Tuesday, June 21, 2005
She was shocked at this question, and clearly mystified that I had the slightest doubt about it. I referred this incident to my friends later, and they said I must be mad if I expected her to even think about something of that kind.
I said I didn’t really expect her to do it – after all, she was going to live with her in-laws now, and she had to think about their reaction – but I resented the fact that she didn’t think it was a legitimate question.
And I still resent it. One of my other questions was if she would wear a mangal-sutra. I expected the answer to be no. It was yes, but at least she thought it qualified as a question. Feminism, it seems, has brought the general public to that stage at least.
Another time, I was talking to my friends. I expressed the thought that if I earned enough money through my writing, and/or my wife had a well-paying job, I’d like to become a house-husband. My friends actually laughed at that. Then, when they saw I was serious, one of them asked me if I could bear the indignity, as he saw it, of ‘washing her panties and stuff’. If my mother could bear that ‘indignity’ for so many years, I don’t see why I shouldn’t. Anyway, right now, in our house, I’m the one who washes the clothes (i.e., puts them in the machine and turns it on), but I realise he was probably speaking metaphorically.
There are many other issues of this kind that I like to discuss, but which seem to mystify many people. I remember one incident – my mother and I were talking about kids in general. I said I’d like to have one daughter, and that’s it. My mother seemed agitated. She said that I should have a son, at the very least. Why, I asked. She said it’s better. Here, I’d like to note that my sister is older than me. Still, I must say I haven’t perceived any other sign of prejudice of this kind from her.
Clearly, we have a long way to go yet.
Till a few months ago, I used to call myself a feminist, but the word ‘feminist’ seems to make people think that you believe women are superior to men. I am a bit ambiguous about that, and therefore, I now call myself an anti-sexist, and I try to express that through my writing as well. This is where political correctness comes in.
I think that the idea behind PC is a good one, but its purpose is to make people tolerant of each other, and yet we see that most of the new concepts of PC are formulated by some of the most intolerant people around. There might not be a very long way to go before we have to start calling dead people ‘electroencephalographically challenged’ and funny people as, perhaps, ‘seriously challenged’ (heh-heh). But still, I approve of most of the PC related to sex and gender.
When you are talking about people, should you write ‘man’ or ‘humans’? When you refer to a person of unspecified sex, should you refer to them as ‘she’ or ‘he’ or ‘he/she’? I like taking the middle route as much as possible, and therefore, I decided I’d write whatever’s easier to write. But then, I thought that there’s still too much male-centricity even today, so to counter that, my writing should tip on the female side.
Therefore, I write ‘s/he’, which is easier to write, and ‘her/him’. And when the ‘/’ feels unseemly, I write ‘she’ or ‘her’.
One of the characters in my first book (still writing) refers to any human of unspecified sex as ‘it’. But that might be due to the fact that he’s a vampire.
I have begun to like using ‘it’. So I will end my post by saying that if you meet a friend who might be interested in discussing this kind of thing, please refer it to this post.
June 21, 2005 11:25 am
*hugs*
No, keep calling yourself a feminist, we need men who are willing to declare their feminism. In the broadest sense of the term, feminism is simply an acknowledgement that the system has been (and IS) skewed in favour of men. And the desire to change that.
If I ever marry, I'll switch to my husband's surname it it's shorter than mine, my name is long and unwieldly. I'm not sure how not taking your husband's name is much of a radical break fom patriarchy, considering your original surname is usually that of your father. It's more of a rebellion against the traditional idea of marriage - that of the woman being owned.
Hmm. I'd have thought most men would love to be that intimately acquainted with a woman's panties. Do I just know the wrong kind of guy?
My guy is currently urging me to become rich so I can 'keep' him and he won't have to *work*
As regards PCness, I have mixed feelings. I strongly believe in freedom of speech, and PC types can be as intolerant and censorious as racists, chauvinists, etc. But the fact that PCness starts from good intentions redeems it somewhat for me, and I do see a need for it in certain areas.
(did you get the blogger invite thingy? email me!)
June 21, 2005 11:26 am
er. IF it's shorter than mine. Not IT it's. Though I'm sure you could have figured that out anyway.;)
June 21, 2005 11:58 am
Hmm. Perhaps I should call myself feminist. 'Anti-sexist' is a bit gimmicky anyway, isn't it?
