Woman: Product or endangered Part II
20.1.2013,
Mumbai
She had done it in the past too but she was more
educated now, more aware and more experienced. A free India had given her an
identity, a confidence to be herself and this inadvertently made her more
attractive to herself and to others. For the first time probably men and
society started viewing her as an individual rather than as the role she played
and she was not complaining!
It has been proved that when circumstances change so
do relationships and 80s was the decade of shifting equations between man and
woman and family and society. Everybody talked about the emerging new woman but
nobody was able to clearly define her. Was she the working woman contributing
to the income? Was she the centre stage image in all the print/ TV
advertisements or was she the bold and the beautiful gyrating heroine/ vamp/
dancer in films? The answer was none and probably all.
As the intellectuals and the activists furiously
debated over the rapidly shifting gender equations among Indians an entire
decade passed by! In the 90s the intrusive camera traveled all over the woman’s
anatomy depriving her of any autonomy of her own body. Both cinema and the
various ad campaigns were unabashed and unapologetic about treating woman as a
product and strangely, she was not complaining.
In 2000 the exploitation continued except that the
ads were more aesthetic and combined with sometimes a social message and the
films were 100 crores ventures and top heroines willingly offered to do
sizzling numbers which were now coined as item numbers. The item numbers not
only got them instant success but became a passport to hike their fees. They
danced to the same item number again and again at various shows throughout the
year.
The thinking woman protested against the
objectification of woman but the man had stopped caring. The item girl on the
big screen and the product on the small screen had turned him into a legitimate
voyeuristic and now he was not going to be apologetic!! He relished and
cherished every opportunity and his fantasy took on wings. The more sensible of
the breed stayed within limits, the more uncontrollable took to the streets.
The woman they once revered and fiercely protected
as a mother, sister, beloved and wife was openly eve teased, assaulted and
molested and in worse cases raped and murdered. Most crimes were operated by
the youth and when interrogated they confessed that the temptations were too
many and it was difficult to exercise restraint.
So who is responsible for all this? The woman, must
she say no to gyrate to Sheila, Munni and Chikni Chameli and be more
responsible to the message she is giving to society and men at large? Women
working in the advertisements have to say no to the camera caressing her
slender waist and inviting cleavage. They must ask how come the camera never
wants to travel over the man’s body it is because it does not view the man as a
product!
What about the men, all those filmmakers, investors
and copy writers of campaigns who conceive these images and songs? Do they have
any social responsibility of not misleading the audience? The argument does not
end at show business – is that a guarantee that all crime will end when women
stop being portrayed as products.
The answer is no again. Crime against women will end
only when we change our mind set. Women don’t attack men at isolated places and
physically abuse them then why do men turn into beasts and attack women? Surely there are other ways and places to
find sexual gratification so why attack minors and unsuspecting victims?
Until men change their perspective about women,
until they stop objectifying her, she will continue to be in danger at home,
work place and street or anywhere irrespective of her age, class, colour or
status.
Bhawana
Somaaya/ www.bhawanasomaaya.com
No comments:
Post a Comment