Remember the indelible Mrs. Vatsala Rajan ( Upamanyu Chatterjee’s English, August) before whom almost everyone becomes Somerset Maugham?
I think sometime last month, during an innocuous gtalk conversation on a rather pleasant afternoon I happened to remark that barring a few very rare exceptions most Indian women, most of the time are incapable of original thought.
No. It isn’t a conclusion based on emotion but quite simply there aren’t enough women who could stimulate you even by accident. Of course the talk was related to Indian blogging.
Naturally, I was told to prove it. And was given a time frame of two weeks to gather my evidence. So here are three examples, as agreed:
* First, is an old wine in a new bottle - claiming modernity and novel perspective of liberal thought. This way please. But it is only a classical instance of what Naipaul had assessed long back:
India feeds its own intellectual crisis. At one moment they express the old world, of myth and magic, alone; at another they interpret the new in terms of the old.
Pause a moment to think how many women of the world, who would be offended if someone remarked about their work, or actually at the prospect of them working, would say this -
Hope the milk you bought at the shop was spoiled before it made it to your occupied and entertained fridge. Ggrr.
How funny, the absurdity is complete in its own irony.
* The second of course is just unadulterated ignorance shining through large gaps in rational thought.
Oh!! India killed Scarlett, India failed Scarlett?
But how?
Answer: Like any other country that failed any other victim.
There are no reasons given, either by the blogger or by the empowered committee except lengthy mutual harangues exchanged by the sisters against the Oh so cruel cruel world. And to think actually, this is supposed to be a modern liberal thought after years of civilization. Such a shame. I have given some relevant education on the subject elsewhere .
* The latest is interesting, in that it blindly alleges that one another blogger is inconsistent(? hypocritical) and racist. According to the post such a sentiment is fit enough to term the other blogger with a flowery nomenclature - A Baboon. But why and what for? We dont know. How is it racist? Well, it just is. Typically, when your sole identity and worldview is based on your parent's fortunes, you will find Baboons everywhere and Pythons in everything and start using a spleen for a brain, and are invariably joined by a few other similar insightful juveniles. I am yet to understand the arcane imagination involved in calling the second post racist? Ah, deliberate provocative mocking is original comedy, while just highlighting one common feature in your experience is not only racist but also befitting the behaviour of a buffoon. Pythons are Gods, while rest of the world is racist. What a total tosh? Speak of hypocisy. This would qualify to be nothing but folie de grandeur.
Of course all of this isn’t a newly emerged stupidity, at least not in our experience, so we shall not concern ourselves too much with it. But it is interesting to note that two of the three women call themselves feminists (!) and all of them use comment moderation.
My focus here is on the emerging hypocrisy of comment moderation; I wonder what exactly is achieved by comment moderation?
Firstly, it isn’t meant to pick and prevent advert spams; which is to be taken care of, at least in theory by the word-confirmatory tool . Next, it doesn’t actually prevent someone from abusing you or your friends if he/she wants to. Which I am told, if it really comes to that, has to be sorted by blocking the IP address. And finally if you are a sort of tender-hearted person, the comment moderation doesnt actually make you not read the vulgarity of the world? So what exactly does it achieve?
All it does is to give an undue and undiminishing advantage and control of reading the comment before it appears on your very own blog. How charming? So where exactly is the democracy- if you want to say whatever you want to say at your own convenience but want the others to remark about it only subject to your taste? Also, how would other readers/ commentators know which particular comment has not been published and why? Further it just compels the commentator to return to the post to check, mind you - not if he/she has a particular view on the post - but to see if the view is good enough to be accepted? This is deliberate killing of dissent under the pretext of non-existent protection and some superior taste. Is this the democracy of blogging, free speech and what nots? This is nothing but utter bollocks sweet-painted as moderation for the insecurity of people who want to stay at home and call it the world. Hear this you all, in plain english: this isnt the real world.
To be fair to the above bloggers, I have to say that of the two posts I commented, none of the both have censored my comment. Moderation is not all that widely used in any of the blogging community made of people who can handle themselves in the world; but why then is it not surprising that these women who want to call themselves feminists when they absolve and hand over their Locus of control to external sources ( perverts, lechers) in real life use comment moderation in their own blogs? Apropos Oh, perverts shouldnt stare at me, oh! all of the world isn’t safe for women at all etcetera! but I am going to use comment moderation and keep the bad people of the world away? How's that for a volte-face of your conviction?
You might wonder how all of this is related to Mrs Rajan ? It is such women , Ladies and Gentleman, left to their own, invariably grow up into the various versions of Mrs Rajans.
I think sometime last month, during an innocuous gtalk conversation on a rather pleasant afternoon I happened to remark that barring a few very rare exceptions most Indian women, most of the time are incapable of original thought.
No. It isn’t a conclusion based on emotion but quite simply there aren’t enough women who could stimulate you even by accident. Of course the talk was related to Indian blogging.
Naturally, I was told to prove it. And was given a time frame of two weeks to gather my evidence. So here are three examples, as agreed:
* First, is an old wine in a new bottle - claiming modernity and novel perspective of liberal thought. This way please. But it is only a classical instance of what Naipaul had assessed long back:
India feeds its own intellectual crisis. At one moment they express the old world, of myth and magic, alone; at another they interpret the new in terms of the old.
Pause a moment to think how many women of the world, who would be offended if someone remarked about their work, or actually at the prospect of them working, would say this -
Hope the milk you bought at the shop was spoiled before it made it to your occupied and entertained fridge. Ggrr.
How funny, the absurdity is complete in its own irony.
* The second of course is just unadulterated ignorance shining through large gaps in rational thought.
Oh!! India killed Scarlett, India failed Scarlett?
But how?
Answer: Like any other country that failed any other victim.
There are no reasons given, either by the blogger or by the empowered committee except lengthy mutual harangues exchanged by the sisters against the Oh so cruel cruel world. And to think actually, this is supposed to be a modern liberal thought after years of civilization. Such a shame. I have given some relevant education on the subject elsewhere .
* The latest is interesting, in that it blindly alleges that one another blogger is inconsistent(? hypocritical) and racist. According to the post such a sentiment is fit enough to term the other blogger with a flowery nomenclature - A Baboon. But why and what for? We dont know. How is it racist? Well, it just is. Typically, when your sole identity and worldview is based on your parent's fortunes, you will find Baboons everywhere and Pythons in everything and start using a spleen for a brain, and are invariably joined by a few other similar insightful juveniles. I am yet to understand the arcane imagination involved in calling the second post racist? Ah, deliberate provocative mocking is original comedy, while just highlighting one common feature in your experience is not only racist but also befitting the behaviour of a buffoon. Pythons are Gods, while rest of the world is racist. What a total tosh? Speak of hypocisy. This would qualify to be nothing but folie de grandeur.
Of course all of this isn’t a newly emerged stupidity, at least not in our experience, so we shall not concern ourselves too much with it. But it is interesting to note that two of the three women call themselves feminists (!) and all of them use comment moderation.
My focus here is on the emerging hypocrisy of comment moderation; I wonder what exactly is achieved by comment moderation?
Firstly, it isn’t meant to pick and prevent advert spams; which is to be taken care of, at least in theory by the word-confirmatory tool . Next, it doesn’t actually prevent someone from abusing you or your friends if he/she wants to. Which I am told, if it really comes to that, has to be sorted by blocking the IP address. And finally if you are a sort of tender-hearted person, the comment moderation doesnt actually make you not read the vulgarity of the world? So what exactly does it achieve?
All it does is to give an undue and undiminishing advantage and control of reading the comment before it appears on your very own blog. How charming? So where exactly is the democracy- if you want to say whatever you want to say at your own convenience but want the others to remark about it only subject to your taste? Also, how would other readers/ commentators know which particular comment has not been published and why? Further it just compels the commentator to return to the post to check, mind you - not if he/she has a particular view on the post - but to see if the view is good enough to be accepted? This is deliberate killing of dissent under the pretext of non-existent protection and some superior taste. Is this the democracy of blogging, free speech and what nots? This is nothing but utter bollocks sweet-painted as moderation for the insecurity of people who want to stay at home and call it the world. Hear this you all, in plain english: this isnt the real world.
