Indian Feminity of 21st Century Through Soap Operas

Discourse of  “feminity” throguh mass media brought forth the “feminine mystique” in the 50s and 60s America. Similar trend is observable in the history of television in India has proved that the woman — as girl, woman and aged person, is trapped within an anonymity that reflects the anonymity she encounters in real life. Television’s image of woman, either as a patriarchal construct, or as a socio-historically differentiated product, is almost always made subservient to voyeuristic and fetishistic impulses. A woman’s character is predominantly constructed as totally non-contradictory, homogenous and unchanging.

Hum Log (1983) was India’s first long-running soap opera for development. It was produced by the government to raise women’s status and reduce their maltreatment. The idea was the brainchild of the then Information and Broadcasting Minister, Mr Vasant Sathe, who during a visit to Mexico in 1982, was impressed by the authorities’ use of soap operas to spread developmental messages. After the trip, the idea for Hum Log (People like Us) was developed in collaboration with writer Manohar Shyam Joshi and filmmaker P. Kumar Vasudev. The soap attacked the dowry system, encouraged women to decide on the number of children they would have and promoted gender equality in the workplace. In an entertaining manner, Hum Log promoted equal status for women, family harmony and the small-family norm. An average of 50 million people watched each of the 156 episodes during the 17-month run in 1984 and 1985. It was the largest audience ever for a television programme in India. Hum Log was evaluated by researchers from the Annenberg School of Communications at the University of Southern California. Research on the opera’s effects on Indian television viewers indicated that ethnicity, geographical residence, gender and Hindi language fluency were significant determinants of beliefs about gender equality.

After Hum Log came Rajani (1985-1986) where the crusader was presented first as a person and then as a woman. Why was the crusader presented as a woman? The reasons may be (a) a woman offered more attractive visuals than a man; (b) women viewers would find easy identification; (c) the basic message Rajani spread among women viewers was that they could solve their own problems if only they pushed themselves to it; and (d) sponsors would be able to use the same actress’ image to advertise their consumer goods, which they did.

Udaan set forth Doordarshan’s discourses on the New Indian Woman. Doordarshan created new stereotypes of women who rise above adversity, achieve success in fulfilling their individual goals, and channelise their energies towards selfless social activism. Udaan had a tremendous impact on the viewers. They were deeply impressed with Kalyani’s idealism and self-confidence , and they admired her courage to fight corruption from within the system. Kalyani became a household name. It was one of the first serials to showcase the empowerment of women against all kinds of gender discrimination and their struggles on the home front, on the societal front and on the professional front.

When small screen entertainment was privatised and many channels came into existence, women characters approximating reality began to fade away in serials like Khandaan, Junoon, Swabhimaan and Tara, defining an alternative woman, who was sexually aggressive and promiscuous, conscious of her claims to the family business and property, yet martyred in the end as the ‘poor, victimised’ woman. Tara specially had an admirable female following whose approving comments usually centered on the phrase ‘woman power’. What this ‘power’ actually was raises its own question because the stereotypes offered by such soap operas such as Swabhimaan and Tara still focussed on sexuality and sex appeal.

In the 21st century, one would have expected women characters to be more progressively depicted than before. But this has not happened. We have been preview to regressive women, a return to the extended feudal family with property and inheritance disputes, illicit children, illegitimate relationships at times bordering on incest, and the focus on beauty, tonnes of gold and stone-crusted jewellery, faces made up so heavily that all women characters begin to look similar, creating ‘the homogenous woman’.

Thankfully, the focus in 2008-2009 has shifted from the Tulsis and the Parvatis of Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi and Kahani Ghar Ghar Ki to Balika Badhu. And there has been an instant positive offshoot. Saas-bahu soaps are passe. Every other daily soap being aired on various channels upholds a specific cause for the social and legal uplift of the girl child. Na Aana Is Desh Meri Laado is about infanticide. Agle Janam Mohe Bitiya Hi Kijo is about how low-caste poor families sell their young girls to ward off poverty. Girl-brides are killed with impunity and their murder is passed off as suicide. Laali’s angry questions about the sudden death of her best friend just before her gauna are hushed up. Not only the characters but even the locales shown in most soaps are quite authentic. Agle Janam… is being shot in Godewadi, a village that stands a kilometre away from Wai, very similar in its physical ambience to a Bihar village. Protagonist Laali, the eldest of three siblings, lives with her poor parents. Her father is a rat-catcher. In Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, there are still zamindars who hire them and pay them in lieu of the number of rats killed. Ratan Rajput, the girl who plays Laali, belongs to Patna, Bihar.

