Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Mosques for muslims only?


I recently visited the city of nawabs. Lucknow, like other cities, is changing with an accelerated speed. As of now, the domes and minarets co-exist with the stone world of Mayawati. Gomtiji has also managed to retain and consolidate her identity. In the daylight, one can admire the beauty of the past and after dusk, get smitten by the well-lighted fountains and symbols of Mayawati's 'reign and glory'. Whatever i could get of the existing culture, I loved it as it was quite similar to the culture of my native place.

But I was prevented from falling in love head over heels with this city when my heels stumbled upon the ruins of an ancient mosque and i was asked to control myself.
The signboard read "Non Muslims cannot proceed further from this point". I would have been less disappointed(comparatively less) if the barrier was a gender one. I don't know if this is the case with all mosques or was it because this one belonged to the supposedly more orthodox, shia sect. But it is really farce that the house of God has to be exclusive. And when they say that only Muslims can enter, they should define one. Because according to the Quran, anyone who believes in God is a muslim. If they mean that a Muslim is one who follows the Quran, well then there are hardly any Muslims around.
There are some temples in the south which forbid the entry of lower castes and non-Hindus. But Hinduism acknowledges inequality of castes. So in this case, unlike Islam which emphasis on equality, Hinduism does not contradict itself. I don't know if this discrimination is in the Quran or not. But how does it matter if it is not? For every accusation of rigidity, people say, "this is not in Quran. It is because of the society." I fail to understand that if all religions have developed in the same regions and societies then why are they not so rigid? And if for every god-damn issue, a fatwa is imposed. then when such serious blows like deviation from the Quran takes place, then why are fatwas not issued?
Islam has always tried to be very exclusive. The political scenario in which it originated and developed is the reason for it. It has definitely absorbed from other beliefs and practices but it has always tried to retain a certain degree of rigidity. Even in 21st century, there comes a fatwa that only two Muslims can marry each other. This exclusivity also clashes with modernist forces, most important of which is that of secularism. In an India where the a-political, common people would have agreed for a temple and mosque to co-exist on the disputed Ayodhya site, such discrimination is farce and intolerable. People want to rise above their personal faiths and accept and respect other faiths. This exclusivity will retard this growth. Exclusivity and Rigidity are also breeding grounds for the deadly germs of stereotyping 'the other'. Intermingling of cultures is not only inevitable but also necessary for their survival. Rigid cultures cannot survive and if they do, they decay the society, the economy and ofcourse, politics.

Another point in the case is that these mosques are more of historical monuments. They are of academic interests for many. So they are not just the religious domains. Thus, the personal beliefs of people should not be overriding. Like other historical monuments with mosques, these mosques should also be closed only on Fridays. Monuments are pride of the nation, not exclusive properties of any individual or community.

In the end, i shall conclude by saying that I don't know how far-reaching and equality will be the economic development in Mayawati's Lucknow but weeding out this irrationality and inequality will definitely be one of the real developments.

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Save the girl child...kill dowry

“Hamari existence se itni problem hai toh, bandhu yeh batao ki tum kaha se aaye?”

This was written on one of the boards in the college corridor and everytime i passed through, this struck me. I remember the “save the girl child” march hosted by our school. We were supposed to parade on the road holding placards and shouting slogans. Kalpana chawla and Indira Gandhi appeared on every third placard. This was followed by an essay writing competition. The similarity here and there was that in both cases, we focussed on why the girl child should be saved. The question of ‘why they are killed’ remained unasked and hence, unanswered.

However much illiterate a person might be, he/she knows that women have been granted with the gifting of life. So if we kill women then climatic change and natural calamities won’t be needed to wipe off our race. So raising the issue of ‘their existence for ours’ is illogical. Next we talk about the potentials of a woman. We talk about equality of sexes and give examples of successful women. So their potential is not the issue. How they become successful and who ultimately reaps the benefits is the issue.

