By Kartik Iyer
Anupama Chopra sat down with actors for a discussion. She brought up a comment shared with her by a tradesman: testosterone filled movies will work in the future. Unsurprisingly, Ayushman Khurrana was first to call it out as a ‘patriarchal’ statement. Fellow actors followed in tandem with Vidya Balan rounding up the person as a ‘misogynist and sexist’. I was surprised at the lack of thought put into the dissection of the statement. Only Varun Dhawan vocally attempted to see beyond the language used and get the point. Others found it best to use the opportunity as a posturing exercise.
If you look at the statement beyond its language, you notice that the tradesman has noticed a phenomenon. S/he may have been inaccurate in describing it, but few can deny what is being described does exist. Let’s first look at the problematic word from that statement: testosterone.
“Testosterone is everyone’s usual suspect when it comes to the hormonal causes of aggression”, writes Robert Sapolsky in his book Behave. He goes on to explain how people believe testosterone causes aggression. However, the reality is that testosterone is heavily dependent on context. “It exacerbates pre-existing tendencies towards aggression rather than creating aggression out of thin air”. Testosterone’s context dependent increase is triggered by challenges. Levels rise when a dominance structure is being formed or undergoing change. An important caveat: testosterone does not directly increase aggression. “It prompts whatever behaviours are needed to maintain status”. Since in male primates, the only way to maintain power status is by being aggressive, testosterone prompts aggression in them. There is a remarkable study where testosterone led to men being nicer than usual. What all of it suggests, and Sapolsky concludes, is that “testosterone makes us more willing to do what it takes to attain and maintain status”.
I don’t expect the tradesman to know his/her science. Moreover, I do not blame him/her for mixing testosterone and aggression. It is a common mistake. If we were to substitute testosterone with aggression, which I believe was the intention, none of the actors would’ve said what they eventually did. With the substituted word, the statement goes: aggression filled movies will work in the future. Let’s take Gangubai Kathiawadi as an example.
We have a character whose status was challenged. Her position in society was threatened. She fights back. Using the scientific, biological explanation of what testosterone does, barring the sex difference for the sake of argument, is Gangubai Kathiawadi a testosterone (aggression) filled movie? Yes. Did it work? Yes.
What seems to be the problem then? Testosterone is a hormone secreted in men. It promotes behaviours that will help a man maintain status when a challenge is posed. That’s the arc of majority of the movies that have succeeded financially in cinema halls: from KGF to RRR. The underlying pull of the Angry Young Man archetype has been this biological urge to overcome a challenge.
The tradesman did unnecessarily use testosterone to make his/her point. S/he may be wrong in stating that only aggressive, maybe even violent, movies will succeed. The likes of Queen will not. There is nothing wrong in holding an opinion. You will unfortunately be called names if you cannot express them in an appropriate manner.
This is not intended to be a defence of that tradesman. I do not know who they are. This is to emphasize that just because the packaging of a point is incorrect, it does not become invalid. In this case, there is enough evidence to suggest that aggressive movies are working in cinema halls. They may be acting as a vent for unaddressed frustration and anger. Public sentiment is being expressed. May be. The point is: don’t invalidate an opinion without understanding it. And don’t take actors seriously. As Naseeruddin Shah wrote in his autobiography, actors fundamentally just want attention (not quoted verbatim).
Baradwaj Rangan 
Naren
February 15, 2023
Another example is James Cameron’s statement describing himself as previously “a wild, testosterone-poisoned young man” and labelled testosterone as “a toxin that you have to slowly work out of your system”. For someone who’s so deep into science, he seems to be obliviously ignorant of this basic human biology.
“Testosterone” has become the new buzzword for prevalent misandry [not that it’s always inappropriate]. It’s not just a method for seeking attention but also to sweep their own inadequacies and shortcomings under the rug by misdirecting the anger and outcry towards what’s prevalent, thereby getting the attention away from them. If a gay movie didn’t do well . . . audience bias, if a female action movie didn’t do well . . . sexual discrimination. Now the umbrella term seems to be “Testosterone”.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
February 15, 2023
Point for thought, but Karthik, I still think that calling out that statement as induced by a patriarchal mindset is not all that wrong. The success of rage-infused aggression that drives male-led films is definitely a very patriarchal trope. It calls out to all that is atavistic in us – the idea of the man as a protector.
I disagree that Gangubai Kathiawadi is testosterone-driven, though. Gangu is not being ‘male’ when she fights back against the system.
For someone who’s so deep into science, he seems to be obliviously ignorant of this basic human biology.
@Naren – I don’t think he is ignorant; he was very obviously making an analogy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apna sapna money money
February 15, 2023
Even I felt Varun Dhawan was the only person who tried to not indulge in virtue signalling and actually seemed concerned about the state of hindi cinema box office. Seems like people like to shit on Varun Dhawan for no reason cause he’s nepo though his choices whether they have worked or not have been pretty interesting
LikeLike
Naren
February 15, 2023
Anu – Analogising with what?
Contrition in modern culture seems reductio ad absurdum. Cameron’s not even the first case. Remember the Gillette ad that portrayed boys as bullies, sexual harassers and catcallers?! For a company with a majority of male customers to make an ad like that . . . they had to lose billions of $ in revenue to realise their mistake. So, which party is wrong here? Or is everyone wrong because it’s a “testosterone-fuelled” issue?!
