Tuesday, August 18, 2009

A nightmare journey

After a recent visit to Darjeeling/Siliguri, K and I were returning home to Kolkata on the Darjeeling Mail, which leaves New Jalpaiguri at 8.05 PM and arrives at Sealdah station at 6.00 AM the next morning. My cousin, whose house we were staying at in Siliguri, had us dropped off at NJP station, and armed with our baggage and one rather fragile gift for a two dear friends, which I clutched to myself, we entered the train. The first sight that greeted me was that of a short, fat, pot-bellied man dressed in a tee and - get this - boxer shorts, performing some ablutions at the sink immediately before the door. I remember thinking vaguely how weird some people were - I mean, what's the point of getting into your night clothes in public on a train, for God's sake? - before following K in to find our seats.

Now, I hate trains. Always have. Being cooped up in a compartment with so many people makes me claustrophobic, and since I've never had much luck where co-passengers were concerned, the journey becomes, at best, tedious. Plus there's the close proximity of strangers in 3-tier coaches, which I find horribly intrusive. Planes might be just as bad at times, but at least it's all over in a few hours. So anyway, we find our seats, tuck our luggage away, I squirm my way into my window seat (luckily we had a lower and a middle berth) - not an easy task, since someone had helpfully wedged a suitcase right where I was supposed to keep my legs. K settles down next to me, we start talking, and then Mr Boxer Shorts comes in and plumps himself across from me. K's eyes widened, and we grinned at each other. And then arrived two other men, all clearly from someplace in UP, judging by the language they spoke - one in a loose white kurta pyjama, with hennaed hair and a tiki/choti at the back, marking him out as a Brahmin; and the other a huge fat man with a stomach to rival Boxer Shorts'. They plonked themselves down, began talking loudly, interspersed with loud chants of 'sri radhe radhe' every now and then. Across from us, on the two side seats, was a Marwari couple, who had begun eating their dinner quietly.

So far so annoying. But now, just a little while before the train was to depart, arrived another man, clearly of the 'sri radhe' party, completing the cosy foursome, again a potbellied, slightly seedy, but otherwise ordinary looking person. He stands there, talking as loudly as his pals, and then I notice him beginning to unbutton his shirt. 'Here's another about to wear his night-suit,' I remember thinking. Except he didn't. Wear anything fresh, that is - the disrobing, on the other hand, continued. While K and I watched aghast, this person calmly removed his shirt, sat himself down on the seat opposite, rucked up his undershirt almost to his shoulders, and, as if that wasn't enough, proceeded to unbutton and unzip his trousers. I shot one appalled look at K, who was staring expressionlessly at the man, dived into my bag, yanked out The Wizard of Earthsea, and stuck my nose resolutely into it. Bless Ursula le Guin for being brilliant enough to even engage my attention at that moment; and I came up for air only when K asked me, in perfectly normal tones, if he should 'tell that pig to wear some clothes and behave himself'. I asked him not to - I didn't think we could take on four enormous ruffians. Just then, a respectable-looking Bengali gentleman came in, and it turned out that his was one of the seats that one of the barbarians had occupied. There was a scramble to get his luggage out so he could go sit where he rightfully belonged - and I'm not usually so provincial, but I have to admit that the sight of a decent Bong man filled me with unutterable relief.

I didn't look up from my book even once since then except to talk to K, and then I didn't look ahead, pretending - and I can do that very well if I choose - that the people crowding my space didn't exist. Nauseous sounds of chomping, slurping, burping a while later told me the cave men had sat down to feed; Ged had just reached Roke, and I followed his efforts to find the Archmage with a desperation that rivalled his own. After a while K pokes me and says - again in his normal baritone - 'Look at that fat pig. He doesn't even know how to eat properly.' I refused. K continued staring, still without expression. Once the burp fest was over, loud post-dinner chatter ensued; the Marwari couple had settled down to sleep, but their noise disturbed the lady in the lower berth so that she sat up, looking at them - K tells me her look was one of horror, and then she apparently looked at us with much sympathy. At some point they clambered onto their respective berths and relative peace ensued. The Bong gentleman made his bed on the top berth with much apologies for taking up our space while doing so; and then he climbed up and firmly switched off the lights. The Marwari lady lay down in relief, I emerged from Earthsea, and we had a quiet dinner in the relative privacy afforded by the darkness.

The medley of snores kept me up all night, but I didn't care; and when the train pulled into the station, I leapt out almost before it stopped. White kurta Brahmin was still snoring, incidentally, regardless of his pals' attempts to wake him. The last thing I saw was a coolie poking him - hard, I hope.

