Update: Excellent discussions going on at both these posts, so do check it out if you haven’t already.

The epics are in a sense the lessons that our ancestors have passed down to us. How wonderful is it that we should be able to draw on the learnings built up by people over a few thousand years of civilization? Few other peoples in the world today can boast of this. This is the sense of wonder that the epics evoke in me and make me proud to be Hindu - not in the narrow-minded sense of Indian culture is the best and we have nothing to learn from anyone else.

Recently, I gifted my dad a copy of Gurcharan Das’ ‘The Difficulty of Being Good: On the Subtle Art of Dharma’, a book that I plan to borrow. It is a book that (I think) draws on the Mahabharata and places its moral lessons in the context of contemporary times.

Which set me thinking, is there a way to draw lessons from the epics in a more nuanced, less literal way than is normally done? One of the ‘big lessons’ of the Ramayana is that of absolute obedience to one’s parents, a lesson that must cause discomfort to most individuals living in modern times. Dasaratha exiles Rama to 14 years in the forest, in order to keep a pledge that he makes to Kaikeyi years before, and Rama obeys. Without question. Sita follows him into exile, although after much argument.

From a feminist perspective, it is possible to look at this episode as the maintenance of a patriarchal order where son obeys father and wife follows husband (rarely do the epics look at obedience to parents from a woman’s perspective).

Yet, another way to look at it is through the lens of affection. Does Rama unquestioningly accept exile not just because that is a son’s duty, but because of his love for his aged father ? Because that love does not allow him to let his father be an oath-breaker? Does Dasaratha’s own love for his son (which the epic mentions repeatedly) compel its reciprocation? From this perspective, the lesson is not so much about implicit obedience as about the power of love, although the former is what is usually taught us as children.

I have no ‘point’ to this post really, except that it is really possible to read the great epics in many more ways than one.

Read more on clothing and control, over at Women’s Web.

Kessler has the background to take on this complex subject having served as commissioner at the US Food and Drug Administration. He is also a man who has grappled with weight issues, giving him a more personal interest in the subject.

One of the biggest strengths of The End of Overeating (and the reason why I called it an important book) is that Kessler articulates convincingly a position on obesity that moves it away from the issue of individual control and choices (’if you’re fat, you have no willpower, and you really ought to control yourself’). He acknowledges that while for a large part of America, calorie intake is outpacing calorie absorption, it’s not as simple as ‘having the willpower to say no’. (Kessler also acknowledges that a small percentage of obese people are obese due to other medical reasons and that ‘hypereating’ is not restricted to obese people.)

Kessler advances his position by taking a close look at the food and restaurant business, and how it gets consumers to eat larger portions, eat more often, eat at any place, eat at more locations, eat more indulging foods and eat mind-blowing combinations of fat-sugar-salt that make us want to - well, eat some more. He also goes to some length to explain how overeating can become a habit, by conditioning and by altering the stimulus-reward circuits in the brain. By indulging in high calorie foods, which offer a temporary but pleasurable sensation, we are primed to remember those sensations the next time we come across the same stimulus.

If all this sounds esoteric, think of a food experience that you particularly crave - perhaps a burger at a particular fast-food joint, perhaps a particular brand of chocolate and think about how hard it is to turn away from the treat it promises. That is what Kessler is talking about, and this book helps us to understand why we don’t just ’say no’. The first 3 sections, ‘Sugar, Fat, Salt’, ‘The Food Industry’ and ‘Conditioned Hypereating Emerges’ are all about dissecting the problem, and are the strongest parts of the book.

One quibble is that Kessler sometimes stops short of covering an individual’s story in sufficient detail, preferring to move on to the next of numerous chapters. For instance, in one chapter, he interviews Jerilyn Brusseau, the creator of Cinnabon, a cinnamon roll bakery that started off as a small store offering a ‘treat’, but is now part of the pandemic of chain stores rushing to pad your waist (and line your heart).

He goes on to end the chapter with, ‘Balance was something Brusseau once lacked in her own life. In her twenties, thirties and forties, she battled bulimia and anorexia. A chef and restaurant operator who lived her days surrounded by tempting indulgences, there had been a time when Brusseau lost all sense of when she was hungry and when she was full.’ Now, what is one to make of an ending like that? A gourmet bakery owner’s complicated relationship with food - yes, interesting, but why tell us about it if you are only going to throw in stray tidbits? Kessler does this when talking about people, but when he gets to the science, he is painstaking.

