Just a bit of (harmless?) patting-myself-on the back.
This blog was featured on today’s ‘Comment is Free’ section of The Guardian UK website. Go to the Best of the Web section at the bottom of the page, and you’ll find me there. I have no clue how it was picked up, but (insert evil grin and maniacal laughter), my quest for world domination is now underway.
Reading Nita’s latest post on legalising live-in relationships got me thinking about this whole concept of marriage and financial arrangements. First, the story so far. In January 2008, the Supreme Court of India ruled that live-in relationships (if stable over a certain period) were as legal as marriages, and the children of such relationships would have the same rights as those of married couples. As Nita says, Since then the National Commission for Women has requested that benefits such as maintenance also be extended to the female partner in a live-in relationship, “if the man deserts her”.
I think it’s important to take a step back and understand why maintenance benefits for women were instituted in the first place. Firstly, until the 1970s, working women in India (in organised jobs) were a rarity. Man = Breadwinner, Woman = Homemaker was the accepted equation. Most women therefore had not a penny to call their own. Secondly, even as women entered the workforce, few of them continued their careers up to retirement age, unlike men. Many women stopped (and continue to stop) working when they have children, or atleast take a break for many years. This leaves with with no financial independence, or earning less than they could have, as they lose seniority or take part-time, lower-paying jobs. Where the unorganized sector is concerned, many women work, but these jobs tend to be impermanent and low paying. Here too, women would find it difficult to improve their qualifications, say, by studying or learning a new higher-paying skill, because household and child-rearing duties are still mostly theirs. Also, by tradition, they do not work in relatively higher paying areas such as carpentry or masonry. So, when a marriage breaks up, Maintenance is therefore a compensation to the woman for the loss of economic independence and also in a sense, payment for the valuable social services such as taking care of home, children and the elderly that most women provide. Again, maintenance may also be needed because custody of small children may be given to the mother, and as a single parent, she may find it difficult to work for some time.
While a few marriages would not fall in this category, I think just a look around will suffice to show that most Indian marriages would still follow this traditional pattern. I don’t believe that women are eternally entitled to maintenance; the day women stop being the automatic care-giver at home, the equations may change. But society may take a long way to get there. Until then, maintenance is fair compensation. (Though I can’t stand the NCW’s ‘desertion’ talk; what, haven’t they heard of divorce or separation by mutual consent?!)
But, what about live-in relationships? Are the premises the same? For one thing, live-in relationships where two single people decide to live together, are still a rarity in India, notwithstanding the media hype. Such relationships are likely to happen only when both partners are financially independent; few women are likely to get into such a relationship when they don’t have their own money. In the Indian context, I think many long-term live-in relationships will eventually end in marriage, succumbing to pressure from family. But what of the small percentage who don’t? Where kids are involved, women may still take the larger share of responsibility. But otherwise, where women are completely independent, and in a sense, both parties have made a conscious choice not to get into a traditional marriage, is not maintenance again succumbing to the same premise of man, independent, woman, dependent? Infact, this is true not just of live-ins, but of some modern marriages too.
On the other hand, certainly, women who have compromised on their own career (or never had one to begin with) need this protection. And they will be the majority. And it is not fair to discriminate among them, based on whether they have a marriage certificate or not, if in every other way, they have been living as partners. For a small number of high earning and fully independent women, perhaps it is not as relevant, but then, since laws will need to be made keeping in mind the good of the largest number of people, I think I am more or less in favour of women in long-term relationships, whether marriage or live-ins, being entitled to maintenance.
What I find difficult to digest, is such protection being extended to another type of live-ins, which is not really a live-in the Western sense of the word, but what is traditionally called a ’second marriage’. Now, bigamy in India is illegal (except for Muslims, which frankly is ridiculous, and for once, I support the BJP’s demands, for a uniform civil code; it could protect women in many ways). If a woman has been duped into believing that she is the first wife, and is unaware of the man’s first marriage, certainly she deserves all the rights conferred by marriage, and moreover, the man should be prosecuted. But women who enter willingly into such a situation, knowing fully well that the man is already married? I honestly don’t see why they deserve any benefits. Well yes, one can point out any number of extenuating circumstance, but effectively, bigamy is illegal, so I don’t see any someone who knowingly breaks the law should be offered a safety net. So, I think cases of bigamy should be dealt with differently, on a case-by-case and not be clubbed with live-in relationships between single people.
Overall though, I think as a society, atleast we are making a beginning by admitting that marriage need not be the only form of partnership. While societal acceptance of alternative relationships is very far away, giving them legal sanction is still a good start.
