Feminist is not a Dirty Word

Feminism – and all that it is not.

(Originally published here)

It’s a daunting task to even begin writing about Feminism when the word mostly meets with either one of these two responses: “Oh, YES, of course I am a Feminist!” or a smirk accompanied by a gaze that says: “I haven’t made up my mind about Feminism, but since I feel you’ll judge me for not instantly telling you I am a Feminist, let me hope my smirk veils my cluelessness”. Which is why, writing about Feminism is also important.

Having said that, there’s also a third response – one of condemnation and dismissal – that the word Feminism often receives. But for my purpose here, I’ll overlook that attitude. People who resort to such responses to Feminism need an education, and one article written by a regular sceptic will clearly be inadequate in that direction.

Some of the earliest misconceptions about Feminism have been of the sort that Feminists are man-haters, bra-burners, and home-breakers – and they have been successfully (more or less) dispelled.

Why, then, am I still insistent on defending the word for all that it (does not?) stands for?

A movement that aims to break stereotypes is effectively on its way to become one itself, solely because most people’s notions of Feminism come from hearsay and not from a real understanding of it. In our present scenario, it is “fashionable” to stick with a cause and to point to a sad, sad reality – feminism is no more than just that for quite a number of people.

It is now used as a cash-making gimmick, and with a good garbling of the original sense of the word does it achieve that end.

Although nothing substitutes an understanding that comes from reading the seminal works of any movement, for everyone who wishes to be an informed “participant” (and  isn’t one already) of the Feminist movement but doesn’t have as much time to spare, here’s the necessary cud to chew on:

• Feminism is not only a belief, but also a much larger movement.

An equal society for men and women is where the idea of feminism merely begins. In addition to gender discrimination, this movement looks at issues of class, race, education and other kinds of societal prejudices as well. The term encompasses many kinds of approaches to examine women’s position in society: radical, socialist, political and reformist, among others. In effect, Feminism is the theory that explains the Feminist Movement, and its struggle aimed at the acknowledgement, acceptance, and celebration of human rights for both women and men.

• Feminism and Femininity are not binary opposites

Every time one says “feminist”, as much as we’re inclined to think of a “JNU-type” kurta –clad “activist-type”, we need to know we’re falling prey to poor stereotypes. No, a feminist does not have to shun her femininity and make-up to support the cause, and no, if she has a boyfriend who pampers her, that does not make her a hypocrite. Let us remember, “Femininity” and “masculinity” are variables on an extremely fluid spectrum and where an individual bends towards has nothing to do with his/her beliefs concerning any issue.

• Liberal is not always feminist and vice versa

An accurate case in point would be Vogue Empower’s “My Choice” video starring Deepika Padukone. While the video celebrates women’s rights to make independent decisions, there are some highly problematic arguments in it. It might be a very liberal (a large group of people have argued even against that) idea to have sex outside of marriage, but that kind of liberality bordering on infidelity is not what feminism advocates. By glamorising perverse and even trivial ideas, Vogue’s short film has left the idea of feminism in a bad spot. But if one understands that it is the makers’ lack of understanding of feminism, there still can be some good taken out of the exercise.

• But “Indira Nooyi is CEO at Pepsico” is NO answer to patriarchy.

At the outset what seems to be an inspirational story of a woman rising against patriarchy, is actually not that that all. On a more critical inspection of the handful of women doing well in their respective job spheres, one realizes that the “handful” number only stabilises patriarchal hegemony further. So when someone tells you that Feminism is now a useless movement, and cite Hillary Clinton or Chanda Kochar as examples, you know they’re exceptional stories of women that have been allowed to take place just to enable patriarchy to cite these examples. Surely an abstract idea at first, it is critical to escape the lull patriarchy wishes to instil in women.

• The Feminist struggle is against Patriarchy, and not MEN.

I kept the most important argument for the last. Being a feminist does not take away a woman’s right to stare at, flirt with or fall in love with a male that she finds fit for her attention. Just like males, females are entitled to their attractions towards the other gender, and it does not oppose their solidarity with their own sex in any way. At all.

Feminism strives for equality of the sexes, not partiality towards the female sex.

 

In the words of Marie Shear,

“Feminism is the radical notion that women are people”

And in the words of Kate Nash,

“Feminist is not a dirty word.”

The Irresponsible Stereotyping Of LGBT Community In Mainstream Media

(Written for YKA, original write-up published here)

“If you believe that your thoughts originate inside your brain, do you also believe that television shows are made inside your television set?” • Warren Ellis

If I ask you to imagine a homosexual person right now, what kind of a description will you come up with?

