Women should support women

​I was having a discussion today with a junior at work, a girl who I had started interacting with recently. We discuss a lot of work-related stuff, and she often comes to me for advice. Today she told me, “Ma’am, I love talking to you as you always encourage me and give me practical advice. Otherwise, my experience with female bosses and peers have never been good and sometimes I feel that many women are vicious with other women even when they support men at their workplace.”

Image source: Google search

 That got me thinking. Even my experience with female bosses and colleagues has been mixed, much like my experience with male bosses and colleagues; but I guess this hurts more because one would assume that being someone in the same shoes, the other woman would be more supportive. After all, a woman should know another woman’s struggle, right? And yet, it doesn’t happen like that. Even I had a female boss who would shout or even insult me for every small thing while she wouldn’t be as spiteful with my male colleagues; not even when one of my colleagues made a blunder costing the company huge losses. I used to think, is the patriarchy so ingrained in her that she finds it so difficult to raise a voice against the men while she finds it so very convenient to do so against women?

Even outside workplace, this is a common scenario. I have seen Family courts are full of female judges who favour husbands in domestic violence cases. And I am not talking about exceptions here, because every woman who has gone to a family court to seek redressal has felt the same. Right from husband’s availability being given more importance than wife’s for the next date to the wife being told “thoda bardasht karna seekho (learn to endure a little)”, I have seen it all. I remember once I had seen a warring couple step out of court after being given the next date, when the man started beating his wife in public right outside the court. The lady ran back inside and told the judge what happened. All the judge said was, “Toh tujhe kisne kaha tha uske saamne jaane ke liye? Jab yahan khadi hoke use bura bhala bolegi toh usse gussa nahin aayega kya? (Who told you to go in front of him? If you stand here and say petty things about him, won’t he feel angry?)” I was left aghast.

They say, “Behind every successful woman is a tribe of other successful women, who have her back.” So why would you not back other women and have other women backing you.

And I have seen enough examples also of the reverse case where women have stood up for women. I do that proudly as often as I can. A colleague once was sharing a ‘juicy gossip’ with me about a female colleague going around with a male colleague and her having been seen entering the man’s house one evening. I asked him how it is any of his business to comment on it because as far as I see, they are two consenting adults, and the company policy nowhere prohibits any romantic relationships. The said company had a few married couples as employees already.

The best example I have seen of women solidarity is an incident I came across in the Crime against Women’s Cell. The usual scene at the CAWC is women complainants (most of whom belong to economically weaker sections and are not much educated), waiting for hours for their husbands (respondents) to show up for counselling, with no better time pass than watching other couples being counselled. I was doing the same that day. A woman complainant had been driven out of her marital home with her 6-month-old daughter as her husband was allegedly having an extra-marital affair. The couple had eloped and gotten married and neither her paternal family and nor her matrimonial family was supporting her, and she had taken refuge in a local Gurudwara since 2-months as she had nowhere to go. The lady was beautiful, even by the conventional societal norms – very fair, sharp feature and gorgeous hazel eyes – and her daughter was her splitting image. I could hear gossips about how a woman like her could be abandoned. I felt pity for the lady as she begged in front of the mediator/counsellor to ask her husband to take her back. The counsellor, a male, tried to convince her husband to do so as well, and went on to say that he should also think about his daughter. The husband, rude and nonchalant that he was, just shrugged and said, “Mujhe kya pata meri beti hai? Jaise mere saath bhaagi thi, kisi aur ke saath bhi to muh kala kiya ho sakta hai? (How do I know this is my daughter? The way she eloped with me; she could have been physically involved with someone else?)” The lady was furious that she pushed her husband with one hand (she was holding her daughter in the other) even as tears flowed down her eyes. The man, barely even falling a step back but taking a blow to his ego, immediately raised his hand to slap her but had to back off when at least 7-8 ladies around me screamed,came forward and stood by the wife’s side. In a flash of a second, she was surrounded and even all the counsellors were flabbergasted and stood up in attention. One of the ladies shouted, “Haath laga ke dikha! (Touch her and see!)” I could literally see fear on the face of the man who was acting like a daredevil or a badboy a minute ago. He had no choice but to back out even as the counsellors tried to take the situation back under control. I don’t know what happened in her case; and I often think about her wondering how and where she and her daughter would be. But that day I realized one thing – that even if a woman is herself in a tight spot (like all those ladies were), they can always be a force to reckon with if they support each other.

