Spoilers ahead…
Read the full review on Film Companion, here: http://www.filmcompanion.in/article/taramani-movie-review
Ram’s first film, Kattradhu Thamizh, was about a young man with an MA in Tamil. The director’s third film, Tharamani, is about a young man with an MA in English. But this is not to suggest a sudden leap into Gautham Menon territory. The degree is just something on a résumé, not part of the DNA. The protagonist of Tharamani, Prabhunath (Vasanth Ravi), is the protagonist of Kattradhu Thamizh who’s made his peace with a global language, though not with a global culture. He hails from a village, and says he lives not in North or South Madras (i.e. the Madras-es usually shown in the movies), but the Madras that’s developed around Tharamani, almost as though the stretch – known for its IT corridor – were a separate world.
In Ram’s eyes it is a separate world – a microcosm of a culture clash, a place where even an MA in Tamil would struggle to find the Tamil equivalents of “be cool” and “flirt,” which aren’t just alien words but alien concepts. It’s perhaps no accident that the heroine – Althea (Andrea Jeremiah, in her most committed performance to date) – is Anglo-Indian, a mix of Tamil and English. She’s half of both, and wholly neither. She fits into this world in a way Prabhunath possibly never can. In one shot, late in the film, the distance between them is literalised: he’s on the ground, gazing up at the high-rise where she resides.
The easy movie for Ram to make would have been a relationship drama around this clash, this distance between the old and new – and we do get a bit that movie. At first, Prabhunath comes off as chilled and accepting: about Althea’s personal life, he says, “Nee sollala, naan kekkala (You didn’t say anything, so I didn’t ask)”. But once they get together, he turns, almost overnight, into Prakash Raj from Kalki. (Ram is from the Balu Mahendra school, but a lot of Tharamani reminds you of K Balachander’s view of men and women.) He turns possessive, misogynistic (though perhaps he was always so, and we see it only now) – he turns into a series of paragraphs in Ram’s grand thesis.
Continued at the link above.
Copyright ©2017 Film Companion.
Baradwaj Rangan 
Manikandan
August 17, 2017
Excellent Review – Movie s Tone is surprisingly empathising, looks artificial because it dealt with extreme @ both ends of relationship- Shaky Man-Complete Woman, great watch with trippy music of Yuvan – deliberately provocative that is Ram s Forte.
LikeLike
Sathyanarayanan N
August 17, 2017
I can draw parallel with Iraivi with Iravi had more air of positive to it. Even though this movie is more about relationship, it does talk about empowerment of women. Anjali character in Iravi is more empowered than Andrea’s character and it was well established in the end with Anjali showing “I can live on my own in this world” whereas Andrea despite short coming of Vasanth Ravi, she chooses to live with him. It looks like, Andrea’s character is written with one intent, come what may, we will write a script that she is independent and live the way she wants.
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
August 17, 2017
Sathyanarayanan N: I don’t see “I can live on my own in this world” as being greater than choosing to live with someone on one’s own terms. Different people, different decisions. You can be “independent” with or without another person in the mix.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Sathyanarayanan N
August 17, 2017
Hi Rangan, True. I felt there was a conviction in Anjali’s decision in Iraivi whereas in Ram’s words’ “after so many sorry and flowers, what will happen has happened” and they lived happily thereafter and that’s where I saw little bit of indecisiveness. Also, on your point of staying in Taramani station ” I felt on that night, she wanted a person not a place where she feels safe physically as well as mentally.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bharath Vijayakumar
August 17, 2017
‘ In the film’s most troubling scene, she sleeps with Prabhunath and calls him the nicest man she’s known’
I am not sure if I read the scene differently but I think she did not sleep with him or rather the other way around.There is a dialogue when he takes those selfies with her on bed that implies the same.
LikeLike
brangan
August 17, 2017
Bharath Vijayakumar: You know, while writing the review I wasn’t able to exactly recall that scene. But whether he slept with her or not, I was still disturbed by the very idea. The whole scene begins with the box of chocolates, which is a red herring. And then, from there to bed, and the character certificate she later gives him… It was all so icky.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fhfjd
August 17, 2017
brangan on August 17, 2017 at 15:12
Sathyanarayanan N: I don’t see “I can live on my own in this world” as being greater than choosing to live with someone on one’s own terms. Different people, different decisions. You can be “independent” with or without another person in the mix.
BR – this is possibly the most profound thing you have ever said (at least to me!)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
August 18, 2017
A nice finishing touch. 🙂
Btw, the official title of the film is Taramani. You got it right in the FC page though.
LikeLike
Jyoti S Kumar
August 18, 2017
But sir, indeed the stretch with the IT corridor IS a separate world. It’s been 5 years since I left Chennai and we revisited the place only this year. We spent most of our time in the OMR belt, since our friends are located there. We felt like we were not in Chennai at all. It was too polished, too flashy… Unlike the Chennai I’ve come to love. When we crossed Meenambakkam, there was a big board saying Chennai corporation welcomes you… Frankly that was when we felt we were in Chennai, we were home… and all the 3 days previously spent ,felt like we were in some other city.
LikeLike
Iswarya
August 18, 2017
BR: I am so sad I didn’t wait for your review before going off and subjecting myself to this… this insidious piece of trickery, almost like a dessert laced with venom. I might have adjusted my expectations accordingly if I had anticipated the problematic parts instead of being misled by the chorus of fulsome, fawning praise everywhere online.
****SPOILER ALERT******
It also didn’t help that this was the first Ram movie I have watched. You’ve mentioned earlier that his characters are just “random” and I don’t know why I expected this film to be different. Honestly, the randomness of the loosely linked story didn’t bother me a bit. As you’ve pointed out, the device of the narrator is definitely inspired by ‘Y Tu Mama Tambien’ (which appears on the filmography credits as well). The dry jokes and social commentary were in fact one of the very few enjoyable things about the film. The other randomness that is less justifiable is the fact that he is shown as an embodiment of superhuman sensitivity in not asking Althea anything about her husband, leaving a note to the dead man about the money he steals, a gentle soul racked by guilt from the suspicion that he was responsible for the man’s death etc. Then, pretty inexplicably, he turns out to be a possessive, insecure maniac and later on a Sigappu Rojakkal kind of unapologetic serial seducer and blackmailer!
Perhaps his singing ‘Adida Avala’ and behaving like the typical Tamil movie “soup-boy” is meant to be an indictment of the run-of-the-mill Tamil cinema or society or whatever. After having seen him behave like this, the Anjali scene and the character certificate she gives him become too much to swallow. Really, if he was that super-sensitive guy from the beginning of the film, why does it take him so much bludgeoning (the Venus episode, the Anjali scene, the confrontation with Barnabas, the Nagore trip AND THEN the terribly melodramatic death of the policeman’s wife) before he comes to his senses? On the contrary, if he was always the crass average Tamil male, what on earth did Althea see in him? His swimming skills?
As someone else online had pointed out, if his guilt about stealing was real, why didn’t he make any effort to earn and return the money to the family instead of moping around as a drunk bum? Simply to narrate his sob-story and leech on a working mom without paying rent?
The most griping part is that this film is being discussed in the context of feminist subversion! Darn.. where is the subversion except in Althea smoking and drinking? (Not judging her. Of course, courting cancer can’t be the privilege of one gender alone.) The male protagonist (let’s not call him hero) proves for the biggest part of the film to be an entitled jackass and she “forgives” him the moment he just declares that he has reformed? Where, I say, is my barf bag?
Also, let’s not get started on the poster of the movie that makes a PSA out of an anti-stalking message but where the narrator in the end concludes with a perfunctory “After a sufficient number of roses and apologies, she takes him back!” Stalking an ex-girlfriend is still stalking.
Aren’t we in just a more sophisticated Remo territory here in assuming that
(a) she needs a man at all in her life after having brought up that kid all alone for so many years,
(b) the ideal family as seen in the picture the boy draws is what every woman must aspire to,
(c) being biologically female, her head must be addled when she says she doesn’t want to see him ever again and her explicit request to him must be violated,
(d) having caused so much misery to both Althea and several other women (including a death), this man somehow still deserves a strong, independent woman like Althea just because (he claims) he has now stopped being the jackass he was earlier?
How on earth will it ever turn out into the “ideal family” with such a maladjusted male in it? Yes, he’s apparently got over his jealousy and sexual insecurity. So? The one scene in which he is carrying a can of water and complaining about her making him do all the ‘humiliating’ domestic work made me chortle. How has that household with a single mom been running all along? Why do we never see her working at home doing the regular chores but only drinking? Does dinner make itself if a woman is employed in IT? Like every average Tamil movie, women’s labour is taken for granted while a jobless hanger on gets to complain about having to help with chores. And then this movie gets labelled everywhere as some kind of path-breaking feminist classic!
****END OF SPOILER****
Actually, I am not done fuming about the film, but then, too tired to type anything more right now. So, fin.
LikeLiked by 5 people
brangan
August 18, 2017
Iswarya: When you speak of ‘filmography credits,’ what do you mean? Does Ram show a title card with a list of films he’s been inspired by (like Vetri Maaran did in Aadukalam)? What are the other movies on this list? Thanks.
LikeLike
Iswarya
August 18, 2017
BR: Yep. There were some 4-5 films listed and I now remember only ‘Y Tu Mama Tambien’ and ‘In the Mood for Love.’ 5 days since I watched and so my memory is sorta shaky. Maybe others who have watched can fill in?
LikeLike
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
August 18, 2017
Iswarya: I probably won’t see the film until it gets aired on TV. But did Ram ever say he wanted to make a feminist movie? I don’t think the man himself sees his characters as anything more than “interesting”. Otherwise, you can’t take the film to task for its social media reviews. Interestingly BR notes, ” … a lot of Tharamani reminds you of K Balachander’s view of men and women.)”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pavan
August 18, 2017
Iswarya: I really wish you continued the discussion. Not to derive any sadistic pleasure out of someone’s agony, but for the fact that rants people make here are so… Straight (can’t find a proper equivalent of what is in my mind). Good luck!
LikeLike
Kay
August 18, 2017
Iswarya, that was one hell of a rant. I wish you had continued.. or even better, why don’t you write your views as a separate post, which BR can publish under readers write in? Sorry BR, for taking the liberty and assuming that you would post it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
August 18, 2017
Kay/Iswarya: Yes, I would.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Iswarya
August 19, 2017
Thanks, BR, for the generous offer. Thank you, Kay/Pavan for the appreciation. I think I will continue to chip in with my discontinuous thoughts here in the comments section rather than writing out a full coherent post. Honestly, if only I had the discipline to string together my thoughts on a subject cogently and write it down in full without getting distracted, I would have got my PhD a full two years ago! 😦
Honest Raj: Agreed that Ram didn’t go about claiming explicitly to have made a feminist film, but the anti-stalking poster was still a pretty hypocritical move. There were enough hints in his pre-release hype to conclude that he had made a pro-women film, if not strictly a “feminist” one. And I am saying, the inconsistent characterisation notwithstanding, this movie could have somehow been pro-women if not for the crushing disappointment that its climax was. I was frankly appalled by the fact that Ram makes a dedication to Balu Mahendra right at the beginning but couldn’t even match the integrity and courage of a “Marupadiyum” that his mentor had already made at least two decades ago.
The I-am-in-the-mood-to-wrap-up-this-tedious-tale level of perfunctoriness (or probably what the director mistook for cheekiness) in TELLING and not SHOWING the audience that she gets back with him was what annoyed me the most, slowly making me reconsider all that had gone before. The substratum of covert chauvinism on which such a decision is based might be Ram’s own or probably his idea of what may please the crowd. If it’s the former, I have nothing to say; if it’s the latter, then it confirms my suspicion that the film lacks integrity. That’s also one of the reasons why the film compares unfavourably with “Iraivi” (which wasn’t exactly a feminist classic either but definitely had integrity.)
LikeLike
Thiv
August 19, 2017
Mr. Rangan (Re.Inspiration) – He(Mr.Ram) mentioned both “Eyes Wide Shut” & “In The Mood For Love” are the main inspiration to make this movie, I mean the way both Kubrick and Kar Wai showcased the context of relationship kind of helped him to make this one. Whereas “Y Tu Mama Tambien” helped the narration of the film.
P.S. I haven’t seen any of his works, was planning to watch “Thanga Meengal” but your review stopped me from watching that one. Because it gave a bit of “Peppermint Candy” vibe.
LikeLike
Gautham
August 19, 2017
brangan: Personally, the Anjali scene initially elicited the same response but held together with what happens later on, I felt it was meant to serve as a reminder to Prabhunath on who he had been previously and who he had become (by being credited as nice when being anything but). I guess it was written with his character arc in mind with obvious disregard for Anjali’s character so it possibly isn’t either the male gaze at play or her being masochistic. I entered the movie hall about 30 minutes late, so might have completely misread the scene.
LikeLiked by 1 person
GODZ
August 19, 2017
Should we see all movies with Liberal and Feminist lenses? It’s a movie about certain character behaving in certain ways during certain times. It’s absolutely a directors freedom to decide how his characters decide or in which direction he wants to take them. Sometimes views like this are no different from Hard right Views. Director has said in an another interview that he too “believes” his “protagonist” changed along with the heroine. Questioning “why the Female lead forgives?” is absolutely ridiculous.Sorry, Ishwarya. With due respect, Sometimes puking on the act of forgiveness is a way overreaction and you need to take things easy. Again Support you cause but hammering each and everything will absolutely not help.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Iswarya
August 19, 2017
For those who can read Tamil and don’t mind some, ahem.. STRONG language, here’s a pretty solid critique of the film’s purported feminism:
https://thetimestamil.com/2017/08/18/ஆண்குறிகள்-பூத்து-குலுங்/amp/
(If the URL hasn’t given you a clear hint already, I will spell it out: it’s NSFW)
(Also unsure if BR’s moderation standards would permit this link.)
LikeLike
GODZ
August 19, 2017
Nothing Interesting in the link. Just the same old repetitive rants. It proves again the hate that spurns for takes that disagree with the views held dear by “Feminist/Progressives” and lack of decency. Nalla Vella. Bharathi Uyiroda illa.
Is this the ALT – Left? 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pavan
August 19, 2017
GODZ: Should we see all movies with Liberal and Feminist lenses? It’s a movie about certain character behaving in certain ways during certain times.
Great point. No, not all films are supposed to be seen like that. Actually no film should be judged like that. But, when the director makes the characters represent a particular part of the society, and wants you to engage yourself, it is bound that such issues shall arise. As the film progresses, one gets involved in the story telling and starts seeing himself or herself somewhere, in any of those characters. For example, if that does not happen, almost every “rise of the underdog” film would bite the dust.
I believe that there is a difference between exploring human emotions and exploiting them unduly. You want protagonists with whom audience should connect easily. Once that connection happens, to give goosebumps to the audience, they make the characters behave against their integrity. If you ask why, all you get is “Human behavior is unpredictable. Why should my characters behave in a particular way?”
LikeLike
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
August 19, 2017
Iswarya: The latter half of my earlier comment was meant to be a deliberate dig at KB fans (not strictly to those who belong to this forum though). 🙂
Thanks for the link. Now that it gives some context about the film, I can’t help but see sense in your ‘rant’. As for “no என்பது ஒரு வார்த்தை அல்ல. அது ஒரு முழுமையான வாக்கியம்..”, this episode from Balu Mahendra’s Kathai Neram handled it very well (watch from around 23:30):
The best part here is that it treats both the man and the woman as humans.
LikeLike
Iswarya
August 19, 2017
GODZ: Thanks for the “due respect.” I appreciate it. You are, of course, free to disagree with me since I believe as much as the next person that enforced conformity is fascist. But can we please spare the condescension (“way overreaction and you need to take things easy”)? Psst.. why can’t I smile more..? I’d look so pleasant and pretty!
Not going to argue with you about your opinions/interpretation of which ideas are on the far-left or alt-right. Ultimately, it’s all subjective and nobody is ever going to be convinced by a confrontational argument. But facts are what can be agreed on, I hope? Let’s see:
“Should we see all movies with Liberal and Feminist lenses?”
Um… ALL? Correct me if I am wrong, but the last time there was a feminist critique in the comments section of this blog was in the infamous Remo thread. I happened to revisit the thread yesterday and could see so many women vocally expressing their frustration at the general obtuseness of the comments there and walking out. And it’s been 10 full months since then. So your “all” is a little puzzling to me.
One particular phrase I used might need some clarification:
Regarding “puking on the act of forgiveness”, I think my next comment would have made this clearer but I can repeat it here if I had messed up the phrasing in my first rant: Forgiveness stems from an unforced, graceful sense of generosity and is often an act of kindness to oneself as much as the offender. Holding on to hurt feelings is ultimately self-destructive, etc. So Althea forgiving his disgusting behaviour is not the biggest problem per se, if the said act of forgiving was just pronouncing a pardon. In fact, she tells him that she’s forgiven him the moment he comes back to her and states that he is a changed man. But the decision to let him stalk her until she agrees to his advances once again, then the three happily-ever-after holding hands and sleeping? That’s a huge leap from just forgiving his cruel, selfish and downright violent behaviour. It is, as BR rightly points out, an act of self-sacrificing masochism. Now, how often is this level of abject self-sacrifice expected from women vis-a-vis men both in real life and in cinema? I think that’s the problem I am trying to highlight.
Honest Raj: Glad we agree. In fact, I feel TFI has on the whole regressed quite a bit after BM or Mahendran stopped making movies. I have (like many others, I am sure) a sort of conflicted, love-hate relationship with KB (and I think he mostly resists attempts to just box him in one way or another).
LikeLiked by 2 people
doctorhari
August 19, 2017
I decided to stay away from this director’s works after watching his first movie, Katrathu Tamil. Though it was well-made, I found the basic premise of the movie and the hero’s portrayal bizarre and at places even revolting. I can see from BR’s review and the comments (for this film as well as the previous one), that he’s continuing in the same line movie after movie. What surprises me is the fact that his movies are making a decent profit at the box office. I’m wondering who are the ones connecting to his bizarre protagonists.
LikeLike
Iswarya
August 19, 2017
doctorhari: Regarding “I’m wondering who are the ones connecting to his bizarre protagonists,” I have a theory but I am afraid I will have to write a long and involved comment, at the end of which I might still get a lot of brickbats for my ultra-left militant feminazism and whatnot. So, I am seriously wondering if I want to bite the bait here. 😉
LikeLiked by 3 people
brangan
August 19, 2017
Iswarya: Oh come on, don’t be a tease now. Out with it. Nothing less than 1000 words. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Karthik
August 20, 2017
The movie for a few parts was too much but IMO characters in this movie tells about how people who lose their roots, become somewhat anonymous in this society and their struggles to get along. Sort of people who live on the fringes. I could very well relate to this young male character with no heritage,who is nominally educated, unemployed for his own as well as other reasons and short of any meaningful relationship. When such a person decides to settle down how the past and present holds a person and his return to normal is in my opinion the crux. What seems as extreme is real for a few for whom life itself is a problem and in future there would be many such people. A solution is offered here and it is faith, forgiveness, love and repentance. Loneliness is chilling and not everyone could get out of it but at least there is some way than death. First movie man quits, second movie man struggles and third movie man compromises; but lonely social misfits are there to stay.
LikeLike
GODZ
August 20, 2017
Ishwarya..We both know what we are talking here. So lets not getting into Word play of what “All” means or does not mean and divert the topic. The problem with the link you have posted is not with the argument it’s trying to make but the profanity, and hate that’s laced throughout the post. Don’t you think it’s not self-defeating considering u r fighting against violence and Hate? So Is violence, Profanity and Hate Ok With you If it’s for the liberal Values? I am not some moral undertaker or a Deceny Torch bearer. But violence, profanity, and hate at any form are equally Wrong and it’s self-defeating. It just took another form. Period.
I discussed the ending with many friends of mine specifically women and pretty much unanimously all agreed that movie is over there when she gives her last handshake at the elevator. They cannot even imagine themselves living again with a man who committed such insidious acts. So there is pretty much no argument there.
The problem starts with the interpretation of directors intents. it’s a 30-second monologue where the director says they live happily ever after. Does he show visually? No. Does he explicitly glorify stalking like Remo? No. It’s just that in directors own words he wants to give a happy ending for a mainstream audience and IMO could be a Box office related decision. But then seeing again through a feminist lens and saying “Oh..A no is a no..he glorifies stalking”. Let’s take the new “might sword.Keyboard”, Tie the director in a Tank and blast him with the keyboard, write a profanity filled post and introduce new vocabulary, Cut the scene, ban the movie etc. It’s this Prepostorous over reaction that bothers me. Because then a masculinist will argue..”Why Majority of Villains is always Male. Cannot there be a female villain? Why most of the pyschos in movies are males? Why director is showing males as such a Monsters?” which is equally true but preposterous.
Creators of movies like Remo, AAA, Trishaornayan etc should be condemned and stopped n every possible way and that’s where the focus should be. But when a story, character, and its actions are not explicit and open to interpretation(Specifically: Stalking you mentioned) and where the director has that creative freedom to give an ending to his characters he created which could be even wrong but giving such a ridiculous reaction devalues and even dilutes the focus.
The same director Ram showed IT employees as Jerks and in such a poor light in his first movie as well as this movie. Every policeman in each and every Indian movie is showed in such a bad light, insulted and battered and even promotes violence against them. So Should all the good IT employees and police man start a petition on Change.org requesting to ban all movies that show them in a bad light? It’s a question.
LikeLike
Iswarya
August 20, 2017
Thy wish is my command, Herr Doktor. 🙂
(Ah.. this comment turned out much longer than I anticipated. But please let it remain here in the comments section. I don’t want this made into a separate post.)
Well, let’s start with a little anecdote here and pepper it with irreverent (and at times irrelevant) social commentary as we go, in the style the director has borrowed from one of my favourite movies, Y Tu Mama Tambien.
I was pretty new to social media after joining Twitter almost by accident just a year ago. In my missionary zeal to promote the campaign I was running, I used to regularly join tweet-chats hosted by several feminist organisations trying to create awareness on subjects like workplace harrassment, rape culture, child abuse and trafficking, fashion policing, etc. Women were encouraged to share their experiences and stories to break the taboo around such topics. Like several other women across the country, I too tweeted about instances of roadside molestation I had gone through as a kid and a pre-teen. For any man who has had a meaningful relationship with a woman, it should come as no surprise that this is the reality of the common Indian woman. In fact, street harrassment and casual molestation on public transport are normalised to the point of banality. However, most women, out of frustration, fear or sheer helplessness don’t bother discussing this in public. I had no idea what Pandora’s Box I had apparently opened by talking about it. Soon I saw some women on Tamil Twitter subtweeting that I was an “attention seeker.” (I seemed to have missed the memo telling everyone that being molested on the road was a badge of honour that would earn you the all-important attention that you can’t live without!)
My attempt to show solidarity with other women opening up on much more traumatic experiences basically gave a certain sleazebag following me on Twitter an easy target. By clicking on the hashtag we were all using, he and another scum-buddy of his went after other women practically on a rampage of verbal molestation. My ‘follower’ (call him SB) expressed disappointment that the stories weren’t titillating enough since it was all about harrassment with no rape scene thrown in. His friend went classier by literally propositioning random strangers for a quickie. Men reading this, are you really surprised?
Anyway, I went through the outraged-woman-on-Twitter routine™ of taking screenshots, reporting and blocking, naming and shaming SB’s buddy and so forth. Same old, same old.
======
Kasi Theatre has the reputation for generally making risk-averse choices (mostly ‘mass’-y star vehicles), knowing their exact audience and not opting to give screens to too many niche ‘multiplex’ films. They seem to be in the middle of a massive image makeover but I am unsure if that has anything to do with their decision to open up one show of Taramani in the second week of its release. It’s true there aren’t any major releases this week and VIP2 which was hogging all 4 shows last week hasn’t exactly got universal praise. Still.. it seems a curious choice only confirming the general reports that footfalls for Taramani are on the rise due to great word-of-mouth publicity. Clearly more and more people are voting with their purses in favour of the film and Kasi folks must have seen business sense in catering to this influx of audience. Who are these people flocking to watch and re-watch Taramani? All of them cannot be just curious women like me who have heard all the raves about this film on “empowerment of females,” as one funny internet guy put it, and wanted to check out what all the fuss was about.
Ram has apparently gone on record saying this is the first film of his to be openly pronounced a BO success. The steady increase of screens in the second week confirms the story. Has the theatre-going demographic suddenly changed? If the movie is a slap on the face of the average Tamil male, why are they coming in droves to watch the film?
=====
Robert M. Pirsig, in his Afterword to Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance uses the Swedish word kulturbärer to describe books that “challenge cultural value assumptions and often do so at a time when the culture is changing in favour of their challenge.” These books may not be great literary masterpieces, but capture the zeitgeist when the time is ripe for a massive social change. He cites Uncle Tom’s Cabin as an example of such a culture-bearing book that appeared at a time when America was all ready to reject slavery and people “seized upon it as a portrayal of their own new values” making the book a phenomenal success.
Now, if this remotely suggests to you that the Tamil audience suddenly embracing Taramani is a positive sign that our society is on the verge of breaking away from centuries of patriarchal oppression, say “hi” to my cynicism! Nice to meet you, innocent person. Be careful while crossing the road.
=====
I moved on, obviously. I wasn’t going to let random strangers questioning my motives or making disrespectful insinuations silence me forever.
A few months later came the news about Nandhini, a Dalit teenager who had been raped, murdered, her foetus brutally aborted and the corpse dumped away neglected for weeks. The whole state was in shock when her body was discovered and the gruesome image splashes across newspapers. Apart from a handful of people who had political mileage to gain from creating conspiracy theories, everyone felt (and expressed) grief and outrage – for a few hours.
All of a sudden, somebody I follow retweets into my Twitter timeline a long, angry Twitlonger post deploring the rape and murder of Nandhini, calling for the strictest action against the perpetrators, generally condemning the lack of safety for our sisters, so on and so forth. If you haven’t guessed yet, I discovered much to my amusement that the post was written by none other than SB. Anybody who was unfamiliar with his earlier antics would have no reason to suspect its sincerity.
I had trouble making sense of this behaviour though. It was, at best, an incredible level of cognitive dissonance and at worst, plain hypocrisy. Did he not see? Did he not realise that their Twitter “adventure” was the virtual equivalent of a roadside catcall and public bus groping? If questioned about it, would he respond in the typical Tamil meme nation’s language by saying ‘Yaenaa idhu vaaliba vayasu’? For that matter, would the ‘comedy’ track of Vadivelu harassing Kiran just for jollies in ‘Winner’ ever strike him as a crime? Or was everything other than actual rape and murder OK?
Maybe I was as usual “overthinking.” Maybe he had written that bleeding-heart essay only to build a preening saintly image of himself. Maybe he had just dashed off a post to impress a woman who would reply to him with a “Slipper shot, thozhar” and a few smileys. Maybe…
=====
Social media has made both news and commentary instantly available, besides making it easier than ever for men and women to interact. When something striking occurs, the compulsion to comment on the issue and participate in a public discussion is high. The internet Tamil male who fails to put out a token message demanding justice for Nirbhaya or Nandhini is looked down upon. Or for a minimum, he loses the chance to earn some internet brownie points.
