. While a sensitized individual will be highly affected by a sexist happening like the one Maitreyee mentions, it is very understandable that such a thing will pass unnoticed through the majority of the crowd. Here is where the divide between opinions on the pervasiveness of sexism occurs. When unsensitized people downplay sexism, they unwittingly help perpetuate the vicious cycle, normalising the toxicity of their atmosphere.
#5. Sexual Objectification and Oversexualisation of the LGBTQ community The Everyday Sexism project is a oneof-a-kind online project that exists ‘to catalogue instances of sexism experienced by women on a day to day basis. They might be serious or minor, outrageously offensive or so niggling and normalised that you don’t even feel able to protest. Say as much or as little as you like, use your real name or a pseudonym – it’s up to you. By sharing your story you’re showing the world that sexism does exist, it is faced by women everyday and it is a valid problem to discuss.’ 5
The site has microsites for 25 nations’ women to post the everyday sexism that they undergo, and there are hundreds of entries on any given date on this site.
Here’s one of the few hundreds of the entries “I’ve been catcalled twice this year now, both times I was too shocked to react and just went along with my life. It isn’t until I saw the Ted talk on everyday sexism that it hit me that I was “old enough” to be sexualized.” Sexual objectification is not limited to catcalling or outright harassment. It can be as subtle as an event poster depicting parts of a sexualised person’s body. 56% of responders acknowledge presence of casual sexual objectification in the institute, the maximal part of which remains unintended by the offending person(s).
4- IIT Administration responds - http://bit.ly/2HWxbPA
One cannot deny that society in general is sexualised, but the LGBTQ community is more so, because they still strive for acceptance and for the society to normalise their humanity. Oversexualisation of the LGBTQ community happens majorly because of neglect and ignorance. A gross generalisation is made for a queer individual - that they are principally concerned with sex - which leads to no room for the humanity of that individual. They are reduced to the sum total of their sexuality and their whole personality is seen as centered around that fact. We do not hold the same notion as fervently for a heterosexual individual. This blatant bias is casual oversexualisation, and is a prime example of discomfort that affects the LGBTQ community.
5- Everyday Sexism Project - http://everydaysexism.com/
#6. Assumptions of Traditional Gender Roles Maulashree Shanbhag, a current third year student of B. Des. at Industrial Design Center, IIT-B, was the All India Rank 1 of UCEED 2015. Being the girl topper, her experiences with success were a little different than what is considered normal. Let’s make a segue into her 6narrative “[...]along with the many messages of congratulations, came the thinlyveiled skepticism. “Obviously IITs wanted to show that they’re not a male-dominated institution” ; “It’s the Modi Government that is encouraging women these days” ; “Design is for women, of course. You’ll be pursuing fashion, right?” “There were so many of these little presumptions, where hegemonic views were open to see. Not too many considered that I could achieve on my own merit. Despite all my work and achievements, these statements came at me from different directions every day, but I had the steady support from my parents who kept my confidence afloat. From my childhood they’d told me to look beyond such petty views and to do my best at what I loved. It was here that I realized just how valuable this mindset was. The realization that I could choose to let the skeptics be was liberating. It let me focus on my work despite the negativity that kept coming from all around.
The worst part is that often such statements are made by women themselves, who have possibly been held behind by such views some time or the other.” A frequent lament of female scholars is the undermining of their achievements by attributing them to gender sensitization programs by universities as seen in Maulashree’s case. Such claims, although often made by seemingly well-intentioned people nevertheless undervalue the hardwork and efforts put in by the achievers. The assumption that a female design enthusiast will necessarily be motivated to pursue fashion, or the opposite, that a male design enthusiast’s interest in fashion is ridiculous, is one pandering to traditional orthodox gender roles established by the society. Since the IITs primarily provide an education in engineering which, by traditional gender roles is regarded as a male forte, they are also subject to the criticism and comments arising from an orthodox mindset. There are strong reflections of this bias in our survey “There was a girl who received highest marks in Engineering Workshop of 1st year. I remember some boys commenting on how a girl can top in a course which
is supposed to be topped only by boys”; “It is shocking that the IIT campus also expects that (sic) males to be the primary providers to a family. Multiple instances are there, where men are asked to be a provider and protector.” “Do you plan to get married (if single), have kids (if married) is a question frequently asked while joining. Our illness often is questioned by guides and others alike, “are u(sic) pregnant?” (And with a fully negative tone)”; “I believe that there is a bias towards female students getting selected for university internships and graduate studies because of ‘Women in Science’ programs. This also applies to scholarships. Trying to maintain equal representation across genders does hurt a little to more deserving candidates. I don’t think women in science programs are wrong, they will help to get more women in STEM domains, nonetheless it does hurt a little.”; “[I hear statements] Undermining the selection of a female candidate for a PoR by saying that it was because of some kind of ‘Female quota’”. The above issues see a casual dismissal of female achievements along with orthodoxical biases towards men.