One suspects that Kessler would have done well to stop with this thorough analysis of the problem rather than extend the book to offering solutions as well. The next 3 sections, ‘The Theory of Treatment’, ‘Food Rehab’ and ‘The End of Overeating’ are somewhat disappointing in their generality when compared with the rigorousness of the first half. While there are a few useful suggestions, they don’t go beyond what commonsense suggests, nor are they buttressed with any studies or other information on their efficacy. They veer dangerously close to the ‘you can stop eating if only you try’ approach that Kessler disses in the first half.

Some of the suggestions don’t take the social context into account adequately; what of the fact that healthy eating in Western societies (especially the US) takes more money than eating junk food? What of the loss of cooking skills in many families and young people? Kessler doesn’t address these issues when he advocates healthier eating.

Nor is there a special focus on women and food, which is surprising, given the greater social expectations from women to maintain a desirable weight, and the pressure it creates amidst the constant food cues in the environment.

Despite these drawbacks, The End of Overeating is an interesting read for anyone who has struggled with weight or with the expectations of desirability in an increasingly appearance-conscious world. Those of us living in India can already see the wholesale import of Western brands and lifestyles into what was a slower and more wholesome way of eating. For us, it may be the Beginning of Overeating, but that is no reason we shouldn’t be better prepared.

Publisher: Penguin Books/Penguin India

Price: Rs. 399

Shouldn’t the planners of a syllabus think of what ought to be done to ensure that a student who passes the 10^th grade knows the basics of a subject that he/she opts for in college? Why not make teachers accountable? No one questions a child’s right to education but is our education translating into knowledge of the right kind?

Over a Women’s Web, a lovely post on our educational system and what it is doing for students. Thank you, Hip Grandma!

Which is why this marriage I heard of surprised me. Knowing fully well that the genetic risks are no different whether one marries a cousin related in one way or another, nevertheless, it seems less ’strange’ to marry a cousin related through a maternal line. Because that is what is familiar. And familiarity breeds thoughtlessness. (Even among educated people, it seems.)

Read the rest over at Women’s Web…

Go here to find out. All I’m saying here is that we had a great time reading all the entries - inspiring, heartening, humorous, poignant, helpful - there were all sorts and everyone of them had a unique perspective to share. A big THANK YOU to all of the participants and to the readers who cheered everyone on!

The tag says, “list at least ten things you have ever wanted or done which your gender is not supposed to.”

And here’s the thing - when I thought about it, I realized that I like and want many things which are conventionally associated with women, but I don’t think that makes me less feminist in any way. For instance, I like cooking, I like jewellery ( at least to look at) and I like new clothes (though I don’t hoard old ones), but I firmly believe in partners sharing household work and in women’s need to be financially independent. To me, feminism is about women having the right to make decisions independently, in their own interest.

I guess what I am trying to say is that gender stereotypes are not just about wearing pink, wearing (or not wearing) shorts or liking jewellery - I have seen women who dress extremely “modern” but are aghast at the idea of men doing housework, and I have a cousin who is very modest in her dressing and highly religious, but absolutely modern in her thinking on what women are entitled to. (You know who you are :))

Now, coming to the tag - I doubt I have committed that many obvious sins against gender stereotypes, but let me try!

1. I’ve travelled independently from the time I was in my late teens, and never felt afraid to, simply because I am female.

2. I’ve been open about my relationships and never believed that a woman’s ‘name will be spoilt’.

3. I dislike most housework (folding clothes, ironing, cleaning loos), and while it irks me that I am often called lazy by my family, I don’t see that as a good enough reason to change!

4. As a teenager, I was encouraged to aim for a teaching job, as one ’suitable for women’ - rejected the idea outright.

5. I’m comfortable with the husband doing his share of work at home, and many chores are not assigned to any one person - there is no ‘man’s work’ or ‘woman’s work’ at our home.

6. I had no hesitation being the first to tell my husband that I liked him (back in the days when he wasn’t yet the husband). Who says girls have to be ‘asked’?

