I want to discuss the omnipresent ‘F -word’ that pervades our
pop culture nowadays. No, am not talking about Fuck. But Feminism/Feminist.
That’s right. That is the new F-word. It has been co-opted by the conservative
and consumerist media, along with it, churning out a new series of pop and
cultural icons that exude confidence in their Gucci pumps and Prada clutches
(They used to be called shoes and purses not long back.). The new generation identifies
with the ‘rebellion’ of these icons to an extent that the core feministic
values are covertly sabotaged by the market determined subtext. In the Indian context,
this is made worse because of the juxtaposition of dynamic thought and stagnant
culture.
Let us take one of the universal Indian pop icons first-
Aishwarya Rai. She is paraded around as the perfect everything. The epitome of
the new Indian ideal. Whether you hate her because she is just a beautiful face
whose familial roles reinforce the old patriarchal stereotypes or you love her,
we cannot neglect the effect she has on the media. She is no different than the
submissive, indoctrinated characters on Indian TV. Yet she has a market value
and a ‘good girl’ certificate more valuable than most other actresses because
of her ability to stoop to win, like the perfect woman. There was this moment
when a friend told me once that Aishwarya Rai proves that a small town girl
could do anything. The next sentence should have been ‘because she is fair,
because is conventionally beautiful, because she conforms.’ This is the same
sentence that I once heard the Malayalee soft porn actress Shakeela say. That a
girl can do anything if she wants it. There is no crowd to cheer her on except
late at night or in a darkened theatre.
This brings to another actress on the other end of the
spectrum, Sunny Leone. A lot has been said about her. The orthodox section
going wrinkled nose while the neo-liberal progressives happy about someone who
sells sex and flaunts her sexuality finding space in mainstream Indian media. We
cannot forget the fact that current world porn industry is essentially
anti-woman. We cannot also forget the fact that Sunny Leone is not in any way
doing anything original. She is just using her body to make money. However she might define it, it is patriarchy
at work. She is catering to her customers, who are mostly heterosexual males in
a patriarchal society and whose ideals are formed and manipulated by the market
forces. Like most of the porn stars, she has glistening legs, no hair anywhere.
How is this in any way progressive? She wears what makes her look good, more
desirable to her customers and fans. She is a commodity with fundamentally no
talent. There is a huge difference between using sexuality to make a point and
making a point to justify what is essentially everything feminism and woman
empowerment stands against- objectification. Such subversive tactics of the
market should not be considered as a triumph. Sunny Leone, Rakhi Sawant (Why is
it that Rakhi Sawant is derided while Sunny Leone is venerated? Because she
looks and acts ‘Western’ and refined while Rakhi is blatantly offensive and
distastefully Indian.) et al are doing
nothing but make a retrogression in whatever empowerment has happened till now.
Let us discuss another widely removed, essentially Malayalee
pop icon, Ranjini Haridas. I have courted fire because I have said in
progressive circles that I don’t like her. She is individualistic. I agree and I
do like her courage to be blatantly frank about herself. But to promote a woman
who dropped her weight to skeletal thin along the show, creating a negative
body image to the younger viewers and who once more, endorses everything unreal
and nothing original, gives an extremely distorted view about the feminine. Femininity
does not lie in coquetry. Empowerment does not lie in being oneself just
because one had the means to. Wonder how many Ranjinis can afford to emerge
from the quintessential middle class setting without being laughed at. Such ‘
individualistic empowerment’ is the monopoly of the privileged class.
Feminism has always been utilized by the patriarchal setting
as a scapegoat for furthering its goals. But till now, it has been a covert
process. Now, with girls doing Slutwalk and telling everyone to call them sluts
and not feminists because ‘Feminist is an ugly word’ or pretending that fun-
feminism and iFeminism; feminism perpetuated and mass sponsored by the markets
as through consumerism (Yes, I made that up.) ;are more individualistic and
hence right than the collective spirit that actually constitutes feminism,
there is no need now for the society to be covert. Consider this. Buying anything
pink is girlish. So what? I like pink. It accentuates and reaffirms my
femininity, which I have the right to express in the neo-social setting. I am a
feminist. Look, the market has lovely pink accessories for my pink dress. I might
as well buy them because it is my choice and I am defying the stereotype
feminists who don’t wear pink. Really? The market tells you what feminists wear
and don’t wear. How is that in any way empowering?
I don’t mind the ignorance because it is hard to discern
this sort of definitive subjugation in today’s setting with so many corrosive
factors at work simultaneously. But trying to project all these women as the
essential ideals of modern Indian pop/cultural icons is somewhat disheartening.
The question is not whether our girls should have the choice to buy a doctor
Barbie or a Katrina Barbie or a lawyer Barbie. It is whether or not they should
buy or be a Barbie at all.
As long as we don’t recognize that question, feminism will
remain the F-word, a stylish expletive.