So. WHY can Indian men not behave themselves in public? I mean, is that so hard to do? As K said, if a foreigner had seen these buffoons, would s/he not have been justified in believing that Indians are an uncivilised race? And, as K said later, that disgusting disrobing was, in a way, a complete denial of my existence in the same shared space - women, in their world, are clearly invisible, inconsequential entities. I think there was both a denial and an affirmation operating at the same time - the entire episode was also for my benefit, a form of sexual intimidation targeted towards the woman so far removed from their own social milieu. As a student of sociology, I am aware of culture-specific behaviour - but I fail to understand what role 'culture' has to play in the lives of people who know as little about the norms of public behaviour as a caged animal. And if it comes to that, give me a caged animal any day. Nor was this display about class/caste - in the minds of most people, even today, the people lower in the socio-economic hierarchy are the ones who're considered 'uncivilised', 'uneducated'. These people were middle-class, and of the Brahmin/Kayastha castes. How could they have been brought up - or not - so badly? And the scary part is that these aren't the only specimens - most Indian men are this disgusting. My paradigm and theirs are so far removed that we might be living on different planets - and our worlds collide only rarely, for which I am thankful. I'm glad I don't belong to their world, for - and I'm stereotyping, but I think this time it's justified - these men, without doubt, are chauvinistic, misogynistic, patriarchal tyrants.

I'm never travelling on a train again, unless accompanied by people - and then we can travel in the 2-tier coaches, and hopefully we'll fill up all the seats around. Oh, and here's another bit of irony - there they were, these right-wing, Hindu, crude specimens of humanity, with their sri radhes and their talk of 'Shri Krishna ki Janmashthami', and there I was, in my cool Tantra tee which said, 'God is too big to fit into one religion'.

21 comments:

Unknown said...

Whew. That was an epic rant. I say this in admiration: you're usually so reserved. But your anger is as justified as, I think, my helpless laughter at our mishap.

The insouciance of the Terrible Three lay in the details of their feeding frenzy. (While you were drowning yourself in Earthsea, I was staring at them wall-eyed. One doesn't think people like these exist outside Theroux's travelogues - and not even there.) If you hadn't shied away from letting me feed you those details of their disgusting gustation, your blog might have been the more, um, colourful for it.

I've seen co-passengers from hell and co-passengers from hell, but those three decamped with the bakery. I remember asking you just who might be daft enough to give them jobs and/or marry them. They barely qualify as lower primates (and I'm insulting lorises).

The strip-joint bunny wannabe was begging for emasculation. I had waking-sleep fantasies of locking his pallid ass in the privy. I sometimes wish that the two of us weren't so inflexibly private: we could have bawled him/them out in full public banshee and found sympathy from other fellow travellers. I'm sure we could have made a big enough spectacle of it to bugger up this part of their journey, and maybe all of it. But I'm a mouse who tends to stand on ceremony when I shouldn't, and all we had to show for it was a choppy night full of their rattly eructations, north and south. You and I aren't good at snobbishness, however hard we try, but I remember regretting at night that I was sharing breath with three humans who ought to be barred by law from passing on their genes.

Then, again, if we had let fly, it's likely that they wouldn't have got all the dramatics. Duh? Eh? Etc. Clearly, you/I/PWLAR (People We Love, Admire and Respect) and they inhabit incompatible paradigms. But since their like are proliferating and our like aren't, maybe Darwin got it all wrong: those who are fit to survive are not always the best, or even the marginally good.

Then, again, an overnight train journey is not the place to build a life philosophy upon.

I could be wrong, though. It's a jungle out there.

Thinking Cramps said...

That made me think, Pro. Yes, there is such a high degree of acceptance for men wandering around half-naked while women have to cover up ALL the time, that it is a form of sexual intimidation to disrobe in such a cramped, public space.

Glad you survived that journey and it didn't get any worse (could it have?!). And, Anando has exactly the same t-shirt! He wears it here and in this environment it gets him some interesting comments :)

A very cool cat said...

K - Thanks for that nice, long comment. I'm still not seeing the lighter side of this story - but perhaps I'll get there eventually. And yes, you did tell me the details of their feeding habits, but I thought that could make a blog in itself - perhaps you should write one? :) Also, while on the subject of Darwin, I do believe at times that people like these form a sub-species of sorts - I mean, if there can be sub-species of cats and dogs, why not humans? They're definitely lower in the evolutionary ladder - and yes, they are proliferating. My cynical thoughts of eventual human self-destruction aren't all that far off the mark, then, are they? See - I don't have any problem being snobbish! Never have. :D

And 'strip-joint bunny wannabe'!! ROFL! What would Hugh Hefner have said to that display!

TC - Thanks! And yes, the journey could've got worse - they could've begun drinking. I was apprehensive they might, even mentioned it to K, but thankfully they desisted. I think we'd have broken our silence had that happened.

I love that T-shirt - and now I want to know what these interesting comments are that Anando's received!

Poonam Tanmayo said...

Bloody Hell ... you poor child!
What a nightmare to be trapped in.

But lets not blame just the guys, I say their women are as much to blame ... they feed the behaviour n it becomes so deeply ingrained in the Indian boy-man that he knows no different. He's never been taught sensitivity or consideration.

No wonder they smell n burp n fart n scratch their groins in public. I remember being quite fascinated by Vinod Mehta's regular itchiness during the Sunday Observer days.

When I got pressured into a band-baja shaadi, (apparently my prospective father-in-law blackmailed my parents and his own son to have the marriage so ... or he'd throw himself off the balcony!!! Had I known I'd have told him to go ahead if he had the balls. However knowing me, it was kept from me)
Under protest, I went along with the glitter n the glitz.
But the ceremony, in the middle of a hot n humid summer night, went on n on n on.

