Power, Piffle and Padmaavat

The problem with a film that has been in the news and resulted in violent protests is that it gets a pedestal, and the resultant pigeon droppings, before you have even watched it. There is baggage as you enter the auditorium. You are already emotionally tuned into it – whether it be its message or its very existence as triumph over opposition. (The Karni Sena, a sort of watchdog organisation that burned the sets and demanded the head of the actors, claiming that the portrayal of Padmaavati, their hero who did not bow down to Allaudin Khilji, would be an insult to Rajputs.)

Despite all the intellectual titillation provided by an open letter where an actor claimed that she felt reduced to a vagina after watching Padmaavat (more on that later), the film did not reduce or elevate me to anything.  

I sat through it, not squirming as much as feeling detached. There was no emotional connect, as character after character piled on bravado and bluster in the automated manner of updated robots.

Director Sanjay Leela Bhansali has taken to making epic-type films that beneath their grandeur manage to camouflage the caricatures his characters come across as. For a movie that spouted honour, it struck one as a weakling constantly seeking affirmation.

The primary criticism of Padmaavat has been from the feminist point of view, and because one actor Swara Bhasker has decided to reduce the whole female population of India to genitals while smartly trying to win brownies by flattering the director with terms like “brilliant auteur” as well as the online coteries by adding mandatory references to “today’s India”, I’ll address a few points:

Why exactly was she reduced to a vagina?

 “Yes, women have vaginas, but they have more to them as well. So their whole life need not be focused on the vagina, and controlling it, protecting it, maintaining it’s purity. (Maybe in the 13th century that was the case, but in the 21st century we do not need to subscribe to these limiting ideas. We certainly do not need to glorify them.)”

You’ve got to be an obstetrician if that is all you see. This is ridiculous, whether the reference is to the film or to reality. Khilji has heard about Padmaavati’s beauty and wants to acquire her because “har nayaab cheez par hamara haq hai” (he has claims over every beautiful thing). His actions, at least according to this film, do not show him to be an aesthete and I’m afraid he does not appear to be terribly interested in the vagina either. His lust is essentially about jerking off the excess pressure of immense power he imagines he has.

You can’t find the jauhar scene glorified and not have a problem with the glorification of a queen who conveniently married a married man and let the first wife get side-lined.

You cannot rant about being reduced to a vagina and not notice that this first wife was not only dehumanised, but desexualised as well. Padmaavati too spends more time trussing up her husband’s turban than any expression of amour.

You cannot have a problem with women choosing to end their lives instead of falling prey to the enemy and not flinch when men routinely speak of embracing death fighting the same enemy. What is so valorous about the latter? That they don’t have a vagina? So who is being reductive?

You can’t talk about Nirbhaya, the Delhi gangrape victim’s brave fight against her assaulters and not see Padmaavati fighting a similar threat. For all we know, had Khilji made it anywhere close to her she, a warrior herself, would have put up a good fight. All women do, unless they are muffled, shackled or rendered immobile. And people should just stop using rape and Dalit girls for their posh little consciences.

“I felt like all the ‘minor’ achievements that women and women’s movements have made over the years– like the right to vote, the right to own property, the right to education, equal pay for equal work…all of it was pointless; because we were back to basics.”

There is so much hyperbole here that it sounds like she is cloning Bhansali. Nobody, and certainly not rape victims, feels reduced to a vagina. They suffer from trauma not because their vagina was violated but because they were. I wish people would stop demoting the strides in law and social justice regarding women only to use it to make the self-righteous point that they, as opposed to the rest, care.

Even more appalling is the belief that cinema ought not to portray what may have happened without taking a moral position on it.  

“I understand that Jauhar and Sati are a part of our social history…but then so were the lynchings of blacks by murderous white mobs in the 19th century in the US – sensational, shocking dramatic social occurrences. Does that mean one should make a film about it with no perspective on racism? Or, without a comment on racial hatred?”

Political correctness and vacuous op-eds are killing reportage and delineation. The creator would certainly be free to explore the material as s/he wishes, but that does not necessarily amount to an opinion. It is choosing what part of the landscape to focus on. Many do-gooder films that overtly comment do not flinch from sensationalising the evils they depict. Patina is not perspective. Just as binaries are no plausible response to cardboard portrayals.

***

Swara Bhasker posted a video where she told Bhansali that she had taken up for his film during the protests. I watched more than that one clip. On the casting couch of which she was a potential victim, she refuses to name the man because he is not as important as her now. The message being that if your perpetrator is someone lower in the hierarchy, what’s the point? No eyeballs to grab.

She also puts the onus of the casting couch on women. She says, and this is pretty much her quote, that a man asking you to sleep with him is offering a bribe; you have the choice to refuse it. Women must say No. There will be consequences. But women shouldn’t be in a position where their ambitions become their greatest disadvantage.

To think that people like this are seen as the sensible and brave voices on social media. Oh, but they would be. Social media props up blather because it can’t handle complexities.

