Shameless

“The greatest feminists have also been the greatest lovers. I’m thinking not only of Mary Wollstonecraft and her daughter Mary Shelley, but of Anais Nin, Edna St. Vincent Millay, and of course Sappho. You cannot divide creative juices from human juices. And as long as juicy women are equated with bad women, we will err on the side of being bad.” – Erica Jong

When I was about twelve, I attended an extremely strict private school: St. Thomas. Like every good private school, it had a uniform. Boys wore a tie, a shirt, and pants in a dispirited shade of grey. Girls had to wear a below-knee-length skirt with a white shirt and tie – a rather nice tie, I thought, one with blue and dark maroon stripes. Me – a twelve year old girl who was in love with the edgy beauties I’d seen on the Parisian sidewalks, and the bohemian life that I had at home with two practically-atheist parents, I knew nothing of exactly how strict this dress code was supposed to be. I found out, very quickly, that we weren’t allowed to grow our nails long, or use nail polish, or cosmetics of any kind. Our socks had to be ankle-high and our shoes immaculately shined. Our shirts had to be crisp white. NOT off-white, not cream. Our ties couldn’t be loosely knotted around the neck, and our buttons had to be done up all the way.

I had very little trouble with any of these regulations (surprisingly, for those of you who know me now). Except one. It was never expressly articulated. Unofficial. But de rigueur, all the same. We – the girls – were required to wear a chemise under our shirts.

Che-mise (Middle English, from the Anglo-French & the Late Latin camisia): a woman’s one piece undergarment.

I had never heard of such a thing, at the time. However, at the ripe old age of twelve, my dear mum had already taken on me on that rite most sacred and beloved: bra shopping. I didn’t, by any stretch of the imagination, need one. But my mother had obliged when I asked for one. And so it was that I flouted convention, and wore bras underneath my shirt, without a chemise. Now, this was not quite as saucy as some of you may be picturing. I didn’t wear a black bra underneath a flimsy, see-through white shirt. I wore a modest (read: ugly) training bra (training for a lifetime of Agent Provocateur?) which happened to be white, and swathed my entire boyish chest. The whole effect was that of a really good Marine in a jungle during a monsoon at night, which is to say, ZERO visibility. Of anything. Of my body. Let me add, this was in the tropics. The kind of chemise required was inches of stiff, unforgiving, heavy fabric. In the sweltering Southern summer sun.

Two days into this, my teacher pulled me aside.

“Look, Priya, I have to tell you something. Tell your mother to take you shopping for something to wear under your shirt. You’re going to unnecessarily provoke the boys here. This is, quite frankly, indecent, and we can’t condone it in a good Christian school. Got it? Good girl” – noticing my lip beginning to tremble – “Oh, I know you’re a good girl, and you’d never do it on purpose. You know, you just have to be careful at this age, with the boys. Remember” – (this in a low tone of voice, fit for the boudoir) – “it doesn’t matter whether the thorn falls on the leaf or the leaf on the thorn, it’s the leaf that is hurt for life.”

In one simple speech, she’d managed to deliver seven separate messages:

1. I should be ashamed of my growing body.
2. Not wearing enough layers of undergarments = flaunting my body.
3. It is unchristian to hint at the shape of my body.
4. ‘Good’ girls are dressed in many, many layers of clothing.
5. I had to be careful before men, because they could not control their wanton lusts.
6. If anything were to happen between me and anyone, regardless of whose desire initiated the encounter, it would be me that would suffer for it. I would be the one who should feel ashamed.
7. If my ‘virtue’ was lost, so was my worth.

Perhaps it is not necessary to say that I never again came to school without a chemise on.

That was the beginning of years and years – and years – of shaming, of sexual harassment that I was blamed for, of parent-teacher conferences held because I was being inappropriate with boys, of $100,000 worth of therapy money for the constant sense of inadequacy and subjection to beauty myths, to sex myths, to female sexuality myths, to demeaning messages and advertisements . I can’t even begin to describe them here – can any woman? – but I have often wondered where the shame originated. And I think it began here, with this woman, this teacher, at this moment in time.

