LawSikho's stance in light of criticisms regarding last night's webinar

If you are not familiar with LawSikho webinars, LawSikho holds over 120 webinars per month on important legal topics. Do check out our YouTube page to understand the work we are trying to do and the commitment we have to access to justice and enhancement of legal knowledge. We say this only because we would like you to judge us in light of our long track record in advocating for gender justice and get a context to what we were trying to do, if you are not already familiar with our work.

Yesterday we held a webinar in order to impart dating advice for legal professionals. It was an experiment at our end that did not go as per expectations. It has come to our attention that a section of participants expressed their opinion that the content of the webinar veered towards being sexist and offensive to their sensibilities. We at LawSikho believe in the value of gender equality and the creation of safe spaces, and are committed to upholding these values at every step of the way. 

We wanted to issue the following factual clarifications regarding the webinar:

1. Toxic Masculinity (1.21): This issue was addressed at the outset, and we were vocally against the idea of toxic masculinity. We condemn the patriarchal culture that objectifies women and the masculinity that perpetuates as a result. We also keep in mind that in many instances, boys are not raised with the kind of consciousness that allows them to appreciate the value of gender equality. We feel that it is important to listen to multiple perspectives in order to acquire an understanding of the diversity of opinions that our society is made up of, in order to effect impactful change.
2. Consent (2.00 - 2.30): We made consent a key focus of the webinar, and Kshitij and I both reiterated the importance of informed consent. 
3. Opinions (7.30 - 7.50): LawSikho as a platform hosts multiple speakers, and cannot always control what opinions are aired on the platform. Some of the approaches and content of Kshitij were not shared by us, and it is true that the chat contained content that turned sexist. We do not stand behind that. Every time I felt something was difficult to digest or smelling problematic, as the moderator I tried to tamper it with clarifications. We could have shut down the chat, but did not want to silence the voices of those who were posting relevant content as well as counter stances to sexist approaches.
4. On D*** pic (14.00 - 15.13): We saw the following tweet and wanted to respond to it.

To clarify, at no point did Kshitij advocate sending out d*** pics, and spoke about it as a practice that must be unlearned. We reiterated that we believe in the power of safe spaces. We have conducted numerous sessions on sexual harassment, and will continue our endeavours to create safer spaces for people from all genders.

1. Objectification: We wanted to respond to the following tweet as well. 

We do not support this analogy. What he actually said was once you match on a dating app, ask for a date within 4 day's, because attraction has an expiry date. The concept of ‘attraction’ itself was the analogy to bread. We unequivocally condemn objectification of any gender.

1. Comment about homosexuality and attraction: We would like to respond to the following tweet:

The actual remark made was that unless you are gay you will always like women as a man. We accept that this statement excludes the queer narrative completely, and will be mindful in the future.

1. Critique: We wanted to respond to the following allegation.

On the contrary, the moderator invited critique and perspective from other lenses. In the discussion, the back and forth got heated in the spirit of open debate, on both ends. In multiple contexts, the moderator was personally attacked with comments such as “Do you beat your wife”. At no point did we discourage any voices from speaking up. We have always believed in openness and transparency, and we will continue to uphold and support those values in the future as well.

1. Stereotypes: There was criticism against stereotypical remarks made about attraction and men, including remarks such as “women are attracted to sportspersons”. The moderator made it extremely clear that this was a stereotype, and not a standard to look up to. We are aware that attraction is a complex, multidimensional matter, and cannot be boxed down inside such labels.

Most of the critique and outrage against our webinar seems to have been generated from a single source that misinterpreted or perhaps misunderstood what was being said. Our understanding is that the reaction stemmed from these remarks and not from the video itself. While every experience is the opportunity for learning, we would like to request the audience to not take comments and opinions out of context, and to engage with us through mutual dialogue and consideration, like they always have. 

Transparency and paying attention to constructive feedback are integral to LawSikho. In this spirit, we have taken down the video temporarily. It is under consideration and is being reviewed in minute detail. We are open to providing access to all those who wish to watch it and verify the content, in the interest of transparency. 

LawSikho deeply believes in its mission to empower by providing access to legal education - spreading it far and wide, and this cannot happen without strong core values upholding intersectionality, equality and discourse. We invite everyone, including our strongest critics, to meet us halfway and engage with us directly, should they choose to do so. 

We reaffirm our commitment to gender equality and inclusive narratives, and hope that our platform continues to be a safe space for discussion. We invite suggestions from our subscribers as well as our critics on programs we could engage with in order to generate greater awareness about these issues. It is only through the synthesis of ideas that change can be made effective. We look forward to such synthesis in the future. Please reach out to us at [email protected].