Breastfeeding in Parliament

A woman breastfeeding her child can be a rather sublime sight, that is if she is not stared at. But does sublimity or subtlety even matter when the mother in the act ends up as an "internet hero"? 

Victoria Donda Pérez is an Argentinian MP. She decided to breastfeed her 8-month-old daughter in Parliament, when the session was on. 

Working women have praised her; her critics say it falsely conveys that women can have it all when that is not true.

Was she aware that her pictures were taken and would be in the media?  Assuming she is okay with it, I am not one bit impressed by Ms. Pérez's act on grounds of prudence as well as feminism. 

Breastfeeding is a natural activity as are many others, some of which we might not even have much control over. We control them in a public space anyway. I am not comparing sneezing, breaking wind or picking the nose to nursing, but surely there could not have been such urgency to feed the baby. If anything, this comes across as terribly unprofessional. 

This is not an issue about women's rights over their bodies; it is just that such rights as exercised in this manner convey that the woman has no choice. Even if we excuse the politician for elitism, the larger question is: is the woman a mother on the job? This just sends out the message about the feminised woman as the only one who can have any power, or acceptance.

Why are women applauding the "balancing act"? It isn't news that only a woman can bear a child and nurse babies. But such validation of 'balance' also unburdens the father of responsibility, and he will be the first one to call her superwoman.

Such a public act in a work place (as opposed to a park or even the office canteen) only consolidates the stereotyped role of a mother that deny her the option to make a studied choice — which could be fixed feeding hours at the office creche or collecting the milk for use at intervals. 

Suppose this was not in Parliament, but a regular office conference. Would the response be the same? Unlikely. It only means that in some ways this is sought to be made into a political statement. 

And it is no surprise at all that she has been nicknamed "Dipusex" (sexy MP). It takes a simple, natural activity to make a woman into a fantasy object. Women object to such labels on other occasions when they want to be recognised for their work or talent alone. How is it different this time? Is Ms. Pérez not being reduced to a pair of breasts, even if they are of a mother's? 

The Oedipal implications are too obvious. 

PS: In India, women from the labour class do breastfeed at the workplace on construction sites or in small industries. That is because the child is with them all the time. 

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.

Fake Feminism and the Alamuddin-Clooney marriage

A few months ago, somebody sent me a YouTube link to "the woman they say George Clooney is getting married to". Amal Alamuddin was discussing human rights. The feminist who forwarded it could have just sent the link, perhaps adding the subject of the discussion. It intrigued me that the 'connection' of the subject needed to be mentioned at all.

You are probably thinking what I asked myself too: would I have really been interested in watching the clip otherwise? To be honest, less so with as much immediacy. I did not know anything about her, and it is stupid to pretend otherwise. She lives and works in London, and as a legal luminary she is not — or was not — a subject of pop culture, which is what is fed globally.

I did not expect her not to be good, but she was indeed impressive and somebody I could trust with opinions. It did not mean I would forget who she was betrothed to. These were not antagonistic realities, and could run parallel without either jousting the other for space.

Amal and George are now married. They seem happy and look good together. That would have been my views on what has now become a celebrity wedding.

However, the link sender I mentioned at the beginning has found an echo in this headline:

'Internationally acclaimed barrister Amal Alamuddin marries an actor'

If the idea was to laud her, it falls pathetically flat to a discerning observer. Mentioning the two by their professions is stating the obvious. The motive here is to show her as superseding him, which is the trope patriarchal notions thrive on — of the spouse as competitor, a threat who needs to be envied and therefore tamed.

There is a good deal of undercurrent here. The taming might be almost invisible. The article that goes with the headline concurs with Clooney's earlier observation that he was "marrying up". I have serious issues with such social mobility, and one is aware of how women are often accused of "getting a good catch" or relying on the "sugar daddy".

This is particularly galling if you consider that the man may genuinely think she is too good for him, but in the popular imagination it strikes one as him legitimising her superiority, and therefore acceptable to those holding forth. It is quite likely that this site is doing what the man believes is okay. They have his tacit approval.

»

Little is known of Amal’s earlier relationships (we assume she was climbing that corporate ladder and smashing glass ceilings) but she’s tying the knot with an actor, whose name is George Clooney, we’re told.

They are desexualising her as somebody who cannot have a personal life because she was busy proving herself. Would they ever day that about a man? Any man?

»

We only hope he doesn’t hold her back from conquering the world. We think this George Clooney fellow has scored big time.

Were they interested in her before this? Have they written about her earlier, and in such flattering terms, which would be deservedly so? And by suggesting that he might hold her back, they are playing into such an old stereotype that ends up reducing her to a puppet who can be held back.

They are only now scrounging for her pictures because of who she is with. It might have helped if there was honesty rather than facile attempts at pseudo feminism that doles out crumbs by way of cheesy headlines to prop up what does not need props. Or quoting Julia Roberts praising her for her to be seen as a legitimately accomplished person.

