How J.K.Rowling demoted Serena Williams

What should have been the brilliant Serena Williams' moment has transformed into a J.K.Rowling defending Serena one. The tennis star has enough calibre and celebrity to withstand stray comments, if she pays heed to them at all.

Instead, by rushing to her rescue Ms Rowling has reduced that victory to victimisation.

It started with Rowling posting her praise for Serena on Twitter: "I love her. What an athlete, what a role model, what a woman!"

A fellow called Rob responded with, "Ironic then that main reason for her success is that she is built like a man."

That's when Rowling did what she is now all over the place for. She posted two pictures of Serena in a slinky, clingy gown, her contours emphasised, and captioned it, "'she is built like a man'. Yeah, my husband looks just like this in a dress. You're an idiot."

For doing this, Rowling is now celebrated for having "decimated", "destroyed" a troll. Seriously? Can't even imagine the search words she must have used to find these photographs. Was it "Serena looking like a woman" or "Serena's hips"?

Rob has an opinion about women's bodies, and he does not think twice about commenting on a tennis player's despite the fact that she has won due to stroke play and not what she looks like. But, is J.K.Rowling any different from the guy who is denounced as a "body shamer"? One may accuse him of being wrong, or of misogyny, but has he shamed Serena?

Why would being built like a man qualify as shame? If a graceful male dancer is said to be built like a woman, would that be an insult? It ought not to.

I am surprised that the media has gone all pulp prose to commend Rowling, who should in fact be ticked off. She posts a picture of Serena looking 'feminine' and goes on to highlight it. What if she did not have those curves, would she then be less of a person of the female gender?

Not all women are built in the mould that a Rowling fancies as representative, just as not all men are uniform in build that Rob implies.

Worse, Serena is objectified not by the unknown man, but by this celebrity author. It's almost like a put-on display to justify to that Rob guy that she is all woman, all flesh. This is body shaming because it feels the need to prove that it is the desirably accepted female body and not what a guy from somewhere suggests it is.

Serena has won a title at Wimbledon. Her body has not. So, J.K. Rowling and her cheerleaders in the media and social media, bereft of nuance, can just shut up. And perhaps grow up.

Voices and Choices

She was articulate, but helpless too. "My having a love child is a scandal, but X as a celebrity is considered bold," she said.

This was her cathartic moment. I was meeting her for a theme-based feature story; at some point she just let out her frustration. I gently told her that the famous often become gossip items, even as they might feel emotions similar to anybody else.

"I am not talking about them, or even X, but how society sees it. They may gossip, but she is still invited to the big parties she always was, she continues with her work and, why, she has more work today. She is not shunned. I am."

X was a well-known person who had a child out of wedlock. The father was an even more famous person. They were, and are, what constitutes the beautiful people of high society. The woman sitting before me (let us call her M) was stunning, but did not belong among the beautiful people. She was a professional, had a fairly visible social profile, but was not a celebrity. And she had a child without marriage. For that one aspect, her whole life became subject to scrutiny.

She had exercised her choice. So had X. In fact, hers was the braver decision because she made a private choice and did not cling on to the man because their terms of engagement had been clear. X, on the other hand, had a public deal and the child was subsequently made into a bait. Yet, both these women had decided what to do with their lives. Why was the response to their choices then so different? M and X had similar friends. What made people react differently to the two women?

All this happened several years ago. I was thinking about it after the Vogue-sponsored empowerment video 'My Choice' became a huge talking point.

Women's empowerment seems to be treated like a marketing gimmick these days. It does not surprise me that some people think it has enabled a debate on feminism. This Swarovski version of feminism does suit certain sections of society because the people featured in it either mirror them or are what (or where) they'd like to be.

There has been much discussion already, both for and against. What bothers me most, besides the jejune script, is the emphasis on the body. I find it distasteful not because the body is something to be shirked, but because it has to be accepted as a normal part of one's being. The mass media objectifies it not only for brand endorsement, but also the self-conscious attempts at 'celebrating' it. We can celebrate a sculpture, not human flesh.

Unfortunately, the social media is incapable of grasping nuance, so those who critiqued the video were seen as the flip side of the rightwing coin. Some Hindutva groups did indeed question it but on moral grounds or how it was the result of western influence.

Criticism is not as uniform as praise. People have issues with a subject for more varied reasons than when they appreciate something. For me, the emphasis on choice makes it seem like it is an abnormality. There are several self-contradictory statements too.

You are my choice. I am not your privilege. The bindi on my forehead. The ring on my finger. Adding your surname to mine. They’re ornaments. They can be replaced.

Fine. But why have them at all? And who are these ornaments for? Him, right? So, she will replace one set of ornaments for another, but it will be an adornment for him, whoever he is.

My choice. To be a size zero or a size fifty.

And to show a pregnant woman as a large size? Besides, it is not always a choice. Some women (and men) become obese and then suffer from debilitating ailments; some lose weight rapidly and suffer too (I won't even go to malnutrition).

My choice. To come home when I want. My songs. Your noise. My odour. Your anarchy. Your sins. My virtues.

Why do her songs become his noise? Is that what she wants? Or is it what he tells her, or she imagines he would tell her? What is she asserting? How does her odour become his anarchy? I mean, give it a break! Would her deodorant then be his discipline? If his sins become her virtues, then are her virtues his sins? This is so much poppycock. As regards asserting that she will come home when she wants, it sounds less like empowerment and more about a teenager raising hell over curfew timings.

My choice. To have sex before marriage, to have sex outside of marriage. To have no sex.

The response to this has been the most widespread. Some have said it is licentious, others have stated that men should then claim similar choices. That is the reason I think it is problematic: this seemingly bold pronouncement would free men to not only do their own thing even when they are in a committed relationship but also use it to bully their partner when they might wrongly suspect her. How two adults choose to conduct their relationship is a private matter and intensely personal. Some people choose fidelity too, but the moment it becomes a pulpit statement it comes across as moralising.

As for celibacy, Mahatma Gandhi chose it; his wife Kasturba did not. She accepted it later. Would this be her choice?

It would be unfair to pick on Deepika Padukone for she is only a medium here. But, given that this is largely Bollywood, how come she or even the director did not think it fit to show women demanding more, if not (why not, though?) equal pay? The entertainment industry for all its liberal values refuses to see women as being financial assets on par with their male counterparts.

