The New York Daily News reports today of one Karnail Singh, a Queens, NY resident who is currently recovering in Weill Cornell Medical Center’s burn unit since being seriously burned on October 28. How was he burned, you ask? Well, he hasn’t been convicted or anything, but it turns out Singh, 48 apparently set himself on fire while trying to set a deathtrap for his daughter-in-law by torching her basement apartment. The cause of his anger (according to fire officials): Singh claimed his daughter-in-law wasn’t sending money to his son in India. Oh, and he also also accused her of seeing other men. Thankfully Singh’s daughter-in-law Gurpreet Kaur, was rescued unharmed by firefighters who had to cut through metal bars on a basement window to get her out. In a weird twist of fate, as Singh was fleeing, he mistakenly set himself on fire. What goes around, perhaps really does come around.
Oops, you must have accidentally gotten my point.
Feminism reminds me of my gender-studies class not too long ago.
In a class of 280, we had 6 guys. Every one of those guys was considered ( by those not taking the course) to be either:
a.gay/queer or b.looking to pick up girls
The conclusion was that no ‘normal’ ( and of course gays aren’t normal) ‘self-respecting’ male would be in a gender-studies class and take it seriously.
Of course that irked me to no end.
Daksha, I don’t think that (guy must be gay or picking up girls) is a common perception.
Not very many guys take women’s studies classes, just as many caucasians may not take african-american studies, but I think it has more to do with feeling like it’s their none of their business, or that one is likely to be more interested in a subject if one feels they have experience or a vested interest in it. But certainly all are welcome and encouraged to join in.
Will I vote for David Duke? Hell, no.
When David Duke was running for Governor of Louisiana, NYT and some other opinion pollsters did a survey. Most of the people at the opinion poll said they would never vote for David Duke. However, in reality, he got much more votes even in metropolitan areas than surveyed. The moral story is “talk and grandstanding is damn cheap, people say something and do the opposite.” What you do in real life matters?
A while ago, I went to talk and lunch with a female MIT ex-professor and now a President/ CEO of a frontline Research Lab. A world class scientist herself who always had female graduate students and has three daughters.
Her message was almost anti-feminist: She talked about having a family, having babies, doing work from home, and also doing great, rigoruous science. She talked about giving extra time for tenure to women – those are great ideas, not some trite slogan mongering.
You know what she said (paraphrasing), “I do not want to scare women from science or other time-demanding careers. That is harmful. ” Here is someone talking with compassion.
At the day of the day everyone gets judged by the quality of the work, like Madame Curie. DesiDancer, I wanted to support your ideas.
Ang I wasn’t particularly annoyed with the number of men we had in our classes but the attitude that none of them could possibly be in the class due to a serious interest in the subject.
The idea that the course was frivolous and unimportant.
Kush,
Feminism talks mostly about women’s rights – Equal rights, equal pay, equal opportunity etc etc. It completes ignores the other side of the coin: Women’s responsibilities – Equal productivity, equal partnership.
Just by this alone, feminism is nothing but good ol’ patriarchy with a vagina. Patriarchs talk about men’s rights, men’s strength/virility, men’s conquests (sexual and otherwise). Patriarchy, of course, ignores men’s responsibilities – especially towards women.
M. Nam
I don’t consider those ideas anti-feminist. I think you are making assumptions about how some commenters feel: You would like to believe that we blindly follow some kind of overly-sensitive pc liberal agenda, but most of my feelings and sentiments are alot more logically derived than you give credit for. I hate rhetoric as much as the next person. And, I don’t think feminists in this day and age feel you can’t have babies or be a homemaker if you choose. I don’t know of any anyways.
Besides, that is not the issue at hand. The original post about burning a woman evokes the idea that women today are still not treated as equals. This isn’t exactly an isolated incident. There is much work ahead. To further the process, men need to reassess their ideas and beliefs and concept of masculinity. Both men’s and women’s issues go hand and hand and cannot be separated. That’s why there’s no point in man-hating, it’s just not productive.
In addition to women’s rights, I also feel strongly about other issues which I consider to be humanitarian issues, not a liberal pc umbrella because they come from the same place – a lack of equality in one way or the other, and/or ignorance.
I think the whole question of whether feminism equals “good” or “bad” depends on the individuals’ interpretation of the word.
For example:
Negative interpretation of Feminism = An adversarial “Us vs Them” mentality towards men, almost in the vein of “an eye for an eye”, and taking on board the very worst characteristics of male behaviour. Examples of this are wishing to have the upper hand over men in every interaction or relationship involving men, or “I’m going to treat men as badly as men treat women” (especially w.r.t sexual relationships), or generally doing self-destructive things in the alleged spirit of equality. It basically comes down to expecting — indeed demanding — respect and empathy without necessarily offering any (or sufficient) respect and empathy to the other party in return.
