How a woman's body-size is like an ATM PIN

A few days ago, this article from the Guardian popped up on my social media news feed. I wouldn’t have clicked on it were it not for this excerpt – “I don’t think it's important to return to the shape you were before. I think if your body grew a baby, that’s an amazing thing and you should be proud of that.”

On the face of it, this seems an important and empowering message. I clicked on the article and read it. The article itself was also undoubtedly important, as it highlighted how pressures to return to a pre-pregnancy body lead some women to taking risks with their health in order to stay slim. My only issue with the entire article was the idea of pride in oneself and accepting one’s body being linked to the fact of having grown a baby. The human body is amazing, and true, one of the amazing things about women’s bodies relate to how they prepare and change for childbirth and childrearing. But the pressure to conform to a certain body-type isn’t specific to pregnant women and mothers. The conditionality introduced into the sentiment – “if your body grew a baby- subtly disempowers and excludes women who aren’t mothers. This isn’t to say that health risks of wanting to be slim aren’t more pronounced in case of pregnant women. They are, and they’re vital issues to address from a health perspective. However, rather than justifying why it’s okay that we are “not the shape we were before”, the message we should be putting out there in response to societal pressures around body-size/ shape should be one of unconditional acceptance and choice (because I believe it’s important for women to be able to choose whether or not their bodily appearance is important to them, instead of telling them it “shouldn’t be”). Instead of empowering people to stand up for their rights unconditionally, the “because you had a baby” part is like giving someone a temporary crutch with which they can ward off societal pressures to conform to an externally imposed standard that shouldn’t be there in the first place.

I’ll segue into another example from a few months ago to illustrate my point. Sania Mirza, a tennis player was asked by an interviewer on Indian media why she hadn’t ‘settled down’ (the colloquial meaning of which is “why haven’t you had children yet?”). Sania’s response to the question was as follows:

“…that’s the question I face all the time as a woman, that all women have to face- the first is marriage and then it’s motherhood. Unfortunately, that’s when we’re settled, and no matter how many Wimbeldons we win or numbers ones in the world we become, we don’t become settled. But eventually it will happen, not right now. And when it does, I’ll be the first one to tell everybody when I plan to do that.”

This response went viral as ‘the perfect response’ on electronic and social media. I -and others with similar thoughts, such as my close friend TQ (who has appeared on this blog before)- thought that while it was good in that it addressed the fact that women are considered complete only once they’re married-mothers, it was just short of perfect.  This is because once again, there was an implication that she shouldn’t be asked this because she is a top tennis player. A society in which traditional, patriarchal expectations are shut down through justifications grounded in successful careers is desirable, but not perfect.  Perfection would be a society where people don’t have to justify their personal choices, period.

Returning to the article, I messaged TQ almost immediately (as I usually do, about most things) and shared my annoyance about the “because you had a baby….” part. I said that as a child-free woman, I resented the implication that the rest of us child-free or childless (because the two mean very different things, and I respect a person’s right to choose a term they identify with) shouldn’t be proud of our bodies just as they are. If mothers get the “you just had a baby” crutch, what legs do the rest of us have to stand on if the ideology itself-- that women should either conform to external standards of beauty or give solid reasons as to why they should be ‘exempt’-- goes unchallenged?

TQ agreed, and added “there is a lot written about pride when it comes to mothers. Whether it’s about body image or about work-life balance or many areas of life that all women, mothers or not, struggle with. As a pattern, it becomes excluding, and therefore problematic.”

This led to a discussion about other situations in which as non-parents, we have felt excluded, disregarded or dismissed. A classic example was offered by TQ, who found herself on the receiving end of much eye-rolling by someone in her neighbourhood concerned about the numbers of stray dogs in the area. A notice had been put up about this “menace” (I use the quotation marks ironically, because neither TQ nor I are the sort of people that would think of large numbers of dogs as a menace. Far from it. More the merrier, we say!). The notice supposedly came from the hearts and minds of concerned parents.

TQ told me how she and her partner got into an argument with one of the concerned parents when they asked if anyone had been harmed because of the dogs. “The guy stutters”, TQ went on, “and then says ‘well no one yet, but I am sure you wouldn’t want your kids to be the ones to be bitten first’. We replied that we aren’t parents…. The guy just rolled his eyes as if to say ‘That explains!’ and walked off.” 

I noted to TQ how the “concerned parents” line is often used to close arguments. Is there a respectable retort to that that won't make you look like an evil sociopath who wants the world-and-all-good-things-within-it to end? 

I often find myself pushing back against the notion that the child-free are just, oh I don't know, soul destroying scum who clearly don’t care about anything. We just guzzle fossil fuels from beer bongs, sit around in our underwear scratching our crotches with one hand while clutching a bottle of tequila with the other, watching trash on Netflix and you know, NOT calling our parents because of course we-are-not-parents-ourselves-so-how-could-we-possibly-know-that-parents-want-to-hear-from-their-kids. While we’re at it, we also like to have sleeping parties to celebrate all the sleep we clearly get (“Because you’re lucky you don’t know what it’s like to have a toddler waking you up in the middle of the night”) and like to roll around naked on all the wads of cash we have lying around (“Because you don’t have to worry about kids’ college fees”).

