What makes them sing?

As a woman, one learns very early on that there are all sort of creeps on the road. There are the kinds who walk as if they are in a hurry, and at the last minute, bump into you. There are the sorts who always look at a point somewhere 10 inches below your eyes. There are the ones on a bus/train who feel up your butt (or any other handy part) quickly, and when you turn back to glare/fight/whack them, pretend that the hand belonged to someone else. And then, there are the weirdos who sing.  

What is it with these men who sing at perfectly unknown women? Last week, I was on my way to the bus-stop near my house, on a slightly deserted road, when a young boy, about 15 or 16, passed me on a cycle. As he passed me, he turned his head to sing something to me, before zooming away. I could not hear him very well or figure out what song it was. It set me thinking - what really is it that this creep was trying to do? His message was audible only to him, so it wasn’t even like he succeeded in conveying anything to me. 

This is not the first time I’ve had a strange man sing in my direction, nor has it always been young men. Sometimes, I really, really blame Bollywood (and other Indian cinema), for producing such sick farces in the name of love. You know the story - dashing young man woos unwilling young woman through what can only be called harassment - because, of course, the lady only needs to be persuaded, no isn’t really no. On the other hand, it is difficult to believe that anyone takes what they see in the movies that seriously. But, perhaps, even if they don’t believe it literally and don’t expect the woman on the street to fall in love with them for the price of a song - perhaps, they do think that at some level, women will welcome any kind of attention? 

There is also of course the possibility that they do it to make themselves feel ‘macho’ and good. I’m inclined to think this is the real reason and that they don’t actually care very much whether the woman responds or not. My guess is, if a woman actually responded in any manner, they’d be more shocked than anything, since she is quite besides the point. 

Tags: feminist, indian women, Sexual harassment

Sab Kaam Mummy Kyon Karti Hai?

Have y’all been seeing the new Moov ad and been as intrigued by it as I am? No? Ok, first go have a look here, and then you can read what I have to say.

For those who can’t follow Hindi, this is how it goes. Young boy sees mother struggling to cope with a heavy load of groceries and rushes to help her. Father sees this and runs down the stairs - focus on why his child is doing such heavy work. Then, son asks, “Papa, sab kaam Mummy kyon karti hai?” (Papa, why does Mummy do all the work?)

I found it interesting that finally, there is a brand that chooses to focus on something real in women’s lives - that housework can be drudgery and housework can be tiring. That it’s not all about women overjoyed to be serving the best parathas to their family or rejoicing at having saved the two rupees on that washing powder or superwoman holding up career and home like Hanuman carrying the Sanjeevini. And, it’s also interesting that this view is presented through the eyes of the kid, who sees it for what it really is, Mummy sab kaam kyon karti hai?

Now, camera flashes to the faces of two other women who’ve been shown before - one drying clothes and another serving tea. I wasn’t clear what this is meant to be; neighbours eavesdropping on the conversation? Other women in the family who are actually the ones being (subtly) chided for not helping in? If it is the first, then it’s a nuclear family, and it is really Papa who is not pulling his weight. If the second, well, then that’s an easy way to let the men off, isn’t it, and put the blame back where it belongs, on other lazy women.

In any case, the ad doesn’t dwell on it. So, we have caring husband bringing out the Moov and a voiceover tell us that it’s good to use Moov, lest, Aap ka dard apnon ka dard na ban jaaye. (So that your pain doesn’t become a pain for your loved ones).

It was too good to last of course. Homemaker couldn’t possibly use Moov to make herself feel alright; there has to be a ‘family’ pay-off in it. I wonder if the ad could have still been as effective and more women-friendly if they had atleast shown the husband picking up a bag at the end rather than the woman using Moov so that she can be a martyr to housework again? I think society is changing and the days when women would gasp at the husband doing household chores is gone, well, going slowly. Perhaps marketers actually don’t see this change, or just want to keep it to the most conservative level and play safe.

(In other news, the fiery tamilpunkster is back after a long break. And read Mrinal Pande’s column in the Mint earlier this week, Women still unhappy both in India and Bharat, where she talks about the challenges that working women, especially those from poor families face.)

