> Gender equality - to foolish levels

Safin

Nice little news here
Women won't be barred from bartending: SC

The Supreme Court on Thursday passed a judgement allowing women to work as bartenders in the Capital.
The age limit of women bartenders has also been reduced from 25 years to 21 years by the Bench, comprising Justice S B Sinha and Justice H S Bedi.

In August this year, the Delhi government had sought a ban on employment of women in bars and pubs.

The reason being sighted by the Delhi government for a ban on women bartending in the Capital is that men behave badly under the influence of alcohol.

The government also says that liquor is the common denominator behind most cases of domestic and sexual violence.

The Delhi government had asked the Supreme Court to restore Section 30 of the Punjab Excise Act, which the Delhi High Court had struck down as unconstitutional last year. The law bans women from being employed in bars and pubs.

The apex court passed the orders while dismissing an appeal filed by a person challenging employment of women in bars. It further asked all the state governments to provide protection to the women in such cases.

Six months ago, the Delhi High Court had upheld that women can serve liquor in bars but the Delhi government had appealed in the apex court.

Why should it be governments responsibility to provide protection to bartenders now

Can't the money be spent somewhere better(eg protecting some other women who are more at threat in their own homes) If you take a profession as bartender, you pretty well know what comes with it. If you can't protect yourself, then don't go there. No one is forcing you to.
Why do we have to spend all the cash on protecting girls from wannabe "bevdas". I don't think there is any protection given to male bartenders.

Almost a similar argument being given for protection from other "happenings" in pubs. First you go in elite clothes to pubs, then you get drunk and then imo you should be prepared to protect yourself rather than blaming the government for not doing enough. Frankly its not the governments job to protect you or else listen to what it says

xXx

FOOLISH, ABSOLUTE FOOLISH

Safin

Originally Posted by xXx

FOOLISH, ABSOLUTE FOOLISH

yes a foolish reply

KingKrool

Not really. You see the reason it was banned was supposedly because the govt said it was too unsafe for them. If that is the case, then it is the govts job to provide security. After all, it is case of an entire class of person's constitutional rights being violated because the govt is too lazy too do its job (that of protecting the life and dignity and right to work). End result is just that women will get to tend bars and everything will be fine. These bars have bouncers anyway, so there is enough security. The bill was just some crap they wanted to do to show off how much they cared about women supposedly.. next the *******s will be the taliban and say the streets are too scary for women because of muggers, so all women should stay at home and wear Burkhas.... goddamned Taliban is what they are...

Safin

Originally Posted by KingKrool

Not really. You see the reason it was banned was supposedly because the govt said it was too unsafe for them. If that is the case, then it is the govts job to provide security. After all, it is case of an entire class of person's constitutional rights being violated because the govt is too lazy too do its job (that of protecting the life and dignity and right to work). End result is just that women will get to tend bars and everything will be fine. These bars have bouncers anyway, so there is enough security. The bill was just some crap they wanted to do to show off how much they cared about women supposedly.. next the *******s will be the taliban and say the streets are too scary for women because of muggers, so all women should stay at home and wear Burkhas.... goddamned Taliban is what they are...

err that is extreme comparison.
There is a pretty big difference between streets and bars. If this was about street then yes its the guvs responsibility but i don';t see why they should provide security inside bars.(even how they can provide is an open question)
There are somethings you do on your own. If you are too worried arrange your own security. This isn't talibanization. If it was streets, work or college, thats another thing, imo the guv is well within its rights to say it can't offer any protection to places such as bars and that being the case, knowing the amount of incidents that happen there regularly, it was justifiable to say that its better that women avoid that as a place for work.

Agnel

Originally Posted by Safin

err that is extreme comparison.
There is a pretty big difference between streets and bars. If this was about street then yes its the guvs responsibility but i don';t see why they should provide security inside bars.(even how they can provide is an open question)
There are somethings you do on your own. If you are too worried arrange your own security. This isn't talibanization. If it was streets, work or college, thats another thing, imo the guv is well within its rights to say it can't offer any protection to places such as bars and that being the case, knowing the amount of incidents that happen there regularly, it was justifiable to say that its better that women avoid that as a place for work.

how dare u talk with disdain when u talk about a bar! damn it.. it is BAR!

btw, why didn't the govt realize that all girls are safe when sandeep does the rounds in the bars.

KingKrool

Dude, the issue is the government was banning it. Why? If you claim it is unsafe, then make it safe. Else state that it is not so unsafe that women can't do it - and then wash your hands of the issue. I agree that the govt should not be providing bouncers. But if they won't then they should also agree to mind their own goddamned business. The problem in India is people (and the govt) are much too interested in controlling what other people do. Why? Why did the govt have to get involved? As you said, if the women want to take on the risks, let them. If something happens, well the only responsibility of the govt is to catch the perpetrators. Instead, they want to ban women from being bar tenders for "their own good". Screw their own good. Let them do what they want. And if that happens to be bartending, so be it. It is not like the female bartenders are going around forcing people to drink and/or get violent.

Safin

Else state that it is not so unsafe that women can't do it - and then wash your hands of the issue.

I think thats exactly what the guv said in its draft report. It is unsafe and since that is the case, having the best interests of women at heart it went to court to ban them from working there.

There is a fallacy here..

Why did the govt have to get involved? As you said, if the women want to take on the risks, let them. If something happens, well the only responsibility of the govt is to catch the perpetrators.

Yes, thats how it should be but it isn't cos when things happen its the very same people and the social activists who start shouting that the government is not providing protection to the women. There is a hue and cry to make it safe for women to work. Point is its impossible to make it safe and thats why the guv says don't work there. I don't see why every job has to be done by everyone, it has never been the case in human history and if you still want to do it, assume the responsibility.