So I finally got around to seeing Rock On, over the weekend, though I’ve been wanting to see it for some time, if only for the fact that its theme of ‘four music band members split up and meet again after 10 years’ is something unique in Hindi cinema. (Does Rock On even qualify as Hindi cinema, considering that so much of the dialogue is in English, even if the songs are in Hindi? Weird, but that’s another question)
The movie revolves around male bonding - the focus is on the camaraderie among band members, both in their idealistic younger days, when they are confident of taking over the world, and in their older avatars, when they reunite after an acrimonious break-up. Overall I found the movie enjoyable although I thought the rapprochement between quarreling band members, Joe and Aditya, happened too easily and seamlessly. Where did all those feelings of being let down and resentment go? Whoosh! Still, I thought Rock On managed to convey the essentially uncertain lives of those who choose to pursue an artistic vocation, without hammering it in - there is no one starving here, but you get the sense of dreams having passed by, bills having to be paid, responsibilities other than to oneself.
Which brings me to the character I liked best - and no, it wasn’t among the four men in the band, the lead characters. The character who really stood out, for me, was Debbie, wife of one of the band members, Joe. Finally, finally, here is a female character in a Hindi movie, who is strong, knows her mind, has some dreams of her own, speaks to her man as an equal - and yet, is not portrayed as a shrew or a nag or as infantile or as a conniving bitch. It’s also evident that she loves Joe deeply, even if she cannot understand him. (The other somewhat strong character I could think of is Rhea from KANK, but of course the lavishness and general mindlessness of K-Jo movies makes it hard to take any character seriously!)
Debbie, who dreams of being a fashion designer/stylist eventually ends up handling the family’s fish business while Joe - well, Joe seems to run a small-time music shop and gives lessons to neighborhood kids, but essentially, he doesn’t even have the excuse of really pursuing his dreams. With a husband who refuses to face up to life, it falls on Debbie to keep the household going and we get the sense that without her, things would fall apart. Naturally, she loses her temper often and is not the most pleasant of individuals, but this is understandable in a woman carrying more than her fair share.
When the band decides to reunite, she worries that Joe is off on a wild goose chase, letting go of a decent opportunity to play on board a cruise, which of course, she has garnered for him. She goes to meet Aditya, to ask him not to spoil what she sees as Joe’s opportunity to finally make some money. Does she seem slightly insensitive to how much her husband values this band and its music? Well yes, but on the other hand, she is also the one who knows how much it costs to send their child to school and so on, so fair enough.
When she looks around Aditya’s posh apartment and tells him that he has managed to do well, as always, Aditya tells her that he can’t understand if she is praising him or not. And she replies, “I’m just stating the facts.” That one dialogue established the character totally.
It helped that Shahana Goswami, who played Debbie, did a very good job. Overall, I’m glad that there are atleast a few Hindi movies coming up with realistic and nuanced female characters rather than the single-dimension beauty queens, hero’s shadow or dad’s-little-girls we normally get to see.
Politicians and political types in my home state of Tamil Nadu are quick to pounce on women for alleged acts of disrespect to Indian culture, with dress codes often being the first line of attack. So, some time ago, we had these self-proclaimed defenders of culture attacking actress Shreya for wearing skimpy attire at an industry function. Never mind that these people (among thousands of others) probably enjoy watching the same actress prance around on screen wearing even less. Oh, because of course, the heroine in Tamizh movies exists only to sing, dance, reveal her body and provide a few jollies to male viewers, so then it’s all ok. But otherwise, our delicate sensibilities are offended. We can’t have it in ‘real life’, you see.
But, in what is probably a first even for good-at-offence-taking politicos, the Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK), a party that claims to stand for Muslim aspirations, has now taken offence at a woman wearing too much. Yes, you heard that right - there is apparently such a thing as a woman covering up too much - if that woman happens to be soft-porn star Shakeela. Shakeela who attended a court hearing wearing a burkha, was pulled up by this outfit on the grounds that she had no right to wear a burkha since it is the symbol of ‘decent’ Muslim women. (I can’t find an English media reference, but for those who can read Tamizh, there is some info here).
Where do I even start dissing these people? For starters, there is the blithe acceptance of two distinct categories of women - the virtuous ones and the whores. The burkha is meant for the virtuous (who keep themselves shaded from men’s eyes), while the whores, because they have already exposed themselves to the public eye, have no claim to honour left. This dichotomy doesn’t of course take into account the reasons why many women in India take up occupations such as porn or prostitution. Certainly, few women would venture into these occupations, unless compelled by financial necessity.
Even the few women who enter it willingly, what’s so dishonourable about them? Yes, they play a role on screen or in the bedroom, but that’s where it ends. Our prudish attitudes to sex combined with the whore-madonna way of seeing women, makes us condemn them when we should be seeing it as an outcome of a fundamentally unequal world, where women are valued for their bodies more than anything else.