As I suppressed my irritability, the women from my husband's family fussed over him, got him cooling drinks and napkins to wipe his sweaty brow n suggested that he take off his pagdi n sehra in-between pheras even as they fanned him.

I fretted n fumed at being ignored n glared to show my disapproval as I slowly melted in close proximity with the blazing fire
... quite an unlikely bride there.

The minute the pheras were over I tromped to my room n stripped bare of the silks n jewels n breathed in relief as I cooled myself ... only to have horrified in-law peekers aghast at the disappearance of the coy bride that never was.

This is just a tiny example of the disparity of response by other women to men n women ... and I do blame the women.

My mother too, oh yes ... a total traitor to the cause.
So we got married and I as laughed happily n skipped to get home, my Dad quietly advised me to look a bit sad ... ha ha ha, that was funny
How could I be sad???
I was going back to MY house
My father-in-law's insistence on a big fat Indian wedding had wiped out the money my Dad had put aside to get me a flat and so we were moving into an empty flat in my Dad's building since we couldn't afford the hefty deposits of a rented place.
The blackmail had boomeranged.
Back to my beloved South Bombay ... not to the conservative clan at Kandivili ... yippie

Ah, my Mum. She half-jokingly advised my husband to not step foot in the kitchen or he'd be setting a life-long precedent.
Hearing this I dug my heels in and guess who made the first tea and who cooked the first meal???
Not me. And it was an equal partnership after that.

I hate women who sabotage other women, even their own daughters.
Its like the crabs that pull back the one that tries to climb out of the ditch.

I'm not a raging feminist and I do love men but I believe we women are responsible for moulding our boys into rather reprehensible specimens.

During the bidaai, my mum-in-law tearfully asked me to please take care of her baby, her youngest son.
I just looked at her, her son was 28 years old, 7 years older than me. He'd been molly-coddled all his life and never even served himself food or ever made a cup of tea. Fruit had always been cut bite-sized for him and ....
You get the trend.

When I visualise the men on your train, I think of the women that brought them up,
the mothers, who must be passing on the same bullshit to their daughters n daughters-in-law.

No wonder the Indian man remains quite a sad un-evolved species.

Poonam Tanmayo said...

Why Indian men are still little boys

http://www.tehelka.com/story_main42.asp?filename=Ne010809coverstory.asp

Definitely worth reading

Unknown said...

Outrageous and disgusting. Lighter side of the story? I'm not sure there is one. We shrug off these incidents so easily sometimes, forgetting that they showcase a deeper malaise. I'm so glad you wrote about it and expressed your anger and distaste, and didn't try to laugh it off.

(This also brings back so many memories -- mostly associated with the time I spent in Delhi -- that I'm shaking with anger right now! [And when I'm angry, my vocabulary gets kicked into touch!])

As for your observation about badly behaved Indians, this is something I noticed in the UK. Limited though my exposure is, why are the ones talking the loudest, having phones ringing in a no-cellphones zone, skipping queues, etc. almost always without fail Indians? That too men?

Perhaps it's because they are brought up to think that space is all theirs to take, and nobody else matters as long as they get what they want and need. And women, of course, are absolutely of no consequence in their world-view except to assert their power over. Like you said, it's not "bad" behaviour or upbringing; it's a culture!

A very cool cat said...

Poo, PD, thanks a ton! :)

Poo, I did read that article - you'd posted the link on FB, remember? And yes, spot on. You're right about the mothers spoiling the sons - I remember asking K angrily while in the cab that brought us home why their mothers couldn't have taught them how to behave in public. I'm sure part of this behaviour was inculcated in them in childhood through primary socialisation by observing their fathers - but what were the mothers doing? And you've answered it - they were busy coddling their brats and telling them the world was theirs to just take.

And btw, K's told me enough Vinod Mehta stories for me to know just what you're talking about! :D

PD - There is no lighter side, as you pointed out. And yes, we are so used to disgusting behaviour, especially from the male of the species, that we're inured - but we shouldn't be. And their refusal to give anyone else space extended even to K, when one of the men stretched out his gross legs well in K's space - except he was curtly asked to move immediately. No wonder we're still tagged with the 'uncivilised', 'Third-World' label when such people populate our country. And no wonder so many Indians get a bad name when they travel abroad.

Unknown said...

@Poonam: I beg to differ with your analysis. It’s not so simple. It is both unfair and a form of internalized sexism to blame the mothers for the way these men behaved. Unfair because these women too are part of the same patriarchal society where men hold all control. How much power do you think society affords women to make decisions and choices about their own lives and bodies? Did these women you denounce even have a say in giving birth to their children (whether sons or daughters who later go on to become daughters-in-law), leave alone in how to bring them up? How many are even aware that they have a right to these choices?

It is also unfair because mothers and fathers both have a role in raising children. The nurturing role of mothers is highlighted because of the gender-based division of labour in our society, but it is a role/right entrusted to them to ensure that these same patriarchal values are inculcated in the next generation. It is a role that fathers expect mothers to play, that is, to bring up both sons and daughters in the only way they believe to be right, and have different expectations and values for boys and girls. It’s also not so simple as telling kids, “Sit straight” or “Don’t pick your nose”; they see how people around them behave and take cues from it -- how their fathers treat their mothers, notions of good moral behaviour for men and women, how boys and girls are differentiated, etc.