It is everybody's right to have an opinion and voice it. What is rather troubling about such promotional concern is that it is not meant for lasting impact. Go viral, bask in it for a few days and then move on to the next cause, preferably about women. Because, whether it is a woman's body or her spirit, there are infinite possibilities to exploit her.

Yes, she is infinite. However, her spirit does get caged when she is made to mouth bad clichés.

The Cleavage Chiaroscuro

What happens when a Bollywood actor decides to speak out against objectification? The reactions are simplistic and extreme.

The Times of India tweeted a link to its web gallery, with one picture that had the caption: "OMG: Deepika Padukone's cleavage show."

She responded with: "YES! I am a Woman. I have breasts AND a cleavage! You got a problem!!??"

TOI, rather flippantly, told her that it was meant as a compliment, adding: "You look so great that we want to make sure everyone knew! :)"

Deepika: "Don't talk about Woman's Empowerment when YOU don't know how to RESPECT Women!" and "Supposedly India's 'LEADING' newspaper and this is 'NEWS'!!??"

One thing needs to be clarified — this is not news and was not sold as such. It was by the entertainment department and the link was to a web gallery.

Was TOI being disrespectful? Yes. Specifically to her and generally to its readers. The assumption is that people are intent upon looking only at certain aspects of a person they might admire as a performer or even a looker or, worse, people cannot see what is there and need to be guided with verbal cues.

This is infantilising besides objectification. What exactly does a "show" conjure? That it is a performance, a display. Deepika is being accused of exhibitionism.

As happens often, the story is not so much about what was said but how it snowballed. The actor has featured in Times of India's other publications, often on the cover. It is a mutually-acceptable relationship, even beneficial. TOI has often passed off pulp as news.

The point is: are we and should we consider the cleavage of anybody as pulp? Would that not amount to a denial of gender dynamics, of the body, of identity? While Ms. Padukone herself was clear about what she has and how she expects respect, has the response followed this template?

Lyricist Swanand Kirkire came up with this: "Behind every cleavage there is a heart, a voice, thanks... for showing us your true beauty & this is a compliment." If he had to pay tribute to her heart by mentioning its location, then he should have mentioned the rib cage.

The general tenor of "she is more than a cleavage" is patronising, apart from missing the point: A woman can show cleavage, but it does not give anybody the right to point at it. Just as one might object to catcalls, which again are considered compliments by some.

And why does a woman need to have more that is in the realm of the abstract? She may possess many qualities that need not be for public consumption or its intensity may be reserved for personal interactions only.

In fact, one fallout is men who are standing with her want to express solidarity by posting pictures of their moobs (man boobs). This means little, for male actors have no issues about being known for their six-pack abs and muscles. If anything, their bodies convey a single-minded commitment to achieve a look required for a role, if not for the image of star power.

A woman actor who does work on her body is seen as an aberration that needs to get back to her original shape soon, even if the original shape follows a standard idea of perfection.

Returning to the online battle, not for a moment did the thought of Ms. Padukone's just-released film 'Finding Fanny' cross my head. She does not need publicity, although the mainstream media that is reporting on this are referring to her as the FF star.

One radio jockey, Malishka, resorted to hyperbole saying that Deepika "makes history today not just coz of #FindingFanny but coz of the stand she took".

It raises an uncomfortable question: If responding to a newspaper means creating history, are we to assume that there is silent acceptance otherwise? The reiteration of "about time" reveals a scenario where nobody speaks up.

I am particularly concerned that even now the sounds are merely echoes of one who is a top line actor. It is fairly routine for those not as well-known, especially those who are referred to as item girls, like Rakhi Sawant or Poonam Pandey, to be dismissed as drama queens if they do raise their voice. I doubt if they would get any support. So, this is also about class and the pecking order.

The Deepika episode gives an opportunity to some to become legitimised, even as they continue with their ogling. Director Anubhav Sinha said, "It is the high camera angle not a low neckline. What is low is the standard of journalism. Downright SICK!!!"

What exactly was actor Ayushmann Khurana trying to say with this, "Dear yellow journalism, a star showed you that some of you are green"? How puerile to suggest that this is about envy. The puerile seems to prevail, just as it becomes obvious that a little flash makes a bunch of people sweat and indulge in mass catharsis. Not many would wish the rub a big media house the wrong way, and they just do not have the time of inclination for more than a castaway statement.

If all these stars are truly concerned, they should speak out more often. It is only real war that will get them results and bring about a change in attitude.

© Farzana Versey

Fuzz and Feminism

Why can't they just leave women's body hair alone? From Cameron Diaz to American Apparel, they are being intrusive.

To think that the Hollywood star has discovered feminism via down under is a bit much. She is selling her book, and just like propping up the smooth skin is a big ticket there is a market for fuzz when these views come pregnant with adjectives. It is almost always "shocking images", and about being raw.

If Lower East Side Manhattan is going to curl up with embarrassment over a clothing store that shows mannequins in transparent lingerie showing off pubic hair, then it has little to do with reluctance to accept the natural.

If natural is what we want, then why restrict it to hair on the privates? Where is the fuzz on legs, arms, face? Where is the pigmentation, the natural contours of the belly, the hip? You can't create a woman, or a mannequin, to look like a stereotype and then talk about how liberating it is not to depilitate.

American Apparel's statement is:

"We are a company that celebrates natural beauty...We created it to invite passerbys to explore the idea of what is 'sexy' and consider their comfort with the natural female form."

For all the liberating talk, they are telling women that it is okay, that this is sexy, and they ought to just lie down and be comfy. It is such a magnanimous gesture that girl power will rush to buy the stuff. It happens to be the Valentine's Day window display, much in advance. Those women who have made the horrible decision to get themselves into a pre-pubescent stage have enough time to redeem themselves and grow it all back, so that when their boyfriends or spouses get these itsy-bitsies gift-wrapped for them, they can 'fit into' the role that the show window wants them to. All this, including celebrity endorsement, amounts to talking down to women.

The New Age man is always ready to experiment, therefore he would probably walk into American Apparels and imagine a fresh from mother earth sensation.

Also, do notice that the hair is dark, very dark. Why are there no red heads, blondes? Does 'nature' and its connotations imply only a shade that is perceived as belonging to the untamed? Is this not racism?

Somebody has called the display retro. We might have a pop version, a blues version, a nirvana version.

