Why is Santa Not a Woman?

He looks like he has given birth several times, nursed babies at his bosom and been a good mother. But Santa Claus is not a woman. Is this just feminist tripe? Can’t one accept the jolly good fellow that millions do and gender be damned?

I did. At school, a starchy convent where the most important thing we learned was how to cross our legs, Santa towered over us and made us go weak in the knees – with the weight of the books, toys, sweets, whatever.

Later we discovered that Santa was all fiction and it was the neighbouring school’s padre doing the honours. But older and wiser though we became, the fictitious bit was even more exciting. It was like a genie coming out of thin air to satisfy our needs.

Now all this has changed. Now when I see models wearing red caps and nothing else with just a banner covering their bodies that says, ‘Down with fur’, I know it is time for the fur to fly in more ways. All right, anybody can dress up as Santa, but will he be complete without a beard, without being a man?

For years children are initiated into the Santa myth – around December they start waiting for him to turn up. I have thought of a few reasons why society cannot imagine a woman in his place.

Santa as wish fulfiller:
This is the most potent image. We have someone who comes quietly, and answers all our prayers and desires for little things. We would not dare give women that kind of power.

Santa as man comfortable with his girth:
No one would dream of showing a woman as huge, simply because it goes against male aesthetic sensibilities, besides being insulting to many a woman who has gone along with the corseted image for centuries. Here we have a man completely comfortable with his obesity, a kind of fertile god, pregnant with possibilities.

Santa as epitome of cheerfulness:
Have you seen Santa cry? Have you seen him complain and crib? Have you seen him lose his temper? Have you seen him throw a tantrum? Have you seen him get hysterical? Have you seen him being partial? Now fancy a woman not doing any of these!

Santa as representative of generosity:
Imagine this man sitting somewhere far away, patiently opening hundreds of letters from all over the world and planning out how to give, give, and give. And then he arrives, bearing a sack, togged up in red - a gratifying blood-life-giving colour, with trimmings in white, soothing and pure. If Santa were a woman, the first thing they’d want to know is: where did she get all that money?

Santa as no-questions-asked man:
A woman would want to know why, how, where, right? The male Santa does not. For him your wish is his command. He does not want to know your antecedents, your present status, and your future. He is only concerned with being there for you when you need him most.

And this is what I have begun to object to. It is a nice industry. Harmless fiction is nearly always lethal. Here in one figure we have been learning lessons in patriarchy, upholding of traditions as perpetuated by the male and of course the financial wherewithal and the emotional compulsions of the masculine gender to be the provider.

It is a questionable theory, but has remained unquestioned even in progressive societies where there is a large female workforce and it is many a woman who has filled her child’s stockings after saving up enough from her paycheck.

The strange thing is we cannot even mentally picture a female Santa Claus because the one that has been dinned into our heads is a guy who looks so nurturing, his cheeks rosy, cottonwooled against inclement weather. Just like a woman! So, here he is. Never mind that he is alone. A one-man army whose weapon is kindness.

Feminising the male

Santa, we are to understand, can go about his job because there is no impeding female force around. Wherever there is the sensitive, suffering man, be sure there will be some woman blamed for his downfall. History and mythology are replete with such instances. Delilah chopped off a lock of Samson’s hair and he lost all his powers – could it not be a case of male-pattern baldness? Was Jesus Christ a mere pawn in the hands of Mary Magdalene, and would Christianity have been different had she not been around? Can we hold Sita responsible for Lord Rama’s banwaas? Did the rich widow Khadija by marrying a younger, poor Prophet Mohammed come in the way of the creation of Islam?

In more contemporary times, can we say that Edwina Mountbatten, due to her proximity to Nehru, was instrumental in the Partition of India? Was Winnie Mandela the cause of Nelson Mandela’s 27-year incarceration? Was John Kennedy assassinated because he had an amorous liaison with Marilyn Monroe? Did Monica Lewinsky finish off Bill Clinton’s political career? Was it Lady Diana and now Camilla Parker Bowles the reason for Queen Elizabeth not abdicating in favour of Prince Charles?

No. The rot lies elsewhere. Rama, instead of looking into his own conscience, put Sita through an agni-pariksha making her prove her purity. I would like to know that if the woman is banished, will the man stand around twiddling his thumbs and waiting for her? If he does not go out to fulfill his basic needs, let me assure you he will make the sublimation of his desires into a major issue. (Don’t forget, Gandhi marketed his celibacy as a political weapon.) And had Mary Magdalene not been around when Christ was going through some of the worst moments in his life, it would have been tough for him. He bore the taunts because he knew her worth. But history will remember his generosity, not hers. The same goes for Prophet Mohammed. Mention is always made about his progressiveness, not her attempts to salvage a potential messiah from doom.

And were it not for Edwina’s considerable influence over her husband, Nehru would not have been prime minister of India. In apartheid-infested South Africa, Winnie Mandela kept her husband’s memory alive for 27 years, so that when he returned it was with glory. She may have been ambitious, but where is she today? Everyone knows that Marilyn Monroe suffered more due to her affair with President Kennedy than he did. Bill Clinton became the reigning sex symbol due to Lewinsky – he began to be considered a risk-taker (oral sex at the Oval, wow!), a true democrat (she was but an intern), and a man who was yet committed to his work (he was on the phone when she went down on him, wasn’t he?). As for Prince Charles, I think he is completely his own man. Diana’s public persona made him an envied figure, and his long-standing relationship with Camilla has given him the image of a solid, dependable guy who does not care about the crown. He is truly a People’s Prince. It is as though he has abdicated the throne.

Just as Santa goes through his selfless work year after year. Being a ‘character’, he does not even need the burden of history. Who the hell is his mother? Do we care? We are caught in the web of Father Christmas as Power Mom. But, heck, aren’t we the ones who ask, why can’t a man be more like a woman?