I can’t keep track of the number of times I’ve been told how I wouldn’t understand something because I don’t have kids. Whether it’s debates about vaccinations, climate change or organic food, casual conversations about being sleep deprived or Brexit (yeah, Brexit. Apparently the legitimacy of my socio-political views is directly linked to whether or not I’ve given birth. Sidebar: I #Remain terribly sad at the looming prospect of Brexit). 

The “you won’t understand because you don’t have kids” line is strange for several reasons. Let’s start with the fact that no one really understands – on an experiential level- what it’s like to BE another person. A lot can get in the way of this. The laws of physics, for one thing. Privilege, for another. All we can do is try to understand the other as much as possible.  Of course I don’t have experiential knowledge of being a parent. Just like I don’t have experiential knowledge of what it’s like to be a skydiver. Or a beetle. Doesn't mean I can't imagine the anguish the poor creature must feel when it's lying on its back, tiny legs flailing, trying to turn itself the right side up. Secondly, it implies that those who don’t have kids can’t empathise with being a parent – which is a very narrow and inaccurate view of the capacity for empathy. There are people who can’t empathise with challenges of parenthood. There are people who don’t have children. They don’t necessarily overlap completely. Plus, due to things like, say, PRIVILEGE, it’s not like some kind of magical shared understanding exists between all parents. A single parent from a low-income household doesn’t see the world the same way, or even see the same world as a parent with a  lot of financial and social support. If I were to represent the capacity for empathising with parents in the form of a basic Venn diagram, it would look like this:

So maybe it’s not just about some of the non-parents not being able to understand till we have kids of our own. Maybe it’s also a case of some parents not being able to see beyond their own experiences and imagine a scenario in which someone could care about principles, values and issues even in the absence of any direct offspring that may be affected by said issues. For instance, I don’t need to have children in order to be concerned about climate change. My love for polar bears and feeling of solidarity with people in the rapidly sinking pacific islands has that covered.

To this category of parents, I’d just like to say the following: I am pleased for you if you anchor your moral and ethical compass around your children. In some cases, maybe it took having kids in order for you to discover or strengthen your morals and ethics. But if you could please refrain from assuming moral, ethical and intellectual bankruptcy on the part of those of us that don’t have kids, that would be great.

As for challenging social pressures, when you start to justify yourself in response to ridiculous expectations, it gives them a legitimacy they don’t deserve. Worse, it does absolutely nothing to challenge the insidious ideology behind the expectations.

So I propose the following, alternative response. Here's how I'd like to see such conversations go-

Person A:  “When are you going to lose all that weight?”

Person B: “What’s your ATM PIN number?”

Person A: “That’s none of your business!”

Person B: “Exactly. Glad we clarified that.”

“Just tell the judge it was my fault, and I’ll get sued!”*

I’m sure this worrying trend has been around for longer than a few years but either it rears its ugly head more frequently nowadays or I have started paying more attention to it. The trend I am referring to is of a large section of society moving towards an entirely external locus of control over their choices, actions and consequences. A trend that completely disregards autonomy and free will and locates the cause of many social, criminal and health related issues in videogames, advertising, marketing or rap music. Somewhere along the line, in the perception of said section of society, we have all become unthinking, undiscerning zombies who are passive recipients of messages from the outside world and totally vulnerable to their allegedly damaging effects. All sense of free will and agency is lost when these watchdogs blame or attempt to control what we watch, hear or consume rather than allowing us to be responsible for the choices we make- positive or negative.

Last week in the UK, a number of people went totally berserk and started hoarding petrol after one British MP remarked that there was going to be a fuel shortage and that people should start stocking up. Fire services were among the many who were up in arms about what they regarded as an irresponsible remark and warned people of the dangers of storing highly flammable liquids around the house. One woman suffered severe burn injuries after catching on fire while attempting to transfer petrol from a petrol container to a glass jug. She did this in her kitchen, where there was also a gas burner which may have been on at the time. Couple of days later, news channels reported that 81% people blamed the government’s advice for inciting panic in the public. It probably was a bit careless for an MP to advise people to stock up on petrol in frenzy, but can we really blame him if people subsequently chose to fill cans, buckets and water bottles with the damn thing? I’m acquainted with and know of several people who had the sense not to buy into the panic. That is evidence enough of there being some element of choice governing one’s responses to a piece of advice. In the face of such evidence I cannot logically blame one MP for what was irresponsible behaviour by members of the public.

Some time last year, there was uproar about supermarkets lowering the prices of chocolates and other sugary, fatty foods. Forgetting the fact that supermarkets were involved in an aggressive price war for all types of products and goods, groups and charities working to tackle the problem of obesity left no stone unturned in deeming this action by supermarkets utterly irresponsible. Two questions sprang to mind. 1. Since when did supermarkets assume responsibility for regulating the diet of the general population? 2. Why should the healthy, chocolate-loving section of society have to pay higher prices? I also had serious concerns about how these groups view obesity and what support they provide to people struggling with the problem. It seemed to me that they either believe that all people just walk around buying whatever is available cheaply without giving any thought to whether they need it, want it or should buy it, or that only the obese are susceptible to this kind of thoughtless shopping. The latter smacks of prejudice and if it’s the former, as a member of the group ‘all people’, I strongly object to this complete denial of my personal agency and am quite insulted by the unstated but obvious assumption being made here- that I cannot be trusted to make decisions about my behaviour. More recently, similar phenomena occurred with regards to the price of alcohol.

