I started reading Margaret George's 'Helen of Troy'. This is a different version of history - Helen of Troy is told as a first person account of Helen herself.
When I first read an abridged version of Homer's 'The Iliad' and later watched the movie, 'Troy', I was full of admiration for the Greek heroes - Achilles, Odysseus and even Menelaus, to some extent.
I never really cared about Helen and Paris - impulsive lovers who had eloped. Helen was just a beautiful face in the whole story who was coveted by many and the one who had the power to have armies fighting for her return to Sparta.
But, now after reading this beautiful, touching story, I learnt certain things: Helen was a princess of Sparta and could inherit the queenship if a man who did not have a kingdom of his own, were to wed her. That is how Menelaus became king of Sparta - by marrying Helen. Hence, it was a kind of a matriarchical system.
I also learnt that they had a daughter, Hermione (I liked the name Hermione from Harry Potter, now I know its source) and that they were married for ten years before Helen eloped with Paris. Helen was married at a very young age, at fifteeen after an open contest of suitors akin to the ancient Indian practice of swayamvar (where royal brides chose their groom from an assembly of suitors).
But now, it occurred to me - what sort of queen would risk her reputation, the companionship of her family, even the closeness to her own child, not to mention her personal safety for a man, no matter how attractive he was? The story goes that Paris was promised the most beautiful woman in the world as his wife by none other than Aphrodite herself, the goddess of love and beauty in the Greek pantheon. Well, if you are a fatalist, you would believe that destiny or God had a hand in the whole saga. But, Paris and Helen also made a choice to elope. Helen, particularly. Why? Margaret George speaks of the stifling unhappiness in Helen's marriage. Although born a princess with stunning beauty, Helen was far from being truly free and happy. She was like a bird in a golden cage, a cage nevertheless.
We, in the modern era, have much to be thankful for, most importantly, personal liberty. Ultimately, democracy is not just about elections, but about freedom of the individual. Helen, unfortunaletly, did not live in an era where she could file for divorce due to incompatibilty and tell her hubby, "Honey, you are a great guy but we are not right for each other and I'm just just not that into you."
She had few choices - either live a peaceful, unhappy life under a facade or revolt.
She chose the latter, albeit in an impulsive, not-so-well-thought-out manner. Could she have openly decided to walk away, telling her husband the truth? That would have certainly appeared to be more honorable and, perhaps, would have saved Troy and the Greeks many lives, but we will never know.
Helen was, in a way, symbolic of the repression that women faced, quietly sanctioned by society. I do see Helen in a vastly different light and applaud her courage and pity her for her fate. Ironically, even though Helen was a God-fearing woman who loved her family, was not vain and manipulative (according to the novel by Margaret George), she still shook the conventions of the time and proved the adage, "Well-behaved women seldom make history".
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Higher and lower values
People, especially the orthodox, always tend to focus on the rituals - no sex before marriage, no contraception, no divorce, etc. Few focus on the spiritual side of it as to why these ritualistic rules came into place in the first place not to mention the social and economic state of society when ancient religions were born.
This post has been triggered after reading an article on the Root and the subsequent comments about successful unmarried black women. There were some posts, particularly one from a conservative Catholic unmarried one, that really got me thinking.
Most religions see any sex outside of marriage as a sin or at least something inappropriate. Marriage itself, at least in those days, was probably originally devised as a means to create a family, procreate, provide protection and care during old age and act as a foundation for civil society. Polygamy and even polyandry, in some cases, was accepted in many cultures. In some ethnic societies, premarital sex was not frowned upon. In fact, in matriarchal systems, it was not uncommon for women to lead a family and even have children out of wedlock. The idea of family is much broader than what modern society would have us believe.
A child out of wedlock is considered a sin and a shame and, added to that, even when there is no social stigma associated with it, single working women find it hard to cope with an unplanned pregnancy. Therefore, especially in the United States, we have this endless debate about abortion, abstinence and so on.
In modern times, we expect to have romance and passion, economic and emotional sustenance all provided through marriage. Added to that is the additional stress of modern life itself and the possibility of falling in love with other people through increased social interaction between the sexes. Yes, emotional affairs of the heart have a higher probability of occurrence in our age as compared to that of our forefathers simply because women and men were never really permitted to mingle freely or even date for that matter in ancient societies. There was no email, IM, phone or any other means of electronic communication that could be used frequently and sneakily either. Since most women did not work or were too busy raising large families, divorce was probably economically impossible.
The modern individualistic society, despite its flaws, gives each person the potential to fully question his/her motives, aspirations and social conditioning deeply, which brings me to the concept of higher values.
Love for another human being, sharing and caring is the higher value upon which the ritualistic values of marriage and family are based upon. Thus, a family created by people who are not linked by either DNA or a certificate from the priest or the courts, but based upon mutual trust, affection and support, is not any less useful to society than a traditional one.
A couple choosing to go their separate ways because they do not want to lie to each other anymore about the lack of physical attraction, that special spark that brings people together and intimacy or any form of emotional or intellectual incompatibility is not any more at fault than one that chooses to stay together despite a big void in their lives. It is a question of honesty and compassion, the higher values that bind people in relationships.
Concentrating upon the higher values and the plight of our fellow human beings without acting like a martyr, sacrificing personal happiness solely for keeping others in an unruffled emotional state, will probably be the only way to truly find that elusive peace and happiness we all long for.
This post has been triggered after reading an article on the Root and the subsequent comments about successful unmarried black women. There were some posts, particularly one from a conservative Catholic unmarried one, that really got me thinking.
Most religions see any sex outside of marriage as a sin or at least something inappropriate. Marriage itself, at least in those days, was probably originally devised as a means to create a family, procreate, provide protection and care during old age and act as a foundation for civil society. Polygamy and even polyandry, in some cases, was accepted in many cultures. In some ethnic societies, premarital sex was not frowned upon. In fact, in matriarchal systems, it was not uncommon for women to lead a family and even have children out of wedlock. The idea of family is much broader than what modern society would have us believe.
A child out of wedlock is considered a sin and a shame and, added to that, even when there is no social stigma associated with it, single working women find it hard to cope with an unplanned pregnancy. Therefore, especially in the United States, we have this endless debate about abortion, abstinence and so on.
In modern times, we expect to have romance and passion, economic and emotional sustenance all provided through marriage. Added to that is the additional stress of modern life itself and the possibility of falling in love with other people through increased social interaction between the sexes. Yes, emotional affairs of the heart have a higher probability of occurrence in our age as compared to that of our forefathers simply because women and men were never really permitted to mingle freely or even date for that matter in ancient societies. There was no email, IM, phone or any other means of electronic communication that could be used frequently and sneakily either. Since most women did not work or were too busy raising large families, divorce was probably economically impossible.
The modern individualistic society, despite its flaws, gives each person the potential to fully question his/her motives, aspirations and social conditioning deeply, which brings me to the concept of higher values.
Love for another human being, sharing and caring is the higher value upon which the ritualistic values of marriage and family are based upon. Thus, a family created by people who are not linked by either DNA or a certificate from the priest or the courts, but based upon mutual trust, affection and support, is not any less useful to society than a traditional one.
A couple choosing to go their separate ways because they do not want to lie to each other anymore about the lack of physical attraction, that special spark that brings people together and intimacy or any form of emotional or intellectual incompatibility is not any more at fault than one that chooses to stay together despite a big void in their lives. It is a question of honesty and compassion, the higher values that bind people in relationships.
Concentrating upon the higher values and the plight of our fellow human beings without acting like a martyr, sacrificing personal happiness solely for keeping others in an unruffled emotional state, will probably be the only way to truly find that elusive peace and happiness we all long for.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Back again!
Whew, dear blog...it's been a really long time since I wrote anything here.
2008 has been a year of great learning...and some wonderful experiences.
I've seen some fantastic movies and events.
There was the delicate, heartbreaking yet inspiring story of Jane Eyre in 'Becoming Jane', 'Valkyrie' - a true story of immense courage and sacrifice, the surprise winner 'Slumdog Millionaire' and as for the event of the year, there's no question about it, the 2008 Beijing Olympics opening ceremony is permanently scorched in our memory cells.
Among the books that I have read this year are Malcolm Gladwell's 'The Outliers' - simply a must-read, Ian Halperin's 'Bad and Beautiful' - the ugly underbelly (or rather, the ignored elephant-in-the-room at times) of the modeling world and Philippa Gregory's 'The Virgin's Lover' - the love story of Queen Elizabeth I and one of her chief court officers, Robert Dudley.
I have also been digging up information on astrology.
2008 has also been a politically eventful year, what with the elections and the contest between President Obama and Vice-President Biden pitted against Senator McCain and Governor Palin. That was one lively competition and provided fodder for comedians such as Tina Fey (perhaps Sarah Palin's lost sister:)) and Jon Stewart and their likes.
Of course, 2008 also brought with it the woes of Wall Street and the slowing down of the economy and we should be thanking God or our good fortune if we still have our jobs and a home and warm food and clothing.
We've also had a 'snowful' (note: I coined this word!) holiday season. So it's been a memorable year and I hope 2009 will be great with its own unique memories.
2008 has been a year of great learning...and some wonderful experiences.
I've seen some fantastic movies and events.
There was the delicate, heartbreaking yet inspiring story of Jane Eyre in 'Becoming Jane', 'Valkyrie' - a true story of immense courage and sacrifice, the surprise winner 'Slumdog Millionaire' and as for the event of the year, there's no question about it, the 2008 Beijing Olympics opening ceremony is permanently scorched in our memory cells.
Among the books that I have read this year are Malcolm Gladwell's 'The Outliers' - simply a must-read, Ian Halperin's 'Bad and Beautiful' - the ugly underbelly (or rather, the ignored elephant-in-the-room at times) of the modeling world and Philippa Gregory's 'The Virgin's Lover' - the love story of Queen Elizabeth I and one of her chief court officers, Robert Dudley.
I have also been digging up information on astrology.
2008 has also been a politically eventful year, what with the elections and the contest between President Obama and Vice-President Biden pitted against Senator McCain and Governor Palin. That was one lively competition and provided fodder for comedians such as Tina Fey (perhaps Sarah Palin's lost sister:)) and Jon Stewart and their likes.
Of course, 2008 also brought with it the woes of Wall Street and the slowing down of the economy and we should be thanking God or our good fortune if we still have our jobs and a home and warm food and clothing.
We've also had a 'snowful' (note: I coined this word!) holiday season. So it's been a memorable year and I hope 2009 will be great with its own unique memories.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Aging for men and women...
I am amused to hear that men are more distinguished and look better as they age (read some of the comments), whereas women do not. Hello, what about balding, middle-aged, pot-bellied, unattractive men? Well, there are some bald men that are sexy..
And there are distinguished looking older women that are elegant. Have we looked at some of the older actresses? Meryl Streep's character, Miranda Priestley, in The Devil Wears Prada, was one such. Absolute class, authority, confidence, style and elegance. Jamie Lee Curtis in the yogurt ad looks distinguished, too. So does Hillary Clinton.
I think we are confusing attractiveness with sexual desirability. A younger woman with flawless, supple skin, great curves, a firmer body and youthful hair attracts men because she is definitely more Mommy-material to pass on their genes. But, is grey hair by itself, leaving aside all considerations of youth, worse-looking than, say, brown hair? Is grey an unattractive color by itself? Heck, very few people prefer brown sedans to sleek grey ones! If, say, there were a race of people with naturally grey hair since birth, our whole perception of grey hair would change.
It's not that men age better, they are perceived as better-looking as they age. Women find the maturity and gravitas of older men more appealing and since, for centuries, women have traditionally been married to older men, who then in many instances, provided for them, older men are probably also seen as more protective figures. Sounds very gender-unequal but in many societies, women were married off for the security the institution provided, financially, socially, emotionally, physically, etc.
Men, on the other hand, picked younger women for both pleasure and to bear offspring. Nature must have had a reason for the preference for youth and beauty in the choice of sexual partners and that would have been procreation. But that does NOT mean that older women or men are unattractive.
The logic of preferring youth over age should apply to women as well.