To be fair to the above bloggers, I have to say that of the two posts I commented, none of the both have censored my comment. Moderation is not all that widely used in any of the blogging community made of people who can handle themselves in the world; but why then is it not surprising that these women who want to call themselves feminists when they absolve and hand over their Locus of control to external sources ( perverts, lechers) in real life use comment moderation in their own blogs? Apropos Oh, perverts shouldnt stare at me, oh! all of the world isn’t safe for women at all etcetera! but I am going to use comment moderation and keep the bad people of the world away? How's that for a volte-face of your conviction?
You might wonder how all of this is related to Mrs Rajan ? It is such women , Ladies and Gentleman, left to their own, invariably grow up into the various versions of Mrs Rajans.
16 comments:
First of all, you are free to think the way you do.
I actually think very few people (Indian or otherwise. women or otherwise, men, homosexuals, lest we not just include gender identities) are able to think for themselves. Most responses are automatic reactions to the emotions provoked by a discussion.
This is not unique to women, Nor is it unique to Indians.
Minds are trapped in realities of one's experiences, which in the large scheme of things is only one color in the large spectrum of the colors of life.
Can two points of view exist side by side without one becoming insecure about the existence of the other? This is the real question.
I stay amused at comment moderations...Its a question of yelling at someone in someone's living room ( I dont agree with this, but I beleive most bloggers see their blog as their living room. They want to control its surroundings.
I am not indecent enough to be aggressive, even though I dont agree with the view.
Unless someone actually asks for an "honest" opinion which means they can tolerate dissent, arent most people looking for echoes?
Very few people can handle different opinions and will reflect on it, without going into "what should be"
Cheers!!
Sumita
it is not only that indian women are incapable of original thought..it would be most women, irrespective of their origins, or for that matter many people in general.
i would think, women are more prone to emotional reactions than men, who can be quite rational and unemotional sometimes. it is just how men and women are, it is not a point to condemn or laud about.
Regarding the comment moderation, true the purpose intially was to prevent spam, and yes i do agree it is undemocratic in nature, but if people want comment moderation they can have it. maybe they do not want a different opinion, well that saves our time.
Hi Sumita,
Thanks for commenting. I think I have assume responsibility for not conveying the essence of the conversation that prompted the exercise. When we discussed about original thought- it wasn’t an innately novel thought but an original ‘judgement’ for a given information. I suppose in the context original thought is light years away.
I agree that it is not exclusive to women or Indians. It can never be. But what I refer to here is the blatant absurdity, though not unique or exclusive to Indian women , (not definitely by just that virtue) but surely under their unique monopoly. I don’t think Indian women, by being Indian or women become irrational - for instance, I wouldn’t hesitate to point out yourself an exceptional example, but Indian women , somehow amnage to find means to express their lack of rationality.
Consider the posts again: regarding the first post, imagine someone claiming to be modern (whatever that means?) and following it with that a century old absurdity known only in India. (? Milk for God’s sake).The second post is just an attempt to somewhat sound liberal in a hot event and failing miserably while the third is a vain college urge to impose your malicious judgement when none is called for and unnecessarily ending up scuppering your own boat.
Mind you, these are not instantaneous reactions but sentiments expressed out of free will, under no external constraints what so ever. And hopelessly finding themselves unable to defend their own views before compelling rationales. This I believe is unique to Indian women bloggers.
While I agree all of us are inherently, helplessly trapped in our own realities, I cant be sure if the question is about the mere presence of accepting these realties adjacently. Simply because regardless of your acknowledgment, these views are already there. The process of being human however is to be able to appreciate these views: you own against those of others. Isnt that what human life is all about? Remember your Cartesian discussion on time space- a la Thomas Mann ? Other popular top of the head examples would be the Gestalts and Optical Illusions
I totally agree with your view of blogs being taken for precious living room. But words like Indecent is as subjective as honest; after all these are adjectives, which is why I say REASON is the only tool we can afford to use to grow in this age of unprecedented personal freedom. Lest, we all shall never have a common ground of world. The lack of which is what prompted my post.
Cheers
Sunil
Hello Adhocquirks,
Thanks for your words. Kindly check my reply to Sumita which includes my thoughts on some of the points you have said.
I have nothing against comment moderation being used by a blogger -but I wonder why exactly is it used? Further my thoughts are on hilariosu hypocrisy of the so called Indian feminist blogging crowd - who are waiting in tow to be offended when asked to eschew from rogues on the street but jump to secure the locks of their very own blogs thrice; On your blogs its fine but on the streets, suddenly, someone, else is responsible.
regards
Sunil
The first and the third posts are nonsense. I am not so sure about the second. I thought it was more personal narration than anything. I see that you don’t live in India, where the ground realities are different from what you know.
Sometimes, having a strong feminist view in India would attract a lot of men who aren’t as rational as you are in your differences. I have seen comments which get intensely personal and often irrelevant to the post in question. Perhaps that could be moderated by comment moderation?
Otherwise I agree with what you have written here and the previous feminism which I found brilliantly insightful. Thanks.
-Sanjana
Oooops.
The first and the third posts are nonsense. I am not so sure about the second. I thought it was more personal narration than anything. I see that you don’t live in India, where the ground realities are different from what you know.
Sometimes, having a strong feminist view in India would attract a lot of men who aren’t as rational as you are in your differences. I have seen comments which get intensely personal and often irrelevant to the post in question. Perhaps that could be moderated by comment moderation?
Otherwise I agree with what you have written here and the previous feminism post which I thought was brilliantly insightful. Thanks.
-Sanjana
To Sanjana
Do you call the first post nonsense because you cannot make sense of it? If yes, then its fineas i would respect your right to have a personal opinion.
However, if you make a generalization that it sould not make any sense to anyone, and hence its nonsense in the abosolute sense , then I challenge you to elaborate on why you think its nonsense. Just labelling something with no basis is not intelligent, as you must know.
Sumita
Hello Sanjana
Thanks for dropping by and the comment. I assume you mean Sharanya Maniivannan’s post on Scarlett Keeling.
I totally agree. It is nothing but a personal agitation and outpouring in response to the event. It is as personal as anyone saying : Chokri nanga phiregi to aisa hi hoga.
But Sharanya here believes she is articulating some sublime feminist thought while all she is doing in reality is just crying her heart out ‘ oh all of this is wrong’.
Statements like India failed and killed Scarlett screams of an empty skull.
I have asked her what is the basis of her conclusion and the response if for you to see. According to her logic all nations kill all the victims that take place in their territory. So what is so exceptional about Scarlett? I have raised a few questions at blogbharti in response to her post and I repeat them here again:
What is Sharanya Manivanann’s take on Scarlett’s legal position? ( because sometimes she is a teenage tourist and sometimes she is kid by Indian standards)
What is the position on Fiona’ s carelessness wrt Scarlett which was antecedent to the event? In the west her children would have been taken away.
What makes Scarlett’s case different from any case of rape and murder?
How is the crime related to feminism?
And how has India failed and killed Scarlett as alleged?
What is the basis of the argument that Scarlett ought to be/have been free to do whatever she wanted while visiting another country, while the residents of the country must not be free to voice their view.
I have given the chance to Sharanya to answer any or all of the questions above as they are based on her post.
Unsurprisingly she doesn’t. The simple truth is she cant. Not in a million years. Because she cant sit in a corner and think for herself. She is just another shout.
If there is anyone who could rationally explain her statements, I am more than willing to listen and accept. Mind you I am not speaking about morality which I consider personal , but simply of reason. Honestly I don’t give a fuck about what Scarlett was doing when? I am interested only how was the statement that India killed Scarlett Keeling arrived at?
If your views are based on reason I don’t think residence in a country is of matter. So even if I am from Lichtenstein, I am not sure if it is only Indians who can understand gem of epiphanies like India killed Scarlett?
Comment moderation:
I have nothing against it if it is used for personal reasons. What I am saying is holding a naïve view that women should be safe everywhere while writing blog after blog about it and using comment moderation to ensure your safety on your own Blog is dissonant.