Similarly, I don’t think it’s fair that cigarette companies- as motivated as any other private enterprise by the desire to maximise their profits- are subjected to aggressive advertising/marketing controls. Cigarette packs have had to carry the ‘Smoking is injurious to health’ warning for several decades. Is it just me or is it true that in recent times the warning letters have become blacker, bigger and often larger than even the brand name? Australia recently passed legislation ordering cigarette companies to package cigarettes in identical, plain packaging without any branding and to carry graphic images of the consequences of smoking. In India, TV channels that carry images of people smoking often blur out the cigarette. So all we see is the hero doing something with his mouth to something blurry. I may be wrong, but I don't think this is necessarily better than just showing the damn cigarette.

I bet if you conducted a survey of smokers few, if any, would harbour the delusion that cigarette smoking improves one’s physical health. That being the case, I think cigarette companies should carry a written warning in a reasonable font size but be allowed to use attractive colours and attractive models in their marketing and advertising. As an adult, if I buy something purely because it comes in a pretty box or because I believe doing so will allow me to save children or date a supermodel, I and only I am responsible for the consequences of my decision.

Finally, there’s the matter of the influence of violent videogames and rap music on society, especially children. I recall reading about an incident in India in which a kid watched Shaktimaan (a TV show about a superhero), harboured a wish to fly like the superhero and died after jumping from his balcony. Was it tragic? Undoubtedly. Was the show to blame? Not in the slightest. A rapper famously said that if a child is easily influenced by everything he says in his songs, the child’s parents ought to reflect on why that is the case. Okay, so I have forgotten the actual words and it probably sounded a lot cooler the way he said it, but you get the point. I've been listening to rap since I was a teenager and I frequently play videogames that involve not inconsiderable amounts of killing, shooting, decapitating etc. in spite of which I have never owned a firearm, snorted cocaine or committed homicide in real life. I think there’s something drastically wrong when TV shows and videogames have a greater influence on a child’s moral and social upbringing than his or her family environment to an extent that the child cannot distinguish between virtual and the real worlds. Besides, almost everything comes with guidance on age-appropriateness and warnings of graphic sexual or violent content. I once met a woman who was all in favour of stricter controls and disciplining in schools but seemed to have either ignored or not noticed the ‘17 years and older’ sticker on all the videogames her pre-teen son was playing.

We’d all be better off if we were left to read the labels, use our brains and arrive at our own conclusions about what we want to watch, play, follow, listen to or ingest.

Rockstar Games™ can only do so much and I think their responsibility ends once the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) sticker is applied to the game. Consumers and parents/carers (in case of children) need to take it from there.

Mommy and daddy relinquish the right to blame Rockstar Games™ if their 11-year-old starts using swear words that he/she picked up while playing Grand Theft Auto.

(*From the song 'Sing for the moment' by Eminem)

It's not okay until I say so, don't think I said yes because I didn't say no- Why parenthood ought to be like sexual consent

(Disclaimer: The following post applies only to situations where women undergo sterilisation or seek to terminate their pregnancy entirely out of choice and not to situations where women are forced or coerced into these decisions, as often occurs in cases of domestic abuse)

In the UK, if you want to have an abortion or a tubectomy (female sterilisation), your doctor will recommend that you go see a counsellor. The argument is that these processes are impossible and hard to reverse respectively and women seeking them should be sure of their decision. I fully agree that women should think about the decision very seriously and I have no objection to women being offered counselling, as long as they are not compelled to take the offer up because I believe that ultimately, women have absolute autonomy over their bodies and lives.

The other aspect is informed consent so that women understand the procedure, risks as well as potential consequences. While this is desirable for any medical intervention, in case of abortions and sterilisation it is sometimes taken too far. There was recently an uproar (definitely in my head!) about women in certain American states being forced to view an ultrasound image of the foetus and listen to its heartbeat before they can have their pregnancy terminated (See here). This is appalling to say the least. If women are forced to view images and sounds designed to guilt them into thinking of what they're giving up, I think it's only fair that pregnant women are forced to take stock of what they're getting themselves into and made to view images and sounds of mewling babies, misbehaving children and watch a movie about the perils and responsibilities of being a parent.

I wonder what would happen if pregnant women were given demos of the amount of physical pain they'd have to endure or shown films about parenthood gone bad- neglected, abused children, tired faces, sleepless nights and all the not- so- peachy parts about being a parent.

But they are not and never will because the assumption society operates on is that having children is a normal and it is abnormal to not want kids.

One of the many, many problems with the world we live in is that the two life-choices that ought to be made only, and I can't stress this point enough, ONLY, based on personal choice are often taken up by people because they are considered to be a human given, a natural next-step or the ultimate goal in life. The first is getting married. The second, having children. If you talk to a large enough number of people, read the news, and basically have your eyes and ears open when you're around some so-called-parents, it's not hard to conclude that many people who have kids do so without giving it any or at the very least, sufficient thought. This is because parenthood is seen as a fundamental duty and essential rite of passage for all and sundry, regardless of their skills, aptitude, attitudes etc. etc. etc. all of which, mind you, would be taken into account before you hire someone for a particular job. Parenthood is often touted as the toughest job in the world, a statement I can neither confirm nor deny. Is it just me who finds it utterly baffling that everyone is assumed to be fit and ready for it when they reach a certain age or stage of life (in most cases, soon after getting married)?

The argument that women who want to be sterilised ought to be offered counselling so that they can seriously consider their decision because the process is hard to reverse is trite and woefully incomplete, unless people who want to have children are also offered counselling to make sure that they're sure. Newsflash: having kids is irreversible too.