Cheap parody and sophomore trickery can't take you very far as feminists or humanists. It just can't take you much further than your celebrity-assigned blinkers.

Sunday ka Funda

"It is not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize, accept, and celebrate those differences."

— Audre Lorde

Victims, perpetrators and watchers: Preity-Ness

The problem with the Preity Zinta-Ness Wadia case is with the word molestation. As a feminist and one who would err on the side of a woman, I do have a few questions.

First, this is what happened: Zinta and Wadia are joint owners of the IPL Kings XI Punjab cricket team. They were in a steady five-year relationship, but had split quite sometime ago. They continued with the professional partnership.

The latest season of the IPL matches brought Zinta a lot of attention for her infectious enthusiasm and support of her players. Wadia seems to have been more a backroom partner, although given his background as scion of the Wadia business empire he certainly would take a call on financial matters.

On Thursday night, June 12, she filed a police complaint against him. Here is why:

On May 30, an IPL match between Kings XI Punjab and Chennai Super Kings was played at the Wankhede stadium. During the match, when Preity was at the Garware Pavillion, Ness reportedly accosted her and also bad mouthed her in front of many people.

She gave a written complaint following which an FIR was registered against Wadia under IPC sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) and 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman), police sources added.

The police has acted quickly on her complaint that he accosted her, grabbed her hand and abused her before a bunch of people. Her complaint was converted into an FIR within a day.

This is how it ought to be, but often isn't. Besides, she had not recorded her full statement as she had to leave the city.

Now for a few points:

• This is important to her, so could she not delay her travel plans? She also took 13 days to file a complaint, again because she was traveling. Where are the priorities? We must understand that she is educated and is not striving to survive, and has a support system. This is not the case with many women who are forced to stay quiet. The impact of an immediate complaint would help investigators too.

• The Oxford dictionary defines molest as 1.Assault or abuse (a person, especially a woman or child) sexually; 2 DATED Pester or harass (someone) in an aggressive or persistent manner

Despite the public statements being more in the nature of the latter, it has been given a titillating connotation. Unless there is more to it than we do know, such loose references demean those who suffer from sexual/physical exploitation of the worst kind.

In fact, just recently the courts have announced that sexual force against a woman's will in a marriage will not be considered rape. There are cases of domestic violence and harassment at the workplace that rarely get heard.

The response is likely to be that Preity Zinta has come out in the open and it might help women, and she has shown courage to take on a big man.

It does take courage, but she is a famous person in her own right. That is the reason that the Mumbai Police Commissioner has personally ensured the case gets due attention and the Maharashtra State Women's Commission have demanded action.

On her Facebook page, she has raised some important issues:

"It saddens me that no one at work or around ever stood up for me in the past when i was abused and insulted publicly. This time i was left with no option but to take this stern step as this incident happened in front of way too many people."

I assume she is talking about the IPL colleagues and not the film industry, for she has thanked them. I am disappointed though that abuse for her is abuse if it is in front of way too many people. This is one of the reasons people do not complain about what happens behind closed doors. Some news channels are talking about how there has been a history of abuse even during their relationship, and she has now decided to not remain silent. It is astonishing that not only was she quiet all these years, she continued with the working relationship for another five years when she filed the complaint.

He has reportedly talked about his political clout and she says her life is under threat. Did all this transpire during that one incident? If such abuse has taken place (Ness Wadia says it is not possible as she is always "surrounded by bouncers"), then it clearly reveals the arrogance of the man who assumes no one would dare to oppose him. In a sense, he was right. She gave him 13 days of respite.

"Sometimes we are so ashamed and humiliated that we fool ourselves to believe that no one saw what happened. Everyone always looks away as if they don't exist or then we don’t exist."

I am afraid, but I have to ask this: is there more concern for reputation, of being publicly humiliated despite being a star? This is a problem with fame — their status as former partners in a relationship would make them 'untouchable'. Besides, the reports on the cctv footage mention that she was with family and friends. Did they look away as well?

"Ironically what happened at Wankade is being diluted by every other fabricated story about my character except the truth of what happened. I'm sure the witnesses will speak the truth and i trust and believe that the police will do their job fairly and quickly."

This is by far the most unfortunate aspect. Indeed, it is treated like a soap opera. Even worse, some who are standing up to support her are comparing her courage by calling other actresses bimbos without any context. The media and social media space has always sensationalised abuse, more so when celebrities are involved. Even director Mahesh Bhatt has used this opportunity to plug the film 'A Hate Story' by referring to this as one as opposed to the love story it was. Nobody seems to realise there has been no personal relationship between the two for a while.

"No woman likes to be involved in a controversy like this which makes her open and vulnerable for all to take a dig at."

There is no reason that a fight for one's self-esteem and against abuse should be seen as a controversy. It isn't. However, if anyone commenting on this case believes that it will be an eye-opener, then we are deluding ourselves and living in a cocoon.

