Tag

feminism

Browsing

The discourse surrounding cricketer Hardik Pandaya’s divorce from his wife transcends the bounds of mere gossip, shining a spotlight upon the undercurrent of misogyny in the cricket fanbase.

When cricketer Hardik Pandya and actress Nataša Stanković announced their divorce, as expected, it became the new fodder for a gossip-hungry audience that thrives on playing authority on people’s private lives. The media coverage and reaction, however, extended beyond the scope of typical gab, morphing into a smear campaign against Nataša, who became the target of much vitriol and trolling.

While Hardik’s social media was filled with comments expressing love and support during a tumultuous time, Nataša faced a tirade of hate comments listing every misogynistic slur in the book. Gossip pages posted unbased rumours regarding alimony, pre-nuptials, and custody that painted her in an unflattering light. Meme pages made her the new face of “women☕”. Her past relationships, her work as an actress and a model, her appearances and absences at cricket matches, her interviews, her social media activities, every detail of her past and present was dissected by a fervent audience eager to criticise.

Despite the fact that none of us know what happened between the couple, people had already decided who was to blame. Even though the divorce is a non-penal legal matter, the court of public opinion had already chosen its criminal. And of course, it was the woman.

This is not an isolated incident, but sadly just another example in a long history of cricket fans targeting women with unwarranted hostility.

The wives and girlfriends of the cricketers are often subject to vicious rumours and scrutiny regarding their true intentions. Every action of theirs is put under the magnifying glass and pulled apart. The sentiment of “she doesn’t deserve him” is echoed by both fanboys and fangirls.

Even the weight of the performance of the team falls upon their shoulders. Recently, the then Captain Virat Kohli’s poor performance at the ICC World Test Championship Final 2023 was blamed on his wife, the actress Anushka Sharma, with people claiming her presence to be a distraction for Virat, and labelling her as a jinx for the Indian Cricket team. Being the wife of the Captain and being a successful public figure of her own has often put her on the receiving end of such revulsion. In 2015, her effigies were burned in public demonstrations after Team India’s defeat in the semi-finals of the ICC Cricket World Cup.

Match losses result in the female friends and family of the team being bombarded with abuses and threats. These threats are even levelled against the minor daughters of the cricketers. In 2020, rape threats were made against cricketer Mahendra Singh Dhoni’s then 5 year old daughter Ziva after his team lost a match. This behaviour is not just reserved for the women linked with the Indian cricket team, but also extended to the women linked with the winning international team. After Australia’s win against India in the 2023 World Cup Final, pharmacist Vini Raman, wife of cricketer Glenn Maxwell took to social media to request a stop to hateful messages, stating

 “…and cue all the hateful, vile dms… take a chill pill and direct that outrage towards more important world issues ”

While the women associated with male cricketers are given undue negative attention, the women who play cricket themselves face an entirely different form of neglect—one marked by a lack of public attention and support. Despite the undeniable talent of the Indian cricket team, and even when they perform better than their male counterparts, women’s cricket remains widely unpopular. While the names of male cricketers, both current and former, are household names known by children and elders alike, the names of the women bringing pride to India on an international scale remain faded in obscurity. Men’s cricket simply being known as “cricket” while women’s cricket having to add the “women” prefix, is a glaring indication of how women are considered othered from the game.

The accomplishments of female cricketers are also often considered secondary to their appearances. Retired Captain Mithali Raj holds numerous world records in the field of cricket, such as being the first player to score seven consecutive 50s in One Day International matches and being the player to score the most runs in women’s cricket. Despite these ground-breaking achievements, she has often faced slut-shaming for her clothing choices. The physical form that enables her to win accolades for the country and its people, is the same womanly body objectified and judged by said people.

Cricket is not just a sport in India. Popularly known as the unofficial national sport, it’s entrenched into the very cultural fabric of the country. The joviality and enthusiasm it generates amongst the people is unmatched by any other phenomenon. Cricket season brings forth a great cause for patriotism and celebration for the public. A large part of the population however remains somewhat gatekept from it. From hate campaigns against the so-called “WAGs” to sidelining of women’s cricket from the mainstream to random men taking it upon themselves to test the knowledge of female fans on the subject, the widespread misogyny within the fanbase makes it a less welcoming space for women.

As cricket continues to rule over the hearts of Indians, it is essential for a healthier society that the community surrounding it becomes inclusive and supportive of women both on and off the field.

Image Credits: Times Now

Read also: C for Cricket and C for Controversy 

Samriddhi

[email protected]

A vile assault and murder has struck the nation’s tightest nerve. It must now wake up and smell the coffee to realise that empowering women goes beyond providing them an education. Even the most capable of us will need safe conditions to live without fear and with freedom. 

On August 9th 2024, a horrifying incident shook the nation to its core. A resident doctor at the R.G. Kar Hospital in Kolkata was found unconscious on the hospital grounds. Alerted by her state of undress and the profuse bleeding, she was taken in for examination by the medical staff, who later declared her dead. The post-mortem report revealed shocking details. It was reported that there was severe bleeding from her genitals, a list of broken bones, and a vile mutilation of her body. The nation is rightfully grieving and raging against the news; hundreds of protests and marches in her name are being held on a daily basis. Politicians, celebrities, students, and the Indian intelligentsia have taken over the internet to pour out their grief and revitalise the conversation surrounding the state of women in the country. 

