Language holds immense power in official documentation. It not only communicates information but also reflects societal norms and values. While it is easier for a single parent to get a passport for their children now, we see something different in the case of a voter ID card. “In case of a married female applicant, the name of Husband may preferably be mentioned.” Some phrases inadvertently perpetuate harmful gender stereotypes. One such example is the common practice of requesting a married woman to mention her husband’s name. While seemingly innocuous, this misogyny in official documentation carries more profound implications that undermine gender equality and individual agency.
The misogyny in official documentation
Consider the common phrase in official forms: “In case of a married female applicant, name of Husband may preferably be mentioned.” At first glance, it might appear as a standard administrative instruction. Yet, closer examination reveals inherent bias. By specifying the mention of the husband’s name, it diminishes the woman’s identity to that of her marital status. This phrase suggests that a woman’s worth is tied to her relationship with her husband, perpetuating antiquated gender roles and erasing her individuality.
Furthermore, the use of the word “preferably” implies that including the husband’s name is preferred, further emphasising the notion that a woman’s identity is secondary to her husband’s. Such language not only reinforces harmful stereotypes but also undermines the progress toward gender equality by subtly endorsing unequal power dynamics within relationships.
Rape victims and the linguistic abuse
Court decisions in India are notorious for characterising a rape victim as having “questionable morals,” being “seductive,” or even using derogatory terms like “slut.” In another case, the very judgement of the court is problematic. The overturning of a rape conviction against Indian film director Mahmood Farooqui has sparked controversy after the court ruled that a “feeble no” can imply consent, mainly when the alleged victim is well-educated.
Farooqui had been sentenced to seven years in prison in 2016 for sexually assaulting an American postgraduate student in Delhi. The victim claimed Farooqui forced himself on her while drunk despite her repeated refusals and attempts to resist. Farooqui’s lawyers argued that the encounter never occurred, and if it did, he was unaware of the lack of consent.
In overturning the conviction, Justice Ashutosh Kumar cited uncertainty regarding Farooqui’s awareness of the victim’s lack of consent. The judge notes that she eventually went along with it despite initially resisting. This decision raises concerns among women’s rights activists and legal experts. These experts argue that the incident blurs the lines around consent and sets a problematic precedent. They emphasise that consent must be unequivocal and that any indication of refusal, no matter how “feeble,” should be respected.
The alleged victim explained that she ceased resisting out of fear for her safety, ultimately convincing Farooqui to stop by faking an orgasm. The judge interpreted her behaviour as signalling consent, even though he acknowledged it was a mistaken perception on Farooqui’s part. He suggested that consent could be complex in cases involving known individuals, particularly if there had been previous physical contact.
Critics, including The Times of India, have denounced the decision, warning that it undermines the principle that “no means no” and could potentially endanger victims by eroding clear boundaries of consent.
Championing gender equality: A commendable step by the Supreme Court
India’s Supreme Court took a significant gender-forward step on August 16, when Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud introduced the “Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes.” It aims to purge court rulings of patriarchal biases and promote gender-just judgments.
This 30-page handbook meticulously outlines instances of misogynistic language prevalent in Indian courts and its detrimental effects on the impartial dispensation of justice for women. It unequivocally asserts that regressive views on women have no place in legal judgments. Moreover, it advocates for the use of alternative terminology by judges.
From the district courts to the highest echelons of the judiciary, patriarchal mindsets often taint judicial language and decisions. Chief Justice Chandrachud personally took an interest in the handbook’s drafting. He expressed a commitment to address the “patriarchal undertones” in legal discourse.
The Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes
The handbook begins by offering an extensive glossary of terms that perpetuate stereotypes about women, prescribing alternative language for judges to employ. For instance, it rejects terms like “dutiful wife” in favour of the neutral “wife.”
It highlights how gender stereotypes impede the impartiality and intellectual rigour of judicial decisions, often leading judges to rely on preconceived notions rather than legal requirements. By challenging traditional gender roles, such as women’s prescribed roles in caregiving or homemaking, the handbook aims to dismantle entrenched patriarchal norms.
The Supreme Court’s initiative extends beyond legal jargon, emphasising the societal impact of gender stereotypes and advocating for gender equality. By distinguishing between “gender” and “sex,” it aims to debunk inherent stereotypes and address the intersectionality of gender and caste.
Of particular significance is the handbook’s stance on sexual violence, rejecting victim-blaming narratives and affirming unequivocal consent as fundamental. It underscores that a woman’s sexual history or behaviour does not justify or invite rape, citing the landmark Farooqui judgment to emphasise that “no means no.”
While the handbook represents a commendable effort by the Supreme Court, it acknowledges the need for further systemic reforms to ensure substantive changes in women’s access to justice.
The final thoughts on misogyny in official documentation
Language shapes perceptions and influences societal norms. The Supreme Court asserts in the handbook that “Words influence society’s attitudes”. It also emphasises that “inclusive terms will break traditional harmful thinking.” In official documentation or verdicts, seemingly innocuous phrases can perpetuate harmful gender stereotypes and undermine efforts towards gender equality. Therefore, policymakers, administrators, and society as a whole must recognise and rectify such instances of misogyny in official documentation.
By embracing inclusive and respectful language practices, we can create a more equitable and empowering environment for all individuals, regardless of gender or marital status. In a world striving for gender equality, it is imperative to challenge and dismantle such language in official documentation. We should take measures to redesign forms and documents with inclusivity and respect for individual autonomy in mind. A married woman should have the agency to choose whether or not to include her husband’s name without facing societal pressure or judgment.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are based on the writer’s insights, supported by data and resources available both online and offline, as applicable. Changeincontent.com is committed to promoting inclusivity across all forms of content, which we define broadly to include media, policies, law, and history—encompassing all elements that influence the lives of women and gender-queer individuals. Our goal is to promote understanding and advocate for comprehensive inclusivity.