Barely a few days after the Badaun gangrape, there has been another case. Every single day, it happens in some form or the other.

It is also time to ask whether the blanket usage of the word rape is counter-productive. While the violation of a woman's body/person in any manner is reprehensible and should deserve punishment, the media and the cops tend to divert their energies towards motives and extent.

That is the reason I feel that Preity Zinta is doing injustice to herself and the cause of women speaking up. She should have taken action sooner, and helped the investigations. Without a full statement, it appears that she is as privileged as Ness Wadia, who should have certainly not said that he did not imagine she could "stoop to such a level".

This is the usual damning indictment when any woman raises her voice. If only many of them would raise their voices. And that at least a fraction of those showing support now would gather around them even after the media glare fades.

Note: Had withheld this hoping for more information. Have decided to post it with the proviso that while no two instances are the same, it is society's attitude towards different victims that reveals how we are and will be.

UPDATE: June 15, 11.30 am IST

Some reports have now added details about the case. Some of it is here.

The more I read about victim blaming/shaming, the more I realise that there is no sense of proportion. If we cannot compare this case with other instances of abuse, then why should we use the standards of other cases for this? The law applies the same sections for all, based on the complaint.

Some newspaper websites are carrying slideshows of her previous affairs. While she is called an attention-seeker, he is referred to as a mamma's boy, and his mother too is dragged into it. Wasn't there talk of a soap opera? Besides this, anyone with an internet connection becomes a commentator. Worse is that the 'concerned' are posting the insulting remarks by anonymous people, only adding to the shaming they are fighting against.

On the other hand, a TV channel was showing clips of her films, as though it was an award-winning moment.

Regarding her appeal for privacy, the case happened in the public domain, witnesses who were present there will be questioned, the police are talking to the media. And would respect for privacy have resulted is any support that she is getting?

I am aware of 'everyday misogyny' as much as any other woman, but I refuse to consider all crimes against women as "rape culture", a despicable and horribly misogynist term used liberally by feminists too.

Whatever anybody says is based on available material, and all speculation will rely on this as well as a general attitude. No one can take the moral highway on what is right or wrong. If this was not a one-off incident, then I do believe that Preity Zinta should see it as her duty to use her privilege and not just her right.

© Farzana Versey

Sunday ka Funda

The only thing that will be remembered about my enemies after they’re dead are the nasty things I’ve said about them.

- Camille Paglia

I envy paranoids; they actually feel people are paying attention to them.

- Susan Sontag

Whenever we see two or more feminists we assume they will warmly cuddle up, echo each other's thoughts. This is not how it works, or even should. Not just feminism, no ideology should be trapped in one narrow path.

This clip I came across would appear like a cat fight that everyone so loves, but men can be snarky too. As I watched it — initially with a smile, I might add — it struck me that the more important aspect here was competitiveness. Usually, it is healthy. But, as the screen went dark, it left me with some disappointment. How can two people who are well-known and have their own following refuse to acknowledge each other, or in one case pretend the other does not even exist?

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

Sunday ka Funda

"Out with stereotypes, feminism proclaims. But stereotypes are the west's stunning sexual personae, the vehicles of art's assault against nature. The moment there is imagination, there is myth."

— Camille Paglia

"Do not put garbage in our mind." This graffiti on the wall outside Tunis City Hall has been quoted to explain the attitude towards women's dress following the Arab Spring.

As happens with all such studies in a cocoon, it uses a small sample and reaches broad conclusions, that too about what the respondents thought 'might' be appropriate but is not necessarily practised. Worse, it is actually based on the false premise of what constitutes "MidEast countries". Tunisia, Egypt and Pakistan are not in the Middle East.

While the research, and mainstream commentators, assume a superior attitude towards "secularism", they forget that their obsession with what is termed "Muslim dress" is anything but. They are working their way backwards, and become as veiled as the veils they find constricting when their idea of "women's choice" becomes selective.

This is not even the imagination or myth that Paglia speaks about. It is merely a lame excuse to falsely manufacture how free they themselves are.

The above tongue-in-cheek response in the web world to the research chart shows us just how hollow such statistics and stereotypes can be, using mere mode of dress to formulate a point of view. Are you what others wear?

To paraphrase the graffiti, the garbage is in their minds.

© Farzana Versey

Miss America, Missed America

Why OD on racist comments against the latest beauty pageant winner when the majority of Americans don't care? If they can accept yoga, herbal cures and gurus, and even Spelling Bee and American Idol winners, why would they have a problem with Nina Davuluri, an American of Indian origin, getting the crown?

I found the comment by the host of Fox News and Commentary, Todd Starnes, rather curious:

"The liberal Miss America judges won't say this - but Miss Kansas lost because she actually represented American values."

What is a 'real' American? I didn't ask 'who' because it is only an idea, and could be represented by many perspectives. Miss Kansas is an Army Sergeant. It was the first time a contestant displayed tattoos. As these do not constitute values, one wonders whether her serving in the forces has anything to do with it. If that represents fealty by default, then does it mean that "liberal" judges do not understand American values? How are values to be displayed on a stage such as this?

