Essay
On her torso, genders, and abortion
In this introspective composition, I embark upon a cerebral odyssey, delving into the intricate ramifications of gender parity and individual freedom in the wake of recent events. Accompany me as I ponder the multifaceted aspects of personal liberties, societal norms, and the precarious equilibrium between individual autonomy and social order.
In light of the recent metro case, a distinguished professor, who subscribes to the ideals espoused by Gandhi, boldly asserted that if men are permitted to exhibit their bare torsos in public, women should be granted the same right. In this context, the professor emphasizes the fundamental principle that our bodies are ultimately our own responsibility. This assertion raises pertinent questions about personal liberties and societal norms. Hence, it is imperative to examine and contemplate one's stance on this matter.
Yesterday, while commuting via the metro, I had the privilege of witnessing a few captivating pairs of legs within the confines of the train. Despite the potential allure and potential disturbance such an enchanting sight could cause, the individual in question seemed unperturbed by the situation. I commend their sense of accountability towards their physical appearance, as not everyone possesses such confidence and composure.
When it comes to matters of collective decision-making, it is of paramount importance to adhere to the principle of majority rule, irrespective of any personal sensitivities. Failing to do so would signify a regression to a state of pre-civilization, where the needs and aspirations of individuals were secondary to the whims of a select few. It is crucial to recognize that the collective is composed of individuals, and consequently, each person must reconcile their own desires with the collective will.
The concept of individual freedom does not emanate from any divine authority or singular entity; rather, it is a product of the regulatory apparatus established by the state. Consequently, the parameters of individual freedom are dictated by the legislation and rules enacted by the state, rather than any external power. For instance, if the state determines that public nudity and other similar acts are incompatible with societal norms, it will undoubtedly proscribe them according to its specific standards of liberty.
The collective values upheld by the state inform the creation of laws that govern both the freedoms to engage in certain activities and the freedoms from certain restrictions. It is only in the absence of a governing entity that individuals may enjoy freedoms that have not yet been delimited by the state.
Allow me to digress momentarily to share a personal anecdote. In my formative years, I developed a profound love for sports. I avidly followed premier football leagues such as the Premier League, Bundesliga, and La Liga, along with major cricket leagues. In fact, my passion for sports led me to join a cricket academy in 2011. Regrettably, since 2019, I have encountered various time constraints that have limited my involvement in these activities.
Returning to the topic at hand, exclusivity often necessitates the exclusion of inclusive elements. While it is possible to find contentment in various places and situations, such as sleeping on different beds while traveling, there is an undeniable attachment to the exclusive space provided by one's own home and personal bed upon returning. This inclination towards consistency and familiarity is an inherent aspect of human nature. If humans did not appreciate consistency, we would find ourselves dissatisfied each day, yearning for constant change and uniqueness.
Now, let us delve into a hypothetical scenario involving labor exploitation and profit maximization. How does one extract an individual's personal labor while maximizing profit, all the while persuading the exploited that their exploitation is in their own best interest, rather than solely benefiting the landowner? The privileges of leisure and intellectual freedom that a landowner enjoys are undoubtedly extensive. This reminds me of the example of Marx, who was the son of a landowner. He spent his days reading books, occasionally writing, and reveling in the fruits of other people's labor, all the while leading a carefree existence.
Viewed through a biological lens, the intrinsic disparities between male and female physiology and reproductive systems wield a profound influence over sexual inclinations and desires. Male dominance in testosterone levels engenders heightened aggression and sexual drive, whereas the prevalence of estrogen and progesterone in females may foster nurturing and caregiving instincts. Historical divisions of labor, exemplified by the dichotomy between hunting and gathering in pre-agricultural societies, bear witness to the interplay of biological distinctions and communal exigencies. Men gravitated towards assertive endeavors, such as hunting, while women assumed pivotal roles in communal care, encompassing sustenance preparation and child-rearing. These gendered roles were shaped not only by inherent biological disparities but also cultural conventions.
Given this biological underpinning, a scrupulous examination of the professor's assertion regarding gender parity in public spaces becomes indispensable. The proposition to confer upon women the same entitlement as men to publicly exhibit their torsos necessitates a nuanced appraisal of societal norms and the principle of individual liberty. It impugns the established cultural and moral standards that govern our public comportment.
Nevertheless, it is vital to acknowledge that individual freedoms subsist within the boundaries delineated by the state. While the professor's argument accentuates personal accountability for our corporeal selves, the state assumes a pivotal role in delimiting the bounds of acceptable conduct in public domains. The delicate equilibrium between personal autonomy and social order necessitates the establishment of guidelines that engender harmonious coexistence within a heterogeneous society.
In the course of a previous dialogue, I had the privilege of engaging with two female acquaintances who provided an intriguing conversation in response to the inquiry regarding the compatibility of vegetarianism, veganism, and pro-choice perspectives. It was during this exchange that the topic of incongruities arose, particularly when expressing concern for the welfare of lambs and chickens while simultaneously adopting inconsistent stances on matters of infanticide. Abstaining from offering opinions on specific sampradayas or religious traditions, as my knowledge on their affiliations remains limited, I find solace in grounding my own positions, irrespective of ideological predispositions, in my deeply held sampradaic convictions.
To elucidate, I identify as a Vaishnava, devoid of any belief in other deities. Nonetheless, I was raised within the Vaishnava tradition, a spiritual framework that places immense emphasis on maintaining consistency in upholding vegetarianism. It becomes incongruous for an individual to identify as both vegan and pro-choice while advocating for infanticide. As Vaishnavas, we are nurtured within an environment that espouses abstention from intoxication, refraining from gambling, abstaining from illicit sexual activities, and renouncing the consumption of meat. Embracing a position that starkly contradicts some of my deeply cherished convictions while still laying claim to the title of a Vaishnava becomes untenable. Conversely, those who align themselves with the consumption of meat, consistently adhering to their beliefs, are well within their rights to do so. Furthermore, within our tradition, abortion is regarded as a measure of last resort, to be contemplated solely in circumstances where life is in immediate jeopardy. Unless it can be unequivocally classified as outright infanticide, endorsing or supporting such a practice lies beyond the realm of acceptability. It may be more appropriate to adopt an impartial stance on the matter. Moreover, considering the intricacies of different circumstances, it is reasonable to expect individuals to exercise responsibility, wouldn't you agree? Recollect the allusion to an incident involving an impermissible act. As I previously emphasized, abortion is always regarded as a last resort, and rightly so. It is crucial to note that advocating a pro-life position does not imply categorical opposition to all forms of termination. These concepts are distinct from one another. Consequently, the terms "infanticide" and "foeticide" should not be conflated, as they signify dissimilar propositions and give rise to conflicting arguments. As I mentioned earlier, it is entirely acceptable for individuals to refrain from adopting pro-life positions on any matter, whether it pertains to human beings or non-human creatures. I hold substantial disagreements with individuals who employ inconsistent standards of evaluation. All other facets of the discourse amount to nothing more than constructing a strawman argument. The realms of government, executive authority, and legislative bodies were never broached. My discourse explicitly pertains to individuals. Furthermore, it is worth noting that personally, I harbor an antinatalist perspective and do not harbor a desire for offspring, nor do I believe in the existence of an omnipotent deity.