Women are raised to be ‘parayadhan’. She is considered to be ‘someone’s amaanat(property)’. Marriage is considered to be the ‘biggest day in her life’. Throughout her upbringing, she is ‘prepared’ for the journey to the ultimate destination- her husband’s place. The playing with dolls serves as the first institute of this concept of burden. The play revolved around the institution of marriage. While in the rural framework, this is more direct as in the gudda-guddi khel where ultimately the gudda and guddi gets married, in the urban space, Barbies teach them the ‘ideal’ way for a woman. Once the ideology is set, the practical part comes. They are encouraged to learn house-hold work and taught how to walk and talk. They and everyone is mentally prepared to accept the ‘fact’ that one day she has to go. So the moment a girl turns 24, the whole world starts worrying about her. It is as if she has some kind of validity! But this is just the beginning. The ‘burden’ has to be set off through a grand ceremony. For the transaction, the ‘product’ draped in a saree, walks in slowly, with trembling hands under a tray of food. Then from ‘kahan tak padhi ho’ to ‘kuch gaake sunao’, all the features of the ‘product’ is clearly mentioned. Then comes the rate at which the burden has to be set off. In legal terms, this is called dowry but personally, this is referred to as ‘riwaaj(z)’. It consists of petty gifts like some dozen silk sarees, one Honda city, bed, TV, AC, and maybe a ‘negligible’ amount of money. They say ‘Shaadi toh janmo-janmo ka rishta hai’ and there is no doubt about this. People take loans to marry off their daughters. The sum is so huge that it takes ages to repay it! So the bride, when she finally goes, drags along the family’s treasury. After all, Marriages are a way to show how much you ‘love’ your daughter. Marriage is not just the union of the boy and the girl but of two families. This is true and so the bond has to be renewed every now and then via precious gifts. So no doubt that brides are considered to be ‘Ghar ki Lakshmi’! And then there is the belief among the bride’s family that ‘beti ke ghar ka paani bhi nai peena chahiye’, even though beti ke ghar ka pani comes from her family’s pockets! And how much of a home is her husband’s place for a woman is another issue.

So the society has made women the burden for her parents. She is a huge financial constraint for them. First her education and then her marriage. Parents prefer investing more for their son’s education because they assume that the money will come back to them. Their son will not go anywhere. He will take care of his parents. But the daughter has to leave. And women have the ‘option’ of being a house-wife. Even if a woman becomes something, the benefits will be reaped by her husband and in-laws. The parents who raised her, did so much for her will get nothing in return. Infact her marriage will only worsen their financial condition. It is easy to say that it is the duty of the parents to raise the parayadhan only if you are financially strong. But what about a poor farmer who cannot even afford three meals a day? So if you save the girl child, then who will save her family later? So the issue is not to save the girl child but to kill such traditions.
The very basic assumption is that the girl has to go to her husband’s place. This is seen as a ‘universal fact’. But no one knows who set this as a fact and why. Why it is that only a woman should leave her parents and go. Why is she so portable...Doesn’t she have any attachments? This is also ironical because women are said to be ‘emotional fools’. There are parents who only have daughters or who have sons who are as good as daughters (leaving their parents). So if they all go, then who will take care of the parents? Calling them up every night is not the solution to anything. There is a concept of gharjamai but it is not widespread. The reason is that it is not respectable as this concept alters the ‘natural’ set of orders. Who sets these orders is again a question. Combining both the families is another feasible solution if the invisible hands of the society are ignored. Let ‘Marriage is the union of two families’ be literal. A part of the income of the girl can be given to her parents even after her marriage. This can help them economically. This is the least that she can do to pay some kind of gratitude to them. The marriage should not be a big affair. We have to realise that marriages are arranged in heaven, not done there! Where is the need to make it such a lavish and unforgettable (the loans) affair? And why is that only the bride’s side has to arrange everything? Pinky weds bunty and Bunty weds Pinky. So both should pay. Similarly, the rivaaj(z)s of petty gifts also has to change. But all this can happen only if we stop treating women as ‘goods to be delivered’. The society will change...but only if u do! Don’t save the girl child, kill the murderers- kill dowry!