There’s a saying that “when women support each other, incredible things happen.” It’s actually true… Strong women stand together when things are rough, hold each other up when they need support, and laugh together when there’s no reason. They look out for each other. They stand with each other and not against each other. One woman can make a difference but together they can rock the world.

Flexible Working Hours are hardly a blessing

I have never been a fan of “flexible working hours” even though it has become a favourite “work-life balance” tool with the corporations in India off late. I believe that the argument that it encourages more women to take up a career holds good, but it comes at a cost. So, when I again found myself discussing this with someone today, I decided to pen my views for a larger audience and invite opinions in favour or against.

Two of my previous organisations had introduced the concept of “flexi-working hours” during my stints with them. And I had seen significant behavioural shifts in the male and female workforces there. When the policy is introduced, everyone is happy about it. The companies hail it as employee friendly policy and pitch it as one of the most important employee retention initiatives. It may retain the employees in some cases but my personal observation is that, in the larger picture, it has a negative effect on the society at large. After an year or so of introducing this policy, I had noticed that the women employees would come early to office, say around 8 am or so, and would leave early around 5 pm. Whereas it was the reverse case with male employees. They would come to office at around 11 am and would leave post 8 pm or even later. Not only does one struggle to squeeze all meetings within the 11 to 5 window but sometimes ladies are forced to stay back or join online after their office hours, especially if they are even slightly submissive in nature.

But that’s not even the most negative impact of the “flexi-working hours”. I would often talk to ladies who would move to an early shift and in almost all cases, I would realize that in the evening hours they are taking care of the kids and their homes single-handedly; running around for coaching and extra-curricular classes of their children, cooking meals, coordinating with maids and cooks, entertaining relatives etc. The husbands would stop contributing and participating in responsibilities because now the ladies “have time”. On the other hand, you talk to the men who moved to late shifts and ask them about their kids and family and you would realize that thanks to them reaching home late in the evening, they are now spared of all expectations to participate in the responsibilities of the kids and home. These men barely know what is going on in their children’s academics, rarely take them to various classes and almost never help with the chores at home. And God forbid if they are living with the parents, then the parents expect their wives to pamper them because their poor sons work till so late and slog themselves off for the family’s sake.

It may seem to be generalizing, but of course there are exceptions to the above. There were a few ladies who would go to the gym, salon, etc. or catch up with friends, but their number was fairly small and most of them had no kids or had grown-up kids and they didn’t live in joint families. Similarly, there were men who would prefer to go home and spend time with family and again the number was lesser than the other extreme and that was usually because of their personal choice and not because of any expectation from the family.

So, when I am asked about my views on “flexible working hours”, I would always point out that it may be the one of the worst contributions by a company to the society at large because even if it allows more women to take up jobs; it also tilts the balance in gender contribution at home unfavourably towards women. Therefore, in my opinion, the companies should think of other ways to encourage womenfolk to take up careers and not just bank on this policy

I am happy to listen to other people’s viewpoint on this and am open to sharing experiences, discussion and perspectives.

Stay Strong Ukraine!!

Vladimir Putin claims, "The purpose of this operation is to protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kyiv regime.” 

As an Indian who can barely keep up with politics in India, I had never even heard of Volodymyr Zelenskyy until the war broke out. I knew Putin's reputation of being a hard task master. I had also seen how the Russians patronise him when I travelled to Russia in 2019. Yet, I can barely believe this statement. Ask me why? 