What about the comment by Miss Florida Myrrhanda Jones? When asked about minorities having low-incomes, high-unemployment and incarceration rates and what should the country do to address this, she said:

"My father is unemployed. It took a lot for me to be able to stand on this stage. ... We need to have more jobs in America."

She was cut off before she could continue.

How would American values be factored in here? Was she not addressing a real issue with a personal example?

The 2014 finals on September 16 represent a small segment of the United States. There are bound to be reactions by just such a small group. That they are ill-informed is another matter.

However, Indians who like celebrating every 'foreign' success are likely to forget their own biases. Davuluri was referred to (wrongly) as an Arab and "Miss Al Qaida". This, more than anything else, would bother the majority of Indians, because we too tend to box in all Arabs with terrorists.

Then there is the profession. She wants to be a doctor. Indians are so hierarchy and status conscious that they will look down upon anyone who does not have such acceptable professional aspirations. Indian doctors in the U.S. are as much a stereotype as are motel owners or, as one of the angry responses mentioned, "Miss America? You mean Miss 7-11."

Had she mentioned that she wanted to run a nail spa or be a flight stewardess, Indians would not quite like it. They would then not be as concerned about racism as they are now, which only reveals their prejudices as much as those who are ranting about it.

The question posed to Davuluri was rather ironical. Responding to Julie Chen's decision to have plastic surgery about making her eyes less Asian, she said:

"I don't agree with plastic surgery, however I can understand that from a standpoint. More importantly I've always viewed Miss America as the girl next door. And Miss America is always evolving... I wouldn't want to change someone's looks. Be confident in who you are."

How many contestants say they are the girl next door? I find the term quite patronising, whoever utters it. Besides, what is the standpoint of understanding an alteration in identity? Are looks the only criteria that ought to be judged where such change is sought?

She also said:

"I'm so happy this organization has celebrated diversity, and, on this stage tonight, there was so much diversity."

53 women from places with a different climate, accent and cultural nuances, are bound to be diverse.

By emphasising the origins, immigrants, that too second and third generation, in some ways disqualify themselves. When she stood with Crystal Lee, the first runner-up, even before the results were announced, Davuluri said:

"We are making history right here as Asian-Americans."

She is Miss New York. In that state you bump into all kinds of people. Choosing a platform that is meant to celebrate pulchritude — let us cut out the tripe of the talent and question rounds (Syria?!) — she was no different from any other contestant. The primary motive is to look good, and also play up the exotic if you've got that.

Rather cannily, the discourse has shifted from sexism to racism, when the body objectified is also a form of 'segregation'.

---

End note:

In a just-concluded dance reality show —'Jhalak Dikhla Ja — on Indian television, an American lost out to a telly soap actress. Lauren Gottlieb is not an Indian citizen, but she has acted in a film and plans to work in India. She performed a few Indian-style dances, too, and was a delight to watch and by far the best dancer. She got the most number of perfect scores from the judges. So, it is obvious that she got fewer votes from the public — the Indian public that is obsessed with westerners did not want to see her win. And then we talk about racism.

© Farzana Versey

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

Raja vs Rakhi: Digvijay Singh's Sexism

What makes a senior political leader use the example of a woman from the entertainment industry to hit out at a political opponent? Congress General Secretary Digvijay Singh is known to shoot his mouth off. However, his statement, "Arvind Kejriwal is like Rakhi Sawant. They both try and expose but with no substance" is senseless, besides being in poor taste. 

The latest news is that he says she is welcome to slap a defamation case against him where she is seeking Rs. 50 crore in damages. This is just so arrogant. 

It is not surprising that much of mainstream media will not take up for Rakhi. She is not in the top league, and started her career as an item girl performing to titillating dance numbers, which is what heroines do today. She has been called drama queen, attention seeker and several other names, even as she was used by these same media channels to spice up their programmes.

It is to her credit that while she superficially reinvented herself – better clothes, better shows – she essentially remained grounded and, in some ways, coarse. I liked her before she got legitimised by Karan Johar on his talk show ‘Koffee with Karan’, and everyone suddenly started taking up for her being oh-so-frank when she made the famous comment, “Jo Bhagwan nahin deta woh doctor de sakta hai” (what god does not give the doctor can) regarding her several cosmetic surgeries.

Most times, she is cannily self-deprecatory. Like getting excited about designer clothes. She knows that she can afford them now, but she is also aware that whatever she wears will be seen as ‘cheap’. The same slit gowns, the same clutches, the same limited edition baubles that a top star might wear, and promote after being paid for by the sponsor, will be seen as favours done to her.

This is the sad state of our perceptions, of how we view people, especially women.

What Digvijay Singh has done is in the same league. However, like the others, he felt the need to use her name, a name that has become a symbol. There are many who expose, but he could think only of her. Or, he was too afraid to name Vidya Balan or Kareena Kapoor. The analogy was about Arvind Kejriwal exposing people’s names without any merit or substance to his accusations.