Cameron Diaz has a chapter in her book titled 'In Praise of Pubes' where she asks, "Do you really want a hairless vagina for the rest of your life?" Had this been a serious question, one might have attempted an answer. There is some merit in bringing it out in the open, but she refers to pubic hair as "pretty draping" and "mysterious". She obviously knows what evolutionists or creationists, depending on how she swings, intended it to be, if not god her/himself. What if some do not find it pretty?

She says such hair is like having a nose. The comparison ought to have been with nose hair. Will the big studios like to see poky little hairs sticking out from every part of the body? More importantly, where does one stop at grooming or start?

The idea behind grooming anyway amounts to interfering with what is available material. From head to toe, we meddle in the affairs of the body. It could be to please others, but to a large extent it is also what we are comfortable with. One is not contesting how social brainwashing might affect us, but will those using such images to get us back to basics show us a complete picture where nothing at all is groomed, and not just the sexual organs?

Whichever way you look at it, the obsession is with the female form. Clean-shaven men are seen as metrosexual. Clean-shaven women are now deemed unnatural. From grooming too much to now not grooming, we are sought to be objectified.

This is a private matter between us and our bodies. Do not tell us what to do behind the fig leaf.

© Farzana Versey

Saturday Snapshots

A quick weekend roundup of what made news and what it means.

The Tehreek-i-Taliban chief Hakeemullah Mehsud has been killed in a drone attack. Liberal Pakistanis are jubilating that at last a drone has hit the right guy. (How often did they point out the wrong targets?) The problem is that they do not even try to put pressure on their government to deal with such men. I'd like to know how the Americans manage to get it right this time. If they are capable of good targeting, why is it that so many civilians have been killed? Was this a chance encounter that gives them enough ammo to live on before their exit from Afghanistan? (Incidentally, Mehsud has been 'killed' before, too.)

And then there is Imran Khan. His tragedy is that every time somebody from TTP dies or is killed Pakistanis start mourning for his political career. They don't even realise what an unhealthy obsession it is. But, then, he is a few words away, unlike dealing with the real McTalibs.

---

Just got news that Rohit Sharma has scored a double century in the ODI against Australia.

Due to too much hoopla, I've lost interest in cricket. But seriously, scoring over 200 in a one-day match is like cooking biryani is a microwave oven.

---

Lata Mangeshkar has declared:

"Narendrabhai is like my brother. All of us want to see him become the Prime Minister. On the auspicious occasion of Diwali, I hope our wishes would come true."

Surely, Lataji cannot speak on behalf of all Indians. She is using a religious festival and has done what amounts to campaigning for Modi. We are aware of the family's leanings towards the Hindutva ideology and its support for the Shiv Sena in Mumbai. We also know how she made a noise about the proposed flyover on Peddar Road only because it would affect her. (She resides there.) Such political interference is not new, and when she was not getting an assurance she sulked and threatened to leave the city. Her sister Asha Bhosle spoke of moving to Dubai, which happens to be convenient because she owns a restaurant chain in the UAE as well as other Arab countries and London.

Wonder why Lataji has not sought a haven in Gujarat.

Meanwhile, Modi's reaction was amusing:

"With their (Mangeshkar family) divine voices, delighted crores of people making them stress-free with music and making their minds and bodies healthy."

PS: My views on Lataji predate Modi's appearance on the political scene.

---

No comments:

Michael Fassbender is fed-up with everyone obsessing over his penis.

"It wouldn't be acceptable, it would be seen as sexual harassment, people saying (to an actress), 'Your vagina...' You know?"

Desire under the microchip

Would you want your clothes to become transparent whenever you are aroused, instead of the usual signals? When innovative tech art enters personal territory it becomes both edgy and a matter of some concern.

Artist Daan Roosegaarde, who runs a social design lab, has diversified into computerised couture. He does not call it that. Rather, it has a name more befitting lingerie – ‘Intimacy’. You may opt for the black or the white version.

According to The DailyBeast:

Each dress has a small microchip embedded inside that contains software programmed to monitor different behaviors—in this case, a heartbeat. The garment functions much like a computer: The input is the heartbeat, the processor is the microchip and the output is the foil material, which can change from white to transparent or black to transparent.

Roosegarde does not treat it as merely a techno marvel:

“It creates a situation of total control that the wearer or the one who observes it has an influence over what fashion looks like…With some people you want to show more and some people you want to show less. We thought it would make complete sense that the dress would be proactive in that: either you have control or you lose control.”

Any woman who has been exposed to a particularly cold windy day or the gust from an airconditioner knows how her nipples react. These signals have little to do with arousal, although bracing weather can indeed be utterly enticing.

I assume the person who chooses to dress in ‘Intimacy’ is aware of the consequences. A beautiful and spontaneous reaction is now about control. What if she is aroused by a fantasy, a passage in a book, a scene in a movie, and not the person she is with? Is it not possible that she would try and control herself and withhold a natural expression even though she might not wish to see it through to what is considered a logical end?

The sensual would now become mechanical. Were the woman’s garment to turn transparent due to her partner, then it would express urgency, a preparedness that might pretty much bypass foreplay. Where would the blushing cheeks, the darkening of eyes, the shortness of breath, the slow running of fingers through hair, the biting of lips, the anticipation figure in this?

There is something automated about the dress, and as it is programmed one is not too far from such an allusion.

Besides, while ostensibly giving women the freedom to let their clothes communicate their desires, it actually plays into the male prerogative of perceiving the signals. It assumes that women might not wish to convey what they want – either through those natural expressions I mentioned or proactively by seduction, where she can gauge male arousal. ‘Intimacy’ makes woman the taker, or rather the taken, as does every stereotype in the book.  It chips in with a microchip to assist her to get rid of being able to transmit sexual intent.

Male arousal is seen as a given and in control of itself and of what it desires. The man will know exactly what to do, when and how. The reality is not quite as simple. Men also have issues and inhibitions.

There are plans to dress men, too. ‘Intimacy 3.0’ is a suit that will become transparent when they lie. Roosegarde uses humour to explain it: “That’s for the banking world.” That one-liner itself reveals that men’s command over their bodies in sexual situations is to be taken for granted.  It is unlikely that they would pick up a suit that would expose their lies. If they would wear it in an intimate setting, isn’t it a bit confusing that they would want to fake arousal or lie about interest in their partner? Reminds me of Pinocchio, whose nose grew longer with every lie. It would kind of stick out.