I do not believe this statement because I see on TV, civilians fighting, mounting Russian tanks and standing defiantly unarmed in front of trained and armed forces. I see people leaving behind their homes and families, children, not to take shelter but to pick up arms. I see pictures of a 79-year old lady learning to fire a gun. I see pictures of a very young girl with perfectly manicured nails in 5 different shades of neon holding the gun, ready to fight. That's not a sign of suppressed and tortured citizens. That's a sign of proud patriotic citizens, who had dreams and lives, which they have put on hold to defend their country from a maniac.

The trolls may tout Zelenskyy as a comedian or a TV President, but his one call has made these citizens pick up arms and fight to defend their country in a war where they are severely outnumbered and heading towards a certain defeat. They did that because he refused to quit on them and stood with them in the middle of the war. They did that because he declined the offer of evacuation for him and his family with his now famous words, "I need ammunition, not a ride." He is letting people send their loved ones across borders in camps, but chose to stay back with his family and children. If that's not the sign of a leader, I don't know what is. 

Take a bow Volodymyr Zelenskyy! Take a bow Ukraine! Take a bow all the braveheart citizens of this proud country! You have managed to keep the Russians at bay so long and you continue to persevere. Stay strong! Stay proud!! Stay invincible!!!

#respect

#staystrongukrain

#8daysandstillholdingon

Images source: Google search

To Bindi or not to Bindi

Off late there has been a lot of discussion about the importance of Bindi. Although I have not commented on any social media post expressing any side of the views, be it pro-bindi or against-bindi, I have my own views about the same which I finally feel like spilling out. 

Image source: Google Search

When I got married at the age of 22 years, I was just stepping into the real world. Until then, my home and my family had been my sanctuary and my opinions about anything, if at all, were only driven by what I had seen growing up. The ladies in my family had usually worn bindis, may or may not have worn Mangalsutra (it was usually treated like a jewellery item), applied sindoor usually only on Karvachauth, never worn payal-bichhue (anklets or toe-rings) or ghunghat (not even 'sir dhakna' types) and did not touch in-laws' feet every morning or husband's feet even on festivals like Karvachauth. Most of these so called 'riwaaz' or traditions that were followed were not taken too seriously, and definitely not linked to being religious or even linked to respect in any way. They were just traditions and nothing more.

When I got married, I was expected to follow some of these traditions as a rule. I was expected to always wear a bindi, sindoor, bichhue, payal and mangalsutra too (most of the time). I was told that I should never leave my wrists or my neck empty. I should never wear western clothes in front of my in-laws and had to touch their feet every morning. I was expected to treat my husband with utmost reverence (the standard line coming from my mother-in-law being "Pati toh bhagwaan barabar hota hai") and touch his feet on Karvachauth. At 22, I didn't know better and I abided by all these so much so that all these became instruments to humiliate me. "Jab tum office jaati ho toh western kapde pehenti ho, naa bindi lagati ho, naa payal-bichhue pehenti ho." I was a damn Chartered Accountant working in a Big4 corporation auditing high-networth MNCs and I was damn-well expected to dress professionally. But these so called traditions were supposed to be linked to the religion and to how much I respected my husband and by not following them I was told that I was disrespecting my husband and his family.

Soon, I started hating all these "accessories" even though as a newly married I loved wearing them as they made me feel dressed up a bit. Sub-consciously, my mind started equating them with signs of Patriarchy. When I separated from my husband, these were the first things I gave up if I had not given them up already. As much as it might be hard to believe me now, I had given up sarees too for the same reason.

Years later, I re-embraced sarees but not all these accessories (maybe some like anklets but only on a single foot and not on both feet). I still associate them somewhat with Patriarchy but I do not judge people who wear them, whether out of their love for them to dress up or even as a sign of tradition. Everyone has a different thought process and just like my mom was comfortable with some of these like bindi, I understand that many other ladies would be too. And that is okay.