Friday, November 26, 2010

Ad Review of Fair and lovely forever glow.



The advertisement opens with a woman observing herself in a mirror. She then says with a sigh, "Soon i'll be 30 and old". Her friend, looking at a magazine with a man on the cover,reading "young ceo at 30" remarks how unfair it is. "At the age of 30, the skin starts losing its youthfulness and becomes dull and dry. Signs of ageing also starts emerging. But while for a man, 30 is young, for a woman, it is old", she argues. The woman then looks into the mirror again and reconciles, "lets make it fair". She then uses Fair and Lovely Forever Glow and the next thing we know, she has replaced the man on the cover. As for replacing the man, she then says "not fair na!" and the ad closes.
Yet again, the fair and lovely ads have propagated Racism. Fairness is the key to success. Women are always seen as objects of beauty and love. So fairness is a very important quality for them. In recent years, Fairness has become an issue for men as well, thanks to them. Many people had started justifying this form of racism as a path to 'liberation' as now even men are expected to look attractive. But this ad shatters their dreams. In this ad, it re-consolidates the gender-divide. Even if women try to make a mark of their own, they should be but 'women'. Fairness is not only a quality but qualification for them for success. For a woman to be successful and at par with men, she should be beauty with brains. In the end, she says with a laugh "how unfair" for the man...How i wish it was!

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Gender in Indian Television


Show#1 The baby-faced protagonist is all excited to go to her husband’s place. But there she finds out that she has to share him with another woman. The tagline of the show is “sindoor mera batta par patnidharma nibhaungi sada”.

Show#2 Fresh college pass outs struggling to become the ultimate bahu and biwi.

Show#3 The young widow is married off to her husband’s murderer. She happily fulfils her duties as a wife and bahu while her husband romances openly with his girlfriend.

These are the standard models around which revolve popular TV shows on major channels. Marriage defines the life of a woman. Their ultimate goal is to manage the household with utmost hardwork and dedication and become the ideal Bahu, Biwi, Bhabhi and Ma. The Bahu is shown to be the most important component in the household. The Bahu is the sutra of all familial ties. Whether it’s a tussle between her husband and her father-in-law or any issue with her sister-in-law, the Bahu has to intervene and solve the matter. She is responsible for maintaining peace and prosperity in the household. Even the minutest form of negligence like forgetting to oil the evening lamp or more salt in food can prove how worthless her life is. In the introductory trailer of a popular TV show, the protagonist happily admits that she has no identity of her own. She says, “ration card pe naam toh hai par spelling galat hai”. But management of the house is not the only pressure. She always has to look picture-perfect: a fair clear skin with perfectly-shaped eyebrows, not a single strand of unwanted facial hair and heavy, waterproof make-up. This explains why an entire show is devoted to two sisters with the two extreme complexions and the struggle of the fair one to get her dusky sister married. The Bahus do all the household work in expensive silk sarees and diamond jewellery and still feel the need to change when going out. They even go to bed in the sarees with the ghunghat still on and wake up with perfect hairdo still intact. The importance of sindoor is well-known now(thanks to ramesh babu) but the magical powers of the mangalsutra were discovered recently, when a woman used the mangalsutra to drive away a man who was asking for sexual favours, in front of her husband. The mangalsutra had saved the dignity of the woman. Without it, shes a “khuli tijori”. TV shows also defies the concept of a process. They show over-night transformation. The mangalsutra is a tool which changes life the moment u wear it. From a typical modern female urbanite (or ruralite) who wakes up late (or atleast she may not be up by 6), wears jeans or kurta pyjama, doesn’t know how to cook (or atleast perfectly) and has a life of her own suddenly becomes a responsible, slow-witted, shy doll sparkling with perfection in every household chore. Her friends disappear after her marriage. She has no support system other than the wise dadima who advise her that the only way-out to a wrecked marital life is to become the ideal bahu. The husband after some dozen extra-marital affairs will eventually come back to her (the power of mangalsutra). And ofcourse, she cannot go back to her parental home as “Goods once delivered cannot be returned”. The one thing that validates the birth of a woman and which is the symbol of a successful married life is the birth of a child (preferably male). The husband may drink, come home late and beat up his wife but it is only when there is no “khush khabri” within few months of marriage that people notice that things are not going good between the husband and the wife.