Similarly with infantilization -- mothers *and* fathers do it in their own ways. A mother calling her adult son her baby and a father wanting to buy his daughter a flat or getting her one in his building are both examples of it. They are both encouraging a certain kind of behaviour and expectation from their children (a son and a daughter), and it is convenient for the latter to perpetuate it because it affords them a sense of security in various ways. Some people are lucky enough to spot the rot and break out of the pattern, but for most of us it is just convenient to let it be.

Now on to the point why I feel it’s sexist to dump the blame on women. This is because in the deeply patriarchal society that we live in, the onus of changing one’s behaviour always falls on women -- in other words, they must always take the blame. If men behave badly, it’s their mothers’ fault; if men cheat on their partners, it’s because they have “needs” and are probably not getting enough at home; if men harass women on the streets, it’s because of how the latter dress... it’s never-ending. Sad but true is the fact that all these mothers have done is bring up their children -- both boys and girls -- to behave in a way that helps them fit best into a sick system. A system where men are taught to take and women are taught to give. And in the eyes of those that patriarchy serves, this adds up to a perfectly balanced order.

Thus, I think it’s unfair to sit in judgement of “those women”. Some of us might be lucky enough to be able to question the status quo and take a stand on matters as we see fit; some others are brave enough and committed enough to go out there and try to change things one grain of sand at a time (they often call themselves feminist activists, as far as I’m aware). But it is incredibly unfair to blame the one party who is already oppressed and subjugated in a skewed system. How can one blame the victim for the transgressions of the oppressor?

On a side note, I’m also unsure what the term “feminist” means to other people, both men and women. As far as I see it, it would mean to have a problem with an order that appropriates a position of power and authority for one half of the human population against the other. It is the *concept* of men and of women that I see as problematic, and the way we are conditioned to see it as “normal”. In the same way that we are conditioned to denounce labels like “feminist” as being an epithet for a bra-burning, man-hating rabble-rouser.

Poonam Tanmayo said...

PD
There's so much richness in our varied experience n such limitation when we just have a blinkered vision of life, isn't it?

As I wrote to Pro elsewhere my subjective rant comes from my own personal history n has its own validity there-in ... as does yours

I have a deep respect for the Indian women I've known n
I've seen that even the most compromisrd women have an inborn wisdom, an inherrant spine of steel n a seed of iconic strength
They may not always be in touch with these qualities but they're very much there

My unfortunate experience of the Indian man, no matter if he's a highly successful man of the world or my ayah's alchoholic husband, is that they lack inner substance BECAUSE they're not in touch with their core

I've always maintained that there's a missing gap in the general male species ... they're very much in touch with their head n their sexuality but the heart connection is missing
this missing link is the first step to any growth, emotional and-or spiritual

The Indian woman has far more real influence that we give her credit for specially in her role as a mother
n I stand by my statement of most men being inherrantly Mama's boys,
a trait that remains through life

The unfortunate part is that a woman is generally not her own best friend or a friend to other women
Her survival instinct that makes her sabotage other women even when she's coming into her own power... daughters n daudghters-in-law are the most obvious example, as are other women in the professional work force
She aligns herself with the winning social side, the men, uses them for her own purposes and the female sabotage continues

You were asking if these women had a say in the birth of their children

Children, my dear, are the all time favourite pawns
I have seen, intimately, more than a few educated independent women manipulate their relationship by having children
One woman I know well kept the relationship going by having 5 kids!!! and believe me, the man is still ready to fly at the first opportunity

Do mothers and fathers both have a role in raising kids? In an ideal world, yes
Generally, no
Kids are or can be a continuing and royal pain in the ass and if I were a man I'd be too busy too
Most kids are left to the woman to bring up and there-in lies the opportunity for her deeply ingrained influence

PD, the woman is no helpless victim, she has wides-spread influence in the socity from the core out
How she chooses to wield that power is up to her congruence or short term vision
We can discuss and refute and prove our points endlessly ...
But personally, my dear, I truly dont give a damn

I have learned that we cannot do ANYTHING even about our closest beloveds leave alone the general public
People are in their own growth process n change only when they're ready to drop what's holding them back

Working with addicts, alchoholics and co-dependents I've seen that you can put a person in a re-hab but until there's inner change its all superficial, temporary n forced abstinance
Our addictions n behaviours are our survival tools, they have a very necessary role, a positive intent
When they've out-lived their role, they drop

I believe that the only thing we CAN do is live our life as per our beliefs
This creates a ripple effect n
attraction works better than any promotion

The most important factor in codependency is that the oppressor n victim are just 2 sides of the coin, one doesn't n cannot exixt without the other, specially in a relationship
One feeds the other n its often difficult to see who's manipulating who, which one has more power, which one is the real victim
I'd say, both are in the same bloody soup n only you can see n step out, breaking the catch-22 circle

The study of co-dependency is amazingly revealing n blew my own victimhood straight out of the window
In fact, it was the first step to my own freedom in every way

Much love n cheers
Poonam

Poonam Tanmayo said...