 For many, this incident comes as a shock. To them, India is a developed nation with rights and functions outlined for all. On the brink of economic greatness, the vox populi considers India to be above such crimes of barbarity (it is shocking in equal measure how many have turned their eye against brutal cases in the past and are only raging now when the victim is someone that belongs to their class structure. There is shamefully no doubt that a similar incident in say, a village in Uttar Pradesh, might not have triggered such a passionate response). Perhaps it is the right time to consider that maybe India is not the haven they thought it was and that regardless of the claims of “Beti bachao, beti padhao,” the daughter will never be safe, not unless we change systemic patterns.  

The world has always fallen victim to pseudo-feminism. Women have been given just enough to satiate, but never enough to truly free them from their shackles. India is no stranger to this phenomenon. The constitution makers envisioned that with independence, India would herald a new age where a person’s rights would beget them the respect they had been denied for centuries. Coupled with the immemorial reverence for education in the country, it was understood that once formal education was introduced, many of society’s evils would fade away into obsolescence. An educated member of society is a capable member of society, and a capable member of society would not be plagued by issues of old. Rape culture, however, does not spare anyone. It looks for a chance, and unfortunately for the women of India, their abilities do not influence it. The Kolkata case among the long, long list of many others raises the question: Is simply educating the girl child going to save her?  

Tarabai Shinde, in her career-defining work Stree-Purush Tulna (Comparison Between Men and Women), answers the question with a resounding no. In her time, “the educated wife” was a fad that had taken hold. It was to educate the woman without actually letting her participate in the public sphere. Tarabai Shinde’s father was a member of the Satyashodhak Samaj, and it is to him that she “owes” her education. However, this relative freedom hadn’t been enough, as Tarabai referred to herself as “locked up and confined in the proper old Maratha manner.”.  

Her scathing critique fits the current India scarily well. 

Tarabai reaffirms the tragic reality where gender relations remain unchanged but are rebranded so that they may stand out as modern while also neatly fitting into the ideas of patriarchy. It’s patchwork feminism. A manifestation of this is seen in the Kolkata case as well: A woman out late at night is permissible only because she was a doctor on duty. The rightful outrage is only as loud because there is truly nothing to vilify the woman over. Her value is only seen in relation to her profession, and is not inherent, as should be the case for all beings. Women are thus empowered with the constraints tightly in place. In doing so, we never achieve a revolution; instead, we continue to exist in the same manner as before, with little to no change. Families pride themselves on letting their daughters go to school (even if they never let them do anything with it). Politicians are quick to wash their hands off their duties towards women by funding the construction of educational institutions as if that marks the end of it. What good is an education when a woman is still too scared to go out past sundown? What good are the multiple all-female colleges when, the minute a woman leaves campus, she has to formulate attack strategies in her brain? 

Did any of her achievements matter when faced with the caprice of men? Did any of any woman’s?  

All of this isn’t to say that education is not a sector to invest in or that educating women is a futile pursuit. It is to make us realise that education does not exist in a vacuum. Empowering women is a dynamic process that must take into account a plethora of other variables; the safety of women is the most basic of them. When we pride ourselves on the equal right to education that legally gives women the same access to knowledge as men, we must also ask ourselves if we have built a society well enough where they can enjoy the fruits of their labour and where they can actually act as capable citizens instead of just being one on paper. 

Read also:  Women’s safety in DU: How safe are we?

Featured Image Credits: The Hindu, PBS  

Anvesha Tripathi

[email protected]

The ‘TradWife’ trend romanticises traditional domestic roles and exploits choice feminism to mask its anti-feminist agenda. While presenting itself with an idealised view of financial independence, it obscures the realities of traditional gender roles.

Social media has time and again provided a sprouting landscape for the growth of different niche circles that act as catalysts for exploring different identities, opportunities, and aesthetics. However, it has turned us into commodities, constantly marketing ourselves to each other for the gain of larger corporations. It has also devised a pathway for sweeping in regressive ideologies wrapped up in harmless, glamorised visuals. The TradWife or ‘Traditional Wife’ social media trend is one such regressive, anti-feminist ideology that has been gaining prominence all over the internet. 

From “cooking from scratch” videos in their immaculate, expansive kitchens and elegant dresses to presenting idyllic farm life and taking care of their children and husbands, the ‘tradwife’ trend manifests itself in different forms. While what might seem as harmless content of women getting the choice to do what they want to and equally enjoying it, an overarching view needs to be put into perspective when consuming media that tends to romanticise and glorify ideas that for decades women have tried to fight against. 

The social media ‘tradwife’ influencers are far from what they are inevitably promoting through their content. It is very different from the average stay-at-home mom reality, where the women are financially dependent on their husbands while performing thankless, challenging labour to keep their homes running and their children fed. The ‘tradwife’ influencers are actually financially independent given the monetisation of their content while also having a lavish lifestyle. The ‘tradwife’ sidelines the harsher realities of what could go wrong if you’re financially dependent on someone. Most of the ‘tradwives’ are white women living in first-world countries built at the expense of the marginalised global south. Ironically they are financially stable enough to promote a disillusioned lifestyle to their followers.

Tradwife content is as much about what it is against as what it is for,

says Seyward Darby.