Balika Vadhu is about child marriage and also touches upon the heart-rending tragedy of child-widows and on the complete subservience of women in extended, feudal families. But its message — of fighting child marriage, gets diffused in the maze of the patriarchal backdrop. The social cause takes a bad beating when the content is closely reviewed. At times, the titles, the setting, social relationships and ambience of these serials are so ambiguous that they make one question the integrity of the very cause they promote. They are rooted in the total submissiveness of women in the family. One wonders when and where the final awareness will come.

Bandini is another serial which is about a young girl married off to a man much older than her. Of late, a number of TV serials are focussing on issues linked to the girl child in an interesting manner. Viewership is huge and , therefore, they serve as an excellent medium not only to send out the intended message, but also to influence the audience to support girls.

The shifting of focus from bejewelled, zardozi-clad politicking saas-bahu serials to girl centric serials has come at the right time. Data gathered by ActionAid from interviews with a representative sample of more than 6,000 households shows that sex ratios have dropped. In Punjab among the upper caste Jat Sikh community, the ratio was merely 500 girls for every 1000 boys in the rural areas. In urban Punjab among Brahmins the ratio is a shocking 300. In Himachal Pradesh and Punjab, researchers recorded a growing preference for having just one child. Squeeze on family size is fuelling the trend of ‘disappearing’ daughters. For households wanting only one child, they want to make sure it is a son.

In some ways, though television has fostered the spread of the liberation movement through its vast amount of coverage of women through seemingly ‘progressive’ talk shows, discussions, debate and detailed news reports. But at the same time, it has done more harm than good to women’s potential as individuals by putting female conformity to convention and tradition on the forefront. Women and girls are subject to communication strategies that try to convince them to “role model” themselves after characters in scripts, rather than encourage them to see broader systems of gender dynamics or to engage in collective acts of resistance, to consumer culture, or to oppressive political systems. The very structure of many of these programmes involves the “partnership” of private industry with development institutions ostensibly acting in the public interest. This “partnership” limits the potential for communication messages to engage in more controversial subjects and strategies. The integration of commercial products, in the name of the “public good” in these projects, draws attention away from potentially more environmentally-sound and politically-responsive solutions.

Gendercide

An Islamic high court in northern Nigeria rejected an appeal yesterday by a single mother sentenced to be stoned to death for having sex out of wedlock.

Clutching her baby daughter, Amina Lawal burst into tears as the judge delivered the ruling.

– The Independent, 20 August 2002

In the 19th century, the paramount moral challenge was slavery. In the 20th century, it was totalitarianism. In this century, it is the brutality inflicted on so many women and girls around the globe: sex trafficking, acid attacks, bride burnings and mass rape.

70 percent of the world’s poor are women. In a large slice of the world, girls are uneducated and women marginalized, and it’s not an accident that those same countries are disproportionately mired in poverty and driven by fundamentalism and chaos. Many of them can neither read nor write. Deeply-rooted cultural and social traditions are largely to blame for the grim condition of women across the world. Education, income generation and healthcare for women are some of the central concerns of the United Nations Millennium Goals. There’s a growing recognition among everyone from the World Bank to aid organizations like CARE that focusing on women and girls is the most effective way to fight global poverty and extremism. But many complain these issues have not been sufficiently addressed.

Traditionally, the status of women was seen as a “soft” issue — worthy but marginal. The international press roared when the students were murdered at Tiananmen Square, however, no mention was found of the report published the next year stating that 39000 Chinese baby girls died annually as parents did not give them proper medical care and attention as boys received. Those Chinese girls never received any mention in the press, which makes us wonder if the journalistic endeavor of the media is skewed towards patriarchy?