I wonder if the TMMK has issued a similiar condemnation of all the men who frequent Shakeela movies. Surely there must be a percentage of Muslims among them. Why doesn’t the TMMK bar them all from wearing skull caps or going to Friday prayers? But oh no, it’s only the actress who must be blamed - Men of course will just be men, men are not responsible for their actions, men are enticed by ‘loose women’ yada yada yada.
So, the TMMK feels free to say, “This woman, who appears half-naked before lakhs of people for the sake of money now wants to wear a burka when she appears in court; by this, she has angered Muslims”. Apart from the self-righteousness, there seems to be a very real inability to separate an actor’s personal and public life. So what do they expect? That Shakeela should appear half-naked everywhere? Taken to an extreme, do these morons expect Prem Chopra to start raping women or Amitabh Bachchan to spend his days clearing the streets of crime?
Lastly, these goons seem to lack an understanding of something known simply as freedom. What Shakeela wears is no one’s business but her own. No one else has any right to interfere with it. But then, understanding of individual rights has never been strong in India; we are always concerned more with the right of others to take offence.
Welcome to the 66th Edition of the Carnival of Feminists! I’m so happy to be hosting one again (the last one was at my old blog) - it’s allowed me to read some very interesting posts at a lot of blogs. I’ve tried to include as many (relatively) newer bloggers as I could, atleast those who’ve not featured much at the Carnival before, to the best of my knowledge. At the same time, there are posts from more well-known blogs in the feminist blogosphere. I didn’t have a theme/structure this time, so these posts are just listed alphabetically (author/blog name). Ok, let me quit talking, and give you the goods instead!
Let’s kick of with, yes of course, SARAH PALIN; Could a Carnival of Feminists at this time ignore her? Amelia at the Female Impersonator has a lucid post on why feminists not supporting Sarah Palin is not a “liberal conspiracy” but a very real response to Palin’s anti-woman policies.
The Articulate Feminist lists her feminist pet peeves - a piece that really lives up to the author’s name!
A woman’s ecdysis talks about the “comfort women” abused by the Japanese Occupation in the Philippines during WWII. This is a precursor to the five-part tribute to these women, on her blog, so do read the rest.
Deborah at In a Strange Land discusses “some ordinary old, ever present, pervasive sexism”. You don’t even have to look very hard, do you? Sigh.
Feminist Finance fisks an MSN article that offers lazy science to prove that boys are savers and girls are spenders.
Fourth Wave Feminism points us to why it’s important to keep fighting to uphold women’s reproductive rights. She discusses this in the American context, but I suppose it holds good for most countries.
Harpy Marx discusses the coming together of religion and patriarchy to keep young women “under control“, and the resulting pressure and unreal expectations for women.
Jo Christie Smith touches on the small things that she would like as part of her feminist Utopia, including public transport where men won’t hog all the space.
Joseph Orosco questions whether individuals can really change patriarchal norms by using traditional symbols, yet finding them empowering at a personal level?
Kolbe Franklin at Womenstake discusses the Bush Government’s weakening of programs that help women-owned small businesses.
Lotus Reads reviews ‘The Lost Road to Innocence’ by Somaly Mam, a survivor of the Cambodian sex industry where increasingly, large numbers of children are being trafficked and sold into sex slavery. Just reading Lotus’ review sent chills down my spine.
Marcella Chester at Abyss2Hope discusses how dangerous it can be (and is) to women’s safety because people believe that men’s behaviour is only a ‘reaction’ to how women walk/talk/dress/drink/act/live in general.
Natalie Bennett at Philobiblon reviews ‘Singled Out’, a book in which author Virginia Nicholson narrates the stories of single women in the UK, from a time when it was the worst fate a woman could have.
Rhiana Witson at the Dawn Chorus, which describes itself as by and for Australian Feminists (though the content is interesting to others too) takes on the outdated men-only policies of the Melbourne Athenaeum Club. (Does anyone else find it ironical that the Club uses the name of Greek Goddess Athena?)
Tara L Conley at Youth Noise talks about the challenges faced by female, African-American athletes.
Over at Ultra Violet, the Indian feminist colla-blog, Dilnavaz takes on Sheila Dikshit, the Delhi Chief Minister, for suggesting that a murder victim may have been “too adventurous”. (The CM clarified her statement after people protested, but her first reaction to the incident, speaks volumes).
xJane declares proudly that she is a Bitch and details all the different ways in which she enjoys using the word.
Hope you enjoy reading! I was planning to post this by 8 pm, but I’m doing it a couple of hours early - I have to go out since today is the last day I can visit the Bengali Durga Pujo pandal in town (and hog)- strangely enough, I remember hosting the last Carnival at last year’s Navaratri! (For non-Indian readers, that is our biggest festival of the Goddess/Devi). Happy Dussehra/Navaratri to all of you who are celebrating!
ps : If you do have a post you’d like to contribute, do send it in, and I will try to add on (relevant) stuff, within the next 2 days. For more info on the Carnival, go here.
What People Say