Lajja = Modesty = Women ?? - Page 35

HAVEN'T read many posts after my last post here -- /  but FOR me -- I don't see any valid reason to challenge views of TOPICMAKER @ -------The THREAD is simply about equal rights for men-women when it comes to modesty ---or any other human trait @ --  IT is a  no brainer /   -

If LAJJA ( no matter what the definition is)  is applicable to WOMEN ---then it should be applicable to MALES too @ / --

NOW because of absence of strong law and order in some parts of the WORLD ---women do not get to enjoy the freedom like men do -- but that behavior should be discouraged @       LIKE someone said, parents care of 'LAJJA' for girls  mainly in delhi area due to high number of rape cases etc ---that is understandable  --but still by supporting that argument, we are again indirectly making life for women more MISERABLE - / 

STATEMENTS like ' lajja for only girls' were originated years ago based on cultural values back then but they do not stand true in today's world. We are evolved beings and we need to encourage 'equal rights' for every living being --/

even THE  generalizations like ' blondes are dumb'  are not that OLD and are prevalent in society ----- IT will take years for people to stop making jokes on blondes.  SO imagine how long will it take to erase old generalization like ' lajja for women' . It won't unless we make a conscious effort to change mindsets /


At the same time -- I don't see any need for labeling SIDHU as a MCP --based on his single comment. YES what he said must be condemned but I will still give him a benefit doubt considering he has not done anything in his stay of 5 weeks ----that would indicate that he does not like gender equality-- /

Well it is not correct to comment without reading 48 pages but still can not resist.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

@Cruiser

 

I have to say I am surprised and actually quite disappointed that you stooped low into questioning "likes" and the age old "women have it in for men" argument. Of all the people on IF, I really didn't expect this from you. I used to think you were amidst the mature and reasonable guys.

 

Now I have not been in other threads, but in this specific thread I do have some problems with your line of reasoning. I definitely don't think you are saying the same thing as I did. There is a  difference between "men have expectations too, deal with it" and "men have expectations too, and some of those are unfair as well". Now perhaps you don't mean to frame it as "deal with it" but it comes across that way. You also seem to be focusing on the "words" saying you have been called "asheel" as well. But you appear to miss the point that the point is not about Sapna being called "asheel" or lacking "lajja". The point is that her criticism was framed around her being a woman.

 

That being said I do agree that sometimes women get a bit  too passionate and carried away in gender equality debates. It is not that we are biased against men, dislike men or want some sort of vengeance. It is difficult being a woman, especially an Indian (desi) woman. There are a lot of frustrations, desperations and hurt emotions. I won't go into details. But the point is, you don't have to agree with us or our perspectives, but a little bit of empathy can go a very long way. And yes, perhaps we can do more to try and understand the male point of view. But cribbing and complaining really is not the way. Unless you are conspiring to get back at women for all the time we crib and whine and nag. 😛

 

Yes, the last sentence was a gender stereotype against women. 😆

R_T_H ji...may be it is my inability to express myself clearly, may be you got it a bit wrong, whatever it is,  its not a very comfortable situation when one means well and still gets misunderstood!

OK-------I am focusing on 'words' because 'words' is what it all breaks down to here! 😊

You say "The point is that her criticism was framed around her being a woman"...I say had any male member in house behaved as crudely and ill mannerly as Sapna did (for records, no one did), I can easily visualize him getting a long winded sermon that would include words like SANKAAR, MARYADA, HUDD (limits), IZZAT-BEIZZATI, AADAR-NIRAADAR, ASHLEELTA-FOOHADTA... And NO ONE would have paid even any attention except a few innocent protest posts like, "Ufff, SIdhu kitna bolta hai...'😲

As I said in my another post, In North Indian belt, in households its very common to hear stuff like,"Naak kata di tune kambakht,...kya din dikhaya haii tune beta / beti, ------Sharm aani chaahiye tujhe Naalayak, ------😆

