(by Meera Ramanathan)
Before I begin my post, I want to call a truce. A firm believer in “we are all in this together” am hoping we can have healthy discussions devoid of judgement and name calling. We can agree to disagree and I strongly support your attempt to make argument even if I don’t buy into it. Without further ado…
Recently, Hasboro a multi million dollar toys and games juggernaut released a game called Ms.Monopoly. Without getting into how Ms Monopoly is pictured, I want to rather focus on the specifics of the game. In this female version of Monopoly (I don’t even understand what this means), female players start out with nineteen hundred dollars while male players receive fifteen hundred. Women receive two hundred and forty dollars for passing Go, but men are given the same two hundred dollars as in “standard” Monopoly. In my opinion, this is bullshit, not feminism. This is not empowerment but simply put, a gender bias.
I would like to think feminism started off as a cry for equality. If men are allowed to step out of the house to earn a wage, so should women. If men are allowed to ride a bus then so should women. You can see where this is going… For instance, in Vikram Vedha, when Madhavan meets Shraddha for the first time, he walks away because lawyer women are not his type. He then proceeds to the bar to order a whisky large. We then see Shraddha walk in and she also proceeds to order a whisky large. Madhavan then raises his glass to her and their relationship starts off from there. The makers give no explanation as to why Shraddha orders a whisky large. She doesn’t look very pissed, she is not overly disappointed with the policeman walking away… she just feels like having a drink and orders one. Madhavan also plays it neat. His reaction is sublime and all we get is the feeling that the ground has been leveled.
Cut to advantage. Feminism has gone from paving an equal path to giving an unfair advantage. It has become a excuse and is no longer a tangible goal. Movies like Veere di Wedding and our own 90 ml reinforce this agenda. My issue with 90 ml is not that it brought women together but booze took center stage. Magalir Mattum did the exact same thing sans alcohol. Alcohol is not the issue. Even if men bond over alcohol am not going to say its ok.. but because men are doing it, is it ok for women to join the bandwagon. If men have commitment issues, is it ok for women to also portray this? What is the point of being in a relationship if you are ready to move on quickly after a break-up? Is it now cool for women also to kiss and tell, sleep and exit? This simply sets the wrong tone.
I remember reading recently a tug-of-war of words between two commenters here and that is the seed of this post. Without mentioning names, the issue was with having relationships. Every relationship changes us as a person. We agree to this and this is applicable to both genders. Just because am a feminist if am going to argue that its ok for me to have as many relationships as men, this is a very lopsided argument. Akin to Samantha having an extra marital affair in Super Deluxe. That cannot be condoned. It is not ok for women to dress provocatively, it is not ok for women to use feminism as a shield for everything.
At the risk of rambling on, I want to cut the long story short.
I have a son and a daughter. It is my responsibility to raise my son with an awareness to treat women as his equal but it is also my duty to teach my daughter to not use gender as a excuse. Equality is a better word compared to feminism, don’t you think?
Baradwaj Rangan 
Sanjay Menon A R
September 23, 2019
Completely agree with you
This is why I like Maniratnam’s heroines more.Take for instance Revathi’s character from Anjali or Simran’s character in Kannathil Muthamittal.They are common next to door woman, they are House wife’s yet we get to see their inner strength when the time comes.Or take the city girl Tara from O K Kanmani.Mani Ratnam can should have made her smoke or booze.But he didn’t.The same is true with relationship’s.Take the O.k Kanmani climax for instance.There was so many people who criticized it.But Mani Ratnam doesn’t go on to prove that he is progressive.Instead he showed there is more meaning and beauty for a committed relationship.Even if we take Adithi’s character in KV she is not women who instantly breakup when relationship issues began.
I also found it paradoxical that we are speaking about toxic masculinity and at the same time it is considered feminist if women smoke or booze.I am not speaking about what is morally right and wrong.Every one had the right to do what they want.The question is simply about doing things sensibly.I think it is time where on-screen men are become more sensitive whereas women characters are more becoming like men.There is no need for a woman to do every shitty things that man do.
Finally thanks for the write-up.You pointed up many issues I have with some movies these days.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Santa
September 23, 2019
@Meera,
I’m genuinely confused by some of what you’re saying. You say that “Feminism has gone from paving an equal path to giving an unfair advantage,” but none of the examples you give actually support this claim.
If I’m interpreting you correctly, you consider bonding over alcohol, having extra-marital affairs, sleeping around, etc. as morally unacceptable. Fair enough; to each his/her own. But how is this in any manner giving an unfair advantage to women? It is only giving women an equal opportunity to be ‘immoral’, the same that has been given to men.
The point of feminism is not to make these acts seem moral or ‘cool’ (as you put it) to anyone. The point really is that women should not be held to a different standard than men. Hence, I can’t figure out why you feel that “this sets the wrong tone” for women? Or do you feel that women these days have more latitude in the ‘wrong’ behavior because of feminist overreach (because this is demonstrably false)?
Also, this statement really rubs me the wrong way, “It is not ok for women to dress provocatively, it is not ok for women to use feminism as a shield for everything.” You conflate these two by putting them in one sentence as if the two – dressing provocatively and using feminism as a shield – are equivalent. Without even getting into the subjectivity of what is provocative, the two are just not the same. I simply cannot see how dressing up a certain way is conferring any undue advantage to women.
LikeLiked by 13 people
Snail
September 23, 2019
Feminism is the theory of equality of the genders; equality is not an alternative to feminism.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Lakshmi M
September 23, 2019
Equality is certainly a better word. Feminism is going over board. Men should definitely respect women. Women should realise that respect is earned and not ordered. May be I belong to the old school of thought. Talk of feminism is becoming a bit too much.
LikeLike
Madan
September 23, 2019
Santa: Thank you for reading attentively and picking up that line. Yes. An article that started out with a legit if trivial premise turned into something else.
And I want to know as a guy what is wrong with alcohol bonding as long as nobody gets DRUNK. You CAN drink a peg or two and be perfectly coherent, not tipsy in the slightest. I don’t drink except for corporate compulsions but I know many from both genders who do and judging them for that comes across as puritanical.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Honest Raj
September 23, 2019
Sure, feminism advocates the equality of genders, but like any other movement it strives to attain that balance by reducing the inequalities. Plus, it’s important to understand that such movements operate from the POV of the marginalised/oppressed (women in this case).
About women smoking/boozing, I must admit that I, too, held similar views (and used to share jokes like ‘cancer is not sexist’) until 4-5 years ago. I’m about to hit 30 in a few weeks and have been a teetotaler all my life. All that said, I personally feel women (or any other gender for that matter) – of course I’m talking about adults – should have the freedom to smoke/booze (notwithstanding the fact that it’s injurious to health), at least in private spaces. For me, it’s more about the freedom of an individual than anything else. The change in collective conscience of the people to not judge a woman based on such acts is what makes the society truly empowered, IMO.
LikeLiked by 6 people
meera
September 23, 2019
Am not saying it’s an alternative but shdnt it be the starting point. Like you say, if it started off as a theory of equality, in my opinion it has definitely veered away… am just wondering if am imagining this or is it really the case
LikeLike
meera
September 23, 2019
The unfair advantage example is Ms monopoly.. am sure I can think of many such ones closer to reality. Let me explain more clearly.. the US elections completely derailed because people were under the notion that electing Hilary was more important than looking into her policies and character because of course we want to break the glass ceiling … you can see how dangerous this can become!
Like you say is giving women an equal opportunity to be immoral now also part of feminism? Now if it’s just about being in the movies then we are not going to break a sweat but hasn’t this spilled into real life too?
Now take for instance women who have really questionable sense of dressing.. am taking spilling cleavage and butt tight leggings. Are we not going to question this? Because of course a women can wear anything she wants? Am not getting into harassment and all of that but are we not even going to talk about dressing sensibly? There was father who came to pick up his kid in shorts that looked like boxers.. while I was stumped my son said there are plenty of women who wear shorts shorter than that and what was the big deal? You see where we are at? This can easily spiral out…
LikeLike
meera
September 23, 2019
That he did not show Tara getting drunk is why he is a legend 👍
LikeLike
shemz
September 23, 2019
I fail to understand what you refer to as advantage in the article. Also, what does it mean to use gender as an excuse. I don’t understand your point about alcohol and relationships.