The way I see it, the consequences are far more dire if someone has a child and regrets the decision than if a woman gets sterilised and wants to have children later on. We all make decisions we regret and we often require a great deal of strength to deal with the consequences of those decisions. A woman who regrets her decision to get sterilised only to realise later in life that she wants to be a mother still has the option of becoming a parent through a reversal or through adoption. Yes, she may feel regret, guilt or other upsetting emotions but she will be taking responsibility for her actions, and this is how it should be. On the other hand, the only option facing a woman who gives birth to a child only to realise she doesn't want to be a mother is to give up the child or worse, to give up on the child. Regardless of what happens to the child as a result, this necessarily involves abdication of her responsibilities towards said child.

Society operates on confused, misguided morals if it is easier for someone to conclude that they don't want to be a parent after having a child that it is for someone to arrive at this decision beforehand. The cruel, unfortunate reality is that it is easier for a child to be born, only to be neglected, discarded or abused, than it is to prevent an unwanted birth.

And it must not be this way.

Parenthood, like sexual consent, ought to be an active decision rather than a passive process. It ought to be something you consciously agree to rather than something you go along with.

The fact that someone doesn't mind the idea of parenthood doesn't mean they want to be parents.

A 'not-unwanted' child is not the same as a child who is wanted.

Devi in a black dress

He held up the comic book to show us the cover. It had a slim, attractive woman with flowing dark hair, wearing what he perhaps rightfully described as a ‘Catwoman’ costume- a body-hugging leotard made out of either leather, rubber, vinyl or some combination of these (I can barely recognise fabric if I touch it with my fingers so my inability to make definitive remarks about the material of the afore-mentioned leotard based on a drawing is hardly surprising). The comic book, or graphic novel if you prefer, in question was Devi by Virgin Comics and the speaker proceeded to remark that he didn’t really like devi (Hindu goddess), being depicted in a Catwoman-esque fashion. By contrast, he was a huge fan of Amar Chitra Katha, which dutifully depicts goddesses wearing the kind of apsara-like attire Sridevi wore in songs that invariably involved coloured powder, earthenware and more often than not, Jeetendra. The expressions of the two versions of devi are also remarkably different. The traditional devi looks benign, with flour-white cheeks like Madhubala, a bindi, and a slight smile. The new one by contrast has a much leaner face, more athletic body, no jewellery or adornment and usually has a more intimidating expression. Catwoman-devi makes no attempt to hide her anger where as apsara-devis ride ferocious beasts while retaining their Mona Lisa smiles. All the aggression is projected onto the lion she is sitting on you see.

The speaker’s distaste for the Catwoman-devi got me thinking about whether his opinion was a fleeting manifestation of a more widely held attitude towards women and sexuality in Indian society and culture. Before you accuse me of reading too much into his remark, allow me to add two further points. First, the same speaker had previously made an admittedly sexist comment about how certain comic books were ‘girly’ because of their preference for floral patterns, pinkish hues and whatever else he associated with feminine tastes. By contrast, he felt some other comics were more suitable for ‘boys’ because of their dark colours and depictions of weapons and war. Second, before he came to Devi by Virgin Comics, he had expressed appreciation for the art in new-age Indian comics that had transformed ancient myths and stories like the Mahabharata and Ramayana to make them more relatable to readers today by using imagery similar to Tron, X-Men and such like. This led me to believe that his dislike for the new-age devi stemmed not from a general aversion to new-age animation but from something else entirely. To put it simply, he didn’t seem to mind Ram being depicted as a chiselled, muscular fellow with flowing tresses, black pants, no shirt and no jewellery.

The old devis of Amar Chitra Katha with their soft features, rounded figures and benign expressions represent a quality of nurturance and are more maternal than the lithe-bodied, scowl-faced devi in the black dress who represents a destructive, aggressive force to be reckoned with rather than someone whose lap a child would want to rest its head on.

Aggression and sexuality are inextricably related in the traditional Indian mindset, so any attempt to analyse attitudes to female aggression without looking at attitudes to female sexuality, or vice versa, will be incomplete. Textual tradition in India has for centuries warned against the raging, devouring, all consuming nature of female sexuality which must constantly be kept in check lest it swallows you whole in your sleep. Let us consider a few examples from that oft-quoted encyclopaedia of misogyny- the Laws of Manu.

"It is the nature of women to seduce men in this (world); for that reason the wise are never unguarded in (the company of) females.

For women are able to lead astray in (this) world not only a fool, but even a learned man, and (to make) him a slave of desire and anger."

-----

"Women must particularly be guarded against evil inclinations, however trifling (they may appear); for, if they are not guarded, they will bring sorrow on two families.

…..He who carefully guards his wife, preserves (the purity of) his offspring, virtuous conduct, his family, himself, and his (means of acquiring) merit."

It is easy to see how there is no room for a version of female sexuality that is not simultaneously monstrous and ‘out to get you’. It is in this confined space that sexuality and aggression cannot be accommodated as independent entities and must be clubbed together to squeeze in.

Sudhir Kakar has explored sexuality and the Indian psyche extensively and suggests that the idealisation of women’s maternal roles in society is an effort to guard against the terrorising force of female sexuality. While it is the sort of hypothesis that cannot be verified by empirical methods, it remains a plausible explanation for the dominant attitude towards women. Women must be controlled and as far as possible, kept indoors lest they go on some sort of rampage. Culture and tradition become the tools to oppress, prevent, prohibit.