You're quite right about the change of name. Perhaps we ought to think of something else. Maybe, in a dramatic break from tradition (both literally and figuratively) both the bride and the groom could change their names to a previously decided one. (This would be the cue for my male friends to laugh, which always infuriates me. They can't even think about it, let alone consider it in any kind of serious manner.) It's actually rather interesting to think about, and it might not be as silly as it may seem at first glance. There should be as much of an input of ideas as possible before we get to any kind of consensus.
I'm still ambiguous about PC, but I do believe that the basic idea is good. I don't like words like 'African-American', but would I rather call them blacks or Negroes? Not really.
PS: I was checking the page twice an hour all day for a reaction, because this topic is usually volatile in my friends' circle. And your reaction was actually favourable! Thanks a million. It's good to get something so close to my heart validated.
PPS: What blogger invite thingy? I didn't get it. What was it about?
June 21, 2005 12:18 pm
Hey maybe you can be innovative like Phoebe and change your name like she did to Princess Consuella Banana Hammock!!
Your questions seems pretty decent man. There is nothing wrong in it. Even I have many queries, but sadly don't have a close sis whose married to ask them!
There is simply just no indignity in washing clothes or even cooking! It finally depends on how you feel. Your idea of a "house-husband" does seem nice. You get more time at home and can be with our family without having any stress/tension of work.
I just have no comments on PC. Cos I hate those guys sooo much, that I just wont stop giving abuses to them!
June 22, 2005 8:08 am
So what would you call someone of negroid (which should not be more offensive than 'mongoloid' or 'caucasian') features who lives in Britain? Zimbabwe? Germany?
I've always seen "African American" as a cultural rather than a racial identification for black americans. In most of Europe you don't see that... which is also possibly the reason you seem to see more interracial relationships in Europe? I'm not sure. Hmm.
In countries which are predominantly *black* (mostly countries which originally had a black population) the issue of cultural identification isn't really as much of an issue, of course.
*blink* How did we get onto this from feminism?
Email me! *angryface*
June 22, 2005 8:19 am
nice post - I just hope you stay this way after you get married! and if you want to be a househusband, then yo! till then - 'anti-sexist' sounds more like you are eager to make a point - I think you must go with it :) and er, confession, I am female and I have always thought only females could be feminists! I haven't changed my name nor do I wear a mangalsutra - both just too much effort - not really any stance form my side...
and you have given examples in this post which are so real - all of us have gone thru it... enjoyed reading it:)
June 23, 2005 11:00 am
@Scout:
PC stands for Political Correctness.
I know that 'it' is derogatory, but it's making a point, and when you make a point you'd rather the reader paid attention to something different (perhaps even slightly shocking) than simply ignored a much-used phrase. I used to use 'one' and I still do a lot of the time, but I still think 'it' is rather attractive.
I get my DVDs from the British Library mostly. I more-or-less forsook Hollywood some time ago, so I don't mind the fact they don't have American DVDs. I do have Magnolia, and I liked it, but I haven't been able to watch the whole film yet - I don't have much time these days. Haven't watched Requiem for a Dream, though. That's the one with Jennifer Connelly, isn't it? What's it about?
My latest acquisitions are Ripping Yarns, Nick Broomfield's Aileen Wuornos films, No Man's Land (the film that defeated apna Lagaan to the Oscars) and David Attenborough's The Private Life of Plants.
June 23, 2005 12:19 pm
I just cant imagine myself sitting in the house and doing the chores you are describing.Come on dude how can u just "sit" home and do nothing for living .And I also think thatr it's far from your antisexist cry.A better way is of sharing the household chores acc to special skills abilities one posseses.For instance you can't expect your darling to fix the leaking gutter pipe and eat the crap u cook.It's basically a question of balance and distribution of chores .as for the mangalsutra and changing surname thiny it's really a person spec phenomenon(aishwarya's post is a good eg in that sense)
as for the PC thing I thing it's just a facade and btwn us lets remain gut to gut.
I have one point to raise about women many a times trying to take adv of their feminine or femiline (watever) and discriminate against males(I'm not saying us or me,Ladies!!)That's really disgusting considering that they fight for their rights of equality and take a wrong meamning out of the equal treatment leading to silly and baseless aggressiveness.