By projecting that a certain way of life is more fulfilling than the other, ‘tradwives’ create a dichotomy of what’s present in their lives and what is not present in the lives of their followers. It surfaces the idea among the followers that a desirable stay-at-home lifestyle while being financially and emotionally supported by a family is “missing” in their lives but is nevertheless attainable. These ideas, when internalised in the minds of young women, tend to create a false reality of a comfortable, more appealing traditional lifestyle.

While most ‘tradwife’ influencers might be subtle in expressing their allegiance to a particular political ideology, many members of the conservative ‘tradwives’ community are explicitly anti-feminist. This anti-feminist stance mostly stems from the false belief that feminism has forced women to surrender and overwork themselves for larger corporations while making barely enough for a decent lifestyle. Overworking, burnouts, and minimal wages, while in fact notable problems, are not caused by feminism but by late-stage capitalism and the hyper-capitalist society we are living in.

According to them, instead of serving and surrendering to a stranger, women should rather serve their husbands and children, who, in return, are going to “protect” them. Sitler-Elbel argues that the logic of some conservative tradwives is that “a woman not only stays home because she wants to be domestically focused, but because she, as a woman, must cater to and take care of her husband in these ways.” Thus, they reject the idea of women choosing to be who they want to be and perpetuate the extremist rhetoric that a nice “religious” woman must submit to these “natural roles” to “rebalance the natural order.” 

‘Housewifery’ or a stay-at-home lifestyle is not anti-feminist or oppressive to its core, as most people tend to believe. Feminism has given women the choice to choose their lifestyle. Choice feminism, as argued by Michael L. Ferguson, implies that,

We live in a post-feminist world where the women’s movement did all it needed to liberate women, and now women are totally free to make whatever choices they make without oppression.

However, one thing that goes unnoticed is that the final stage of choice feminism assumes that, due to the past victories of feminism, there is no choice that is oppressive and degrading to women.

One should be careful with how we view these positions and make sure to distinguish between the misery of being a housewife in general and the misery that stems from mistreatment and unappreciation that housewives may receive from their family or society,

states Livia Gershon.

However, feminism is supposed to question religion, laws, traditions, cultures, trends, and eventually anything that potentially subjugates women as a sexual class. It’s systematic thinking, not individual choice-focused. Thus, there is a need to question the harmful presentation of such extremist rhetoric as idyllic and choice-based.

 

Read also: https://dubeat.com/2020/03/08/the-bare-minimum-feminists-are-they-enough-barely/

Featured Image Credits: Sara Fang for The Michigan Daily

Reeba Khan

[email protected]

Back in the director’s chair after Dhobi Ghat (2010), Kiran Rao takes over the cinema by serving the right blend of simplicity, humor, and wit in a cup of gentle feminism.

Significantly departing from the typical Indian cinema landscape, which often perpetuates regressive and hypermasculine ideals, Kiran Rao’s film embraces a nuanced form of feminism, delicately highlighting the uncomfortable realities within society that often silence women and strip them of agency in various aspects of life. The film beautifully captures the journey of ‘Laapata Ladies’ (Lost Women) who ultimately discover their true selves and emerge empowered by the end.

Written by Sneha Desai, the story is set up in the fictitious central state of Nirmal Pradesh, where Kumar (Srivastava) is on his way back home after marrying Phool Kumari (Goel). Amidst the hurried chaos of changing trains at night, he mistakenly grabs Pushpa’s hand and rushes off the train with her. It’s only upon reaching the village that he realizes the bride swap, setting off a series of comedic and heartfelt moments. Throughout the movie, the ‘tamboo-jaisa ghoonghat‘ or veil remains a powerful symbol of societal constraints, yet it is not held accountable by the elders for the challenges it poses in identifying women, ultimately leading to the swap. As the story unfolds, Jaya finds herself in Deepak’s joint family by mistake, while Phool is left stranded at the charming Pateela railway station. Here, Phool forms a unique bond with the station’s residents, including the firm yet empathetic tea kiosk owner, Manju Mai (Chhaya Kadam).

The two brides, Pushpa and Phool, are portrayed with distinct personalities. Pushpa’s mysterious nature attracts suspicion from Shyam Manohar, who closely monitors her activities. On the other hand, Phool, feeling out of place at the railway station, forms friendships with individuals working at Manju Mai’s. Kiran Rao’s perspective in the film shines through in her portrayal of empowerment for women on both sides of the spectrum: those who venture out to study and pursue their dreams, as well as those who find empowerment and fulfillment in being homemakers, departing from the ideals of a bashing feminism that solely focuses on women stepping out.

Breaking away from the conventional narrative of “aurat hi aurat ki dushman hoti hai” (women are each other’s enemies), the film also beautifully showcases the power of women bonding and supporting each other. Whether it’s through Manju Mai’s direct conversations with Phool, Jaya’s determined efforts to bring her back home, or Jaya refusing to be lost in the monotony of daily life and helping to uncover the hidden artistic talent of Poonam’s drawing in the process, Kiran Rao skillfully explores the theme of women bonding in the film.

Beyond the female characters, it’s also the male characters that become the heart of the film. Shyam Manohar (Ravi Kishan), the village cop, delivers some witty one-liners and punchlines, keeping the audience laughing out loud throughout the film. It was even Kishan’s transformation depicted in the end who proved to be a greasy-police officer but also someone whose conscience has not been completely corrupted. Srivastav’s portrayal of Deepak in the perfect shades is flawless. Despite occasional fumbles, his profound English and responsible actions toward Pushpa, despite missing Phool, define him as a well-rounded character. His stellar performance adds up to capturing the audience’s hearts.