In India, a bride is burnt every two hours to punish her due to inadequate dowry or to eliminate her so that her husband can remarry. When a terrorist is captured, media finds “Breaking News”, but when 100, 000 girls are deported to a brothel, it is not considered as news. 

Noble laureate Amartya Sen has calculated that 100 million women are missing from world today.  He argues that overall there are more women than men as women live longer than men. But in areas where there exist deep rooted gender inequality, the sex ratio is absolutely skewed.

More women are missing from world today. The reason is because they are women. one reason for this is that girls do not get adequate healthcare and food as boys. In India, girls within the age group of 1 to 5 years are 50% more likely to die than boys, and the reason is that girls are only taken for medical care when the illness is “serious”.

Statistics shows that in 20th century more girls and women have gone missing than men who died in all the battles of the century. Interestingly, the routine gendercide has killed more women than the number of people killed in the genocide of 20th century.

Gender  discrimination is one of the least important problem that women face today. Women are the modern slaves who are caught in brothels, and regularly beaten and sedated and fed just enough to live. ILO figures show, 12.3 million women are engaged in forced labor and usually in sexual servitude. India is one such country which has more modern slaves than any other country.

The question is what is more important – free trade, global warming, or the safety of women? What can be done to make the girls and women in our society safe? Discrimination, equality, wage differential etc. are utopian words for women who struggle for their basic physiological and safety needs. Its time that hollow words should be replaced by concrete action.

Just be a Woman

Paul Samuelson once quipped that “women are just men with less money”. This aphorism is an an apt one-sentence summary of classical feminism.

The first generations of successful women insisted on being judged by the same standards as men. They had nothing but contempt for the notion of special treatment for “the sisters”, and instead insisted on getting ahead by dint of working harder and thinking smarter. Margaret Thatcher made no secret of her contempt for the impish men around her. But I believe that women will never fulfill their potential if they play by men’s rules. It is not enough to smash the glass ceiling. You need to audit the entire building for “gender asbestos” – in other words, root out the inherent sexism built into corporate structures and processes.

It is undeniable that women are wired differently from men, and not just in trivial ways. They are less aggressive and more consensus-seeking, less competitive and more collaborative, less power-obsessed and more group-oriented. Women excel at transformational and interactive management. Peninah Thomson and Jacey Graham, the authors of A Woman’s Place is in the Boardroom, assert that women are “better lateral thinkers than men” and “more idealistic” into the bargain. Feminist texts are suddenly full of references to tribes of monkeys, with their aggressive males and nurturing females.

Women being women is important for both feminism and business. I believe these “womanly” qualities are becoming ever more valuable in business. The recent financial crisis proved that the sort of qualities that men pride themselves on, such as risk-taking and bare-knuckle competition, can lead to disaster. Lehman Brothers would never have happened if it had been Lehman Sisters. Even before the financial disaster struck the best companies had been abandoning “patriarchal” hierarchies in favor of collaboration and networking, skills in which women have an inherent advantage.

Discourse of Sexual Harassment

Recent events entailing the Ruchika and Bajaj-Gill case has become an eye opener for the popular discourse sexual harassment in India. The discourse is not only related to the feminist ideology and upholding honor of women, but also to the responsibilities that come with position of power. Both the cases – Ruchika as well as KPS Gill – were related to women being harassed sexually by men with power. Though no two sexual harassment cases can differ in degree of severity but the former required more support due because the age of the victim. Rupan Bajaj was a senior IAS officer and more capable of defending herself than a 13 year old minor. This is so because the former case power as a resource is unequally distributed between men and women (in this case between Ruchika and Rathore, but not so much in case of Rupan Bajaj and KPS Gill).

Sexuality has been continuously hushed up through the ages irrespective of geographic boundary. What is the root cause of harassment as observed in both the cases? Surely power is used as a tool for domination. But is it always true? Not entirely. As pointed out by Foucault, modern power subjects individuals, in both senses of the term; it simultaneously creates them as subjects by subjecting them to power. Though Foucault denies that power is essentially negative, in these cases power has been used as a negative force. It is the case when power is used to delineate the sexual desires of the patriarch on women and then suffocating them through the system and institution, and eventually killing her.