Women on the small screen (in popular TV shows) are being shown as the non-changing, tradition-bound entities. This is opposed to the reality, where feminism is ‘destroying’ the patriarchal society. Media is always expected to reflect the society. Some consider it as a platform which can initiate a social reform. But here it is trying to restrict the progress. They do seem to be carrying a social responsibility but that is of projecting a kind of social idealism which is patriarchy. To understand this, we should see this in the current political and economic context. Liberalisation and Globalisation entered the Indian economy in the 90s. 1990s-2000 can be considered the transitional phase. In the 90s, we had dubbed shows (Star plus was in English), Indian shows with light themes like hum paanch, dekh bhai dekh and some good family shows. Bournvita quiz contest, Boogie woogie and close-up anatakshari were the shows which can be categorised as “reality shows”. With the rapid drive of Industrialisation and commercialisation marched in the ‘k-brigade’ in 2000s. Shows with radical emphasis on familial and cultural values dominated the Indian Television and the light-themed shows migrated to now less-popular channels. Alongside, was the notorious MTV culture. Channel V and MTV was accused of exposing the western culture and misleading the youth. But with the increasing US hegemony, the MTV influence was inescapable. Infact, it even migrated to other channels in the form of ‘reality shows’. Today, Channel V and MTV shows revolve around love, sex and money, thereby representing a full-fledged capitalist society. In Recent years has spranged a fresh wave of shows known as Women-empowerment shows. They, however, represent the existing social evils operating largely in rural India. Though Anandi is now in our hearts, Akshara is on our minds. The current Television industry shows the tendencies and fears of the society. On one hand, it aims for a capitalist economy but fears losing its culture and tradition, on the other. And because Women are considered the epitome of our sanskriti, the small screen is trying to paint the ideal image of a Bahu, Biwi, Bhabhi and Ma. No matter what kaliyuga comes, Women should be women.

Monday, May 24, 2010

Convent culture

“Wanted fair, slim, beautiful Convent-educated Brahmin girl for tall, handsome Kaushik boy”

Convent schools are known for discipline and a ‘premium’ standard of education. So while their stereotyping about Christian missionaries remains well-preserved, parents are obliged to send their daughters into ‘safe’ convent hands. Fourteen years in the close-lid pan and their little angels will become ‘perfect young ladies’, they hope.

A typical convent-educated girl (young lady in convent vocabulary) is expected to be smart-looking(a ‘well-fitting’ dress or a skirt with a perfect hairdo and dainty nails), well-mannered(mannerism from around the world, exception: India) and has a good command over her language(an imported accent in English). Ironically, the convent curriculum lists out two goals- reaffirming faith in god and good, and producing a mature and fully-integrated personality. A lot of emphasis is placed on simplicity and modesty. Strict discipline ensured knee-length skirt, no fancy earrings, no nail paint, a simple hairstyle and a refined language. Following these standards, the ultimate product should have been of a humble-looking woman, an angel not a princess! So what goes wrong then?