If one wants to split hair, each phrase or colorful reprimand can be  interpreted as some kind of discrimination against some gender / class / society! ...If I was a Pakistani, I would see red to insulting phrases like "1971 mein Pakistan dum daba ke bhaag gaya", protesting it boils down to Indian hatred of my country...! As Indians, we merely dismiss it as a colorful phrase...One's take on an expression depends on which side of fence one is sitting!😊

* As for LIKES...its just my take on how most discussions by and large fare in IF! This thread atleast has readable content! There are so many threads where a poster would make plain abusive or derogatory post against a contestant and a glance at his / her ID is enough to tell you, without even scrolling down, more or less who all will LIKE that post.

Why to take any one else's example? At times I make plain nonsensical posts in LIVE FEED thread and instinctively I know who will LIKE that silliness. That way this thread is no exception too...No big deal!
Edited by cruiser51 - 11 years ago

Originally posted by: akash08

To me gender equality means - equal right for men and women. equal right to social security, job, pay, voting, marriage, right to divorce, right to work - whatever. Gender equity in these areas must be achieved and anyone questioning this must be condemned.

However, I have seen (and see everyday) enough number of feminists who drag the definition of gender equity too far to prove men = women. They are not - they are created biologically different and they will always be different. There is no superior or inferior here - just that men and women will always remain biologically different and hence emotional behaviour would be different and hence the expectation of the society will be different. After all it is hormones that control our reactions and they are not same in men and women.

Going by that if society thinks a woman is generally more shy than a man and spells out that - protesting against that is a feminist outburst to me. However, if a woman is disadvantaged just because she is not feeling shy, that must be condemned again because her right of equality should never be compromised.

In this particular instance, I do not think Sidhu ever meant to look down to Sapna. He just mentioned Sapna's behaviour does not match with the typical behaviour of majority of women and there is nothing wrong in expressing that.

If he would have said Sapna is a disgrace to human kind because she is not shy, she should be thrown out of house because she is not shy or her face should be blackened because she is not shy etc. etc. - definitely condemn him all out!!

Perfectly said!

Agree with each and every point!👏

Originally posted by: akash08

Well it is not correct to comment without reading 48 pages but still can not resist.

To me gender equality means - equal right for men and women. equal right to social security, job, pay, voting, marriage, right to divorce, right to work - whatever. Gender equity in these areas must be achieved and anyone questioning this must be condemned.

However, I have seen (and see everyday) enough number of feminists who drag the definition of gender equity too far to prove men = women. They are not - they are created biologically different and they will always be different. There is no superior or inferior here - just that men and women will always remain biologically different and hence emotional behaviour would be different and hence the expectation of the society will be different. After all it is hormones that control our reactions and they are not same in men and women.

Going by that if society thinks a woman is generally more shy than a man and spells out that - protesting against that is a feminist outburst to me. However, if a woman is disadvantaged just because she is not feeling shy, that must be condemned again because her right of equality should never be compromised.

In this particular instance, I do not think Sidhu ever meant to look down to Sapna. He just mentioned Sapna's behaviour does not match with the typical behaviour of majority of women and there is nothing wrong in expressing that. If he would have said Sapna is a disgrace to human kind because she is not shy, she should be thrown out of house because she is not shy or her face should be blackened because she is not shy etc. etc. - definitely condemn him all out!!

@Bold: That is very presumptive of you to think that feminists are dragging it too far and that they aren't aware of the phenomenon that men and women are biologically different. No one is that naive not to admit the obvious. For that passage, I will copy and paste RTH's response which I agree with in order for us to move away from these stereotypes.

"Men who are involved with their children, take time to change their diapers, put them to bed, read stories, play teatime with their girls, take time off or try to work at home are considered by many to be henpecked, whipped and looked down upon as if child rearing is a degrading job reserved for women. Similarly men who cook, clean, do household chores, go shopping are teased as if homemaking is degrading labor. Men who are interested in hobbies like baking, knitting, sewing, scrapbooking, poetry etc are laughed at for being effeminate or gay. Similarly vanity, concern about looking good, spending time on picking outfits, using makeup to hide blemishes and enhance features is also considered effeminate or gay. Men who cry, are shy, or have submissive personalities are chided for acting like girls, as if feminine behavior is insulting.