It is not about using feminism as an excuse to do all that men do. It is about being judged on the same scale as men. Why is there the underlying note that- it is bad for men to drink but it is worse for women? Should it not be bad or worse for both ? That’s feminism.
Also I don’t think for a minute that some people don’t understand that Feminism is about Equality. They just pretend not to.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Rahini David
September 23, 2019
There is this neat little forward video in which a coach or physical trainer makes every one to stand in a line and take a long step forward if they have certain privileges like they have a car or their parents were educated. The white students keep moving forward while the Black student remain where they are. In one or two cases a random Black student may step forward but by and large it becomes apparent that the Black students have had the largest chunk of set backs. The race then begins and then a bit of a speech on privilege.
A monopoly that pays men and women differently isn’t all bad. It is an idea. It shows people what it feels like if they are given an INHERENT disadvantage because of their sex.
That too so openly. It would be a good “Women’s Day” game. Make 2 men and 2 women play the game. At first they will laugh and shout “reverse sexism” and “discrimination” and after a 20 minute game discuss why the game was skewed to the women’s advantage and initiate a discussion about privilege. Resolve to keep it sane.
But I would definitely say that putting this board game out there is like shooting oneself on the leg. Did those who marketed this product not foresee that there will be accusations of sexism? It surely sounds incredibly condescending.
Also, it would really help if we discussed one male-vs.-female privilege discussion at a time. It is a complicated topic and can get derailed at the best of times. We often include pay-disparity, leggings, booze, drugs, cigarettes, swear words, beauty pageants and sleeping around into the same equation and then wonder why the equation doesn’t seem to tally.
LikeLiked by 7 people
sorenkierky
September 23, 2019
I mean I have my serious objections to such class-structure-preserving-feminism, but setting that aside for a sec
First of all, this is such a confused piece. The women in usual male-dominated spaces kinda thing is interesting because women are disproportionately judged for it. Men get infinte ‘sarakku scene’ movies – but for one or two depictions of women drinking, are we really gonna raise a ruckus about this?
And the point is not that drinking/smoking etc. is desirable, just that women and men shouldn’t be held to a different standard. That’s about it.
And what in god’s name is women “dressing provocatively”? The article really went on a downward spiral and got victim blamey (and pretty much highlights the point re: different standards) at the end, didn’t it.
LikeLiked by 9 people
Madan
September 23, 2019
” the US elections completely derailed because people were under the notion that electing Hilary was more important than looking into her policies and character ” – I disagree and whatever her character flaws were surely pale in comparison to Trump. I am not anti-everything Trump has done but that’s another topic altogether. Hilary lost because Robbie Mook thought he could somehow run the Obama Rainbow coalition for her without understanding that as a white woman and a one time Goldwater Republican, that strategy wouldn’t work for her. Hilary herself has to also take the blame for relying so much on poll-tested messages supplied by her campaign team than her own instincts. That makes her not so great a politician. But not necessarily a bad leader. Again, that’s a whole other topic for another day; it’s an endemic flaw in democracy that the guy or girl (Indira Gandhi anyone?) best at firing up an angry base to flood the poll booths wins with no relevance for his or her ability to actually govern the nation.
“Now take for instance women who have really questionable sense of dressing.. am taking spilling cleavage and butt tight leggings. Are we not going to question this?” – Well, firstly, as a woman, YOU can, I can’t, that’s how it rolls. Secondly, it is helpful to get specific about what you’re talking about as you have done here. But if you just say provocative, it’s too general. Anything could be provocative. And talking about what is provocative puts all the onus on women to not provoke men into doing XYZ when it may not even have to do with how they are dressed. Just say that men and women should dress appropriately for the occasion. That’s not about rights or privileges; that’s about being classy and civilised, period. If a woman wears a bikini to office, I am not going to turn her away even if I were the highest ranked worker in that office but I WILL think her an attention seeker or at the very least, somebody who has no dress sense at all. End of.
LikeLiked by 2 people
meera
September 24, 2019
Oh did it? Am sure am quoting a lot of points under the umbrella of feminism… but if I can articulate the dressing provocatively part, you will understand where am coming from… this has become a hindrance in corporate environments… am not saying only women have to be conscious about professional work wear.. it applies to both sexes but the choices become questionable only on one side.
Also just because men get sarakku scene it is ok for women also to try this out? There are infinite sarakku scenes that are woven into the story.. take that out and it won’t make sense but do we want to these Scenes to be woven into the story just because they are cool?
LikeLike
meera
September 24, 2019
Now this makes sense and I agree.. we shd choose to discuss one topic and of course we need not reach an agreement. I think the point was to see different perspectives.. because it is my opinion that “feminism” is getting derailed and am using movies as a nexus to this but of course you can see this in a totally different light. The idea was to have that conversation! (As always you are on the bulls eye rahini.. )
LikeLiked by 1 person
Isai
September 24, 2019
As soon as I finished reading this article, I felt like disagreeing with many things mentioned in it. Since many of these have already been mentioned, I will restrict myself to repeating that it is important to treat both men and women using the same yardstick and allow adults to decide on their own standards of morality. While the many ‘It is not ok’ things mentioned by the author can be taught by her to her children, it is unreasonable to expect that all women/adults should adhere to these same values. One of my favorite quotes about women is by Carrie Bradshaw: “Maybe some women aren’t meant to be tamed. Maybe they just need to run free until they find someone just as wild to run with them.”
LikeLiked by 6 people
Santa
September 24, 2019
@Meera,
Responding to a couple of questions you’ve posed:
“giving women an equal opportunity to be immoral now also part of feminism?”
Answer is an unequivocal Yes. Mind you, this doesn’t mean that immoral now needs to be considered as moral just because women are doing it. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, it only means that the standard of morality (when it comes to relationships, drinking, promiscuity, etc.) should be the same for both men and women. Women shouldn’t be judged and/or scorned for such behavior if men are routinely getting a pass.
” women who have really questionable sense of dressing.. are we not going to question this? Because of course a women can wear anything she wants?”
Again, the answer is an unequivocal Yes. Who are we to question how any individual choose to dress? Moreover, what is questionable really depends on the situation. What one wears at the beach is different from what one wears at work which is different from what one wears at a party and so on. Basically there are social norms for what is considered appropriate dressing in different situations, and that is fine. What is not fine, IMO, is having different social norms for men and women. To put it somewhat graphically, if it is acceptable for men to wear tight briefs at the beach showing of their butt-crack and more, then it should be acceptable for women to show off their cleavage if they choose to do so.
LikeLiked by 7 people
Amit Joki
September 24, 2019
“Even if men bond over alcohol am not going to say its ok.. but because men are doing it, is it ok for women to join the bandwagon.”
YES.
“If men have commitment issues, is it ok for women to also portray this?”
YES.
“What is the point of being in a relationship if you are ready to move on quickly after a break-up? Is it now cool for women also to kiss and tell, sleep and exit?”
YES.
Don’t women bond over alcohol or anyother party drink? Yes they do, or at least I’ve seen them do at least in Hollywood films.
Don’t women have commitment issues? What is this stereotype that only men have this commitment issue? Women have it too and there’s nothing wrong in it to portray it on screen.
I’ve seen numerous films where the girls are like, “Tell me all the details, was he good in bed?” IMO, this is a subtle form of sleep and tell.
And there are lots of people who sleep around for various reasons and there’s nothing wrong in it except morally perhaps but sleeping around isn’t a “man” thing either.
Also all the above instances isn’t exactly “COOL” as you define it. It is just how you interpret it. For me, that’s a realistic portrayal of how things are. Nothing cool about it. When I see Oviya in 90ML I don’t think, “Oh she’s so cool cause she drinks alcohol!” but I see a, “Hmm, girls like what Oviya is portraying do exist and why don’t we get this more in our cinemes?”
LikeLiked by 8 people
Rahul
September 24, 2019
What a terrific article, agree with every word. And what a generous writer who STRONGLY supports arguments against her article even when she does not BUY into it.
While feminists rally against income disparity, violence against women , rape culture , misogyny in arts and cinema, is there any feminist who is speaking against MS MONOPOLY ?
Where are THOSE feminists?
If the existence of MS MONOPOLY is not a proof of Feminism gone astray then what is?