Why am I talking about idealisation of maternal roles in a post that started by discussing comic books? It is because the relationship that best characterises that between devotees and goddesses is a maternal one. Goddesses are referred to by maternal names such as ‘mata’, they are bowed to and revered, we ask that they watch over us and give us boons when we’ve been good (and sometimes even when we’ve not been all that nice, because let’s face it, a mother’s love is unconditional, no?)

A maternal looking, nurturing manifestation of devi is easier to accept than an aggressive one. Mums should look like mums after all. I know that my grandmother admonished my aunt for still wearing ‘salwar kameez’ after having children (because salwars can reveal the shape of a woman’s legs) and she ‘should wear saris’ because she’s ‘a mother now!’. I have seen a male acquaintance grimace when his mother came to a party dressed in a miniskirt, while his girlfriend’s outfit was not dissimilar. I read about hundreds of ‘traditional’ Indians who expressed shock and horror when Mallaika Arora posed for a magazine cover clad only in a bed sheet, holding her infant son. The same Indians probably had no difficulty ogling at her bikini-clad body in an item number. The crux is that people don’t want the women they fantasise about to look like mothers and don’t want their mothers to look like women they fantasise about.

The problem of course is that respect gradually comes to be reserved for women who conform to culturally-dictated roles- get married as soon as they’re old enough, stay at home, look after families, keep their eyes lowered and their heads covered and never, EVER retaliate when their husbands beat them to a pulp. A good wife (synonymous with a good woman) is one who puts up with rather than puts up a fight. A goddess who is a mother-substitute cannot look like Catwoman because Catwoman is sexy, single and knows how to kick some ass.

The distinction between the desirable and the domesticated manifests itself in other ways. In their book, ‘Half the sky’, Nicholas Kristoff and Sheryl WuDunn observe that forced prostitution is disproportionately high in the most sexually conservative societies, including the Indian subcontinent. According to them, the reason for this is an underlying social contract in which men find satisfaction for their sexual frustration in brothels so that good, upper-middle class women can keep their virtue.

The confused morals and hypocritical attitudes to sexuality in Indian society are hardly secret but they continue to baffle. Take clothing for example. Much thought is given to the attire of women and girls who are sexually assaulted. Public figures have previously made embarrassingly ridiculous remarks about how girls should or should not dress or behave if they don’t ‘want’ to be victimised. Such attitudes- hideously off the mark as they are since women and girls continue to be sexually assaulted the world over regardless of whether they wear skirts, saris, burqas or bikinis- are not surprising in a climate where women must conform to traditional gender roles which often include a sartorial component- to be regarded in high esteem.

Devi, in a holistic sense of the term, represents the feminine aspect of the holy trinity- creator, preserver and destroyer. However, prescribed social norms tend to be in the arena of creation and preservation only. In the dominant socio-cultural paradigm that idealises maternal roles and elevates women to the status of goddesses purely to serve a patriarchal agenda, the destructive force of women has had to fall by the wayside.

It is not hard to see how the divine powers that society and culture bestow on women become the vehicles of oppression. ‘Because you hold the key to the family's honour, who else should be punished for bringing shame upon the family name?’ ‘You can’t leave your husband! After all, it is up to you to keep the family together!’ ‘You're a woman, blessed with huge reservoirs of tolerance and forgiveness… you should understand and forgive.’

No thank you I say! You are highly mistaken sirs and madams! I don't hold the key to anyone's honour but my own, and I'll fight to the death to defend it. I don't have the power to hold families together because I don't live in denial of the simple fact that family's are made of more than one person, each responsible for their actions. Let them shoulder that responsibility- I am done carrying it for them. And I certainly don't have an endless capacity to forgive or understand- it does not extend beyond the boundaries of rationality.

Unless I can claim all aspects- creation, preservation and destruction- of the holy trinity and until I can damn well take as much as I give, I'd much rather be a happy human being than an acquiescing goddess.

I guess the new-age devi, for me, represents a bit of the woman who's done being nice and that's why I think it's a good thing. Also, maybe if more devis dressed like Catwoman- or wore jeans, skirts and dresses for that matter- respect for women in the real world will not be rationed out depending on how they are attired. I don't know what Virgin Comics intended, but the way I see it, closing the gap between the physical appearance of devis and that of women in the real world seems like a good thing.

To be human is to...err...umm…what?

What characteristics does someone need to possess in order to be regarded a human being? Are there any necessary and sufficient conditions, apart from those that can be discerned with the help of electron microscopes and other equipment, for humanness?

Just for the record, I don’t think there are. I haven’t been able to come up with even one.

I don’t think the matter of how we define 'human' has been given as much consideration as it should have. It’s a pity really, given that we're always throwing the word around in various forms. Human rights, for example. Or an act being ‘inhuman’. What does the latter mean?

Attempts at using psychological characteristics such as empathy to identify human beings fall flat on its face. Take psychopaths for instance. Research suggests that psychopaths lack, among other things, the ability to empathise- to gauge and understand emotions in another person or in themselves. Jon Ronson in his book- The Psychopath Test- explores the idea of psychopathy and is surprised at discovering that psychopathy as a trait is present in people who don't go on to commit heinous crimes or become serial killers. High ranking corporate executives may get high scores on a standardised instrument designed to assess and diagnose psychopathy. Yet we do not incarcerate such persons in prisons or asylums for the criminally insane. The fact is that in the business world it may be a highly prized quality to not be fazed by or affected by other people's emotions. As I write this, Devil Wears Prada is on in the background on television, and Meryl Streep comes to mind easily as an example of what I'm talking about. Context is everything, really.