Chances are, you’re going to end up thinking of a delicate looking, effeminate ‘male’ with soft movements and “girly” gestures, and most likely he’s going to be impeccably well — dressed and well- groomed. He frowns at wardrobe disasters and is a bigger fashion diva than you will ever be. You know, the fashion —designer type. (Remember how the gay Patrick scores over the fashion-goddess Lacey every time in Charlie Sheen’s Anger Management?)

Alternatively, if you’re a girl like me who’s got her heart broken by Matt Dallas, you might think of a devastatingly handsome looking — man, who’s got all his charms set, but to your horror, doesn’t respond to female attention (because he is perhaps feeling like that for another guy himself): whatever might be the case, almost always, a homosexual person is surrounded by a bunch of homophobes (or fake homophobes) who believe they’re their biggest nightmare. (“God, stop acting gay! Get away from me!“)

After numerous fight-scenes in movies following the use of a certain word “faggot” , or the playing out of the classic trope of a homosexual man playing the heroine’s best-friend in movies (a la Rupert Everett in My Best Friend’s Wedding), we can cross our hearts and ascertain that queer characters have finally arrived in mainstream media.

However, portraying these characters in popular media comes with its baggage — it’s not enough to simply use such characters for the sake of adding entertainment value. What’s really important is to portray them correctly. Considering that the LGBT community is a marginalized section of society that faces enormous social stigma in many developing (also developed) countries, it is absolutely imperative that the media which serves as a channel across people of different beliefs and faiths does its best to push forward their interests, and represent them as they are . People who are entrusted with the job of creating queer characters for the screen shoulder a very heavy responsibility; to strike a balance between entertainment and truthfulness…

…At which, the larger section of them, fail miserably. Merely churning out a laughable queer character is not only irresponsible, but also, unfortunately, the bitter truth about mainstream media today. The LGBT community is given the treatment of an outcast group in our popular culture. So much so, that If we’re asked to imagine a homosexual individual, our minds lead us directly to one of the stereotypical stock images of queer characters we’ve seen in television serials and movies.

Massive generalisation and an overdose of stock homosexual characters have distorted our own sense of reality to the extent that we begin to subconsciously filter people around us through a lens that was created for us, and not by us.

Let us take the recent case of Tiger Shroff — his androgynous looks have made him appealing to both women and men, but for the very same reason, there are jokes being created over his sexuality.

We’ve perhaps been over fed the idea of a queer man as an effeminate character, which might be true of a certain group of these individuals, but not the whole lot of them.

Could you tell just by looking at Ricky Martin that he’s gay? For all I know, all my friends, including myself, regarded him as one from the community of (heterosexual) alpha-males! When the news of him being gay came about, most of us reacted with a sigh, “But he looked so manly!” which just goes on to prove that there is no one prototype of a homosexual man. But if Ricky Martin was to be a character in a mainstream Bollywood flick, he would have been played by Abhishek Bachchan, perpetually shrieking and batting his eyelids. The lacuna between reality and representation, thus, is vast and unfilled.

What’s worse is that the damage done doesn’t end here. A graver aspect of such a demeaning representation is in the use of our language, of terms related to the queer community.

Katy Perry released a song in 2007, titled “Ur So Gay” with the chorus line going- “You’re so gay and you don’t even like boys…” The tone of the song is such that it employs the concept of being “gay” as a horrible insult, the label of an emasculate man. At this point, being gay stops dealing with the concept of a sexual preference altogether. It instead becomes a synonym for unmanliness where Homophobia is glorified and homophobic men are considered “real men”, and homosexuals, pitiable. In effect, the mainstream media has taken the simple case of a sexual orientation and preference, and made it something of a funny business.

It has conditioned us to look for signs of “gay behaviour”. What is gay behaviour but a media created term? By promoting myths about homosexuality, it has ostracised the community, so it cannot be assimilated within our own. One such embodiment of stereotypical queer characters is Rishi Kapoor playing the gay school principal in Student of the Year. If we were to prepare a checklist of seemingly gay characteristics, Rishi Kapoor’s act in the movie would tick off every single one of them. And that is not a good thing.

Moving on to the lesbians of the LGBT community, situations are graver. Quoting from the blog, Equal Writers, Feminism and Gender issues in Princeton University, “It’s still somewhat of a novelty to see lesbian characters in films and television shows, and when we do see lesbian characters, we see them as lesbian characters, not characters who happen to be lesbians.” That is to say, if gay men are portrayed in the mainstream channels for the purpose of amusement and laughter, lesbians are props for adding the sex appeal and glamour central to popular media. A lesbian movie sells because of the steamy and passionate love-making scenes in it, and what essentially happens in the process is utter objectification of these women as promiscuous sex-slaves.