While the blatant misogyny of a Remo or Devathayai Kanden still satisfies the taste of the lowest common denominator of the audience, it makes a tiny fraction of the internet males uneasy about unabashedly enjoying them, or at least publicly admitting to enjoying them.
I am reminded of the line in Iraivi that BR’s review also quotes – comparing the average masala movie to a massage with a happy ending. The average Tamil movie comforts the average Joe (or shall we say, Sumar Moonji Kumar?) that he can remain aimless, jobless, graceless, uncouth, irresponsible, ill-tempered, drunk, violent and misogynistic, and still win over a woman of his dreams by stalking and abusing her. But this stalker-hero has no sophisticated moral veneer. He leches after a woman he doesn’t deserve in the guise of ‘true love’ and she dare not reject him. Or else…
The pretend-woke internet Tamil male raises this game one notch higher. He basically enjoys all the privileges extended to the average SMK but can feel morally cleansed the moment he regrets or claims to regret his sociopathic behaviour. Or wait! It’s not for nothing that our films are wish-fulfilment fantasies. At least the dreadful protagonist of the movie had to go all the way to Nagore in search of redemption. Here we have it much easier. Watching Taramani is in itself that act of atonement. It comforts him that he can be as despicably entitled as he wants, and yet the moment he expresses regret, he gets back all the perks he had momentarily lost. This is not just a massage with a happy ending, but one that is marketed as a Patanjali-approved yoga session.
What we are witnessing is the success of the internet Tamil male’s kulturbärer.
LikeLiked by 9 people
brangan
August 20, 2017
Karthik: how people who lose their roots, become somewhat anonymous in this society and their struggles to get along.
I agree with this part, and wrote as much in the review: “The protagonist of Taramani, Prabhunath (Vasanth Ravi), is the protagonist of Kattradhu Thamizh (2007) who’s made his peace with a global language, though not with a global culture.”
GODZ: The problem starts with the interpretation of directors intents.
I see what you are saying in general, but am not sure what you mean by this line. Are you saying one should not interpret what the director shows? Because in that case, one should just accept everything and not “converse” with the film at all!
Iswarya: Thank you for that beautifully worded comment. It reminds us of the voice this blog space has lost since you’ve moved on to more meaningful pursuits.
I hope this is the correct version of your comment.
LikeLike
GODZ
August 20, 2017
BR. “The problem starts with the interpretation of directors intents”. What I meant was “My problem starts with certain interpretation”. I mean it’s ok to converse but does we really to the extent of completely damaging it and threatening it with profanity?. My point is in this case the director is genuine in his effort. He is trying to convey a story and an Ending with in his Mainstream strength and limits. If certain groups in society start this conversation in the way they interpret(and make no mistake it could be absolutely right), where do you think it will end? Then a Creator cannot able to tell the story he wants. Then should he keep a checklist of each and every group. If I say this Group A can interpret like this. If I say this Group B can interpret like this. Then what kind of story he can tell? So Is it something of a People Censor where Certain People/Group decide what he should tell and should not tell in his next film? An Honest police Cop can Rant About Vikram Vedha. You cannot then have a Terrorist as a subject matter of a film fearing certain back lashes. Then a certain group who knows will ask why the character drink Alcohol? It goes On and On and On. Where does it end?
LikeLike
brangan
August 20, 2017
GODZ: But no one is saying a director SHOULD NOT make this movie. Having seen this movie, one is bound to have comments, some of which may be positive and some negative. So one says, “I have seen this film and this is what I think.” Which is not the same as saying Ram should not make this movie.
Also, one’s conditioning/being plays a huge role in how you see a film. So a woman may see a movie very differently from a man. A gay man or a lesbian may see a movie very differently from a straight man/woman. An older person may see a movie very differently from a teenager. A person who’s studied (or is interested in) gender may see a movie very differently from one who isn’t viewing a film through that lens.
It’s all these viewpoints that make a discussion around a movie interesting, right?
Even in the Remo thread, the discussion was more about the content. No one said this movie should not be made (AFAIR).
We live in an age of twitter, where “damage” is already being done to films in unimaginable ways — mostly in terms of glib put-downs. This sort of discussion at least frames a film in a social context, makes it relevant.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Madan
August 20, 2017
“They cannot even imagine themselves living again with a man who committed such insidious acts. ” – So there you are and the question being asked essentially is where from does the director then conjure up a happily ever after ending. It is not enough to say he did it for box office considerations, what is the reason that prompted the woman to forgive him? Should it not be explained? As to your point about males being shown as villains, the thing is that does not affect the power equation between men and women in the slightest. Is it that the villification of men has resulted in women occupying all positions of power? Not even close (and in any case, it is easily counterbalanced by the glorification of the hero character(s)). Whereas how the courtship rituals between men and women are depicted does seem to influence youth and, as Iswarya said, provides a justification to abuse women. I think the argument that the less privileged section of society should be portrayed more sensitively is fair and does not have much if anything to do with ideology (I am not inclined either way in particular, ideologically). This does not mean women should not be shown as villains and to that extent I reject the argument made by some self proclaimed feminists that anytime somebody does so is misogynist (see Gone Girl). But the interplay between men and women has to be handled carefully. I am not even going to say don’t show men stalking or raping or otherwise harassing women; it is a fact of life. But judge it for what it is (a crime in essence in the IPC) and don’t try to rationalise or condone it.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Iswarya
August 20, 2017
BR: Thank you! 🙂
Madan: True. In fact in this very blog, I remember both Rahini and I arguing for non-stereotyped female villains. Most feminists I have interacted with would in fact support the idea. The problem is often that negative female characters are built around easy, lazy stereotypes and they meet with their downfall in the most convenient, cliched manner. Maybe Rahini will be able to find the comment 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
GODZ
August 20, 2017
Madan..You can watch the directors Explanation here..
LikeLike
Madan
August 20, 2017
“The problem is often that negative female characters are built around easy, lazy stereotypes and they meet with their downfall in the most convenient, cliched manner. ” – I think it was in the Ramya Krishnan interview thread? Yeah, if casting a female villain is just an excuse to show and celebrate male conquest of a woman who refuses to be tamed, that is just more of the same in a different guess.
LikeLike
Prashila
August 20, 2017
Iswarya, that was a hell of rant. Take a bow, woman. And thanks to that stray comment you put on some other post on wanting to rant about this movie, I went ahead and looked its trailers up on Youtube. I found the three different teasers interesting in a weird sort of way and then coupled with the discussion on this thread, decided to take a leap of faith and watch it. And I must say, sister, I can so understand what you must have felt. This is such a frustrating movie, full of insights into relationships yes, but in total frustrating and may I say, potentially disturbing.
To begin with, I find it very hard to digest the fact that a woman like Althea would be so drawn towards the protagonist just because of how heartbroken he is. I could not buy this conceit in ADHM with Aishwarya Rai’s character, and neither could I buy it here. But I let that pass, for soon something magical happened as we are let into Althea’s fascinating life. And Andrea Jeremiah who always seemed out of place in all the movies I have watched her in, owned this part. A couple of scenes after their first meeting, I thought I could see why she began to trust him, began to open up to him. He was troubled too, he wasn’t like the other men around her who could only see her as the modern divorcee who they think is ‘easy to get’, and most importantly how the minute she saw him and her son together registered in her mind.
But no, the nuance is thrown out of the window just as soon. Pretty soon he is living with them. And why? Because the child likes him and his beard? A very troubling thought for me is what exactly does Prabhu feel for this boy. Does he even realize what sort of responsibilities this sort of a relationship brings in? Even a frivolous movie like Partner spent a good deal of time in showing Salman Khan and Lara Dutta’s son spend time together and getting to terms with each other. Here, all we see is Prabhu goofing around with the child, at best a playmate to him. And the last thing this family needs is a playmate of an insecure grown man! I could not help but imagine how things would end up for them after that bizarre end shot.
And speaking of the bizarre end shot, the last 40 odd minutes of the movie, like what exactly was going on? Why did he suddenly turn into a sociopath? And then how does the epiphany happen? Even the stunning Sufi number was seemingly manipulative. And yet I would still go away a little less frustrated if the movie had ended with a shot of Althea crying, maybe because she misses him or whatever, with hints that they may eventually get together (yes as scary as it sounds) , but the ending line made it look like a wink, indirectly saying, “And so it begins all over again”. Shudder!
And all this while, I used to think it is only the community of unskilled migrant and blue collar workers that struggles with the loss of roots. But, if the loss is extending to a more mobile, more exposed and nominally educated, but without meaningful relationships – as Karthik puts it- class of men (and women too I hope), I can’t help but be worried about our future generations.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
August 20, 2017
@ GODZ: I watched it and the explanation is not very convincing. In essence, he has said what you have said above, that it’s a mainstream cinema consideration. Fine, but build the narrative such that it is logical to get from point A to point B. See, this is not the harmless cars magically hitting top gear upon landing from a 100 feet drop kind of suspension of disbelief. If the director suggests that a woman (and apparently an independent, unconventional woman) would not only forgive a misogynist upon his saying that he has reformed but actually take him into her field, there has to be an arc that convinces the audience of this. From the director’s own comments, this arc is missing. I also disagree with his assertion in the discussion that a woman cannot live without a male companion. Arth was made 36 years ago with an ending where the female protagonist even rejects the companionship of a very sensitive well wisher who has in fact bailed her out on multiple occasions to live her own life. Sorry, where is the progressivity here? Even assuming the director wants to take a view that that is the norm (of men and women seeking companionship), forgive me if I feel that making an independent single mother seek said companionship from a creep is positively dystopian.
LikeLike
sravishanker1401gmailcom
August 20, 2017
Iswarya : That was an awesome post / comment
When you’re dealing with centuries of bullshit it can be downright disheartening and difficult .
More power to you !
LikeLiked by 1 person
Iswarya
August 20, 2017
Prashila: Thank you 🙂
Madan: Preach, brotha!
GODZ: Frankly, I see that he offers a very progressive backstory for her off-screen but decided to deliberately chicken out from showing them in the film. How convenient! That she might have had other lovers in the past, that their relationship may break up any time once again, that Barnabas does not represent the moral centre of the film’s universe – basically every single detail that might alienate his core constituency of the average internet Tamil male has been carefully swept under the carpet. And he openly says he’s done this with an eye on the BO. The interview does more damage to his integrity as a creator than the film itself did.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Karthik
August 20, 2017
@doctorhari : ” I’m wondering who are the ones connecting to his bizarre protagonists.”
“I do Sir” you must have heard something called role play where you put in yourself in the someone else’s position to understand them. The main lead in Tamil M.A.,his parents are gone there is none he can claim as his own, his mentor also passes at a critical juncture of his life, his crush leaves him, his education is only on paper and suffers from economic shortfalls. This person is battered to the core that his ability to empathize is dead. The same occurs to the lady character but at a smaller level. For these people there is no history to tell and no one would help even if their position is known they at the best get sympathies.
There is nothing bizarre about such people being shown because these type of people are there in every society but their numbers are growing in “our society”. For instance the protagonist in “Taxi Driver” was also a sort of bizarre who had nothing behind him, his habits despicable and love life dubious. Now who would have thought during those times that a young Vietnam war veteran would become so worthless(taking girlfriend to a porn movie!!) but what happened in reality is many veterans suffered and their lives became miserable. That movie was more about the political and social situations of that time shaping the personality of an individual not on the individual alone.
Same for Ram’s characters who are people who are unwillingly or unknowingly thrown into a situation which was made due to sociopolitical factors and how these people try to traverse them. These are not bizarre, the manifestation may be just hard to digest, just also see the entire nature which makes these people.
@brangan : Thank you. Your reviews are always fine. I miss your writing in “The Hindu”.
@Prashila : “Pretty soon he is living with them. And why?”
Because he has to survive, he wants to reconcile and reconstruct his life with whatever opportunity he has got. Same for her she needs someone who genuinely cares about her. For each of the three the other two are the best available people they can share their lives with and not exploit each other. They are nobody they cannot carry any wish list but just move on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
August 20, 2017
Karthik: Copy-pasting my comment from the Dangal thread.
[BEGIN COMMENT] Many things are possible in life, which unfolds over days, months, years. What’s important is whether the same event comes off as plausible in the three hours on screen. In other words, do I buy it? One such event may be a one-off. A series of them suggests a deliberate writing decision. Which is what I am saying. [END COMMENT]
In Taxi Driver, I find the descent into madness plausible. Here, I have trouble buying some of it.
LikeLike
Karthik
August 20, 2017
@brangan : Yes. I concur. As “a film” most of them are unconvincing.
LikeLike
Iswarya
August 21, 2017
Thank you, Zola sir, for your appreciation. I happened to visit your blog after a long time yesterday and realised how much I am missing. Waiting for my research to be done so that I can get back to frequenting my favourite blogs and online spaces.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahini David
August 21, 2017
Iswarya: All feels like it happened 20 years back and I am in a haze. Nice discussion BTW.
LikeLike
Uncouth Village Youth
August 21, 2017
The write up on Katradhu Tamil by BR has been endlessly dissected in my friends circle – it still comes up occasionally when some of my friends rant against MR heroes . I till now don’t understand the hate for the movie. Agreed, some of the scenes were violent, but the movie as a whole made sense to me. A lot of people think that he becomes who he is, because he is disillusioned with the dominance of English in TN. For me, it was the story of somebody, who was dealt one bad hand after the other in life. Every time he makes or rather tries to make a turnaround he is pushed off the brink. No man can be sane after taking so many hits in life. He wields Tamil as a convenient tool to mask the other “bad hands”, when it becomes evident that his life has gone into a downward spiral, from which there is no coming back. It is also one area of his life where he has absolute superiority over others. Some might see this as Tamil chauvinism, but I beg to differ.
A lot of people commenting here are saying that its not possible or doesn’t make sense for certain on-screen twists ,especially for educated,independent women falling for UVY – my advice for them is to wait.Part of growing old is experiencing what you once thought of as absurd, happening in life, right in front of your eyes. I know a well to do girl (convent educated,class X) who ran off with a ironman (not Tony Stark 😀 ). My father was called to the police station for mediation, as he was a office bearer in the church. He later recounted that the girl literally told her parents to get the f*** out of her life – she even asked her mom to remove her thali when she was asked to do the same. I know a college lecturer who got knocked up by her own student (his name regularly featured in the arrears toppers) – this happened in my college where the Chairman bragged on stage, about how he will hand the girls pure, back to their parents – guess he forgot to include the staff. As a side note, the applause brought the house down, and I kicked myself for not having chosen a different college. I know a IIT educated, top honcho in a Bangalore based MNC, who fell in love with another UVY, is the sole breadwinner and appears to have no regrets(at least outwardly). Life is bizarre and you will meet all sorts of edge cases on the way.
As for the movie itself, it was pretty uninteresting for me.The guy is the female equivalent of Geetha’s character in PPA, that we have seen numerous times on screen. The novelty is in the setting, rather than the story itself. Happy that the movie is holding its own against VIP2 – Ram certainly deserves this. Ram along with Selva occupy a niche in the Tamil film directors, for giving raw movies that have a cult following. His attempt to become mainstream fell flat for me – or maybe I always bench mark him against KT. Hope Ram soon discovers that he can never be a MR, GVM kinda pseudo-feminist/progressive director for certain sections of the audience and comes back to his roots. I for one, will be waiting to welcome him.
LikeLike
Kid
August 21, 2017
Iswarya: This is easily one of the best comments I have ever read on this blog. Especially loved the craft in the writing. Thank you for this, there is so much to learn from you (I think my sense of cinema is very different from yours and yet, I always make sure to seek out your comments).
LikeLiked by 1 person
"Original" Venkatesh
August 21, 2017
@Iswarya : Loved your comment , you write very well and please frequent the blog more often. I for one, love reading yours and Rahini’s point of view.
Re: Ram and this movie. I am going to let it percolate for a bit before specifically commenting on it.
Re: Kattradhu Thamizh : I have seen that movie and loved it then. Looking back at it post-10 years ., i still like it. Its internally consistent, coherent and portrays a specific member of a strata of society very well. (I think i said as much in the comments section then).
I always get a bit disturbed when a movie is expected to show “goodness” of whatever flavour in its depiction of men or women. Why is this required or expected ? Why cannot a director show a completely vile, misogynistic, stalker male character not getting his comeuppance ? If people don’t like it vote with your pocketbooks., surely that is the right way. Re the argument on societal effects ., if our society is weak enough to be swayed by a film perhaps that society deserves what it gets ,is it not?
I am not trying to get a rise here , i am struggling to understand these things. (This could also be because i was in Boston and took part in the “Freedom of Speech” rally.).
LikeLike
Iswarya
August 21, 2017
Kid/Original Venkatesh: Thank you so much. This thread has certainly begun to feel like a school reunion. Only MANK and Anu Warrier need to mark their attendance 😀
But seriously, wondering what happened to other frequent commenters now missing for a while – Ashutosh, Olemisstarana, Gradwolf, ramitbajaj…
LikeLike
Madan
August 21, 2017
@ “Original” Venkatesh: “I always get a bit disturbed when a movie is expected to show “goodness” of whatever flavour in its depiction of men or women. ” – I must be missing something but I don’t see where anybody has raised such an expectation, only that the narrative ought to support it when said malevolent male character is shown as being accepted by the woman.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sathyanarayanan N
August 21, 2017
@iswarya – I dont read as much as you do. Is Feminist tag required? I am not sure whether you are aware of writer Sujatha, he doubts the need of feminism. As you rightly said, Marupadiyum had the touch of class and subtlety which was sorely missing in this movie.
LikeLike
Rahini David
August 21, 2017
So what reason does Sujatha give, BTW?
LikeLike
"Original" Venkatesh
August 21, 2017
@Madan: “only that the narrative ought to support it when said malevolent male character is shown as being accepted by the woman.”
The presence of this question precisely answers your question , why is it no one goes “Why is this non-malevolent male character being accepted by this woman” . The answer “just cause”.
My problem is the presence of the debate itself.
LikeLike
brangan
August 21, 2017
“Original” Venkatesh: So are you saying that no one should have any problems with any movie — because “just cause” can cover an awful lot of what doesn’t work for a viewer.
One should either expect a film to “convince” us about what it is doing — or else, accept every film to do exactly what it wants… “just cause”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Madan
August 21, 2017
“My problem is the presence of the debate itself.” – Care to explain why such debate is not covered under free speech?
LikeLike
Sathyanarayanan N
August 21, 2017
@Rahini, I will give you context as well as the reason. I don’t want to misquote him. I can give you my own example, more than happy to correct myself if I am wrong. In my office, all are treated equal in terms of salaries and opportunities but still they have a women network. What is the need? To me it’s about seeing all as human and not as gender. Everyone’s behavior has got a reason to it. I am not for “men are strong and women are weak” labelling, weak or strong, demonstrate in the character, attitude and the work.
LikeLike
Iswarya
August 21, 2017
Original Venkatesh: Didn’t have the time to respond to the latter part of your comment earlier. Well, being in the US, I assume you must be familiar with the idea that Hate speech against any disadvantaged or minority groups doesn’t fly under the name of free speech. Kinda puzzled that you are once again putting this very fundamental point under the scanner.
Sathyanarayanan: I am not sure about what you are asking me when you question whether a feminist tag is needed. Are you asking if this film needs it or I need it or any person in general needs it? If, as you say, Sujatha had made that statement, I would like more context.
I know that your other question was directed at Rahini but this “men and women are equal” debate is just being discussed in the VIP2 thread. Please have a look.
Regarding the women’s network – Being an internet stranger, I have no specific reason to disbelieve your statements. Although overwhelming statistical evidence proves the existence of a pay gap, let me for a moment take your word for it that pay, promotions, and other perks in your office are all offered to people of all genders at par. What about provisions to report workplace sexual harrassment? Does your office have a working committee that takes immediate and unbiased action on every complaint within a reasonable time? Are gender sensitisation training workshops conducted on an annual basis? Is there a diversity audit? Have you seen any employee raise a complaint? Have you heard of any action taken by the committee? Do you think any of these steps can be taken if the women’s network is dissolved?
Addressed to all men on this blog (sorry, guys, for the carpet bombing): Have you read this article?
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5440553
If not, please read it. I will just end with quoting my favourite passage from the piece:
If rape culture is so important to me I needed to find out for myself what it is. No woman owes me her time just because I want to know about something she inherently understands. No woman should feel she has to explain rape culture to me just because I want to know what it is. No woman owes me shit. I saw how my desire for a woman to satisfy me ran deep. Even my curiosity, a trait that always made me proud, was marred with the same sort of male-centric presumption that fuels rape culture.
LikeLiked by 1 person
"Original" venkatesh
August 21, 2017
@BR: So are you saying that no one should have any problems with any movie — because “just cause” can cover an awful lot of what doesn’t work for a viewer.
Spot on and i cant argue with that.
The problem i have is : Why doesn’t this question even get a mention when the hero is a normal guy , just clearly wrong for the girl ? Why does this question just arise when the hero is a “bad” guy ?
My view is this question only gets asked when we have a misogystic, stalking, hero. Why is it only the responsibility of that sort of story writer, director to explicitly justify his position ? This doesn;t seem fair to me.
Re: Free speech : Course its free speech ., just its not fair.
LikeLike
"Original" venkatesh
August 21, 2017
And lets not forget – Every artist has the right to do what he wants , its upto the paying public to vote with their wallet. Dont like it , dont watch it.
Just dont add your personal expectations and condemn this or that director when the same focus is not applied to other directors.
LikeLike
Pavan
August 21, 2017
Iswarya: I am late to the party, but am glad that your rant is up. As expected, it was “straight”. Apart from you, so many here, including Rangan himself, have put up their own views. Now, I already said in the Toilet thread that I need help to distinguish what amounts to acceptable courtship (I guess someone made an effort for me there by now) so talking about the men-women dynamic here would not be nice. But would like to know one thing to you and others as well. What will a plot like this be called: A person develops incestual feelings towards his sister, never expressed his feelings to her, and approached professional help (read therapy) to find what went wrong with him (or if something actually went wrong?) resulting in a bittersweet climax.
The ones replying (if in case) must assume two things: that the concept was dealt brilliantly filmmaking-wise, leaving room of improvements only to writing. And that I am no pervert by any means. Let me confirm that KB’s influence is remotely on me. Let’s see your views on this.
LikeLike
GODZ
August 22, 2017
Another Perspective..
http://www.vikatan.com/cinema/tamil-cinema/news/99776-did-you-understand-what-exactly-the-movie-taramani-speaks-of.html
LikeLike
Kay
August 22, 2017
UVY, two things about your comment:
Now, since we agree that this type of a pairing is possible, I also agree that they might be happy and they might not have regrets. But that’s only when the guy respects the girl for her education and the fact that she is the major contributor to the household economy.
Imagine a situation in which the guy happens to be a douchebag who is still feels entitled like some of our movie heroes. Someone who won’t lift a finger at home, doesn’t have a proper job and doesn’t even acknowledge the fact that the girl is the breadwinner and she’s keeping him off the platform. And goes about acting like the typical VIP. The girl has two options here. Either to walk out of the relationship or this brings me to the point no. 2, go on pretending that she doesn’t have any regrets and try to hold the family together. Because she can’t go back to her family and accept she made a bad choice or she doesn’t want to leave maybe because there is a child involved.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Kay
August 22, 2017
Iswarya, love your comments and the flow of thoughts. I don’t agree at all with you when you say you can’t write coherently. To put it in Vivek’s language, your comments are like neat bullet points of my mind voice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
shemz
August 22, 2017
@Sathyanarayanan – “In my office, all are treated equal in terms of salaries and opportunities but still they have a women network. What is the need?”
This brings back some painful memories. I was in an appraisal discussion and we were discussing performances of two team members, a male and a female, of the same job level. Based on performance, the female employee was a clear winner and it was agreed by everyone. No discussions there. But when it came to assigning the ‘band’ (a group/level to which you assign an employee and his/her promotions, increments and sometimes even their job, depends on this), a few wanted to assign the band to the male employee because ‘he would stay!’ When asked to explain, this was the explanation, ‘she got married a couple of months back, and she might become pregnant and go on maternity leave. The guy on the other hand, will be motivated and stay if given the higher band and this will keep him “happy”.’ I kid you not. Anyway, after a very long discussion/ argument/ fight, we (men and women alike) got her what she deserved, the band.
I am not saying this is how every discussion is or manager is, but this is more common and prevalent than we would all care to acknowledge. Many women/men in the workforce may be able to relate better to what i said. I am not aware of what exactly are the duties/ functions of the women network in your workplace, but as long as incidents like these happen, may be there is a need for women network.
@brangan – Sorry for the long comment. Long time reader here. I enjoy your in-depth reviews, snarky sarcastic ones, wish-they-went-all-the-way frustrated reviews, pretty much all your reviews. My taste in movies and my english have become better due to this blog and kudos to the commenters here, your comments bring me here as much as Rangan’s reviews.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Apu
August 22, 2017
Sathyanayanan N: I know your comment was directed at Rahini and I am sure she will do better than my attempt, but had to react : “…all are treated equal in terms of salaries and opportunities but still they have a women network. What is the need?”
The need to have a women network is the same “need” that have men go out to smoke together or the need to have a “family”/”parents” group in office i.e. there are issues particular to a group and it is a standard way to provide support to each other – for e.g. something as small as women mailing/messaging each other to check if anyone has a sanitary napkin to spare for an unplanned start of menstruation or a safety pin to hide something embarrassing, to as big as, complaining about possible sexual harassment at workplace.
Of course a groups for certain type of individuals (like parents, moms, women, runners) excludes others, but probably a non-parent does not want to know if it is normal for babies to not poop for 2 days, for e.g.?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Aditya (Gradwolf)
August 22, 2017
Iswarya: Still here, noting everyone 😉
LikeLike
Rahini David
August 22, 2017
Sathyanarayanan N: I understand the point you are making and this being a rather large topic, I’d rather address it in my own blog in a couple of weeks.
I think it is better to leave Sujatha out of this until someone is able to dig out the actual quote. It wouldn’t be fair to extrapolate.
I wrote this in reply to a similar discussion.
The women’s network in offices is nothing more than a small club not unlike a Yoga club or a music club. Women hardly get great privilege out of this. Maybe a rose on women’s day, a self defense class or a pepper spray distribution. But let me stop right here and not derail the entire thread.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaana Tom
August 22, 2017
@Sathyanarayanan N – To quote a part of Sanjay2706’s brilliant post on the VIP-2 thread: “The dialogue on “Men and Women are equal” is the Indian equivalent of “All lives matter” response to the BLM movement. Of course Men and Women are equal, but our economic and social system is built in such a way that women are systematically left out from climbing the corporate ladder. By saying that “men and women are equal”,we are doing a disservice by not acknowledging the fact that there is a disparity.”
There are certain expectations (societal, cultural etc.) placed on women that make reaching equality between the sexes, a continued work in progress. Though more women have been given more opportunities they were offered in the past, the gains come as a double edged sword. Nowadays, women are expected to be both ‘modern’ (I use this term loosely, to indicate the growth of women’s participation in education and the workforce), while remaining ‘traditional’ (i.e. shouldering the majority – if not all – of the responsibilities that come with maintaining a household).