PD ... On rereading your comment, I noticed your dig at my Dad
Ah well, bless you, my dear

My father giving us space to stay on my request was hardly infantalization
Seeing the property rates in Bombay, it was his personal plan to gift a flat each to all his children, girls and boys

But because of my dear father-in-law's intervention I still live on rented premises, a fact that has never bothered me as it brings its own freedom

All parents want to do well by their children but I agree that they do great harm in infantalizing them, oh absolutely.

I see myself right now doing all I can as a single parent as my son steps out into the world, a young adult
Does that mean I'm infantalizing him? Keeping him dependent?
Hardly

We've been talking about him living on his own, earning his keep since he was 15

I see other parents wanting to hold on to their children, afraid that they will lose them
They are themselves emotionally dependent and so in turn they create dependency

In setting our children free, we free ourselves too
and that's true of all relationships
Those who bind n enslave tie themselves in the process

I'm really curious to know if you are a parent
Why so vicious, my dear?
Any buttons been pushed?

If you go back to my comment, you'll notice that I start by saying "the women are AS MUCH to blame"
Change, PD, starts with accepting personal responsibility

Pro's experience was a one off thing so I totally agree with her not wanting to even look at, leave alone deal with, the men on the train

However, if it was a local train where she faced this regularly, I'd expect her to take responsibility and deal with the guys

We teach people how they can behave with us, what they can get away with

And this starts at home

Cheers!

Unknown said...

@Poonam: I disagree on many points, and still feel its unfair and an oversimplification. However, it'd be fruitless to go round and round with it...

By the way, that wasn't a "dig" -- I was merely using your own examples. It's not as though my parents haven't done similar things!

Unknown said...

Hi again Poonam,

I decided to revisit this because I have to admit I do give a damn, and because I also feel that discussions such as this one should be had more and more, on more blogs and websites, in gatherings, in cities, towns, villages and anywhere else, so that we can truly work towards bringing about a change in a system which is highly oppressive. (Your comments in italics.)

[Also doing this over 2 posts since it’s twice over the limit!! Sorry about this, Pro!]

There's so much richness in our varied experience ... any growth, emotional and-or spiritual

Personal histories are valid, but they’re just that – personal – and hardly enough to make sweeping generalizations about the inherent qualities of men or women. That women have so much substance and men none is not only what is known as “biological determinism”, but also becomes an excuse to justify male behaviour. Also, in real, practical terms what does “being in touch” or not with one’s head and/or heart mean? An individual does not exist in a vacuum – emotional growth or inner strength or spirituality, whatever one might want to call it, is all very well, but one cannot ignore that there are social, political and economic circumstances that determine not just an individual’s behaviour, but also of the people around them, which in turn have a say in the behaviour, lifestyle, world-view and other choices one makes.

The Indian woman has far more real influence that we give her credit for specially in her role as a mother n I stand by my statement of most men being inherrantly Mama's boys, a trait that remains through life

That women have the primary responsibility to bring up children is indisputable, but again to assume that she exists in a vacuum is erroneous, as is the assumption that her values are any different from what has been passed on by her mother (going by your theory that children learn from mothers), who in turn got it from her own mother and so on. Taking a moment to quantify exactly what these values are, one realizes that they in essence propagate the same patriarchal mores of the society she lives in. (Unless, of course, you’re rejecting the notion that the world we live in is essentially patriarchal. In which case, there really is no meeting ground in this discussion!) The same ones that favour boys over girls – witness the sex ratio of our country. And to add to what I said in my last comment about children picking up behaviour and values not just from their mothers; they do so from other relatives (including fathers), friends, teachers and even strangers. Some of these are directly or subtly inculcated, and others are just observed. Thus, even if we say that fathers don’t directly inculcate values in their children, one cannot deny that they do largely act as role models whose behaviour sons go on to emulate.

The unfortunate part is that ... dont give a damn

I’m not sure I understand. You say that women latch on to men to gain power and hence turn into each other’s enemies in a bid to survive. Then you go on to say that she is no helpless victim and has power and also influence over society. In that case, why would she need men in the first place to get power?But despite the contradiction, it’s fairly clear you believe the former to be true, in which case we have another meeting point in agreeing that men do hold the power and the only way women perceive to be able to share it is by upholding patriarchal values, according to which the primary role of a woman is to give birth to the next generation of ‘man’. Thus, her recourse to giving birth to child after child (for example). That said, nothing has stopped men from abandoning their families irrespective of how many children the wife has had, thereby indicating that that power too is an dicey.

[Continued...]

Unknown said...

I have learned that we cannot...better than any promotion

Completely agree that people cannot change unless they make an active choice to, but for that one needs to be aware of and exposed to alternatives, both of thought and of practical, feasible options. And one has to admit that women have lesser access to either. That said, it is not to imply that women are without agency; that they are completely oppressed, subjugated, and unable to think, act and take a stand for themselves. Of course one should live true to one’s beliefs, but one should also be sympathetic that the kind of access and freedom that some of us have to exercise our choices is not available to a vast majority. And even when they are, how many of us are able to choose to exercise it? To break away from society and stand alone is certainly an alternative, but is it that easy?

