BY: VAIBHAVI MENON

The concept of toxic masculinity is used in academic and media discussions of masculinity to refer to certain cultural norms that are associated with harm to society and men themselves. Traditional stereotypes of men as socially dominant, along with related traits such as misogyny and homophobia, can be considered “toxic” due in part to their promotion of violence, including sexual assault and domestic violence. The socialization of boys in patriarchal societies often normalizes violence, such as in the saying “boys will be boys” about bullying and aggression. Self-reliance and emotional repression are correlated with increased psychological problems in men such as depression, increased stress, and substance use disorders. Toxic masculine traits are characteristic of the unspoken code of behavior among men in prisons, where they exist in part as a response to the harsh conditions of prison life.

Other traditionally masculine traits such as devotion to work, pride in excelling at sports, and providing for one’s family, are not considered to be “toxic”. The concept was originally used by authors associated with the mythopoetic men’s movement such as Shepherd Bliss to contrast stereotypical notions of masculinity with a “real” or “deep” masculinity that they say men have lost touch within modern society. Critics of the term argue that its meaning incorrectly implies that gender-related issues are caused by inherent male traits. The concept of toxic masculinity, or certain formulations of it, has been criticized by some conservatives as an undue condemnation of traditional masculinity, and by some feminists as an essentialist concept that ignores the role of choice and context in causing harmful behaviors and attitudes related to masculinity. toxic masculine norms are a feature of life for men in American prisons, where they are reflected in the behavior of both staff and inmates. The qualities of extreme self-reliance, domination of other men through violence, and avoiding the appearance of either femininity or weakness, comprise an unspoken code among prisoners. Suppressing vulnerable emotions is often adopted to successfully cope with the harsh conditions of prison life, defined by punishment, social isolation, and aggression. These factors likely play a role in suicide among male prisoners. Toxic masculinity can also take the form of bullying of boys by their peers and domestic violence directed toward boys at home. The often violent socialization of boys produces psychological trauma through the promotion of aggression and lack of interpersonal connection. Such trauma is often disregarded, such as in the saying “boys will be boys” about bullying. The promotion of idealized masculine roles emphasizing toughness, dominance, self-reliance, and the restriction of emotion can begin as early as infancy. Such norms are transmitted by parents, other male relatives, and members of the community. Media representations of masculinity on websites such as YouTube often promote similar stereotypical gender roles.

The concept of toxic masculinity has also been criticized from a feminist perspective. Andrea Waling and Michael Salter have argued that the concept of “toxic masculinity” in contradistinction to “healthy masculinity” emerged from a misunderstanding of Raewyn Connell’s 1987 work on hegemonic masculinity. To Waling, “toxic masculinity” is problematic because it presents men as victims of an unavoidable pathology, an essentialist approach that ignores the surrounding social and material context and the personal responsibility of men. Instructing men to practice “healthy masculinity” dismisses androgyny and adopting aspects of femininity as valid options for men, thereby perpetuating gender binaries and privileging masculinity over femininity.

BY: VAIBHAVI MENON

A toxic relationship as “any relationship [between people who] don’t support each other, where there’s conflict and one seeks to undermine the other, where there’s competition, where there’s disrespect and a lack of cohesiveness.” While every relationship goes through ups and downs, a toxic relationship is consistently unpleasant and draining for the people in it, to the point that negative moments outweigh and outnumber the positive ones. Toxic relationships are mentally, emotionally and possibly even physically damaging to one or both participants. And these relationships don’t have to be romantic, friendly, familial and professional relationships can all be toxic as well. people who consistently undermine or cause harm to a partner — whether intentionally or not — often have a reason for their behavior, even if it’s subconscious. “Maybe they were in a toxic relationship, either romantically or as a child. Maybe they didn’t have the most supportive, loving upbringing.” “They could have been bullied in school. They could be suffering from an undiagnosed mental health disorder, such as depression or anxiety or bipolar disorder, an eating disorder, any form of trauma.”

