The Washington Redskins’ cheerleaders recently performed in Hyderabad Bangalore, during an Indian Premier League cricket match. A Washington Post reporter took the following photo:
(Click on the photo to see the faces of the men a bit more clearly.)
There is also a detailed Washington Post article about the event here. Also, we wrote about the rival Twenty20 cricket league, the ICL, here; cheerleaders seemed to be a part of the mix there as well.
93 · de-luker said
It all started with Mandira Bedi, to give due credit to a swadeshi innovation.
91 · rob said
Yes, I know you’re the sole source of income for the massive ogling lobby here in DC 🙂
It is not wrong for women to want to be cheerleaders, if they are able to make a considered decision, but it is wrong for men to leer.
If it’s common knowledge that cheerleading is an objectifying role, why is it wrong for men to act in the way, the women are dressing/acting are intending to elicit in the first place. In fact, if you look at the history of ‘cheerleading’ all cheerleaders were originally men, and their job was to rowl up their team and take the opposing team out of their game. So the introduction of women, one could safely say was the element of sexuality given the movements and uniforms.
77 · Topcat said
Leave Preeti Alone!
68 · Preeti said
You sound like a character from a pre-independence period movie. LOL
first thought that comes to mind:
i hope the cheerleaders wore their sunscreen and got their malaria and tetanus shots.
103 · HMF said
ok HMF, next time i wear a low-cut dress to the bar, you can say i asked for it.
SP (#47) I think ‘gori chamri’ is a better and more correct term than ‘safed chamra’ in this context.
97 · portmanteau said
Yup this is a humour thread .., but this has to be the best joke so far.
Seriously though, preeti is correct, with all the caveats the first amendment effectively does not exist in India.
(The perception of the “greatness” of Indian constitution is basically the result of the brainwashing we are put through. The US constitution is short sweet, clear and adaptable (living constitution). The Indian constitution is lenghty, full of contradictions, muddled and horribly inflexible. Excepts from the constitution read well because they are basically rip-offs of other constitutions e.g.. it starts this way “WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST[1] SECULAR[1] DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;
and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.” (note the horrible bureaucratized amalgamation of the US constitition’s preamble and the frenchs constition’s motto)
If you start read the document as a whole and you will soon start to have a whole bunch of “WTF?!” moments. If interested the constitution is available here http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/welcome.html
Rahul S and Topcat,
Leave me alone. I shan’t be posting on Sepia any more. It appears to have become a forum where men like you with no desire to understand another point of view get to substitute debate with slander.
I don’t wish to be harassed online — I get enough of it in real life. Are you only this aggressive online or is this how you always deal with contrary points-of-view — bile-filled and venomous it may be, but its school-boyish nevertheless. I see that you have a lot of growing up to do, and I’m not being sarcastic. There’s very little point taking on someone when their reasoning is rooted in so much hate.
Some American ass for the Desi mass.
Nayagan
[INSULT DELETED] I’ve seen PG in all her reincarnations down from the original version and that girl, I’m quite certain, is not PG – the tone is completely different. This isn’t even your post anyway – and so what if it’s a humor thread? Others have a right to express their opinion about this photo – and I find it a disturbing picture as well. Lord knows how often Indian women get those looks on the street as well – and unfortunately they are not behind a cage.
112 · Meena said
why don’t you read my next comment, hmm? maybe it’s because you magically misplace literacy as soon as you’re angered? “Preeti and PG” in your world must be tantamount to to “Preeti is PG.” Should we start using a different font here? Would that help?
Quivering lumps of molten rage, hear me well, your emotion is better spent fighting would-be molesters with hands and feet. Who knows, maybe you could secure gov’t sanction and start neutering every boy you see on the street–they are, as you say, just potential molesters, right? The problem is that dire, right? Go forth ye fearsome avengers, and snip with impunity!
Rage? As far as I can see, I’ve only seen ONE massive overreaction to a comment objecting to the premise of the caption contest. Guess who that was, huh? Yep. Maybe you are the one who needs to, I don’t know, take a class on comphrehensive reading skills. Because as far as I can see the OP didn’t implicate ALL men as potential molestors – her post seem to be merely written out of frustration with daily harassment. By the tone of your comments here, which have shocked me, honestly I don’t know how you are even allowed to guest-blog here. It certainly doesn’t allow for a good atmosphere for friendly discourse.
