Let me begin by saying that I am not apologetic about the title of this post. It might sound a trifle decadent, but read on. This post comes after some newspaper reading and televiewing this November. I am referring to an article in ‘Grazia’, two articles in ‘The Telegraph’ supplementaries and last Sunday’s ‘Ghosh and Co.’ on Star Jalshaa. All of them have compelled me to embark on this agenda — to speak up for women who are more than a sum of the trite and stereotypical notions that men have of them. And why the need for such an agenda? Nothing more than to put up a small albeit desperately required fight against popular ideas that are basically a lot of hogwash.
I have nothing against the articles or the television programme in question because finally all of them have raised pertinent questions. Well, no more beating about the bush.
The October issue of ‘Grazia’ informed me about something I have observed for quite some time now. Men do not ‘fancy’ funny women. According to the results of a research led by Dr. Rod Martin, a psychologist at the University of Western Ontario, along with several academics from the University of Massachusetts and McMaster University, Ontario, while men like the odd joke coming from a woman, the do not ‘fancy’ women who are proficient at tickling their ribs (literal meaning to be ignored). They’d rather that the women they date or wed form an adoring audience when the men choose to be humorous. But women delivering clever witticisms and impromptu punch lines are a big no. Men think of comedy as a male prerogative. So, while there are stand-up comediennes who are quite popular, they are often perceived as ‘mannish’ and therefore, not sexually desirable. The research revealed that some men even perceive such women to be lesbians. Ellen DeGeneres has conclusively solved the problem for herself (of course, assuming that she faced any) by being an out-of-the-closet lesbian. I wonder whether, in turn, her being gay and in the media glare have not aided such perceptions to take root in the minds of many. And I cannot help but feel sorry for all those comediennes who are funny and straight. If finding Mr. Right is anywhere on their to-do list, they could be rueing the day they chose their profession.
Speaking of lesbians leads me to refer to an article in yesterday’s ‘The Telegraph’(7 Days). Supposedly mainstream Hindi cinema has finally had the guts to portray a gay relationship—in ‘Dostana’. Let us not forget that it is a sham one portrayed by two ‘macho’ men from filmdom who are confirmed heterosexuals in real life. Good for them. Precisely because, therefore, I do not see brickbats flying towards them from our moral and cultural police. However, while gay relationships could be gaining acceptance on the big screen in India, portrayal of women in same-sex relationships in mainstram Hindi films have more to do with sleaze and titillation than with reality. ‘Girlfriend’ and ‘Men Not Allowed’ are case in points and ‘Fire’, released in 1998, had to die an untimely death after protests from anti-gay activists. Lesson to be learnt—a majority of the women in India are still sexually oppressed and so, doubly marginalized lesbians cannot suddenly find their place under the sun. Can they? They are at best—not to be spoken of, and at worst—hussies.
What about men who are androgynous, who flutter eyelids and move their hands in the air while talking as only women are expected to do? They are the butts of incessant ridicule and objects of ‘tamasha’—all stemming from years of social conditioning and a deep-seated belief that boys just don’t cry. And hence Rituparno Ghosh’s OTT lashing out at the mimic in radio jockey Mir. A learned colleague I have is given the same treatment behind his back by his own co-workers. No wonder he refuses to share the same lounge with them. A point to be noted is that when it comes to tomboyish girls and ‘mannish’ women, they are not so much the objects of laughter as they are women who need to be taught to get in touch with their feminine side in order to become more acceptable and thus sexually desirable to men. Real life abounds with many such cases and so can literature or reel life be far behind? Think Aparna Sen’s character in Ray’s ‘Shamaapti’(adapted from Tagore), think Konkona Sen Sharma’s character in ‘Aaja Nachle’, think Amrita Arora’s character in ‘Main Hoon Na’(way more recent examples)—all reminiscent of girl novels of yore that harped on the importance of femininity in women as a means to their success in domestic and social life.It is still about pandering to men and their idea of the ideal wife, mother and whore. And yet we say, the times…they are a changing!
Finally, coming to the article that was published in ‘The Telegraph’(T2) sometime early this month, I realize that the idea it had tried to put forth reflects India today and the way the country has reawakened to sex. The article was about how impressionable children and adolescents in India, because of easy access to television programmes like ‘Splitsvilla’ and ‘The Big Boss’ with quite an undeniable amount of sexual content in them, are no longer children in the true sense. I could not have agreed more. My experience as a teacher reinforces this view day in and day out. I do not just deal with raging hormones, I deal with youngsters, especially girls, who have not yet learned to quell a spasm of nerves before an insignificant class assessment and yet who won’t bat an eyelid before unbuttoning a button or two in class or on their way to tuitions to grab the attention of older boys because, if you are not sexually attractive and wily from twelve or thirteen, you are very likely to grow up into undesirable ‘behenjis’ and then wouldn’t life become quite meaningless?
In the day and age where youth and physical beauty are celebrated more than merit and intellect, where the Priyanka Chopras and Lindsay Lohans are regarded as role models for girls rather than the Marie Curies and Margaret Thatchers, girls in a largely patriarchal world learn at quite a tender age the importance of being sexy.