If you cant take care of a few specimens online how are you going to deal with real thugs on the street? I am not asking them to. I am wondering how women who weren’t responsible for their own safety on the streets ( its always the thug) suddenly become responsible for their safety and beauty of their blog?. These are feminists. It’s a joke.
Regards
How is the third post wrong?
-K
I am sick of educating thickheads and anonymous scumbags. It is not fucking wrong you idiot, it is ignorant , just like you are here.
First do yourself a fvaour and go over the posts again.
Aishwarya believes that the mere fact that she came across a blog or blogs that she doesn’t agree or finds offensive enables her to call someone names without even having a fucking courtesy to engage with the involved blogger. Of course she is a lovely person. So are the other hopeless wannabe toffs and twats who hang around passing grammatically perfect comments when they stink of the shit in their head and colons.
As for the allegation what the bleeding fuck is it all about?
Imagine this: if you visit a shopping mall , you find in your experience that you are always or more often approached by say,
a.Men with beards ,
b.Men who are bald,
c.Men who say they have a car parked outside
How the heck are you going to share that? You would say you were approached by
a.men with beards,
B.men who are bald,
c.men who own a car.
Wouldn’t you?
Now , Imagine if you were approached black men/ asian men/ oriental men/ x men/ men in black whoever?
How the heck are you going to express it? You would say
black men,
asian men,
oriental men,
x men,
or men in black.
There is nothing fucking racist about it.
Because there is no other way of saying it. If there is let me know.
Only either a total fool or a retard can think of it as racist. It is just fantastic concoction of people who have zero experience in life. Yes interracial dating tick , grammar tick, empty head tick.
The fact is you got do some real active thinking of your own than going about branding things as some high perspective picked up scavenging here and there . The idea alleged is plainly hilarious; it implies that if a person from one race says something negative about another then it is racist. So my English friend is racist because she finds Indians lacking teh idea of personal space? yeah? Such sublime shit.
As I have said before in the world that matters, idiots like above have been just weaned of breast feeding, a bit of modest looking around and humility wouldn’t hurt.
Your Opinion invites me to troll a bit, so let me start by calling your remarks on the blog very sexist. Since I am not a very competent writer, let me try to tell you what I think, in a not –so- sophisticated way as yours.
I am not Sharanya Manivannan, so I cannot tell, what she thought of when she wrote the post, but I can tell you what I understood from it, and based on that understanding, I will try to answer some of it. I do not claim either to be a feminist or very rational. I am just me, full of my eccentricities. In her blog she was not talking in terms of what you consider a whole picture. You consider an opinion rational only when the big picture is taken into consideration, there by you ask for Sharanya’s take on Scarlett’s legal position. Perhap her blog, was not focused on it. You see her take on it seemed to be a rant about how the people and media reacted to it. While your logical and rational thought concluded that the whole picture was needed to conclude an opinion of how the media or people thought of the issue, she did not think so, because she was talking in terms of humanitarian views that the people in the issue held to her. You see a common man’s sympathies or views are not necessarily based on such rationalities and legalities to form an opinion. They base their views on their crass thinking. They would rather slut-slam, than change their opinion, into thinking that a girl deserves as much respect as they do. Just because, her blog does not stand to your views on taking the whole picture into consideration, does not mean she possesses an empty skull. You see it is these little inadequacies in a person makes them an individual, it makes them interesting to read. (see, it even made you comment )
To answer your 3rd question I don’t think Sharanya singled out Scarlett’s case because she was not an Indian. It was her opinion on news, that had gained more publicity at that time, than an Indian women’s rape case. It was her choice, a freedom that you cannot deny her. Scarlett’s case perhaps stuck out to the author, because of the conclusion it was receiving in the media, that the author did not agree with.
As for your 4th question. You would understand it if you were a woman in India, be it middle class, trying to go about her daily life, being picked on for being a woman. Have you every felt that you have walk on the road aware, and cautious, because you could get butt pinched by a total stranger, who happens to have a vehicle and can drive faster than you can run and give a chase, to give him a piece of mind. Or have you had to stand in a bus stop, trying to ignore, whistles, and obscene comments from strangers, because you are all alone, and there are a group of them?. You could go and complain to the police. They will tell you that people are like that, and it would do you good, to dress modestly, keep your eyes on the ground, and travel in groups. You see when you have lived and experienced such things, the big picture of the age of the victim, and what amount of blame the mother carries will matter, but not to the extent to rant about. But here is a young girl. She may or may not know the social restriction, a girl faces in the country, She may have chosen to ignore the knowledge, that would have saved her life. Unfortunately this incident got mixed up with mafia, politics, and incompetence. The author would have left that too, because women face such injust often. But what perhaps got her goat was the follow-through. The reporters, politicians and the people of opinion, played it to their advantage, taking the blame away from them, on to the victim.
I don’t know what you think a feminist is, but in my opinion, she is a person who just wants as much rights as her male counterpart- The luxury of just being herself, without having to look over her shoulder, just in case. She does not have to be an expert at defending her self against the ‘thugs’, but she would like to voice her concern, against the mentality of the thug. Because, after all she is a creature of the society, that she is fighting against. How this is related to the Scarlette case is thus. You see, the opinion of the media and the people involved, called out to this girl in her, who was rebelling against a society that was ready to blame the victim, a girl at that, and her mother. This society, she felt, that was supposed to be moving forward, was dragging itself backwards with this views on how a woman should behave and dress….or else…
Though societies like India exist, that fight between two worlds, the authors rant was perhaps on not finding that Utopia, where a crime on a woman, even when it happens, does not drag the victim, into the mud for it. It reminds me of a American comment, that a woman who got raped in an ally had it coming to her, because she had no business wandering there, alone , without a male company for a body guard. You see, it is such an attitude that brings shame to the society, that thinks, that the man has the right to lust and rape any woman who does not confine to his standard of how a woman should behave.
That should also answer your question on How India failed and killed Scarlett. The author was not talking about the competence and incompetence of the police, or the Indian government. She was talking about India, the society, whose attitude got a teenager killed, and who killed her a second time, with its attitude, dragging her to the mud.
Now to continue with my trolling..(my eyebrows are raised) And you are surprised that she did not answer your questions?
As for your first example. Neha’s comment. You know one can be a feminist, without cussing, or using physical violence. I appreciate how she was able to express her anger, without going into profanities. As for the milk comment, it made sense to me because it was aimed at a woman who though domestic life was the best, and every thing else was time pass.
Third example, I don’t find it relevant. It is a personal view of how they look at the world and what they think about it. It has nothing to do with the women of India. People of all nations, gender, and age can be close or open mined, and my opinion does not matter.
As for the comment moderation, other have been more eloquent than I will ever be. Enough said!
So Sir, I would appreciate if you did not generalize on women, and call them empty skulled just because they did not come up to your standards in viewing a topic and giving an opinion, based on a whole picture. Just the way you like it. If I have still failed to answer your questions, then perhaps our point of views are different, I have entered in the middle of an analysis, and it is possible that I have missed something and I couldn’t possibly write more to convince you.
Minkz
Hello Minkz,
Thanks for taking the time to comment. Appreciate it. But sadly it appears you have missed the point of my perspective. As far as I know I have explained my perspective as clearly as possible without drawing a figure, which, believe me, if it was possible, I would have done to avoid any confusion. Therefore I am compelled to fisk. Please do not mind.
You consider an opinion rational only when the big picture is taken into consideration, there by you ask for Sharanya’s take on Scarlett’s legal position. Perhap her blog, was not focused on it. You see her take on it seemed to be a rant about how the people and media reacted to it. While your logical and rational thought concluded that the whole picture was needed to conclude an opinion of how the media or people thought of the issue, she did not think so, because she was talking in terms of humanitarian views that the people in the issue held to her. You see a common man’s sympathies or views are not necessarily based on such rationalities and legalities to form an opinion. They base their views on their crass thinking. They would rather slut-slam, than change their opinion, into thinking that a girl deserves as much respect as they do. Just because, her blog does not stand to your views on taking the whole picture into consideration, does not mean she possesses an empty skull. You see it is these little inadequacies in a person makes them an individual, it makes them interesting to read. (see, it even made you comment )
Your comment precisely reflects the attitude that I have been whining about all through. An opinion is rational only if it based on reason. Be under no illusion that rational opinion has to do with a bigger picture or larger scheme of things. You say that Sharanya is arguing for some humanitarian cause and then go on contradict that common man’s thinking is crass. I suppose then, what is humanitarian isn’t common?