Unless, there is an altruistic motive to get men to be more truthful, aware that their lies would get exposed. The microchip would then work as conscience-keeper. From the body’s reactions to emotions to matters more intimately moral, it would seem a market can be created for robotising and lobotomising everything that is human.

© Farzana Versey

Hunt for a baby

Helen Hunt with her baby

When I read about Helen Hunt getting a baby due to an ‘uplifting experience’, I adduced it must have been close to Immaculate Conception. 

What transpired, instead, was a combination of superstition and auto-suggestion.  The uplifting experience was a ‘lift’.  On the David Letterman show, Hunt shared her experience with Indian guru Sri Chinmoy, who has been described as a “United Nations-recognised master”.  The UN has a questionable record on political issues; therefore, one wonders on what basis it might have certified a spiritual guru as a master.  In form of address ‘master’ is quite the norm, but it is by believers. Did the UN test spiritual powers and, if so, how did it measure these?

Bollywood films used to have a standard cure for infertility – a visit to a godman or guru. Often, the person would be a villain with beady eyes, smacking his lips and while showering blessings on the woman giving her a once-over. Depending on how the characters were to develop in the script, the woman would either be forced to succumb or escape. Art-house cinema too explored the misuse of tantric practices. This, unfortunately, is not relegated to cinema.

A scene from the recent Bollywood film 'Oh My God - OMG'

Even today, one reads about charlatans from different cults and faiths using their ‘powers’ to offer women more than spiritual guidance. The better-known gurus have an ostensibly clean image and a celebrity flock. They cater to bruised egos, including their own, and in India while their role in politics was earlier mainly on the sidelines, these days they pontificate on major national issues. This camouflages the exploitative nature of the smaller players.

Hollywood has been a good place for those who managed to charm an international clientele. Everyone seems to have been in some form of rehab, and needs succour. Scientology has already asserted itself. Tibetan Buddhism too has done so, for those with political sympathies for the Dalai Lama.  Beverly Hills easily alternates between the good life and the god life, one feeding the other.  People do feel the need to rejuvenate and/or seek a higher purpose.

However, when someone certifies that an important bodily activity has been performed due to such intervention, one needs to look more closely.

Here is the extract from a report:

The guru, who passed away in 2007, was famous for showing off mind-over-matter feats of strength, and he celebrates the achievements of people he admires by lifting them above his head.

Hunt explains, “He lifted people that he felt had achieved something, that had contributed something to the world… (Archbishop) Desmond Tutu, Muhammad Ali and me.

“I went with my goddaughter… and we pull into this place and women open the car door and they’re dressed in, like, floral gowns, and they walk me into this garden. Then I get on this contraption, walk up four steps and he lifted me up.”

It is obvious that Sri Chinmoy understood achievement. It does call for a celebration, although this is a most unusual way to express it. Why did this single experience convince her that she could become a mother? It coincided with her conceiving. “I wanted to have a baby and he was encouraging me to pray and not give up and I did have a beautiful daughter, so he was right.”

There is place for coincidence and serendipity in our lives, and some of us have had what are known as ‘out-of-body’ experiences. These, if we try and understand rationally, are part intuitive and part strong desire. The mind is an extremely powerful tool. Ask those who suffer from psychosomatic disorders. One needn’t go that far. It is possible to experience a state of suspension merely due to a fever.

But making babies does require some amount of hard work and it is far from being a meditative state. One cannot merely wish to conceive or be so uplifted as to create out of nothing. The concept of Immaculate Conception has fascinated me for long and it is a profound spiritual metaphor for creation. Taking it out of the realm of its religious context, it is symbolic of the purest birth of what could change the world – it could be a piece of art or an ideology.

Helen Hunt’s encounter with the guru lacks this sublimity. It appears to have been at best a spiritual transaction; it was also two famous people meeting as a trade-off. Why could she not pray on her own? How much did merely sharing her deep need for a child have to do with it? Is it not possible that the seed had to be sown in her mind for her body to accept it?

She is fortunate that she is who she is. But, the legitimacy she gives to such errant experiences conveys that although thoughts are potent, she could not even think them on her own.

© Farzana Versey

Love Anarchy

Kang Yi stripped down to a thong while a young woman gave him love bites. Performance art is almost always controversial. What was the significance of this one staged on a podium at a Guangzhou auditorium?

He said: 

“It's a critique of the concept of chaotic love. I hope that my art piece will call out to today's youth to seek out the excellent genuine love and feelings of traditional China.”

A young woman, a student, spent an hour and a half bruising him with her lips. His chest, abdomen and arms were soon covered with hickeys. It is pertinent that he chose to stand in a Christ-like pose. If we use this as metaphor, then he sees excessive expression of love as no different from hate, of being nailed to a Cross, all to save his people.

The report states:

He also donned tree roots in his hair to signify time and tied three roasted chickens to the plank across his shoulders that positioned his body into a cross-like shape.

Does Time here denote going back to an age where love was mostly devoid of feeling? The roasted chickens covey death as well as sustenance. It is about survival.

Chicken skinning, cooking, carving are as much part of modern-day culinary tradition as they were in rudimentary form in the early days.

By trying to demonstrate what is wrong about such love, Kang is in fact making it seem desirable. He is the centre of that universe where a woman submits to him. His stoic stance is less of a saint and more of a taker. The master commanding that his needs be ministered to. His hot flesh waiting to be bitten into. And his being tied up frees him from having any commitment.

The woman whose lips too would have tired after 75 minutes of such activity is just a tool for his needs. Had the performance shown her writhing or expressing some emotion, it might have been ‘chaos’. Besides, the nature of physical love is subject to how two consenting adults choose to ‘perform’ it. No one is privy to what the traditionalists did in their bedrooms. Chaotic love is not one-sided, unless it is exploitation.

Emotional love is more often about an individual pitted against another. Two people cannot feel the same for each other with similar intensity and the nature of that love will witness varied shades along the way. This does cause turmoil. Tradition cannot save it. If anything, people have been forced into dismal relationships because tradition left them with no option but to follow the rules of the game as reckoned by their roots. This happens in most societies even today.

Kang is merely a revivalist who is using exhibitionism, much like a man enjoying life in a nudist colony trying to sell clothes to others. 