Personally, I have gotten many intrusive (and at times, downright insulting questions) regarding my lack of children. Despite being a successful career oriented woman and having a happy marriage, this isn’t enough to convince a lot of people that I am not ‘broken’ in some way. And these same people never once assume there might be a problem with both my husband and I, or just my husband. Hell, they don’t even consider the possibility that we may not want children – not now or maybe forever. I’ve even gotten rare comments about how I’m being (to quote them), “selfish” for putting my career first, over dealing with my supposed fertility issues. And I’m not going to lie – listening to these comments did a doozy on my self-confidence and dredged up a lot of insecurities that I continue to deal with to this day.
So even though in your office, men and women may be treated equally – try to consider how your female colleagues are treated for doing the same work as you do, for acting the way their male colleagues do – both inside and outside your office. Perhaps even consider speaking with your female colleagues about the woman network and its uses. It is difficult to explain, but at times these networks help women forge connections in a workplace where they might otherwise be overlooked – I know I have worked in places where it was used as safe spot for women to deal with workplace harassment issues.
Forgive my long-winded post, but this is not to say that you are wrong in your assertion that “it’s about seeing all as human and not as gender. ” But we as a country, society, culture – whatever it may be called – still have a ways to go to address the unique, systemic barriers that certain historically disenfranchised groups of humans face, in comparison to their counterparts who did not have to deal with those same issues to get to where they are now.
LikeLiked by 4 people
brangan
August 22, 2017
Uncouth Village Youth: We seem to differ on what “progressive” means, but I wanted to address the part of your comment that seems to suggest that people from a certain class respond to Ram more than others. I can’t speak for everyone, but I think the most important thing whether a film convinces you about its characters, its situations. That is all one asks.
A Roja doesn’t convince me that its hero would fall on a burning flag. A KV convinces me that this girl would stick on with this guy. A Nandha convinces me that the mother would poison her son. A Thaarai Thappattai does not convince me about that childbirth sequence at the end, which looks like its there just to up the shock value than due to organic plot development.
So it’s not about the filmmaker. It’s always about the film. Of course, there’s always going to be the “personal circumstances” factor that draws one to this story or that one, but at the end of the day it’s not about — yes, I’m repeating this — whether a girl running off with an istri guy is POSSIBLE in real life, but whether the incident has been depicted on screen in a PLAUSIBLE manner, in a way that convinces me.
So it’s not about generalities — liking this filmmaker or that one. It’s about specifics — it’s about the film at hand, whether its convinces you about what it’s doing.
So is it POSSIBLE that a young mother earning 80k a month spends the night at a railway station, unmindful of the dangers to her and her young son?
Yes.
Is it PLAUSIBLE, given how Ram shows it?
No. I’d have maybe liked a bit where she walks out of home in anger, and realises she’s forgotten her credit cards, so a hotel is not an option. Just something as small as that. The situation instantly becomes more convincing.
Is it POSSIBLE that a working woman rides — in Chennai — a scooter, wearing a small skirt?
Yes.
Is it PLAUSIBLE, given how Ram shows it?
No. Maybe if she was driving a car, then fine. But a scooter? Hell no. So convince me about it. Stage a small moment where it’s laundry day and she has nothing else to wear. Something.
This particular film invokes the mother of all coverage clauses with that line about “did you ask WHY when buildings were built on marshlands?” Which is a variation on “Original” Venkatesh’s “just cause.”
But Ram’s earlier films don’t even do this much to convince us about extreme behaviour.
Again, I’m not saying YOU need similar reasons to be convinced. May you’re convinced. Maybe your friends are. But it’s not a class thing, is what I’m trying to say. It’s more of a film thing.
If you did not intend that, my apologies — though parts of this comment still stand.
LikeLiked by 1 person
"Original" venkatesh
August 22, 2017
@Iswarya: Hate speech is protected under first amendment rights in the U.S. The consequence of hate speech is not. A very key difference.
By no means am i comparing what is law in the U.S with what we have in India. What bothers me is “which” approach is better ? Is it better to protect hate speech as in the U.S or curtail it as we do in India ?
Even more fundamentally from a cinematic standpoint, why this hand-wringing, dire prognostications of hero not being “right” for the herooine never applied equally across the board ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
rothrocks
August 22, 2017
@ Original Venkatesh: I think that is a grossly oversimplified take on the bone of contention. It is not just that the guy is a nikamma but that he carries the threat of physical harm to her. You wouldn’t marry a panther, would you? Marriages between supposedly not compatible people happen all the time; made for each other is more myth than reality anyway. But accepting the guy who stalks you? No, that’s a bridge too far and without mitigating circumstances, would appear implausible.
LikeLike
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
August 22, 2017
BR: No. I’d have maybe liked a bit where she walks out of home in anger, and realises she’s forgotten her credit cards, so a hotel is not an option. Just something as small as that. The situation instantly becomes more convincing.
I know, “emotional logic” takes precedence over “logical logic” in your book. Do you think Ram’s films lack the former?
LikeLike
Uncouth Village Youth
August 22, 2017
@Kay : I have to disagree that such pairings happen only because the movies have romanticized it. I blame it on the human intelligence/curiosity/stupidity or a combination of them all. Humans are the only species on earth that make illogical, self-defeating decisions fully aware of the consequences – once in a while I read the Florida man subreddit for a good laugh. I agree with you that once a bad, or rather I would say an unpopular decision is made, people tend to double down and try to prove it right. Honestly though, who are we to judge them ? The larger point is that real life is a lot stranger than the reel one.
@BR : Plausibility is all relative right. I can barely pull myself up at the beginning of a movie screening,so even I feel AS trying to save the flag is downright stupid. OTOH,don’t you think the probability of somebody from a armed forces background believing it will be high. We can’t have universal standards of plausibility, can we. Do you realistically expect every scene to be justified with a back story ? That will break the flow of the film with unnecessary clutter. Another question which grates me is – Why does such nitpicking happen, only for certain directors. Not pointing out anyone here, but it’s a generalization of the English speaking Tamil movie watching crowd.Do we get triggered when there is a subtle undercurrent of Tamil supremacy, low class behavior and scenes that jolt us out of our PC scrubbed safe spaces ? Agreed,all of us have inherent biases, but the least one would expect is to acknowledge them.
@Sathyanarayanan N : In the post Damore world, it is unwise to criticize company policy, even more so on a public forum. HR nowadays have powerful tools at their disposal to track down errant posts on social media and tie them up to their employees. It might even affect your future employment prospects.Even though its a stretch, better to be safe than sorry.
LikeLike
"Original" venkatesh
August 22, 2017
@BR: “But it’s not a class thing, is what I’m trying to say. It’s more of a film thing.”
Absolutely.
My only question , why is the same critical eye not cast on film heroes who are not of a certain ilk ?
@rothrocks: “But accepting the guy who stalks you? No, that’s a bridge too far and without mitigating circumstances, would appear implausible.” – Really ! .
I genuinely think that you need a lot more exposure to what counts as courting in places other than Chennai and Coimbatore.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
August 22, 2017
@Iswarya: raising hand ‘Present, Miss!’ 🙂
Just got back online after a hiatus. Read through your brilliant comments. Haven’t watched the film so can’t comment on the film itself, and generally speaking, we’ve been beating this drum for ages. I’m getting a traumatic flashback to the Remo thread.
But, preach, sister! You’re singing our song, and I’m glad to see that some men understand.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sathyanarayanan N
August 22, 2017
@Iswarya,
The points mentioned above, no relevance to the women’s network.
Thanks for the link and it was an eye opener on the rape culture. I am not sure whether you have read “Irul varum neram” written by Sujatha. P C Sriram made a movie (Vanam vasapadum), even though that was badly made, it was wonderful story where professor’s wife raped by teenage boys and towards the end, court would release both of them as they could not prove but Police would feel helpless and ask the victim to thrash those two boys because ‘poetic justice” should prevail. She will slap gently and move away and the professor says “whom to be blamed”. Our apathy is the reason for the misery of his wife. To me that was hard hitting novel and the one I would recommend as well.
@Shemz, Women are not always affected, men are affected as well. I have seen lot of cases where they come from maternity and get the promotion and reason being they are due. Holy crap isn’t it? Promotion should not be birth right and not based on when it is due; it should be based on merit. It might sound theoretical, but easily doable.
@Apu, Men going for tea or for smoke are informal. Does it mean women always do it formally? The so called sensitive areas are discussed and will be discussed and space is given for all women. I don’t think a women network is required.
@jaana, It has to do with the maturity of the individual not with the gender. A women who had a broken marriage, spoke to me in length about the trouble that she has to undergo post-divorce both personally and professionally but she could not get the support in office environment from her female peers as many spoke bad about her in the back.
@BR, This gave me a good platform to put forth my views and learn few things as well. My sincere apologies
LikeLike
Gautham
August 22, 2017
@brangan : Could this lack of characterisation in itself be evocative of what the director was going for ?
I find myself watching a film from a character’s prism when i buy and can relate to the characters (at least the lead), Chinatown, A Serious Man & In the Mood for Love for instance.
When the situations, but not the characters, seem plausible (e.g. Vikram Vedha) I find myself traversing the universe the film is set in, (sort of playing out scenarios and their implications).
When neither seem rational I guess one’s left wondering what the director is trying to achieve and the characters barely, if at all, register.
With Taramani I couldn’t recall a single character’s name. It felt like Ram’s stream-of-consciousness social commentary – commentary on men specifically – rather than anything approaching a story, let alone a feminist one. I felt the situations were exaggerated to unrealistic extents to highlight underlying social idiosyncrasies rather than serve to develop any character arc (the female characters were neglected more so).
The Anjali scene felt like an indictment of men in general and of how low the bar is that this man, of all people, could be considered the nicest. Azhagam Perumal represented, at the bare minimum, superficially righteous men who wrong through neglect. The policeman’s wife too felt like a device to show the depths to which men push women and that when men learn, the learning comes too late. The narrative overlays about “roses and apologies”, I felt, mocked the genuineness of a man’s remorse when we do merely what’s “sufficient”. I think women were never part of Ram’s considerations and if this could be called anything, then its a film about men who victimise while simultaneously playing the victim.
The couple of scenes that didn’t sit well with me were the one where Andrea gets shoved about and where men are likened to dogs because they felt like they were within the remit of the characters.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
August 22, 2017
“I genuinely think that you need a lot more exposure to what counts as courting in places other than Chennai and Coimbatore.” – Er, this film was set in Chennai and the woman accepting him into her life is an independent single mother.
LikeLike
brangan
August 22, 2017
Sathyanarayanan N: Please, no need for apologies. If anything, thank you for contributing to this discussion.
Gautham: That’s a fantastic comment, and yes, I too felt that stream-of-consciousness thing.
From my review: “The film, too, is not so much a “story” as a series of stream-of-consciousness “incidents,” punctuated by a voiceover that reminded me of the omniscient narrator in Y Tu Mamá También. Like the god’s-eye-view shots that fill the film, the narrator zooms out to the larger picture, not just about the central characters, but also about peripheral ones, like the pigeon that wonders if this suburb built on the marshlands it used to frequent is still home.”
Is is intentional? That only Ram knows. We can only respond to what’s on screen 🙂
Uncouth Village Youth: Why does such nitpicking happen, only for certain directors. Not pointing out anyone here, but it’s a generalization of the English speaking Tamil movie watching crowd.
I had similar problems in Dangal — I felt a lot of the decisions were way-too-easily explained away. (See first two paras of my review.)
I had similar problems with Vikram Vedha — I felt the gangster portions were somewhat cliched, and I did not buy Vikram listening to Vedha’s story the second time.
So again, it has to do with the FILM and not the FILMMAKER.
Let me reproduce part of a comment from the Vikram Vedha thread:
“it would have made the movie more convincing to have a REASON for Vikram to listen to Vedha’s stories, especially as they are at such polar ends of every spectrum you can imagine.
When you deal with generic concepts like friendship and love, you can do without this REASON. Since you brought up Thalapathy, let me give a couple of Mani Ratnam examples. Why does Arvind Swamy fall for Manisha so quickly? How do Rajini and Mammooty become such thick friends in such a short time?
Would I have liked a little more detailing in these bits? YES. But do they keep gnawing at me while processing the rest of the film? NO.
But when you move out of the generic and get into the specific — or, when you are doing something that’s very different and new — then it helps to convince the audience about the WHY.
Why does VC suddenly begin to think of Leela as his Holy Grail? This is not convincingly presented in the film, and a huge part of his redemption is based on this. Similarly, here [in Vikram Vedha]. A lot of people are able to suspend their disbelief and say that this is based on the legend and so I don’t need a WHY. But for me, the WHY would have gone a long way towards establishing a more convincing narrative.
Especially as these are not your usual disbelief-suspending masalas. These films are more rooted and REAL.
In both VC’s and Vikram’s cases, the decision — to go after Leela, to listen to Vedha — is based on INNER thought, which cannot be shown on screen.”
(End of old comment; continuing my thoughts here) So it falls upon the filmmaker to show these inner thoughts, these decision-making processes.
And any good screenwriter can shoehorn in a few seconds to do this in a 150 minute film.
As for your question: Do you realistically expect every scene to be justified with a back story ?
Not every scene. But everything that is “different” enough to warrant an explanation. Not a “back story”. Just something the audience can hold on to and say “this is why this must have happened.”
I completely accept that this film worked for you and you don’t need any explanations etc. But I think you you are doing a disservice to the commenters here — the ones who have problems with parts of the film — by suggesting some kind of reactionary conspiracy, when the reasons are very clearly laid out in their comments. Now Iswarya’s reasons may not be “valid” for you, but from her comments, there can no doubt that they are “valid” for her and not just some knee-jerk reaction to seeing “Tamil supremacy, low class behavior and scenes that jolt us out of our PC scrubbed safe space”.
LikeLiked by 4 people
"Original" venkatesh
August 22, 2017
“Er, this film was set in Chennai and the woman accepting him into her life is an independent single mother.” – it wasnt only aimed at the Chennai audiences ., come on man. Neither was the protagonist a “typical” Chennaite ., whatever that means.
LikeLike
Madan
August 22, 2017
“Neither was the protagonist a “typical” Chennaite ., whatever that means.” – The woman was, if anything, a bit ‘left field’, so, yes, not typical but in the opposite direction. It doesn’t matter to whom the film is targeted (though unfortunately it does seem to when it comes to our movies), the characters have to be true to their circumstances. No, I am going to have to agree to disagree. I cannot visualise a single mother living in a metropolitan city accept a stalker. Not just forgive him, but accept him. And I am sorry that you find it so disturbing that people should want to point it out but I will have to. This is not a general appeal to filmmakers to never cast incongruous pairs for that would destroy the beauty of cinema. I only object to destroying the agency of a woman in the name of pandering to the box office.
LikeLike
Iswarya
August 22, 2017
Gautham: Interesting take.
Sathyanarayanan: On the formal and informal networks in workplaces, this may be a good read – https://www.thecut.com/2017/08/ellen-pao-silicon-valley-sexism-reset-excerpt.html?utm_campaign=nym&utm_source=tw&utm_medium=s1
LikeLike
shemz
August 22, 2017
@Sathyanarayanan – Promotion is definitely not a birth right or a gender right and it is really sad when they are given to any employee just because they didn’t get one in a long time. I stated an incident that i observed at close quarters and you must have seen many like the ones you mention. So, surely there are no equal opportunities and salaries because we are talking about inequalities and unfair opportunities.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gautham
August 22, 2017
@brangan & Iswarya : Thank You
Just my 2 cents
@”Original” venkatesh:
I too often think whether an infantilised society deserves anything (in the context of politicians and the populace). But I think you’d agree where the contention arises with the stakes being skewed disproportionately for the genders. I think women feeling a need to contend that this isn’t something they would encourage subsequent to the release of a movie isn’t the problem but indicative of it (if not of the movie, then certainly at the societal level)
@Sathyanarayanan N:
Even IF sexism doesn’t exist overtly, subtler but pervasive remnants persist.
As an example, off the top of my head,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/02/02/scientists-have-discovered-the-source-of-your-resting-bitch-face/?utm_term=.09965f920a77
“So RBF isn’t necessarily something that occurs more in women, but we’re more attuned to notice it in women because women have more pressure on them to be happy and smiley and to get along with others.”
LikeLike
Apu
August 23, 2017
Sathyanarayanan N:”The so called sensitive areas are discussed and will be discussed and space is given for all women. I don’t think a women network is required.”
I do not understand what you mean by a “women network” – are you talking about a formal company club? In that case, how is it different from a “Parents” club or a “Social work” club? These are special interest networks that excludes those who are not interested in these things so that (1) you are not included in conversations that you do not contribute to and (2) people of similar interests are comfortable bringing it forward.
So, why again do you have an objection to a women’s network – how does it affect you if women discuss stuff that you are left out of? What if women do not want to discuss some things in front of men – especially in India where a lot of topics are still taboo to discuss in public?
In fact, this whole “women who go on maternity leave should not get a promotion” attitude is probably why the network is needed.
I will stop before I steer this thread into a different direction (and start talking about companies being predominantly designed around men with expectations that there will be not much vacations and workers will be present irrespective of sickness, maternity, accidents, child care/senior care issues etc.). Apologies!
Madan: “I only object to destroying the agency of a woman in the name of pandering to the box office.” Love this!
LikeLiked by 1 person
praneshp
August 23, 2017
@Iswarya: Unsure if someone already addressed this, but hate speech is free speech (and protected under the first amendment). Weirdly, the ACLU “defended” the KKK et al before the recent Charlottesville protests.
In spirit, I do not agree that hate speech (against anyone) should be prevented. Free speech is either free, or it is not. In practice, we can talk offline if you care.
LikeLike
GODZ
August 23, 2017
@BR But I think you are doing a disservice to the commenters here — But Don’t you think the same commentators are also doing a disservice to the film and film maker by having opinions that are completely biased toward their Point of Viewing things? Let’s assume for argument sake, Ram got a time travel machine and he decides to change his script based on the opinion on this blog and he does it. Now, what if the Flim TANKS at the Box office? True there won’t be any hard Opinions and he may satisfy those opinion givers with a complete movie experience
But Ram could be very well given an adieu to moving making considering his last film released 4 years back. Some of the opinions here are purely based on what they think or perceive as whats right or wrong and not even a single consideration is given to the director’s point of view, his liabilities, limitations etc. Does a Script purely need to cinematic? Does each decision have to be a reason? It need not be. What if some of those taken considering the survival of the director himself or pulling the audience to the theater and keep that cash register ringing. Is that wrong to even have a compromise or is it a heinous crime? Why I seeing most of the comments are critical to this work and not being appreciative or in other words, should the opinion be always about what “not works” and should never be about not “What works” as well?
We can easily bring down the audience who pay money to see this movie as “internet Tamil male’” and It could be very well true. But being in a movie making business, Should or should not the director consider that “internet Tamil male’ given that they are indirectly one of his pay masters. When the Society itself is not ready for “Right” kind of movie, How can we expect the film maker to make that Right movie considering he is more or less in a movie business ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
August 23, 2017
People: Please stop apologising, whether for long comments, or comments that are tangential, or comments about something completely unrelated — heck, even if you feel writing something about feminism from the POV of a unicorn, please go ahead. This is a discussion thread. Just chip and talk. As long as it’s a civil exchange of ideas, it doesn’t matter whether you agree or disagree — but just stop apologising 🙂
GODZ: Anything that is — and anyone who is — in the public eye is fair game for a discussion. That is the price one pays for being in a visible profession. And what is happening on this blog is 0.0001 % of what’s happening on Twitter, which is where the real damage to a film happens. (Ask Imtiaz Ali!)
The points I am trying to make are (1) No one is denying Ram’s right to make the movie he wants, and yet (2) No one can deny that the resulting product is going to be perceived through various “points of view” and thus result in a variety of opinions.
Because taking your objection to the extreme, no one should have a POV about a new Rahman album — or it may damage sales. No one should talk about a new book — or it may damage sales. Where does it end?
About your point about a director’s right to compromise, of course it’s valid. But then, should we not express reservation about an item song in a movie? About a fight sequence that’s inserted to make the film more ‘mass’? Whether it’s a ‘serious’ film or a ‘light’ film, a viewer is going to have a POV about the various things in it, and a discussion is bound to ensue.
I think Ram himself will be delighted with this discussion, because he’s made a “love it or hate it, you can’t ignore it” movie. I mean, he’s touched a cultural chord. That’s seriously something — and it’s something none of his earlier films have managed. Put differently, whatever Ram is making next, for the first time in his career he’s going to be making a film that’s going to be hot with both the distributors and sections of the audience. “Commercially speaking,” he’s finally arrived.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Kay
August 23, 2017
Sathyanarayanan N: Can you please elaborate on what you mean by women network?
From your comments I’m interpreting that you feel women are given undue recognition and opportunities as opposed to men. That they have an added advantage. I’m not sure which industry you are working in, so I can’t comment on it.
However, in banking, which is my field, a thesis can be written on the bias that exists. Especially in competitive roles like business development. It’s like an elite men’s club, where networking happens during smoke breaks, deals are closed over a drink, and one’s performance is appraised based on how much time an employee spends at work and whether they are able to work weekends. A customer whom I met couple of days back expressed his surprise in meeting a woman who is into a sales role. I don’t even want to get into promotions and differences in salary and hikes and the uncomfortable personal questions that the male bosses feel entitled to ask. Maternity leave means two years of career going down the drain.
We don’t have any kind of women network. We do have policies against sexual harassment at workplace and I have heard of few instances when actions were taken. But that’s about it. It’s like a rat race and women end up working double the time with half the recognition, because there is this underlying opinion that women are suited only for back end work and once they are married their productivity will be affected.
Exceptions will be there everywhere. But they are aberrations and can’t be used as examples. That woman who got a promotion as soon as she was back from her ML would be an exception. You have to tell us if it happens all the time. But what shemz said happens at most of the appraisals in which a male is pitted against a female colleague.
LikeLiked by 3 people
rothrocks
August 23, 2017
@ Kay: That’s pretty shocking. Which city would this be? In my org, we deal with a lot of banks since we do exports and at least 2-3 of them have women as the CRMs. Of course, if someone is biased, he is going to express surprise even if there’s nothing out there. One of my tennis coaches was very reluctant to include a girl in the daily group (bunch of 4-5 students) until we told him she played hockey for her college.
LikeLike
Kay
August 23, 2017
Madan, I’m in Chennai. I’m not saying there are no women at all, but that the number is less. To give you a perspective, pan India my team size is 190 of which the number of women is 15. Women are mostly hired for back end roles like credit and operations. And even then there is disparity in terms of salary package and the grade at which they are hired as compared to a male candidate with similar experience and qualifications.
LikeLike
Iswarya
August 23, 2017
Original Venkatesh/praneshp: Well, of course. I was typing this in haste and honestly thought someone else would pursue this particular question since we had moved on to workplace harrassment. So, my bad. Didn’t put it clearly enough. I meant, yes, it’s technically protected in that the government can’t clamp down on your speech, but propagators of hate speech aren’t protected from consequences – as in Damore getting fired, Nazis being outed, condemned and ostracised.
LikeLike
Kay
August 23, 2017
An article on the invisible workload that women always carry. Slightly off the topic, but since BR has given a free rein, I’m taking the liberty of posting this here, in a discussion on All men and women are equal.
“To truly be free, we need to free women’s minds. Of course, someone will always have to remember to buy toilet paper, but if that work were shared, women’s extra burdens would be lifted. Only then will women have as much lightness of mind as men.”
http://time.com/money/4561314/women-work-home-gender-gap/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Uncouth Village Youth
August 23, 2017
BR: I would like to differ a bit here.One can think of the decisions taken by an onscreen character as stupid or absurd. But you cannot claim that as implausible, because far more stupidity happens in real life. A lot of stuff that happens in the world cannot be logically explained – and this is not a recent phenomenon either. We have been making weird decisions, from time immemorial. Otherwise every life/film will be a replica of the other. Hell, a person might react to an identical situation differently at different times.
The claim that I am disputing is – an independent/modern woman cannot fall for a man “below” her. Because that is just confirmation bias emanating from the segment of society one lives in. Today a lot of men “marry up” be it in looks, societal/financial status or intelligence – the reverse happens quite often too, but let us ignore that in the current context. In fact, wasn’t rich hero/poor heroine a consistent trope in Kollywood, some time back .Can we say with conviction that all the marriages in the world are utopian ? Why do we become uncomfortable when such pairings are portrayed in the movies. Isn’t this some sort of racism, similar to the outcry against gay couples on screen ?
I really want to explain(managersplain may be) why accommodating women is difficult, in the tech sector. But then, I don’t want to start another flame war here.
LikeLike
brangan
August 23, 2017
Uncouth Village Youth: For me, plausibility in a film means this: “Am I convinced? Is this event built up to in a convincing way?”
Even the girl running off with the istri guy in real life requires a lot of little ‘explanations’ (even if these are only between the girl and the istri guy). The girl may want to rebel against parents. Maybe the guy was someone who really understood her. Maybe it was love at first sight, something physical. But when I read about this in the newspapers — i.e. when I read only the end result of these explanations (“Girl runs off with istri guy”) — I do not seek further explanations. Because this is reportage, This is life. Such a thing happened. It’s news.
But when I — and this may be only in my case — read fiction or watch a movie, I need to believe (or be convinced) that this is something that’s “plausible.” I need to know a bit about this girl, about the istri guy… about their situation. Otherwise, why do we “buy into” some films/ characters/ premises and not into other ones? We can just say “anything can happen” and leave it at that, right? Every movie, then, is both possible AND plausible.
So that’s where I was coming from.
Secondly, is there any place in my review that says “an independent/modern woman cannot fall for a man “below” her.”? Because I thought my review, despite pointing out some issues I had, was a fairly positive one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rothrocks
August 23, 2017
@ Kay Hmmm. And this is banking where the enrolment of women is supposed to be higher. I wonder what it will take. Our govt will implement a Rogoff paper on demonetisation post haste but a mckinsey study projecting an increase in GDP if more women could be employed gets scant attention. I mean that even if couched in the money language of the day, the argument does not find many takers.
LikeLike
Manikandan
August 23, 2017
Arc of possibilities of a Man has come out beautifully in this movie – addition of all male characters gives viewers a full complete view of how high and low things can become. Same can be said to some extent about female characters. This is a macro movie can be discussed in terms of making with Uthamavillain ( Vedanta Advaita), Tharai Thappatai ( Caste politics ) – array of characters complete the macro view. For eg in TT mirror scene where rich chose the surrogate by mirror we can wonder why karagattam hasn’t turned out to be another bharathanatyam
LikeLike
Prashila
August 23, 2017
I really want to explain(managersplain may be) why accommodating women is difficult, in the tech sector. But then, I don’t want to start another flame war here.
