Films, Television and Women
S R Ramanujan August 25, 2004
#32 Posted by HetHeret on August 31, 2004 11:46:52 pm
Rahul,
Fair enough. You did make me re-think my position though, so thank you.:-)
Fair enough. You did make me re-think my position though, so thank you.:-)
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#31 Posted by rahul_capri on August 31, 2004 7:42:08 pm
HetHeret,
I think there are fundamental differences in our opinions and we are not convincing each other,lets agree to disagree.
I think there are fundamental differences in our opinions and we are not convincing each other,lets agree to disagree.
#30 Posted by HetHeret on August 31, 2004 12:36:47 am
Rahul,
We can choose to see adult entertainment (good catch-all phrase, no?) as a celebration of both male and female sexuality and not pass judgment on it. The problem is that until society can reflect the same attitude--or rather, until the majority reflects that attitude--it really doesn`t matter what we call it. I agree that a man who perceives all women as sex objects is the one with the problem, not the women he sees as such, but this man can become a serious problem for these women if he chooses to act on his perceptions. Covering women up is not the answer, as you rightly pointed out, because it doesn`t exactly stop the man from perceiving women as meat--I think it actually aggravates the problem. The media is full of rants about how we`re becoming desensitized to violence, etc.--maybe showing more flesh WILL desensitize us to it as well to the point where a woman can actually dress as she chooses without eliciting comment.
The problem is, it hasn`t done that yet. Women are harassed and attacked daily--the statistics are ghastly, and I`m sure you have at least a passing awareness of the crimes committed against women and girls in our part of the world. I know that if I am attacked or raped tomorrow, I will be locked up, not my attacker. I know that it doesn`t matter how I was dressed or where I was and that the fault lies with the attacker, but I will still be asked why I was wearing such-and-such, why I wasn`t at home, what I thought would happen, why I was leading the man on, and so on. This is far from unusual. The bottom line here, and elsewhere, even where women have recourse to legal protection, is that it is somehow the victim`s fault, not the attacker`s.
Does that mean that all viewing of porn leads to rape? Of course not. But the reason I bring this up is to illustrate the difference between the academic take on the issue(with which I agree) and the ground reality. My earlier point about women on stage being actors, which you misunderstood, is also relevant here. By calling what they do acting, I wanted to point out that the personas they portray on stage should not be confused with actual women. What I should have added was that these women (and men) themselves should not be confused with their personas either. If you watched a movie or a play in which a demented dentist went about killing anesthetized patients, you would know enough to not assume all dentists were murders. You would also not assume that the actor was in fact a demented dentist. At the same time, you would know that some dentists may indeed be demented, and you might even find a few. Why can we not extend the same kind of reasoning to porn?
But that is a debate for a society not as sexually repressed as ours because it assumes a level of evolution, for lack of a better word, that we have not yet attained. It will take an extensive reassessment of our `values` and double standards to reach a level where this debate has any place or relevance. Women are still fighting for the right to be recognized by their governments as human beings with all the attendant rights extended at this time only to men. THAT is the issue we need to be dealing with at this time.
We can choose to see adult entertainment (good catch-all phrase, no?) as a celebration of both male and female sexuality and not pass judgment on it. The problem is that until society can reflect the same attitude--or rather, until the majority reflects that attitude--it really doesn`t matter what we call it. I agree that a man who perceives all women as sex objects is the one with the problem, not the women he sees as such, but this man can become a serious problem for these women if he chooses to act on his perceptions. Covering women up is not the answer, as you rightly pointed out, because it doesn`t exactly stop the man from perceiving women as meat--I think it actually aggravates the problem. The media is full of rants about how we`re becoming desensitized to violence, etc.--maybe showing more flesh WILL desensitize us to it as well to the point where a woman can actually dress as she chooses without eliciting comment.
The problem is, it hasn`t done that yet. Women are harassed and attacked daily--the statistics are ghastly, and I`m sure you have at least a passing awareness of the crimes committed against women and girls in our part of the world. I know that if I am attacked or raped tomorrow, I will be locked up, not my attacker. I know that it doesn`t matter how I was dressed or where I was and that the fault lies with the attacker, but I will still be asked why I was wearing such-and-such, why I wasn`t at home, what I thought would happen, why I was leading the man on, and so on. This is far from unusual. The bottom line here, and elsewhere, even where women have recourse to legal protection, is that it is somehow the victim`s fault, not the attacker`s.