- - -

Images: Daily Mail

Foetus and Feminism: What about the other Savitas?

 

Words like “pro-choice” did not even occur to her as they forced an iron rod into her vagina and, together with the blood, remnants of an unborn human being seeped out. She wept a little for the lost child and much more for the scalded part that was essential to her job. Shanno was a sex worker. The brothel owner could not afford her ‘wares’ to be mothers. Shanno had opted for survival on sleaze street. Brothels are secular, so she followed all faiths. No one would justify or hold back her abortion on the basis of religion.

Savita Halappanavar’s death due to negligence at the University Hospital Galway in Ireland has become a global issue largely due to that. A 17-week-old foetus is considered risky for termination of pregnancy. Unfortunately, she was miscarrying and in the state of unbearable pain asked the doctors to abort the baby. The reply they gave her has become a whip-mantra: “This is a Catholic country.”

Is it news that the Catholic Church is against abortion? Savita’s family is justifiably incensed; the denial of her right to terminate the pregnancy is a crime for which they ought to get justice. However, would there be such international outrage had the doctors cited medical reasons for their refusal to abort? Indian politicians who pay scant respect for women’s health and welfare have urged the external affairs minister to intervene and order an enquiry into this case. A report states that 12 women die every day in India due to unsafe termination of pregnancy.

  
Jodie Jacobson wrote in RH Reality Check: 

“Someone's daughter, wife, friend, perhaps sister is now dead. Why? Because a non-viable fetus was more important than her life. Because she was left to suffer for days on end in service of an ideological stance and religion she did not share. Because a wanted pregnancy went horribly wrong, and, because as must now be clear, there are people who don't care about the lives of women.”

If it is an ideological stance, would the lawmakers in Ireland even consider this example based on a religion Savita “did not share”? Some foreign newspapers have carried stories with large pictures of Savita and her family at her wedding, including a dance video of a private function. The motive seems to be to pit one culture against another, or at least to highlight that an ‘outsider’ had to suffer because of these laws. Last month, the first private abortion clinic opened in Belfast amidst protests. Why did it take this long for such a medical service to be available when it is public knowledge that women travel to England for abortion? Do activists believe one case will lead to a re-examination of the country’s archaic laws?

Every religion talks about the value of life. That they do not value the quality of life, are misogynistic, and follow a wholly patriarchal notion should make us wary about using their programmed responses to falsify the reasoning. In fact, most social norms too consider abortion as the last resort. How many women, even among the educated, take an individual decision to abort?

***

Let us digress and expand on the idea of choice.  By applying the argument that a ‘woman’s body is her own’ – an obvious fact – the onus shifts entirely on women. Where abortion or childbirth is concerned, this amounts to being the sole caregiver or guilt-ridden slave of chauvinistic tripe. Just as the Pill did not really empower women but made her accountable for her ‘freedom’, the womb has been desexualised as a pre-birth nanny.

Contemporary feminist literature, especially about sexuality, while apparently busting myths ends up as a Hallmark card celebration of feminine body parts. Take this: “I experienced some of the 'thoughts' of the uterus myself”, from Naomi Wolf’s ‘Vagina: A New Biography’.  Imbuing the sexual organs with emotions demotes physicality as a natural state. The woman becomes an addendum to the part: “Your vagina makes you a goddess. Or rather, ‘The Goddess’.”

A review in The Guardian had taken on Wolf by recounting her description of “a ‘bodyworker’ who attempts, through massage, to re-engage sexually traumatised women and who, Wolf relates in the book with a straight face, once saw an image of the Virgin Mary in a vagina”.

This is a concept that the male module employs effectively to worship women as divine pleasure-givers whose own contentment is essentially to procreate. It appears that female sexuality can only be sanctified as motherhood. It is not easy to discard the psychological baggage, the subliminal conditioning of creating that which is in God’s image. When an Indian intimate cleansing product was advertised as satiating the male, some women activists had raised objections using the convenient hitch of its ‘fairness’ claims. While owning up to the right to pleasure, I had written then that they seemed to look upon it as an individual activity. This too amounts to a quasi-virginal Madonna state.

The supposedly more open western society is also not immune to this. When Demi Moore posed in the buff in an advanced stage of pregnancy for Vanity Fair, she was legitimising pop culture through maternity. Angelina Jolie goes a step further by a public forsaking of the crutch of cohabitation to become the ‘adopted’ mother.

Where choice is concerned, there can be extremes. If widows could use the frozen sperm of the spouse because the couple were seen as “together”, according to Britain’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, 1990, then at the other end a foetus born to a brain-dead woman was kept alive because it had the right to live. Savita might well have been saved had medical assistance opted to do so.  

It is not only Ireland that has to think. We forget that in many parts of the world foetuses are discarded because they are female and infants are thrown in garbage bins because they are viewed as burdens. By some weird logic, this is justified as a choice by a society that has no respect for human dignity and for women.  It is the low self-esteem choice to be chauvinistic.

---

Published in CounterPunch

Betrayal of beauty?

What Jian saw and committed to

The Chinese man who sued his wife for being 'ugly' and won the case can be seen as a study beyond beauty.

Jian Feng did not know about the lack of pulchritude in his wife. When she delivered an “incredibly ugly” baby, he figured out that this is what she looked like. She had, in fact, undergone several cosmetic surgeries.

It is interesting that he assumed she had cheated on him. This made her confess about her surgeries before marriage, where she spent about $100,000.

This was another form of cheating. It makes one wonder about betrayal. What really does it mean? He says she used false pretense. We are living in times when nips, tucks, implants, botox shots have become commonplace. In fact, if you do not have any of the new fashion “accessories”, you might still be suspect.

He got attracted to what he saw. That was the reality for him. Would he know about other forms of ugliness? These are often revealed when people are forced into situations or because these are suppressed emotions that cannot be surgically altered.

Did his wife lie to him? Did he ask her about her past? Would she have confessed to this? Regarding physical aspects too, there are so many that are not immediately visible – what about depilation, push-up bras, corsets, cosmetics that enhance looks? Needless to say, the standards would apply to men as well.

What if Jian’s wife had met with an accident after marriage? Would that be a betrayal? If he began looking at her with pity and tolerated her, then would he not be betraying her? If she underwent reconstructive surgery, but there were a few changes, would that be betrayal? What happens as she, and he, age?