Younger men are more virile (no need for Viagra), have a higher chance of fertilizing a woman and are very attractive. Also, since men have shorter life spans, what sense does it make to hook up with someone who will not be there for you much longer?
It's not age alone that is the problem, it is our perception of age that is a bigger one.
The trouble with women is, they fall into the trap of marketers and know-it-alls, think that a few fine lines around the eyes and the mouth are enough to make them look unattractive and totally undesirable. Women seem more desperate to snag a man and look lovely. Part of it could be that a woman's fertile years are limited as compared to a man's. Besides, pregnancy and childbirth, nursing and rearing take up a lot of her energy and time. As they have to do a lot of hard work to get a human into this world, women are also probably pickier when it comes to their choice of mates.
Unless women themselves look at themselves differently, celebrate the attractiveness of youth as well as the dignity and the different attractiveness of old age, we cannot expect any better from the rest of the world.
They will be caught up in the eternal cycle of byaah, bachcha, budhaapa (Hindi for marriage, children, old age).
P.S. This is one of the first posts in the list of probably more to come about byaah, bachcha, budhaapa...
And there are distinguished looking older women that are elegant. Have we looked at some of the older actresses? Meryl Streep's character, Miranda Priestley, in The Devil Wears Prada, was one such. Absolute class, authority, confidence, style and elegance. Jamie Lee Curtis in the yogurt ad looks distinguished, too. So does Hillary Clinton.
I think we are confusing attractiveness with sexual desirability. A younger woman with flawless, supple skin, great curves, a firmer body and youthful hair attracts men because she is definitely more Mommy-material to pass on their genes. But, is grey hair by itself, leaving aside all considerations of youth, worse-looking than, say, brown hair? Is grey an unattractive color by itself? Heck, very few people prefer brown sedans to sleek grey ones! If, say, there were a race of people with naturally grey hair since birth, our whole perception of grey hair would change.
It's not that men age better, they are perceived as better-looking as they age. Women find the maturity and gravitas of older men more appealing and since, for centuries, women have traditionally been married to older men, who then in many instances, provided for them, older men are probably also seen as more protective figures. Sounds very gender-unequal but in many societies, women were married off for the security the institution provided, financially, socially, emotionally, physically, etc.
Men, on the other hand, picked younger women for both pleasure and to bear offspring. Nature must have had a reason for the preference for youth and beauty in the choice of sexual partners and that would have been procreation. But that does NOT mean that older women or men are unattractive.
The logic of preferring youth over age should apply to women as well.
Younger men are more virile (no need for Viagra), have a higher chance of fertilizing a woman and are very attractive. Also, since men have shorter life spans, what sense does it make to hook up with someone who will not be there for you much longer?
It's not age alone that is the problem, it is our perception of age that is a bigger one.
The trouble with women is, they fall into the trap of marketers and know-it-alls, think that a few fine lines around the eyes and the mouth are enough to make them look unattractive and totally undesirable. Women seem more desperate to snag a man and look lovely. Part of it could be that a woman's fertile years are limited as compared to a man's. Besides, pregnancy and childbirth, nursing and rearing take up a lot of her energy and time. As they have to do a lot of hard work to get a human into this world, women are also probably pickier when it comes to their choice of mates.
Unless women themselves look at themselves differently, celebrate the attractiveness of youth as well as the dignity and the different attractiveness of old age, we cannot expect any better from the rest of the world.
They will be caught up in the eternal cycle of byaah, bachcha, budhaapa (Hindi for marriage, children, old age).
P.S. This is one of the first posts in the list of probably more to come about byaah, bachcha, budhaapa...
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Some songs to cheer you up...
There are some absolutely lovely songs that you MUST have on your listening list in your iPod/MP3 player/car CD player, anywhere where you store your favorite tunes. They will perk you up when you are in the dumps..
I am inspired by GreatBong's school of humor, so read on ..
Take this priceless gem - Ankhiyon ke neeche from Jhoom Barabar Jhoom.
It is one of the truly international songs with a French word - Monsieur embedded inside whacky Hindi lyrics, in a Hinglish sentence - No, no Monsieur no no itnaa simple nahin... (meaning, No no Monsieur it's not that simple..).
Also, it addresses the object of the hero's affection as a mint candy - mint ki goli. How refreshing...
Not to mention the enactment of the French Revolution in the hallowed vicinity of the Eiffel Tower, where movies such as the recent Da Vinci Code were set. I mean, just take a look at the costumes of all the extras in the song..assorted countesses, courtiers and probably all the 18th century junta of France parading about in a manner that would probably invoke the dead souls of all the poor souls who lost their lives in that violent period..and I mean all the souls whether on the exploited side or the exploiter's side.
God help those who shot that movie..
Another movie that would cheer me up anytime is Bunty Aur Babli, the cute, outrageeous, rolling-on-the-floor-laughing-at-times comedy featuring Abhishek Bachchan and Rani Mukherjee as a conning duo that somehow manage to win your heart.
There are many more that I may share later...
I am inspired by GreatBong's school of humor, so read on ..
Take this priceless gem - Ankhiyon ke neeche from Jhoom Barabar Jhoom.
It is one of the truly international songs with a French word - Monsieur embedded inside whacky Hindi lyrics, in a Hinglish sentence - No, no Monsieur no no itnaa simple nahin... (meaning, No no Monsieur it's not that simple..).
Also, it addresses the object of the hero's affection as a mint candy - mint ki goli. How refreshing...
Not to mention the enactment of the French Revolution in the hallowed vicinity of the Eiffel Tower, where movies such as the recent Da Vinci Code were set. I mean, just take a look at the costumes of all the extras in the song..assorted countesses, courtiers and probably all the 18th century junta of France parading about in a manner that would probably invoke the dead souls of all the poor souls who lost their lives in that violent period..and I mean all the souls whether on the exploited side or the exploiter's side.
God help those who shot that movie..
Another movie that would cheer me up anytime is Bunty Aur Babli, the cute, outrageeous, rolling-on-the-floor-laughing-at-times comedy featuring Abhishek Bachchan and Rani Mukherjee as a conning duo that somehow manage to win your heart.
There are many more that I may share later...
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Cheeni Kum
I watched "Cheeni Kum" the other day. I found it refreshing. None of that melodrama where the guy or girl doesn't express his/her feelings to either their parents or the object of their affection, and mercifully, no aerobic gyrations by scantily clad gals and guys on the streets of London. A story about love that can happen at any age without being apologetic for it. A story that does not have sugary sweet parent-child emotions where the kids “obey” their parents and parents mouth philosophical dialogues straight out of Ramanand Sagar’s mythological serials.
Amitabh Bachchan plays Buddhadev Gupta – a chef with an acerbic tongue that does not even spare his own aged mother, an ego, attitude and a passion for his work all related to each other and single at 64. Yes, never been married! He owns a restaurant called "Spice6" in London, of which he is also the head chef, considering the culinary practice a work of art.
Tabu plays Nina Verma – a 34-year-old single, lovely lady, who’s visiting London and as fate would have it, walks right into Buddhadev’s restaurant and his life.
They meet when Nina sends back a plate of Hyderabadi zafrani pulav that is too sweet for her palate and Buddhadev comes to the table and unleashes his ire and ego at her. She leaves but not without sending him hand-cooked authentic zafrani pulav soon, thereby humbling the otherwise cocky restaurant owner cum head chef. Their romance unfolds slowly with Nina being classy and bold at the same time. Not for her the coy, come-hither-but-stay-away-from-me confusing signals typically sent out by our heroines. By the way, our heroines are saying out loud what is in their heart, be it a Kajol in “Fanaa”, or Rani Mukherjee in “Hum Tum”. The background score by Ilaiyaraja as well as the one or two songs are superb, understated but mellifluous and creating the mood for the romance.
Another endearing part about the movie is when Buddhadev and Nina have a small disagreement over the perennial vegetarian/non-vegetarian issue. They are sitting at this seaside café/restaurant out in the open. Nina orders a fish dish and Buddhadev orders vegetarian pasta. When Nina asks him how he manages to eat “ghaaspoos” (grass – the term used to tease vegetarians with), he launches into an ardent speech about how the fish that she is eating are being missed by their relatives.. something that I, as a vegetarian, can identify with. They end up calling each other “ghaaspoos” and “tangdi kabab” (a meat dish).
The measure of how far our cinema has come when it comes to matters of a sexual nature is illustrated not by passionate lovemaking scenes but by cheeky, double-entendre scenes:
Nina asks Buddhadev to do a sprint towards a tree and back to check whether he has the stamina to do something beyond just holding hands. And then, there is Buddhadev, covered in awkwardness as he attempts to buy a condom at the local pharmacy owned by an Indian sardar. If I were him, I would sneak off to a local, white-manned department store, where I could pick up the said item anonymously. But, it just shows how taboo having a sex life at 60+ still is, for some Indians.
The “Meet the Father of the Bride” session is totally whacky with Paresh Rawal essaying the part of Nina’s father, a self-confessed Gandhian, who indulges in some non-Gandhian practices, such as consuming chicken and the occasional social whiskey. He launches into a “satyagraha” without food or drink when he hears from Buddhadev in the loo of a hotel, that he wishes to marry his daughter. The daughter does not bow to emotional pressure either. Some of the dialogues will be pretty hard to stomach – such as Nina asking her father when he is planning to die as he says that he would not allow Nina to marry Buddhadev as long as he is alive. But, it is not that Nina does not care about her father. She rushes to Delhi from London when her dear papa is sick and sits by his side through most of his self-imposed hunger strike, trying to win his approval. But, seriously, this part is what made the movie drag on and on.
Finally, all’s well that ends well.
Zohra Sehgal as the aged but spirited mother of Buddhadev, who revels in “Sex and the City” (gosh, she, too!) and “WWF” on the flat screen TV in Buddhadev's sprawling London home, is a delight to watch. She should get more meaty roles.
Swini Khara as the young, precocious cancer patient, who wants to watch adult DVDs before she dies as she is not going to live to see them, does a great job, too, leaving her mark even in a side role.
Amitabh and Tabu play their parts to perfection. Amitabh probably never had it this good even in his youthful heyday. He is like a bottle of wine that tastes better as it ages. As for Tabu, her long silky straight hair, radiant face and traditional salwar kameezes, kurta-and-jeans attire, add a luster and sexiness to her, even without revealing costumes.
Paresh Rawal is hilarious, as usual.
Finally, a round of applause for the debutant director,
Balakrishnan. He deserves to be commended for this work. More power to less-shrill dialogues, less loud humour.
All in all, a sweet movie, without the dripping, sickly sugary-sweetness of most of our romantic movies. Truly, “kum cheeni” (less sugar)!
Amitabh Bachchan plays Buddhadev Gupta – a chef with an acerbic tongue that does not even spare his own aged mother, an ego, attitude and a passion for his work all related to each other and single at 64. Yes, never been married! He owns a restaurant called "Spice6" in London, of which he is also the head chef, considering the culinary practice a work of art.
Tabu plays Nina Verma – a 34-year-old single, lovely lady, who’s visiting London and as fate would have it, walks right into Buddhadev’s restaurant and his life.
They meet when Nina sends back a plate of Hyderabadi zafrani pulav that is too sweet for her palate and Buddhadev comes to the table and unleashes his ire and ego at her. She leaves but not without sending him hand-cooked authentic zafrani pulav soon, thereby humbling the otherwise cocky restaurant owner cum head chef. Their romance unfolds slowly with Nina being classy and bold at the same time. Not for her the coy, come-hither-but-stay-away-from-me confusing signals typically sent out by our heroines. By the way, our heroines are saying out loud what is in their heart, be it a Kajol in “Fanaa”, or Rani Mukherjee in “Hum Tum”. The background score by Ilaiyaraja as well as the one or two songs are superb, understated but mellifluous and creating the mood for the romance.