I find the view you share with Sharanya artificial and hopelessly elitist. What makes you think that you, Sharanya and me are not common? As for me, I consider myself a very reasonable common man, and I think I have nothing to change when I say that both Fiona and Scarlett were reckless and wanton. I know my view is based on reason and commonsense and not prejudices. I would have said the same for anyone in any corner of the world. Tell me how does that constitute slut shamming?
You might want to have a look a my Blogbharti comments (link in the blog) if you haven’t already.
Further I have explained my take that the difference in Indian perspective is based on culture; and hence Fiona is made to go through this unique cultural appraisal. I think it is only fair that where people expect the parents to look after their children (without any law to say so) to judge people who don’t. Isn’t that cultural? We are a culture like any other, with our own complexities, and that’s how cultures are defined. We burn our own buses or destroy public property to express our anger like no where in the world.
Consider this:
Indians eat with their hands, Chinese eat with chopsticks.
Now you can’t expect a Chinese not to say anything when an Indian tries to eat the rice with his hand in China. Similarly you cant expect Indians to keep mum when a Chinese asks in India if he can have a dog for his dinner ?
By the same token, in a less sensational case, Karunkar Das who had raped and murdered an eight year old in Orissa in March was tried to be lynched by a mob whilst under police custody. Nowhere in the world would you see citizens trying to kill a culprit while he is under police custody. That is culture.
As I have Indians look after their kids and expect the kids to look after them unlike in some other parts of the world. And like all cultural practices, they judge anything outside this.
Sharanya believes they are wrong in doing so, without explaining her view which is absurd. It is like saying Indians are wrong in asking a Brit not to eat dosa/paratha with a fork.
My question is, bearing in mind the above factors, what is wrong with Indians saying that Fiona and Scarlett were wrong and wanton; mind you, as you know we are speaking about responses to the crime and not the crime which can’t be condoned.
Sharanya has no answers. She just whines and rants.
And I don not know how the whole response has anything to do with any feminism or jackshit?
Scarlett’s legal position was asked to be defined because as I have mentioned Sharanya was essentially contradicting herself. As an individual she must have a take on it right? She doesn’t answer- she is just a machine committed to her own notion of feminism and that has blinkered herself. Honestly she is not even a feminist she is dumb. Go check her responses in the comments.
To answer your 3rd question I don’t think Sharanya singled out Scarlett’s case because she was not an Indian. It was her opinion on news, that had gained more publicity at that time, than an Indian women’s rape case. It was her choice, a freedom that you cannot deny her. Scarlett’s case perhaps stuck out to the author, because of the conclusion it was receiving in the media, that the author did not agree with.
See. You miss the point again. If a country is alleged to kill all its rape and murder victims, then by that logic, all the countries in the world would share the similar honour right? Why didn’t anyone say USA killed the hapless Indian techies? In the entire history of rape, violence and manslaughter how has India alone killed this particular victim?
No answers.
As for your 4th question. You would understand it if you were a woman in India, be it middle class, trying to go about her daily life, being picked on for being a woman. Have you every felt that you have walk on the road aware, and cautious, because you could get butt pinched by a total stranger, who happens to have a vehicle and can drive faster than you can run and give a chase, to give him a piece of mind. Or have you had to stand in a bus stop, trying to ignore, whistles, and obscene comments from strangers, because you are all alone, and there are a group of them?. You could go and complain to the police. They will tell you that people are like that, and it would do you good, to dress modestly, keep your eyes on the ground, and travel in groups. You see when you have lived and experienced such things, the big picture of the age of the victim, and what amount of blame the mother carries will matter, but not to the extent to rant about. But here is a young girl. She may or may not know the social restriction, a girl faces in the country, She may have chosen to ignore the knowledge, that would have saved her life. Unfortunately this incident got mixed up with mafia, politics, and incompetence. The author would have left that too, because women face such injust often. But what perhaps got her goat was the follow-through. The reporters, politicians and the people of opinion, played it to their advantage, taking the blame away from them, on to the victim.
I don’t know what you think a feminist is, but in my opinion, she is a person who just wants as much rights as her male counterpart- The luxury of just being herself, without having to look over her shoulder, just in case. She does not have to be an expert at defending her self against the ‘thugs’, but she would like to voice her concern, against the mentality of the thug. Because, after all she is a creature of the society, that she is fighting against. How this is related to the Scarlette case is thus. You see, the opinion of the media and the people involved, called out to this girl in her, who was rebelling against a society that was ready to blame the victim, a girl at that, and her mother. This society, she felt, that was supposed to be moving forward, was dragging itself backwards with this views on how a woman should behave and dress….or else…
Though societies like India exist, that fight between two worlds, the authors rant was perhaps on not finding that Utopia, where a crime on a woman, even when it happens, does not drag the victim, into the mud for it. It reminds me of a American comment, that a woman who got raped in an ally had it coming to her, because she had no business wandering there, alone , without a male company for a body guard. You see, it is such an attitude that brings shame to the society, that thinks, that the man has the right to lust and rape any woman who does not confine to his standard of how a woman should behave.
That should also answer your question on How India failed and killed Scarlett. The author was not talking about the competence and incompetence of the police, or the Indian government. She was talking about India, the society, whose attitude got a teenager killed, and who killed her a second time, with its attitude, dragging her to the mud.
Highly irrelevant to the case in question. Scarlett wasn’t assaulted by a stranger but someone she knew well and was in a relationship with. The entire whining of yours has no apt meaning by whatsoever imagination. No one dragged anyone to the mud and I have explained above why. Scarlett was raped and murdered and the culprits should be punished. India is sovereign democratic republic, what is the meaning of a joke of statement that India killed scarlet. As I have asked what is the basis of this statement? If possible, and if you a have reasonable case, could you explain clearly, and not whining about how people look at you in the bus station, how India killed scarlett than any nation killed its murder victim?
Neha’s blog:
Your response is as hilarious as Neha’s sentiment. No one is asking to abuse or assault anybody. There are a million ways to express disapproval to the lady on the bus. For instance - she could have said that working is far more productive than passing stupid comments on working women. And that she that the lady should try working.
If you claim to be a feminist, you ought to stand up for yourself and express your annoyance ( to change attitude) rationally boldly; not whine and moan; instead darling Neha runs off and gets back home to write a blog about it. She almost sounds like her grandmother -the irony of which is - she somehow validates the view of the lady on the bus.
Forget feminism, she is just being stupid. I wonder where is the feminism in ‘ hoping and praying’ that someone’s milk or cabbage be spoilt? And I tell you what the lady will do if the milk is spoilt - surprise surprise she we go and get a fresh pint. Huh.
Aishwarya’s blog:
Your comment on Aishwarya’s snobbery is equally hilarious. I am intrigued to learn that calling someone racist and cracking jokes on them along with your friends has become a personal thing? Wow. Now racism is personal, is it? This is incredible!! As I said aishwarya and her friends have to plainly stop dissing their parents money on books and movies and cease believing that to be the whole wide orld. But frankly, as I have said before, I don’t expect much from all of these than grow up into Mrs Rajans.
So Sir, I would appreciate if you did not generalize on women, and call them empty skulled just because they did not come up to your standards in viewing a topic and giving an opinion, based on a whole picture. Just the way you like it. If I have still failed to answer your questions, then perhaps our point of views are different, I have entered in the middle of an analysis, and it is possible that I have missed something and I couldn’t possibly write more to convince you.
I am not generalizing at all. I am drawing my conclusions based on my observations on Indian women on Indian blogosphere. If you find them sexist, I cant help it. I don’t believe in imposing my views and judgment on others, like the women referred do. I have asked the questions which they have not answered. Not very surprising not even attempted to. May be it takes more than a self tag of feminist to think? None of the feminists I know are as dumb as the ones I have come across on Indian blogosphere. That is the truth.