June 23, 2005 12:20 pm
seems like a competion is goin on here ,My comment longest! ;)
June 24, 2005 9:16 am
@Chetan: do you think housewives sit at home and do nothing? And why should Aditya assume that his girlfriend/wife would be unable to fix the leaking pipe, and why should he not learn how to cook?
And the world is already so far skewed in favour of men, that when men start whining about discrimination it is laughable. It's like those americans who honestly seem to think that the heterosexual white male is the most discriminated-against member of society.
June 24, 2005 9:59 am
Hey.....being a "house husband" isn't so difficult. I've been suggesting that to my wife since we started dating years ago.......
and I have a few other friends who want to be house husbands....
It's the good life....believe me. The moment my wife starts making some real money, i'm going to drop real work, cook more, garden more, and teach at some municipal school.
June 25, 2005 2:15 am
Sorry so late in replying - Blogger was giving me all sorts of itchy and scratchy problems. This might be a bit long.
@Chetan: Your examples are exactly the kind of stereotypical images I am against. Is there anything that makes me inherently better at repairing pipes and my wife better at cooking just because she's a woman and I'm a man? Nothing, I believe. As for women taking unfair advantage of feminism, as Aishwarya says, to whine about it is quite laughable when women are still so oppressed.
@Nilesh:
> I asked each of them whether its obvious that after marriage the girl will drop everything she's doing and go with the guy and they couldnt think of it as a legit issue
Do you mean to say that women leaving everything for their men should be a legit issue, or the other way round? The latter, right? In a perfect world, both would be just as legitimate, but currently you'll find very few men thinking of leaving their careers for their wives – it's all the other way round. We need more men to think in the correct way – only then will it be a legitimate issue. Marriage is two-sided, and no wife will force her man to be a house-husband if he cannot even start to think about it.
@Sunil: Thanks for the comment. I don't think being a house-husband is very easy, but I'd really like to do it.
June 25, 2005 3:47 am
Think all u guys hav taken a wrong meaning out of it.
I'm not saying that women can't do things men can as such but then if they are striving so much for the so called equality and all, how come they ask for reservations ,women quota and chivalry from men.
I'm ready to cook ,infact I like to cook(well,most of the times it's crap!) for my wife to be and honestly will never consider it any less than other kind of work.
And BD how can you say what u hav replied knowing my mom is a housewife and I have constantly admired her and regretted that because of us(children ) she never could pursue her interests and all.
Well ,All the people (including men ,women and woh) I would like to apologise for my somewhat illy framed coment which has led to complications.And as for Aditya doing any "in house" things ,C'mon dude we know what u do ;)
June 25, 2005 3:48 am
BTW i'm not married :)
June 25, 2005 3:50 am
Not Found
The requested URL was not found on this server. Please visit the Blogger homepage or the Blogger Knowledge Base for further assistance.
is the page I was led to when I tried to find salil's blog
June 25, 2005 7:13 am
@Chetan: Whenever any kind of revolution happens, there is bound to be a slight imbalance. What you must take into account is that while the emancipation of women has happened in a few places (and these places are very few), there are still parents who would not send their daughters to school if they had to pay her fees. And reservations confirm that no woman is refused admission to any institution solely because she's a woman, which would've happened had there been no reservations. I know there are people who take undue advantage of this (we both know one example of that), but considering the flipside, I'd much rather have the quotas and reservations.
I know the example of your mother, of course, and I should've taken that into consideration, but I was irritated by you implying that men should not stay at home (be 'home-makers', to quote a PC example), meaning that it is in some way 'under' us, or demeaning to us.
And as for me doing any 'in-house' stuff, I am just as efficient (or inefficient) at that as I am at doing any 'out of the house' stuff. Aren't I? :)
PS: I can access Salil's site just fine. Perhaps you're typing it wrong.
June 25, 2005 11:03 am
@Nilesh: This does make it much clearer. I kinda figured this was what you wanted to say - just wanted to make sure. It is this kind of dismissal of the woman's opinion which is irritating. It is some kind of silly innate assumption that the man's career is somehow more important than the woman's (a theory flatly contradicted at my house). The best situation would the one I described in my reply to you above, but that's rather far off in the future, although it is up to us (both women and men) to work together to make it imaginable.