The most important factor in codependency ... freedom in every way

Contemporary feminist theory frowns upon calling women victims, and certainly one isn’t saying that, because women perpetuate the existing system as much as men do. The patriarchal system appropriates the collusion of women to perpetuate itself and further subjugate women, thus they don’t really gain anything apart from approval of the men in question! Thus, the key here is to recognize that it is the system that is flawed and not the people, whether men or women. So blame patriarchy, not mothers!

And finally, on the point of infantilization that you touched upon in your second comment. I already clarified that it wasn’t meant to be a dig. But since you did interpret is a personal comment, I am going to refrain from touching upon the subject any further. I hope you will exercise the same restraint vis-a-vis me, since the objective of this is to have a stimulating discussion and not attack each other’s personal choices/beliefs.

Poonam Tanmayo said...

Dear PD

Not to worry, I have no personal bones to pick with you, none whatsoever.

I will not copy your/my text but just respond in sequence, ok?

1. I really do not care to bring change in others, definitely not in a strident missionary way.
I believe it to be interference at a deep karmic level as well as a smug righteous stand of knowing more.

I do believe in my own growth and change and aspire to live that change congruently.

In thus living I do interact with both men and women of all strata and all nationalities even and believe me that the same malady pervades in many a society, no matter how modern, liberal or rich, patriarchal/matriarchal ... whatever... perhaps lesser, but it exists.

Here its just so much in our face that it bothers.

2.Its individual trees that a forest make and its individuals that a revolution make.

Mass movements are made of single individuals that are willing to step out and live the change, openly, individually ... and take the consequences because their congruence does not allow a life of compromise.

You can bring the masses together and convert them to a 'higher' ideology but unless the ideology is born from one's own growth experience its just a lamb in wolves' clothing.

3. Nowhere am I justifying male behaviour, far from it. I do not and would not tolerate such bull-shit, never have.

And I'm not some strange Amazonian freak but have lived and suffered and learned ... learned specially, that I can change only myself.

4. I agree, we do not live in a vaccum but we always ALWAYS have a choice.
Even in an identical set-up, even in a family, there are some that make those choices and pay the price and others that stay in the comfort zone of compromise.


5. I agree that men may not be direct influencers but they are definitive role models. However, often they can be the model we choose NOT to be ... like in the case of my son and many such.

Or like in the case of my own father. He's my role model of unconditional caring and generousity, spiritual growth and worldly wisdom. My mother ... I'd rather not say but she's exactly what I choose to break away from ... many many aspects of her.

6. Choices and break aways are never easy, PD, for 99% of us. I see in my array of ayahs ... some make those choices, others dont.
I see it in the range of elitist and educated men and women I know ... some have balls n spine, others dont.

I refuse to blame the system, that's too easy and escapist.
I believe in the individual taking responsibility for his-her own growth, changee, healing et al.
For his-her own life.

The integral difference is whether you have what it takes to make these choices? Are you willing to face the consequences? Pay the price?

And please do feel free to express yourself, how I take it is my problem.

Poonam Tanmayo said...

PD my dear, you totally misinterpretted my points about

1. women not being each others' best friends (they're not)

2. and secondly, using the easier route by clubbing with the males (older women, mothers, mothers-in-law are great at this too, they've learned)

Clubbing with the men does not make her a victim.
Just a smart survivor, totally in her power but in an underhand way.
I'm sure you've met women like that.

(Men do that as a matter of course in work situations so its not questioned or judged. Its called networking)

There's no contradiction there-in,
these are 2 separate points.

Women do use underhand methods to get their way even in the most conservative situations

Its a success strategy, I do not judge it, but its also a tool that covertly influences.
And if the other women are sacrificed at the altar of self preservation ... its just survival of the fittest.

Kaitlin said...

Wow. I was shown this post by a friend. I hope it's all right to post. AVCC, I'm sorry that it happened! I loved your rant about it. You were so spot-on about how men behave: "these men, without doubt, are chauvinistic, misogynistic, patriarchal tyrants".

They didn't see you as a person who had as much a right to exist in the same space as they believed they had a right to afford to themselves. It is sad and despicable when men treat women that way.

Poonam, I can't help but see that you are placing an overabundance of blame on the women when the issue is men behaving badly.

Men and women are the products of their society. The same society that elevates men above women and asks women to accept the responsibilities of life that men do not have to accept is the one that asks women to be solely in charge of rearing men and women. But women do not raise their babies in a vacuum. Women are taught by the society they live in to raise men to be a certain way. But, even if they try to raise them differently they face a society that tells their male children these mothers are wrong for raising them a certain way. Society is right, it tells men, because society is all about the protection and elevation of men. Their mothers are only women. They do not have to listen. These women are doing exactly what society expects of them in many cases, but even in cases where they resist they are not always guaranteed sons that will respect women. The odds are stacked against them due to the inequality of society. Women are charged with the responsibility and the men have none.