Does that mean that all viewing of porn leads to rape? Of course not. But the reason I bring this up is to illustrate the difference between the academic take on the issue(with which I agree) and the ground reality. My earlier point about women on stage being actors, which you misunderstood, is also relevant here. By calling what they do acting, I wanted to point out that the personas they portray on stage should not be confused with actual women. What I should have added was that these women (and men) themselves should not be confused with their personas either. If you watched a movie or a play in which a demented dentist went about killing anesthetized patients, you would know enough to not assume all dentists were murders. You would also not assume that the actor was in fact a demented dentist. At the same time, you would know that some dentists may indeed be demented, and you might even find a few. Why can we not extend the same kind of reasoning to porn?
But that is a debate for a society not as sexually repressed as ours because it assumes a level of evolution, for lack of a better word, that we have not yet attained. It will take an extensive reassessment of our `values` and double standards to reach a level where this debate has any place or relevance. Women are still fighting for the right to be recognized by their governments as human beings with all the attendant rights extended at this time only to men. THAT is the issue we need to be dealing with at this time.
#29 Posted by rsridhar on August 30, 2004 7:02:14 pm
re:#26 by kkkandk
Your boob-centric philosophy makes more sense after i learnt that u are a bouncer in a strip-show business. Man, that must be frustrating. Trying to ward off men when u yourself are fantasizing big time!
Sridhar
Your boob-centric philosophy makes more sense after i learnt that u are a bouncer in a strip-show business. Man, that must be frustrating. Trying to ward off men when u yourself are fantasizing big time!
Sridhar
#28 Posted by rahul_capri on August 30, 2004 6:09:30 pm
HetHeret,
There can be both ethical and utilitarian arguments against portrayal of women.Though you do not seem to harbour any obvious ethical reservations,I could not quite fathom this line-
``Women on stage are actors and are not representative of the women you see going about their business on the street.``The implication I got is that the message sent by the dressed up actors is that they are easy and the average woman on the street is not.This is exactly the point that I am trying to make.This sort of thinking must go away.If someone makes that assumption,ETHICALLY it is their problem,not of the woman. Continuing on the ethical line,one can assume two things about such a woman-a)She is being exploited and she has to be rescued and or b)she is sucking up to some stereotypes created by men-``have to be like men and show some cleavage`` as you say.I would personally like to prefer a more internal locus of control and believe that she is making a conscious decision to dress up or dress down and if by showing cleavage she is conforming to some stereotype,it is no different than men pumping iron to look macho.Women would want to explore and express their sexuality and I think it is demeaning to their volition to assume that innocent and gullible women are made to expose for horny men.Yes,there can be exploitation and besides the obvious employer employee relationship,the factors at play are more general,like the fact that the female is weakened in a power relationship with a man due to various reasons. To counter that,we should work towards legalizing and regulating areas where woman can be exploited sexually or otherwise, like films and prostitution,but thats another debate.
Now talking from the utilitarian angle,I do not believe that ethics and utility can be separated.Unless and until mindsets change,closing doors and clamping censorships is not going to work.One can download porn from the internet and one can buy porn from the footpaths.You can go to another extreme and cover the woman from head to toe,but thats basically a reinforcement of the theory that the woman who dresses provocatively is a slut.
Besides the reason for eve teasing and bottom piching is not just dressing up,it is also the fact that ours is a sexually repressed society,as others have also pointed out,and traditionally dressed girls are also quite likely to be harassed.So when I said what i said about whining,I meant that there cannot be any solution unless and until a radical change takes place in our mindsets(both men and women) and thereby societal norms.Neither making laws nor taking a preachy moral position is going to work.We have to realize that there is no basis of such hypocrisy and double standards.
Finally,I do realize that my choice of words(quit whining) was not appropriate and I apologize for that.
There can be both ethical and utilitarian arguments against portrayal of women.Though you do not seem to harbour any obvious ethical reservations,I could not quite fathom this line-
``Women on stage are actors and are not representative of the women you see going about their business on the street.``The implication I got is that the message sent by the dressed up actors is that they are easy and the average woman on the street is not.This is exactly the point that I am trying to make.This sort of thinking must go away.If someone makes that assumption,ETHICALLY it is their problem,not of the woman. Continuing on the ethical line,one can assume two things about such a woman-a)She is being exploited and she has to be rescued and or b)she is sucking up to some stereotypes created by men-``have to be like men and show some cleavage`` as you say.I would personally like to prefer a more internal locus of control and believe that she is making a conscious decision to dress up or dress down and if by showing cleavage she is conforming to some stereotype,it is no different than men pumping iron to look macho.Women would want to explore and express their sexuality and I think it is demeaning to their volition to assume that innocent and gullible women are made to expose for horny men.Yes,there can be exploitation and besides the obvious employer employee relationship,the factors at play are more general,like the fact that the female is weakened in a power relationship with a man due to various reasons. To counter that,we should work towards legalizing and regulating areas where woman can be exploited sexually or otherwise, like films and prostitution,but thats another debate.
