 Two possibilities of access are discussed under this model. One, a woman is heard or read directly in public. Yes, she has access, direct access. But her words are judged in terms of gender. The most prominent example, one of the most prominent examples is given here from literature, English literature. George Eliot, she was English novelist. Look, her pen name is a male name. Her real name was Marion. She used this pen name because in her time people didn't give any importance to the writing which were produced by female writers. She had access, but her ideas, her writings were not accepted because she is a woman. Second possibility is that women are allowed to say something indirectly through powerful men. Powerful men means they may be their husband, they may hold some public portfolio, some public office and when they say something in public on behalf of her wife or her mother or any other female, people don't like it. They say that this person is under influence of his wife or mother etc. People, sometimes women, this is also possible, get access or to speak, but to speak is their personal choice. There is no obstruction, no compulsion, no restriction. But they themselves choose to avoid to talk in a situation. For example, they have other commitments. They don't feel comfortable in that situation or they have some wellness problem or the situation is far away from them. So both possibilities are there. They have access, but they try to hide their access and second, they have no direct access. They have indirect access through their influential husbands or influential brothers etc. And lastly, they have access, but they don't want to utilize it. For personal reasons. We conclude that gender order, gender conventions, assignment of rights and duties on the basis of gender, this is what we call gender order, shapes, access to and participation in speech events. But sometimes it is not case of gender conventions, it is women's own personal choice.