The recent events related to Ruchika is no surprise to me for the very reason of deprivation of women in the society. Power and position corrupts people and the more you have it, more shamelessly you flout the rules of society and the society lamely turns a blind eye and a deaf ear to it. The case of Ruchika is not a case related to female right, but to justice in society. It is not only the girl who has become the victim, it is her whole family and people who were close to her. It is not a female issue, it is an issue of human rights and child abuse for the girl was a minor when she was sexually abused. Voice must rise for hundreds of Ruchikas who are strangled by the wheel of (in)justice and thousands of Rathores must be punished for the hideous (mis)use of power.

Purdah Among Hindu Women

Married in a conservative family, I have always wondered at the numerous rules that a woman has to follow in my husband’s family. Here I must confess, though to my taste, his family is more conservative than the society that I come from, but they are one of the most radical families in their society. Please do not misunderstand me, I am not criticizing anyone. You see, first time I saw my mother-in-law, otherwise an independent woman who brought up three children singlehandedly, to do purdah in from of someone, I felt aghast. My head spun and said, "This is twenty-first century man!” Well I had no right to react that way, even if it was confined in my head. I must have realized that my mother-in-law was bound by custom she was brought up with, something she has been discoursed to do.

Yes, purdah is still followed in Hindu families in northern parts of India. Though it was not originally a Hindu rule, but was adopted by the Hindu middle and upper class during the Mughal and British rule, in order to upgrade their position in the social hierarchy. The purdah (veil) system amongst Hindu women in some parts of Northern India originated during Mughal rule, to protect local women from Mughal invaders and now that India is a free country women should abandon the veil and get educated. So many classes amongst the Hindus adopted an Islamic tradition of purdah and Victorian tradition of chastity of women, to elevate their social position.

The origin of the purdah is not actually relevant. The point is that the purdah system exists only in parts of north India today, not in the west, south or the east. Even if some ‘medieval’ practices such as these did exist in these parts, it is clear that time diluted them … except in north India. Why? Obviously it is north India which bore the brunt of the attacks of various invaders throughout history and it is an indisputable fact that during war and foreign rule, women are often raped and kidnapped. That is why the system did not vanish in parts of north India, in fact it has become ingrained in some communities. Women are kept cloistered and denied an education.

Certainly, in the north-eastern parts of India and say Kerala, which were areas far far away from the invading armies, the status of women continued to improve. So really, it is a historical fact that the invading armies of the Turks, Arabs, the Mughals and the Victorian values the British brought in had something to do with the purdah system in north India.

But the question that is relevant today is why do women today still follow such custom? Evidently this is a very demeaning custom for women where their movement and expression are restricted due to the very use of a veil. From what I saw in my husband’s village and society, it is more of a custom that women want other women to follow. You see I was actually asked to do purdah in front of older men of the household as a sign of respect, whereas I do not have to follow the custom while I’m in front of my father-in-law. My sister-in-law must have a scarf or dupatta over her head when in front of her in-laws. My mother-in-law does purdah from elders from her village. this is so because they have been brought up to do it and have been constructed to do it. I, on the other hand, though not constructed to do it, was asked to do it, and did it out of respect for my mother-in-law. This is a custom perpetrated on women by other women and the cycle continues.

Though the severity of the tradition has reduced greatly, still there are instances where incidents like honor killing, female infanticide,  and sati still catch media attention. Women are subjugated and still they want to climb up. But social change works at a snail’s pace, and therefore, the observers must be patient.

All things said and done, one must not forget that this custom is a foreign custom that had crept into the Indian or rather Hindu society and the concept of Victorian chastity has been imbibed from the British themselves. Though we gained independence six decades ago, we are still chained to the ideologies the firangis brought to the country.

Are We Happy?