Now talking from the utilitarian angle,I do not believe that ethics and utility can be separated.Unless and until mindsets change,closing doors and clamping censorships is not going to work.One can download porn from the internet and one can buy porn from the footpaths.You can go to another extreme and cover the woman from head to toe,but thats basically a reinforcement of the theory that the woman who dresses provocatively is a slut.
Besides the reason for eve teasing and bottom piching is not just dressing up,it is also the fact that ours is a sexually repressed society,as others have also pointed out,and traditionally dressed girls are also quite likely to be harassed.So when I said what i said about whining,I meant that there cannot be any solution unless and until a radical change takes place in our mindsets(both men and women) and thereby societal norms.Neither making laws nor taking a preachy moral position is going to work.We have to realize that there is no basis of such hypocrisy and double standards.
Finally,I do realize that my choice of words(quit whining) was not appropriate and I apologize for that.
#27 Posted by HetHeret on August 30, 2004 6:27:56 am
rahul,
Thank you for such a considered response. A few points:
You said:
>You must realize that there are no free bies and why should men handle equality to you on a platter? More effort in this has to come from women.You are offended by sight of semi clad women because our society has conditioned us to think of women as bastions of chastity and purity. <
and
>She is role model in a sense that she has the guts to do what she enjoys and openly admits without worrying about norms and repurcussions.<
I certainly didn`t mean to imply that I was asking for my `equality` to be handed to me on a silver platter. Far from it. My line has long been that the act of asking assumes the superiority of the entity being asked, which undermines your bid for equality in the first place. For anything to change, women need to operate on the assumption that men and women are equal, not ask for equality like beggars asking for alms. That said, the majority of women in the subcontinent are so hemmed in by their socially secondary role that they may as well be beggars.
As for my being offended by the sight of semi-clad women, yes, it has to do with our society`s view of women, but what I want to explain is that it`s this particular context that offends me. The majority of our men have no personal contact with women outside the home. What they know about women begins with their mothers and sisters, and ends with the women on the big or small screen. Given that, I find that tv and popular movies do women a disservice by reinforcing their stereotypical role as hapless victim at best and misrepresenting them outright at worst. Yes, there are movies and tv series that center around strong, capable women, but these are in the minority and, in a number of cases, reinforce the idea that women have to become like men (wield guns and weapons and not be queasy about torturing and killing people)while retaining their appeal to men (ie, show lots of cleavage) to be successful. At a more basic level, their message goes something like `yeah, she`s kicking butt, but who cares, man, look at them boobies!`
I personally do not have a problem with skin flicks and `adult entertainment` in general, provided those enjoying it understand that it`s just that: entertainment. Women on stage are actors and are not representative of the women you see going about their business on the street. It is this understanding that I find missing in our society in particular. If you couple that with the idea of woman-as-victim that is being sent out simultaneously, the combination begins to sound threatening.
My negative reaction to the portrayal of women on screen has less to do with morality and more with the feeling that it threatens my personal safety and that of women in general. I don`t mean to be alarmist and I certainly don`t mean that every man who watches women on TV is a rapist. What this actually boils down to is that here you`re trying your damndest to get out there, refuse the `little-woman` role, do things your own way, challenge what you find unacceptable, and, at the end of the day, you find yourself reduced to meat anyway. It`s discouraging. Luckily, there are still women (and men) who continue to fight the image and who have, I find, already had a palpable effect on society.
As for whining about women`s problems, it is very easy to put the onus on women and say that they should do something about their situation independently instead of complaining about it. As I said earlier, the majority of the women in the subcontinent are underpriveledged and do not even have access to the concept that they are, as humans, equal to their men. How are they to be blamed for not taking up arms in the struggle for equality if no one will approach them? Social change, in the absence of revolution, is a relatively slow process, and there is much that every woman could contribute if she were able to see herself as something other than chattel. It is up to those of us who can make a difference, men and women, to reach out to them as well as continue to `fight the good fight` against the traditions, mores, and stereotypes that hold us back from achieving our potential as human beings. While I agree that women will have to get up and take equality, not ask for it, I don`t think that giving voice to the fact that the odds are stacked against us and that the road we`re on sometimes feels like it`s uphill all the way undermines the effort.
