Last week, the Uttar Pradesh State Women's Commission (UPSWC) came up with a proposal, albeit to protect women from "bad touch" and curb men's "ill intentions!" No, the proposal does not intend to sensitise men, nor is it about a new helpline for addressing issues faced by women or promoting gender equality.

On the contrary, it proposes to bar male tailors from taking women's measurements and restrict male trainers from instructing women in gyms and yoga sessions. The commission also suggested deploying women makeup artists instead of men in beauty parlours. It also intends to deploy female security personnel on school buses and hire female staff in women's clothing stores to enhance security for women in public and commercial spaces.

Besides, the commission has proposed mandatory police verification of all male employees posted at beauty parlours, gyms, yoga centres, school buses, drama and dance schools, and the installation of CCTV cameras at such places. In fact, the commission has been quick enough to send letters to district magistrates across the state to ensure compliance with the order.

The decision was taken in the wake of a case in Kanpur where a male gym trainer allegedly murdered his client, who was the wife of a prominent businessman and buried her near the District Magistrate's residence. For sure, the case is horrifying. Anyone would feel worried, anxious, and scared. But does that mean that all gym trainers would intend to murder or bring harm to women availing of their services? So is the case with male tailors! Or forget tailors, gym trainers, or male beauticians; do all men behave in a particular manner?

The case certainly requires investigation, which is underway. However, such orders will only isolate one gender from another. It will, in fact, aggravate the issues faced by women.

Besides, there is no proven data that shows that women face sexual harassment at places like parlours, boutiques, gyms, etc. In fact, data suggests that there has been an increase of 29 per cent in cases of women facing sexual harassment in 700 NSE-listed firms! There is a 67 per cent increase in complaints pending resolution in 2024 compared to last year. Not only this, 59 per cent of the companies have not even formed an internal committee for addressing sexual harassment cases, nor have they conducted any sensitisation workshops to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.

Now, going by what the UPSWC proposed in UP, if such an order is implemented in all these companies, and men are not allowed to work with women, will we ever be able to progress as a nation? Will this not increase unemployment?

Imagine the impact this ban would have on countless male tailors and barbers across Uttar Pradesh, many of whom have honed their skills over years or even generations. Tailoring and styling are crafts requiring expertise, a keen sense of style, and a relationship of trust with customers. Arbitrarily barring men from serving female clients jeopardises the economic stability of these professionals. For many, tailoring or styling is a primary source of income; restricting their client base purely based on gender could have devastating financial consequences.

Moreover, this restriction ignores the fact that women do have agency over themselves. Women are capable of making decisions affecting their lives, including choosing their own tailors, barbers, gym trainers, and so on. It is a fact that they often choose professionals—male or female—based on skill and rapport. Gender does not play a considerable role while availing of such services. What matters is the value and professionalism one brings to the table.

A blanket restriction imposed by the state on women's choices undermines their autonomy and freedom. It is paternalistic to assume that women need protection from certain people in this manner. Instead, women should be empowered to make these decisions without any interference.

Imposing a blanket ban on men based on gender bias will only be counter-productive. It is akin to blaming the entire clan simply because one person proved to be a criminal. History suggests that there have been men who have been advocates of equal rights for men and women. From Raja Rammohun Roy to Manockjee Cursetjee to Jyotirao Govindrao Phule to Behramji Malabari to Dr B R Ambedkar, there have been several men who have advocated for equal rights for men and women.

Several non-government organisations were founded by men who have been fighting for women's rights in India. From menstrual hygiene to violence against women to providing education, several men have come forward to create ample awareness on women's issues. Organisations like the Equal Community Foundation, Milaan Foundation, and several others have been doing path-breaking work in creating a world that is just, equitable, and fair for everyone, irrespective of gender! Their true calling is in empowering women!

When we have such examples, how can a commission led by a woman who has the greater responsibility of empowering women and promoting gender equality come up with exclusion as its mantra?

Women's safety is undeniably paramount, and instances of harassment, if reported, should be dealt with swiftly and firmly. But targeting an entire gender—depriving them of their livelihoods—is neither a reasonable nor an effective means of achieving this goal. Such a ban not only fails to root out harassment but also stigmatises men working in these sectors. It paints them as potential threats by virtue of their gender alone, which is unfair and regressive.

In a paternalistic society like India, where it is easier to blame women for the smallest of issues, this ban will become another reason for such a blame game. Men who will lose their jobs because of the ban will start looking at women as ominous. It will eventually undo the progress that we have made on this front since Independence.

Empowerment in the true sense is possible only if women are treated as equals, are seen as strong individuals, and are respected for the choices they make. Envisioning them as weak and feeble, who need protection at all times, is equivalent to treating them as incapable individuals, stripping them of agency and reinforcing harmful stereotypes that undermine their autonomy and potential.

The directive is nothing but a misguided approach to addressing safety concerns faced by women. It will only perpetuate harmful stereotypes and reinforce gender-based divisions in the workforce. Such measures fail to address the root causes of harassment, such as a lack of accountability, sensitivity, and inadequate grievance redressal mechanisms.

Besides, the order inadvertently sends the message that men are inherently incapable of respecting boundaries while women are perpetual victims in need of protection. This not only stigmatises men but also limits opportunities for dialogue and mutual respect between genders. The real solution lies in fostering a culture of respect and safety through gender-sensitisation training, stricter laws against harassment, and robust complaint redressal mechanisms in workplaces.

Instead of drawing lines that divide, the commission should focus on empowering women to claim their rightful space in all sectors. Safety should not come at the cost of equality or opportunity. A society that seeks to protect women by isolating them risks weakening the very foundation of gender equality it aims to build.