6- What you hear as the girl who topped https://medium.com/@maulashreeshanbhag/what-you-hear-as-the-girl-who-topped-cca61bfe0e6a
6
Our survey included a case-study, where one male and one female gender identifying individual of equal capability and credentials sit in placements and the female student is selected. The survey takers were asked to select one or more options out of four that best described their response to such a case without assuming further conditions. For the analysis, the options’ sets were ranked from most sexist to neutral on a scale from 1 to 15, 1 being the most sexist and 12 being the least sexist score, with scores higher than 12 corresponding to increasing neutrality. On this case study, male heterosexual students rank on 12.76/15 with the maximum responding that the female candidate got selected because of her gender since companies aim to normalise their employee gender ratio according to recent government norms. The fact that the majority of male respondents attribute their female colleague’s success not to her performance on that particular day but to company norms while asked to remain unbiased and unassuming, says something about the toxicity in the society regarding attempts to normalise gender ratios. It is interesting to note that LGBTQ students rank on 13.73 and female students rank on 13.98, with both sectionalities maximally supporting an equal chance of any gender or sexuality making it through. These issues have always been addressed by keeping a heterosexual female in light, but we would like to venture forth and analyse the same for a male in the institute. The societal
7
pressure on a male to perform superior in “male oriented” fields is humongous and takes its toll by introducing toxic masculinity (hypermasculinity) in a well-intentioned individual. Hypermasculinity can also be understood as expectation of masculine behavior. There are also cases where, because of the extremely skewed sex-ratio, a casual prioritisation of a female opinion over male is seen “these people [referring to Culturals IITB] tend to maximise over females (sic) so that more and more people participate, and girls are treated as first class citizens there.” “in my batch [of mechanical workshop] the one who would make perfect jobs (sic) was a girl” “I have also had several instances over the 4 year period when the female students were given priority during the crib sessions even though a couple of male students were in line before them.” “Females have a higher say in council meets; be it from the student council to the hostel council. And if one objects their opinion, then many side with the female without even analyzing the opinion of both sides. They just side blindly in the hope of getting attention by the female.” “boys had to give trials for NSO and around 60% were selected but the girls’ selection was a joke. Anyone who came for trials was selected.” While such a prioritisation might be seen at first glance as pro female and a con for males, we all are in the negative here. Favours based on
genders are a bait that bites back. If given a leg up in the trials, tutorials or councils, it only hampers the development of the ‘beneficiary’ and their final work output. In most cases where this prioritisation is seen, it is not asked for by the females and only reinforces the sexist mindset of the enforcer of such a prioritisation. The above prioritisation comes under the term tokenism. Tokenism is the practice of making only a symbolic effort to be inclusive to members of minority groups. Such tokenism is different from affirmative action (examples of affirmative action include gender sensitisation programs by universities). Affirmative action benefits a historically excluded group by improving the opportunities for them, mainly through sensitization, financial aid, oncampus support and establishing a better supported route. Tokenism and affirmative action are frequently taken in interchanged contexts, but the former is harmful and needs to be weeded out.