Even good relationships take work. After all, our significant other, our close friends, and even our parents aren’t perfect (and, oddly enough, they may not see us as perfect either). We have to learn how to accommodate and adapt to their idiosyncrasies, their faults, their moods, etc., just as they must learn how to do the same with us. And it’s worth it. Some relationships, however, are more difficult and require proportionately more work. We are not clones but individuals, and some individuals in relationships are going to have more difficulties, more disagreements. But because we value these relationships we’re willing to make the effort it takes to keep them. And then there are toxic relationships. These relationships have mutated themselves into something that has the potential, if not corrected, to be extremely harmful to our well being. These relationships are not necessarily hopeless, but they require substantial and difficult work if they are to be changed into something healthy. The paradox is that in order to have a reasonable chance to turn a toxic relationship into a healthy relationship, we have to be prepared to leave it (more about this later). The importance of understanding what defines a toxic relationship is elevated in a global pandemic.

Pandemic precautions have us spending more time at home. Many of us have lost the outlets that bring balance to our social, physical, and mental health–work, friends, the gym, school. Isolation at home can shed new light on the indicators that a relationship is toxic, meaning recent months have been key in identifying unhealthy patterns in our relationships. In April 2020, the Journal of Clinical Nursing reported that “home can be a place where dynamics of power can be distorted and subverted. Often without scrutiny from anyone ‘outside’ the couple or the family unit. In the COVID‐19 crisis, the exhortation to ‘stay at home’ therefore has major implications for those adults and children already living with someone who is abusive or controlling.”

The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act was passed in the early 1980s, but due to lax regulation, it has failed to make an impact. India ranks third in the world in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, trailing only China and the United States.

India was marked the fifth most polluted country by WHO (2019) based on PM2.5 emission concentrations, with 21 of the top 30 contaminated cities being in India.

According to WHO (2016), air pollution was responsible for one out of every nine deaths in 2012, with roughly 30 lakh deaths entirely attributable to outdoor air pollution.

In India alone, air pollution was estimated to have caused approximately 11 lakh premature deaths in 2017 (HEI 2019), with 56 percent of those deaths linked to exposure to outdoor PM2.5 concentrations and 44 percent to domestic air pollution. Indians are susceptible to an average of 83.2 g/cubic meter of PM2.5 pollutants, opposed to a much lower level of merely 8 g/cubic meter in cleaner countries.

SOURCES OF POLLUTION

Over time, India’s air quality has deteriorated due to large expansions in industries, population density, human activities, and the increased usage of automobiles. Transportation, factories, agriculture, power, waste management, biomass burning, household, construction, and demolition waste are the seven key sectors that contribute to air pollution.

Industry accounts for 50% of the pollution, with cars accounting for 27%, agricultural burning for 17%, and household cooking accounting for 7%. Air pollution-related diseases claim the lives of about 2 million Indians.

 In practically every city, the transportation sector is the primary source of air pollution, although this situation is exacerbated in metropolitan areas.

 In recent decades, the country has undergone considerable industrialization. As a corollary, the air quality in most metropolitan areas has plummeted. Polluting firms were divided into 17 categories by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), all of which were small and medium-sized businesses. Seven among those industries designated as “essential,” namely iron and steel, sugar, paper, cement, fertilizers, copper, and aluminum. SPM, SOX, NOX, and CO2 emissions being the principal pollutants.

The main pollutants emitted by farming activities are ammonia (NH3) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Farming methods such as ‘slash and burn’ are major contributors to photochemical smog.

Power plants constitute a substantial amount of air pollution in India. The biggest source of SO2 and TSP emissions are thermal power plants. Between 1947 and 1997, emissions of SO2, NOX, and PM grew by more than 50 times, according to The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI).

Households are a prime source of pollution in India. Although most metropolitan areas use liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) as a cooking fuel, the bulk of rural Indians rely on cow dung cakes, biomass, charcoal, or wood for cooking and other needs. These emissions have dire impacts on air quality, especially indoor air quality, and may significantly impact health.

People living in polluted cities are prone to a myriad of health concerns, ranging from mild respiratory issues to life-threatening illnesses. PM, O3, SOX, and NOX emissions have the power to damage people’s cardiovascular and pulmonary systems.  

More than 100,000 new-borns died as a result of indoor and outdoor harmful pollutants during their first month of life. The usage of charcoal, wood, and dried dung cakes for cooking and heating homes was associated with a substantial number of these deaths.