Thank you for such a considered response. A few points:
You said:
>You must realize that there are no free bies and why should men handle equality to you on a platter? More effort in this has to come from women.You are offended by sight of semi clad women because our society has conditioned us to think of women as bastions of chastity and purity. <
and
>She is role model in a sense that she has the guts to do what she enjoys and openly admits without worrying about norms and repurcussions.<
I certainly didn`t mean to imply that I was asking for my `equality` to be handed to me on a silver platter. Far from it. My line has long been that the act of asking assumes the superiority of the entity being asked, which undermines your bid for equality in the first place. For anything to change, women need to operate on the assumption that men and women are equal, not ask for equality like beggars asking for alms. That said, the majority of women in the subcontinent are so hemmed in by their socially secondary role that they may as well be beggars.
As for my being offended by the sight of semi-clad women, yes, it has to do with our society`s view of women, but what I want to explain is that it`s this particular context that offends me. The majority of our men have no personal contact with women outside the home. What they know about women begins with their mothers and sisters, and ends with the women on the big or small screen. Given that, I find that tv and popular movies do women a disservice by reinforcing their stereotypical role as hapless victim at best and misrepresenting them outright at worst. Yes, there are movies and tv series that center around strong, capable women, but these are in the minority and, in a number of cases, reinforce the idea that women have to become like men (wield guns and weapons and not be queasy about torturing and killing people)while retaining their appeal to men (ie, show lots of cleavage) to be successful. At a more basic level, their message goes something like `yeah, she`s kicking butt, but who cares, man, look at them boobies!`
I personally do not have a problem with skin flicks and `adult entertainment` in general, provided those enjoying it understand that it`s just that: entertainment. Women on stage are actors and are not representative of the women you see going about their business on the street. It is this understanding that I find missing in our society in particular. If you couple that with the idea of woman-as-victim that is being sent out simultaneously, the combination begins to sound threatening.
My negative reaction to the portrayal of women on screen has less to do with morality and more with the feeling that it threatens my personal safety and that of women in general. I don`t mean to be alarmist and I certainly don`t mean that every man who watches women on TV is a rapist. What this actually boils down to is that here you`re trying your damndest to get out there, refuse the `little-woman` role, do things your own way, challenge what you find unacceptable, and, at the end of the day, you find yourself reduced to meat anyway. It`s discouraging. Luckily, there are still women (and men) who continue to fight the image and who have, I find, already had a palpable effect on society.
As for whining about women`s problems, it is very easy to put the onus on women and say that they should do something about their situation independently instead of complaining about it. As I said earlier, the majority of the women in the subcontinent are underpriveledged and do not even have access to the concept that they are, as humans, equal to their men. How are they to be blamed for not taking up arms in the struggle for equality if no one will approach them? Social change, in the absence of revolution, is a relatively slow process, and there is much that every woman could contribute if she were able to see herself as something other than chattel. It is up to those of us who can make a difference, men and women, to reach out to them as well as continue to `fight the good fight` against the traditions, mores, and stereotypes that hold us back from achieving our potential as human beings. While I agree that women will have to get up and take equality, not ask for it, I don`t think that giving voice to the fact that the odds are stacked against us and that the road we`re on sometimes feels like it`s uphill all the way undermines the effort.
#26 Posted by kkkandk on August 29, 2004 9:18:41 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#25 Posted by kkkandk on August 29, 2004 9:18:41 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#24 Posted by nikki7777 on August 29, 2004 2:52:55 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#23 Posted by halur on August 29, 2004 2:50:26 pm
Sridhar,
Take my comments with the proverbial pinch of salt. Your posts #21 & #22, could`nt have put it better myself.
Take my comments with the proverbial pinch of salt. Your posts #21 & #22, could`nt have put it better myself.
#22 Posted by rsridhar on August 29, 2004 7:28:40 am
re:#12 by soundmeister
Good post.
Most men in India grow up without having girlfriend(s). Their mind therefore works overtime and they invent a lot of devious ways. Eveteasing is one such. Why this does not exist in the west? Because there is no need.
One good American way of life to emulate would be dating. It is natural for men and women to be attracted to each other. Teenage boys and girls do not get this chance in India. Society does not approve them to cohabit or be together openly. I hear that dating is slowly catching up in big cities. That is a good thing. Dating will also go a long way in solving the age old problem of caste. I will go as far as suggesting that the govt should encourage dating and set up dating centers for men and women to come together.
However, all this can be done without aping the western lifestyle. Just my thoughts.
Sridhar
Good post.
Most men in India grow up without having girlfriend(s). Their mind therefore works overtime and they invent a lot of devious ways. Eveteasing is one such. Why this does not exist in the west? Because there is no need.