Its good that there are people like the writer of this piece , Ben Shapiro and Jordan Petersen etc. who are standing up for men. Till now we have identified 3 MAJOR issues threatening the existence of men . (Two are from some other article on this blog, I forget which one)
Ms Monopoly
Women competing in separate categories in carrom
3 Women competing in separate categories in chess
I hope there is some international level of activism against these 3 major issues, otherwise the future of men is bleak
LikeLiked by 3 people
Isai
September 24, 2019
Rahul, since you had mentioned my carrom and chess comment, let me ‘mansplain’. Games & Sports in our country are organized at district, state, national and asian/global levels. If you win at the district level, you not only win prize money but also your district will fund your expenses to participate at the state level, thus giving you more exposure and better opportunities. This is very important, especially if you belong to a middle or a lower middle class family. This process continues at the higher levels too. You also get trained at special coaching camps so that you can give your best for the state etc. Winning competitions at the National+ levels can get you admissions through sports quota at the best colleges in the state like CEG guindy. Let’s say a girl and her brother start playing carrom at the same young age. Both of them have the same genes, environment, opportunities and privileges. The boy is consistently better than his sister. But while she becomes a district champion, he doesn’t. Keep in mind that both boys and girls section had almost equal number of participants, so this is not a case of lack of representation. This continues, the girl wins prizes at the national level while the boy, despite being a better player, has to be content being in the top 10 list in his state. The girl uses these certificates to get into CEG Guindy and then she gets a cushy job at the women’s team in a PSU that enables her to continue playing the game professionally. Despite the lack of these incentives and opportunities, the guy continues to pursue the game since it is his passion, still consistently plays better than his sister and wonders how much better his life would have been if he was born as a girl. Now this may not be a species threatening issue but I think this is a more important pay parity issue than that of top female athletes and movie stars who already earn in crores. I will address that in a separate comment.
I am a bit sad that you conflated such a career issue with a time pass game like monopoly. Even there, I don’t see any comment, except Rahini’s, acknowledging that this can be wrong in its current form. (I really liked Rahini’s idea about using this to teach children about privilege.) I think this is as problematic as giving only mechanical trucks and faux laptops to baby boys while giving only dolls and kitchen sets to baby girls. While I have seen many articles condemning that, when a similar issue is raised about Ms Monopoly, where it is disadvantageous to boys, it is at best met with silence and indifference or at worst condemned as being as too insignificant to be even worthy of discussion.
And feminists are not rallying only for critical issues that you had mentioned. Some of them are also causing problems that are detailed in this article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/30/feminists-treat-men-badly-its-bad-for-feminism/
People do have the right to raise these concerns without being subjected to hostility and misdirected anger. I wish that such persons (feminists or otherwise) vent out their frustration at the people who are actually causing them problems instead of misdirecting that anger towards random bloggers who are only interested in having a reasonable discussion.
Lastly, I think all that the author of this article meant was that “while these are my views currently, they are not set in stone. In fact, I am keen to read opposing viewpoints and hence encourage you to comment”. While you may not need this encouragement/support, your hostility and sarcasm stems from misunderstanding that para and is unwarranted.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Rahini David
September 24, 2019
I personally have nothing of value to add to the carom and chess discussion. I never followed any sport with interest and know next to nothing about it.
But whenever I hear or read comments that begin with “What have you feminists done about THIS…?” I think the same thing.
Feminists are not drawing salary because we are feminists. We don’t have regular weekly meetings and appraisals and hikes for being feminists. We are not a corporation that is rolling in money. We don’t have magical resources. We don’t have magical opportunities. We don’t have magical methods. We don’t have magical abilities.
We are just as ordinary as the non-feminist women who are proud of being the Yin to their men’s Yang.
If you think something needs to be done about those few women who get undue attention in chess or carom. Then please initiate the due action that you think we “FEMINISTS” should have taken decades ago.
LikeLiked by 5 people
brangan
September 24, 2019
Rahini David: I am utterly devastated to learn that you do not have any magical abilities. It’s like realising Santa is just a story 😦
LikeLiked by 8 people
Rahul
September 24, 2019
Isai, what makes you think that the writer of this piece wasn’t being sarcastic herself ? Opening with Ms Monopoly and dragging feminists and feminists seems to be rather a good beginning for a sarcastic piece, no?
I also read this interact which reinforces my belief that she is being sarcastic –
“There was father who came to pick up his kid in shorts that looked like boxers.. while I was stumped my son said there are plenty of women who wear shorts shorter than that and what was the big deal? You see where we are at? This can easily spiral out…”
(spiral out into what? )
However, if it turns out that she was serious about all this then I will request to delete my interacts, as you have said, its the RIGHT to express opinion without being subject to sarcasm.
Now coming to chess and carrom, and even the issues raised in this article(if this is indeed seriously written) – I also don’t mind people discussing or bringing up issues that they wish to. But excuse me for not taking this seriously when it just becomes an excuse to drag feminists \ feminism. I do not see the point to engage.
Here is an article for you by the way –
https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/mens-chess-superiority-explained-08-12-29/
LikeLiked by 1 person
meera
September 24, 2019
Isn’t have a conversation about this a good starting point?
LikeLike
meera
September 24, 2019
@Isai… you have nailed my motive behind this article… am sometimes confused, rattled and discouraged at how far we’ve come and how much we are meandering… so it’s more of a course correction but my article wants to understand if this course correction required or is it just in my mind. But mikka nandri 🙏
LikeLike
Isai
September 24, 2019
Rahini, you just said that you don’t follow any sport with interest and know next to nothing about it. Then I wonder how you concluded that it is only a FEW women who get undue attention in chess or carrom? In fact, my comment was not even about attention, it was about giving equal career opportunities. This impacts lakhs of people around the world and I don’t think that’s trivial. And there was no call for action in any of the comments. I was just waiting to see if feminists are even willing to acknowledge this as unfair.
My comments about feminists usually stem from a desire to explain and convince myself on why I don’t belong to this group and not due to any grievance or antagonism towards them.
I don’t have a problem if feminists are to be considered only as members of women’s advocacy group. That is how I see them. Just like how a trade association or a worker’s union work to further the interests of its members, I expect feminists to speak and act in the interest of/for the betterment of women. My support for them is not immediate/unconditional and is rather based on their actions and the issue at hand.
The problem is that the stated goal of feminism is to achieve equality of sexes. Now, nobody likes to be discriminated against. So, mature people interested in seeing a just world would want equality everywhere and hence would naturally support feminism in its truest sense. So do I. Herein lies the dilemma.
That is why I sometimes raise issues where men are affected or are at a disadvantage and wait for the reaction of the self declared feminists. If/When they refuse to acknowledge it or attempt to trivialise/belittle it or perceive my comment as an attempt to divert the attention from their burning problem and retain the status quo, I am again convinced that under the garb of equality, this group works ONLY for furthering women’s interests and at times even elevates women’s interests above men’s. And that’s not a totally bad thing. It is just that rather than joining them, I would wish them good luck and watch them from the sidelines.
LikeLiked by 2 people
meera
September 24, 2019
Oohhh the sarcasm… why this kolaveri..
LikeLike
meera
September 24, 2019
Finally some light 💡 … so the movies in itself aren’t bad but are takeaways could be… agreed!!
Now one question for you…(partly because am guessing your answer will open a perspective for me)
oviya in 90ml is just a character but Arjun reddy is not? He is representative of misogyny and et al? Am not trying to sound condescending etc.. but keen to listen to your views..
LikeLike
meera
September 24, 2019
So there is no universal yardstick – Agreed! Am not being judgemental but pondering on how to draw that line… between what is acceptable and do your own thing…
LikeLike
Amit Joki
September 24, 2019
meera: I think Arjun Reddy is a character alright. I never joined the bandwagon that said that it was representational of all of man’s sins.
But let’s dig in now shall we. His character WAS troublesome. Oviya’s character is not. Oviya’s character is what is normalcy if we didn’t have this self-righteous kalaacharam thing going on and it is normal in better cities like Mumbai, Bengaluru and in almost all of Western cities I think.
But Arjun Reddy’s character itself is a culmination of various flaws that plagues the men-and-women debate, misogyny, entitlement, et al, and hence people view it as a microcosm of it and hence it kinda become representational.