Another endearing part about the movie is when Buddhadev and Nina have a small disagreement over the perennial vegetarian/non-vegetarian issue. They are sitting at this seaside café/restaurant out in the open. Nina orders a fish dish and Buddhadev orders vegetarian pasta. When Nina asks him how he manages to eat “ghaaspoos” (grass – the term used to tease vegetarians with), he launches into an ardent speech about how the fish that she is eating are being missed by their relatives.. something that I, as a vegetarian, can identify with. They end up calling each other “ghaaspoos” and “tangdi kabab” (a meat dish).
The measure of how far our cinema has come when it comes to matters of a sexual nature is illustrated not by passionate lovemaking scenes but by cheeky, double-entendre scenes:
Nina asks Buddhadev to do a sprint towards a tree and back to check whether he has the stamina to do something beyond just holding hands. And then, there is Buddhadev, covered in awkwardness as he attempts to buy a condom at the local pharmacy owned by an Indian sardar. If I were him, I would sneak off to a local, white-manned department store, where I could pick up the said item anonymously. But, it just shows how taboo having a sex life at 60+ still is, for some Indians.
The “Meet the Father of the Bride” session is totally whacky with Paresh Rawal essaying the part of Nina’s father, a self-confessed Gandhian, who indulges in some non-Gandhian practices, such as consuming chicken and the occasional social whiskey. He launches into a “satyagraha” without food or drink when he hears from Buddhadev in the loo of a hotel, that he wishes to marry his daughter. The daughter does not bow to emotional pressure either. Some of the dialogues will be pretty hard to stomach – such as Nina asking her father when he is planning to die as he says that he would not allow Nina to marry Buddhadev as long as he is alive. But, it is not that Nina does not care about her father. She rushes to Delhi from London when her dear papa is sick and sits by his side through most of his self-imposed hunger strike, trying to win his approval. But, seriously, this part is what made the movie drag on and on.
Finally, all’s well that ends well.
Zohra Sehgal as the aged but spirited mother of Buddhadev, who revels in “Sex and the City” (gosh, she, too!) and “WWF” on the flat screen TV in Buddhadev's sprawling London home, is a delight to watch. She should get more meaty roles.
Swini Khara as the young, precocious cancer patient, who wants to watch adult DVDs before she dies as she is not going to live to see them, does a great job, too, leaving her mark even in a side role.
Amitabh and Tabu play their parts to perfection. Amitabh probably never had it this good even in his youthful heyday. He is like a bottle of wine that tastes better as it ages. As for Tabu, her long silky straight hair, radiant face and traditional salwar kameezes, kurta-and-jeans attire, add a luster and sexiness to her, even without revealing costumes.
Paresh Rawal is hilarious, as usual.
Finally, a round of applause for the debutant director,
Balakrishnan. He deserves to be commended for this work. More power to less-shrill dialogues, less loud humour.
All in all, a sweet movie, without the dripping, sickly sugary-sweetness of most of our romantic movies. Truly, “kum cheeni” (less sugar)!
Marriage and Family
This week’s U.S. News and World Report (October 15, 2007 issue) editorial column talks about how children in two-parent households have a better life than those in single-parent households, how the husband-wife traditional family is the best to raise kids who turn out to be healthy, responsible citizens.
Well, common sense suggests that if both parents are educated and if there is a constant source of income in the household, be it from one or both parents, the children are likely to receive a good education, healthcare and other benefits. This is definitely a good thing.
What about children in bad marriages or of divorced parents? The author in the said column even goes further as to say that Social Security and benefits programs should encourage marriage and not single parenthood.
But, can personal behavior really be incentivized? Maybe, in some cases, yes. For example, the Indian government did encourage smaller families to control the population, by massive public broadcasting programs and other means. But, in a democratic setup, people have to essentially believe in the principle behind the measure, to be a participant in implementing it.
The people who believe that marriage should not be a precondition for sex are going to go ahead and do it, anyway. Carelessness about contraception or the failure thereof is going to result in at least a few babies out of wedlock. Even among those who wait to get married and have babies, there is no guarantee that the couple is not going to split or that both parents will be alive till the child turns 18.
This brings us to the term – “family”. In today’s times, the family, at least in America and even in urban India, is mostly the parent/s and the kids living together. In the old days, in India, many people lived with their parents well after marriage. In fact, one sometimes had all the brothers living together under one really large roof with their wives and kids. Even today, there are quite a few such units that we call “joint families”.
In the modern or nuclear family, single parenthood is a costly thing. The single parent is the sole provider/caregiver/mentor for the children and this can be a particularly overwhelming task. In a structure where the spouses are not the sole providers/caregivers, the children are also looked after by other elders such as grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. It is like having free daycare cum family atmosphere. I sometimes wonder, if Americans also lived in such structures, rather than moving out of their parents’ nest after 18, would the single-parent statistics be very different? Another factor working against single-parent families is the low-income individuals who undergo out-of-wedlock pregnancies and do not have much of an education or high income to support their kids with. Added to that, if these parents are already in the grip of drug/alcohol addiction, then the children would really have a rough childhood.
But, what about the educated, well-paid professionals who don’t find the “right person” to commit a lifetime to, but find that their biological clocks are going away, tick-tock, tick-tock? Will they not also just have a baby so that they don’t miss out on motherhood? I am saying “motherhood” because it is usually women who have a shorter fertile period to have babies and also motherhood is, well, physically far more demanding than fatherhood (not the raising of kids part, just the bearing them part, before all you men jump at me).
Affluent actresses such as Angelina Jolie and Sushmita Sen adopted children out of wedlock and they are greatly admired for it. Many Hollywood celebrities bear children before getting married and the father is also pretty well-known.
In my opinion, marriage was originally meant as a structure for companionship, support in old age as well as emotional, physical and financial support throughout, as well as a unit to raise children. Today, we expect romance, great sex and the world out of it besides the above-mentioned factors. We expect to commit to one person all our lives and have emotional, physical, social and financial fulfillment till death do us part. Whether this is possible for all marriages on earth is a question that yours truly cannot answer as it is too profound, too complex for any individual alone. No wonder, commitment-phobia seems to be more common.
But, was marriage always the one man-one woman sole family unit? History points out quite the contrary. While the single husband-single wife union seemed to be pretty common, polygamy and polyandry were quite rampant, too, at least among the royals and other elite people. Did the children of such structures end up as lesser human beings? We don’t know. In the Ramayana, that epitome of family values, Rama was the eldest son, his father had three wives and the step-brothers got along so fabulously that today’s blood siblings would be ashamed of their own petty rivalries. Now, don’t for a moment, think that I am endorsing polygamy/polyandry.
All I am saying is, both marriage and family, as social institutions, have changed with time, across cultures around the world.
I somehow don’t buy the argument that marriage-first-kids-later, is going to solve all the socioeconomic problems of the world. What any child needs is love, acceptance and responsible caregivers who are genuinely concerned about his/her wellbeing and who are there for him/her not only till he/she is ready to fly, but also later. A loving father and mother united in a socially-sanctioned institution is a great gift to a child. But to say that the others who make a genuine effort to raise children right in a responsible way, who have made choices that society does not approve of, are somehow doing a lesser job, makes me feel a tad little uncomfortable.
Well, common sense suggests that if both parents are educated and if there is a constant source of income in the household, be it from one or both parents, the children are likely to receive a good education, healthcare and other benefits. This is definitely a good thing.
What about children in bad marriages or of divorced parents? The author in the said column even goes further as to say that Social Security and benefits programs should encourage marriage and not single parenthood.
But, can personal behavior really be incentivized? Maybe, in some cases, yes. For example, the Indian government did encourage smaller families to control the population, by massive public broadcasting programs and other means. But, in a democratic setup, people have to essentially believe in the principle behind the measure, to be a participant in implementing it.
The people who believe that marriage should not be a precondition for sex are going to go ahead and do it, anyway. Carelessness about contraception or the failure thereof is going to result in at least a few babies out of wedlock. Even among those who wait to get married and have babies, there is no guarantee that the couple is not going to split or that both parents will be alive till the child turns 18.
This brings us to the term – “family”. In today’s times, the family, at least in America and even in urban India, is mostly the parent/s and the kids living together. In the old days, in India, many people lived with their parents well after marriage. In fact, one sometimes had all the brothers living together under one really large roof with their wives and kids. Even today, there are quite a few such units that we call “joint families”.
In the modern or nuclear family, single parenthood is a costly thing. The single parent is the sole provider/caregiver/mentor for the children and this can be a particularly overwhelming task. In a structure where the spouses are not the sole providers/caregivers, the children are also looked after by other elders such as grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. It is like having free daycare cum family atmosphere. I sometimes wonder, if Americans also lived in such structures, rather than moving out of their parents’ nest after 18, would the single-parent statistics be very different? Another factor working against single-parent families is the low-income individuals who undergo out-of-wedlock pregnancies and do not have much of an education or high income to support their kids with. Added to that, if these parents are already in the grip of drug/alcohol addiction, then the children would really have a rough childhood.
But, what about the educated, well-paid professionals who don’t find the “right person” to commit a lifetime to, but find that their biological clocks are going away, tick-tock, tick-tock? Will they not also just have a baby so that they don’t miss out on motherhood? I am saying “motherhood” because it is usually women who have a shorter fertile period to have babies and also motherhood is, well, physically far more demanding than fatherhood (not the raising of kids part, just the bearing them part, before all you men jump at me).
Affluent actresses such as Angelina Jolie and Sushmita Sen adopted children out of wedlock and they are greatly admired for it. Many Hollywood celebrities bear children before getting married and the father is also pretty well-known.
In my opinion, marriage was originally meant as a structure for companionship, support in old age as well as emotional, physical and financial support throughout, as well as a unit to raise children. Today, we expect romance, great sex and the world out of it besides the above-mentioned factors. We expect to commit to one person all our lives and have emotional, physical, social and financial fulfillment till death do us part. Whether this is possible for all marriages on earth is a question that yours truly cannot answer as it is too profound, too complex for any individual alone. No wonder, commitment-phobia seems to be more common.
But, was marriage always the one man-one woman sole family unit? History points out quite the contrary. While the single husband-single wife union seemed to be pretty common, polygamy and polyandry were quite rampant, too, at least among the royals and other elite people. Did the children of such structures end up as lesser human beings? We don’t know. In the Ramayana, that epitome of family values, Rama was the eldest son, his father had three wives and the step-brothers got along so fabulously that today’s blood siblings would be ashamed of their own petty rivalries. Now, don’t for a moment, think that I am endorsing polygamy/polyandry.
All I am saying is, both marriage and family, as social institutions, have changed with time, across cultures around the world.
I somehow don’t buy the argument that marriage-first-kids-later, is going to solve all the socioeconomic problems of the world. What any child needs is love, acceptance and responsible caregivers who are genuinely concerned about his/her wellbeing and who are there for him/her not only till he/she is ready to fly, but also later. A loving father and mother united in a socially-sanctioned institution is a great gift to a child. But to say that the others who make a genuine effort to raise children right in a responsible way, who have made choices that society does not approve of, are somehow doing a lesser job, makes me feel a tad little uncomfortable.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
The most beautiful?
I had written a post long ago on the subject of beauty, Aishwarya Rai, celebrities, etc. here.
In my humble opinion, the whole idea of "the most beautiful", "the sexiest", etc. is a ridiculous notion. Consider this: a celebrity magazine decides, based on very debatable polls, that so-and-so is the most "beautiful woman" or the "sexiest man" in the world. In the WORLD!!
Their list of the top ten in 2005 may be:
1. Eena
2. Meena
3. Deeka
4. Seena
5.Xena and so on.
Those of you who have such real names, please, this doesn't refer to you and is in no way meant to offend you.
Come 2007 and their list reads as:
1. Xena
2. Meena
3. Eena
4. Seena
5. Deeka
Come again? Did Xena get transformed into the most beautiful woman in the world in the span of two years (unless and until she went under the surgeon's knife to get herself 'sculpted')? Whatever happened to Eena, the-most-beautiful-in-2005?
Now, the part about the poll. I agree that some people appear more attractive to a lot of people as compared to others. But, when it comes to the most beautiful, there are bound to be different opinions.
Secondly, what do you mean by "the most beautiful"? Among whom? Maybe, among the famous actors/models/pop artistes of that time. These people represent not even 5% of the population in a country. Even if one assumes that only 10% of the world's population is good-looking, then, too, how many people would have had the opportunity to see even a tenth of that?
