THE INSUFFICIENCY OF PSEUDO-FEMINISM

Vogue magazine definitely seems to have received a lot of attention of late through its 'Vogue Empower' campaign, even though it has also drawn huge volumes of flak. The magazine's marketing bosses must be beaming with pride and the joyful anticipation of exorbitant bonuses - after all, any publicity is good publicity, right?

Nevertheless, there's another consequence that the magazine has managed to drive - sparking a debate on the purpose and methods of feminism. Needless to mention, the following text presents my views as part of this debate.

It is apparent that the "My choice" video makes a strong case largely in favour of sexual independence and liberty of lifestyle, as is often observed in the arguments of contemporary third-wave feminism. A valid and welcome claim I'd say, even though a few messages could probably have been conveyed more tactfully.

While I do agree with the general idea and (most of the) content of this film, I would like to put forth a few arguments centered around three major questions:


1. Who?

Does Vogue speak for all women?

As inferred from the images of protagonists in the video and the various arguments it contains, the campaign appears to represent the aspirations of a limited proportion of India's women - those belonging to the upper-middle and higher classes, while failing to address those in the strata below. This is perhaps because the reader base for the magazine is restricted to the former. Nevertheless, creating a more inclusive portrayal could probably have generated much greater effect.


2. What?

This question ties back to the previous one. What does the the film speak about?

"To be a size zero or a size 15, my choice."
"To love a man, a woman, or both, my choice."

"To have sex before marriage, outside of marriage or not at all - my choice."

Are the demands and rights of a modern woman limited only to these? The freedom to come home at 4 am? To flaunt the latest in fashion? To choose between the permanence of love or the temporariness of lust?

To have a right to be promiscuous? (Why not - all the men are doing it! Why care about morality?)

More importantly. are these liberties a higher priority than securing the most fundamental opportunities that so many women in the country have been bereft of for so long? What happened to the goals of empowerment through better education and nourishment? To have financial independence by entering the country's workforce, of which women currently comprise only 30%?  To choose a career of a girl's own liking - as a sportswoman, an army captain, an entrepreneur or a bureaucrat? To lead companies and government establishments, and fight against the negative biases affecting females in many such institutions?

To be the harbingers of change.

Have these fundamental victories been attained already? If not, wouldn't achieving them prelude, and catalyze, everything else that this campaign seeks to accomplish? Shouldn't these issues therefore have been raised somewhere, atleast partly, in the film (in addition to issues highlighted currently)?


3. How?

What is the manner in which the message has been expressed?

The narrator repeatedly uses the phrase "my choice" to bring home the idea that a woman can choose to live her life as she wants. In a subtle manner, she also rebukes men for holding her back and claims to reserve the right to make decisions in mutual relationships - maybe as an attack on the prevalent patriarchal system.

"To have your baby or not - my choice."

"My songs, your noise. My order, your anarchy. Your sins, my virtues."

Before I proceed further on this third question, let's first have a quick look at the dictionary definition of feminism:

Throughout the 'Vogue Empower' narrative there is a conspicuous bombardment of the prepositions 'you' and 'I'. 'You', the man, is deemed a rogue and stripped of any influence over major (mutual) life decisions - abandoning the notion of gender equality. This pseudo-feminism in turn lends the message an aggressive tone, and has thus received a lot of aggressive criticism in return.

After all that women have been through in this country over the past numerous years, India needs feminism. There's no denying it. However, anybody calling herself (or himself) a feminist must also realize that the actual premise of feminism is equality - at home, in society and in the workplace. It does not advocate tilting the balance of inequality to the other side. Neither does it support maligning the other gender through vitriolic and vituperative accusations, or using feminism as a shield to justify the abuse of morality.

Any enterprise, whether a business venture or an interpersonal relationship, can only be nurtured through collaboration. It is thus crucial to realize that men have an equally important role to play in cultivating the fruits that feminism pledges to produce, instead of women championing this cause alone and alienating the other gender in the process. There is a strong need to move away from the differences and aggression of 'You' and 'I', and to embrace the promise of 'We'. 

------------------

Feminism is a potent means of bringing change for the greater good of the society and of the economy. However, if continued to be misdirected (only) in its 'pseudo' form(s), it would never be able to culminate in its ultimate goal - equality in every sphere of life.

Let's make sure that it does.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS: A lot of ire is being vented against Deepika Padukone, who happens to be the popular face of the 'Vogue Empower' advertisement. I believe that criticism against an idea, if any, should be directed at the message, not the messenger. Hence it's unfair to chastise the actress, especially by targeting her personal life choices.