In India, attempts have been made to portray Lesbianism explicitly on screen (read Deepa Mehta’s Fire), but they’ve been met with strong criticism of right-wing political parties and flak from conservative audiences. Thereon, the theme has been subtly explored in various mainstream movies by daring directors like Madhur Bhandarkar and Abhishek Chaubey, though the travails of a homosexual female are hardly explored; or even touched, for that matter.

Ours is a country that’s stuck neck-deep in a confusion of ideology. We don’t want to give up on our traditional belief system, yet we want to modernize and become open-minded to issues that challenge our values. God knows how that is supposed to be achieved, but for starters, we could begin by respecting our differences. Sample if you wake up one day to find the world order has changed, and it is not “normal” for a girl to have a crush on a boy anymore, or for men and women to be married. You’ll feel as if something as natural as your sexuality is being taken away from you. And who are people to govern your personal life anyway, isn’t it?

That’s exactly how people from the “other” community feel as well. If it’s hard for us to even imagine a situation like that, consider how difficult it must be for the queer community to live with a reality like that. How dreadful and offensive it must be for them to not even have a right to express their love and sexuality, just because it doesn’t fall in the proper “world order.”

Let’s give this a thought. Let’s not derive amusement from the media stereotyping of the queer community, because remember, one day you might wake up to find a ‘new normal’, and the odds might not be in your favour then. Let us respect every individual’s right to a life of their choice. Let people be more than just their gender. And let us, for once, stop making homosexuality a funny media business.

Stereotype breaking:
-Every gay person is not a “designer — type”: I’m talking Alexander The Great and Harvey Milk.

– Every lesbian female is not a promiscuous, drug addict with unstable relationships and career: Haven’t you seen Ellen DeGeneres rocking her prime-time show, and don’t you know she’s in a happy marriage?

– Every transgender is not a loud and awkward person: if your idea of a transgender is still Bobby Darling, you need to grow up.

Why It Was Justified For Me To Be Threatened By The Prospect Of A Government School Education

(Written for YKA, original write-up published   here)

Just as I sit down to write this, all my school memories, till the point where I used to attend classes, come rushing back to me. Let us sample a typical school classroom.

Enter: Teacher.
The entire class rises in one swift movement, straightens their skirts (girls) and trousers (boys) and wishes the teacher a rather musical GOOOOD MORNIIIIING MAAAM, with their pitch rising in one great crescendo.

Next, the teacher fusses over attendance, fills in the class Performa (even before starting to teach), asks her favourite student to read the chapter from the point where she left off in the last class…while at the perpendicular end of the classroom, the backbenchers resume making paper planes and crumpling balls of paper to throw at each other, play pen fights and book cricket and scribble their lovers’ names on the last page of their notebook.

For a long time now, this was thought to be the only way to conduct classes. Here’s some news though: times are changing.

The youth of our country, disappointing as it may be for most members of the older generation, has big, powerful, and ambitious dreams. In the small and dingy classroom of an NGO located in East Delhi, where I teach spoken English to a class of 12 students, I’ve learnt what they say about the most pristine lotus blooming in muddy waters is not just a pretty thing to say, after all.

As I enter the class, I see my students already in their places, craning their necks towards the door, anticipating their teacher to walk in any moment. And just as I enter, “Gooood Afternoon, ma’am!” My class breaks into an elongated choral greeting that echoes the enthusiasm on their faces — a thirst to absorb all knowledge that comes their way, as if it’s their only shot at an education.

It’s a little unsettling, though, to see my students, all of them older than me, call me “ma’am”, and give me the respect I am used to giving my much older, learned teachers. My students comprise of a very colourful spectrum of people and professions — housewives (who double up as Sanskrit tuition teachers), correspondence students and school pass outs that haven’t yet made plans of further studies. But when they come to their English for Employability class, all of them share a common goal, which is to learn to “speak” English.

For my first exercise in class, I asked them why they wanted to learn English and what were their expectations from this course. It was also supposed to be the classic ice-breaker, and I hoped to get to know them a little better through the activity. But it did so much more than just break ice. It broke pre-conceived notions in my head, and tugged at certain psychological strings so hard, that I’m writing this here.