Alternatively, any skill - such as communication or the use of complex tools- cannot be the defining feature. There are many who for medical reasons cannot perform these tasks. To suggest that they’re not human beings is preposterous. Wikipedia suggests that higher level thought processes such as abstract reasoning and rationality define a ‘person’. (Un)fortunately, I’ve come across many creatures belonging to the human species as defined by biology {‘Animalia’ kingdom, ‘Chordata’ phylum, ‘Mammalia’ class, ‘Primate’ order, ‘Hominidae’ family, ‘Hominini’ tribe and ‘Homo’ genus} who have not (at least in my presence) actually demonstrated the capacity for logic and reason.

Similarly, aptitude and intelligence tests often assess the capacity for abstract reasoning. While there are several diagnostic terms used to indicate a low-score on these dimensions, ‘inhuman’ is not one of them. So you see, the system, flimsy as it was to begin with, breaks down once again.

People who do horrible things to other people are often referred to by names of life forms we regard as lying at the lowest rungs of species classification- rats, fungi, parasites, cockroach and the like. The tendency to describe acts that we find vile as ‘inhuman’, or referring to people whose actions we find despicable with words that refer to species other than human beings, stems from a desire to dissociate ourselves from them- I am a human being and I am not like this person. Ergo, this person cannot be a human being. What this indicates is an effort towards creating homogeneity within the species. The obliteration of difference.

Obliteration of difference lies at the heart of all discriminatory attitudes - racism, homophobia, or Nazi eugenics. The problem is the assumption of a 'natural order of things' or how something ought to be. The moment one assumes a natural order, the unnatural is born. Abnormal, insane, inhuman are negations. Their existence depends on the existence of something that is not them. It doesn’t matter whether the assumed natural order in question is heterosexuality, patriarchy, or caring for fellow beings. What is the difference, really, between someone who thinks a pedophile is an animal and someone who deems the transvestite a beast? The line, if there is one, is very thin indeed.

With the obliteration of difference comes the obliteration of otherness. Psychoanalytic theory would regard this as the fundamental me/not me dilemma. Transition from a symbiotic relationship with the caregiver to an independent sense of self comes with a painful acknowledgement of caregiver as different from oneself. Freudians would regard this as the crux of the oedipal conflict. I'm not a Freudian, at least not completely, but I do buy the idea that to recognise the independent existence of a love-object with whom we would much rather be, and for a while were, fused is not always peachy.

Sorry about the brief psychoanalytic detour without prior notification, but it felt necessary.

The recognition of others as independent beings comes as a shock in infancy and childhood and is apparently not that easy to accept in adulthood either. Trace the course of human history, from the Pharoahs to the Nazis, to the uproar about drawings of Mohammad, or bikinis with images of Lakshmi and Saraswati and you'll agree.

Diversity of race, gender, sexuality, culture, or religion is generally more easily accepted than diversity of actions. The fact is that if you claim to acknowledge- and even appreciate- diversity, you really should accept all forms of it. You can't own the good bits without also owning the ugly. It's kind of a package deal.

Another causal factor that leads many of us to distinguish ourselves from those whose actions we find abominable is a refusal to accept that the human species is as much a rotting mass of depravity as it is a sea of spirituality, goodness and whatnot.

The problem with such a stance is that the species/title/diagnosis that is given to individuals whose actions we find abhorrent then becomes the cause or explanation for their behaviour. Consider the much debated insanity plea. That someone can get away with murder because they were diagnosed with schizophrenia seems preposterous to me. Insanity is an idea that is at best ambiguous and at worst, absurd. Schizophrenia is basically a diagnostic term that applies to a range of symptoms, none of which include the predisposition to commit murder. Consider the fact that illnesses traditionally used most often in the insanity pleas tend to be schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and there is no evidence to indicate that being diagnosed with either necessarily precludes an awareness of actions and/or intentions. My difficulty with the insanity plea is that it is almost impossible to establish with conviction, beyond a reasonable doubt, that someone’s actions were the direct result of a ‘mental illness’. Criminality and insanity are two separate issues serving separate purposes for society.

The treatment of people in mental asylums continues to be largely deplorable in several countries. Sending someone to a high security psychiatric ward instead of jail is not necessarily more merciful. If they are to be imprisoned, it might as well be in a prison. (For a more detailed discussion on similar themes, interested readers are advised to procure Thomas Szasz’s essays on Ideology and Insanity- highly recommended!) Incidentally, Anders Breivik’s lawyer believes that Breivik (the man responsible for the recent attacks in Oslo) is insane, though it is not clear whether he will plead insanity.

Ascribing ‘inhuman’ qualities to an act stands for the sort of determinism that obliterates free will. To determine that someone murdered under the influence of a psychotic or manic episode is akin to saying that the illness caused the crime, and if the illness is treated the crime will not be committed.