It was an English-medium school and so speaking in Hindi was a punishable offence. Infact, even during recess, sisters were on the prowl to ensure that we were speaking in English. Once a sister had become so fed-up that she had asked us to suggest a way out! Ironically or not, English was an off-campus thing. The moment we stepped out of the campus, we started speaking in English! And the English was nowhere near what we call hinglish. Infact, even when we spoke in Hindi (school premises), we avoided words which sounded ‘weird’. It was also ‘cool’ if your Hindi was not that great! Convent schools are also supposed to have their own set of pronunciations (oxford standard, they say!). At home, I was never corrected on pronunciations. But I always made a point to tell them the ‘right’ one! Even in abusing, there was a divide. Hindi abuses were considered cheaper than their English equivalents! Coming to mannerism and culture, I remember a girl from south who used to have food with her hands. She was condemned for this. It was considered ‘rural’ (this has its own share of stereotypes!). Just few days back, I learnt that this practice of eating with hands is actually pan-Indian! It is disillusioning as we were alienated from our own culture. Eating with forks was not a part of our curriculum but we had all learnt it. Now comes the aspect of regionalism, people were not very keen to give the whereabouts of their village (incase, they admitted they have any!). It is a fact that Delhi hardly has ‘natives’ left. A large population hails from UP but the ancestry was hardly ever transcended beyond Meerut! The ‘rural-urban’ stereotyping was very prevalent. All this was not a part of the convent curriculum. This was never encouraged ‘directly’. But this level of elitism is a product of this.
Now comes the fundamental aspect- the gender-specific approach. Here there are two contrasting processes working simultaneously. Convent schools emphasis on ‘simplicity of women’. Women should be elegant. She should be dressed in a simple yet elegant manner(most convent schools still have skirts). Her speech should be polite. She should not shout or talk in a loud voice. This is considered non-feminine or masculine. She should be soft-spoken(society-approved standard). She should always conduct herself in a ‘lady-like’ manner. So on one hand, they oppose ‘objectification of women’ but support feminine standards on the other. A line on the way the other gender was presented may also be useful. A teacher had introduced the other gender by striking a similarity between them and honeybees! Developing crushes deserved capital punishment. There was a student whose parents were called when the teacher had found a love-letter in her bag! If your marks were low, one of the questions that you could be asked on PTMs was, ”do you have a boyfriend?”! Afterall, Good girls do not have boyfriends. The underlying principle here is to have women venture out but within the ‘limits’.

School Life is very important in the respect that it prepares us for the society. Convent schools enjoy a high reputation as it reflects the ideal nature of our society. Hierarchy is what sets this society. Elitism and gender-specific approach is the ideal way. Convent schools have their origin in British Raj. In the Indian context, there is western romanticism. This furthers the elitist approach in language and culture. The reason for the difference between ‘before 1’(during school premises) and ‘after 1’ (after school premises) convent girl is that the society accepts stereotypical girls. Convent school tries to ‘liberate’ them but since they have some demands to meet, they are helpless.

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Save the girl child...kill dowry

“Hamari existence se itni problem hai toh, bandhu yeh batao ki tum kaha se aaye?”

This was written on one of the boards in the college corridor and everytime i passed through, this struck me. I remember the “save the girl child” march hosted by our school. We were supposed to parade on the road holding placards and shouting slogans. Kalpana chawla and Indira Gandhi appeared on every third placard. This was followed by an essay writing competition. The similarity here and there was that in both cases, we focussed on why the girl child should be saved. The question of ‘why they are killed’ remained unasked and hence, unanswered.

However much illiterate a person might be, he/she knows that women have been granted with the gifting of life. So if we kill women then climatic change and natural calamities won’t be needed to wipe off our race. So raising the issue of ‘their existence for ours’ is illogical. Next we talk about the potentials of a woman. We talk about equality of sexes and give examples of successful women. So their potential is not the issue. How they become successful and who ultimately reaps the benefits is the issue.