How does Rakhi Sawant exposing herself come into the picture? She is revealing her own assets, not anybody else’s. Besides, on what basis does he say she has no substance? This is her substance. This is what has made her, at least partially, what she is. This is her bread and butter. This is what people pay to see. This is how the respectable media exploits her.

She has written letters to the Mumbai Police Commissioner and the Maharashtra Home Secretary against Digvijay Singh. CNN-IBN published her letter, but not before stating:

“Here's the full text of the letter written by Rakhi Sawant, which has been reproduced in its entirety with spelling mistakes and grammatical errors”

So what? It goes without saying she has not drafted it. This works for the English-educated, Oxford-flashing mob to bring down the ‘vernies’.

Even if Rakhi Sawant is a drama queen, she is way better than these microphone queens who think they can change the world. Oh, not just that. They think they are in charge of the world.

Rakhi's letter raises a few important points:

“…outraging modesty of a woman/female, charges of passing lewd remarks and eve teasing, abusing, mischief, passing defamatory remake and false statement and rumour etc…”

Some may think the reaction is exaggerated. It is time to at least address these issues. 

• Outraging of modesty can be verbal.
• What he said is lewd.
• I don’t like the term eve teasing, but such comments do amount to harassment of a woman.
• It is abusive.
• It is mischievous, for it immediately grabs attention
• It is defamatory.
• It is false because Digvijay Singh does not know her, and there is no reason to drag her name in.

I do understand that she has not been advised too well, though, for there is no relation established between her and Kejriwal nor is it about her gender.

It is also possible that she will renege on her own position and retract the case. But, then, so do politicians. Mr. Singh said he was "an old fan".

The same hierarchy prevails here, too. The lumpen politician passing sexist remarks is immediately pulled up, but a posh Raja Digvijay Singh will get a bemused reaction. He has chosen a target who even feminists would not feel comfortable standing up for.

The whole “objectification of body” argument will be raked up. She has paid to get that body with her money. And she did not ask a politician to objectify her with his comments. 

(c) Farzana Versey

Leave the guys alone...

People sit in an auditorium watching a wicked play. The jokes are vulgar; there is talk about the female anatomy and sex. What makes this one different? It is restricted to men only.

The reaction is that it is sexist. It is not. The director has not tried to hide intent nor the fact that “‘Only for adult men’ is my USP. It has worked. It is the first time in India, rather in the world, that such a tagline has been used”. Has it caused consternation because the characters are the regular sort?

We have shows for ladies only, be it for movies, plays or other cultural activities. Do women accompany their partners or male friends to dance bars, where men go to enjoy a few drinks and ogle at the dancers? How many women attend tamasha shows (a rustic and sensual dance performance loaded with innuendo) even in the villages where it is a staple form of entertainment?

How, then, can the playwright-director-producer Ashok Patole be put in the dock for “gender segregation” for restricting entry to ‘Ek Chavat Sandhyakaal’ (One Naughty Evening)?

He explained in an interview to Mirror:

“That is a matter of choice. Our play has adult material which, we think, is unpalatable for women. That’s why we do not wish to embarrass women, and also men. We were told by men to keep this a fun evening that they can enjoy. They claimed that they will not be able to laugh aloud at the sexy jokes if their wives were with them.”

It is shocking that he was asked whether women could not use the Indian Constitutional right to watch this play, when many women activists cry themselves hoarse over how women are portrayed. This is a closed group, and everyone knows that women too have their moments of fun. It has become quite the in thing in the metro cities for the ladies who lunch to invite a male stripper. The dynamics are changing, and although these are superficial indulgences there is no denying their usefulness as a form of social catharsis.It is beyond the male pattern Chippendales that advertises itself as :for ladies' entertainment'.

I remember watching a Dada Kondke film that was known for its rather crude humour in a small cinema hall. Curiosity about its filmmaker-actor was what prodded me. It was difficult to convince a friend to accompany me, to begin with. I was the only woman there and I could see that those sitting around me weren’t comfortable. We left mid-way.

The director, therefore, has a point when he says:

“If we had opened the play to everyone, and if some women had found it objectionable, our play would have been banned. We would have been labelled as porn-makers. Theatre-goers, who otherwise savour English sex comedies and Hindi bedroom farces, would have joined some women’s organisations, would have organised morchas against us. So, the marginal chance of doing well at the box-office would have been lost. We didn’t want that. And this tagline helped us put the play into perspective.”

This is way more honest than some ‘bold’ attempts at selling a film on the basis of making a feminist statement. Example being The Dirty Picture. Standard phrases like exploitation, empowerment, breaking the glass ceiling are used without understanding the import of these. Even the more offbeat feminist films and plays, without saying so, are indeed restrictive, in that they are catering to a female audience, have female sensibilities and make no attempt to market themselves for the consumption of men. A case in point being The Vagina Monologues, where the male, however aware and enlightened he might be, was a spectator. Unlike the woman as empathiser-observer.