7. I don’t believe that I need to wear a mangalsutra or sindoor to ‘demonstrate my marital status‘.

8. I have always helped my parents financially, when needed. When I stayed at home (after I began working), I paid my dad a fixed amount every month to cover my share of expenses. Thankfully, my dad is modern too, in this aspect and not one of those who think daughters shouldn’t take care of their parents.

9. When organizing anything, I don’t wait for the men to pick up heavy stuff, move things etc.

10. I am the financial manager of my house - I handle the bank, savings, investments, and keeping track of the spending.

I don’t know whom to tag, because it looks like many people have already been tagged! So, at the risk of being cursed to wear only blue pants all my life, here are the ‘taggees’ I can think of - Uma, R’s Mom and Itchy.

The first one is a mushy love story, the second an MMS sex scandal and the third, about the media’s voracious appetite for ’stings’. It is the second and third stories that really hold your attention; the first one is slow to heat up and I almost forwarded a little of the first 10-15 minutes. Yet, my mind keeps going back to it. (This post isn’t a movie review though.)

*Spoilers here, beware!*

When the love story of Rahul, aspiring director at a film institute and Shruti, the “Simran” of his film begins, it is hard not to think of this love story as more a paean to DDLJ than anything else. Cheesy like the film they are making, it is hard to imagine that Rahul and Shruti really love anything beyond the feeling of being in love.

And yet, given the conservative family Shruti comes from, there is no possibility of their dating or getting to know each other. Love must lead to an elopement and marriage almost immediately. Rahul’s blithe confidence that after marriage, the family will “come around”, is almost revolting to watch in its stupidity. The end, when it comes, is gruesome, even though nothing of this honour killing is really shown.

Just yesterday, the Supreme Court has issued a notice asking the Central Government (and a few states), why they are doing nothing to combat the recent spate of honour killings.

The thing about us Indians is that we pride ourselves on our superior ‘Indian values’; we lose no chance to deride Western societies for their (alleged) lack of affection, ‘family values’ and morality. Nowhere is this more evident than in our smug attitude to the upbringing of children. It is so common to hear people talking as though Indians are the only people that know how to bring up children well - everywhere else, children are neglected, spoilt, abused and grow up to have no love for their parents.

And yet, this is the country where a good chunk of people are all too ready to sacrifice their children in the name of honour, society, family name and blah blah. Honour killing is one extreme end of the spectrum, but the unwillingness to accept children’s choices and their happiness as a primary consideration exists in many other forms, ranging from emotional blackmail to being ‘cast out of the family’.

Gajar-ka-halwa aside, we need to stop kidding ourselves. I suppose we have good and bad parents like everywhere else, but no magic beans that qualify us as the best parents on earth.

All mothers know this, which is probably why over at Women’s Web, this feature, ‘Fight that Mommy Guilt’ got such a tremendous response from readers.

Which is why, we’ve decided to go ahead and use it as the theme for our first contest on Women’s Web.

The rules are simple 1-2-3:

1. Write your own post on ‘Mommy Guilt‘ - it can be funny, sad, touching, angry, thoughtful - anything you choose. And you don’t HAVE to be a parent - anyone with a story to share can participate.

2. Make sure you include a link to our feature, ‘Fight that Mommy Guilt’ somewhere in your post.

3. Let us know of your entry - on the comments section of the contest entry post, at our Facebook group, at our twitter ID, or by emailing us at contests@womensweb.in with the words ‘Mommy Guilt’ in your subject line.

(If you don’t have a blog but really want to participate, you can still send it to us as an attached document at the e-mail ID mentioned above, and if it wins, we’ll publish it here. For these entries, obviously, step 2 doesn’t apply)

And the Prizes?

The 3 best entries EACH get a Rs. 500 voucher that you can use to shop for books, music or other goodies at Flipkart. (Anyone in the world with a valid e-mail address can receive these vouchers, but Flipkart currently ships only to addresses in India).

This contest kicks off  NOW - which means entries dated from 17th June to 28th June will be valid, when we close for entries and start judging.

The Judges? Yours truly, and Nita Deb, the writer of the original piece that started it all.

Go ahead and give it a shot!