Thirdly, there is no way you could compare a celebrity who takes very good care of himself/herself, wears great outfits and has the best stylists at his/her beck and call, to an average Joe/Jane. Imagine if the average good-looking non-celebrity was nicely dressed, made up, coiffed, photographed under the right lighting, from great angles and the result were converted into a glossy wallpaper. You would have a star-in-the-making. Can such a thing be accessible to the millions who toil under the sun, who don't have the resources to slather on sunscreens, anti-aging creams, the latest hair colour, etc.? Nope.
Beauty comprises of two parts - the natural, God-given looks and one's own input in the form of a healthy diet, exercise, grooming and , yes, happiness and inner peace that reflect on your face. Sometimes, we see people naturally well-endowed when young, not getting their due notice while some others, who might have been average-looking in their teens, soar to popularity later. Of course, blooming into the youth of the 20s happens. But, a lot of times, a pretty-faced woman who dresses like a rag, does not bother to maintain herself, becomes frumpy and fades into oblivion whereas a slightly-above-average looker works out, eats right, has oodles of confidence and steals the limelight.
As they say, it's not just what you got but what you do with it, that matters.
In my humble opinion, the whole idea of "the most beautiful", "the sexiest", etc. is a ridiculous notion. Consider this: a celebrity magazine decides, based on very debatable polls, that so-and-so is the most "beautiful woman" or the "sexiest man" in the world. In the WORLD!!
Their list of the top ten in 2005 may be:
1. Eena
2. Meena
3. Deeka
4. Seena
5.Xena and so on.
Those of you who have such real names, please, this doesn't refer to you and is in no way meant to offend you.
Come 2007 and their list reads as:
1. Xena
2. Meena
3. Eena
4. Seena
5. Deeka
Come again? Did Xena get transformed into the most beautiful woman in the world in the span of two years (unless and until she went under the surgeon's knife to get herself 'sculpted')? Whatever happened to Eena, the-most-beautiful-in-2005?
Now, the part about the poll. I agree that some people appear more attractive to a lot of people as compared to others. But, when it comes to the most beautiful, there are bound to be different opinions.
Secondly, what do you mean by "the most beautiful"? Among whom? Maybe, among the famous actors/models/pop artistes of that time. These people represent not even 5% of the population in a country. Even if one assumes that only 10% of the world's population is good-looking, then, too, how many people would have had the opportunity to see even a tenth of that?
Thirdly, there is no way you could compare a celebrity who takes very good care of himself/herself, wears great outfits and has the best stylists at his/her beck and call, to an average Joe/Jane. Imagine if the average good-looking non-celebrity was nicely dressed, made up, coiffed, photographed under the right lighting, from great angles and the result were converted into a glossy wallpaper. You would have a star-in-the-making. Can such a thing be accessible to the millions who toil under the sun, who don't have the resources to slather on sunscreens, anti-aging creams, the latest hair colour, etc.? Nope.
Beauty comprises of two parts - the natural, God-given looks and one's own input in the form of a healthy diet, exercise, grooming and , yes, happiness and inner peace that reflect on your face. Sometimes, we see people naturally well-endowed when young, not getting their due notice while some others, who might have been average-looking in their teens, soar to popularity later. Of course, blooming into the youth of the 20s happens. But, a lot of times, a pretty-faced woman who dresses like a rag, does not bother to maintain herself, becomes frumpy and fades into oblivion whereas a slightly-above-average looker works out, eats right, has oodles of confidence and steals the limelight.
As they say, it's not just what you got but what you do with it, that matters.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Can we compensate for this?
The horrific tragedy that took place in Nithari has been reported in various news agencies such as the Times of India and rediff.com and some bloggers have also presented their opinions - one of the illustrious denizens of the blogosphere is
GreatBong.
The government is now giving each of these poor families Rs. 5 lakhs (5,00,000) as ex-gratia. Now, one can understand if compensation or ex-gratia is paid to workers of a factory who have met with an on-the-job accident or to people who have lost everything in a natural disaster. That money is meant to help the devastated families rebuild their lives and stand on their own feet. It does not certainly mean that the loss of human life has been made up for. In the former case, it is also a liability cost borne by the employer.
But, what do you do when a child has been killed? That, too, by a criminal? Will paying Rs. 5 lakhs in any way mitigate the grief and loss of those hapless parents?
If I were a poor parent whose child was a victim of a well-publicised crime and I received an amount of money that is quite an amount by my standards, would I feel guilty about using it for my own betterment or for my loved ones? Legally, a child cannot really be an earning member of a family so what does this ex-gratia mean? The parents may still continue to live but for many, that life would seem bleak and empty.
Money to a dead child's family seems like weighing the child's life and worth in terms of money, the possibilities of what he/she could have blossomed into, is reduced to an economic statistic. Another reason could be that the government is apologising for the gross negligence in handling the case due to which many preventable deaths occurred. In that case, these families should be suing the government. Even in that case, the people in charge will only feel the pinch when the mooolah comes from their own pockets. They usually get away lightly, emptying the public coffers while merrily ignoring their own incompetence. What we really need is a better law and order system with more sensitive and responsible, honest police officers, those who don't
harass family members of victims when they approach them for help.
Secondly, the Nithari case is now well-publicised as it is a shocking, unheard-of case with crime being committed on a large scale. Hundreds of children and adults are unfortumate victims of terrible crimes in our society. If this is what we do in one case, then all those families deserve ex-gratia. Police negligence, after all, cannot be unique to only this case.
Thirdly, there are some situations where you cannot blame the government or even the society for what has happened. Natural disasters are one such instance. But, the compensation given to those families is for an entirely different purpose. It is more under the category of aid. As for victims of riots, well, society and the state can prevent them or at least control them after they have broken out. But, individual crimes? Some person kills someone, out of mental disease or malice or pure accident. Neither the state nor society can always prevent that. They are not obliged to pay for it and cannot possibly do so for everyone. What they can and should do is take steps to nab and prosecute the culprits and deliver justice to the families.
GreatBong.
The government is now giving each of these poor families Rs. 5 lakhs (5,00,000) as ex-gratia. Now, one can understand if compensation or ex-gratia is paid to workers of a factory who have met with an on-the-job accident or to people who have lost everything in a natural disaster. That money is meant to help the devastated families rebuild their lives and stand on their own feet. It does not certainly mean that the loss of human life has been made up for. In the former case, it is also a liability cost borne by the employer.
But, what do you do when a child has been killed? That, too, by a criminal? Will paying Rs. 5 lakhs in any way mitigate the grief and loss of those hapless parents?
If I were a poor parent whose child was a victim of a well-publicised crime and I received an amount of money that is quite an amount by my standards, would I feel guilty about using it for my own betterment or for my loved ones? Legally, a child cannot really be an earning member of a family so what does this ex-gratia mean? The parents may still continue to live but for many, that life would seem bleak and empty.
Money to a dead child's family seems like weighing the child's life and worth in terms of money, the possibilities of what he/she could have blossomed into, is reduced to an economic statistic. Another reason could be that the government is apologising for the gross negligence in handling the case due to which many preventable deaths occurred. In that case, these families should be suing the government. Even in that case, the people in charge will only feel the pinch when the mooolah comes from their own pockets. They usually get away lightly, emptying the public coffers while merrily ignoring their own incompetence. What we really need is a better law and order system with more sensitive and responsible, honest police officers, those who don't
harass family members of victims when they approach them for help.
Secondly, the Nithari case is now well-publicised as it is a shocking, unheard-of case with crime being committed on a large scale. Hundreds of children and adults are unfortumate victims of terrible crimes in our society. If this is what we do in one case, then all those families deserve ex-gratia. Police negligence, after all, cannot be unique to only this case.
Thirdly, there are some situations where you cannot blame the government or even the society for what has happened. Natural disasters are one such instance. But, the compensation given to those families is for an entirely different purpose. It is more under the category of aid. As for victims of riots, well, society and the state can prevent them or at least control them after they have broken out. But, individual crimes? Some person kills someone, out of mental disease or malice or pure accident. Neither the state nor society can always prevent that. They are not obliged to pay for it and cannot possibly do so for everyone. What they can and should do is take steps to nab and prosecute the culprits and deliver justice to the families.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Needed: A new age-bracket
Those were the times when there were only four types of people, agewise that is: children, the youth, adults and the elderly.
Recalling my school history textbooks, India's ancient forefathers had it all neatly divided:
You had the kids going to school to study. No, you weren't supposed to be checking out attractive kanyas (young girls). Knowledge was what you sought full time. This was Brahmacharyashrama, 'Brahmacharya' meaning celibate.
Next, you got married, procreated, worked, provided for your family. In those ancient days, women probably did the bulk of the housework, cooking, cleaning, taking care of the kids, etc. In short, the father and mother built a nest and provided a good environment for their offspring. This was Grihasthashrama.
The third stage was retirement. Kids are grown up, married and settled. The husband and wife now retire to the forest, probably to a hermitage. This was Vanaprasthashrama, 'vana' meaning forest.
The last stage, the evening of one's life, was to be devoted to the Divine and the spiritual. This was Sanyasashrama.
These days, a child is not just a child anymore. Well, everybody knew the difference between a 6-month-old infant and a 6-year-old child even in the pre-modern era.
But, now, there are special age groups. There was the infant in diapers, needing to be fed by the bottle or the breast. Then there is the toddler, also in diapers, who needed to be fed nutritious finger food, stimulated with learning games so that s/he grows up strong and excels in school. Next comes the preschooler. So far, so good. Then, due to the peculiarity of the English language, there is the 'teenager', between ages 13-19. But, since legal adulthood was defined at 18, well, the 13-17 year olds are a special age group called 'adolescents'.
Wait, it gets even better.
Enter the modern era with all its marketing professionals and myriad products.
11 and 12-year old girls wanted to dress up like their older sisters and friends. But, they were not yet teenagers. So what to call them? Why, 'tweens', silly! Or pre-teens.
Now, if Hindi were as widely spoken as English, then ages 11-18 would be the English equivalent of 'teen'. Why, because after dus (ten), we have 'gyaarah' (eleven), 'baarah' (twelve) and so on till 'athaarah' (eighteen).
Actually, adolescence meant the onset of puberty sans the maturity of a grown-up. But, the age of puberty itself has been going down and now, 11 year olds are in the early adolescence stage where once 14-year-olds were.
Even in adulthood, there are different segments - 18-24 and then, 25-34 and 35-49. After 49, well, it does not matter whether you are 50 or 80, at least to some of the marketing people, never mind the fact that a 50-year-old is usually in much better shape physically and mentally than an 80-year-old. To others, it matters a lot. Because if you are 50, you might be aiming at retirement options whereas if you are 80, you may have certain health concerns and needs.
Now, the real reason why I wrote all this. The comments on this rediff piece are astounding.
The said item talks about the supposedly upcoming wedding of Abhishek Bachchan and Aishwarya Rai, two of India's popular film stars. Many of the commenters think that Aishwarya, 33, is too old for Abhishek, who is also somewhere around 30. 33 is old/ middle-aged aunty??!!!
You mean, there is no difference between a 33-year-old fit and fine beauty and a 55-year-old post-menopausal middle-aged woman, even if the 55-year-old is also a beauty? So, according to some of these people, once you reach that age 30, you are officially crossing over into the middle age bracket, which extends on till you are 60! Phew! So, if the average life span is around 75-80 years, only 12 years or so are called 'youth' as in the adult 'youth', namely, the ages between 18-30. The first eighteen are childhood and adolescence and the years from 30 onwards are middle or old age!
In the olden days, a woman who was not married till she was 25, risked being called an 'old maid'. But, with the need to pursue higher education and establish a career, both men and women 'settle' much later in life.
I feel that after 25, there sets in a new maturity. But, with a proper diet and some getting-yourself-off-the-couch, coupled with exercising those calves and joints, one can be reasonably fit and attractive at least till the forties. In fact, 25-40 can be one of the most rewarding periods of your life. You've got your degree, you may study for more, acquire new knowledge and experience and contribute immensely to the society and the economy, not to mention the pockets of marketers. This need not even stop at 40. This age bracket is the peak of Grishasthashrama, family and career swallowing a huge dollop of one's daily time.