Uncouth Village Youth: May I still ask you to explain why you think so, and I say this as someone who has only known the tech sector as her ‘proper’ workplace for a better part of her life. BR, presuming that you will have no issues if a flame war does ensue and the thread moves from Taramani to Tar-malign. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Iswarya
August 23, 2017
gets body bag sized popcorn portion
LikeLiked by 3 people
"Original" venkatesh
August 23, 2017
“original” venkatesh joins Iswarya with a cuppa chai and some biscuits.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
August 23, 2017
BR: You’re doing a massive disservice to a veteran commenter by not answering their sincere question. 😉
LikeLike
brangan
August 23, 2017
Honest Raj (formerly ‘V’enkatesh): Sorry, which commenter/comment is this?
LikeLike
GODZ
August 23, 2017
@Uncouth Village Youth
I really want to explain(managersplain may be) why accommodating women is difficult, in the tech sector.
Many here would already be aware but just recalling Recently An engineer at one of the leading search engines of the world throw the same flame with a document “Ideological Echo Chamber” and got fired. You could have an entirely different argument from the above. But still requesting to read the below links if not already and continue the discussion if you like if you still feel/Think the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber
https://www.wired.com/story/the-pernicious-science-of-james-damores-google-memo/
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2017/08/darwin-damore-ancient-art-using-science-mask-prejudice
LikeLike
Madan
August 23, 2017
Re the New Statesman article, I would appreciate if they would also talk about the ‘Progressive’ Nazis in USA who were just as fond of eugenics. It was when the Nazi project went way out of hand that they baulked and since then the eugenics/re-segregation chapter of early 20th century USA is hidden in plain sight.
LikeLike
Apu
August 24, 2017
Uncouth Village Youth: “I really want to explain(managersplain may be) why accommodating women is difficult, in the tech sector. But then, I don’t want to start another flame war here.”
With due permission from BR of course, I would love to know that too. Thanks.
LikeLike
Naveen
August 24, 2017
great going. any movie whose thread gets comments from all the legends – Iswayra, Rahini, Anu, Madan, Venaktesh et al is worth watching to start with. tonks, Amit Joki where are you guys inspired by this thread, i watched the movie. liked more parts of the movie than those i did not. yes, Althea falling for the Bearded wala the very first time and accepting him at the end are not convincing. as much as BR finds Vikram listneing to Vedha the second time unconvincing. wasn’t Althea stalking the poor guy and triggering the whole thing?
Yuvan has done well in RR. there were many amazing shots/frames throughout the movie.
btw, when did it rain so much in Taramani/OMR in the recent past. hope they did not recreate rains wasting so much water.
LikeLike
Uncouth Village Youth
August 24, 2017
BR : May be with more little details, you will be convinced. But,I don’t think that will be enough for many here to change their minds. Anyway I was not accusing you – it was a general observation.
GODZ: Thanks for subtly reminding me that Damore was fired 🙂 But I urge you to read the entire(unedited,along with the links) memo with an open mind here and come to your own conclusions. Liberals too, have started attacking science itself,when it doesn’t suit their agenda – this puts them on the same page as Flat earthers, Scientologists, alternate medicine quacks,vedic mathematicians and climate change deniers. Wired, Slate, Salon and Atlantic are the last places I would look at, for balanced opinion, even though I read them regularly.
Thanks, but No Thanks for the invitation. I have already mentioned why criticizing company policy on public fora is madness. Add to that, we have bigger fish to fry, now that Vivegam is released.
LikeLike
Amit Joki
August 24, 2017
Naveen: Believe me, I have been badly waiting to comment here, but with my height and physique I am sure I would not pass for an adult 😀 A certificate problems!
LikeLike
Madan
August 24, 2017
“Liberals too, have started attacking science itself,when it doesn’t suit their agenda” – I am not sure to what extent that applies to the Google controversy but yes this is a troubling trend. Not exactly science but the way the American media reacted to John McEnroe’s comments saying that Serena would maybe beat the rank 700 player on ATP (coaches say 1000 is more realistic). Charlie Rose asked him whether he would apologise. Are you effing kidding me? And by the way, McEnroe was pushed to make that statement by an overzealous NPR interviewer; it was NOT an unsolicited opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arjun
August 24, 2017
“this puts them on the same page as Flat earthers, Scientologists, alternate medicine quacks,vedic mathematicians and climate change deniers. climate change deniers”
Small nitpick. They are not climate change deniers but more specifically anthropogenic climate change skeptics. This is mostly a US specific issue where they don’t deny climate change but dispute that human activity is *predominantly” to blame for it. And to be fair climate scientists like a lot of other professions, eg. journalists, live in an echo chamber too, and dissent is not tolerated – their livelihood depends on it. A lot of their predictions over the last 50 years have proven to be exaggerated and some healthy skepticism about their dramatic claims is not really that big a crime.
“Coaches say 1000 is more realistic” – And those coaches are still not truly speaking their mind (they can’t if they want to keep their jobs) The reality is likely to much more stark. See links below. Women’s national teams of Sweden, USA, Australia all lost to a bunch of no name teenage boy teams.
https://www.thelocal.se/20130116/45646
http://www.dailywire.com/news/6072/australias-national-womens-soccer-team-lose-7-0-amanda-prestigiacomo
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3609949/Matildas-lose-7-0-Newcastle-Jets-15s-Rio-Olympics-warm-up.html
Forget science, it is in issues related to sports and military that progressives and feminists really give me a good chuckle with their denial of basic biology and age old truisms. Since India also seems to be joining this mad progressive rush to allow women in combat roles in the army and Israel is often cited as the model for women’s equality in armed forces, here is an insider’s glimpse into what really happens.
http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/not-hot/
The below passage will anger some, but the first sentence is simple solid biology
“Women’s inferiority to men in respect to physical strength, aerobic capacity, endurance and, above all, robustness, is obvious to all. The price is paid by their male colleagues; when a female trainee in a mixed unit breaks down, as often happens, guess who is going to carry her and/or her weapons and pack? But the price women have paid for serving in “combat” units has been much higher. Many of the documents in question are classified so as to avoid angering Israeli feminists, an aggressive and often obnoxious lot, by presenting them with the facts. Some, however, have been published by a former student of mine, Colonel (ret.) Raz Sagi.”
However, coming to tech, I believe things are not so straightforward. I think women are by no means “naturally” inferior (And please, I don’t mean “inferior” in a derogatory way at all) here as in the other two domains, but the fact remains that even in progressive europe and america, despite the best attempts to encourage women to pursue science and tech at university, their representation remains low. An honest discussion on why this is so cannot happen in an emotionally charged atmosphere and so I too will let it rest. Damore in his memo makes some good points, but given some of the objectionable things he said, he left no choice for google, but to fire him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Iswarya
August 25, 2017
Amit: Not sure how this works in Madurai but here in Chennai multiplexes, you can enter if you show age proof. But you need to have a voter ID/driving licence or some other above-18 document. Do you have one?
LikeLike
Madan
August 25, 2017
“And those coaches are still not truly speaking their mind (they can’t if they want to keep their jobs) The reality is likely to much more stark. ” – Possibly. Or they think that Serena’s mental strength on account of winning on the biggest stage many times MAY come into play against the really low ranked players. But that’s assuming the match up isn’t completely lopsided against her. If it is, then yes she may get beaten even by ATP 1000 players. Here are Simon and Alex from Top Tennis Training. Simon played in Futures tournaments and Alex was a low ranked player on the ATP (by ‘low’, I mean #266). They discuss this subject very politely (and a year before the NPR-McEnroe fracas) but come to a more unflattering conclusion than McEnroe:
The most fundamental question is why do so many of the top female players practice with top collegiate male players instead of their peers? Most of them also have male coaches. When Murray appointed Mauresmo as his coach, he was doing something that even most of the top women didn’t do, let alone the men.
LikeLike
GODZ
August 25, 2017
FIRST FEMALE PILOT to fly US Air Force F-35 Fighter Aircraft
From the same link
“Flying is a great equalizer,” said Mau. “The plane doesn’t know or care about your gender as a pilot, nor do the ground troops who need your support. You just have to perform. That’s all anyone cares about when you’re up there – that you can do your job, and that you do it exceptionally well.”
From the same link
“Her contributions to military aviation not only as an outstanding pilot and leader but also as a woman prove that physics and aerodynamics do not acknowledge gender, and that in the air, every pilot is equal on the basis of gender.”
LikeLike
'Honest' Venkatesh
August 25, 2017
The New Statesman article has a problematic view about Darwin. The quote, “woman is a kind of adult child”, is wrongly attributed to him – a quick google search reveals that it was said by James McGrigor Allan, a contemporary and disciple of Darwin. Furthermore, Darwin never believed that the fittest “deserved” to survive.
LikeLike
Amit Joki
August 25, 2017
One of the first observations I made was that US in the 90s was more open-minded than India in 2017. Hear me out. When Althea finds out her husband is gay AND she is mother of his child, I was reminded of Ross Geller who had married Carol with whom he also had a kid, but look how they cope with the situation.
And did Ram deliberately misdirect to manipulate our thoughts? I can totally differentiate between a normal hug and a “groping” hug, which Althea’s boss gives at her birthday. And what Ram failed in one of the scenes is that when Prabhu asks how his boss knew her size, implying implicitly if she’d slept with him (which is totally against my reasoning because when you’re having a fling, you don’t take measurements, do you?), I so wanted Althea to ask him, “How the hell did you deduce 34-28-26, you moron?!”
On the other hand, Prabhu’s possessiveness seemed okayish to me, when you compare how the boss begs Andrea to delete the photos of him and her on Facebook. If you think about it, there wasn’t anything too objectionable with the photos; they were mere selfies. But what got Prabhu riled up was a clear call asking her out. He shouldn’t have judged her and her capacity to handle the situation on her own, though. Prabhu was already ditched unfairly once, so his being possessive is something logical but judging her, no mister.
Also regarding the ending, given how Althea is not mindful of her dignity when she asks her husband to badmouth her, malign her character if somebody asks him why they got separated, just so that the husband doesn’t feel bad due to the stigma around being gay, I think it is not entirely unreasonable for her to end with Prabhu. She’s more of adjusting or accomodating may I say? She confronts the boss only after much arguments and not instinctively. Even at the bar when someone leers at her, she doesn’t get worked up. Only when it goes extreme does she react.
She’s so fed up with it that it doesn’t amuse her anymore. I think the end is more in line with her character, though morally speaking, it does sound absurd and illogical and unreal, but what is real in this movie anyway?
Iswarya: Aadhar card works I guess 🙂
LikeLike
Arjun
August 26, 2017
@GODZ: I was speaking more specifically about active combat roles in the army. As a matter of fact India too got its first fighter pilots recently. While I concede there may be relatively less issues with the airforce, especially in peacetime, we still do not have enough data to show how women have performed when coming under enemy fire. Sheer physical strength and agility can matter a lot under such circumstances – recovering from a roll or flying after losing a wing or engine, handling cabin decompression, ejecting safely etc.
LikeLike
Arjun
August 26, 2017
One more thing- even if they eject safely, they’ll likely be taken as prisoners of war in enemy territory. Given India’s context, I’ll leave it to your imagination on what happens when women pilots are taken PoW by our friendly neighbor.
LikeLike
praneshp
August 26, 2017
@Amit: When trying to talk about American society, the most far off, incorrect representation you can pick is from Friends.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Arjun
August 26, 2017
@Madan: Clearly these guys are being charitable. As they themselves say there are far more variations in the men’s game- low drifting slices, top spins, kick serves, swift serve and volley points. While Serena’s big match experience and consistency will certainly help, she’d still have little experience dealing with these variations which even top semi pros and division 1 men players possess to a great degree. Anyway, this is a pointless discussion and all I want to say is issues such as those raised by Kay and Iswarya are far more important than futile attempts by ideologues to enforce artificial gender parity in places like the military or sports, which is frankly just another form of social engineering that panders to a very very narrow subsection of feminists with no skin in the game.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Apu
August 26, 2017
Uncouth Village Youth : Now look what you started. You said “IT” and now it has gone over to Tennis, Sports and combat.
As I do not work in a physically demanding sector like Sports or armed forces or police, I cannot comment. And the stats/physical results such as strength or aerobic capacity will speak for themselves (endurance, though, are a different thing). Yes, men and women are different in some ways – mentally as well as physically.
But these:
Arjun: “The price is paid by their male colleagues; when a female trainee in a mixed unit breaks down, as often happens, guess who is going to carry her and/or her weapons and pack”
And these:
Arjun:”we still do not have enough data to show how women have performed when coming under enemy fire”
coupled with the doubt that women pilots can “eject safely” starts to sound pretty condescending.
And of course there is always a need to protect women so they need to be kept safely away from being POWs: “even if they eject safely, they’ll likely be taken as prisoners of war in enemy territory. Given India’s context, I’ll leave it to your imagination on what happens when women pilots are taken PoW by our friendly neighbor.”
Sounds cool – next time we get attacked, you can blame our casualties on the women who passed out seeing too much blood on the battlefield. Or got stuck in their plane seat.
LikeLike
Arjun
August 26, 2017
@Apu: The first sentence you quote is from the article I linked which is by a top Israeli military strategist. And what he notes has been repeatedly observed in US training schools as well. Regarding the 2nd part, even in the airforce, at this point, having women fighter pilots is still only a social experiment in progress. Unfortunately we will only know if it is has been a successful when they are deployed in the time of war. Ejecting safely while coming under enemy fire is by no means a trivial feat and besides skill and robustness also involves unquantifiables like instinct. And in the absence of any field evidence to go by, forgive me if I refuse to share your unfettered confidence that all will be well (though I’ll be quite happy if it does).
LikeLike
Madan
August 26, 2017
@ Arjun It is indeed pointless which is why I don’t understand why mainstream media in America went all in with knives out for McEnroe. I have said it before and will say it again that shaming a former tennis player for just telling the truth is at the end of the day extremely bad publicity for feminism. This shouldn’t be part of the agenda at all.
@Apu: It is a legitimate concern when our friendly neighbour isn’t exactly of a humanitarian, much less feminist, persuasion. There are complaints of rape just against the Indian army..,and of our own people. What would happen if a female soldier was imprisoned by Pakistan is really not hard to work out. I presume anybody joining the army is aware of the risks, but you can bet your last dollar the media will throw a hissy fit over it as if it’s somehow possible to completely avoid the capture of an Indian soldier by the enemy. Aren’t there a lot of women at top positions in our TV news channels, especially English? Perhaps it would serve the national interest, which the media loves to go on about, to show restraint in reporting, not only in such a hypothetical scenario but in general when it comes to military ops. We are living in very dangerous times where leaders who are already of a somewhat, if not more than somewhat, right wing persuasion are under pressure from the media to appease angry armchair critics who really ought to find something better to do than to bay for enemy blood like barbarians.
LikeLike
'Honest' Venkatesh
August 26, 2017
Re: women for armed forces, did we forget “zero tolerance towards terrorism despite being a woman”?
LikeLike
Prashila
August 26, 2017
Arjun, Madan, yes a legitimate concern and I say this primarily as a woman (sadly) but what is a little troublesome is the idea that we are so convinced that women in combat is a ‘bad’ idea that we are unwilling to even take a moment to appreciate how big a step this is for a country like India (yes the same country that lines its history with the likes of Rani Lakshmibai, Kittur Chennamma, Rudramma Devi, Ahilya Devi Holkar,… you get the point). And as Apu says, no one is denying that men and women are different, it is basic biology or evolution or whatever, but we also need these ‘social experiments’ as you call them, to tell us how we can keep growing as a mature, democratic society. If your doubts are around a woman fighter pilot’s ability to achieve the physical and mental agility of her male counterpart to make sure critical combat situations are handled well, then I would understand to some extent (though it is being extremely unfair to the woman in question), but if the very fact that if she gets caught as a POW, then “God help her because…”, is somewhat akin to saying that women should not step out in the night or dress in ‘inappropriate’ clothes because the risk of assault increases. And how is POW or ‘unfriendly neighbor’ problem even specific to women. How many and I include the media in this too, even remember Lt Saurabh Kalia and his patrolling team. Close to 20 years, and his family is still struggling to get his death declared as a war crime. We are forgetting the real problems, and focusing on the perceptions. Just because our media is very aggressive and these are ‘dangerous’ times, I think it is unfair to compare an orange with an apple. I see so many women working as bus conductors in BMTC buses in Bangalore, and let me tell you, travelling day in and day out through the maddening city traffic is no mean feat for both men and women. 🙂 Even as far back as 20 years ago, the idea of female conductors or female train drivers would have seemed unreal. But it is very much a reality now. Baby steps, is all I can say.
And I know Uncouth Youth doesn’t want to explain his IT statement further, but Arjun “despite the best attempts to encourage women to pursue science and tech at university, their representation remains low.” Hmmm, what if these women are simply not interested in Tech, just like they are not interested in theatre or medicine or aviation or . I am sorry, but I don’t get the point. I thought the argument was around interested women being unable to fit into the Tech sector and contribute to it.
LikeLike
Madan
August 26, 2017
@ Prashila: Oh, I am not at all saying that women shouldn’t join the army. I believe in free will. If women want to join the army, they should be allowed to and judged on merits, not whether the gender is perceived as incompatible by some people. The only point I was making was that Arjun raised a legitimate concern, not something that was ‘condescending’. The point isn’t that because women are liable to be raped, they shouldn’t join the army. At least not my point and I will let Arjun speak for himself. The point is once a woman is in the army, the media cannot still maintain old attitudes towards women and cry, “Oh, Pak brutally raped a woman”. And given that there are a lot of women in the media, that is the least I would expect. The army is brutal, so cast all the chivalry aside because that will instead make their integration into the army problematic.
” what if these women are simply not interested in Tech, just like they are not interested in theatre or medicine or aviation or” – I guess the point may be that some feminists are unwilling to consider this aspect at all and blame the difference in participation rates of men and women in IT entirely on gender discrimination, which is too reductive. On the other hand, yes, women being discouraged from seeking employment in IT should be put to a stop.
LikeLike
Madan
August 26, 2017
” Just because our media is very aggressive and these are ‘dangerous’ times” – Not AND, rather they ARE dangerous times because the media is irresponsibly escalating aggression between rival nations. So I am not concerned so much about the physical danger part of it at an individual level (as in dangerous for a woman) but that the media has become so shameless in its pursuit of TRPs that it’s even goading governments into war.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
August 26, 2017
@Apu, Prashila – thank you!
LikeLike
Arjun
August 26, 2017
@Prashila: If a woman meets the same physical standards as for men, then in theory there should be no issue with inducting her into the army. The problem here is, again, the standards are relaxed for women, hence the question of their performance during actual combat cannot be avoided. Further, in real combat there are other psychological and logistic issues as well. Since this is not a military blog I don’t wish to dwell on this much, but I’ll leave you to consider the implications of the below paragraph regarding american women who served in combat roles in the Iraq war –
“BBC News reported April 17, 2009, “According to several studies of the US military funded by the Department of Veteran Affairs, 30% of military women are raped while serving (14% of them gang raped), 71% are sexually assaulted, and 90% are sexually harassed.”[132]
According to data reported by BPW/USA, despite representing 15% of the US troops in Iraq, female soldiers only account for 2% of the war casualties, with half of them being reported as suicides caused by Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Because of the given figures and as BPW/denounces, military women were 15 times more likely to be raped by their fellows than die in the war.[133]”
The women you mentioned were no doubt great warriors, but what must also be remembered is they led an army of overwhelmingly men. My concern is “the slippery slope” – that soon the ideologues will start to clamour for “equal representation” as they are already starting to in some quarters in the U.S. I agree that having women fighter pilots or soldiers is a great step from the point of view of breaking gender stereotypes, but the primary goal of the military is to win wars and any social experiments – their nature, the numbers- ought to be at the discretion and cold calculation of the military brass and not influenced by ideologues and the desire to be seen as progressive.
” And I know Uncouth Youth doesn’t want to explain his IT statement further, but Arjun “despite the best attempts to encourage women to pursue science and tech at university, their representation remains low.” Hmmm, what if these women are simply not interested in Tech, just like they are not interested in theatre or medicine or aviation or . I am sorry, but I don’t get the point. I thought the argument was around interested women being unable to fit into the Tech sector and contribute to it.”
If that was the argument, fine, but like Madan says many influential feminist ideologues refuse to consider this at all and blame it all on gender norming or whatever. Personally in my field, I have seen that the top women scientists and plenary speakers at major scientific meetings are every bit as brilliant as the men, if not more brilliant. but the overall percentage of women still remains quite low.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
August 27, 2017
but I’ll leave you to consider the implications of the below paragraph regarding american women who served in combat roles in the Iraq war –
“BBC News reported April 17, 2009, “According to several studies of the US military funded by the Department of Veteran Affairs, 30% of military women are raped while serving (14% of them gang raped), 71% are sexually assaulted, and 90% are sexually harassed.”[132]
Arjun, so you’re basically arguing that because the women in the military are more likely to be raped by their own platoons, they are somehow not fit for active duty? Shouldn’t the onus be on training the men on NOT to rape? It should be quite easy, no, for the men to keep their d–ks in their pants? Shouldn’t the miitary be doing more to sensitise the men that their women colleagues are not there to be sexually harassed?
Your argument sounds dangerously like that of the rape apologists’. Women, stay away from the military – you may be raped. Don’t dress in short skirts – you may be assaulted. Why do you go out at night alone? You were asking for it. So late at night with a man (who’s not your father, brother or husband)? No girl of a good family would be out so late.
It’s a damning argument. That our military women may be raped by the enemy or be tortured and killed is a risk they are willing to take; they shouldn’t have to worry about being assaulted by the men on their side. That they have to do so is a referendum on the actions of the men – to say they should, therefore, keep away for their own sake, is denying them the opportunity while absolving the men of the responsibility for their actions.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Amit Joki
August 27, 2017
praneshp: I thought series such as Friends reflect at least to some degree the cultural background of the countries they are set in, but I will take your words for it.
LikeLike
Madan
August 27, 2017
“That they have to do so is a referendum on the actions of the men – to say they should, therefore, keep away for their own sake, is denying them the opportunity while absolving the men of the responsibility for their actions.” – Word. If their fellow soldiers cannot be entrusted with just staying out of harm’s way, in effect, it says more about the soldiers than about women’s eligibility to join the armed forces. I agree that that is not a valid argument to keep women out of the army. I have already expressed my reservations about what the enemy might do to women soldiers but again it’s more a plea to the media not to push us back into the dark ages with their non stop sabre rattling. You can’t have the media pursuing ultra conservative jingoism when it comes to war and a feminist campaign in the same breath. That’s madness. And between the two, I would always choose the latter. While war is sometimes necessary, it is destructive and therefore nothing that a nation should seek to derive pride from as we seemed to do after the ‘surgical strike’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arjun
August 27, 2017
@Anu: “Arjun, so you’re basically arguing that because the women in the military are more likely to be raped by their own platoons, they are somehow not fit for active duty?”
That indeed is absolutely NOT what I’m saying. I was drawing attention to a more subtle, albeit uncomfortable implication of those damning statistics though you go ahead anyway and cast my argument alongside those of rape apologists before asking me to clarify. Anyway….ponder for a moment why the percentages are so staggeringly high in a combat zone. 30% of women in IT don’t get raped by their colleagues, do they? I’ll say no more on this, lest I be misinterpreted again and be forced to issue more clarifications.
Also remember, all these experiments with women in the combat arms are not happening because they are guided by evidence, but rather despite overwhelming field studies showing that mixed units reduce fighting capability, affect unit cohesion and impact morale besides introducing added complications in the field like unexpected pregnancies. The long term health effects on the young serving women too remain unknown, though available evidence indicates that even women who undergo infantry training and hence are required to march carrying heavy loads are at much higher risk for hip stress fractures (because of bone structure and density) and uterine prolapse. Surely at least the effect on long term health of young women, often barely out of their teens when they enlist, must be carefully considered before celebrating this as some sort of achievement for feminism?
LikeLike
Amit Joki
August 27, 2017
Arjun: I sort of can relate to your comment except for the last part. I mean don’t men know that they have a high chance of getting one of their hands or legs severed? We shouldn’t patronize women. I am sure a girl who wants to be enlisted knows that there’s a chance of risking her life or leaving her crippled for the rest of her life, as is the case of the men. It is for her to make the choice, but yes, encouraging it en masse with a false feminist agenda is not going to help. Brainwashing women into it with a false sense of equality will do more bad than good, as you have pointed out in the rest of your comment 🙂
LikeLike
Prashila
August 27, 2017
OK, one last comment before I get back to the daily grind.
Arjun, ah, are you into military by any chance? Thank you for all those insights. Ever since I read the news about women entering combat roles, every reaction I have seen or read and I have to say mainly from our male population (including the ones here) has been largely apprehensive, which is why this has been a good discussion to someone like me who has no idea of these finer nuances. So thank you again. When you say the selection criteria is different, how different is it really? Like if men need to be graded on a scale of criteria of 1-10, women can get away with 1-5? I seriously want to know.
As for the statistic on rape, sorry but like I said in my first comment,we are focusing on the perception and not on the real issue. And refer to Anu’s comment for what THAT issue is. And again sorry, but I will not buy the argument, ponder for a moment why the percentages are so staggeringly high in a combat zone. 30% of women in IT don’t get raped by their colleagues, do they?
Isn’t that essentially the same side of the coin? Instead of a healthy analysis on why these percentages are higher, if we keep referring to them being higher because that is how it will always be, in a parallel world we will again be back to asking our women folk to stay indoors because it is simply biology that men will be prone to committing rape when they see women dressed in provocative clothes or in seemingly vulnerable situations because it is how we are as a society.
women who undergo infantry training and hence are required to march carrying heavy loads are at much higher risk for hip stress fractures (because of bone structure and density) and uterine prolapse. Surely at least the effect on long term health of young women, often barely out of their teens when they enlist, must be carefully considered before celebrating this as some sort of achievement for feminism?
Now this is an interesting point and like our child protege Amit Joki said, men too have chances of a fracture right even if statistics indicate so? As for uterine prolapse, all I can think of is that the woman enlisting into the army is mentally and physically strong enough to decide what is right or wrong for her. And so is the army training unit that will select and train her. I see no reason why she should be given any kind of special privileges or concessions that can jeopardize the critical situations in which she will eventually find herself in. Unless you can tell me for certain that happens in real life.
Of course, PTSD is very very real and something no one expects to get into when they enlist at the young age they do so. But I will not just pin this on the women. This is and will always be a genderless issue IMHO.
Madan, OK, so we are more or less on the same page. However, I am still pretty unsure about the media jingoism and feminism angle. If we leave feminism aside for a bit and speak purely on lines of jingoism, do you really think surgical strikes was peaking of media’s or anyone’s jingoism/nationalistic pride? I doubt it. It was hardly as big as a deal with many sections of our society doubting its very occurrence, some condemning it, and some being simply unmoved by it. And I mentioned Lt Kalia already and more recently the beheadings of so many of our jawans in Kashmir, the brutal killing of the young officer Lt. Umar Fayaz who was not even on duty! None of us can deny the seriousness of each of these incidents, but hardly any media outlet covered them beyond the mandatory 1-2 hour time slot. Pretty soon, they had moved on to more juicier matters. And even more recently, take the situation in the North Eastern part of our country. Our media instead of showing its own side is instead transmitting on a daily basis what the other country’s media has been publishing. I think media is smarter than you and I think it is. Can they really drive a country to war over any reason, feminism included? I really doubt it which is why I am not able to fit your argument into the larger issue of including women in combat. And I really hope I am not proved wrong, because in that case, definitely as you say it, the outcomes will indeed be disastrous.