What is not okay is forcing these on others in the name of religion or tradition. What is not okay is shaming and humiliating others who do not abide by your diktats. What is not okay is bullying others and telling them that they do not get to challenge your beliefs even when you are challenging theirs. What is not okay is being intolerant towards your fellow humans. I wholeheartedly condemn anyone who does that.

What happens behind closed doors is not always known: Criminal Justice Season 2 Review

I will start the review with my verdict first. This is one of the best Hindi series I have seen off late. 

The plot is simple – a housewife, Kriti Kulhari, stabs her publicly well-known, widely admired, and socially acknowledged as perfect husband, Jishu Sengupta, with her 12-year-old daughter as the only witness. She confesses to the crime immediately and sticks to it. But other than that, she maintains a stoic silence as to why she did it. What seems like an open and shut case otherwise, owing to the confession by the wife, lacks the basic element in a murder case: motive. It is only when state lawyers, Pankaj Tripathi and Anupriya Goenka reprising their roles from Season 1, start chipping away at the motive of murder that hidden facets start emerging. Despite their uncooperative client, the two keep on trying to understand why she did it.

The motive is basically the premise of the story, though there are a few twists and turns such as the primary protagonist’s pregnancy. The motive is not exactly suspenseful unlike many thrillers where the audience already knows the facts of the crime. But, it is a moot discussion point, that is slowly highlighted to impress upon the social relevance of the issue in today’s date and time.

The series talks about abuse. Domestic abuse which is not always visible outside the bedroom; one that thrives on manipulation and narcissism; one that is made to appear like care and love but is actually a disguise for control over the other person; and one which plays with your mind filling you with guilt, self-doubt and depression. The climax highlights that abuse is often invisible to the eye and abusers are usually normal people who may be good friends, good sons and good fathers but may not be good spouses. Moreover, the show highlights how marital rape is made insignificant by the society so much so that the victim feels ashamed talking about it. It’s a glaring reality of the society where even professional and powerful women fall prey to misogyny within the confines of their homes.

Image: Google Search

I have not yet seen the Season 1 of the series and since this is an altogether new case, it doesn’t matter. I do plan to see it now. The characters of Pankaj Tripathi and Anupriya Goenka are flowing over from the Season 1. Pankaj Tripathi is as expected a delight to watch. His timing, dialogue delivery and simplicity brings alive every scene he features in. His character, who is a newly-wed person in this season with an outspoken wife, turns out to be a perfect example of how even the most socially enlightened men stand up for feminism but forget to apply the same concepts in their own lives. He eventually learns to respect the feelings of his partner. Anupriya Goenka fits her role well. I had first noticed her in War and despite a few appearances after that, I feel she gets to showcase her nuanced performance in this series. All other actors are also well cast and adequate, Deepti Naval, Mita Vashishta, Ashish Vidyarthi, et al. But this season definitely belongs to Kriti Kulhari. She plays the murder accused with utmost restraint; a woman who is more concerned about hiding her personal ‘shame’ rather than the repercussions of her crime. Bare minimum dialogues, she speaks with her eyes and bravely holds the series on her seemingly frail, drooping shoulders.

The Morning Show - The human side of #metoo

I wrapped up the incredibly sleek and high-end series The Morning Show. It's certainly high quality sophisticated (read had considerably high budget) and has a stellar cast. The show is about the #metoo movement in the backdrop of an extremely popular long running morning news show.

The series starts with allegations of sexual misconduct against one of the show's veteran anchors which basically brings the news show down to its knees. Knee-jerk reactions ensure that Mitch Kessler (played by the brave Steve Carell) is kicked out overnight, statements are made by the network dissociating from his actions, and his co-workers are left to pick up the pieces. The series continues from there exploring the reactions and upheavals in the life of the people associated with The Morning Show, primarily, Kessler's co-star of 15 years, Alex Levy, played by Jennifer Aniston and Kessler's suddenly pulled out from the dumps replacement, Bradley Jackson, played by Reese Witherspoon.