June 25, 2005 11:11 am
I do disagree with reservation for women in any sort of manner. But I guess its required later on. I will try and make my point clear. My mom works full time at a bank as an officer. She goes at around 10am and comes back at 9pm. Even with this schedule, she finds time to go to the gym, watch movies, go out for shopping and do what she likes. She has perfectly balanced everything. Along with this she always invites relatives for lunch/dinner making new dishes as per their tastes. She will never say no if i ask her to make certain dish that i like. However tough it maybe, she will make it a point to get it ready for me. She even makes arrangements for food for me in the evenings. I am sure none of us can manage it so well. After doing so much I think a gratitude towards her would be making things easy for her. But at this stage there is very little to do other than help her. The reservation thing wont help her at all! Many a times girls make a misuse of it. They take thier "deserved" seats and after becoming an engineer get married and become housewives! I think this is unfair on a male student's part cos he would have made some use of that seat.
After seeing what my mom, or for that reason, any other woman can or have the power to do, I think we shouldn't be ashamed as males to take up some of their work. I doesnt make us "feminist". I dont mind doing some cleaning or cooking or washing clothes at all! I think we should shun the image of a woman as a "housewife" and get her out of the house. She has,can and will do a lot.
June 25, 2005 1:27 pm
@Varun- one of the major problems with society as it is now is that a degree on for a woman is treated as just another thing in that list of desireable qualities for brides - fair skin, domestic, "Indian values", etc. But when a girl takes a reserved seat, gets a degree and then gets married, why is she getting married? Is the solution a)To deny women a right to education so that they don't 'waste' it on housewife-ing, or b)to create a situation where marriage/housewifing/children is not the most obvious choice?
I think we should shun the image of a woman as a "housewife" and get her out of the house. She has,can and will do a lot.
Okay, but some women actually choose to be housewives. Isn't the main point not to abolish housewives (I'm sure you didn't mean that anyway), but to maximise the number of choices available to anyone, male or female?
June 25, 2005 10:04 pm
Aishwarya : About the degree thing, I would like to add is many people use it as an "added advantage" to get their daughter married. It adds to the "class factor" and there are chances of her getting a better husband. I think we should stop using education for such purposes just to boost the opportunities of marriage. I am not denying any woman of her right to study, but before any woman or for that matter any person (male/female) should be sure of what his/her goal is. I feel it would be an insult towards education if it went to waste.
Many women do prefer to become housewives and I have no grudge against that. What I meant to say is many parents, relatives want a perfect "housewife". Who will stay in the house, do all the house work. Many a times she is denied or forced to leave her job/career. This image of a married woman should be phased out. It is still very much prevalent in the Indian System. (I have seen it in my family too)
June 26, 2005 2:02 am
The bride : Exactly what I wanted to say! It seems easy to us when someone else does it, but when it comes onto you its different! Hope u can cope up well!!
June 26, 2005 10:37 am
@Varun: I agree with reservations as at least a temporary solution, until our attitudes themselves improve. Basically, I agree with Aishwarya here. I also think you're being slightly silly when you say we should think about the education angle before educating girls. Also, I agree that the degree has become just another commodity, but it can empower the woman as well. For example, if the marriage doesn't work out, her degree will help her to be confident enough to leave her husband, because she knows she can stand alone without him as well. Everything has its good and bad sides, but as I said, the good sides of reservation are way more. As Aishwarya said, we should work towards maximising opportunities for both sexes. And, on a side note, the ultimate goal of feminism is that there should be no need for the word itself, and we've got a long way to go before that happens.
@Shweta: Quite right you should protest. What happens is that people simply assume that the woman should do all the work, and do not even think about the other way round. We need to be reminded again and again - only then shall we think about it.
@Scout: Sorry this was a bit late, but I only got your reference to Magnolia now. You're referring to the Tom Cruise sequence, aren't you? I've watched slightly more than half the movie, and that sequence is hilarious at first, but gets quite chilling later on. This happens, and it's creepy.
June 26, 2005 11:52 am
I am not at all against maximising opportunities for both sexes! I am just trying to point out what usually happens. And Aditya, about the part where the woman can stand alone after her marriage is "over". Well I guess the type of women who get married after doing their engineering are the ones who usually don't leave their husbands. Or maybe they will be "forced" not to leave them!
" I also think you're being slightly silly when you say we should think about the education angle before educating girls" - I am not saying that girls should be denied education or you should think twice before educating a girl. Its just that any person who takes up education should be sure of his/her aim in life. It is not something that you can do within a day and doesnt make a difference even if you don't make use of it. Even boys who don't make use of what they have learnt are equally bad. I am not trying to fixate this point onto girls.