The film not only captures the lows of the village, highlighting pesticide-driven crops, corruption, and the sickened societal mindset, but also artfully captures the nostalgic essence and romanticism associated with railways. It portrays not only the trains and stations but also offers us samosas and chai. Additionally, it transports viewers to the charming aspects of rural life, spanning from the era of Nokia mobile phones in the early 2000s to Mai’s bread-pakoras, with a little scold on asking for extra green chutney again!

The beauty of ‘Laapata Ladies’ lies in its ‘addressal’ of various issues of gender dynamics, marriage, dowry, education, individual rights, agriculture, and scientific thinking, but without becoming overly preachy or trivializing the gravity of these concerns. The essence of Rao’s film is in its carefree spirit, playful and lively tone, and ability to approach serious topics with a light touch. Exemplifying a cinema that is astute and thoughtful yet spontaneous and genuine, “Laapata Ladies” is akin to a comforting chai-pakora experience. It tackles pertinent issues while also embracing the audience with a giant, warm hug.

Read Also: An Attempt at Feminist Validation: Animal

Featured Image Credits: Kindling Pictures/Aamir Khan Productions/Jio Studios

Dhairya Chhabra

[email protected]

Read about the hopelessness that resides in the heart of a Feminist constantly when no where is the place to go and every day looks like a doomsday. 

 

What is it like to be on a constant journey with pricks and thorns all over, no hope of it ever getting better and the need to go on. You can say that’s life but when those pricks and thorns are constantly thrown at you by the very own people you love and by random strangers this analogy becomes suited only for the life of a woman. So welcome to the portrait of a life where hope rarely visits and hopelessness never ceases to exist. 

 

Until now you might have taken this article to be ‘another feminist rant’ and before you close this tab please allow me to have my share of opinion, an opinion that will be heard and not scuffles under the burden of my gender. 

 

I guess everyone has a phase in their life when they take to some philosophy and become a hard core follower of it, so was mine with Stoicism until I discovered the hard core sexism of my favourite philosophers. I get it – they were way back in time, modernity did not exist and all those reasons but when will I get the space to actually vent my anger about why I won’t be able to see them as great men ever. No, I can’t read Neruda anymore with the same amount of zeal. For those statements never cease to exist, the gaze that man casts upon us is still the same. To face objectification on streets only to come back to books to find some resolve and face it again by “great” men of the century. 

 

The hopelessness spreads itself in my way when even a boy who is so many years younger than me eve teases me and a man who is with his daughter at the moment still dares to eve tease me. A simple walk even on the terrace of my own house is not peaceful. The ultimate need to always be on guard, to see if someone’s not following you, to share your location with family every time you step out, the discomfort of being watched every time is what defines my femininity and womanhood more than anything. All of this being encountered not by empathetic listening but rather by taunts of being a pseudo-feminist, feminazi and what not by the Not All Men brigade. 

 

A woman must continually watch herself. She is almost continually accompanied by her own image of herself…. might simplify this by saying: men act and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at.

– John Berger, Ways of Seeing 

 

I don’t need the comforting sentences – “things are getting better” or “it’s a long road, change is slow”. For me the reality looks like – “You have faced sexual assault as a child and there is still so much high chance that you will face it again, multiple times”. Let alone be the fact of acknowledgement, these issues are dusted under the carpet. Who knows for how long will the women of this world carry the trauma of being themselves and still be called impulsive, emotional, too sensitive to lead their lives. 

 

The worst shock of being a woman struck when we ourselves were not aware about our very own issues, when a post on social media tells you what you faced was assault, harrasment and at times rape. I hate to recall all those moments when I have been terrible towards other women owing to my own negligence and the guilt keeps building up. The judgement on skirt’s length, our choice of hairstyle being deemed as ‘fashion parade’, just applying a lip balm to be seen as a sin and vilification of brave women are the conditionings of school that haunt me till date. 

 

The worst that stems are hypocrisies rooting in the feminist movement itself. ‘Deliberate ignorance towards issues of Dailt women and erasure of the Trans women’ can be a statement of truth but in actuality the narrative of the mainstream feminist movement is led by hegemony of caste, class and gender. The discussions happening around often do not even take into cognizance the experiences of these women whose voices are unheard, intentionally at times. 

 

Maybe out of this restlessness and the urge to find myself away from the male gaze, even if for a small amount of time I decided to choose an all Girl’s college for myself. And it is here only that I have realised the true meaning of Feminism, unlearning all past notions of bringing other women down and what not. Even when I have not been to college actually the people around me have made me realise what it is like to be at home when away from home. 

 

All I am asking is for you to not come with a plethora of reasons and excuses to not hear us. To say things will be alright at the end is not the suitable thing to say always for in our hearts we know that it won’t be but it is for other women the ones who will come along that we strive for. At times to counter hopelessness all you can do is to listen empathetically as a starter. 

 

Read Also: The “Bare Minimum” Feminists: Are They Enough? Barely

 

Kashish Shivani

[email protected] 

 

A dissection of Animal, a movie that is Reddy’s toxic alpha ideology wrapped in daddy issues with an honorary bow of feminism.