CHEERIO'ZS' !

It was the summer of 2011,
when I was still a young engineer
who dreamt of changing the world
by starting with an interesting career.

I joined ZS as an analytics associate
with unkempt hair and shoes devoid of shine.
To fight the monotony of SAS and VBA,
I doodled in the NEO to pass my time.

The doodles couldn't stay for long;
my first project was quite intense.
It took a lot of midnight coffee shots
until things finally started to 'make sense'.

Thus began my stint with forecasting,
as a cog in a small and specialized pod.
Over time the cogs grew in number,
and my role progressed to more than I'd thought.

It was fun to meet and know so many people
spread across the US, Asia and Europe.
While India was a stage for PD and fun,
Frankfurt gave me presents beyond hope.

The years have hurried past on time entry sheets
teaching me different things along the way.
From the pyramid principle to the concepts of business,
from teaching at Neev to being Toastmaster of the day.

It's the spring of 2015, when I look into the mirror;
my hair is in place and my shoes have their shine.
While training an audience on Excel and VBA,
I no longer doodle to pass my time.

I thank you all for bringing in me this change
as managers, mentors, peers and friends.
For helping me through 'urgent' deliverables,
for your company in the office and in various events.

The dream of changing the world still stands,
but now waits patiently at the end of b-school.
Hence I shall now take my leave of you all,
hoping we meet again when I'm a little more cool. :P

Ciao,
Arnav.

A TIME OF WAVERING FAITH

“The smallest coffins are the heaviest.”

I’m sure you would have stumbled across this quote in the aftermath of the widely condemned Peshawar attack. A quote that has echoed across social and news media all over the world. A line I personally believe to contain the most powerful and the most saddening set of words that have been used together in recent times. A line that questions the fickleness of one of the very foundations of human identity – mankind’s perception of good versus bad, often concealed behind a veil of religion. A line that indicates we have somehow managed to misplace our faith to a place where it never belonged, or should never belong.

The 16^th of December, 2014 will be remembered as one of the blackest days in modern history, when a misguided group of religious Taliban extremists murdered 134 schoolchildren in cold blood – apparently to teach a lesson to Pakistan’s army personnel, who had dared to launch a campaign against the extremist’s abuse of religion as a means of oppression and violence. The extremists were also angered by Malala Yousafzai being awarded the Nobel Peace prize – “how dare she promote education as superior to unquestioned faith?”
Since they could not extinguish the light of education, they decided to demolish the homes that sought this light instead of blindly following the Taliban’s religious prescriptions. It was not only the children that died that day; every bullet that pierced the heart of a falling child also attacked our faith in our understanding of that obscure higher presence, little by little.

How did humankind arrive at this juncture? If religion was created to serve humanity, how did it change so much to turn against the very people it sought to nurture and protect? Is it a tool that can be modified to anybody’s convenience? If yes, does its presence or absence really matter? Which religious doctrine exhorts pious followers to take up arms to murder children? How many of these innocent children knew the meaning of religion in the first place? What had they done wrong?

These are questions that perhaps nobody is capable of answering confidently. Not even the staunch fundamentalists who launched this dastardly act of terrorism. They might have an objective, but how that objective came into being is a question they have probably never asked themselves.

We are slowly moving to an age where the face of religion is continuously being morphed to suit vested interests or to support various forms of political propaganda. And this is happening not only in one country, but more or less throughout the world – including secular India.

'Hindutva’ as a concept is absent from our ancient Vedas and Upanishads, as well as from the Bhagavad Gita. Lord Krishna, in his sermons, never endorsed the notion of a single Rashtra that should unite all who follow his path and look down upon those who don’t. The supremacy of the Hindu race is a purely political ideology established in the twentieth century, and has never been advocated by Hinduism itself. Yet certain self-proclaimed outfits have often tried to mislead people by giving Hindutva a religious tinge, and using it as a shield for perpetrating acts of violence. At the receiving end of this violence, directly or indirectly, are innocent people, sometimes from their own community.

It is surprising to know that the same outfits are simultaneously leading humanitarian initiatives for social welfare, more in line with the original ethos of the religion. They are driving rescue efforts during natural calamities, setting up primary healthcare centers in remote villages, and sponsoring children’s education. 

How could such contrasting perceptions of duty co-exist? Which one is correct?

There could be numerous ways to find God. Many of these ways are dictated by religion in its original form. As for the other engineered forms, none should carve a path that passes through the graves of innocent children, men and women, and yet only leads to a false illusion of finding a false God.