June 27, 2005 12:10 am
@Chetan: I was not referring to the comment that I replied to, I was referring to your comment before that one.
June 28, 2005 12:21 am
Well said Salil!!!
June 28, 2005 1:55 am
@Salil: I was waiting eagerly for your comment. I knew you'd have a lot to say.
Firstly, about my sister's change of name. In her case, changing the name was more-or-less obvious – for two reasons: 1) she was going to live with her in-laws, and 2) she is a rather orthodox person. What I resented was that she didn't believe that normal, middle-class women could keep their names. Your reasoning is valid in her case, but not in most others. Today, 'entering another family' and all that is, or should be, an outdated concept. Most couples live in a house of their own. And anyway, you are reiterating the age-old implication that a woman's original family is no longer her own and she belongs to a new family now. We should now know better than that.
About women being treated on par with men, I say that there is no level playing field. If there was, we would not need any kind of reservations. Also, we would not see today that women work and then they come home and cook as well, while their husbands sit on the sofa watching tv and talking about how much they worked. Also, all over the world, women are paid less for the same amount of work. So how can they fight on a level playing field if there is none? One more thing – you are saying all this as if women and men are supposed to fight each other for their rights rather than come together and work towards equality. I realize that your comments (and I am talking to Chetan and Varun as well here) come from personal irritation, but try to look at it objectively.
Lastly, I meant the comment on washing the clothes myself as a slightly sarcastic addendum to my prior statement, as was made clear by the parentheses, the use of 'i.e.', and the fact that I said that I realized you had made your comment metaphorically. If, after all this, you still think I was serious, well ... what can I say?
And as a post-script, I'm a bit puzzled by your remark on 'anti-feminist'. I have not used the word even once, either in the post or in any comment, neither have I implied that any of the people commenting here are anti-feminist. None of the people I am talking about are sexist or anti-feminist either. These are normal people, which makes this kind of behaviour even starker.
June 28, 2005 3:28 am
Okay...I feel like picking this apart bit by bit. And not too politely either.
So, changing her surname after marriage will help any woman to enter another family that she is strange to, at least to some degree, in a smooth way.
In my case, I'd be entering a relationship, not a family. I don't plan to live in a hindi serial with a massive family under one roof. And I'd certainly hope I was likeable enough even without the same surname as the family. And I will not be passed around, from 'belonging' to one family to 'entering' another. I'm not furniture.
They feel that men should fight for their liberation, girls should be treated on par with boys. I think this is the most arrogant case of hypocrisy. I think women and girls should fight for their own rights at least in today’s world.
Absolutely. And continuing with that logic, white people should not be allowed to be against racism (brown skinned and black skinned people must fight for their own rights, alone!) and people below the poverty line cannot be socialists.
Of course women like men who believe that they should be given equal opportunities and treated with respect. This actually surprises you? This does not imply that we need men to fight for our beliefs. It simply means that we like and admire their viewpoint, because it's one we agree with. Anyway, men have only openly begum to declare themselves feminists in recent years. The whole suffragette movement in the west, the position women are in today, all came from women, who actually fought for their rights and did not expect the men to do it for them.
Try to outwit them on level playing field.
There is no level playing field. If you're a girl in this country, you're lucky if you get sent to school. You're lucky if you're allowed to take up challenging subjects for a good career. You're lucky if your parents choose to pay your tuition instead of just that of your brother. Women would be thrilled to meet men on a level playing field - all we ask is that some work be done towards creating such a field.
June 28, 2005 12:56 pm
Aishwarya : In my case, I'd be entering a relationship, not a family. I don't plan to live in a hindi serial with a massive family under one roof
Umm.. reality check : We live in India. When you get married you just don't marry your husband, but you start a "relationship" with the whole "family". Its surprising how you don't about this and still make the statement! Of all the brides that I have seen within my (small) family and within my relatives, all of them have made it a point to meet the whole clan (relatives whom even I don't know or haven't seen) and that too before the marriage. You just can't avoid this!
I think women like men who call themselves "feminists" because they have found someone who is just like them, but not them! They feel that he understands women better than others.