When the men act badly they are deemed not in control of their own actions. This places the blame on their women victims, their mothers, some random woman observing their bad behavior, and on and on. When women are considered the second sex but they are given the majority of the responsibility it is undeniably certain that men will continue to behave just as negatively in the future. This is so because women do not have the authority. They are considered lesser people. You only give authority to a being with very little ability to wield authority when you want to go right on doing whatever you please without having to be held accountable for it.

How can you ask for dual accountability when you are not willing to put the blame where it belongs? The blame belongs on the men for behaving badly. They should be responsible for their own actions. If women, who are considered so much less than them are expected to hold double responsibility then why is it too much for them to hold any at all? You can't tell women that they should be teaching this to men because it's continuing the cycle all over again. Men need to listen and accept responsibility for themselves.

What I am saying is not that women are helpless or that we are at the mercy of the system and can do nothing about it. I'm saying that blaming other women for men's lack of responsibility is playing into the system. Women are strong and powerful. It is better to support each other instead of doing the same thing that men do to us.

A very cool cat said...

Just a quick one to welcome Kaitlin to my blog - Payal told me she'd showed this post to you, and I'm really glad you read it, and left a comment! I've seen you around on Payal's blog, and am happy to have you here too - do visit again when you can!

My comments on this issue will follow soon - but I'm really glad this incident has led to such an interesting discussion!

Poonam Tanmayo said...

I seem to have opened my mouth and triggered the wrath of the militant women
Oh well...

The only reason I continue to speak here is because I take responsibility for whatever situation I land myself in

And that's exactly what I'm trying to communicate here
I'm not blaming just the women, I said "both are as much to blame"

In fact its not about blame, its about taking responsibility, about seeing the situation, accepting the suchness of it and putting in the action

Not doing anything is also action Because in how we respond/react to people and situations, we teach others how to behave with us, what they can get away with

Pro and Kaj choosing not to say anything is just one teeny bit more cement in the okay-ness of the men's gross behaviour

So now am I blaming P and K???
These are choices we make and I'd probably do exactly the same while dying inside each minute I put myself through that

Or I'd ask the conductor if it was possible to change my seat ...perhaps K could've organised for at least P to be near other women

Does that mean in doing this P would be the weak little woman that needed to be protected???

No, not in my eyes
I refuse to use a dirty toilet or to clean up other people's shit just so I can use a clean toilet
Nope, I'd rather go to the bushes

By the way, this is an aside, some of the dirtiest toilets are women's toilets
They will refuse to sit on the pot for hygiene reasons and will instead pee all over the floor
I have seen this happen in multi-plexes, 5 star hotels et al
And we scream from the roof tops about men not peeing into the pot!
Once again, I'm NOT defending the men, just pointing out that our own halo is mis-placed.


Its not my business to sit in judgement, not even on the grossest of men
Who knows, maybe these are indications of being a "real" man in their society
A peacock struts, a dog marks his territory, a gross man spreads his

I really REALLY DO NOT CARE!

I just believe in living my life with a few chosen friends
As for the rest, like the Rabbi said in in 'Fiddler on the roof'
"God bless the Czar and keep him far far away from us"

And if the nasty Czar does cross my path and I have to leave town then I do it singing happily and thanking the Czar about being the trigger that gets me to move my ass to greener pastures

You see, once again my rant is purely subjective because I believe that's how it actually is for each and everyone of us

Our rant comes from our wisdom which comes from our personal experience
Anything else is just borrowed clothes

No more! Bas! Enough!
Please carry on without me
I choose to disconnect here
Namaste!

A very cool cat said...

Ok, here I go. First, though, thanks to all of you for starting and sustaining this discussion - it's interesting, at the very least, and has raised some important issues. Too much has been said for me to remember and reply to each point, so I'm just going to say what I feel about the issue.

First, the issue of subjectivity - the positions that we argue from are bound to be subjective, as we bring to each issue our own thoughts, experiences, the effects of our socialisation and education; the personal, here, cannot be dissociated from the political. However, one cannot place too much emphasis on the personal at the expense of larger issues, of grand theory - I think what we should strive for is a balance of both, and as a student of sociology, I know how fraught the subjectivity/objectivity debate can be.

Reading through all the posts, I must say that I didn't think Poonam was 'blaming' women for male behaviour - in fact, everyone's been in agreement about the fact that each person needs to take responsibility for their actions. Now, given that, shouldn't women take just a tiny little responsibility for the way things are done in their households? No one's arguing the fact that we live in an inherently patriarchal system, that men make all the rules, that women are the second sex, the bodies that don't matter. But merely excusing women from all responsibility based on that is taking away all agency from them; how can you call women strong and powerful and yet argue that everything they do or don't isn't their fault because they live in a system that's skewed towards male authority?

I entirely agree that children learn as much from observing family members as from the homilies taught by their mothers; and, as I said in my blog, this behaviour must have been learned through observing their equally disgusting fathers. However, I don't believe the mothers couldn't have done a little more, or that the sons would have automatically disregarded them if they had because society tells them to. Let me just give an example: a doctor friend of mine told me about two cases, both involving baby girls - in one instance, the father refused to have his premature baby girl treated as it would cost too much and took her away (the baby, my friend said, won't survive). The mother kept silent all throughout. In the second case, the father refused to allow his wife to bring their baby to the doctor even when the child was ill, saying there was no need to spend so much money on mere childish ailments. Here, though, the mother defied her husband, and quietly brought the child to the clinic, as a result of which the baby's now healthy. Her husband found out, and must have given her hell, but she was willing to pay that price to save her child.