Tags: indian advertising, indian society, indian women, Moov ad

Being lesbian in India

While a dumb movie seems* to suggest that it’s ok to pretend to be gay and get the girl you love based on false premises, reality isn’t quite so entertaining. An article here on the tremendous challenges that lesbians in India face, including forced marriages, forced sex with men, and often, plain dismissal that their desires are valid or even that they exist.

* ’seems’ because I haven’t watched it, but reviews like this one are good enough to put me off Dostana.

Tags: homosexuality in india, indian women, lesbian in India

In-laws, Outlaws and Expectations

Reading this piece by the Indian Homemaker on in-laws and expectations, I was led to thinking on some strange things associated with the phenomenon that is the Indian family. Now, I have really nice parents-in-law (and no, they don’t read this blog, so I’m not saying this to be safe:)), so I don’t have much direct experience of this - but, when a group of married women or even just two get together, it is interesting to see how quickly the topic moves to the in-laws and their (many) shortcomings. A friend of mine has so many issues with her in-laws, she’s named them the outlaws!

Now, this is not to say of course that all fights and problems are due to the older generation only, but perhaps, somewhere, there is a huge disconnect. It’s not even a question of which issues they differ upon; the very fact that many members of the older generation still think that they have a right to dictate what the daughter-in-law should wear, whether she should work, if so, in what kind of a job etc etc is a cause of conflict - increasingly, most people in my age group would not agree that in-laws should be having a say in any of these, regardless of the actual views.

Then, I was also reminded of another strange thing - daughters are often told, when they get married, that they must think of and treat the in-laws as their own parents. First, it’s a bit strange for a 25-26 year old woman to suddenly adopt a new set of parents; it’s not as if affection can be acquired in a moment- it has to build up over time. And, in most cases, it would be honest to admit that it’s not possible to have the same affection as for your own parents. But, the silliest thing about it is, though women are encouraged to think of the in-laws as “parents”, living with even friendly in-laws is rarely as informal as living with your own parents. In most cases where the couple live with parents, the DIL will need to wake up at a *reasonable* time, help around with kitchen chores (even if her husband doesn’t) - and - can’t really object or fight back as easily as she would with her own parents.

I mean, in our Indian context, it’s not as if we don’t argue with parents - often they too try to tell us what we should/shouldn’t wear, when we need to be back home etc - but we’re quite comfortable arguing with them on these; the same informality wouldn’t happen with in-laws. In a sense, you get all the responsibilities but none of the rights of a daughter. Then, it’s time to drop the hypocrisy, no?

Of course, there are also some great MILs whose expectations from the DIL are only that she will read and appreciate her blogging!

Tags: expectations, feminist, in-laws, Indian family, indian women, marriage

Marriages, Live-ins and the Money involved

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.

Tags: feminist, indian laws, indian society, indian women, live-in, maintenance in divorce cases, marriage laws

Only the virtuous can cover up

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.

Tags: indian society, indian women, muslim women, political

Addressing the husband

I suppose none of you (in India) have escaped the recent series of Airtel ads - Vidya Balan and Madhavan as a couple in various situations? I quite like some of them, for the way they manage to integrate product features with a story. I caught something peculiar about one of them yesterday. Remember the ad where Vidya is on her way home and she asks Madhavan to organise things because guests are arriving? No? Well, you can watch it at the Airtel site here.

Somehow, I saw this ad in both Hindi and Tamizh yesterday. It’s interesting that in the Hindi ad, Vidya tells Madhavan, “Salad bana doge?” The unsaid pronoun of course is “tum”, the “you” used for equals/peers. But, in the Tamizh version, the unsaid pronoun used (across a few sentences), is “neenga”, the ”you” used for elders, in formal situations, to convey respect and of course the you normally prescribed for women to use with their husbands. Interesting, is it not? I thought of a couple of options.

