As usual, am the erratic blogger who writes only when she needs to vent out. Blogs are a safe place- no one will read if they don't want to and people who want to, will read it any way.
So, in the March of 2015, a video featuring Deepika Padukone, created a lot of ruckus on social media. Some stood by it, some opposed it - the interesting bit, however, was that those who opposed it, were not really united- the group included religious activists who still believe women are goddesses and should be protected in house and the others who thought it challenged patriarchy for the sake of it and was indeed was a feminist video through the lens of patriarchy; still others who just objected on "sex outside marriage"; and many more ill-defined clusters. Of course, as expected, some feminists came up in support of the video, not completely understanding why points were being raised against such a beautiful video.
The video is beautiful, undoubtedly. The photography, editing, even some parts of the script. It has a strong message of women empowerment too. However, when you are as big a brand as Vogue, when you are trying to influence society in something as big as women empowerment, it is crucial that the spill-overs are taken care of, even before such a video is aired. From a branding perspective, Vogue got quite an impetus- I have never heard the name so many times as I have over the past few days. However, here's my two pence on why criticism was as well deserved as applaud:
Sex outside marriage is absolutely fine, as long as the stakeholders involved, are comfortable with it- let's not pretend that we all have the same sexual preferences and same value systems. Taking down the video because of this one point, makes no sense!
Moving on to choices, they come with a lot of responsibilities- as much as we want to deny other things that affect our choices, we can't ignore them- "my pleasure, your pain" - while we can debate on whether "you" is a man or a woman or a vehicle of patriarchy, if my choice hurts someone else, am not sure that's responsible choosing. (Of course am not talking about choices like whether to add your husband's name to yours or wear your mangalsutra around- these are quite a matter or personal preference and also a significance of your value system- these shouldn't hurt anyone.) The tussle between your choice and my choice is a pertinent one, where my choice might deter someone else from exercising their choices. We need to be mindful of such strong statements on the minds of teens- as a society, we should encourage people to make responsible choices- not just choices. Which is why, neither "size zero" or "size 15" is an apt/responsible choice- we cannot encourage youth to be either anorexic or obese! I am well aware of the limitations that a 2 minutes video has- which is why the script and direction should be apt and precise, which is why casting is as important as dubbing- Deepika doesn't have an image that really fits into the "thinking female" character- her delivery seems adamant and complaining- I would blame the director for this! (In this regard, let me remind you of a monologue by Kalki Koechilin on Women's day, not so many years back, which was perfect in delivering what it wanted to.) The video seemed more about making an independent choice, rather than being considerate and sensitive about other people, or even oneself- that is the problem patriarchy had. The question to ask is, are we replacing patriarchy with femi-nazi?
The second and more important critique of the video is the the target audience- those that this video targets are the urban, well-to-do women, who are intelligent and regularly exercise their choices about whether to change their names or to wear a ring. If this isn't the target audience, I am not sure who is- if the video relied on media to translate it to other languages, to help women who don't speak English think, I wouldn't call it wise- the beauty and the intent of the script would be lost in translation. And that is exactly my problem- whether we like it or not, speaking and understanding English has become a necessary condition for being well-educated in India. I don't think I can emphasize enough on the importance of education when it comes to having choices. The video ignores this bit- which is also an indicator of its target audience- the well-educated urban female.
Well-educated women, generally don't have too hard a time, choosing from the choices that video enlists. The choice for us (I assume that I am within Vogue's target audience) is really to talk about scars like child abuse- shame the abuser, even though (s)he might have been the most popular person while you were growing up; or take a stand and fight for your rights when your colleagues/clients/senior management make inappropriate comments/suggestions in the work place; or to fight for your rights for that promotion that you have been denied because of your imminent maternity leave- those are the choices that really matter to us and those are still the discussions we are afraid to have. You know why? Because the rest of the society thinks women like us are already empowered, because we have the choices that the video has listed. This is one of the examples of material that go against feminism for being an equal fight for all genders, and makes it one for only females. Men who have always been appreciative of the fact that women don't get represented enough in all walks of life, suddenly tell us that we don't need "special treatment" any more because our choices and opportunities were as much as men had. While that is true to some extent, I am yet to come across a man who has been insulted at work for being a man.
So, what did the video do? It targeted the urban female and told them about the choices that they have- something they already were well aware of. It didn't ask them to go beyond and think about the choices that they are still denied. It didn't convey what it wanted to say, to the women who don't understand that they have these choices. Who gained? Who lost?
It's high time we realize that when some of us talk about feminism, what we really talk about is justice. We talk for men who have so-called feminine traits; we talk for the lesbians, the gays, the queers, the non-conformists. We talk about giving a little extra hand to people who need it. However, when we talk so much, we tread on the fine like of being understood or being misunderstood. Being misunderstood, costs the whole fight, sets us back on various parameters. And that is when, criticism against such videos, set the balance right. So all of you who have said that we should not bash up the video so badly, I hope this helps- I appreciate your point of view and support it too. It's just that, we want to tell the society that feminism isn't just about "My Choice".