And for you, if you have not understood or need clarifications feel free to ask me. If you think i havent gotten any of your point , I am more than willing to listen, but I only ask you to be clearer in addressing the issues I have raised.
Cheers
Hi
We differ in our points of view. I could not honestly say you are wrong or that I am right. But I can try and give you my perspective on it, if you will indulge me.
“Your comment precisely reflects the attitude that I have been whining about all through. An opinion is rational only if it based on reason. Be under no illusion that rational opinion has to do with a bigger picture or larger scheme of things. You say that Sharanya is arguing for some humanitarian cause and then go on contradict that common man’s thinking is crass. I suppose then, what is humanitarian isn’t common?”
My view that that common man’s thinking was crass was in regards, to the attitude that men have, that if a lady is willing to show flesh, she has it coming to her. If you view yourself with these same sentiments, as these men, I will prefer to stop my argument. But assuming that you have some amount of common sense that is quite uncommon among these above mentioned men, with such opinion, I will continue. Do you honestly suppose that my thinking of men as crass for having a shallow opinion of women, is in the same league, of humanitarian issues, as the way the media and the people of say treated the dead scarlette’s character? If the above comment did not mean that, then I have not understood what you imply by it.
“As for me, I consider myself a very reasonable common man, and I think I have nothing to change when I say that both Fiona and Scarlett were reckless and wanton. I know my view is based on reason and commonsense and not prejudices. I would have said the same for anyone in any corner of the world. Tell me how does that constitute slut shamming?”
I agree with you totally. Both the mother and the daughter are to blame for their recklessness and some amount of glib stupidity. I do not call that slut slamming.
“Political officials in Goa are calling for the revoking of MacKeown’s visa and a ban on her entering the country again, blaming her for maligning the image of the state.”(This bit is from Sharany’s blog.
See this point of view of the goa officials is not up to mark. You wish to revoke the visa of the mother, and ban her from entering, fine. Blame it on her carelessness, stupidity, or downright disinterest in the welfare of her daughter. But why should the state feel insecure, that such an issues is affecting its image? Like you said, rape happens, Would the state, ban parents on an underaged rape case from entering the state for being careless, and reckless. In India countless children, run away from their homes, and endup, in cities unable to fend for themselves. I have met a few of them through an organisation in Hyderabad. They run away, because parents are curel, and disinterested in these kids. Some have escaped horrers at home. If any of these kids end up with the same fate as scarlette, will the state officials ban these people from entering their state, because it is bad for their image?. There humanitarian issues are lost.
“By the same token, in a less sensational case, Karunkar Das who had raped and murdered an eight year old in Orissa in March was tried to be lynched by a mob whilst under police custody. Nowhere in the world would you see citizens trying to kill a culprit while he is under police custody. That is culture.
As I have Indians look after their kids and expect the kids to look after them unlike in some other parts of the world. And like all cultural practices, they judge anything outside this.
Sharanya believes they are wrong in doing so, without explaining her view which is absurd. It is like saying Indians are wrong in asking a Brit not to eat dosa/paratha with a fork.”
In the name of culture, you are ready to dismiss the worst form of human rights violation. By this you either imply that you care- less what happens under the banner of culture, or you encourage such a point of view. That it is alright for a mob to lynch a girl, for no fault of hers, when in police protection. What is happening there is not culture. But extreme human right violation, disguised very poorly. What you dismiss off as culture, is what Sharanya or myself are against, and talking about right now. That mentality is very different from our view of eating dosa or parata, by fork, or taking care of our parents. So I will dismiss it off as a stupid example. (It makes me wonder if you have the same problem, that you accuse women bloggers of having)
‘And I don not know how the whole response has anything to do with any feminism or jackshit?’
See I don’t know what it is about feminism that is making you insecure. But what Sharanya is asking for, is that basic dignity of the mother and victim , not be violated. You assume that once such a thing enters media, it is alright to mud sling, and it will happen. It happens because we assume that it is alright for it to happen. You see there are lots of people like you who, dish out nonsense in the name of culture. What you view as culture, is nothing but narrow-minded ness of a bunch of people. If it is cultural, to slam a victim, be it male or female, and make a propaganda about it, then perhaps your view on culture needs to change. I am proud of my countries culture, but what I view as culture is not what you view. If you think, eve teasing, female infanticide, and dignity of a human sacrificed for a society is culture. I beg to differ. And refuse to comment further. Because unlike other countries like say America, where personal dignity is lost in the name of sensation, and publicity, I lived in the world that see it happening in India, but not under the banner of culture. I also choose to appose it.
“See. You miss the point again. If a country is alleged to kill all its rape and murder victims, then by that logic, all the countries in the world would share the similar honour right? Why didn’t anyone say USA killed the hapless Indian techies? In the entire history of rape, violence and manslaughter how has India alone killed this particular victim?”
Yes, from you logic, you would conclude, so. But perhaps people of other countries too, use the term, I would not know since I don’t live in them. The truth to your skeptic thought will have to wait, rational, research. She also did not say that in the entire history of rape, violence and manslaughter, that Indian alone killed its victim. She just pointed out that, in her opinion, this case illustrated, the death of the victim in the hands of a society that lacked decency. Note that she is not talking about the crime of rape here. But the crime of mental abuse melted on the mother. As far as I know, journalists have always made a hue cry about the lack of decency when a scandal is exposed beyond acceptable standards. It is universal, and not limited to an Indian woman.
“Highly irrelevant to the case in question. Scarlett wasn’t assaulted by a stranger but someone she knew well and was in a relationship with. The entire whining of yours has no apt meaning by whatsoever imagination. No one dragged anyone to the mud and I have explained above why. Scarlett was raped and murdered and the culprits should be punished. India is sovereign democratic republic, what is the meaning of a joke of statement that India killed scarlet. As I have asked what is the basis of this statement? If possible, and if you a have reasonable case, could you explain clearly, and not whining about how people look at you in the bus station, how India killed scarlett than any nation killed its murder victim?”
My example of eve teasing was relevant to the case, not in relation to Scarlette, but in regards to Sharanya. See when a person forms a view, it is based on their upbringing, environment, and the conclusions they derive from it. So Sharanya’s hue and cry, was related to this view she held of the Indian society. It is not an echo of a feminist thought, but experiences like the ones I mentioned above, that make her take the stance that she takes. That is in a way the same experiences that I went through in my life, and can relate to and why I am taking time to write about.
“Your response is as hilarious as Neha’s sentiment. No one is asking to abuse or assault anybody. There are a million ways to express disapproval to the lady on the bus. For instance - she could have said that working is far more productive than passing stupid comments on working women. And that she that the lady should try working. “
And I suppose that would have made the woman realize the folly of her comment? She would immediately apologize, and take up working the very next day, and stop passing such judgmental comment on the next unfortunate victim?
No Neha, writes about a view, she feels as a fault in a society, that wishes to see women, in only one way. The milk comment does not immediately imply that while she thinks a women’s place in beyond the boundaries that the woman mentioned, she fell finally on her own sword. Sumita makes a great argument that I don’t to wish to simplify.
“actually think very few people (Indian or otherwise. women or otherwise, men, homosexuals, lest we not just include gender identities) are able to think for themselves. Most responses are automatic reactions to the emotions provoked by a discussion.
This is not unique to women, Nor is it unique to Indians.
Minds are trapped in realities of one's experiences, which in the large scheme of things is only one color in the large spectrum of the colors of life.
Can two points of view exist side by side without one becoming insecure about the existence of the other? This is the real question.”
”If you claim to be a feminist, you ought to stand up for yourself and express your annoyance ( to change attitude) rationally boldly; not whine and moan; instead darling Neha runs off and gets back home to write a blog about it. She almost sounds like her grandmother -the irony of which is - she somehow validates the view of the lady on the bus.
Forget feminism, she is just being stupid. I wonder where is the feminism in ‘ hoping and praying’ that someone’s milk or cabbage be spoilt? And I tell you what the lady will do if the milk is spoilt - surprise surprise she we go and get a fresh pint. Huh.”