When we describe a pedophile or mass murderer as an animal or a beast because his/her behaviour doesn't fit with our concept of what constitutes a human being, we are in effect suggesting that his/her non-humanness is responsible for his/her having committed the said abhorrent act. And when the act is motivated by anything other than choice- in this case allegedly non-human characteristics- what can we/ society really do with that? If someone's behaviour is caused by an inherent bestiality, then should they be subjected to the laws designed to govern human behaviour? Would you incarcerate a dog for biting off a woman’s arm? Would that be right?

(For the record, I take the position that it would not. It’s not okay to judge an animal by human standards- not least because our standards may be rather low and animals are better than that- whether it’s shooting a tiger that started preying on villagers when forests began shrinking or calling for the death of a killer whale that shook its trainer to death.)

Is it not true that one can be held accountable for one’s actions only if one is seen to be making a choice?

Is the idea that those who commit acts we find repugnant are fundamentally different to us really more palatable than the idea that it is our choices that separate us from them?

It doesn’t please me in the slightest to believe that rapists, murderers, child molesters, wife beaters are inhuman, bestial, degenerates. I’d much rather believe that I have my own reasons for making the choices I make and acting the way I do, and that those reasons are not motivated by my mere belongingness to a certain species classification.

If I pick fleas off a stray dog or buy a starving child some food I’m as human as I would be if I chose not to do these things. Someone who kills a hundred people in cold blood is as human as someone who chooses not to commit such an act.

My actions don't make me human or inhuman.

They merely determine what kind of human being I am.

The Sickness of the State

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), International Classification of Diseases (ICD) or any other classification system(s) for mental illness ought to consider a category for 'disorders of the State or government' for tyrannical regimes and so-called 'democracies' that oppress and harass people on a frequent basis.

I suspect the presentation will be an amalgamation of narcissistic & obsessive- compulsive personality disorder, delusional disorder, and paranoid disorder NOS (not otherwise specified).

Consider the following clinical features listed in DSM IV TR in relation to the arbitrary and authoritarian censorship practices of the Indian government

Narcissistic personality disorder:

- 'Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)' We all know that the power of the state far exceeds its merit.

- 'Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations.' Manifested as the illegitimate exercise of authority.

- 'Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends.' Suppresses freedom of speech and expression allegedly to safeguard the interests of the 'nation' where nation = sarkar.

- 'Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes' reflected in the fact that the government assumes the ability and right to decide what is right or wrong for millions of people.

Obsessive compulsive personality disorder:

- 'A pervasive pattern of preoccupation with orderliness, perfectionism, and mental and interpersonal control, at the expense of flexibility, openness, and efficiency...', "control" being the operative word.

Delusional disorder

- 'Delusional disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis denoting a psychotic mental disorder that is characterized by holding one or more non-bizarre delusions... Non-bizarre delusions are fixed beliefs that are certainly and definitely false, but that could possibly be plausible.

Specifically, to be a "delusion," a belief must be sustained despite what almost everyone else believes, and not be one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture'*

* Such as the general public who may not share the government's belief that certain blogs are offensive, or that FTV corrupts the moral fabric of Indian society.

As for paranoid disorder NOS- consider the following diagnostic criteria specified by ICD-10 for paranoid personality disorder (four out of seven are relevant)

- 'Excessive sensitivity to setbacks and rebuffs

- tendency to bear grudges persistently, i.e. refusal to forgive insults and injuries or slights;

- tendency to experience excessive self-importance, manifest in a persistent self-referential attitude

- preoccupation with unsubstantiated "conspiratorial" explanations of events both immediate to the patient and in the world at large'

I rest my case.

On why I bought a cap I did not need

In the summer of 2007, I was in Srinagar contemplating the purchase of a cap. It was one meant for men, and while trying it on I caused the shopkeeper to laugh heartily when I asked my companion if it made me look like Ghulam Nabi Azad.

In pitching the cap to me, he said "Haan haan..namaaz padhne ke liye badhiya rahega"- Yes yes, it will be great for saying namaaz (Muslim prayer).

My companion looked at me in a manner that made it obvious to the shopkeeper that I was no namaaz-sayer.

A second later he added, "Uh..vaise pooja paath mein bhi pehen sakte hain sar dhakne ke liye"- But you could also use it to cover your head during (Hindu) prayers

While it was very perceptive of him to gauge from my companion's expression that I was not the namaaz-saying type, he did make a big leap in assuming that I was a pooja-paath doer.

I did appreciate the flexibility of his sales pitch, and ended up buying the cap.

A critique of one argument against the niqab

A BBC article reads - 'The niqab, says leading feminist philosopher Elizabeth Badinter "is totally contrary to the three principles of the French Republic". Those principles - liberty, equality, fraternity - can be seen written or carved on the front of every French town hall. By hiding your face, Mrs Badinter explains as she sips a small black coffee in her elegant apartment in Paris, you breach the principle of equality". She who hides her face is in a position superior to mine," she says. "She sees me but she refuses to reciprocate."'

There was an article in the Times recently that expressed a similar grievance. The author, Alice Thomson, complains about how while watching her offspring playing in Hyde Park with that of a veiled woman, she felt uncomfortable because she couldn't see the other woman's face. This, if the sentiment expressed in the article was anything to go by, caused much tumult in the world of the former. In the absence of non verbal facial cues, she found herself grappling in vacuum in order to understand how the other was responding to her. Was she friend or foe? Was she smiling under the veil or scowling? The title of the article - You are cutting me off as well as you- made me want assume the role of the veiled lady and say, "Okay. So what if I am?"