LikeLike
Arjun
August 27, 2017
@Amit: No it isn’t patronizing in the least. These are serious long term health impacts observed in women from just training in peacetime, not injuries incurred in action; and it is because of biology. Most infantrymen are not at increased risk for any such debilitating long term conditions.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
August 27, 2017
Surely at least the effect on long term health of young women, often barely out of their teens when they enlist, must be carefully considered before celebrating this as some sort of achievement for feminism?
Er, would you carefully consider the long term health of young men, often barely out of their teens when they enlist?
Of course there are risks. They’re putting their life on line out there. As are the men. I’m pretty sure they know the risks. If they don’t know it when they enlist, they will know it by the time they finish training.
30% of women in IT don’t get raped by their colleagues, do they?
Again – you’re putting the responsibility of rape on the women. If they weren’t there, they wouldn’t be raped. (What’s the difference between your statement and ‘If she hadn’t gone out late at night/wearing a short skirt, she wouldn’t have been raped, would she?) Why isn’t the responsibility for NOT raping on the men? When I worked in a very male-oriented profession for a while, my male colleagues had absolutely no difficulty not raping me. Surely that’s not too much to ask of a professional soldier? Or should men be protected from women, in case they turn weak and rape them? Or should they be trained and sensitised to the fact that women are not there to serve their pleasure?
From an earlier statement which you referenced? The price is paid by their male colleagues; when a female trainee in a mixed unit breaks down, as often happens, guess who is going to carry her and/or her weapons and pack?
What does a platoon or cohort do when a male trainee breaks down or is incapitated? Guess who’s going to carry him and/or his weapons and pack? That particular reason is not gender-restricted. Yes, we are physically weaker than men; I will not dispute biology. But I do take issue with the idea that we are somehow mentally and emotionally weaker than the opposite sex.
I agree with Madan about jingoism and pushing nations towards wars. But to state that women are somehow incapable of active duty, or should be protected for their own good (health, sexual assault, the effect and strain on their male colleagues) is definitely where the patriarchy draws its entire raison d’être for keeping women out of many, many fields.
LikeLike
Madan
August 27, 2017
“do you really think surgical strikes was peaking of media’s or anyone’s jingoism/nationalistic pride? I doubt it. ” – I don’t know where you live but at least in Mumbai, the surgical strike received a rapturous response and widespread approval. On the day of the surgical strike, I was attending a CII meet (no, I just got invited by accident there!) and some early 20s upstart is telling me about how great Modi is and he has done surgical strike etc. I think you will find only a small minority came to doubt the authenticity of the govt’s claim; it was a big hit with large sections of the public. And yes, I do think the media, especially TV media, is still very powerful in influencing public opinion, especially Times Now and its Orknob led offshot, Republic TV. No wonder some leftist thinkers expressed dismay at so much jubilation over essentially an act of violence. I remember Kargil and that had nothing on the overflow of jingoist chest thumping that followed what was essentially just a limited cross border firing operation.
Re jingoism and feminism, I am not LINKING the two. Rather, I am saying we cannot be pursuing both agendas at the same time. Jingoism is an ultra conservative stance and feminism is a progressive stance. The two are fundamentally incompatible. As I said in an earlier comment, promoting women’s participation in the army has to be necessarily accompanied by increased restraint in reporting on military skirmishes. Say trying to take an Islamist neighbour to task for raping Indian soldiers will put the govt in a very difficult position.
But then, this is how the media works. In the same breath that they talk about Dabholkar being killed by Hindu fanatics, they run programmes about all kinds of superstitious BS you could think of…on news channels. At least up to the early noughties, news channels struck strictly to news. If in the name of TRPs, you promote blind faith, jingoism and basically everything that grabs eyeballs, you are not, contrary to what you may like to proclaim, contributing to progress and/or nation building at all. I am not singling out the Indian media for this (recall Connie Chung’s you are un-American jibe at Navratilova) and perhaps this is why there is social dysfunction in democracies because principles have long since been compromised for short term material interests. In say the last decade, the world as such has seen tremendous progress on gender equality and LGBT rights but this is accompanied by heightened intolerance and a return of hyper nationalism. I don’t know how we hope to reconcile these extremes and unless we do, we are staring at a mess. Wait, we already are in a mess so maybe it’s just going to get much worse from hereon.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
August 27, 2017
I feel I probably still haven’t properly articulated what my position is. So, once and for all, I have nothing against participation of women in the military and if they are sexually harassed by male co-soldiers, that is an issue with the behaviour of the co-soldiers and to be addressed by them, not by curtailing enrolment of women. I also believe that female soldiers would be aware of and accept the risk of capture and vile abuse by the enemy. BUT if a female soldier gets captured, we cannot create a women’s safety issue out of it. Why? Because these things happen in war. We can reason with our own people and ask them to reform but we cannot ask that of the enemy. Are we prepared for this as a society? I am not sure. Do I think women should keep waiting for our society to get prepared? Absolutely not. Just a note of caution from my side and nothing more.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arjun
August 28, 2017
“Er, would you carefully consider the long term health of young men, often barely out of their teens when they enlist?”
Er, like I repeated in my reply to Amit, men who don’t go into combat (the vast majority) have not been known to suffer any equivalent long term health damage from just undergoing basic infantry training. Anyway, it seems you will continue to misinterpret me whatever I say, so I’ll stop here.
@Prashila; I’m glad you found the discussion useful. Since you asked a specific question, I’ll answer briefly. First, no I have never served in the military. Second, since India is yet to begin full fledged combat training for women, and since such information is much more easily available in the public domain for matters concerning the US military,, and they have also been experimenting with it longer, here is an example for different PT standards in the US army.
http://www.military.com/military-fitness/army-fitness-requirements/army-basic-training-pft
35 pushups for men versus 13 for women, 3 mins more for the 2 mile run. Similar for the US marines’ combat fitness test below
http://www.military.com/military-fitness/marine-corps-fitness-requirements/marine-corps-combat-fitness-test
Pullups have long been the gold standard for measuring upper body strength, but when the US marine corps found that most women trainees couldn’t complete the minimum required 3, they decide to do away with it and substitute it with a dead hang test instead, while retaining it for men. who need to do 20 for a perfect score.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/02/marines-female-fitness-pullups/4294313/
LikeLike
Arjun
August 28, 2017
One final link before I sign off from this thread. Again from the US but applies to any other country including ours, neatly summarizes with references various arguments against the idea of women in combat roles. Again an important point to remember like I said is that the overwhelming evidence from field and medical studies show this to be a bad idea, but it is being implemented regardless.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420826/putting-women-combat-even-worse-idea-youd-think-mike-fredenburg
LikeLike
Doba
August 28, 2017
Both men and women want to work in combat positions since that leads to promotions not due to any unnatural desire to expose themselves to greater dangers. By denying women a chance to work in those positions, you are creating a glass ceiling for them.
LikeLike
Doba
August 28, 2017
My long road to feminism
I am a scientist, a woman, a mother, a wife. All roles rolled into one. I don’t know where one starts and ends. I don’t start practising science when I arrive in my office. I practise science while cooking, while laundering, while raising my child and while interacting with society (I observe, make hypothesis, verify hypothesis with experiments, and study results – all of which form the basis of my next hypothesis). I am also the only woman scientist in my building. This is a fact and not my hypothesis.
• I remember that when I was a child, there were approximately 20 of us girl children in our class and around 25 to 30 male children.
• I remember when I was in an engineering college – they were approximately 10 of us girls in a class room of around 40 boys.
• When I did my PhD in USA, in a good school, I was the only girl in my lab. There were only 5 other girls in the whole electrical engineering department (a strength of about 100)
• When I worked in an oil and gas company after graduating, there were only 3 other women in technical roles in the whole engineering department of around 500. There were also zero women in senior management positions.
Why did the women disappear? While I try and answer this question, please excuse me for not saying “most women” and “few men”. In other words excuse my generalizations. It makes typing quicker.
The possible answers could be –
• Women are not as smart
• Women are not as interested
• Women are discriminated
Of course the answer is a combination of all of the above three. When I say that women are not as smart, I do not mean that there is any shortage in the genetic endowment. Attributing a predilection for science and technology among men to genetics is as ridiculous as Saif Ali Khan attributing a predilection for acting amongst star kids. The reality is that natural selection takes millennia and a vast gene pool to result in these kind of optimizations. Instead the smarts and interest are lacking due to differences in nurturing. Let me give a few examples –
• Many children grow up in families observing their fathers as breadwinners – engineers etc. while mothers are homemakers.
• In poor houses, education and nutrition are selectively offered to boys
• Story books for toddlers such as “When I grow up” show boys turning into doctors, engineers, astronauts and farmers. Most books for toddlers do not have girl protagonists. If they do, they grow up to become teachers or nurses.
• Small girls are more often told that they look pretty in their dress while boys are told that they are fast, naughty, smart, intelligent etc.
• Parents tell boys that they are saving up for their education and tell girls that they are saving up for marriage
• In their adolescent years, when young girls (and boys) are particularly vulnerable to cultural influences – they are shown on movies and TV shows that men make important decisions, do brave , noble or evil powerful things. These stories and images reinforce the notion that “men are doers”. Women are shown as reacting to these decisions. They are captured by evil men and rescued by good men. They are discussing men, reacting to men but never to ideas, problems. The message that is reinforced again and again is that women are valued for their desirability, for their sex appeal. Not for problem solving skills, not for ideas.
• When women begin to work – their parents worry about how far they have to travel, how late they have to work. I have begged parents of my girl students to allow their girls to work in distant place only to be politely asked – “can you vouch for their safety?”.
• Then comes marriage – Marriage is a career deficit for a woman a career bonus for a man. Depending on the degree of conservativeness, a women is asked to stop working, asked to leave her job and move to where husband works, asked to balance work and house hold chores, asked to not accept promotions if it means longer hours or more travel. There are just too many challenges here. Again, the woman is often doubly punished for marriage. She is not considered for a job or promotion if she is likely to get married / likely to get affected by marriage. So she is discriminated at work front. At home that already happens.
• Then comes children – Children again contribute to a career deficit for a woman. Career women are made to feel guilty for neglecting children if they pursue work, drop ambitions if they choose to nurture children. If child is sick, the woman is more likely to take a sick day off. Again the double whammy hits her – discrimination at work and at home.
When you study this series of gender discrimination starting from childhood, you begin to notice that the woman not being as smart as a man in his work place or as interested is because of a series of action – reactions. I have pointed out few examples. There are thousand others that those who have taken courses on gender studies would highlight.
Again, I am not painting women as angels and victims and men as villains. Feminism or anti-feminism is a mindset and both men and women can belong to either category. I just implore men to do more. You are in a position of privilege and hence have a greater capacity to create change. And the change is hard and uncomfortable. There is no denying that. We are all works of progress. We are constantly evolving our positions and our opinions. I don’t call myself a feminist because I have not lived up to my ideals very often. I have compromised to please others (who I didn’t know well), to please family members (who I love but who have been unfair). But I hope to do better for my child.
p.s. Mr. Rangan, please do not publish my post if it is too long and sounds too much like a rant. I have tried to emulate the calm and rational tone of the other writers like Isvarya and Prashila.
LikeLiked by 11 people
Prashila
August 28, 2017
Doba, that was terrific. I am THIS close to tears. Thank you.
LikeLike
KayKay
August 28, 2017
As usual, discussions here have take a fascinatingly tangential turn into gender roles in technical and military fields.
I however would like to respond to UVY specifically on what he perceives to be a bias among the English Speaking Tamil movie crowd towards heroes of a certain segment in society, specifically those from a lower socio-economic strata. Here are your words exactly:
“Another question which grates me is – Why does such nitpicking happen, only for certain directors. Not pointing out anyone here, but it’s a generalization of the English speaking Tamil movie watching crowd. Not pointing out anyone here, but it’s a generalization of the English speaking Tamil movie watching crowd. Do we get triggered when there is a subtle undercurrent of Tamil supremacy, low class behavior and scenes that jolt us out of our PC scrubbed safe spaces”
I’ll take this.
Tamil supremacy, I have no issue with, only so far as it doesn’t extend towards the denigrating of other languages.
Low class?Meaning, crass, boorish and aggressive behavior traits mixed with an alarming sense of entitlement? (which by the way I would like to caveat as not belonging exclusively to those of the lower socio economic strata, but for the purpose of this discussion, let’s presume it is because the male leads who exhibit these traits in a lot of Tamil movies also hail from these backgrounds). I have no issue if it’s an accurate depiction of a certain character from a certain place and belonging to a certain segment and it’s organically incorporated into the screenplay.
However, when these SPECIFIC traits are held up as the exemplar for the type of guy you need to be to walk away with the hot girl (or in the case of most of these movies, have the hot girl go into paroxysms of ecstasy at the sight of this Macho Ideal), then, yeah I have an issue. Or, if you prefer, I have a bias against them. And why not? Because these particular film makers clearly demonstrate a bias AGAINST a certain type of male; the urban, educated, English speaking species, don’t they?
Not speaking of Taramani specifically, but how many Tamil films pit the earthy, street-wise hooligan (who hides a heart of Gold of course) against a suave, English speaking, professional (who naturally, turns out to be either weak, dishonest or an elitist snob)? Why this bias? Do these filmmakers mostly come from the same background as their protagonists which means they come with an in-built bias or they know their target audience and therefore know exactly which sermon to preach to this particular congregation? (Let’s leave the conversation about how an entire generation of Tamil youths get indoctrinated and accept this as the way to behave towards women for another day)
And on a side note, this isn’t even about superficial surface crap like looks and complexion. After all, I loved the ending of Minsara Kanavu because why wouldn’t a lively, exuberant Kajol choose the confident, witty and charming Prabhu Deva who moves with the grace of a Baryshnkov over the bumbling, stuttering and insecure Arvind Swamy? Prabhu Deva’s character was street-wise, but never crass or boorish, something of an oddity in today’s Tamil Cine landscape that fetes a Kokki Kumar or a Paruthi Veeran as deserving underdogs.
As a proud Yuppie (although the “young” bit would be stretching it) whose cinematic diet consists of more Holly than Kolly, who enjoys his Choc Java Chip from Starbucks and reads, writes, speaks and thinks in English, why should I not be triggered by what I perceive to be a bias against a class of male I’m more familiar with by frequently depicting them as spineless assholes ? And yeah, the world of MR or Gautham Menon provide a refreshing respite from this base level caricaturing most of the time for me at least
In my defense, I’d say, I’m merely reacting to an inherent bias present with one of my own.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Apu
August 28, 2017
Prashila, Anu: Thanks for continuing to question. I was a little too angry but I definitely have never signed up for active combat and was horrible at sports (you can call me a nerd and a dancer) so I did not know if my indignation was correct, and had to re-word it multiple times.
Arjun/Madan: Thanks for replying – it is good to have a forum to interact, and maybe, for even you to read through what you wrote to understand your own direction of thinking.
Madan: “BUT if a female soldier gets captured, we cannot create a women’s safety issue out of it. Why? Because these things happen in war.” Yes, that would be like blaming the men soldier for not taking care of her.
Doba: You wrote my mind, that was very detailed but required.
LikeLike
Apu
August 28, 2017
Doba:
“Career women are made to feel guilty for neglecting children if they pursue work, drop ambitions if they choose to nurture children. If child is sick, the woman is more likely to take a sick day off. Again the double whammy hits her – discrimination at work and at home.”
My theory (or maybe others too) is that workplaces had been designed for men, and not just any man, for those who will work irrespective of what happens to their life, because the women would take care of bearing and raising children, old parents and socializing. But with women entering the workforce, workplaces/companies need to acknowledge that illness, partnership/weddings, reproduction, old parents – are all a part of life and life will continue to happen. So, workplace policies and more importantly mindset needs to change to accommodate women taking maternity leave, men taking paternity leaves, both sexes taking off to spend time with children or parents or even to take care of the other partner. Workplaces need to let go off the robot mentality and become more humane – else, there will always be “your, unmarried men who can work long hours and weekends” being the preferred choice and that is not fair to women or men in any way, because everyone has a life outside work.
LikeLike
Uncouth Village Youth
August 28, 2017
Now that I’m being blamed for all the fracas, I thought I will put my thoughts down.
I love Serena, her spunk, her power game and her rags to riches story. But, unfortunately there has been a significant change in her attitude lately. She wants to be treated on par with ATP stars – I respect her view, but most of the tennis fans will outright reject it. Federer eats big servers like Karlovic,Isner,Raonic for dessert, while Serena will be blown off the court by them. Respect has to be earned – this applies to everyone, man or woman.In fact, I find it amusing that Ostopenenko(1 GS) wants to play in Wimbledon center court. This becomes all the more grating when even Djoker and Nadal, both GOAT candidates themselves, make way (grudgingly though) for the Emperor to play in the Center court. Why don’t the women understand that they cannot bend the market forces to their will. And I’m not even going into the sham, that is equal prize money. They are lucky that they are playing a sport where they get to play along with the men. I would go out on a limb and say that the ATP effectively funds the WTA. Period.
I’m all for women in combat roles, as long as they walk through the same door. Matters of national security (I’m not a military hawk/pseudo patriot), cannot be areas of social engineering. I don’t care if it affects the promotion prospects of some women. However, a few decades from now, with increased automation and killer robots this debate might become irrelevant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doba
August 28, 2017
Thank you Prashila. As a working woman in Science and Tech, the Google Memo has caused me real deep anguish. I always thought my male colleagues were supportive of me and would be supportive of my students who may work there in the future. Now I wonder if they secretly share the thoughts expressed by he who wrote the memo. After all Google has been repeatedly polled as one of the best places to work.
Also, some of the comments made by bloggers here (who are also managers) makes me wonder if they exhibited such biases when they made hiring decisions.
LikeLike
GODZ
August 28, 2017
If the point is should we engage woman along with men in combat roles and risk failure in the battle field, then the answer is NO. There is no much argument here…
But Is it possible for women to contribute equally in the military Yes, It’s possible. Proof?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/hunting-osama-bin-laden-was-womens-work-f2D11594091
Below are some excerpts
Navy SEALs may have killed Osama bin Laden, but women led them to their prey.
Nada Bakos, the head of the targeting team that killed Zarqawi, said her team was “three quarters women,” and their relentless focus on taking down Zarqawi and other al Qaeda leaders may have been influenced by a distinctly female view of security.
We all are products of our experiences,” said Brennan. “In addition to the innate intelligence and capability and creativity that women bring to the workforce, I think they have the opportunity to see the world through — and I think this is very important– the eyes of a woman.”
LikeLike
Anuja Chandramouli
August 28, 2017
Wow Doba! That was a heckuva comment. I was so moved when I read it. So glad BR posted this comment though you suggested otherwise. WOW!! I mean just WOW!!
Arjun: Anu, Rahini and Prashila have covered most of what I wanted to say. But cannot resist adding this. In any professional or personal space there is space for everybody to make a valuable contribution and it would be foolish of us to try and keep folks out by bringing it down to whether one has breasts or balls or both. This sort of thing is at the very heart of the nepotism debate. Keeping talented people out of any field over dumbass reasons can only prove detrimental in the long run.
Sure it is harder for women to do billion mile hikes without breaking into a sweat but that doesn’t mean that they can’t make a mark in the military or anywhere else for that matter. That is like saying that since a new mother is physically equipped to breast feed her child, the father need not bother with learning to prepare formula.
LikeLike
Srinivas R
August 28, 2017
The award for “awesomest” comment of the year goes to “Doba”
LikeLike
Naveen
August 28, 2017
@Arjun, are there stats on male rape within the armed forces ( within the US world ) …have read that it is quite common too.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
August 28, 2017
@Doba, slow clap Take a bow, dear lady, and more power to you.
Apu, Prashila, Anuja – thank you…
@Arjun – all I’m positing is that both sexes are equally aware (or unaware) of the risks they take when they enlist. By the time training is over, or even during the training period, the trainees (irrespective of sex) are aware of the limitations of their bodies and the strain they have to endure. For someone else to take the call that women shouldn’t be allowed to serve because ‘will no one think of their health?’ is an egregious call to make. And to mention the dangers of rape in the same breath as you have consistently done is worse – once again, it is NOT the woman’s fault she is raped. Women shouldn’t have to stay inside the safe confines of their home and hearth – protected by the men in their family- to avoid being raped.
But. I’ll stop here or we will be going round and round this mulberry bush with no end in sight.
@ UncouthVillageYouth: Why don’t the women understand that they cannot bend the market forces to their will. And I’m not even going into the sham, that is equal prize money. They are lucky that they are playing a sport where they get to play along with the men.
I’ve read very few really appalling comments in this blog space, but this one takes the cake.
So because market forces are made by men, for men, women shouldn’t attempt to challenge those forces? ‘It is what it is’? So we wimmenses should know our place, should we? Ugh!
And ‘they are lucky…’?! Really? How bloody condescending is that?! So the men have deigned to allow women to play along with them and we should be grateful?! Double ugh!
LikeLiked by 5 people
Madan
August 28, 2017
” I would go out on a limb and say that the ATP effectively funds the WTA.” – This is not at all so cut and dry when it comes to the slams. The Konta-Halep match got more views (7.4 million) – by far- than the Fed-Cilic final (1.1 million). Yes, the Fed-Cilic final got better numbers than the women’s final but it still fared worse than the 2016 women’s final (1.4 million) which lost out only narrowly to the 2016 men’s final (1.5 million). And mind the 2016 men’s final got the Murray boost. A Djokovic-Cilic final would have been double bagelled by the women’s final. 😛 Given that the lavish prize money in tennis is largely based on the entertainment value of pro tennis and not its sporting merit alone, I don’t find anything wrong with equal prize money. And when the Big Four leave the stage, men’s tennis may even slump in popularity compared to women’s tennis which already has new stars like Konta and Muguruza.
Re the issue of female tennis players wanting to play on Centre Court, it’s an issue that should largely solve itself, again, once the Big Four, especially Fedal, are done. The Big Four hog Centre Court and Court 1, leaving somebody like Kerber high and dry on Court 2. Now, if Wimbledon could be as awesome as Australian Open (the best slam of the last decade or so) and have three top notch arenas, there wouldn’t be an issue. But they don’t and top players don’t want to play on Court 1/2, seeing it as a slight when another player is preferred over them. At the very least, Wimbledon could have all three – Centre Court, Court 1 and Court 2 – play at the same pace so that players don’t complain about varying conditions. Nobody complains about Hisense playing too different from Rod Laver Arena but this happens every year at both Wimbledon (Court 1 vis a vis Centre Court) and US Open (Armstrong vis a vis Arthur Ashe).
LikeLike
sravishanker1401gmailcom
August 28, 2017
Doba : That’s an extraordinary comment !
Far from a rant I think its closer to a brief commentary of our times (apologies for the plagiarism)
I came across 2 interesting nuggets of information :
Hedy Lamarr -a famous (and controversial) Hollywood actress of the ’30s holds the patent for developing a radio guidance system for torpedoes which used spread spectrum and frequency hopping technology
Natalie Portman is a prize winner in the prestigious Intel Science Talent search competition.
So much for dumb blondes (or brunettes)
LikeLike
Iswarya
August 28, 2017
Doba: Standing ovation! Echo every word of appreciation here.
Anu Warrier: You’ve taken over the second shift, milady, after the women on the first shift are near dead from exhaustion. March on, brave warrior! Sending flying kisses your way
LikeLike
Doba
August 28, 2017
There has been a lot of deliberation regarding women (and homosexuals) in the army before arriving at the decision of allowing women in combat roles. I followed the “Don’t ask don’t tell” debate closely in the US. Military officers identified the following reasons for their decision to allow women –
People choose military as a good career option and not just for jingoistic reasons. When that is the case, you have to theoretically allow everybody to aspire to climb the career ladder. You cannot demoralize them by saying you cannot go any further than this due to your race or gender or sexuality.
Nature of warfare is changing. With the onset of urban warfare, terrorism etc. what is exactly defined as a combat situation has changed. Skills other than brute force have been identified as important for success in this new type of warfare even in combat situations.
Rape can never be a reason to withhold women from a position or place or job. The maximum rape happens inside a home under the aegis of marriage. The only way to reduce rape and sexual harassment is to INCREASE the representation of minorities – women, homosexuals etc. in an organization.
Many of the arguments made against women in combat positions today were made earlier for not having women law enforcement personnel.
Military, if it is encouraged to perceive itself as a sphere for machoism and brute strength, results in situations like Abu Ghraib. Gender sensitization and cultural sensitization are very important to ensure that we don’t end up descending to barbarism under the extreme duress that the job entails.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arjun
August 29, 2017
@Anu: The only reason I am replying again is I don’t want to leave this thread being seem as some sort of rape apologist as you consistently misrepresent and portray my position to be, and without a word of apology, even after I have categorically denied that’s not what I mean at all. As to the point I was actually trying to make, you know what, since I see no hope of a nuanced discussion on the subject at all, forget I even mentioned the word rape. All my other points which are the crux of the debate still stand.
“For someone else to take the call that women shouldn’t be allowed to serve because ‘will no one think of their health?’ is an egregious call to make.”
So by that logic, if an overzealous young lady boxer challenges Mike Tyson to a bout, we men who warn her that she is risking long term damage to her brain from concussion, if not putting her very life at peril are simply being egregious and condescending?. Please read that comprehensive tri-service review article from UK to understand the nature of health risks and numbers involved. Some relevant excerpts:
” Research indicates that the physical demands of GCC (ground close combat) roles could result in chronic long term risks to the health of women employed in GCC roles. For instance; regular periods of energy deficit, which occurs during periods of high energy expenditure, such as robust training and operations, can affect both reproductive and skeletal health. ”
“The overall risk of MSK (musculo-skeletal) injury is higher for women, reaching seven fold in some studies of British Army training. The greater risk of MSK injury in women is generally attributed to their lower aerobic fitness on entry to training. Anatomical features, including shorter stature and wider pelvis, may also predispose women to a greater risk of hip and pelvic injuries. ”
“The rate of hip and pelvic stress fractures in men during the Combat
Infantryman’s Course (CIC) is 25.3 per 1000 trainees. The risk of hip and pelvic stress fractures to women should they undertake the CIC is estimated to be 250 per 1000 trainees (or 1 in 4 female Infantry trainees); ”
“US research in a deployed population showed that a women’s risk of injury
increases 5 fold if the heaviest weight carried is > 25% of body weight. The loads carried in some GCC units would significantly exceed this. ”
Sure, a handful of women may be able to meet the gruelling standards of the marines or say, Rashtriya rifles in the Indian context. But the extreme stress that their bodies go through during the training process will leave them at much greater risk for long term health issues. Just like if Mike Tyson is in a good mood, the overzealous lady boxer might land a few blows and even take a round or two, but at the end of the bout, if it is a serious one, she risks permanent damage to her body. Please consider the possibility that some men may be apprehensive of these things due to genuine concern and not simply because we are MCPs.