What truly affected me was not that she asked me to adhere to an unreasonable, arbitrary dress code; it was that she shamed me for it. That she related it to my virtue. To my goodness. To my sex life (which, I need not say, was a negative when I was a gawky twelve year old.) To all my future sense of self-worth.

Other and better writers have dealt with these questions before me. I have no concrete person to blame, not even my poor old teacher, who was merely telling me what she’d been told growing up. I have no concrete resolution to arrive at. There is no positive message, no moral that is to be clearly distilled from this anecdote, or funny aftermath (though I would love to get my teacher’s address so I could send her Polaroids of my current wardrobe). Perhaps it is only this – the next time you see a girl wearing an extremely ‘scandalous’ outfit, I would ask you to think twice before you judge her morality, or her sex life. Judge her sense of style, if you will, the quality of the clothes she’s wearing, or her body in them (god knows, that is a norm that doesn’t seem likely to change), but don’t judge her fucking chastity.

Because, for the FIRST AND THE LAST TIME, I WILL TELL YOU THIS: CLOTHING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHASTITY.

The Return of 80s Cinema and Why it Makes Me Squirm

Sometime back I was looking at upcoming Hindi film releases for 2012 and I saw this poster.

Then I saw this…

…and this.

A few years back, Ghajini and Dabangg started a revival of sorts of 80s style cinema, replete with high drama, revenge and action a.k.a. the masala entertainer. If the above posters are any indication of the style of cinema that is coming out this year, then it looks like every filmmaker is jumping on the 80s bandwagon. Here is Karan Johar talking about this trend. Not surprisingly, he also happens to be the producer behind January’s super hit, Agneepath.

It’s not surprising that good old fashioned 80s style melodrama and action are making a comeback. These elements were becoming increasingly rare in contemporary Hindi cinema. So besides being widely entertaining, there is also a nostalgic value attached to films like these. But here’s the thing: the 80s weren’t really a great decade for the representation of women on screen.

The hyper-masculine film “hero” that we see in the above posters is a common trope in mainstream cinema but in the 80s his presence in a movie was almost mandatory. And the counterpart to him is, of course, the character of the supportive wife or mother, a two dimensional creature who only possesses qualities in the nature of loyalty, chastity and sacrifice. For the “sexy factor”, there’s a vamp or an item song thrown in. That’s right; it’s the old virgin/whore dichotomy. But what I find most sexist about these films is that most often, female characters were absolutely of no consequence to the plot! For example, in Agneepath, there’s the sexy item song by Katrina, Chikni Chameli (which I quite enjoy) and there’s the supportive girlfriend, played by Priyanka. But what does her character contribute to the story? Nothing. It appears as if, in the universe of these films, women have no significance, whatsoever.

By no means am I suggesting that female characters who have nothing to do but be good girlfriends are exclusive to 80s style or 80s cinema. One look at the top grossers of the past 3 years clearly demonstrate that films like Ra.One, Raajneeti and Tees Maar Khan continue to keep up this cinematic tradition (except now the girlfriend is also allowed to look sexy). What is now an aspect of brainless entertainers used to be the norm in the 80s. That’s why, I can’t help but look at the comeback of 80s type cinema with slightly mixed feelings. Maybe my hopes have been raised by the fantastic female characters in films like Kahaani, Kaminey, Ishqiya, Band Bajaa Baaraat (what a delightful movie!), No One Killed Jessica and even Jab We Met, all of which have also been box-office successes. But as a film-lover, who happens to be a feminist, is there anything more frustrating than a female character that is nothing but a prop in the story?

holi “khelna”: playing without consent

Once upon a time, one played holi*. A literal translation from the Hindi “holi khelna”, play could certainly mean to have fun, to fool around, to amuse yourself, to take part in. Playing holi as a child and then as a teenager in my growing up years in Bombay (now Mumbai), that is what it was: to participate in a festival of colours, when people were drenched in water and dyes, a time when hatchets were buried (at least for the day), mild flirtations were enjoyed, and barriers between people fell as they embraced each other with gulaal and cried out, “Holi hai!” A friend who grew up in Delhi says it was the time to put away one’s woollens and bring out the cotton saris as Holi heralded the official start of summer.