November 24, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

8 comments:
a good read and highly illuminating. by the way it reminded me of a boy, a student, who very frankly protested against his girl classmate's earrings saying that if boys can't wear coloured socks in school girls shouldn't get the chance to wear earrings, which they flaunt in order to "attract boys".ya, i am quoting him........:)
Jodi abhoy dao, toh ekta kotha bolbo ... :-)
abhoy deowar ami ke? bole phalo
so... someone wants to refute and correct me. i am all eyes, if i may say so. come out with it brown girl
I have read this line so many times: why is priyanka chopra or shah rukh khan a role model, why not margaret thatcher, marie curie or even amartya sen!
It always makes me feel very angry!
It sounds utopian ... a society where such people are every day role models ... but how practical is it?
I mean the literacy rate in India is 65% (and that's just being able to read and write their own name - % of people who actually finish school is less than 30%) - how many people really know marie curie? or amartya sen? and more importantly, how many such people actually step down from their high pedestals of academic brilliance to reach out to a common man?
and even if tomorrow, by some waving of a magic wand amartya sen, amitava ghosh, neel kashkari and the likes of them become role models ... do we have room for so much brain power in our country? Wouldn't it be very frustrating for a girl to aspire to/idolize amartya sen's greatness and then realize that she has to work as a receptionist in an small office? I mean ... even the number of opportunities for becoming teachers/professors is frightfully low!
On the other hand - they see a shah rukh khan or a priyanka chopra play roles, some of which have beginnings as mundane as their own lives, and then watch the dreams unfold into reality.
It does two very important things for them:
1) it gives them a release from the troubles and tribulations of their lives
2) it gives them hope - that there is love, and there is opportunity for economic prosperity
And for MOST of them, that's more than what they could have hoped for, given the constraints they live in.
that is why aishwarya rai and amitabh bacchan and tulsi do infommercials on polio and not amartya sen!
secondly - i think we use the word role model wrongly - shah rukh khan is not a role model, in that people do not want to become like him! In class B towns/villages in India - the girl who topped class 10 is really the role model, the women who spoke up openly in the panchayat is the role model.
these people are the stars that ordinary folks look up to ... while they struggle in the gutter!
and lastly ... i always fear that we will become a society where academics is ALL that matters. i mean, we already are becoming that - look at out contribution to any other walk of life, look at how few people actually want their children to become theatre artists, sportsmen, nurses, fireworkers!
I fear that we will become a society that scorns at anything but the super-intelligent! and that will be so unfair to the 95% of us - who are not/won't be/don't want to be that!
And why can't priyanka chopra become a role model for the HARD WORK that she puts in to achieve whatever she wants? Can we undermine that?
I remember that movie often - monalisa smile. And my best moment in the movie is where Joan(Julia Stiles) tells Katherine something to this effect - You always taught us to make our own choices. Now don't think less of my choice if I want to be a good home-maker and not a great lawyer.
The point is ... role models abound in every walk of life - and people have a way of finding theirs.
As for what you see in magazines and on the TV - it is mass communication, and will surely cater to where the numbers are!
P.S: this comment is almost as long as your post itself. I know you control your comments ... so please don't publish it.
it's something i feel very strongly about. and as with all things we are passionate about – I think I went overboard.
wl get ur reply by and by, brown girl. all i can say for now is that i am so happy, that the post has left u quite stirred up! i have nothing against any priyanka chopra-aspirant. my post was about how women continue to allow themselves to be what is largely a convenient fantasy created by men. that is so sad! there is a reality that u seem to have overlooked. for me to talk abt all of that would mean another post. look forward to the weekend. ciao
Good post, this - and brings back vivid memories of my Delhi university days when, in our gender studies classes and the feminist group I used to belong to, we held innumerable discussions on precisely this topic and about how both men and women, regardless of whether they realise it or not, are playing roles, which have been pre-determined for them since before they were born and more forcibly at the time of birth, based on the particular anatomical features one is born with. Men are ridiculed and 'punished' just as severely as women if they dare move away from their given roles - and homosexuals, especially lesbians, are, as you so correctly pointed out, doubly discriminated against.
I agree with you on most of the points you have raised - and I disagree with a lot of the things that 'She says ...' has said. But going into that will mean taking over your blog, and I don't want to do that! Perhaps some other time, then :)
thanks, pro. talking about role playing reminds me of a conversation i once had with an elderly gentleman about a couple of years back. he was devastated to know that his Asst. professor of a daughter was marrying a florist...a heresy by Indian standards. all that i had said was it was a matter of individual choice and all we needed to do was wish for their happiness.i had muttered to myself that she at least could thank her lucky stars that after her marriage she would be living in the US. social reality in India would have made it impossible for that couple to stay happily married in India for long. although i agree that contending with the proverbial male ego is difficult anywhere in the world.The man has to earn more than his woman,the man has to still be more qualified than his woman...all when the protector-hunter role of the man is getting redundant in the educated world.
Post a Comment