However, a positive interpretation of Feminism would be as follows:
Wanting — and expecting — to be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect as a fellow human being, and not to be dominated, exploited, manipulated or generally treated unfairly purely on account of being female. It comes down to being treated as a full equal — neither superior nor subordinate.
One point of confusion I think often arises — in this particular area and in many others — is the precise interpretation of the word “respect”. Some more egotistical or misguided individuals regard this term as meaning “deferentially”; a more constructive translation would of course be “with courtesy and integrity, but as an equal”. One has to remember that the woman is your fellow human being first and foremost and therefore deserves to be treated with understanding and decency, irrespective of being a “different” gender. Just because she’s a woman it doesn’t mean she’s literally a separate species to you.
I guess it all comes down to basic humanitarianism, even more than loaded terms like “feminism”.
Guys
I recently read the work of Jean Bethke Elshtain and am not sure whether she is a real feminist. But her thoughts defnitely resonate with me, when she says regualr feminists do NOT get the point of female empowerment.
They are all trying to be men….in competing for male values. There is something to that.Lisa Belkin asked a similar qestion about women and economics.
These are not black and white issues.
Nisha Sharma was indeed brave in being able to respond at the appropriate time and place. For that she deserves a lot of credit
But, also, never one must forget the fact, that she gladly agreed to a marriage where the terms of amrriage involved the exchange of a certain number of goods.
Now its when girls refuse to benefit from such bartering even when their families can afford to pay, and not merely when the ability to buy falls just short of te groom’s greed to overprice his product. Its called premium pricing.
Can one exercise delayed gratfication to pay “fair price” which in the case of marriage really should be “no money”
Till that point its merely an economic reduction, not idealism.
Idealism takes different forms….Those quiet incildents create more change than hundreds of such pubic hullabaloos.
Sumita
Jai
As usual, you have my respect with this wonderful summation
Sumita
Can someone give some insight on § 498a ? Are the idiots of SaveIndianFamilies on to something ?
thanks for having my back, Kush.
I’m definitely humanist, all for equality, and for all of the things that many of you have said Feminism truly is. I tend to shy away from the word, as it has bad connotations for me personally. The concept remains the same as what Jai, Manish, and Rupa have elaborated… whether you call it Feminism or Common Sense.
Desi Dancer and the rest..I agree with you all. It is not a question about the meaning of feminism or whether it is about hating men or empowering women etc. It all boils down to one thing: Respecting everyone, regardless of their sex, religion or ethnicity.
That stupid website and the moron who moderates it obviously doesn’t understand that simple idea. When I read some of the idiotic ideas in it, one thing kept on popping into my mind..the old adage about ‘women should be seen and not heard’.
It makes me wonder if these articles and ideas belong to someone who worships goddesses with as much fervour as male deities. In fact, it makes me question how society in general changed so much that being female and being strong and independant became ‘wrong’ and ‘inappropriate’.
At the risk of being very politically-incorrect indeed (not against women, I hasten to add), if you’re referring specifically to South Asian culture then I suggest you read up on the history of the Indian subcontinent over the past 1000 years, and you’ll get an idea.
PS Not that Indian society was necessarily perfect before those times, including with regards to women, but there is such a concept as pouring a whole can of kerosine on a mildly smouldering fire.
Hmmmm, the old to call oneself a feminist or not debate……I understand DesiDancer’s point. I don’t like calling myself a feminist because the term has become loaded, and not just because of negative portrayals from the outside, as it were, but because some prominent feminists just don’t speak for me. I feel trapped in a box with a group of women I don’t particularly want to be in a box with (and I’m sure they feel the same way about the likes of me 🙂 ).
Anyway, this is why I use the term suffragette. Dated? Perhaps. I prefer charmingly old-school, myself.
And yes, I know we have the vote and all that – I just like those old-school feminists and suffragettes, don’t you? Those were some tough old broads, man….what’s not to like?
Um Jai, is this a reference to “everything that is less than desirable about the Indian subcontinent is a result of Muslim invasions”? The status of women does not appear to me to have been very high among, for instance, the Guptas (or the ancient Greeks for that matter, or the Persians).
Reclaim the term from the Womyn!
Some of us involved in reproductive rights have a saying, “Call people whatever they want to be called.” (Calling someone pro-abortion versus pro-choice or anti-choice versus pro-life can get kind of messy, know what I mean?)
So if you’d rather be called a suffragette, or a humanist, or a feminist, fine. (As long as you have the right idea!) But too bad the term feminist has been hijacked into something nasty.