As for the child, what would happen if the daughter was born cute? There would be no reference to false pretense. Would that diminish the betrayal? Is it then about the real false pretense which in turn is about destiny’s denial?

The court has granted him a substantial amount in damages. The child is a product of both of them. What is his responsibility towards the daughter who is unaware of what transpired? If she revealed to him the big truth about his wife, then should he accept her as the harbinger of news or reject her for being a part of it? Will the mother hate her because it was her looks that brought out her secret in the open?

Aren’t these additions and subtractions to the body a betrayal of the self first? Such betrayals are often choices. If people are expected to change habits and values, then why the chariness about physical traits? 

PS: I don't see any reason to post her 'before' picture. This is what she is now. 

Demonising a smile

Adults fake it. Do children? Anders Breivik’s smiling picture as a four-year-old is being used by psychologists to analyse what led him to kill 77 people in Norway. It’s been called the smile of the monster. Such photographic ‘evidence’ will demonise children.

At his trial in Oslo, a doctor said:

“Much of what we see in him today is visible here, not least in the disarming smile he hides his feelings behind. He had difficulty expressing himself emotionally. He lacked light, joy and the pleasure of playing with others. We feared he would develop serious psychopathology (problems), which may indicate mental illness. Unfortunately we were right, but we never imagined that one day he would become a mass murderer.”

This is just so dangerous. There are children who are shy for various reasons. Many turn out to be writers, scientists, actors, pretty much involved in activities that either are done in isolation or to become somebody else. Look at the picture again. Have you never seen a child smile like this – perhaps your own or someone in your family, maybe your childhood pictures? Have you gone and killed someone?

There is much to discuss about troubled childhoods. They affect the children more than anyone else. Does every child with a not-so-happy background read works that are considered violent? Besides, does such a smile reflect exactly what form of aggression will be used? What is the impetus for choosing one over the other?

About masking, it is a defensive reaction or in many instances nervousness. It could also mean suppressed laughter, and that one is taught in classes on decorum – do not laugh out loud at someone or over a poor joke, it is bad manners. Like, don’t talk with your mouth full.

If the psychiatrists are saying that it revealed “serious illness” in Breivik’s case, and was used to keep away emotions, then it is used by many adults at different times. The most extreme example would be Hitler’s masked smile that seems to be a held-back sneeze.

Body language is a fascinating study, but it cannot be seen as parts of a whole. How we look at people or away, how we sit in company, how we talk to or at, how we purse our lips, how we cross our legs are all about a situation at a given time. This need not be about us as we are, but what we behave like with someone for some reason. It may change in a few minutes or a few hours, days, months.

And those who give a full jaws smile need not be ‘open’ really. That too is part of the faking, the congeniality people.

I do wonder if Mona Lisa had the makings of a terrorist since we just don’t know what she’s hiding or revealing.

A close shave?

 
Imagine if one fine day men turned around and said they want all women to wear lipstick or they will not listen to them. Sounds bizarre? Something quite similar is happening. The “No Shave, No Lipstick” movement by a razor company is reducing women, men and relationships to such basic common denominators.

It is true products use several tactics to subliminally convince potential and existing customers to go for better options. Will an ad such as this convince men who like their facial hair to shave? If it does, then it reflects rather poorly on male self-esteem, and much more poorly on how women strike a bargain. This is a strike of a petulant kind. The women will let go a bit of vanity, a cosmetic, to ensure that men turn up the way the majority supposedly like them. The implication in the words is that women are exercising this power. In fact, they are denying themselves something. Or, worse, assume that their appeal lies in what they wear on their lips. They are limiting themselves.

The “common platform” is an “aversion to stubble”. The basic philosophy is that if men cannot groom themselves for women then they must not expect the same from them.

Is there a single yardstick to measure grooming? Is it all right for the man to be unhygienic, loud and crass so long as he shaves? What exactly does the ad wish to convey by saying that men think a woman looks less appealing without a lipstick? There are thousands of women who do not wear lipstick, and I mention this because the ‘movement’ has talked about middle-class women too. And don’t we often read in style magazines how the nude-lips look is so in? What about it, then? Besides, the lipstick is an external object that can be applied. A stubble grows naturally. A man may not be able to deal with it immediately or everyday – he could be unwell, he may not be in the mood, he might be busy with other things. This is a kind of pressure to perform, and it is unfair.

I also dislike the manner in which words are used to describe the hirsute man as untrustworthy, giving rise to suspicion that he could be hiding something. He is hiding his chin, if at all, and sometimes this could be the real reason. Like women opting for a fringe if they have large foreheads. Although clean-shaven is mentioned, I am intrigued by the reference to stubble, and not a moustache.

On the other hand, guys who shave are confident, affable and hardworking. There is a small little footnote which says the ad is not intended to hurt the sentiment of any gender or community. This is about men and men with hair on their face. So, forget the hurt, the message could rule out the good qualities of people from certain communities. Are Sikhs not trustworthy? Are Muslims not hardworking? Do cultures where many men sport beards, like Malayalis or the goatee among Bengalis, less affable?

Perhaps the women who are taking part in this silly movement, wasting their time to support it, should ask the organisers to give them a list of criminals in the past few years who have not been clean-shaven. Ask them to provide a list of wife-beaters, drunken drivers, those with poor performance in the office, those who slink in corners waiting to molest, rob, even kill. Ask them to check out what the clean-shaven men wear, if their shoes are polished, whether they bathe regularly.

Let us not forget, there are women who might like men with facial hair. Think about some artists, philosophers, scientists, academics, and even pop stars. If, in the latter case, women can cry out of sheer joy if they get hold of a sweat-soaked T-shirt, then they certainly cannot really mind the stubble.

And if they really care about ‘issues’ they should wake up to reality. I know, I can hear those smirking voices say, chill, this is an ad. But an ad is not just an ad, especially if it purports to be a movement. We have reached a stage where everything is a movement, and it assumes the stupidity of women by making them seen like ‘concerned citizens’, in charge of the whole ‘clean up’ operation, so to speak.

And the poor dears are sacrificing their lipsticks for this. They do not realise that some smart chap might flash the razor in front of them as bait. They are just fishes in the huge sea…

PS: I wonder whether men trust women who do not shave.