I am sure that Neha has replied back soundly on such a comment many time before as I have. It just doesn’t seem to get you any where, except frustrate you.
“Aishwarya’s blog:
Your comment on Aishwarya’s snobbery is equally hilarious. I am intrigued to learn that calling someone racist and cracking jokes on them along with your friends has become a personal thing? Wow. Now racism is personal, is it? This is incredible!! As I said aishwarya and her friends have to plainly stop dissing their parents money on books and movies and cease believing that to be the whole wide orld. But frankly, as I have said before, I don’t expect much from all of these than grow up into Mrs Rajans”
I did not mean it the way I sounded. I do not take so lightly to racism. But if I disapproved of a person’s point of view, I would take it up to them in their blog, and not bitch about it in someone else, blog. That is what I meant by personal.
But your conclusion on the women bloggers based on this site does not work for your argument, because, such an attitude is not exclusive for women from India who blog. People of every culture, irrespective of their gender, hold such a view. They do express it in their blogs. If you have to argue your case, then, you have to prove that other bloggers are not like that. Which is not the case. So your argument with this site is moot. As for you comment that woman such as her should stop dissing their parents money on books and movies and cease believing that to be a whole wide world. I can only say, I have come across men like those. I am new to blogging, so I can’t claim to have seem such behavior in men’s blogs, but never the less…
‘I am not generalizing at all. I am drawing my conclusions based on my observations on Indian women on Indian blogosphere. If you find them sexist, I cant help it. I don’t believe in imposing my views and judgment on others, like the women referred do. I have asked the questions which they have not answered. Not very surprising not even attempted to. May be it takes more than a self tag of feminist to think? None of the feminists I know are as dumb as the ones I have come across on Indian blogosphere. That is the truth.
And for you, if you have not understood or need clarifications feel free to ask me. If you think i haven’t gotten any of your point , I am more than willing to listen, but I only ask you to be clearer in addressing the issues I have raised.’
If you feel that these women imposed their views and judgment on others by writing their opinion in their blogs, then you sir, are also guilty as charged, for writing in this blog. If you conclude that any woman who attaches the tag of feminist is a feminist, and hence have to act according to your idea of how a feminist should think, then you are deluded. Feminism does not require a degree, or follow a set of commandments. It is but a frame of mind. There are all kinds of feminists, ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous. And they are not only Indian in origin. It is not necessary to only be a feminist in your life. You do realize that there are men bloggers who are feminist’s too. So if you conclude that feminists in general in the Indian blogsphere are dumb, why pick on women’s blog. Make it fair. Give examples for the whole case.
All people men or women are human first, and rest later. You sound like you have a personal vendetta against feminists, either for doing too little or too much. I don’t think I will change my opinion (not that it matters to you) and still label you sexist, with a need for a little heart and a few grey cells.
My view that that common man’s thinking was crass was in regards, to the attitude that men have, that if a lady is willing to show flesh, she has it coming to her. If you view yourself with these same sentiments, as these men, I will prefer to stop my argument. But assuming that you have some amount of common sense that is quite uncommon among these above mentioned men, with such opinion, I will continue. Do you honestly suppose that my thinking of men as crass for having a shallow opinion of women, is in the same league, of humanitarian issues, as the way the media and the people of say treated the dead scarlette’s character? If the above comment did not mean that, then I have not understood what you imply by it.
See. There you go again. I have told you before.
The case has nothing to do with your skewed mind that oh men say if a lady is willing to show flesh, she had it coming. Scarlett was not a girl wearing mini skirt and returning from PVR on an auto. I believe no girl of 15 in any corner of the world semi clad, drunk , under the influence of drugs, walking into a shack in a foreign country at 3 am on her own without money or phone, as Fiona let Scarlett do lacks fair bit of common sense. And people have openly stated that. now that we agreed that is not slut shamming tell me what is the reasoning behind they shouldn’t?
“Political officials in Goa are calling for the revoking of MacKeown’s visa and a ban on her entering the country again, blaming her for maligning the image of the state.”(This bit is from Sharany’s blog.
See this point of view of the goa officials is not up to mark. You wish to revoke the visa of the mother, and ban her from entering, fine. Blame it on her carelessness, stupidity, or downright disinterest in the welfare of her daughter. But why should the state feel insecure, that such an issues is affecting its image? Like you said, rape happens, Would the state, ban parents on an underaged rape case from entering the state for being careless, and reckless. In India countless children, run away from their homes, and endup, in cities unable to fend for themselves. I have met a few of them through an organisation in Hyderabad. They run away, because parents are curel, and disinterested in these kids. Some have escaped horrers at home. If any of these kids end up with the same fate as scarlette, will the state officials ban these people from entering their state, because it is bad for their image?. There humanitarian issues are lost.
This entire rant is based on one single response amongst millions there ie to cancel visa. I don’t see how it is relevant to the point I am making in Sharanya’s blog where she concludes India killed scarlett. You have brought it into arguments for reasons known to you and it doesn’t further the discussion but only end up conflating it unnecessary details not related to the post in question per se.
in the name of culture, you are ready to dismiss the worst form of human rights violation. By this you either imply that you care- less what happens under the banner of culture, or you encourage such a point of view. That it is alright for a mob to lynch a girl, for no fault of hers, when in police protection. What is happening there is not culture. But extreme human right violation, disguised very poorly. What you dismiss off as culture, is what Sharanya or myself are against, and talking about right now. That mentality is very different from our view of eating dosa or parata, by fork, or taking care of our parents. So I will dismiss it off as a stupid example. (It makes me wonder if you have the same problem, that you accuse women bloggers of having)
ee I don’t know what it is about feminism that is making you insecure. But what Sharanya is asking for, is that basic dignity of the mother and victim , not be violated. You assume that once such a thing enters media, it is alright to mud sling, and it will happen. It happens because we assume that it is alright for it to happen. You see there are lots of people like you who, dish out nonsense in the name of culture. What you view as culture, is nothing but narrow-minded ness of a bunch of people. If it is cultural, to slam a victim, be it male or female, and make a propaganda about it, then perhaps your view on culture needs to change. I am proud of my countries culture, but what I view as culture is not what you view. If you think, eve teasing, female infanticide, and dignity of a human sacrificed for a society is culture. I beg to differ. And refuse to comment further. Because unlike other countries like say America, where personal dignity is lost in the name of sensation, and publicity, I lived in the world that see it happening in India, but not under the banner of culture. I also choose to appose it.
Easy. No need to hyperventilate so much. I’m going nowhere Dearie. I have told you think about this a million times, I don’t think you understand the meaning of the culture and confuse it traditional Indian view. As far as I am concerned people look after their kids and kids look after their parents in India culture/society. I don’t give a fuck if it is a good or a bad thing. My job is observe and comment and not judge the practices. Now I find it in perfect sense when people like Fiona are chastised for a failure of a cultural practice of the land. What the heck is so nonsensical about it?
When you want to people change or not darling you got to understand them. Writing essays on blogs imposing a textbook on foreign culture isn’t going to change one bit , if at all it does anything is it antagonizes people.
Ah poor. Very sorry really. You have misread about karunakar das. Go back to what I have said and don’t unfold your emotional baggage on me. Karunkar das was a man who had a raped and killed an eight year old (during the heat if scarlett’s case.) He was arrested. But the local mob was so angry with him that they stormed the police station to attack him. I am saying it to highlight the other extreme of response in our culture. Though I do not approve I understand it very well as much as I understand when people say Fiona was grossly negligent.
These sort of responses are out of proportion in comparison in other cultures.
Since you haven’t got it in your head let me give another example:
An Indian goes to France and eats with his hands. He would asked to use the fork or be removed. Your arguing it is unethical or unhumanitarian to do so. ( to be removed) while I’m saying there is nothing wrong in following a culture when you are there. You are expected to. So if you want to try it out why don’t you go Paris and east with bare give them your humanitarian argument. Lets see what court in the world would stand by it? Huh.