114 · Meena said
Whether it’s the Saffron Brigade or the Moral Majority, my words anger far more prudes than just you–join the crowd and keep coming back to e-froth your frustration with such a hostile environment. Friendly discourse is the product of loyalty pledges and planted questioners in sham townhalls–not anything meaningful or productive. But that’s beside the point–a caption, humorous or not, is at most a few lines of wit–not a paragraph. In pretty much every other caption post, people have understood the premise and commented (to our mutual enjoyment) brilliantly.
Perhaps next time we should use a picture of a nice fuzzy bunny riding a candy-coated choo-choo train to Post-Conflictville.
ok HMF, next time i wear a low-cut dress to the bar, you can say i asked for it.
Is this a position you’ve always held or are you backtracking here as well?
109 · DizzyDesi said
that is not an unusual restriction on freedom of speech, DD. you’re quoting the preamble which not strictly a part of the constitution — it is not enforceable and is just an introduction to what follows. i don’t how ‘reasonable’ is interpreted by indian courts — but the the place to see the relevant definition is part 3, the fundamental rights section (all is available in wikipedia). in any case, how well-written the constitution is an opinion — i just happen to share it with some people. i regret that in india the constitution does not enjoy a stronger connection with the public — although it contains some pretty progressive legislation. not all of it is great — but i won’t trash it just because it is indian or i have been ‘brainwashed’ into thinking is virtuous, as you seem to assume. and here is another example of restraints on speech (specifically in the US constitution). PS: wtf moments are all well — constitutions are historically grounded, and reflect the prejudices of their makers as well as all the compromises made when they were written. so yes, sure things will seem anachronistic 50-60 years on, but that doesn’t mean i’m willing to condemn the entire document. btw, this guy, charles beard, had some wtf moments of his own with the US constitution. his research is very well-regarded and very interesting — one of the best examples of early modern economic history.
Folks, first and foremost, PLEASE DO NOT INSULT ONE ANOTHER. If you find yourself tempted to write “You are a …” on a comment, just don’t. (That goes for EVERYONE.)
Secondly, I did want to indicate that I thought Preeti’s initial comment was a reasonable reaction to this. It’s fair to raise the issue of sexism among Indian men in a post on cheerleaders, even a humorous one. The only caveat is that the person doing it should be speaking in good faith — it’s irritating when people pretend to be someone they’re not to make comments along those lines. In this case, Preeti’s IP address at least confirms that she’s been posting from Bangalore.
Admittedly, I didn’t expect the thread to get so serious, but at some point we have to accept that the joke is dead. The last thing we want to do is snarl at the person who complained, and say, “why aren’t you laughing?”
I only started to look more positively on cheerleading when I started seeing male cheerleadears. In San Francisco, they even do splits 😉
Preeti,
Life in India is deeply frustrating for a woman. I left India a long long time ago because I did not want to deal with Indian men and also to some extent Indian women so I hear you. Anyway, the men and their mail/male order brides followed, had kids, some of whom post on SM. Like father, like son.
“Some TV pundits pointed out that the Redskins cheerleaders are showing more skin on the cricket pitch than most Indian men will see before marriage.” From the article at WashingtonPost
110 · Preeti said
Um. I was trying to defend you. I believe Nayagan was giving you more crap than I was, yet you say I’m harassing you?
87 · LikeThatOnly
um.. were you at iit?
It’s fair to raise the issue of sexism among Indian men in a post on cheerleaders,
Yes. you’re definitely correct here, it does ring a bit counter-intuitive when an event like this is regarded as “moving forward” Secondly, I’d invite everyone to actually consider what makes this a humorous post in the first place. They say that every joke has a modicum of truth behind it, so what’s the truth here? That Indian men are sexually depraved, socially stilted beings that only need women with big pom-poms, and those confetti-type things they hold in their hands dancing in front of them, to bring them into the new era.
dizzidesi, apologies — i misinterpreted your comment. i edited my response to reflect my second reading (the links are available on #117):
That women too may express their sexuality without inviting any violence is accepted and protected by the law only in a few countries and that too until recently. As in the Jodie Foster movie “The Accused” a woman is absolutely free to sport lusty license plates on her car, wear anything she wants, and no mai-ka-laal has any @#$&$$%^ business throwing himself upon her against her will. As far as I know that right is absolute in the US. Titillation (aka ** tease) is no excuse for sex crime. Does the law even understand this in India, do the dunderheads and morons in charge of India’s law enforcement across the land ever intend to enforce such a law without compromise? The extra-ordinary lengths to which governments across the political spectrum – have gone to stamp any sort of gathering of consenting adults – boys and girls – men and women – is deeply shameful in contrast to the pathetic record of prosecution of crimes against women from conception to adulthood. You don’t expect an Majlis party in Hyderabad or a Shiv Sena to utter progressive thoughts – they are caught in a time warp right? What about “rationalist” parties in Tamil Nadu who hounded Kushboo for her opinions or Shreya for her dress? The Commissioner of Police of Chennai (an A-grade chamcha of the ruling party) has been busy winding up night-clubs (night in name only as they have to shut down at 11 pm) and demanding that parents hosting parties for their teens and their friends obtain a permit from his office.