Am I happy? What a stupid question. Do you mean happy as in content? Joyful? Hopeful? Relieved? Counting my blessings? Intent on absorbing work? Depending on your definition–and when you ask me, and who you are–I could give a dozen different answers. If you really want to know how I feel about my life, you would have to get to know me and ask me a whole lot of particular questions, which could not necessarily be boiled down to a single answer, and could certainly not be used to compare my happiness with someone else’s–because how can anyone know if what I mean by happiness is what that other person means? Keats was happy when he wrote "Ode to a Nightingale," Eichmann was happy when he met his daily quota of murdered Jews, and I am happy to be living this year in Kolkata. Only a pollster (or an economist) would conflate these things. In fact, only a pollster would think that people tell pollsters the truth.

But why let quibbles stand in the way of a chance to attack feminism? According to The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness, an analysis of General Social Survey data by Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, women are less happy than they used to be, are less happy than men and become increasingly unhappy as they get older. These results, he claims, are independent of whether women are rich or poor, married or single, work or stay home.  They believe that “Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s reported higher subjective well-being than did men.” Therefore it can be said that though women now have the liberty to choose whichever life they’d like, many are struggling in their pursuit of a happy life.  Maureen Dowd concurs that the problem is that women have too many choices – a paradox, indeed. Dowd and many others are late to the party, actually: Ross Douthat devoted his New York Times column to the subject back in May. His culprit? Increased acceptance of single motherhood. Bring back “social stigma” – for women’s own good.

Using a single statistic as a peg for your pet theory is a game we all can play. But before you leap in with your own, consider this: the actual differences, some present as enormous, are tiny. Mark Liberman sets it out on Language Log, in 1972-74, 31.9 percent of men said they were very happy, 53 percent said they were pretty happy and 15.1 percent said they were not too happy; among women, the corresponding figures were 37 percent, 49.4 percent and 13.6 percent. For 2004, 2006 and 2008, 29.8 percent of men said they were very happy, 56.1 percent were pretty happy and 14 percent were not too happy; for women it was 31.2, 54.9 and 13.9. In other words, women today self-report a bit less manic joy than three decades ago, as do men, and a bit more modified rapture. But women still say they are happier than do men, contrary to journalistic rumor; and, most important, both in the 1970s and the 2000s, more than eight in ten women and men said they were very or fairly happy. The percentage of “not too happy” men has declined by 1.1 percent, and the percentage of such women has increased by a great big 0.3 percent. Three additional women in a thousand: that’s what the fuss over “women’s unhappiness” is all about.

There are plenty of possible reasons why more people in recent years would report slightly less happiness than thirty years ago. Perhaps people are more lonely – all those hours in front of screens. Perhaps it’s the stressed-out economy, or over-the-top consumerism, or increased inequality, or less leisure time. Or maybe the definition of happiness has changed since 1972 – or are simply becoming a bit more honest. After all, somebody is taking all those legal and illegal mood-elevating drugs, and going to all those therapists, and buying all those books about how to cheer up. From the information given, there is no way to tell. Nor is it possible to say, simply by looking at the self-reports of men and women over time, what role feminism plays, if any. After all, women moving into higher education and the workforce is not the only thing that has happened in the past thirty years. If you want to play ridiculous numbers games, it could be that feminist gains have made women 10 percent happier, but something else – the fraying of the safety net, the turbo-charged misogyny of pop culture, reading too many self-help books –has canceled it out. You just can’t say. You can, however, safely dismiss those who pooh-pooh the argument that women’s “second shift” at home is to blame because men are doing more. OK, but last time I looked, more was not half. As Dr. Johnson said in another context, If you’re going to calculate, calculate.

But how happy were women, really, in that golden pre-feminist era? Culture critic Caryl Rivers pointed out in 1973, studies showing that married women had the highest levels of psychiatric problems, including depression and anxiety, prompted sociologist Jessie Bernard to declare marriage a “health hazard for women.” If that’s no longer true, why not give feminism some credit?

As for those still sky-high levels of good cheer, I’m skeptical. People answering yes to a pollster’s question about happiness is like saying, “Fine, thanks” when someone asks, “How are you?” If it actually represents a truthful and considered answer, either people have entirely given up following the news or the Prozac is working.

Is this feminism?

The media went hysterical over Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska and Republican nominee for vice president. She may have appeared to the public as an independent, capable professional woman, but to a particular elite she couldn’t possibly be a real feminist or even a serious candidate. And that raises questions about what is – and what is not – feminism.