One good American way of life to emulate would be dating. It is natural for men and women to be attracted to each other. Teenage boys and girls do not get this chance in India. Society does not approve them to cohabit or be together openly. I hear that dating is slowly catching up in big cities. That is a good thing. Dating will also go a long way in solving the age old problem of caste. I will go as far as suggesting that the govt should encourage dating and set up dating centers for men and women to come together.
However, all this can be done without aping the western lifestyle. Just my thoughts.
Sridhar
#21 Posted by rsridhar on August 29, 2004 6:51:00 am
re:#14 by halur
Aping the West is not the same as westernization.
Indians seem to be enamoured of the West, especially the USA. Why do the Indians not copy West`s work ethics, its obsessively clean roads, not copy the fact that almost everyone here pays his/her taxes (not even 10% of Indians pay their taxes), not copy their sense of civic duties (following traffick rules etc) so on and so forth?
Why does India have to exchange its rich culture with a consumer-based western culture?
As i have said already, slow decay of family values will bring in all the social problems that the West has already encountered. Bollywood, with one feet in the West, is a vehicle that is speeding up this process.
BTW, freedom means a lot of things. If watching boobs is freedom for u (and this other character kkkhand), you guys are to be pitied.
Sridhar
Aping the West is not the same as westernization.
Indians seem to be enamoured of the West, especially the USA. Why do the Indians not copy West`s work ethics, its obsessively clean roads, not copy the fact that almost everyone here pays his/her taxes (not even 10% of Indians pay their taxes), not copy their sense of civic duties (following traffick rules etc) so on and so forth?
Why does India have to exchange its rich culture with a consumer-based western culture?
As i have said already, slow decay of family values will bring in all the social problems that the West has already encountered. Bollywood, with one feet in the West, is a vehicle that is speeding up this process.
BTW, freedom means a lot of things. If watching boobs is freedom for u (and this other character kkkhand), you guys are to be pitied.
Sridhar
#20 Posted by rahul_capri on August 28, 2004 2:20:36 pm
HetHeret-
I agree.But when you condone this article,you are reinforcing the ``sex determines your fate`` sentiment.It does,no doubt,and getting out of this crap has to be by both men and women.You must realize that there are no free bies and why should men handle equality to you on a platter?More effort in this has to come from women.You are offended by sight of semi clad women because our society has conditioned us to think of women as bastions of chastity and purity.
In case of eve-teasers,I know practically it is a problem for women,but in principle is it the eve teasers problem or women`s problem?It is true that practical considerations do condition our behaviour,but why should they condition our thought processes as well?
I am inclined to believe that it is the eve teasers and lechers who preach the ``women should be protected`` doctrine because they know people of their ilk are waiting when their mothers and sisters go out.
When somoebody says that a scantily clad girl is a role model,I dont know if they are projecting it wrongly or you are getting it wrongly.When Mallika Sherawat says she enjoys kissing in movie scenes,and she is said to be a role model,it does not mean that every girl is expected to emulate her and start kissing everyone.She is role model in a sense that she has the guts to do what she enjoys and openly admits without worrying about norms and repurcussions.
You say-
``At the moment, our sex determines our social fate to a large extent, and I don`t know if we`ll ever get past that--I don`t see it happening any time soon, unfortunately. ``
I dont see it happening either if we dont attack the roots of this hypocrisy and continue whining about the problems women face.
I agree.But when you condone this article,you are reinforcing the ``sex determines your fate`` sentiment.It does,no doubt,and getting out of this crap has to be by both men and women.You must realize that there are no free bies and why should men handle equality to you on a platter?More effort in this has to come from women.You are offended by sight of semi clad women because our society has conditioned us to think of women as bastions of chastity and purity.
In case of eve-teasers,I know practically it is a problem for women,but in principle is it the eve teasers problem or women`s problem?It is true that practical considerations do condition our behaviour,but why should they condition our thought processes as well?
I am inclined to believe that it is the eve teasers and lechers who preach the ``women should be protected`` doctrine because they know people of their ilk are waiting when their mothers and sisters go out.
When somoebody says that a scantily clad girl is a role model,I dont know if they are projecting it wrongly or you are getting it wrongly.When Mallika Sherawat says she enjoys kissing in movie scenes,and she is said to be a role model,it does not mean that every girl is expected to emulate her and start kissing everyone.She is role model in a sense that she has the guts to do what she enjoys and openly admits without worrying about norms and repurcussions.
You say-
``At the moment, our sex determines our social fate to a large extent, and I don`t know if we`ll ever get past that--I don`t see it happening any time soon, unfortunately. ``
I dont see it happening either if we dont attack the roots of this hypocrisy and continue whining about the problems women face.