@Anuja, GODZ: I have already said that women indeed can have a valuable role to play in the military. I have been arguing primarily against their deployment in (ground) combat roles. As for “Keeping talented people out of any field over dumbass reasons ” please go through some of the links I have posted and decide for yourself if factors like “reduced survivability” and “reduced deployability” are really mere dumbass reasons.
@Apu: Thank you for the discussion too. No offense taken.
@Doba: Beautifully written (second) comment and my best wishes to you. As for the first one, that’s not really how it works. Promotions are for the officer class. The jawan (or grunts) who form the vast majority of ground combat forces typically have very little chance of promotions anyway.
@Naveen- I believe it is not all that uncommon. Don’t have any stats off the top of my head. Must be easy to google it.
LikeLike
Iswarya
August 29, 2017
Anu: In connection with the argument you have been making and as an ex-journalist yourself, you might like reading this:
https://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2017/08/28/rethinking-the-dangers-women-journalists-face/amp/
LikeLike
Iswarya
August 29, 2017
KayKay: Savage, as usual. 🙂
And for those who might not notice this otherwise, let me point out the elephant in the room. How far one agrees with KayKay firing from all cylinders might be their own choice, but shall we all please take a moment to acknowledge that a female commenter, even in this best maintained of online spaces, could not have gone on a similar full-on offensive without the lynch mobs descending on her? As Doba mentions, we have been tone-policing ourselves plenty, recasting phrases so as to avoid offending. Just putting it out there for those who had not thought about it (meaning, mainly those menfolk who might find it difficult to spot their privilege). Thanks, mate, for putting that privilege to good use by pushing back against some of the random accusations thrown at us!
LikeLike
Kay
August 29, 2017
Doba, that was an excellent comment. I don’t think there’s anything left to be said.
UVY: They are lucky that they are playing a sport where they get to play along with the men.
Seriously?!
LikeLike
sanjana
August 29, 2017
On a lighter note, give women a chance in war and peace. Women are vindictive, mean, cruel just like their male counterparts and this will be an asset when we fight wars.
LikeLike
Doba
August 29, 2017
When you have urban warfare in a foreign country, there are often civilians mixed up with enemies. Therefore the aim of modern armies is to reduce civilian casualties. Otherwise, you could just carpet bomb a place with a trigger of a button. Therefore, modern armies require more sophisticated skills than just brute strength (ala a Salman Khan bashing up goons). You need some with language and inter personal skills to win over the trust of civilians and informers. Women are especially needed since civilians may have women and children. A hyper-masculine army may not be the best resource under that circumstance. The role of the army (and its combat units) in keeping peace and building trust is just as important as winning a war.
LikeLike
Prashila
August 29, 2017
This thread is like that pack of ice cream in my freezer that I am simply unable to stay away from! 🙂
So, one last last comment.
Doba, absolutely my pleasure. Your comment was one of those things you know… And I know what you feel too. Tech sector may have issues. But women being unable to fit into and contribute to it is certainly not one of them. Also most women/girls in it are first time professionals from their respective families. They come from small towns and villages(whose names I had never heard earlier) all over India, and I really mean all over India. It is heartening to see them evolve into these confident young women who also positively influence their families back home. And they are bloody good with what they are hired to do as well. Married, unmarried, with children, without children, like who gives a damn, and if we are doing that, there is something seriously wrong. Of course there will be exceptions every single time, but to latch onto that exception and make it a rule is just not right.
Arjun, interesting, I will need to spend some time considering the US military stats on PT you shared. thanks
Madan, no no, you absolutely made your point and I respect your opinion. My issue is that I am unable to reconcile the two.
Anu, lage raho Warrior. Hum tumhaare saath hai. 🙂 And something of a virtual huddle we must do ladies, Apu, Doba, Iswarya, Rahini, Kay, Anuja, Shemz, and all the wonderful women who commented here , and the men too, well mostly. Just kidding 🙂 This is one of those multiple BR threads worth bookmarking.
Uncouth Village Youth: Oh dear…
And lastly BR, you have been mysteriously silent all along. So hope our discussion here which I feel is still civil, isn’t getting on your nerves. At least at one point I seemed to have forgotten this was your blog and primarily about cinema. 🙂
Sorry with a sheepish grin.
LikeLike
Rahini David
August 29, 2017
Arjun: I kept away from this discussion as I for one do not believe that women should prove their worth as humans or employees by flexing their muscles. I have not thought much about women in military and probably need to read a LOT about it before I get into a valid discussion. For now, I am not on either side.
BUT, you really can’t say something like “30% of women in IT don’t get raped by their colleagues, do they?” and then act as if the opponent quote-mined your perfectly innocuous statement to further her own agenda.
30% of nurses and IT women and teachers are not raped and 17% are not gang raped. In military they are. So far so black-and-white.
Why? I have several theories but it might bore you, so I am skipping it.
The main question is “So what should be done?” Advising women against it is not the way to go. Advising men against it is.
Yes, I know that all men are not rapist and not all misogynists are men. I am well aware of this. But men need more “Rape awareness programs” than women do even if it feels terrible to sit and listen to a speaker say such things as “Rape is actually a CRIME and not akin to picking a stray bougainvillea.” We need to shift focus. In fact women should be told that being raped is not a crime and so it is high time they reported it properly.
You honestly think you said an innocuous thing and something in the best interest of women. But it is only partly true. I am not saying you are blaming the victims, but I really feel you are seeing the problem from the wrong angle.
Uncouth:You seem to think you are a perfect representation of a certain section of men. You are actually doing that section of men a huge disservice. Sorry I had to say this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
August 29, 2017
Prashila: So hope our discussion here which I feel is still civil, isn’t getting on your nerves.
On the contrary. It’s just that I am unable to add much to this, so I am sitting back and absorbing the great comments by Doba and others.
I seemed to have forgotten this was your blog and primarily about cinema
I’ve said this before. I’ve said this again. These tangential discussions are as interesting / worthwhile as those on cinema. I feel privileged to host them, and it makes me very happy to realise that my blog pulls together such a wonderful readership.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arjun
August 29, 2017
@Rahini: “BUT, you really can’t say something like “30% of women in IT don’t get raped by their colleagues, do they?” and then act as if the opponent quote-mined your perfectly innocuous statement to further her own agenda.”
Fair enough. I take that back. In hindsight, it was not the most elegant way to put across my point.
“The main question is “So what should be done?” Advising women against it is not the way to go. Advising men against it is.”
To reiterate, I completely agree with this and most of the rest of your comment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Uncouth Village Youth
August 29, 2017
My “women are lucky” comment applies only in the specific context of the ATP and WTA. They are lucky to get the same platform that the men get. Given that the majority of sports fans are men,WTA players in spite of playing a overall inferior game (strictly when compared to the ATP) make a lot of money. A hard core sports fan like me, cannot name a single player from WNBA, WMLB, WEPL(do they even exist). However I can recognize all the major WTA stars from 1990 onward. For the sake of comparison, the total prize money for ICC CWC 2015 was $10.2M, while for the recently concluded Women’s CWC the prize money is $2M. That is a 5x difference without even accounting for the 2 year inflation. I’m sure other women athletes, will definitely long for that kind of exposure.
@ KayKay: Prabhu Deva in Minsara Kanavu, is similar to the sanitized black man portrayed in the US mainstream media. They are presented in terms of how the majority white wants to see them. Rajeev Menon’s target audience was different, hence Deva’s characterization. I am a Libertarian and I have no problem with your bias, towards the yuppie English speaking crowd. It’s just that your numbers aren’t enough for people to take a punt. Duh !
As for women in combat, I really hope the machines take over before that. Aren’t you stereotyping women in asking them to be recruited for their communication and interpersonal skills. Why can’t men deal with women and children ?. Urban warfare isn’t just combing through neighborhoods, while befriending the local population. It can also be a brutal street by street,block by block war. I would rather have my best soldiers (men or women) fighting there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
August 29, 2017
UVY has a point, except of course ignoring the problematic part of his comment. I think his point has more to do with the “greatness” of the sport – i.e, its “mixed” nature. I’m no big fan of tennis but have to consider this – “Federer eats big servers like Karlovic,Isner,Raonic for dessert, while Serena will be blown off the court by them.” This is not merely an opinion. Or, take the “lazy man’s game”. Cathryn Fitzpatrick, widely considered the fastest bowler in women’s cricket, clocked at 125 kmph during her peak. Shahid Afridi, an exceptional spinner in terms of pace, has bowled in excess of 130 kmph. I’m not even bringing likes of Thompson, Roberts, Akhtar, Lee, Bond and Tait into the equation. It’s difficult to imagine a mixed-gender cricket match (although one happened twenty years ago) even at the amateur level. One might argue that somebody like a Sarah Taylor might be an exception but the idea remains farfetched, IMO. On the contrary, I feel women are on par with men in equestrian sports, and clearly have an upper hand over men when it comes to something like gymnastics. But then, here’s an interesting read.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2016/aug/16/mens-womens-gymnastics-comparison-olympics
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jai
August 29, 2017
@ Madan, wrt “…….I don’t understand why mainstream media in America went all in with knives out for McEnroe. I have said it before and will say it again that shaming a former tennis player for just telling the truth is at the end of the day extremely bad publicity for feminism.”
I think this has a lot to do with the fact that the words McEnroe chose were highly clumsy and unfortunate—whether intentional (in an effort to provoke controversy in order to “stay in the news” and thereby publicize his book), or an unforced error 🙂 🙂 , is anybody’s guess.
This is the verbatim transcript of the interview:
“”GARCIA-NAVARRO: We’re talking about male players, but there [are] of course wonderful female players. Let’s talk about Serena Williams. You say she is the best female player in the world in the book.
MCENROE: Best female player ever — no question.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Some wouldn’t qualify it; some would say she’s the best player in the world. Why qualify it?
MCENROE: Oh! Uh, she’s not, you mean, the best player in the world, period?
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yeah, the best tennis player in the world. You know, why say female player?
MCENROE: Well, because if she was in, if she played the men’s circuit, she’d be, like, 700 in the world.”””
You see the problem here? McEnroe might have been “telling the truth” about how hypothetical matchups would go—though I am curious how he pulled this arbitrary “700 in the world” figure out of his hat. But with his clumsy choice of words, he is doing a tremendous disservice to Serena and women’s tennis in general–because is it really his contention that a Serena (or retired Greats like Steffi Graf, or a Justine Henin or a Martina Navratilova)— all rank below as the 699 odd men ranked in the ATP World tour? I don’t think anyone should rationally be able to say that, for example, a Dimitry Tursunov (ranked No. 701 when this McEnroe controversy broke), or a Karlovic or an Isner, for that matter; plays better tennis than Serena or, say, Steffi Graf in her prime, despite being almost certain to win a head to head against Steffi (in their respective primes). Going down that road would simply mean that skill, guile, tactical nous, technique and hand-eye coordination would be “valued” less in tennis compared with basic, brute strength and force.
Why make this arbitrary and pointless comparison? No one is denying that men hit harder, serve harder and are, on average, faster on the court than the women. I think Serena herself has stated in the past that men’s tennis and women’s tennis are completely different games. Different brackets of competition altogether. I think McEnroe’s later observation was accurate, and was what he should have said to start off. “Look, she’s a great player and it’s apples and oranges.”
@ UVY: wrt “Why don’t the women understand that they cannot bend the market forces to their will. And I’m not even going into the sham, that is equal prize money. They are lucky that they are playing a sport where they get to play along with the men. I would go out on a limb and say that the ATP effectively funds the WTA.”
Can I just say, that conversations and debates about the economic dynamics of the sport, ticket and broadcast revenues, subjective opinions about which tour adds “more value”, all need to happen. And as I have said about your remarks in an earlier thread (I think it was JHMS), I admire the candor with which you state your views. However, as a very keen tennis aficionado and an amateur player myself, and a father of 2 young girls who love the game and go to tennis classes; I would just like to say that I am very disturbed at the conclusions you seem to draw.
“She wants to be treated on par with ATP stars – I respect her view, but most of the tennis fans will outright reject it…”—- which ATP stars are you talking about here? If we are speaking about the popularity of Fed and Rafa, of course, no question there. They are and always will be legends of the game, the stars whom most viewers either come to the stadia or eagerly turn on their TV sets to watch. But though I am a Novak fan, a keen admirer of his robust athleticism and almost metronomic accuracy (prior to his recent slump), I must admit that he isn’t exactly a crowd favorite. And as for the last leg of the “Big 4”—one would be really hard put to claim that Murray outhit Serena in the popularity/ crowd pulling stakes in any country outside the UK. And even within the UK, he’s not exactly universally beloved. Besides, top of mind, which matchup do you think more people would watch—A Serena versus Sharapova/Azarenka match? Or a Cilic versus Nishikori match? (The 2014 US Open Men’s final had quite poor viewership ratings, as you may recall).
Men’s tennis, on average, undoubtedly generates more viewership/attendance, media rights and sponsorship now. However, since the 1980s, women’s Grand Slam matches have become, on average, as hotly contested as the men’s matchups, and made women’s tennis equally, and at times more popular than the men’s side. In 2015, the U.S. Open women’s tournament, which featured a showdown between Serena and Venus, sold out more quickly than the men’s tourney. In 2013 and 2014, the women’s U.S. Open final garnered higher TV ratings than the men’s final. In 2005, the Wimbledon final between Venus Williams and Lindsay Davenport drew 1 million more viewers than the showdown between Roger Federer and Andy Roddick.
Plus, If you follow the logic that the (present) higher popularity of men’s tennis should mean a bigger paycheck, then male figure skaters and gymnasts—who participate in sports in which the ladies’ side generally attracts far more spectators—should be paid less for their achievements than women, right? What is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander, no? However, in a BBC analysis of sports that pay prize money, it was found that male and female figure skaters and gymnasts earn the same purse for winning world championships. Why different rules when women command more viewership and different rules when the men do??
And how far will you pull the “market forces” logic? Federer and Nadal are surely more popular and attract more viewership than other matchups on the men’s side (I am very eagerly anticipating a Rafa–Fed showdown in this year’s USO Semi, BTW). So should these two legends earn more for a SF slot (assuming they get there), than the other Semifinalists on the other side of the draw? Should Murray have earned less for his Wimbledon triumph in 2016 than Federer did for his win in 2017? If not, why not? Surely, we could all agree that Murray is quite a bit less important for “market forces” than Federer, or Rafa, or even Novak? If you say that women’s tennis should be valued by the amount of the sponsorship dollars it receives and the amount of “market forces” it generates, and advocate unequal prize money because of these figures; why not extend that same logic to unequally allocate prize money within the men’s tour itself ? Do you think that is a stand which would have even the minutest chance of being accepted within the men’s tour?? 😉 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
Uncouth Village Youth
August 29, 2017
@Madan : What a great comment ! However, you are taking of only the BBC ratings which got a Konta(has crashed out of US Open – 1R) bump.The global ratings which account for the majority of the ad dollars was essentially a no contest. Agreed this is partly due to the popularity of Fed himself –this popped up on my Twitter feed today. Also think of TV ratings in Asia, which are not discussed much but would heavily tilt towards the ATP.
Wimbledon cannot put any more matches on Center Court and Court 1, because the grass cannot withstand the use and I read that expansion plans have hit a wall. USTA too will be unable to expand any more, since the last renovation was only in 2013 and so we are stuck with Arthur Ashe and Louis Armstrong. The focus on the tour nowadays is to get more roofs, so as to get guaranteed matches for the ticketholders and the sponsors. I don’t see any new courts coming up at W and USO in the foreseeable future. OTOH, some of the newer venues like IW are giving the slams a run of their money.But my larger point was how , even for a player like Rafa, center court is not a given.
Tennis landscape after Big -3 + Murray,Wawrinka is gonna be difficult. But, that is what I thought when Pete hung up his boots. But we all know what Fedal + Djoker did after that. There are exciting young tennis talents out there on the horizon – Sacha, Kyrgios, Thiem, Dimitrov,Shapovalov. I can already see the kids in my apartment fanboying over the NextGenATP stars just to cook a snook at oldies like me obsessing over Big -3. 2018 is gonna be huge and will lay down the markers and the rivalries for the next decade. If Fed and Nadal can retain their crowns @ Wimby(AO is a big ask) & FO respectively, that will be the icing on the cake for me. I can start watching the matches w/o any tension.
LikeLike
KayKay
August 29, 2017
“It’s just that your numbers aren’t enough for people to take a punt”
Oh, Uncouth One! I never presumed the Yuppie audience in TN was big enough for all subsequent Tamil film Heroes to be ret-conned into latte-sipping programmers who converse in Tanglish, rather I merely suggested that the fact they are smaller in numbers needn’t preclude a generic portrayal as Cannon Fodder for the Slum Ruffian. Duh!
“Prabhu Deva in Minsara Kanavu, is similar to the sanitized black man portrayed in the US mainstream media. They are presented in terms of how the majority white wants to see them”
Drink that Kool Aid if it tastes good my friend, just don’t expect me to swallow it! So, only your Kokki Kumars hew close to the actual representation of the Tamil male from a lower economic strata? For a self-confessed Libertarian, your discourse leaves precious little room for nuance.
LikeLiked by 2 people
rothrocks
August 29, 2017
@ Honest Raj: There’s no doubt that the ‘level’ of male pro tennis players is way above that of their female counterparts. As discussed earlier in the thread, even Serena might at best beat the 1000 or lower ranked ATP player.
But is the prize money purely a function of the skills involved? I don’t think so. It’s more on account of the entertainment value, that people will pay to watch a tennis match (which is used to fund the prize money). I have mentioned above that Konta-Halep was more widely watched than the men’s final at this year’s Wimbledon. So equal prize money is fair Imo. But if somebody says it is sexist to not consider Serena the greatest tennis player (male or female), I will disagree and call that out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kid
August 29, 2017
Uncouth Village Youth: Leaving aside the specifics of characterisation, there is a huge difference between the African-American “bizarro-saint” character in Hollywood and the Prabhudeva character in Rajiv Menon’s film. See, there is an entire history, an entire archive of this kind of character is Hollywood which is why it is seen to be deeply problematic. So when Redford makes Will Smith play such a figure in The Legend of Bagger Vance, he is essently making him play a very problematic archetype, not even a character. And it is problematic because this kind of “type” is oft repeated ij Hollywood (had it been a relatively character, nobody would have a problem).
And as per my very my limited understanding of Tamil cinema (which begins from the Kamal-Rajini period), I can’t recall the archive or history for the prabhudeva type guy (or even if it is there, i am sure it is still a rare occurence. Again I can’t say this with certainty, BR and others would be better placed to answer this). So Prabhudeva plays a fresh character here, not an archetype.
I will just add to Kaykay’s comment (which is terrific, but that’s par for the course as far as Kaykay is concerned) with regards to Selva’s films. I am not saying that the representation of women in Selva’s films is not problematic. But he makes sure that his women are given enough delineating charcateristics which differentiate them from similar young, urban, hot women in 99% of contemporary Tamil films. It’s a roundabout way of saying thathe way he looks at women is problematic, but within that “gaze” he is writing fairly interesting “personas” for them (I use this term being selva at points seems to treat them as personas, less as characters. I will say the very same for Upendra, who also makes deeply pRoblematic but equally interesting films, or taleast did so earlier. His A is one of my fav films from the entirery 9f kannada cinema and all things considered, IMO one of most intetesting indian films of the nineties; I also like “Upendra”, “Om” and “Super” to varying degress”. Incidentally the shadow of Upendra hovers over Ram’s films, it’s just that Ram doesn’t halg the skill or the ambition as a filmmaker. I will also add that if you remove the oroblematic gaze in Selva’s and Upendra’s films, you take away an important component of what makes them intetesting filmmakers. Of course Selva is the much better filmmakee between the two
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kid
August 29, 2017
Also extend my previous point, the Anushka Shetty character in that misfire Selva made with her and Arya (can’t recall the name at this, this is one of the problems of not knowing even a scintilla of Tamil or any South Indian film, sometimes the names escape my memory)…that character/persona can only come from Selva, not from Suraaj or the chap who made Remo or Shankar orwhat have you
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jai
August 29, 2017
@ rothrocks: “There’s no doubt that the ‘level’ of male pro tennis players is way above that of their female counterparts. ……….But if somebody says it is sexist to not consider Serena the greatest tennis player (male or female), I will disagree and call that out.”
I agree with you. And this is what McEnroe could have very gracefully said, without coming off looking like a rather boorish MCP. He could have just very rationally made the point you’re making—that the men’s and women’s tours are completely different brackets. He certainly could have answered Garcia-Navarro’s question more elegantly, and made a point about the differences between the men’s and women’s tours and how shot speed, serve speed and overall speed on the court are higher on the men’s side than their female counterparts.
In sum, McEnroe is perfectly justified in ranking someone of his choice as the “best female tennis player” instead of “best overall player across genders”. (Though I do feel Steffi was a better player than Serena, but then that is a debate for another day). But to put in that sloppy remark about how Serena would be ranked around 700 in the world if she played the men’s circuit—-that was unnecessary and clumsy at best. His unfortunate choice of words came across as if he was suggesting that Serena is “only” as good as the 700-ranked male player (since the topic was, after all, a discussion on “best tennis player in the world”)–and was almost guaranteed to fuel outrage. It’s not a stretch to imagine that he just might have done this purposely—considering that he was plugging his book. Nothing sells like controversy, right?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Uncouth Village Youth
August 29, 2017
@Jai : Thanks for the good words. Some of the questions you have raised are really valid. I’ll take a stab at addressing them one by one.
McEnroe was clearly baited into saying that by the reporter. She kept pushing Mac till he blurted out something which in turn was used to beat him with the old-white-guy belittling classy-black-lady stick. For tennis fans, Mac has always been in the news. I love the ways he calls night matches in USO, they just add to the vibe.
But though I am a Novak fan, a keen admirer of his robust athleticism and almost metronomic accuracy (prior to his recent slump), I must admit that he isn’t exactly a crowd favorite.
Novak is not a crowd fav, only when he is up against Rafa or Fed – surprised that you as a Novak fan haven’t realized this. I support him whenever he plays someone other than Fed. And Djoker does indeed have a massive fan following along with multi-million dollar contracts comparable to Rafa. Since 2011 he features consistently in the Forbes Global Top 100 celebrity list. Now imagine this, if ND can generate so much fan following/money from an obscure country like Serbia, he would be right up there with LeBron, Durant, Curry, Kershaw, Rodriquez et al had he been a US citizen.
In 2015, the U.S. Open women’s tournament, which featured a showdown between Serena and Venus, sold out more quickly than the men’s tourney. In 2013 and 2014, the women’s U.S. Open final garnered higher TV ratings than the men’s final. In 2005, the Wimbledon final between Venus Williams and Lindsay Davenport drew 1 million more viewers than the showdown between Roger Federer and Andy Roddick.
You are cherry picking data here. Will you consider Rohit Sharma a better player than SRT,BCL because he has the LOI record for runs scored in an innings. We do look at trends and how they hold up. I did a little bit of googling and this article makes it clear that even though the women’s tourney was sold out faster, the men’s ticket commanded a premium. Do you really think, that the WTA will make as much money, if the tours are played separately – we have ample examples from other sports that they wont work.
Plus, If you follow the logic that the (present) higher popularity of men’s tennis should mean a bigger paycheck, then male figure skaters and gymnasts…
No idea about the sports mentioned, have to study/look this up. However,if what you are claiming is indeed true, I have no problem with the women getting paid, as a function of their revenue. Isn’t this already happening in a lot of areas – Beyonce, Adele, Taylor Swift, Gaga, Madonna all earn as much as, if not more than the men. Sharapova used to make a lot, back in the day,even more than Serena. JK Rowling is a one woman publishing machine, who gets hefty advances, far outstripping her peers. I even read that more men are publishing detective fiction under a female pseudonym – link here, because women have cornered the market there.Keep calm and trust the market forces – the invisible hand of god will surely take corrective action when required.
Federer and Nadal are surely more popular and attract more viewership than other matchups on the men’s side (I am very eagerly anticipating a Rafa–Fed showdown in this year’s USO Semi, BTW). So should these two legends earn more for a SF slot (assuming they get there), than the other Semifinalists on the other side of the draw?
This is already happening in tennis. However, everybody uses the euphemism Appearance fees. Why do you think all the top players make a beeline to Doha,Dubai,China which host lowly ATP 250/500 tournaments.Fed gets upward of $1M(2012/13 figures) in appearance fees for any ATP 250/500 event(Basel is an exception, he appears for a lesser amount, my memory could be hazy here). GSs can get away with that, because they have far more clout than any player in the tour – the big 3 needs the GSs as much as they need the Big -3 .An analogy here would be boxing, where Mayweather cuts his own deal with the broadcasters and doesn’t need a regular tour to earn.
LikeLike
MANK
August 29, 2017
Jai, if you have followed McEnroe’s behavior over the years , you would know that, that was one of his more dignified responses 🙂
on a serious note, i dont think he was being boorish or doing it to plug his book .He just cut to the chase and said what was on his mind. that is his nature.he is brutally honest. As Madan pointed out in an earlier comment , the interviewer was unnecessarily aggressive, just to extract that bite out of him. i often wonder whether many of these journalists who aggressively pursues these questions really have women’s welfare at heart or just trying to create those breaking news headlines or instantaneous click bait articles.they either want McEnroe calls Serena the Greatest tennis player ever or McEnroe calls Serena worse than the 700th ranked male tennis player , they wouldn’t settle for anything else.
And that wasnt all that he said , he said more That doesn’t mean I don’t think Serena is an incredible player. I do, but the reality of what would happen would be I think something that perhaps it’d be a little higher, perhaps it’d be a little lower. And on a given day, Serena could beat some players. I believe because she’s so incredibly strong mentally that she could overcome some situations where players would choke ’cause she’s been in it so many times, so many situations at Wimbledon, The U.S. Open, etc. But if she had to just play the circuit — the men’s circuit — that would be an entirely different story.
Serena herself added to the drama when she tweeted him to keep her name out of his conversations when he wasn’t doing any such thing. McEnroe did not bring up the topic; the host did. He did not insist on comparing men and women; the host did. And to top that people want him to apologise for that, come on
Btw, thumbs up to Steffi being a better player than Serena.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
August 29, 2017
rothrocks: I haven’t disputed the ‘prize money’ thing anywhere. You’re probably referring to UVY’s comment?
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
August 29, 2017
@Arjun, as Rahini pointed out, I was holding you to account for your own words, not cherry-picking them to prove a point. Also, I did not accuse you of being a rape-apologist; I said your argument about x % being raped in the military, and guess what would happen to women pilots if they (managed to) safely eject out of their planes and fall into military territory (which is a rather condescending thing to say, actually; do you honestly think these women pilots would be flying sortees if they didn’t know how to safely eject from their machines?) to argue against women being deployed in active combat sounds dangerously close to the ‘keeping women safe’ argument that rape aplogists use. There’s a nuance there that you seem to have missed, and so, no, I will not apologise for something I did not do.