This is the mature adult who is certainly not middle-aged.
I would call a perky 31-year-old Preity Zinta a mature young woman, not a middle-aged aunty, definitely not.
Anyway, the exact period of youth can be different, based on different parameters. And it may well be slightly different for different individuals.
(This does not mean that one can be twenty forever. After all, a 40-year-old woman may not be able to conceive as easily as a twenty-year-old.)
So, if are in your thirties and someone told you you are 'not young', tell them, you are in an age bracket called 'mature young':)!
Recalling my school history textbooks, India's ancient forefathers had it all neatly divided:
You had the kids going to school to study. No, you weren't supposed to be checking out attractive kanyas (young girls). Knowledge was what you sought full time. This was Brahmacharyashrama, 'Brahmacharya' meaning celibate.
Next, you got married, procreated, worked, provided for your family. In those ancient days, women probably did the bulk of the housework, cooking, cleaning, taking care of the kids, etc. In short, the father and mother built a nest and provided a good environment for their offspring. This was Grihasthashrama.
The third stage was retirement. Kids are grown up, married and settled. The husband and wife now retire to the forest, probably to a hermitage. This was Vanaprasthashrama, 'vana' meaning forest.
The last stage, the evening of one's life, was to be devoted to the Divine and the spiritual. This was Sanyasashrama.
These days, a child is not just a child anymore. Well, everybody knew the difference between a 6-month-old infant and a 6-year-old child even in the pre-modern era.
But, now, there are special age groups. There was the infant in diapers, needing to be fed by the bottle or the breast. Then there is the toddler, also in diapers, who needed to be fed nutritious finger food, stimulated with learning games so that s/he grows up strong and excels in school. Next comes the preschooler. So far, so good. Then, due to the peculiarity of the English language, there is the 'teenager', between ages 13-19. But, since legal adulthood was defined at 18, well, the 13-17 year olds are a special age group called 'adolescents'.
Wait, it gets even better.
Enter the modern era with all its marketing professionals and myriad products.
11 and 12-year old girls wanted to dress up like their older sisters and friends. But, they were not yet teenagers. So what to call them? Why, 'tweens', silly! Or pre-teens.
Now, if Hindi were as widely spoken as English, then ages 11-18 would be the English equivalent of 'teen'. Why, because after dus (ten), we have 'gyaarah' (eleven), 'baarah' (twelve) and so on till 'athaarah' (eighteen).
Actually, adolescence meant the onset of puberty sans the maturity of a grown-up. But, the age of puberty itself has been going down and now, 11 year olds are in the early adolescence stage where once 14-year-olds were.
Even in adulthood, there are different segments - 18-24 and then, 25-34 and 35-49. After 49, well, it does not matter whether you are 50 or 80, at least to some of the marketing people, never mind the fact that a 50-year-old is usually in much better shape physically and mentally than an 80-year-old. To others, it matters a lot. Because if you are 50, you might be aiming at retirement options whereas if you are 80, you may have certain health concerns and needs.
Now, the real reason why I wrote all this. The comments on this rediff piece are astounding.
The said item talks about the supposedly upcoming wedding of Abhishek Bachchan and Aishwarya Rai, two of India's popular film stars. Many of the commenters think that Aishwarya, 33, is too old for Abhishek, who is also somewhere around 30. 33 is old/ middle-aged aunty??!!!
You mean, there is no difference between a 33-year-old fit and fine beauty and a 55-year-old post-menopausal middle-aged woman, even if the 55-year-old is also a beauty? So, according to some of these people, once you reach that age 30, you are officially crossing over into the middle age bracket, which extends on till you are 60! Phew! So, if the average life span is around 75-80 years, only 12 years or so are called 'youth' as in the adult 'youth', namely, the ages between 18-30. The first eighteen are childhood and adolescence and the years from 30 onwards are middle or old age!
In the olden days, a woman who was not married till she was 25, risked being called an 'old maid'. But, with the need to pursue higher education and establish a career, both men and women 'settle' much later in life.
I feel that after 25, there sets in a new maturity. But, with a proper diet and some getting-yourself-off-the-couch, coupled with exercising those calves and joints, one can be reasonably fit and attractive at least till the forties. In fact, 25-40 can be one of the most rewarding periods of your life. You've got your degree, you may study for more, acquire new knowledge and experience and contribute immensely to the society and the economy, not to mention the pockets of marketers. This need not even stop at 40. This age bracket is the peak of Grishasthashrama, family and career swallowing a huge dollop of one's daily time.
This is the mature adult who is certainly not middle-aged.
I would call a perky 31-year-old Preity Zinta a mature young woman, not a middle-aged aunty, definitely not.
Anyway, the exact period of youth can be different, based on different parameters. And it may well be slightly different for different individuals.
(This does not mean that one can be twenty forever. After all, a 40-year-old woman may not be able to conceive as easily as a twenty-year-old.)
So, if are in your thirties and someone told you you are 'not young', tell them, you are in an age bracket called 'mature young':)!
Farewell, 2006!
You came and went. Suddenly, there will be no trace of you on our calendars, in our chequebooks, notebooks, computers, emails, documents, nothing. You will be a timestamp on old documents.
Things that happened when you were here will now be referred to as 'last year'. You will now be a memory, a pang in the heart, a longing for the good times, for the company of someone dear and perhaps no longer there, or maybe a joyful exuberance of delightful moments spent with someone who mattered.
Quietly, the sun set on a day called 31st December and took with it a year - you.
The next day, there was someone new called 2007 to look forward to. It was welcomed with gusto, with cheery greetings, holidays, wild parties, gifts and laughter. You were forgotten, although discussed in news channels. Those were your final moments of glory.
After 364 days, 2007 will say adieu, too.
My mother always believed that rather than just celebrating birthdays, we should also ponder over the fact that one more year in our life has gone by.
The same applies to a new year, too.
Why don't we pause and reflect on the time gone by, never to be ours again? Why don't we stop and think about how closer we are getting to our end, inch by inch, day by day, year by year?
No, we celebrate and look forward to something new, hopefully exciting.
Hope the New Year does bring something new to rejoice about. Hope we discover something new about ourselves, the world, gain more wisdom and live life better and, as they say, more fully. More importantly, may those of us lost somewhere find a peaceful home.
Welcome, 2007! Goodbye, alvida, adieu, sayonara, ta-ta, 2006!
You shall be wistfully remembered.
Things that happened when you were here will now be referred to as 'last year'. You will now be a memory, a pang in the heart, a longing for the good times, for the company of someone dear and perhaps no longer there, or maybe a joyful exuberance of delightful moments spent with someone who mattered.
Quietly, the sun set on a day called 31st December and took with it a year - you.
The next day, there was someone new called 2007 to look forward to. It was welcomed with gusto, with cheery greetings, holidays, wild parties, gifts and laughter. You were forgotten, although discussed in news channels. Those were your final moments of glory.
After 364 days, 2007 will say adieu, too.
My mother always believed that rather than just celebrating birthdays, we should also ponder over the fact that one more year in our life has gone by.
The same applies to a new year, too.
Why don't we pause and reflect on the time gone by, never to be ours again? Why don't we stop and think about how closer we are getting to our end, inch by inch, day by day, year by year?
No, we celebrate and look forward to something new, hopefully exciting.
Hope the New Year does bring something new to rejoice about. Hope we discover something new about ourselves, the world, gain more wisdom and live life better and, as they say, more fully. More importantly, may those of us lost somewhere find a peaceful home.
Welcome, 2007! Goodbye, alvida, adieu, sayonara, ta-ta, 2006!
You shall be wistfully remembered.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Malls and loos
A comment on Acorn triggered this post. I am posting more than once in the same day coz I'm on a roll today. I had wanted to post on certain things but was not able to do so due to paucity of time. So, this is sort of like 'batch processing', to use computer jargon.
Many people feel that the mall culture is just vacuous consumerism, driven by globalization and the fancy-schmancy stuff that goes with it..rich getting richer and spending their new-found wealth, while large masses continue to lead a wretched existence on the sidelines.
It is true that large populations have not really benefited significantly. But, many others, who would otherwise be making do with mediocre products and services, who would not have had a higher standard of living in terms of comforts and conveniences, have definitely benefited. Anyway, this post is not really about globalization and its pros and cons, per se. It is more specifically about malls.
There is one thing about glitzy malls that I love. Nah, it's not just the trendy clothes, the lights and background music that transport you to a temporary delusional state of well-being and peppiness even when you are in the dumps.
It's that corner where no one goes to satisfy their aspirational needs. It's the place where everyone goes to satisy their most basic natural need - the call of nature. Of course, I am talking about the loo:)!
A universal problem with travelling in India is the absence of clean public toilets. Forget about that dreaded bus journey from Mumbai to Nashik or wherever else, a few years ago, if you happened to have travelled from Kandivali to Colaba (the former is a suburb in Western Mumbai and the latter is in downtown, propah South Bombay), got drenched in the rain, looked for a private outlet to pee, Heaven help you. And, to top it all off, if you happened to have the XX pair of chromosomes (read 'female'), I leave it to your imagination the level of discomfort and the almost yogic self-control you needed to exert upon your bladder unless and until...you happened to have the other type of self-control. The ability to control your revulsions as you entered a place wafting with ammonia, sulphur dioxide and God knows what other gases, all naturally produced, and filled with biological refuse of Homo sapiens . If you are the really philosophical or, rather, the clinical kind, you could dismiss it as, what the heck! But, you get the picture.
When I first came to the US, I was pleasantly surprised that there were clean restrooms in virtually every major store. As for malls, some had automatic flushing toilets and some rest areas on the highways had ornamental sinks with automatic water fountains (Gasp)! I wondered, suppose we also had our mega KMarts or their equivalent, we would soon be able to look forward to the day when you did not have to go thirsty to avoid a dreaded trip to the public loo. I was not completely wrong. The snazzy Crossroads mall in Mahalakshmi, Mumbai, and the various Shoppers' Stop outlets, not to forget the many INOX/IMAX kind of theatres, all have clean restrooms (ooh..that sounds so spa-like as compared to 'toilet' :):)) with trendy youngsters sizing themselves up in the mirrors near the sinks.
For a vast, populous country like India, where civic sense and public hygiene are yet not something people lose sleep over, some private initiative in this regard, will go a long way in improving the overall conditions of public sanitation. At least, people will get a better option. As malls become profitable, they will not need to charge people who do not buy anything from them to use their restrooms. Commercialization in this area is a good thing. After all, not everyone is like this
great man or the person who started the Shulabh Shauchalaya chain and even these are inadequate in number.
On the other hand, I wonder why some countries were able to gravitate towards cleanliness in the first place and why some, despite their ancient civilization and culture, are still lagging behind even in basic civic consciousness.
I remember a time I visited my great-grandmother many years ago, in a small village. Her old, small house did not have built-in restrooms. I, a city girl, was terrified of living there for more than a day or two. Later generations did not face this problem. Even then, the toilet was an area away from the house in the olden days. Sometimes, it was a structure separate from the main house in the backyard. These days, in homes in Western countries, the loos are gorgeous, filled with fragrant pot-pourri, reading material, landscape paintings, ornate plumbing and what not, elevating the humble loo to a place of high art. Probably, the trend has caught on in upper middle class India, too. Why am I describing all this? Because it probably helps to understand the Indian attitude towards toilets in general and helps us figure out why we have not progressed much in this regard.
Read this great article by Dr. Bindeshwar Pathak, the pioneer behind Sulabh Shauchalaya and this.
On another note, Annie has some touching posts on human scavengers.
Many people feel that the mall culture is just vacuous consumerism, driven by globalization and the fancy-schmancy stuff that goes with it..rich getting richer and spending their new-found wealth, while large masses continue to lead a wretched existence on the sidelines.