The learners in my class came up with answers that not only amazed me, but also made me feel so incredibly heartened that I couldn’t stop beaming at the chart of paper on which they listed their aspirations:
“I want to learn English…
for personality development,
for job,
for future,
for interview in MNC,
improve living condition,
because English is an international language so it is very important,
for confidence”.

I put up the chart on the wall facing the class. The difference, in the class in my school where I was a student, and this one where I’m teaching was so pronounced at this point. Most students in my class in school came from decent/wealthy backgrounds. They could afford to attend a public school and have the best exposure and infrastructure at their disposal, and coming from them, such weighty words would make sense. But for these people, who’d studied in Government schools, spent all their lives in single-room houses and had nothing boast-worthy for motivation, these words are lined with sincerity — and hope for a better life.

However, the major difference between a traditional school classroom and what a TeachIndia classroom(a Times of India initiative to teach ‘English for Employability’ to youth in the age group 18-32) encourages and trains its volunteers to undertake, is in the classroom approach — the former is teacher centred (or teacher led) and the latter, learner-centred.

A teacher led classroom is characterized by high TTT (teacher talking time), low STT (student talking time), and the emphasis is on rote learning. In a learner centred classroom, the teacher dons the role of a facilitator in the learning process, and becomes a part of it, rather standing apart from it. Teachers use a variety of elicitation and grouping techniques to accommodate every kind of student to make them autonomous learners, and develop a “can do” attitude in them.

This is the kind of teaching we need in our schools, especially our Government run schools, which are the only hope of an education for people of limited means. But reality presents a completely different picture. A grim one and one that needs immediate attention.

When I was a little girl and I misbehaved, my mother would threaten me to get me admitted to the government school close to my place. It was a threatening prospect for me back then, because our domestic help’s daughter used to study in that school and would tell me stories of how her teacher would make her sweep the floor of the classroom and make her bring her tea and refreshments every day. Now that I’ve grown up, to my discontentment, I know that she isn’t the only one who suffered. In the name of education, what’s being imparted in these “schools” is a message of hopelessness. Government school teachers are so callous in their attitude towards teaching that it discourages students from attending classes. The first thing a teacher is supposed to do is set an example. After failing to do that, matters are made worse by the fact that they do nothing to monitor their students’ learning or even adhere to a standard curriculum prescribed for schools. Far from adopting a student—centered approach, these teachers haven’t even begun to teach traditionally.

I recently caught up with a girl student of the same school looking particularly downtrodden after the day. I tried to strike a conversation with her, and after a lot of initial beating about the bush, she told me she studies in class six. She didn’t know her age. She couldn’t write her own name. In Hindi or in English. I asked her if she knew her ABCs, and here’s what she said, “A B C D E H… nahi, F… bass itna hi aata hai.” (her H and F sounded like some new invented letters)

Can there be a more unfortunate evidence of the low quality of teaching, and a complete lack of monitoring in Government schools? If students of sixth class stutter to hold a pen in their hands and write the alphabet, I think there is a serious problem that the government needs to address in our education system. How could such a student even be promoted to sixth class? No wonder school graduates from such institutions are deemed “unfit for employment”.

Giving free uniform and money to buy books to students every term is not enough. While these things will ensure every student goes to school on the first day to collect his free gifts, it is only inclusive and quality teaching that will retain them in class.

Initiatives by the CSR branches of many big firms and NGOs have taken it upon themselves to fill in the gaps left by our faulty education system ( or a lack thereof) in our youth’s struggle to advent to a better standard of living. Programmes like Teach India, Make a Difference and Teach for India train enthusiastic volunteers, across all age groups, to empower the country’s disadvantaged youth by giving them a medium of expression — using English.

The mere knowledge of spoken English can make a huge difference to these lives. A man assisting at a roadside dhaba can get a job as a Team Leader at a leading fast — food chain like KFC or CCD, or in the Hospitality and Tourism sector. The key is to enable these people to enter the system through entry-level jobs so that they get access to a world-class infrastructure and lucrative employment opportunities later on.

That said, we need to keep in mind that the reach of these programmes, no matter how vast, can be outdone only by a concerted effort by the Government. The alarm’s ringing and there’s no scope of pressing the snooze button. The youth needs its education, when will the government wake up?

Let’s buy some love, shall we?

Everywhere I look these days, I find myself in Phoebe’s shoes as she sees Monica and Chandler through the window in their “act”. I scream “My eyes! My eyes!” loudly (in my head), and I cringe, for there’s only so much I can do.

(For anyone who hasn’t seen the Friends episode, here’s the link : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgk_qTc_7AI
Also, hope the temperature under the rock was comfortable.)