Both women came from the same socio-economic background. One stood up for what she believed was right, defied all patriarchal norms and rules, the other didn't. It would be easy to say that the one who didn't didn't have a choice, that she's conditioned/socialised into a certain form of behaviour, that she doesn't have any power in an unequal system. All true, but - isn't that the case for the other woman too? And you don't need to be a feminist to know right from wrong - this is how revolutions happen, how change is brought about - by quiet defiance of authority, by standing up for right against wrong. The woman who did set an example for her older daughter, who must have learned a valuable lesson. At the end of the day, two women living in the same patriarchal framework acted in diametrically opposing ways - and if we praise one, we should also recognise that the other is equally responsible for her action - or inaction, in this instance.

A very cool cat said...

The issue of victimology, of agency has been debated since the onset of feminist theory; and the whole issue of 'contemporary feminism', as Payal mentioned, is somewhat fraught, not least because there isn't one single definition of it. All through the discussion I've been a bit uncomfortable with what has been a lumping of all women, everywhere into one single homogeneous category - which, as we can't but know, is NOT true. Similarly, feminism isn't a homogeneous movement either - there are differing strands, some of which are in opposition to one another, as anyone who's studied gender relations or observed the movement from close quarters would know. And here I know I'll ruffle plenty of feathers, but I have to say this - my experience with the Indian feminist movement (and here I confine my remarks to the Delhi movement, as that's the only one I know of), which I've had the opportunity to observe closely, has left me rather dismayed. The bulk of it is comprised of well-off, upper-class, urban, annoyingly self-righteous women who are strangely disconnected from the rest of society. These are the women you will find in conferences, in seminars, the ones who 'represent' Indian women, speak for them, the ones who stand in for the feminist movement. Yet the actual work, the work of changing mind-sets, the social structure, behavioural practices are done by the grassroots women, most of whom are a lively, courageous, feisty bunch - and we hardly ever get to know of them, as they form part of the invisible band of rural womankind. I might be accused of a sweeping generalisation here - there are some women in the movement I deeply admire, but here I'm falling back on my experience, and my observations.

I've seen vicious attacks on one strand, or a representative of one stand, by others; one faction dismissing another and their ideology, even accusing them of destroying the women's movement through their emphasis on 'Western imports' such as matters of sexuality; and I do believe that in order to bring about any kind of change, one needs to take a good hard look at oneself and bring that change about from within. It isn't just enough for us to pontificate, we need to first recognise the varied social realities varied groups of women struggle with.

And yes, I do take responsibility for choosing silence over action in this particular instance. I only hope that in the event of being faced with a similar instance (God forbid!), I shall find the courage to speak out.

Unknown said...

Oh, Poonam went away just when I was going to agree with her, but I hope she's following this discussion anyway. Anyhow, it seems to that we have been talking of the same thing, but approaching it from different places. This discussion has led to long and detailed talks with yet another friend, and a lot of what I say is a result of that.

I agree with Poonam wholeheartedly that it is an individual's choice, which is true for both men and women. It is completely up to you whether you want to become a power-hungry, manipulative, dominating, obnoxious know-it-all or a submissive doormat. You can refuse to emulate your father and reject the values that your mother gave you, if you don't agree with them, if they are not what you want to be. And that is exactly why parents can't be blamed for how their grown-up children behave.

We've been going over the same things again and again, so let's not go back to the beginning. Here is an attempt to sum up the points I've been making:

1. The individual is the unit, that we're all agreed upon. But one can't separate the individual from the system. Society is the sum total of individuals and how they think, feel, act and live their lives. But everything we do, every choice we make, everything we believe in is in relation to the system. For example, when you talk of "having what it takes to make choices" and "paying the price", it is also vis-a-vis the system -- it is society's norms that we are standing up against. Society gives us our first cues to rights and wrongs, morality/values, etc., after all. One can't stand up against vacuum, right?

2. It's *NOT* about men versus women; it's about the system. One isn't blaming women or men; one has already mentioned that, and also the fact that both men and women perpetuate the patriarchal system. What we are trying to understand is how they are limited within the roles that patriarchy has assigned them. Each one of us is part of this system and it is so deeply entrenched that none of us completely has escaped its influence in our lives and behaviour and personality. (Also, I've also been trying to keep other stuff like caste, class and religious differences out of the discussion -- because it was at such a basic level that one didn't want to bring in the complexities immediately, though yeah, point taken that one shouldn't homogenize.)

3. Nobody is denying that women have agency -- I've been reiterating that in every post, but in case it's not been clear, here it is: Women are *not* without agency. Kaitlin said that very well, in fact.

4. Which brings one to a number of remarks Poonam has made about "feminists" and what Pro says about there being many definitions of feminism. Very true, and that's exactly why labels are problematic -- because it's easy to forget that what people identify with can be very varied and nuanced. While some feminists are "militant" (rather, radical), to club them all as such would be unfair without actually understanding where they are coming from.