By Karan Thapar

I’m not the sort of person who usually responds to the often foolish suggestions floated by those in authority over us purportedly for our good. I prefer to ignore them. But recent proposals put forward by the Uttar Pradesh Women’s Commission are so silly I feel they deserve greater attention. I fear silence could suggest they’re acceptable.

The aim of the proposals is to “improve security for women in public and commercial spaces”. That’s a laudable intention. However, what’s proposed is ludicrous. Male tailors must no longer take women’s measurements. Does this also mean men cannot make women’s clothes and only other women can? That appears to follow. Men are also to be prohibited from attending to female customers in hair-dressing salons. And no man is permitted to train women at gyms or during yoga sessions.

That’s not all. Female security staff must be present in all school buses. Men, presumably, are unable or unwilling to keep young girls safe or, worse, are actually potential threats to them. And women’s clothing stores can only have female staff. Men cannot be trusted to serve women without endangering them.

Babita Chauhan, the Chairperson of the Uttar Pradesh Women’s Commission, says these proposals are not simply meant to enhance women’s safety but also to secure and boost women’s employment. As she bluntly put it, there are two reasons for making these suggestions: “It is from the point of view of women’s safety and from the point of view of employment for women.” In other words, she proposes to bar men from several categories of jobs so as to create opportunities for women to take their place.

Now, what do you make of this? Does this make sense to you? Are these proposals justified and necessary? Or unwarranted and bewildering?

You can probably guess how I view them. For a start, they reveal an astonishing level of distrust of men. They presume women are not safe in the company of male tailors, hair-dressers and shop assistants! You can’t rely on men to protect little girls and male instructors are likely to have ulterior motives when they seek to physically assist a woman instructee.

Second, these proposals intrude into the privacy of women’s lives and restrict their right to choose for themselves. If a woman prefers a male hair-stylist – and some of the best are men – or a male couturier – and, again, the top names are male – or a manly gym instructor – if, only, because she’s attracted to him – she’s no longer able to go to one because it’s no longer permitted for her to do so.

Third, this smacks of reverse Talibanism. The Afghan version abhors women. This time it’s men who are to be kept at a distance, their wicked minds and roving hands to be distrusted and, therefore, disallowed in female company.

Now, tell me, is there a case for suggesting the opposite should also be considered? Should women be barred from serving in shops that only sell men’s clothes? Should female gym or yoga instructors be prohibited from instructing male trainees? And what about women who are physiotherapists, dental-hygienists, doctors, teachers or work in restaurants? Should they be permitted to serve male patients, customers or clients? After all, if as instructors and shop assistants men cannot be trusted why are they more trustworthy when they meet women as patients or customers?

Are you starting to get my point? If you can’t trust men in the roles Ms. Chauhan has in mind, should you trust them in others? I’d say that question follows logically. And if you can’t trust them at all what are you saying about men? Pause and think very carefully.

Ms. Chauhan, it seems, is a misandrist. The opposite of a misogynist. And, surely, just as much as misogyny is a hateful quality so too is misandry? We’re familiar with the former but now we’re about to learn about the latter. That’s one dubious reason to be grateful to Babita Chauhan.