In other words, I’d love to hang out with Oviya (read Oviya’s character and who am I kidding, Oviya herself) all time every time. But I’d have serious concerns hanging out with Arjun Reddy.
Arjun Reddy is that character which has all the ills that the feminists debate about so it becomes a representation of what plagues them.
Oviya’s character is representational too, but of normal metropolitan girls, and I see no problem there, unless you think Oviya’s character is not normal and people shouldn’t be like that.
There’s nothing ill about Oviya’s character and if I had a sister I wouldn’t mind if she thought after watching 90ML, “Damn, I feel like I can be like her!”
But if I had a brother, I wouldn’t want him to say the same of Arjun Reddy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Rahini David
September 24, 2019
Isai: My comment wasn’t directed to you. It was to Rahul’s “Where are THOSE feminists?”
If many men are affected by this I apologize to you for using the word “few” and to all the men affected by this.
LikeLike
sorenkierky
September 24, 2019
//but if I can articulate the dressing provocatively part, you will understand where am coming from… this has become a hindrance in corporate environments…//
I have little regard for.. um.. “corporate environment”, but again, keeping that aside, what exactly is it though?
//am not saying only women have to be conscious about professional work wear.. it applies to both sexes but the choices become questionable only on one side.//
But “dressing provocatively” is regardless loaded and sexist, tbh. You hardly hear people complaining about “provocative dressing” by men. Key word being – ‘provocative’. I can understand people pragmatically doing whatever is necessary to survive though, but baffling how these standards that apply to women are just absurdly different. Which is what I’m focusing on now.
//Also just because men get sarakku scene it is ok for women also to try this out? There are infinite sarakku scenes that are woven into the story.. take that out and it won’t make sense but do we want to these Scenes to be woven into the story just because they are cool?//
Uhm, I can’t recally any sarakku scene (in recent memory, save for a very few) which are in any way relevant to the story. It’s usually getting drunk and just , and that’s supposedly shown as “funny” or “cool”. And when a woman is shown to be drinking (again, how many movies can we think of really, where that happens?) it’s always an exception – but you can see the outrage that happens when they do, on screen cough 90ML cough.
The point is not even about virtues or vices of drinking – or even the individual freedom vs responsibility or whatever. I don’t intend to go off on a tangent here. It’s about how women are held to a different standard (and you’re not doing anything different here, tbqh)
LikeLiked by 3 people
Amit Joki
September 24, 2019
It is just an observation and there’s no animosity in this, but I think the hue and cry for women’s representation is only in places where there’s no categorization based on the gender.
Like, a few days ago, there were a group of people who were irked by the fact that the Fortune’s 100 Innovators had just 1 woman.
If Fortune had categorized it with Fortune’s Top 100 Men Innovators and Fortune’s Top 100 Women Innovators, the above said group would be satisfied, but of course the LGBTQ would find problems, it is a never ending cycle.
Also, this thing crops up in ways of patriarchy that supposedly keeps women from getting into higher posts. I am not saying there isn’t some gender bias, I am sure there is, but the guy who is holding the high post isn’t holding it purely due to his gender, is he?
It is more like, “If he gets X, I also want X”. That mentality is ok if “He adds Y value and I add Y value”.
It is not like women aren’t in high posts. It is not a conspiracy to avoid having women in higher posts, it is just the way it is.
In film industry, for example, the Friends cast (Aniston, Courtney, Cudrow, Le Blanc, Matthew Perry and David Schwimmer) were equally paid and receive equal monetary benefits of the TV and web-airing rights amounting to 20 Million per year and that’s a fair thing to do because each of the 6 have added equal value to the show Friends.
But it is wrong to expect whoever is playing James Bond and the Bond Woman should be paid the same. The value they offer is vastly different.
The equal pay should be based on the outcome rather than the gender.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahini David
September 24, 2019
On the whole I think I don’t understand who is saying what sarcastically in this thread.
Maybe this part of the thread can be understood only if i had paid attention to some other thread which I apparently didn’t follow.
Apologies to Rahul too. As he seems to be saying the same as me, Just sarcastically.( I think.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Madan
September 24, 2019
” so it’s more of a course correction but my article wants to understand if this course correction required or is it just in my mind.”- Of course a course correction is required but it is a different kind of correction in the American vis a vis the Indian context. You’re talking about a board game that’s newly launched THERE. I don’t know if it’s even available here in the first place (I looked up on amazon.in and it isn’t there, at least didn’t show up in the first several searches) and even if and when it is, what will be the appetite for it at all.
I don’t think Miss Monopoly is a particularly good example for reasons I will return to but keeping that aside, I do think the narrative has gone a little out of control on the Left there and this isn’t even specific to feminism but the general PC doctrine. But in India? Female workforce participation rates – already very low – has been dropping. It is also lower than in Bangladesh. Why do we need to get alarmed about what’s happening over at Berkeley when in fact, in India, there is still a very long way to go yet?
The course correction HERE, rather, needs to be in the direction of both more equity as well as better safety for women. I don’t care how many Indian men want to feel threatened or offended or both by woke narratives; the reality is starkly different. Just where I work (and it’s a blue chip company, I’ll have you know), there used to be a senior chap who retired not long ago and he loved handshakes…with women. Once on a late working day, he offered to drop a colleague home and she got so uncomfortable she sought our help to make up a story where a relative was going to pick her up (in reality, another male colleague – one she trusted – dropped her). I don’t know where you live but even in Mumbai, not a lot of women will feel comfortable walking anything beyond a short distance alone late at night. Doesn’t even have to be a sexual assault offence; women are easier targets for robbery and more rewarding too because they wear expensive ornaments. I mean, let’s get the fundamentals right before we talk about the need for a pushback against feminist excess?
Now coming back to Miss Monopoly, it is JUST a game. It is not a statutory imposition. It is OK for one board game product to experiment with such concepts; that does not amount to being told that henceforth, men will always have to give a handicap to women else they are bigoted. IF the latter truly materialises, well, prepare for Trump dynasty rule; Ivanka or Jr after Donnie’s done. But we’re not there quite yet, I guess. If anything, I expect the correction to happen gradually now because the liberal side doesn’t want expensive casualties like Justin Trudeau. Ah, and don’t forget that Sleepy Joe (or should we say Creepy Joe) is the Democrats’ idea of highly electable candidate. Suddenly, this cancel culture thingy doesn’t look so nice anymore and Van Jones wants us to not talk about the distant past, you know like when Joe was surprised by how articulate Obama was (unlike, presumably, Frederic Douglass, James Baldwin or MLK).
Even if there is no correction, as I said, it’s America, not India. We can discuss the problem in both contexts but it will have to be separate to be meaningful.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Nathan
September 24, 2019
In years to come, the epitaph of many a social activist shall read “Death by Whataboutism”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Isai
September 24, 2019
Rahul, as per the logic of “since many more men play, there’s a wider range of abilities, meaning more individuals at the very top.” Indian/ South Asian cricketers should always dominate the icc top 30 individual rankings. But we know that it doesn’t happen that way and there are multiple reasons for it. Similarly I think there are a combination of factors that has resulted in the current male superiority in chess and simplistic reasons given by statisticians are not the full explanation. As they say, there are lies, damned lies and statistics.
LikeLike
Rahul
September 25, 2019
“Indian/ South Asian cricketers should always dominate the icc top 30 individual rankings.”
No, it just means , everything else being equal, India will have more players who can COMPETE at that level than other countries. You get diminishing returns pretty quickly when it comes to added ability per extra individual. Top 30 players in a population of millions will be outliers – of UNUSUALLY extreme ability – and hence you cannot correlate their number with number of people playing.,
” As they say, there are lies, damned lies and statistics.”
Would it be fair to say that statistics is not your area of interest? Feel free to continue to bait feminism\feminists but at the very least an article published by Scientific American has given a REASONABLE explanation to why men perform better than women in chess and that there is a valid feminist angle to this. If you have other theories about this feel free to submit in the next Readers Write In.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahul
September 25, 2019
One correction- The number of extreme outliers will be proportional to the sample size but their ranking with respect to each other will become less significant as both sample sizes grow bigger.
Here is another article that describes the methodology.
https://phys.org/news/2009-01-men-higher-women-chess-biological.html
Not sure how the same methods will be applicable to cricket because of the huge difference in sample sizes.