Now, usually the case with any movie or soaps based on exploitation of women is centered around the women who have been exploited, highlighting the turmoil and emotional struggle the victims go through, whereas the perpetrator is generally shown as the evil, heartless villain. This series is different in that sense. The victims are missing well into the 7th episode out of 10 and even then is at best a supporting character. The primary characters are the people around the perpetrator who are now trying to disassociate themselves with him, and then the perpetrator whose life comes down to the ground. So much so that at one point you even feel sympathy for him. The show also highlights how media houses go light on any wrong doing done by their "stars" because they get them big bucks. It also offers a behind-the-smiles look at how a news show is produced, and how the scandal opens the floor up for cutthroat office politics.

I think a lot of credit goes to the makers to attempt to humanise the perpetrator and the people around him. So basically The Morning Show isn’t a straightforward examination of the #MeToo movement, but in fact a more complicated depiction of the movement that has refused to die down over years now. For instance, in her statement to the American public announcing Mitch’s departure, Alex chooses her words carefully in denouncing his actions, but expresses warmth for the man she thought she knew. There's Mia, who everyone assumes that would be the one who went to The Times and reported Mitch because she had a "known to all" affair with Mitch which she had called off and had since been feeling as being shunned. Then there's show’s executive producer, Chip, who goes on a rant about how unfortunate he feels it was that the movement was tried in the court of public opinion.

But nothing will leave you more torn than Mitch’s explanation for his actions. 'So what if he had a few affairs', he asks in one scene. 'He never raped anyone, and some of the women in fact came onto him.' He is, he believes, just like any middle-aged man in America. Humanising a person accused of sexual misconduct, especially in the current climate, is a near impossible task which this series has managed to achieve. He is much like an alcoholic who refuses to accept his addiction. He can easily recognize the predatory behavior in the others who have been accused, and yet when it comes to himself, he feels like a victim, unable to see himself being projected with the likes of Harvey Weinsteins and Bill Cosbys of the world.

The lead stars of the series are, of course, Reese Witherspoon and Jennifer Anniston, both of whom were famously paid USD 2 million per episode by Apple. I have seen a few movies of Reese Witherspoon earlier and have always loved her work (my favorite still being Legally Blonde) and she is absolutely in her elements here as the crackling outspoken Bradley Jackson. I have not actually seen much of Jennifer Aniston's work (actually I have only seen her in the star studded He's Just Not That Into You and no, I have not seen Friends). I know that she has garnered much praise for this performance of hers but I personally found it average. Her constant expression through the 10 episodes was of someone frustrated and under tremendous stress (her lips perpetually in an inverted U), which beyond a point started irritating me. Steve Carell is fantastic in the role, bringing the perfect balance of entitlement and dignity to Mitch. The supporting cast is fantastic; Billy Crudup as the smarmy head of the news division, Mark Duplass as the insomniac Chip who has to perform the balancing act, Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Hannah Schoenfeld, and basically just about everybody is cut out for their role.

End note, amazing show!

Submission in women is indoctrinated, does not come naturally!

Two days ago, I was watching a video of a talk by a psuedo scholar who was talking about so-called "importance of gender roles in the social construct". Although he was trying to sound very liberal and was trying to sound pro-gender equality, but deep hidden in the lines I could read hints of a well-ingrained patriarchy. One of the things he mentioned was that the female gender has "evolved" over time on the basis of changes in the society and that they are now venturing over and above their "natural roles" in the traditional construct of the society. He also said that women were "naturally submissive" and thereby were never able to carve their place in the society. And although he went on to comment on how over time women are breaking their shackles etc., my own mind was totally put-off with this comment and I didn't even listen through till the end. 

If women were naturally submissive i.e. submission came naturally to women, there wouldn't be thousands of sermons reminding women to submit (name a religion / culture / section of society and you will find such sermons). There wouldn't be sermons and literature glorifying women who are submissive and sacrificing. It would not have been required if it would come naturally to women. These are reminders which exist because indoctrination depends on constant reinforcement to keep harmful ideologies alive. Nothing which is natural needs reminders and reinforcement to run its course.