The Bridge Talks

23/01/2021

The Bridge Says:
Inheritance laws differ across the world as they are culturally, socially, and religiously influenced. Women are generally not invited to work in the family firm if they already have a brother. The idea that they marry and leave the family doesn't and shouldn't justify this. Because a woman marries and leaves and therefore cannot work in her paternal firm is based on outdated and prejudiced ideas.
Even today, Hindu society is deeply influenced and follows the Mitakshara Inheritance Act derived from the Mitakshara School of Law, an ancient inheritance practice followed across India except in Bengal and Assam. Rules about blood relationships govern it. It states if a Hindu patriarch dies, leaving a son and a daughter, the daughter is excluded from the inheritance. If he only has a daughter and no son, then his right to joint property is divided amongst his male blood relatives and the daughter is excluded from that inheritance.
The Hindu Succession Act of 1956 changed this ancient practice and gave equal rights to both sons and daughters. The Hindu Succession Act, 2005, was an amendment to the 1956 Act and removed the gender discriminatory provisions regarding coparcenary property rights that were not recognised earlier.
The Amended Act was a revolutionary step in Indian legislation regarding the rights of women in India. It recognised and gave equal coparcenary rights to women. Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 outlines how a person's coparcenary property is transferred when he dies.
In the Amendment Act, 2005 this section was amended to include daughters as coparceners by birth, so they share the same rights and liabilities as sons. But there have been implementation issues to equal inheritance as families do not want to give these rights to women and there is huge disapproval and shame from the society idle a woman demands these.
The Hindu Succession Act 2020, kept in mind the differences in the financial circumstances between a brother and a sister and rectified the 2005 Amendment Act's ambiguities. Addressing biases against inheritance is important as it affects the rights of women directly.

Illustration: Thirdeyestories by Anvita

https://www.instagram.com/thebridgetalks/

22/01/2021

The Bridge says:
There is a gender bias when it comes to women voicing themselves. Strong and vocal women are often side-lined and looked down upon by labeling them as aggressive, emotional, and temperamental. Important feedback or suggestions by a woman is equated with aggressive behaviour in many families. The assertion or dissenting opinion from a woman’s side at work or home is taken as an attack. Women are expected to be only empathetic and docile. Those women who branch out and break these gender stereotypes are perceived to be “controlling” or “bitchy”, and against the tradition of the family. These labels adversely impact the self-esteem of women because they are negative. Women's roles should not limit them as being only supportive. Voicing oneself without being negatively labeled is recognizing the individuality and dignity of the human being. Women should not be ashamed for speaking their minds.

Illustration: Thirdeyestories by Anvita

https://www.instagram.com/thebridgetalks/

18/01/2021

The Bridge says:
A liberalised, just and safe abortion policy is one that recognises a woman’s right as the decision-maker.

Abortion laws continue to be debated in many countries. In India, abortion is legal in certain circumstances. Under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, abortion is allowed only within 12-20 weeks of pregnancy and under a few conditions. However, there is a need for further liberalisation, so that abortion becomes humane, just, and safe and women’s rights are not violated.

Women’s rights activists maintain that this is unfair as most fetal abnormalities occur after this period. Consequently, a woman’s health is severely affected. In considering these arguments, the Lok Sabha issued the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Bill on March 17, 2020, which legalises termination for up to 24 weeks in certain sensitive cases.

The social uproar we see today uses religion to counter abortion rights. Most human rights advocates question anti-abortion laws and stipulations by pointing out that saving the personhood of the fetus still in the woman’s womb, completely ignores the personhood of the woman who is carrying the child and might be suffering.

Prevention of the misuse of abortion laws is essential, but so are the rights of women who take on the responsibility for a child which they might not be able to do.

Illustration: Thirdeyestories by Anvita

10/01/2021

Bridge says: Women have a right to pursue career goals without being burdened with generational home expectations.

