A single-judge bench of the Kerala High Court recently observed that though the notions of masculinity is changing with the times, boys need to be taught the meaning of consent from an early age itself. Justice Devan Ramachandran, while considering a plea challenging the order of the Internal Complaints Committee and the order passed by the principal of a college in connection with a harassment case, said that boys should not touch a girl or a woman without her explicit consent. He also added that this lesson should be taught to boys at the school and family levels.
"Boys must know that they should not touch a girl/woman without her explicit consent. They should understand 'No' means 'No'... The archaic concepts of masculinity have changed, it needs to change more," the judge said, adding that "Sexism is not acceptable or cool". The court, in its January 18 order, said respectfulness needs to be inculcated very young and the strength is exhibited when one respects a woman, adding that how one treats a woman gives an insight into his upbringing and personality.
"A child should be taught at the family, and from the beginning of school, that he/she must respect the other gender. They should be taught that real men don't bully women it is unmanly; and not an expression of macho virtue, but its antithesis. It is, in fact, the weak men who dominate and harass women this message must ring loud and clear," Justice Ramachandran said.
The court noted that the current educational system seldom focuses on character building, but solely on academic results and employability. "It is time to shift attention to value education so that our children grow up to be well adjusted adults. Lessons in good behaviour and etiquette must be part of the curriculum; and from at least the Primary Class level, teachers must be encouraged to instill virtues and values in students."
The court was hearing a petition filed by a 24-year-old accused who had misbehaved and groped certain girl students in the college campus. He claimed before the court that he was not heard by the college authorities, including the Principal and the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) before taking action against him.