If your highly stereotypical ‘Men will be Men’ ads were made into a movie, this would be it. Big gun toys (with a pinch of Aatmanirbhar Bharat), one man killing 500 other men while his friends (aka bhai) sing in the background, socially-approved infidelity that gets justified in the end, and crass humour that crosses all lines of decency in the name of being funny are just the tip of the iceberg with Sandeep Reddy Vanga’s Animal.

After the commentary and critique faced by Kabir Singh—for having too much unnecessary violence, for having a female lead that isn’t so much of a lead, and for that one slap—it seems like Vanga tried really hard to be accepted with his latest release. With its narrative of “a strong, independent woman” who is bold and actually questions the male lead, the movie tried to fulfil the “feminism quota” by adapting itself to the taste of its feminist critics but still (somehow) failed horribly. Maybe having the woman slap her husband rather than vice versa isn’t what feminism is about (aw, what a shock).

While the movie with its storyline had the potential to be impeccably emotional (cue a dysfunctional Sooraj Barjatya film), the mirch-masala of misogyny, subtle Nazi imagery (?), and alpha male toxicity only took away from the father-son dynamic the movie was trying to portray.

While Ranbir Kapoor’s character clearly had certain mental issues and a deep-seated desire for validation from his father (in common parlance, daddy issues), in a country plagued by a highly illiterate and influential population (read: padhe-likhe gawar), a movie like Animal became a spokesperson and an enabler, allowing not for an understanding of the character but rather a glorification of him, walking a precariously thin line as the audience fell in love with a son who just happens to be highly problematic. While the portrayal of such characters onscreen shouldn’t necessarily inspire its audience (watching Dahmer—the Monster didn’t make you want to be a serial killer, did it?), Ranbir Kapoor in Animal was advocated as the perfect green flag who does everything right (gaslighting 101), leaving little to be questioned about the “alpha” he was.

In the Vanga universe, the checklist for being the perfect male comes down to being pretty straightforward—raging anger issues? Check. Can it “turn on” with a snap of a finger? Check. Preaches about the superiority of being a man? Check. For a movie that wildly oscillated between a bloody rape scene and the (not so) boyish charm of snapping bra straps and pulling on one’s wife’s hair, it is as if Vanga had only one (albeit veiled) objective: wanting to present a picture-perfect image of all the problematic parts of the alpha male ideology.

As a woman, the movie felt like taking a walk in a shady area with no streetlights while a group of men catcalls you for three hours at regular intervals (as if the streets of Delhi weren’t enough). Under the guise of obsessive and possessive love, the movie tactically parceled and sold off misogyny and toxicity in bulk amounts. Every joke made, every blatant ignorance of the concept of consent, every misogynistic sprinkle of “love” and “strength” received ample validation from the snickers and the smirks of Ranvijay’s (Ranbir Kapoor’s character) friends, not so much different from the reaction of a majority of this animal-loving audience.

A dissection of the movie makes it clear that Animal are nothing if not driven by pure (poisoned) testosterone. The smartest feat of foreshadowing and direction in the movie? Opening with the definition of animal.

Read Also: Taali Review – An Exceptional Biopic Based on India’s Third Gender

Featured Image Credits: Onmanorama, filmfare

Manasvi Kadian

[email protected]

In today’s time, feminism has not remained a genuine commitment to gender equality. The idea of empowerment has become commodified through marketing campaigns, overshadowing the true essence of the concept. This piece explores the nuanced landscape of feminist advertising by dissecting empowering advertisements and exposing the questionable motives behind them.

This is a world still often designed to please men. Even though significant progress has been made, the existence of unconscious, underlying misogyny is undeniable and has been passed down through generations. And against the backdrop of this misogyny, the world of marketing often comes into focus. As a strong cultural force, the industry shows and strengthens stereotypes about women. When companies use feminist ideas to make money, it highlights a gap between their empowering words and what they actually do, making it an important area to talk about where unfair gender beliefs are concerned.

The battle cries of feminism, which were meant to break glass ceilings, now break sales records. At its core, feminism embodies an expansive belief in advocating for the dignity and empowerment of all genders. However, that belief gets lost when it’s used for profit. While feminists aim for freedom and equality in opportunities, sometimes this concept is exploited and used for personal gain, diluting the true essence of the movement. It’s important to see through these false claims used by the capitalist market and advocate for genuine progress.

When a company advertises its products as “women-friendly,” it may sound uplifting and true to the spirit of feminism. However, when the same company doesn’t align their policies and ideas with the ‘feminist’ image they try to exhibit to the world, that is plain exploitation. They will assure you that all colours are beautiful, but they will implicitly encourage you to buy their skin-lightening products to make you even more attractive. They will claim to reject racism, yet they will never cast anyone who is not ‘conventionally attractive’, aka ‘light skin and slim waists, to play the lead. They proclaim that women are more than just sex symbols but equate bigger breasts with more audience attention. And amidst all this hypocrisy, they’ll continue to emphasise their adoration for each individual, no matter the shape, size, or color.

AXE, a men’s fragrance brand, produced infuriating commercials about multiple “picture-perfect” women fawning over a single man for the purpose of endorsing their “masculine-smelling” deodorant. It clearly reinforced the idea that a woman is only good to enhance a man’s image and for nothing more meaningful. On the other hand, Dove sold shampoo bottles shaped like different body types to instill body positivity in women. Although this campaign appeared to have positive intentions, it was not perceived in the same way. Had it not been public knowledge that both these brands share the same parent company, Unilever, it would have worked out more favourably for the brands involved.

