Summary: In the wake of the Udupi College case, where women from specific community were involved in covertly filming their peers, this article explores the behavioral psychology behind such actions. It delves into the effects of societal conditioning, dehumanization of women, and the paradox of women coming from community adhering to very conservative dress codes engaging in such invasive acts
The Curious Udupi Case
The Udupi College case has recently garnered significant attention, involving a group of women from specific community who systematically took hidden videos of their fellow female college students in the restrooms. Initial information suggests that this invasive behavior may have persisted for some time, impacting multiple girls from a different religious background within the college.
While the state has finally filed an FIR for investigation – albeit reluctantly and after a long chase of terming it as innocent prank – this alarming incident raises profound questions about the state of our society and the dynamics influencing college girls to engage in such voyeuristic acts.
The consequences of such actions extend beyond the immediate violation of privacy. Once finding its way online, such videos may become un-erasable, and may end up potentially ruining the lives of those filmed. Victims may experience feelings of violation, humiliation, and trauma, leading to long-term mental health issues such as depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder.
Behavioral Psychology of Women from Hijab Advocating Community Making Hidden Lewd Videos
Interestingly, Udupi, the same place, was in center of the Hijab controversy last year. And in this coincidence, lies one of the most surprising part of the whole saga. Looking especially from a behavioral psychology point of view, a pertinent question is that how women coming from a community that promotes a culture of making women be covered from head to toe, be willing participant in such “pranks” of filming other women in bathroom?
If even showing a bit of skin or hair is condemned vehemently in the community, how can such women at the same time be so unsensitive to other women that they could go through the trouble of forming a team, of watchers and recorders, and then film other girls via hidden cameras in bathroom? It seems so counterintuitive. So much so that some great intellectuals of the land are willing to treat it as prank rather than the crime that it is.
Looking deeper though, a link exists between belonging to a community where one is asked to be as conservative as possible in showing skin or hair – making them victims of certain behaivioral conditining that may result into willingness to take secret lewd videos.
Dehumanizing Women
At first glance, it appears paradoxical. How can individuals coming from community which adheres to such conservative norms demonstrate such insensitivity towards other women, forming teams of watchers and recorders to engage in such unethical behavior?
To understand this paradox, we must delve into the process through which girls in such communities are convinced to adopt the most strict of dress codes in the modern age, amidst a backdrop of diverse clothing choices prevalent everywhere. Online and social media further exacerbates this contrast on how the world is and how they should be.
While coercion standalone may work some time, but that would really not last long and such coerced girls may be willing to ditch these restrictive norms at the first sign of self-independence or being left to themselves. The effective conditioning is not solely achieved through coercion; it requires the reinforcement of beliefs over time to ensure the lasting adherence to these restrictive norms. Particularly in urban settings like Udupi, where exposure to women from other communities with different dressing practices is common, the conditioning becomes essential for maintaining conformity. This conditioning subsequently becomes a norm in the community, affecting one even if they do not fully adhere to such practices.
The conditioning process often involves instilling the belief that women belonging to different culture and not adhering to the prescribed dress code are considered “immoral”, “promiscuous”, “sluts” or even “maal-e-ganimat”. This dehumanization of those who choose not to cover themselves fully is aimed at justifying the restrictive dress code. It is an effective means of asserting control over women within families and communities, but it also simultaneously leaves deep psychological marks on those subjected to such conditioning. Consequently, these women may feel a sense of vulnerability and nakedness if they deviate from the prescribed dress.
But the even bigger problem is that this dehumanization extends beyond the women who embrace the hijab; it categorizes all other girls as women of low character, thus creating a justification for actions such as secretly filming them in compromising situations. The perceived low moral standing of these individuals makes them justifiable victims of the consequences of their own choices.
This insidious effect of hijab as a tool for shaming and dehumanizing women who do not adhere to it perpetuates harmful and damaging attitudes towards women, fostering a culture of intolerance and disrespect.
Implications for the Society
The implications of such beliefs on society are troubling. When a large enough segment of the population believes in the complete covering of women and concurrently views those who show some skin as undeserving of respect, the hijab transforms from a personal choice into a factor influencing the lives of others.
A society divided along such fault lines is inherently toxic for all its women. It breeds feelings of shame, guilt, and self-doubt, creating an environment that is detrimental to personal growth and societal progress. Addressing this issue is crucial to building a more inclusive and empathetic society that celebrates diversity.
As a society, we must confront the existence of these dangerous fault lines and work together to find feasible solutions. The Udupi College case serves as a stark reminder of the need to examine complex human behaviors through a multi-dimensional lens. By understanding the psychological, cultural, and social factors at play, we can take strides towards a more compassionate society, where individuals are treated with dignity, regardless of their beliefs or appearance. Otherwise the current Udupi case may just become tip of the iceberg.
About the author:
M. Ram is an intellectual from Hindu (not the paper but the community).