a woman is absolutely free to sport lusty license plates on her car, wear anything she wants, and no mai-ka-laal has any @#$&$$%^ business throwing himself upon her against her will. As far as I know that right is absolute in the US. Titillation (aka ** tease) is no excuse for sex crime
I’m not understanding your point here, are you saying in India, a woman’s dress has been used in a court of law against her in cases of overt physical & sexual violence?
Those women do not know how lucky they are to be behind that fence.
I hate to imagine what would happen if the fence was not in place. I don’t have to, New Year’s Eve in Mumbai for a few NRI women already answered that question for me.
I really doubt if these were duly informed how deep the rabbit hole goes in India if they would have willingly gone and participated in this.
On the otherhand, Indian cheerleaders, who grew up in the rabbit hole, do indeed know how deep it goes and yet they are forming a cheering team to do the very same thing. I assume however that their outfits will not be as skimpy (any photos?).
I am all for a sexual revolution in India, but one that will place women on top (pun intended). This type of female only cheerleading squad is sending out the wrong message. In fact, it’s sending out the same old message that has been sent out to women in India for the last so many centuries.
This will change nothing. And like Preeti says, for the common woman on the street, it could be dangerous.
That photo is wrong on so many levels.
And Moor Nam makes an excellent point; they are the only women in the stadium!!!! Well, at least in that photo.
Come now, where are all these guys’s moms, sisters, aunties, daughters, girlfriends, wives and well, just plain old female friends???
Surely Indian women are cricket fans too?
Again, this is wrong on so many levels.
That photo is wrong on so many levels.
What would have been an interesting experiment would’ve been to just post the picture and ask people to name what/where/why it is (of course removing any obvious demarcators that it’s a cricket game)
I am all for a sexual revolution in India, but one that will place women on top
Examples?
If Indian men are so crass and sexually repressed, why don’t the Indian women ease their repression. Oh noes, cultural values to be held by them. They want to marry what their dear mommy and daddy ask them to. And I am sure Men are the one who want that, wait that is not what Preeti is talking about. It is not possible to be an Indian man, and have all the girls available to them for fun and not available for fun at the same time. The point is Indian men are just like any other men in the world. In fact it is the Indian women who has the double standard as much as the Indian men.
I apologize to any grammar nazi regarding my post above. I should type slower.
And Moor Nam makes an excellent point; they are the only women in the stadium!!!! Well, at least in that photo.
Look carefully, click at the photo, there are women in the picture. Hint: Two in the middle with a green sari, and another one with purple sari.
Also, in India, and Pakistan, there are women only stands in the stadium, in addition to open stands.
Two heads above the brunette cheer leader on the right: there are three women sitting in the stadium.
If you look carefully, you will see quite a few of them.
In 30 seconds, I can spot 15 women in the picture in the stadium.
Another sightings, two about the redskins banner above the African American cheerleader.
127 · Very Scary said
You are all for rundees!
127 · Very Scary said
Oh really, would a normal Indian girl go out with a guy if he asked her out. I can tell you with experience you may have to ask approximately around 100 girls to find one who would do that. I am just talking about girlfriends. Mothers,sisters,wives would probably say cricket is boring, let alone go to a stadium. Is it solely because of the guy here. I don’t think so. And is there really any such thing as plain old female friends.
You point here leads me to believe you are a girl who actually does not know how deep the rabbit hole goes in India. As a matter of fact I appreciate the Indian cheerleaders who are being open minded about this.
Yes, Alice, the Wonderland of India is quite fascinating. It’s like they do everything backwards there, like going through a looking glass, if you will.
Discussing pain and sexual RPM is fine, but could we stop the exotification metaphors please?
Sil,
Please look at the picture carefully, there are women all over.
In addition, to examples above.
On the right, there is guy with pink shirt, there are three women sitting next to him (to left of him).
I stand corrected: In less than 5 seconds, I can spot 15 women in the picture in the stadium.
Cricket stadiums in India and Pakistan are full of women, sure, some of them are women only stands.