Secondly, this study was done within one country where all other conditions are equal . Across countries there will be many other variables to consider.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
September 25, 2019
Rahul: One thing is not clear from that study, since it’s relying only on ELO. Did the top 100 women also play against men? Because if the ELO is derived purely from gender segregated matches, it does not establish anything either way. Although, sans scientific evidence, I agree with the broad thrust, that as more women play chess, they will produce champions able to compete with the elite men. It may also be noted that most MEN playing high level chess lose to the elite men anyway. That is, the sample selection is already notoriously small and subject to an element of chance. A Vishwanathan Anand coming up did not pave the way for utter domination of chess by India just the same as Becker and Graf didn’t for Germany in tennis.
LikeLike
Isai
September 25, 2019
“Would it be fair to say that statistics is not your area of interest?”
Yes, it would be.
But unfortunately I have learnt enough of it to fully comprehend what was said in the articles that you had shared. I am neither dismissing the Scientific American article nor supporting claims of innate male intellectual superiority. I am only saying that while statistics can give many useful insights, not all real world phenomena can be explained fully by it (ex: Why do Kenya and Ethiopia dominate in long-distance running?). Also, at times statistical parameters can be tweaked/cherry picked to showcase different results. I apologize for the damned lies remark if you or any other reader here works as a statistician. It was posted in the spur of the moment.
Now, coming to the articles that you had shared, I still fail to understand why the methodology used for comparing men and women in chess cannot be used for Cricket by comparing Team A and Team B. (Where Team A can be any or all of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Srilanka while Team B can be any or all of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and England). If you want, you can also restrict the chess populations to only some countries like India or Russia such that population of male chess players is equivalent to population of Team A and of women to that of Team B. Irrespective of how you do the math, I can easily guesstimate that Team B is doing much better than women in chess. (Only 3 women have ever got into the Top 100 Rankings).
As far an alternative explanation, I would suggest that you read the ‘Life Outside Chess’ para in wiki page of of Hou Yifan, the current number 1 ranked woman in the chess world. It ends with “She said in 2018: “I want to be the best, but you also have to have a life.”
LikeLike
shaviswa
September 25, 2019
@Rahul you can use a t-test to compare the two populations and with a sample of size 30 or more, you can actually test if the two means are the same. Most likely the two means wouldn’t be the same indicating that they are from two different population distributions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Honest Raj
September 26, 2019
@Rahul: I’m not sure the author’s point (the invalidation of “men are the better players” theory) holds good as it heavily relies on “ifs/buts/maybes”. More to the point, this argument is very much flawed:
“As more women play, a few should also reach those extremes, right out there with the men.”
Even then, it only tells us that the creme de la creme among women are as (or perhaps more) smarter as their men counterparts. But the problem here is that both authors are essentially trying to test and prove their hypothesis just by comparing the outliers’ of both samples. Second, “the next 70 or so pairs showed a small advantage for the men” tells us that men generally outperform women (as rightly pointed out in the article). Also, when we go for more samples, the measures of central tendency (of rating) are unlikely to go up, which only disproves whatever both authors are trying to claim.
Isai: “Similarly I think there are a combination of factors that has resulted in the current male superiority in chess and simplistic reasons given by statisticians are not the full explanation.”
While I’m in agreement with you on this, the cricket analogy is inaccurate for the simple reason that rankings in both sports are computed in different ways.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Honest Raj
September 26, 2019
@Isai: About cricket, I now get your point. Thanks to you and Rahul for bringing up this topic – this is such a fascinating discussion. 🙂
LikeLike
Isai
September 26, 2019
I have a query about ‘dressing for advantage’ in corporate environments. At the outset, let me reiterate that both men and women should be held to the same standards and that NOTHING justifies invading anyone’s personal space or berating someone for their dressing/appearance or even treating them any differently.
Having said that, I wish to know WOMEN’s views on this topic. I do understand that some women may wear tight or revealing clothes TO WORK for many reasons like they feel comfortable in those clothes or they have a date after work etc. Perhaps some even took the maxim ‘Aal paadhi, aadai paadhi’ too literally.
It would be great if any woman who has worked in a corporate environment for atleast a few years can comment on whether she has seen any woman whom she believes wore tight or revealing clothes mainly to impress male powerholders like bosses or clients etc. If you haven’t seen any such women, a simple ‘No, never’ would suffice. If you have, it would be great if you can also mention how often (%) were they successful in their objective?
Lately, I have been hearing comments similar to Meera’s and wish to know if such a problem even exists and if yes how common it is.
LikeLike
Arjun
September 26, 2019
Chess at the highest level is as much a physical sport as mental. Statistical comparison of the genders in physical abilities such as strength and speed show both variance as well as kurtosis (tail of the distributon, i.e. extreme outliers) to be greater in the case of men than women. This probably explains men’s chess superiority more than anything.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/27593253/why-grandmasters-magnus-carlsen-fabiano-caruana-lose-weight-playing-chess%3fplatform=amp
“In October 2018, Polar, a U.S.-based company that tracks heart rates, monitored chess players during a tournament and found that 21-year-old Russian grandmaster Mikhail Antipov had burned 560 calories in two hours of sitting and playing chess — or roughly what Roger Federer would burn in an hour of singles tennis.
Robert Sapolsky, who studies stress in primates at Stanford University, says a chess player can burn up to 6,000 calories a day while playing in a tournament, three times what an average person consumes in a day. Based on breathing rates (which triple during competition), blood pressure (which elevates) and muscle contractions before, during and after major tournaments, Sapolsky suggests that grandmasters’ stress responses to chess are on par with what elite athletes experience.”
“Grandmasters sustain elevated blood pressure for hours in the range found in competitive marathon runners,” Sapolsky says.”
LikeLike
Isai
September 26, 2019
“Chess at the highest level is as much a physical sport as mental.”
In a mainly physical sport like say Tennis, Men have a significant natural advantage since they have better muscle mass, larger hearts, greater blood volume, more red blood cells, greater lung capacity and they are on average, taller. Hence they get more speed, power and stamina. So, it would be unfair to expect women to compete with men and when they do try, it mostly results in disappointment like Karsten Braasch vs Williams.
Chess is a sedentary game and since the top grandmasters spend a lot of time training ie just sitting, they try to stay fit by maximising their remaining time through exercise (ie) a chess player only needs to be as fit as a healthy normal guy but since they are sedentary and face a lot more stress, they use exercises that they like, to compensate for the sedentariness and to keep them refreshed. Other things mentioned like neck posture etc. give them only a miniscule advantage, but at the highest levels, where millions are involved, one tries to get every bit of advantage, irrespective of how little it is. If chess was as much as a physical sport, a 13 year old Carlsen wouldn’t have been able to get a draw with Kasparov who was at his peak.
Even otherwise, all the things that you mentioned can also be equally done by women and unlike tennis, there is no natural advantage for men. So, your argument about physicality is totally wrong.
“In October 2018, Polar, a U.S.-based company that tracks heart rates, monitored chess players during a tournament and found that 21-year-old Russian grandmaster Mikhail Antipov had burned 560 calories in two hours of sitting and playing chess”
It monitored many players right. Why didn’t it release the average? Why is it selectively using 1 result to project a distorted image? This is like saying Acting is a more highly physically demanding profession than Tennis. Kolaar, an Indian company that makes weight machines, monitored the weight of actors in 10 bollywood movies and found that Aamir Khan, a 52 year old actor had lost 13 kilos in 3 weeks, which is much more than what any top tennis player would lose during the grand slams.
Trust me, if every top chess player burns as much calories as mentioned above, then Kasparov would have gained a lot more weight after quitting chess 14 years ago or would have really struggled to reduce 70% of his usual diet intake and we would have known about it. Also, considering their fitness levels, Kramnik or Karpov wouldn’t have become world champions and Judith Polgar wouldn’t have been able to beat Kasparov when he was number 1. I think the above leaked news is just a marketing gimmick mainly to attract young girls to chess (Play chess to lose weight!). Even if we still take it as absolute truth, women can also lose and gain calories as much as men and mostly sustain same BP, breathing rate etc. This doesn’t give men any strong pysical advantage, unlike say Tennis.
