just an old recurring irritation
My constantly cool friend Bishakha Datta has interviewed Nisha Susan for Tank magazine.
Do read.
I was most intrigued by how many progressives made false case against the Pink Chaddi campaign. I wasn' t in the country at the time so at first when I read about it I thought only, right on! But then when I read these spurious articles, I wondered for a second or two.
In the end I have to say the secular elites are always trying to maintain their own well-to-do activism and creating a discrimination of classiness and class (conflated in the term "dignified") in which there is no "vulgarity."
Why? Don't they know vulgarity means of the people? Sort of anyway.
Anger is vulgar, sex is vulgar, wanting more is vulgar.
The feminine/feminist is always getting corsetted. No sex, no anger, only beatitude.
Do we wonder then that women enthusiastically join up right wing groups which allow them to be angry? Because at least they allow them to be angry against others although of course never against the guys who deserve it in the first place.
Someone started a group against the Ram Sene lot called The Kamasutra Day -A truly Indian Cultural Event which seems to mostly have the goal of not celebrating sex. To the impassioned questions from many, including yours truly, about why not celebrate sex, there was only a pure silence.
People never say an angry man doesn't have a lust for life. But angry women are supposedly incapable of enjoying life's finer things.
I'd sure like someone to do a project on the wives/girlfriends/boyfriends of these angry man figures. Jaya Bacchan could explain her toxic expression to us in some other context then, maybe.
I've been having a lot of encounters with men in mainstream films lately. All of them want to make films in which women are not vulgar, but, pure. Talkative maybe, like Geet. That's the only excess they're allowed -a childlike excess.
A director I once wrote for said to me on reading a scene in which the heroine tells the hero her name - my god, if she tells him her name on the first meeting, he'll think she's a slut!
Yeah? In which case she'll think he's an asshole. Which I guess is ok as long as she doesn't say so.
A relative of mine, after 15 years, did say it though. However, it had taken her 15 years to even think the thought, and then, finally, hesitantly, speak it. The other night as we chatted she contemplated sending her not-yet-ex a pink chaddi.
No wonder they don't want the ladies to be angry. And what's more, this way they can keep the anger for themselves those glamorous revolutionary men and the less glamorous wife abusers.
Do read.
I was most intrigued by how many progressives made false case against the Pink Chaddi campaign. I wasn' t in the country at the time so at first when I read about it I thought only, right on! But then when I read these spurious articles, I wondered for a second or two.
In the end I have to say the secular elites are always trying to maintain their own well-to-do activism and creating a discrimination of classiness and class (conflated in the term "dignified") in which there is no "vulgarity."
Why? Don't they know vulgarity means of the people? Sort of anyway.
Anger is vulgar, sex is vulgar, wanting more is vulgar.
The feminine/feminist is always getting corsetted. No sex, no anger, only beatitude.
Do we wonder then that women enthusiastically join up right wing groups which allow them to be angry? Because at least they allow them to be angry against others although of course never against the guys who deserve it in the first place.
Someone started a group against the Ram Sene lot called The Kamasutra Day -A truly Indian Cultural Event which seems to mostly have the goal of not celebrating sex. To the impassioned questions from many, including yours truly, about why not celebrate sex, there was only a pure silence.
People never say an angry man doesn't have a lust for life. But angry women are supposedly incapable of enjoying life's finer things.
I'd sure like someone to do a project on the wives/girlfriends/boyfriends of these angry man figures. Jaya Bacchan could explain her toxic expression to us in some other context then, maybe.
I've been having a lot of encounters with men in mainstream films lately. All of them want to make films in which women are not vulgar, but, pure. Talkative maybe, like Geet. That's the only excess they're allowed -a childlike excess.
A director I once wrote for said to me on reading a scene in which the heroine tells the hero her name - my god, if she tells him her name on the first meeting, he'll think she's a slut!
Yeah? In which case she'll think he's an asshole. Which I guess is ok as long as she doesn't say so.
A relative of mine, after 15 years, did say it though. However, it had taken her 15 years to even think the thought, and then, finally, hesitantly, speak it. The other night as we chatted she contemplated sending her not-yet-ex a pink chaddi.
No wonder they don't want the ladies to be angry. And what's more, this way they can keep the anger for themselves those glamorous revolutionary men and the less glamorous wife abusers.
Comments
I really enjoyed Bisakha's interview with Nisha. Do tell her.