#7. Intersectionality and Sexual Microaggressions against the Queer Population While casual sexism affects all sexualities and sectionalities due to the universal hegemonic masculinity, the ones most affected are LGBTQ and female individuals belonging to the disadvantaged race, caste or creed. Intersectionality brings multiple complications into the treatment of casual sexism “SC/ST students are doubly affected by the gender prejudices and their sexual orientation. The very nature of discussions on LGBTQ issues is centered around upper caste students. The amount of humiliation faced by SC/ST students even in such liberal settings has led many to simply stay away from elite coteries. Every SC/ST LGBTQ student (sic) has seen how they are taunted for supposedly being less meritorious.” A state of constant turmoil and chilly climates continue to exist for women and the queer community on campus, particularly for those with multiple marginal identities. The number of openly queer students on the campus can be estimated to be less than half a percentage of the total student populace. The
magnitude and degree of discomfort and humiliation meted out to the LGBTQ community through casually homophobic remarks is tremendous. Taking a deep dive into numbers to support the argument, 31% of respondents have seen or experienced homophobia while 29% have experienced or witnessed expressions of abnormality for LGBTQ students. “one of my juniors is bullied just because he is a bit effeminate.” “Students make fun if a fellow student is subscribed to Saathi mails” Derision over a student’s association with Saathi, the LGBTQ awareness group of IIT Bombay, is outright casual homophobia, and although it sounds like ludicrous banter, it might not be so for the intended person. Let’s talk about gender inclusivity on campus “Literally everything endorsed in the institute is cis-male directed. From formal events like orientations to
informal events like meet-ups, the kind of questions you’re asked, the kind of attitude that is expected of you point to the fact that normative and patriarchal culture dominates within the institute.” The Institute’s meagre sensitivity to gender inclusivity is, to a large extent, derived from the slant sex-ratio of the institute but that is in no way a reason to normalise it. The normalisation comes from students’ apathy. About 50% of LGBTQ students who are ignorant of these circumstances themselves are apathetic to the coverage of such issues in campus. The same number stands at 48% for female heterosexual students. Ignorance, thus inspires apathy, and apathy engenders normalisation of issues that spawn casual sexism in institute. Sensitization is, hence, our first and foremost option towards making a change.
Illustration: Chaitanya Mandugula
8
#8. Increasing awareness throughout the years The IIT-B community would like to believe that as one journeys through his/her stay at IIT-B, he/she grows as a person, not only in knowledge but also in awareness, rationality, and social responsibility. We analysed some of our survey trends for under-graduate and post-graduate students for various case studies to find some correlation between a student in various years of study and their behavior and consciousness towards a nuanced issue like casual sexism.
• Case Study 1: Casual Sexism and Placements We ranked students’ responses from most sexist to neutral in a case where a female student of the same competence and with the same skill sets as a male student, gets selected over the male student. We found that a general UG’s ire towards the stochastic and probabilistic selection process for interviews increases as they go up the ladder and are closer to graduation, and consequently they try the blamegame which results in a marked spike in casual sexism from third year onwards. We see that their awareness (from most sexist to neutral on a scale from 1 to 15, 1 being the most sexist and 12 being the least sexist score, with higher scores corresponding to increasing neutrality) decreases from 13.52 to 12.67 with an ~87% correlation. But after graduation, all is apparently forgotten as the alumni rank at 13.46. The same trend in the PG populace is reversed. There is a marked increase in sensitivity from first to third year, from 12.79 to 14.13, but it sees a sharp decline with subsequent years at a score of 13.4.
• Case Study 2: Casual Sexism and Labs The case study involves two students (male and female identifying) who seem unable to cope with a given lab assignment in, let’s say, mechanical workshop, a UG first year compulsory course which requires hands on work on lathe, shaping, pattern making, welding etc. Both the students get help from a TA and make it through their lab.The male student gets a playful effeminate nickname from their friends for going through troubles similar to the female student. Survey takers are asked to respond to this scenario, and their responses are ranked from most sexist to neutral.
9
Among undergraduate students, score (awareness) decreases over time as students proceed from first to fourth year with 80% correlation. Sensitivity to such microaggressions seems to decrease over time and these behaviors are normalized as more time is spent in the institute. The scores are on a scale from 1 to 15 with 15 being the most sensitized score and anything below corresponding to decreased sensitivity. We see that freshmen score at 12 while it drops down to 11 for UG 5th years. For postgraduate students, the highest score is relatively larger at 13.25 for PG 2nd years, but PG 3rd years rank the lowest, most sexist, with an 8.75. Alumni rank highest at 14.05. The average score for UGs and PGs is the same, at 11.7/15.