When I see articles like this ( https://www.bustle.com/articles/103561-are-men-really-better-at-tennis-than-women-nope-according-to-statistics-women-are-just) which use dubious logic, I am again reminded of my damned lies remark.
LikeLiked by 1 person
meera
September 26, 2019
@Amit: I’m never saying people shouldn’t be like that… and am not speaking from a self righteous POV at all.
I understand your argument and also agree that AR pushed it a bit too far… but am okay to leave it as just a movie and not debate about whether more and more men are going to become like AR… that is the same rule for 90ml also.
Actually your responses have cleared a bit of the grey area for me so thanks for that!
LikeLike
meera
September 26, 2019
Thumbs up!!!
LikeLike
Rahini David
September 26, 2019
Isai: A comely dress cannot secure a promotion. That is something I am completely convinced of.
But a woman with a good figure who can combine a taste for dressing with a bit of daring, it is more of a status symbol. It is a kind of statement that says “Absolutely none of you here can pull this off, So I stand alone.” After all, not every woman looks the same while showing skin.
I have neither seen women who were dressing to please their higher ups. Nor have I seen men brain-dead enough to promote a woman because of said reasons. I am sure that is a myth.
That said, I have (on one instance) seen a young girl make smitten young men do her coding for her. I could see that she switched on charm at will to get stuff done and that it worked. But she did not do it by showing skin or with tight clothes. She just had the knack of looking like a frightened doe and that the men around her helped with her work. It is not something that could have taken her far. She is not into coding now. She took a different career path. That was a marvelous decision. Growth is possible only in the path that you are good at.
Also, prettier women in higher positions will often attract more gossips or speculations than their more plain looking counterparts. It can become a marked disadvantage if anything.
ENTIRELY my opinion. Also, I can’t talk about positions where charisma/looks play a huge role anyway.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
September 26, 2019
“I have neither seen women who were dressing to please their higher ups. Nor have I seen men brain-dead enough to promote a woman because of said reasons. ” – I HAVE seen one, only one, case where the man promoted a woman ahead of a man with many more years of experience in the same field. Biggest irony was this was in HR. Oh, but I don’t think he did that BECAUSE of how she dressed (given she was always dressed professionally and conservatively at work). She looked pretty in anything she wore. And he looked handsome in boring formals; he was a tall, blonde Scotsman. Not shortly after this promotion, he got sent back to America.
But what you said about prettier women attracting gossip even when they are really good at their job is also true. The solution is very cliche but, simply, hire more women. When I used to be with a Big Four firm, there was a Senior Manager level person who was quite attractive and who had dated somebody who went on to become a Partner. I NEVER heard any innuendo in the direction of “oh, she is SM simply because she dated him” and the reason for that was the firm had pretty much as many female employees as male.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Shadow
September 26, 2019
@Isai
“It would be great if any woman who has worked in a corporate environment for atleast a few years can comment on whether she has seen any woman whom she believes wore tight or revealing clothes mainly to impress male powerholders like bosses or clients etc.”
I worked in the software industry for five years and this was my personal experience.
No women wore particularly revealing clothes. Some women did like to wear form-fitting clothes, but I think that was a personal preference, not something they did keeping the male gaze in mind. Teenagers are probably more likely to dress to impress when they first start getting hormonal and begin to experience attraction and things like that. In a professional setting, just like most men dress to feel comfortable while also looking presentable, most women do too. I doubt there are many women who wake up in the morning and browse through their wardrobe thinking about how to look sexy for their male colleagues when they have a thousand other things to worry about. That’s not to say that there are no women who would do that, but I haven’t personally come across any.
Most women at my workplace used to wear Indian formals (some variant of salwar-kameez/chudidar) and I did not notice any plunging necklines in my five years. Some teams, including mine, were lucky enough to have managers who encouraged dressing casually. The women in my team almost always wore comfortable jeans, loose t-shirts, and jackets or sweaters (because who wants to worry about having to fix your cleavage while running to catch a bus, or shivering half the day away in centralized AC which makes a tropical city feel like the North Pole?)
The only women who wore skirts were the ones who worked in the marketing and sales departments. I think their dressing sense was heavily influenced by their role. They are the face of the company. They interact with clients all day. Most of these clients are not Indians. It only makes sense to dress in Western attire. And I think the choice has more to do with coming across as professionally relatable than coming across as sexually attractive. Their clothes weren’t particularly revealing either. They were usually dressed in skirts or pants and formal shirts, occasionally a blazer.
I don’t see why anyone would deliberately dress provocatively in a traditional business setting. Most corporate environments are traditional business settings where people end up consciously and subconsciously following age-old rules of etiquette. Provocative dressing is something someone is more likely to resort to in their personal life for whatever reason they see fit. And if that’s what they like, they surely have the right to do as they please.
Also, I think it’s silly to believe that if a woman wants to impress a man she needs to dress a certain way. If she really wants to impress a man, she will find more subtle ways of doing it (unless she believes the only positive attribute she has is her body). Besides, currying favor doesn’t always have to have a seductive angle to it and both men and women tend to use similar methods to achieve that objective.
Anyway, I think what Meera has a problem with is that some feminists tend to equate provocative dressing to an expression of female empowerment.
I don’t agree with that view.
Society should not dictate what women are allowed/not allowed to wear. Especially since most of our sense of propriety comes from what men can/cannot handle. I think some feminists dress as they please just to prove the point that they should have the freedom to do so. It is just unfortunate that a woman dressed “provocatively” tends to be seen as seductive. What is a “provocative” dress for a man? How far back is the boundary set in that case? Even a guy dressed in boxer shorts is not going to be called obscene. You’re not going to find women catcalling or jumping him on the streets even if he chooses to walk around showing 85% skin. I’m not saying that women should walk around without bras. Just that it’s not fair that the boundaries are more restrictive for women just because men find them harder to resist.
Ideally, women should be as free as men are.
Clearly, we’re not going to be able to undo thousands of years of evolution in a couple of decades. Gender bias and gender discrimination are built into our DNA. Small and apparently meaningless things like wearing clothes that reflect your inner personality are actually baby steps in undoing all that bias. This may sound crude, but it is because the female body is presented as some unattainable mystery that boys grow up feeling the need to conquer it. Desensitize boys to the female form from the beginning and they’ll stop overreacting when they see it (I know this is a gross oversimplification).
But to come back to the original point, no, I have not seen women wear tight and revealing clothes in a corporate environment with the sole intention of impressing male powerholders. If they do so, I would say that in 90% of the cases, it is not for the benefit of a man, but a personal preference. Another small point I would like to add is that the few times I’ve seen women dressing up for work is when they are romantically interested in a colleague. I’m sure men tend to do the same if they like a woman.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Madan
September 26, 2019
Isai: To add a statistical dimension to your comparison of physical sports and chess, Judit Polgar played against men and comes in at no. 53 in peak FIDE rating. That does put her way behind Anand, Kramnik or Carlsen but it puts her well ahead of Krishnan Sasikiran at 69. More pertinently, 53 is a REALLY high spot to be in if you consider that by most coach guesstimates, Serena Williams would be ranked maybe around 1000 if she had to play against men. Serena herself said she would lose 6-0 if she had to play Andy Murray. Polgar on the other hand has beaten Carlsen, Karpov, Kasparov, Anand, Topalov etc. There is ZERO chance of Serena actually winning a tennis match against any of the Big Four. The gap is much, much larger in tennis and that is because it is way more physical than chess as a true athletic sport. It isn’t after all about how much calories you burn. Men are BOTH faster and stronger than women which is what opens up a large gap between them in say tennis. That is, they cover court a lot better than women AND can also hit the ball harder. The best proof of this being how much faster the serve is on the men’s side.
LikeLike
Amit Joki
September 26, 2019
@Meera: How are you replying? Like I get notifications that you reply to me, but I see no option to reply to you!
WordPress should really think of having multi-level comments so it can be easier to see which comment is a reply of which, like your “Thumbs up!” to one of my other comments isn’t being shown as a reply and it looks out of place in this single level thread 🙂
Also, here’s why I think AR was debated so much. AR was a massive hit. It got remade into Kabir Singh and it was a massive hit too! And when it reaches more people, people tend to react. But 90ML? Nah, I would be happy for the team if it broke even, which it might very well have, but it was no hit by any degree.