#19 Posted by kkkandk on August 28, 2004 2:20:35 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#18 Posted by kkkandk on August 28, 2004 5:53:28 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#17 Posted by nikki7777 on August 27, 2004 9:43:55 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#15 Posted by kkkandk on August 27, 2004 1:40:55 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#14 Posted by halur on August 27, 2004 10:57:28 am
Do we really want censor morality, like the pakis, and regress? Indians are more or less uptight about sex anyway (the pakis are neanderthals). With liberalization and globalization, market forces tell us that the indian consumer (men and women) want a little more of sex in the air, in movies, tv , advertising, everywhere. Thank Goodness, we are aping the west! Who else would we ape, the pakis who cover their women in burlap sacks ?
More westernization the better, in India atleast. Kudos to all those women who dress skimpily in india, they have courage.
More westernization the better, in India atleast. Kudos to all those women who dress skimpily in india, they have courage.
#13 Posted by kkkandk on August 27, 2004 9:07:34 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#12 Posted by HetHeret on August 27, 2004 7:31:52 am
I agree with the idea of this article--as a woman, I`ve almost stopped watching any television because you can`t change channels without coming across scenes of half-naked women being dragged across the screen by their hair, women of all ages gyrating in bikinis while being called `role models`, and women in the ever-popular on-her-back-with-her-knees-in-the-air pose, now adapted to show them screaming in the throes of birth too. But that isn`t all that`s put me off--you also get treated to people being shot, stabbed, burnt, electrocuted, maimed, mutilated, hanged, and tortured, and I think that although I find the portrayal of women offensive, I find the latter more disturbing.
Male and female nudity mean different things because the status of men and women, particularly in our societies, is different. In Lahore, it`s not uncommon to see boys and men taking a dip in the canal in nothing but briefs while burka-clad women scurry by lest the boys decide to have a little fun with them. Women are `supposed` to be good little bastions of purity, while men can roam around nearly nude and be as crude and loud as they like. I`m sure the majority of the men are there just for the chance to cool off in the water, but the lot that chooses to harass passerbys are also present and far more visible than the former.
Female behavior is `marked` while male behavior is not. It really doesn`t matter how a man chooses to dress, for instance, but if a woman chooses to dress up, she`s noticed, if she chooses not to dress up/wear makeup that fact is noted, if she wears traditional clothes it is noticed, if she decides to go for `western` gear, it is noticed. A woman on public transport is fair game for harassment because she should be at home, a women in her own car is the target of stupid comments on female drivers when male drivers make the same mistakes and misjudgments without eliciting comment, a woman walking through a market is the target of pinches, slaps, comment, and spit....and the list goes on. Every single step a woman takes is judged, weighed, examined, commented on, and is supposed to be indicative of her character, her morality, her values, her upbringing, her race, her religion, her nationality...good grief, people! Is it any wonder that when `society` decides to re-evaluate itself, women are the battleground?
Ideally, nudity shouldn`t matter, but I don`t think it`ll stop being an issue until we accept both men and women as people first and male and female second. At the moment, our sex determines our social fate to a large extent, and I don`t know if we`ll ever get past that--I don`t see it happening any time soon, unfortunately.
Male and female nudity mean different things because the status of men and women, particularly in our societies, is different. In Lahore, it`s not uncommon to see boys and men taking a dip in the canal in nothing but briefs while burka-clad women scurry by lest the boys decide to have a little fun with them. Women are `supposed` to be good little bastions of purity, while men can roam around nearly nude and be as crude and loud as they like. I`m sure the majority of the men are there just for the chance to cool off in the water, but the lot that chooses to harass passerbys are also present and far more visible than the former.
Female behavior is `marked` while male behavior is not. It really doesn`t matter how a man chooses to dress, for instance, but if a woman chooses to dress up, she`s noticed, if she chooses not to dress up/wear makeup that fact is noted, if she wears traditional clothes it is noticed, if she decides to go for `western` gear, it is noticed. A woman on public transport is fair game for harassment because she should be at home, a women in her own car is the target of stupid comments on female drivers when male drivers make the same mistakes and misjudgments without eliciting comment, a woman walking through a market is the target of pinches, slaps, comment, and spit....and the list goes on. Every single step a woman takes is judged, weighed, examined, commented on, and is supposed to be indicative of her character, her morality, her values, her upbringing, her race, her religion, her nationality...good grief, people! Is it any wonder that when `society` decides to re-evaluate itself, women are the battleground?