And you continue to dig in: with reference to your comment about boxing. So by that logic, if an overzealous young lady boxer challenges Mike Tyson to a bout, we men who warn her that she is risking long term damage to her brain from concussion, if not putting her very life at peril are simply being egregious and condescending?.
Yes, actually. Because a woman boxer doesn’t have to be challenging Tyson to know that her sport leaves her at risk for long term damage to her brain, or losing her life. By the time she got to a level where she even dreamed of challenging Tyson, she would have taken enough beatings to know the risks associated with her sport. It is condescending to think that she needs men to tell her she cannot engage with a legend in her field for fear of her life.
Let me enlarge on that point a bit, using a not-as-dire situation, though stil potentially dangerous. My son has had four concussions and multiple ACL/MCL injuries (requiring multiple surgeries) as a result of playing football. So. Do I tell girls not to play footer because they can potentially injure themselves very, very badly?
Can’t you see the point that we (women) are trying to make? That because a particular profession has a set of unique risks, it doesn’t follow that you keep women out of the field? You train them to deal with the risks, you teach them to minimise it, you sensitise the men to the fact that hey, it’s not going to be an all-male playground anymore. ‘Women may get raped!’ is not a valid reason to deny them the opportunities they seek. Then teach the men not to rape, damnit! Women haven’t been put on this earth for men’s pleasure!
All that said, I don’t think you are an MCP at all. And that was never my argument. I was calling you out for some specific statements you made to bolster your (several) valid points. Peace.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Anu Warrier
August 29, 2017
@Rahini, thank you!
@KayKay, your posts always give me hope for the human race. Thank you.
@Iswarya, I’m beginning to get whiplash. 🙂 Also, with reference to you comment about KayKay’s post – I agree. I’m sure you know just how much I self-censor myself to put out a sanitized version of what I want to say. Not just to keep the discussion civil, which I would anyway do, but also to not bring on what you call the ‘lynch mobs’ out. Fact of the matter is that it is ingrained in women to ‘be nice’. ‘Smile.’ Or you risk being called a ‘feminazi’. Because to a large number of people (including women), ‘feminists’ are all ‘feminazis’. Which is why you get idiotic statements like ‘I’m not a feminist, but…’ As if ‘feminist’ can only be a woman, and bitter,angry women at that. /rant.
(Thank you for the support.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jai
August 29, 2017
@ UVY: Oh, I agree with you that McEnroe was baited into saying that by the reporter. But he is way too big a fish to fall for this kind of bait—-or he should be at least. 🙂 Yes, I know he has been thoroughly incendiary in the past, but of late, he has tended to reflect a maturity and insight combined with his candidness. I enjoy his commentary as well, but this interview was rather of a mishit. I just feel bugged with him because this went beyond the demands of being forthright.
The point is, when the conversation was on “best tennis player” and how McEnroe has described them in his book, he really ought to have been more circumspect with his choice of words. He came across implying that Serena was as good a tennis player as the 700th ranked men’s player—that’s how the import of his words played out. And that is not something many people would agree with, right? Like I said, Tursunov ranked 701 at the time, would probably beat Serena in a head to head match. Does that give him a rank higher than Serena on a list of “best tennis players”? I am quite sure even McEnroe doesn’t feel that. So why use words carelessly which imply that meaning?
Regarding Novak, I support him even when he plays against Fed. 🙂 The only matchup where my loyalties are divided are for a Rafa–Novak match, the AO final of 2012 and the French SF 2013 were really hard for me. 🙂 But much as I admire Novak, I always get a feeling he doesn’t quite get the praise he deserves for all his accomplishments. He’s definitely the “crowd villain” when he plays Fed or Rafa; but even against his other matchups, he’s never quite the crowd’s beloved favorite. And it may be a legacy thing (dating from the time when he would occasionally withdraw mid way during tight matches, citing illness); but Novak’s actions on court certainly are subject to a lot more critical analysis and second guessing than, say, Federer’s. An instance is the 2015 AO final, when he was widely raked over hot coals with allegations of faking his physical ailments to throw Murray’s rhythm off. OTOH, Federer’s very conveniently timed MTO’s in the AO 2017 SF and Final didn’t attract all that much criticism or attention (apart from the stinging comment of legal cheating by Pat Cash). I mean, at least in the Semi, it seemed Fed was just paying back Wawrinka in the same coin, since Wawrinka had himself taken a somewhat dubious MTO earlier in the match. But in the final……well, all I can say is, had it been Novak who’d done that, there would have been hell to pay.
@ MANK: Hmmm….Well, I’ll agree that this certainly wasn’t one of McEnroes’s more egregious misdemeanors. And demands that he needs to apologize for being sexist are a tad absurd too. I agree with his basic standpoint—that it wouldn’t be fair to term Serena the best tennis player, across genders. I agree that the men’s and women’s tennis tours are in completely different brackets, and the on court speed/power of shots on the men’s tour are on a different level (owing obvious physical attributes of upper body strength and musculature). The issue rose with McEnroe trying to assign a rank to Serena, were she to play on the men’s tour—a pointless and clumsy comparison which completely muddied the basic kernel of thought which he was (hopefully!) trying to convey. Unlike you, though, I an a tad more cynical about McEnroe’s motives. I think the resulting controversy suited him just fine, in terms of keeping his interview (and his book) in the news.
And oh yes, Steffi, IMO, was a better player than Serena. 🙂 In terms of raw power and absolute, vehement determination to win, Serena would probably be ahead. But Steffi had more variety and subtlety to her game, combined with her athleticism which IMO at least, ranks her as the better player.
LikeLike
KayKay
August 29, 2017
Kid, thanks for the compliment, man!
And thanks for bringing up the Magic Negro phenomenon in Hollywood, I was gonna tell UVY how wrong he was conflating that with Prabhu Deva’s character in MK, but frankly speaking, just stopped giving a shit after awhile.
LikeLike
KayKay
August 29, 2017
Iswarya my dear, my pleasure. UVY’s regressive sexism coupled with his defense of that particular breed of crass Tamil Male in films, coupled with the MR hatred(naturally) handily earns him that self-imposed moniker, but he’s most likely the representative voice of this movie’s target audience. Which is pretty depressing, if you think about it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
August 29, 2017
Iswarya, re: the link you shared. I hadn’t read this one, but oh, what she writes there reflects my experience as a journalist in India and that of my colleagues as well. What bothers me about the situation is that, as the author posits, the normalisation of male violence and the male gaze. It’s okay to trade off-colour jokes because ‘newsrooms were always full of men, and this is how men talk’; we lose out on plum assignments because ‘women are not safe’; ‘men will be men; it’s up to the woman to protect her honour’ (this last said to me by a police chief in Bombay); or as a female colleague, who reported an assault was asked: ‘What did you do to provoke him?’ – it’s egregious. (Not to mention the very real sexual harassment when we work late nights. So perhaps we should have stayed at home?)
It’s a shame that a decade and a half later, we are still talking about the same situations in professional fields. The more things change, the more they remain the same – at least, for women.
LikeLike
Kay
August 29, 2017
Anu, it’ll take few decades more for the situation to change. To see equality in representation of women and most of all, to get women friendly work places and social spaces. A friend of mine is involved in creating awareness and also building a self sustainable society, one small community at a time. That gives me really high hopes. Small steps right now, but we have seen considerable change within a short span of 2 years. More and more youngsters – boys – are getting involved in these activities which is a good sign indeed.
LikeLike
Arjun
August 30, 2017
“Yes, actually. Because a woman boxer doesn’t have to be challenging Tyson to know that her sport leaves her at risk for long term damage to her brain, or losing her life. ”
Yes, but sometimes people get carried away. So in such a situation, the honourable and morally courageous thing to do would be for the sponsors to stay away and the organizer to call it off even it they stand to be accused by some feminists of being sexists and preventing a top woman boxer from realizing her true potential. Likewise if a woman recruit volunteers for a combat op, the CO, if he judges that having a woman in the team would significantly increase the risks for everyone involved without giving any tangible tactical advantage, would be doing the morally right thing by asking her to sit it out.
“Do I tell girls not to play footer because they can potentially injure themselves very, very badly?”
Certainly not. As long as they don’t play alongside men.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
August 30, 2017
So in such a situation, the honourable and morally courageous thing to do would be for the sponsors to stay away and the organizer to call it off even it they stand to be accused by some feminists of being sexists and preventing a top woman boxer from realizing her true potential.
Sigh. You do realize that this is patriarchal to the hilt, right? So men get to make a decision for a woman because she ‘gets carried away’. And you shroud it in ‘honour’ and ‘moral courage’ to do such a thing.
Also, excuse me, but if a woman is in the army, she doesn’t usually ‘volunteer’ for combat ops. She goes along with her cohort if they are involved in combat ops. There are very few military missions which deploy one elite group – but if there are any, and she is a part of that elite group, she’s earned her place there and therefore asking her to ‘sit it out’ is discrimination.
What you’re suggesting now is so egregious – so women cannot even make up their own minds what they can or cannot do; an honourable, morally courageous man has to make that decision for her! You seem to have a strange idea of what feminism really means when you slag ‘feminists’ for protesting such behaviour.
I. Can’t. Even.
Where the devil is Olemisstarana when I need her? 😦
LikeLike
Doba
August 30, 2017
Dear UVY, I am not responding to your comment or debating you. It is evident that you have made up your mind on the topic of women in combat positions. I only envy you your ability to not get swayed by doubts when confronted by others arguments.
I, on the other hand, am of the Oscar Wilde variety – “Arguments are to be avoided, they are always vulgar and often convincing.” Professional hazard I think.
I was addressing my comments more to Arjun (who seems a fellow researcher like me from his comments) and Rahini who said she was undecided.
Of course, I grant you that the musculature of women is different from men and they may encounter health hazards which we should never trivialize. Also, as Rahini pointed out, women do not have to prove themselves using their muscles. However, women were being used in combat positions in an ad hoc basis (due to the requirements of modern war). Think of Darfur, Iraq, Afghanistan etc where there are socio-economic, ethnicity, religious and gender issues all thrown into one cauldron. As a result, there was some thinking that if you are exposing them to danger, you have to train them. So now if you are training some on an ad hoc basis, then make it fully available to all women who are interested and recognize their courage and reward them with career growth. The diversity that women bring in can result in a stronger military and greater peace (which is a greater goal than winning a war).
LikeLike
Kay
August 30, 2017
Arjun, your comment on morality and preventing women from getting carried away reminded me of this dialogue from Kabali – Ungaloda Indha karunai adhoda saavai vida kodumaiyanadhu (your mercy is worse than its death).
LikeLike
Madan
August 30, 2017
@ Jai: ” don’t think anyone should rationally be able to say that, for example, a Dimitry Tursunov (ranked No. 701 when this McEnroe controversy broke), or a Karlovic or an Isner, for that matter; plays better tennis than Serena or, say, Steffi Graf in her prime, ” – Big man Isner, all 6 feet 9 inches or so, gets down better for low shoelace volleys than either Serena or Graf. Isner has also taken sets off Federer which means he can return better than Serena or Graf who have never faced a serve as good as Federer’s. Returning well is about timing, volleys are about touch. So it’s not all brute force. As for Tursunov, he had a career high ranking of 20, so his skills are an in entirely different ballpark from Serena or Graf and his current ranking is more a reflection of his decline than his true level.
So why is this? Because strength is only a part of the answer albeit a very significant part. The other factor is also the greater competition on ATP because they play at a higher level, which forces everyone on the ATP to raise the bar. That is, IF Serena played on the ATP, she too would be forced to raise her SKILLS for which there is no compelling need now being she is overwhelmingly the best player in HER draw.
Now, coming to what McEnroe said, yes, he pulled a number out of his hat, but, as it were, it is a more flattering number than the realistic assessment of coaches on the same subject. So my question is how does it matter that he chose to offer a number. Maybe he “bought the bait” but the very fact that even for him to say something that is largely true and erring on the side of being liberal to Serena is viewed as controversial or unwarranted shows how dishonest the discourse has become. I am not prepared to let off Navarro lightly. She is not a sports journalist, much less a tennis one so she has no business trying to put it to McEnroe that Serena ought to be called best player and not just best female tennis player. What is so sexist or ‘disrespectful’ about calling Serena the best female tennis player anyway? Isn’t it a superlative and a relevant one (being that she competes against other women and not men)? We have to be prepared to dispute this narrative strongly. As to what her motivations were, I will not venture to speculate but the blame for this whole fracas lies entirely with her imo. As also with somebody like Charlie Rose who knows a lot about tennis but doesn’t want to disturb the mainstream illusion.
As for the comparison between Graf and Serena, in my opinion, Serena owns Graf all ends up. I do find Graf’s game or I should say her strokes more attractive to watch but strength to strength Serena beats her except perhaps on the forehand and one shot cannot overturn the match up. Graf is a paradox. Lovely strokes and beautiful movement, almost Fed-esque, but tactically incredibly stubborn. I would say she was physically hard working and mentally lazy, that being why Seles had her number pre-stabbing. Graf’s backhand return was a huge liability and it’s a wonder that so few (Navratilova, Seles, Shriver and Garrison sporadically) were able to exploit it. Which itself says a lot about how underdeveloped the serve was in the women’s game in her time. It’s not a whole lot better now and I have personally played against coaches who probably serve better than Errani. Still…the other day when Kvitova played Jankovic, her ad serve was pulling Jankovic almost parallel or beyond of the chair umpire. That kind of wide ad serve would wreck Graf’s return, mixed with the one down the T to keep Graf honest.
LikeLike
Madan
August 30, 2017
@ UCY: My point is women’s tennis is popular enough that there are some matches of theirs that even eclipse the popularity of men’s matches including a Wimbledon final featuring Federer. So even if there is a gap overall in the popularity of the two tours, I don’t think it is so significant as to merit adjusting the prize money. As for ATP subsidising WTA, it’s more like Fedal carrying the entire sport, hence why a former women’s tennis player retorted to that IW tour director guy that not only Serena but top ATP players should also thank Fedal. Tennis is headed for a huge crash when they retire. Maybe, maybe somebody like Shapovalov will become so popular as to help manage the situation but it’s going to be tricky.
LikeLike
a doubt
August 30, 2017
If I am not mistaken, women who are recruited to police or fire forces get into it through woman’s quota where in the physical strength and stamina that is expected of them is much lesser than their male counterparts.
Now, if my house catches fire and if a female firefighter comes , I would feel a little cheated because I know a physically stronger fireman who has gone through tougher standards to get into the job and has gone through more rigorous physical routines to be a firefighter would definitely do a better job and has a better chance of saving lives.
Is it wise to employ women in such jobs where in the physical strength and fitness exam qualification standards are LOWERED to accommodate them. If there’s a weak link in the chain,in jobs such as these, either civilians or members in the firefighting teams can die. Isn’t it wrong to risk human lives and property for accommodating female counterparts who are physically weaker and less skilled in such jobs, just to be politically correct?
LikeLike
a doubt
August 30, 2017
Forgot to add ..
If the standards and qualifications to get into these jobs are same for men and women, then please ignore my previous post. I have no problem with male or female, provided that the same rigorous standards are applied to get into police or fire force team.
LikeLike
Madan
August 30, 2017
“So in such a situation, the honourable and morally courageous thing to do would be for the sponsors to stay away and the organizer to call it off even it they stand to be accused by some feminists of being sexists and preventing a top woman boxer from realizing her true potential.” – I disagree. In fact, the best counter and indeed the best way to stand by the truth would be to allow such a match to happen. In essence, I am saying, yes, Mayweather should have taken on Rousey who claimed that she would beat him. Yeah, sure thing, when she got embarrassingly KO-ed by Holly Holm. Man or woman, anyone who makes unjustifiable claims should be put in their place. THAT is the courageous thing to do instead of mollycoddling their egos.
LikeLike
Arjun
August 30, 2017
‘My comment – “Yes, but sometimes people get carried away.’ People, as in both men and women. People does not equal women. Men also get carried away. McGregor got carried away challenging Mayweather, but at least he has the musculature and neck strength to withstand the blows.
Morally correct, judicious, decent, sensible whatever, take your pick. Ah fuck me, I shouldn’t have bothered at all.
LikeLike
Jai
August 30, 2017
@ Madan: “What is so sexist or ‘disrespectful’ about calling Serena the best female tennis player anyway? Isn’t it a superlative and a relevant one (being that she competes against other women and not men)? ”
No, there is nothing sexist or disrespectful about McEnroe calling Serena the best female tennis player. I said as much in my reply to you (If I recall, ‘rothrocks’ is your wordpress ID, right?) Or have I got that wrong? 😉
McEnroe was perfectly within his rights (and accurate) in wanting to designate a woman of his choice as “best female tennis player”. The issue arose later in the same discussion, when in response to the question about “best tennis players”, he went on to state that if Serena played on the ATP Tour, she would be ranked around No. 700. An unfortunate corollary (whether he intended so or not) was that, since the discussion was on “Best tennis players”, he seemed to suggest Serena was “only as good” as the World No. 700 on the ATP. Why couldn’t he just have said that the level on the ATP was different, so it really wasn’t appropriate to compare?
Madan, I completely agree that Isner, Tursunov, and even probably a Stakhovsky would beat Serena. But I think its fairly certain that when discussions of legends of the sport and “best tennis players” comes into play, it’s not really feasible to argue that these men outrank Serena in conclusions of “greatness” in the game. Head to heads between men players and women players are inherently a problematic, even a clumsy comparison. As you said so rightly, the levels are different, the brackets are different. Serena herself has admitted it—that the men’s game was fundamentally different from the women’s, since the men have so much more speed on the court, their strokes and serves are more powerful. It’s comparing apples and oranges, really—which is what McEnroe, on more reflection perhaps, admitted as much.
As regards Steffi vs Serena, we will have to agree to disagree. 🙂 🙂 I do agree BTW, that Serena is much ahead of Steffi in terms of strength and power of the game and even for, as you say, sheer mental fortitude. But Graf’s strokes and movement elevated her, IMO. (Even accounting for her backhand, which I agree, was not all that great at all. Even in her later years, when she developed more kick to that backhand slice.)
LikeLike
Jai
August 30, 2017
To go back to the argument for unequal prize money which UVY made. I find it puzzling that this issue crops up, when in fact, the purse is equal only in the Grand Slams and in a handful of the other most prestigious tournaments. Men still enjoy a preponderant advantage in pay in the majority of tournaments, with female tennis players earning an average 80 cents on each dollar of prize money men earn. The median pay gap between a woman in the top 100 and her opposite number on the men’s tour is $120,624 (as per 2016 figures).
At least in the Grand Slams and such other prestigious combined events like Indian Wells, Miami etc , the purported disparity between men’s and women’s matches in viewership, broadcast revenues and ticket sales probably would not be so stark. There are a number of matches referred to, where in fact the women’s matches have been broadly equal to, and even outstripped the men’s matches in terms of ticket sales and viewership. To argue against equal pay in such tournaments that offer it (only the handful of the most prestigious ones), seems unfair and rather petty. To me at least.
Plus, we really need to examine the inherent and sustained gender bias which has resulted in the comfortable position of “men’s events are more popular.” When discussing “market forces,” profit shares and revenue, as the only way to determine men’s and women’s prize money, one really needs to at least recognize that the market itself is not fair across gender lines. It’s inherently and systemically tilted and biased towards men’s sport (in this case tennis), as a superior product. For the simple reason, that throughout the course of tennis being nurtured into a global industry, it has tended to preferentially showcase, highlight and celebrate the accomplishments of the men’s tour.
In recent decades, as sports in general, and in this case tennis, began to be fostered into a billion-dollar business, it is predominantly men’s sport that has been packaged and showcased as a slick form of competitive entertainment. Therefore, men’s tennis has traditionally received a greater share of television rights, the advertising dollars and the media attention, compared to women’s tennis. It was sold well and built itself a solid base, and the stakes only grow ever higher as more money was thrown around. Women’s sport, both as a profession and a global media/entertainment spectacle, is still playing catch up, it simply does does not have this same luxury of having this built up base. One could say that the level of disparity in publicizing women’s tennis is less than the gender disparity in other sports, but I think it’s only fair to recognize that some definite degree of bias does exist.
Men’s tennis generally gets prime television slots, and by extension, the most eyeballs as compared to women’s tennis. More of it, at least.
Men’s tennis gets more advertising dollars, because it’s televised in prime times and reaches all those eyes, more so than women’s tennis. (This is especially true of the lower tier tournaments, other than GS’s and the handful of premier combined tournaments. But in the most prestigious events too, there does exist a bias towards telecasting men’s matches).
And as for viewers being enthused to attend/ turn on their TV sets to tune in to the next match on the men’s side rather than the women’s—-some part of this (we can debate how much), is owing to the fact that there is (on average), a more compelling story presented by the media for men’s tennis.
I am not denying that there exists a difference in the level of the game between the two tours. There does, I accept that completely. I myself am fired up at the thought of a Rafa–Fed or a Rafa—Novak confrontation. On the women’s side, none of the present rivalries stokes my enthusiasm to the same degree. Not since the golden days of Graf–Seles, Graf–Sanchez; and later, Hingis–Williams sisters and Henin–Serena.
However, we need to have the honesty to accept that there does exist a gender bias in the “market forces” we are talking about. To pretend that these forces will ensure a “just” playing field; and that we should trust to them that they will automatically take corrective actions as required—this is being plain disingenuous.
There is a degree of a vicious cycle in these “market forces”, and as long as it remains as such, women’s tennis will (on average) be showcased as being “not as compelling” as men’s tennis. In this milieu, grudging the women’s tour the handful of the most prestigious tournaments where they do get equal pay…..seems really, really short sighted. Gender is definitely one of the factors—an important one— which has driven the “market forces” of the game. And that needs to change at least a bit, to ensure that the WTA is able to grow the sport further.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
August 30, 2017
“I said as much in my reply to you (If I recall, ‘rothrocks’ is your wordpress ID, right?)” – Yes, you did get that right and I am not saying you called him or implied him to be a sexist. I am just questioning the entirely disproportionate outrage expressed to his comment by the media.
“since the discussion was on “Best tennis players”, he seemed to suggest Serena was “only as good” as the World No. 700 on the ATP. Why couldn’t he just have said that the level on the ATP was different, so it really wasn’t appropriate to compare?” – He could have but maybe the interviewer just pissed him off and brought out the old McEnroe. She was really dumb to try to tell a former tennis player what to say about tennis. I don’t see why people found it so hard to give him the benefit of doubt since he didn’t say anything wrong there. The question asked was as stupid as proposing that Rhonda Rousey was the best ever fighter (which implies that she would be able to beat McGregor/Mayweather) and not just the best female fighter. He explained why he couldn’t call Serena the best player in a tennis nerd kind of way, which…well, he is just a tennis player so why should anything else be expected?
” it’s not really feasible to argue that these men outrank Serena in conclusions of “greatness” in the game” – GREATNESS, yes. But the word McEnroe had used and which Navarro interrogated him about was BEST. When you say best/better, it means playing level. Say if in 2015 somebody asked who was the best player in the world right now, the answer would have been Djokovic. NOT Federer even though Federer’s achievements still eclipsed him. Likewise even when the ever suffix is added, best tends to suggest highest level of tennis and not just achievements. If you say Serena is the best tennis player, the implication is that she plays tennis better than Federer and nobody will agree with that. Or maybe Navarro will because she doesn’t have a clue.
And thank you for pointing out that many of the Masters and lower tier events already don’t pay the same prize money to men and women. It’s mainly at the slams and at the slams both draws are hugely popular. And while I’d prefer a Federer v/s Nadal match to say Pliskova v/s Muguruza, I took a Nadal fanboy to task for dissing Konta-Vekic during their epic Wimbledon match (because he wanted them to finish soon so that Nadal would take the court for his match against mr nobody). Konta-Vekic was a match of rare quality and likewise there are matches on the women’s draw that arguably entertain as much if not more than some of the men’s matches. I’d say barring Australian Open 2017 and maybe RG 17 as well, the last seven slams have been more enjoyable on the women’s side than the men’s.
LikeLike
Iswarya
August 30, 2017
Jai: Thanks for the perspective. As a person whose knowledge of tennis is admittedly negligible, I was wondering if there was no such thing as systemic bias in operation. This concern is independent of my (lack of) knowledge in sports because we, meaning many women, see this overarching trend in almost every aspect of society that it would have been puzzling if tennis alone had somehow been an exception to the rule.
Take, for instance, an area of common interest for everybody on this blog – cinema. Here, like everywhere else we see the male equals mainstream dynamic play out in full force. We have the specific genre of “chick flicks” (I don’t even want to dwell on what a derogatory label that is) the way we have children’s movies. Going by the same logic, why aren’t the average Sylvester Stallone/Jason Statham movies dismissively labelled as “d*ck flicks”? (Hat tip to the lovely commenters on @manwhohasitall’s latest Twitter thread for the name. I swear it cracked me up!)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Uncouth Village Youth
August 30, 2017
@Jai : Why are men’s sports packaged by “market forces” as “compelling” ?
It’s the crux of why we watch sports. I want to see somebody do things, that cannot be possibly done by me. I know Phelps has an obscene genetic advantage over me yet I am in awe over his feats. I want to see aces down the T with a boom which really thuds at the opposite end or how a searing yorker that sends the stumps cartwheeling or a 3 pointer from the baseline. These are the things that fire up the mind and gets the adrenalin flowing.Otherwise, whats the big deal about hitting a ball with a bat.
When I used to play cricket in school, some of my friends, used to bowl 110 – 120Kmph which I had no problem negotiating. So when I went for university selection in Chennai, few guys were cranking it up to the high 120Kmph, occasionally hitting 130 even(the actions were dodgy, but still) and I could not put bat on ball. I can only imagine the guts required to face 130Kmph+. So, how or rather why should I get excited about a Jhulan who bowls in the low 120Ks, or a Serena whose first serve would at best be Karlovic’s second serve. So the gender bias in the market forces is totally justified.
The guys at the top with their ad deals are not much affected by equal pay. It is the journeyman players who hop from tournament to tournament(in the futures/challenger circuit) searching for the elusive break, and a chance to qualify for the GS who bear the brunt. ATP player representatives like Giles Simon, Stakhovsky have brought this up during negotiations. So taking this logic further, why are doubles, mixed doubles, wheelchair tennis players paid peanuts when compared to the men and women ? So, its not about equality – right . I will have no problem if a WTA player says “Yes, we bent the tournaments into paying us equally, so what”. But what we get is dumb assertions about equal work, same amount of practice and so forth – that hypocrisy needs to be pointed out.
@Doba : We fundamentally differ over the role of the armed forces and that is fine. And most if not all rational human beings are open to persuasion by valid arguments.It’s a different story, when the arguments being made are erroneous – they will be contested and better be prepared to justify them. You being a researcher should know this better than me.