One, Tamizh women indeed have a greater preference for addressing their husbands using the formal pronoun, as compared to North Indian women who have shifted to using the casual one. Two, marketers think that Tamizh women are likely to continue using the formal pronoun, whereas North Indian relationships have all become more egalitarian. Which of these two is correct? Or is it neither, and the advertising agency just thought of ‘North’ with hip South Delhi and ‘South’ as conservative and unchanging?

English of course doesn’t allow for these subtleties; a you is a you is a you. But how about other European languages? French for instance does have it’s “tu” and “vous.” In medieval France, did women address their husbands as “vous”? In India, I feel this may have originated because earlier, it was quite common for a man to be much older than his wife, and of course we are taught to speak to elders respectfully. Today, however, with the age gap narrowing down, I don’t think it will continue beyond another generation, though I do see parents who feel “so hurt” if their darling son is addressed without an “aap”. (Those who want to rush in and tell me that there is nothing wrong with addressing people respectfully, please save your breath; I have no issues with it, except that such respect is usually reserved for the male of the pair.)

p.s While the ad shows Vidya requesting her husband to help with a bunch of small chores at home, there is a mild hesitation in her smile and tone, as though she is aware of the “favor” she is asking. I thought that was actually done fairly realistically, but it does say something, doesn’t it!

Tags: airtel ad, husband, indian advertising, indian culture, indian women, wife

Raising liberal daughters

Some days ago, a young woman told me that my post on marriage symbols for women, helped her convey her feelings to her dad, since it was something she couldn’t articulate herself. This set me thinking on the gap that exists today as far as women’s roles and expectations are concerned, even with fairly liberal parents. Many urban parents today do not differentiate between girls and boys where education is concerned. Atleast in India, girls are not conditioned to fear maths and science, or think of them as un-girly. If anything, parents pressurise them equally to succeed in these fields! Many young women do get to choose their careers, and the new phenomenon of love-cum-arranged marriages means that young people can  spend atleast some time together before choosing a life partner.

But, in some areas, there is such a wide gap between what parents expect and what young women would like to be and do. It is as if there is this boundary wall, that drops down from the skies all of a sudden, the moment you turn 24-25. When this happens, even the most supportive parents, who have pushed you towards a high-flying career, will suddenly realise that, “Oh my god, I have an unmarried daughter!” It is as though there is a clock ticking away that only they can hear. It doesn’t end there. Once you are married, after a “decent” interval,  discreet (and sometimes, direct) enquiries begin : When is the grandchild arriving? At this stage, the career that you’ve worked so hard for, begins to seem like a trifle that can be re-arranged easily. If you voice your fears that you don’t think this is the right time in your career for you to take on the added responsibility of a child, parents pooh-pooh it - of course you can manage it, they say, doesn’t everybody?

Sometimes, I pity the liberal parents of today. Earlier, parents had no hope for their daughters except to see them married well - which meant, to a man who earned reasonably well and whose family didn’t outright ill treat their daughter. Parents today are pulled in many more directions. All their lives, they have told their daughters that they should work hard and look to a good career. In some cases, the mothers themselves are working women, though usually in low paying, ’second-income’ jobs that allow them to be home at a reasonable hour. They pride themselves on having raised successful daughters.

Now they are faced by daughters who have completely imbibed their teachings. They truly believe that they can do anything. That may mean working on a Ph.D and not getting hitched at the golden age of 25. That may mean choosing to delay having a child, or deciding not to have one at all. That may mean building a marriage on their own terms rather going along with traditional notions of how a married woman should behave. Suddenly, all this is rather dismaying for parents. “Is this what we taught you, have you forgotten your culture?”, they say. Somewhere there is an expectation that ‘thinking’ should be confined to your studies or your career, not to changing your way of life. What they don’t realise is that a liberal education is not something that can be confined to academics. People who have learnt to think for themselves, are bound to apply it to every area, including questioning handed-down ideas on religion, culture and roles.

How about our generation? Do we have our own sacred cows that our children will question? Readers who have slightly older children, can probably answer that.

Tags: culture, India, indian culture, indian women, parenting, society, women