It is true that large populations have not really benefited significantly. But, many others, who would otherwise be making do with mediocre products and services, who would not have had a higher standard of living in terms of comforts and conveniences, have definitely benefited. Anyway, this post is not really about globalization and its pros and cons, per se. It is more specifically about malls.
There is one thing about glitzy malls that I love. Nah, it's not just the trendy clothes, the lights and background music that transport you to a temporary delusional state of well-being and peppiness even when you are in the dumps.
It's that corner where no one goes to satisfy their aspirational needs. It's the place where everyone goes to satisy their most basic natural need - the call of nature. Of course, I am talking about the loo:)!
A universal problem with travelling in India is the absence of clean public toilets. Forget about that dreaded bus journey from Mumbai to Nashik or wherever else, a few years ago, if you happened to have travelled from Kandivali to Colaba (the former is a suburb in Western Mumbai and the latter is in downtown, propah South Bombay), got drenched in the rain, looked for a private outlet to pee, Heaven help you. And, to top it all off, if you happened to have the XX pair of chromosomes (read 'female'), I leave it to your imagination the level of discomfort and the almost yogic self-control you needed to exert upon your bladder unless and until...you happened to have the other type of self-control. The ability to control your revulsions as you entered a place wafting with ammonia, sulphur dioxide and God knows what other gases, all naturally produced, and filled with biological refuse of Homo sapiens . If you are the really philosophical or, rather, the clinical kind, you could dismiss it as, what the heck! But, you get the picture.
When I first came to the US, I was pleasantly surprised that there were clean restrooms in virtually every major store. As for malls, some had automatic flushing toilets and some rest areas on the highways had ornamental sinks with automatic water fountains (Gasp)! I wondered, suppose we also had our mega KMarts or their equivalent, we would soon be able to look forward to the day when you did not have to go thirsty to avoid a dreaded trip to the public loo. I was not completely wrong. The snazzy Crossroads mall in Mahalakshmi, Mumbai, and the various Shoppers' Stop outlets, not to forget the many INOX/IMAX kind of theatres, all have clean restrooms (ooh..that sounds so spa-like as compared to 'toilet' :):)) with trendy youngsters sizing themselves up in the mirrors near the sinks.
For a vast, populous country like India, where civic sense and public hygiene are yet not something people lose sleep over, some private initiative in this regard, will go a long way in improving the overall conditions of public sanitation. At least, people will get a better option. As malls become profitable, they will not need to charge people who do not buy anything from them to use their restrooms. Commercialization in this area is a good thing. After all, not everyone is like this
great man or the person who started the Shulabh Shauchalaya chain and even these are inadequate in number.
On the other hand, I wonder why some countries were able to gravitate towards cleanliness in the first place and why some, despite their ancient civilization and culture, are still lagging behind even in basic civic consciousness.
I remember a time I visited my great-grandmother many years ago, in a small village. Her old, small house did not have built-in restrooms. I, a city girl, was terrified of living there for more than a day or two. Later generations did not face this problem. Even then, the toilet was an area away from the house in the olden days. Sometimes, it was a structure separate from the main house in the backyard. These days, in homes in Western countries, the loos are gorgeous, filled with fragrant pot-pourri, reading material, landscape paintings, ornate plumbing and what not, elevating the humble loo to a place of high art. Probably, the trend has caught on in upper middle class India, too. Why am I describing all this? Because it probably helps to understand the Indian attitude towards toilets in general and helps us figure out why we have not progressed much in this regard.
Read this great article by Dr. Bindeshwar Pathak, the pioneer behind Sulabh Shauchalaya and this.
On another note, Annie has some touching posts on human scavengers.
Fall....
Autumn or 'patjhad', also known as 'fall', is nearly coming to an end.
This is when Nature becomes a bride, decked in red and gold and a myriad other earthy hues. Except that the leaves that are so beautiful today are steadily marching towards their death. Very soon, the trees will be bare, the town desolate, robbed of its little leaves of joy. It will be the 'fall', in the literal sense of the word.
I'll be posting some pictures soon. Never underestimate the power of beauty, particularly that of Nature. The full branches with flowers and leaves and fruit do something to your senses. So do bright sunlight, glorious sunsets and sky colours.
I can really feel the difference when I am in an area that is completely swamped by vehicles, buildings and the like with Nature reduced to a sulking corner, her space appropriated thanklessly by her own children and one where humans and Nature have found their own resonating frequency.
I am writing this as I sit by my verandah, before gold-green-and-brown trees, the rain falling, a cloudy sky with some peach-blue-crimson-yellow in the evenings. Also, this post by Mumbaigirl was lovely, I mean, literally.
This is when Nature becomes a bride, decked in red and gold and a myriad other earthy hues. Except that the leaves that are so beautiful today are steadily marching towards their death. Very soon, the trees will be bare, the town desolate, robbed of its little leaves of joy. It will be the 'fall', in the literal sense of the word.
I'll be posting some pictures soon. Never underestimate the power of beauty, particularly that of Nature. The full branches with flowers and leaves and fruit do something to your senses. So do bright sunlight, glorious sunsets and sky colours.
I can really feel the difference when I am in an area that is completely swamped by vehicles, buildings and the like with Nature reduced to a sulking corner, her space appropriated thanklessly by her own children and one where humans and Nature have found their own resonating frequency.
I am writing this as I sit by my verandah, before gold-green-and-brown trees, the rain falling, a cloudy sky with some peach-blue-crimson-yellow in the evenings. Also, this post by Mumbaigirl was lovely, I mean, literally.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Happy Diwali!
To all those who read this blog or have visited it before, wish you all a very happy and prosperous Diwali and a peaceful, successful year ahead!
I don't know of any regular readers or any readers at all, LOL!!! But my wishes will be there, hopefully for future readers:).
I don't know of any regular readers or any readers at all, LOL!!! But my wishes will be there, hopefully for future readers:).
The red tea
I first discovered rooibos tea in the US. I was introduced to this aromatic native South African herb by a friend. It is rich in antioxidants and is caffeine-free. Add hot milk, sugar, cardamom, ginger and cinnamon and the resulting rooibios chai is heaven.
Although India produces so much of tea, a few years ago, I never even saw an ad for green tea which is supposed to be high in antioxidants and very healthy for your system. The same for brown rice. I first got to know about these healthy options courtesy Anjali Mukherjee's weekly column in Bombay Times in the 'Times Of India'. The TOI was a treat in those days. Those were also the heady post Sushmita-Aishwarya-Miss World-Miss Universe days. Anjali Mukherjee is a reputed nutritionist who counselled Miss Indias. I grew to be a big fan of hers. Along with her, there was the admirable Ramma Bans who trained young, budding beauty queens such as Yukta Mookhey to be slim, strong and fit. Her recommended execises were a part of my staple reading, too, though I did not actually do all of those exercises. I picked up some other exercises from the TOI and other sources though.
The Chinese have a fascinating array of teas - white tea, green tea, tea flavoured with this and that and what not. Until I went abroad, I did not know that there are so many teas, in fact, till I got acquainted with the Internet, I did not know that tea is a generic term for the essence of boiled leaves and herbs. Until then, the only tea I knew was the regular, black chai. 'Chai' in the US , means black tea, flavoured with cardamom, cinnamon, ginger, etc. I still am not accustomed to black tea and coffee. In fact, the way we Indians make coffe, it is practically milk flavoured with a dash of coffee unless you make it extra strong. So, when an American talks about a regular cup of coffee, it is very different from what we Indians mean.
Rain pouring outside, green leaves getting drenched outside in the rain...misty coldness..what else is needed? A cup of hot chai in your hands, warming you up. Truly heavenly!
Now I know why the Tibetans, Ladakhis, Kashmiris and practically every mountain region dweller in China/India and other Asian places, love their steaming cuppa.
My Kashmiri friends were the ones who told me about the different types of chai they drink, the sweet 'kehwa' and the ornamental 'samovar' used to boil tea.
And recent research proves that tea, within limits of course, is actually good for you. If you get a chance, do try the rooibos.
Thank God for chai. Annie has a great
post here on chai.
Although India produces so much of tea, a few years ago, I never even saw an ad for green tea which is supposed to be high in antioxidants and very healthy for your system. The same for brown rice. I first got to know about these healthy options courtesy Anjali Mukherjee's weekly column in Bombay Times in the 'Times Of India'. The TOI was a treat in those days. Those were also the heady post Sushmita-Aishwarya-Miss World-Miss Universe days. Anjali Mukherjee is a reputed nutritionist who counselled Miss Indias. I grew to be a big fan of hers. Along with her, there was the admirable Ramma Bans who trained young, budding beauty queens such as Yukta Mookhey to be slim, strong and fit. Her recommended execises were a part of my staple reading, too, though I did not actually do all of those exercises. I picked up some other exercises from the TOI and other sources though.
The Chinese have a fascinating array of teas - white tea, green tea, tea flavoured with this and that and what not. Until I went abroad, I did not know that there are so many teas, in fact, till I got acquainted with the Internet, I did not know that tea is a generic term for the essence of boiled leaves and herbs. Until then, the only tea I knew was the regular, black chai. 'Chai' in the US , means black tea, flavoured with cardamom, cinnamon, ginger, etc. I still am not accustomed to black tea and coffee. In fact, the way we Indians make coffe, it is practically milk flavoured with a dash of coffee unless you make it extra strong. So, when an American talks about a regular cup of coffee, it is very different from what we Indians mean.
Rain pouring outside, green leaves getting drenched outside in the rain...misty coldness..what else is needed? A cup of hot chai in your hands, warming you up. Truly heavenly!
Now I know why the Tibetans, Ladakhis, Kashmiris and practically every mountain region dweller in China/India and other Asian places, love their steaming cuppa.
My Kashmiri friends were the ones who told me about the different types of chai they drink, the sweet 'kehwa' and the ornamental 'samovar' used to boil tea.
And recent research proves that tea, within limits of course, is actually good for you. If you get a chance, do try the rooibos.
Thank God for chai. Annie has a great
post here on chai.
Monday, October 16, 2006
To veil or not..
In the UK, there is a row over the burqa, a long, flowing garment worn by Muslim women that conceals their head and entire body upto the ankles, sometimes even the face.
The debate over the burqa is not just about a religious symbol, it goes much deeper than that. It is a manifestation of that eternal conundrum - how much of a woman's body can be visible without being overly provocative or offensive. It's not as if this question is not applicable to men. After all, men are not generally permitted to parade naked either. If you ask this question to people from different cultures, you are bound to get differing responses. If you are brought up to think a certain way, it is very hard to let go of it, especially when you feel your community is under attack.
The debate over the burqa is not just about a religious symbol, it goes much deeper than that. It is a manifestation of that eternal conundrum - how much of a woman's body can be visible without being overly provocative or offensive. It's not as if this question is not applicable to men. After all, men are not generally permitted to parade naked either. If you ask this question to people from different cultures, you are bound to get differing responses. If you are brought up to think a certain way, it is very hard to let go of it, especially when you feel your community is under attack.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Why do actresses quit after getting married?
Another Indian actress calls it a day. I feel a little dejected that one more bright female will bow out after tying the knot, or in this case, the thali (the symbol of marriage that Tamilian and some other South Indian women wear).
Of course, I respect her choice. It is, after all, her life. Whether she wishes to give it all up and settle down with hubby, kids and in-laws or continues to stay in the limelight, should entirely be left to her. But, then, why don't women in other professions do so? I have hardly heard of a female software engineer or professor or manager or doctor say, "Okay, now that I got hitched, let me hang up my dainty sandals and make babies and bountiful meals!"
These, I think, are commonly the reasons why women drop out, especially in films:
(a) Time needed to acquire basic qualifications: In other professions, such as medicine, law, management, software and pretty much anything else, it takes many years, probably even decades to reach a certain position. Most of the regular office jobs and especially professional ones, require special degrees. Thus, a doctor who graduates with a specialization, is already in her mid-20s at least. When she gets married, usually some time before or just after 30, she hardly has had any experience. And what is the point of slogging through medical college if you were not going to make medicine your lifetime vocation?