That is a loaded sentence. Why the need for gender segregated stands?
Very Scary,
Do you really want to learn or you are just asking questions for the sake of it? The rationale is similar to women only buses, cars in Bombay locals etc. Cricket in India is not a male spectator sport as some may have you believe. Kush rightly points out to the facts and I used to regularly watch matches at Firozshah Kotla and Wankhede and although the ratio is not 50:50 but there are many women who come to watch matches.
And on top of everything, this is exotification of the pardesi gori (foreign female), with a few pardesi kalis mixed in as well.
Exotification = objectification = oppression!
Wrong on so many levels.
Now a mixed cheerleading team of both male and female desis in skimpy clothes (or not skimpy), would be so much righter.
Over the ages, India has always taken what fits its cultural ethos and has discarded what doesn’t.
Example: The lifecycle of the Public Sector Units (PSUs). Not even the most rabid socialist JNU jhola-wala will deny that India has always been a very entrepreneurial and innovative society. Less than 60 years after PSUs were set up (a mere moment in the history of a country, especially one that is as ancient as India), the government has started either privatizing them or dismantling them.
The lesson? You can try and impose what you want on India; it will eventually take its own path.
It is true that Indian society is generally sexually deprived in this age. But it was not always so (Kama Sutra anyone?). Such is the cycle of history. Combined with images like these, satellite TV, and Hollywood, it is understandable that people think this is a ticking demographic time-bomb. However, it is a bit naive to believe that the current trend of forcing overt symbols of Westernization in a traditional society like India will have a lasting impact.
Preeti, I sympathize with you. Indian metropolises are not the safest places for women, but I do believe that the situation will eventually change for the better.
Why the need for gender segregated stands?
Very Scary,
I did not make the rules for women in cricket stadiums in India and Pakistan, I am just telling you the facts.
In Pakistan, it is cultural and religious.
In India, some of it is safety, and logistics, and many other factors – yes, to control streetside harassment (eve-teasing). This is in addition to open stands. Even trains, and buses have them.
I will repeat again, I did not make the segregated stands, just telling you what it is. I wish you would have clicked the picture above, before pontificating.
how deep the rabbit hole goes in India
Not only that, isn’t it an erroneous metaphor to begin with? Doesn’t the rabbit hole correspond to Alice’s method of entering Wonderland, the place of surreality, where dreams and strange things are reality?
I understand very well why the need for gender segregation in the stands and on the busses in India. Just making a point.
Anyway, as a feminist I have serious issues with the whole cheerleading thing in general. And with this type of exotification in particular.
I’d like to know why they are not training desi males to pounce their pachas around for the sexual edification of the women in the stands.
Now if only most of the Indian girls were like
…sigh
Oh don’t bother Very Scary sounds dangerously like PG and if that is correct I just wasted few minutes typing the earlier comment.
I’d like to know why they are not training desi males to pounce their pachas around for the sexual edification of the women in the stands.
No, instead they create a society that trains desi males to work meaningless, boring jobs to make money, because god knows that’s the only way to get a women in the stand (or out of the stand) interested. Sure it’s not the same kind of objectification, but isn’t it just as bad?
134 · Rahu said
Yes, we are all for them. However, we really dislike jerks [Sorry on speaking on everyone’s behalf, but I think this is a relatively uncontroversial claim :)]
Maybe you’re being funny — but that language isn’t helping your cause.
I can speak to my experience in urban India which is where I grew up. You will find all of the above — the extent to which women are willing to go out certainly varies by city, and many choose to have relationships which they conceal from family. It’s true that men and women both bear the consequences of gender segregation in India — but the situation in urban India is pretty complex. There are families which do not allow mingling with people of the opposite sex; still other families allow friendships, especially within mixed groups in context of school and college; relatively few (probably upper-middle class and higher SES) parents allow their children to have open romantic relationships. I do think, however, that relationships where the couple is more committed and definitely headed toward marriage are now much more acceptable to more ‘traditional’ parents. For families of girls, there is a big risk in allowing them to see males in the open. If the relationship doesn’t end in a wedding, the girls then face a disadvantage in the arranged marriage scene. Remember, it is a man’s family and the man himself that are demanding ‘untainted’ goods. This applies to men as well. Those who have ‘bad’ reputations which follow them, also don’t do well on the arranged marriage market. But this stigma is less damaging to men. In any case, the whole system is stacked against dating in the open. But women are not entirely to blame when they don’t want to be seen at a stadium with a guy.
125 · jyotsana said
hear, hear!
rundees
If I may ask, what does this mean?