The outfield for women is already there. I have read so many times in the papers during the time of results - "Girls outshine boys". If this is the case then why are things being made easier for them? Its the year 2005 now. I think the issue for spending money on sons education rathar than the daughter's is almost gone now. Although it is very prevelant in the villages, efforts are on to reduce that but it will take time. I have seen that girls, now, have become very much career minded than boys.
Aditya : I am not at all personally irritated! I have got admission into a very good engg. college, the way i wished for. What I said to Aishwarya, applies to you to! Girls are already going ahead of guys, so why the freebies? The outfield is already set just that many girls fail to see it. There is nothing about "fighting for equal rights" at this point of time. We are no longer living in the historical periods. Women have equal opportunities as men. I think they just want things made easy for them! this is true with men also!
June 29, 2005 9:16 am
Oh for *deity of choice*'s sake.
Salil - I agree that family has a very prominent role in Indian society (that goes for you too Varun)And yes, at least 60% of society, (I'd say the number was higher than that, maybe 80) follow those customs. But what you are effectively saying is that because the traditional customs are so prevalent, those of us who don't believe them should not try to escape them. I don't reject the concept of family because' it's old, I reject the fact that it treats me like a possession. And I'm certainly not suggesting that no woman should take her husband's surname, only that it is an issue which is important to me, and I don't like it when the majority can dismiss it as something unimportant simply because they are the majority.
Aishwarya tried to claim that women today are strong enough to fight for their liberation. Who helped them to realize their equal rights?
Are you suggesting that men and only men helped women to realise their equality? That has to be the strangest thing I've heard all week. I'm not discounting the contribution made by various men (Phule and J.S Mill are some of my heroes) but you're whitewashing women out of women's lib!
Instead of respecting their magnanimity...
Er.How is it magnanimous to tell the truth? I give them credit for their ability to see that women were as good as them, yes, they were intelligent men. But magnanimous?
This is not the edifice to consider that issue. It will create unnecessary complications
I apologise for disturbing the status quo. ((sarcasm, in case you have trouble with that))
Varun - Read what I wrote to Salil. I have enough married relatives to know how the system works. But just because "we live in India" is no reason why I should be the victimised daughter in law of an Ekta Kapoor production. If Adi's sister wants to take on her husband's surname, that's upto her. But I'd like to reach a point where society considered Adi's question a valid one.
As for reservation, when women are given the facilities that men are given, they often do better than men, you're right. We see the stats every year after the boards, where the average marks of the girls are quite a bit higher than those of the boys. But if you look at the numbers of girls vs boys who actually take the exam, the boys are by far the majority. Why do you think that is?
*I* don't need a reservation. I've grown up with the same facilities as most boys, I've competed with boys (physically and intellectually) all my life. I'm lucky - I have reasonably liberal parents, and decent brains. I'm unlikely to apply for a reserved seat anywhere, because I don't need it. Some people do and that is why reservation is necessary. Yes, some people misuse it...some people have had the same opportunities as boys and should not need reserved seats. That has to do with the college's methods of verifying,not feminism.
This is getting repetitive for me...I'll come back when Salil explains how my perfectly valid racism analogy is inappropriate.
June 30, 2005 10:57 am
Women's Liberation will lead to Men's Liberation. Are women ready for that ? I do not know. I am just curious. I would love to be a writer and to be a house husband just like AB. But, that not how my wife's father was and every woman wants her man to be similar to her father where as she does not want to play the roles her mother played.
Do you know some techies in Bangalore who used to be Male Feminists are now preparing a "Jail Stay Manual"?
With Best Regards
Maksim
July 01, 2005 12:46 pm
Aishwarya : I am not saying you become an Ekta Kapoor Production. Its just that i would like to point out, whatever you mite say finally there are gonna b a few things which u wont b able 2 avoid, even if u hate them a lot.And about the college's part of givin reservation for girls - Its not the college who has decided for it. The govt. has made it mandatory for all colleges to do so. And why did the govt force it? Cos some1 made a petition about it. If you try to reach its source many "not to mention" things mite come out. But thats besides the point. I guess this whole thing is going away from the topic of the blog!
September 19, 2005 9:05 pm
Hey, I confront the same issues. English is sexist and I use (s)he.
September 22, 2005 5:35 am
Aditya,
A long twisted road led me here.