So, in the March of 2015, a video featuring Deepika Padukone, created a lot of ruckus on social media. Some stood by it, some opposed it - the interesting bit, however, was that those who opposed it, were not really united- the group included religious activists who still believe women are goddesses and should be protected in house and the others who thought it challenged patriarchy for the sake of it and was indeed was a feminist video through the lens of patriarchy; still others who just objected on "sex outside marriage"; and many more ill-defined clusters. Of course, as expected, some feminists came up in support of the video, not completely understanding why points were being raised against such a beautiful video.
The video is beautiful, undoubtedly. The photography, editing, even some parts of the script. It has a strong message of women empowerment too. However, when you are as big a brand as Vogue, when you are trying to influence society in something as big as women empowerment, it is crucial that the spill-overs are taken care of, even before such a video is aired. From a branding perspective, Vogue got quite an impetus- I have never heard the name so many times as I have over the past few days. However, here's my two pence on why criticism was as well deserved as applaud:
Sex outside marriage is absolutely fine, as long as the stakeholders involved, are comfortable with it- let's not pretend that we all have the same sexual preferences and same value systems. Taking down the video because of this one point, makes no sense!
Moving on to choices, they come with a lot of responsibilities- as much as we want to deny other things that affect our choices, we can't ignore them- "my pleasure, your pain" - while we can debate on whether "you" is a man or a woman or a vehicle of patriarchy, if my choice hurts someone else, am not sure that's responsible choosing. (Of course am not talking about choices like whether to add your husband's name to yours or wear your mangalsutra around- these are quite a matter or personal preference and also a significance of your value system- these shouldn't hurt anyone.) The tussle between your choice and my choice is a pertinent one, where my choice might deter someone else from exercising their choices. We need to be mindful of such strong statements on the minds of teens- as a society, we should encourage people to make responsible choices- not just choices. Which is why, neither "size zero" or "size 15" is an apt/responsible choice- we cannot encourage youth to be either anorexic or obese! I am well aware of the limitations that a 2 minutes video has- which is why the script and direction should be apt and precise, which is why casting is as important as dubbing- Deepika doesn't have an image that really fits into the "thinking female" character- her delivery seems adamant and complaining- I would blame the director for this! (In this regard, let me remind you of a monologue by Kalki Koechilin on Women's day, not so many years back, which was perfect in delivering what it wanted to.) The video seemed more about making an independent choice, rather than being considerate and sensitive about other people, or even oneself- that is the problem patriarchy had. The question to ask is, are we replacing patriarchy with femi-nazi?
The second and more important critique of the video is the the target audience- those that this video targets are the urban, well-to-do women, who are intelligent and regularly exercise their choices about whether to change their names or to wear a ring. If this isn't the target audience, I am not sure who is- if the video relied on media to translate it to other languages, to help women who don't speak English think, I wouldn't call it wise- the beauty and the intent of the script would be lost in translation. And that is exactly my problem- whether we like it or not, speaking and understanding English has become a necessary condition for being well-educated in India. I don't think I can emphasize enough on the importance of education when it comes to having choices. The video ignores this bit- which is also an indicator of its target audience- the well-educated urban female.
Well-educated women, generally don't have too hard a time, choosing from the choices that video enlists. The choice for us (I assume that I am within Vogue's target audience) is really to talk about scars like child abuse- shame the abuser, even though (s)he might have been the most popular person while you were growing up; or take a stand and fight for your rights when your colleagues/clients/senior management make inappropriate comments/suggestions in the work place; or to fight for your rights for that promotion that you have been denied because of your imminent maternity leave- those are the choices that really matter to us and those are still the discussions we are afraid to have. You know why? Because the rest of the society thinks women like us are already empowered, because we have the choices that the video has listed. This is one of the examples of material that go against feminism for being an equal fight for all genders, and makes it one for only females. Men who have always been appreciative of the fact that women don't get represented enough in all walks of life, suddenly tell us that we don't need "special treatment" any more because our choices and opportunities were as much as men had. While that is true to some extent, I am yet to come across a man who has been insulted at work for being a man.
So, what did the video do? It targeted the urban female and told them about the choices that they have- something they already were well aware of. It didn't ask them to go beyond and think about the choices that they are still denied. It didn't convey what it wanted to say, to the women who don't understand that they have these choices. Who gained? Who lost?
It's high time we realize that when some of us talk about feminism, what we really talk about is justice. We talk for men who have so-called feminine traits; we talk for the lesbians, the gays, the queers, the non-conformists. We talk about giving a little extra hand to people who need it. However, when we talk so much, we tread on the fine like of being understood or being misunderstood. Being misunderstood, costs the whole fight, sets us back on various parameters. And that is when, criticism against such videos, set the balance right. So all of you who have said that we should not bash up the video so badly, I hope this helps- I appreciate your point of view and support it too. It's just that, we want to tell the society that feminism isn't just about "My Choice".