Women are raised to be ‘parayadhan’. She is considered to be ‘someone’s amaanat(property)’. Marriage is considered to be the ‘biggest day in her life’. Throughout her upbringing, she is ‘prepared’ for the journey to the ultimate destination- her husband’s place. The playing with dolls serves as the first institute of this concept of burden. The play revolved around the institution of marriage. While in the rural framework, this is more direct as in the gudda-guddi khel where ultimately the gudda and guddi gets married, in the urban space, Barbies teach them the ‘ideal’ way for a woman. Once the ideology is set, the practical part comes. They are encouraged to learn house-hold work and taught how to walk and talk. They and everyone is mentally prepared to accept the ‘fact’ that one day she has to go. So the moment a girl turns 24, the whole world starts worrying about her. It is as if she has some kind of validity! But this is just the beginning. The ‘burden’ has to be set off through a grand ceremony. For the transaction, the ‘product’ draped in a saree, walks in slowly, with trembling hands under a tray of food. Then from ‘kahan tak padhi ho’ to ‘kuch gaake sunao’, all the features of the ‘product’ is clearly mentioned. Then comes the rate at which the burden has to be set off. In legal terms, this is called dowry but personally, this is referred to as ‘riwaaj(z)’. It consists of petty gifts like some dozen silk sarees, one Honda city, bed, TV, AC, and maybe a ‘negligible’ amount of money. They say ‘Shaadi toh janmo-janmo ka rishta hai’ and there is no doubt about this. People take loans to marry off their daughters. The sum is so huge that it takes ages to repay it! So the bride, when she finally goes, drags along the family’s treasury. After all, Marriages are a way to show how much you ‘love’ your daughter. Marriage is not just the union of the boy and the girl but of two families. This is true and so the bond has to be renewed every now and then via precious gifts. So no doubt that brides are considered to be ‘Ghar ki Lakshmi’! And then there is the belief among the bride’s family that ‘beti ke ghar ka paani bhi nai peena chahiye’, even though beti ke ghar ka pani comes from her family’s pockets! And how much of a home is her husband’s place for a woman is another issue.

So the society has made women the burden for her parents. She is a huge financial constraint for them. First her education and then her marriage. Parents prefer investing more for their son’s education because they assume that the money will come back to them. Their son will not go anywhere. He will take care of his parents. But the daughter has to leave. And women have the ‘option’ of being a house-wife. Even if a woman becomes something, the benefits will be reaped by her husband and in-laws. The parents who raised her, did so much for her will get nothing in return. Infact her marriage will only worsen their financial condition. It is easy to say that it is the duty of the parents to raise the parayadhan only if you are financially strong. But what about a poor farmer who cannot even afford three meals a day? So if you save the girl child, then who will save her family later? So the issue is not to save the girl child but to kill such traditions.

The very basic assumption is that the girl has to go to her husband’s place. This is seen as a ‘universal fact’. But no one knows who set this as a fact and why. Why it is that only a woman should leave her parents and go. Why is she so portable...Doesn’t she have any attachments? This is also ironical because women are said to be ‘emotional fools’. There are parents who only have daughters or who have sons who are as good as daughters (leaving their parents). So if they all go, then who will take care of the parents? Calling them up every night is not the solution to anything. There is a concept of gharjamai but it is not widespread. The reason is that it is not respectable as this concept alters the ‘natural’ set of orders. Who sets these orders is again a question. Combining both the families is another feasible solution if the invisible hands of the society are ignored. Let ‘Marriage is the union of two families’ be literal. A part of the income of the girl can be given to her parents even after her marriage. This can help them economically. This is the least that she can do to pay some kind of gratitude to them. The marriage should not be a big affair. We have to realise that marriages are arranged in heaven, not done there! Where is the need to make it such a lavish and unforgettable (the loans) affair? And why is that only the bride’s side has to arrange everything? Pinky weds bunty and Bunty weds Pinky. So both should pay. Similarly, the rivaaj(z)s of petty gifts also has to change. But all this can happen only if we stop treating women as ‘goods to be delivered’. The society will change...but only if u do! Don’t save the girl child, kill the murderers- kill dowry!

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Who is a feminist?