Of shooting orders, noses, and pictures that brutalise

President Barack Obama can kill anyone. Or, his administration can. Needless to say ‘anyone’ here means persons who pose a “threat”, and for the United States of America it is the al-Qaida. Now that it has done away with Osama, is moving out of Afghanistan, and is a bit strapped for taking any overt action against Iran, the target practice begins at home.

If the threats come from US recruits of the organisation, the President’s office can get rid of its own citizens abroad without consulting a federal court.

US Attorney General Eric Holder said:

“Given the nature of how terrorists act and where they tend to hide, it may not always be feasible to capture a US citizen terrorist who presents an imminent threat of violent attack. In that case, our government has the clear authority to defend the US with lethal force.”

This is dangerous for a few reasons:

• If the US government does not know where the terrorists hide or how they operate, and we have evidence of it by the long-drawn out wars, then how would it assume there are threats?

• If you do not know where they hide and therefore it is not feasible to capture them, then how will it be easy to spot them to kill? 

• If the US knows that there is a possibility of violent attack, its intelligence agencies would know where it comes from. Isn’t it amazing that these agencies can recognise an American citizen as an al Qaida recruit who is a threat, but cannot figure out what to do with him? Has he put up the Stars and Stripes in some hidden location so that people can recognise his nationality?

• How would the American government be so sure that the lethal threat is planned against the US? How many times in the past decade has the country been attacked?

This move is just a carte blanche to do as it pleases, round up the usual suspects and make it difficult for ordinary American citizens whose origins are elsewhere. They may be second generation immigrants who have no links with the country of their parents’ birth.

This is not to deny that young people have become acutely aware of their identity. Part of it is brainwashing, and part of it is most certainly the result of being socially targeted without any cause. These are a few. The US is supposed to know a lot about everything that happens in the world, so why can it not keep a track of its own citizens?

Why did it insist on getting David Headley back for trial? How did this US citizen manage to visit India and Pakistan? The US did not capture him. He was handed over. And the story of what he did and why will continue because the United States of America does not want anyone captured. It wants to kill, and not have to answer inconvenient questions.

- - -

Cosmetic surgery is not halal. An Egyptian member of the Islamic Al-Nour party has discovered. Or, rather, he knew already, that is the reason Anwar al-Balkimy explained away his bandaged nose as the result of being beaten up by gangsters in a robbery attempt.

His fib was exposed and he was expelled from the party and had to issue an apology. However, there will be an official inquiry and if found guilty he might be imprisoned for “creating anxiety among the public” and “worrying public officials”!

Does the public care? If only some of these purist groups took a look behind the hijaabs, they’d find blonde streaks and heavy make-up. Men probably use quite a few things that make them look and feel good.

It is indeed possible that somewhere in the religious texts there is a provision for not tampering with the body. There was no concept of cosmetic surgery until a few decades ago. If a person suffers from severe burns, will there be no skin grafting? This is reconstructive surgery and is meant to repair the appearance, for it does not necessarily hamper the functioning of other organs. So, what is the fuss about? Perhaps, the MP had problems with breathing because of his nose structure. Or, it may as well be that he wanted to alter the shape because he felt like it.

He has not changed as a person, so his nose should concern no one but him and his god, if they insist.

- - -

You are seeing this photograph and are revolted. Everyone is. However, what does come out of this? Today’s Mumbai Mirror had a front page story on this one picture – of a man who survives by begging, has no one and lives on the streets. He was beaten up, and it transpires it was by the cops. The important thing to note is that this photograph first appeared in yesterday’s issue. The writeup expressed remorse and anger, but no one knew who the people beating him up were. In today’s edition, Pritish Nandy says "These brutes must be punished". But, when he states that people just stood there and did nothing, he forgets to ask: did the newspaper’s photographer do anything?

And this is the long caption that went with it:

On a pavement opposite CST, scores of people were momentarily distracted from their vada pavs and chai by the screams of this dishevelled man in the picture. The drama started around 2 pm when a group of six, carrying canes, ordered the man to get into a police vehicle, which already had around 20 others. When he refused, he was thrashed mercilessly; the lashings didn’t stop even when blood started gushing out of his forehead. Shopkeepers by the pavement said the man was homeless, and would often be found looking for food in the garbage bins. There was no confirmation whether the assaulters were policemen; the man was finally bundled into a vehicle, driven away to an unknown destination.

Apparently, somebody wrote this seeing the picture and talking to the photographer. It was a “drama”, and now we have a story.

Is it always about a story, and then the claim of being the first to ‘expose’ how callous we are? Are they not ‘we’? Brutality, anyone?

- - -


Images: Telegraph, The Guardian, Mumbai Mirror

India Copulated:The Dirtier Picture

This is a marketing gimmick camouflaged as a film. I went to a single-screen theatre to watch it. Alone. After all, this was about female empowerment. Sipping coffee, waiting for the door to open, I looked at the audience. Men – young and old. Women – young and old. One woman wore a burqa, but her face was visible; another one wore a tight tunic with pants, but her face was covered and only her eyes were visible. Weird. There was an infant, too. One elderly lady told me, “No one was willing to come along.” Aha, it was ‘The Dirty Picture’.

I had booked in advance and opted for a corner seat. The film began and at some point the dirtiness started with the protagonist making funny sounds while a couple is at it in a filthy room. Dirty, remember? It was not quite certain whether she was faking an orgasm or a crap. Just as the film is a confused medley. It does not even have the grace to be a parody; it is downright slapstick with the so-called bold dialogues not going beyond what you might hear boys in school talk about when playing with themselves. Yes, boys. Despite now claiming it is a work of fiction, the makers had pushed it as a biopic based on the real-life story of South Indian actress Silk Smitha – her overt sexuality, her exploitation and her ultimate destruction and death by suicide. It is an insult to her and to any kind of sensibility, even the crude.

Silk Smitha

For months news items and television promos were showcasing Vidya Balan, the actress who essays the part, in ‘character’. Bright clothes and a wink, irrespective of which programme she was on. The film has been declared a hit at the box office and almost all reviews and stories have been applauding Ms. Balan for her courage. This is such irony. No one ever thought of Silk as courageous. She was dismissed as a soft porn star. There are many such stories and the entertainment industry, including Hollywood, has used women. Those who make it to the big grade deny the casting couch. The others like Silk have no choice. They remain where they began, bathing under a waterfall or falling off slopes with an ageing hero.