Acting, however, is a different ball game. There are no prior qualifications expected. If one takes even a cursory look at the current line-up of heroines in Hindi, Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam or pretty much the film industry of any language in India, very few wannabes and established actors have undergone professional training in acting in the form of a full-fledged college degree.
(b) Premium on youth and looks: This, I think, is probably the most important reason of all. Some bloggers and writers have lamented about the fact that Hollywood actresses continue with their careers even after making babies, while the talented Indian ones bow out. In Hollywood, there are female leading characters in movies that are in their 30s and 40s. They may be crusaders like Julia Roberts in "Erin Bronkovich" or an FBI investigator such as Jodie Foster in "The Silence of the Lambs". Hindi cinema in the 50s and 60s had scope for such characters. Look at Nargis in "Mother India" or Waheeda Rehman in "Guide" or Sharmila Tagore in "Aradhana" or Rekha in "Ghar". These were strong, character-oriented roles that did not merely focus on the heroine's looks or lack of them.
Somewhere, in the 80s, Hindi cinema became the domain of the macho, can-achieve-anything man. The heroine was just a pretty girlfriend or dutiful wife or mistress or the loving, pitiable mother. In short, she had no identity of her own.
Then came the late 80s and early 90s with their teenage college romances and songs with lines that went something like "Main satara baras ka, tu solah baras ki" (I am seventeen, you are sixteen) - gosh! Hindi cinema was back to the "Sound of Music" days, only without the same charm. If most of the roles involved young people in or just out of college falling in love and battling the odds of conservative parents or villains or whatever-the-director-thought-of, then what hope could even a 30-year-old heroine have? Many actresses have expressed the same view.
Now, in the 2000s, we see hope in the form of fresh, young directors with new ideas. Thus, a much married young mom, Juhi Chawla, can get a role in a sensitive film such as "My Brother Nikhil". A refreshed Kajol, who embarked on a brief hiatus after marriage and motherhood at a young age, is welcomed back in "Fanaa".
But, in both cases, the said actress had built up a formidable reputation during the early days of her career. The same goes for men who come back at a later age. Would Amitabh Bachchan be praised to the skies even for the routine father roles he essays if it was not for the fact that he was India's superstar in his youth?
The Indian actress got the meatiest roles till she was about 30, or at the most, 35. So, the natural thing for her to do would be to make as much moolah and name as possible while she was in her late teens or twenties and catch a good husband and 'settle down' when she was considered "over the hill" (at 30/35, that is ridiculous!!). In Tamil cinema, I feel, that is still the case. We have new nymhettes for every other movie, but rarely, a strong female central character role, the likes of which Kamal Haasan or Vikram, essay.
(c) Stressful, time-consuming profession: This is what some actors seem to harp. As if there were no other vocations besides acting that had stress! In fact, I think actors have the liberty to choose to work fewer days in a year as compared to most other professions. If family was a concern, then an actress could sign one film in two years rather than three films in a single year. Granted, our films involve travel to exotic foreign locales for the dream song sequences, but then, can't a leading lady raking in lakhs of rupees afford to take along her kid on a flight with a nanny or, better still, a family member to help take care of the kid/s? And, there are enough films and scenes being shot locally, so what's so great? Women in other professions travel in overcrowded buses and trains for a few hours everyday and often put in more than the minimum 8 hours, then come home and spend time with their kids besides cooking and household tasks.
I think, the real feeling underlying all this is that, the woman must stay home and take care of the kids. It is the man's job to earn a living. Thus, acting when seen as a gateway to fame and money, not as a passion, is totally dispensable in favour of duty, i.e. being there for the family. But what about the actors who truly love their job and miss it?
(d) Taboo on the married woman's sexuality: This is what my mother would say to me : Women, after marriage, lose their sex appeal with the audience as the men in the audience tend to think of her as belonging to someone else.
A married woman belongs to her husband and must not be seen as attractive by other men. But, then, pray, what about the married man? If it is not okay to covet another man's wife, it should not be okay to covet another woman's husband, no? Nobody seems to have any problems with the fact that girls drool over Shah Rukh Khan or Aamir Khan or Hrithik Roshan, all married fathers. Ditto for the dudes down South, Ajeeth, Rajnikant, Mammootty or Surya. With more urban women thronging the theatres, this trend will hopefully slowly change.
(e) Cinematic relationships reflect society: The reason why even a 40-year-old Shah Rukh stays hot and romances heroines half his age whereas heroines, at the slightest appearance of lines and wrinkles, start to lose it, is because in real life, too, it is the husband who is older than the wife. Typically, the Indian woman who is in her 20s, usually gets hitched before she is 30, given all the matrimonial proposals she gets from her relatives and family (this is largely true for even the urban, educated woman who chooses her own mate from the pool of suitors). The divorce rate in India is very low as compared to Western countries. Premarital sex is still a taboo. So, there are rarely any interesting love stories of 45-year-old women in real life. So, what credibility will it have on screen? In the West, people divorce and remarry even in their 50s. Dating is encouraged. So, you have all kinds of permutations and combinations that can be depicted on screen.
If more and more women start marrying younger men, like a Demi Moore who wed Ashton Kutcher, around 15 years younger, then cinema will wake up, too.
(f)Older women need to maintain their appeal in a graceful way: If women in their 40s, displayed their sensuality in a graceful way, rather than trying to look like a twenty-something hottie, they would truly charm the audience member with taste. Earlier, the over-the-hill heroine would usually be overweight and wear only traditional clothes without any pizzazz (nothing wrong with traditional clothes, they can look gorgeous, but there is a certain type of traditional dressing, if you know what I mean). But, with greater awareness of fitness and nutrition, we can begin to see the middle-aged woman in a whole new light.
Of course, I respect her choice. It is, after all, her life. Whether she wishes to give it all up and settle down with hubby, kids and in-laws or continues to stay in the limelight, should entirely be left to her. But, then, why don't women in other professions do so? I have hardly heard of a female software engineer or professor or manager or doctor say, "Okay, now that I got hitched, let me hang up my dainty sandals and make babies and bountiful meals!"
These, I think, are commonly the reasons why women drop out, especially in films:
(a) Time needed to acquire basic qualifications: In other professions, such as medicine, law, management, software and pretty much anything else, it takes many years, probably even decades to reach a certain position. Most of the regular office jobs and especially professional ones, require special degrees. Thus, a doctor who graduates with a specialization, is already in her mid-20s at least. When she gets married, usually some time before or just after 30, she hardly has had any experience. And what is the point of slogging through medical college if you were not going to make medicine your lifetime vocation?
Acting, however, is a different ball game. There are no prior qualifications expected. If one takes even a cursory look at the current line-up of heroines in Hindi, Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam or pretty much the film industry of any language in India, very few wannabes and established actors have undergone professional training in acting in the form of a full-fledged college degree.
(b) Premium on youth and looks: This, I think, is probably the most important reason of all. Some bloggers and writers have lamented about the fact that Hollywood actresses continue with their careers even after making babies, while the talented Indian ones bow out. In Hollywood, there are female leading characters in movies that are in their 30s and 40s. They may be crusaders like Julia Roberts in "Erin Bronkovich" or an FBI investigator such as Jodie Foster in "The Silence of the Lambs". Hindi cinema in the 50s and 60s had scope for such characters. Look at Nargis in "Mother India" or Waheeda Rehman in "Guide" or Sharmila Tagore in "Aradhana" or Rekha in "Ghar". These were strong, character-oriented roles that did not merely focus on the heroine's looks or lack of them.
Somewhere, in the 80s, Hindi cinema became the domain of the macho, can-achieve-anything man. The heroine was just a pretty girlfriend or dutiful wife or mistress or the loving, pitiable mother. In short, she had no identity of her own.
Then came the late 80s and early 90s with their teenage college romances and songs with lines that went something like "Main satara baras ka, tu solah baras ki" (I am seventeen, you are sixteen) - gosh! Hindi cinema was back to the "Sound of Music" days, only without the same charm. If most of the roles involved young people in or just out of college falling in love and battling the odds of conservative parents or villains or whatever-the-director-thought-of, then what hope could even a 30-year-old heroine have? Many actresses have expressed the same view.
Now, in the 2000s, we see hope in the form of fresh, young directors with new ideas. Thus, a much married young mom, Juhi Chawla, can get a role in a sensitive film such as "My Brother Nikhil". A refreshed Kajol, who embarked on a brief hiatus after marriage and motherhood at a young age, is welcomed back in "Fanaa".
But, in both cases, the said actress had built up a formidable reputation during the early days of her career. The same goes for men who come back at a later age. Would Amitabh Bachchan be praised to the skies even for the routine father roles he essays if it was not for the fact that he was India's superstar in his youth?
The Indian actress got the meatiest roles till she was about 30, or at the most, 35. So, the natural thing for her to do would be to make as much moolah and name as possible while she was in her late teens or twenties and catch a good husband and 'settle down' when she was considered "over the hill" (at 30/35, that is ridiculous!!). In Tamil cinema, I feel, that is still the case. We have new nymhettes for every other movie, but rarely, a strong female central character role, the likes of which Kamal Haasan or Vikram, essay.
(c) Stressful, time-consuming profession: This is what some actors seem to harp. As if there were no other vocations besides acting that had stress! In fact, I think actors have the liberty to choose to work fewer days in a year as compared to most other professions. If family was a concern, then an actress could sign one film in two years rather than three films in a single year. Granted, our films involve travel to exotic foreign locales for the dream song sequences, but then, can't a leading lady raking in lakhs of rupees afford to take along her kid on a flight with a nanny or, better still, a family member to help take care of the kid/s? And, there are enough films and scenes being shot locally, so what's so great? Women in other professions travel in overcrowded buses and trains for a few hours everyday and often put in more than the minimum 8 hours, then come home and spend time with their kids besides cooking and household tasks.
I think, the real feeling underlying all this is that, the woman must stay home and take care of the kids. It is the man's job to earn a living. Thus, acting when seen as a gateway to fame and money, not as a passion, is totally dispensable in favour of duty, i.e. being there for the family. But what about the actors who truly love their job and miss it?
(d) Taboo on the married woman's sexuality: This is what my mother would say to me : Women, after marriage, lose their sex appeal with the audience as the men in the audience tend to think of her as belonging to someone else.
A married woman belongs to her husband and must not be seen as attractive by other men. But, then, pray, what about the married man? If it is not okay to covet another man's wife, it should not be okay to covet another woman's husband, no? Nobody seems to have any problems with the fact that girls drool over Shah Rukh Khan or Aamir Khan or Hrithik Roshan, all married fathers. Ditto for the dudes down South, Ajeeth, Rajnikant, Mammootty or Surya. With more urban women thronging the theatres, this trend will hopefully slowly change.
(e) Cinematic relationships reflect society: The reason why even a 40-year-old Shah Rukh stays hot and romances heroines half his age whereas heroines, at the slightest appearance of lines and wrinkles, start to lose it, is because in real life, too, it is the husband who is older than the wife. Typically, the Indian woman who is in her 20s, usually gets hitched before she is 30, given all the matrimonial proposals she gets from her relatives and family (this is largely true for even the urban, educated woman who chooses her own mate from the pool of suitors). The divorce rate in India is very low as compared to Western countries. Premarital sex is still a taboo. So, there are rarely any interesting love stories of 45-year-old women in real life. So, what credibility will it have on screen? In the West, people divorce and remarry even in their 50s. Dating is encouraged. So, you have all kinds of permutations and combinations that can be depicted on screen.
If more and more women start marrying younger men, like a Demi Moore who wed Ashton Kutcher, around 15 years younger, then cinema will wake up, too.
(f)Older women need to maintain their appeal in a graceful way: If women in their 40s, displayed their sensuality in a graceful way, rather than trying to look like a twenty-something hottie, they would truly charm the audience member with taste. Earlier, the over-the-hill heroine would usually be overweight and wear only traditional clothes without any pizzazz (nothing wrong with traditional clothes, they can look gorgeous, but there is a certain type of traditional dressing, if you know what I mean). But, with greater awareness of fitness and nutrition, we can begin to see the middle-aged woman in a whole new light.
Men, Women and IQs
This is what I have written on my other blog.