Feminism grew out of the 1960s to address sexual inequality. Women then earned decorative degrees and went to work once.  A single job and then she went back home to raise three children with her husband. Well, come to think of it, that happens even today! But that is not the argument. This happened then.

The early feminists had a common and compelling argument, which went something like this: Women should receive equal pay for equal work, and not be considered mere appendages of their husbands. Childrearing – if properly practiced as a joint enterprise – did not preclude women from pursuing careers. A woman’s worth was not to be necessarily judged by having either too many or too few children, given the privacy of such decisions and the co-responsibility of male partners.

In such an ideal gender-blind workplace, women were not to be defined by their husband’s or father’s success or failure. The beauty of women’s liberation was that it was not hierarchical but included the unmarried woman who drove a combine on her own farm, the corporate attorney and the homemaker who chose to home-school her children.

Women in the workplace did not look for special favors. And they surely did not wish to deny innately feminine differences. Instead, they asked only that men should not establish arbitrary rules of the game that favored their male gender.

Soon radical changes in American attitudes about birth control, abortion, dating, marriage and health care became, for some, part and parcel of women’s liberation. But in its essence feminism still was about equality of opportunity, and so included women of all political and religious beliefs.

That old definition of feminism is now dead. It has been replaced by a new creed that is far more restrictive — as the controversy over Sarah Palin attests. Out of the recent media frenzy, four general truths emerged about the new feminism:

First, there is a particular class and professional bent to the practitioners of feminism. Sarah Palin has as many kids as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, she has as much of a prior political record as the once-heralded Rep. Geraldine Ferraro, who was named to the Democratic ticket by Walter Mondale in 1984 – and arguably has as much as, or more executive experience than, Barack Obama. Somehow all that got lost in the endless sneering stories about her blue-collar conservatism, small Alaskan town, five children, snowmobiling husband and Idaho college degree.

Second, feminism now often equates to a condescending liberalism. Emancipated women who, like Palin, do not believe in abortion or are devout Christians are at best considered unsophisticated dupes. At worse, they are caricatured as conservative interlopers, piggybacking on the hard work of leftwing women whose progressive ideas alone have allowed the Palins of the world the choices that otherwise they would not now enjoy.

Apparently these feminists believe that without the ideas of Gloria Steinem on abortion, a moose-hunting PTA mom would not have made governor. The Democrat’s vice presidential candidate, Joe Biden, said Palin’s election, given her politics, would be “a backward step for women.”

Third, hypocrisy abounds. Many female critics of Palin, in Washington and New York politics and media, found their careers enhanced through the political influence of their powerful fathers, their advantageous marriages to male power players and the inherited advantages of capital. The irony is that a Palin – like a Barbara Jordan, Golda Meir or Margaret Thatcher – made her own way without the help of money or influence.

Fourth, most Americans still believe in the old feminism but not this new doctrinaire liberal brand. Consequently, a struggling John McCain suddenly has shot ahead of Obama in the polls. Apparently millions of Americans like Palin’s underdog feminist saga and her can-do pluckiness. Many are offended by haughty liberal media elites sneering at someone that, politics aside, they should be praising – for her substantial achievements, her inspirational personal story and her Obama-like charisma.

The question is ‘what is feminism today? is it this?’

Barbie – A symbol of womanhood?

‘How better to ensure a constant supply of decorative women than to train little girls…than by giving them a sample, in the form of a Barbie-type doll…as a constant reminder of the look and attitude they are expected to achieve.’

The Barbie doll is the ultimate symbol of our oppression, the bane of our existence! It has long been my conviction that those who would keep women in their places invented a toy, a doff, which embodied the look of their “ideal woman,” the perfect “arm charm.” She was tall, extremely thin, with body proportions that occur extremely rarely in actual women’s bodies, with thighs that never rub together, “big” hair, feet deformed from constantly wearing high heeled shoes, and outfits and accessories that glorify and promote self-absorption, primping, exhibitionism and materialistic behavior.