There is a very biased strain of thought that often argues that women are emotionally vulnerable and hence incapable of making correct decisions for the family. This is a wrong assumption. With women today contributing to decision-making in every sector and being recognised across the professional world; so why is this capacity ignored at home? Counsel from our elders is appreciated since it is derived from their experience and acquired knowledge. But one must also recognise that there are generational differences with different approaches that impact decision-making today and a women’s decision must be respected.

As her marital home, women as daughters-in-law are supposed to stay at home and help aging and unwell parents-in-law as part of their duties. A father-in-law, for instance, controls all the finances and everyone just toes the line. These situations are forced on women as a result of which, they give up their careers and lose their life goals and ambitions.

Having children further complicates her life and she is made to feel guilty if she pursues her career leaving them in the hands of maids and caretakers. She is shamed even at work as a working mother and starts internalising her guilt-driven by the beliefs of the people around her. In reality, society has to recognise her rights as an independent person making her responsible and confident of her own decisions.

09/01/2021

Bridge says: It is unacceptable that women have to alter their habits or appearance to suit men.

Dress regulations for men and women at religious places imbibe local cultural regulations which are followed with humility and respect as a matter of personal belief.

Therefore constantly checking women’s clothing and body part coverage reveals a value system that we as a society hold on to when evaluating women. Women being forced to cover their head or body parts so that men will not ogle at them puts the burden on women for men’s actions.

When women say that such practices are misogynistic, most people say, that these are not gender-biased, but age-old traditions that must be good because they have been there for centuries, and these should be followed.

Women have an equal right to worship and should not be discriminated against under the garb of tradition or regulations that are prejudiced unfavorably towards women in the belief that they distract men. It is unacceptable when women are asked to alter their habits or appearance to suit men

08/01/2021

Bridge says: The scientific explanations are highly misogynistic and interfering in personal faith.

Human bodies are always eliminating throughout the day in bodily functions like sweat, urine, or stool. Being engaged in normal bodily functions does not mean that one cannot go to the temple. It is a woman’s prerogative to decide whether she is harming her body by going to the temple during her periods. She can make an informed choice.

Earlier, due to the non-availability of disposable sanitary napkins, there were related hygiene issues – similarly, lack of pain relief limited physical work during menstruation. Huge numbers of women now have access to these basic hygienic facilities and these conditions no longer apply in modern times.

The unfair and discriminatory practice of restricting a woman’s entry supposedly for her own good is still justified by temple priests by saying that they protect the sanctity of the temple.

The Supreme Court lifted this unnatural ban in 2018 stating that any restriction like this reflected “hegemonic patriarchy” and very clearly denied women their right to pray. All this boils down to the choice of the woman herself and is a matter of personal faith.

Under the guise of “scientific” explanations, women are being denied equal rights these days and it remains clear that it is highly misogynistic and sets a bad example for the younger generation.

08/01/2021

We are pleased to invite you to the second workshop of 'Shakti Within'. Visit our website for more details. The link is in the description.

Register now for the event: http://bit.ly/ShaktiREG

07/12/2020

We look forward to seeing you at the event!

23/11/2020

Bring forward your emotions the way they come to you. Engage in discourses that will amplify your voice. Set out on a path of self-realisation. The workshop awaits your presence.

20/11/2020

It is common for us to be in constant conflict with our thoughts. Every experience is different from the other and worthy of our attention. Dismissing them could inflict deep blows to our consciousness. 'Shakti Within' is an attempt to address them. The Bridge invites you through this virtual workshop to dig deeper and explore with us on this journey on 25th November 2020.

DM for registration and other inquiries.

03/04/2018

Sumukhi Suresh, Vasu Primlani and Aayushi Jagad in conversation with Sanjay Rajoura on how gender issues inform their work as comedians, as well as bias and prejudices on the basis of gender identity. Watch the full conversation here.

Sumukhi Suresh, Vasu Primlani and Aayushi Jagad in conversation with Sanjay Rajoura on how gender issues inform their work as comedians, as well as bias and ...