Yes, from you logic, you would conclude, so. But perhaps people of other countries too, use the term, I would not know since I don’t live in them. The truth to your skeptic thought will have to wait, rational, research. She also did not say that in the entire history of rape, violence and manslaughter, that Indian alone killed its victim. She just pointed out that, in her opinion, this case illustrated, the death of the victim in the hands of a society that lacked decency. Note that she is not talking about the crime of rape here. But the crime of mental abuse melted on the mother. As far as I know, journalists have always made a hue cry about the lack of decency when a scandal is exposed beyond acceptable standards.
Refer above to culture. And why it is wrong to judge a woman who doesn’t care for child where it is norm to care for their children ? Simple question which I have been repeating WHY?
as per your response oh its agony its torture etc. you are kidding yourself. These are public so they shall be so in the times we live. Madeleine McCann, and the recently concluded McCartney -Mills divorce are public affairs. In this age
Why are you singling out Fiona-scarlett?
My example of eve teasing was relevant to the case, not in relation to Scarlette, but in regards to Sharanya. See when a person forms a view, it is based on their upbringing, environment, and the conclusions they derive from it. So Sharanya’s hue and cry, was related to this view she held of the Indian society. It is not an echo of a feminist thought, but experiences like the ones I mentioned above, that make her take the stance that she takes. That is in a way the same experiences that I went through in my life, and can relate to and why I am taking time to write about.
Nonsense. Since she was teased while growing up taking a bus on a Monday 15 years back doesn’t her exclusive right to dish out idiotic statements like India killed so and so.
Make any sense?
No Neha, writes about a view, she feels as a fault in a society, that wishes to see women, in only one way. The milk comment does not immediately imply that while she thinks a women’s place in beyond the boundaries that the woman mentioned, she fell finally on her own sword. It just doesn’t seem to get you any where, except frustrate you.
Ha ha this getting more funny. Now she wrote that because she was frustrated?
First you say : we shouldn’t cuss words ( no one asked )
Then you say we shouldn’t sue violence ( no one asked you to)
Then when I say that there are many ways to express your annoyance and give you an example -- you say .. Hang on… And I suppose that would have made the woman realize the folly of her comment? She would immediately apologize, and take up working the very next day, and stop passing such judgmental comment on the next unfortunate victim
This is true refuting mind. Do your realise how idiotic your argument sounds.
So let me teach you , listen:
The woman annoyed Neha. If you feel she is prejudiced as Neha makes her to be , find means to express your displeasure. And that is all. We are not changing the world sweetheart. What fun. You express your annoyance is cold rational terms, but what is the justification that whining and hoping on a blog like your grandmother prayers do?
Would you ask - in your own words, that the woman would read the blog, understand her folly and be enlightened? Hah.
I am sure that Neha has replied back soundly on such a comment many time before as I have.
Oh has she, have you? On your blogs?? How are you sure, seeing by what she ahs said, I actually feel the other way. Is your certainty and confidence in her a sisterhood thingy?
I don’t give a toss about feminism or not. But I find it incredibly funny for someone to hope and pray on their blog that someone who was being nasty to her that morning should get her milk spoilt. You cant see that do can you?
As I said it’s a sublime irony. Stupid.
As per your sumita sentiment check my response to her.
I don’t think you have anything of note regarding aishwarya’s post.
Frankly I believe you havent even understood what I had highlighted in my blog.
Further statements like this reflects the level of rationality that of possess:
People of every culture, irrespective of their gender, hold such a view. They do express it in their blogs. If you have to argue your case, then, you have to prove that other bloggers are not like that.
So to prove that you are stupid, I have to prove the rest of the world isn’t ?
It isn’t actually what you believe but the other way round. And mind you I did not say hey these three bloggers are stupid and hence Indian women bloggers are stupid. My conclusion was asked for evidence over a period of two weeks which I spent on Indian blogoophere . It has been accepted by feminists who can really think than harangue jackshit.
And honestly I know far many thinking women in India in real life to say all Indian women are fools. Refer to my appropriate response to sumita above.
If you feel that these women imposed their views and judgment on others by writing their opinion in their blogs, then you sir, are also guilty as charged, for writing in this blog. If you conclude that any woman who attaches the tag of feminist is a feminist, and hence have to act according to your idea of how a feminist should think, then you are deluded. Feminism does not require a degree, or follow a set of commandments. It is but a frame of mind. There are all kinds of feminists, ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous. And they are not only Indian in origin. It is not necessary to only be a feminist in your life. You do realize that there are men bloggers who are feminist’s too. So if you conclude that feminists in general in the Indian blogsphere are dumb, why pick on women’s blog. Make it fair. Give examples for the whole case.
Refer to above. And as per your idea of feminism is - I would say it is stage 1 of the Indian idea of feminism and going by your clinging attitude will be there for a while.
This post was just sharing between our friends here, it had no intention to change the attitudes of fellow bloggers writing Indian blogs. It is not stupid as is nehas case, shallow as in sharanyas case or malicious as in aishwaryas case.
And we don’t comment moderate and let everyone have the chance to express themselves.
My posts were not made against feminism, however skewed ideas that you hold about it. My post was to show that Indian women bloggers display exceptional stupidity under veneer of articulation and feminism when they cant think for themselves. End of the day language is useless as toilet paper without thought to say it , and that’s precisely why in each and every comment they fail to defend themselves.
My questions remain unanswered.
cheers
Hi
I do apologize if I have intruded on a private opinion intended for a few. I am kind of new to the web mania and am still learning the etiquette of this world. I took it for granted that any one who wished their views for a selected few used the private, moderation thingy. But then when you commented on someone’s blog you too perhaps intruded into their private space, and challenged them for who they are. Still, I do apologies, and will trouble you no further. But I do have a few thing I cannot help from saying. It helps to keep my piece of mind.
Our views in regards to Sharanya’s blog will differ always, because our ideals vary. You believe that a journalist has to view the situation, stoically, and report based on the situation, and not involve her personal prejudice in any way into the issue. Correct me if I am wrong. “The society is like that only, stop whining already. It makes you stupid.” Is your mantra. But there I differ. I do know that the society is like that only. It is in my face all the time, How can I miss it?. I know too that my whining will not change the society. But if during our freedom movement, the writers of Kesari, or Inqulab, had stuck to just hard cold facts, and not injected, passion and prejudice in their writing, the Indian freedom movement would have been, very luke warm. You might argue that the freedom movement is different from the free India of today. But I don’t see it that way. While the fortunate of us can bask in the glory of the freedom that another generation fought for, there are still some in the very country, still struggling for freedom in a moral less society. You might feel that this has no relation to Scarlett’s case, I feel it has, In your view of the scarletts case, and the author who w rote about it. No sarcasm on your part would convince me other wise.
The case has nothing to do with your skewed mind that oh men say if a lady is willing to show flesh, she had it coming. Scarlett was not a girl wearing mini skirt and returning from PVR on an auto. I believe no girl of 15 in any corner of the world semi clad, drunk , under the influence of drugs, walking into a shack in a foreign country at 3 am on her own without money or phone, as Fiona let Scarlett do lacks fair bit of common sense. And people have openly stated that. now that we agreed that is not slut shamming tell me what is the reasoning behind they shouldn’t?
What I object is the mentality that the a 15 year old semi-cad, drunk girl is at fault, and the lust, and ,murder of the man who raped her is not viewed by the society in the same page. To me it seems unfair that a man and a woman cannot enjoy equal safety in the society. And the opinion from the likes of you that takes it for granted. How do I give an example that would explain it to a man... Let us see…Suppose a man went to a doctor, who recommended surgery, and under the influence of an anesthetic, stole a kidney resulting in his death. In this case, would you condemn the man for his glib stupidity, to believe the doctor was trustworthy, while letting loose the criminal doctor, because he would of course get his just dessert, under the law for his criminal act. I suppose you would be with a crowd, that declared that that man and men like him had it coming to them, for their blind faith. The morality of the doctor, will be left for the law to analyze and draw conclusions.
This entire rant is based on one single response amongst millions there ie to cancel visa. I don’t see how it is relevant to the point I am making in Sharanya’s blog where she concludes India killed scarlett. You have brought it into arguments for reasons known to you and it doesn’t further the discussion but only end up conflating it unnecessary details not related to the post in question per se.