I asked my aunt if she is a feminist. She surveyed me for few seconds and said, “Feminist? I mean, there are differences between men and women. “When i posed the same question to a male friend he said, “How can i be a feminist? I am a MAN.” A famous Bollywood actress refused to be a feminist because she says, “I don’t hate men”. Half of the times, people do not know who a feminist is. Some end up summarizing feminists as ‘non-feminine’ women. Others view feminists as frustrated females who have no clue about what they are suggesting. There are even a few who even dare to confuse feminists with ‘feminine’ women. I know people who prefer to be called ‘women activists’ than ‘feminists’.

The word ‘Feminist’ means someone who demands equal rights for women. However, a new definition suggests a feminist to mean a woman rebel who wants to live like a man, altering the order of the nature. They believe in utopian idealism of equality of the sexes. The web of stereotypes which was the main target of the feminists has caught the feminists as well. A typical feminist is supposed to be an ugly-looking female with short hair, hairy legs. She is supposed to be a bra-burner. She has to hate men. Feminists were sometimes mistaken to mean lesbians. They are supposed to behave like men. So even when a feminist is actually trying to break free, she/he is only creating new boundaries.

A feminist is anyone who considers women as human beings. Contrary to the popular belief, one does not have be born a female to become a feminist. Feminists do not discriminate against the opposite sexes. A feminist is anyone who thinks that women have the right to decide for themselves. There is a difference between nature and culture. Women give birth. This is nature. Women have to take care of the kids alone. This is culture. Other than the fact that women can procreate, all other stereotypes are debatable. But society has made them appear as ‘facts’. Feminists target these assumptions. Every stereotype has an underlying cultural theory. ‘Girls like dolls and boys like cars’- This can be explained. Feminists are only appealing to the society to treat men and women as human beings, to respect their individuality. But feminism is being seen as a force destroying the family, the society.

Feminism is degraded because it is seen as a movement for the women and ‘by the women’. Women have been suppressed for centuries. Whenever they tried to raise their voices or break free, they have been silenced, either by force or through ideologies. Prostitutes who are financially independent met this fate. So the degradation of this ideology should not come as a surprise. Women’s chains have been forged by the society, not by the anatomy.

I have found that men are far more willing to discuss feminism than women themselves. The reason being that women have grown up believing that the society has different roles for men and women and that women have certain limitations. They have a gendered upbringing. A girl infant is given pink or light-coloured clothes. She is given a doll and she grows up to imitate that doll. Girls are home birds because they do not enjoy the same amount of freedom to go out as their brothers do. The restriction of movement is matched with the restriction of their thinking. So later when some ‘rebel’ tries to talk it out, their little world is threatened.

A very common perception about feminism is that it means equality with men. This perception challenges the very essence of feminism as even for equality, the parameters are male ones! Feminists challenge the institution of femininity but that does not mean it wants to adopt masculinity. There is a difference between femaleness and femininity. It is similar to the difference between nature and culture. Girls have to dress, talk and behave in a certain manner. This is femininity. Feminism does not say that women should not wear skirts or apply make-up. She has the right to do what she wants to. But feminism steps in when this becomes a social stigma. The symbols of femininity are also based on underlying principles. So women should know about this. Inspite of it, if she wants to, she has the right to. Some assume that feminists are against household work. Feminists do not discriminate against any kind of work but when people talk about ‘natural instincts’ then it becomes a duty to retaliate because they do not undermine the capability of the other sexes. Males can cook and sweep the floor with equal efficiency.

As for the other stereotypes about feminists, it should be notes that feminists do not constitute new specie. Men may be for Mars and women from Venus. But Feminists are on earth. At the end of the day, feminists are individuals. Whether they wear a bra or not, they shave or wax, it is the individual who will decide that. Feminism comprises of many schools of thought. So the ideas may not be uniform but the pillars for equal rights and the right to decide for themselves stands firmly. So if you support humanism, individualism..then why not support feminism?