While the intention [skeptical] maybe to point out the negative effects of toxic masculinity, the actions do nothing but reduce overall masculinity to mere violence and harassment. When in reality it’s the same testosterone that has helped build societies, infrastructure and what not. Attributing any kind of unacceptable behaviour to testosterone is nothing but a shameless cop out.
The “holier than thou” attitude is what is fuelling the aggression. Every month during PMS, there’s a spike in testosterone levels in women. It might be negligible compared to men but there is a spike and it’s unsuitable for the constitution resulting in mood swings and behavioural changes. So, shud we attribute all the unacceptable behaviour to this biological event?! Women have never ever had a sense of humour about the “time of the month” jokes, why is that?!
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
February 16, 2023
@Naren – Gillette did not backtrack on that ad. Its president, Gary Coombe, backed it to the hilt, saying that it was important for them to publicly assert their beliefs. In fact, that ad did not demonise all men – it showed men stepping up, and posited that to be ‘real’ men, they did not need to be bullies and sexual harassers – what was wrong with that?
[In fact, in May that same year, Gillette doubled down with their Man Enough ad.]
If you are arguing that using ‘testosterone’ as a short form for toxic masculinity is wrong, then I agree with you. But I think that when Cameron talked about being a testosterone-poisoned young man, he was clearly associating a particular form of toxic masculinity that he embodied while a young man, and extending that analogy to wanting to bleed the ‘poison’ out.
LikeLike
Naren
February 16, 2023
Anu – U r justifying his usage of “testosterone” as a short form for toxic masculinity in ur explanation for what Cameron analogised. So, where is the psychological factor in all of this? While testosterone has its effect on the psyche, the mind is infinitely more complex than that. His bad behaviour in the past might very well b as a result of multiple factors; physical, psychological, societal, familial, circumstantial . But he reduced it to just one aspect . . . “testosterone”. If indeed what you say is true then Cameron seems to b just another case of the “Dunning-Kruger Effect” just like Ayushmann Khurana, Vidya Balan et al.
LikeLike
tamil thanos
February 16, 2023
Why should one assume that the tradesmen conveyed his message wrong? What if he actually meant testosterone and Gangubhai was an outlier to him? I haven’t seen Anupama’s interview, so I am not sure of the whole context.
LikeLike
Apu
February 16, 2023
Kartik: Is your issue about
(1) Testosterone being “maligned”/misunderstood?
OR
(2) Actors calling out patriarchy and misogyny?
I do find that calling someone misogynist just because they observed a trend which is closely related to their livelihood, is not very helpful. However, I have not seen the interview to comment.
LikeLike
Bala
February 16, 2023
I havent watched the interview, or read anything on this topic other than this post, so i may be wrong about this case.
But i often times see that a mere judgement call is being portrayed as sexist/misoginist. For example, lets say a startup founder is looking for a new employee. And he has to choose between a 24 year old male and a 24 year old female candidate. The founder might go with the male over female even if they are equally qualified, because, he might think the girl has more chances of quitting soon because of marriage. Well this is unfair to the girl, but the founder is just trying to make the best decision for his company. Or lets say a female employee goes on a maternity leave, and male employee works during that time and gets a promotion. Again, it is unfair for the female, but from a company perspecrive, the male is more useful to them, so was given a promotion.
Similarly, i dont think a private playschool will recruit male teachers, even if the male teacher is most well behaved and well qualified.
Like these, i guess the tradesman might have just made a prediction. He maynot have even said it is right ot wrong, but just a prediction of what might happen. I dont see how that can be partiarchical .. may be all he is saying is we as a society are patriarchical, so a certain type of movies will succeed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apu
February 18, 2023
Bala:
“The founder might go with the male over female even if they are equally qualified, because, he might think the girl has more chances of quitting soon because of marriage. ”
THAT is indeed misogynist/sexist decision. The founder has no idea about what plans the female has, and whether it will impact the company. When someone makes a decision based on assumptions and their own mindset, that is indeed called bias.
“a female employee goes on a maternity leave, and male employee works during that time and gets a promotion. ”
– I do not think anyone will have issues if someone works harder than others and get a promotion, but to my knowledge bonuses are rewards for hard work whereas promotions are rewards for someone who has the potential to take on a bigger role. A woman on maternity leave being passed on just for being absent for 6 months is another example of a mindset.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kartik Iyer
February 24, 2023
Response to where I stand and what my purpose is behind this:
The commentator has spoken of a trend s/he noticed. The merit of what is being spoke of should not be judged solely on how it is being spoken of. The agressive movies might be patriarchal but then, that’s a problem with the movie not the commentator.
Virtue signalling should not trump an argument. That’s it.
LikeLike
Madan
February 24, 2023
Kartik Iyer: I agree and I meant to comment earlier here to say exactly that: observing a phenomenon does not equate justifying it. I think this new found lust for testosterone in Bolly goes back at least to Kabir Singh and never went away in South. Baahubali also introduced a sanitized version of this, which SSR continued with on RRR as well.
LikeLike