• Blogging

    Comment policy revisited

    Ok. This is getting annoying. I really need to reiterate some things. I have a comment policy. So, please read it before commenting. Also, I need to add a couple of things to it. Insulting me (or women in general) via e-mail and claiming it is personal just does not cut it. I am open to discussion, but that means my readers must be open to criticism too. If you can’t take it, stay away. Here is an updated version of my existing comment policy.

    • All opinions expressed in the blog posts are mine and mine alone. If I have used someone else’s comments or opinions, I either cite them verbatim, or link to their blog (assuming they have one) or at least credit them in some way. So, if you have a problem with it, you are free to say so. But, that DOES NOT MEAN you insult or degrade or threaten.

    • Opinions published on the blogs do not reflect those of my past, current or future employers. Here again, I am solely responsible for all that I say.

    • Comments on my blogs are not moderated. That is because I believe in the right to free speech. But, let me make it clear that the site, and blogs associated with it, belong to me. If I find inappropriate or insulting comments, I reserve the right to delete them. I refrain from moderation because I believe my readers are informed and educated people who can differentiate between a disagreement and hate speech.

    • Comments that spread racial, ethnic or caste hatred, and those that are discriminatory will be summarily deleted.

    • I neither endorse nor necessarily agree with opinions expressed in the comments.

    • If you want to send me an email, you are most welcome. I entertain mails on my site, things that I have said, or professional inquiries. I DO NOT, however, entertain any provocative comments. If you want to be provocative, you are free to be so on my comment forum. My email is not a tool to fight.

    • I made the mistake of bothering to take someone seriously once. All provocative emails will henceforth be summarily deleted and NOT ACKNOWLEDGED.

    • Finally, please leave a name when you comment. Anonymous comments are not disabled, but you will make a better impact if you leave a name, any name, even if it is a pseudonym. I don’t take opinions of those who refuse to name themselves seriously. Nor to I deign to reply. That should speak for itself.

    Got it?

  • Feminism

    On Feminism – II

    Cris commented on my previous post saying my post was more subtle than she expected it to be. I explained that the stimulus was intellectual and not emotional and so I was able to take an objective stand. But, it seems that the heavens think otherwise. Why else would I get a mail, with a comment to the post, that provokes and insinuates and almost dares me to respond? Sigh! Divine providence! 😛

    Mahesh Anand, who commented on the previous post, (I removed the link because the author deleted the post) also sent me an email with comments. I will try and rebut the major points. He says he does not want to start an argument. Doesn’t matter. Some things must be discussed. For the better or for the worse. So, here we go.

    First, the question of smoking and drinking. He says smoking and drinking are a vice anyway. I agree. But, my opinion is slightly different. I have no problems with smoking being condemned and criticised. It ruins one’s health and can cause a wide range of ailments, from impotence to cancer. But, I feel the need to clarify that alcohol in itself is not bad. It is the excessive consumption and abuse of alcohol that make it dangerous to well-being. But, my idea was not to eulogise smoking and drinking. People are free to decide what the limits of socially acceptable behaviour are. But, whatever they may be, they should be the same for men and women. That is all. Whether that freedom is exercised by the woman is another question. The keyword here is equality. As for women smoking in Mumbai, I do not see the connection. Men smoke in Mumbai too. Why are women singled out to become symbols of decadence? I don’t get it.

    Next, to my comment on beauty treatments and threading, he says, "To your comments about beauty, waxing, facials, eyebrows…. i feel that you are being noticed for all these that you are doing this." I am sure many of you will agree, but what women do is their business. And the men may please stop deluding themselves. We do not do our eyebrows and fingernails, wax or get facials for you to notice us. You are not the be all and end all of our existence. As a woman, I do all this because it makes me feel great. Just like getting a nice oil massage makes anyone, man or woman, relax. And there is a more important person in the whole waxing, threading, facials deal. Me. Men just happen to occupy the same part of the world. That’s all. Thank God, all men are not the same.

    Finally, a comment on women wearing sleeveless. "I have always wondered why its the ladies who always prefer tops without sleeves.I have never seen gents preferring the same to show their biceps." Same answer as above. We wear sleeveless because we feel nice in them. Men just happen to be there when we wear them. We do not wear them so that men can ogle at our skin. Ok? If men do not wear sleeveless, it is their choice. Don’t expect us not to wear it simply because men do not.

  • Feminism

    On Feminism

    I have been tagged (by Cris) to write on what feminism is to me. Well, ok. Here we go. First of all, I do not like the term feminism. It has too many negative connotations, too much baggage and too much snobbery associated with it. Many people seem to think that feminism means man-hating. Or man-bashing. Sorry, but I do not agree. So, to avoid all that historic and cultural baggage associated with the term, I will try and not use the term.

    To put it simply, feminism to me, is the notion that women must be as free as men to do what they want to. Note that I have deliberately used the phrase "as free as men". I do recognise that as human beings, we are all bound by society, by rules and by traditions. But, if something is morally and ethically wrong for a woman, it must necessarily be so for a woman too. Take for example, drinking and smoking. If it is socially unacceptable for a woman to smoke, it must necessarily be so for men too. What I cannot tolerate, is mothers defending their drunk, and totally brainless sons by saying they are men. Trust me, it happens. My friend’s husband comes home drunk every night. His mother defends him thus, "He is a man. He must be having a million problems in office. So, he drinks to relax. You have no business asking him to stop." This violates my innate sense of justice. If the mother’s justification must be accepted, then the daughter-in-law must be permitted to come home drunk after a long day’s work too. Ok? Got it?