Ideally, nudity shouldn`t matter, but I don`t think it`ll stop being an issue until we accept both men and women as people first and male and female second. At the moment, our sex determines our social fate to a large extent, and I don`t know if we`ll ever get past that--I don`t see it happening any time soon, unfortunately.
#11 Posted by soundmeister on August 27, 2004 7:31:52 am
Here are some simple rules for men to live by:
1. Never hit a woman
2. Never abuse a woman. Especially avoid gender specific invective like b*tch or wh*re
3. Never patronise a woman. Terms like ``the wife``, ``the little woman``, ``just a housewife``, ``bimbo`` etc. if used need to be injected with just the right bit of irony to make them funny
4. If you watch porn or go to strip clubs, enjoy yourself. Agonising over the exploitation of womankind that has to pander to our degenerate male tastes...blah blah... is a waste of time and frankly, everyone knows you enjoy it so do us all a favour and shut up ok?
5. Holding a door open or offering your seat to a woman on a bus is not patronising, it`s just good breeding. If the woman turns your offer down, be graceful. Thoughts like ``I offered the b*tch a seat and she made me look like a fool`` are of your own creation. She probably thinks better of you anyway, just wants to show that she doesn`t need special treatment. Appreciate that sentiment.
6. Find a girl, settle down....whoops wrong post
1. Never hit a woman
2. Never abuse a woman. Especially avoid gender specific invective like b*tch or wh*re
3. Never patronise a woman. Terms like ``the wife``, ``the little woman``, ``just a housewife``, ``bimbo`` etc. if used need to be injected with just the right bit of irony to make them funny
4. If you watch porn or go to strip clubs, enjoy yourself. Agonising over the exploitation of womankind that has to pander to our degenerate male tastes...blah blah... is a waste of time and frankly, everyone knows you enjoy it so do us all a favour and shut up ok?
5. Holding a door open or offering your seat to a woman on a bus is not patronising, it`s just good breeding. If the woman turns your offer down, be graceful. Thoughts like ``I offered the b*tch a seat and she made me look like a fool`` are of your own creation. She probably thinks better of you anyway, just wants to show that she doesn`t need special treatment. Appreciate that sentiment.
6. Find a girl, settle down....whoops wrong post
#10 Posted by kkkandk on August 26, 2004 6:55:20 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#9 Posted by rahul_capri on August 26, 2004 6:38:38 pm
soundmeister- excellent post. I voiced similiar views in another forum in a different context- of rape and death penalty.Rape is made more heinous than it already is by the condescending pity of patronising males.I will try to post the whole discussion here
But perhaps the author is not the exact opposite,just confused.
I have never been able to understand the hoopla over objectification/commodifying, and why is it painted as a gender issue? Why are women always blackmailed into this drama of chastity? Why do women fall for it? When Salman Khan takes off his shirt in every movie ,thats ok.But when a woman wears a bikini for a beauty contest,that is objectification commodifying and what not.Why not let the woman look and feel sexy and use their sexuality? Why not sit back and let her take her own decisions without whining?
This whole patronising sham is designed to hoodwink the woman to be forever a saas bahu type.And does not every feeling requires an object? If she can be the object of my love,respect,affection,why not lust?
And now about obscenity vulgarity porn. First and foremost,again why paint this as a gender issue? Men and women are both in it together.Is there any unisex porn?Then why whine just about women? Are all the moral standards just for women?
You dont like Balaji telefilms,you change the channel.You dont like vulgarity obscenity sex,change the channel.Something of what you want to avoid wil be pushed down your throat,and you can complain about that,but that does not put you on any higher moral ground.
But perhaps the author is not the exact opposite,just confused.
I have never been able to understand the hoopla over objectification/commodifying, and why is it painted as a gender issue? Why are women always blackmailed into this drama of chastity? Why do women fall for it? When Salman Khan takes off his shirt in every movie ,thats ok.But when a woman wears a bikini for a beauty contest,that is objectification commodifying and what not.Why not let the woman look and feel sexy and use their sexuality? Why not sit back and let her take her own decisions without whining?
This whole patronising sham is designed to hoodwink the woman to be forever a saas bahu type.And does not every feeling requires an object? If she can be the object of my love,respect,affection,why not lust?
And now about obscenity vulgarity porn. First and foremost,again why paint this as a gender issue? Men and women are both in it together.Is there any unisex porn?Then why whine just about women? Are all the moral standards just for women?
You dont like Balaji telefilms,you change the channel.You dont like vulgarity obscenity sex,change the channel.Something of what you want to avoid wil be pushed down your throat,and you can complain about that,but that does not put you on any higher moral ground.