When I see these dolls, I think of those stereotypical bubble-headed blondes that many apparently successful, mostly middle-aged men seem to prefer: a decoration to accessorize their custom-made suits and fancy cars. There seems to be little expectation that their companions could possibly engage in any meaningful thought or conversation; they would look up to those men and give and stroke their egos simply by their very presence.

An Islamic version of Barbie, Razanne, has become very popular in the Muslim world. This new Muslim lifestyle doll is marketed over the internet as a role model for Muslim girls living in the West. While the doll is presented as an alternative to hedonistic Barbie, it bears a striking resemblance to her and participates in the same consumer culture. In contrast to Barbie, Razanne’s sexuality is downplayed and she has a headscarf (hijab) and full-length coat (jilbab) for outdoor use, which are designed to encourage modesty and emphasize her Muslim identity whilst at the same time allowing space for following the latest fashions for indoor wear. The doll participates in the creation of a normative visual stereotype of women and creates a similar presentation of Barbie.

What better way to ensure a constant supply of these decorative, non-feminist, non-activist women than to train little girls to emulate this look and attitude from a very early age? And how better to train these young arm charms than by giving them a sample, in the form of a Barbie-type doll and all her attendant accessories, to serve as a constant reminder of the look and attitude they are expected to achieve.

Rape Legalized

In the city of Mazar-i-Sharif, I found 17-year-old Saida who was on the run from her husband. Her father had died when she was little and her brothers had claimed her as their property. They sold her off, at the age of 9, to a 60-year-old man. "If he saw a shoe or a stick, anything – he would beat me with it," Saida said, "I had four miscarriages because of the beating and the stress". Then her husband took his child bride on the road to places where they were not known and sold her to other men, forcing her to have sex with them. Finally, Saida confided in a woman at a shrine in Mazar-i-Sharif, the police were alerted and Saida was taken to a women’s shelter.                                               

BBC News, 16 August 2009

Many young women have taken to streets of Afghanistan to protest against the new law passed by the Krzai government which restricts a woman’s right to leave her home and demands she submit to her husband’s sexual desires. Afghanistan is a lawless place – the government is not able to implement its own laws to keep women safe or to protect them from a resurgent Taliban.  However, some women are standing up to the extremists. but they are labeled as infidels or un-Islamic as they go against Islam, their nation, and their honor. the continuous effort of these men are to control the minds and thoughts of women and to subjugate them.

The politicisation of women’s rights is not unique to Afghanistan. However, it is especially acute, with women’s rights and women’s virtue forming the tipping point for escalated violent conflict – within personal relationships and across international borders – for decades. Ismail Khan led the first violent uprising against the Soviet Union in March 1979 in response to a Soviet-led decree granting all girls universal and free education. The 2001 US invasion of Afghanistan has been internationally justified under the rhetoric of freeing Afghan women from Taliban rule.

In this highly charged environment, women calling for change and equality – calling for their enshrined human rights – are increasingly targets of violence and intimidation. Death of the nation’s most prominent women’s activist Before Mrs. Achakzai and the assassination of the country’s most senior female police officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Malalai Kakar, and Safia Amajan, the head of Kandahar’s women’s affairs department shows the degree of lawlessness in the country. These deaths bear witness to a growing public acceptance of violence against women and do not bode well as an indicator of the status of women’s human rights in Afghanistan.

Violence replaces debate and dialogue, and silences a powerful majority of the country through fear. People who believe that human rights are not a Western imposition, but central to their understanding of Islam, and to their beliefs and cultures are suffocated to death.

The remaining few people who continue to bravely speak out in defense of human rights are crucial to the future of Afghanistan. Brave women and men willing to stand up must be supported and protected. Violence with impunity must not be allowed to continue, and the Afghan government and the international community must join in holding the nation accountable to this standard.

Feminist Freak

I am a freak. Why? Because I’m a feminist. Or rather being a feminist makes me feel like a freak. That’s how unpopular feminism is. How unhip, how boring, how passé. Mention the “F” word at a dinner party and suddenly you know what it must feel like to have a turd on your head. Or leprosy. But the leper treatment I don’t mind too much. It’s the dimwitted, unsympathetic clichés that people (men in particular) come out with on the occasions when mentioning the “F” word does cause a stir – that really get up my nose.