According to a study, over 30% of Delhi’s population experienced respiratory illnesses in 2016 as a result of air pollution. Another study indicated that between 1990 and 2010, the fatality rate in Delhi due to air pollution doubled. In 1995, 2800 individuals died prematurely in Mumbai as a result of air pollution; which climbed exponentially to 10,800 in 2010. In 2010, the number of premature deaths in Kolkata was projected to be around 13,500 whereas, Delhi recorded 18,600 annual fatalities.

MEASURES IMPLEMENTED TO CUT EMISSIONS

The Central and State governments have taken several steps to reduce pollution and enhance air quality. The use of compressed natural gas (CNG) as an alternative fuel, the odd-even measures enforced in Delhi, the introduction of Bharat Stage VI vehicle and fuel standards, the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY), and the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) are all examples of initiatives in this direction.

Adoption of zig-zag technology for stack emissions from brick kilns, online surveillance of emissions via the Online Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (OCEMS), and the installation of webcams in environmentally damaging factories are some of the steps taken to combat Air pollution in the industry sector.

Initiation of door-to-door collection of separated waste and various compost pits have been installed in metro areas to mitigate the issue of open burning of garbage and domestic wastes. Furthermore, varied steps have been taken over the years to limit the particulate matter (PM) and dust particle densities, such as green buffer around cities, the maintenance of a 33 % green cover around city environments, and the installation of water fountains throughout cities. On city streets, any car that is more than 15 years old or does not satisfy the BS6 emission regulations will be banned.

But it will take a lot more than this; to control pollution, all citizens of the country must work together.

The reputation of a person is of utmost importance to him. It can be said to be his property, in some cases, more valuable than his property. It is not a very appreciable idea to injure the reputation of a person ( some exceptions).

Defamation is an injury to the reputation of a person. Defamation can be oral or written. For example, a person may defame another orally, in front of a large crowd, or through written ways using newspapers, magazines, or social media.

Defamation is a concept treated differently under English Law and Indian Law, with some similarities.

In English Law, the oral form or the form of words and gestures is called slander, and representations made in the written form are termed libel.  In English Criminal Law, only libel has been recognized as an offense. But in Indian law, both, libel and slander are criminal offenses under section 499 I.P.C.

But can any statement made concerning a person be termed as defamation?

No, that is not the case. Some prerequisites exist and they must be fulfilled for a statement to come under the ambit of defamation. Let us look into them

1. The statement should be defamatory– As described earlier, a defamatory statement tends to injure the reputation of an individual. Whether a statement is defamatory or not depends on how the right-thinking members of society are likely to take it. The standard to be applied is that of a right-minded citizen, a man of fair intelligence.
2. Statement in question must refer to the individual concerned – The statement must refer to the individual. I must be understood by right-thinking or reasonable-minded persons, as referring to the individual.
3. The statement must be published– Published here does not refer to a newspaper or a book. It conveys that the statement must be communicated to some other person other than the individual himself.

What happens if someone files a case of defamation in a court of law against you or some family member of yours? Will you be liable and will you pay the damages for the same? Do you have some defenses at your hand that you can produce before the hon’ble court to set yourself free? Yes, sure some defenses can be used. Some of them are discussed below.

1. Justification or truth – If it is somehow proved that the statement made is true, it serves as a good defense. But even ‘ truth’ is not a complete defense. It needs to be proved that the statement was made for the public good ( for example an article of a newspaper under inspection).
2. Fair comment-  Making fair comments on matters of public interest is a defense to an act of defamation. But the following essentials are required for this defense to be used.

Firstly, it must be a comment; an assertion of opinion rather than fact. Secondly, the comment must be fair and thirdly, it must be made in the public interest.

3. Privileges- Absolute or Qualified- Some exceptions to cases of defamation exist. For example, absolute privilege is recognized in the Parliamentary Proceedings or Judicial Proceedings. That implies statements made here need no justification even though written or spoken maliciously. Qualified proceedings include matters like the publication of parliamentary proceedings or reports of parliamentary, judicial, or other public proceedings.

Defamation may seem an intricate topic, but it is not so. The phrase ‘choose your words wisely’ seems to apply very well in the case of defamation!