#8 Posted by imran on August 26, 2004 12:00:29 pm
Very well written Ramanujan, completely agree with you. This is not about flipping channels, it’s more about freedom of living in a free society.
#7 by nikki7777: Totally agree “every thing is big and beautiful in Texas”. But even there, they didn’t allow bare naked boobies in public.
#7 by nikki7777: Totally agree “every thing is big and beautiful in Texas”. But even there, they didn’t allow bare naked boobies in public.
#7 Posted by nikki7777 on August 26, 2004 9:13:29 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#6 Posted by kkkandk on August 26, 2004 7:28:08 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#5 Posted by cipram on August 26, 2004 7:08:39 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#4 Posted by soundmeister on August 26, 2004 7:08:38 am
You have your basic two kinds of people who protest the `portayal of women in films`. The first is your typical Shiv Sena `shakha pramukh` type, who goes and vandalizes theatres and roughs up artists for anything remotely antithetical to ``Indian culture``. This is the type that protests Fire, Water, GirlFriend and the other examples that have been quoted here.
There is another type of person who protests against the portrayal of women in films, a quieter type, rather less media-hungry than the type above: these are the people who object to women being depicted as objects of male condescenscion, those who are offended by the sight of a man smugly proclaiming ``Is becharee ka kya dosh``(What`s the fault of this poor helpless creature?) before grabbing a widow`s hand in public view (on film). Movies that end with the female protagonist ``realizing`` her folly of harbouring ambitions and a career, and returning duly chastened to her happy homemaking. Televsion images of dolled-up saas-bahus engaged in the only thing they know- bitching and gossipping- while the `men of the house` wear smart pinstripes and bring home the bacon, occasionally putting in a stern sensible word to resolve disputes among the silly womenfolk.
This is the kind of person who will rarely, if ever lay claim to being ``auratzaat ke maryaada ka paalankarta`` (protector of the virtue of womankind) someone who probably if you crossed in the street would not even strike you as the sort of person who refuses to patronise ``his woman`` just because he probably can.
The exact opposite, in short, of people like the author Ramanujam here.
There is another type of person who protests against the portrayal of women in films, a quieter type, rather less media-hungry than the type above: these are the people who object to women being depicted as objects of male condescenscion, those who are offended by the sight of a man smugly proclaiming ``Is becharee ka kya dosh``(What`s the fault of this poor helpless creature?) before grabbing a widow`s hand in public view (on film). Movies that end with the female protagonist ``realizing`` her folly of harbouring ambitions and a career, and returning duly chastened to her happy homemaking. Televsion images of dolled-up saas-bahus engaged in the only thing they know- bitching and gossipping- while the `men of the house` wear smart pinstripes and bring home the bacon, occasionally putting in a stern sensible word to resolve disputes among the silly womenfolk.
This is the kind of person who will rarely, if ever lay claim to being ``auratzaat ke maryaada ka paalankarta`` (protector of the virtue of womankind) someone who probably if you crossed in the street would not even strike you as the sort of person who refuses to patronise ``his woman`` just because he probably can.
The exact opposite, in short, of people like the author Ramanujam here.
#3 Posted by M.B.Z.Isphahani on August 26, 2004 7:08:38 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#2 Posted by nikki7777 on August 25, 2004 6:15:25 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#1 Posted by gurru on August 25, 2004 6:15:25 pm
Bravo !
A well written and thought provoking piece, this is a really serious subject
wish to read more good stuf from U
keep it up
well done
A well written and thought provoking piece, this is a really serious subject
wish to read more good stuf from U
keep it up
well done
Interact Index
Similar Articles
- Oliver Stone movie “W.†Wajahat Ali
- Movie Review: Streets of Karachi Ras Siddiqui
- Celebrating 61 Years of Broken Dreams AliHasan Cemendtaur
- Brick Lane is About Immigrants Making Difficult Choices Ras Siddiqui
- Dhokha and Being a Muslim in India Raoof Mir
US Elections 2008 Primaries
Get Chowk RSS FeedLatest Interacts
- nkg: Re: # 673 masadi... indians... Mumbai Attacks: Shocking
- Eklavya: "refrain from drawing chut!ya... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- nkg: #678.... GF Yeh, sometimes brothers misunderstand... Mumbai Attacks: Shocking
- harish_hyd: And yaar GF, these... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- nkg: Re: # 688 GF, Harish.... You... Mumbai Attacks: Shocking
- majumdar: GF, Even if what u... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- harish_hyd: #56 by Goldfinger Kulharee, unfortunately... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- Goldfinger: Re: # 17 Kulharee... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