I’m a feminist, I double-majored in women’s studies, and never have I met this mythical “man-hating feminist.” Not at women’s music festivals, not at a lesbian-run newspaper I volunteered at, not at the national feminist organization I interned at, not in my classes…I wonder where these women are. They ain’t writing for Ms. magazine. The only women getting any press are the ones who write books about the evils of feminism. You know, the divorced ones who go on book tours and leave their kids with nannies, while preaching that women should be stay-at-home moms. Although the media also loves young women who think that feminism is entirely about how they express themselves sexually.
Hell, if you want “man-hating,” take a look at any mainstream women’s mag. All that advice on how to trick men into proposing, how to lie to protect their fragile male egos (by the way, did you know that the “correct” number of sexual partners to admit to having is 4? Any more will upset Mr. Man, and any less will make him think you’re too inexperienced), all the endless jokes about men’s shortcomings in the communication and domestic departments — all that stuff masks more of a loathing for men than any workaday feminist, if you ask me.
Hothead paisan lives: you bring up a good point, and reminds me of Dowd’s comment about feminism lasting a nanosecond, and the backlash lasting decades…The right has been so successful in stigmatizing the term to such an extent (another one they did a number on was “liberal”) that far too many people appear defensive about it. As always, the construction of a straw man (or a man-hating feminist in this case) is central to the de-legitimization project.
Ditto, I more got that vibe growing up (“feminists are easy”) than did I get the man-hating vibe.
I’ve never encountered a ragingly man-hating feminist either (and I’ve been involved in TONS of pro-female movements) but the stereotype is out there, and it’s perpetuated by certain manifestations of feminism in the media.
I think the problem is that ANGRY feminists are easy to dismiss as man-hating, when what they’re really hating on is the patriarchy.
And what a crying shame that is. I went to a talk from Phyllis Schafly when I was in college, and someone asked her how she was able to reconcile keeping her kids in the care of someone else while she toured the country, and she was all “It’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make for my cause.” I wanted to throw something at her.
Fatmuttony’s link reminds me of a very serious conversation amongst some undergrad desi kids that I happened to overhear.
The boys were discussing how they were ‘distressed’ with the increase in dysfunctional families. So one bright boy speaks with determination, on how his wife will never work. She’d take care of the kids and the house.
That was his plan to avoid a dysfunctional family.
Maybe if he’d read the link he’d have added that his wife would also have to say NO TO FEMINISM 😉
Umair,
Umair buddy you’re extrapolating my statements too much — my second post immediately below the first one should have clarified my thoughts. Again, Indian society was certainly not perfect on multiple levels before a certain person from Ghazni decided to start paying the subcontinent annual visits (and yes I do know there were already Arabs in parts of Sindh and Gujarat before that), but in a number of areas some of the cultural mores did subsequently take a significant downturn, especially the status and expected behaviour of women. Meaning if things weren’t ideal for women before, they got a whole lot worse once the Turks and (later) the Mughals started importing their own Middle-Eastern-influenced ideas on the matter into the subcontinent.
For several very obvious reasons I don’t believe in the Hindutva/RSS propaganda of blaming the Muslims (or indeed the British or the West in general) for whatever may be dysfunctional within Indian society; but if the Turkic-Mughal elite set the tone for acceptable behaviour towards women as per their religious interpretations and cultural norms, then such matters are obviously going to “trickle down” into the rest of society and give some kind of self-righteous moral justification to individuals who would be looking for an excuse to bully women anyway.
Over time these things unfortunately become entrenched as “Indian culture” and thereby become regarded as pefectly acceptable behaviour within certain quarters, especially those with a conservative mentality with regards to their expectations of female behaviour.
If anybody has very detailed information on the status of women within the subcontinent prior to the Delhi Sultanate, especially from the period of 0AD to 1000AD (which should hopefully include the Buddhist period to some extent too, including in what is now Afghanistan), I’d be very keen to hear more — we’re all here to learn, after all 😉
Hothead Paisan,
This is exactly what I was referring to in my description of the negative interpretations of feminism, in my post no. 58. Ditto for the whole “Men are only good for one thing”, “I just want to marry a rich man [not for love]” attitude etc.
Sumita,
A belated thank you for your nice reply in post no. 60 😉
56 · MoorNam said
Women account for 70 percent of the world’s people who live in absolute poverty. Women work two-thirds of the world’s working hours, produce half of the world’s food, and yet earn only 10% of the world’s income and own less than 1% of the world’s property. (http://www.worldrevolution.org/projects/globalissuesoverview/overview2/BriefOverview.htm)
Yup, looks like patriarchy with a vagina.