    Also, being a feminist does not mean doing things like a man. I am not a man. I cannot behave like one. I will not keep my nails dirty, my underarms unshaven and my eyebrows looking like a forest simply because men do have to wax, pedicure or thread. This is ridiculous. I have heard many self-proclaimed feminist protest against the feminine stereotype of beautiful, smooth legs and shaped eyebrows. Excuse me, but I love to do all that and more. It makes me feel feminine. I refuse to change for some deluded notion of feminism. I am a woman, and I would like to feel like one. This includes having regular periods (and no, periods can never be happy), waxing, getting facials, going shopping and buying footwear. I love all of those and I am not planning to stop any time soon.

    Another difference of opinion I have had often with feminists, is on the question of parenting. I admit that men have an equal responsibility towards their children. But, I still believe that a mother’s caress and care is irreplaceable. I believe that nobody can do a better job than mom in caring for the babies. If it means that my career takes a back seat, so be it. It is for my children. My career can wait. I simply do not agree with some feminists equating stay-at-home moms with prisoners. Many do it because they care. I would.

    Feminism means not being forced to do, or not do, certain things simply because we were born women. It means having the right to take decisions that will affect us without external interference. It means that as a girl, I must be treated exactly the same as my male siblings or cousins. It means being respected as an individual, cherished as a daughter, pampered as a sister and loved as a wife/girlfriend or mother. Is that too much to ask for?

    I tag:

    Nita – Expecting a balanced opinion on things. 🙂

    Christina and Deepan – Very occasional bloggers. But have a blog dedicated to feminism. Would like to hear both.

    Roop – Runs a blog against female foeticide. Feminism is her pet subject.

    Indian Homemaker – Would love to hear her reaction on the stay-at-home mom bit. 😛

  • Law,  Society and Institutions

    Legalising live-in relationships

    No, I am not doing that mandatory post on Obama. Many others have done it. You can read those. I personally do not care what happens to Obama. I am going to wait and watch how this reflects on US-India relations. In the meantime, read this article on the Times of India, on legalising live-in relationships. It contributes very little to the debate, being as it is, a report. But what gets my goat is the refusal of either the media or the people involved (husbands, wives, lawyers or the general public) to recognise that the live-in girlfriend need not necessarily be the "other woman." She may as well be the only woman in the man’s life.

    One comment by an aggrieved wife goes thus.

    “If those who are living together want the same rights as married couples, there’s an easy answer: Let them get married. They can’t have their cake and eat it too. And has anyone spared a thought for the wife,’’ says Riddhima, a 36-year-old whose husband left her two years ago and has since moved in with a colleague.

    Right! Of course. I agree that she has been wronged and have every right to feel that way. But, how is it fair that she blame the girlfriend? Also, what difference does it make to her status as wife? She is still the legally wedded wife. She still has a right over her husband’s property, and alimony in case of divorce. Why is she so against the girlfriend having the same rights? To say, "let them get married" is ridiculous. Any number of people stay out of wedlock for many reasons. It is the unwillingness to commit for some, the fear of responsibility for some, and maybe an ideological problem for others. Marriage is essentially a social contract. Personally, I think marriage is the way to go if the people are serious in the relationship. But, I do know some who consider marriage a waste of time, money and energy, especially the way it is done today. Are we going to penalise them for wanting to live their lives the way they deem fit? I think not. While social sanction cannot be forced, at least the law must take steps to ensure that cohabitation is treated on par with marriage. The Maharashtra government proposal is a step in the right direction.

    Next, the question of children arises. There should be no legal difference between children born to married partners and those born to unmarried partners. The concept of an illegitimate child, in itself, is too archaic to be retained in the 21st century. After all , it is not the child’s fault that the parents chose not to get married. How is fair to label a child as "illegitimate"? Adultery or not, the children must be given equal rights as children born within a marriage. The protests of the "wronged woman" are, more often than not, a case of misplaced anger. They find themselves incapable of doing anything their cheating husbands and thus turn their anger on the "other woman." I find that grossly unfair. For all we know, the other woman is a victim too.

    Finally, one argument against the proposal was made by a noted lawyer, Mahesh Jethmalani. He asks,

    But the amendment has its critics, as noted lawyer Mahesh Jethmalani says, “It is like allowing bigamy for married men. Is the government trying to recommend polygamy?”(…)“Only a small number of couples live in, so what is the urgency for such a proposal?’’ asks Jethmalani.

    Wait a second. Only a small number are live-in couples. So, there is no need for a law. By that logic, only a small number of people commit murder. So, there is no need for a law there either right? Since when is law governed by the will or need of the majority? Do minorities of all hues and shades not have a right to a decent law? Even if only 1% of India’s total population lives in, they still must have a law to ensure that their rights are protected. The law of the majority is simply regressive in this case. That such an argument is coming from a noted lawyer is shocking. I can only hope that the debate is conducted the right way, taking into account the fact that an increasing number of young, never-married, couples are choosing to live-in without marriage. We need comprehensive guidelines for them. Even if they are minuscule portion of India’s population.