The intersectionality of feminism is often overlooked in these marketing strategies. Companies often exploit the idea of intersectionality to reinforce stereotypes and uphold traditional gender norms. They use factors like race, class, and gender to target specific groups with tailored ads, which can deepen existing inequalities and reinforce societal norms. This approach ultimately maintains the status quo and contributes to marginalisation and inequality.

While some argue that even surface-level activism raises awareness, the bar must be set higher. Big corporations that treat feminism as a brand or a tool for profit should be held accountable. It is not merely a question of contradiction in opinions or brand strategies; it is a matter of blatant hypocrisy, which, in turn, makes it exploitative. Intersectionality demands a more nuanced approach that acknowledges the diverse experiences of women across race, class, and other intersecting identities.

Trigger Warning: Instances of sexual harassment in the upcoming paragraph.

Take the case of ‘Thinx’, a company that set out to break the stigma surrounding menstruation by taking an innovative approach to period products. While they too seemed to be genuinely committed to feminist ideals, their workplace practices told the world otherwise. Miki Agarwal, the CEO of ‘Thinx’, faced severe criticism and legal action from her own employees, accusing her of engaging in unethical conduct, making inappropriate sexual advances, and unfairly dismissing staff members. According to a detailed complaint filed with the City of New York Commission on Human Rights, Miki Agarwal touched an employee’s breasts and asked her to expose them, talked about her own sexual exploits in business meetings, frequently changed clothes in front of her employees, and multiple other incidents that resulted in uncomfortable working conditions. These allegations shed light on a troubling reality within the company, revealing a stark contrast between its public image and internal practices. A poignant example of the pervasive hypocrisy that infiltrates the corporate world, especially in the industries claiming to champion feminist principles.

Even in companies that are supposedly termed modern or liberal, TV ads still cling to old-fashioned ideas. They often use only male voiceovers, which make men sound more important. And when they show women, it’s usually doing housework, like they’re stuck in the past. Even though some companies try to change this, many stick to the old ways because they think it works. So, ads on TV keep pushing these outdated ideas, making it harder to break free from old stereotypes.

In this world of marketing, men are applauded and celebrated when all we are given is a mirror. Distorted. We are forced to see ourselves through the eyes of society. The unspoken reality is that companies aim for male empowerment while perpetuating traditional gender norms for female consumers in order to sell, and what’s worse is that it seems to work just fine.

We’ve been given the short end of the stick since the dawn of humanity. It cannot be denied that we have come a long way, but the question remains: is our progress real or just a better disguise for the old biases against women?

As we deal with the complexities of feminism today, it’s important to acknowledge the steps forward while staying aware of the quieter forms of gender inequality. As long as this capitalism-driven world continues to prioritise profit over principles, the tagline of feminism remains at risk of becoming just that—a mere tagline.

Read also: How to Know Your Reporting is Good 101

Featured Image Credits: medium magazine.nl

Lakshita Arora

[email protected]

Kamasutra: A Tale of Love, a 1996 cinematic relic that failed to find its place in the Indian film industry of the 90s, gets me to question whether such a contentious movie would survive the scrutiny of the new era.

An unapologetic masterpiece or a stark spotlight on societal norms. Did the visionary filmmaker Mira Nair subvert gender stereotypes or reinforce them? Kamasutra: A Tale of Love sparked this debate when it first came out in 1996. In times when sex was considered taboo and Indian cinema, or just cinema in general, was still largely dominated by male perspectives, she told us a story about two young girls, Maya and Tara, who explored the complexities of love and desire. Set in the 16th century, the movie follows Maya, who, in the wake of a heartbreak, embraces her sensuality and becomes the courtesan of the king. The same king who is married to Maya’s former friend Tara is entrapping her in a loveless marriage.

While Nair was applauded by many for the brilliant cinematography seen in the film and the bold portrayal of female sexuality within the Indian context, she also, not so unexpectedly, faced heavy criticism due to its erotic nature. This resulted in the movie being banned in India. Now the pertinent question emerges: if released in the 2020s, would the outcome have remained unchanged?

Taking into account the female-forward intentions of the filmmaker, this movie was set out to portray that sexual desire is something that comes naturally to men and women alike. The female characters actively expressed their sexual inclinations throughout the movie. Inclinations that would have generally been a lot more silent given the time period Beyond sexual desire, Nair’s female characters exhibit a plethora of very powerful emotions, including fury, resentment, and grief. Focusing the story on the journeys of women and putting them at the forefront contributed greatly to the element of gender inclusivity.

Despite the benevolent objectives behind this movie, it received an enormous amount of backlash. While the power dynamics seen in the characters’ interpersonal relationships were a problem for some, the graphic nudity and eroticism infuriated others. The movie was called out for reinforcing stereotypes, insensitive cultural representations, and male dominance at play throughout the entire movie.

The question of whether this movie falls in the realm of commendable or critiqueable is a complicated one, especially if we are to look at it in the context of the 2020s. It’s safe to say that the movie, in today’s time, would potentially offend multiple cultures. Moreover, the evident patriarchy in the film would not align with newer feminist ideals. Although it could be attributed to the film’s historical context, these aspects would still be considered regressive, keeping in mind modern expectations for diversity and inclusivity.