If 90ML was a hit anywhere close to the AR/KS levels, trust me, there would have been equal or more amount of opinion pieces, people writing all kinds of stuff.
Also, I think the debate with AR is a good thing to have. When the film is that big of a hit, it becomes a trend-setter.
Like, lots of people, I’ve read have learned to love differently seeing GVMs and MRs films. I’ve seen lots of Pulsar bikes still having Polladhavan BGMs and what not.
Films are influential, there’s no denying it. A friend of mine was studying for NEET, and I jokingly said, “You will be the next Arjun Reddy huh?” and he replied along the lines of “Avlo worth lam illa naanu”.
The fact that I asked that question is unfortunate, if I have to be absolutely politically correct, because when I asked that, I was subconsciously meaning, I think, “You will be that cool huh?” and the fact that he said he’s not worth that levels of hype indicates that being someone like AR is worth it. Do you see the problem?
So yes, films needs to be discussed, because it is a very powerful medium which becomes more powerful if there are charmful actors acting it out.
Just imagine if a baby poops in its inital years and you’re okay with it, because it is a goddamn baby, but as it grows, you toilet train the baby so as to not shit everywhere it goes. If the baby was never toilet trained, that baby will grow to be an adult thinking shitting itself whenever it feels like is okay, when it is not.
So yes, debates I think are useful when regressive characters are portrayed in the films without much repercusssion to their character. This is why Raanjhaana if you’ve seen is a film that is true to itself, Dhanush may be stalker alright, but he gets what he deserves, and that in someway is saying, “Yeah, be a stalker, but be prepared to die”. You see the little “but”, in the previous sentence, that’s important, without that, you’re just telling “Be a stalker and you’ll have a happy ending”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Isai
September 26, 2019
Rahini, thanks a lot for the response. My experiences have been very similar to what you had described. But I was asking about benefits much smaller than a promotion, like getting assigned to a better project/role/team or getting more leeway etc.
One thing that I am curious about is the status symbol remark. I have heard the same thing from other women too. But, how does one judge? Is it based on reaction of men or is it something that will happen even In an office full of women? I mean it is not something like biceps or abs that can be easily compared.
LikeLike
Isai
September 27, 2019
Thanks for the response, Shadow.
Madan, a small correction. Judit was No.8 in her peak.
LikeLike
Eswar
September 27, 2019
Any movement that is striving for equality could end up creating a new state of inequality, if they are not being careful.
Being higher up in the equality ladder has its benefits. One of them is the power a group can wield over the people in the lower rung. If this is true, then people at the bottom, as they move up in the equality ladder, would start enjoying new power and freedom. And at some point, they could forget the cause they were fighting for and could enable a new state of inequality.
This theory may not be applicable everywhere but there are instances where this fits in.
⁃ Grass root groups who fight for equality does not always practice it when they form a government.
⁃ Groups empowered by affirmative action, when they become large enough to be a voting block, either push for further affirmative measures or at the least want to maintain the status quo. Leaving these actions long enough will result in reversed inequality – the oppressed becoming the oppressor and vice versa.
⁃ To apply affirmative action in a zero-sum environment, a section of the society should be denied something. This results in a constant struggle for resources. Resulting in groups who have access to these resources not wanting to share them as they are finite.
⁃ Even as Individuals, when people reach a certain level in the social or economic ladder they start favouring people they prefer. When this preference is in the likes of caste, religion, language or gender than it slowly paves way for inequality within these types.
One common characteristic of mass movements is that they represent a huge population. Because of this size, there is always a significant number of people in the group who have already met or surpassed the goals of the group. And there will be a significant number who have not even scratched the surface. And a good number somewhere in between. This means, one could pick a sample that would fit one’s bias, personal experience, agenda and apply it as the standard of the entire group. The reality would be though, there are still struggling people within the group who are facing the issues the group is fighting for and there are also people who are just exploiting the group’s ideals for their own benefit. The former does not justify the latter and the the latter does not nullify the former’s challenges.
My direct experiences with activists, including feminists, is very limited. One problem I was pointed out in the area I work, London – Software Domain, is a lack of gender diversity in this industry. Especially on the technical side – like programmers. So there is a push to create a gender balance. The solution though is not as simple as hiring more women. There appears to be a shortage of women skilled in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) domain. The pipeline to become a STEM professional, for women, appears to be broken somewhere at the schooling level itself. STEM, especially Computer Science is associated with geeky males here. Which in turn is said to have created an aversion among girl children to choose this field.
Since there is a shortage of women skilled, at least in Computer Science, creating a gender balance in these organisations is going to be difficult unless Men and Women are assessed at different standards in the interview. I don’t know if this is a right or wrong approach. But this is an example where some sort of inequality is created – different interview standards for different genders, in order to create a gender balance at work place, which can be a sign of equality.
Few voluntary groups, with the help of some organisations, try to solve this problem outside by fixing the pipeline to STEM profession. They run workshops and create awareness for women to enter this field. One approach taken is, to run women only workshops. I think the idea is to make women more welcoming and comfortable. Which is probably a valid argument and probably the right thing to do. But this again would go against equality in one of its meaning i.e no segregation or discrimination. One argument could be is there are opportunities for men to go learn programming elsewhere. These women have only limited opportunities. So it’s not exactly denying anyone an opportunity. Probably right. But the missing piece is, not every men would be comfortable around geeky males. There are probably a subset of boys who stay away from STEM for the same reason as the girls. And they are now left out from both sides.
In their path to achieve equality, activists and groups consolidate large masses and provide an identity to these groups — Feminists, LGBT, Dalits etc. This is probably a necessary step to fight for their cause. At the same time, there is no doubt that these are also paving way to new identities which are not very different from the existing ones – caste, religion, language, nationality etc. The newly formed identities may not have the vices of already existing identities, yet. But they have all the potential to become exactly like the one that we despise.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Madan
September 27, 2019
Shadow : While I agree with mostly everything you have written, let me give you a perspective about the other side. While in any other setting, men can wear whatever they want, in a traditional industry setting (non IT), they get judged a lot more for what they wear or outright told they can’t wear this compared to women. Don’t believe me? So how about if I told you I can’t wear a turtleneck T shirt even on Fridays? And this is still better than my time with the Big Four where I once wore a nice, bright blue tie only to be told by a well meaning senior that this wasn’t formal (read dour) enough for the firm. The women at my workplace can wear sleeveless any day of the week and nobody will dare tell them not to.
You’re going to say this is men’s self inflicted problem. And I’d agree! I have never understood why men do this to themselves indeed, why forcibly lock up everyone’s personalities behind bland shirts. Why so stuffy, why so serious!
LikeLike
Madan
September 27, 2019
Isai: I wasn’t talking about Polgar’s highest RANKING but highest FIDE score (ELO). In the ALL TIME list, she is 50 odd. That’s really high.
LikeLike
Madan
September 27, 2019
Easwar : To add a little to your points, the latest is the battle to include transgenders which is now turning women against each other. Why? Because part of this includes allowing those born as men who have since changed gender to participate in competitive professional sport as women. Women athletes are unhappy about this, but some women who don’t have to play a sport for a living are litigating against bigotry. But is it really bigotry or is it more complicated? This is one of my complaints with the nature of the discourse. Nobody has the time for nuance anymore. Both sides want the solution yesterday. Not gonna happen, folks. Maybe people should reflect on how many things that were considered beyond the pale at the turn of the century have now been mainstreamed. I am not asking for us all to go slow. I am simply asking not to bulldoze a solution. We are already seeing the consequences and I had warned in the run up to the 2016 election that there would be a backlash of the sort no-one except the far right really wants.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kay
September 27, 2019
Isai – I have been in banking for the last 10 years and I have never seen women dressing provocatively to get a promotion. Where I have seen the difference is, when there are two employees with the same, or more or less the same, experience, qualifications, etc., the good looking and better dressed ones always have the advantage. In my experience I have learned that even if someone is not competent, if they know how to project themselves, make themselves visible, they get better opportunities. So it’s all about the image.
Sometimes I have heard stories of how a particular female employee got where she is now by pleasing her boss, but it has always been said by a male colleague. So I take these stories with a pinch of salt. I did work with one female colleague who slandered other women, but again never gave much weight to her words.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Isai
September 27, 2019
Madan, that is not a good method for comparison due to Ratings In(De)flation.