Yes, it’s Valentine’s week, couples indulging in excessive amounts of PDA is a very expected sight, and so I should probably not cringe. But when I shift my attention from the hand-holders and huggers to the surroundings, I sink deeper in my imaginary bean bag and bury my head in my hands.

There are hearts. Hearts dangling from rooftops of malls, in gift shops, in clothes shops, in restaurants. They’re made of fur, plastic, paper, chocolate, sometimes dipped in chocolate, and every other material imaginable. Of course, except muscle. The heart that’s inside of us is, in fact, made of muscle. But hey, that ventricled – pumping machine doesn’t rake in the moolah the cute “<3” does. Yes, I’m talking money here. In matters of the heart, I’ve taken the audacious step and brought in money.

But Before I really get to the bit I am out to achieve through this article, I must make a confession-disclaimer.

I am a diehard romantic, but can somehow not stomach cheesiness exploding all around me.  Cringing at people while they display affection publicly is not me being a killjoy: all I really want is for those couples to, well, get a room. I know there are urges, but brother, they have to be kept in check. A mall isn’t an airport or a railway station, your loved one isn’t leaving you for six months, so you can really keep the flimsy clinging together at bay. On the other hand, my favourite genre of movies IS rom-com, so you can trust me for not being a judgemental freak.

Now that I’ve made my rather long disclaimer, I can talk about the love wave everyone seems to be riding high on.  Valentine’s day. It’s all over the place. It has infiltrated our media so much, that it’s impossible for any person to not feel the “love in the air”, only unfortunately, that love is not the warm, fuzzy feeling it’s supposed to be. In the run up to d-day(V-day), there is a week of teddy bears, chocolates, proposals and so many things that urge you to go and empty your pockets inside-out onto an Archie’s counter. Gestures of love are cute, but the hype surrounding Valentine’s day is nothing short of brainwash. We are the target audience for big and small companies who seek to exploit teenagers with haywire hormones, and fool them into buying all sorts of ridiculously unnecessary things.

14^th of February has become an obligation for every lover to express his/her love to their partner lavishly. It simply HAS to be accompanied by a token, bauble of love. The day is so commercialised that the entire mood of our city changes in the month of February. Restaurants come out with special menus, everything is suddenly heart-shaped, red begins to dominate and overpriced paraphernalia makes its way to the markets. And the funny thing is, we buy all of that. (See me cringing again?)

Marketing these days has become so intelligent that business houses have begun to acknowledge singles  as well and have started doling out special deals for them. A lot of people go date-less on Valentine’s day, and well, single or taken, customers are customers. They have to be… loved. So you get a complimentary drink if you’re single, a “cute teddy” for your girl if you are blessed enough to have one on your side, and who knows, there might b something in store if you visit accompanying your mum/grandmother too.

Quoting from a ZeeNews Report,

“ An industry body has valued the Valentine’s Day (V-Day) market in India at USD 27 million (Rs.15 billion) based on a survey involving 800 executives in major metros and 1,000 students from 150 educational institutions.” (http://zeenews.india.com/business/news/economy/valentines-day-market-in-india-pegged-at-rs-15-billion_70092.html)

Young people spend anything between a 100 to 50,000 rupees on valentine’s gifts. It’s almost as if a Valentine’s gift has become a validation of love.

I, however, have a request to make.

As you stand in the gift shop sifting through aisles of stuffed toys, I urge you to pause for just a moment and think. Why are you doing this? Your answers might range from, “Because it’s Valentine’s day and I want to impress her”, to “I have no idea why.”, but unless the answer you give yourself is “Because this piece of stuffed fabric is worth every penny I’m going to spend and brings longevity to my love life(not just for the next five days)” or “Because I’m obligated to give this Archie’s man some good business” or “because this is my upper limit of creativity”, OR “Because my girlfriend is a toddler/likes to talk to inanimate objects”, do not spend your, or your parent’s hard-earned money (money is always hard-earned, don’t tell me your dad’s a millionaire) on something you will buy because of social pressures. Big brands have very clever Marketing agents who know your vulnerability well, how about you give them a high five and tell them you know them too?

PS. Honestly, there are better things to do on Valentine’s day, that is, IF at all you believe one day out of a year’s abundance of 365 should be your day of love because it’s the world’s day of love. It’s not all about money. By all means, the discretion to spend your money the way you want lies solely with you, but avoiding  gimmicky marketing this time and investing time and energy on what you really, honestly want to do, is going to fill you up with so much love for your wisdom. And perhaps, me. 😀