Salman, Padma, Fatwa

im defending padma..i think she has a right to do what she wants, how she wants.

several comments: scout #90...do you really think padma is unknowingly doing what she is doing. is it really OUR place to make those kinds of decision or question her decisions..?

hamidm: you are waiting for diane sawyer??? of all the people to wait for..

there is nothing wrong with being a model or beautiful or intelligent or using all of that to be successful. if this is her idea of success then leave her be. if this is her idea of happiness then why not? there is something very seductive about power and fame...salman rushdie is not an attractive man from any stretch of the imagination yet he has an aura that can be scented miles away. if she finds this attractive and he finds her sexy and they are creating a mutually satisfying relationship out of this, then whats the big deal? why demean her acheivements by calling her a trophy wife? she would still be eye candy regardless of if she was with him or not....are intelligent, beautiful women such a threat? look at this sentence:

`` Lakshmi gives the impression that all her accomplishments (which are indeed impressive on their own, sarcasm aside) have groomed her for this crowning position as Rushdie`s muse and arm candy. It`s a trip that she is clearly enjoying:``

why cant she enjoy this? ive been a muse before and let me tell you, its a damn heady experiance. bina has given padma credit and then takes it away by saying things like arm candy....i mean you said her accomplishments are impressive even if she stands alone...

any intelligent woman should take offense to this..you just cant f *cking win.

rizvi.

PS. koocha-e-baazar = koocha-o-bazaar

slink,

haan bilkul theek kaha aap nay...
...hamain tu yay batain samajh nahi aateen... keh `arm candy` hoota kya hai... can`t relate to it really...bus sab khush rahayn aur jin koo shadi karnay ka shouq hai with the `right person` unn ki shadi hoo jai.. takeh faroi masail say nikal kar khuch aur soochain.. baqool faiz ahmed faiz:

Jawaan lahoo ki pur asraar shaah rahoon say
chalay joo yar tu daaman pay kitnay haath paray

dayar-e-husn ki bay sabr khawab gahoon say
pukaarti rahi bahayn baadan bulatay rahay

bohat aziz thi lakin rukh-e-sahar ki lagan
bohat qureeN tha haseenaan-e-noor ka daaman

aur kehtay hain:

jaa baja biktay hooway koocha-e-baazar main jism
khaak main lithray hooway khoon main nihlaay hooway

laut jaati hai udher koo bhi nazar kya kijay
ab bhi dilkush hai tera husn magar kya kijay

Do we have time for Padma?

fairdinkum,

all `chowkwalis` are not being harsh towards padma. i don`t think her life or her choices should even be discussed here. they`re her business and, if she does choose to be `arm candy`, then good for her. may every woman, man, child and small furry animal on earth find happiness.

scout,

safiyya thinks bina is jealous of Padma.. :)
I was wodering why are all `chowkwalis` so harsh on padma? btw, i saw her photo.. not bad! thanks for the link!

bina #93,

you`re hilarious. can`t stop laughing.

I think this is a sad article where the writer is clearly showing her own jealousy and shallow mind. Who cares if Rushdie wants to marry her? I don`t see it as a `problem with Ms.Lakshi` that she is `arm candy`. Well done on her part that she is educated and as for her beauty, which the author comes back to far too often, she can thank her parents and good genes for that. Fatwa is a very serious thing and it should not be used in such a careless way.

Pankaj, your posts reflect your maturity and smartness. You do not have to match your posts with anyone here. Bilal is correct that we should stop bickering at each other. I hope you do not mind advice from a senior from your alma-mater.

Enjoy your research on porous media! I am going to see DNS in next week. Do you think he will remember you? Are you going to AIChE in LA? I am not going this year, otherwise I would look for you.

Bye.

It should have been Salman, not Padma, in that little purple spangly thing, one hand strategically placed, and the look of a shy, startled deer in his eyes....

scout #84

``The one thing that disgusts me the most is when women use their bodies for sexual exploitation and the objectification of females.

Padma is one of these women.``

.............. don`t get me started !

.... women and their bodies have been ``objectiified`` ( whatever the heck that means) since eve chose a designer fig leaf to entice adam .... sculptors have sculpted one-armed buxom venuses and painters have painted smirking monasand rubenesque temptresses since time immemorial .....and i really don`t think too many women object unless they feel threatened by these objects of desire .....cleopatra charmed ( i won`t say slept) her way to success as did mary cunningham and as will many management consultants who aspire to be be partners ....

............... and what about women who get stop the drool when they see imran khan or richard gere or tom cruise ....... and what about those hijab-clad girls who scream like banshees as they try to reach out and touch justin and lance at nsync concert ..... i don`t know too many desi women who wouldn`t dump their c-coding, polyester-wearing, little-pot-bellied, paratha-demanding dumpy little hubby for keanu reeves - if only he would ask them ! ....... millions of pakistani women hate cute little jemima not because they think of her as a ``saunkan`` - she got the man all those silly screamers in the stands wanted ..... and the men hate him because he got what we all dream of - beauty and a zillion pound sterling .......

............. so cut out this show of moral indignation and let`s call a spade a spade and wish padma and her beau of the once-droopy eyelid well ............. there is enough to go around - I am still waiting for diane sawyer while my wife waits for paul newman to loose forty years .....

......... god bless Him for creating beautiful people ....... can you imagine living on a planet inhabited by janet renos and ross perots

krashid -

yes, unfortunately, i do talk like i write - jerky and blasphemous ....it comes from years of exposure to george carlin and the grateful dead

and for me the most intersting thing is to see two women bickering over the same thing:)))

slink #86, ``i would think the most disturbing

thing is `other` people using womens bodies for exploitation and selling them as objects.``

No, it`s more disturbing to see women take part in their own exploitation by having such pictures taken. That to me is extremely disturbing.