“Arpad Elo was of the opinion that it was futile to attempt to use ratings to compare players from different eras; in his view, they could only possibly measure the strength of a player as compared to his or her contemporaries.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_top_chess_players_throughout_history
Also, I think being number 8 in the era of Kasparov, Karpov, Kramnik, Vishy etc. is a bigger achievement than being 50 in all time.
LikeLike
Isai
September 27, 2019
Thanks for the response, Kay. I thought men would be more biased than women in responding to this since they would overestimate this aspect if a woman in their level got benefited (due to male ego) and understimate this if a much junior woman had got benefited (since this would reflect poorly on the boss who is at/below their level, and as an extension, on them) and that is why I was specifically looking for women’s views.
LikeLike
Madan
September 27, 2019
@Isai: I am using ELO to compare all time peak performance of the best ever female chess player with that of the all time field of chess players. I think 50 is a great achievement there. Not that rank no. 8 in that competitive era isn’t. We are both trying to make the same point via different data points. The gap is so narrow precisely because chess does not emphasise the biological differences between men and women in the same way as a physical sport.
LikeLike
DenialAin'tJustARiverInEgypt
September 28, 2019
@Madan
I think it’s really sad and unfair that men are judged for wanting to be stylish. Yet another gender role problem.
Men are expected to be efficient, reliable, powerful, serious, practical, rational, responsible, etc. and vibrancy is associated with frivolity. A man who is fashion conscious probably has his “priorities” all wrong, making him less credible and that’s unacceptable in the old-school business world. Women do get away with certain things, especially since they are not expected to take their careers as seriously as men or play the same roles as them in a project or a deal.
What you said reminded me of something that’s not exactly related, but some of my male friends in college used to make fun of another guy for wearing brightly coloured V-neck t-shirts to class every day (when I say V-neck, I mean the chest exposing kind). It led to a lot of speculation about his sexuality because my friends just couldn’t wrap their heads around the idea that a straight guy could also want to look pretty. I’m quite certain that beneath all their judgement was an element of jealousy that this guy could pull off something they wouldn’t dare to touch with a ten foot pole. I used to find it interesting that they thought he wasn’t “man enough” because he put effort into looking attractive.
On the flip side, I have frequently been judged for not using make-up regularly and not wanting to wear feminine clothes most of the time.
I wonder whether these things will change with time though. The line between the definitions of masculinity and femininity are slowly, but surely, starting to blur and individuality is starting to be celebrated. Maybe in a decade or two, the people in power will be guided by a different mindset and redefine these rules (Or this might all be in my head. My brain lives in a weirdly virtual left-leaning global culture. I think I’m very out of touch with the current reality of tech/corporate culture, or even Indian culture for that matter, even though I live in India).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
September 28, 2019
“Women do get away with certain things, especially since they are not expected to take their careers as seriously as men or play the same roles as them in a project or a deal.” – This is true too, unfortunately. I mean the ones you see leading big corporations are always soberly dressed. In other words, expected to appear devoid of personality. See, I don’t have anything against plain Joe/Jane looks as I am not exactly a stud myself but I just don’t like the assumption that you have to LOOK a particular way if you’re assuming responsibility. I would dissect the balance sheet just as well if I was dressed T shirt and jeans or in a jacket and trousers.
“On the flip side, I have frequently been judged for not using make-up regularly and not wanting to wear feminine clothes most of the time.” – Mind if I ask whether you are judged by men or women for this?
“The line between the definitions of masculinity and femininity are slowly, but surely, starting to blur and individuality is starting to be celebrated. Maybe in a decade or two, the people in power will be guided by a different mindset and redefine these rules (Or this might all be in my head. My brain lives in a weirdly virtual left-leaning global culture. I think I’m very out of touch with the current reality of tech/corporate culture, or even Indian culture for that matter, even though I live in India).” – There will be CHANGE but how far the establishment will support it remains to be seen. Below is a video of an Indian rock band and the singer who appears for the first time at the 1:37 mark identifies as…female. Looks like a guy wearing lipstick and a dress and has a male kind of voice but no.
So, I think we ARE getting more open minded now. But this ‘we’ is a small subset. India is a huge country with different demographic segments at different levels of openness. On a different but related note, there was a time when I would watch Marathi news regularly because the floods of 26/7 in Mumbai had scared me (hence why I started watching it again this year!) and there was this newscaster who simply couldn’t wrap her tongue around the name Reese Witherspoon and bailed out and said just Reese. I laughed then but upon reflection, there are obviously a lot of people who would find that last name weird. I wager they are the majority. Jussayin’, these concepts of openness w.r.t sexuality are great and I am on board with them. But at a mainstream level, it’s going to take a long time to move the conversation in a meaningful way. That said, I am still optimistic because India has historically been much more open to cross dressing, particularly men dressed in drag, than the West. Kishore had a hit song based on him both dressing in drag and also singing in falsetto. So we can do this. But we are the elephant nation so change is going to happen at a glacial pace and then one day just creep up on us. In 2003, Madhur Bhandarkar thought it was a smart idea to have a trope of making fun of gay people. Last year, a contestant actually came out on Indian Idol. That’s how far the conversation has moved. And if we move on LGBT, we can move on gender roles as well.
LikeLike
meera
October 1, 2019
Hmm… Isai.. am trying at best to answer this objectively but also trying to remind myself that sense of dressing is deeply subjective 😉
I’ve been in the Professional world for 15+ years now and mostly find women dress professionally. A small percentage have questionable sense … some of this so because of age.. they haven’t yet realized what is professional so you would see outfits that we would normally keep aside for weekend or vacation wear… the rest do it to grab attention. They are marginally successful but in my opinion.. they also fail to earn credibility. Am I making sense… but then gain am not going to extrapolate that this small percentage is a bane for all womanhood etc..
LikeLike
meera
October 1, 2019
Am able to see nested comments so am not sure how WordPress works.. apologies on that!
Am in total agreement to films should be discussed, criticized… in fact that is the whole point of penning this post. I wanted a discussion and there were so many points that were truly noteworthy.. that was the whole idea.
Actually I caught up on BRs interview with Ranjith a few days back and if anybody has any questions about film influencing society and vice versa should really dig into that interview.
Raanjhanaa was a perfect ending because it maintained till the end that sonam was not interested in Dhanush. In fact there is a Tamil movie with Vijay Sethupathy.. he is a first rate stalker and pasupathy intervenes etc.. in the end they show the girl falling for him which was a cheap shot.. it just goes on to promote stalking..
LikeLike
Apu
October 1, 2019
Ms Denial….you really are in denial!
“Men are expected to be efficient, reliable, powerful, serious, practical, rational, responsible, etc. and vibrancy is associated with frivolity.”
That is true for women too, so not sure if it is a gender thing. I would slot it as another by-product of patriarchal mindset – men have been in the professional space longer than women and the dress codes seem pre-defined i.e. formal means seriousness etc.
I guess it also depends on which country/profession you are in.
“Women do get away with certain things, especially since they are not expected to take their careers as seriously as men or play the same roles as them in a project or a deal.”
So, no, they don’t “get away” – they get passed over.
Anyway, this thread has gone all over the place now. 🙂
LikeLike
Isai
October 1, 2019
Thanks for the response, Meera.
LikeLike
Madan
October 1, 2019
meera: Nested comments does not work on mobile or Chrome (don’t know whether you might be using Firefox or Opera). I suggest you either quote the particular sentence(s) you want to respond to or you say @userid of the person to whom you’re responding to. That’s the convention we all follow here.
LikeLike
meera
October 2, 2019
@Madan: am using WordPress app on my iPhone and it works like a charm… Just saying… even on safari it used to show but haven’t used that for a while now …
LikeLike
Madan
October 2, 2019
“am using WordPress app on my iPhone and it works like a charm” – No wonder. Nangalla Android kootam. 😀
LikeLiked by 2 people
Kay
January 29, 2021
Shraddha Srinath’s Instagram post on Varun Dhawan’s wedding is too good that I HAD to share it. This post talks about both feminism and Shraddha. So.
https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/tamil/shraddha-srinath-varun-dhawan-natasha-dalal-7162400/lite/
LikeLike