I don't think "social" equality can ever be achieved until the whole perception of "masculine" and "feminine" qualities, behaviors and hobbies ends and we just view them as "human" qualities, behaviors, hobbies etc ' some good, some bad. All humans want to be free, live and dress, how they want. Gender shouldn't dictate career choices or family choices, but individual personality and desires. If a quality is bad, it is bad for all humans. If a quality is good, it is bad for all humans. That is why to me personality equality is about erasing gender roles and stereotypes rather than compensating for the past or trying to grant special rights and privileges.  And I'm talking of "social" equality not "physical" equality. There are definitely some traits dictated by biological differences ' but overall behavior is a product of society, culture and our own thought process ' not by the penis or vagina."

@Blue: That is merely your perception and I will be happy if there are others out there who are willing to question that statement. Just the fact you had to use society to back up your claim, shows how much society has control over stereotypes. I am not sure if being shy has anything to do with female gender. I have seen guys who are just as shy. Thus, it is the perception of the society which has drilled our minds that girls are supposed to be shy. And can I link this back to our society being a male dominant society, I think I can. So that in itself explains why such stereotypes should be changed or modified or even discarded if we want a future where at least there will be personality equality. Physical inequality will always be there and I am sure no one is even going to question that.

@Red: Just the fact that he expressed it shows the power of stereotypes that has webbed our mindset. Again it is his choice to use that statement and belonging to the older generation, it wasn't surprising either. But who decides what is the "typical behavior of majority of women", again it is the society. I can only ponder how this typical behavior might have changed if we weren't reminded everyday of our lives how a woman should be reflected in the society. Again I am not condemning or saying that modesty or good qualities aren't worth embracing, but simply reminding that it is the society which has given rise to such stereotypes which I personally believe shouldn't be used to dictate women or men's behavior in general.

Anyways, end of the day you will stick to your perception and that is completely alright. But for me I do not want some stereotypes to rule our lives.

Edited by -Chandramukhi- - 11 years ago

Originally posted by: --GODFATHER--

HAVEN'T read many posts after my last post here -- /  but FOR me -- I don't see any valid reason to challenge views of TOPICMAKER @ -------The THREAD is simply about equal rights for men-women when it comes to modesty ---or any other human trait @ --  IT is a  no brainer /   -

If LAJJA ( no matter what the definition is)  is applicable to WOMEN ---then it should be applicable to MALES too @ / --

NOW because of absence of strong law and order in some parts of the WORLD ---women do not get to enjoy the freedom like men do -- but that behavior should be discouraged @       LIKE someone said, parents care of 'LAJJA' for girls  mainly in delhi area due to high number of rape cases etc ---that is understandable  --but still by supporting that argument, we are again indirectly making life for women more MISERABLE - / 

STATEMENTS like ' lajja for only girls' were originated years ago based on cultural values back then but they do not stand true in today's world. We are evolved beings and we need to encourage 'equal rights' for every living being --/

even THE  generalizations like ' blondes are dumb'  are not that OLD and are prevalent in society ----- IT will take years for people to stop making jokes on blondes.  SO imagine how long will it take to erase old generalization like ' lajja for women' . It won't unless we make a conscious effort to change mindsets /


At the same time -- I don't see any need for labeling SIDHU as a MCP --based on his single comment. YES what he said must be condemned but I will still give him a benefit doubt considering he has not done anything in his stay of 5 weeks ----that would indicate that he does not like gender equality-- /

GF there isn't a thing I disagree with you here. Bang on buddy 👍🏼 I am so glad to see you right on target about what many of us are discussing here especially the red portions. Thanks for the awesome reply.
Edited by -Chandramukhi- - 11 years ago

Originally posted by: akash08

Well it is not correct to comment without reading 48 pages but still can not resist.