This men’s only play has “two men talking about sexuality-related issues. A sexologist and a professor help a PhD student to analyze her subject: ‘Psychological, sociological and physical need of sexuality-related jokes and swear words’. It entails all those jokes that we chuckle over in private. We have just made those jokes public. What’s wrong in entertaining people? And we are not even involving people below 18. There is no malicious intent. I am a progressive director with a very broad openended view of sex and morality.”

That is the reason I find it intrusive that women would want to barge in. A female councillor after getting complaints – about what? That women could not attend a play they might find repugnant? – has muscled her way in and the shows will now have a new tagline welcoming the female audience.

I wonder if, as a matter of gender parity, they’d also use the men’s facilities.

(c) Farzana Versey

Sexism and slang

Sexist jokes are vile and unacceptable. However, I object to a study that uses this yardstick to understand whether women fit in under these circumstances.

A Melbourne Business School report found that companies lack strategy to tackle "low level sexism" despite having policies in place that target "overt" sexual harassment.

The risk factors of sexism, sexual harassment and gender stereotyping were found to be key characteristics of male-dominated work environments, in industries such as natural sciences, engineering, medicine, police forces, military forces, information technology, law firms and financial services.

I find it curious that the entertainment industry is not included. This reveals how even feministic ideas do not pay attention to what they probably consider a ‘lesser’ profession. Do models and movie actresses permit sexism due to the nature of their jobs, which often objectifies them?

This would be hypothetical. With exceptions, what role do women play in the military and police forces? Besides the jokes, they are discriminated against anyway. In other fields, it depends on societal factors. The manner in which women are expected to perform is itself discriminatory, and many of them are partially to blame when they use terms like being better than men or like men, when they try to mimic men with power dressing.

It is the business of organisations to ensure that all their staff are not the recipients of jibes – be they sexist, racial religious, or physical.

The part about such a study that bothers me is it works as a trap and belittles women while seemingly rationalising how to empower them.

“If women feel they do not fit in or are not accepted as equals they are less likely to stay in their role or in the organisation.”

This gives the impression that women are weak and cannot fit in. The onus is put on them, instead of those who use sexist language. A workplace is not a cocoon. These are professional women who have gone to college, used public transport, interacted at small jobs, and with paternalistic family members and patronising well-wishers. They watch films and television; listen to music, read the papers. They are not ignorant about such slang. It is rather insulting to assume that what men say in passing would make them give up their careers. (I might add here that one is not talking about stalkers or dangerous characters out to destroy a woman.)

And if blonde jokes are so offensive, then why do women go and colour their hair light? Are there no successful blondes, or will someone have the gumption to say it is only because gentlemen prefer them? 

By suggesting a “no just joking” policy, the bullying will not stop. Perhaps such studies should try and find out why bosses deny women equal pay and equal opportunities.

Such attempts at bridging the gender gap are merely cosmetic. It is the warts that need to be extricated.

Shading the Vagina

Yoni puja, worshipping the vagina, from Yogini Temple, MP, India

I’d like my vagina to be nice and bright. This is my choice. Just as women make a choice to depilate the pubic area, or opt only for a bikini wax. Why do we do it? To feel clean and because we do not want hairs sticking out from the sides in swimsuits and lacy lingerie. We do not want menstrual blood drying on hair in the private parts unless we take good care to wash. We do not like smells that emanate from there, however natural the odour. Fragrant soap and powder are our allies. Often, we use panty liners because of the discharge.

So, why the vitriolic, supposedly feministic, reaction to an Indian feminine hygiene product only because its tagline states: “Life for women will now be fresher, cleaner and more importantly fairer and more intimate”? I found nothing offensive about the 25-second ad for Clean & Dry Intimate Wash that is aired on television. In fact, it seemed like a regular liquid soap. I missed pretty much of the controversy surrounding it until just the other day.

There are several ads where women cook, clean, dress for a man’s pleasure. One ad a while ago showed a village woman getting a little orgasm washing her husband’s underwear at the river! There are small sounds about these, not loud moans, as in this case. I was surprised at how proving oneself ends up being another form of peer pressure. “If you believe in women’s rights, how can you tolerate this typical obsession with fairness?” is the first dart thrown. Since it has to do with genitals, and Indian ones, the issue has become international. And the Indian ladies, who probably stuff their faces with SPF 50 sunblock cream or carry little paisley-print brollies to protect themselves, went ballistic. It was as though they were just waiting to show the world that we Indians don’t just have elephants and call centres and IT guys, we have the hardware that does not need any software. It was a bold step to out their pubes and flaunt its different shades.