There is much brouhaha over the fact that, on an average, men scored slightly more than women on SAT (formerly called the Scholastic Achievement/Aptitude/Assessment Test according to Wikipedia) in a given survey sample, therefore, a conclusion is being reached that men are smarter than women.
For those who are not aware of the SAT, the test is an entrance exam for admission to an undergraduate college degree program in the US. It tests verbal and mathematical ability among certain other things.
By this logic, the passing percentage of girls is higher than boys for the SSC/HSC exams in many places in India. So, does that really mean girls are smarter than boys? Similarly, does it mean that a boy who gets into an IIT is necessarily more intelligent than a boy who misses admission by a few points? I think it is a very naive conclusion.
As for the argument that there are more men Nobel Laureates than women, the number of women who opt for high-powered research-oriented careers in science, economics and other fields is very low as compared to men. Naturally, the number of women Nobel Laureates is bound to be lower. There are several reasons for this. Research-oriented careers take up a lot of one's time and energy and for women with kids who do not have a supportive husband and family, this can be extremely difficult.
I had read a very touching, insightful book on the web.
http://newton.nap.edu/catalog/10016.html#toc
This talks about the lives and struggles of various female Nobel Prize winners, starting with one of the most famous scientists of our time, Marie Curie. If you read the biogaphies of some of the women, then you will know that even in the 19th century, even in some so-called developed Western countries, women were not allowed to attend university.
The following URL (in which the above URL is a link) has a lot of books talking about women scientists:
http://www.nap.edu/collections/womeninscience/
U.S. News and World Report recently had an article about whether the people credited with important discoveries were actually the first to unravel them. One of those stories involved Rosalind Franklin, a female scientist who died prematurely and who contributed to the discovery of the DNA.
Watson and Crick ultimately got credit for it, but the entire story is very intriguing. This can also be found at the first link in this chapter.
There may be several such unsung heroines, people with talent, but those who dropped out due to family responsibilities or the unfriendly system.
Secondly, if you look at Nobels in science, we see very few people from Africa or Asia or Latin America, for that matter. Does that mean white people are smarter? Hell, no. This is what many women are arguing and I perfectly agree.
If we were to make a statement that one race is probably more intelligent than the other, then all hell would break loose. But, it seems perfectly okay to argue that one gender is superior to the other, without even verifying how authoritative the study is.
There is an interesting discussion at:
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/08/26/154410.php
Please do go through it if you have the time, especially the comments. There are a lot of sensible arguments out there.
Funnily, many men do not accept that this survey by itself proves intellectual superiority of one gender over the other. The site and the commenters are mostly Westerners. However, reading the comments on this article on rediff.com, one surprisingly overwhelmingly encounters opinions such as "men are definitely smarter" from guys.
And, this shows that brain size does not always indicate IQ. So, those harping that men have bigger brains and, therefore, a higher IQ, should stop trumpeting.
The bottomline is, statistics alone do not explain everything. In order to deduce anything useful from a survey, one has to study the underlying causes and several other factors. If you conducted the same survey in different countries, for example, you might get different results. Who knows, girls might score higher in some countries!
And, it would be completely ridiculous to say, that just because the number of men in the upper IQ range is higher,the average Ramu/Shyamu is more intelligent than a Marie Curie. Remember, the survey only talks about some men scoring higher tahn some women. It does not and cannot be applied on an individual-to-individual basis.
The views expressed here, although my own, have been expressed by others on the Web and elsewhere, so their influence on me, cannot be negated. They are, therefore, not unique to me.
There is much brouhaha over the fact that, on an average, men scored slightly more than women on SAT (formerly called the Scholastic Achievement/Aptitude/Assessment Test according to Wikipedia) in a given survey sample, therefore, a conclusion is being reached that men are smarter than women.
For those who are not aware of the SAT, the test is an entrance exam for admission to an undergraduate college degree program in the US. It tests verbal and mathematical ability among certain other things.
By this logic, the passing percentage of girls is higher than boys for the SSC/HSC exams in many places in India. So, does that really mean girls are smarter than boys? Similarly, does it mean that a boy who gets into an IIT is necessarily more intelligent than a boy who misses admission by a few points? I think it is a very naive conclusion.
As for the argument that there are more men Nobel Laureates than women, the number of women who opt for high-powered research-oriented careers in science, economics and other fields is very low as compared to men. Naturally, the number of women Nobel Laureates is bound to be lower. There are several reasons for this. Research-oriented careers take up a lot of one's time and energy and for women with kids who do not have a supportive husband and family, this can be extremely difficult.
I had read a very touching, insightful book on the web.
http://newton.nap.edu/catalog/10016.html#toc
This talks about the lives and struggles of various female Nobel Prize winners, starting with one of the most famous scientists of our time, Marie Curie. If you read the biogaphies of some of the women, then you will know that even in the 19th century, even in some so-called developed Western countries, women were not allowed to attend university.
The following URL (in which the above URL is a link) has a lot of books talking about women scientists:
http://www.nap.edu/collections/womeninscience/
U.S. News and World Report recently had an article about whether the people credited with important discoveries were actually the first to unravel them. One of those stories involved Rosalind Franklin, a female scientist who died prematurely and who contributed to the discovery of the DNA.
Watson and Crick ultimately got credit for it, but the entire story is very intriguing. This can also be found at the first link in this chapter.
There may be several such unsung heroines, people with talent, but those who dropped out due to family responsibilities or the unfriendly system.
Secondly, if you look at Nobels in science, we see very few people from Africa or Asia or Latin America, for that matter. Does that mean white people are smarter? Hell, no. This is what many women are arguing and I perfectly agree.
If we were to make a statement that one race is probably more intelligent than the other, then all hell would break loose. But, it seems perfectly okay to argue that one gender is superior to the other, without even verifying how authoritative the study is.
There is an interesting discussion at:
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/08/26/154410.php
Please do go through it if you have the time, especially the comments. There are a lot of sensible arguments out there.
Funnily, many men do not accept that this survey by itself proves intellectual superiority of one gender over the other. The site and the commenters are mostly Westerners. However, reading the comments on this article on rediff.com, one surprisingly overwhelmingly encounters opinions such as "men are definitely smarter" from guys.
And, this shows that brain size does not always indicate IQ. So, those harping that men have bigger brains and, therefore, a higher IQ, should stop trumpeting.
The bottomline is, statistics alone do not explain everything. In order to deduce anything useful from a survey, one has to study the underlying causes and several other factors. If you conducted the same survey in different countries, for example, you might get different results. Who knows, girls might score higher in some countries!
And, it would be completely ridiculous to say, that just because the number of men in the upper IQ range is higher,the average Ramu/Shyamu is more intelligent than a Marie Curie. Remember, the survey only talks about some men scoring higher tahn some women. It does not and cannot be applied on an individual-to-individual basis.
The views expressed here, although my own, have been expressed by others on the Web and elsewhere, so their influence on me, cannot be negated. They are, therefore, not unique to me.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Germaine Greer's "The Whole Woman"
I almost finished reading Germaine Greer's "The Whole Woman". A very thought-provoking book.
There is a perception about feminists in some quarters (correct me if I'm wrong) that they abhor motherhood and domesticity, hate men and want women to hold a superior position to women. I came across a particular blog on sulekha.com here:
http://sulekha.com/blogs/blogdisplay.aspx?cid=89707 where the author has commented about the higher suicide rates of men. I just don't understand his logic there.
This book is totally different from what you would expect. She has, in fact, called upon women to be proud of their bodies as they are, to celebrate their womanhood, to not look upon their periods as dirty. She has talked volumes about motherhood and stood up for all mothers. All the pro-lifers and pro-choice people in the US and elsewhere must read what she has to say about abortion. She is neither on the left or right on this issue. What she says about sex and gender politics does make a lot of sense.
In essence, she has talked about giving single mothers social and economic support. Mothers should have the option to either stay at home or work. I have been thinking about this issue long before I read her book. Is our modern corporate culture itself unfriendly to women? I mean, our lifestyle is really so unnatural at times. People in cities have to work for long hours coupled with the harrowing daily commute. Where is the time for family or even for oneself? Parents, particularly mothers, might feel guilty about leaving their kids to the care of strangers while they juggle work and home responsibilities. Again, it is the mother who shoulders the maximum proportion of the blame.
The recent ascent of Indra Nooyi to the top slot at PepsiCo proves that when corporates lend a helping hand to women in managing their family life, there's nothing stopping the motivated females. Here is a post that talks of her success and on how she coped.
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/003694.html
I have a lot to say about the possibilty of menstrual leave, but more about that on another day.
There is a perception about feminists in some quarters (correct me if I'm wrong) that they abhor motherhood and domesticity, hate men and want women to hold a superior position to women. I came across a particular blog on sulekha.com here:
http://sulekha.com/blogs/blogdisplay.aspx?cid=89707 where the author has commented about the higher suicide rates of men. I just don't understand his logic there.
This book is totally different from what you would expect. She has, in fact, called upon women to be proud of their bodies as they are, to celebrate their womanhood, to not look upon their periods as dirty. She has talked volumes about motherhood and stood up for all mothers. All the pro-lifers and pro-choice people in the US and elsewhere must read what she has to say about abortion. She is neither on the left or right on this issue. What she says about sex and gender politics does make a lot of sense.
In essence, she has talked about giving single mothers social and economic support. Mothers should have the option to either stay at home or work. I have been thinking about this issue long before I read her book. Is our modern corporate culture itself unfriendly to women? I mean, our lifestyle is really so unnatural at times. People in cities have to work for long hours coupled with the harrowing daily commute. Where is the time for family or even for oneself? Parents, particularly mothers, might feel guilty about leaving their kids to the care of strangers while they juggle work and home responsibilities. Again, it is the mother who shoulders the maximum proportion of the blame.
The recent ascent of Indra Nooyi to the top slot at PepsiCo proves that when corporates lend a helping hand to women in managing their family life, there's nothing stopping the motivated females. Here is a post that talks of her success and on how she coped.
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/003694.html
I have a lot to say about the possibilty of menstrual leave, but more about that on another day.
Monday, August 21, 2006
Youth and time
What is it about being young that makes all of us crave for and desperately cling to it?
Okay, a great-looking body, a sharp mind and opportunities galore, not to mention energy and enthusiasm to do what the mind wills. But beyond all this, is the promise of possibility.
Gaurav Sabnis has reminisced about his childhood in
this post.
When I was in middle school, I dreamt I could build a Giant Robot just like they showed in a Japanese serial on TV. With my friend, I drew the form of Giant Robot in the mud and fantasized about a real robot tearing the ground out, fire raging underneath, as I called out : "Come on, Giant Robot".
I dreamt that I was a great scientist, who made my parents and teachers proud. I saw myself as a detective, investigating mysteries a la Nancy Drew and the Famous Five.
When I was a kindergarten child, I wanted to be an astronaut - the inspiration came from another series on dear old Doordarshan, called "Fireball":).
Another time, I wished to be the successor to the legendary gymnast Nadia Comaneci or to Steffi Graf! By the time I was twelve, I knew I was too old to be bent and curled up like a rubber ball.
As I grew older, I saw many of my ambitions burn away slowly into nothingness as reality set in, slowly but surely. At every stage, I knew I had crossed one more milestone, one more threshold and I could not go back into the room I had left behind. Once I was in college, the opportunity to be school topper was gone and the chance to be teen sleuth, too. Once out of college, the opportunity to be the college all-rounder was gone (though I did have my fill of extra-curricular activities).
Once I was 24, the possibilty of being Miss India was gone (the ad says you have be under 23). A few years down the line and the dream of being a mother will be a pipe-dream.
Slowly but surely, the possibilities shrink, you seem to go into a never land..but then, perhaps, newer opportunities light up on the way, rare gems that only an eye exposed to experience and the mind that has absorbed wisdom, can perceive. Wisdom to distinguish between reality and fantasy, wisdom that time is short and one needs to do the very best to reach one's goals and make something of meaning of this existence..and the knowledge that the end is steadily approaching..
It's finally what you do with your time that matters, no matter what your age is.
So, Carpe Diem !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)