LikeLike
Madan
August 30, 2017
@Iswarya: From talking to tennis fans on internet forums, there is a lot of condescension against female tennis players including some 50 plus chap who claimed he could beat Serena in his sleep. Even Mac said he would probably lose to Serena but hey what does he know, right? There are guys who insist that female singers lack soul and that the male voice is more versatile while also maintaining they aren’t sexist at all. I was able to convince one such otherwise with the right exhibits but it’s mostly a losing battle. The world has been made by and for men for way too long for its effects to be reversed yet. There’s Naipaul claiming he can tell a female writer from reading a few lines of her writing and that it’s decidedly inferior, for another instance.
LikeLike
Madan
August 30, 2017
@UCY: You bring up a lot of good points but then it gets mixed up with a lot of bad ones as well. Yes, while the WTA may be less privileged than the ATP, they are more privileged than wheelchair players and used this privilege to negotiate a higher payout at slams. So privilege operates everywhere; it’s a sliding slope or a hierarchy rather than one small privileged group and a large impoverished mass. Again, when Simon complains about equal prize money, he’s still complaining from a position of privilege. He may begrudge the riches bequeathed to Serena by the tournaments but with career prize money of over $12mn, he isn’t exactly struggling to stay afloat either. I mean, not unless he’s made bad financial choices. In short, this is a pretty complicated discussion. However, as I understand it, the slams are profitable and hence can pretty much do as they please with prize money. If they feel going back to unequal prize money will turn away women viewers/spectators from the game, they won’t do it. Those are market forces at work. 😉
LikeLike
Jai
August 30, 2017
@ UVY: “It’s the crux of why we watch sports. I want to see somebody do things, that cannot be possibly done by me.”
Very true. But you see, I was as riveted by Graf’s gazelle like coverage of the court, her lithe athleticism and her rivalries with Seles and Sanchez; as I am today with Fed’s exquisite strokeplay, Rafa’s warrior like determination to win and heavy topspin on his strokes, and Novak’s near-tireless accuracy. When praising Wawrinka’s bludgeoning weapon of his single handed backhand, why should we not also appreciate Henin’s silken, exquisite backhand?
Why should we make this an either-or, and compare women’s tennis to men’s when they are not even playing against each other? I play tennis recreationally, and I see plenty of matches on women’s tour that fill me with awe, players doing things which cannot be possibly done by me.
A conclusion about which tour is more aesthetic and riveting to watch, is bound to be both subjective and cyclical. Yes, Serena’s first serve is probably struck with the force and speed of Karlovic’s second serve. Graf’s serve might have probably been even slower. How many people would strongly aver that Karlovic’s game is more pleasing and riveting to watch than Graf’s?
Over the Fedal and Novak era, men’s tennis has undoubtedly shifted up a gear, and the exhilarating rivalries between these 3 men (and occasionally Murray and Wawrinka thrown in), have riveted audiences. But if you look at it, in the late 90’s to early 2000’s, coinciding with Sampras’s decline and before Federer’s ascent, women’s tennis had the buzz and the rivalries. Hewitt, Roddick, Safin and Ferrero didn’t really command the audience interest as much as today’s Big 3 do, we even had a Thomas Johansson and Albert Costa winning a slam each. At one stretch from Wimbledon 2000–French Open 2002, we had 8 men’s players lifting 8 Grand slams. Out of 16 Grand Slams in the years 2000 to 2003 (both inclusive), 11 different men’s players won. One could argue that at this stretch, beset with uninspiring rivalries, not-so-reliable top players and a unremitting sense of flat parity, it was the men’s tour which was less fascinating than the women’s.
One never knows, right? When Fedal finally run out of steam, and if Novak doesn’t make a winning comeback, are the next-gen on board to sustain interest in the men’s tour? Yes, there are encouraging murmurs about Zverev, Shapovalov, Thiem & Kyrgios……but then there were encouraging signs for Dimitrov, Nishikori and Raonic as well, none of whom have really made that final elusive jump to dominance/greatness (yet). Who can tell if there might be a cracker of a woman’s rivalry that might unfold in the next couple of years? While the men’s tour gets mired in a repeat of the early 2000s? Let’s see how things play out.
But in the meantime, it may actually be worth your while to watch several of the more engrossing women’s matches. Gripping matches are not only made out of serve speeds and booming aces, as I’m sure you would agree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
August 30, 2017
” When praising Wawrinka’s bludgeoning weapon of his single handed backhand, why should we not also appreciate Henin’s silken, exquisite backhand?” – So this gives me an opening to talk about the state of the WTA tour TODAY and where that ties in with the gripes that women’s tennis attracts. From Sharapova onwards, women’s tennis has pivoted towards so called ‘big babe tennis’ which is in effect a poor man’s version of men’s tennis. Serves aren’t great but groundies are struck hard with less control than the men and net game is even worse than in the men’s game. So where women’s tennis once offered something different to the viewer, it is not so clear any more that it does except by way of being a poor imitation of the men’s game. Henin-Mauresmo was the last all serve and volley singles final played at Wimbledon in 2006 by which time the men’s game had completely shifted to baseline tennis. Sadly, those days seem far away now. Graf’s slice was a signature shot of hers and the slice is hardly used these days by the women with exceptions like Radwanska whereas all of the Big Four as well as Wawrinka, Ferrer, Raonic etc still use it. I don’t know where coaching for women has gone wrong in tennis but it seems to have….too much cookie-cutterism going on and not allowing players to express themselves in their own styles. To some extent, this is also happening increasingly in the men’s game but the East Europeans have bucked the trend and Zverev/Rublev/Shapovalov hold out hope. Note all three still hit the forehand with a slightly conservative grip contrary to the ugly Western grips sported by Kyrgios/Sock/Edmund. However…
“I play tennis recreationally, and I see plenty of matches on women’s tour that fill me with awe, players doing things which cannot be possibly done by me.” – Indeed and especially watching a pro tennis match live will put things in perspective. I have watched rank 200 take on rank 300…for free and it was incredible. People can’t gauge how fast tennis is played and how incredibly athletic the players are from watching it on TV; the overhead angle simply doesn’t do justice to tennis.
LikeLike
MANK
August 30, 2017
i finally finished reading the entire thread.quite a fascinating discussion. Thankfully no trolls, only passionate commenters and great comments. but i just want to call out Rahini’s comment out there.its amazing for its precision and clarity. its natural for commenters to react emotionally to a very emotional subject which leads then to rant on ad nauseam and not being able to convey the gist of their objections to the opponents comments effectively. But with almost a cold clinical precision of a physician diagnosing a sickness and suggesting a cure, she isolated what was objectionable about Arjun’s comment and conveyed it to him , he gets it in an instant, withdraws the statement and the discussion goes on , Marvelous! .She is tough , but fair and precise and am always thrilled to see her name on the comments sidebar. you know its going to be special
LikeLiked by 2 people
MANK
August 30, 2017
Kid, the selva film is Irandam ulagam
And Thanks to Ishwarya for remembeing me. its always a pleasure to mark my attendance here. its just that, being an unmarried man who can or rather who has to work long hours and weekends, especially at a time when your married colleagues take off for vacations leaving you holding the bag when deadlines are to be met, one cant take time off for these recreational diversions. and what for,Only to find out that my kind is not the popular kind around these parts. WTH, I Come here to fee good about myself, now i feel lousy, as if i have to apologise for what i do or have to do
LikeLike
Iswarya
August 31, 2017
Okay, since this thread has long lost its connection with Taramani, I think I can post this here. Also because this is my platform to contact all you lovely, passionate ladies – Kay, Doba, Prashila, Apu, and of course Anu Warrier and Rahini David who I am already in touch with. All you women (and men) who have strong feelings about the workplace sexism and harrassment that we have been discussing here, please drop me a line at my campaign email address: antistalkingpetition [AT] G-mail.
There’s some concrete bit of help you could do. I don’t wish to elaborate on the details here since it’s BR’s forum and I don’t want to spam. But I look forward to hearing from you folks. A little nudge from you might play a critical role in taking this issue forward.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
August 31, 2017
@Arjun, at this point, I begin to understand Iswarya’s fatigue; I did decide ‘Why should I bother?’ but like a dog with a pesky flea, each further comment demands a futher response. You write:
People does not equal women.’ Fair enough.
But if ‘people =/= women’ why were your exhortations following that statement only directed at women? To refresh your memory, after you wrote ‘People get carried away’, you went on to say: the honourable and morally courageous thing to do would be for the sponsors to stay away and the organizer to call it off even it they stand to be accused by some feminists of being sexists and preventing a top woman boxer from realizing her true potential. Likewise if a woman recruit volunteers for a combat op, the CO, if he judges that having a woman in the team would significantly increase the risks for everyone involved without giving any tangible tactical advantage, would be doing the morally right thing by asking her to sit it out. [Emphasis mine.]
So you see, somewhere inside you, you do equate ‘people’ with ‘women’. At least in scenarios where you feel they need the men to take care of them, even if that means making their decisions for them. You assume feminists would accuse organisers and sponsors of sexism – yet, your own sexism rings out with each explanation.
Once again, I doubt any of us can claim to be totally unbiased; I know I can’t. Some ‘ism’ will always raise its head. But being called out on that ‘ism’ (whatever it is) at least makes me aware of my biases. And examining them in the clear light of day allows me to try and overcome them. That’s all I’m doing here.
LikeLiked by 2 people
brangan
August 31, 2017
Iswarya: Okay, since this thread has long lost its connection with Taramani…
Actually no. The topic couching the issues may have moved from a particular film to tennis or the military, but these issues are still connected to Taramani — what the film shows us, how we respond to it, how we talk about it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Uncouth Village Youth
August 31, 2017
@Jai & Madan : Fascinating perspectives. Do you guys comment on any of the tennis messageboards – would love to know. That observation about people using privilege, when they get it, was spot on – couldn’t have said it better.
I do watch women’s tennis occasionally, without any attachment – it is difficult to convince folks at home that I watch it only for the tennis 😛 But seriously,they can be engrossing, only when you watch or train yourself to watch the match in a sandbox. Because towards the end of the second set, the shots start going awry, the serve is a more a lob and the shrieking becomes unbearable. The third set is more of a – who makes less UE contest. Where are the fake shots, slices, on the run passing shots that kiss the line, something like THAT Djokovic return in USO ’11 SF, lobs and of course tweeners. Another major turn off, which you have already pointed out is the lack of serve and volley. It’s rare even in the men side, but it has met the dodo’s fate on the women’s. You can’t make anyone watch women’s tennis by trying to outhit each other from the baseline, at a much reduced speed.
I watched TNPL recently, the matches were entertaining alright, but the standards were awful. Finally, I couldn’t take it anymore. Once you move on from being a casual sports fan to the next level, these technical shortcomings become all the more glaring. So, it may not be a straightforward case of gender bias – it’s complicated. May be I need some unconscious bias training to overcome this 🙂
@BR : If you feel that the tennis conversation has gone on a bit too long, do let us know.
LikeLike
sanjana
August 31, 2017
Taramani to tennis. All seem to be in combat mode and the winners are no one.
LikeLike
rothrocks
August 31, 2017
@ UVY: If you visit Talk Tennis, I am Dolgopolov85 over there (yeah, didn’t know he was a fixer when I made up that moniker). I have also started a blog called Easternforehandblog. The discussion about Graf with Jai/MANK prompted me to write my own thoughts in more detail over there.
LikeLike
Iswarya
August 31, 2017
Thanks for the mails trickling in, folks. This totally reinforces my faith in BR’s readership. Y’all are so nice! 🙂 Thanks.
LikeLike
Arjun
September 1, 2017
“At least in scenarios where you feel they need the men to take care of them, even if that means making their decisions for them. ”
Oh dear, at this point, there are such serious gaps in basic comprehension that it is pointless to go on.
“So you see, somewhere inside you, you do equate ‘people’ with ‘women’…… ”
Oh dear. When I say people, I mean people. If I had intended to say women, I would have said women. The first sentence was a general observation about human nature. What follows are hypothetical examples relevant to the discussion at hand, which happens to be about women playing alongside men. If that was not already clear, my next example on McGregor (a man) also getting carried away should have cleared it up. So kindly spare me the condescending deconstructionism blather. We’ve both had enough.
LikeLike
GODZ
September 1, 2017
@Doba , All
I am not sure if we have initiatives similar to below in India. If so, Please share if you can so that readers of the blog might benefit. If not Why cannot one be started and Take some action rather than restricting ourselves with a blog comment. Not sure if it’s beyond the scope. Just a seed of thought.
https://girlswhocode.com/.
LikeLike
Anuja Chandramouli
September 1, 2017
What a fascinating thread! I am having a ball reading all the comments (no pun intended) 🙂
Arjun: “So in such a situation, the honourable and morally courageous thing to do would be for the sponsors to stay away and the organizer to call it off even it they stand to be accused by some feminists of being sexists and preventing a top woman boxer from realizing her true potential.” Why man why? How can you say something like that? Why do some men insist on feeling they are well within their rights to make the decisions for a woman and control what becomes of her life? How dare they! How dare YOU! I swear I wept when I read that.
And this is from someone who refuses to watch women play any sport (Tennis, BBall, You name it) because I find the pace excruciatingly slow and am afflicted with a ridiculously low attention span. This applies for cricket as well where I can’t watch the men play either because it looks like they are all wading through treacle. I daresay a lot of men and women have the same politically incorrect stand as me, but it boils down to personal preference over gender bias. On the pay issue, I think women deserve the same pay though all of you are going to attack me for being hypocritical. Take tennis for example, some of the men feel women ought to play five setters before demanding equal pay but since we can all agree that the ladies have certain physical limitations which don’t bother the dudes (imagine playing through your period or early stages of pregnancy!!!) three sets are just as taxing.
However, in a very practical sense, it will be a while (if at all) before the pay thing is resolved to everybody’s satisfaction. Again, gender is not the only factor here. Nothing can alter the fact, that some careers will always be more filthily lucrative than others, no matter how much we grouse about it. Imagine a world where a manual worker who slogs under impossibly hard circumstances to make the lives of the privileged easier gets the same amount (or even a tenth) of moolah as say a starlet who was flown first class to Bora Bora for a scorching bikini item number! Sighs!!!
UVY: “I do watch women’s tennis occasionally, without any attachment – it is difficult to convince folks at home that I watch it only for the tennis 😛 ” That was cringeworthy and most uncouth Sir. When the Kournikovas and Sharapovas (who managed to score the centre court at US Open over more deserving players who have not been banned for doping charges) are considered to be more of a draw than the Steffis and Serenas who don’t look, half as cute in a tennis outfit, it does not bode very well for female athletes who have to fight long and hard to earn the respect male players are spoilt with. As long as we celebrate and elevate physical beauty as the most superior quality a woman (or man) needs to possess, to advance in life I don’t see much scope for improvement in an increasingly ugly world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anuja Chandramouli
September 1, 2017
Since we are talking tennis and lobbing the ball all over the place, remember Marion Bartoli? I think she won the French Open and got horribly trolled on Twitter with the wonderful folks in those parts fat shaming her and referring to a freshly minted grand slam champ as an ugly b**tch. Of course, she responded with magnificent grace and said that as a kid she dreamed of winning grand slams not beauty pageants and was proud of herself for fulfilling a cherished ambition. That was bloody inspiring but also appalling that she had to deal with so much hate at a special moment in her life. Crying shame!
LikeLike
Kay
September 1, 2017
“Oh dear, at this point, there are such serious gaps in basic comprehension that it is pointless to go on.”
I am genuinely confused now. Could you please explain what you meant by this:
“Yes, but sometimes people get carried away. So in such a situation, the honourable and morally courageous thing to do would be for the sponsors to stay away and the organizer to call it off even it they stand to be accused by some feminists of being sexists and preventing a top woman boxer from realizing her true potential.”
To my understanding, and I’m sure I’m speaking for all the ladies who took offense to that statement, it means that even if women think they can compete equally with men, other “people” should be sensible hand they should prevent such a match by refusing to sponsor the event or organise it. Which in simple words means that, others should make the decision for her.
I really want to understand if that is what you meant or if not, what exactly did you mean?
LikeLike
Uncouth Village Youth
September 1, 2017
rothrocks : Will drop by your blog sometime.
Anuja: Much as you diss Sharapova, she served her ban, was not seeded, got to the main draw through a wildcard and is through to the third round. Of course she cannot be asked to play the qualifiers – USTA cannot afford to lose one of the few saleable stars left . What is the problem now – do you want her to be punished perpetually ? Kournikova and Sharapova just cannot be equated – for the record Sharapova is a 5 slam (including a Grand slam),WTA finals winner along with notable final appearances, while Kournikova, has exactly 1 tour title. And who are the more deserving players that you are talking about – surely not Wozniacki,Konta,Halep(and were eliminated early to boot) who are yet to win a slam,not Pliskova who hasn’t won anything significant ,not Kerber who got routed in the first round. Vika and Serena are not playing. Venus got center court/court 1 in Wimby and mostly gets Arthur Ashe/Armstrong at the USO. Muguruza is the only one who can claim to be slighted, but she took it in her stride and didn’t throw a tantrum about it. Guess what she won Wimby and is the fav for USO – now that’s a classy champion.
Every WTA player markets herself using physical beauty,else they will not be playing in baby doll dresses masquerading as skirts. Only absolutely unknown players do not make it to the SI swimsuit special or the ESPN body issue – guess they were not dragged to pose at gunpoint. More power to these girls who are confident in their skin.These are independent women making informed choices – I’m sure you are not against that even. Some time back,didn’t the BWF want the female Badminton players to play in skirts like tennis,there was a huge furore initially- but now almost everyone takes the court in mini skirts. In a totally different domain – Why do Katie,Mika(WTH did that pose with Joe mean), Megyn dress skimpily when compared to their co-anchors – its part of a package that sells. I can understand when FOX anchors dress like that, but seriously MSNBC, CBS and CNN ?Women cannot have it both ways, blaming men for everything.
PS: What’s with saying Serena doesn’t look good in tennis attire- IMHO she is absolutely stunning.
LikeLike
Kay
September 1, 2017
“Every WTA player markets herself using physical beauty,else they will not be playing in baby doll dresses masquerading as skirts. ”
That’s it! I give up.. 🤷🏻♀️🤦🏽♀️
LikeLike
Arjun
September 1, 2017
@Kay: If it is not obvious that the decision to fight Mike Tyson in a public televised event is not that of the hypothetical woman boxer alone, there is probably little else I can say that will help. But let me try since your question seems genuine. First, let us remember that Tyson too has a say in this. He may choose to politely laugh off the challenge (his decision) or can choose to put on a light hearted display (again, his decision) to entertain the crowd (and be accused of being patronizing by some, no doubt). But if it is going to be a no-holds-barred fight, I have absolutely no reason to believe it will be anything but a brutal one sided bludgeoning with the risk factor for death being many times greater than in any regular match . And I am only saying what considerations aside from the usual ones should guide the decisions of the other parties involved (sponsors, organizers) in such a scenario. if they don’t wish to have blood on their hands. Otherwise any man or woman can, in their own privacy, choose to wrestle a lion in the Mara for all I care.
LikeLike
sanjana
September 1, 2017
I think Arjun’s point of view is being misunderstood.
UVY, Kada Kumar bring some hatke arguments but their views have some interesting insights. It is always interesting to read arguments and counter arguments like a 10 set match if there is going to be one!
LikeLike
Madan
September 1, 2017
@ Kay/UVY: I disagree with both of you.
On the one hand, UVY, do get over the mini skirts. They have been around since Evert and I hope you are not going to question her talent or the fact that her talent rather than her dresses was the real draw. Tennis is a European/American sport. Don’t apply traditional Indian norms of dressing to it. Not that I agree with judging an Indian woman like that but it’s even more ridiculous when applied to a culture which has accepted their choice to wear what they wish to.
On the other, @ Kay, Sharapova has a career slam which some players who were/are greater than her like Henin, Venus, Hingis don’t. Kournikova was a fine doubles player, something which is sadly forgotten today. When you equate them to talentless eye candy, you do as much disservice to the sport as those who say they watch women’s tennis for reasons other than the tennis itself. Federer, Nadal, Djokovic don’t play doubles…except for DC. If Kournikova was so shallow, she would surely not have played a less lucrative format of the game. The truth is more complicated than that, but that would be an even bigger detour.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Anu Warrier
September 1, 2017
Anuja, you and me, both
Kay, at this point, why do we even bother? 😦
LikeLike
Anuja Chandramouli
September 1, 2017
What the hell!! UVY and Madan: Nobody is dissing Sharapova or Kournikova or a woman’s inalienable right to wear whatever the hell she feels like without incurring the risk of being dismissed as ‘talentless eye candy’ , rape bait and the rest of it. Geez, just clarifying this annoys me since at no point has it been asserted otherwise.
I was merely calling out the organizers and the world at large for valuing conventional physical beauty above all else (and no, that does not mean I claimed Serena is not ‘hot’). Wozniaki complained about this and with good reason.
https://www.google.co.in/amp/www.nydailynews.com/amp/sports/more-sports/wozniacki-slams-open-unacceptable-sharapova-scheduling-article-1.3458136
And just to be clear making a point of this nature does not mean that I have a nefarious agenda which includes burning all the bras and miniskirts in the world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
September 2, 2017
“without incurring the risk of being dismissed as ‘talentless eye candy’” – But you pretty much did that by suggesting they get centre court at the expense of more deserving players. Excuse me, do you really think Wozniacki is more deserving of playing on Arthur Ashe stadium than Sharapova? Why, was she recently benedicted with 6 slams to pip her past Sharapova? Slamless wonder is just whinging because Sharapova is a convenient target for now, especially for players who have achieved far less than her. OK, so you are telling me Sharapova is just a wild card and shouldn’t be getting matches on Arthur Ashe? Fine, but they did that for Roger Federer too when he came back for the Australian Open. His ranking didn’t merit putting him on AO but they did it, just like they always put Murray on Centre Court at Wimbledon, irrespective of everything else. The slams do value reputation in deciding who gets to play on the biggest show court. That may be discrimination of some sort but it is not driven by the need to attract those who want to ogle to Sharapova. Which brings me to the doping part….
Meldonium was legally permitted when Sharapova won her slams. She slipped up in the first slam post its being banned and was rightfully punished for it. But was she the only player who doped? Very unlikely. So, no, the fact that a very short tenure of suspension was handed out to her (and which too was cut short on appeal IIRC) means the nature of the offence itself was not serious (Hingis got five years for cocaine). Other players don’t occupy so vaunted moral high ground relative to Sharapova just because they were smart enough not to get caught. Kudos to them for being on top of business but that’s it. Anyway, meldonium or no meldonium, she beat Halep already and I hope to see her take down a few other big names and big mouths (would have loved for a Masha-Bouchard clash but ah Bouchard couldn’t make it past round 1), maybe win the title again. I am not a Sharapova fan at all but am sick of this Masha bashing post meldonium.
Re Kournikova, here’s Australian Open putting her on Court 2 but what do I know? Apparently always got put on Centre Court at the expense of more deserving players.
http://web.kitsapsun.com/archive/1999/01-21/0047_tennis__a_wild_kournikova_serves_.html
If you find it so irritating to clarify, then please be careful with your selection of words. Or maybe that is what you really think in which case I am going to call it out. Sharapova getting Arthur Ashe on her return is not some unjust enrichment on her part at the expense of other top players. She IS a top player and her ranking may soon reflect that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Aditya (Gradwolf)
September 2, 2017
Madan: If you are going to bring “reputation” in getting Centre Court privileges, a la Fed in AO or Andy in Wimbledon, then the “reputation” of Sharapova is also that of a doper. So you can put a Halep-Sharapova on AA but if Sharapova gets Arthur Ashe day after day for every match, that’s obviously some sort of misplaced validation for someone playing her first GS after suspension. Or let’s not even get to Sharapova. Bouchard, who is suing US Open for her fall in 2015(?), got Arthur Ashe and she is unseeded. This is obviously a conventional white blonde “market friendly” mechanics at work here for the North American audience. And let’s not pretend, markets don’t exist in vacuum. They are worked on and cultivated, and if you put more ATP on Show Courts, you can’t blame WTA and say not many people watch women’s tennis. It’s the same system followed here. Even yesterday, a Muguruza and American Sloane Stephens played on Armstrong while Sharapova stayed put on Ashe. I absolutely loathe Woz’s brand of tennis so I am no fan, but she is absolutely right in calling this out. At this instance, this part of 2017, with the kind of year Woz has had, yes, she is deserving of Ashe more than Sharapova. But according to them, even Bouchard, with her 2017, is more deserving than Woz. One match in the early rounds for a player like Woz would have righted this. Not even day after day. But it is bizarre that your sense of reasoning, which is what the organizers follow, is being stuck to on a daily basis.
LikeLike
Madan
September 2, 2017
@ Aditya: I agree completely about Bouchard. She simply should not be on AA; that is simply her sponsors conniving with the tournament to get her money back. I am not denying the white blonde marketing phenomenon but I object to using the Sharapova example simply because she has the achievements to back her popularity. You say doping is also a part of her ‘reputation’ and I don’t disagree but do the audience care? They have turned up anyway for Sharapova’s matches. So the US Open have put the money right where the mouth is here. Said another way, you can’t blame Hirani for making a film with Sanjay Dutt if the audience is prepared to buy the tickets.
As for Wozniacki, she has not mentioned Bouchard as far as I can tell so apparently she doesn’t mind Miss Nike (or is it Adidas) being put on AA just to turn up and get straight setted by the next nobody but objects to Sharapova getting AA? No, sorry, that I am going to call out as purely spite and nothing more. RG and Wimbledon had previously taken a tough stand and refused a wild card to Sharapova. What more do the players want?
LikeLike
Anuja Chandramouli
September 2, 2017
Occasionally there are comments that make you wanna bang your head on a wall and then somebody like Aditya(Gradwolf) posts his thoughts and all is well with the world again.
LikeLike
Iswarya
September 3, 2017
A big thank you to Anu Warrier, tonks, Rahini David, Prashila, Kay, Zola, Jyoti S Kumar, Aravindan and earlier Aditya (Gradwolf) for getting in touch, helping with their time, effort and money. I am so touched to know that you want a small project trying to create greater awareness about this near-universal malaise to succeed. Thought I should thank you all publicly and not just by email. <333
(I hope I have not left out anyone’s name, especially if you had helped anonymously. Thank you, all!)
LikeLike
GODZ
September 28, 2017
And So it Begins….
http://todaysmilitary.com/working/careers/infantry-officers
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/352243-marines-congratulate-first-female-infantry-officer-graduate
LikeLiked by 1 person
sanjana
September 29, 2017
I was searching for some nearly appropriate thread to post this.
http://www.ibtimes.co.in/t-rajendar-insults-dhansika-stage-leaves-her-tears-twiterrati-show-no-mercy-actor-video-743850
It seems there is nothing as dangerous as a man ignored by merely a woman. And that woman is reduced to tears.
LikeLike
Kay
September 30, 2017
His speech was in very poor taste.
LikeLike
RS Iyengar
October 20, 2019
The movie was flawed at many levels. Lack of consistency (Male lead) and clutching it straws for grandstanding (demonerisation) is another, even if on a voice over. The voice over was uniformly substandard, trying to pontificate but falling flat and a nuisance in the flow of the film. The 150 min+ run time of the film too too long.
LikeLike