The girl in the auto rickshaw screams in pain as a water balloon hits her smack on her face as she makes her way to work. And it is the day before Holi! Yet another is blinded as she is hit by one on her eye from a passing train. Women dare not step out into streets in many north Indian cities on the morning of the festival. Otherwise they are “asking for it”. Which means being coloured and having one’s breasts pinched. Incident upon incident. I wonder why we never hear of women “attacking” men in like manner. And, no, I am not pacified by the story in the New York Times about the men from Nandgaon cowering before the women of Barsana (villages in Uttar Pradesh) striking them with bamboo sticks in response to their colourful “teasing”. Custom dictates that the men do not retaliate, says the writer, but try getting women to believe this as they resist the advances of men in more recent times on Holi or otherwise!

Even as it seemed wild and chaotic, holi was played within well understood boundaries. Who could play with whom, which liberties could be taken and how. Consent was a key factor. (Interestingly it still is in Goa where the celebration of the festival takes place over two whole weeks and no one has reported an ugly incident.) And it was certainly not played with strangers. And it certainly wasn’t one-sided. Within housing colonies, building compounds and chawls in the cities, within village lanes and squares, many people let their hair down to join in the revelry. There was teasing, no doubt. Even creeping up on people and surprising them. Yes, people even screamed. But in that uncanny mixture of shock and delight. Not in alarm or terror or pain.

This is not a whinge about the degeneration of Indian festivals, but a protest against one more expression of male power – Holi often becomes yet another opportunity for men to assert themselves over women. The patriarchal understanding that public spaces belong to men makes a woman vulnerable, and the accepted licentiousness embodied in this festival makes her even more so. Arguments that men even target other men on this day are advanced. This is certainly a fact, but facts are rarely just that (do men pinch other men’s nipples in such assaults?). Attempting to neutralise and generalise a woman’s discomfort is another way of covering up the existing power structures that accord men their “rights” of public behaviour which erodes the “rights” of women to dignity.

“Woman” is the creation of the masculine gaze. How women look, behave and “perform” is the outcome of centuries of occupying limited spaces, shrinking their persons and adapting to idealisations of their image and interactions. Their bodies thus become cultural objects whose validities are hard to challenge. Feminist studies are revealing the underlying dynamics of the social constructions of “gendered bodies”, helping us to question such hegemony, even in the seemingly innocent celebration of Holi.

* In this piece, the word holi is capitalised when the word refers to the name of the festival (proper noun), while its “playing” (with colours) is not.

Adrienne Rich: Where does strength come from?

A critical analysis of things as they are, wearing a gender lens — this is an important feminist  preoccupation. It helps let the community of gender-watchers know what to look out for, what to take a view on and perhaps, also, what to oppose/rebel against.

But does it widen that community?

It does that to the extent it gives expression to shared concerns and prods collective understanding.

However, are we also directly celebrating those who have made a mark in presenting these analyses effectively? Are we consciously seeking out effective narratives?

If we are doing that, we must talk about Adrienne Cecile Rich. This American poet feminist wrote between the 50s and the 80s. Rich died this year, aged 82.

She wrote not only about gender subjugation, but also about capitalist, racial and military suppression, searching for and critiquing sources of power and strength. Her poems make you think.

In her poem, Power, Rich says -

She died a famous woman denying
her wounds
denying
her wounds came from the same source as her power.

Though the poem says this about Marie Curie, the title clearly flags this as an idea applicable to all women. Motherhood as a source of power is an example in this context.

To know more about her and her work, often called militant, go to the New Yorker postscript, and click here and here.

Misogyny in narratives of rape in Indian media

 

 

 

A newspaper report on the recent Gurgaon rape case concludes with the correspondent informing the readers that the victim was hired to “engage with male customers”. How is this piece of information relevant to the public at large? What does it really tell us about the crime? What it does, vaguely though, is describe the victim’s job. Is that relevant to the crime? Not really.

The reporting on the rape cases of the last few weeks has once again highlighted the Indian media’s failure to take into account some critical precautions while covering cases of sexual assault against women. Most crime reporters use the police as sources of information. The police often share a comfortable rapport with journalists who periodically seek them out for news. In private conversations, they possibly divulge more information than necessary. In an interview that I conducted last year with a few senior crime reporters, one senior law correspondent of an English daily admitted, that a good journalist always has more information than a copy needs. It is up to journalists to exercise their discretion, and leave out details that won’t necessarily benefit the story, the reporter added. Sure, the police should not be sharing intimate details of victims. Nevertheless, the media is obligated while reporting cases of sexual assault, to shield the identity of rape victims.

Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prohibits the disclosure, not only of the victim’s name, but also of facts that could lead to the identification of the victim, such as the place of residence, identifying or naming the victim’s family or friends, university, or work details.

The Press Council of India’s Norms of Journalistic Conduct (“the PCI norms”) warn journalists not to give excessive publicity to victims, witnesses, suspects, and accused. The paramount concern in addition to the protection of victims is that, in publishing intimate details of their lives, the media exposes them to unwarranted public scrutiny. This safeguard protects the accused as well. Much of that information fails to add any value, unless it serves a genuine overriding public interest. Such information often obliquely encourages questions about the victim’s character and panders to unhealthy public curiosity. In the T.I.S.S. rape case for instance, the media published details from the victim’s written statement to the police. That information did not serve any public interest.

So, how do the personal details of a victim’s marital status, like in the Gurgaon or Calcutta rape cases, add value to the story? How is it relevant to the crime? The Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Puttaraja, warned against the disclosure of the rape victim’s identity even in the printing or publication of judgments issued by the High Courts or the Supreme Court. The Court observed that, “social victimization or ostracism of the victim of a sexual offence for which Section 228-A has been enacted, it would be appropriate that in the judgments, be it of this Court, High Court or lower Court, the name of the victim should not be indicated.” Further, the PCI norms prohibit the visual representation or photograph of not just the victim, but also her family or relatives to avoid identification.

Beyond the question of naming victims, the recent media rape narratives also follow a familiar trajectory. The key terms, “married woman”, “unaccompanied in a pub”, and “late at night” come together to the conclusion, “raped”. What does the media narrative of married women alone in pubs at night insinuate? It suggests that the woman was reckless or foolish to be out on her own that late. There is a chauvinist undercurrent in that detail. It invites the response — what was a married woman doing in a bar alone at night? Why was she there?

It offers little insight into the reasons for the crime. Such rape coverage in the media promotes curiosity and interest in the victim’s life. It does not add to our understanding of rape or why it takes place. Instead, it feeds the propagation of the dominant misogynist view, that women of a “certain type” deserved to be raped.

***

This article was previously published at mylaw.net.

News Flash: UV has a new team

Some weeks back, I had published a post here saying that I needed help with running Ultra Violet. The response has been fantastic and we now have a brand new team in place. Please go here for more details.

Contributed posts are welcome as always and still need to be sent to ultraviolet.editor@gmail.com.

For all those who wrote in offering to help, a big, big thank you!

Bangalore Launch: ‘Our Pictures, Our Words: A Visual Journey through the Women’s Movement’

Interesting event in Bangalore with some great speakers. Check it out if you’re in the city. Via Ammu Joseph and Padmalatha Ravi on Facebook. [Read More]

Unfriendly Bodies, Unfriendly Cities: Reflections on Loitering and Gendered Public Space

From the Facebook event page here.

You are invited to the Eighth Professor L. B. Kenny Endowment Lecture to be given by Shilpa Phadke at 6 pm on the 28th of March 2012. Tea is at 5.30 pm at the Durbar Hall, Asiatic Society of Mumbai, Horniman Circle, Mumbai. [Read More]

On being misquoted in The Times of India

A week back, I was interviewed for this article in The Times of India, Crest edition. The article has misquoted me and I want to make a point of it here. It ascribes this quote to me:

The Pink Chaddi campaign talked of an issue that affected women in cities. Who has the time to march on the street?

I did NOT say “who has the time to march on the street?”. [Read More]

This poem is a cow

 

Stalking trash trucks on weekends, she
waits by signals. Men reading their
morning paper or men midstride their morning
jog or men trailing a corpse in their mourning white
lift her skirt, slide a pointed finger in
between her cheeks, then out, then kiss it
reverently. In bars and coffee shops, she has heard:
This is no age for holiness. Do these men know this,
she wonders. She ambles away from them. They
thrust plantains into her protesting mouth.
They watch her swallow.

 

 

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...