Nevertheless, above everything, there would still be the persistent concern surrounding nudity and mature content, particularly where Indian cinema is involved. “Showing too much ankle” still remains a breach of cultural modesty in our country. While some people would argue that with a few censor cuts, the film could still make it to the big screen, I hold a different standpoint. Sex plays a crucial role in unfolding this narrative; without it, the story would risk losing most of its substance. So it’s fair to conclude that although this movie would have been looked at more positively where the feminist elements are concerned, I still do not think that the Indian audience would allow its release.

“Kamasutra: A Tale of Love” left a permanent mark on the canvas of film history. It is a production shaped by our own, a work of art that is beyond our grasp. As close as the Indian audience is to Mira Nair’s heart, this creation remains forever elusive—a reminder that maybe some stories are never meant to be told.

Read also: Barbie: A Review

Featured Image Credits: IMDb images

Lakshita Arora

[email protected]

“For most of history anonymous was a woman”- this idea was illustrated in Virginia Woolf’s “In Search of a Room of One’s Own” in context with the suppression of women’s history by men. But for most of the present, who is anonymous?

TW// Sexism, Misogyny, Mention of rape

Social media apps have provided individuals with a way to interact and connect with people who have similar interests, beliefs, or backgrounds. They have expanded social networks and enabled people to connect with people they may not have otherwise encountered in their daily lives. These platforms have also made it possible for people to share ideas and cultures and have given them the chance to learn about other people’s viewpoints from across the world.se

But these positive aspects also brought risks to user safety, such as cyberbullying, online harassment, and privacy issues. With this influx came sexism, culminating in the growth of an online community of misogynists and sexist individuals from around the world who spread bigotry under the pretext of humour.  With the younger generation’s increased access to the internet, these memes may have a big influence on the way individuals think and shape their opinions.

On a regular basis, I come across pages that share memes like “kya fayada itna padh likh ke karna toh kitchen mai hai kaam”. They appear to be harmless, but just look at the number of likes and comments on such posts.”

“I once came across a young kid’s comment under a post promoting the rape on women for taking advantage of reservation benefits. He was just 14 years old. When the Amber Heard case was in the news, social media was a nightmare. You’d think that making jokes about domestic abuse and rape would result in criticism, yet look at the likes and shares. Meme culture is currently nothing more than a weapon used by oppressors to attack a community/minority.” – Anonymous, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University

Instagram, one of the most popular social networking sites, serves as a repository for meme pages. From politics to movies to meme pages of schools and universities, you’ll discover a broad spectrum of memes. Meme pages associated with various school and university groups, such as DPS, DU, IPU, and Amity, often serve as the breeding grounds for sexist and misogynist memes. 

The worst part about these meme pages is that you can’t criticise their content or call them out. You will immediately see a hundred men calling you names and using slurs in the comments section when you call them out for their sexism. They just get away with everything under the pretence of humour.” – Anonymous, Daulat Ram College

University meme pages have become increasingly problematic platforms. These pages frequently demonstrate a troubling tendency of sharing images and videos of women from their universities or elsewhere, accompanied by misogynistic remarks that sexualize and objectify their bodies. This behaviour exposes these women to cyberbullying, harassment, and safety issues. Such behaviours not only contribute to the perpetuation of harmful preconceptions, but also to the establishment of a toxic and unsafe environment for female students.

It is also common in these spaces to record women without consent and upload it on social media with captions like “Miranda ki ladkiyo ko kese patae” (How do we seduce a girl from Miranda?), “aisi classmates toh mai bhi deserve karta hu” (I too deserve classmates like these), “Chalo women’s reservation ka kuch toh fayeda hua” (At least there is some benefit to women’s reservation).

TW//misogyny, sexism

The existence of such sexist memes about students of women’s colleges thrive in these spaces. Such memes pose serious risks to female students at women’s colleges, particularly during the fest when the college opens its doors to everyone. From men mounting the walls of Miranda House and IP and harassing them to men scaling the walls of Gargi College and masturbating, groping, and locking women in washrooms. These meme pages implicitly foster toxic notions, creating an environment that normalises and encourages such vile behaviour while reinforcing the sense that women are nothing more than their possessions.

I’ve seen memes on university pages that propose the idea that women at girl’s colleges like being sexualized by creeps because they allegedly lack “male attention.”  These memes not only propagate detrimental stereotypes about women, but they also encourage a dangerous mindset that justifies behaviours like climbing walls to enter the campus of women’s colleges and participating in predatory behaviour.” – Sneha Rai, Institute of Home Economics

One of the reasons these platforms continue to flourish is because of the way college administration turns a blind eye to such pages set up mostly by their college students, while another is the inefficiency of social media app safety standards. The anonymity provided by these apps provides individuals the confidence to operate sexist pages without fear of repercussions. Building a safe campus is impossible if the administration continues to silence and shackle women instead of taking action against men who make the college unsafe. The increasing number of reports of social media apps profiting from this problematic content makes it hard to trust or rely on the safety policies. It raises the question: does anonymity today still offer a way to stand up to oppression or does it offer a way for bigotry to flourish?