To me gender equality means - equal right for men and women. equal right to social security, job, pay, voting, marriage, right to divorce, right to work - whatever. Gender equity in these areas must be achieved and anyone questioning this must be condemned.

However, I have seen (and see everyday) enough number of feminists who drag the definition of gender equity too far to prove men = women. They are not - they are created biologically different and they will always be different. There is no superior or inferior here - just that men and women will always remain biologically different and hence emotional behaviour would be different and hence the expectation of the society will be different. After all it is hormones that control our reactions and they are not same in men and women.

Going by that if society thinks a woman is generally more shy than a man and spells out that - protesting against that is a feminist outburst to me. However, if a woman is disadvantaged just because she is not feeling shy, that must be condemned again because her right of equality should never be compromised.

In this particular instance, I do not think Sidhu ever meant to look down to Sapna. He just mentioned Sapna's behaviour does not match with the typical behaviour of majority of women and there is nothing wrong in expressing that. If he would have said Sapna is a disgrace to human kind because she is not shy, she should be thrown out of house because she is not shy or her face should be blackened because she is not shy etc. etc. - definitely condemn him all out!!

let me clarify even before I proceed to comment on your post that i  am not either a siddhu or sapna-ist, in fact I dislike both of them for separate reasons, but i just couldn't resist on commenting especially because of the highlighted part of your statement.

reducing a man/woman to their sexuality is called biological determinism. the idea that a man is supposed to 'act like a man' because-- well he has a phallus, and a woman 'like a woman' because she lacks that is not only regressive and extremely patriarch but it also very sexist, that is reducing a human being to her/his biological sex. if i do accept your hypothesis for argument's sake (that a woman or a man for that matter should behave the way society expects her /his to) then how do you define what should be the ideal characteristic of a transgendered person? or a hermaphrodite? what should they behave like? a man or a woman? and what about gays/lesbians? according to the 'norms' set by the society a man shouldn't love a man...hence, do I deduce being gay is unnatural then?
just my two cents as a woman trying to make it in a patriarch world :)

Originally posted by: cruiser51

One's take on an expression depends on which side of fence one is sitting!😊

Finally something I can agree with you here 😆

Exactly, if you will be sitting on the other side of the fence and can't relate with the objection we have with the expression being used, you might not be able to understand our views.

But then again, it isn't about just one expression only, it is about stereotypes in general. The way girls are stereotyped, same applies to guys as well. But then again if you fit the perception of the society you might not be able to relate to those who actually don't.

Well, I can see we are going in circles here. So it's better to agree with whatever we can and disagree with the rest.
Edited by -Chandramukhi- - 11 years ago

Originally posted by: -Chandramukhi-

Finally something I can agree with you here 😆

Exactly, if you will be sitting on the other side of the fence and can't relate with the expression being used, you might not be able to understand the----(the point I and Aakash are making!)
objection some of us girls are raising.

But then again, it isn't about just one expression only, it is about stereotypes in general. The way girls are stereotyped, same applies to guys as well. But then again if you fit the perception of the society you might not be able to relate to those who actually don't.

Well, I can see we are going in circles here. So it's better to agree with whatever we can and disagree with the rest.

@BOLD & RED: and that exactly is the problem with point of view of 'some of the girls' that you mentioned Chandramukhi Ji!😛

@GREEN: Agree!🥳

Edited by cruiser51 - 11 years ago

Originally posted by: cruiser51

@BOLD & RED: and that exactly is the problem with point of view of 'some of the girls' that you mentioned Chandramukhi Ji!😛

@GREEN: Agree!🥳

Stop twisting the words alright.

Just cuz our views do not match up, doesn't mean the problem lies with our POV. Seriously, this childish tactic is beyond me. So I am done here. Thanks again for your brilliant input.
Edited by -Chandramukhi- - 11 years ago