To add ballast to their argument, they used the tried-and-tested racist angle. In India, there is most certainly a bias with a preference for fairer skin. But it is not based on caste or religion, but region. Face fairness products do show that success depends on how light-skinned you are. Unfortunately, the wrong man has been quoted to explain this. Indian theatre personality and veteran ad man Alyque Padamsee said:

“The only reason I can offer for why people like fairness, is this: if you have two beautiful girls, one of them fair and the other dark, you see the fair girl’s features more clearly. This is because her complexion reflects more light.”

This brought about a flurry of, ooh, so my vagina has to reflect light. However asinine his views, he was not talking about the pubic area.

Don’t these people read sex advice columns? Look at the number of men, much more than women, who want a solution to the dark area around the genitals. They are equally concerned about clipping hair or dried semen inside the folds of the foreskin. Brazilian waxing has become popular in some countries among men and a few salons even offer to embellish the area with little jewels. If a product such as the one for women is launched for men, they will most certainly opt for it. We are anyway talking about a limited section of people who use these.

I find it pathetic that there is anger about a woman pleasing a man. Well, I do not know how many of us women sit down and take a good look at our vaginas in a day and say with much poise and confidence, this is who I am and proud of it. It makes no sense. Sex – and due to circumstantial requirements the genitals are involved – is about pleasure: receiving and giving it. Yoni (vagina) worship was as common as lingam (phallus) worship centuries ago. Men try hard; women do so too. In fact, while women invest much more in ‘things’ – thongs, unguents, waxing - men have to rely on their organ. These women ought to ask themselves whether or not they have pampered themselves with such seductive indulgences. Partly, it could be the reasons I mentioned at the beginning, but like hell it would be a lie if no woman has tried to please a man in bed because it gives her pleasure too. Oh, watch out, whipped cream is white.

Wait. They are not against pleasure. They just don’t want to be coloured. I read this piece of tripe in Jezebel:

In this commercial for an Indian product called Clean and Dry Intimate Wash, a (very light-skinned) couple sits down for what would have been a peaceful cup of morning coffee – if the woman's disgusting brown vagina hadn't ruined everything! The dude can't even bring himself look at her. He can't look at his coffee either, because it only reminds him of his wife's dripping, coffee-brown hole! Fortunately, the quick-thinking woman takes a shower, scrubbing her swarthy snatch with Clean and Dry Intimate Wash ("Freshness + Fairness"). And poof! Her vadge comes out blinding white like a downy baby lamb (and NOT THE GROSS BLACK KIND) and her husband – whose penis, I can only assume, is literally a light saber – is all, "Hey, lady! Cancel them divorce papers and LET'S BONE."

Despite the attempt at in-your-face bravado, it reminds me of a sophomore necking in a corner, puckering collagen lips when caught. It is an insecure reaction, for the assumptions override the facts. The couple is light-skinned, as in many ads. Why does a woman have to be dripping? Who is the one putting pressure on the female here? And the hole is not about colour. It is the area around the vagina. If there is such a problem with that, I can imagine how difficult it will be for the drippers to find their clits, just in case the man ignores them.

In an ad of a few seconds, everything has to be quick. She is going to take a shower, which isn’t bad. Maybe she is spraying the water jet inside her for a bit of self-love, just in case he isn’t all that much of a dude, eh? In one wash, she comes out feeling fresh and dry (aha, there goes the dripping fun you had on her behalf). So they, the story goes, end up in bed and he cancels the divorce. Strange that it does not strike the faux fur-flying feminists that she might want to divorce the man and live with a bright and fresh genital location. What a shame, for are they not revolted that women want to please men?

Do us a favour. Since you look at yourself, and you are so against this fair business, just pour some dark chocolate on your vagina. This is a statement you are making, so don’t let any man rear his head near you.

(c) Farzana Versey

- - -
Update: Am linking two old pieces to give a perspective. And spare me the crackers about how your feminism is bigger than mine.

On the movement to get men to shave: A close shave?

On men's rights, feminism, and beyond: Another patriarchy - Feminist men and Amazonian women

Sunday ka Funda

“Don’t be offended if someone says ‘sexy’, rather take it positively.”

- National Commission for Women (NCW) chairperson Mamta Sharma

Expectedly, there will be a pro and anti stand on this regarding feminism. The problem is that the word has lost its true calling due to rampant usage. Food is sexy, ideas are sexy, politics is sexy, sanyas is sexy.

I’d say women cannot be advised on this. They could feel offended depending on who makes the remark and in what context. Besides, different women see sexiness differently.

Here are a few quotes I identify with:

• “From the moment I was six I felt sexy. And let me tell you it was hell, sheer hell, waiting to do something about it.” – Bette Davis

• “I find it very difficult to draw a line between what's sex and what isn't. It can be very, very sexy to drive a car, and completely unsexy to flirt with someone at a bar.” – Bjork

• “I dress sexily - but not in an obvious way. Sexy in a virginal way.” – Victoria Beckham

• “I like someone who is a little crazy but coming from a good place. I think scars are sexy because it means you made a mistake that led to a mess.” – Angelina Jolie

And, yes, I find the word uttered in a low hoarse voice sexy.