Featured Image Credits: Scroll.in

Read Also: Casual Sexism in Jokes and Not Being a Femi-Nazi

Dhruv Bhati

[email protected]

Should the historically skewed representation of women in pop culture stemming from male dominance in media suggest the need for their alienation from the field, or does the solution lie in battling the age-old perpetuated stereotypes? Do men make insanely horrible movies on women’s stories? Is it intentional or is it a byproduct of our flawed socialization? How do we combat this?

There is no denying that Men have historically been the gender with the upper hand in every avenue known to humans. This historical gendered privilege has not hesitated to trickle down into contemporary scenarios which have resulted in men still assuming control and leadership in both public and private spheres. Mansplaining is a product of this skewed social construct. Many men have, and even today, continue to believe in the superiority of their gender. Even if this complex has been watered down, the mere assumption that their perspective and decisions matter more still thrives.

It is irrefutable, to say the least, that plenty of mass media, since its inception, owing to the lack of female perspective and the obvious dominance of men in filmmaking have repeatedly objectified women. Such media largely caters to the male gaze and is deeply patronizing. Women’s bodies have been commodified and capitalized upon since times immemorial in advertisements – be it selling Maaza, bikes, or the angels falling for a macho man in axe deodorant ads. The narrative of a “good woman” and a “bad woman” also largely stems from the historically perpetuated male-dictated ideals of an ideal woman. Be it our soap operas or the big screen media, a good woman is always shown fully covered from head to toe, draped in a saree, adhering to all customary norms. Whereas the villainess is always shown to be wearing promiscuous attires with a “pick-me-girl” demeanor. The latter is also the women who generally are independent, shamelessly unapologetic, and break away from the shackles of stereotypes. But does this historical defect justify the absolute abstention of men from making movies on women?

Let us first talk about what these women-centric films look like. These definitely as the name suggests are films with female protagonists, aimed at breaking the age-old gender stereotypes. They move away from the conventional ancient media which has largely portrayed a cis-male as the hero. Such media become channels for marginalized women whose stories have long remained unknown. Witnessing the long-due representation has been nothing short of empowering for all women.

The primary argument presented by proponents of those who believe men shouldn’t make women-centric movies is that men being the historical oppressor will fail to understand the nuances of the struggles of being a woman. They barely share common experiences, and any man attempting to recreate their story on the big screen is bound to trivialize their hardships. Also, men have a greater propensity of projecting women in a way that sexualizes them, thereby creating something appealing to the male gaze and patronizing women in general. But, one also needs to realize that media as an entity is itself vulnerable to being scrutinized or called out for anything problematic being exhibited. The onus then falls upon the general audience to hold the troublemakers accountable. This is a struggle against gendered stereotypes and not gender. Mere exclusion of men from a particular domain will not solve the problem.

Also, the sheer assumption that everyone belonging to a particular gender identity will have shared experiences is flawed. A rich upper-class woman will never be able to actualize the harsh realities of the life of a poor Dalit woman. Intersectional identities cut across and shape the experiences of people from the same gender in very diverse ways. The thriving misconception that a woman will always be empathetic to the oppressive experiences of another woman is broken when one looks at how in many parts of the world, it is women who have kept age-old patriarchal misogynistic traditions alive. Be it child marriage, dowry, sati, or female foeticide – women often emerge as the biggest perpetrators in these crimes against girls.

Additionally, the exclusion of nearly half the population from indulging in making films on a particular subject does more harm than good. The number of people indulging in unraveling the stories of these women immediately gets reduced to half. Secondly, when one propagates the narrative that – only women should be allowed to direct women’s movies because of their shared gendered experiences, all women’s issues get reduced to being only “women’s problems” and not the “society’s problem”. Combating deeply entrenched patriarchal norms requires society to take a stake. Such issues cannot be solved in isolation by one gender alone. Be it the feminist movement, LGBTQ movement, Dalit rights movement or Black lives matter; no battle can be won by a single identity alone. Collective action is critical for a successful outcome.

It is also important to note that many of the strong female characters that we celebrate were either written or directed by men. Be it Kangana’s character in Vikas Bahl’s Queen, Katarina Stratford in Gil Junger’s 10 Things I hate about you, Elle Woods’ in Robert Luketic’s Legally Blonde or Mark Andrew’s Brave – the female leads in these movies are known to be headstrong, unapologetic and at every step assert their autonomy thereby breaking stereotypes.

Furthermore, when men who take up the initiative to make such movies gain accolades and appreciation for their work, the resultant domino effect leads to a greater number of people now pedestalizing sensitive feminist men, as opposed to idolizing a patronizing Macho man. Come on, who doesn’t love Imtiaz Ali for giving us characters like Geet from Jab We Met or Veera from Highway? Such movies with strong female leads often have a caring, sensitive, and extremely lovable side male character. Be it Shah in Dear Zindagi, Irrfan Khan in Piku, Vikrant Massey in Chapaak, or Pankaj Tripathi in Mimi – all these male characters are very hard to not fall in love with. Writing, and directing such roles becomes a cathartic and liberating experience for the scriptwriters, movie makers, and in general everyone involved in the movie-making process. The amount of sensitization delivered through such experiences is unmatchable.

Ergo despite conceding to the fact that to date, even though some men continue to be the biggest flag bearers of male chauvinism, others willing to change should be given a chance for redemption. Our battle lies in fighting the stereotypes, and not the gender. Simply denying men such experiences only based on their gender would be nothing short of criminal.

Feature Image Source: Pinterest

Rubani Sandhu

[email protected]