Young, well-educated professionals (I’ll be specific; army officers, politicians, bureaucrats, academicians, high-flying business whiz kids, all established and all male) have come back at me with the most appallingly simplistic and negative views on feminism. Men who should know better. Here are some typical examples: “Feminists all hate men,” (yes, truly, I get that old stinker a lot). “Feminists are all victims.” “The trouble with feminism is that it makes men feel guilty.” “Isn’t feminism a dead subject?” “What do women want now?”

These are some of the typical comebacks I get from educated men. Here is what I never get the chance to say back.

“Feminists all hate men.” I can’t speak for all feminists, but, yes, in my case the bonehead who said this is right. I hate men. There, I’ve said it. It’s about time someone did. And before some stupid person jumps down my throat and calls me sexist, I’d also like to say that saying “I hate men” isn’t the same as saying “I hate women.” Hardly. I hate men for their explicit and deliberate actions. Because for centuries they systematically wrote us out of the picture. Everything. Politics, economics, education, oh, and that’s just the factual, historically documented active sexism. Psycho-sexual sexism, the stuff that you can’t see, but women can just feel, there’s all that stuff as well. And then there’s the huge amount of domestic violence, rape, sexual abuse and general menace. Mmmmmm…Yeah, well, I feel that’s enough for me to quite happily say “I hate men” and not really care too much about men’s feelings about the matter. When I say “I hate men”, I have good reason. Men hated us first; although we were “weaker, more stupid, less human, less intelligent, less rational, less capable” and acted on it. So I kind a hate men back.

Oh, and I also hope men reading this can read between the lines too. My man hatred is a group thing. I like Rohit who’s my best friend, and my male friends and I fancy men (though I’m not sure if my husband’s gonna like it after reading this). It’s just that you’ve treated us all so badly in the past and many of you still do. The least you deserve is a bit of hatred.

“Feminists are all victims”. Actually, feminism was invented because many women were and still are victims of a sexist society. Can we not forget this? It’s a simple fact and truth. Thinking that feminists are all victims is a malicious rumor, a transparent ploy, scaremongering backlash tactics to put women off wanting to be feminists. Of course, no woman of today wants to go out and shout about being downtrodden and constantly thwarted, especially if (thanks to feminism) today’s young women don’t feel weak or at a disadvantage. But all this is a decoy and a smokescreen, and has little to do with existing problems like glass ceilings and poor childcare. It’s great if women feel equal these days, but the sad fact is, in the big scheme of things, we’re still not.

“Feminism makes men feel guilty.” So? Who cares? Not we feminists. The least you can do is feel a little guilt. Be cool, be gracious and sympathetic, and try to change things along with feminists. The trouble with feminism is that we’re in the right; there’s no “debate” as to whether or not women have been discriminated against for centuries. We have legs to stand on, men don’t. What really irks me, and what is sinister and hateful, is how somehow men have made women feel guilty for being feminists. And the guilt trip we have has been called the Backlash.

Sorry, men, but you, not feminism, are the bad guys.

“Isn’t feminism a dead subject?” Who am I – a corpse? Try telling that to my friends and colleagues who are very much young, fit, alive and well. What men mean by this is “Haven’t you won/ got what you want?” Well yes and no, mainly no. Older feminists fought for what they thought was needed to redress the imbalance in society – equal pay, sex discrimination legislation etc. But a generation on, why don’t I, born in the 1980s, a seedling of feminism, feel equal? Something still isn’t quite right. I know this. Which is why feminism isn’t a dead subject. Right now, feminism and bright, enthusiastic feminists couldn’t be more needed to push for even greater change.

Finally, “What do women want now?” The only good question. Again, I can’t speak for other feminists, but I know what I want and I think it’s coming, except I’ll either be very old or dead when the plates have shifted enough for my liking. But I’d like to see the day when our daughters would say: “God, Mum, is it true that feminism was so unpopular? Were men really that bad when you brought the subject up?” And our sons? Our sons will ask themselves how they are going to manage. How they are going to cope with having children … and a career.