I've kinda gone through the same exercise a long back when I fought with my sister and a cousin sister for they wanted another cousin of mine to change the name of his to-be-bride for they didn't like it (okay it's too long a sentence). No not last name mind you. They later changed their stance, but I learned my lesson number one. Women are as much part of this "patriarchy" as men are. It's a system and not just a gender thing.
My wife uses her maiden name in toto (as I had hoped she would, for using maiden or otherwise had to be her choice), and even my close friends have passed sarcastic remarks or two at (in)appropriate moments. But the most reproaches come from the feminine quarters.
I've debated whether I should call myself a feminist for a long time too, more so for feminism is a body of ideas, an ism and can get tiresome. But if i want to chose one ism, I'd chose it. Only I see that I'll also have to fight women as much as I'd have to fight men.
Nice blog, btw. I'm glad to meet yet another feminist man. Keep asking those questions, however illegitimate people might think they are. It's a first step, alright.
Here is a link to my ramblings on similar subjects:
http://asuph.blogspot.com/2005/03/scattered-thoughts-on-international.html
Will be watching this space...
regards,
asuph.
October 26, 2005 12:54 pm
hey aditya,
nice blog...enjoyed reading some of your posts...keep writing.
October 30, 2005 8:45 am
Thanks for the wishes. :)
November 12, 2005 11:22 pm
Hey nice blog..will keep coming back.It is refreshing to come across a feminist guy or an anti sexist one..whatever. These conventional forms of rebellion (like not wearing the mangalsutra,not changing your surname) are not really synonymous with liberation.Having your dad's surname or your husband's still means wou are entrenched int wo corners of patriarchy.upper middle lcass educated women in India are still in a way limited by their gender identity despite all talk of empowerment blah blah.
Do read my blog. zteky.blogspot.com
November 13, 2005 10:57 am
Yes, great to see these issues being debated--three cheers for Aditya for starting it. By the way, I was 35 years old when I married, had published, taught, done a graduate degree under my unmarried name. Just didn't feel like 'changing' my name. Why is that such a big issue? It's my name innit? Have men tried the experiment of someone trying to change their names? Agreed the unmarried name is still the father's name, but I like it more. Why should that play any role in my relationship with my husband? He was fine with it, my inlaws raised their collective eyebrows, I ignored it.
I take the point that in Indian society one has to have a relationship with one's inlaws. I was deferential to them, let my ma in law take over the kitchen, lecture me on how to organize the pantry, tell me to wash my hair on certain days of the week etc etc(after I had lived on my own for 10 freakin' years. My deference did NOT stop her. To go on and on saying the Indian family is important is to ignore the problems of everyday interaction and social readjustment of expectations that every intelligent person should take on. So if dowry deaths happen in Indian families, should one keep singing the praises of the family? That logic never got anyone anywhere. More power to Aishwarya for saying that everyone needs more choices, and more choices do not have to mean that people get hostile towards each other. Families are like any other institution--they should be critiqued and kept in check. I kept wondering, why is it so important for my ma-in-law to 'reform' me? That also goes to the issue of women being anti-feminists. OF course women can be. Internalized patriarchy, years of being told to be the protectors of culture, inability to recognize their own best interests, and yes, conservative women--the US Republican party is full of them.
November 13, 2005 12:33 pm
@asuph: Sorry for the (really) late reply. It is a system, indeed and women are a part of it too. The system has been internalised by everybody, and these things are done without thinking about why one is doing them. I went through a similar debate with myself, before realising that the world is so skewed at the moment that my stance is very clearcut.
@Yam: It is the principle behind liberation that I am arguing for, and not the form, which might be anything, differing with each person. There is nothing wrong with changing your name or wearing a mangal-sutra, but there is a lot wrong with the fact that women 'have to' do these things. I say that these things should not be arbitrary, and should be thought about before one does them. For example, if a man decides to change his last name to his wife's, he'd be (and is) laughed at. What I wish for is a world where both would be just as valid. Talk is always the beginning - the little development that has taken place would not have done so without talk. But talk is, of course, only the beginning.
@Kanya: Thank you for the compliment. And I completely agree with you. It's your name, and you have the right to decide what you want to do with it. And thanks for illustrating our point. The maintenance of 'family relations' should not be at the expense of your personal freedom. And the sentiment of 'we have to accept it' is exactly the wrong one to take. What exactly is it that gives your in-laws supremacy over you? Zilch. Nothing. So why should you do something for the sole reason that they want you to do it?