This rant is relevant from the point of you on not Scarlatte’s case but the conclusion you derived from Sharanya’s blog. Sharanya’s blog used this view, to represent her case against the people or men of India. Your only view is that Sharanya should not have exclaimed that India killed that young woman. I cant make you see the reasons she put forth for that conclusions. But I tried.
I don’t give a fuck if it is a good or a bad thing. My job is observe and comment and not judge the practices. Now I find it in perfect sense when people like Fiona are chastised for a failure of a cultural practice of the land. What the heck is so nonsensical about it?
When you want to people change or not darling you got to understand them. Writing essays on blogs imposing a textbook on foreign culture isn’t going to change one bit , if at all it does anything is it antagonizes people.
What an easy and cold hearted job you have!. So easy to be detatched from a society that is crumbling before you, without even thinking it will one day take you with it. But I am foolish enough to want a change. Perhaps an ideal fool I will die. But I will be content that I tried. You see weather you want it are not you are connected to the very society you only wish to comment and not judge. To judge is to be human. Why even Gautham Buddha who believed in detachment to attain nirvana, could not help but first try and pass on his knowledge to others. I also believe that the web and blogs have brought the world closer, and given a voice to the ones who have not spoken before. There is sure to be a revolution of sorts soon.
Ah poor. Very sorry really. You have misread about karunakar das. Go back to what I have said and don’t unfold your emotional baggage on me. Karunkar das was a man who had a raped and killed an eight year old (during the heat if scarlett’s case.) He was arrested. But the local mob was so angry with him that they stormed the police station to attack him. I am saying it to highlight the other extreme of response in our culture. Though I do not approve I understand it very well as much as I understand when people say Fiona was grossly negligent.
These sort of responses are out of proportion in comparison in other cultures.
Since you haven’t got it in your head let me give another example:
An Indian goes to France and eats with his hands. He would asked to use the fork or be removed. Your arguing it is unethical or unhumanitarian to do so. ( to be removed) while I’m saying there is nothing wrong in following a culture when you are there. You are expected to. So if you want to try it out why don’t you go Paris and east with bare give them your humanitarian argument. Lets see what court in the world would stand by it? Huh.
I am sorry. I truthfully do not know the case you mentioned above and am embarrassed that I did not do my research before coming to the conclusions I came to. I my argument of human violation counts, still. Because a mob is a stupid animal, which believes that what it does is the law and right. What a single man would hesitate to do, as a crowd he would freely do without guilt in his heart. There have been same mobs, that lynch a man for loving a girl of another cast, or for voicing a protest at how the upper class treats a Dhalit. If you accept that the mob was what it was and it was a cultural incident, and leave it at that, then you blind for thinking so. You might give it a detached, and stoic stance, but I would wish to change that mentality. By writing about it in the Blog I might not do much to the mob mentality, but I hope it does something to the crowd that, much like you dismisses it away, while carrying on with life, in all polish and spit. Rock on!
Refer above to culture. And why it is wrong to judge a woman who doesn’t care for child where it is norm to care for their children ? Simple question which I have been repeating WHY?
Nothing wrong, as long as you would like to judge that boyfriend and his crime in the same page, if not in the same para.
as per your response oh its agony its torture etc. you are kidding yourself. These are public so they shall be so in the times we live. Madeleine McCann, and the recently concluded McCartney -Mills divorce are public affairs. In this age
Why are you singling out Fiona-scarlett?
I don’t understand. I thought the subject was about Sharanya’s blog. She mentions Fiona-Scarlett, so I did too.
I am sure that Neha has replied back soundly on such a comment many time before as I have.
Oh has she, have you? On your blogs?? How are you sure, seeing by what she ahs said, I actually feel the other way. Is your certainty and confidence in her a sisterhood thingy?
I do have aunts and uncles who are from the dinosaur age, who believe they know truly were every one fits in the society. They think they have a right to opine on how I should live my life, right from the cloths I where to my carrier, family and children. You would think a girl would develop a thick skin from all this. But I don’t. I am new to blogging, and have to start one, but never the less, Even if, like neha, I wrote a blog or gave them a piece of mind, they will never change. I live with that every day of my life. It frustrates me. But I don’t have the vocabulary, or the eloquent tongue, to express my distaste. So what I can do is make a phone call to my sister, or friend, and express my frustration. Neha’s blog works in the same way, looking for sister hood sympathy, and hoping to learn from, somebody else’s experience. That has nothing to do with feminism, but every thing to do with being a female. I don’t expect you to understand this. To you it will be bull shit.
So to prove that you are stupid, I have to prove the rest of the world isn’t ?
No. To prove that Indian women bloggers, are extraordinarily stupid, invites a comparison, to others. Which is what I did. You see when you feel inclined to complain about only Indian bloggers, I infer that you have nothing against others to the same degree as you have for women Indian bloggers. If you are inclined to believe that other are equally stupid for their rasistic views, you did not word it, also it counters the argument you use, in regard to Indian woman bloggers. It is like a bunch of blind people stepping on you toes, but you wish to single out only one, because it suits you argument. As if the rest of the foot steppers, do not bother you as much as just one.
Refer to above. And as per your idea of feminism is - I would say it is stage 1 of the Indian idea of feminism and going by your clinging attitude will be there for a while.
This post was just sharing between our friends here, it had no intention to change the attitudes of fellow bloggers writing Indian blogs. It is not stupid as is nehas case, shallow as in sharanyas case or malicious as in aishwaryas case.
That is a point of view. Not fact.
This post was just sharing between our friends here, it had no intention to change the attitudes of fellow bloggers writing Indian blogs. It is not stupid as is nehas case, shallow as in sharanyas case or malicious as in aishwaryas case.
And we don’t comment moderate and let everyone have the chance to express themselves.
My posts were not made against feminism, however skewed ideas that you hold about it. My post was to show that Indian women bloggers display exceptional stupidity under veneer of articulation and feminism when they cant think for themselves. End of the day language is useless as toilet paper without thought to say it , and that’s precisely why in each and every comment they fail to defend themselves.
I once again apologize for not understanding blog ettquette. But I am a sucker for arguments, and quite enjoyed this one. As for the rest…It applies to you too.
First, you dont owe me any apologies at all. I said that the blog was intended to share a viewpoint with my fellows and friends here. The comment was made in the context of you alleging that I wanted to change these bloggers.
Evidently I think your thinking is clouded by the weight of your own emotions. I cant engage in a debate full of sentiments. To me it is like shouting on the high street for your causes.
I appreciate your enthusiasm but I cant say the same for the debate you have offered.
If you still think you know better, why dont you answer the following two questions in not less than fifty words each. I limit your words, not out of disrespect but purely because you have repeatedly displayed a tendency to get carried away without making any sense.
In the world we live in thousand crimes ( against men, women and animals )take place everyday in all the countries. India is a sovereign democratic republic nation.
Sharanya has accused in her blog that India has killed Scarlett. Which makes a reasonable man like me very curious. I want to know what is the reasoning behind such a serious statement ?
So far I have had no sensible answers.
Answers you have given me like eve- teasing in India is so unbearable has no relation whatsover to the event. It no way justifies a statement like a nation killed a person.
If you have no reasons to explain kindly refrain by shedding down your emotions about eveteasing as a response.
Next, I and my friends in England havent followed the Indian media but we believe Scarlett and Fiona were reckless and ended up paying the price. And as I have told you I would have believed the same, regardless of the person and the country. Why am I wrong?
I have explained in India it is a cultural practice/duty to look after your children and not let them under the company of someone and go away on a holiday. What is wrong about Indians judging people who dont identify with that?
So what is the basis of the argument that India shouldnt be free to voice their view( however flawed it might be) or that they wrong in voicing it in their own country and cultural set when Scarlett and Fiona should be free to do whatever they fancy in a country and culture that is not theirs?
I have given examples of about cultures in my previous comments- Chinese, French etc.
Again if you are going to answer based on some humanitarian bullshit, I am afraid I would rather ask you not to, as it hardly makes any sense. And if you do choose to answer mind the length.
regards
Post a Comment