%
• Case Study 3: Casual Sexism in Classroom Case Study - In a typical crib session, a female identifying student gets higher attention and consideration from a certain teaching assistant/instructor over any other male student. Survey takers were asked to select from three given responses, whichever matched their first take on such an incident.
%
In UGs, from 1st to 5th year, the response percentage to the affirmative presence of casual sexism in classrooms increases linearly from 30% to 60%. With time, people begin to recognize casual sexism in classrooms around them. Again in UGs, from first to fifth year, the misogynistic overview that females are responsible for more attention to them decreases almost linearly, which is in accordance with their increasing awareness levels. The neutral response rate however is highest in freshmen followed by 5th year students and gradually decreases with an average ~35% response rate. No such marked correlation is seen in PG students.
10
#9. Conclusion As Insight tries to understand the various case studies and testimonies, what can be concluded is that casual sexism in the institute does exist. It manifests itself in different forms and on different scales in different instances but on the whole it affects a significant amount of our time spent in the institute. With 63% of the respondents who are aware of casual sexism showing apathy towards the issue, microaggressions of a sexist nature require us to look deeper into the apathy and lack of self awareness with a microscope. Out of all the respondents, on an average, about 4 out of 10 respondents acknowledge experiencing some or the form of casual sexism through their stay in IIT Bombay. 2 out of 3 students, across various genders and
sexualities, feel that the skewed sex ratio of the institute perpetuates higher levels of casual sexism in the institute over the commonplace sexism in the country. Undergraduate students tend to grow more casually sexist as years progress with the pressure building up in terms of internships and placements. Postgraduate students don’t show a concrete trend and it is difficult to point out a specific reason for the same. Alumni however, in both cases, stand out with positively low sexist attitudes. Although the cause for this couldn’t be determined, it is an uplifting observation. The general awareness of students increases as they progress through their years in the institute. Unsurprisingly, people who continue to be unaware, opt for a misogynistic overview on an
average. However percentage of people who hold a neutral overview is also higher amongst the unaware populace. On a concluding note, the acknowledgement of the existence of casual sexism appears to be an immediate necessity. Every issue associated with casual sexism can be interpreted as an immediate consequence of the lack of awareness and sensitization regarding gender and sexuality. The status quo is broadly apathetic towards the plight of marginalised sections, the apathy occurring mainly through unseen microaggressions stemming out of an inherent bias in thinking. The one way this can be addressed is through a more thorough and rooted reality check, which we hope this article is a step towards.
#10. Journey of the Article I first started working on this article on 29th May 2016 as a panelist on a panel of remarkably adept editors. The fourth editor in the line of accession to take up this article, my journey has been a singular one. From a nearly-sophomore panelist to a nearly-senior editorial board member, I have grown cheek by jowl with this feature. This piece didn’t require just the usual months-long slogs, but was a constant state of mind for the past 21 months. Every new story, comic, listicle on or
off internet, casual conversations overheard or of self, news events, everywhere, I searched for the deep rooted casual sexism in our lives for nearly two years. I perused journal publications on microaggressions and their manifestation, sexism in STEM institutes, attribution theory and so on, just to build a sound knowledge upon which justice could be done to this nuanced issue. I was helped along the way by Karan Nikam, Arush Gupta, and Soham Dibyachintan. I would also like to
thank Professor Vaijayanthi Sarma and Professor Sharmila S for their guidance. And with that, I’d like to apologise for any inaccuracies or political incorrectness or rash treatment of any issue that the reader unearths; I definitely tried my best to address this prevailing vice on campus, and now it’s up to our readers to bring about a change, however diminutive it may seem, but a change nonetheless. - Toshi
Authors - Toshi Parmar, Omkar Masurkar Chief Editors - Chintan Savla, Rishabh Israni Layout & Design - Parimal Chahande, Soumya Pramanik Insight is the students’ newsletter of IITB. The views expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of IIT Bombay Student Gymkhana. Contact us at insight@iitb.ac.in for permission to reproduce contents
11