The case is different if children are exploited, they don`t know any better. But a female adult?

The mistake lies in her as well as her exploiters.

Waheed:

A well put response!

I just have an issue with the following, in terms of the order of precedance[But then I am not a guy, therefore I may define things differently]:-

``That makes up for an immature and juvenille person who has no comprehension of a real woman firstly and secondly family life, a home, love and care of his wife and childern.``

I think you meant to say: a loving and caring wife. The rest are the results of having a loving and caring wife.[end of discussion]

Prem:

There are many `worth-considering points` in the excerpts, but it will be hard to address all of them. I will just pick a few points that I think need to be addressed.

- Apparently, the author is addressing a group in UK and there is a repeat alert to the group. Personally, I will not read her thoughts as something written in stone, but will take it as an individual`s perspective—specially, her explanations.

- I think you misread her when she started on the description of roles. In my view, the author was trying to make her audience understand that women who are taken care of, end up leading a more comfortable life[That`s an assumption]. They do not have to strive in the arenas where men have to toil. By saying that, she is not demeaning men in anyway or shape.

There is a school of thought, proponent of seeing the womenfolk playing domestic roles than working outside [building careers] or fetching for the family [career building as well as need basis]. Women from such school of thought [X], consider other women who are into career building [Y], as imitating men and disregarding their nazakut [fragility]. I find the author constantly reminding women of that in her sermon.

- The fact that religiously men are considered superior to women because they fetch for their families, should not be an alien concept. It is not a responsibility of a woman to support her family, kids and husband, but it is incumbent upon a man to do that [There should not be any surprises]. In short, the author is repeatedly trying to convince her audience on their status as `queens` than as `maids` :-). On the same hand, she repeats that there are no restrictions on women to work. Kind of confusing the hell out of the audience!

- Somehow, I find her sitting on a high pedestal, thinking she can speak for all women. She must have confused her audience on the concepts of - Career and Roles. Her arguments regarding both concepts were extremely silly. They are two entirely separate entities. I think majority of women don`t not need a scholar to tell them about their roles. It is either inherent in them or is absent. For example, there are few women who do not want to have kids. There are others who bear kids in their teens. Another group may think that it’s too early, therefore they’ll visit the idea when they are ready for it. In the above scenarios, how can a scholar start giving a sermon to all, by saying, `All women ought to have kids because that is what they are created for – procreation.` To me, this is so ridiculous that I have no words to express my disgust any more.

- In my opinion, most of the times, sane human beings end up seeking for a balanced life. If a person, never had the opportunity to explore the world, how would he/she ever know where & how to create a balance. I’ll like to narrate few scenarios: My work (management consulting) requires extensive traveling depending on the nature of the assignment. Well, in the past few years, two of my colleagues, were the 1st time mothers, and opted to take time off to be with their babies than pursuing their careers. In my view, it was an attempt towards creating a balance in their lives. Had they never worked, they wouldn`t have known how to handle such a transition. In fact, they wouldn’t have to go through the process of decision-making. Besides being Americans, they never dumped off their babies or gave them away to preserve their positions. [A common fallacy that many have in their minds] Currently, they are busy in raising their kids and being involved in other voluntary activities. In future, they may opt for a less stressful profession than continue with consulting; it’s their call. In another case, one of my Indian colleagues ended up leaving consulting and opted for industry, and is a mother of a 5 month old. She never gave up working, but called her parents from India to be with her new born while she’d be at work. During our recent conversation, she admitted that after 5:00 p.m. she couldn’t stay at work for a minute. Her mind fails to analyze any work issue, and she has her baby on her mind. She takes a train from Manhattan to NJ, about 45-50 minute ride and looks forward to be with her new born. From that time onwards, it`s a mother heading home to her kid than a V.P., who was rushing to work in the morning taking the same train (in the opposite direction, of course). Her husband is traveling now and comes home only on the weekends. Now this is an individual`s prerogative to deal with the changes in their lives. No woman, how scholarly, can go and start giving lectures to all, assuming that each and every word she utters will be applicable to her audience. All women don’t have the same caliber, exposure to the world, ambitions, aspirations, education, professional experience, outlook towards life and upbringing. In short, all women will have different experiences and situations to cope with. There are no hard and fast rules.

Re:hamidm

I doubt if Rushdie cares if he is with Padma, Lucy, or Cindy. These women have a very small shelf life in my opnion. There aren`t many Rushdies or Padmas to go around you know. Also, its a question of lifestyle. Lets see if men would still be clobbering over her, when she has gone through three pregnancies, holds a job ( besides wearing swimsuits for a living ) and cooks for a family of 7...:-) and I would be interested in seeing who Rushdie ends up with given a couple of more years.

You said something like, ``won`t be caught dead with an ordinary looking woman out in public`` what does that mean? If that ordinary looking woman who thinks the world of you, loves you, cooks and cleans for you and your childern and parents, is there beside you in good and bad and to top it all goes out to work every day. That makes up for an immature and juvenille person who has no comprehension of a real woman firstly and secondly family life, a home, love and care of his wife and childern.

Your small sample of introspection only holds true for Frat boys...and a small curious section of a very long life.

There are approximately 2 billion women and only 8 super models, and the average dress size in the land of plenty is around 14-16.

cheers

scout,

and that is what i find disturbing. i would think the most disturbing thing is `other` people using womens bodies for exploitation and selling them as objects.