Both Badinter and Thomson allude to an alleged social inequality and disequilirbrium that emerges when one party is veiled and the other is not. I find this line of argument bizarre. Even if one forgets momentarily that while espousing principles of equality and whatnot, these women are suggesting that others change the way they dress because it causes the subjects some social discomfort, the point they are making seems petty to say the least.

If Badinter has a problem with the lack of reciprocity in the whole she-can-see-me-but-I-can't-see-her predicament, the issue is clearly her own. What startles me if the fact that she is regarded as a champion for women's rights. Feminism involves, among other things, empowerment of women so that they develop a sense of personal agency. Her first solution to this made-up problem however seems to involve changing the other rather than self, thereby turning the locus of control outward. What is her real problem? Is it that she can't see the other? Or that the other can see her? If it's is the latter, rather than asking others to disrobe, she should put in place structures that make her only as visible as she wants to be. If it is the former, then it is not worth wasting time over.

This scenario is a bit like wishing chlorophyll wasn't green. You can either moan about it, move on, or try to change it from green to purple. The last option is not really an option due to its impossibility, which in turn is due to the fact that it is not within your realm of control. Similarly, how someone else dresses is not something you can control. The only option available is to ban women from covering their faces, but mind you, it is definitely not one that can be exercised while hiding behind the equality banner.

The BBC reporter points out the contrast in Badinter's verbal commitment to equality while sitting in her elegant flat sipping tea. The suggestion that equality will be restored if the veiled women drop their veils, so that everyone would be equally visible, reeks of an unquestioned sense of superiority. Her argument assumes that to see and be seen is something desirable, and the social norm that one ought to aspire towards. Would it not be equally equal, if everyone wore a veil? The question of relative superiority or power would not arise, everyone would be equally (in)visible, and this alleged advantage of the veiled that is the cause of much distress would be obliterated. Thomson also moans along similar lines when she calls the burqa "a passive- aggressive statement, a rejection of the community. The person wearing it is signalling that either she or her family wants her to remain apart from society"

So now we're going to have a problem with people exercising their right to remain apart from whoever the hell they want?

The other pertinent question to consider, and one that is an exercise more appropriate for Thomson, is this- What is it that makes the reaction of a stranger mean so much? I personally couldn't care less if I couldn't read the expression of a stranger in a park. The fact that Thomson does speaks volumes about her. Reading her article, especially the title, I wonder if she would be satisfied with uncovered faces that displayed unsociable expressions.

She writes, "From her eyes I couldn’t tell whether she was frowning in disgust at my bare legs or smiling as our children squealed." Firstly, the fact that Thomson's first thought was the possibility of her bare legs being disgusting leads me wonder if she is projecting her own moral anxiety about exposed skin onto someone else. Secondly, even if the burka-ed woman had been visibly disgusted at Thomson's bare legs, something tells me Thomson wouldn't have been content just knowing that.

So what, dear Alice, is your real problem?

The 'cutting off' can't just be a matter of not-knowing what the other is thinking/feeling, since we can't say we are socially connected to someone who openly communicates an unfriendly attitude towards us. The accusation in the title- "You are cutting me off"- seems more like a disguised plea- "I want you to like me"

You know you are in England when...

1. You step on someone else's toes, and both of you end up apologising.

2. You hear people apologising for a lot of things. For example, asking for the bill after a meal at a restaurant ("Sorry, but I could I request the bill please?"), or asking for anything from the person at the till ("Sorry, but could I also have ....."). Sigh! All this unnecessary apologising!

3. You get referred to as "My love", "My darling", "Sweetheart", "My sweet" and other terms of endearment by total strangers. This usually happens if you are female and the stranger in question is male*

4. No. 3 feels strange at first, but you get used to it and may even find it kinda nice.

5. You feel compelled to hold doors open for other people who feel compelled to hold doors open for people after them and so on and so forth so that nobody except the first and last person to walk through the door actually has to pull/push it open. You may, like me, even wonder what the appropriate distance between you and the next person has to be, before this social rule of holding the door open comes into play.

6. People will often ask you if you would like to do something for them (For example, "Would you like to pop your PIN in there for me?") Now there are two things to be mindful of here. Firstly, they are actually not interested in whether you would like to do the thing in question or not, but just want you to do it. Secondly, do not be confused by the "for me" at the end. The only person you're likely to be doing the thing in question for is yourself. When I am at the receiving end of this particular question, I feel like clarifying that I would do it, but solely for my own benefit.

7. Bus stops are named after pubs nearby, rather than the names of the streets they are on. Says a lot about what the real landmarks are.

8. You begin to realise that the word "Cheers" is filled with possibilities, and in the past your usage of the word was rather limited. You probably just said it before sharing a drink (or some sort of other consumable good) with near and dear ones, but now find that it replaces "Thanks", "Bye", "Take care" or other social niceties.

9. The greeting of choice is usually followed by "You alright?". This is something that befuddles me. I usually ask people if they are alright when I suspect that they might not be. Personally, if I had to choose, I prefer the more open ended "How are you?"

10. A bright sunny morning can turn into a grey, wet afternoon, transform into a bright sunny, evening before ending up as a windy, dark night. The eye-rolling can stop. You think you can be in England without commenting on the weather?! The famous English obsession with weather-chat is no myth my friends!

(Note: This list is a work-in-progress and will be updated over time. After all, the learning never stops)

* Edit: I was later informed that the reverse is also true. Whether equally or not remains to be decided.