Shyam Benegal’s Bhumika had tackled the subject with finesse, although it too had its love-making scenes and even a tantalising lavni dance by Smita Patil. It, too, was based on a real-life story. We could empathise with the character and her growth. Silk, on the other hand, does not at any point give us an opportunity to feel her pain or even her pleasure.

Bollywood has been commending the fact that a ‘respectable’ actress took up the role. This is hypocrisy and exploitative. They are using the story of a woman whose family lives in poverty in some village, and yet tacitly they are running her down. All this talk about celebrating the body is so much smooth talk. There are many such young women who perform dance numbers and they are called item girls. They go through the process of shedding their clothes, but no one says they are celebrating their bodies. They are well endowed, but no one says they are the ideal “voluptuous Indian women” as though it is a national asset. These women are low down and if they flick their tongues or bite their lips suggestively it will be deemed obscene.

The pampered star takes such a role as a “challenge”, implying the hierarchy. It is nothing short of patronising. The urban herd has certified that this is not sleaze. It makes them feel smug. Moreover, women are expected to understand that this is liberating and empowering. Did Silk have a choice? Will middle-class women “unleash their sexual side” without being branded, if not as floozies, then nymphomaniacs?

Ms. Balan who is on a high right now assisted by her PR machinery talks about Silk with a know-it-all attitude: 

“She’s unapologetic about using her body and her sexuality as a big ticket to fame. There’s no shame in doing it.”

No one has asked if she, Vidya Balan,  would have done so since there is no shame to it.

That would be putting a wet blanket over a hose-pipe assisted wet dream.

(c) Farzana Versey

Sunday ka Funda

A man and a woman sat by a window that opened upon Spring. They sat close one unto the other. And the woman said, "I love you. You are handsome, and you are rich, and you are always well-attired."

And the man said, "I love you. You are a beautiful thought, a thing too apart to hold in the hand, and a song in my dreaming."

But the woman turned from him in anger, and she said, "Sir, please leave me now. I am not a thought, and I am not a thing that passes in your dreams. I am a woman. I would have you desire me, a wife, and the mother of unborn children."

And they parted.

And the man was saying in his heart, "Behold another dream is even now turned into mist."

And the woman was saying, "Well, what of a man who turns me into a mist and a dream?"

(From 'Body and Soul' - Kahlil Gibran)

The Axe Defect

This guy has been using a deodarant for seven years but as he rues, "No girl came to me." He sued the company.

Deo ads are in trouble in India at the moment for being suggestive and showing " women lustily hankering after men". The ads also "brim with messages aimed at tickling men's libidinous instincts".

If there were no deos men would not get tickled?

There is no escaping these ads but they are quite humorous and will work on adolescent boys. I mean, to tell us that Axe is now offering more we get to see the bottle's phallic-like head growing. If they'd have shown a man's wallet or his mind displaying similar growth maybe it would have some effect.

It is pretty hilarious to watch some guy spraying himself and suddenly women go all pouty, eyes glazed and follow him. This is more Pied Piper than serious sexy.

And what is wrong with women getting attracted to men? Don't we see ads where men eye a woman for her clothes, makeup and how she even manages to do well at her job because of some talc?

And what about the ad where a woman makes carrot halwa with some readymade mix due to a last-minute demand by her husband who is bringing home his boss and colleagues? This too can be construed as hankering.

We see ads of men's underwear - so who are they appealing to? Saif Ali Khan does a joker on the track laidback act and reaches the finish line before the athletes. Duh. Any sensible female would notice their toned legs rather than this guy's Amul chaddi that needs a dhobi, not a woman.

So, please don't worry about women. The only time they swoon is when they feel light-headed. Or when they look in the mirror.

Ending on Primetime

He was made into a corpse in a moratorium even before he died. His body went limp and the world saw it. They paid to watch it as the images flickered and the TV dinner or the evening drink in their hands shook a bit.

BBC1’s primetime documentary, 'Inside the Human Body', used Gerald a cancer patient on live television. He died in January, but they showed his last breath moment yesterday. Was it right?

A BBC spokesman defended it:

“Death is an important part of the human experience, and showing Gerald’s death is integral to understanding what happens to the body when it is no longer able to function properly. The BBC does not shy away from difficult subjects like this, but presents them in a sensitive and appropriate manner.”

If that were the motive, then it would have been proper to show his x-rays, the scans, and 3-D images of the affected parts. However sensitively it might have been portrayed, this is not much different from reality television and a bit more devious. In those shows you know someone is putting on an act or exaggerating or whose buttons are being pushed. Here, Gerald’s death was played out for two months. Indeed, the ‘experience’ of death lasted this long as his lung and liver degenerated.

Death is not part of the human experience; it is the end of it for the person concerned.

Gerald was approached last November. he had said then:

“I don't want to die but evidently, unless some miracle happens, I ain't going to be here very long so let's get on with my life as best I can. I'm not frightened. I believe it will not be just like cutting off tape with some scissors. It might be, but either way I just have blind trust I shall not completely disappear.”

Why was he approached? Are news channels in charge of such experiments? How do they choose their guinea pigs? He was probably told that what he was going through would help others. Do the ratings of the programme reveal any education on the part of the viewers? I can imagine sympathy and fear…the stuff you get in soaps and increasingly in news stories. But when there is no cure for last-stage cancer, the emphasis should be on finding out how to improve lives, not to get people to accept the inevitable and do a sightseeing tour of what happens to the body. Especially not the skin and flesh and eyes and smile.

I do not buy into the argument that people are accustomed to seeing gunshots and blown-up brains on TV shows and films. I might add that we see such deaths in real encounters too. The two are examples of fiction and reality. Not the in-between situation of Gerald. I would have understood an interview with him where he spoke about what tormented him, but not this. Certainly not this.

Recently, some guy had put up a line on his Facebook account that he was going to kill his son ‘now’ and he did. He had taken him from his estranged wife for the day. These have become the new YouTube fantasies, where people who would otherwise have lived and died as most do want to become public figures. There is no dearth of takers. In Gerald’s case, we are told that he was 84, as though it lessens the pain in any manner. In the picture as he breathed his last his family is shown weeping.

Many viewers might have done so too. This does not mean it is one big family joined together in sorrow. It means for those who were not close to him an end to a show.